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
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
vniuersalitie of â—atter but also perpetuall continuation of time supposing it was vnnecessarie for Christ to haue promised his contiuual assistance to his Apostles except the Religion which he deliuered vnto them had ben necessarily to be perpetuallie preached in all times without interruption euen till the day of Iudgement in which respect it implyes that relation of vniâ—ersalitie which my former argument conâ—udes And to this I ioyne Secondlie that the other â—rte of the maintainers of the English faith â—ho enterprise the defence of the visibilitie of there Religion in all ages are yet farther out â—f square then the other In regarde by this â—â—eanes they enter in to a taske which as the â—ustration of their tryall in that particular â—ath alreadie giuen experience they will neâ—er be able to performe By all which it is euidentlie appeares that the English Religion hath no such relation or respect vnto all future times intrinsecallie included in it obiect or matter or if anie reference it had it was of such temporarie smale continuance that it quite lost it by the way in all that vaste space of time which passed betweene the Popedome of sainct Gregorie the Apostacie of Martin Luther Thirdly I yet farther adde that the defenders of the English faith assume false abuse their hearers when they so commonly affirme that their Religion is the same which was taught preached by Christ his Apostles which I proue because it doth not indeed agree in all particulars with the obiect matter of the faith doctrine which Christ his Apostles published to the world as manifestly appeares by comparing some seuerall points of them both conferring the one with the other For where can the nouelistis finde either in the scripture Fathers or authenticall historie that Christ his Apostles taught that those onely bookes of scripture ar Canonicall which the Church of England holdes for such or that Christians ar iustified by that faith onely by which they beleeue their sinnes are remitted the iustice of Christ applyed vnto them by the faith same that euerie one in particular is bounde so to beleeue that this faith onely is necessarie sufficient to saluation or wher doe they finde that Christ his Apostles preached that the onely written worde is necessarie sufficient to saluation where doe they reade in scripture or Fathers that the visible Church planted by Christ increased by the preaching of the Apostles continuated by a disinterrupted succession of Pastors can erre in faith that ther is no Purgatorie nor place of satisfaction either in this world or the next for lesser sinnes or the paine due to greater or that in the Sacrament of Eucharist the bodie bloud of Christ at not contained receiued other wise then figuratiuely by faith a lone I knowe they can shewe vs none of these seuerall propositions either in scriptures or doctors of the Church or by anie authenticall historie or relation that the same haue ben taught by Christ or his Apostles I am assured that all they can performe in this case is to produce certaine textes of scripture which to the ignorant sorte of people may seeme to haue resemblance with those their positions but none soe plaine that without detortion of either sense or wordes or both or without their owne fallatious illations consequences can possible containe anie such doctrine For example for their solifidian iustification or their iustification by faith onely they alledge diuers passages out of the epistles of S. Paule as that man is not iustified by the workes of the lawe but by faith that faith is reputed to iustice yet none of those shewe that faith onely iustifies much lesse doe they mention or insinuate that peculiar faith of remission of their sinnes by which the professors of the English Religion beleeue they ar iustified that which is euidently convinced by the tenor of the texts then selues in which neither of the partes of the former position is contained but added by the expesitions glosses of those who violently drawe the scripturs to their peruerse purpose And the like practice of the Nouellists may easily be discouered to be vsed in the rest of the seuerall propositions aboue rehearsed in Bellarmin other Catholike Controuertists who professedly confute the newe doctrine of the sectaries of this present age to whom I remit the reader for more exact discussion of the same supposing this place is vncapable of more large proceeding And hence it appeares that the professors of the English faith must needes confesse that according to the premisses here breefely declared confirmed the matter obiect of their Religion doth not agree with that doctrine which Christ his Apostles planted published which is the Minor proposition of my second silogisme aboue propunded the verie same I here intend to conuince And now to the confirmation of the instance I responde I graunt the multitude of beleeuers doth not cause formally constitute vniuersallitie in theobiect of Religion neuerthelesse if comparing one Religion wit an other it is discouered to be apparently certaine that the one hath euer had a greater multitude of professors in all tymes places since the first fondation of the true faith then the other yea