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
rash and inconsiderate holdenes and presumption in condemninge the vniuersall Church of Christ hee was iustely condemned For the practise of the Churche at that time was not euill in any of these things neither doe wee concurre with Aerius in the reprehension of that primatiue and auncient Churche What was this practise of the primatiue Church concerning the deade for deniall whereof Aerius was condemned as D. Feild hath told vs I will recite from other Protestants M. Middleton assureth vs thus Middleton papistom pag. 64. 45. 46. 51. 47. 48. 49. S. Chrisostome taught it to be the Apostles ordinance to pray for the deade it was a tradition in the primatiue Church receaued from the fathers to pray for the deade and begg mercie of God for them The deade were prayed for in the publicke liturgies of Hull Rom. pole pag. 86 Morton Apol. part 1. pag. 273. Basile Chrisostome and Epiphanius The Churche in Epipbanius time vsed to craue mercye for the deade M. Hull saith Leo 15 Leo the pope appointed Masses for the deade D. Morton citeth from Caluine this ipsi veteres preces fundebant pro defunctis The auncient fathers prayer for the deade And to giue finall content to D Feild the sentence of his true Greeke Church is Gennad Schol. def 5. cap. 3. this The doctrine of purgatorie prayer and sacrifice for the deade was a Tradition of the Apostles That which the Latines call Purgatorie they of the Greeke Church name Catharteâ—ion They were onely Scismaticorum sectatores followers of Scismaticks which denied it The seing Protestants doe ordinarily teach that prayer for the deade is not conteyned either expressely or deducebly in scriptures it must needs be by tradition for denyall of which tradition Aerius was condemned of Heresie and the vniuersall Church at that time by D. Feild taught prayer for the deade for hee telleth vs that Aerius in his opinion contemned the vniuersall Church of Christ and so must D. Feild confesse of himself and his fellowe Protestants if they deny this to be a Tradition as they haue denyed the Bookes of Machabees where this veritie is taught to be caconicall scriptures to gaynesay this primatiue and Catholick doctrine And from hence thus I argue againe by the Rule of S. Augustine allowed by D. Feild whatsoeuer the whole Church holdeth not Feild l. 4. c. 21. pag. 242. being decreed by the authoritie of Councells but hauing beene euer holden may rightly be thought to haue proceeded from Apostolicke authoritie But the Catholicke doctrine of prayer and sacrifice for the deade is such by the testimonie of these Protestants Therefore a tradition from the Apostles by these Protestants The Maior consisteth of the verie wordes of S. Augustine as they be translated and allowed by D. Feild in this maner Feild pag. 241. Hauing sett downe the kindes and sortes of traditions it remayneth to examine by what meanes wee may come to discern and by what rules wee may Iudge which are true and Indubitate traditions The first rule is deliuered by S. Augustine Quod vniuersa Aug. l. 4. cont Donatist cap. 23. tenet ecclesia nec concilijs institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur Englished by D. Feild as in the Maior proposition where rectissimè creditur is moste rightly beleeued hee hath translated may rightly be thought The Minor proposition is proued before by these Protestants in teacheing this doctrine to haue beene the doctrine of the vniuersall Church resisted by Aerius and also that it was an Apostolicke tradition which all Protestants of England must needs graunt vnto by S. Augustines and D. Feilds first Rule before for by their proceedings they are so far from graunteing that this doctrine is defined by Councells and by that title to be embraced That they playnely teach in the Articles of their Religion the definition of a generall Councell in matters of faith not taken out of scriptures as they teach this is not is nothing worthe The Articl of Relig. art 21. wordes of their Article be these Things ordeined by generall Councells as necessarie to saluation haue neither strength nor authoritie vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scripture Hitherto their subscribed article And that this is a thinge necessarie to saluation must needs also be yeelded vnto by these Protestants telling vs before both that Aerius was condemned of Heresie for denying it as also that Heresie is arror in some fundamentall point Couâ—ll sup which must needs be necessarie to saluation My next Argument shall be taken from the next Rule of D. Feild to knowe true traditions and my Maior proposition shall be his verie wordes thus next followeing The second Rule is whatsoeuer all or the Feild supr pag. 242. moste famous and renowned in all ages or at the leaste in diuers ages haue constantly deliuered as receaued from them that went before them no man contradicting or doubting of it may be thought to be an Apostolicall Tradition But the Catholicke doctrine of prayer for the deade praying to Saincts single life of the cleargie especially in the Latine Church and others in their proper place to be proued such by these Protestants are in this state Therefore by Protestants they be Apostolicke traditions The Maior is the very sayinge and sentence of D. Feild before and the Minor concerning prayer for the deade also before allowed by these Protestants the others are to be proued in their order this now sufficeth The first proposition for my next Argument shall be D. Feilds third and laste Rule to knowe true and indubitate traditions and is deliuered by him in these wordes The third Rule is the constant testimonie Feild supr l. 4. c. 21. pag. 242. of the pastors of an Apostolicke Church successiuely delyuered But prayer for the deade c. is so proued by such testimonie therefore an Apostolicke tradition The maior is D. Feild sentence And the Minor is before proued by these Protestants for if the vniuersall Church as before by them consented is this veritie not onely one Apostolicke Church sufficient for his Rule but all did consent vnto it otherwise it could not be said the doctrine of the vniuersall Church And of all Churches Apostolicke there can be no question with Protestants bur the Church of Rome euer taught thus and D. Field hath told vs before that Feild l. 4. c. 5. pag. 202. amongst Apostolicke Churches the Church of Rome is more specially to be obeyed reuerenced and respected Further thus I argue whatsoeuer thinges are either approued by these Protestants themselues for true and indubitate traditions or allowed by them that the primatiue Church and fathers receaued for such are to haue that allowance But the signe of the crosse mixture of water with wine in the Eucharist reuerence of holy Imadges and Relicks sacrifice and prayer for the deade vowes of chastitie and single life of
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.
