apparent that the English Religion hath no such attribute consequentlie that it is defectiue in that nature Wherefore hence I passe to the last gender or kynde of vniuersallitie which is that of the generall rule of faith of which there be two sortes the one is nothing els but the word of God as it is contained in the scriptures or diuine Apostolicall traditions The other rule is the visible Church by whose authoritie we come to knowe certainely infallibly the true sense of the worde of God all those things which his diuine maiestie hath reuailed as matter of faith to be beleeued by all sortes of people or otherwise necessarie to saluation Tract 1. Suarez de fide disp ◠sec 2. fine And of these two rules which some diuide in to three or more thou ' in my opinion not so properlie conuenientlie the second which is the authoritie of the Church is commonlie called in the schooles regula proponens that is a rule or way by which the prime reuailing veritie or diuine authoritie which is the formall obiect foundation of supernaturall faith is immediatelie applied vnto beleeuers And altho' if indeed the worde of God were so cleare that euerie one by reading the wordes of scripture or Apostolicall traditions as they are sett downe in the Councels or other recordes of the Church could not but vnderstand them in a true vniforme sense the first of those two rules might suffice alone yet because the scriptures are obscure difficult in their vnderstanding as both themselues experience testifie also because out of the imperfection of nature mens iudgements often times disagree in matters of doctrine practice therefore besides that speachlesse rule I meane in decision of matters of controuersie there was necessarie another liuing vocall rule by which the true meaning of the first prime rule which is the worde of God might so infallibly be declared vnto thē as all doubts scruples excluded their mindes consciences might safely rest in euerie point of faith by it proposed without anie further question or tergiuersation Now to come to the purpose in that first foundation of faith which is the authoritie of God as he reuaileth matters to his Church without which true faith cannot stand the defenders of the English Religion agree with the Romanists as also they agree with them in the first of the two rules at the least so farre as concernes this controuersie that is they hould Gods worde to be a rule of faith as the Roman Catholikes hould But the difference is in that our aduersaries will needs haue the worde of God to be the scripture onelie that interpreted by the spirit of euerie priuate person who reades it consequenter they hould this onelie for their rule proponent by which the diuine authoritie is applied to euerie point of faith in the beleeuers Whereas on the contrarie we Romanists beleeue vse the authority of the most vniuersall Church as the infallible applyer of Gods reuailing veritie vnto vs in all matters of faith manners And in this rule vpon which all certaintie of faith dependes quoad nos that is for as much as toucheth the beleeuers or credents I here proue that the English Religion wanteth this vniuersallitie as well as the rest of the obiect circumstances aboue discussed the which I demonstrate in this forme of argument That onelie proponent rule of faith his vniuersall which is one the same in all or at the least in the greater parte of beleeuers But that which the professors of the English Religion hould for their proponent rule of faith is not one the same in all or the greater parte of beleeuers Ergo that which the professors of the English Religion hould for their proponent rule of faith is not vniuersall The maior of this Sylogisme is euident by the definition of vniuersall which according to the doctrine of Philosophers is one in all if it be taken in rigor of Logike or as the Metaphisitians vse the worde Or at the least it signifies the greater parte if it be accepted onely in a morall sense as here I take it From which declaration of the word vniuersall is collected no lesse cleare conuincent proofe of the minor proposition which affirmeth that the proponent rule of faith in the professors of the Church of England is not one the same in all or yet in the greater parte of beleeuers That which I she we first because the priuate spirit of euerie professor of the English Religion which is the onelie immediate rule of saith they professe to follow in matters of faith as the verie sounde of the worde doth declare is peculiar to those that haue it not common to all therefore it cannot possible be generall or vniuersall That the spirit by which the professors of the English Religion interpret the worde of God is peculiar to some onelie not common to all such as exteriorly professe the faith of Christ it is manifest in that it neither passeth into other countries with cōformitie in all points of beleefe to all the rest of the pretended reformed Churches as appeareth in the controuersie of the real presence with the lutherans the inamissibilitie of grace In his booke directed to Christian Princes the point of Predestination free will with the Arminians nay nor yet doth it agree with the spirit of all the inhabitants of England it selfe as both King Iames doth plainely suppose wher he graunteth ther ar manie Puritans in his Realme besides Papists Protestants also experinental knowledge doth manifest the same it being certainely knowne generally confessed on all sides that those three sortes of people be not gouerned by one vniforme spirit but euerie one by their owne rule of faith the rule of the Romanists being one common among them selues in all places of the world but on the contrarie the rule of the Protestants Puritans being diuided seuerall both in their owne countrie out of it both among themselues also from the Catholikes wheresoeuer they be which diuision both from themselues others is an infallible argument that they haue no vniuersallitie in their propounding rule of saith That which yet more plainely appeares is confirmed by a worke lately published by a Protestant Doctor his name I doe not remembers who describes seueral sectes of Puritans or pure Caluinists all different both among themselues from the English Protestants Which diuersitie of sectes cannot stand without a different spirit or rule of faith Secondlie I proue the spirit of the professors of the English religion is not one the same in all or the greater parte of credents because it is not that spirit by which the visible Church hath ben in all times places persons successiuely gouerned without interruption ergo it is not an vniuersall spirit but onelie particular priuate The antecedent of this argument
