A BOOKE INTITVLED THE ENGLISH Protestants Recantation in matters of Religion WHEREIN IS DEMONstratiuely proued by the writings of the principall and best learned English Protestant Bishops and Doctors and Rules of their Religion published allowed or subscribed vnto by them since the comminge of our King IAMES into England That not onely all generall grownds of Diuinitie are against theÌ„ But in euery particular cheife Question betweene Catholicks them they are in errour by their owne Iudgments Diuided accordingly into two parts whereof the first entreateth of those generall Grounds The other of such particular Controuersies Whereby will also manifestely appeare the vanitie of D. MORTON Protest Bishop of Chester his booke called Appeale or Ansvveare to the Catholicke Authour of the booke entituled The Protestants Apologie Psal 126. v. 1. Except our Lord build the howse They labour in vayne that build yt With Licence Anno 1617. TO ALL HIS WELBELOVED CONTRYMEN ENGLISH PROTESTANTS especially persecutors of the Romane catholicke Religion DVely and moste frendly I remember my seruice and best loue vnto you In maladies and diseases desperate vsuall remedies will not â—uer in controuersies those that bee and wrongefully distressed when equall triall will not bee graunted must accept vnequall or none at all Your late commended history of the world recommendeth vnto vs for moste true this sentence nothing can bee a more excellent wittnessinge then where an Enemy doth approue our cause Your D. Morton doth testifie as much and no man will deny it neyther this that followeth that in controuersed questions and their tryall no condemnation is more approued then where men in their owne cause are condemned by their owne Iudgment Thus in our lawes confession of wronges and euill behauiour is conuiction And in matters of Religion a Recantation But without some high commaundinge cause how shall wee finde such enforceinge and forced wittnes Balaam his Asse spake not of himselfe nor Cayphas of himselfe did prophesye And in English Protestant Religion where euery one is made a Iudge ouer all that will gayne say him in their conceipts no man will suppose or once Imagine that any one will bee fownde amonge them to giue sentence against themselues whome they value and esteeme at so high a rate aboue all the world besides especially for the church of Rome which they hate and persecute so much Yett because no other meanes is left I must build vppon this vnleuell groundes and come for Iudgment at such a Consistory onely to take what they shall giue and haue nothinge but what they please to allowe Which I hope will bee that which is expressed in the Title of this booke the same to which they haue all sworne or subscribed ratified or confirmed printed and published for their doctrine and Religion I dare not goe hygher to the dayes of Queene Elizabeth nor bringe the testimonies of Protestants in other contries leaste I receaue for Answeare as others haue done that they stand not vppon what forreyne and former Protestants haue taught which though it bee a vayne and onely cauillons exception to bee at variance or defyance with them in faith of whose church as they name it they would bee members yett to auoide all suspition and colour of euasion though neuer so friuolous Because no protestant may deny but that is their protestant Religion in England vnder our Kinge supreame heade stiled of that Church which hee by his lawes and proceedings with their Consents and Assentinge hath here established and this their Bishops and Doctors by oath or subscription haue synce then confirmed and by their published printed writings defended or mayntayned or by their Religion ought so to doe I will onely insist in this their owne priuiledged and allowed testimonyes and authorities And assume by them to proue not onely that all grownds of Religion in generall doe proue and mayntayne the doctrine of the church of Rome and condemne this protestant Religion But further and demonstratiuely to manifest by true consequence that in euery cheife question betweene this ProtestaÌ„ts and Catholicks they ar in error and wee in truthe Which will be more then euident demoÌ„stration against D. Morton ProtestaÌ„t Bishop of Chester his Appeale or pretended Answeare to the Catholick Author of the Protestants Apologie And therefore being confidently assured that I haue truely and fully performed what I vndertake by their so greate aduantage as to make them both wittnes and Iudge in their owne cause I presume as it is soe to name this Booke The English Protestants Recantation in Matters of Religion I wish it were as easye and no more difficult labour to bridle their wills and Appetites from libertie ouermuch loue of this world and wanton delights thereof as it is to demonstrate to their vnderstandings that they bee in error many men ar able to doe this But God and themselues must reforme the other which of his greate mercy I moste humbly beseech him to grauÌ„t That they which so longe tyme haue onely talked of Reformed Churches and Religions may come to the true and reall practise of reformation both in mynde and maners Which I hope they may the soener attayne vnto if they shall duely consider how fowle and deformed the face of this their new doctrine is euen as it is poynted by their owne colours and pencell That which remayneth as my onely suite to you is this not to bee regardlesse of your best good not willfully to erre from the way of truthe to esteeme of the sacred Religion of the Church of Rome as the greatest enemyes to it and frends to you shall conclude it worthye and lett my self and labours enioy your loue as wee shall deserue it And so I shall euer rest Your most wellwishing Contriman and frend Author of this Booke THE ENGLISH PROTESTANST RECANTATION IN MATTERS OF Religion THE FIRST PART CHAPTER I. PROVEINGE BY ENGLISH Protestant writers since the begynninge of his Maiesties Raigne in England that the true Church of Christ is of Infallible Iudgment The Protestants not so and so not the true Church BECAVSE the cheefest and moste generall controuersie in Religion in this time betweene the Catholicks of England and their Aduersaries their contry persecutors and Innouators is concerninge the true Churche of Christ which where with whome and what it is what bee the properties true notes signes qualities authoritie office and commaunde of it I will first begin with that Question In which I argue thus Whatsoeuer Companie Societie Consistorye Iudgment or Authoritie is in time of difference about Religion moste necessarie to bee knowe followed and obeyed and is the companie of holy ones the howsholde of faithe spouse of Christ the piller and grownde of truthe whose communyon is to bee embraced directions followed and Iudgment to bee rested in must needes bothe bee priuiledged from error and to bee obeyed in Matters of controuersie But the true Church of Christ is such Therefore free from error and to bee obeyed in this busines
The Maior or first proposition is euidently true otherwise God hath bownde man to followe and embrace heresie or error of necessitie hee must bee damned without all hope of saluation except heresie false opinions error or infidelitie could bringe to heauen which is against the holy Scriptures true Religion which by no possibilitie can either bee vntrue or vncertayne being reueled by God himselfe and against the light of reason it selfe that men vnder penaltie of damnation should bee tyed to bee obedient to that sentence for obedience whereof they were likewise assured to bee damned which is to accuse God moste mercifull of the greatest Tyranny The Minor or second proposition is proued and the first also in this words of D. Feild D. Feild epist dedicat before hiâ— bookes of the Churche There is no parte of heauenly doctrine more necessarie in this dayes of so many intricate controuersies of Religion then diligently to searche out which amonge all the socities of men in the worlde is that blessed companie of holy ones that housthold of faithe that spouse of Christ and Church of the liueing God which is the piller and grownde of truthe That see they may embrace her communion followe her directions and rest in her Iudgment Hitherto the wordes of this Protestant Doctor by which is euidently concluded the moste certayne truthe of those two Propositions in the Argument before But to auoyde all friuolous obiections and distinctions of these men concerninge the Church generall particular triuÌ„phant militant c. Hee playnely affirmeth that this supreame and infallible iudge is the present militant Church in tymes of controuersies as is demonstrated by this his words