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
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
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
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
other places of scripture it doth particularlie the 22. of Genesis where Abraham preparing to sacrifice is sonne saith to his seruants Expect here with the asse I the boy makeing haste thither after we haue adored will returne vnto you Where it is cleare that the worde adore cannot signifie anie other adoration then that which Abraham was aboute that is the sacrifice of his sonne The likeplace you haue Iohn the 12. of certaine Gentils who ascended in to the temple to adore in the feast day And the Eunuch come to adore in Ierusalem the 8. of the Acts. In comment Malach. 1. In fine according to the iudgement of Theodoret Rupert this place of sainct Iohn alludes to that other of Malachie aboue cited discussed hath the like sense Which perhaps these two authors receiued from Eusebius who affirmes the same in his first booke of his Euang. demonst sixt chapter thence it is consequent that this place is vnderstanded of the Eucharist as the place of the Prophet is that is in a proper signification of sacrifice And other principall proofe of a proper sacrifice in the newe Testament is deduced from the institution of the Eucharist the 28. of sainct Mathew the 14. of sainct Marke the 22. of S. Luke the 11. chapter of the first to the Corinthians in this manner forme of Sylogisme A proper sacrifice is an externall oblation of some sensible permanent creature consecrated changed by mysticall ryte or Ceremonie by a lawfull Preist for the a knowledgement of the diuine maiestie supreme power dominion of God But Christ in his last supper made such an oblation when he instituted the Eucharist Ergo Christ in his laft supper offered a proper sacrifice when he instituted the Eucharist In the maior there is no controuersie betwixt vs our aduersaries as I suppose or at the least I persuade my selfe they will not much stand vpon it The minor I proue by an other Sylogisme Christ in his laste supper being a lawfull Preist according to the Order of Melchisadech offered his owne bodie bloude to his eternall Father vnder the sensible formes of bread wine commaunding his Apostles to doe the same But this is a true proper sacrifice Therefore Christ offered commaunded his Apostles to offer a true proper sacrifice in his last supper The maior of this latter Sylogisme I proue because except Christ had not offered in this manner in his last supper he had neuer performed the function of a true Preist according to the Order of Melchisadec Neither had he properlie verified fulfilled the figure of the Pasquall lambe Nor could he haue truelie affirmed his bloud in his last supper to be the bloud of the new testament if he had not offered then both bodie bloud in sacrifice Moreouer the Euanglist S. Luke relating the institution of the Eucharist vnder the forme of wine affirmes our sauior to haue vsed these wordes This chalis is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you Iuc 22. In which wordes both the worde shed which is the present tense as also the relatiue which which according to the Greek text which our aduersaries most esteme followe must of necessitie haue relation to the present sheding of the cup or chalis like wise those wordes for you manifestly conclude that our sauiour did then in that solemne action of his last supper sacrifice his bloud the same is of his bodie of which the same S. Luke saith in the present tense which is giuen for you yea I say all the circumstances plainely demonstrate to all vnobstinate mindes that Christ did truely properly sacrifice his bodie bloud when he instituted deliuered the Eucharist to his Apostles with an expresse commaundement to doe the same And hence it necessarily followes that tho Eucharist is a true proper sacrifice of the new Testamēt as often as it is celebrated by Preists according to the institutiō precept of Christ An other argument to proue that the Eucharist is a proper sacrifice I frame thus That is a proper sacrifice in which a victime or hoaste is receiued as a thing offered of giuen for the receiuers in honor of God But in the Eucharist the victime or hoast of Christs bodie bloud is receiued as a thing offered or giuen for the receiuers in honor of God Ergo the Eucharist is a proper sacrifice In the maior there is no doubt as I conceiue The Minor in which the controuersie standes I proue first because S. Luke affirmes Christ to haue said This is my bodie which is giuen for you Cap 22. And the like he saith of the chalis in the manner aboue declared according to the phrase of the Greeke text And according to this sense of the Euangelist S. Augustin in the 9. booke 13. chapters of his confessions relates that his mother day lie serued the Altar in which she did knowe the holie victime or hoaste to be dispensed or ministred Now that ther is oblation in the Eucharist the verie nature of the matter doth plainely argue for that where a victime or hoaste is ther of necessitie must be immolation as being correlatiues the one in respect of the other yea and immolation necessarily includes oblatiō for the sanie reason of correlation moreouer both these are included in consecration which by the power of Gods worde maketh present the bodie and bloud of Christ in such a manner as they may be decently conueniently consummated by participation of the Sacrament And in this sorte the Eucharist included all those conditions which a proper sacrifice euen according to our aduersaries at least the Lutherans ought to haue First the substance of the hoaste or victim Secondly a certaine ryte or action of offering prescribed by God which is the celebration of the Eucharist instituted by Christ in the forme described by the Euangelists the Apostle S. Paule 1. Cor. 1. Thirdly the person offering deputed by God to that function which is the Preist Fourthly The same intention of offering or the same end which is appointed by God in his worde that is to the honor of God for the representation of the passion of Christ Neyther is it necessarie that all these particulars be contained in the Institution in expresse wordes but it is sufficient that they be included in it in some intelligible manner Otherwises it followes that the passion of Christ had ben no true proper sacrifice because he vsed not the wordes offer or sacrifice when he suffered vpon the Crosse which sequele I am persuaded our aduersaries will not graunte Diuers other places of scripture ar alledged by Bellarmin other diuines for the proofe of this point but for the auoy dance of prolixitie I will conclude with that onely of the 13. chapter of the Acts. Where for the ordination of S. Paule S. Bernabe it is