that the one hath had a greater number of faithfull persons for manie ages together when as the one had none at all In this case I say it is manifest that the multitude of beleeuers doth euidently argue the Religion so beleeued professed to be no other but that same Religion which was first founded by Christ our Sauior with his promisse of perpetuall visibilitie cantinuation with multiplicitie of faithfull people consequently that it onely hath vniuersallitie in matter obiect that on the contrarie the other Religion which can shew no such multitude of professors but is notoriously defectiue in this particular hath not anie vniuersallitie at all in the seuerall points of doctrine which it teacheth them to beleeue And now this may suffice to demonstrate that ther is no vniuersallitie to be founde in the obiect or matter of the English ReligioÌ„ The second kinde of vniuersallitie of Religion is in tyme which I proue not to be had in the English Religion in the forme following That Religion wantes true vniuersallitie of tyme which hath not ben visibly extant in all tymes since the true Religion was first founded But the Religion of England hath not ben visibly extant in all tymes since the first foundation of true Religion Therfore the Religion of England wantes true vniuersallitie of time The maior is most certaine maintained by many of the professors of the English faith if not by all Yet because they are not wholely vnited in this point as farre as I can perceiue by their doctrine because of those whoe maintaine the visibilitie of the Church fewe or none of them graunt that the Church
of Religion as being onely a morall matter can not be vnderstood with so much metaphisicall rigor as in naturall things it vseth to be taken yet for the verification of such generall sentences as we finde both in scripture 〈◊〉 Fathers it must of necessitie be accepted with as great latitude as morally can be imagined For example if ther be anie doctrine in the world which for the space of almost 16. hundreth yeares neither is nor hath ben preached taught or professed in either all or at the least in most places of the world then doubtlesse can that vniuersall proposition of the Apostleâ— into all the earth hath the souÌ„de of them gone forth that of S. Augustin She the Church is like vnto a vine diffused or spred in euerâ—â— place neuer be truely verified of it consequently such a doctrine can not be truely said 〈◊〉 haue such vniuersalitie in it as scripture â—athers require to the onely true Religion â—hich in reason can not be iudged lesse then â—at in all the for said great number of yeares â—either is at thâ—s present or hath ben in times â—ast preached professed generally at the least 〈◊〉 the greater parte of the world if not in euerie â—arte therof And touching the vniuersalitie of persons â—hich as I declared before is either included or â—ecessarily connected to the vniuersalitie of â—ace it is a matter so cleare apparent that 〈◊〉 is not to be founde in the English Religion â—ther for the time paste or present that euen â—â—e cheefe of the professors of it dare not auerâ—e it to be vniuersal in that nature as is maniâ—est by the authoritie of King Iames himselfe â—he Salomon of their sect Whoe althou ' he laâ—oreth much in his booke to Christian Princes 〈◊〉 persuade them he defendes no other then â—he Catholike faith yet in the end of the same â—e is forced to confesse that notobstanding he â—â—cludes in the number all the professors of the â—retended reformation euen in other countries â—â—gge ragge yet they doe nor by much aâ—ounte to so manie as professe the contrarie â—hat is the Catholike Roman doctrine Reâ—gion preached practised in so manie seueâ—all nations places of the of the vniuersal orbe In so much that if anie of our aduersariâ—â— were so impudent as to conteste or repugnâ— to so plaine a trueth Regina Austri I meane euen the Infidels Iewes will be readie to rise proteste against him in the day of Iudgement By which and the rest I haue deliuered it is clearely consequent that the English Religion especially if it be intended as it is singular different in diuers points from the rest of the pretensiue reformed congregations cannot possible with anie coulor of trueth be named Catholike or vniuersal in number of persons supposing that according to the doctrine of Fathers the common acception of the worde among Christians this appellation or sacred surname agrees onely to that Christian Religion which hath generalitie of persons as well as of tyme place obiect or matter which generalitie caÌ„not possibly be conceiued but in order or with relation to the greater nuÌ„ber of beleeuing professing ChristiaÌ„s as being quite repugnant to reason that the lesser parte of a anie multitude or total number should be named either general or common much lesse reason ther is it should obtaine the most ample and vaste denomination of vniuersal especially where both parties are extant remaine in the same present time But perhaps our aduersaries will say that to â—he verifying of those the like generall senâ—ences of scripture Fathers it is not necessarie â—hat the true Religion either is or hath ben alreadie diffused ouer all or most partes of the world but it is sufficient that it will be preached in all or most places before the end