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
means they could to come to vnitie amonge themselues as in the true Church it must bee Crammer and others vsed all deuises and Caluyne wrote vnto him sayeing That might his labours stand the Church insteed ne decem quideÌ„ Maria it would not greeue him to sayle ouer ten seas to such a purpose But this proued a worke of much difficultie if not altogether vnpossible in mans eyes Where they well might haue left out their addition if not and haue playnely sayd without any exception as it hath playnely proued that it was altogether vnpossible in mans eyes especially in the common order of proceedings amonge them which by their owne Relation was this That euery kingedome and free state or principalitie which had abandoned the Religion of Rome should diuulge a breife of that Religion which amonge them was taught and beleeued Wherevppon as this men tell came forthe the seuerall Protestant confessions or Religions of the seuerall Protestant Congregations of Wittemberge Ausburge Bohem Sueue Scotland Heluetia Fraunce Belgia Basile Saxonie England in their 39. Articles c. amonge whome euen those of England it selfe what contradiction there is euen in matters by their owne doctrine fundamentall and essentiall in Religion demonstration is lately made by this same maner and methode by their owne authorities and will be also manifest in this worke And yett The Answ of Orford â—â— the 1000. pet Articul 19. 21. this men which say they ar the learnest ministerye in the worlde and definitiuely condemne all Churches as Ierusalem Alexandria Antioch and Rome and generall Councells themselues of error and may not pleade Ignorance for themselues to excuse them from error Neither can they with the least pretence of truth affirme their acknowledged lyeing and erroneous Churche to be the true Church of God except they will also moste blasphemously teach and mayntayne that prima veritas and eternall truthe is eternall August lib. de mendas falsehood or with the damned Priscillianists that God in his Reuelations to his Church and in the holy scriptures hath deliuered lyes and errours commaundinge vs to beleeue them For they haue before assured vs that the true Church of God warily keepeth all doctrine committed to her chaungeth diminiâ—heth addeth loseth vsurpeth nothinge Therefore this chaungeing diminishinge loseinge and vsurpinge Church of Protestants cannot be this true Church of Christ by their owne doctrine And as materiall essentiall and fundamentall it is in Religion concerninge the true grounde and fowndation of faith and as greate a falsehood to say in the meanest or least point of faith that truth is error God a lyar or his Church a seducer as so to affirme in the greatest and moste concerninge mystery of Religion The true groundes and fowndation of true beleeueinge equally weakened or ouerthrowne in the one as the other And the first proposition which our Catholick Preists and brethren prisoners at Wisbych offered to the vice-chaunceller of Cambridge and that vniuersitie that is Ecclesia protestantium non est vera Christi Ecclesia The Protestant Churche is not the true Church of Christ is here sufficiently questioned and by themsels not longe since more then sufficiently demonstrated to bâ— Pulâ—â—â—a propositio really Demonstrat of Recuse dem 2. 3. 4. c. and sincerely a true proposition and not scoffingly as hee pleaseth to parenthesize And so will be defended or proued by those propownders of it As also their second proposition for of the third in his proper place dâ—tur externus Iudex in rebus fidei there is an externall Iudge in matters of faith will bee maynâ—ayned not onely in such sense as the Vniuersiâ—ie of Cambridge accordinge to the nature of their Church and Religion graunteth that is fallible and deceatfull But as our Brethren accordinge to the nature of true Faithe Religion and the true Church infallible intended it and still offer to make it good for the Romane Church euer synce the time of Christ and so hereafter When our English Protestant vniuersitie for their so lately as they terme Vicech of Camb D. Carey his letter Aug. 7. it reformed Church and light of the Ghospell ar driuen to this Answeare in these words Your second question is affirmatiue auerring an externall Iudge in maâ—ters of faith If you vnderstand a Iugde infallible in his sentence wee deny what you affirme otherwise wee gaynesay not your assertion Which in their owne meaninge aboue remembred is pulchra propositio for their Illuminated Church which will haue no Iudge or Iudgment in matters of faith aboue all things most infallible and certainely true except wee will allowe it for an Article of faithe or an infallible truthe that the Iudge and Iudgment must be fallible and deceatefull And the Religion and faith so adiudged and propownded to bee followed and with diuine faith to be beleeued against the nature thereof to be false erroneoes fallible or deceatefull for such as the Iudge is the Iudgment and difficultie adiudged must needs be And yett further one scruple more there is in this busines which because Cambridge is now busyed enough against pore prisoners without bookes I wish that Oxford could resolue how it can stand with the Integritie and sownd doctrine of a Reformed Church and spoken consequenter like a learned vniuersitie to graunt as they haue done and must doe by their Religion to this day that there be and must be so many Supreame and Independant Iudges and heaps in their Churche as I haue before remembred from themselues Religions Churches seuerall and different Confessions or Professions of Faithe euery one absolute of it self and without dependance of any other and to vse their owne wordes Without any meanes to take vp their controuersies no Prince with any preeminence of Iurisdiction aboue the rest no Patriarke to haue a common superintendence or care of their Churches Their lett sup Aug. 7. And yett now the vniuersitie of Cambridge haueing as they write warrant from our Kinge to accept our Preists challendge God graunt they performe their warrant Ioyneth with them in this position datur externus Iudex there â—â— an externall or one externall Iudge in matters of faith If there is but one externall Iudge for Iudex externâ—â— and externall Iudge in the singular number is but one then those Churches or Church of theirs which from their begynning haue had so many supreame Iudges and Iudgments cannot be the true Church of Christ which as now the graunt hath but one And if their former both doctrine and practise of many such Iudges is true then their present doctrine and graunt of onely one is false and inferreth a false Church But I leaue them to our Preists at Wisbych Onely here I will adde because they haue now allowed one externall Iudge in matters of faith in the true Church to whose Iudgment all must be obedient otherwise hee is not to be named a Iudge they must also against their owne limitation allowe that his Iudgment
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