Which amonge all the societies of men in the worlde is that blessed companie of holy ones c. Where his words societies of men and in the worlde are manifest testimonie that hee assigneth the present militant Church on earthe and no other to haue this supreame and infallible authoritie and Iudgment to decide controuersies which is alsoe proued by all the rest of the Protestant citations in this chapter hereafter And if their words were not so cleare that they cannot bee wrested otherwise yett the Question it selfe doth make it manifest for all the faithfull people that euer were and be now in many thowsands deceased out of this life cannot now be assembled in a Cowncell to giue sentence And much lesse can they that are not yett borne be so gathered together to pronownce Iudgment and yett all this belonge vnto and ar or shall bee members of the vniuersall Churche further this is conuinced by his cited words That householde of faith which cannot bee possibly ment but onely of the militant Church For in the triumphant Church seeing God in himselfe and truely and perfectly knoweinge without beleefe all sacred misteries faith as the Apostle saith is euacuated in them and turned into knowledge and as for those that ar not yett borne though hereafter in their time ordayned they at truely to beleeue yett now they neither haue faith nor knowledge of any thinge nor any other qualitie or any being at all Thirdly this is euident also in his laste words Embrace her communion followe her directions and rest in her Iudgment Which Protestants will not and cannot meane of the triumphant Churche and by no possibilitie can either bee vnderstoode or verefied of the true beleeuers to come hereafter and not yett produced into this life for this as yett haueing no essence or beeinge for themselues can haue no communion giue no directions nor pronownce Iudgment for vs now extant to embrace and followe And this is inuincibly further proued in the Arguments followeinge Therefore secondely I argue thus That which hath Authoritie in controuersies of Religion to define what is true and good to ouerrule all inferiour and particular Iudgments and bynde all men to beleeue and embrace the definitions thereof must needs bee of Infallible Iudgment and haue the supreame and highest power to commaunde and no man to disobey yt But the true Churche of Christ is such Therefore it hath Infallible Iudgment the highest power on earth and may not bee disobeyed but in all thinges to bee obeyed by all people The maior proposition is euidently true for Authoritie is to bee obeyed by all subiects otherwise it were not authoritie And there were non to commaunde non to bee obedient And definitions in matters of faithe as they must bee moste certayne vndoubted and infallible as euery article of faithe is and of necessitie must needs bee So they ar as firmely to bee beleeued and professed except wee will bee Hereticks and obstinately incur damnation The seconde proposition is thus proued by D. Couell who writeth of the Church in this Couell def of hooke pag. 30. wordes That whiâ—h by her ecclesiasticall authoritie shee shall probably thinke and define to bee true or good must in congruitie of reason ouer rule all other inferiour Iudgments whatsoeuer And to them that out of a singularitie of their owne aske vs why wee thus hange our Iudgments on the Churches sleeue wee answere with Sâ—lonion â—wo ar better then one For euen in matters of lesse moment it was neuer thought safe to neglect the Iudgment of manye and rashlie to followe the fancye and opinion of some fewe Hitherto this Protestant doctor directly proueinge the second proposition for which hee is cited which also is confirmed by the Arguments followinge Thirdly I argue thus whatsoeuer hath authoritie from Christ to approue the scriptures to bee a speciall grownde in the matter of scriptures to publishe and commaund to her children in Matters of Religion is the higest Iudge and of Infallible Iudgment But the true Churche of Christ is such Therefore it is the highest Iudge and infallible in Iudgment The Maior proposition is euidently proued and confessed before and of all men cannot bee excepted against by Protestants commonly attributeing the highest and consequently infallible Iudgement to the scriptures for if they haue their allowance and Infallibilitie soe much as belongeth vnto vs and our knowledge from the authoritie and approbation of the Churche The Church so giueing them allowance and warrant of Infallibilitie must needs bee as much or more Infallible at leaste concerninge vs in which maner wee dispute accordeinge to that Rule of Logicke Propter quod vnumquodque tale illud magis That which is the cause why any thinge is so is rather so it self Which is euident thus in this case For if the scriptures so much as appertayneth to our knowledge haue not approbation and Infallibilitie of truthe but at they at approued and published for such by the Churche This Church which so giueth them such allowance and warrant of Infallibilitie must needs likewise bee infallible which thoughe it needeth not confirmation being iustified by a Maxime in the light of nature may yett for Protestants bee further made manifest by the Protestant Author of the Assertion who to proue the ministery of
thinke be plurall That whosoeuer by their Interpretations should allowe such absurdities cannot haue the true interpretation of scriptures Now the Minor is easely proued by him also for all men are bownde to obey lawfull superioritie and authoritie such as hee saith a generall Councell hath ouer all Christians in these cases his wordes before cited be these They that haue supreame Feild l. 4. â— 16. pag. 228. power that is the Bishops assembled in a generall Councell may interpret the scripture and by their authoritie suppresse all them that shall gaynesay such Interpretations and subiect euery man that shall disobey such determination as they consent vppon to excommunication and Censures of like nature Wherefore seing generall Councells haue this bindeing and commaundeing power ouer all men by these Protestants and yet by their Article before may erre and haue Art 21. sup erred euen in things pertayning vnto God the whole Christian worlde with so many absurdities may be in this damnable error the Church might cease not be Catholicke Christ Feild pag. 203. should be without a Church which D. Feild before esteemeth greate absurdities Againe thus I argue They which straungely peruert bely depraue abuse and falsefye holy scriptures cannot be thought to be true interpreters of them But M. Parkes so testifieth of our Parkes ag lymbom def of the 1. 2. 3. testim English Protestants Therefore they cannot be thought to be true Interpreters of them Notheing remaineth in this Argument to be proued Further I argue thus No Interpreters or expositors of scripture whose Interpretations be partiall vntrue seditious sauoureing of Treason poysen the Ghospell c. are to be Iudged true and Iuridicall But the English Protestants hy their owne testimonyes be such Therefore not to be iudged true and iuridicall interpreters The Maior is true and euident And the Minor thus proued first by the Protestant Confer at Hampt pag. 47. conference in these wordes The notes annexed to the Geneua translation some are very partiall vntrue seditious and sauoureing toâ— much of daungerous and trayterous conceits Yet these were allowed and published as publicke and approued interpretations An other Protestant writeth in this maner The Bishops Aduerment An. 1604. notes betray our Lord and Redeemer and befoole the rocke of saluation they are the verie poyson to all the Ghospell M. Ormerod writeth thus of his fellowe Ormer pict purit q. 4. Protestants They fill the margents of their bookes full of places of scripture in a wronge sense that by this meanes they might more easely deceaue the simple people They neither care for Maior Minor nor Conclusion so they may say some thinge They point their margents with shamefull abuseing of scripture To these I might add more arguments as that by their owne testimonies they are Hereticks Scismaticks haue no ttue Churche no true Religion and the like as amonge other reasons from themselues why Catholiks may not communicate with them in spirituall and religeous affayres is proued in a late treatise against them I will therefore passe them ouer as allready proued CHAPTER VII WHEREIN BY THESE PROtestants is proued that vnwritten traditions lawfully proued are the word of God equally as the holy scriptures That many such are and all confirme the doctrine of the Church of Rome and condemne Protestants Religion AFTER this entreateinge of holy