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
appeare to omit other authorities by the wordes of sainct Ambrose vpon the 13. chapter of the Acts of the Apostles Where expounding those words Ieiunantes imponentesque â—is manies He saith that imposition of handes is mysticall wordes where with the person elected is confirmed to this worke receiuing authoritie his conscience bearing him witnesse that he may be bould in our Lordes name to offer sacrifice to God By which wordes the reader may plainelie perceiue that in sainct Ambroses time there was more required in the matter forme of consecration of Bishops then imposition of handes onelie with those wordes receiue the holie Ghost to wit some other wordes by which the person ordained receiueth power to offer Sacrifice which wordes neuerthelesse were neuer vsed in the consecration either of Master Parker or anie other of the Bishops or ministers of the English Church as by them themselues is confessed who by necessarie sequele must also needs confesse the same Bishops ministers to be essentiallie defectiue voy de of true ordination Thirdlie according to the storie of the Nagge 's head tauerne as it was related by Master Neale some time professor of languages in Oxford who was a man that both by reason of his ancient yeares as also for the meanes he had to know the trueth as being imployed about this same busines by Bishop Boner then deposed prisoner ought in all reason to be credited Master Parker was not ordained at all by Master Barlowe but by Master Scorie who by reason he had she name of Bishop during the Reigne of King Enwarde because Master Kitching being a true Bishop tho' then deposed with the rest of the Catholike Bishops of Queenes Maries time partelie out of scruple of conscience partelie for feare of Excommunication menaced towardes him by Bishop Bonner refused to consecrate the newe superintendents vndertooke the worke in the foresaid Tauerne where a meeting was made to that purpose Scorie causing them all to kneele he tooke the Bible laid it vpon them bidding them take authoritie to preach the worde of God sincerelie who without anie more wordes or deedes all escaped Bishops of the new fashion And Master Parker hauing either better fortune or better fauor then the rest for his parce he got the Archbishoprie of Canterburie and the primacie of England The others being seased according to their seuerall lots and election of the Queene Whence it clearelie appeareth that by which soeuer of these formes Master Parker his fellowes were consecrated yet they haue no true Canonicall ordination neither according to the scriptures nor according to the ancient practice of the Church by vnauoidable consequence they haue no true succession deriued from the Apostles but as an ancient Father saith of other heretikes of his time so we may say of them that succeeding to none they are prodigiouslie borne of themselues Cypr. 〈◊〉 de simpl Prael And sainct Cyprian of others saith in like manner that without anie lawe of ordination they preferre themselues assume the name of Bishops not hauing the Episcopate coferred vpon them by anie Both which sentences may verie aptelie be applyed to our nominall Bishops of England who as I haue declared receiue their Bishopries without law full authoritie Yet notobstanding all this which hath ben said perhaps some of them will insiste further in their owne defence say that althou ' they haue no personall succession yet they haue doctrinall succession from the Apostles in respect they maintaine the same doctrine which the Apostles their successors in the primatiue Church preached tought To which I anser that this is the common euasion of those onelie who defend the inuisibilitie of the Church but it doth nothing auaile those who pretende to defend the continuall visibilitie of the same as they doe against whome I now dispute Secondlie whosoeuer maintaines this It is but a miere shif or cloake wherewith to couer the nakednes of their new borne Religion which if it had not falselie disguised itselfe with the Apostolicall robes it could not for shame haue appeared in publike by reason of the great deformitie it hath in doctrine Thirdly If the English Religion hath succession of doctrine not of persons wher was it from the fift or sixt hundreth yeare till the dayes of Luther Was it in men or in beasts In beastes they will not say for the auoyding of their owne shame And if it was in men then showe vs wher when those men liued otherwise we will giue no more credit vnto our aduersaries wordes then we doe wheÌ„ they crye out say it is Apostolicall doctrine but proues it not as ordinarily they do both in their bookes preachings PeradueÌ„ture they will say their Religion was neither in men nor beasts but in bookes they meane in the bookes of the old newe Testament But this is yet more false absurde then the rest for that doctrine inuolued in bookes can not make succession succession being and order or series of things imediately following one other which order doctrine meluded in papers or partchement can not possible haue as being one the same obiect of faith quite indistinguible in it selfe can be onely intentionally or obiectiuely distinguished or deuided by the persons in which as an accident it is subiected receiued Besides All the tyme that those fantastikes imagin their doctrine to haue ben continually successiue in the Bible if they them selues or at least other their companions in sect were not as ther confesse howe can they knowe at this present that anie such bookes or doctrine was then in the world when themselues were not If they say they haue that knowledge from the Romanists then say I why doe they not also giue credit vnto the same Romanists in other matters of faith as particularly in that point of the number of Canonicall scriptures of the true sense of them as they ar applyed to euerie Controuersie betwixt vs them during that long space in which ther were none of their Religion extant among all which points of difference ther is none more important then that of the infallible knowledge of those diuine bookes which the Romanists had in their custodie all the tyme of their aduersaries non existence to be the onely true authenticall worde of God So that for these men to affirme they haue all wayes had a doctrinall succession from the Apostles without a personall is a miere Puritanicall dreame a Chymericall conceite paradox of their owne forgeing an Idea of Plato abstracted onely by distracted myndes Finally for proofe that the English Religion hath no true Preists Bishops I adde that our Sauior ordained his Apostles not onely to preach his worde but also to remit sinnes offer sacrifice according to those two texts of scripture 〈…〉 22. whose sinnes you shall remit they shall be remitted And doe this in my remembrance Wherfore
