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
ensue Transsubstantiation the Sacrifice of Masse worshipping of Imadges Iustification by workes the supreamacie of the Pope prohibition of Marriadge in the cleargie which hee calleth the grossest points of popery Hee addeth also an equalitie of Bishops onoly approueth the Hebrue scripture Iustification by faith and disliketh free will These bee all their Exceptions neither doth the Booke of Articles of their Religion make mention of any other much materiall except Sacraments whereof hereafter then either such as I haue allreadie handled or bee comprised in these Cataloges Allthough all in these remembred are not the doctrine of the Parlament Protestant Church of England But Additions and new Inuentions of particular Puritanes as D. Willets Hebrue scriptures equalitie of Bishops c. In which excepting that which I haue spoken of the scriptures before consonant to the Councell of Trent I must leaue him to bee censured as a periured man hauing sworne to their Articles by their owne Religion lawes and proceedings For the rest most of them bee proued by themselues before as Popes supremacie Indulgences Imadges Iustification by workes or inherent Iustice not onely by faith and free will All the others I am now to examine And first of Transsubstantiation and Christs reall presence in the blessed Eucharist Because it comprehendeth as well this maner of Christs presence and a true Sacrifice as they all graunt vppon proofe of that veritie as the question also of D. Sutcliffs termed half communion For if Christ bee substantially truly and wholly present in both kinds Then it is not an half but whole communion and receauing of Christ for hee must needs bee equally receaued and participated vnder the one as vnder boâ—h kindes and formes according D. Thom. 3. p q. 80. ar 3. Gabr. lect 84. Ric. d. 11. Caiet 3. p. q 3. ar 3. Sot d 12. q. 1. ar 12. pet Sot lect 20. Euchar Lâ—des Claud. de Saincts Ruard alij to the common opinion of schooles aswell longe before the Councell of Constance as after teaching that no more fruite is communicated and giuen to the Receauers and Communicants by both then by one kinde this supposed I Argue thus in this Question Whatsoeuer doctrine the highest binding authoritatiue and commaunding Iudgment which by these Protestants before is a generall Councell hath determined defined concluded is to bee embraced and mayntained But the doctrine of Christs reall presence and Transsubstantiation is such Therefore to bee embraced and maintayned The Maior is euident and often graunted by many of these Protestants among whome D. Feild writeth thus The Bishops assembled in a generall Councell may interpret Feild l. 4. c. 16. the scripture and by their authoritie suppresse all them that shall gayne say such Interpretations and subiect euery man that shall disobey such determinations as they consent vppon to excommunication and censures of like nature The Minor is also proued Couell defof Hook pag. 21 Parkes against Limbom pag. 176. Tom. â— CoÌ„cil in Concil Later Bergam hist an 1213. Genebr hist an 1215. Palmer Floren. chron an 1215. Concil Lateran cap. 1. by them directly in this maner for first both D. Couell and M. Parkes cite and allow the Councell of Laterane as a Rule of faith And hauing present in it the Patriarkes of Greece Constantinople and Hierusalem 70. Metropolitanes 400. Bishops and other Fathers aboue 800. together with the Legates both of the Greeke and Romane Empire with the Orators of the Kings of Hierusalem Fraunce Spayne England so especially binding vs and Cyprus I trust the rest of them cannot deny it to bee generall if euer any was so termed this beeing farr the greatest that euer was in the worlde now that it defined Christs reall presence in the blessed Sacrament is euidently demonstrated by these expresse words of the Councell graunted by Protestants Verum Christi Corpus Sanguis in Sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis vini veraciter continetur transsubstantiatis pane in Corpus vino in Sanguinem potestate diuina The true bodie and blood of Christ is truely conteyned in the Sacrament of the altare vnder the formes of breade and wyne the breade beeing transsubstantiated into his bodie and the wine into his blood by the diuine power Therefore all English Protestants are Feild l. 4. c. 16. suppressed by D. Feilds sentence before from gayne saying it And to shew further that this was no new and straunge doctrine then first held and defined but of the auncient primatiue Fathers thus I argue againe in this question Whosoeuer held that there is in this Sacrament a conuersion mutation of one thinge into an other and not in shape but in nature that breade is made Christs bodie that the visible creatures are chaunged into the substance of Christs body blood c. Doe and must needs graunt transsubstantiation and Christs reall presence in the B. Sacrament But the auncient Fathers doe this Therefore they teach and graunt Transsubstantiation The Maior is euident those termes beeing equiualent with transsubstantiation and seme the verie same both in effect and name The Minor is proued by M. Perkins in these Perkins probl pag. 153. 