argue thus all those Bookes which Protestants in their authorised communion booke and bookes of Honolyes allowed by their conuocation and parlament and our Kinge doe prescribe to be vsed as canonicall scriptures as well as others and are so cited and practized ought to be receaued and allowed for canonicall But those Bookes which they denie and Catholicks receaue for canonicall are suche Therefore they ought to admitt them into the Canon of Holy scriptures The Maior proposition is euident for bookes Rules lawes and directions proposed by true authoritie as those be supposed of Protestants ar to be obeyed and followed The Minor proposition is likewise l. 1. homel l. 2. homel Artic. 25. Communion B. Tabl. direct of seruice Suruey of the Booke of comm prayer pag. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Petit of 22. Preach exc ag hom and except 4. ag comm Booke Articl of Relig. Articul 6. moste certaine for their bookes of Homelyes receaued in the 25. Article of their Religion doe ordinarily so cite them and their Communion booke so termeth and vseth them too often to be alleadged in this place Whereuppon to be breife the Protestant Author of the Suruey of the booke of Common prayer affirmeth playnelye and often vrdgeth it That the Protestants of England must approue with the Romane Churche these bookes for canonicall So likewise doe the 22. preachers of London in their petition If any man shall Answeare that the Articles of their Religion exclude them from the canon of the scripture and so they cannot be saide to receaue them I answeare him againe that this is so farre from freeinge them in this point that it both excludeth them defineing and embraceing so contradictorie doctrines in so important busines from all hope of truthe and further proueth that these men buildeing all vppon scriptures haue either no scriptures at all or els such doubtfull vncertaine and vnresolued scriptures that true Religion which must be moste assured and infallible cannot be grownded or mayntayned by them For proofe whereof I will first recite their subscribed Article in this question and then frame my Argument Their Article is sett downe in these Articl of Rel. articul 6. definitiue wordes Holy scripture conteineth all thinges necessarie to saluation so that whatsoeuer is not read therein nor may be proued thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be beleeued as an Article of the faithe or be thought requisite or necessarie to saluation In the name of holy scripture wee doe vnderstand those canonicall Bookes of the old and new testament of whose authoritie was neuer any doubt in the Churche Of the first part of this Article I am to entreate in my chapter of Traditions hereafter Of the later part I will speake in this place onely first admonisheing my Readers in what ample maner D. Feild and others of that Religion Feild l. 3. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. pag. 60. 62. 63. 64. c. Feild l. 3. Titul c. 1. 2. take this worde the Churche for breuiate whereof the Titles of the first and seconde chapters of his third booke be these Of the diuision of the Christian worlde into the Greeke Latine Armenian Aethiopian and Nestorian Churches c. 1. of the harshe and vnaduised Censure of the Romanists condemninge all these Churches as Scismaticall and Hereticall cap. 2. Now this supposed I argue thus No bookes whose authoritie haue at any time beene doubted of in the Churche are by this Protestant Article to be allowed for Canonicall scriptures But all bookes that either Protestants or Catholicks receaue for canonicall haue in the Iudgment of these Protestants beene doubted of in the Church Therefore by these Protestants there be no canonicall scriptures at all The Maior proposition is euidently proued by their recited article defineing those bookes canonicall of whose authoritie was neuer any doubt in the Churche The Minor proposition is directly proued by D. Willet who writeth Willet Synop quaest 1. of scripture pag. 2. 3. edit An. 1594. and after published againe directly and at large how euery booke both of the old and new testament haue not onely beene doubted of but also denyed in this their Churche I suppose the laste edition of his booke was since the commeing in of his Maiestie my prescribed time otherwise it is so directly there proued by him that no Protestant can deny it And to shew the pitifull case of this their Protestant Article and Religion their Protestant Bishop of Wincester D. Bilson suru pag. 664. Bilson within my limitation writeth thus The scriptures themselues were not fully receaued in all places no not in Eusebius time Hee saith the Epistle of Iames of Iude the second of Peter the seconde and third of Iohn ar contradicted The Epistle to the Hebrues was contradicted the Churches of Syria did not receaue the seconde epistle of Peter nor the seconde and third of Iohn nor the Epistle of Iude nor the Apocalipse the like might be saide for the Churches of Arabia Will you hence conclude that these partes of scripture were not Apostolicke or that wee neede not receaue them now because they were formely doubted of Therefore the Protestants of England haue no certayne and vndoubted scripture if they will stand to their suscribed Articles and their owne subscription Which this Protestant Bishop before seeing the absurditie thereof hath refused to doe Therefore they may not as they doe denie those other bookes which Catholicks admitt vppon so greate and highest warrants before in Protestants Iudgment because in former tymes they haue beene doubted of as those laste recited by the testimonie of their Bishop and all the rest as D. Willet hath wittnessed haue beene To these I might add more Arguments from these Protestants true Greeke Churche and the generall Councell of Florence both allowed by some of these writers and yet alloweing and warranting for canonicall all bookes receaued by Catholicks And other Arguments by them but these ar sufficient for this matter at this time And as demonstration is made that these Protestants either haue no true scriptures at all or not the true Canon of holy scriptures So it is as euident that their Religion cannot be proued true and infallible as true Religion is by euidences that in their proceedings ar doubtfull fallible or no holy canonicall scriptures but by them excluded from that number and sacred Canon CHAPTER V. OF THE INTEGRITIE AND excellencie of the Latine vulgare translation of scriptures vsed in the Romane Church and Protestants false corrupt and erroneous Translations in their owne Iudgment and Censure NOW lett vs entreate of the vulgare Latine translation of holy scriptures handled in the next Chapter for whose allowance by these Protestants I argue by them in this maner That Latine Translation of scriptures which is to be vsed in scholes and pulpits and for antiquitie to be preferred before all others was vsed in the Church thirteene hundred yeares agoe by S. Augustine preferred
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
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
faithe or be thought requisite or necessarie to saluation Now to proue my second proposition D. Feild will testifie that both these scriptures and the right order of deductions from them in matters of faith are deliuered vnto vs by tradition onely his â—ordes be these Much contention there hath Feild l. 4. pag. 238. cap. 20. beene about traditions some vrgeing the necessitie of them and other reiecting them For the cleareing whereof wee must obserue that wee reiect not all for first wee receaue the number and names of the Authors of bookes diuine and canonicall as deliuered by tradition This tradition wee admitt The number Authors and integritie of the partes of these bâ—okeâ— wee receaue as deliuered by tradition Thus much for the scriptures that their number Authors partes and euery chapter verse and sentence is by tradition Then their pretended deductions from thence must needs be such for in euery theologicall Syllogisme they must needs take eyther the one or both propositions from this graunted tradition and their conclusion must much rather be tradition as also the maner of deduceing for they graunt they are not expressely in scripture and to decide this D. Feild wittnesseth againe in this order The Feild sup pag. 238. 239. seconde kinde of tradition which wee admitt is that summarie comprehension of the cheife heades of Christian doctrine conteyned in the Creede of the Apostles which was deliuered to the Churche as a Rule of her faith The orderly connexion and distinct explication as these principall Articles gathered into an Epitome iâ— rightly named a tradition And howsoeuer hee will contend that the Articles are in scripture or may thence be deduced in which his fellowes in Religion hereafter will giue him deniall for Christs discendeing into Hell communion of Saincts and others yet hee must needs graunt that the Creede of the Apostles being composed by them and deliuered to the Church as a Rule of her faith before the scriptures of the new testament wherein hee will say it is conteyned were written is absolutely a Tradition And yet hee maketh it so absolute a thinge that to vse his wordes in it are implyed and whence are inferred all conclusions Theologicall But that the Feild supr cap. 20. true explication also of scripture is a tradition hee wittnesseth in these wordes The third is that forme of Christian doctrine and explication Feild pag. 239. of the seuerall partes thereof which the first Christians receauinge of the same Aposiles that deliuered to them the scriptures commended to posterities This may right be named a tradition for that wee neede a playne and distinct explication of many things which are somewhat obsâ—urely conteyned in the scripture Therefore seing these deductions from scripture are not without tradition and thinges obscurely conteyned may not be receaued as articles of Religion by them without a playne and distinct explication by tradition and the playne things of scripture by them before as also that epitome of our faith the Apostles Creede are traditions it is manifestly proued that all Articles and matters of faith are by tradition by these their writeings Further I argue thus whatsoeuer doctrine is of that necessitie that the denyall Feild 〈…〉 obstinately is Heresie must needs be a matter of faith and necessarie to saluation But by these Protestants there is such doctrine onely by tradition Therefore some matters of faith and necessarie to saluation are beleeued