Ib. p. 357.

In the second the light of divine reason causeth approbation of that
they believe: in the third sort, the purity of divine understanding
apprehendeth most certainly the things believed, and causeth a
foretasting of those things that hereafter more fully shall be enjoyed.

Here too Field distinguishes the understanding from the reason, as
experience following perception of sense. But as perception through the
mere presence of the object perceived, whether to the outward or inner
sense, is not insight which belongs to the 'light of reason,' therefore
Field marks it by 'purity' that is unmixed with fleshly sensations or
the 'idola' of the bodily eye. Though Field is by no means consistent in
his 'epitheta' of the understanding, he seldom confounds the word
itself. In theological Latin, the understanding, as influenced and
combined with the affections and desires, is most frequently expressed
by 'cor', the heart. Doubtless the most convenient form of appropriating
the terms would be to consider the understanding as man's intelligential
faculty, whatever be its object, the sensible or the intelligible world;
while reason is the tri-unity, as it were, of the spiritual eye, light,
and object.


Ib. c. 10. p. 358.

Of the Papists preferring the Church's authority before the Scripture.


Field, from the nature and special purpose of his controversy, is