CHAPTER IIII. WHEREIN BY THESE Protestants is proued that all Bookes of scripture receaued for such by the Church of Rome ar canonicall That the Protestants also haue either no scriptures at all or vncertaine and doubtfull and no true Canon of them THvs haueinge demonstratiuely proued by these our English Protestants that the true Church of Christ is of that byndeinge and commaunding authoritie power and priuiledge That There is no saluation remission of synnes or Hope of eternall life out of the Churche it is the blessed companie of holy ones household of faith spouse of Christ piller and grawnd of truthe her communion is to be embraced directions followed Iudgment rested in to ouerrule all Inferior Iudgment whatsoeuer c. And that bothe the present Churche of Rome is this so excellent and enfraunchised societie and the Pope and Bishop thereof supreame heade and spirituall gouernor ouer the whole Christian worlde all other Questions against these ProtestaÌ„ts ar all readie determined by them for the Church and Pope of Rome So that nothing is further needfull to be disputed in this busines eyther of scriptures or any other matter in controuersy yet for particular satisfaction to all in all particulars I will proceede and first for the Bookes of holy scriptures and argue these first in generall Whatsoeuer Bookes ar proposed vnto vs by the true Church of Christ and the supreame Gouernor thereof to be canonicall scripture ar for such to be embraced and reuerenced But all Bookes allowed for canonicall by the Church of Rome at this present be such Therefore so to be embraced and reuerenced The Maior proposition is euident before by the priuiledges of the true Church recited in generall and not onely so but in particular also concerninge the authoritie of the true Church in approueinge and proposeinge holy scriptures for Mr. Wotton hath thus testified for Wotton â—ef of Perk pag. 442. Protestants The Iugdment of the Church wee are so far from discreditinge that wee Holde it for a very speciall grownde in this matter of scriptures And D. Couell hath these conuinceing Couell against Burg. pag. 60. words The Church of Christ accordeing to her authoritie receaued from him hath warrant to approue the scriptures to acknowledge to receaue to publish and commaunde vnto her children And to make it euident that this priuiledge by these Protestants cannot be attributed or ascribed to any other Church then the Church of Rome they haue before confessed that neuer any other Church but that onely exceptinge the Church of Constantinople pretended Title much lesse enioyed it to this supreamacie to propownde scriptures or make decrees and lawes to the whole Church and the children thereof and the clayme thereof in that behalf was but pretended and vsurped and now is by their desolation left desolate And to make this the next argument and others more cleare I will in this place recite the words of D. Feild wherein to omitt the Holy scriptures because they in no place tell vs which be or be not canonicall scriptures But wee ar as these Protestants before haue told vs and shall more particularely testifie Hereafter in this chapter to receaue them from the Church of Christ That wee may knowe whome moste to trust and obey in this and such matters of controuersy hee writeth thus haueing spoken of the Church before Hither Feild pag. 202. l. 4. c. 5. wee may referre those different degrees of obedience which wee must yeeld to them that commaunde and teache vs in the Church of God excellently described and sett downe by Waldensis Wee Waldens doct Fidei l. 2. art 2. 3. p. 27. must saith hee reuerence and respect the authoritie of all Catholicke Doctors whose doctrynes and writeings the Church alloweth wee must more regard the authoritie of Catholicke Bishops more then these the authoritie of the Apostolicke Churches amongst them more especially the Church of Rome of a generall Councell more then all these Hitherto D. Feilds allowance that this sentence is excellent Therefore soeinge Protestants neuer had nor can haue as they haue testified before any generall Councell and deny all Councells to be generall which Catholikes alledge for this Question of the Bookes of scriptures and others also They ar bownde to be obedient to that sentence next vnto them which D. Feild here hath told vs to be the Iudgment of the Church of Rome or Pope of Rome which hath defined and allowed the catholicke doctrine for the Bookes of canonicall scripture as alsoe other questions as all Protestants acknowledge Otherwise they ar in one of highest degrees of disobedience that is in this world as his words before are wittnesse For hee alloweth it for an excellent direction for this present time and state of controuersies And yett if he would contend which hee neither doth nor can being allowed for this present time to drawe it to the dayes of Thomas Waldensis disputing against Witcliffe their Brother in Religion as they write and resisting the Popes authoritie it maketh nothing for his excuse for if Witcliffe as they say was of their Religion the case betweene Waldensis and him was the same which now is with my self and other Catholicks writinge against these Protestants Brethren and Associates in Religion vnto Wickliffe and his Adherents This supposed I make the like Argument againe in this maner Whatsoeuer bookes ar proposed for canonicall scripture by the true Church ar the highest Rule that can be had or fownde in time of controueâ—sie ar to be receaued for holy scriptures But all those Bookes which the present Romane Church alloweth ar so proposed Therefore to be receaued for holy scriptures The Maior proposition is euidently true otherwise all Christians in such times must needs be perplexed in the cheifest matter of Religion by Protestants the scriptures themselues which cannot be for so contradictories might bothe be true The highest Rule ought to be followed the highest Rule ought not to be followed Which be contradictorie It ought to be followed because it is our Rule and the best that can be assigned it ought not to be followed because it is false and deceatefull And no man can be so bownde vnder damnation to followe a false Rule And concerninge the authoritie of the Church in this case it is further confirmed by these Protestant sentences D. Couells words be Couell def of Hook pag. 31. these The Church of Rome teacheth no badd opinion to affirme that the scriptures are holy and diuine in themselues but so esteemed by vs for the authoritie of the Churche And againe That the scriptures ar true wee haue it from the Church And further thus The Church hath fowre Couell sup pag. 32. 33. singular offices towards the scripture First to be of them as it were a faithefull Register Secondly to discerne and Iudge betweene false and adulterate and that which is true and perfect The third to publish and diuulge to proclayme as a cryer the true edict
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