154. words The Auncients when they speake of the supper haue many formes of speache which shew a conuersion Ambrose vseth the name of conuersion and the name of mutation Ciprian saith it is chaunged not in shape but in nature Origen saith that breade is made the body by prayer Gaudentius saith Christs bodie is made of breade and his blood of wyne Eusebius Emissenus saith that the Preist by secret power doth chaunge the visible creatures into the substance of Christs bodie and blood And that the breade doth passe into the nature of our Lords bodie Anselmes saith that the breads doth flitt into Christs bodie Fulbertus saith it is transfused Algerus saith it is transiected and transferred into Christs bodie Hitherto this Protestants words of those auncient Fathers doctrine in this point to which hee might haue added many more and more conuincing But hee knew these too many and manifest against them as appeareth by this his friuolous glosse vppon their expresse sentences confounding and confuting himself in his owne words which bee these But the Auncient Doctors where they speake of the conuersion and chaunge of the breade they vnderstand the chaunge of the vse and condition not of the substance What man but impudent and voide of all shame and grace would Father vppon so many holy and renowned Learned Fathers so grosse equiuocation or rather flatt lyinge to speake one thinge and meane an other as hee speaketh and this in so cheefe and materiall article of Faith and Religion wherein not the least equiuocation may bee vsed if it could saue the life of thousands or millions of men And to confound this Sacramentarie by his owne fellowes First D. Feild Feild pag. 150. writeth thus The bodie of Christ is present in and with the sanctified Elements The primatiue Church
there bounds there were three principall Bishops or Patriarkes of the Christian Churche namely the Bishop of Rome Alexandria and Antioche After which time Constantinople before named Bizantium made greate by Constantine and being the seate of the Emperors the Bishops of this See not onely obtayned to haue the dignitie of a Patriarche amonge the rest but in the second generall Counâ—â—ll holden at Constantinople was preferred before bothe the other of Alexandria and Antioche and sett in degree of honor next vnto the Bishop of Rome Hitherto See D. Feild l. 4. c. 5. pag. 202. clearely allowtâ—e Popes sentence to be greatest next to a generall Councell It is cited in the next chapter D. Feild by which discourse of his there is euident demonstration made that the priuiledge of the Bishop of Rome was not giuen him by generall Councells but hee had it before the first Nicene Councell the first generall Secondly that it was the moste principall that was in the Christian Church for of the twoe moste principall Churches â—atine and Greeke to vse his words the Latine the moste principall was vnder him thirdly hee was from the begynninge preferred before the Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioche and Constantinople in so much that for Constantinople claymeing after to be cheefe hee calleth it a pretended Title Feild sup pag 62. and false and further his words of the Bishops of Constantinople be these The mognificence and glorie of his citie dayly encreaseinge hee challenged to be superior and would be namâ—d vniuersall B. not challengeing to himself to be B. alone but enchroacheinge vppon the Right of all other and thereby declareinge Himself greater and more honorable then any of the rest and the cheife Bishop of the whole worlde Hitherto his words of the encreacheing and vsurpation of that Bishop Then by his sentence the Pope of Rome still was cheife and obtayned by right the primacie in the whole Christian Church And this cheefnes and primacie as D. Couell hath told before must needs be supreamacie for no other could haue it and D. Downame alsoe hath acknowledged Down l. 1. Ant. pag. 36. that both the Emperor and generall Councell attributed to the Pope of Rome in the primatiue Church to be heade of the Churche the greatest stile in his Iudgment and it must needs be if as it is amonge all members of the bodie the heade is cheife supreame and most excellent Lett vs add to this twoe sentences of D. Feild the one concerninge the authoritie of Traditions in these words There is no reason why traditions or vnwritten verities should not be made equall Feild pag. 238. with the words precepts and doctrines of Christ the Apostles and Pastors of the Church left vnto vs in writeinge if they could proue any such vnwritten verities for it is not the writeinge that giueth things their authoritie But the worthe and creditt of him that deliuereth them though by word and lyuely voyce onely And after delyuering three Rules Feild pag. 242. how to knowe certaynely these so authorized traditions and vnwritten verities hee speaketh in this maner The third Rule is the constant testimonie of the Pastors of an Apostolicall Churche succeedeingly deliuered To which some add the present Testimonye of any Apostolicall Churche whose declynings when they began wee cannot precisely tell Hitherto the words of this Protestant Doctor of the authoritie of traditions equall to scriptures being proued by this his Rule