III.8. Another answer in defence of the former assertion, whereby the meaning thereof is opened in this sort. All Church orders must be commanded in the word, that is to say, grounded upon the word, and made according at the leastwise unto the general rules of Holy Scripture. As for such things as are found out by any star or light of reason, and are in that respect received so they be not against the word of God, all such things it holdeth unlawfully received.

VIII. The last refuge in maintaining this position is thus to construe it, “Nothing ought to be established in the Church, but that which is commanded in the word of God;” that is to say, all Church orders must be “grounded upon the word of God¹;” in such sort grounded upon the word, not that being found out by some “star, or light of reason, or learning, or other help,” they may be received, so they be not against the word of God; but according at leastwise unto the general rules of Scripture they must be made. Which is in effect as much as to say, “We know not what to say well in defence of this position; and therefore lest we should say it is false, there is no remedy but to say that in some sense or other it may be true, if we could tell how.”

First, that scholy had need of a very favourable reader and a tractable, that should think it plain construction, when to be commanded in the word and grounded upon the word are made all one. If when a man may live in the state of matrimony, seeking that good thereby which nature principally desireth², he make rather choice of a contrary life in regard of St. Paul’s judgment³; that which he doth is manifestly grounded upon the word of God, yet not commanded in his word, because without breach of any commandment he might do otherwise.

Secondly, whereas no man in justice and reason can be reproved for those actions which are framed according unto that known will of God, whereby they are to be judged; and the will of God which we are to judge our actions by, no sound divine in the world ever denied to be in part made manifest even by light of nature, and not by Scripture alone: if the Church being directed by the former of these two (which God hath given who gave the other, that man might in different sort be guided by them both), if the Church I say do approve and establish that which thereby it judgeth meet, and findeth not repugnant to any word or syllable of holy Scripture; who shall warrant our presumptuous boldness controlling herein the Church of Christ?

But so it is, the name of the light of nature is made hateful with men; the “star of reason and learning,” and all other such like helps, beginneth no otherwise to be thought of than if it were an unlucky comet; or as if God had so accursed it, that it should never shine or give light in things concerning our duty any way towards him, but be esteemed as that star in the Revelation⁴ called Wormwood, which being fallen from heaven, maketh rivers and waters in which it falleth so bitter, that men tasting them die thereof. A number there are, who think they cannot admire as they ought the power and authority of the word of God, if in things divine they should attribute any force to man’s reason. For which cause they never use reason so willingly as to disgrace reason. Their usual and common discourses are unto this effect. First, “the natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned⁵.” Secondly, it is not for nothing that St. Paul giveth charge to “beware of philosophy⁶,” that is to say, such knowledge as men by natural reason attain unto. Thirdly, consider them that have from time to time opposed themselves against the Gospel of Christ, and most troubled the Church with heresy. Have they not always been great admirers of human reason? Hath their deep and profound skill in secular learning made them the more obedient to the truth, and not armed them rather against it? Fourthly, they that fear God will remember how heavy his sentences are in this case: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will cast away the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made the wisdom of this world foolishness? Seeing the world by wisdom knew not God in the wisdom of God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save believers⁷.” Fifthly, the word of God in itself is absolute, exact and perfect. The word of God is a two-edged sword⁸; as for the weapons of natural reason, they are as the armour of Saul⁹, rather cumbersome about the soldier of Christ than needful. They are not of force to do that which the Apostles of Christ did by the power of the Holy Ghost: “My preaching,” therefore saith Paul, “hath not been in the enticing speech of man’s wisdom, but in plain evidence of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God¹⁰.” Sixthly, if I believe the Gospel, there needeth no reasoning about it to persuade me; if I do not believe, it must be the Spirit of God and not the reason of man that shall convert my heart unto him. By these and the like disputes an opinion hath spread itself very far in the world, as if the way to be ripe in faith were to be raw in wit and judgment; as if reason were an enemy unto religion, childish simplicity the mother of ghostly and divine wisdom.