of the world so altho' this hath not ben verified in the English Religion as yet neuer the lesse it will be so extended in the tyme to come To this I replie that altho' ther is some varietie among diuines aboutâ— the sense of the place cited some other places of scripture to the same purpose to wit whether they be vnderstood of the Apostles onely or of them their successors In omnem terram exiuit sonus corum c. Rom. 10. as also whether they signifie the tyme present or future finally whether they be verified in all rigor or onely in a common morall manner neuerthelesse I finde they all agree in that the Church of Christ hath ben alreadie so farre extended either by the Apostles them selues or at least by them their successors that it may be truely affirmed to haue ben loÌ„g since diuulged planted in the whole world defacto not in power or virtually onely euen according to the sense of the foresaid wordes other places of scripture which speake in the future tense as appeareth plainely by the wordes of S. Paule in his first chapter to the Colossians wher he affirmes that euen in his tyme the Gospell was come vnto hem also it is saith he in the vniuersall world doth fructifie increasens it doth in them Which words I say are so cleare that ther is no place of tergiuersation or replie in this particular but that according to them it must of necessitie be graunted by our aduersaries except they will plainely contradict S. Paul the scriptures that the foresaid extention of the faith of Christ doth not expect the time to come but is alreadie made as much as serueth for explicating verifying of the same S. Paul to the Romans before related whose words in my iudgment are manifestly couÌ„â—nced at the least in a cheefe parte to be vnderstood in the present tense by those otherwords of himselfe in the epistle to the Collossenses eueÌ„ now by me related which doubtlesse coÌ„taine a plaine expositioÌ„ of the former as appeares by the comentarie of S. Chrysostome vpon them saying of the Church of Christ Adest vbique suporat obâ—inet vbique praestat vbique And altho' I am not ignoraÌ„t that both ancient Fathers moderne diuines teach that as S. Hierome speakes vpon those wordes Prâ—â—â—â— dicabitur Euangelium hoc in vniuerso mundo the complement or conclusion of the preaching of the Gospell in euerie place shall not be performed before the consummation of the world as being a precedent signe therof neuerthelesse as this is true in it selfe so it in no respect speaking absolutely contrarie to the vniuersalitie of the Church which at this present is in times past hath euer ben as is euidently conuinced by the writings of the same ancient Fathers moderne diuines who most frequently teach that the true Church of Christ was sufficiently spred in the world to make it vniuersall eueÌ„ in their owne primatiue ages as their wordes by me rehearsed in diuers places of this treatise clearely testifie who also if they had liued in these present
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
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
hath ben alwayes since the times of Christ so visible as the Romanists hould it to haue ben that is with visible Pastors teachers and a visible flock or congregation of people assignable in all ages and times therefore I will proue it first by plaine texts of Scripture then by authoritie of ancient Fathers first that the true Church is absolutely visible then that it is perpetually visible The absolute visibilitie of the Church is â—aught in all those places of Scripture which speake of the Church as of a knowne congregation or companie of people as S. Math. Die Ecclesiâ— coÌ„firma fratrâ—t tues Pasce oues meas Pascite qui in vobis est gregeÌ„ Dei the â—8 tell the Church S. Luc. 22. confirme thy brothers â—ohn 20. feede my sheepe 1. Pet. 5. feed the flocke 〈◊〉 God which is among you S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. Affirâ—nes that he himselfe did persecute the Church And most commonly his Epistles are directed â—o the Churches as to the Church of Rome Corinth Ephesus And finally ther is scarce â—nie mention of the Church in the whole Bible wher the visibilitie of the same is not plainely signified therefore it is compared to a citie vpon a mountaine Math. 5. In illo moÌ„te est qui impleuit orbeÌ„ terrarum nunquid sic ostend mus Ecclesiaâ— fratres noÌ„ne aperta estâ— nonnâ— manifesta c. Aug. trac 1. in r. ep loan according to the exposition of that place made by S. Augustin in his booke of the vnitie of the Church the â—4 20. Chapter Of which inuisibilitie ther are likewise plaine texts in the second chapter of Isaias the fourth of Micheas where conformable to the cited wordes of S. Math. the â— woe Prophets affirme that ther will be in the latter Dayes a mount aine prepared the house of God Which wordes Sainct Augustin most perspicuously interprets of the Church of Christ Also ther is a verie pregnant place to this putpose the 61. of Isai where speaking of the people of God the Prophet saith all that shall see them shall know them to be the seed which God hath blessed Euangelizare pauperibus mi sit me c. Luc. 18. Which wordes Christ himselfe in the fourth of S. Luke doth plainely insinuate to be meant of his Church in regarde he applies some of the precedent words of the same