Then if the opinion of these some his Protestants by his maner of argueinge teacheing that the present testimonie of an Apostolicke Church is sufficient Rule to proue true traditions of so high authoritie not onely this Catholique doctrine of the Popes supreamacie and commaunding power but all other doctrines taught against these Protestants of necessitie must needs be true by this Rule for they all being the doctrines of the present Church of Rome the first and principall Apostolicke Church must needs be iustified by the Testimonie of an Apostolicke Church at this present when they ar taught by it And this is sufficient for my purpose for so that some Protestants be of this opinion it is as much as I request and doe not desire or expect D. Feilds voyce or an harmony of Protestants neuer yett agreeing well in any thinge to be all of one mynde in this matter But to vrdge this particular question in hand of the Popes supreamacie by that Rule of traditions which hee alloweth which is The constant testimonie of the Pastors of an Apostolicke Churche succeedingly deliuered It is proued by these Protestants before that the Pastors of that greatest Apostolicke Church euen from the Apostle S. Peter haue succeedingly claymed taught decreed exercised and executed that highest power of supreamacie in all parts of the knowne worlde And yett for further proofe of my Minor proposition Mr. Powell writeth of these holy primatiue Powell l. 1. Antichrist pag. 230. 231. Popes followeing in this maner Calixtus Pope defined that all Bishops thoughe gathered in a generall Councell shall fullfill the will of the Churche of Rome They which doe not this ar pronownced of Pope Pelagius to keepe a Conciliable and not a Councell And againe in these wordes Powell sap pag. 240. Pope Damasus wrote that it is not lawfull for the Bishopps to doe any thinge against the decrees of the Bishops of Rome Therefore by these Protestants The Pope of Rome of right is and of all ought to be acknowledged and admitted for the supreame heade and Ruler of the Church of Christ And this being thus vnuincibly proued by these English Protestants themselues our mortall enemyes and persecutors I conclude with their owne words graunted before vppon such triall and conuiction That the Pope and the Offer of Conference pag. 16. Church of Rome and in them God and Christ Iesus himself haue had greate wronge and Indignitie offered vnto them in that they ar reiected and that all the Protestant Churches arre scismaticastin forsakeinge vnitie and communion with them Which D. Feild must alsoe Iustifie affirminge as Feild l. 4. c. 5. pag. 202. shall be cited at lardge in the next chapter that the Iudgment of the Pope of Rome or Church of Rome is one of the greatest in this world and as greate disobedience to resist or deny it which is euident alsoe before but more of it hereafter Now lett vs come to the New Protestants historie it self maliciously by their Bishops published against the Church of Rome First entreateing of the conuersion of this kingedome to the faith of Christ they sett downe this marginall supposition in these Theater of the Empire of greate Britanie pag. 203. cap. 9. n. 5. wordes Saint Peter the Apostle supposed to haue preached in Britaine And further write as followeth To which vncontrolable testimonie some others haue added that Saint Peter the Apostle preached the worde of life in this Iland as to other gentils hee did for whome God had
them Apochypha is vtterly ouerthowne For an opinion fownded vppon old Iewish Cauills against Christians singularly held or renewed reclaymed by the Author and generally giâ—â—ing offence as these Protestants affirme this was is not probable to be true D. Couell against Burges the Puritane answeareth the obiections against these Couell ag Burges pag. 8â— 86. 87. 88. 89 90. 91. bookes as Catholickes doe And sheweth that these bookes haue without cause beene accused of faultes by Protestants onely to deny them to be canonicall as Catholicks esteeme them And further hee addeth thus They ar moste true and might haue the reconcilement Couell sup pag. 87. of other scriptures And againe in these wordes If Russinus be not deceaued they were approued as parts of the old testament by the Apostles For when S. Hierome writt so scornefully of the historie of Susanna and the songe of the three children hee chargeth him therein to haue robbed the treasure of the holy ghost and diuine Instrument which the Apostles deliuered to the Churches And S. Hierome whoe is not vsually slowe to defend himself leaueth that point vnansweared pretending that what hee had spoken was not his owne opinion but what the Iewes obiected And for his paynes in translateing the booke of Iudith which Protestants deny hee giueth this reason because wee reade that the Councell of Nyce did reckon it in the number of holy scriptures Hitherto D. Couells words and much like vnto this of Russinus hee citeth from S. Augustine S. Ciprian and others Temporibus Apostolorum proximis in the next ages to the time of the Apostles And thus wee see how weake that Protestant Religion is that by their owne testimonie is fownded vppon so singular new reuiued Iewish Cauills disclaymed and generally