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
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
they being so plaine pregnant that a cheefe aduersarie was forced to confesse that ther is frequent mention in the ancient writers treaking of the Eucharist of the wordes sacrifice oblation hoaste victim to which may be added that the same Fathers in like manner vse the wordes altar Preist verie commonly all which ar so fit for the purpose of signifiing a true proper sacrifice that no writer either diuine or profane could euer inuent other more significant apte as it vndoubtedly appeares for that their writings manifest that they neuer vsed anie other wordes or phrases when they treated of the nature vse of a proper sacrifice since this I say is so apparently true I ernestly request of my reader to consider how voyde not onely of reason but also of common sense the sectaries of this our present age may iustely be iudged how shamelesly obstinate they be who denie that to be a true proper sacrifice which is as plainely affirmed to be such both by scripture it selfe the true Interpreters ther of as in wordes phrases they possible could declare to humane sense vnderstanding And with this I conclude the proofe of the maior of my sixt last argument framed directly against the English Relion hence I passe to the second parte of my treatise in which I will positiuely demonstrate by six other affirmatiue arguments the truth of the Roman faith nowe professed in the greater parte of the Christian world framing compounding my silogismes of the contradictorie propositions to those which I haue vsed before for the confutation of the English faith in this insuing manner THE SECOND PARTE OF THE CONVICTION CONtaining the defensiue arguments Adhuc excellentiorem viam vobis demonstro 1. Cor. 12.31 ALTHO ' in realitie rigor of truth especially for the more learned sorte of people ther is no necessitie of other proofe of the truth of the Roman Catholike faith then the disproofe which I haue alreadie made of the English Religion in regarde that ther being onely their Religion ours here in question theirs being false as I haue plainely demonstrated ours must by vnauoy dable consequence be true supposing two contradictories cannot be both true in one and the same matter or subiect neuerthelesse for greater satisfaction of the reader more cleare conuincement of the truth I will breefely proceed by positiue affirmatiue arguments in defence of the Roman faith Religion THE HRST PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT I Propounde my first sylogisme in this forme manner That onely Religion is true which is truely Catholike But the Roman Religion onely is truly Catholike Therefore the Roman Religion is the onely true Religion The Maior needs no proofe as being graunted by our aduersaries being once admitted with the Minor the other doth thence necessarily follow according to the rules of Logike which teaches that the premisses being true truely disposed the consequence cannot faile The Minor which our Antagonists denye I prone because the Roman Religion onely hath all the conditions required to true Cathoâ—â—â—â—â—â—e that is it hath vniuersalitie of matter or obiect of faith it hath vniuersallitie of time place persons that professe it also it hath vniuersallitie of the rule or reason which directs the professors in the confession exercise of their faith with all it hath vnitie in the same And first that the Roman Religion hath vniuersallitie in matter it is most manifest for that the aduersaries them selues can not denye but that it conprehendeth by faith beleeueth not onely all that is contained in the scriptures but also what soeuer els is proposed by their Church as matter of faith comprehended either in the written worde of God or diuine traditions which are the vnwritten worde of God which is the most large compleit vniuersallitie of faith that can be imagined to the latitude of which the obiect or matter of the English faith comes not neare as being by them limited to the bare scriptures onely As likewise because they denie points which the Roman Church maintaines for matters of faith As ar Purgatorie prayer to saincts c. Secondly That the Roman Religion hath vniuersallitie in the rule or reason which guideth the professors of it in their true beleefe it is also euident in regarde they neither beleeue nor refuse â—o beleeue anie thing as matter of faith for anie other immediate motiue or cause then for that it is proposed vnto them by the infallible authoritie of their Church to be beleeued or not to be beleeued as the worde of God which is the prime formall obiect of their faith which generallitie or vniuersalitie of rule is so great solid that it is inpossible to imagin anie more ample perfect in that nature Thirdly This most constant vnuariable vniuersallitie of the totall rule of faith as it is but one onely in it selfe so doth one onely agreeable vniforme consent of faith necessarily flowe issue out of it as frome a most cleare fountaine which is vnitie in the same faith