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
and the Hebrue Greeke Apostles also as Athenians But now sixe yeares triall hath taught that it is one thinge to dreame of tongues an other to knowe them And now they are said to be at a stand And would willingly giue ouer but that the Kings authoritie requireth an end But that your most learned Maiestie may se what is to be hoped for from them least the Churches be forced to buy bables for the word of God I will in few words deleuer that it may appeace that such pore students are not to be suffered to lest with the Kinge and the flocke Hitherto this greate linguists oration his exceptions are to tedious to be recited Onely because these men haue so magnified the Hebrue text of the old testament in respect of the septuaginta and vulgare Latine now this greate searcher of Hebrue monuments can heare onely for hee neuer se either of them of two perfect Hebrue copies of the old testament in all the world and both they be in the Iewes custodye one in Hierusalem and the other at Nehardegh in Mosopotamia Veteris testamenti duo exemplaria tam accurata atque mens humana prouidere potuit seruantur à Iudaeis Hierosolymis alterum alterum Nehardeghae in Mesopotamia Then if wee haue no better comfort from these Hebritians for a true Hebrue text then that England neither hath had or can procure any and none is to be had but from our Enemyes the Iewes and yet if they could procure a true copie which they haue not done there is not any one in England by their owne Iudgments able truely to translate it and these last translators were weary of their entreprise and would haue giuen it ouer after sixe yeares experience of their disabilitie but that the Kings Maiesties pleasure was to haue one end or other wee may not easely admitt such translations for holy scriptures nor Religion deduced from them for a true Religion And â—his the rather because since the birth of this new translation it is condemned by their owne approued writeings I will omitt others and onely cite one place out of their late commended history of the world in these Histor of the world l. 1. cap. ◠§. 14. Chron 2. cap. 21. v. 16. The Protest new transl sup words The ill translation of Ethiopia for Chus is amonge other places made moste apparant in the second of Chronicles in these words So the Lord styrred vpp against Iehoram the spiritt of the Philistines and the Arabians which confine the Ethiopians The Geneua translation hath it which were besides the Ethiopians the new English readeth thus more ouer the lord stirred vpp against Iohoram the spiritt of the Philistines and of the Arabians that were neare the Ethiopians Now how farre it is betweene the Philistines and the Negros or Ethiopians euery man that looketh in a mapp may Iudge For hee Philistines and Arabians doe mixt and ioyne with the land of the Chusites and are distant from Ethiopia about two and thirtie or three and thirtie degrees and therefore not their next neighbours but all Egipt and the deserts of Sur and Pharan are betweene them And to aggrauate this matter the more these new Protestant translators takeing vppon them to translate the old testament out of the Hebrue and new out of the Greeke and onely alloweing those texts in words are so farre from performing it in deeds that in the old testament they haue forsaken the Hebrue text diuers thowsands of times as may be proued by their owne merginall obseruations of that matter my leasure was not to recompt them all but in Genesis the first booke they haue thus behaued themselues aboue two hundred tymes and after the same rate in all the rest As in the 5. 20. and 25. chapter of the booke of Iudges fourtye times Fyfteene tymes in Sam. l. 1. cap. 18. in the 2. Booke of Samuel in cap. 22. thirteene times in cap. 1. 7. 18 20. in fower chapters aboue fyfty times in the third booke of Kings And so they deale with the Greeke in the new testament and in the old testament where the scripture is written in the Chaldy and Hebrue mixed as in the time of captiuitie so they vse the Chaldy tongue as in Esra cap. 4. they forsake the Hebrue thrise and the Chaldye eleuen or twelue times in the second chapter of Daniel they leaue it thirteene times in the third chapter twelue times in the 5. chapter neyne times c. and in these and other places where they refuse the originall tonge as for example the Hebrue they doe it not many times to preferre either the vulgare Latine Septuaginâ—a or Syriacke but their owne conceipt and Imagination Yet in places where they forsake the originall to preferre any of the other it is euidently against their owne profession and Religion and in places of their former translations censured by Mr. Gregory Martyne or other English Catholicks they often times neither regard their owne or ours but giue vs new scriptures and reuelations of their owne thoughe not many times in greate matters and so in this multiplication and chaunge of scriptures they haue also multiplied and chaunged Religion deduced from them and for that one Article of their auntient creed I beleeue in the holy ghost may now say by such proceedings wee beleeue in the foure and fourtie English Protestant holy Ghosts For whosoeuer reiect all texts of scripture as their owne marginall obseruations tell vs they doe though as before often not in great things yet sometimes otherwise and deny vnwritten traditions of this kinde must needs be in such estate CHAPTER VI. PROVETH BY THESE PROtestants that the true and Iuridicall exposition of scriptures is against them and for the doctrine of the Romane Church AFTER these I am to entreate of the true lawfull and Iuridicall Exposition of holy scriptures And that it belongeth to the Church of Rome haueing both the true scriptures the true translation of them and it self haueing power and authoritie being the true Church of Christ to propose it to all Christians and not to these Protestants for no companie or congregation of men wanting and denying diuers bookes of scriptures in which diuers Articles of Religion as prayer to Angels their patronadge prayer and sacrifice for the Deade meritt of good workes c. are directly proued not so apparently taught in other scriptures besides followeing and alloweing erroneous and corrupt translations can haue the true and Iuridicall exposition of scriptures especially hauing no Iurisdiction ouer others by their owne graunt But the English Protestants are in this state Therefore they haue not this true lawfull and Iuridicall exposition of scriptures Bothe propositions are graunted before and so nothinge remaineth to be proued in this argument Further I argue thus No priuate Interpretation of scriptures by conference of places and such Rules as Protestants assigne for Interpreteinge scripture is bindeing or iuridicall But all Protestant Expositions in respect of true byndeing
