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
you neither doe I intend to persuade you in a Rhetoricall manner but onely to propose vnto your ingenuous myndes mature iudgements pure trueth pure falsitie in their owne seuerall natiue habits colors as good an euill to the end that by your free election you may stretch your handes to the one leaue the other according as you shall finde your selues moued by diuineinspiration force of reason Yet not so remissely but that if anie one should require further satisfaction let him but obtaine me a safe conduct graunted by competent authoritie I will not refuse to decipher the Gyrogliffe of my name as euer most readie according to Apostolicall aduise to render reason of the faith I professe And althou ' perhaps it will be iudged more sutable to my manner of proceeding deliuerie of my doctrine to haue put it in the latin tongue yet because I coÌ„sidered ther are in our countrye manie pregnant actiue wits which neuerthelesse haue smale knowledge in that language I resolued rather to publish it in the vulgar tongue to the end that all those who ar studious of trueth may be free from impediments in their search of reason Neither is it intended for euerie pedanticall bibleist but for such as in some sorte are instructed in scholastical discipline qui potest caperecapiat And if by the grace assistance of God my arguments shall but make so much impression in the readers as onely to reduce some passionate partiall myndes in matters of Religion to such a point of temper as they shall come to iudge it a thing repugnant to reason conscience that those who haue so much reason so forcible arguments for their cause should be esteemed worthy of contumelie persecution for their profession defence of the same I shall neuer accounte my paines tyme ill employed And thus I comit commende you to the grace protection of Christ our Sauior THE FIRST PARTE OF THE CONVICTION CONTAINING THE IMPVGNATIVE ARGVMENTS THE FIRST PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT AND for confutation of the English Religion which I assume for the firste parte of my disputation beginning with the name Catholike I argue in this manner All Religions which are not Catholike are false Religions But the Religion now publiklie professed in England is not Catholike Ergo the religion nowe publiklie professed in England is a false Religion In the Maior conclusion of this Sylogisme there is no difficultie neither can the aduersaâ—ies denie them The minor onelie is in controuersie it I proue with another Sylogisme in the manner following All Religions which are not vniuersall geâ—erall or common are not Catholike But the Religion now professed in England is not vniuersall generall or common Ergo the Religion now professed in England is not Catholike That the Religion is not Catholike which â—s not vniuersall generall or common is cleaâ—elie demonstrated by the signification of the worde Catholike which importeth vniuersallitie or generallitie according to the vse which euen our aduersaries themselues make of it Who in their Bibles for the Latin wordes â—pistola Catholica translate put in English the generall epistle of Iames Iude c. Not to stand vpon the ancient authoritie of sainct Augustin other Fathers Councels who when they speake of the true Church or faith â—se the name Catholike in that same seÌ„se as after shall appeare And by this the maior propoâ—ition of the second Sylogisme is sufficientlie â—roued to be true Now touching the minor â—o wit that the Religion publiklie professed in England is not generall vniuersall or common 〈◊〉 likewise proue by distinguishing all the diuers kindes of vniuersallitie which according either to Philosophie or moral doctrine can be imagined by conuincing that none of them agree to the Religion of England which I prosecute in this manner All vniuersallitie in Religion is either in the matter or material obiect of faith or in the time place persons that professe it or els in the rule or reason which directs them in the faith profession of it For proofe declaration of all which particulars that none of them be founde in the Religion of England it is to be supposed as certaine that the worde vniuersall signifieth not onelie generallitie but also vnitie so that the thing which is vniuersall must be one in itselfe as well as common to others that which not onelie the vsuall acception of the worde doth shewe which by Aristotle the rest of the Philosophers both ancient moderne is commonly taken for vnum in multis that is one thing in manie or one common to manie but also the verie etymologie sounde of the same word doth plainely declare Yea the ancient Fathers also affirme the same in those places where speaking of the vniuersallitie of the Church in place they say the Church is one and yet dispersed ouer the whole world Lib. 2. c 2. As doth Sâ— Augustin against the epistle of Gaudentius Where vsing the testimonie of sainct Cyprian among â—other words of his he relates these Vnum caâ—ut est origo vna vnamater foecundis successibus copiosa She meaning the Church â—s