c. In which wordes the entyre tenor of the Masse is breefelie described thou ' soma't obscurelie as the custome of this author is By relation he vnderstandes the Epistle Gospell by benediction the consecration by praise himnes the glorie prayers other spirituall passages contained in that misterie And altho' this author in an other place of this same booke doth affirme the place of Malachie to be vnderstanded of sacrifice of praier in his booke against the Iewes of spirituall not of terrene sacrifices Yet in neither place doth he deny it to be truely interpreted of the Eucharist But in the first place he calleth it a spirituall sacrifice because it was instituted by the diuine spirit not by humane inuention as also for that it is not ministred in that carnall grosse manner in which the Iewish sacrifices were ministred by effusion of bloud by fire knife but by benediction consecration as such a pure oblation ought to be handled celebrated In the second place Tertullian onelie interpreteth one parte of the sentence of Malachie to wit the word incense which is in the Hebrewe text of prayer offered to God But the other wordes oblatio munda he expoundes of the sacrifice of the Masse in the place nowe cited To which if we adde an other place of the same author in which he speaketh of the Eucharisticall sacrifice De Oratione cap. 14. all tergiuersation must necessarily cease in anie indifferent minde touching this authors true meaning For thus he saith Will not thy station be more solemne if thou assiste at Gods Altar Hauing receiued reserued the bodie of our Lord both the one the other is safe the participation of the sacrifice the execution of the office By which wordes it is manifest that ancient Tertullian could neuer denie the Sacrament of the Altar to be a proper oblation who here so absolutelie affirmes it to be a sacrifice celebrated in the Altar S. Cyprian liuing within the third hundreth yeare in like manner cites the same place of Malachie in the 16. chapter of his booke against the Iewes to proue that which he putteth in the title of the same chapter to wit that the ancieÌ„t sacrifice is euacuated a new on celebrated which newe sacrifice can be no other theÌ„ the Eucharist which onely no other is new in respect of the sacrifices of the old Testament The next in Order age is Eusebius who liuing in the beginning of the 400. Lib. 1. demonst Euang. cap. vlt. yeare interprets this place of Malachie in the same sense sayeing We therefore sacrifice vnto the most high God a sacrifice of laude We sacrifice a sacrifice Deo plenum full of God And bringing an odoriferous sent with it a sacred or Sacrosainct sacrifice we sacrifice after a newe manner a pure or cleane sacrifice according to the newe Testament Where it is plaine that Eusebius applies the place of Malachie to the solemne sacrifice of the Masse which is performed by prayer oblation therefore called by his a sacrifice of laude which onelie can be truelie said to be full of God by reason of Christ whome it containeth which onelie can be called truely the sacrifice of the new Testament affirmed to be offered in a newe fashion All which particular speciall circumstances no man of iudgement or common sense can applie to prayer or almes onelie S. Chrysostome in his commentarie of the psalme 95. hauing cited the wordes of Malachie addes his exposition of them saying Behould howe copiouslie clearlie he Malachie hath declared the mysticall table which is the incruent or vnbloudie hoaste furthermore he calleth the sacred prayers which are offered after the hoaste pure Thymiame or odoriferous perfume CoÌ„ment in Malac. Thus S. Chry sostome of the Prophet Malachie S. Hierome altho' by the worde incense he vnderstandes prayer yet the worde pure ohlation he commonlie interpreteth to be the oblation of the Eucharist as also did sainct Irenaeus before him in the place cited Which exposition is as fit for the Romanists as can be imagined supposing the Masse includes both prayer pure oblation or sacrifice And the same I say of sainct Augustin who soeuer els of the Fathers interprets the foresaid worde inâ—ense in the Prophecie of Malachie in that manner Moreouer sainct Augustin both in his 18. Cap. 35. Cap. 23. 19. booke of the Citie vseth the same place of Malachie for proofe of the cessation of the Iewish sacrifices exercise of the Christian sacrifice by the Preists of Christ according to the Order of Melchisadech for thus he discourseth against the Iewes in the first of the two places cited I haue no will in yee nor offering will I receiue at your hand For from the rising of the sunne to the setting my name is great among the Gentils in euerie place shall be sacrificed a pure oblation is offerred to my name This sacrifice since we see it offered in all places from the rising of the sunne to the setting by the sacerdoce or Preist function of Christ according to the Order of Melchisadech but the sacrifice of the Iewes to whome it is said I haue no pleasure in you they cannot denie to haue ceased why doe