offensyue and disliked opinion From hence I argue further All Bookes which were approued by the Apostles for parts of the old testament were the treasure of the holy ghost and diuine Instrument which the Apostles deliuered to the Churches which ar moste true and might haue reconcilement of other scriptures ar to be allowed for such But all these things ar verified of bookes which these Protestants deny and by themselues as is cited from them before Therefore ar to be allowed for canonicall scriptures bothe propositions be graunted by these Protestants before and so in this argument nothing remayneth to be proued And againe thus I argue whatsoeuer a generall Councell in the primatiue Church the highest Rule by Protestants before to approue scriptures and bynde all men vnto the definitions of it receaued for scripture ought to be receaued for such But more bookes then Protestants allowe were so receaued as these Protestants tell vs Therefore more are to be admitted Both propositions ar here also graunted before by Protestants and so the Argument concludeth truely against them Further I argue thus Those Bookes which the Iewes before and at the comminge of Christ for their greatest or greate part dwelleing out of Iury vsed as parts of the old testament and deliuered as a canon to the Christian Churches and were Ioyned in one volume read by them of the Latine Church then the acknowledged true Churche of Christ and were receaued in the third Carthagenian Councell which was confirmed in the sixt generall Councell ar now to be receaued and allowed for canonicall scriptures But those bookes which Protestants denie and Catholicks allowe be such Therefore they ar to be now allowed for canonicall The Maior proposition is euidently true for if the Iewes before and at the commeing of Christ the primatiue Christians of that time and their practice the authoritie of the true Church of Christ the moste principall Church before by D. Feild and other Protestants a fomous prouinciall Councell and the confirmation of a generall Councell ar not to be admitted to direct and instruct vs there is no meanes left for instruction in this case these beinge by these Protestants before the greatest warrants and Rules wee can haue in such causes The second proposition is proued in this manen D. Feild haueing spoken how the Hebrue Iewes had made their Hebrue canon accordeing to their Iewish reckoninge of the number of their letters how probably I leaue to Hebritians and may not now entreate hee concludeth thus These onely did Feild l. 4. c. 23. pag. 245. the auncient Church of the Iewes receaue as diuine and canonicall Neither much meruaile all the others being the last that were written and in the time of their decayeing state and afflictions Of these hee writeth thus in the next words That other bookes were added vnto Feild sup these whose authoritie not being certayne and knowne ar called Apocryphall fell out on this sortè The Iewes in their later times before and at the Act. 6. c. gloss ordinar lyr in eandem locum comminge of Christ were of two sortes some properly and for distinction sake named Hebrâ—es commorant at Hierusalem and in the holy land others named Hellenists that is Iewes of dispersion mingled with the Gretians These had written sundry bookes in Greeke which they made vse of together with other parts of the old testament which they had of the translation of the Septuagint But the Hebrues receaued onely the two and twentie bookes before mentioned Hence it came that the Iewes deliuered a double Canon of the scripture to the Christian Churches Thus wee see that the greatest parte of the Iewes Proselytes and all our of Iurie did add these bookes with the other for scripture vsed them as part of the old testament deliuered them to the Christian Churches as part of the canon of scripture and the primatiue Church consequently so receaued them otherwise they were not thus deliuered Therefore thus farre the Minor proposition is proued for I doe not expect D. Feild to say or not say expressely that these be or be not canonicall but what in true consequence hee must say by his owne graunte before and hereafter Then hee telleth vs they in S. Augustines time were receaued Feild pag. 246. by him the fathers of third Councell of Carthage and Innocentius then Pope of Rome in the best estate of that Church when it was as before by Protestants Kings speach sup a Rule vnto all in the catalogue of canonicall scriptures Now that the Canons of this Carthagenian Councell were confirmed in the sixt generall Councell holden at Trallo to vse his words and which Protestants acknowledge Feild l. 4. cap. 23. pag. 258. for a generall Councell their highest Rule hee testifieth after in the same chapter Neither is his exception because the Laodicean Councell which nameth not all Ob. them is there also confirmed of any purpose Answ for that generall Councell by Protestants approueing and confirminge bothe that which named them for canonicall and that doth not name them all must needs confirme them for canonicall otherwise against supposition this Councell of Carthage had not beene confirmed as they teach it was Further I
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.