among all euerie one of the professors of it supposing that according to true Philosophie where the formall obiect is one the actions tho' neuerso manie must of necessitie be of one the same species or nature that which in supernaturall faith is yet more certaine apparent by reason the obiect of it is exceedingly more vniforme vnuariable then anie naturall obiect is Fourthly Vniuersallitie of tyme place persons is so manifestly founde in the Roman Religion that the aduersaries them selues confesse that ther hath ben euer a visible Roman Religion in the world from the tyme of the Apostles euen to this present day which yet if they were so impudent as to denie all histories all writings all acts monuncents euen the verie stones them selues in manie places would quite conuince confounde them Onely one exception or euasion they haue to wit by alledgeing that altho' the Roman Church for the space of the fiue hundreth first yeares was a true Church yea the mother Church of all the rest of the particular Christian Churches Praesatmon as great King Iames doth ingenuously confesse yet say they hath it since fayled in faith of the Church of Christ is turned in to the seat of Antichrist viz when Phocas the Emperour gaue vnto Boniface the third Pope of that name the title of vniuersall Bishop This therefore is our aduersaries common allegation for proofe of the supposed defection of the Roman Church in matters of faith but so feeble friuolous false that both they themselues if they were not verie bleareyed all others might as it were in a miroir or perspectiue glasse clearely discouer this by the viewe of the successe of times to be but false colors painting whereby to limme their owne inexcusable defection from that faith which they founde vniuersallie established in the Christian world when their first
hath ben alwayes since the times of Christ so visible as the Romanists hould it to haue ben that is with visible Pastors teachers and a visible flock or congregation of people assignable in all ages and times therefore I will proue it first by plaine texts of Scripture then by authoritie of ancient Fathers first that the true Church is absolutely visible then that it is perpetually visible The absolute visibilitie of the Church is â—aught in all those places of Scripture which speake of the Church as of a knowne congregation or companie of people as S. Math. Die Ecclesiâ— coÌ„firma fratrâ—t tues Pasce oues meas Pascite qui in vobis est gregeÌ„ Dei the â—8 tell the Church S. Luc. 22. confirme thy brothers â—ohn 20. feede my sheepe 1. Pet. 5. feed the flocke 〈◊〉 God which is among you S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. Affirâ—nes that he himselfe did persecute the Church And most commonly his Epistles are directed â—o the Churches as to the Church of Rome Corinth Ephesus And finally ther is scarce â—nie mention of the Church in the whole Bible wher the visibilitie of the same is not plainely signified therefore it is compared to a citie vpon a mountaine Math. 5. In illo moÌ„te est qui impleuit orbeÌ„ terrarum nunquid sic ostend mus Ecclesiaâ— fratres noÌ„ne aperta estâ— nonnâ— manifesta c. Aug. trac 1. in r. ep loan according to the exposition of that place made by S. Augustin in his booke of the vnitie of the Church the â—4 20. Chapter Of which inuisibilitie ther are likewise plaine texts in the second chapter of Isaias the fourth of Micheas where conformable to the cited wordes of S. Math. the â— woe Prophets affirme that ther will be in the latter Dayes a mount aine prepared the house of God Which wordes Sainct Augustin most perspicuously interprets of the Church of Christ Also ther is a verie pregnant place to this putpose the 61. of Isai where speaking of the people of God the Prophet saith all that shall see them shall know them to be the seed which God hath blessed Euangelizare pauperibus mi sit me c. Luc. 18. Which wordes Christ himselfe in the fourth of S. Luke doth plainely insinuate to be meant of his Church in regarde he applies some of the precedent words of the same chapter of Isaie to himselfe the propagatior of the same Church by his preaching And according to these the like phrase of Scripture the ancient Fathers doe commonly speake of the Christian Church S. Augustin in his second Booke against Cresconius Saith thus Extat Ecclesia cuncta clara atque perspicua Cap. 36. quippe ciuitas quae abscondi non potest supra montem constituta The Church is all cleare perspicuous as being a citie which cannot hiden be placed vpon a mountaine And S. Chrysostome in hiâ— fourth homilie vpon the 6. chap. of Isaias hath that memorable sentence Facilius est solem extingui quam Ecclesiam obscurari The sunne mâ— more easily be extinguished then the Church obscured I could alledge most plaine words to thâ— same purpose out of the rest of the ancient Doctors but because those twoe alone are of segreat authoritie that they ought to satisfie aniâ— vnpartiall iudgement in matter of testification of the sense doctrine of ancient time touching this point therefore I esteemed 