onely by tradition The Maior proposition is euidently true yet further confirmed by these Protestants D. Couells Couell exam pag 202. Ormer dial 2. wordes be these Hereticks are neyther simple Infidells nor Idolaters but obstinately erringe in some fundamentall poynt M. Ormerod writeth thus hee is an Hereticke which so swarueth from the wholesome doctrine as contemning the Iudgment both of God and the Church persisteth in his opinion Thus wee see that Heresie is not without deniall of a matter of faith wherein both the Iudgment of God and the Churche is contemned The Minor is proued by D. Feild in this maner where first to vse his wordes hee alloweth for a cleare Instance not to be proued by Feild pag. 240. scripture the perpetuall virginitie of Mary and after confesseth that Hiluedius for pertinatiousely deniall thereof was condemned of Heresie In that hee saith this is no point of Christian faith but a Feild sup cap. 20. seemely truthe deliuered vnto vs by the Church of God fitting the sanctitie of the blessed Virgin and the honor due to so sanctified a vessell of Christs Incarnation as her bodie was hee speaketh truely in allowing it for a Tradition but denying it to be any point of Christian faith and yet telling vs that Heluidius for deniall of 〈◊〉 was condemned of Heresie hee both contradicteth himself the truth and his fellowe Protestants before assureing that Hereticks be they that obstinately erre in fundamentall points as D. Couell writeth or as M. Ormerod noteth swarue from the wholesome doctrine as contenininge the Iudgment both of God and the Church Where it is euident that a matter of faith is denied in euerye Heresie and also that things deliuered onely by tradition as D. Feild acknowledgeth the perpetuall virginitie of our blessed Ladie to be are the worde and Iudgment of God Further these Protestants seeme to condemne the Anabaptists and denyers of the necessitie to baptise Infants yet D. Feild writeth thus Feild pag. 239. The foarth kinde of Tradition is the coÌ„tinued practise of such things as neyther are conteyned in the scripture expressely nor the example of such practise expressely there deliuered Of this sorte is the baptisme of Infants which is therefore named a tradition because it is not expressely deliuered in the scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants nor any expresse precept there found that they shoulde doe it And his wordes of the plurall signification The fourth kinde of traditions such things of this sorâ—eâ— c. are sufficient argument that hee alloweth diuers other Traditions of this nature That which he addeth wee fynde the scripture to delyuer the grounds of it is expressely Feild pag. 228. Couell def of Hook pag. 85. against himself before and D. Couell thus assureing vs in these wordes doctrines deriued exhortations deducted Interpretationâ— agreeable are not the worde of God and D. Feild Feild supr pag. 226. priuate Interpretation is not so proposed and vrged as if they woulde binde all others to receaue it Yet all men are bownde to receaue and firmely beleeue articles and matters of faithe Further D. Willet telleth vs that Vigilantius Willet Antilog pag. 13. was condemned of Heresie for denying reuerence to Relickes and yet Protestants generally teach that doctrine is not conteyned in holy scriptures D. Feild writeth Feild pag. 138. l. 3. cap. 29. in these wordes Aerius condemned the custome of the Churche in nameing the deade at the altare and offeringe the sacrifice of the Eucharist for them For this his
Whitsontide was generally receaued as a Tradition deliuered by the Apostles then the times themselues not being either commaunded or directly exemplified in scripture must also be allowed by tradition And yet the Sabboth day in the old lawe which was abrogated by this tradition of the Sonday the Lords day as hee nameth it was so expressely commaunded by scripture that in order it is the third of the ten cheife commaundements and one of the first table belongeing to the worshipp of God Therefore a Tradition so powerable as to giue a ceaseinge to the expresse writteÌ„ worde lawe and commaundement of God must needs be of equall power And the Christians feaste of Easter likewise crosseing with and euacuateing the Pascha of the lawe written and without scripture onely by the prerogatiue of Tradition cannot be inferior especially seeing as before the Quartadecâ—mans denyers thereof were condemned as Hereticks by the primatiue Church for that cause And the like reason is of the feast of Whitesontide in the Church of Christ receaued by the same Rule of Easter onely by vnwritten tradition yet clearely abolisheinge and takeinge away the written lawe and word of God in that behalf Further I argue thus whatsoeuer is not a perfect and compleate Rule and Square in matters and questions of Religion without the help and dyrection of vnwritten traditions cannot be termed an absolute Rule in this kinde But the scripture and written worde of God by these Protestants is such Therefore by them no absolute and perfect Rule in matters of faithe The Maior is euidently true in the light of nature otherwise one and the same thinge in the same respect might be absolute and not absolute perfect and not perfect and two Contradictories might be true which is vnpossible The Minor proposition is thus proued by D. Feilde who speakeing of traditions Feild l. 4. cap. 20. pag. 239. vnwritten and yet allowed by him hath these wordes The third kinde of tradition is that forme of Christian doctrine and explication of the seuerall partes thereof which the first Christians receauing of the same Apostles that deliuered to them the scriptures commended to posterities This may rightly be named a tradition for that wee neede a playne and distinct explication of many things which are somewhat obscurely conteyned in the scripture Which is sufficient proofe that tradition vnwritten is the cause why many things are beleeued by faith grownded vppon tradition not written which the scriptures could neuer warrant vs to beleeue For things obscurely handled and not playnely and distinctly explicated which as hee saith is by tradition cannot be the formall obiect of faith by any possibilitie for seeing true certayne and vndoubted Reuelation from God euen by Protestants is the formall cause of beleeueinge things obscurely conteyned or taught cannot haue this priuiledge And yet by D. Feilds wordes many thinges be in this state without the assistance of tradition and yet firmely to be beleeued Therefore not the obscuritie in scripture but to vse his wordes a playne and distinet explication of many thinges by tradition receaued by the first Christians from the Apostles commended to posterities is the formall cause and reason of beleeueinge such verities Now to drawe to an end in this question of traditions D. Feild to his fowre before acknowledged kindes of traditions The holy scriptures the Creede of the Apostles the forme Feild pag. 238. l. 4. of Christian doctrine and explication of the seuerall parts thereof which the first Christians receaueinge of the same Apostles that deliuered to them the scriptures commended to posterities and the continued Feild pag. 239. practise of such thinges as neither are conteyned in the scripture expressely nor the example of such practise expressely there deliuered thoughe the growndes reasons and causes of the necessitie of such practise be there conteyned and the benefitt or good that followeth of it hee addeth the fift kinde in these wordes The fift kinde of traditions comprehendeth Feild supr pag. 239. such obseruations as in particulare are not commaunded in scripture nor the necessitie of them from thence concluded though in generall without limitation of times and other circumstances such things be there commaunded Of this sorte many thinke the obseruation of the lent faste to be the faste of the fourthe and the sixt dayes of the weeke and some other This supposed as also the Feild pag. 242. same Protestant Doctors Rules before to know true traditions the consent and doctrine of the Churche the moste renowned for learninge the constant Testimonie of the pastors of an Apostolicke Church amonge which next to generall Feild pag. 202. Councells bynding and commaunding all the Church of Rome is especially to be obeyed reuerenced and respected as moste priuiledged from error yt must needs be euident by these Protestants that Traditions whether deliuered in scripture to be deduced from them or to be receaued without scripture are to be adiudged for the Romane Churche for that before is proued by them to be the true Church of Christ the Pope of Rome to be the supreame commaunding Ruler in it that the scriptures receaued by it are Canonicall and the vndowbted worde of God and all true and Iuridicall expositions and deductions from them are onely for the doctrine of the same Churche of Rome And so their other grounted Rules of generall Councells and Learned Fathers to be handled in the next chapters doe also teach vnto vs the same doctrines by these Protestants for by their Iudgment they may not nor can proceede in such bâ—sines but by the holy scriptures and true expositions and deductions from them allreadie proued by these Protestants for the present Roman Church Therefore I conclude this question with this Arguments following Whatsoeuer doctrines in Religion generall Councells the highest binding and commaunding Rule and authoritie ouer all Christians in the Iudgment of Protestants haue defined by the Bishops and Fathers assembled in them in matters of Religion by traditions written or vnwritten are to be receaued and embraced of all But all or the cheefest Articles in question betweene Catholicks and Protestants are directly concluded by the grounte of these Protestants by the Councells and Bishops in them assembled at Nyce the seconde the greate Laterane Florence and Constance Basile cited and allowed for generall Councells by the Protestant Bishop of Winchester D. Bilson D. Willet D. Couell M. Bils Middlet papist â—9 119. 120. 124. 125. Willet synop cont 1. q. 7. Liniban ap Parkes and others in such maner as the present Church of Rome now teacheth Therefore they ought so to be receaued and embraced of all Christians bothe propositions are graunted before by these Protestants or in these citations Therefore nothinge remayneth to be proued in this Argument And because these Protestants Parkes pag. 137. 180. Couell def of Hook pag. 21. Parkes ag lymb pag. 176. Willet Antil pag. 178. c. Abbot ag Hill pag 38. 48. 49. 51.