The cause why such declamations prevail so greatly, is, for that men suffer themselves in two respects to be deluded; one is, that the wisdom of man being debased either in comparison with that of God, or in regard of some special thing exceeding the reach and compass thereof, it seemeth to them (not marking so much) as if simply it were condemned: another, that learning, knowledge or wisdom, falsely so termed, usurping a name whereof they are not worthy, and being under that name controlled; their reproof is by so much the more easily misapplied, and through equivocation wrested against those things whereunto so precious names do properly and of right belong. This, duly observed, doth to the former allegations itself make sufficient answer. Howbeit, for all men’s plainer and fuller satisfaction:

First, Concerning the inability of reason to search out and to judge of things divine, if they be such as those properties of God and those duties of men towards him, which may be conceived by attentive consideration of heaven and earth; we know that of mere natural men the Apostle testifieth¹¹, how they knew both God, and the Law of God. Other things of God there be which are neither so found, nor though they be shewed can never be approved without the special operation of God’s good grace and Spirit. Of such things sometime spake the Apostle St. Paul, declaring how Christ had called him to be a witness of his death and resurrection from the dead, according to that which the Prophets and Moses had foreshewed. Festus, a mere natural man, an infidel, a Roman, one whose ears were unacquainted with such matter, heard him, but could not reach unto that whereof he spake; the suffering and the rising of Christ from the dead he rejecteth as idle superstitious fancies not worth the hearing¹². The Apostle that knew them by the Spirit, and spake of them with power of the Holy Ghost, seemed in his eyes but learnedly mad¹³. Which example maketh manifest what elsewhere the same Apostle teacheth, namely, that nature hath need of grace¹⁴, whereunto I hope we are not opposite, by holding that grace hath use of nature.

Secondly, Philosophy we are warned to take heed of: not that philosophy, which is true and sound knowledge attained by natural discourse of reason; but that philosophy, which to bolster heresy or error casteth a fraudulent show of reason upon things which are indeed unreasonable, and by that mean as by a stratagem spoileth the simple which are not able to withstand such cunning. “Take heed lest any spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit¹⁵.” He that exhorteth to beware of an enemy’s policy doth not give counsel to be impolitic, but rather to use all provident foresight and circumspection, lest our simplicity be overreached by cunning sleights. The way not to be inveigled by them that are so guileful through skill, is thoroughly to be instructed in that which maketh skilful against guile, and to be armed with that true and sincere philosophy, which doth teach, against that deceitful and vain, which spoileth.

Thirdly, But many great philosophers have been very unsound in belief. And many sound in belief, have been also great philosophers. Could secular knowledge bring the one sort unto the love of Christian faith? Nor Christian faith the other sort out of love with secular knowledge. The harm that heretics did, they did it unto such as were unable to discern between sound and deceitful reasoning; and the remedy against it was ever the skill which the ancient Fathers had to descry and discover such deceit. Insomuch that Cresconius the heretic complained greatly of St. Augustine, as being too full of logical subtilties¹⁶. Heresy prevaileth only by a counterfeit show of reason; whereby notwithstanding it becometh invincible, unless it be convicted of fraud by manifest remonstrance clearly true and unable to be withstood. When therefore the Apostle requireth ability to convict heretics¹⁷, can we think he judgeth it a thing unlawful, and not rather needful, to use the principal instrument of their conviction, the light of reason? It may not be denied but that in the Fathers’ writings there are sundry sharp invectives against heretics, even for their very philosophical reasonings. The cause whereof Tertullian confesseth not to have been any dislike conceived against the kind of such reasonings, but the end¹⁸. “We may,” saith he, “even in matters of God be made wiser by reasons drawn from the public persuasions, which are grafted in men’s minds: so they be used to further the truth, not to bolster error; so they make with, not against, that which God hath determined. For there are some things even known by nature, as the immortality of the soul unto many, our God unto all. I will therefore myself also use the sentence of some such as Plato, pronouncing every soul immortal. I myself too will use the secret acknowledgment of the commonalty¹⁹, bearing record of the God of gods. But when I hear men allege, ‘That which is dead is dead;’ and, ‘While thou art alive be alive;’ and, ‘After death an end of all, even of death itself;’ then will I call to mind both that the heart of the people with God is accounted dust²⁰, and that the very wisdom of the world is pronounced folly²¹. If then an heretic fly also unto such vicious popular and secular conceits, my answer unto him shall be, ‘Thou heretic, avoid the heathen; although in this ye be one, that ye both belie God, yet thou that doest this under the name of Christ, differest from the heathen, in that thou seemest to thyself a Christian. Leave him therefore his conceits, seeing that neither will he learn thine. Why dost thou having sight trust to a blind guide; thou which hast put on Christ take raiment of him that is naked? If the Apostle have armed thee, why dost thou borrow a stranger’s shield? Let him rather learn of thee to acknowledge, than thou of him to renounce the resurrection of the flesh.’ ” In a word, the Catholic Fathers did good unto all by that knowledge, whereby heretics hindering the truth in many, might have furthered therewith themselves, but that obstinately following their own ambitious or otherwise corrupted affections, instead of framing their wills to maintain that which reason taught, they bent their wits to find how reason might seem to teach that which their wills were set to maintain. For which cause the Apostle saith of them justly, that they are for the most part αὐτοκατάκριτοι, men condemned even in and of themselves²². For though they be not all persuaded that it is truth which they withstand, yet that to be error which they uphold they might undoubtedly the sooner a great deal attain to know, but that their study is more to defend what once they have stood in, than to find out sincerely and simply what truth they ought to persist in for ever.