scriptures the written worde of God lett vs come to that parte of his sacred worde delyuered by traditions and vnwritten verities preserued and proposed to faithfull Christians by the holy spouse and Church of Christ whose Iudgment Rule and direction is so dignified aboue all Inferiour Iudgments by these Protestants before Concerninge the validitie and authoritie of truely proued traditions I argue thus All Rules Groundes and Authorities in matters of Religion that are equall with holy scriptures in the Iudgment of Protestants the highest Rule in such causes are â—eghely to be reuerenced and obeyed of all Christians But the holy traditions and vnwritten verities deliuered by Christ and Apostles being lawfully proued are of this nature Therefore to be reuerenced embraced and receaued The Maior proposition is euidently true for where there is absolute equalitie there is not inferioritie but paritie as is manifest in all equalities The Minor is thus proued in this maner first M. Wotton speakeing of such hath these Wotton def of Perk. pag. 405. pag. 436. supr words out of all question wee are bounde to keepe them and telleth vs that M. Perkins was of the same opinion D. Feild speaketh thus concerninge traditions In this question by tradition wee vnderstand such partes of Christian doctrine or Feild pag. 238. l. 4. cap. 20. discipline as were not written by them by whomâ— they were first deliuered For thus our Aduersaries vnderstand traditions which they diuide into diuers kindes First in respect of the authors so makeing them of three sortes Diuine Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall Secondly in respect of the matter they concerne in which respect they make them to be of two sortes for either they concerne matters of faiâ—he or matters of manners and these later againe either temporall or perpetuall vniuersall or particular All these in their seuerall kindes they make equall with the words precepts and doctrines of Christ the Apostles and pastors of the Church left vnto vs in writeinge Neither is there any reason why they should not so doe if they could proue any such vnwritten verities For it is not the writeing that giueth things their authoritie but the worthe and credit of him that deliuereth them though by worde and lyuely voyce onely Thus the authoritie of Traditions is iustified by Protestants to be equall with the scriptures if they can be proued Now because Protestants mayntayneinge the sufficiencie of scripture for matters of faith deny traditions of that nature I argue in this maner All Articles and matters of faith are in Protestants Iudgment proued and deliuered to vs by tradition Therefore some articles and matters of faith are in their Iudgment or so must be graunted to be deliuered by tradition The consequence is euident for euery generall proposition includeth the particular The Antecedent is thus proued by them Whosoeuer doe graunte those things which by them conteyne all matters and Articles of faith to be delyuered by tradition must needs allowe traditions in matters of faith But these Protestants doe so Therefore they must allowe such traditions The Maior is euident for whatsoeuer conteineth all excludeth none and so comprehending all comprehendeth also some and the parts of that all The Minor is likewise proued in this maner supposeing the Common opinion of these Protestants set downe in the sixt Article of their Religion Articl of Relig. art 6. in these wordes Holy scripture conteyneth all things necessarie to saluation so that whatsoeuer iâ— not reade thâ—rein nor may be proued thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be beleeued as an Article of the
means they could to come to vnitie amonge themselues as in the true Church it must bee Crammer and others vsed all deuises and Caluyne wrote vnto him sayeing That might his labours stand the Church insteed ne decem quideÌ„ Maria it would not greeue him to sayle ouer ten seas to such a purpose But this proued a worke of much difficultie if not altogether vnpossible in mans eyes Where they well might haue left out their addition if not and haue playnely sayd without any exception as it hath playnely proued that it was altogether vnpossible in mans eyes especially in the common order of proceedings amonge them which by their owne Relation was this That euery kingedome and free state or principalitie which had abandoned the Religion of Rome should diuulge a breife of that Religion which amonge them was taught and beleeued Wherevppon as this men tell came forthe the seuerall Protestant confessions or Religions of the seuerall Protestant Congregations of Wittemberge Ausburge Bohem Sueue Scotland Heluetia Fraunce Belgia Basile Saxonie England in their 39. Articles c. amonge whome euen those of England it selfe what contradiction there is euen in matters by their owne doctrine fundamentall and essentiall in Religion demonstration is lately made by this same maner and methode by their owne authorities and will be also manifest in this worke And yett The Answ of Orford â—â— the 1000. pet Articul 19. 21. this men which say they ar the learnest ministerye in the worlde and definitiuely condemne all Churches as Ierusalem Alexandria Antioch and Rome and generall Councells themselues of error and may not pleade Ignorance for themselues to excuse them from error Neither can they with the least pretence of truth affirme their acknowledged lyeing and erroneous Churche to be the true Church of God except they will also moste blasphemously teach and mayntayne that prima veritas and eternall truthe is eternall August lib. de mendas falsehood or with the damned Priscillianists that God in his Reuelations to his Church and in the holy scriptures hath deliuered lyes and errours commaundinge vs to beleeue them For they haue before assured vs that the true Church of God warily keepeth all doctrine committed to her chaungeth diminiâ—heth addeth loseth vsurpeth nothinge Therefore this chaungeing diminishinge loseinge and vsurpinge Church of Protestants cannot be this true Church of Christ by their owne doctrine And as materiall essentiall and fundamentall it is in Religion concerninge the true grounde and fowndation of faith and as greate a falsehood to say in the meanest or least point of faith that truth is error God a lyar or his Church a seducer as so to affirme in the greatest and moste concerninge mystery of Religion The true groundes and fowndation of true beleeueinge equally weakened or ouerthrowne in the one as the other And the first proposition which our Catholick Preists and brethren prisoners at Wisbych offered to the vice-chaunceller of Cambridge and that vniuersitie that is Ecclesia protestantium non est vera Christi Ecclesia The Protestant Churche is not the true Church of Christ is here sufficiently questioned and by themsels not longe since more then sufficiently demonstrated to bâ— Pulâ—â—â—a propositio really Demonstrat of Recuse dem 2. 3. 4. c. and sincerely a true proposition and not scoffingly as hee pleaseth to parenthesize And so will be defended or proued by those propownders of it As also their second proposition for of the third in his proper place dâ—tur externus Iudex in rebus fidei there is an externall Iudge in matters of faith will bee maynâ—ayned not onely in such sense as the Vniuersiâ—ie of Cambridge accordinge to the nature of their Church and Religion graunteth that is fallible and deceatfull But as our Brethren accordinge to the nature of true Faithe Religion and the true Church infallible intended it and still offer to make it good for the Romane Church euer synce the time of Christ and so hereafter When our English Protestant vniuersitie for their so lately as they terme Vicech of Camb D. Carey his letter Aug. 7. it reformed Church and light of the Ghospell ar driuen to this Answeare in these words Your second question is affirmatiue auerring an externall Iudge in maâ—ters of faith If you vnderstand a Iugde infallible in his sentence wee deny what you affirme otherwise wee gaynesay not your assertion Which in their owne meaninge aboue remembred is pulchra propositio for their Illuminated Church which will haue no Iudge or Iudgment in matters of faith aboue all things most infallible and certainely true except wee will allowe it for an Article of faithe or an infallible truthe that the Iudge and Iudgment must be fallible and deceatefull And the Religion and faith so adiudged and propownded to bee followed and with diuine faith to be beleeued against the nature thereof to be false erroneoes fallible or deceatefull for such as the Iudge is the Iudgment and difficultie adiudged must needs be And yett further