venerable Imadges commaunding the making and vse of them In the last Canon they giue diligent and longe directions Can. 102. vnto preists how to behaue themselues in aduising and absoluing penitents in the Sacramen◠of penance Therefore I may conclude that Protestants Religion is vtterly condemned by generall Councells both of the primatiue Church and latter ages And consequently by all other Iudgments in the Church of Christ Because these men haue told vs that all Bishops Doctors and Professors of Religion are bownde to followe the definitions of generall Councells CHAPTER IX WHEREIN IS PROVED BY these Protestants That the authoritie of the primatiue Fathers is to be receaued and followed in matters of Religion And how it wholly proueth the present doctrine of the Church of Rome vtterly condemninge all Protestant Religion THE authoritie and value of the Testimonie of the auncient Fathers and that they taught and approued the doctrine of the present Churche of Rome euen by the graunt of these Protestants is euident in the laste Chapter for being of that opinion in generall Councells and publicke assemblies and sentences to which by their owne consent and subscription they submitted and bownde themselues as to their lawfull and commaunding Rule they could not and might not teache and write otherwise in priuate then in publicke themselues and others had authoritatiuely concluded Yet for a full satisfaction to Protestants in all things I will breefely entreate of these also as they wer◠priuate writers And first of their authoritie I argue thus Whoso euer allowe in shewe and wordes amonge the Ignorant Readers or hearers of their writings and sermons the authoritie of the auncient and primatiue Fathers to procure people to beleeue that their Religion and doctrine agreeth with them as men teaching and writing the truthe and to that purpose doe yeeld vnto them greate respect and reuerence ought truely and syncerely to beleeue and embrace their Religion But these English Protestant writers be such Therefore they ought and are bownde to followe and embrace their doctrine The Maior proposition is euidently true for as dissimulation craftie and double dealeinges to delude and deceaue others in all thinges is a vile and abominable synne against truthe charitie and Iustice so in matters of Religion wherein not the least equiuocation of to saue a mans life may be vsed it must needs be an offence moste damnable and deuelishe The Minor proposition is thus proued by these Protestants Their Protestant Bishop D. Bilson writeth thus The Bilson suru pag. 85. auncient consent of godly Fathers is with greate care to be searched and fallowed of vs cheifely in the Rule of faith And agayne Wee rest vppon the Pag. 82. sup scriptures of God vppon the authoritie of the auncient Doctors and Councells And maketh the same reason with Vincentius Lirinensis in these Pag. 83. sup words Leaste euery man should wrest the scriptures to his fansye and sucke thence not the truthe but the patronage of his error And hee addeth that S. Augustine gaue this respect not onely to generall Councells but to the testimonies of particular Fathers Irenaeus Ciprian Hilarius Ambrose Gregory c. Chrisestome Basil and others D. Sutcliffe writeth thus Wee Sutcl subuers pag. 87. acknowledge the faith of the Fathers of the fourth fift and sixt ages and adioyne our selues to that Church And to credite his cause and make his readers beleeue hee consenteth with those Fathers hee speaketh in this maner The Fathers in all points of faith are for vs Protestants Sutel ag D. Kell pag. 17. and not for the Pope D. Willer knowing of what little credit his bare worde is euen by his Protestants as appeareth hereafter would procure creditt to his protestancye by damnable periury in these wordes I take God to wittnesse before Willet Antilog pag. 263. whome I must render accompt c. That the same faithe and Religion which I defend is taught and confirmed in the more substantiall points by these Historians Councells Fathers that liued within syne or sixe hundred yeares after Christ And further Pag. 264. sup thus It is moste notoriously euident that for the grossest points of Popery as Transsabstantiation sacrifice of Masse worshipping of Imadges Iustification by workes the supreamacie of the Pope prohibition of Mariage and such other they of the Romane Churche haue no shewe at all of any euidence from the Fathers within syue hundred yeares of Christ In all which questions amonge others I am to proue the contrary be these Protestants themselues hereafter in their place And in an other page of the same treatise hee writeth thus The auntient Fathers that liued within sixe hundred yeares of Christ are Willet Antil pag. 271. K. speache in parl An. 1603 conference at Hampt pag. 73. against them His Maiesties speach in parlament it this I will euer yeeld all reuerence to antiquitie And in their conference For my parte I knowe not howe to answeare the obiection of papists when they charge vs with nouelties but to tell them their abuses are new And hee approueth the dayes of Constantine for a Rule in Religion saying Constantine is not to be appeached of superstition but thinges then vsed may still be continued Confer pag. 69. But now it shall appeare that these Protestant Doctors and Ministers are so far from iustifying these their oathes protestations and assertions they be enforced to acknowledge those primatiue Fathers doe allowe teache and approue the doctrine of the present Romane Churche which these men impugne and persecute and for that cause doe not onely deny the authorities of those primatiue learned and holy Fathers but call and censure them with vnciuill barbarous contemptuous and Irreligeous names and phrases For proofe whereof I argue thus Whatsoeuer Sect Religion or People being vrged by such testimonies as Protestants haue giuen for allowance of the Fathers authorities before to followe them accept of their doctrine and stand to their Iudgment in these controuersies of Religion doe vtterly refuse and disallowe it though his Maiestie should approue it but say they are vnfit Iudges in controuersies of diuinitie that their Iudgment is little to be respected their testimonie is not worthe answearing there is no probabilitie in their opiniōs they are not to be beleeued deserue not credit are not credible to be admitted are not fitt Iudges were to partiall are to bee forsaken contemned and dispised such men cannot with any apparance of truthe affirme those primatiue Fathers and Doctors to allowe their Religion and proceedings or defend their cause by their Authorities But these Protestants Doctors and Ministers of England be such Therefore those Fathers are not for their Religion The Maior proposition is to manifestly true and the Minor is proued also by these Protestants themselues in this maner M. Wotton expressely controlleth the Kings sentence before concerninge Wotton def of Perk. pag. 15. 16. the time of Constantine and antiquitie his wordes be these the
Christ or that by that onely confidence wee are iustified lett him be Anaâ—hema Now that the ordinarie Protestant opinion hath been and still is a man to be iustified by this onely kinde of their supposed assureing faith or confidence as also that a man iustified cannot totally or finally fall from grace is manifestly knowne vnto all acquointed with their doctrine and this is often repeated and allowed in their recited conference at Hampton court And these present Protestant Confer pag. 41 24. 30. WottoÌ„ def of perk pag. 129. 134. 279. 280. writers with others Mr. Wotton writeth thus it is out of doubt that assurance of saluatioÌ„ by saith may and must be had And againe Falling from faith is vnpossible And further thus Wee hold it as vnpossible to lose charitie as to lose faith Hee which hath not both faith and charitie to the end neuer had them Mr. Powell speaketh Powell l. Antichrist pag. 508. 712. 476. Pag. 712. 518. sup thus Euery one that is elect is and ought to be assured of a full remission of his syns The faithfull ought to be assured they shall haue eternall life and hee which denieth it doth not beleeue his Creede To affirme that a man which is Iustified may fall from grace and be damned is not to beleeue the Creede It is blasphemy to say a man truely iustified and sanctified may totally and finally fall from grace The Protestant Catechisme printed in the yeare of Christ 1609. Catechis An. D. 1609. pag. 35. Maxey Serm. 8. Ianuar. 1604. thus defineth faith Faith is a full assurance of my saluation in IESVS CHRIST alone This supposed first I argue against these Protestants and it is graunted by Mr. Anthony Maxey the Kings Chapleyne in his sermon before his maiestie in this maner Yf a man is or may be suer that hee is iust or instified and certaynely in grace and cannot totally or finally fall away hee is alsoe and may be suer that hee is predestinate Because noe man perseuering and dyeing in grace is or possibly can be damned But noe man as is proued by Protestants in the former chapter without particular reuelation is or can be certayne that hee is predestinate Therefore neither is or can be so certaine of his Iustification and perseuerance yf hee were Iust and could be soe assured of yt Secondly the same doctrine of the not certaintie of Iustification is confirmed and proued by Protestants in their recited Conference Confer sup pag. 29. 