in the page following he saith in his owne name in the name of his brother Puritās We hold not fasting to be a worke pleasing to God And yet in his page 609. he grautes that to fast religiously at some time is Gods cōmaundemēt And pag. 611. that lent fast is partely religious ordered by the Church for religious endes bindeth the cōscience mediately which larring positions of this grand Doctor I am not able to recōcile And yet for a parte of twelfe dayes deuotiō he putteth the paymēt of tithes which indeed is a deuotiō far more profitable to himself then pleasing to others All which particulars doe manifestly declare that whatsoeuer apish imitation these fellowes vse in writing some fewe bookes of deuotion prayer yet is their spirit quite contrarie to the common spirit of the vniuersall Church wholely vertigenous extrauagant peculiar to themselues And to this the like may be added of their Church seruice forme of administration of Sacraments as may be seeme in their booke of common prayer which as it manifest to them that read it doth notably differ from all the Lyturgies publike formes of prayers pastorals that euer were vsed in the Church before the preachings of Luther not onely in the manner of administrating the Sacraments and seruice but also in some substantiall points of them both Their being not anie mentiō in the booke of common prayer of either annointing with Chrisme in Baptisme or of extreme vnctiō of the sicke nor of consecrariō of the Eucharist or absolute commaunde to receiue it but onely with condition or rather with expresse order or precept that ther be a whole congregation that is some persons more disposed to communicate with the infirme partie besides himselfe that otherwise he must haue patiēce take his iourney to an other world without his Viaticum Neither is it ther ordained directly that that the Communicants shall vse the homologesis or Sacramēt of Pennance cōsisting of contrition confession satisfaction as a necessarie preparation to the communion except onely in in case they finde their cōsciences troubled with anie weightie matter that when they are at the point of death contenting themselues at all other times of their receiuing the Lords supper with a generall confession onely made either by one of the communicants or by the ministerin the name of the rest The contrarie of all which particulars are neuerthelesse found in all Lythurgies Missals Directories of former times in all places of the Christian world as may be seene in the Ierarchie of Sainct Denis the Roman Order of which euen the newer of the twoe was practiced in the Church at the least 80◠yeares agoe But now to conclude hauing passed throu all the seuerall kindes of vniuersalitie that can be imagined with an exact discussion of the nature properties of the same finding none of them in the Religion now publikely professed in England besides this it being certaine both according to the doctrine of the ancient Doctors of the Church moderne diuines that the worde Catholike is the same that vniuersall Lib. 2. c. 38. generall or cōmon as is apparent by S. Augustins responsion to Petilianus wher he saith that the name Caetholicū signifies secundū totum Lib. 2. c. 2. as also against the epistle of Gaudentius Teacing that the Church therfore is called Catholike of the Greeke worde because it is extēded throu ' the whole world This I say being infallibly true it doth by necessarie conclusion follow of the premisses that the English Relilion is not Catholike but a priuate conuenticle or Congregation in which true faith is not founde in which by consequence no saluation can be hoped or expected for such as obstinately seperating themselues from the vnitie and vniuersalitie of the most vniuersally receiued Religion liue and die in it And this may suffice for the declaration confirmation of my first ptincipall argument or demonstration THE SECOND PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT MY second principal argument which proueth the falsitie of the English Religion is this That Religion is false which hath a false or at the least an vncertaine Canon of scripture But the Religion of England hath a false or at the least an vncertaine Canon of scripture Ergo the Religion of England is a false Religion The Maior doubtlesse is graunted by our aduersaries The minor which they denie I proue And for the proofe of it I suppose that the true Canon of scripture can not be knowne but by some externall authoritie or meanes distinct from it selfe whether it be the iudgement of euerie faithfull person assisted by the diuine spirit as manie of our aduersaries affirme or whether it be the declaration of the Church assisted by diuine inspiration of which it shall be disputed in an other place More ouer these meanes or this authoritie must be infallible otherwise it can ingender no such certainetie in the myndes of the beleeuers touching the matter in question but they would remaine still doubtfull of the same And the reasō for which this externall authoritie is thus required to the knowledge of the iuste quantitie of the written worde of God for the distinguishing of the true partes of the same from the Apochrypha doubtfull is because that as the scriptures doe in no places affirme declare them selues either in totallitie 〈◊〉 parte reflectiuely to be the true worde of God deliuered by Christ his Apostles so they much lesse auerre these determinate bookes or partes of the Bible no other to be the onely true authenticall scriptures This being now supposed as certaine on both sides I proue the foresaie minor to wit that the Church of England hath a false or at least an vncertaine Canon of scripture by an other silogisme in this manner That Canon of scripture is false or at the least vncertaine which disagreeth from all other Canons that euer were in anie Christian Church before the dayes of Luther But the Canon of scripture vsed nowe in England is disagreeable to all other Canons that euer were in anie Christian Church before the dayes of Luther Ergo the Canon of scripture vsed nowe in the Church of England is a false or at the least an vncertaine Canon In the Maior of this silogisme ther is no doubt The minor I proue by comparing the Canon of England with those seuerall Canons which according to the diuersitie of opinions in that point among some of the ancient Fathers in former tymes ar founde to be three in number howbeit of those three ther was one which was euer more commonly receiued then the rest to wit that Canon which in the Councels of Florence Trent was defined to be infallible is that same which at this present the Roman Church vseth reiecting all other for Apochryphall inauthenticall Now the first of those three Canons or Orders of diuine volumes consisteth of those bookes of which