one scruple more there is in this busines which because Cambridge is now busyed enough against pore prisoners without bookes I wish that Oxford could resolue how it can stand with the Integritie and sownd doctrine of a Reformed Church and spoken consequenter like a learned vniuersitie to graunt as they haue done and must doe by their Religion to this day that there be and must be so many Supreame and Independant Iudges and heaps in their Churche as I haue before remembred from themselues Religions Churches seuerall and different Confessions or Professions of Faithe euery one absolute of it self and without dependance of any other and to vse their owne wordes Without any meanes to take vp their controuersies no Prince with any preeminence of Iurisdiction aboue the rest no Patriarke to haue a common superintendence or care of their Churches Their lett sup Aug. 7. And yett now the vniuersitie of Cambridge haueing as they write warrant from our Kinge to accept our Preists challendge God graunt they performe their warrant Ioyneth with them in this position datur externus Iudex there â—â— an externall or one externall Iudge in matters of faith If there is but one externall Iudge for Iudex externâ—â— and externall Iudge in the singular number is but one then those Churches or Church of theirs which from their begynning haue had so many supreame Iudges and Iudgments cannot be the true Church of Christ which as now the graunt hath but one And if their former both doctrine and practise of many such Iudges is true then their present doctrine and graunt of onely one is false and inferreth a false Church But I leaue them to our Preists at Wisbych Onely here I will adde because they haue now allowed one externall Iudge in matters of faith in the true Church to whose Iudgment all must be obedient otherwise hee is not to be named a Iudge they must also against their owne limitation allowe that his Iudgment
authoritie in such cases is priuate Therefore no Protestant Interpretation is binding or Iuridicall The Maior proposition is thus proued by D. Feild Feild l. 4. c. 19. pag. 235. in these wordes Wee confesse that neither conference of places nor consideration of the antecedeÌ„tia and consequentia nor lookinge into the originalls are of any force vnlesse wee fynde the thingâ— which wee conceaue to be vnderstoode and ment in the places interpreted to be consonant to the Rule of faithe And hee writeth thus againe priuate Interpretation Feild pag. 226. is not so proposed and vrged as if they would binde all others to receaue it The Minor proposition That all Protestant expositions in respect of a bindeing and Iuridicall power are priuate is thus proued by this Protestant Argument No Interpretation or Interpreters wanteing Iurisdiction and authoritie to commaunde their Interpretations and expositions in matters of faith to be beleued as suche is to be accompted byndeing and Iuridicall But all English Protestant Interpretations expositions and definitions by their owne Iudgment want this bindeing and commaundeing authoritie in matters of faithe Therefore they are not Iuridicall and byndeinge to be beleeued The Maior is euidently true for where there is not power and authoritie in things those things cannot be rightly and iuridically commaunded or bindeing men to doe or beleeue them The Minor proposition is proued by D. Feild in these wordes As before wee made Feild pag. 228. three kinds of Iudgment the one of discretion Common to all the other of direction Common to the Pastors of the Churche and a third of Iurisdiction proper to them that haue supreame power in the Church So likewise wee make three kindes of Interpretation the first priuate the seconde of publickâ— direction and so the Pastors of the Church may publickly propose what they conceaue of it And the third of Iurisdiction and so they that haue supreame power that is in the Bishops assembled in a generall Councell may interpreate the scripture and by their authoritie suppresse all them that shall gaynesay such Interpretations and subiect euery man that shall disobey such determinations as they consent vppon to excommunication and Censures of the like nature Hitherto D. Feilds wordes playnely declareing that in his Iudgment the Protestants neither haue nor can haue this Iuridicall and commaundeing Iudgment or Interpretation because as is proued by themselues before they neither haue had nor can haue any generall Councell in which alone he placeth this Iurisdiction and bindeing power For proposeing without authoritie which hee giueth there to Bishops is not Iuridicall and coactiue If hee shall answeare that in the first three hundred yeares there was no generall Councell and yet matters of Religion were decided and embraced hee condemneth himself and all Protestants in this busines for either hee must leaue that primatiue Church absolutely without Iurisdictâ—on and power which is moste absurde or leaue it to them that both truely claymed and vsed it the Popes of Rome as these Protestants haue before acknowledged And aboue all men D. Feild must be of that opinion for hee Feild pag. 202. hath written and allowed in this maner Wee must reuerence the authoritie of all Catholiâ—ke Doctors whose doctrine and writeings the Church alloweth wee must more regarde the authoritie of Catholicke Bishops more then these the authoritie of the Apostolicke Churches amongst them more especially the Church of Rome of a generall Councell more then all these Therefore by this Protestant Doctor in tyme when generall Councells cannot be the highest deciding and Iuridicall sentence and power is in the Church and Pope of Rome And by this hee is also preuented from sayinge that Protestants may commaunde such Interpretations and definitions within their owne temporall Territories for so they should not moste reuerence and respect next to a generall Councell the Church of Rome the next Iudge as hee hath written but quite the contrary their owne stubborne and disobedient wills which in such causes is Hereâ—icall or Scâ—maticall vsurpation and yet D. Feild in his diuision of Interpretations before assigneth no Iurisdiction at all to inferior Bishops to commaunde either in the whole Church or in Prouinciall in such cases Further I argue thus No opinions or Articles not grownded vppon the worde of God are to be beleeued or commaunded as matters of faith But all Protestants deductions and Interpretations in these controuersies are such not grownded vppon the word of God therefore not to be beleeued or commaunded as Articles of faith The Maior is the Common doctrine of Protestants The Minor is proued both before when Protestants haue depriued themselues of Councells Popes and all true proposers of the word of God tying themselues to their owne doctrines and deductions and is thus further confirmed by D. Couell in these wordes Couell def of Hook pag. 85. Doctrines deriued exhortations deducted Interpretations agreable are not the word of God Therefore the whole Religion of Protestants against Catholicks beinge thus fownded vppon so deceatefull a grounde as humanee deduction is cannot truely and Iuridically be commaunder Yet it is so manifest to all that their Religion consisteth wholly on their Imagined Interpretations and deductions that Mr. Wotton and Wottoâ— def of Perk. pag. 467. c. others are enforced absurdely to say that deduction from scripture maketh a matter of Faithe otherwiâ—e hee â—annot make any articlâ— of faith to be in their doctrine against vs. And D. Feild himself so resolute before against these priuate Interpretations and expositions seemeth to be of the same minde to defend their Religion in makeing such deductions to be matters of faith by euery priuate deduction his wordes be these Wee Feild pag 226. say that men not neglâ—cting that light of direction which the Churche yeeldeth noâ— other helps and meanes may be assured out of the nature of the things themselues the Conference of places the knowledg of tongues and the sutable correspondence that one parte of dyuine truth hath with an other that they haue sownde out the true meaneinge of it And by this assurednes hee seemeth to vnderstand assurednes of faith makeing their priuate deductions and Interpretations the worde of God as M. Wotton before cited doth in Wotton def of Perk. pag. 467. these wordes Wee acknowledge both and holde all matters concludeth Logically out of the scriptures to be the word of God as well as if they were expressely sett downe in it worde for worde Therefore I may lâ—wfully take it is a Common Protestant doctryne both Doctor Feild and M. Wotton speakeinge for their Protestants in the plurall number wee say wee acknowledge c. so that by their Religion M. Feilds or M. Wottons Logicke vaine and vncertayne deduction is of higher authoritie and more to be beleeued then any generall Councell or Articl of Relig. art 21. other externall Rule of Religion for all these by them as is presently to be proued may erre euen in
