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
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
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
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
and not according to the common acception of them which yet is the common practice of the Nouelists of these our dayes as is most apparent euen by that particular passage which I haue in hād that is the place aboue cited in the second chapter of the Acts thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell Lib. 5. de descen Christ c. ◠n. Aboute which Daniel Chamier hauing turned himselfe euerie way tossed all the dictionaries he could finde for his purpose yet could he not finde one author more ancient then Iohn Caluin his great master and first founder of his Religion whoe teacheth that either in this place or in anie other place of scripture according to the proper ordinarie vse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie the bodie carcasse or life the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the graue as he his fellow partners will needs haue thē to signifie as they vsually translate them in their Bibles excepting onely Arias Montanus if he be truely cited by Chamier In Idiotismis He◠braeis how be it himselfe grauntes that in the cited place of the 16. psalme the Hebrewe wordes in steed of which the Septuagint putteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe signifie the soule hell which is all that we can desire For if the Hebrewe text be the foūtaine of all true translations as all the Nouelists will haue it neither can their translation of this place be true nor ours false for that theirs according to our aduersarie Chamiers dissents from the Hebrewe ours agrees Diuers other places of the English Nouelists corrupted translations might be produced as that of the 26. of S. Mathewe wher for Hymno dicto in the Latin hymnizantes in the Greeke they translate when they had sung a psalme In the 28. of the Acts ouerseers for Bishops And in the ninte chapter of the first to the Corinthians Haue we not power to lead about a wife where they put a wife for a woman as if all woman were wiues And in the first chapter of the second epistle of S. Peter they leaue out the wordes by good workes which neuerthelesse are founde in diuers Greeke copies yea Caluin himselfe grauntes that if they be not expressed in the text yet they are subintellected or vnderstood And to this may be added by the way that altho' it is not ill of it selfe to translate the Bible into vulgar languages if it be done truely sincerely by the authoritie of the Church or her cheefe Pastor yet by these few examples we may learne how greately the word of God is abused by false translations how farre the trueth is preiudicated by such partiall proceeding supposing that all the foresaid places as they are by them turned in to the English tongue doe fauore diuers points of their new doctrine wheras on the contrarie they expressely make against it if they be truely trāflated And particularly those wordes of their sixtineth psalme thou wilt not leaue my soule in graue are so absurdely contrarie to sense so extrauagāt in the phrase manner of speech as the like is not to be found in anie translation that euer was extant euer since the scriptures were first published in vulgar tongues euen among the pretended reformers themselues But now this may suffice for examples of false translation of the scriptures vsed by our aduersaries for the first proofe of the Minor of my silogisme aboue framed Which I further proue secondly for as much as concerneth the exposition of the scriptures because the manner of interpretation which both our English professors also the rest of the pretensiue reformers vse is scarce in anie thing coformable to the expositiō of the anciēt Fathers Doctors of the precedent ages as it ought to be according to the rule of S. Augustin in his second booke against Iulian where in the begining he faith the Christian people ought rather to adhere to the Fathers then vnto those which teach the contrarie towards the end of the same booke he addeth thus that which they to wit the Fathers found in the church they hold that which they had frō their Fathers they deliuered to their sonnes But our newe interpreters as they are in their positions so are they in their expositions of the worde of God singular full of affected apish imitation of the Iewish glosses neither doe they scarce euer alledge anie other expositions or constructions then those of Rabbi Salomon Rabbi Kimchi Aben Ezra the rest of that rabble Notobstanding they cannot be ignorant but that some of them were either Scribes Phariseis or Saduceis if not all of whome it may be presumed with reason that they frame their expositions more commonly according to their owne false traditions thē according to the true sense meaning of the lawe By which proceeding the reader may consider how impossible it is for our aduersaries to satisfie their consciences in the deliuerie of such doctrine as dependes vpon so vncertaine fayleable groūdes in how miserable a case that flock is which hath his instruction in matters of saluatiō from such Pastors as partely out of the writings of those profane Iewes enimies of Christ partely also by their owne industrie coine new sense out of the old obstruse decayed significations of wordes which they find in pedantik humanists Lexicōs Dictonaries neglecting the commō current acceptions Ecclesiasticall vse of the same By all which the conclusion of my proposed argument doth appeare true sound which is that the Professors of the English faith haue no certaine and infallible interpretation sense of the diuine scriptures consequently their Religion must needs be voyde of trueth THE FOVRTH PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT MY fourth principall argument I propoūd in the forme following That Religion is false which hath a false rule of faith But the English Religion hath a false rule of faith Ergo the English Religiō is a false Religion The maior is not denyed by our aduersaries therefore it needs no proofe And it they should be so refractorie as to denie it It is cōuinced by the verie leight of naturall reason which teacheth that the ruled followes the nature of the rule so that it cannot possible be streighter then the rule it selfe no more then a boton can be round if the moulde be square Now that the English Religion hath a false rule of faith which is the Minor of my silogisme I demonstrate thus by an other silogisme The Religion of England hath for the rule of faith scriptures interpreted expounded by euerie particular member of their Church But the scriptures interpreted expounded by euerie particular member of their Church is a false rule of faith Therefore the Religion of England hath a false rule of faith That the scriptures expounded by euerie particular member of the Church is a false rule of faith I euidently proue because the