authoritie in such cases is priuate Therefore no Protestant Interpretation is binding or Iuridicall The Maior proposition is thus proued by D. Feild Feild l. 4. c. 19. pag. 235. in these wordes Wee confesse that neither conference of places nor consideration of the antecedeÌ„tia and consequentia nor lookinge into the originalls are of any force vnlesse wee fynde the thingâ— which wee conceaue to be vnderstoode and ment in the places interpreted to be consonant to the Rule of faithe And hee writeth thus againe priuate Interpretation Feild pag. 226. is not so proposed and vrged as if they would binde all others to receaue it The Minor proposition That all Protestant expositions in respect of a bindeing and Iuridicall power are priuate is thus proued by this Protestant Argument No Interpretation or Interpreters wanteing Iurisdiction and authoritie to commaunde their Interpretations and expositions in matters of faith to be beleued as suche is to be accompted byndeing and Iuridicall But all English Protestant Interpretations expositions and definitions by their owne Iudgment want this bindeing and commaundeing authoritie in matters of faithe Therefore they are not Iuridicall and byndeinge to be beleeued The Maior is euidently true for where there is not power and authoritie in things those things cannot be rightly and iuridically commaunded or bindeing men to doe or beleeue them The Minor proposition is proued by D. Feild in these wordes As before wee made Feild pag. 228. three kinds of Iudgment the one of discretion Common to all the other of direction Common to the Pastors of the Churche and a third of Iurisdiction proper to them that haue supreame power in the Church So likewise wee make three kindes of Interpretation the first priuate the seconde of publickâ— direction and so the Pastors of the Church may publickly propose what they conceaue of it And the third of Iurisdiction and so they that haue supreame power that is in the Bishops assembled in a generall Councell may interpreate the scripture and by their authoritie suppresse all them that shall gaynesay such Interpretations and subiect euery man that shall disobey such determinations as they consent vppon to excommunication and Censures of the like nature Hitherto D. Feilds wordes playnely declareing that in his Iudgment the Protestants neither haue nor can haue this Iuridicall and commaundeing Iudgment or Interpretation because as is proued by themselues before they neither haue had nor can haue any generall Councell in which alone he placeth this Iurisdiction and bindeing power For proposeing without authoritie which hee giueth there to Bishops is not Iuridicall and coactiue If hee shall answeare that in the first three hundred yeares there was no generall Councell and yet matters of Religion were decided and embraced hee condemneth himself and all Protestants in this busines for either hee must leaue that primatiue Church absolutely without Iurisdictâ—on and power which is moste absurde or leaue it to them that both truely claymed and vsed it the Popes of Rome as these Protestants haue before acknowledged And aboue all men D. Feild must be of that opinion for hee Feild pag. 202. hath written and allowed in this maner Wee must reuerence the authoritie of all Catholiâ—ke Doctors whose doctrine and writeings the Church alloweth wee must more regarde the authoritie of Catholicke Bishops more then these the authoritie of the Apostolicke Churches amongst them more especially the Church of Rome of a generall Councell more then all these Therefore by this Protestant Doctor in tyme when generall Councells cannot be the highest deciding and Iuridicall sentence and power is in the Church and Pope of Rome And by this hee is also preuented from sayinge that Protestants may commaunde such Interpretations and definitions within their owne temporall Territories for so they should not moste reuerence and respect next to a generall Councell the Church of Rome the next Iudge as hee hath written but quite the contrary their owne stubborne and disobedient wills which in such causes is Hereâ—icall or Scâ—maticall vsurpation and yet D. Feild in his diuision of Interpretations before assigneth no Iurisdiction at all to inferior Bishops to commaunde either in the whole Church or in Prouinciall in such cases Further I argue thus No opinions or Articles not grownded vppon the worde of God are to be beleeued or commaunded as matters of faith But all Protestants deductions and Interpretations in these controuersies are such not grownded vppon the word of God therefore not to be beleeued or commaunded as Articles of faith The Maior is the Common doctrine of Protestants The Minor is proued both before when Protestants haue depriued themselues of Councells Popes and all true proposers of the word of God tying themselues to their owne doctrines and deductions and is thus further confirmed by D. Couell in these wordes Couell def of Hook pag. 85. Doctrines deriued exhortations deducted Interpretations agreable are not the word of God Therefore the whole Religion of Protestants against Catholicks beinge thus fownded vppon so deceatefull a grounde as humanee deduction is cannot truely and Iuridically be commaunder Yet it is so manifest to all that their Religion consisteth wholly on their Imagined Interpretations and deductions that Mr. Wotton and Wottoâ— def of Perk. pag. 467. c. others are enforced absurdely to say that deduction from scripture maketh a matter of Faithe otherwiâ—e hee â—annot make any articlâ— of faith to be in their doctrine against vs. And D. Feild himself so resolute before against these priuate Interpretations and expositions seemeth to be of the same minde to defend their Religion in makeing such deductions to be matters of faith by euery priuate deduction his wordes be these Wee Feild pag 226. say that men not neglâ—cting that light of direction which the Churche yeeldeth noâ— other helps and meanes may be assured out of the nature of the things themselues the Conference of places the knowledg of tongues and the sutable correspondence that one parte of dyuine truth hath with an other that they haue sownde out the true meaneinge of it And by this assurednes hee seemeth to vnderstand assurednes of faith makeing their priuate deductions and Interpretations the worde of God as M. Wotton before cited doth in Wotton def of Perk. pag. 467. these wordes Wee acknowledge both and holde all matters concludeth Logically out of the scriptures to be the word of God as well as if they were expressely sett downe in it worde for worde Therefore I may lâ—wfully take it is a Common Protestant doctryne both Doctor Feild and M. Wotton speakeinge for their Protestants in the plurall number wee say wee acknowledge c. so that by their Religion M. Feilds or M. Wottons Logicke vaine and vncertayne deduction is of higher authoritie and more to be beleeued then any generall Councell or Articl of Relig. art 21. other externall Rule of Religion for all these by them as is presently to be proued may erre euen in