one head one origen Maieres nâ—stri Catholicam nominarnus vt ex ipso nomine â—stenderent quia per tâ—tum est De vnit Eccl. cap. 2. one mother replemished with frutefull successes And in the second chapter of his booke of the vnitie of the Church he saith that our ancetors called the Church Catholike to the end they might shewe by the name it selfe that she is in whole In like manner Vincentius Lyrinensis in the third ch of his booke to the vniuersallity of the Church ioyneth consent or vnion And Venerable Bede vpon the 6. chap. of the Canticles affirmes that the Church is called Catholike quia per omnes mundi partes in vnapace in vno Domini timore aedificatur That is because it is planted or built in all partes of the world in one peace one feare of God And thus it plainely appeares that the worde Catholike or vniuersall whatsoeuer els it includes yet it must of necessitie haue vnitie in that generallitie which it signifies This being supposed as a trueth which euen our aduersaries cannot resist I proue against them first that there is no vniuersallitie in the matter or obiect of their Religion with this argumentation following All religions which are not one the same in matter or obiect which Christ his Apostles preached waÌ„te vniuersallity in obiect or matter But the Religion professed in England at this present is not one the same in obiect or matter which Christ his Apostles preached Ergo the Religion professed in England at this present wantes vniuersalitie in obiect or matter The maior of this Sylogisme is iucluded in the supposition before declared at the least in parte graunted euen by our aduersaries as I suppose it being nothing else in sense but
dayes might with farre greater reason haue affirmed the same of the RomaÌ„ church in which then owne bookes manifeste them to haue liued as partes members being nowe much more extended then at that time it was And certainely for the defenders of the Church of England to imagin that althoâ— their Religion hiâ—herto hath not ben vniuersall in the world yet that hereafter it will be vniuersall before the end of the world is both voyde of probabilitie ridiculous First because it is the nature of true Religion to bring zeale feruor with it especially in the begining as appeareth in the Apostles their successors in the first ages who not obstanding all the impediments that the deuill by humane wit malice could contriue yet dâ—d they extend propagate the faith of Christ in diuers nations kingdomes both remote barbarous Wherefore if the Religion of England had ben the true faith of Christ doubtlesse it would by the professors of it haue ben long since so extended dilated that it should not need to be brought to those streits as to fetch their vniuersalitie from the verie end of the world Secondly because the nature of the Religion of England is such that it hath no conuenient meanes for propagation of itselfe in the whole world inregard that those to whome the charge of preaching teach the same is committed are meÌ„ that are all either actually tyed to wiues children posteritie or els liue in expection desire of those temporall or transitorie commodities scarce euer dreame of extending their Religion farther then their owne seuerall Parishes yea their doctrine it selfe teaches them that either they must all marie of necessitie as some of them maintaine or at the least that it is more expedient secure for them to marie then to lead a single life supposing which particulars it is morally vnpossible for them euer to preach their faith to all nations as Christ commaundeth with such clogges at their heeles as are wife children posteritie Thirdlie it is certainelie knowne that since the Religion of England was established in the forme manner that now it is in the professors of it neuer went to ante foren nation purposely to preach their faith much lesse haue they euer taken anie generall course for the conuersion of infidels by anie mission of Ministers or by other meanes Or if anie of them haue trauelled into strange countries which are knowne to be verie fewe in number it hath ben onelie or cheefely for temporall respects as for that they haue ben silenced in their owne countrie for preaching some extrauagant errours or els for some other crime or publike offence committed or perhaps some pore vnbenificed ignorant threedbare fellowes who for want of meanes to maintaine themselues resolue desperatelie to trye their fortune in an other place onelie for that respect not for charitie or zeale of reduceing people to Christian Religion And if perhaps they finde anie pore blackamore or other barbarian that heareing the name of Christians desires to be of their Religion yet these false Apostles proceed so superficiallie with them giue them so smale ill instruction that it is to be feared that after they haue baptized them on their fashion they still remaine as black as they were before both in bodie soule Nay their deuotion is so could in this nature that they themselues are ashamed either to write or to brag of it as experience doth teach for that there is not anie booke