Fourthly, There is in the world no kind of knowledge, whereby any part of truth is seen, but we justly account it precious; yea, that principal truth, in comparison whereof all other knowledge is vile, may receive from it some kind of light; whether it be that Egyptian and Chaldean wisdom mathematical, wherewith Moses and Daniel were furnished²³; or that natural, moral, and civil wisdom, wherein Salomon excelled all men²⁴; or that rational and oratorial wisdom of the Grecians, which the Apostle St. Paul brought from Tarsus; or that Judaical, which he learned in Jerusalem sitting at the feet of Gamaliel²⁵: to detract from the dignity thereof were to injury²⁶ even God himself, who being that light which none can approach unto, hath sent out these lights whereof we are capable, even as so many sparkles resembling the bright fountain from which they rise.

But there are that bear the title of wise men and scribes and great disputers of the world, and are nothing in deed less than what in show they most appear. These being wholly addicted unto their own wills, use their wit, their learning, and all the wisdom they have, to maintain that which their obstinate hearts are delighted with, esteeming in the frantic²⁷ error of their minds the greatest madness in the world to be wisdom, and the highest wisdom foolishness. Such were both Jews and Grecians, which professed the one sort legal, and the other secular skill, neither enduring to be taught the mystery of Christ: unto the glory of whose most blessed name, whoso study to use both their reason and all other gifts, as well which nature as which grace hath endued them with, let them never doubt but that the same God who is to destroy and confound utterly that wisdom falsely so named in others, doth make reckoning of them as of true Scribes, Scribes by wisdom instructed to the kingdom of heaven²⁸, not Scribes against that kingdom hardened in a vain opinion of wisdom; which in the end being proved folly, must needs perish, true understanding, knowledge, judgment and reason continuing for evermore.

Fifthly, Unto the word of God, being in respect of that end for which God ordained it perfect, exact, and absolute in itself, we do not add reason as a supplement of any maim or defect therein, but as a necessary instrument, without which we could not reap by the Scripture’s perfection that fruit and benefit which it yieldeth. “The word of God is a twoedged sword²⁹,” but in the hands of reasonable men; and reason as the weapon that slew Goliath, if they be as David was that use it. Touching the Apostles, He which gave them from above such power for miraculous confirmation of that which they taught, endued them also with wisdom from above to teach that which they so did confirm. Our Saviour made choice of twelve simple and unlearned men, that the greater their lack of natural wisdom was, the more admirable that might appear which God supernaturally endued them with from heaven. Such therefore as knew the poor and silly estate wherein they had lived, could not but wonder to hear the wisdom of their speech, and be so much the more attentive unto their teaching. They studied for no tongue, they spake with all³⁰; of themselves they were rude, and knew not so much as how to premeditate; the Spirit gave them speech and eloquent utterance.