〈◊〉 supersluous to produce their seuerall sentences Perhaps some of our aduersaries will say the doe not denie but both scriptures and Father doe teach in generall that the Church is visible yet they denie that scriptures Fathers reach that it must necessarily be visible in all ages times but rather that like vnto the noone it suffers Eclypses and defects by perseeution or by other meanes To this which is a miere voluntarie euasion as anie one of iudgement may easily perceiue I answer first that supposing both the sentences of scriptures Fathers of the visibilitie of the Church are generall absolute without limitation it is manifestly conuinced that their meaning could not be that the Church is visible onely for a time or at certaine times and not perpetually by reason that according to â—he common rule of interpretation generall wordes are to be vnderstood properly with â—ll their extension as long as noe inconuenieÌ„ce followes thereof as certaine it is apparent that none can followe of the continuall visibiâ—tie of the Church wheras on the contrarie both manie great in conueniences insue of the want of the same as after shall be declaâ—ed Neither can anie one place either of scripture or Fathers be produced by the opposers of this doctrine in which anie such limitation of the sentences of the Fathers is contained either â—n wordes or sense or in anie other sorte so â—lainely as by the generalitie of the foresaid Phrases of Scripture ancient Doctors all reâ—riction is excluded Secondly I impugne the same euasion for that if it be once graunted that the Church is not alwayes visible then it followes that in the times of the inuisibilitie of the same there are no visible Pastors nor preachers to minister the true word Sacraments to the people yea that there are no such people in the world consequently that thereis noe Church either visible or inuisible by reason that a Church whether we feigne it to be visible or inuisible essentially consists of people which people are in like manner essentially visible as muchas corporall nor can they if they would be visible except it be either by miracle or else by arte magique or some such vnlawfull meanes Nay more if they were once inuisible either by miracles arte or nature how can it be knowne but by ther owne testimonie that they euer were truely extant to which neuerthelesse noe man can prudently giue credit especially in a matter of such importance And thus we see that out of this one absurâ—itie of the want of visibilitie in the Church a thousand others doe followe as that ther are vivisible Pastors vet inuisible that ther are visible people yet inuisible that ther is a Church yet noe Church And if our aduersaâ—ies say ther are true Pastors true faithfull people a true Church that ther wants onely a true profession of faith in the Pastors people Church Then I replie first it is manifest that if ther be no prefession of faith in neither Pastors people nor anie parte of the Church then can it not possible be a true Church or the Church of the Predestinate as they will haue it but a Congregation onely or companie of timerous cowardly people which dare not professe their faith Ore autem confessio fit ad salutim consequently not the Church of Christ in which not faith onely but also profession of faith is necessarie to saluation according to the doctrine of the Apostle saying that with the hart we beleeue
vnto iustice Rom. 10. but with the mouth coufesion is made to saluation And howbeit I conceiue that the defenders of the inuisibilitie may instance say that profession of faith is not required to the essence of the true Church by consequence that it may subsist with internall faith onelie neuerthelesse I reioyne to this that althou ' I should grant profession of faith in metaphisical rigor to be no essentiall parte of the true Church yet is it so necessarilie annexed to the true Church as it neither is nor euer will be founde without professors neither is there anie authority either of scriptures or Fathers whereby it can be proued that anie such true Church euer were or euer will be coÌ„sisting of internall faith onelie But all those places which I haue aboue alledged both of the absolute visibilitie of the Church necessitie of profession of faith to saluation required by the ordinance commaundement of Christ manifestlie convince the contrarie Well may our aduersaries out of their accustomed temeritie spirit of contradiction against the Roman Church because they haue no other meanes to maintaine the subsistance of their owne new Congregation affirme teach that internall faith alone without profession makes a true Church yet no iudicious man will euer be persuaded but that position is assumed by them mierlie for the aduantage of their owne ill cause which without the vse of it or some such other of like nature cannot possible be defended in the controuersie whether the true Church be ours or theirs To omit that if no externall profession of faith be required to the true Church it is impossible to conceiue how anie man could euer