thinke be plurall That whosoeuer by their Interpretations should allowe such absurdities cannot haue the true interpretation of scriptures Now the Minor is easely proued by him also for all men are bownde to obey lawfull superioritie and authoritie such as hee saith a generall Councell hath ouer all Christians in these cases his wordes before cited be these They that haue supreame Feild l. 4. â— 16. pag. 228. power that is the Bishops assembled in a generall Councell may interpret the scripture and by their authoritie suppresse all them that shall gaynesay such Interpretations and subiect euery man that shall disobey such determination as they consent vppon to excommunication and Censures of like nature Wherefore seing generall Councells haue this bindeing and commaundeing power ouer all men by these Protestants and yet by their Article before may erre and haue Art 21. sup erred euen in things pertayning vnto God the whole Christian worlde with so many absurdities may be in this damnable error the Church might cease not be Catholicke Christ Feild pag. 203. should be without a Church which D. Feild before esteemeth greate absurdities Againe thus I argue They which straungely peruert bely depraue abuse and falsefye holy scriptures cannot be thought to be true interpreters of them But M. Parkes so testifieth of our Parkes ag lymbom def of the 1. 2. 3. testim English Protestants Therefore they cannot be thought to be true Interpreters of them Notheing remaineth in this Argument to be proued Further I argue thus No Interpreters or expositors of scripture whose Interpretations be partiall vntrue seditious sauoureing of Treason poysen the Ghospell c. are to be Iudged true and Iuridicall But the English Protestants hy their owne testimonyes be such Therefore not to be iudged true and iuridicall interpreters The Maior is true and euident And the Minor thus proued first by the Protestant Confer at Hampt pag. 47. conference in these wordes The notes annexed to the Geneua translation some are very partiall vntrue seditious and sauoureing toâ— much of daungerous and trayterous conceits Yet these were allowed and published as publicke and approued interpretations An other Protestant writeth in this maner The Bishops Aduerment An. 1604. notes betray our Lord and Redeemer and befoole the rocke of saluation they are the verie poyson to all the Ghospell M. Ormerod writeth thus of his fellowe Ormer pict purit q. 4. Protestants They fill the margents of their bookes full of places of scripture in a wronge sense that by this meanes they might more easely deceaue the simple people They neither care for Maior Minor nor Conclusion so they may say some thinge They point their margents with shamefull abuseing of scripture To these I might add more arguments as that by their owne testimonies they are Hereticks Scismaticks haue no ttue Churche no true Religion and the like as amonge other reasons from themselues why Catholiks may not communicate with them in spirituall and religeous affayres is proued in a late treatise against them I will therefore passe them ouer as allready proued CHAPTER VII WHEREIN BY THESE PROtestants is proued that vnwritten traditions lawfully proued are the word of God equally as the holy scriptures That many such are and all confirme the doctrine of the Church of Rome and condemne Protestants Religion AFTER this entreateinge of holy scriptures the written worde of God lett vs come to that parte of his sacred worde delyuered by traditions and vnwritten verities preserued and proposed to faithfull Christians by the holy spouse and Church of Christ whose Iudgment Rule and direction is so dignified aboue all Inferiour Iudgments by these Protestants before Concerninge the validitie and authoritie of truely proued traditions I argue thus All Rules Groundes and Authorities in matters of Religion that are equall with holy scriptures in the Iudgment of Protestants the highest Rule in such causes are â—eghely to be reuerenced and obeyed of all Christians But the holy traditions and vnwritten verities deliuered by Christ and Apostles being lawfully proued are of this nature Therefore to be reuerenced embraced and receaued The Maior proposition is euidently true for where there is absolute equalitie there is not inferioritie but paritie as is manifest in all equalities The Minor is thus proued in this maner first M. Wotton speakeing of such hath these Wotton def of Perk. pag. 405. pag. 436. supr words out of all question wee are bounde to keepe them and telleth vs that M. Perkins was of the same opinion D. Feild speaketh thus concerninge traditions In this question by tradition wee vnderstand such partes of Christian doctrine or Feild pag. 238. l. 4. cap. 20. discipline as were not written by them by whomâ— they were first deliuered For thus our Aduersaries vnderstand traditions which they diuide into diuers kindes First in respect of the authors so makeing them of three sortes Diuine Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall Secondly in respect of the matter they concerne in which respect they make them to be of two sortes for either they concerne matters of faiâ—he or matters of manners and these later againe either temporall or perpetuall vniuersall or particular All these in their seuerall kindes they make equall with the words precepts and doctrines of Christ the Apostles and pastors of the Church left vnto vs in writeinge Neither is there any reason why they should not so doe if they could proue any such vnwritten verities For it is not the writeing that giueth things their authoritie but the worthe and credit of him that deliuereth them though by worde and lyuely voyce onely Thus the authoritie of Traditions is iustified by Protestants to be equall with the scriptures if they can be proued Now because Protestants mayntayneinge the sufficiencie of scripture for matters of faith deny traditions of that nature I argue in this maner All Articles and matters of faith are in Protestants Iudgment proued and deliuered to vs by tradition Therefore some articles and matters of faith are in their Iudgment or so must be graunted to be deliuered by tradition The consequence is euident for euery generall proposition includeth the particular The Antecedent is thus proued by them Whosoeuer doe graunte those things which by them conteyne all matters and Articles of faith to be delyuered by tradition must needs allowe traditions in matters of faith But these Protestants doe so Therefore they must allowe such traditions The Maior is euident for whatsoeuer conteineth all excludeth none and so comprehending all comprehendeth also some and the parts of that all The Minor is likewise proued in this maner supposeing the Common opinion of these Protestants set downe in the sixt Article of their Religion Articl of Relig. art 6. in these wordes Holy scripture conteyneth all things necessarie to saluation so that whatsoeuer iâ— not reade thâ—rein nor may be proued thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be beleeued as an Article of the