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
preists parsonall absolution from syn after confession Baptisme by priuate parsons in time of necessitie Confirmation profession of our faith to beleeue in the Father the Sonne holy Ghost ordination of Archbishops in their prouinces and Bishops in their dioces the Article of Christ discent to Hell the Apostles creede Baptisme of Infants the perpetuall virginitie of our blessed Ladie the celebrateing of our Lords day called Sonday for the sabbath in the old lawe the feastes of Pentecoste and Easter and their time when to be celebrated not answeareing to the Iewes and for denyall of which the quartadeciman Heresie was condemned and others are thus allowed by these Protestants to be true traditions or so esteemed in the primatiue Church by their testimonie Therefore they ought to haue allowance for true and indubitate Traditions The Maior is euident for against Protestants no better testimonie can be then from themselues and they haue graunted before that the primatiue Church is a true Rule in Religion and to be followed of vs. Now to proue the Minor I must ciâ—e these Protestants and if any of them in the Iudgment of some others in their Religion speake not allwaies to their likeinge or vnproperly as they thinke lett them try this combate with themselues it belongeth not to mee in this treatise First D. Couell and others teache That the signe of the crosse is Couell ag Burg. pag. 139. 124. 125. confer an apostolickall constitution and tradition And the Protestants against Puritans do not defend it by scripture The same D. Couell from the Couell ag Burg. pag. 122. auntient Fathers tell vs That the mixture of water with wine is an apostolicall tradition And as a generall Councell is of highest Iudgment by these men before so D. Willet writeth Willet Antilog pag. 169. thus the Greekes in a generall Councell held at Nyce confirmed and allowed the adoration of Imadges and it taught that Reuerence of Imadges is an Apostolicall tradition M. Middleton hath Concil Nyc 2. Middleton pap pag. 64. 45. 46. 51. thus testified S. Chrisostome taught it to be the Apostles ordinance to pray for the deade and confesseth 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 or Masses of Basile Chrisostome and â—piphanius The Greeke Gennad Schol. def 5. c. 3. Church so allowed by Protestants as before testifieth thus The doctrine of Purgatorie prayer and sacrifice for the deade was a Tradition of the Apostles M. Perkins Ormerod and others assure vs Perk. probl pag. 93. Ormer pict pag. â—7 Morton Apol. part 1. pag. 227. 228. Middleton pap pag. 134. Willet Antilog pag. 13. the auntient Fathers taught prayer to Saincts and D. Morton alledgeth how all antiquitie taught Inuocation of Saincts Then seing Protestants will not allowe it by scripture they must graunte it by Tradition M. Middleton telleth vs that the auntient Fathers so receaueinge it from them that went before them taught that vowes of chastitie and single life in Preists is to be obserued by tradition D. Willet graunteth that Vigiluntius was condemned for an Hereticke for deniall of reuerence to Relicks Then by tradition in the Iudgment of Protestants for they teache that it is not conteyned in scripture His Maiestie and the Protestant conference tell vs with Confer pag. 13. the Fathers and Apostolicke Churches that the particular and pâ—rsonall absolution from synne after confession is apostolicall and a verie godly ordinance And yet other Protestants there affirme that neither that nor others followeing are conteyned in scriptures D. Bilson Protestant Bishop of Winchester with consent Confer pag. 18. of Antiquitie teacheth That baptisme to be ministred by priuate persons in time of necessitie is an holy tradition His Maiestie and the saide Conference teach that Bishops be diuine ordinations Confer pag 35. 36. and confirmation is an apostolicall tradition How it ought by these men to be receaued Pag. 10. 11. for a sacrament shall be proued amonge other Sacraments hereafter M. Wotton writeth Wotton def of Perk. pag 465. 