30. Articul 17. alleadging from their booke of Articles that the promises of God in scripture touching these things are generall From which I argue thus noe promise of God in generall doth make a reuelation particular to any priuate parson But all promises of him of these things are onely generall Therefore they can make noe reuelation in particular or cause such faith of any priuate parson Bothe propositions are proued before and are euidently true For noe priuate man by his humane deduction vncertaine And subiect to error can possibly apply generall things vnto himself with such assurednes and vnfallible certainetie as is and of necessicie must be in faith founded vppon the immediate Reuelation and word of God which by noe power can be vncertaine or doubtfull For as these Protestant writers haue assured vs before Priuate Interpretation or Part. 1. cap. Interpret of scriptures deduction as it is not the worde of God so yt bindeth no man vnto it Therefore it is not true faith but a most certaine folly for D. Raynolds D. Sutcliffe D. Feild D. Morton or any Protestant to beleeue that hee in particular is Iuste shall so perseuere or is predestinate When not so much as the leaste memorie or mention of their particular predestination Iustice or preseuerance or name it self is once remembred in any Reuelation or word of God the onely Rule and ground of faith Againe these Protestants that ascribe Iustisication to their supposed assureing faith doe also teache that such faith and good workes Articl An. Dom. 1562. confirmed in Can. Reg. can 5. Conference sup pag. 41. cannot be seperated So they haue agreed in their reconfirmed canons And also that euery greuous syn depriueth of grace and iustification Then that this opinion of Protestants is not true in this point I further argue in this maner All Protestants or others whatsoeuer that be assured by faith that they are Iust must likewise be as certainely assured that they haue good workes liue in obedience to Conference pag. 29. God loue towards their neighbour followe their vocation and are voide of all greuous synne as they haue tanght vs before But no Protestants will or can truely affirme soe of themselues Therefore they neither are nor can be certaine in such maner that they are Iust The Maior is euident And for the Minor all men knowe they are in the contrary condition and state that is in greate and generally greuous sins And themselues freely and truely acknowledge their most wicked and sinfull lyues First D. Couell telleth vs plainely that charitie Couell modest examination pag. 144. faileth in the Protestant Cleargie Then that Protestant Cleargie cannot by their owne doctrine be iust or iustified by faith for iustifieing faith as they teach is not where charitie faileth or is not And yet it is the Protestant cleargie which cheefely and principally patronizeth and defendeth that doctrine of onely faith assureing to Iustifie and the others but as taught and instructed by them Further those Protestants that write against the puritans as D. Bilson Protestant Bishop of Winchester D. Couell D. Sutcliffe M. Ormerode M. Powell M. Parkes with others commonly and vndoubtedly esteeme them either as Hereticks Schismaticks or such as cannot be in state of grace and the Puritans condemne as generally and absolutely the Protestants of the like and other greate damnable syns as I haue in other places entreated and is knowne vnto all that haue perused their writeings Therfore I will onely at this time cyte the testimonie of M. Hull who speaketh generally of all Protestants Puritans or not Puritans his words be these These are the daies Hull Romes polocies in prefat whereof our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles so longe agoe fore prophecied wherein charitie should waxe colde and faith should scarce appeare wherein man should be slidebacks from Christ and Apostals from his true Religion wherein they shoulde be louers of themselues coueâ—ous cursed speakers disobedient vnthankfull vnholy truce breakers false accusers despisers of them that are good Traytors headie high minded louers of pleasure more then lauers of God hauing a shew of godlines but haue denyed the power thereof yea wherein men are become Vsers Newters Temporisers Atheists the earth the stable earth hee there alludeth to an earth quake lately chaunceing as hee citeth begins now to quauer and to shake as being ouer burdened with our syns and to weake to beare the waight of our Iniquities Hitherto this
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
moste worthy and ruleing authoritie in them And if saluation is to be had in it it must likewise by that title be the true Church of Christ For D. Feild with D. Feild pag. 69. Couell def of Hook pag. 76. Couell and others before haue giuen their sentence in these words There is no saluation remission of sinnes or hope of eternall life out of the Church Then of necessitie that Church wherein there is not onely hope but by the aduersaries themselues an assured certaynetie of saluation and eternall life which cannot be had without remission of sins must needs be onely the true Church of Christ The Minor proposition is thus proued by these Protestants first his Maiesties Kings speach in parlam words be these I acknowledged the Romane Church to be our Mother Churche this in publicke Parlament and in the conference at Hampton court in this order No Church Confer at Hampt pag. 75. ought further to seperate it selfe from the Churche of Rome either in doctrine or ceremonie then shee hath departed from her self when â—hee was in her florisheinge and best estate Which before is proued by these Protestants shee hath not done in any essentiall and fundamentall thinge which is all they require And this will more then aboundantly appeare through out this treatise hereafter And D. Conell writeth thus of this present Romane Couell def of Hook pag. 68. Church toucheing the maine points of Christian truth they constantly persist in them Protestants doe gladly acknowledg them to be the family of Iesus Christ They of Rome were and are still in the Churche a parte of the house of God a limme of the visible Church Which hee addeth also to haue been Mr. Hookers sentence telling vs that Hook l. 5. pag. 188. what hee writeth of the Church of Rome is but to giue her her due and wee acknowledge them to be of the family of Iesus Christ And hee concludeth thus It is straunge for any man to deny Couell sup pag. 73. pag. 76. them of Rome to be of the Church And againe Wee affirme them of the Romane Church to be parts of the Church of Christ and that those that lyue and dye in that Church may be saued And all kindes of Protestants when they combate amonge themselues rather prefer the Churche of Rome then their fellow Protestants The Relator writeth thus The Relation cap. 45. Lutherans in Germanie both the Cleargie and layetie openly protest they will rather returne to the Church of Rome then ioyne with the Sacramentary Protestants such as bee in England And of these Mr. Iacob writeth thus The Bishops of England when they deale with Puritans must ioyne Iacob pag. 73. playnely with the Catholicks in their Answers if they will mayntayne themselues Lastely the Puritans haue written against these Protestants Offer of conf pag. 16. as is cited before in these words If the Ministers be in error they protest to all the worlde that the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God an Christ Iesus himselfe haue had greate wronge and Indignitie offered vnto them in that they are reiected and that all the Protestant Churches ar Scismaticall in forsakeinge vnitie and communion with them Then if the Lutherans or parlamentary Protestants or Puritans all or any of them ar to be beleeued against others none of their congregations but onely the Church of Rome at this present is the true Church of Christ whose communion of all men is to be embraced directions followed and Iudgment to be rested in Now after all these Protestant wittnesses I come to D. Morton hee agreeth with his former Brethren concerning things necessarily required to a true Church and in these words The beleefe of some Articles ar so absolutely necessarie Morton App. lib. 4. cap. 2. sect 3. pag. 443. for the constitution of a true Church as a reasonable soule is for the essentiall being of a man such as concerne the knowledg of the vnitie of the godhead and of the trinitie of the parsons together with the true and faithfull apprehension of the natures of Christ the Messias God and Man the power of his death and resurrection by whome wee haue remissions of sins and after death life euerlastinge Wherefore wee presume that in a Church although corrupted with error and superstition yett if it doth not ruinate the foundation the erroneous and superstitious professors may be saued euen by vertue of that tenor which is in capite videlicet Christ Iesus the Lord and Author of life which notwithstandinge wee must so vnderstand as that the error and superstition do proceede not from knowledge but from ignorance Now that the present Romane Church inuiolably holdeth all these necessarie things to a true Churche is graunted by many Protestants before and his Maiestie whome this doctor should allowe entreateing of such as they terme them necessarie points writeth thus Wee hope that K. Iames ag D. Conrad Vorstuis pag. 60. no Papists shall euer be found to erre in any of those mayne points And concerning our scholemen Masters in diuinitie with vs hee vseth these words In the maine growndes of Christian Religion they ar worthie of all commendation And Pag. 63. sup toucheinge those doctrines which D. Morton will name our errors and superstitions hee addeth thus If the subiect of Vorstius Pag. 46. 47. supr his heresies had not beene grounded vppon questions of a higher qualitie then such matters as ar in controuersie at this day betweene the Papists and vs wee doe freely professe that in that case wee should neuer haue troubled our selues with the busines in such fashion By which words it is manifest that hee did not thinke that any opinion which Catholicks hold doth either exclude vs from the true Church or from saluation otherwise the maintayners of such things though as neare frends as the Netherlanders to England were feruently to be admonished But D. Morton himselfe will Morton App. lib. 5. cap. 25. pag. 663. cleare vs in this matter and in this maner and in these wordes If wee should not acknowledge Gods holy prouidence as in the Greeke so in the Romane Church by whom haue beene preserued the lawes of the commaundements conteyninge the same of morall obedience the Symboll and Creede Apostolicall which hold the same of the fundamentall Articles of faith the two Sacraments Baptisme and the Eucharist and the Scriptures of the old and new Testament in their first originalls of Hebrue and Greeke being the euidences of our heauenly Fathers will and conteyninge in them all truth necessarie vnto saluation wee might bee worthely Iudged both impiously vnthankefull vnto God and maliâ—ious against that Church Therefore if D. Morton requireth onely as before such necessary points and Articles of faith to a true Church and here acknowledgeth them in the Romane Church and protesteth they might bee worthely iudged malicious against that Church if they should deny it It is euident