they yet expect an other Christ since this which they reade prophecied see accomplished could not be fulfilled but by him It is true sainct Augustin speaketh not so plaine in the second place as here he doth neuerthelesse he alludes to the same place in the same sense Theodoret also comments vpon this same place of Malachie in the same sense in most plaine wordes teaching that according to the prediction of Malachie in lieu of irrationall hoastes is now sacrificed an immaculate lambe Lastelie sainct Damacen Rupert agree to Dam. de fide lib. 4. cap. 14. Rupertus in Com. Malach. the rest in the exposition of the place of Malachie whose wordes altho' most plaine I doe not cite because I knowe the Nouellists mâ—st commonlie reiect their authoritie as not being writers of the first fiue hundreth yeares In which how little reason they haue to proceed in that manner with learned graue authors I will not now discusse onelie this I say that I doubt not but anie indifferent reader will absolutelie condemne them of extreame temeritie in offering to resist such an armie of old soldiers as I haue here placed in battill aray to feight against them And hence I passe to the producing of testimonies of the new Testament for proofe of a proper sacrifice in the lawe of Christ Christ in the fourth chapter of the Euangell of sainct Iohn affirmeth that the houre is now come when true adorers shall adore the eternall Father in spirit truth neither in the mountaine of Samaria nor in Ierusalem as he said immediatly before Garizim in which place the worde adore signifies to sacrifice as in diuers
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
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
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
other places of scripture it doth particularlie the 22. of Genesis where Abraham preparing to sacrifice is sonne saith to his seruants Expect here with the asse I the boy makeing haste thither after we haue adored will returne vnto you Where it is cleare that the worde adore cannot signifie anie other adoration then that which Abraham was aboute that is the sacrifice of his sonne The likeplace you haue Iohn the 12. of certaine Gentils who ascended in to the temple to adore in the feast day And the Eunuch come to adore in Ierusalem the 8. of the Acts. In comment Malach. 1. In fine according to the iudgement of Theodoret Rupert this place of sainct Iohn alludes to that other of Malachie aboue cited discussed hath the like sense Which perhaps these two authors receiued from Eusebius who affirmes the same in his first booke of his Euang. demonst sixt chapter thence it is consequent that this place is vnderstanded of the Eucharist as the place of the Prophet is that is in a proper signification of sacrifice And other principall proofe of a proper sacrifice in the newe Testament is deduced from the institution of the Eucharist the 28. of sainct Mathew the 14. of sainct Marke the 22. of S. Luke the 11. chapter of the first to the Corinthians in this manner forme of Sylogisme A proper sacrifice is an externall oblation of some sensible permanent creature consecrated changed by mysticall ryte or Ceremonie by a lawfull Preist for the a knowledgement of the diuine maiestie supreme power dominion of God But Christ in his last supper made such an oblation when he instituted the Eucharist Ergo Christ in his laft supper offered a proper sacrifice when he instituted the Eucharist In the maior there is no controuersie betwixt vs our aduersaries as I suppose or at the least I persuade my selfe they will not much stand vpon it The minor I proue by an other Sylogisme Christ in his laste supper being a lawfull Preist according to the Order of Melchisadech offered his owne bodie bloude to his eternall Father vnder the sensible formes of bread wine commaunding his Apostles to doe the same But this is a true proper sacrifice Therefore Christ offered commaunded his Apostles to offer a true proper sacrifice in his last supper The maior of this latter Sylogisme I proue because except Christ had not offered in this manner in his last supper he had neuer performed the function of a true Preist according to the Order of Melchisadec Neither had he properlie verified fulfilled the figure of the Pasquall lambe Nor could he haue truelie affirmed his bloud in his last supper to be the bloud of the new testament if he had not offered then both bodie bloud in sacrifice Moreouer the Euanglist S. Luke relating the institution of the Eucharist vnder the forme of wine affirmes our sauior to haue vsed these wordes This chalis is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you Iuc 22. In which wordes both the worde shed which is the present tense as also the relatiue which which according to the Greek text which our aduersaries most esteme followe must of necessitie haue relation to the present sheding of the cup or chalis like wise those wordes for you manifestly conclude that our sauiour did then in that solemne action of his last supper sacrifice his