doctrine or saying of the Iewes Now this being so it is plainely certaine that our aduersaries of all the anciēt Fathers haue not as much as one S. Hierome vndoubtedly in fauor of their Canon but onely the authoritie of the Iewes Secōdly our aduersaries cānot haue recourse to the spirit for the approbatiō of the Canō of the old Testament first because if they relie vpon this they ought to proue it before to be the true spirit of God which moueth them to beleeue their Canon to be of infallible authoritie that either by some other Canonicall scripture or by some other conuincent reason or motiue as by miracles sanctitie or by other externall testimonie otherwise they them selues can neither safely relie vpon it nor we can iustely giue credit vnto it for that it is manifestly declared in the authenticall scriptures them selues that ther be euill spirits as well as good by which men ar moued yea that same spirit which seemes good is often tymes discouered knowne to be the spirit of the common animie who the more easily coulerably to deceiue delude doth transforme him selfe in to an Angell of leight notobstanding he is darkenes it selfe Finally that spirit by which the defenders of the Iudaicall canō for so our aduersaries suppose theirs to bee proue the authoritie of it is contrarie as well in other points of faith as in this to the spirit of the most visible florishing Church in all ages neither is it common generall conformable to the greater parte of Christians but extrauagant singular priuate particular to them selues as I haue shewed in my precedent argument consequently it can not be the spirit of God but an ill spirit a familiar a bee in a box to which who soeuer doth obey followe will doubtlesse be led at the length in to a laberinth of errors wher he will perish without redemption More ouer for as much as concerneth the Canon of the new Testament for our aduersaries to say they haue it from vs is a verie pore shift considering the want of authoritie which they hould to be in our Church as being in their opinion of no credit in other matters of faith yea plainely erroneous Antichristian it doth thence manifestly follow vpon their Principles that their Canon can not possible haue infallible certainetie in regarde that the whole grounde on which such certaintie depende this supposed to be the authoritie of our Church which they neuerthesse peremptorily auerre not onely to besubiect to error but also to haue alreadie erred in diuers points of faith Frome whence from the rest which hath ben inculcated in the proofe of the minor of my second silogisme the consequence both of it my first silogisme doth inauoydably followe to wit that the Religion of England is plainely false as not hauing anie certaine infallible rule wherby to know the true Canonicall scriptures of the old new Testament THE THIRD PRINGIPAL ARGVMENT MY third principall argument against the English Religiō I frame in this manner That Religion is false which hath not the true interpretation sense of scriptures But the English Religion hath not the true interpretation fense of scriptures Ergo the English Religion is a false Religion The maior can not be denyed by our aduersaries The minor in which onely the question consisteth I proue first on t of their translations of the Bible in to the English tongue of which that most famous defender of the new English faith King Iames of great Britanie in the publike assembly had by his authoritie as Hampton Courte the yeare 1604. sitting as President Cathedratically pronoūced that he had neuer yet seene anie Bible qnid adhuc egemus testibus reightly translated into the English tongue And altho' the same King Iames for that reasō caused an other newe translation to be made in which some thing which were in the former editions are amended corrected yet I find by one of them which I haue my selfe printed at london the yeare 1608. that it containeth still diuers of the same errors which were in the first trāslations of which the King himself did cōplaine as appeareth by the second chapter of the Acts. Vers 27. Wher for the wordes non relinques animam meam in inferno that is in plaine English thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell the foresaid Bible hath thou will not leaue my soule in graue vsing also the verie same translation vpon the wordes of the 16. psalme out of which they ar cited by the author of the Acts of the Apostles That which is done by the professors of the English Religion for no other end then that those who please may freely defend their negatiue positiō of the reall discent of Christ in to hell as Beza ingenuonsly confesseth in his annotation vpon this place the affirmatiue of which neuerthelesse the Apostolicall Creed doth expressely teach vs. In which passage our aduersaries shewe both extreame great partiallitie great impudencie in regarde that in the Greeke text which they them selues most superstitiously professe to follow hath the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place which by the septuagint is put commonly for the worde sheol in Hebrew as it is also by them selues translated in other places of scripture as S. Hierome doth in like manner turne the same worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in to infernus in Latin in English hell throu ' the whole Bible And altho' Daniell Chamier in his booke vpon Christs descent in to hell not daring to deme this manner of translatiō to haue ben made by the septuagint S. Hierome Tom. 2. Pantrat l. 5. cap 5. doth somat◠murmure grumble at them for the same as if they did often times detorte the Greeke Latin wordes to the sense of the Hebrew with neglect of the propertie of the language yet this is but one Doctors opinion if he had more to alledge of his owne sect it were no great matter for that by the common iudgement of the whole Christian world those twoe sacred Translaters farre surpasse in knowledge of the scriptures all the Doctors that euer were or will be of his faction tho' they esteeme thēselues neuer so wise learned And suppose the Septuagint S. Hierome doe in deed frequently followe the sense rather then the propertie of the Hebrewe words what offence commit they in that Nay then what commendation doe they not rather deserue in respect it is a generally knowne rule of the best Trāslators not to tye themselues to the wordes but to the sense As on the contrarie what reprehēsion is not due to thē whose cheefe studie is with neglect of that sense which those anciēt expositors who haue gone before them both in time virtue learning to inuent violently drawe newe interpretations of Scripture out of the Etymologies first imposition of wordes according to the verbal sounde