rash and inconsiderate holdenes and presumption in condemninge the vniuersall Church of Christ hee was iustely condemned For the practise of the Churche at that time was not euill in any of these things neither doe wee concurre with Aerius in the reprehension of that primatiue and auncient Churche What was this practise of the primatiue Church concerning the deade for deniall whereof Aerius was condemned as D. Feild hath told vs I will recite from other Protestants M. Middleton assureth vs thus Middleton papistom pag. 64. 45. 46. 51. 47. 48. 49. S. Chrisostome taught it to be the Apostles ordinance to pray for the deade it was a tradition in the primatiue Church receaued from the fathers to pray for the deade and begg mercie of God for them The deade were prayed for in the publicke liturgies of Hull Rom. pole pag. 86 Morton Apol. part 1. pag. 273. Basile Chrisostome and Epiphanius The Churche in Epipbanius time vsed to craue mercye for the deade M. Hull saith Leo 15 Leo the pope appointed Masses for the deade D. Morton citeth from Caluine this ipsi veteres preces fundebant pro defunctis The auncient fathers prayer for the deade And to giue finall content to D Feild the sentence of his true Greeke Church is Gennad Schol. def 5. cap. 3. this The doctrine of purgatorie prayer and sacrifice for the deade was a Tradition of the Apostles That which the Latines call Purgatorie they of the Greeke Church name Catharteâ—ion They were onely Scismaticorum sectatores followers of Scismaticks which denied it The seing Protestants doe ordinarily teach that prayer for the deade is not conteyned either expressely or deducebly in scriptures it must needs be by tradition for denyall of which tradition Aerius was condemned of Heresie and the vniuersall Church at that time by D. Feild taught prayer for the deade for hee telleth vs that Aerius in his opinion contemned the vniuersall Church of Christ and so must D. Feild confesse of himself and his fellowe Protestants if they deny this to be a Tradition as they haue denyed the Bookes of Machabees where this veritie is taught to be caconicall scriptures to gaynesay this primatiue and Catholick doctrine And from hence thus I argue againe by the Rule of S. Augustine allowed by D. Feild whatsoeuer the whole Church holdeth not Feild l. 4. c. 21. pag. 242. being decreed by the authoritie of Councells but hauing beene euer holden may rightly be thought to haue proceeded from Apostolicke authoritie But the Catholicke doctrine of prayer and sacrifice for the deade is such by the testimonie of these Protestants Therefore a tradition from the Apostles by these Protestants The Maior consisteth of the verie wordes of S. Augustine as they be translated and allowed by D. Feild in this maner Feild pag. 241. Hauing sett downe the kindes and sortes of traditions it remayneth to examine by what meanes wee may come to discern and by what rules wee may Iudge which are true and Indubitate traditions The first rule is deliuered by S. Augustine Quod vniuersa Aug. l. 4. cont Donatist cap. 23. tenet ecclesia nec concilijs institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur Englished by D. Feild as in the Maior proposition where rectissimè creditur is moste rightly beleeued hee hath translated may rightly be thought The Minor proposition is proued before by these Protestants in teacheing this doctrine to haue beene the doctrine of the vniuersall Church resisted by Aerius and also that it was an Apostolicke tradition which all Protestants of England must needs graunt vnto by S. Augustines and D. Feilds first Rule before for by their proceedings they are so far from graunteing that this doctrine is defined by Councells and by that title to be embraced That they playnely teach in the Articles of their Religion the definition of a generall Councell in matters of faith not taken out of scriptures as they teach this is not is nothing worthe The Articl of Relig. art 21. wordes of their Article be these Things ordeined by generall Councells as necessarie to saluation haue neither strength nor authoritie vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scripture Hitherto their subscribed article And that this is a thinge necessarie to saluation must needs also be yeelded vnto by these Protestants telling vs before both that Aerius was condemned of Heresie for denying it as also that Heresie is arror in some fundamentall point Couâ—ll sup which must needs be necessarie to saluation My next Argument shall be taken from the next Rule of D. Feild to knowe true traditions and my Maior proposition shall be his verie wordes thus next followeing The second Rule is whatsoeuer all or the Feild supr pag. 242. moste famous and renowned in all ages or at the leaste in diuers ages haue constantly deliuered as receaued from them that went before them no man contradicting or doubting of it may be thought to be an Apostolicall Tradition But the Catholicke doctrine of prayer for the deade praying to Saincts single life of the cleargie especially in the Latine Church and others in their proper place to be proued such by these Protestants are in this state Therefore by Protestants they be Apostolicke traditions The Maior is the very sayinge and sentence of D. Feild before and the Minor concerning prayer for the deade also before allowed by these Protestants the others are to be proued in their order this now sufficeth The first proposition for my next Argument shall be D. Feilds third and laste Rule to knowe true and indubitate traditions and is deliuered by him in these wordes The third Rule is the constant testimonie Feild supr l. 4. c. 21. pag. 242. of the pastors of an Apostolicke Church successiuely delyuered But prayer for the deade c. is so proued by such testimonie therefore an Apostolicke tradition The maior is D. Feild sentence And the Minor is before proued by these Protestants for if the vniuersall Church as before by them consented is this veritie not onely one Apostolicke Church sufficient for his Rule but all did consent vnto it otherwise it could not be said the doctrine of the vniuersall Church And of all Churches Apostolicke there can be no question with Protestants bur the Church of Rome euer taught thus and D. Field hath told vs before that Feild l. 4. c. 5. pag. 202. amongst Apostolicke Churches the Church of Rome is more specially to be obeyed reuerenced and respected Further thus I argue whatsoeuer thinges are either approued by these Protestants themselues for true and indubitate traditions or allowed by them that the primatiue Church and fathers receaued for such are to haue that allowance But the signe of the crosse mixture of water with wine in the Eucharist reuerence of holy Imadges and Relicks sacrifice and prayer for the deade vowes of chastitie and single life of
Iude his Epistle Iosephus Pag. 79. 80. Origen Tertullian S. Augustine Beda Procopius Gazaeus and others that Enoch did write diâ—ine things And thus they add it is probable that Noah had seene and might preserue this booke For it is not likely that so exquisite knowledge as these men had was sodenly inuented and fownd out And entreating how the booke of the battailes Pag. 306. cap. 5. §. 7. with others of holy scriptures had beene lost thus they write it seemeth probable that such a booke as this there was and that the same should now be wantinge it is not straunge seeing so many other volumes filled with diuine discourse haue perished in the longe race of time or haue beene destroyed by the ignorant and malitious heathen Magistrate For the bookes of Henoch howsoeuer they haue beene in later ages corrupted and therefore now suspected are remembred in an Epistle of Thaddaeus and cited by Origen and by Tertullian That worke also of the Patriarke Abraham of formation which others bestowe on Rabbi Achiba is no where fownde The bookes remembred by Iosua c. 10. v. 13. and in the second of Samuel c. 1. v. 18. called the booke of Iasher or Iustorum is also loste The booke of Chozai concerninge Manasse remembred in the second of Chron. 33. v. 18. and 19. of this booke also lost Hierome conceyues that the Prophet Isay was the author The same mischaunce came aswell to the story of Salomon written by Ahia Silonites as to the bookes of Nathan the Prophet and to those of Ieedo the Seer remembred in the second of Chron. c. 9. v. 29. with these haue the bookes of Shemaiah and of Iddo remembred in the second of Chron. c. 12. v. 15. perished and that of Iohn the sonne of Hanain cited in the second of Chron. c. 20. v. 34. also that of Salomons which the Hebrues write Hiscirim of 5000 verses of which that part called Canticum Canticorum onely remaineth 1. Kings 4. 32. and with this diuers other of Salomons workes haue perished as his booke of the natures of trees plants beasts fishes c. 1. Kings 4. 