bloud the same is of his bodie of which the same S. Luke saith in the present tense which is giuen for you yea I say all the circumstances plainely demonstrate to all vnobstinate mindes that Christ did truely properly sacrifice his bodie bloud when he instituted deliuered the Eucharist to his Apostles with an expresse commaundement to doe the same And hence it necessarily followes that tho Eucharist is a true proper sacrifice of the new Testamēt as often as it is celebrated by Preists according to the institutiō precept of Christ An other argument to proue that the Eucharist is a proper sacrifice I frame thus That is a proper sacrifice in which a victime or hoaste is receiued as a thing offered of giuen for the receiuers in honor of God But in the Eucharist the victime or hoast of Christs bodie bloud is receiued as a thing offered or giuen for the receiuers in honor of God Ergo the Eucharist is a proper sacrifice In the maior there is no doubt as I conceiue The Minor in which the controuersie standes I proue first because S. Luke affirmes Christ to haue said This is my bodie which is giuen for you Cap 22. And the like he saith of the chalis in the manner aboue declared according to the phrase of the Greeke text And according to this sense of the Euangelist S. Augustin in the 9. booke 13. chapters of his confessions relates that his mother day lie serued the Altar in which she did knowe the holie victime or hoaste to be dispensed or ministred Now that ther is oblation in the Eucharist the verie nature of the matter doth plainely argue for that where a victime or hoaste is ther of necessitie must be immolation as being correlatiues the one in respect of the other yea and immolation necessarily includes oblatiō for the sanie reason of correlation moreouer both these are included in consecration which by the power of Gods worde maketh present the bodie and bloud of Christ in such a manner as they may be decently conueniently consummated by participation of the Sacrament And in this sorte the Eucharist included all those conditions which a proper sacrifice euen according to our aduersaries at least the Lutherans ought to haue First the substance of the hoaste or victim Secondly a certaine ryte or action of offering prescribed by God which is the celebration of the Eucharist instituted by Christ in the forme described by the Euangelists the Apostle S. Paule 1. Cor. 1. Thirdly the person offering deputed by God to that function which is the Preist Fourthly The same intention of offering or the same end which is appointed by God in his worde that is to the honor of God for the representation of the passion of Christ Neyther is it necessarie that all these particulars be contained in the Institution in expresse wordes but it is sufficient that they be included in it in some intelligible manner Otherwises it followes that the passion of Christ had ben no true proper sacrifice because he vsed not the wordes offer or sacrifice when he suffered vpon the Crosse which sequele I am persuaded our aduersaries will not graunte Diuers other places of scripture ar alledged by Bellarmin other diuines for the proofe of this point but for the auoy dance of prolixitie I will conclude with that onely of the 13. chapter of the Acts. Where for the ordination of S. Paule S. Bernabe it is
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
We ought not still to seeke for the trueth 〈◊〉 others which may easily befounde in the Church since the Apostles haue most abundantly deposited in it as in a rich storchouse all things appertaining to truth Potum vitae that all those that will may receiue liquore of life for it is the entrance into life all others are theâ—ues robbers Lib. 4. c. 43. Qui succ ssionem â—â—â—ent ab Apoâ—â—oâ—â—s cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritâ— t is certum so cund â—m plaâ—â—tum Patriâ— accepeâ—unt In which wordes it is plaine that by the Church S. Irenaeus vnderstandes no other then the Bishops cheefe Pastors from whome as he teaches the rest of the people must receiue their doctrine And therefore he addes in another place that those meaning Bishops who haue succession from the Apostles ioyntly with the succession of their Episcopate or Bishoprie receiued a certaine grace or gifte of trueth according to the pleasure of God the Father And in this same matter in like forte S. Augustin speaketh in his first tenth chapter of his secoÌ„d Booke against Iulian saying in the first place I am now to perfurme that which is put in the third place of my disposition which is to subutrter destroye by the sentenees of Bishops whoe haue handled the scriptures with great commendation or glorie by the assistance of God thy machinations ô Iuâ—â—an And a little after he addes of the same Bishps Doctors Cal. Instit saying whom Christian people ought to antepose or prefer before your profane nouelties adhere to them rather then to you By which wordes S. Augustin whoe euen in our aduersaries iudgement is a faithfull witnes of antiquitie plainely testifies