things appertayning vnto God but their priuate Interpretations and deductions suteing with their humour is the worde of God aswell as if it were sett downe in scripture worde for worde as M. Wotton hath told vs before My next Argument is this No people or professors of Religion freely acknowledgeing that all Rules in their Religion though their best approued and moste publicke to be moste reuerenced and respected be subiect to error may erre and haue erred in things belongeing to God are erroneous vnconstant variable often recant and correct their publicke proceedeings in such things can be saide to haue the true and Iuridicall exposition of scriptures otherwise there is a lawfull and true Iurisdiction and power to bynde them of their Religion both to errors in things against God and misbeleefe in this life and to eternall damnation the peneltie thereof in the next But the Protestants of England are in this Condition by their owne Iudgment Therefore they haue not the true and Iuridicall exposition and Interpretation of scriptures The Maior is proued before and directly by M. Wottons Wotton sup words all matters concluded logically out of the scriptures are the worde of God as well as if they were expressely sett downe in it word for word But the worde of God neither is nor can be erroneous to be recanted amended corrected c. therefore the Maior is moste certainely true by these men And the Minor also is proued by them in this order They haue graunted before that a general Councell is the highest Iudge And yet in publicke and subscribed Articles haue these Articl of Relig. art â—1 wordes Generall Councells may erre and sometime haue erred euen in things pertayning vnto God Wherefore thinges ordeyned by them as necessarie to saluation haue neither strength nor authoritie vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scripture Therefore no certayne Interpretation with them for they haue assured vs Feild pag. 228. that a generall Councell may expownd scripture and by authoritie suppresse all them that gaynesay such Interpretations to excommunication and Censures of like nature and is by them the highest Iudge hath no more priuiledge but to erre and be examined and controlled by inferior for none is higher as before Reprouers and particular Interpreters amonge them whome as they haue also taught before wee are not bounde to beleeue but be so vile corrupt and erroneous as they haue confessed there is none amonge them to decide things in controuersie or define a truthe And least any man should absurdely say that their Conuocation Parlament or any other pretendeing superiotie among them in these matters should be better able to Iudge and interprett scriptures then Bishops assembled in a generall Councell Willet Antilog first D. Willet writeth thus In England the temporall prince is gouernour Ruler cheefe ouerseer praef Engl. pag. 71. 120. 150. 43. Pref. 19 the Reader in Antill and steward of the Church to whose Iudgment and redresse the reformation of Religion belongeth Yet hee addeth Neither hee nor their Church hath any priuiledge from error but playnely protesteth they must take out a new lesson and learne to reforme their erroneous conceites Which their Bishop D. Doue alloweth to haue beene their state from the first originall of their Doue persuas pag. 31. protestancie in England his wordes and graunt are these When the Massâ— was first putt downe Kinge Henry had his English liturgie and that was iudged absolute without exception but when Kinge Edwarde came to the Crowne that was condemned and an other in the place which Peter Martir and Bucer did approue as very consonant to Gods worde When Q. Elizâ—â—eth began heâ— Raigne the former was Iudged to be full of Imperfections and a new was deuised and allowed by the consent of the Cleargie but about the middle of her Raigne wee were weary of that booke and greate meanes haue beene wrought to abandon that and establishe an other wee doe at the leaste at euery chaunge of prince chaunge our booke of Common prayers wee be so wanton that wee know not what wee woulde haue Hitherto this Protestant Bishop of the publicke proceedings in their Religion And hee freely confesseth errors in all these their states and chaunges And this their flitting from error to error findeinge no Center or hope of settleing in truth hath so perplexed euen their best learned that a late Protestant writer amonge them hath these wordes The late Archbishoppe of Canterbury D. Whiteguist as is credibly reported Suruey of the B. of com prayer pag. 159. 160. tooke such a greife when their communion booke was to be amended discouered by these or like wordes good Lord when shall wee knowâ— what to trust vnto that hee presently fell into his palssy was curryed from the Court and dyed shortely after And D. Morton D. Couell M. Wotton Morton Apol. part 2. pag. 315. Couell ag Burg. pag. 75. 43. Wotton def pag. 42. c. M. Middleton and now the vniuersitie of Cambridge teacheth it is a generall position there is none in their Church whose Iudgment is Infallible Then I conclude their Interpretations be false and their Religion erroneous vncertayne and false for they haue graunted before that the worde of God which is Infallible moste certayne and vndoubted is the grounde of true Religion and euery article in it so fownded But these their highest and best sentences in Religion being so erroneous to be corrected fallible deceatfull c. must needs be the worde of lyeinge and deceatefull men or the wicked spiritt and in no wayes the holy Infallible and moste certayne word of God who can neither be deceaued in himself or deceaue others Further thus I argue whosoeuer teach not onely that the whole Christian world may erre in things pertayning to God but are bownde to receaue such errors vnder payne of excommunication and like Censures and yet teach this from scriptures cannot be said to haue their true Interpretation But the Protestants of England by their owne testimonie are in this state Therefore haue not this true Iuridicall Interpretation of scriptures The Maior proposition is euidently true for so God that is iust should ordayne Iurisdiction and power to bynde men to things vniust such as errors in Religion be and these Protestants though to excuse or alleuiate their owne Heresies they affirme that any particular Church or a generall Councell may erre in this maner yet they deny it of the whole Churche in which cause D. Feild pag. 203. l. 4. c. 5. Feild writeth in these wordes wee thinke that particular men and Churches may erre damnably because notwithstanding others may worship God aright but that the whole Churche at one time cannot so erre for that the Churche should cease vtterly for a time and so not be Catholicke being not at all times and Christ should sometimes be without a Church Thus it is euident by these Protestants for the wordes wee
of S. Paule How shall they call on hym in whome they doe not beleeue being vrged to Rom. 10. proue that faith goeth before prayer and other good workes without which they teach a man is not iustified and which themselues vrge in a sence like to that as they thoughe vntruely suppose against prayer to Angells and Saincts in whome wee doe beleeue yet the beleeuing allthough not in them that it is lawfull to pray to them sufficeth in that case hee maketh his supposed faith a very chimericall fiction and no true reall thinge of that nature but is forced to this absurditie to say assuring faith and prayer proceeding after WottoÌ„ def of Perkins pag. 209. faith be simul tempore bothe together in the same instant of time Which is vnpossible being diuers distinct acts specified from diuers obiects produced by diuers powers and operations of the soule one precedent going before the other following and to vse his owne words proceeding after Therefore by himself except before and after Prius Posterius be simul and simul tempore together and together in tyme which euery yonge logitian in Cambridge will tell him is moste childish and absurde both this his Answere is a new grosse absurditie and that his former doctrine that cannot be otherwise defended is of like qualitie which will more appeare in the next argument by this mans diuinitie also Therefore I argue furâ—her thus Nothinge that wanteth assurednes but hath doubteinge and is not without doubt can be a matter of faith But this Protestant position euen by their owne confession wanteth assurednes hath doubting and is not without doubt Therefore it is no matter of faith or true faith The Maior or first proposition is so certainely true that ProtestaÌ„ts generally acknowledge as the truthe is that nothing can be more certayne and vndoubted then faith for being grownded vppon the vnfallible word and Reuelation of God which it moste vndoubtedly certayne true assured and without all doubt vnpossible to be otherwise â—f God be God and truthe it self How can there be any place of doubt of any thinge of that nature and therefore that common sayeing Dubius in fide est infidelis hee that doubteth in faith is an Infidell so much as in him lyeth makeing God vnworthe to be beleued is ordinaryly allowed with Protestants The Minor proposition is also proued by Protestants and M. Wotton himself wittnesseth of this their Imagined faith in these wordes Without doubt it is not And againe in this WottoÌ„ def of Perkins pag. 135. 