But because with St. Paul it was otherwise than with the rest, inasmuch as he never conversed with Christ upon earth as they did; and his education had been scholastical altogether, which theirs was not; hereby occasion was taken by certain malignants, secretly to undermine his great authority in the Church of Christ, as though the gospel had been taught him by others than by Christ himself, and as if the cause of the Gentiles’ conversion and belief through his means had been the learning and skill which he had by being conversant in their books; which thing made them so willing to hear him, and him so able to persuade them; whereas the rest of the Apostles prevailed, because God was with them, and by miracle from heaven confirmed his word in their mouths. They were mighty in deeds: as for him, being absent, his writings had some force; in presence, his power not like unto theirs. In sum, concerning his preaching, their very byword was, λόγος ἐξουθενημένος, addle speech, empty talk³¹: his writings full of great words, but in the power of miraculous operations his presence not like the rest of the Apostles.

Hereupon it riseth that St. Paul was so often driven to make his apologies. Hereupon it riseth that whatsoever time he had spent in the study of human learning, he maketh earnest protestation to them of Corinth, that the gospel which he had preached amongst them did not by other means prevail with them, than with others the same gospel taught by the rest of the Apostles of Christ. “My preaching,” saith he, “hath not been in the persuasive speeches of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith may not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God³².” What is it which the Apostle doth here deny? Is it denied that his speech amongst them had been persuasive? No: for of him the sacred history plainly testifieth, that for the space of a year and a half he spake in their synagogue every Sabbath³³, and persuaded both Jews and Grecians³⁴. How then is the speech of men made persuasive? Surely there can be but two ways to bring this to pass, the one human, the other divine. Either St. Paul did only by art and natural industry cause his own speech to be credited; or else God by miracle did authorize it, and so bring credit thereunto, as to the speech of the rest of the Apostles. Of which two, the former he utterly denieth. For why? if the preaching of the rest had been effectual by miracle, his only by force of his own learning; so great inequality between him and the other Apostles in this thing had been enough to subvert their faith. For might they not with reason have thought, that if he were sent of God as well as they, God would not have furnished them and not him with the power of the Holy Ghost? Might not a great part of them being simple haply have feared, lest their assent had been cunningly gotten unto his doctrine, rather through the weakness of their own wits than the certainty of that truth which he had taught them? How unequal had it been that all believers through the preaching of other Apostles should have their faith strongly built upon the evidence of God’s own miraculous approbation, and they whom he had converted should have their persuasion built only upon his skill and wisdom who persuaded them?

As therefore calling from men may authorize us to teach, although it could not authorize him to teach as other Apostles did: so although the wisdom of man had not been sufficient to enable him such a teacher as the rest of the apostles were, unless God’s miracles had strengthened both the one and the other’s doctrine; yet unto our ability both of teaching and learning the truth of Christ, as we are but mere Christian men, it is not a little which the wisdom of man may add³⁵.

Sixthly, Yea, whatsoever our hearts be to God and to his truth, believe we or be we as yet faithless, for our conversion or confirmation the force of natural reason is great. The force whereof unto those effects is nothing without grace. What then? To our purpose it is sufficient, that whosoever doth serve, honour, and obey God, whosoever believeth in Him, that man would no more do this than innocents and infants do, but for the light of natural reason that shineth in him, and maketh him apt to apprehend those things of God, which being by grace discovered, are effectual to persuade reasonable minds and none other, that honour, obedience, and credit, belong of right unto God. No man cometh unto God to offer him sacrifice, to pour out supplications and prayers before him, or to do him any service, which doth not first believe him both to be, and to be a rewarder of them who in such sort seek unto him³⁶. Let men be taught this either by revelation from heaven, or by instruction upon earth; by labour, study, and meditation, or by the only secret inspiration of the Holy Ghost; whatsoever the mean be they know it by, if the knowledge thereof were possible without discourse of natural reason, why should none be found capable thereof but only men; nor men till such time as they come unto ripe and full ability to work by reasonable understanding? The whole drift of the Scripture of God, what is it but only to teach Theology? Theology, what is it but the science of things divine? What science can be attained unto without the help of natural discourse and reason? “Judge you of that which I speak³⁷,” saith the Apostle. In vain it were to speak any thing of God, but that by reason men are able somewhat to judge of that they hear, and by discourse to discern how consonant it is to truth.