4â—6 that S. Basile did holde that the verie profession of our faith by which wee beleeue in the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost is a tradition D. Couell wittnesseth thus that it was an Couell ag the plea. of the Innoc. pag. 104. Barlowe Ser. Sept. 21. An. 1607. part 3. cap. 2. apostolicall tradition or ordination to ordayne Archibishopâ— in their prouinces as Bishops also in their diocesse to rule the Church And yet many English Protestants to be cited hereafter deny such things either directly or consequently to be conteyned in scriptures and yet as before doe make true discipline and Regiment so essentiall a thinge in Religion that in their doctrine it is a note of the true Churche The Protestant Puritans vtterly deny alsoe that Christs discent into Hell can be proued out of scripture yet their Protestant Bishop of Winchester D. Bilson Bilson suru pag. 664. affirmeth That the Article of Christâ— discent to hell and the Creede wherein it is conteyned is an Apostolicall tradition deliuered to the Church by the direction and agreement of the Apostles To which D. Feild hath also giuen testimonie before Feild pag. 238. 239. And affirmeth the same of other particulars remembred in the Minor proposition amonge which that doctrine of baptizing infants is denyed by many of his English Protestant Church either to be conteyned or to be proued by scripture yet D. Feild Feild pag. 239. writeth thus Baptisme of Infants is named a tradition because it is not expressely deliuered in scripture that the Apostles did Baptize Infants nor any expresse precept there founde that they should so doe Then if wee should graunte more authoritie and giue greater credit to this Doctor that in his Iudgment against his fellowe Protestants before hee coulde probably deduce this doctrine from scripture which they deny yet it is but his priuate deduction and Interpretation and perhaps some few others which as before by his graunte bindeth vs not to receaue it as the doctrine of baptizing infants doth Of the perpetuall virginitie of our blessed Ladie to be a tradition I haue entreated before And Doctor Feild addeth thus The fift kinde of traditions Feild supr 239. comprehendeth such obseruations as in particulare are not commaunded in scripture nor the necessitie of them from thence concludeth Of this forte many thinke the obseruation of the Lent fast to be the fast of the fourth and the sixt dayes of the weeke and some other The custome of standeing at prayer on the Lords day and betweene Easter and Whitsontide was generally receaued as deliuered by Apostolicke tradition and when some began to breake it it was confirmed by the Councell of Nyce And if Concil Nic. can 20. to stand at prayers at such times of the Lords daye Easter and
teach that those doctrines are not conteyned in or to be proued by scriptures consequently they defined them by vnwritten traditions of equall authoritie with scripture by D. Feild before being so adiudged allowed and approued by that highest commaunding sentence in the Churche of Christ But of generall Councells I am to entreate in the next chapter In the meane time I vrdge onely this one particular of the highest authoritie and gouermnent in the Church by tradition as these Protestants assure vs and I argue thus Whosoeuer defend and teach that which they thinke to be the highest authoritie and function spirituall in the Church without which the word of God cannot be truelâ— preached nor Sacraments duely ministred the essentiall things of the true Church by the Protestants Religion to be an vnwritten Tradition needs must allowe of vnwritten traditions necessarie to saluation But these English Protestants case is such Therefore they must allowe vnwritten traditions necessary to saluation The Maior proposition is euidently true and the Minor thus proued by them The Protestant Author of the offer of conference Offer of confer pag. 12. writeth thus The Bishop of Rochester with the consent and by the direction no doubt of some of the cheefest Prelates hath published his sermon preached before the Kinge at Hampton Court the mayne drift whereof is to proue that the offiâ—e and câ—lling of Bishops is a diuine and Apostolicall ordinance And againe in these words vnwritten ordinances Pag. 34. sup aswell as written or dyuine and Apostoliâ—ke in the constitution of the cheefest office and ministery of the Church D. Couell hath testified the same for himself before and their Bishop Barlowe Barlowe Ser. Sept. 21. 