come to knowe that such a Church as consisteth of internall faith onely was euer extant in the world any in parte of time since it was once planted established by our Sauior his Apostles And yet admit that it is not wholely impossible to conceiue the possibilitie of a true Church without the attribute of externall profession yet this is but a Metaphisicall case grounded onelie in the discourse of him who so conceiueth it by consequence it is not secure for anie man to venture his saluation vpon it as being either plainelie false in it selfe or at the least verie subiect to error fallibiliâ—itie but euerie prudent man ought rather to followe the tenor of speach of the scripture Fathers in the places before alledged particularlie the sentence of sainct Augustin in the â—1 chapter of his 19. booke against Faustus In nullum nomen religionis seu verum seu falsuuâ— coagulari homines possunt nisi aliquo signaculorum vel Sacramentorum visibilium consortio colligentur Where he affirmes that men cannot be congregated or assembled together vnder one name of Religion vnlesse they be tyed together with some consorte or socictie of visible signes or Sacraments In which wordes althou ' he makes no expresse mention of profession of faith as required to a Church yet doth he in effect affirme the same in other wordes teaching the communication of Sacraments to be necessarie to the constitution of a Church Which communication of Sacraments is profession of faith in one of the highest degrees as no man can denie And now hauing sufficientlie confuted the foresaid euasion of our aduersaties touching the visibilitie I will yet further adde positiue proofes of the perpetuitie of the visible Church First therefore I proue it by those places of scripture which affirme that the Church of Christ shall neuer perish as math the 16. Porta insert non praualibuut aduersunam The Portes of hell shall not preuaile against it Where we see the Prophecie promisse of our Sauior touching the perpetuitie of his Church is generall without limitation of time he speakes here of the same Church of which those places of scripture speach which declare it to be visible which I haue alreadie cited to that purpose for the aduersarie to limit these wordes to the inuisible Church as if Christ had meant that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against his inuisible Church onelie is a miere voluntarie explication of their owne inuention repugnant both to the text itselfe reason to the text in regarde that all the words circumstances of it demonstrate that Christ speakes of his visible Church either onelie or cheefelie as is the gouernement of the Church by sainct Peter which Church was to consist of men whose sinnes the same Peter had power promised him to binde loose that vpon earth all which particularâ— sounde nothing but things visible Now the foresaid explication of our aduerfaries is also contrarie to reason First for that supposing Christ planted such a Church vpon earth in which there were to be alwayes visible pastors preachers to administere the Sacraments Ephes 4. 1. Cor. 12. Act. 20. Luc. 12. teach publish the Gospell as the scriptures testifie And supposing he did not onelie commande vs to haue his faith but also to professe his name before men it is most absurde to imagin that he would or did not vse his prouidence in the conseruation of the same visible Church in all times occasions as well as the inuisible Church if anie such he had established in the world Secondlie the same exposition is against reason in respect that by that limitation of our Sauiors wordes which our aduersaries vse they giue vs to vnderstand that Christ promissed much but performed little or nothing of importance in this particular For if he assisted his Church so weakelie that for the space of manie yeares together the members of it were driuen to conceile their faith which neuerthelesse he himselfe obledgeth them to professe in all occasions surelie he did not onelie come farre shorte of his promisse but also in a certaine manner contradicted himselfe deceiued them And if for the gates of hell to haue so fare much vrged vexed the Church as to haue leâ— all the members thereof with a bare secret dissembling faith onely without anie professing or vse of Sacraments for the space of manie succeeding ages is not absolutelie to haue preuailed against it consequentlie that Christs wordes are falsified then certainelie neither had they ben falsified in case hell gates had so farre preuailed as quite to extinguish euen the professors themselues yea by an impossibilitie to haueleft faith alone hanging vpon the hedges for want of other subiect all which sequels being most absurde yet consequent to our aduersaries glosse vpon the wordes of scriptures aboue cited they euidentlie argue the falsitie of that their construction An other pregnant place for the perpetuall continuation of the visible Church is that of the 4. to the Ephesians where the Apostle saith that Christ appointed Pastors c. Ad consummationem Sanctorum donecâ— occurramus omnes in virum perfectum That is he appointed some Bishops other pastors others