ther was neuer anie doubt made but that they be sacred Canonicall The second order is of those of which ther hath bâ—n alwayes doubt neither hitherto ar receiued by the Church to wit the third fourth bookes of Esdras the third of the Machabies The third order containeth those bookes of which ther hath ben doubt in former tymes Which ar Hester Iudith Tobias The two first bookes of the Machabies The Ecclesiasticus the booke of wisdome the Prophet Baruch Which belong to the old Testament And in the new Testament the epistle to the Hebrewes The epistles of S. Iames Iude the second of S. Peter the second third of S. Iohn with his Apochalips Nowe that the Canon of the Church of England doth not agree with the first order consisting of such bookes of scripture as of which no doubt hath ben euer made it is most euident for that in their Canon of the old Testament is included the booke of Hester of which doubt hath ben made by Melito Nazianzene S. Athanasius in the new Testament they admit the epistle to the Hebrewes the Apochalips to omit others of which neuerthelesse doubt hath ben made of the first by origen of the second by Eusebius which was also quite omitted by Cyrill NaziaÌ„zene nay that which is more to this purpose Luther did expressely reiect them both with the epistle of S. Iames. Touching the second Order or Canon ther is no need to bring anie proofe in regarde it is well knowe that the Church of England doth not admit the two first bookes of Machabeis much lesse doe they allowe of the third as likewise neither they allowe the third and fourth of Esdras Lastely touching the third laste Order they admit Hester into their Canon as by the sixt article of their new Creed doth appeare but they reiect Iudith Tobie the Machabeis Ecclesiasticus the Prophet Baruch And yet as I said before Hester was doubted of at the least by Melito Nazianzene S. Athanasius contrarily of the booke of Iudith it is confessed by sainct Hierome that it is read to haue ben numbred or counted among the holie scriptures by the Councell of Nyce which booke not obstanding is expresselie excluded out of the English Canon of the old testament as the foresaid article of theirs doth declare And in the Canon of the new Testament they put the epistle of S. Iames Iude the second of sainct Peter the second third of sainct Iohn his Apocalips which yet in former times by some authors of accounte haue ben either quite excluded from the Canon or at the least held for doubtfull So we see that our English professors differ dissent in their Canon from all the seuerall Canons of scripture that either they themselues or anie other can imagin to haue ben in the world in anie former age yea euen from the Lutherans them selues whome neuerthelesse they vse to rancke among their brothers at the least whensoeuer they make for their purpose aduantage against the Romanists Further more if perhaps they say they haue the true Canon of scripture because they haue the same bookes of the old Testament which the Iewes by infallible authoritie held for Canonicall And the same bookes of the new Testament which the Roman Church houldes for Canonicall Then I demande of them first how they come to know that their Canon is iuste the same with that of the Iewes neither more nor lesse how they be assured that the ancient Iewes who onelie not the moderne Iewes were the true people of God by him guided ruled by what infallible meanes I say doe they knowe that those Iewes excluded those same bookes of the old Testament out of their Canon as Apochripha which the Roman Church holdes for Canonicall To wit Iudith Tobie Sapience Ecclesiasticus Machabies And I vrge them thus Either they had that knowledge from the Iewes themselues or from the scriptures themselues or by tradition of the Church or by the spirit or inspiration of God From the Iewes they could not possible haue certaine knowledge of the canoÌ„ For that altho' their authority were once infallible in receiuing the true Canon of scripture either in itselfe or by the assistance prouidence of God yet after the coming of Christ his establiment of the Euangelicall lawe that infallible authoritie of theirs ceased so by them no infallible knowledge of Canonical scriptures could possible be from thence deriued vnto the Church of Christ Nay neither was it suteable to the dignitie of Christ his Church that the Iewes should interpose their authoritie in that nature Secondlie from the scriptures themselues it is cleare our aduersaries could not receiue infallible knowledge of the Canon of the old Testament in the manner before declared because neither the old nor new scripture doth testifie that those onely bookes are Canonicall which the English Catalogue includes neiter doe the writers of the newe Testament cite places out of those bookes onelie but also out of either all or at the least some of those which peculiarly the Roman Church aloweth for Canonicall which I haue aboue rehearsed For Ester is cited by sainct Augustin in his epistle to Edicia Epist 199. before him by sainct Chrysostome in his third Homilie to the people of Antioch Origen defendes for Canonicall euen those last chapters of Hester of which some doubt hath ben made euen by some Romanists Baruch is most frequentlie cited by the ancient Fathers vnder the name of Hieremte as particularlie may be knowne by sainct Augustin in his 18. booke of the Cittie 33. chapter Yea diuers of the Fathers produce Baruch by name Cyp. l. 2. contra Iud. cap. 5. As sainct Cyprian who cites those wordes of his Hic est Deus noster c. And in his sermon vpon our Lords prayer he cites the Epistle of Hieremie contained in the last chapter of Baruch Lib. 10. cont Iulian sainct Cyrill also cites the same Baruch by name The like doe S. Hilarie in the preface of his commentarie vpon the psalmes sainct Clement Alexandrine Lib. 2. Pedag cap. 3. Eâ—seb lib. 6. demonst Euang. cap. 19. sainct Ambrose in his first booke of faith second chapter Eusebius cites his third chapter adding that nothing ought to be added to diuine voâ—â—â—s By which wordes he declareth Baruch to be diuine scripture as also doth Theodoretus in expresse wordes commenteth vpon the whole booke Serm. de eleâ—m Tobie is cited approued for scripture in which the holie Ghost doth speake by sainct Cyprian Sainct Ambrose calles the same booke Propheticall scripture Inl. de Tob cap. 1. The like doe sainct Basil in his oration of auarice sainct Augustin in his booke intitled speculum Iudith is mentioned by the great Councell of Nyce as sainct Hierome testifies Dâ—uin nom c 4. Sapâ—ence or the booke of