extant that eâ—er I could heare of in which it may appeare that they haue performed anie notable matter in this particular The discalced Carmelits at this present hane obtained Bishops for their mission in Persia euen by the Kings permission as I am informed Whereas yet on the contrarie histories are full of the infinit number of Infidels which the professors of the Roman Church haue conuerted dayly conuert to the Christian faith both in the Oriental Occidental Indies other places that with losse of their liues whatsoeuer other comodities they haue in this world as is manifest especiallie in the foure Orders of Mendicants the Iesuits who not obstanding innumerable difficulties still continue their annuall Missions ordained to that same end purpose of propagating Catholike Religion in all countries nations Lastelie I say that for the professors of the English faith to say that their Religion will be extended thro' the whole world before the day of Iudgement is mierlie their owne prediction to which no man of mature iudgement ought to giue credit except they first proue themselues to be true Prophets which in my opinion they can no more performe then they can proue the descent of their pedegree from sainct Michael the Archangell And thus wesee plainelie that the English Religion as now it is professed being destitute of all meanes to propagate it self as hitherto it neither is nor euer was vniuersall in the world so neither can it be imagined with anie probable coulour of reason that euer it can possible in future times come to be spred ouer all the nations of the whole world as according to scriptures Fathers the true Church ought to be the mator of my former Sylogisme doth affirme And not to insiste anie longer in this matter I in like manner proue the minor proposition of the same argument by the same reasons which I haue vsed for the proofe of the foresaid mator which if they be duelie applied to the English Religion they will plainelie demonstrate that the Religion of England neither hath ben is nor euer will be preached published in all partes of the world consequentlie that it hath not vniuersallitie of place which is that which the conclusion of the argument doth containe It is true I further conceiue that the professors of the English faith as men disposed to cauille may yet once againe replie say that in regarde their Religion is the same with the Religion of the Apostles therefore it hath the same vniuersallitie which the Apostolicall Religion hath But to this I reioyne anser firste that I haue shewed before that the Religion now prosessed in England doth differ in diuers points from the faith of the Apostles the particulars of which difference I haue before specified as is that of iustification by faith onelie the deny all of the reall presence the rest Secondlie I say that this replie is that kinde of absurditie in disputation which the LogitiaÌ„s call petitio Principij that is when that is assumed by the disputant for a true certaine Principle which ought to be proued as being the verie matter in question so this is onelie an euasion of the aduersarie which hath no more force them his owne authoritie giues it which is none at all And now by this that more which hath ben sayd touching the vniuersallitie of place persons it is most
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
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
appeare to omit other authorities by the wordes of sainct Ambrose vpon the 13. chapter of the Acts of the Apostles Where expounding those words Ieiunantes imponentesque â—is manies He saith that imposition of handes is mysticall wordes where with the person elected is confirmed to this worke receiuing authoritie his conscience bearing him witnesse that he may be bould in our Lordes name to offer sacrifice to God By which wordes the reader may plainelie perceiue that in sainct Ambroses time there was more required in the matter forme of consecration of Bishops then imposition of handes onelie with those wordes receiue the holie Ghost to wit some other wordes by which the person ordained receiueth power to offer Sacrifice which wordes neuerthelesse were neuer vsed in the consecration either of Master Parker or anie other of the Bishops or ministers of the English Church as by them themselues is confessed who by necessarie sequele must also needs confesse the same Bishops ministers to be essentiallie defectiue voy de of true ordination Thirdlie according to the storie of the Nagge 's head tauerne as it was related by Master Neale some time professor of languages in Oxford who was a man that both by reason of his ancient yeares as also for the meanes he had to know the trueth as being imployed about this same busines by Bishop Boner then deposed prisoner ought in all reason to be credited Master Parker was not ordained at all by Master Barlowe but by Master Scorie who by reason he had she name of Bishop during the Reigne of King Enwarde because Master Kitching being a true Bishop tho' then deposed with the rest of the Catholike Bishops of Queenes Maries time partelie