1606. before the Kinge his words before the Kinge and with publicke applause are these of this matter First posuit actu hee acted it by the hands of the Apostles and so the Episcopall function is an ordinance Apostolicall hee hath enacted it for succeeding posteritie and so it is a canon or constitution of the whole Trinitie It is Geographia agraphos vnwritâ—en Housbandrie whereof there is no written precept or Rule from Christ Irenaeus calleth it an Apostolicall tradition manifest to all the worlde To these lett vs add some Protestant testimonies how from the first creation of the world all Articles of Religion for many hundreds of yeares and afterward many cheife and necessarie points thereof were taught and deliuered by tradition without scripture And I will onely cite their late worke Historye of the world much commended Histor of the world lib. 1. pag. 180. and approued amonge them Of the practice and deliuery of Religion thus they write That the Rule in generall was paternall it is most euident for Adam being Lord. Ouer his owne children instructed them in the seruice of God his Creator as wee reade Cayne and Abel brought oblations before God as they had beene taught by their parent the Father of mankinde Their sixt treatise or Paragrah in that first booke is Lib. 1 §. 6. pag. 78. thus intituled of the Patriarkes deliueringe their knowledge by tradition And write in these wordes if wee consider the curiositie and polecie of elder ages wee shall finde that knowledg was the greatest treasure that men sought for and which they also couered and hid from the vulgare sort as Iewells of inestimable price feareing the irreuerent construction of the Ignorant and irreligeous so as whatsoeuer was attayned vnto concerning God and his workeinge in nature the same was not left to publicke dispute but deliuered ouer by hart and tradition from wise men to posteritie equally zelous ex animo in animum sine literis medio intercedente Dion Areop verbo from minde to minde without letters by way of Tradition or worde of mouthe And it was thought by Esdras Origen and Hilarius as Mirandula conceiueth that Moses did not onely vppon the mount receaue the lawe from God but withall secretiorem veram legis enarrationem a more secrett and true explanation of the lawe which saith hee out of the same Authors hee deliuered by mouth to Iosuah and Iosuah to the Elders for to teach these misteries which hee called secretiora to the rude multitude were no other quam dare sanctum canibus to cast pearls before swyne In succeeding times this vnderstandinge and wisedome began to be written in Cyphers and Characters and letters bearing the forme of beasts birds and other creatures and to be taught onely to such as serued in their temples and to their Kings and preists Of the first the Cabala of the Iewes was Pag. 79. an imitation This Cabala importeth a lawe receaued by Tradition and vnwritten Cabala in Hebrue is Receptio in Latine and a receauing in English If then such as would seeme wisest in the vse of reason will not acknowledge that the story of the creation or begynning of all things was written by Inspiration the holy Ghost guiding the hand of Moses yet it is manifest that thâ— knowledge thereof might by tradition then vsed be deliuered vnto him by a more certaine presumption then any or all the testimonies which prophane antiquitie had preserued and left to their successors For leauing to remember that Adam instructed Seth and Seth his children and Successors which cannot be doubted of it is manifest that Mathusalem liued together with Adam himself 243 yeares and Noah with Mathusalem no lesse then 500 yeares and before Noah died Abraham was 58. yeares old from whence this knowledge by an easy and ordinary way might come to Israel and so to Moses And to cleare all doubts and obiections these Protestants proue vnto vs. That the very binding and obligatory precepts of God themselues were thus deliuered and obserued onely by vnwritten traditions They intitle the 8. § of their second booke Histor sup libr. 2. cap. 4. §. 4. in this maner Of the vnwritten lawe of God giuen to the Patriarkes by tradition And thus they add The Patriarkes of the first age receaued many precepts from God himself and whatsoeuer was first imposed by Adam the same was obserued by Seth who instructed Enos from whom it succeeded to Noah Sem Abraham Isaac Iacob Ioseph and Moses Yea many particular commaundements afterward written were formerly imposed and diliuered ouer by tradition which kinde of teacheinge the Iewes afterward called Cabala precept receaued from the mouth of their preists and Elders to which the Iewes after the lawe written added the Interpretation of secret misteryes reserued in the bosomes of their preists and vnlawfull to be vttered to the people But the true Cabala was not to be concealed from any as being in deed the diuine lawe reuealed to the Patriarkes and from them diliuered to posteritie when as yet it was vnwritten And entreating how after letters and writing was inuented and many reuealed misteries so recorded yet men must still maintayne traditions vnwritten and instruction from them they exemplifie in this order out of S.