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—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
onely is the true Religion The maior of this silogisme is allowed for true questionlesse by both parties The minor onely is in contronersie for the more cleare proofe of which it is to be supposed that both parties agree in this point to wit that that Church onely hath the true infallible interpretation sense of scripture which hath the infallible assistance of the holie Cost in that action altho' in deed this argreement well considered is onely in wordes for not obstanding this it yet further remaineth Controuersed betwixt vs our aduersaries in whome this speciall assistance of the diuine spirit resides whether in thâ— Prelates Pastors of the Church duely 〈◊〉 â—â—bled or in eâ—â—â—e particular person of the Church In which controuersie neuerthelesse both parties yet further accorde that whersoeuer the foresaid true inspuration of God doth assist ther onely is the true interpretation of the diuine worde Besides this it is to be supposed that ther ar two manners or two sortes of meanes or wayes by which people attaine to the true vnderstanding sense of the scriptures The one is by a sole conference of one place of scripture with another by euerie priuat ChristiaÌ„ man or womaÌ„ learned or vnlearned by reading the bare text of the scripture iudging of the sense according to the spirit which guides them good or bad The other way or manner of exposition is performed not by a miere solitarie or priuate conference comparison of places of scripture one with another but both by comparing or collating them in that maner also by an exacte viewe of the expositions of the holie learned Fathers or doctors of all former tymes succeeding ages euen to the present tyme in which the expounders liue which forme of proceeding as it is most mainfest neither is to be performed by euerie priuate person autheÌ„tically with infallible certainelie but by the publike Prelateâ— Pastors of the Church especially by the cheefe pastor of it Now this being noted aduertised I proue the minâ— of my argumeÌ„t wâ—th anâ— her silogisme in 〈◊〉 manner That oâ—ely Church hath the true interpretation sense of scripture which receiueth it from the Preists Prelates Pastors especially the cheefe Pastor of the Church succeeding linially froÌ„ the Apostles by conference of places viewe of expositions of the holie Fathers doctors of all successiue ages from the Apostles to the end of he world not by euerie priuat man or woman But the Roman Church onely receines the interpretation sense of scripture frome the Preists Prelates Pastors especially the cheese pastor of the Church in the forsaid manner Ergo the Roman Church onely hath the true interpretation sense of scripture The major of this silogisme in which the difficulte coÌ„sistes I could proue first by scriptures which both in the old newe Testament assigne this facultie power to Preists Bishops Pastors as gouerners rules of the Church with a strict commaunde for the people to obey them But because I dâ—e not here professe to make aâ—ie exact large discourse vpon that point but onely intend breefely to make good iustifie my former argumentation therfore I remit the rest of the places of scripture which I could alledge to be seâ—â— as they at cited declared by Bellarmin other diuines will vrge onely that one text of S. Paule in his epistle to the Ephesians which is most cleare pregnant for this purpose Wherfore in his 4. Bell. lib. 3. de verbo Dei c. 4 sequent chapter of this Epistle speaking of the institution of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie by Christ he saith thus And he gaue some Apostles some Prophets other some Euangelists others pastors doctors to the consummatior of the saints vnto the worke of the ministrie vnto the edification of the bodie of Christ vntill we meet all into the vnitie of faith knowledge of the sonne of God into a perfect man into the mâ—sure of the age of the fulnes of Christ that now we be not children wauering with euerie winde of doctrine in the wickednes of men in craftines of the circumuention of error By which wordes it is manifest that our sauior among the rest appointed Pastors doctors them not onely for the Ecclesiasticall gouernement of the Church but also to deliuer the true doctrine of Christ to the people least if they were left to them selues in that particular of the knowledge of the true faith they should fall into errors this was thus ordained by Christ not for anie limited tyme but eueÌ„ vnto the consummation of the world in all ages By which it is euident that since Christ our sauior as the Apostle relates 〈◊〉 â—â—point this order subordination of the Câ—â—gie in his Church for the gouernement instruction of the members therof in true faith perfection of virtuous life as superiors to whome he commaunded them to obey according to that of the Apostle Obedite prepositis subiacete eis It is I say by necessarie consequence most manifest that Christs diuine pleasure also was that the common people should not be their owne caruers but should receiue the interpretation sense of his diuine worde from those whome he himselfe designed for their rulers superiors in all matters concerning the safetie of their soules supposing as a certaine euident trueth that the whole structure perfection of a Christian faith life doth necessarily depened vpon the orthodoxe sense meaning of the worde of God That which the generall perpetuall practice of the Church from tyme to tyme doth manifestly conuince which in all occasions of controuersie in matters of faith manners hath vsed no other proceeding then by assembling of Councels consisting of the Prelates Pastors cheefely of the cheefe supreme Pastors the Bishops of Rome according to their seuerall tymes standings for deciding of doubdts questions broached by erroneous teachers that by declaration of the true seÌ„se of those places of scripture aboute which the controuersie was begun For so did the Generall Councell of Nyce vnder Pope Siluester expounde declare to the whole Church euerie particular member therof the true sense of those wordes Pater maâ—or me est And in the first Councell of Constantinople vnder Pope Damasus those Ioan. Amos. 4. Rom. 8. Ego Dominus formans tonitru creans spiritum And those spiritus postulaâ— pronobis In the Councell of Ephesus vnder Pope Celestin against Nestorius those Math. 26. Philip. 2. Deus Deus meus quare me dereliquisti And those habitu inuentus vt homo In the Councell of Chalcedon vnder Pope leo against Entyches those Ioa. 1. verhum carofactum est To this I adde consent of Fathers who write of this matter generally teaching this same doctrine Lib. 3. c. 4. S. Irenaeus in his booke against heresies saith thus