out of scruple of conscience partelie for feare of Excommunication menaced towardes him by Bishop Bonner refused to consecrate the newe superintendents vndertooke the worke in the foresaid Tauerne where a meeting was made to that purpose Scorie causing them all to kneele he tooke the Bible laid it vpon them bidding them take authoritie to preach the worde of God sincerelie who without anie more wordes or deedes all escaped Bishops of the new fashion And Master Parker hauing either better fortune or better fauor then the rest for his parce he got the Archbishoprie of Canterburie and the primacie of England The others being seased according to their seuerall lots and election of the Queene Whence it clearelie appeareth that by which soeuer of these formes Master Parker his fellowes were consecrated yet they haue no true Canonicall ordination neither according to the scriptures nor according to the ancient practice of the Church by vnauoidable consequence they haue no true succession deriued from the Apostles but as an ancient Father saith of other heretikes of his time so we may say of them that succeeding to none they are prodigiouslie borne of themselues Cypr. 〈◊〉 de simpl Prael And sainct Cyprian of others saith in like manner that without anie lawe of ordination they preferre themselues assume the name of Bishops not hauing the Episcopate coferred vpon them by anie Both which sentences may verie aptelie be applyed to our nominall Bishops of England who as I haue declared receiue their Bishopries without law full authoritie Yet notobstanding all this which hath ben said perhaps some of them will insiste further in their owne defence say that althou ' they haue no personall succession yet they haue doctrinall succession from the Apostles in respect they maintaine the same doctrine which the Apostles their successors in the primatiue Church preached tought To which I anser that this is the common euasion of those onelie who defend the inuisibilitie of the Church but it doth nothing auaile those who pretende to defend the continuall visibilitie of the same as they doe against whome I now dispute Secondlie whosoeuer maintaines this It is but a miere shif or cloake wherewith to couer the nakednes of their new borne Religion which if it had not falselie disguised itselfe with the Apostolicall robes it could not for shame haue appeared in publike by reason of the great deformitie it hath in doctrine Thirdly If the English Religion hath succession of doctrine not of persons wher was it from the fift or sixt hundreth yeare till the dayes of Luther Was it in men or in beasts In beastes they will not say for the auoyding of their owne shame And if it was in men then showe vs wher when those men liued otherwise we will giue no more credit vnto our aduersaries wordes then we doe wheÌ„ they crye out say it is Apostolicall doctrine but proues it not as ordinarily they do both in their bookes preachings PeradueÌ„ture they will say their Religion was neither in men nor beasts but in bookes they meane in the bookes of the old newe Testament But this is yet more false absurde then the rest for that doctrine inuolued in bookes can not make succession succession being and order or series of things imediately following one other which order doctrine meluded in papers or partchement can not possible haue as being one the same obiect of faith quite indistinguible in it selfe can be onely intentionally or obiectiuely distinguished or deuided by the persons in which as an accident it is subiected receiued Besides All the tyme that those fantastikes imagin their doctrine to haue ben continually successiue in the Bible if they them selues or at least other their companions in sect were not as ther confesse howe can they knowe at this present that anie such bookes or doctrine was then in the world when themselues were not If they say they haue that knowledge from the Romanists then say I why doe they not also giue credit vnto the same Romanists in other matters of faith as particularly in that point of the number of Canonicall scriptures of the true sense of them as they ar applyed to euerie Controuersie betwixt vs them during that long space in which ther were none of their Religion extant among all which points of difference ther is none more important then that of the infallible knowledge of those diuine bookes which the Romanists had in their custodie all the tyme of their aduersaries non existence to be the onely true authenticall worde of God So that for these men to affirme they haue all wayes had a doctrinall succession from the Apostles without a personall is a miere Puritanicall dreame a Chymericall conceite paradox of their owne forgeing an Idea of Plato abstracted onely by distracted myndes Finally for proofe that the English Religion hath no true Preists Bishops I adde that our Sauior ordained his Apostles not onely to preach his worde but also to remit sinnes offer sacrifice according to those two texts of scripture 〈…〉 22. whose sinnes you shall remit they shall be remitted And doe this in my remembrance Wherfore