vniuersalitie of â—atter but also perpetuall continuation of time supposing it was vnnecessarie for Christ to haue promised his contiuual assistance to his Apostles except the Religion which he deliuered vnto them had ben necessarily to be perpetuallie preached in all times without interruption euen till the day of Iudgement in which respect it implyes that relation of vniâ—ersalitie which my former argument conâ—udes And to this I ioyne Secondlie that the other â—rte of the maintainers of the English faith â—ho enterprise the defence of the visibilitie of there Religion in all ages are yet farther out â—f square then the other In regarde by this â—â—eanes they enter in to a taske which as the â—ustration of their tryall in that particular â—ath alreadie giuen experience they will neâ—er be able to performe By all which it is euidentlie appeares that the English Religion hath no such relation or respect vnto all future times intrinsecallie included in it obiect or matter or if anie reference it had it was of such temporarie smale continuance that it quite lost it by the way in all that vaste space of time which passed betweene the Popedome of sainct Gregorie the Apostacie of Martin Luther Thirdly I yet farther adde that the defenders of the English faith assume false abuse their hearers when they so commonly affirme that their Religion is the same which was taught preached by Christ his Apostles which I proue because it doth not indeed agree in all particulars with the obiect matter of the faith doctrine which Christ his Apostles published to the world as manifestly appeares by comparing some seuerall points of them both conferring the one with the other For where can the nouelistis finde either in the scripture Fathers or authenticall historie that Christ his Apostles taught that those onely bookes of scripture ar Canonicall which the Church of England holdes for such or that Christians ar iustified by that faith onely by which they beleeue their sinnes are remitted the iustice of Christ applyed vnto them by the faith same that euerie one in particular is bounde so to beleeue that this faith onely is necessarie sufficient to saluation or wher doe they finde that Christ his Apostles preached that the onely written worde is necessarie sufficient to saluation where doe they reade in scripture or Fathers that the visible Church planted by Christ increased by the preaching of the Apostles continuated by a disinterrupted succession of Pastors can erre in faith that ther is no Purgatorie nor place of satisfaction either in this world or the next for lesser sinnes or the paine due to greater or that in the Sacrament of Eucharist the bodie bloud of Christ at not contained receiued other wise then figuratiuely by faith a lone I knowe they can shewe vs none of these seuerall propositions either in scriptures or doctors of the Church or by anie authenticall historie or relation that the same haue ben taught by Christ or his Apostles I am assured that all they can performe in this case is to produce certaine textes of scripture which to the ignorant sorte of people may seeme to haue resemblance with those their positions but none soe plaine that without detortion of either sense or wordes or both or without their owne fallatious illations consequences can possible containe anie such doctrine For example for their solifidian iustification or their iustification by faith onely they alledge diuers passages out of the epistles of S. Paule as that man is not iustified by the workes of the lawe but by faith that faith is reputed to iustice yet none of those shewe that faith onely iustifies much lesse doe they mention or insinuate that peculiar faith of remission of their sinnes by which the professors of the English Religion beleeue they ar iustified that which is euidently convinced by the tenor of the texts then selues in which neither of the partes of the former position is contained but added by the expesitions glosses of those who violently drawe the scripturs to their peruerse purpose And the like practice of the Nouellists may easily be discouered to be vsed in the rest of the seuerall propositions aboue rehearsed in Bellarmin other Catholike Controuertists who professedly confute the newe doctrine of the sectaries of this present age to whom I remit the reader for more exact discussion of the same supposing this place is vncapable of more large proceeding And hence it appeares that the professors of the English faith must needes confesse that according to the premisses here breefely declared confirmed the matter obiect of their Religion doth not agree with that doctrine which Christ his Apostles planted published which is the Minor proposition of my second silogisme aboue propunded the verie same I here intend to conuince And now to the confirmation of the instance I responde I graunt the multitude of beleeuers doth not cause formally constitute vniuersallitie in theobiect of Religion neuerthelesse if comparing one Religion wit an other it is discouered to be apparently certaine that the one hath euer had a greater multitude of professors in all tymes places since the first fondation of the true faith then the other yea that the one hath had a greater number of faithfull persons for manie ages together when as the one had none at all In this case I say it is manifest that the multitude of beleeuers doth euidently argue the Religion so beleeued professed to be no other but that same Religion which was first founded by Christ our Sauior with his promisse of perpetuall visibilitie cantinuation with multiplicitie of faithfull people consequently that it onely hath vniuersallitie in matter obiect that on the contrarie the other Religion which can shew no such multitude of professors but is notoriously defectiue in this particular hath not anie vniuersallitie at all in the seuerall points of doctrine which it teacheth them to beleeue And now this may suffice to demonstrate that ther is no vniuersallitie to be founde in the obiect or matter of the English ReligioÌ„ The second kinde of vniuersallitie of Religion is in tyme which I proue not to be had in the English Religion in the forme following That Religion wantes true vniuersallitie of tyme which hath not ben visibly extant in all tymes since the true Religion was first founded But the Religion of England hath not ben visibly extant in all tymes since the first foundation of true Religion Therfore the Religion of England wantes true vniuersallitie of time The maior is most certaine maintained by many of the professors of the English faith if not by all Yet because they are not wholely vnited in this point as farre as I can perceiue by their doctrine because of those whoe maintaine the visibilitie of the Church fewe or none of them graunt that the Church