133. Pag. 134. of chastitie The Fathers are not fitt Iudges to determine either of Preists marriage or vawes of chastitie And for this doctrine thus hee writeth of S. Ambrose That man hath the Apostaticall dragon the deuill dwelling in hym And so hee will send Midd. pag. 135. Ambrose away with his Quietus est Chrisostome is so hotte in his amplifications that hee forgetts himself Pag. 137. Chrisostome in his vehemencie goeth beyonde Pag. 138. measure in reprehendinge and the Christians of his time in their lightnesse went beyonde measure in vowinge The Canons which Epiphanius citeth against Priests mariadge or marryed men to be made Preists Middleton sup Pag. 141. Pag. 143. Pag. 144. Pag. 156. Pag. 161. are apocryphall Hee was two partiall affected in this matter The auncient Fathers did erre Augustine was a moste subtile disputer yâ—t a quicke wiâ—â— soonest falleth into contradiction Neither is Hilarie howsoeuer the Romish Church hath made him a Sainct ouer hastely to be receaued Irenaeus Hilary and Epiphanius for teaching free will are Pelagian Pag. 179. Pag. 180. Hereticks Wee haue harde before what great respect in wordes the Protestant Bishop of Winchester giueth to the auntient Fathers yet by his owne confession his owne Protestant Brethren charge him with the contrary in these wordes all this Bilsons surâ—â— pag. 84. greate shewâ— of cleauing to the Fathers Iudgment is but coloured in you For in other points againe wee see when they speake not to your liking the case is altered You forsake the auntient and learned Fathers You contemne and despise them You affirme Pag. 85. against all the Fathers You little regarde the sownde doctrine of the Fathers And the same Protestant Pag. 98. Bishop D. Bilson telleth vs that these Protestants which haue thus written of him doe for themselues lesse if it may be regarde those auntient learned Fathers for writing Bilson sup pag. 98. pag. 274. 275. prefa to the Kingâ— sup against them in this kinde hee intituleth one Treatise thus The defenders disdayne of the Father Others wrested and leudely falsyfied And againe They condâ—mne all the Fathers Greeke and Latine as conspiring against the truthe and peruerting the scriptures Therefore I conclude this Argument by these Protestants that the primatiue Fathers be not for their Religion but wholly for the doctrine of the Church of Rome And herevpon though needeles I make a new argument against them by themselues in this maner whosoeuer to make their Readers beleeue that the Fathers be for their cause doe falsefye them corrupt indignely and iniuriously handle them clipp shamfully corrupt them greately abuse vntruely alleadge misquote mayme mistranslate notably corrupt Father falsehoods vppon them peruert their true Arguments disdayne wrest and lewdely falsefy them cannot iustely pretend that they be for their Religion But these English Protestants are by their owne testimonie in this case Therefore they cannot iustely pretend that the Fathers be for their cause The Maior proposition is euidently true And the Minor is sufficiently proued before by D. Bilson and other Protestant writers To which I add affirmed and publickly with priuiledge published against D. Willet whoe before hath so damnably sworne that the Fathers be for the Religion of Protestants Parkâ—â— against Lymbomastix p. 170. pag. 151. def of 3. test sect k. k. k. def of 1. and 2. test p. 2. 5. sect 18. 21. pag. 181. 166. 101. 100. def of 2. place sect 10. 11. 20. def of 3. test sect 7. 12. 15. 16. c. pag. 7. 10. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. def of 3. test sect 16 pag. 28. def of 1. 2. 3. test M. Parkes in his booke dedicated to the then Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury writeth of him in these wordes Hee condemneth all the auntient Fathers for dreamers Condemneth all the auntient Fathers for dreamers Condemneth all the Fathers Hee condemneth all learned and godly diuines for enemyes of Christs Crosse and blasphemers of his passion Hee instifieth moste wicked Hereticks and condemneth moste holy Fathers Hee falsely translateth corrupteth indignely handleth greately abuseth vntruely alleadgeth misquoteth mayneth mistranslateth much abuseth notably corrupteth c. S. Augustine Origen S. Ambrose S. Chrisostome S. Leo S. Hierome Tertullian S. Bernard c. Fathereth falsehoods vpon them peruerteth their true Arguments corrupteth their wordes Hee teacheath vs further that he belyeth Bellarmine and Catholicke writers deceaueth the world Hee straungely peruerteth belyeth depraueth abuseth much abuseth falsefyeth holy scriptures And the same D. Willet hath writen and published with priuiledg also as fowle dealings or more vile in his Iudgment and the Censure of the Protestant Approuers of his booke of the same English Protestant Author The particulars are toe many grosse and tedious therefore I will onely set downe the Title of his booke to giue some coniecture of the contents in this kinde It is stiled in these wordes Loidoromastix that is a scourge for a Willet in Loâ—doromastix in the Title of it Rayler conteyning a full and sufficient Answeare vnto the vncristian Raylings slaunders vntruthes and other iniurious imputations vented of late by one Richard Parkes Master of Artes against the Author of Lymbomastix wherein three hundred Raylings errors Contradictions falsifications of Fathers corruptions of scripture with other grosse ouersights are obserued out of the saide vncharitable discourse by Andrewe Willet Professor of diuinitie Hither to the onely Title of that Booke published by a Professor of diuinitie as hee termeth himself and priuiledged by publicke allowance of English Protestants Therefore there is no shewe either of probabilitie or possibilitie that the authoritie and testimonies of the holy learned and auntient Fathers of the primatiue Church should be for the Religion of these Protestants when by their owne writings it is directly condeÌ„ned by them whether wee examine their workes and authorities in particular or when they were assembled in generall or others generally coÌ„firmed Councells as demonstration is made by their owne Assertions And by this it is euident by these Protestants themselues that their so termed Religion is Hereticall impious and damnable and for such condemned in their owne Iudgments by all generall and approued Rules and growndes in diuinitie The holy scriptures sacred traditions The Church of God decrees and sentence of the highest and all Apostolicke Sees generall and other approued holy Councells learned Fathers and whatsoeuer can be pretented to be a Iudge in these causes So that not any one true Christian Consistorie or Censure can be truely claymed or cited for iustifying of their proceedings Which is as much as can and more then needeth to be alleadged for condemninge of Heresie or any error in Religion Yet to leaue nothinge omitted to satiffy these Protestants in these questions and recall them to the vnitie of the true Church of Christ or from their sauadge crueltie of persecution I will in the next and second parte of this worke immediately following make like demonstration by