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
ordained consecrated with the same matter forme of Order with Vnction Miter Crosier other such ornaments ceremonies as the Church of Rome actuallie vseth at this day Nay nor yet in the time of Wiclif or since is there anie mention in anie historie writer or recorde either Catholike or Protestant of anie kinde of eyther Bishops Preists or ordination of the same vsed in England before the Reigne of Edwarde the sixt Wherefore altho' we should graunt the Patrons of the English faith that their Religion was professed in England in more ancient times as they pretend the contrarie of which neuerthelesse is as certaine as it is certaine there is no mention of it in anie more ancienthistorie or recorde then the dayes of Edward the sixt yet is it manifest that it hath had a notable interruption in the succession of Bishops Preists to wit for the space of 800. yeares at the least euen according to the confession of our aduersaries And consequentlie it is euident that it hath not a continuall disinterrupted succession of Bishops Preists deriued from the Apostles Secondlie I proue there is no coutinuall disinterrupted succession of Bishops Preists in the English Religion deriued from the Apostles Because altho' we should admit that in the time of King Edward by reason of the immediate succession of his newe Religion to the Religion of his Father Henry the 8. at whose death we doe not denie but there were true Bishops Preists lefte who might perhaps for as much as concerneth the essence of the Order thou ' not lawfullie either haue consecrated others or they themselues haue serued in the Church according to the newe forme of the same which fact I need not here dispute but omit as vngranted Neuerthelesse it is certaine graunted by both parties that euen in this there was another plaine interruption that within a verie shorte time vpon the succession of Queene Marie to the Crowne in here brothers place who exauthorizing all that newe brood of Bishops Preists reestablished the Roman Religion in the same forme with such Prelates Preists as had ben in the Realme in all former times as not onelie all written histories recordes but also some eye witnesses who then did see the change being yet aliue can at this daye testifie the same So that euen in this particular manner the newe Religion of England hath suffered an interruption in the succession of Bishops Preists Thirdlie I proue the same minor proposition because at the time of the last change of Religion at the death of Queene Marie all the Roman Bishops were deposed depriued of their dignities excepting onelie the Archbishop of Canterburie whose seat was vacant by his death others were put in their places by the authoritie of Queene Elizabeth here parleament who neuerthelesse were such as did not agree either in vocation mission or Ordination with their predecessors as appeareth particularly in Master Parker who not obstanding he was the cheefe of theÌ„ as being Archbishop of Caterburie primate yet is he confessed by Master Mason a minister professed defender of the newe clargie of England to haue ben the first of 70. Archbishops since fainct Augustin that receiued Orders consecration without the Popes Bulles the rest of the ceremomes vsed in the ordination of all those 70. that preceded him And the same he might haue said of the newe Bishops of these dayes comparing them with all that longe space of time The which difference in the manner of consecration altho' it were alone sufficient according to the doctrine of the Roman Church to exclude the ordained from true succession as being at the least schismaticall in itselfe contrarie to the practice of ancient times euen before the dayes of sainct Augustin the Apostle of our countrie as both the writings of the ancient Fathers which I will produce in an other place also some ancient authenticall histories or recordes of the Realme doe testifie Yet euen according to the Principles of the English Religion there is an essentiall defect founde in the same in regarde that Master Barlowe whoâ—s by the foresaid defender of the English ministerie reported to haue ben the consecrator of Parker had neuer anie consecration himselfe Or if he had anie he was made Bishop if not Preist also onelie according to the forme diuised in the time of Edward the Sixt confirmed by Queene Elizabeth the eight yeare of her Reigne That which I suppose Master Mason himselfe doth not deny Which forme as it is set in their Rituall or manner of making Bishops Preists Deacons printed at London 1607. as being neither founde in scripture nor conformable to anie other forme of consecratioÌ„ euer vsed in any Christian Church since the Christian Religion was founded the persons coÌ„secrated or ordained according to the tenor of it caÌ„not possible betrue Bishops preists or Deacons by necessarie consequence neither Master Parker nor anie other of his fellowe Bishops could receiue true Order or