Doctors c. To the consummation of the Saints till we meet all into the vnitie of faith into aperfect man That is vntill the day of iudgement Vpon which place sainct Augustin in his 12 booke of the Citie hath large discourses to this purpose in the 16.17 18. chapters And the trueth is that Christ himselfe hauing in this speciall manner designed such persons for gouernors teachers in his Church till the end of the world doubtlesse his meaning was not that they should be such dumme dogs as the establishers of the inuisibilitie doe affirme them to haue ben in their imaginarie Church for a long time together But his diuine will pleasure was they should be custodes Ierusalem qui tota die tota nocte non tacebunt in perpetuum That is Christ would haue them such watchmen or keepers of Ierusalem that is to say the Church as shall not be silent till the end of the world in no time nor vpon anie occasion Which perpetuitie of the visible gouernement of the Church is grounded in the perfection of Christs diuine prouidence mercie towardes the members thereof for whome of his infinitie goodnes he pleased to haue the way to saluation continuallie open Which otherwise if the true Church had ben at anie time hidden or inuisible as at the least some of those against whome I nowe dispute will haue it then it could not possible haue ben so Yea manie thousands or rather millions of men had liued dyed out of the state of saluation as being impossible for them to finde enter into the true Church all that space of time in which it is feigned by them to haue remained inuisible or out of knowledge And thus much for the impugnation of that parte of our aduersaries which defeds that the true Church is not perpetuallie or in all differences of times visible the absurditie of which doctrine diuers of the defenders of the English Church of later standing aduertiseing also because they find it not so plausible to their auditors as they could wish they haue ventured vpon another course indeuoring to shewo that the same Church Religion which is now established in England hath ben alwayes visible in the world from the time of Christ his Apostles euen till this present Which manner of proceeding of theirs altho' it is much more difficult hard to be defended then the other now confuted that by this meanes the maintainers of it doe but incidere in syllam that is by auoyding of one incouenience they fall in to a greater Yet because they persuade themselues they come nearer to the marke of prouing their Church to be Catholike in this respect as well as the Roman Church hath euer ben which indeed they might performe if they were able truelie to proue their visibilitie therfore I will breefelie demonstrate that they haue no such visibilitie as is necessarie to the constirution of the true Catholike Church as they pretend Wherefore to come to the purpose the more clearelie to conuince my intent I frame this Sylogisme against the visibilitie of their Church That Church wantes perpetuall visibilitie which cannot produce some visible professors of their doctrine in all points in all ages since the time of the Apostles till this present But the Church of England cannot produce some visible professors of their doctrine in all points ages since the tyme of the Apostles to this present Therfore the Church of England wantes perpetuall visibilitie The maior is not denyed by our aduersaries the minor hath all the difficultie that I proue And inprimis that the defenders of the English faith can produce no scripture for this point is most certaine and euident for that this is onelie a matter of fact which succeeded since the scriptures were published By occasion of which the reader may note that those professors of the English religion who in this manner defende the visibilitie of their Church doe not proceed consequenter to that other negatiue principle of theirs to wit that nothing is to be beleeued by faith but which is either expressely or by necessarie illation contained in the scriptures which generall rule of theirs in this case is manifestlie defectiue for that in it neither scripture nor deduction or consequence of scripture can seruo their turne in this particular And if they replie that they can proue their visibilitie a priori by scriptures by those places which teach perpetuallâ— visibilitie in the Church then I say that this is not the matter now in question but a subtiltie to delude the reader for the controuersie is whether they can proue their visibilitie a posteriori that is whether they can yealde vs anie authenticall profe or testimonie whenby it may certainelie appeare that the Religion now professed in England hath ben in deed perpetually visible in in all ages as the scripture Fathers aboue alledged affirme the true Church ought to bee otherwise they doe onely suppose their Church is the same which is described in the scripture but proue it not Neither doe we aske them to she we vs that such a Church in generall ther is in the world as the scriptures doe mention but we vrge them to demonstrate that their Church in particular hath the propertie or attribute of perpetuall visibilitie as the scriptures requires to be founde in the onely indiuiduall true Church of Christ till they can performe this they neither speake according to the sense of scriptures nor satisfie vs in our demaunde Wherfore I proue the minor proposition of of the argument aboue framed because no authenticall historie can beproduced in which it is related that this Religion of England now commonly ther professed beleeuing maintaining that ther ar but 22. bookes of Canonicall scripture onely That they ar to be expounded by the spirit of euerie priuat person That man is iustified by faith onely That ther ar onely two sacraments instituted by Christ That the bodie of Christ is giuen receiued eaten in the Sacrament in a spirituall manner that is by faith onely finally I say that for testimonie of that these diuers others of the 39. articles of the English Religion haue ben taught or preached in all ages since the tyme of Christ his Apostles in anie Kingdome prouince towne or yet in anie one corner of the whole world tho' neuer so abscure ther is not extant anie kinde of recorde And therfore it is incredible in the highest degree that anie professors of it can be produced in euerie seuerall age since the foundation of the true Church of Christ for that if anie such had ben in anie tyme or place for so long a space together it is as certaine as it is certaine ther hath ben in all that successe of tyme sunne moone starres in the firmament or fishes in the sea that some writer or other would haue made mention of the same And if Historiographers
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
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
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