wisedome is alledged by ancient S. Denis the same doe Melito in his epistle to Ones sainct Cyprian Lib. cont Iulian. in his booke of the habit of Virgens sainct Cyrill calles it diuine scripture sainct Augustin also calles it Canonicall in his first booke of Predest the 14. chap. Ecclesiasticus is cited by Clement Alexandrine sainct Cyprian Epiphanius Ambrose as diuine Oracles sainct Augustin calles it diuine scripture produceing those wordes Altiorate ne quaesieris In lib. ad Oros contra Priscil The same Fathers with Gregory Nazianzene cite the Machabies as appeareth by sainct Cyprian in his exhortation to Martyrdome the 11. chapter Nazianzene in his oration of the Machabies sainct Ambrose in his second booke of Iob the 10.11 12. chapters sainct Isidore in his sixt booke First cap. sainct Augustin in two seuerall places alowes of these bookes often times citeth them As in his 18. booke of the cittie of God Chapter 36. in his second booke against the epistles of Gaudentius chapter 2.3 All which is a conuincent argument that those bookes out of which the foresaid places are cited in this manner by these ancient graue renowned Doctors are Canonicall of as great authoritie as the rest how beit they might otherwise haue ben vnknowe for such to the Iewes both in regard that as the lawe of Christ is more perfect then the old lawe was so it ought in reason to haue more perfect knowledge of the worde of God as likewise it hath of diuers other misteries of faith then the professors of that lawe had as also for that as in the lawe of Christ there are other matters of faith manners gouernement then were in the time of the old testament so might it be necessary for the greater confirmation of Christs doctrine discipline that some of those bookes which were not knowne to the Iewes should be declared to Christians for Canonicall scripture Thirdly from tradition of the Church the English Canon could not possible receiue authoritie first because the maintainers of it denie the authoritie of the visible Church to be infallible consequentlie it is cleare the Canon of scripture cannot haue sufficient warrant from it Secondlie It is most apparent that the Primatiue Church was not certaine in some of the first ages whether all the bookes of the old Testament which the English Church houldes for Canonicall were in the Canon of the Iewes which vncertaintie still remained vntill the Councell of Carthage celebrated in S. Austins time determined the matter Against which English Canon are also authenticall witnesses Mileto Cham. lib. 〈◊〉 Camone cap. 14. â— 1. S. Athanasius Nazianzene of which at the least the two latter authors to wit Athanasius Nazianzene euen according to the graunt of Daniell Chamier one of our most peremptorie aduersaries doe omit the booke of Hester in the computation of their Canon of the old testament whome altho' Chamier doth reprehend for the same Cham. lib. 5. de Can. c. 14 n. 1. yet is he so impudent vnâ—nindefull that in another place of the same booke he numbreth both the same Athanasius Nazianzene as defenders of his owne Canon which neuerthelesse includeth Hester as the English CanoÌ„doth Cap. 11. n. 4. So that it remaineth most euident there was no such certaine traditioÌ„ in the Primatiue Church as could make the English Canon as they now vse it infallible the whole Church at that time hauing determined nothing iudicially aboute that particular consequentlie it is manifestlie false for the professors of the English Religion to affirme that they haue the tradition of the Church for proofe of their Canon To which may be added that our aduersaries in maintaining their Canon by tradition they should proceed preposterouslie in respect that whereas in all other points of doctrine they relect the authoritie of traditions as insufficient contratie to the worde of God or at the least as vncertaine yet in this particular of the Canonicall scripture which is one of the most important points of all other vpon which all the rest of Christian faith dependes they would offer to relie vpon the same And altho' our aduersaries particularly Daniell Chamier doe labor eueÌ„ till they sweate in prouing their Canon to be the same with the Canon of the ancient Iewes yet doth not one of the â—â—thors that haue writ since the matter was determined by the Councell of Carthage exclude from the Christian Canon those bookes which the Roman Church did receiue for Canonicall euer since that Councell And how beit S. Hierome is he that of all antiquitie doth fauore our aduersaries in this particular point yet besides that he writ before the matter was determined by Pope InnoceÌ„tius the first the Councell of Carthage neuerthelesse as he doth not soe defend the Canon of the Iewes but that he admitteth of the authoritie of the first Councell of Nyce in receiuing the booke of Hester in to the Canon of the Christian Church so doubtlesse if he had liued in succeeding tymes he would haue done the same touching the rest of the bookes of the old Testament which were afterwardes added by the foresaid Councell of Carthage other since that tyme. To omit that the professors of the pretended reformation neither proceed consequenter to their owne Principles if in establishing of their Canon they follow the authoritie of Fathers whome they make account to be subiect to error deceipt neither doe they deale securely in casting the maine foundation of their faith vpon the authority of one onely man especially considering that S. Hierome out of an inordinate opinion affection he had to Ioseph the Iew not onely in this but also in some other points of doctrinesuffered himselfe to be caried somat ' beyond the limits of reason tho' neuer beyond the limits of the true Catholike faith And yet I here desire the reader to be aduertised that this which I haue vttered touching the agreement of the English Canon of S. Hierome is onely by way of concessiue supposition in fauor of my antagonists with whome I dispute euen vpon termes of this liberall graunt persuading my selfe neuerthelesse that the Canon of the old Testament which S. Hierome rehearseth in his Prologue is not taken by him for the onely true authenticall Canon of the Christian Church but onely his meaning is to relate the number of those bookes of the ancient scripture according to the most common opinion of the Iewes of his tyme. That which is manifestely coÌ„uinced by the authoritie of the same S. Hierome in the like case touching certaine chapters of the Prophet Daniel of which altho' in his preface to that booke he once affirmed them not to be of authenticall authoritie yet afterwardes in his second Apologie against Rufinus he declareth his meaning in the foresaid Prologue was not to signifie his opinion in that particular but onely to relate the