152. pag. 161. maner I may graunt the faithfull ordinarily are not assured of their saluation by such a faith as hath no doubteing in it And further thus our faith is not without some doubteing and our feeleing not so stronge as it should and may be And they haue spoken so longe in defence of this their fantasticall faith that they proued themselues not to haue a sownd and certayne faithe of those things that of all others are moste generally beleeued of all excepting Atheists that there is a God for amonge Protestants the same Protestant faith there be such doubts Whether there be a God or no. Wherefore M. Parkes a Protestant writer amonge them might iustly speake of his English fellowes in Religion in this maner Heresie and Infidelitie Ioyne and labour to subuert Parkes Apol. pref and ouerthrowe all grownds of Christian Religion Thus hee of these Protestants Againe I argue in this maner from the 16. article of their Religion Where it is thus Artic. 16. defined After wee haue receaued the holy Ghost wee may depart from grace and fall into syn And after it teacheth that true repentance procureth forgiuenes of syn Now this true repentance either goeth before or followeth this their Imagined iustifieing faith If it goeth before this their faith then that faith iustifieth not because man is made iust before any Act of that applying faith is exercised If this Repentance followeth then againe that their supposed faith doth not iustifie for by their owne doctrine a synner Impenitent is not iust For theyr applying faith is to apply as they say the promises of Christ vnto vs but Christ in scriptures is so fare from promisinge saluation to man impenitent that hee promiseth and denownceth damnation That both these Acts should be together is vnpossible as I haue demonstrated against M. Wotton in the like case before This is also proued by the Arguments concerning predestination in the former chapter for those Protestants which hold this Iustification by faith defend also assurednes of predestination teaching that euery one that is at any time iust is predestinate and so the one is as well knowne vnto them as the other and either of them a matter of faith with these men Againe faith and hope be distinguished faith is the grownds of things to be hoped Faith Hope Charitie these three But where there is assured faith to obtayne a thinge or hauing a thinge Hope is there euacuated Againe These Protestants with the scriptures graunt that the iuste and iustified are in heauen But faith is not in heauen being euacuated by beatificall vision therefore Iustice is not by faith Againe faith is not discursyue D. Feild Feild pag. 226. Couell def of Hooker pag. 85. writeth as truthe is that priuate Interpretations bynde not and D. Couell saith doctrines deriued are not the word of God then they are not matter of faith But all these pretensed faithes of these Protestants are onely their owne priuate interpretations applications and deriued doctrynes for no scripture saith that any one Protestant in particular D. Willet D. Powell or other is iustified or shall be saued Therefore no faith much lesse iustifying faith CHAPTER III. WHEREIN BY THESE PREsent English Protestant writers the Catholicke doctrine of Iustification by inherent grace and Iustice is proued against the same Protestants and their opinion NOW it will be no difficultie for a Christian man to beleeue doctrine of inherent grace â—ustice iustification by good workes if hee will as all Christians doe are ought graunt and beleeue any iustification at all For the contrary opinion of Protestants being euen by Protestants our Aduersaries themselues confuted that of the Catholicke Church must needs be true In which question the Councell of Trent for Catholicks Concil Trid. sess 6. can 11. defineth thus If any shall say a man is iustified either by onely Imputation of the Iustice of Christ or the onely remission of syns excluding grace and charitie which is diffused in their harts by the holy Ghost and is inherent or that the grace whereby wee are iustified is onely the fauour of God lett him be Anathema For proofe of which doctrine euen by my contry Protestants and to procure their conformitie as they ought first I argue thus Wheresoeuer there be degrees of Inherent Iustice and man more or lesse accordingly so iustified there must needs be inherent Iustice and iustification by
Protestant preacher in his more then vncharitable booke against Catholicks witnesseth of Prot. proof-part 1. c. 9. cap. 8. c. his owne brethren in Religion the English Protestants Of the more then irreligeous and prophane behauiour of their cleargie of English Protestants in abuseing falsefieing peruertinge the holy Scriptures Fathers Councels and all Authorities for Religion I haue for this point sufficiently entreated before to proue that they are not iust or righteous but most vniust and impious by their owne testimonie What other syns they are defiled with let their owne liues and the world censure But suer I am they are not voide of all greuous sinnes which they must be if they be iustified and in grace and such they must be in deed before they knowe themselues to be such except they can know that to be which is not as their sharp wits would seeme to doe in this and other questions of Religion Then seeing it is to apparant that Protestants are not iust either by their Imagined assureinge faith or howsoeuer let vs further examine by these writers and Protestant professors whether it is in it self possible that this supposed faith should Iustifie The contrary whereof thus I demonstrate from their owne writings All men that pretend to be iustified by this Imagined faith must needs be iustified by some act or acts thereof But no man is Iustified by any act or acts thereof Therefore no man is iustified by it The Maior is manifest The Minor is thus proued by Protestants First D. Feild with Feild pag. 177. others doth and of necessitie must affirme that in this busines of their fantasied Iustification their deuised faith hath twoe and onely twoe acts One going before iustification teaching vs to pray entreate God and humble ourselues when wee are not iust and this act as hee acknowledgeth it to goe before Iustification so hee thus freely confesseth that it doth not iustifie The second Act as hee telleth vs doth followe Iustification and so by no possibilitie because the cause cannot be after the effect caused by it that is able to iustifie wherefore his owne words of this Act of their inuented faith be these Shee doth not actiuely Iustifie but findeth the thinge done Therefore seeing they teach there be but two acts in their new faith the first and second te laste which admitt no more and neither the one nor other nor both together because they graunt there is no partiall influence or cooperation from them to that purpose dothe doe or can iustifie there is no possibilitie of Iustification by such idle faithe for so two contradictoryes should be true man is iustified by some act of faith man is not iustified by any act of faith Which in Logicke and nature is knowne to be vnpossible and a stupide absurditie to affirme it This matter is further proued by D. Couell who reiecting Luthers Couell def of Hooker pag. 42. opinion in this question graunteth a seperabilitie of faith and workes and that faith as they commonly graunte doth not iustifie Then Iustification cannot possibly be by onely faith which in an other treatise hee declareth by example in these words Faith is the fowndation of spirituall buylding of Gods howse charitie the Roofe without which the best are Couell against Burges pag. 148. but as howses vncouered that cannot longe