true rule of faith is of it owne nature certaine common knowne to all beleeuers not priuate vnknowne certaine to him onely who hath it Otherwise no man can certainely infallibly knowe what it is except himselfe consequētly none but he onely can followe it wheras the true rule of faith is such as euerie one is bounde to knowe imbrace vpon perill of his saluation Secondly I proue that this English rule is false because it is subiect to error the maintainers of themselues confessing that no man can infallibly interpreter the scriptures so that his expositions euen in the greatest matters of faith be vndoubtedly true certaine in such sorte as he can infallibly persuade others that they are according to that sense which the holye Gost intended when he dictated them to the diuine writers For confirmation of which I further adde that our aduersaries commonly teach that not onely euerie particular priuate person may erre in faith but also the whole number of Bishops 〈◊〉 Prelates of their Church assembled in a Synod or Councell Out of which it is infallibly consequent that their rule of faith is not certaine either in it selfe or at the least not to others neither can others lawfully follow it for the same reason that it is vnknowne vnto them subiect to error deceipte Besides altho ' the professors of the English Religion should denie this same 1. Cor. 2. yet is it conuinced concluded by scripture it selfe saying for what man knowes the things of a man but the spirit of man which is in him Thirdly if the English rule of faith were not false to wit scriptures expounded by euerie member of the Church it would thence necessarily followe that ther were no need of prechers teachers in the Church of England to propose declare the worde of God vn the people because euerie particular man woman that can read the Bible can sufficiently vnderstand expounde it them selues at the least for as much as concernes their saluation And for the ignorant sorte which can not read it were also in vaine for them to haue preachers in regarde they can propose vnto them no other rule of faith then scriptures expounded by their owne particular spirit which neuerthelesse euē according to their owne doctrine is fallible subiect to error by consequence obledgeth no man to followe it but rather to auoy de it by all meanes possible Fourthly I proue the same because this rule of our aduersaries serues no mans turne but his owne who hath it that but vnto wardely neither doth it obledge others to beleeue it neither is it one the same but as manie as ther be people in the whole Church of England all which is most absurde repugnant to the nature of true faith which ought to be one in all the Christian world certaine in fallible binding all persons to embrace it by diuine precept commaund which neuerthelesse could not be such if the rule which it followeth were not one without all multipllcation diuision And to this may be ioy ned for conclusion of the proofe of this argument that which I haue deliuered touching our aduersaries false translation erroneous manner of interpretation of diuine scriptures THE FIFT PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT MY fift principall argument in order to proue the falsitie of the English Religion is this That Religion is false which hath not a perpetuall disinterrupted succession of Bishops Preists deriued from the Apostles But the English Religion hath not a perpetuall disinterrupted succession of Bishops Preists deriued from the Apostles Ergo the English Religion is a false Religiō The maior proposition is so certaine and cleare that our aduersaries a the least all or most of those of the Protestant faith can not denie it And if perpaps anie of them or anie other Sectaries should be so frontlesse imprudent as to denie it they ar manifestly conuinced by those places of scripture which proue the perpetuitie of the gouernement of the Church of Christ in generall As in the fourth to the Ephesians where it is affirmed that Christ gaue to his Church Pastors doctors that is Bishops Preists to the consummation of the saints vnto the word of the ministerit that to rule gouerne feed the flock of the Church vntill the cōsummation of the world And the Prophet Dauid in his 47. psalme faith that God founded his citie that is the Church as S. Augustin expoundes it for euer And surely if God established his Church for euer as truely according to this he did it can neuer wāt Bishops Preists for that if it should wāt them then it were no more a true Church according to the saying S. Hierome Wher ther is no Preist ther is no Church In which word sacerdos Preist Contra Luciferianos he includeth also Bishops as being cheefely Preists those without whome no Preists can be made of ordained sainct Cyprian also in the second epistle of his fourth booke towardes the end teaches that the true Church cannot stand without Bishops Preists And sainct Augustin saith plainelie that it is the succession of Preists by Preists he meaneth also Bishops which keepes him in the Church Contra part Donat. And in his epistle 165. vpon the psalme against Donatus he chalengeth his aduersaries the Donatists to number the Preists which haue ben euen from the seat of sainct Peter see who hath succeeded each other in that Order of Fathers in which Order of Fathers meaning the Popes whose names he specifiech in his epistle to Generosus euen from S. Peter to Anastasius who was Pope in his time because he findeth not one Donatist therefore he concludes that their Religion is false not to be followed So that the reader may plainelie perceiue by these authorities of which kinde manie more might be alledged if need were the place did admit anie larger discourse that the ancient Fathers held the want of succession of Bishops Preists for a common infallible argument of the falsitie of that Religion which not obstanding whatsoeuer other colores of truth it might seeme to haue by pretext of scripture or otherwise was destitute of the same That which is sufficient for the proofe of the mator of my Sylogisme in case anie of the defenders of the English Religion should haue the face to denie it Wherefore hence I passe to the minor to wit that the English Religion hath not a continuall disinterrupted succession of Preists Bishops derined from the Apostles which I proue first Because it is certaine by the testimonie of all writers of those ages that frome the time of sainct Gregorie Pope of Rome who sent sainct Augustin the Monke into England to plant the then professed Roman faith ther were no other Preists or Bishops but such as had their authority deriued from the Roman seat such Bishops onelie as were