true rule of faith is of it owne nature certaine common knowne to all beleeuers not priuate vnknowne certaine to him onely who hath it Otherwise no man can certainely infallibly knowe what it is except himselfe consequētly none but he onely can followe it wheras the true rule of faith is such as euerie one is bounde to knowe imbrace vpon perill of his saluation Secondly I proue that this English rule is false because it is subiect to error the maintainers of themselues confessing that no man can infallibly interpreter the scriptures so that his expositions euen in the greatest matters of faith be vndoubtedly true certaine in such sorte as he can infallibly persuade others that they are according to that sense which the holye Gost intended when he dictated them to the diuine writers For confirmation of which I further adde that our aduersaries commonly teach that not onely euerie particular priuate person may erre in faith but also the whole number of Bishops 〈◊〉 Prelates of their Church assembled in a Synod or Councell Out of which it is infallibly consequent that their rule of faith is not certaine either in it selfe or at the least not to others neither can others lawfully follow it for the same reason that it is vnknowne vnto them subiect to error deceipte Besides altho ' the professors of the English Religion should denie this same 1. Cor. 2. yet is it conuinced concluded by scripture it selfe saying for what man knowes the things of a man but the spirit of man which is in him Thirdly if the English rule of faith were not false to wit scriptures expounded by euerie member of the Church it would thence necessarily followe that ther were no need of prechers teachers in the Church of England to propose declare the worde of God vn the people because euerie particular man woman that can read the Bible can sufficiently vnderstand expounde it them selues at the least for as much as concernes their saluation And for the ignorant sorte which can not read it were also in vaine for them to haue preachers in regarde they can propose vnto them no other rule of faith then scriptures expounded by their owne particular spirit which neuerthelesse euē according to their owne doctrine is fallible subiect to error by consequence obledgeth no man to followe it but rather to auoy de it by all meanes possible Fourthly I proue the same because this rule of our aduersaries serues no mans turne but his owne who hath it that but vnto wardely neither doth it obledge others to beleeue it neither is it one the same but as manie as ther be people in the whole Church of England all which is most absurde repugnant to the nature of true faith which ought to be one in all the Christian world certaine in fallible binding all persons to embrace it by diuine precept commaund which neuerthelesse could not be such if the rule which it followeth were not one without all multipllcation diuision And to this may be ioy ned for conclusion of the proofe of this argument that which I haue deliuered touching our aduersaries false translation erroneous manner of interpretation of diuine scriptures THE FIFT PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT MY fift principall argument in order to proue the falsitie of the English Religion is this That Religion is false which hath not a perpetuall disinterrupted succession of Bishops Preists deriued from the Apostles But the English Religion hath not a perpetuall disinterrupted succession of Bishops Preists deriued from the Apostles Ergo the English Religion is a false Religiō The maior proposition is so certaine and cleare that our aduersaries a the least all or most of those of the Protestant faith can not denie it And if perpaps anie of them or anie other Sectaries should be so frontlesse imprudent as to denie it they ar manifestly conuinced by those places of scripture which proue the perpetuitie of the gouernement of the Church of Christ in generall As in the fourth to the Ephesians where it is affirmed that Christ gaue to his Church Pastors doctors that is Bishops Preists to the consummation of the saints vnto the word of the ministerit that to rule gouerne feed the flock of the Church vntill the cōsummation of the world And the Prophet Dauid in his 47. psalme faith that God founded his citie that is the Church as S. Augustin expoundes it for euer And surely if God established his Church for euer as truely according to this he did it can neuer wāt Bishops Preists for that if it should wāt them then it were no more a true Church according to the saying S. Hierome Wher ther is no Preist ther is no Church In which word sacerdos Preist Contra Luciferianos he includeth also Bishops as being cheefely Preists those without whome no Preists can be made of ordained sainct Cyprian also in the second epistle of his fourth booke towardes the end teaches that the true Church cannot stand without Bishops Preists And sainct Augustin saith plainelie that it is the succession of Preists by Preists he meaneth also Bishops which keepes him in the Church Contra part Donat. And in his epistle 165. vpon the psalme against Donatus he chalengeth his aduersaries the Donatists to number the Preists which haue ben euen from the seat of sainct Peter see who hath succeeded each other in that Order of Fathers in which Order of Fathers meaning the Popes whose names he specifiech in his epistle to Generosus euen from S. Peter to Anastasius who was Pope in his time because he findeth not one Donatist therefore he concludes that their Religion is false not to be followed So that the reader may plainelie perceiue by these authorities of which kinde manie more might be alledged if need were the place did admit anie larger discourse that the ancient Fathers held the want of succession of Bishops Preists for a common infallible argument of the falsitie of that Religion which not obstanding whatsoeuer other colores of truth it might seeme to haue by pretext of scripture or otherwise was destitute of the same That which is sufficient for the proofe of the mator of my Sylogisme in case anie of the defenders of the English Religion should haue the face to denie it Wherefore hence I passe to the minor to wit that the English Religion hath not a continuall disinterrupted succession of Preists Bishops derined from the Apostles which I proue first Because it is certaine by the testimonie of all writers of those ages that frome the time of sainct Gregorie Pope of Rome who sent sainct Augustin the Monke into England to plant the then professed Roman faith ther were no other Preists or Bishops but such as had their authority deriued from the Roman seat such Bishops onelie as were