33. with the rest remembred by Origen Iosephus Hierome Cedrenus Ciccus Aesculanus Picus Mirandula and others Of Pag. 307. these and other bookes many were consumed with the same fyer wherewith Nebuchadnessar burnt the temple of Hierusalem Hitherto this Protestant discourse of the necessitie of vnwritten traditions not onely before the scriptures were written but after so many bookes of holy scriptures dictated by the holy Ghost hauing vtterly perished Except wee will say which God forbid that God reuealed and published in holy scriptures so many needles and fruitelesse things or els so many necessary and diuine Reuelations haue alltogether beene loste and concealed from those that should beleeue and keepe them CHAPTER VIII WHERE THE HIGHEST supreame Iudiciall definitiue authoritie of generall Councells is both proued to be such by these Protestants To binde all Christians in matters of Religion to approue the doctrine of the Church of Rome and condemne protestancie THE next Question is concerninge generall Councells of what authoritie and commaunde they are in controuersies of Religion and whether the Doctrine of the present Churche of Rome or that of English Protestants is proued and confirmed by them in the sentence of these Protestants themselues Toucheinge their power and commaunding authoritie in these causes I argue thus Whatsoeuer in controuersies of Religion is the highest Iudge the onely remedie to redresse errors hath soueraigne authoritie is aboue others to be appealed vnto hath authoritie to interprete scriptures and to supresse all them that gaynesay such interpretation and subiect euery man disobeyeing suche determinations to excommunication and Censures of like Nature and aboue all other Iudgments is moste to be reuerenced and respected in the opinion of Protestants must also by them be allowed for the supreame highest and laste not to be appealed from Iudgment in this world in such questions But by the testimonie of these Englishe Protestants a generall Councell is of these preeminences in these matters Therefore by them the supreame moste bynding vncontroleable and Iudgment not to be appealed from or denyed by any The Maior proposition is euidently true for that which is supreame and highest cannot be Inferior vnto any neither that which hath commaunde and authoritie ouer all can possibly be vnder the controlement and correction of any none being left to be superior vnto it The Minor is proued by these Bilson Suru pag. 82. Morton part 2. Apol. pag. 340. l. 4. cap. 18. Relat. cap. 47. Protestants following The Protestant Bishop of Winchester D. Bilson hath these words The authoritie of generall Councells is moste holsome in the Church and hee citeth S. Augustine to that purpose D. Morton writeth thus Concilium publicum est summus Iudex a generall Councell is highest Iudge The Protestant Relator of Religion nameth it the onely remedie in such times of controuersies D. Sutcliffe hath Sutcliffe subu pag. 119. Sutcl ag D. Kell pag. 41. 42. 102. these wordes generall Councells haue soueraigne authoritie in externall gouernment And thus againe False it is that wee will admitt no Iudge but scriptures for wee appeale still to a lawfull genenerall Councell Wee holde all the Christian faith explaned in the sixe generall Councells D. Feild hath written thus Bishops assembled in a generall Feild pag. 228. Councell haue authoritie to Interprete scriptures and by their authoritie to suppresse all them that gaynesay such Interpretation and subiect euery man that shall disobey such determinations as they consent vppon to excommunication and censures of like nature And Feild l. 4. cap. 5. pag. 202. as before is cited alloweth this sentence Wee must reuerence and respect the authoritie of all Catholicke Doctors whose doctrine and writings 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 Now to proue that generall Councells thus allowed by these Protestants for the highest and irreuocable Iudgment cannot by their owne doctrine proue their Religion to be true and so consequently no Inferior authoritie Iustifie their cause I argue in this maner whosoeuer by publicke decree and constitution doe condemne generall Councelle of error and to be a fallible and deceatefull Rule in Matters of Religion and haue no other meanes to finde the truth cannot pretend their Religion to be infallibly true as matters of faith and reuealed of God are by such testimonies But the English Protestants are in this condition concerninge generall Councells Therefore their Religion neither is nor can by their owne proceedings be warranted and proued by them to be true The Maior proposition is euident for no Iudgment erroneous and fallible can possibly make any matter or question free from error and infallible otherwise a thinge might be effected and
their owne writings and authorities published allowed or receaued amonge them since the beginning of the Raigne of our Soueraigne Kinge Iames in England That in all the cheefest Controuersies of this time in particular The doctrine of the present Church of Rome is onely orthodoxe Catholicke and true And the Contrary of these Protestants erroneous Hereticall and damnable Here endeth the first part of the generall grownds in Religion and ensueth the second of the particular Questions betweene Catholicks and Protestant of England THE SECOND PART OF ENGLISH PROTESTANTS RECANTATION IN MATTERS OF RELIGION CHAPTER I. WHEREIN BY THE PRESENT English Protestant writers is proued against Protestants and their doctrine That the predestination of particular men cannot without particular Reuelation be certaynely knowne much lesse as a matter of faith AS amonge all Questions of Religion the eternall predestination of men to be saued being from eternitie in God can haue none before it in duration So in order lett vs first entreate and begin from thence how fare and certainely it may be knowne of particular mens preordination to glorie in this worlde The holy Councell of Trent aduertising all men with S. Paule to worke their saluation with feare and trembling hath thus defined of Philipp 2. v. 12. Conc. Trid. sess 6. can 12. this secrett So longe as wee lyue in this mortalitie no man ought so much to presume of the hidden misterie of Gods Predestination that he certainely determine himself to be in the number of the predestinate as though it were true that hee which is iustified could either syn no more or if hee shall syn ought to promise to himself a certaine Amendement for except by speciall reuelation it cannot be knowne whom God hath chosen The like doctrine it concludeth against the predestinaries of Can. 15. 16. sup this time in the 15. and 16. canons of the same session The contradictorie of which Catholicke position hath beene so fare and generally defended by Protestants That it is as the See cap. 2. infra principall and cheefest grownde of their Religion That as a man is iustified by faith so this faith is that which assureth him that hee is iust in grace and fauour with God that hee cannot at the leaste finally or totally fall from grace And so consequently that hee knoweth as a matter of faith that hee is both iust and predestinate as will sufficiently appeare in the next chapter by English Protestants synce his maiesties entrance into England the short time which I haue limited to dispute against them by themselues what inconueniences abuses and iniquities this inuention hath brought into the world will in some sort appeare in this chapter by their owne writeings and is so much knowne to all men by lamentable experience that I neede not to repeate it in this place Wherefore I will onely confute this Protestant opinion by the present English Protestant writers and thereby demonstrate the Catholicke doctrine of the cited sacred Councell to be moste true and religious in this point euen by their sentence Then first concerning this proposition I argue thus No doctrine or opinion which is a desperate doctrine contrarie to diuinitie and to the true doctrine of predestination is or can be the true doctrine in this question But the predestinarie Protestant doctrine with assurednes of faith without particular reuelation that a man shall be saued is thus desperate contrarie to diuinitie and to the true doctrine of predestination Therefore it neither is nor can be the true doctrine To deny the Maior or first proposition is blasphemie because God infinite and immutable wisedome cannot possibly commaunde or reueale for truth any such error Therefore the first proposition being euidently true The Minor or second proposition is authoritatyuely with English Protestants concluded against this predestinarie opinion in the publicke Protestant Conference at Hampton Court before his Conference at Hampton court pag. 29. Maiestie and with his allowance in these words Verie manie in these dayes neglecting holines of life presume too much of persisting in grace layeing all their Religion vppon predestination If I shall be saued I shall be saued which is a dâ—sperate doctrine contrarie to good diuinitie and the true doctrine of predestination wherein wee should reason rather asceÌ„dendo then disceÌ„dendo thus I liue in obedience to God in loue my neighbour I followe my vocation c. Therefore I trust that God hath elected and predestinated mee to saluation Hitherto the consent of this English Protestant Conference from whence it is manifest that no certanitie much lesse by faith but onely a morall trust or hope according to the good life of man can be had without reuelation that wee are predestinate Secondely supposing which with the scriptures all Protestants graunt that without grace by Christ and persisting in it no man can be saued I Argue thus No man that is vncertaine whether hee sall fall from grace can be certaine with certanitie of faith that hee is predestinate or shall be saued But without particular Reuelation all men Protestants and others be vncertaine whether they shall fall from grace Therefore no man without particular reuelation is or can be certaine hee is predestinate The Maior proposition is certainely true And his Maiestie in the same cited Protestant Assembly citeing the place of S. Paule before related against the certainerie of predestination concludeth the Minor or second proposition thus Wee may full from grace Conference at Hampton sup pag. 30. and addeth the doctrine of predestination should be handled with greate discretion which hee insinuateth the Protestants haue not done and speaketh plainely of them in these words The Inferring of the necessitie of standing and persisting in grace is a desperate presumption The like is taught more at lardge in other places of that conference where it is also Confer sup pag. 41. 42. 43. acknowledged that present Iustification or iustice is loste by any mortall or greuous syn which to be frequently committed by Protestants will appeare hereafter by their owne testimonies My third Argument is this No doctrine that is pestilent and scandalous to all Churches is or can be true doctrine But this predestinarie doctrine is such Therefore neither is nor can be true The Maior Relation of Religion cap. 45. is euident The Minor is proued by the Protestant Relator of Religion whoe telleth vs that ProtestaÌ„ts in Germanie will rather returne to the Church of Rome then admitt this Protestant point of doctrine which they call predestinarie pestilence and addeth that this with some others Cap. 48. of their opinions hath exceedeingly scandalized all other Churches My fourth Argument is this Nothing that is not reuealed of God can be beleeued with certaintie of faith or with faith But particular mens predestination is not reuealed of God Therefore it cannot be by faith beleeued The first proposition is euidently true because Gods reuelation or to be reuealed of him is the formall