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
it and it is a reasonable satisfactiō euen to humane reason from whence Protestant arguments against it bee deduced that the maner is by Transsubstantiation as wee Catholicks teache no man but Irreligeous and vnreasonable can call it into question And hee writeth further of this matter in these words it is on all sides plainely Couell sup pag. 119. confessed that this Sacrament is a true and reall participation of Christ who thereby imparteth himself euen his whole entire parson Therefore if the whole entire parson of Christ which cannot bee without his bodie and blood is there and there imparted and receaued damnable is that diminisheing doctrine wherein sacramētaries would haue it but a signe figure And hee expressely teacheth that they doe not or should not differ from the Romane Churche concerning the true reall and substantiall presence of Christ in this Sacrament Which hee as plainely expresseth where entreatinge of the dignitie of Preists hee writeth thus To these parsons God Couell sup pag. 87. imparted power ouer his mysticall bodie which is the societie of soules and ouer that naturall which is himself for the knitting of both in one a worke which Antiquitie doth call the makinge of Christs bodie And in an other treatise hee speaketh of the same matter in this maner The power of the Couell modest examinat pag. 105. Ministry by blessing visible Elements it maketh them inuisible grace It giueth daily the holy Ghost It hath to dispose of that flesh which was giuen for the life of the worlde and that blood which was powred out to redeeme soules Hitherto this Learned Protestant whose words bee so plaine in this point that no conclusion but themselues needeth to bee inferred from them And not onely in this but other Questions as before these Protestants of England are so cleare for Catholiks doctrine and against that which their parlamentarie Religion doth or would seeme to teache that D. Willet Willet apud Parkes against Limbom pag. 20. 21. def first testim writeth of them in this sorte They maintayne traditions free will freedome from sin Iustification by workes workes of super erogation of transsubstantiation with diuers others Therefore euen by Protestants this sacred doctrine of the Romane Churche is to bee embraced and defended as well taught by Catholicks Protestants and D. Feilds true Greeke Church also from which lastely thus I argue That doctrine which is taught by the true Church in Protestants Iudgment which by them cannot err in any essentiall thinge is true But the doctrine of the Romane Church concerning the reall presence and transsubstantiation is such Therefore it is true The first proposition is proued and graunted before And the second is manifest in these the expresse words of the Greeke Churches censure vppon Protestant doctrine It is the Iudgment of the Church that in the holy Hierem. in censur cap. 10. supper after consecration and benediction the breade doth passe and is chaunged into the verie bodie itself of Christ and the wyne into that blood of his by the power of the holy Ghost For our Lord in the same night wherein hee was betrayed taking breade and giuing thankes brake it and saide take and eate this is not breade or a figure of my bodie but this is my very bodie and my blood So that both then and now the breade is transformed and chaunged into his bodie and the wyne into his blood as our Lord promised and affirmed in many places of scriptures And this is more then sufficient of this matter especially seeinge not onely Queene Elizabeth in her Parliam An. 1. Elizab parl 1. Iacob parl 1. Edw. 6 c. bothe kindes first Parlament receaued this doctrine of Transsubstantiation by allowing and reuiuing the statute of Kinge Edward the sixt in that behalfe and this their statute was neuer yett repealed But also in the first parlament of his maiestie confirmed with the rest of Q. Elizabeth The Protestant publishers of Praefat. in Petr. Gallatin Frāc An. 1602. Mortō App. pag. 396. pag. 395 Petrus Gallatinus tell vs that the testimonies which hee bringeth from the Rabbynes before Christ are vndeniable which allowed D. Morton writeth thus They are more playne and pregnant for transsubstantiation then are these sayings of transsubstantiators themselues They make so directly for transsubstantiation that the moste Romish Doctors for the space of allmoste a thowsand yeares after Christ did not in so expresse termes publish this mystery to the world Againe D. Androwes Protestant Bishop Casaubon resp ad Card. Per. pag. 50. 51. of Ely cited by Casaubon and Casaubon himself from our Kinge himself as hee saith affirme Yt is Christs body the same obiect and thing which the Romane Church beleeueth Therefore acknowledging there is a chaunge in this Sacrament as commonly they do that before the words of consecration it was breade and wyne and after is the same obiect and thing which the Romane Church beleeueth the body and blood of Christ This chaunge beeing from breade into the body of Christ and from wyne into his bloode which is a chaunge Substantiae in Substantiam of one substance into an ohter must needs bee as wee Catholicks teache Transsubstantiation CHAPTER XVI Of the holy Sacrifice of Christs blessed bodie blood cōmonly called the Masse daily offered in the Church AND hereby is not onely proued the Catholicke doctrine of this particular question of Christs reall presence in the B. Sacrament and the maner how by transsubstantiation of the elements breade and wyne by power of his omnipotent worde into his moste sacred bodie and blood but those also which depend from thence as is before remembred the sufficiencie of communicating of such as doe not offer the holy sacrifice first instituted and euer to be continued in both kindes in the one kinde onely as also the true externall and publicke sacrifice of Christs true Church consistinge of the oblation and offering of his most B. bodie and blood in these holy Misteries for which because it hath beene so prophanely and blasphemously contradicted by diuers of our English Protestants I meane to speake a little more particularly therein and from themselues first argue thus Whatsoeuer is the reall and true bodie and blood of Christ now vnseperable from his moste blessed soule and is publickly offered vnto God by the lawfully called and authorized preists of his Church is a true publicke and holy sacrifice But that which is commonly called the Eucharist or blessed Sacrament of the altare offered by Catholicke preists of the Romane Church in Masse is such Therefore it is a true publicke and holy sacrifice The Maior proposition is euidently true and confessed of all men of learning in Christianitie neither can be doubted of any that is ignorant if hee knoweth the termes themselues expressely signifieing and shewing the veritie thereof euen by the light of nature The second proposition is also more then aboundantly proued and verified by these