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
caused without a cause The Minor proposition is manifestly proued by these Protestants in this order for they haue before condemned all other Rules which they haue of error as their parlement Kings Censure and all priuate Interpretations and made them subiect and controleable by generall Councells as hauing authoritie ouer all parsons D. Feilds wordes of allowance after hee had with others graunted generall Councells to be supreame bynding and commaunding all be these Wee must obey without scrupulous questioninge with all modestie of Feild pag. 202. minde and reuerence of bodye with all good allowance acceptation and repose in the wordes of them that teach vs vnlesse they teach vs any thinge which the authoritie of the higher and superior controlleth Immediately before hee had allowed the supreame and highest Iudgment to generall Councells and the next to the Pope and Church of Rome Then Protestants teacheing contrarie to superior and higher authoritie in the Pope are to be condemned by him But notwithstanding all this to make their cause desolate and demonstrate that their Religion hath no warrant of truth and Infallibilitie at all Thus they write of this highest Rule of generall Councells euen in their publick Articles of Religion Articles of Relig. art 21. generall Councells may erre and sometime haue erred euen in things pertayninge vnto God Wherefore things ordeyned by them as necessarie to saluation haue neither strength nor authoritie vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scripture Therefore how truely or certainely soeuer generall Councells make decrees and definitions in matters of faith they giue no validitie to Protestant Religion if in themselues they should approue it for by their cited Article their ordination hath neither strength nor authoritie as it is the decree of the generall Councells but as it may be declared by a priuate Protestant writer Prince Parlament or Conuocation in their conceipt to be taken out of scripture and yet before they haue tolde vs a generall Councell commaundeth all all must submitt themselues vnto it and all other their Rules be erroneous and deceatefull Therefore by these Protestants neither generall Councell nor any other Rule assigned by them can by any possibilitie proue their Religion true Further I argue thus No societie people or professors of Religion which by their owne confession neither haue nor by their proceedings can hereafter haue or haue heretofore had any generall Councell or meanes to assemble and call it can in reason pretend it for their cause But the state of Protestants by their owne confession is such Therefore generall Councells cannot be pretended for them The Maior proposition is euidently true for esse and beinge must needs in all things goe before operari and workeinge by them For as by nature nothinge can be made of nothinge so that which wanteth being and is not can produce nothinge The Minor proposition is likewise manifestly true for neuer any Protestant nor altogether so much as clayme authoritie or Iurisdiction in this matter none amonge them pretending it further then their owne particular temporall dominions which all vnited together neuer like to be are farre to shorte and vnequall to make a Councell generall which they say excludeth none especially of the greate patriarkes of Rome Constantinople Alexandria and Antioche not one of them being for them but all with their whole precincts limitts subiects and ditions against them by their owne confession To this I add the Censure of their owne Protestant Relator in these wordes The Protestants Relation of Religion cap. 47. are seuered bandes or rather scattered troopes each drawing diuers way without any meanes to pacific their quarrells to take vpp their controuersies No Prince with any preeminence of Iurisdiction aboue the rest no Patriarke one or more to haue a Common superintendance of care of their Churches for correspondencie and vnitie no ordinary way to assemble a generall Councell of their part the onely hope remayninge euer to assuage their contentions And yet if they could haue meanes for such a meeteing of Protestants so few in number and weake in Iurisdiction by their owne graunte in regard of Catholicks and other Christian Kingdomes and prouinces different to them in Religion this would be farre from the leaste shewe and name of an vniuersall and generall Councell such as they allowe to Iudge and sentence in this busines Neither can these men now deny the necessitie of generall Councells hauing so much allowed them for supreame sentencer before and appealed to a generall Councell to be assembled Neither may they compare their so desolate estate with the primatiue Church of the first three hundred yeares for themselues haue graunted before that a supreame and commaunding binding power ouer all was not onely claymed but lawfully and iuridically exercised and executed by the Popes of Rome in those times in all partes of the Christian world and both power and authoritie to approue and reproue Councells was belongeing vnto them by publickly receaued Canon in those dayes And herevppon I argue in this maner that generall Councells are for the doctrine of the Church of Rome Whatsoeuer Church in the primatiue time of Christianitie was endowed with such priuiledges that euery thinge was voide that was done without the consent of the Bishop and Ruler of it and no Councell could be called without his allowance and at this present hath by the graunte of Protestants a common Father aduiser and conductor to end Iarrs displeasures differences to keepe Religion in vnitie by Councells when no other Church enioyeth these immunities must needs in all reason be sayde to be warranted and defended by generall Councells But the Church of Rome is by the graunte of Protestants in this Condition Therefore warranted and defended by generall Councells The first proposition is euidently true for hee that from the begynning had these prerogatiues to approue or disproue Confirme or inualidate Councells cannot be conceaued to haue ratified or confirmed any thinge against the immunities and Common receaued doctrine of that Church so exalted dignified and priuiledged aboue all others of the whole Christian worlde and against his owne supreame and eminent Authoritie The Minor proposition is thus proued first D. Couell sheweth that an hundred yeares before the Nycene Councell in the yeare of our Lorde 2â—5 when there was no Emperour Christian to call Councells as Protestants would pâ—rsuade the world they did and should the Pope of Rome had this prerogatiue to call Councells Therefore from the begynninge by preeminence of his See seing there had not beene either generall Councell or Emperour to giue it vnto him His wordes be these The synode of Rome called Couell ag the plea of the Innoc. pag. 110. by Cornelius Pope of Rome against Nonatus consisted of threescore Bishops and many others of the cleargie Where wee see Heresie condemned and â—â— that scarcetie of Bishops in those first dayes of Christianitie so greate in Councell assembled by the Popes authoritie
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
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