consecration as being ordained both by one that had no power of Order himself nor yet did cousecrate them with the same essentiall matter forme which hath ben commonlie vsed in the Christian world in ancient ages But onelie according to that new forme which as Master Mason confesseth being deuised authorized onelie by King Edwarde Queene Elizabeth who had no power to alter the forme of Ordination practiced generallie in the Christian Church before their times could not possible giue theÌ„ Apostolicall power of ordination consequentlie they had no continuall disinterrupted succession in that nature deriued from the Apostles which is that by the minor of my argument I intend to conuince Peraduenture our aduersaries will replie say First that the whole essentiall matter forme of Order consisting of imposition of handes the wordes receiue the holie Ghost were applyed to Master Parker the rest of the ministrie in their ordination the Roman rites or Ceremonies onelie omitted which neither make nor marre the substance of the Order But to this I reioine first that this doth not cleare Master Barlowes consecration of which there being no authenticall register or recorde extant he cannot be esteemed to haue ben a true Bishop consequenthe he had no power to consecrate others so Master Parker supposing he had the true matter forme of Episcopall Order applied vnto him yet could he not be true Bishop for want of authoritie in his ordainer who could not possible giue that he had not himselfe Secondlie It is false that those wordes receiue the holie Ghost with imposition of handes onelie are the whole matter forme of consecration of Bishops for that neither scripture Councels nor Fathers nor the ancient practice of the Church doe teach the same but rather on the contrarie it is manifest that another forme of Ordination was vsed in the primatiue Church as doth
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
greater force for iustification of the ordination of our English pretensiue reformed clergie then the writings of an vsurarie contract iustifie an vsurer in his recept of money in that vnlawfull manner which they declare And so I conclude both for this the reasons aboue alledged particularly for their most apparent defect of vocation mission that their case is verie considerable yea lamentable both in respect of themselues in regarde of those whose soules are by their owne misfortune cōmitted to their charge gouernement And this may now suffice for the declaration confirmation of this my fift cheefe generall argument which concludeth the faith of England to be an erroneous false Religion THE SIXT PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT MY sixt principall argument is this That Religion is false which hath no true adoration or worship of God proper to him onely But the English Religion hath no adoratiō nor worship of God proper to him onely Ergo the Religiō of Englād is a false religiō The Maior must of necessitie be graunted by the professors of the English Reignō least otherwise they destroye amhilate the verie life of all Religion which is the worship or adoration of one onely God with such honor as is proper due vnto him as both diuine faith leight of nature doe teach yea doutlesse the trueth of this proposition is contained in the first commaundement which doth not onely exclude the pluralitie of Gods their adoration but also includeth that worship which is due proper to one onely God not to anie creature or oother entitie whatsoeuer And for this cause God himself in other places cōmaundes Dominum Deum tuum adorabis illi soli seruies Thou shalt adore thy Lord thy God serue him onely And honorē meū alteri non dabo I will not giue my honor to another wher God calles it his owne honor because ther is a kinde of honor due proper vnto him onely not common to others And now this precept being grounded in the lawe of nature the naturall instinct of reason doth likewise suggest the same so that no rationall creature can denie it Nowe the Minor of my silogisme in which all or the greatest parte of the difficultie consists I proue it by an other silogisme in this manner That Religion hath no true adoration or worship of God which hath no exercise of a true proper sacrifice or oblation But the Religion of England hath no exercise of a true proper sacrifice or oblation Ergo the Religion of England hath no true adoration or worship of God The Maior of the latter silogisme in case it should be denied by our aduersaries proue first by scripture then by testimonies of ancient Fathers to wit that true Religion cannot stand without true proper worship of God by frequent vse or exercise of a true proper sacrifice And altho' this might be sufficiently proued by a generall induction drawne not onely from the practice of the vniuersall world in all ages as well in the professors of the true God of which the old Testament giueth euidence as also from the false religion of all sortes of Idolaters Gentils Paganes Yet because I knowe the Nouelists out of their presumption impudencie will