continue Then iustification which is the Roofe of our spirituall buildinge in this world is and musts needs be the worke and buildinge of charitie and not of faith alone Which demonstratiuely is true by his graunt that faith and the works of charitie may be seperated for they consent that without such works man is not iustified therefore not possibly by this their Poeticall faith Further both the present Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury D. George Abbot against D. Hill and D. Feild also doth often tell vs that the Greeke Church is the true Church of Christ Then supposing from my first chapter in the first part of this worke by the graunt of the same D. Feild Protest proaf part 1. cap. 1. D Couell D. Sutcliffe M. Wotton and M. Ormerod that the direction thereof is to be followed her Iudgment to be rested in that it hath authoritie to commaund her children the Iudgment of it is a very speciall grownd of faith supporting the truthe as a piller doth vnderpropp a building is a diligent and true keepr of doctrines committed to her chaungeth nothing diminisheth nothing at any time addeth nothing superfluous looseth not her owne vsurpeth not things belonging to others and that there is no saluation remission of syns or hope of eternall life out of the Church All which be the verie words of those laste cited Protestants related in that place From which graunts thus I argue No doctrine or opinion that is a thinge moste horrible vnworthie any Christian against the lawe of God and light of nature is or can possibly be true But the paradoxe of Protestants that this their supposed onely faith doth iustifie is such Therefore it neither is or can be true The Maior is euidently true and to affirme the contrary is to denie all true Religion and the Authoritie of God for yf hee should or could teach or reueale to men to followe doctrine that is horrible vnworthie a Christian against his owne lawe and naturall light such doctrine could not be true nor hee honored as God but to be accoumpted a deceauer and seducer The Minor or second proposition be the expresse words of the Greeke Church so true to be obeyd and followed in doctrine by these Protestants as before is cited For Hieremias Patriarke of Constantinople cheef in Hieremias Patriarcha constant in censura cap. 5. that Church in his censure against Protestants vseth these words in this article The doctrine that onely faith doth iustifie is a thinge moste horrible vnto or thie any Christian against the lawe of God and the light of nature Therefore these men mayntayning so horrible doctrine by the censure of the true Church as they teach and out of which as they affirme before there is no saluation remission of syns or hope of eternall life are so farre from being iust iustified or to be saued by faith or any other meanes in their proceedings that by their owne confession they haue left vnto themselues no hope of eternall life or saluation at all Moreouer I argue thus Nothing which cannot be defended without graunting and mayntayninge more new and straunge absurdities and impossibilities is or can be true doctrine But this Protestant assertion of their onely assuring faithe iustifying is such therefore it neither is nor can be true The first proposition is euidently true for euery truthe may and is defended without any absurditie or inconuenience The seconde proposition is also manifestly proued from D. Feild and others before To whome I add M. Wotton who laboureing what hee can to defend this his forged faithes iustification and answere that place
of our Lord himself The laste is to be an Interpreter and in that followeing the safest Rule to make an vndiuided vnitie of the truthe vncapable of contradiction to be a moste faithfull Couell sup pag. 34. expositor of his owne meaneinge And hee concludeth thus Wâ—e say that wee are taught to receaue the worde of God from the authoritie of the Churche wee see her iudgment wee heare her voice and in hâ—militie subscribe vnto all this Therefore beinge so proued before by these Protestants that the Church of Rome is the Church of Christ endowed with these priuiledges concerninge scriptures that the sentence of it by D. Feild before is more Feild l 4. c. 5. pag. 202. to be regarded then any they haue or can pretend and hath proposed all bookes for scripture which Catholicks receaue wee must obey it and the rather agreeing with the Greeke Church of which D. Feild writeth Feild pag. 71. l. 3. c. 5. thus wee accompt them in the number of the Churches of God Which that Church cannot be which proposeth adulterate and false scriptures for true and the vndoubted word of God The Minor proposition is also euidently true That all bookes which the Church of Rome receaueth for Holy scriptures as so proposed published and proued vnto vs by the true Church and that sentence which in this time is highest and to be obeyed as these Protestants haue written And so all things in this Argument ar euidently confessed for true by our Aduersaries Before my next argument I will cite the opinion of D. Doue Protestant Bishoppe of Peterboroughe in this matter that wee may playnely see where vppon Protestants denyeing so many bookes for canonicall scriptures which Catholicks receaue is grownded his wordes be these Catholicks Doue persuas pag. 15. proue them to be canonicall out of S. Augustine wee that they be Apochrypha out of S. Hierome both which Doctors are of no small authoritie with the Church of Rome And therefore in this wee differ no more from them then S. Hierome did from S. Augustine This supposed I argue thus from these Protestants Whatsoeuer doctrine was taught in the time of the primatiue Churche by a Bishoppe Sainct and Doctor of the Church in the Iudgment of Protestants farre the moste Learned Doctor that euer was or shall be in all likelyhood excepting the Apostles and this so constantly that this so worthie a man taught it to be the Common doctrine of the Churche of Christ in all probabilitie is more like to be true then that which doubtefully taught by an other Doctor of the same time who bothe as the same Protestants write delt vnchristianely and his authoritie in some other questions was not much worthe and in this also recalled his opinion or renownced it to be his meanening But the doctrine which Catholicks hold concerning canonicall scriptures is by the testimonie of Protetestants thus much more likely to be true and worthie to be beleeued then the contrary opinion of Protestants Therefore by Protestants it is more probable credible and worthie to be beleeued The Maior proposition in the proceedings of these Protestants by whome I dispute in this place is euidently true For amonge men learned in professions the Common maxime and reason is wee must beleeue euery one moste cunninge in his art and amonge men learned hee that is moste or more learned is to be credited before him that is supposed to be his inferior in learning And doctrine constantly taught not onely to be the doctrine of such a more or moste learned Father and Doctor and Sainct but further to be doctrine generally of Christs true Churche is of more creditt and more worthie to be beleeued then that which by a man supposed not so learned is either doubtfully or singularly taught or vncertaine whether it was so taught or if it were yet was recanted disclaymed or retracted by himselfe The second proposition concerning these two greate Doctors and their opinions in this point is thus proued by these Protestants D. Couâ—ll writeth of S. Augustine in Couell against Burges pag. 3. these termes Hee was farre the moste learned Doctor that euer was or shall be in all likelyhood except the Apostles And giueing the highest commendation hee could to S. Thomas Aquinâ—s our holy and learned schole-man hee Couell ag Burg. writeth thus By a Common prouerbe it was spoken that the soule of S. Augustine dwelt in Aquinas Concerning S. Hiâ—â—ome vppon whose Imagined opinion in this point they would hazard their whole Religion in their Iudgments alloweing onely the scriptures to be Iudges and grownds in other poynts they vse him in these termes Mr. Wottons Wotton def of perk 495. 500. 519. 