Scripture indeed teacheth things above nature, things which our reason by itself could not reach unto. Yet those things also we believe, knowing by reason that the Scripture is the word of God. In the presence of Festus a Roman, and of King Agrippa a Jew, St. Paul omitting the one, who neither knew the Jews’ religion nor the books whereby they were taught it, speaketh unto the other of things foreshewed by Moses and the Prophets and performed in Jesus Christ; intending thereby to prove himself so unjustly accused, that unless his judges did condemn both Moses and the Prophets, him they could not choose but acquit³⁸, who taught only that fulfilled, which they so long since had foretold. His cause was easy to be discerned; what was done their eyes were witnesses; what Moses and the Prophets did speak their books could quickly shew; it was no hard thing for him to compare them, which knew the one, and believed the other. “King Agrippa, believest thou the Prophets? I know thou dost³⁹.” The question is how the books of the Prophets came to be credited of King Agrippa. For what with him did authorize the Prophets, the like with us doth cause the rest of the Scripture of God to be of credit.

Because we maintain that in Scripture we are taught all things necessary unto salvation; hereupon very childishly it is by some demanded, what Scripture can teach us the sacred authority of the Scripture, upon the knowledge whereof our whole faith and salvation dependeth⁴⁰? As though there were any kind of science in the world which leadeth men into knowledge without presupposing a number of things already known. No science doth make known the first principles whereon it buildeth, but they are always either taken as plain and manifest in themselves, or as proved and granted already, some former knowledge having made them evident. Scripture teacheth all supernatural revealed truth, without the knowledge whereof salvation cannot be attained. The main principle whereupon our belief of all things therein contained dependeth, is, that the Scriptures are the oracles of God himself. This in itself we cannot say is evident. For then all men that hear it would acknowledge it in heart, as they do when they hear that “every whole is more than any part of that whole,” because this in itself is evident. The other we know that all do not acknowledge when they hear it. There must be therefore some former knowledge presupposed which doth herein assure the hearts of all believers. Scripture teacheth us that saving truth which God hath discovered unto the world by revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise that itself is divine and sacred.

The question then being by what means we are taught this; some answer that to learn it we have no other way than only tradition; as namely that so we believe because both we from our predecessors and they from theirs have so received. But is this enough? That which all men’s experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied. And by experience we all know, that the first outward motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of God’s Church⁴¹. For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we judge it even at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause. Afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, the more we find that the thing itself doth answer our received opinion concerning it. So that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before, doth now much more prevail, when the very thing hath ministered farther reason. If infidels or atheists chance at any time to call it in question, this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is, whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture, and our own persuasion which Scripture itself hath confirmed, may be proved a truth infallible. In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew, what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures, endeavoured still to maintain the authority of the books of God by arguments such as unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable, if they judged thereof as they should. Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard, even by such kind of proofs so to manifest and clear that point, that no man living shall be able to deny it, without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true.

Wherefore if I believe the Gospel, yet is reason of singular use, for that it confirmeth me in this my belief the more: if I do not as yet believe, nevertheless to bring me to the number of believers except reason did somewhat help, and were an instrument which God doth use unto such purposes, what should it boot to dispute with infidels or godless persons for their conversion and persuasion in that point?

Neither can I think that when grave and learned men do sometime hold, that of this principle there is no proof but by the testimony of the Spirit, which assureth our hearts therein, it is their meaning to exclude utterly all force which any kind of reason may have in that behalf; but I rather incline to interpret such their speeches, as if they had more expressly set down, that other motives and inducements, be they never so strong and consonant unto reason, are notwithstanding uneffectual of themselves to work faith concerning this principle, if the special grace of the Holy Ghost concur not to the enlightening of our minds. For otherwise I doubt not but men of wisdom and judgment will grant, that the Church, in this point especially, is furnished with reason, to stop the mouths of her impious adversaries; and that as it were altogether bootless to allege against them what the Spirit hath taught us, so likewise that even to our ownselves it needeth caution and explication how the testimony of the Spirit may be discerned, by what means it may be known; lest men think that the Spirit of God doth testify those things which the Spirit of error suggesteth. The operations of the Spirit, especially these ordinary which be common unto all true Christian men, are as we know things secret and undiscernible even to the very soul where they are, because their nature is of another and an higher kind than that they can be by us perceived in this life. Wherefore albeit the Spirit lead us into all truth and direct us in all goodness, yet because these workings of the Spirit in us are so privy and secret, we therefore stand on a plainer ground, when we gather by reason from the quality of things believed or done, that the Spirit of God hath directed us in both, than if we settle ourselves to believe or to do any certain particular thing, as being moved thereto by the Spirit.