not stick to denie the consequence I will omit to persecute this manner of argumēt onely insist in those authorities of Scripture doctors of the Church which immediatly conuince the same to be true also in our Christian Religion of the new Testament My first proofe of scripture I take out of some certaine places of the Prophets which notobstanding they seeme to belong to the old testament yet in realitie they appertaine to the newe as being predictions of the state of Religion in the same To which purpose the Prophesie of Malachie is most plaine for the future practice of a proper generall sacrifice in the new Testament affirming That the Lord of Hostes saith this I haue no will in you meaning the Preists of the old Testament nor will I receiue an offering at your handes for from therising of the sunne to the setting my name is great among the Gentils in euerieplace is ther Sacrificed offered vnto my name a cleane oblation because my name is great among nations Thus farre the Prophet Now the wordes circumstāces of this place so plainely demonstrate that the Prophet Malachie speakes of some kinde of sacrifice which was not thē or euer before vsed in anie time or place but was to be vsed in the new testament that our aduersaries least they should be conuinced of error in their Religion for that it hath no externall oblation to God at all they finde no other refuge then to feigne that the Prophet speaketh onely of the metaphoricall sacrifice of prayer good workes Which interpretation of theirs altho' it were neuer so true as it is most clearely false yet is it little sutable to other positions practice at least of Caluinists Vid. Dan. Cham. as that good works are sinnes in themselues yea damnable if God did not mercifully perdon them that they are not pleasing to God Nay prayer good workes are so litle couldly practiced among them all that if ther were no other sacrifice in the world doubtlesse God almightie should by them especially be verie couldly serued How be it that cleare it is out of the related text that Malachie treates not of anie vnpropersacrifice First because it is euident that he prophesied of such a future sacrifice as should be more proper pleasing to God then thesacrifices offered in the time of the old lawe which neuerthelesse being properly and truely sacrifices altho' in other respects defectiue that which should succeed vnto them could not in comparison of them be esteemed more proper pleasing sacrifice to God then they were if truely and properly it had not ben a sacrifice Secondly The Hebrewe text with the cleane oblation ioyneth incense which coniunction of both those rites togither doth manifestly shewe the Prophesie to be of an externall rite oblation to God consequently a proper sacrifice Thirdly It is plaine by the wordes of the text that the Prophet speaketh of such an externall ritie as mayntaines the greatnes of Gods name euen among Gentiles infidels which prayer good workes onely cannot effecte by reason they ar neither so apparent knowne among thē nor so publike a testimonie of the maiestie of God as sacrifice is without which his diuine renowne magnificence soueraintie would be extinguished in people in processe of time Fourthly true proper sacrifice is an essentiall parte of a true proper Religion a maine distinctiue signe from vn proper false Religions of such a one the Prophet treates as is both different from the sacrifice of the Gentiles yea of the Iewes them selues now prayer workes ar common to euerie
related that the Apostles were ministing to our lord fasting Now to minister to our lord can not consist either in prayer onely or in singing uf psalmes which needed no Kynde of ministration more then opening their mouthes hartes wher as yet the worde ministere doth necessarily include some externall ryte more theÌ„ that as the Greke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth clearely denote signifie And therfore Erasmus a great fauorit of the Nouellists doubted not plainely to translate for the wordes ministantibus Domino sacrificeing to God To the authoritie of scriptures I will here adde such testimonies of ancient Fathers as I haue not yet cited such as being within the compasse of the fiue priuatiue ages clearly testifie the Eucharist to be a sacrifice S. Cyprian saith thus who is more Preist Dei summi of the cheefe God thâ— our Lord Iesus Christ Lib 2. ep 3. who offered sacrifice to God the Father offered that same which Melchisedech offered to wit bread wine that is his bodie bloud Which wordes ar so plaine that they forced the Centurists to confesse of this Father That he affirmed the Preist to performe the office of Christ offer sacrifice to God the Father Now if according to S. Cyprian the Preist performes the office of Christ offers sacrifice as the Centurians confesse of S. Centur. 3. col 83. Cyprian doubtlesse it is no other but the Eucharist which he offereth Vice Christi fungi Magdeburg Centur. 