520. words be Hieromes authoritie in the case of single life is not much worthe Hierome condemninge Iouinian delt vnchristianely with him The authoritie of Hierome concludeinge a worke of perfection from those words of Christ goe and sell all c. is not to be admitted Now let vs heare from these Protestants in what maner these two Doctors taught as this Protestants tell vs these two diuers doctrines one for Catholicks and the other for Protestants D. Feild writeinge of bookes which Catholicks admitt for canonicall and the Protestants refuse telleth vs that S. Augustine and the third Councell Feild pag. 248. l. 4. c. 23. pag. 246. of Carthage confirmed in the sixt generall Councell wherein Augustine was present and Innocentius Pope lyueing in that time seeme to add them to the Canon Then it seemeth by this Protestant testimonie that S. Augustines opinion approued in so greate a prouinciall Councell confirmed in a generall Councell the highest commaundeinge Iudgement by them before and by the Pope of the greatest Apostolicke See the seconde Iudge in the Christian world before in D. Feilds allowance especially in that best time when his Maiestie saith it was a Rule to all and constantly taught as the doctrine of the Church by this the greatest doctor that euer was or is like to be by these men is worthie to be credited and beleeued and by their doctrine before All men that will not be disobedient bothe in the seconde and first degree also ar bownde to embrace and followe it Now let vs heare what these Protestants will testifie of S. Hierome for their opinion in this Question of these bookes The Protestant Conference at Hampton court before Conference pag. 60. the Kinge entreateing of Protestants exceptions against these scriptures vseth these words Moste of the obiections made against those bookes were the olde Cauills of the Iewes renewed by S. Hiâ—rome in his time who was the first that gaue them that name of Apochrypha which opinion vppon Ruffinus his challendge hee after a sorte disclaymed the rather because a generall offence was taken at his speaches in that Kinde Hitherto the censure at that publicke Protestant Conference by which the Protestants grownde for deniall of those bookes of scripture and tearminge
them Apochypha is vtterly ouerthowne For an opinion fownded vppon old Iewish Cauills against Christians singularly held or renewed reclaymed by the Author and generally giâ—â—ing offence as these Protestants affirme this was is not probable to be true D. Couell against Burges the Puritane answeareth the obiections against these Couell ag Burges pag. 8â— 86. 87. 88. 89 90. 91. bookes as Catholickes doe And sheweth that these bookes haue without cause beene accused of faultes by Protestants onely to deny them to be canonicall as Catholicks esteeme them And further hee addeth thus They ar moste true and might haue the reconcilement Couell sup pag. 87. of other scriptures And againe in these wordes If Russinus be not deceaued they were approued as parts of the old testament by the Apostles For when S. Hierome writt so scornefully of the historie of Susanna and the songe of the three children hee chargeth him therein to haue robbed the treasure of the holy ghost and diuine Instrument which the Apostles deliuered to the Churches And S. Hierome whoe is not vsually slowe to defend himself leaueth that point vnansweared pretending that what hee had spoken was not his owne opinion but what the Iewes obiected And for his paynes in translateing the booke of Iudith which Protestants deny hee giueth this reason because wee reade that the Councell of Nyce did reckon it in the number of holy scriptures Hitherto D. Couells words and much like vnto this of Russinus hee citeth from S. Augustine S. Ciprian and others Temporibus Apostolorum proximis in the next ages to the time of the Apostles And thus wee see how weake that Protestant Religion is that by their owne testimonie is fownded vppon so singular new reuiued Iewish Cauills disclaymed and generally offensyue and disliked opinion From hence I argue further All Bookes which were approued by the Apostles for parts of the old testament were the treasure of the holy ghost and diuine Instrument which the Apostles deliuered to the Churches which ar moste true and might haue reconcilement of other scriptures ar to be allowed for such But all these things ar verified of bookes which these Protestants deny and by themselues as is cited from them before Therefore ar to be allowed for canonicall scriptures bothe propositions be graunted by these Protestants before and so in this argument nothing remayneth to be proued And againe thus I argue whatsoeuer a generall Councell in the primatiue Church the highest Rule by Protestants before to approue scriptures and bynde all men vnto the definitions of it receaued for scripture ought to be receaued for such But more bookes then Protestants allowe were so receaued as these Protestants tell vs Therefore more are to be admitted Both propositions ar here also graunted before by Protestants and so the Argument concludeth truely against them Further I argue thus Those Bookes which the Iewes before and at the comminge of Christ for their greatest or greate part dwelleing out of Iury vsed as parts of the old testament and deliuered as a canon to the Christian Churches and were Ioyned in one volume read by them of the Latine Church then the acknowledged true Churche of Christ and were receaued in the third Carthagenian Councell which was confirmed in the sixt generall Councell ar now to be receaued and allowed for canonicall scriptures But those bookes which Protestants denie and Catholicks allowe be such Therefore they ar to be now allowed for canonicall The Maior proposition is euidently true for if the Iewes before and at the commeing of Christ the primatiue Christians of that time and their practice the authoritie of the true Church of Christ the moste principall Church before by D. Feild and other Protestants a fomous prouinciall Councell and the confirmation of a generall Councell ar not to be admitted to direct and instruct vs there is no meanes left for instruction in this case these beinge by these Protestants before the greatest warrants and Rules wee can haue in such causes The second proposition is proued in this manen D. Feild haueing spoken how the Hebrue Iewes had made their Hebrue canon accordeing to their Iewish reckoninge of the number of their letters how probably I leaue to Hebritians and may not now entreate hee concludeth thus These onely did Feild l. 4. c. 23. pag. 245. the auncient Church of the Iewes receaue as diuine and canonicall Neither much meruaile all the others being the last that were written and in the time of their decayeing state and afflictions Of these hee writeth thus in the next words That other bookes were added vnto Feild sup these whose authoritie not being certayne and knowne ar called Apocryphall fell out on this sortè The Iewes in their later times before and at the Act. 6. c. gloss ordinar lyr in eandem locum comminge of Christ were of two sortes some properly and for distinction sake named Hebrâ—es commorant at Hierusalem and in the holy land others named Hellenists that is Iewes of dispersion mingled with the Gretians These had written sundry bookes in Greeke which they made vse of together with other parts of the old testament which they had of the translation of the Septuagint But the Hebrues receaued onely the two and twentie bookes before mentioned Hence it came that the Iewes deliuered a double Canon of the scripture to the Christian Churches Thus wee see that the greatest parte of the Iewes Proselytes and all our of Iurie did add these bookes with the other for scripture vsed them as part of the old testament deliuered them to the Christian Churches as part of the canon of scripture and the primatiue Church consequently so receaued them otherwise they were not thus deliuered Therefore thus farre the Minor proposition is proued for I doe not expect D. Feild to say or not say expressely that these be or be not canonicall but what in true consequence hee must say by his owne graunte before and hereafter Then hee telleth vs they in S. Augustines time were receaued Feild pag. 246. by him the fathers of third Councell of Carthage and Innocentius then Pope of Rome in the best estate of that Church when it was as before by Protestants Kings speach sup a Rule vnto all in the catalogue of canonicall scriptures Now that the Canons of this Carthagenian Councell were confirmed in the sixt generall Councell holden at Trallo to vse his words and which Protestants acknowledge Feild l. 4. cap. 23. pag. 258. for a generall Councell their highest Rule hee testifieth after in the same chapter Neither is his exception because the Laodicean Councell which nameth not all Ob. them is there also confirmed of any purpose Answ for that generall Councell by Protestants approueing and confirminge bothe that which named them for canonicall and that doth not name them all must needs confirme them for canonicall otherwise against supposition this Councell of Carthage had not beene confirmed as they teach it was Further I