our aduersaries the professâ—rs of the newe Religion of England whoe haue not all this specified in the forme of their ordination canot possible according to diuine institution trueth of the scriptures be iudged to receiue either of the twoe powers when they are created Ministers so they cannot in â—â—is other respect truely be called Preists Bishop but onely by force virtue of that sophisticall ridiculous conseâ—â—ence they haue benefices Bishoprikes therfore they are Preists Bishops And yet besides this I haue one other argument So vrgent forcible against our aduersaries that it alone is sufficient to conuince euen the most obstinate iudgemeÌ„ts that the preâ—â—â—iuereformed clergie of England bath no authoritie power or â—udâ—â—sdiction to preach or reache the Gospell consequently that they ar not true Prâ—â—sts nor Bishops I lay the fouÌ„datioÌ„ of my argument vpon the whole streinth of â—at diuine Principle of S. Paule Quomodopraeâ—â—abum nisi mittantur how shall they preach â—â—cept they be sent which as being an expresse â—â—xt of scripture is receiued by both parties for â—infallible trueth I contriue my silogisme in â—is manner Those who haue no mission want authoritie â—ower or Iurisdiction to preach teach the Gospell But the newe English clergie hath no mission Ergo the newe English clergie wantes â—uthoritie power or Iurisdiction to preach â—ne â—otpell The maior proposition is so plainely conâ—ained in scripture that I am persuaded euen the most pure Caluinist or Caluinian Puritan dares not absolutely denie it For proofe of the minor I suppose agree with my aduersaries that ther are two onely genders or kyndes of mission Viz. Either ordinarie or exterordinarie This agreement so supposed I argue thus If the professors of the English Religion haue mission it is either ordinarie or exterordinarie But the professors of the English Religion haue neither ordinarie nor extraordinarie mission Ergo the professors of the English Religion haue no mission That the professors of the English Religioâ— haue no extraordinarie missioÌ„ I need not laborâ— to proue in regarde I knowe excepting thosâ— of the Puritan faction extraordinarie missioâ— is not maintained by our aduersaries And iâ— anie either Puritan Anabaptist or other sectarie will auerre is mission to beexterordinariâ— theÌ„ for the same reason that he defendes it to bâ— extraordinarie he is bounde to proue it by extraordinarie meanes he must shoue his patenâ— or letters of ordination brought from heaueâ— firmed with the broade seale of miracles prophecie or other manifestly diuine testimonie or else it is to be reiected as counterfeit euidence forged to deceiue cousen simple ignorant people with euident preiudice to their eternal saluation And so leauing this as a fictitions of the founders or inuenters of it voyde of both diuine humanane authoritie neither giueing anie satisfaction to mature solid iudgements I passe to the ordinarie mission which our aduersaties most commoÌ„ly pretend will manifestly proue they ardestitute of it because as exterordinarie mission can not be obtained but by exterordinarie means so neither can ordinarie mission be had but by ordinarie meanes Now this supposed I proceed thus in forme of argument Ordinaâ—â—e nussion can be receiued of those onely who 〈◊〉 by contiâ—â—all succession of Bishops Preists from the Apostles But the professors of the English Religion â—ue not receiued their mission from those â—ho haue continuall succession of Bishops Preists from the Apostles Ergo the professors of the English Religion â—aue no ordinarie mission The minor propositioÌ„ in which alone the difference controuersie may seeme to stand if â—nie ther be I proue because those who succed from the Apostles in the foresaid manner of whome the professors of the English faith against whome I now dispute confesse they receiued their mission if anie they haue ar â—either from the Popes of Rome or such others as deriued their authoritie from that seat But now it is a fact clearer them the cleare light of the clearest day that neither the Pope himselfe nor anie other who deriued his authoritie from him did euer conferre anie mission power inrisdiction or authoritie to preach teache or minister sacraments vpon anie of the professors of the English Religion that which â—demonstrate by this dilemma For all those who can be imagined to haue giuen anie mission to the professors of the English faith at the tyme of change of Religion either they were Roman Catholiks at that present or not if they still remained Roman Catholike then is it infallibly certaine they would neuer haue offered to giue mission are power to them whom they held for heretiks an enimies to their own faith profession yea if they had attempted anie such matter their attempte had be voyde in regarde the Roman Church by virtuâ— of her Ecclesiastical canons anulles all such collation of iurisdictionarie power to heretikes And according to this it is herby apparently concluded that the professors of the English Religion neither one way nor other could possible receiue anie mission power or authoritie to preach the Gospell or minister sacrament after their manner at their first admittance to the ministrie It is true Doctor Cranmer from whome the Bishops and ministers of the English Religion alledge they immediatly had their mission is supposed to haue had the caracter of Episcopall Presbyterall Order yet supposing by reason of his seperation from the faith obedience of the Roman Church from which he receiued all the power of order iurisdiction they pretend he was depriued of iurisdictioÌ„ I ingenuously coÌ„fesse my iudgemeÌ„t is conuinced by force of argument that they cannot possible haue anie ordinarie mission of Episcopal or Preistlie function for the preaching of the worde of God administration of the Sacraments either according to diuine or Ecclesiasticall institution And I know indeed sonne of our aduersaries â—ot manie monethes paste after a long time of deliberation hoping to satisfie their owne restesse mindes an others in this their most important busines produced certaine new founde registers for testimonie of their predecessors ordination But in my iudgement the authoritie of theÌ„ is so suspicious that they ought not to moue anie prudeÌ„t vnderstanding And if they were authenticall why did they conceile them till this present time in which no man vrged them in anie speciall manner to bring them to leight Whereas yet they haue so often since the change of religion demaunded ben to shewe their letters of ordination in other occasions Moreouer suppose their registers were neuer so true authenticall yet since they doe not testifie that their ordination was in matter forme authoritie of the ordinators perpetually vsed in the Catholike Church they neither satisfie vs in our demaunde nor yet are they sufficient warrant either to the conscieÌ„ces of those that vse them or those who relie vpon the effect of them in their reception of the Sacraments Neither surely are those registers of anie