But of this enough. To go from the books of Scripture to the sense and meaning thereof: because the sentences which are by the Apostles recited out of the Psalms⁴², to prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ, did not prove it, if so be the Prophet David meant them of himself; this exposition therefore they plainly disprove, and shew by manifest reason, that of David the words of David could not possibly be meant. Exclude the use of natural reasoning about the sense of Holy Scripture concerning the articles of our faith, and then that the Scripture doth concern the articles of our faith who can assure us? That, which by right exposition buildeth up Christian faith, being misconstrued breedeth error: between true and false construction, the difference reason must shew. Can Christian men perform that which Peter requireth at their hands; is it possible they should both believe and be able, without the use of reason, to render “a reason of their belief⁴³,” a reason sound and sufficient to answer them that demand it, be they of the same faith with us or enemies thereunto? may we cause our faith without reason to appear reasonable in the eyes of men? This being required even of learners in the school of Christ, the duty of their teachers in bringing them unto such ripeness must needs be somewhat more, than only to read the sentences of Scripture, and then paraphrastically to scholy them: to vary them with sundry forms of speech, without arguing or disputing about any thing which they contain. This method of teaching may commend itself unto the world by that easiness and facility which is in it: but a law or a pattern it is not, as some do imagine, for all men to follow that will do good in the Church of Christ.

Our Lord and Saviour himself did hope by disputation to do some good, yea by disputation not only of but against, the truth, albeit with purpose for the truth. That Christ should be the son of David was truth; yet against this truth our Lord in the gospel objecteth, “If Christ be the son of David, how doth David call him Lord⁴⁴?” There is as yet no way known how to dispute, or to determine of things disputed, without the use of natural reason.

If we please to add unto Christ their example, who followed him as near in all things as they could; the sermon of Paul and Barnabas set down in the Acts⁴⁵, where the people would have offered unto them sacrifice; in that sermon what is there but only natural reason to disprove their act? “O men, why do you these things? We are men even subject to the selfsame passions with you: we preach unto you to leave these vanities and to turn to the living God, the God that hath not left himself without witness, in that he hath done good to the world, giving rain and fruitful seasons, filling our heart with joy and gladness.”

Neither did they only use reason in winning such unto Christian belief as were yet thereto unconverted, but with believers themselves they followed the selfsame course. In that great and solemn assembly of believing Jews how doth Peter prove that the Gentiles were partakers of the grace of God as well as they, but by reason drawn from those effects, which were apparently known amongst them? “God which knoweth hearts hath borne them witness in giving unto them the Holy Ghost as unto us⁴⁶.”

The light therefore, which the “star of natural reason” and wisdom casteth, is too bright to be obscured by the mist of a word or two uttered to diminish that opinion which justly hath been received concerning the force and virtue thereof, even in matters that touch most nearly the principal duties of men and the glory of the eternal God.

In all which hitherto hath been spoken touching the force and use of man’s reason in things divine, I must crave that I be not so understood or construed, as if any such thing by virtue thereof could be done without the aid and assistance of God’s most blessed Spirit. The thing we have handled according to the question moved about it; which question is, whether the light of reason be so pernicious, that in devising laws for the Church men ought not by it to search what may be fit and convenient. For this cause therefore we have endeavoured to make it appear, how in the nature of reason itself there is no impediment, but that the selfsame Spirit, which revealeth the things that God hath set down in his law, may also be thought to aid and direct men in finding out by the light of reason what laws are expedient to be made for the guiding of his Church, over and besides them that are in Scripture. Herein therefore we agree with those men, by whom human laws are defined to be ordinances, which such as have lawful authority given them for that purpose do probably draw from the laws of nature and God, by discourse of reason aided with the influence of divine grace. And for that cause, it is not said amiss touching ecclesiastical canons, that “by instinct of the Holy Ghost they have been made, and consecrated by the reverend acceptation of all the world⁴⁷.”