what the practise of the ancieÌ„t Church was in this particular of the peoples receiuing the scriptures expositioÌ„ sense from their superiors not from anie other priuate person or euerie one by his owne reading industrie how soeuer he may seeme to haue the spirit of God for interpretation of his worde And now by this to omit of her testimonies of Fathers to this purpose which cannot be included in so smale a compasse I conclude the whole confirmation force of my silogisme assuring my selfe that none of solid iudgement can firmely persuade themselues how beit for temporall respects to accommodate themselues to the current of the time they may exteriorly professe the contrarie to be credible that Christ our Sauiour whose wisdome was diuine infinit should haue taught the professors of his faith to playe euerie man in his humor with the sacred scripture to haue coÌ„mitted the true authenticall exposition of it to euerie Iack Gill rather them to his Preists Bishops cheefe commaunders of his Church in a linial succession from the Apostles as being publike visible ministers to whom it should obey especially in matters of faith saluation THE FOVRTH PRINCIPALL ARGVMENT MY fourth argument for positiue proofe of the Roman Religion is as followeth That Religion onely is true which hath a publike knowne rule of faith But the Roman Religion onely hath a publike knowne rule of faith 〈◊〉 to Roman Religion onely is the true Religion Touching the filogisme ther may seeme to be controuersie betwixt vs the Nouelists both in the Maior the Minor wherefore I will proue them both seuerall tho' breefely as the nature of my disputation requires The Maior proposition I proue aduertising the reader by the way that by a publike rule of faith I meane such a rule as is cognoscible or as may be knowne to all sortes of people as well those which are alreadie members of the true Church faith as also to others who as yet being out of it desire by their conuersion to be receiued into it This supposed I argue in this manner It is a necessarie propertie of the true ReligioÌ„ to haue a publike knowne rule of faith Therefore the true Religion necessarily hath a Publike knowne rule of faith The antecendent of the argument in which onely the difficultie of it coÌ„sists I proue because if the true religion hath not a publike knowne rule of faith it is impossible for such as want it to finde it in regarde that finding cannot be had but by seeking quarite inuenietis to seeke or inquire for that which is not so publike that it can possible be found is to seeke not to finde consequently to labore in vaine Now true Religion is of it owne nature such as may befound by those who endeuore to knowe it as day lie experience doth teach And therfore our Sauior saith quaerite inuenietis seeke you shall finde which sentence being generall it cannot be more comodiouslie vnderstanded then of true Religion as being the most important businesse which people can inquire for or seeke in this world as being the onelie way to saluation Concerning the minor of both my Sylogismes which in substance are one the same proposition to wit that the Roman Religion onelie hath the necessarie propertie of a true Religion and not the English faith that is a publike knowne rule of faith it is most euident for that the rule of faith which the Roman Church proposeth to be followed is the worde of God expounded by the publike visible knowne authoritie of the Bishops Pastors of the most vniuersall Church in the manner forme aboue declared in my precedent demonstration And not as the professors of the English Religion teach to wit by euerie priuate person in a sense secret onelie knowne to him who hath it which cannot possible be anie more vnderstanded or perceiued by others then the most secret cogitations of an others mynde All which as it plainelie appeareth is quite repugnant as it were doth directly intercept the meanes ordained by God for the saluation of soules who out of his infinit bountie mercie hath prouided a way to Paradise so plaine perspicious that euen children may be able to finde walkein And now by this the force of my fift argument remaines confirmed established the trueth of the Roman Religion conuinced THE FIFT PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT MY fift positiue argument I propose in this manner That Religion onelie is true which hath a perpetuall disinterrupted succession of true Bishops Preists deriued from the Apostles But the Roman Religion onelie hath a perpetuall disinterupted succession of true Bishops Preists deriued from the Apostles Ergo the Roman Religion onelie is the true Religion The maior I knowe not certainelie whether the aduersaries will grant or no but in case they denie it I haue sufficientlie proued it before in my demonstration of their want of succession The minor in which the controuersie either intirely or cheesely consistes I proue first by the same reasons arguments I conuinced in the fifte principall Sylogisme of the first parte of this treatise that the