3. or 4. The glorious martyr S. Hypotelicus in his oratioÌ„ of Antichrist introduceth Christ saying to the Prests of he newe Testament in the day of Iudgement come you Rashops Preist who dayly immolatedor facrificed my pretions bodie bloud in the world S. Ambrose vpon the psalme we did se saith he the Paince of Preists coming vnto vs. Wi did se him heare him offering for vs his bloud Let vs Preists followe him that we may offer sacrifice vnto him for altho' we be infirme or weake in merit yet ar we honorable in sacrifice for altho' Christ doth not at the leaste as they conceiue now seeme to offer yet he is offered on earth when Christs boilie is offered Yea he is manifested to offer in vs whose wordedoth sanctifie the sacrifice which is offered S. Gregorie nyssene in his first oration vpon the Resurrection hath these memorable wordes For inthat ineffable secret to men inuisible manner of sacrifice by his diuine ordinance he doth prcoccupate the violent brunt offers him selfe for vs being both victim oblation both Preist lambe of God When did this happen when he exhibited his bodie to be eaten his bloud to be drunken by his familiar freindes S. Chrysostome in his 24. Hom. 2. in postertorem Epist ad Tim. Circa fine homilie vpon the first to the Corinthians speaking of Christ saith that he commaunded himselfe to be offered iusteed of brute beastes And in another place he speaketh thus The sacred oblation it selfe whether Peter or Paul or of what merit soeuer the Preist is who offers it is the same which Christ himselfe gaue to his disciples which now also Preists dâ—e make this hath nothing lesse them that Why so because men doe not sacrifice this but Christ who had consecrated it before S. Augustin in diuers places of his workes but most clearely in his second sermon vpon the psalme 33. of our sauior saith thus in plaine termes He Christ instituted a sacrifice of his bodie bloud according to the order of Melchisadech Nostrum sacrificium non solum Euangelicis sed etiam Propheticis libris demonstratuÌ„ est And conformable to this the same S. Augustin in his 49. epistle affirmes the sacrifice of vs Catholike Christians to be demonstrated not onely by the Euangelicall but also by the Propheticall bookes Also in his 20. chapter of his 17. bookes of the Citie of God he hath most expresse wordes to the same purpose which because they are somat large otherwise well knowne I omit them to be viewed by the reader if he please S. Leo the great also one of the writers of the fift age in his seuenth sermon of the Passion teaches that the sacrifices of the old lawe yealded or gaue place to the sacrifice of the Eucharist as the shadow to the bodie His wordes at these Wherfore to the end that the shadowes should yeald to the bodie images to the presence of veritie or truth the ancient obseruance is taken a way with a newe sacrament one hoaste is changed in to an other bloud doth exclude bloud the legall sestinitie while it is changed is fulfilled And some lines after he addes but Iesus knowing certainely his counsell being vndaunted in the ordinance of has Father did consuÌ„mate the old Testament instituted the newe Pasque for his disciples being set to eate the mysticall supper when in the Courte of Carphas it was consulted how Christ should be put to death he ordaiding the sacrament of his bodie bloud did teach in what manner an hoaste was to be offered to God Epist 81 Ad Discorum And the same Father in an other place ordaining that more Masses then one be celebrated in one the same Church when one doth not serue by reason of the multitude of the pleople saith thus Our will is that when the solemnitie of afeast hath drawne such a multitude of faithfull persons together as the Church can not receiue let then the oblation of the sacrifice be vndoubtedly reiterated or repeated since it is a thing full of pietie reason that so often as the Church is filled with newe people so often an other following sacrifice be offered For it must needs be that some parte of the people be depriued of their deuotioÌ„ if the custome of celebrating one onely Masse obserued they onely that come first may offer the sacrifice Thus this ancient graue Father in whose wordes oblation sacrifice of the Masse ar three seuerall tymes repeated Isichius or Hesichius who liued aboute the same tyme hath these wordes touching the same matter Lib. 2. in Leuit. c. 8. Our lord being at supper with his disciples first with the figuratiue lambe afterwardes offered his owne sacrifice Lib. 2. in Exod c. 6. Rupert in like manner speaketh of the same sacrifice saying Our lord being in the agome of his Passion first immolated or sacrificed him selfe to God the Father with his owne proper bandes taking bread c. Now to coÌ„clude since the testimonies of these Fathers doctors of the primatiue Church ar both most ancient as being all included in the circle of the first fiue hundreth yeares next succeeding to the time of Christ his Apostles Et quidem ipsaÌ„ actioneÌ„ canae Dominica quidem ipsum corpus sanguiÌ„no in cana à veteribuâ— vocari saâ—risicium o blationem hostiam victimam c. Kemnit pag. 788. also
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