---

← A shift to maintain, that nothing ought to b · Contents · How laws for the regiment of the Church may →

Footnotes

1. [T. C. ii. 56.] ↩

2. Arist. Pol. i. 2. ↩

3. 1 Cor. vii. 8. 26. ↩

4. Apoc. viii. 10. ↩

5. 1 Cor. ii. 14. ↩

6. Col. ii. 8. ↩

7. 1 Cor. i. 19. ↩

8. [Heb. iv. 12.] ↩

9. [1 Sam. xvii. 39.] ↩

10. 1 Cor. ii. 4. ↩

11. Rom. i. 21, 32. ↩

12. Acts xxv. 19. ↩

13. Acts xxvi. 24. ↩

14. 1 Cor. ii. 14. ↩

15. Col. ii. 8. ↩

16. [S. Aug. contr. Crescon. i. 16. t. ix. 397. “Quid est aliud Dialectica, quam peritia disputandi? Quod ideo aperiendum putavi, quia etiam ipsam mihi objicere voluisti, quasi ‘Christianæ non congruat veritati, et ideo me doctores vestri, velut hominem dialecticum, merito fugiendum potius et cavendum, quam refellendum revincendumque censuerint.’ Quod cum tibi non persuaserint, nam te adversus nos etiam scribendo disputare non piguit, tu tamen in me dialecticam criminatus es, quo falleres imperitos, eosque laudares qui disputando mecum congredi noluerant. Sed tu videlicet non dialectica uteris, cum contra nos scribis?”] ↩

17. Tit. i. 9, 11. ↩

18. Tert. de Resur. Carnis. [c. 3. “Est quidem et de communibus sensibus sapere in Dei rebus, sed in testimonium veri, non in adjutorium falsi; quod sit secundum divinam, non contra divinam dispositionem. Quædam enim et natura nota sunt, ut immortalitas animæ penes plures, ut Deus noster penes omnes. Utar ergo et sententia Platonis alicujus pronunciantis, ‘Omnis anima immortalis.’ Utar et conscientia populi, contestantis Deum Deorum … At cum aiunt, ‘Mortuum quod mortuum,’ et, ‘Vive dum vivis,’ et ‘Post mortem omnia finiuntur, etiam ipsa:’ tunc meminero, et cor vulgi cinerem a Deo deputatum, et ipsam sapientiam sæculi stultitiam pronunciatam. Tunc si et hæreticus ad vulgi vitia, vel sæculi ingenia confugerit, ‘Discede,’ dicam, ‘ab ethnico, hæretice; etsi unum estis omnes qui Deum fingitis; dum hoc tamen in Christi nomine facis, dum Christianus tibi videris, alius ab ethnico es. Redde illi suos sensus, quia nec ille de tuis instruitur. Quid cæco duci inniteris, si vides? Quid vestiris a nudo, si Christum induisti? Quid alieno uteris clypeo, si ab Apostolo armatus es? Ille potius a te discat carnis resurrectionem confiteri, quam tu ab illo diffiteri.’ ”] ↩

19. [“communaltie,” A. B.] ↩

20. [Isai. xliv. 20.] ↩

21. [1 Cor. iii. 19.] ↩

22. Tit. iii. 11. ↩

23. Acts vii. 22; Dan. i. 17. ↩

24. 1 Kings iv. 29, 30. ↩

25. Acts xxii. 3. ↩

26. [“To injury, v. for ‘to injure.’ ‘Those that are in authority, and princes themselves, ought to take great heed how they injury any man by word or deed, and whom they injury.’ Danet’s Comines. lib. iii.” Nares’s Glossary.“I am strangely injuried by the Archbishop.” Hugh Broughton in Strype’s Whitg. iii. 367. Cf. infra, V. xvi. 1.] ↩

27. [“phrentique,” A. B.; “frantique,” 1617.] 1886. ↩

28. Matt. xii. ↩

29. Heb. iv. 12. ↩

30. [So A. “withall” (one word) B. 1617, &c.] 1886. ↩

31. 2 Cor. x. 10. ↩

32. 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. ↩

33. [“Saboth,” 1st ed. So in III. xi. 8, IV. xiii. 1, V. c. 70-72 (1597) passim, Saboth or Sabboth. Compare Sabaoth, for Sabbath, in Spenser and Bacon.] 1886. ↩