obiect or cause of beleefe and true faith The second proposition is thus proued by D. Couell whoe entreating Couell def of Hooker pag 59. of this greate question hath these words A curious searcheing into that will which is not reuealed serueth but to breede a contempt of that which is reuealed vnto vs. Man desireth rather to knowe then to doe nay to knowe euen those things which doe not concerne him rather then to doe that for the neglect whereof hee must giue an accompt From hence cometh it to passe that what the schooles haue curiously sought out concerning the nature of Gods will the pulpitts nay the stalls of Artificers haue vndertaken to decide them all And Pag. 62. sup prosecuteing this question hauing cited and approued the Catholicke distinctions of the will of God into antecedent consequent of Gods good pleasure and the signe of it into a will absolute conditionall c. hee concludeth thus God willeth all men to be saued Whoe therefore that they are not it is not his decree but their owne fault Certainely saithe S. Ambrose hee willeth all men to be saued if they will themselues for hee that hath giuen a lawe to all doubtles hath excluded none Yf any Protestant will answere as WottoÌ„ def of Perkins pag. 467. c. many of them vnlearnedly holde That deduction from scripture as they suppose maketh a matter of faith I tell him with all learned dyuines and in true diuinitie that nothinge vncertayne doubtfull or fallible can possibly make a matter of faith which must of all assents in this world be moste certaine But euery deduction from such supposed scripture especially where neither the matter man his name parson or any thinge of him in particular is reuealed must needs be vncertayne doubtfull and fallible Therefore it cannot make a matter and conclusion vnfallible and of faith For the conclusion in no syllogisme can be more certayne then the premises and fallible humane deduction from and by which it is concluded But according to the Rule of Logicke semper sequitur debilioreni partem allwayes followeth the weaker part And the Maior is euident in it self before The Minor is proued thus by Doctor Feild priuate Interpretation or Feild pag. 226. Couell def of Hooker pag. 8. deduction bindeth not But true faith bindeth all men And D. Couell expressely writeth the same which I haue answered and in these words Doctrines deryued are not the word of God But nothing but the word of God written or nor written as is euident maketh a matter of faith euen by Protestants The first Argument is framed thus whatsoeuer is onely knowne of God cannot be knowne muche lesse with certainetie of faith by particular men But particular mens predestination is onely knowne to God Therefore not to particular men much lesse with certanitie of faith The Maior proposition is euidently true the worde onely being exclusiue and denying all others The Minor proposition is thus testified by D. Couell in expresse words Couell def of Hooker pag. 63. and pag. 108. God onely knoweth who are predestinate And in an other place thus Mens predestination vnto life none can knowe but God onely The sixt Argument is No doctrine that draweth from consideration what concerneth mans saluation and bringeth contempt of good works is true But this predestinarie opinion is such Therefore not true The Maior is euidently true euen in the doctrine of English Protestants making in Artic. 12. their square it self of their Religion good workes to be necessarie to saluation and the consideration of it also The Minor is thus proued by D. Couell If all men rightly considered Couell def of Hooker pag. 107. 108. in those actions that concerne mans saluation how farre wee are tyed not onely in obedience but for vse to those things that are meanes to effect the sâ—me few would haue beene so carlessely resolute to contemne good workes through an opinion of eternall election By which sentence hee doth not onelie denie the Protestant certanitie and securitie of predestination but plainely teacheth that good workes are the meanes to effect saluation Then as the end cannot be obtayed without the meanes that bringeth vnto it so it cannot be predestinate without such meanes except God could or should predestinate things to be otherwise then they be or can be which is vnpossible The seuenth and last Argument in this question may bee this Noe man Ignorant of that whereuppon predestination or the certaine knowledg thereof dependeth can certainely know himself to bee predestinate But all Protestants are ignorant of that which is whether they shall lyue and dye in good workes Therefore noe Protestant is certaine of saluation The Maior is euident And the Minor proued Couell sup pag. 108 by the same Protestant Doctor in these wordes Eternall election includeth a subordination of means without which wee are not actually brought to enioy what God secretly did intend and therefore to builde vppon Gods election yf wee keepe not ourselues to the wayes which hee hath appointed for mee to walke in is but a false deceauing vanitie for all men notwitstanding their preordination vnto life which none can knowe but God onely are in the Apostlâ—s opinion till they haue embraced the truthe but the children of wrathe as well as others And to manifest that this was the doctrine of the primatiue church by which these Protestants say they will be Iudged D. Morton writeth Morton Apol part 2. pag. 223. in these wordes Veteres Patres fere omnes arbitratisunt praedestinationis causam fuisse praeuisa hominum opera All moste all the auncient fathers did thinke that the good deeds of men foreseene were the cause of predestination And Mr. Wotton writeth thus wee acknowledge that the fault is wholly WottoÌ„ def of Perkins pag. 86. in cuery man that is not saued Therefore I conclude this question that euen by English Protestant Doctors the doctrine of the Romane Church in this is true and that of the predestinarie Protestants is false erroneous and damnable CHAPTER II. PROVETH BY THE SAME Protestants of England That onely faith much lesse the assureing faith of Protestants neither doth nor can Iustifie NEXT vnto this Question of predestination lett vs entreate of that which hath moste and nearest connexion vnto it mans Iusification in this life whether it be by the supposed assureing faith of Protestants that a man is iustified and righteous as thy commonly call it or otherwise by these writers Of which matter the Councell of Trent first for Catholicks defineth thus It is necessarie Codcil trid ses 4. can 9. to beleeue syns neither are forgiuen neither were at any time forgiuen but freely by the mercie of God for Christ. And then addeth concerninge the presumptuous faith of Protestants which it had before confuted in this maner If any Can. 12. sup man shall say that iustifying faith is nothing els but a confidence of Gods mercie remitting sins for
will not haue any such canon or constitution his friuolous distinction in the Nicene Councell then lately ended then they must needs be of more auntient and vncontroleable antiquitie and authoritie by his owne censure and S. Ciprians Councell and decree against this highest power of no validitie if hee could bringe forth any such decree or Councell which hee doth not but onely alledgeth these words of S. Ciprian to Pope Cornelius statutum est omnibus nobis Which hee thus translated S. Ciprian directly ordeyned in a Councell Which Ciprian ep 55. ad Cornel. Morton App. lib. 2. pag. 296. S. Ciprian neither had done nor could doe to bynde S. Cornelius and the Church of Rome with all others For by D. Mortons owne Argument if Pope and S. Cornelius Pope and Saint Stephen with others Bishops of the Mother and commaunding Churche of Rome then by his Maiestie a Rule vnto all might not be a Rule and commaunder ouer the African Church much lesse could the Church of Africke subiect Ruled and dependinge make statutes and decrees to rule and commaund this Rule and commaunder of all And Mr Morton might haue concluded the contrary of his translation for the Church of Rome if hee had considered that S. Ciprians words be not Statutum sit ab omnibus nobis it is decreed of or by vs all â—â—t statutum sit omnibus nobis a decree is made for vs all Because S. Fabian Pope of Rome and predicessor to S. Cornelius had made such a â—abian â—â—ist 3. â—â—m 1. conc decree to bynde all as S. Ciprian spake of Ibi causa agatur vbi crimen admittitur lett the cause be hard there where the fault is committed Yet in the same place Appeales to Rome ar excepted in these words Wee forbid forreyne Iudgments by a generall decree reserued allwayes the Apostolicke authoritie And againe It pleaseth alsoe that if a Bishop accused hath appealed to the See Apostolicke that shall be decreed which the high Bishop of that See giueth sentence of All which as alsoe that whole epistle of S. Ciprian to S. Cornelius then Pope of Rome neuer denyeing appeales thither but excuseinge and defendeing and purgeing himself and other Bishops of Africke accused by Appellants at Rome as they had likewise done priori anno the yeare before sufficiently Ciprian ep 55. supr confirme the vndeniable supreame authoritie of that Church Which S. Ciprian there proueth to be of Infallible Iudgment and vndeceaueable by any Appellants or others in matters of Religion and so to be appealed vnto and supreame His words in the same epistle and concerning the same Appellants ar these Nauigare audent ad Petri cathedram They dare to saile euen to the chayre of Peter and to the principall Church from whence preistly vnitie is risen and cary thither letters from Scismaticks and wicked men nor to thinke that they be Romans whose faith by the Apostle preachinge is praised to whome false beleefe cannot haue accesse Hitherto the very wordes of S. Ciprian in that place and epistle which D. Morton alleadgeth against the Romane supreamacie by which is euident that S. Ciprian neither did nor could by his doctrine deny appeales to that Church which as hee writeth could not be deceaued with Hereticks nor false beleefe could haue accesse vnto it which could be for no other cause