founders began to broach their owne pretended reformation For first I say that if for either Phocas to giue or Bonifacius to take the title of vniuersall Bishop were to reuolt or make a defection from the true faith or Church then should the whole Generall Councell of Calcedon haue reuolted from the true faith by offering to attribute it to Pope Leo Lib. 47. Epist 32. as sainct Gregorie doth testifie if this had ben so hainous a busines as our aduersaries contend it is temeritie to affirme or imagine that so famous a Councell consisting of so manie graue learned Bishops both Grecians Latin which our aduersaries themselues admit for legitimate would euer haue as much as mentioned such a matter Secondlie This being a matter of fact which can not be decided by either scriptures or ancient Fathers or the Primatiue ages in regarde it is knowne to haue happened after them both our onelie iudges must be those historians who haue made relation of this passage Now those relators which are Anastasius Bibliothecarius Pulus Diaconus Ado venerable Beda none of them affirme either that Phocas did giue Boniface anie authoritie of Primacie which he had not afore nor yet doe they or laye anie censure vpon the one or the other for that action whatsouer it was Thirdlie Certaine it is that neither Boniface nor anie of his successors euer either claimed or vsed in their publike acts or writings thetitle of vniuersall Bishop but rather all of them humble themselues so farre as they ordinarilie stile themselues no other then seruants of the seruants of God howsoeuer that title stile might be offered them or vsed by others for their greater honor authoritie Fourthly Suppose Pope Boniface others his successors had accepted vsed the title of vniuersall Bishop I meane in a true sense that is so as vniuersall Bishop signifies onelie Bishop or pastor of the vniuersall Church what great odious crime had this ben therefore to deserue the name of Antichrist or vsurper of the supremicie in the vniuersall Church since that both the title of head of the vniuersall Church the authoritie also of the head was attributed vnto precedent Popes long before the time of Phocas Iustinianus senior in epist ad Io. 2. Valentinianus epist ad Theod. of Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur Vid. Concil chal in Epist ad Leonem Papam Vid. Act. 1. 3. as doth appeare not onelie by the testimonies of two famous Emperours Iustinian valentinian but also by the acts of the Chalcedon Councels that title is acknowledged in plaine termes In so much that euen in those prime ages it was turned in to a common prouerbe that the first seat that is the Roman seat was to beiudged by noman Fiftlie If Pope Boniface is to be accounted Antichrist by the professors of the English Religion because they feigne him to haue vsurped the title power of vniuersall Bishop how I pray will their Kings escape the same censure who haue receiued the title power of the head of the English Church from their predecessor King Henrie the 8. who neuerthelesse had no more power nay much lesse to conferre it vpon them then the Emperour Phocas had to declare the same or the like to be due to the Pope Lastelie The truth is that it is not founde in anie of the foresaid historiographers or anie others of the Roman Religion that Phocas gaue to the Pope eyther the power or yet the title of vniuersall Bishop but they relate onelie that Phocas by his imperial edict did declare against the presumption of Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople that this title of head or Bishop of the vniuersall Church was proper to the Bishop of Rome but not to him or anie other moreouer that it was no way due to the Bishops of the Constantinopolitan seat or Church And this onelie the cited authors relate without anie mention of the wordes vniuersall Bishop but onelie they mention the wordes primate prime seat head of the Churches or the like phrases as may be seene in their bookes So that this is a grosse imposture of the Nouellists of our time in vsing the testimonies of these graue authors against the Popes of Rome by miere cheating cousinage by this meanes in steed of prouing their intent they proue nothing els but themselues to be miere Sycophants deceiuers to whome supposing they publish to the world the forsaid supposititious change of Religion made by Pope Boniface in the RomaÌ„ Church without either diuine or humane testimonie more then their owne presumed presumptious authoritie no prudent Christian ought to giue anie more credit then he giues to the incredulous impious Iewes who calumniate Christ as a peruerter of the lawe of God because he established his owne most perfect Church Religion in lieu of their Ceremoniall Synogog And by this it is cleare that the minor proposition of this my first argument standes still firme vnanserable to wit that the Roman Religion onelie is euer was truelie Catholike which is that I here intend to demonstrate THE SECOND PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT THIS my second argument I reduce to this forme of Sylogisme That onelie Religion is true which hath the true Canon of scripture But the Roman Religion onelie hath the true Canon of scripture Therefore the Roman Religion onelie is the true Religion The maior doubtlesse is graunted as certaine by our aduersaries wherefore it needes no further proofe The minor which I knowe they denie I proue because the Roman Church onelie hath that same Canon of scripture which hath ben generallie receiued in the Church both before since the time of sainct Augustin who in his second booke of Christian doctrine hath the verie same number names of diuineâ— volumes which at this present the Roman Church vseth in formor ages vsed since the time of the Apostles Cap. 8. which Canonical bookes sainct Augustin receiued from the Councell of Carthage this Councell from Pope Innocentâ—us the first of that name who also had them as descending by tradition of all or at the least of the cheefe greater parte of the Church since they were deliuered to it by the Apostles as I haue more largelie declared in the confutation of the English Canon in which point I need not insiste anie longer because the same arguments which I vsed for disproofe of it abundantelie serue for the proofe of the minor proposition of this my positiue argument to wit that the Roman Church onelie hath that same Canon of scripture completly intirely which hath ben euer most generallie receiued in the Christian world THE THIRD PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT MY third reason for demonstration of the trueth of the Roman Religion is this That Religion onely is true which hath the true interpretation sense of scripture But the Roman Religion onely hath the true interpretation sense of scripture Therfore the Roman Religion