34. Acts xviii. 4. 11. ↩

35. [Chr. Letter, p. 43. “In all your bookes, although we finde manie good things, manie trueths and fine points bravely handled, yet in all your discourse, for the most parte, Aristotle the patriarch of philosophers (with divers other humane writers) and the ingenuous schoolemen, almost in all points have some finger: reason is highlie sett up against Holie Scripture, and reading against preaching.”Hooker, MS. note. “If Aristotle and the schoolmen be such perilous creatures, you must needes think yourself an happie man, whome God hath so fairely blest from too much knowledg in them.“Remember heer S. Jerome’s Epistle in his own defense.” (To Magnus, t. ii. 326. He pleads precedent, scriptural and ecclesiastical, for his use of profane learning.) “Forget not Picus Mirandula’s judgment of the schoolemen;” (Opp. i. 79. “Ut a nostris, ad quos postremo philosophia pervenit, nunc exordiar; est in Joanne Scoto vegetum quiddam atque discussum, in Thoma solidum et æquabile, in Ægidio tersum et exactum, in Francisco acre et acutum, in Alberto priscum, amplum, et grande, in Henrico, ut mihi visum est, semper sublime et venerandum.”) “Beza’s judgment of Aristotle.” (For his opinion of the use of logic, see Epist. 67.) “As also Calvin’s judgment of philosophie. Epist. 90, ad Bucerum.” (p. 110. “Et philosophia præclarum est Dei donum; et qui omnibus sæculis extiterunt docti viri, eos Deus ipse excitavit, ut ad veri notitiam mundo prælucerent.”)Again, Chr. Letter, ibid. “Shall we doe you wronge to suspect… . that you esteeme the preaching and writing of all the reverend Fathers of our Church, and the bookes of holy Scripture to bee at the least of no greater moment than Aristotle and the schoolemen?”Hooker, MS. note: “I think of the Scripture of God as reverently as the best of the purified crew in the world. I except not any, no not the founders themselves and captaines of that faction. In which mind I hope by the grace of Almighty God that I shall both live and die.”] ↩

36. Heb. xi. 6. ↩

37. 1 Cor. x. 15. ↩

38. [“acquite,” A. B.] 1886. ↩

39. Acts xxvi. 27. ↩

40. [Compare II. iv. 2.] 1886. ↩

41. [Chr. Letter, p. 9, 10. “Have we not here good cause to suspect the underpropping of a popish principle concerning the Churches authoritie above the Holie Scripture, to the disgrace of the English Church?”Hooker, MS. note. “You have already done your best to make a jarre between nature and Scripture. Your next endeavour is to doe the like betweene Scripture and the Church. Your delight in conflicts doth make you dreame of them where they are not.”Again, Christ. Letter, p. 10. “We pray you to expound, either by experience or otherwise; Whether the worde of God was receaved in the world, and beleeved by men, by the virtue and authoritie of the witnesses, either Prophets or Apostles, or the holy Church; or that such were not esteemed for the wordes sake.”Hooker, MS. note. “I am sorie to see you in the groundes and elements of your religion so sclenderly instructed.“Fides nititur authoritate docentis. Docens autem confirmatam habet authoritatem personæ virtute miraculorum. Id quod omnino necessarium est propter ea quæ docet supra et præter naturalem rationem: qua omnis probatio argumentosa nititur, quæ fidem facit. Atque hoc Apostolus de se testatur, cum efficacem fuisse sermonem suum asserit non vi humanæ persuasionis, sed assistentis Spiritus ad opera miraculosa perficienda. Vide Tertullian. contra Gent. p. 637.”] ↩

42. Acts xiii. 36; ii. 34. ↩

43. 1 Pet. iii. 15. ↩

44. Matt. xxii. 43. ↩

45. Acts xiv. 15. ↩

46. Acts xv. 8. ↩

47. Violatores, 25. q. i. [Decret. Gratian. caus. xxv. quæst. i. c. 6. in Corp. Jur. Canon. Paris. 1618. p. 313. “Violatores canonum voluntarii graviter a sanctis patribus judicantur, et a Sancto Spiritu (instinctu cujus, et dono dictati sunt) damnantur.”] ↩