but for the Infallible Iudgment thereof and that God did assist it in truthe as other Protestants ar wittnesses before And D. Morton haueing first written Morton app pag. 296. in this order The Title of vniuersall Bishop of the Church hath beene long vsed of the Pope of Rome is as mutch to blame to speake thus S. Ciprian saith none of vs is called the Bishop of Bishops which not S. Ciprian onely but the whole Councell of Carthadge vnder Ciprian did professe furthermore callinge it a terror tyrannicall for any one Bishop to impose vppon his fellowe Bishops a necessitie of obedience For first D. Morton cannot but knowe that this Councell of Africke defendeinge Rebaptization was iustly condemned by the then Popes of Rome and recanted by the African Bishops present at it as is proued before Secondly D. Morton will be a Presbyterian if hee maketh equalitie in the cleargie and denyeth Archbishops primates and Patriarkes as his citation without better glosse implyeth Thirdly hee doth abuse his Readers to wish them to beleeue that S. Ciprian and the African Bishops decreed any thing against the clayme of S. Stephen then Bishop of Rome his predecessors and successors to be Bishop of Bishops Mort. sup pag. 296. in a right sence as hee there citeth from Binias for so against his owne words and citation they had called their owne decree a terror tyrannicall for any one Bishop to impose vppon his fellowe Bishops a necessitie of obedience For D. Morton dareth not to deny but S. Stephen and other Popes of Rome were at the leaste fellowe Bishops with those of Africke But S. Ciprian and those Bishops decreed no such thinge for D. Morton may so in that Councell that the sentence of S. Ciprian is the laste of all and after all the other Bishops and onely to condemne Baptisme by Hereticks after recanted and condemned And the words which hee cited against Bishop of Bishops ar in S. Ciprians Carthagin concil sub Cyprian to 1. concil init exhortation not decree to the Bishops of Africke begynninge Audistis Collegae Dilectissimi you haue hard ô moste beloued fellowes nothing concerning except affirminge or confirminge that clayme and Title in Pope Stephen an holy Saint and Martyr but alltogether about rebaptization and are these Superest vt de hacre quid singuli sentiamus proferamus Yt remayneth that euery of vs speaketh of this matter what hee thinketh Iudginge no man or remoueing any man from the Right of communion if hee shall thinke otherwise for none of vs there assembled constituted himself Bishop of Bishops Which seing S. Stephen an holy Pope and Martyr with others of that sacred See then a Rule to all by Protestants and D. Morton did by them also it must be yeelded to be iust and lawfull Neither must D. Morton be so hyperpapall as to deny the Councell of Sardyce where appeales to Rome ar warranted to be generall for his Masters the makers of their greate Theater haue so allowed and receaued it before Nor slander S. Cyprian by perswadeing the worlde that hee dyed out of the vnitie of the Church of Rome for recallinge of which his greate rashnes I referre him to better Authorities of S. Augustine S. Ierome Augustin ep 48. Hieron dialog cont Luciferian and the like And this sufficeth of this question By which the vniuersitie of Cambridg may easely resolue themselues by their owne Doctors of the second proposition offered vnto them by the Preists of Wisbich There is an externall Iudge in matters of faith whoe it is and of what authoritie his definitiue sentence is in such things
CHAPTER IIII. WHEREIN BY THESE Protestants is proued that all Bookes of scripture receaued for such by the Church of Rome ar canonicall That the Protestants also haue either no scriptures at all or vncertaine and doubtfull and no true Canon of them THvs haueinge demonstratiuely proued by these our English Protestants that the true Church of Christ is of that byndeinge and commaunding authoritie power and priuiledge That There is no saluation remission of synnes or Hope of eternall life out of the Churche it is the blessed companie of holy ones household of faith spouse of Christ piller and grawnd of truthe her communion is to be embraced directions followed Iudgment rested in to ouerrule all Inferior Iudgment whatsoeuer c. And that bothe the present Churche of Rome is this so excellent and enfraunchised societie and the Pope and Bishop thereof supreame heade and spirituall gouernor ouer the whole Christian worlde all other Questions against these ProtestaÌ„ts ar all readie determined by them for the Church and Pope of Rome So that nothing is further needfull to be disputed in this busines eyther of scriptures or any other matter in controuersy yet for particular satisfaction to all in all particulars I will proceede and first for the Bookes of holy scriptures and argue these first in generall Whatsoeuer Bookes ar proposed vnto vs by the true Church of Christ and the supreame Gouernor thereof to be canonicall scripture ar for such to be embraced and reuerenced But all Bookes allowed for canonicall by the Church of Rome at this present be such Therefore so to be embraced and reuerenced The Maior proposition is euident before by the priuiledges of the true Church recited in generall and not onely so but in particular also concerninge the authoritie of the true Church in approueinge and proposeinge holy scriptures for Mr. Wotton hath thus testified for Wotton â—ef of Perk pag. 442. Protestants The Iugdment of the Church wee are so far from discreditinge that wee Holde it for a very speciall grownde in this matter of scriptures And D. Couell hath these conuinceing Couell against Burg. pag. 60. words The Church of Christ accordeing to her authoritie receaued from him hath warrant to approue the scriptures to acknowledge to receaue to publish and commaunde vnto her children And to make it euident that this priuiledge by these Protestants cannot be attributed or ascribed to any other Church then the Church of Rome they haue before confessed that neuer any other Church but that onely exceptinge the Church of Constantinople pretended Title much lesse enioyed it to this supreamacie to propownde scriptures or make decrees and lawes to the whole Church and the children thereof and the clayme thereof in that behalf was but pretended and vsurped and now is by their desolation left desolate And to make this the next argument and others more cleare I will in this place recite the words of D. Feild wherein to omitt the Holy scriptures because they in no place tell vs which be or be not canonicall scriptures But wee ar as these Protestants before haue told vs and shall more particularely testifie Hereafter in this chapter to receaue them from the Church of Christ That wee may knowe whome moste to trust and obey in this and such matters of controuersy hee writeth thus haueing spoken of the Church before Hither Feild pag. 202. l. 4. c. 5. wee may referre those different degrees of obedience which wee must yeeld to them that commaunde and teache vs in the Church of God excellently described and sett downe by Waldensis Wee Waldens doct Fidei l. 2. art 2. 3. p. 27. must saith hee reuerence and respect the authoritie of all Catholicke Doctors whose doctrynes and writeings the Church alloweth wee must more regard 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 Hitherto D. Feilds allowance that this sentence is excellent Therefore soeinge Protestants neuer had nor can haue as they haue testified before any generall Councell and deny all Councells to be generall which Catholikes alledge for this Question of the Bookes of scriptures and others also They ar bownde to be obedient to that sentence next vnto them which D. Feild here hath told vs to be the Iudgment of the Church of Rome or Pope of Rome which hath defined and allowed the catholicke doctrine for the Bookes of canonicall scripture as alsoe other questions as all Protestants acknowledge Otherwise they ar in one of highest degrees of disobedience that is in this world as his words before are wittnesse For hee alloweth it for an excellent direction for this present time and state of controuersies And yett if he would contend which hee neither doth nor can being allowed for this present time to drawe it to the dayes of Thomas Waldensis disputing against Witcliffe their Brother in Religion as they write and resisting the Popes authoritie it maketh nothing for his excuse for if Witcliffe as they say was of their Religion the case betweene Waldensis and him was the same which now is with my self and other Catholicks writinge against these Protestants Brethren and Associates in Religion vnto Wickliffe and his Adherents This supposed I make the like Argument againe in this maner Whatsoeuer bookes ar proposed for canonicall scripture by the true Church ar the highest Rule that can be had or fownde in time of controueâ—sie ar to be receaued for holy scriptures But all those Bookes which the present Romane Church alloweth ar so proposed Therefore to be receaued for holy scriptures The Maior proposition is euidently true otherwise all Christians in such times must needs be perplexed in the cheifest matter of Religion by Protestants the scriptures themselues which cannot be for so contradictories might bothe be true The highest Rule ought to be followed the highest Rule ought not to be followed Which be contradictorie It ought to be followed because it is our Rule and the best that can be assigned it ought not to be followed because it is false and deceatefull And no man can be so bownde vnder damnation to followe a false Rule And concerninge the authoritie of the Church in this case it is further confirmed by these Protestant sentences D. Couells words be Couell def of Hook pag. 31. these The Church of Rome teacheth no badd opinion to affirme that the scriptures are holy and diuine in themselues but so esteemed by vs for the authoritie of the Churche And againe That the scriptures ar true wee haue it from the Church And further thus The Church hath fowre Couell sup pag. 32. 33. singular offices towards the scripture First to be of them as it were a faithefull Register Secondly to discerne and Iudge betweene false and adulterate and that which is true and perfect The third to publish and diuulge to proclayme as a cryer the true edict