chapter of Isaie to himselfe the propagatior of the same Church by his preaching And according to these the like phrase of Scripture the ancient Fathers doe commonly speake of the Christian Church S. Augustin in his second Booke against Cresconius Saith thus Extat Ecclesia cuncta clara atque perspicua Cap. 36. quippe ciuitas quae abscondi non potest supra montem constituta The Church is all cleare perspicuous as being a citie which cannot hiden be placed vpon a mountaine And S. Chrysostome in hiâ— fourth homilie vpon the 6. chap. of Isaias hath that memorable sentence Facilius est solem extingui quam Ecclesiam obscurari The sunne mâ— more easily be extinguished then the Church obscured I could alledge most plaine words to thâ— same purpose out of the rest of the ancient Doctors but because those twoe alone are of segreat authoritie that they ought to satisfie aniâ— vnpartiall iudgement in matter of testification of the sense doctrine of ancient time touching this point therefore I esteemed 〈◊〉 supersluous to produce their seuerall sentences Perhaps some of our aduersaries will say the doe not denie but both scriptures and Father doe teach in generall that the Church is visible yet they denie that scriptures Fathers reach that it must necessarily be visible in all ages times but rather that like vnto the noone it suffers Eclypses and defects by perseeution or by other meanes To this which is a miere voluntarie euasion as anie one of iudgement may easily perceiue I answer first that supposing both the sentences of scriptures Fathers of the visibilitie of the Church are generall absolute without limitation it is manifestly conuinced that their meaning could not be that the Church is visible onely for a time or at certaine times and not perpetually by reason that according to â—he common rule of interpretation generall wordes are to be vnderstood properly with â—ll their extension as long as noe inconuenieÌ„ce followes thereof as certaine it is apparent that none can followe of the continuall visibiâ—tie of the Church wheras on the contrarie both manie great in conueniences insue of the want of the same as after shall be declaâ—ed Neither can anie one place either of scripture or Fathers be produced by the opposers of this doctrine in which anie such limitation of the sentences of the Fathers is contained either â—n wordes or sense or in anie other sorte so â—lainely as by the generalitie of the foresaid Phrases of Scripture ancient Doctors all reâ—riction is excluded Secondly I impugne the same euasion for that if it be once graunted that the Church is not alwayes visible then it followes that in the times of the inuisibilitie of the same there are no visible Pastors nor preachers to minister the true word Sacraments to the people yea that there are no such people in the world consequently that thereis noe Church either visible or inuisible by reason that a Church whether we feigne it to be visible or inuisible essentially consists of people which people are in like manner essentially visible as muchas corporall nor can they if they would be visible except it be either by miracle or else by arte magique or some such vnlawfull meanes Nay more if they were once inuisible either by miracles arte or nature how can it be knowne but by ther owne testimonie that they euer were truely extant to which neuerthelesse noe man can prudently giue credit especially in a matter of such importance And thus we see that out of this one absurâ—itie of the want of visibilitie in the Church a thousand others doe followe as that ther are vivisible Pastors vet inuisible that ther are visible people yet inuisible that ther is a Church yet noe Church And if our aduersaâ—ies say ther are true Pastors true faithfull people a true Church that ther wants onely a true profession of faith in the Pastors people Church Then I replie first it is manifest that if ther be no prefession of faith in neither Pastors people nor anie parte of the Church then can it not possible be a true Church or the Church of the Predestinate as they will haue it but a Congregation onely or companie of timerous cowardly people which dare not professe their faith Ore autem confessio fit ad salutim consequently not the Church of Christ in which not faith onely but also profession of faith is necessarie to saluation according to the doctrine of the Apostle saying that with the hart we beleeue
vnto iustice Rom. 10. but with the mouth coufesion is made to saluation And howbeit I conceiue that the defenders of the inuisibilitie may instance say that profession of faith is not required to the essence of the true Church by consequence that it may subsist with internall faith onelie neuerthelesse I reioyne to this that althou ' I should grant profession of faith in metaphisical rigor to be no essentiall parte of the true Church yet is it so necessarilie annexed to the true Church as it neither is nor euer will be founde without professors neither is there anie authority either of scriptures or Fathers whereby it can be proued that anie such true Church euer were or euer will be coÌ„sisting of internall faith onelie But all those places which I haue aboue alledged both of the absolute visibilitie of the Church necessitie of profession of faith to saluation required by the ordinance commaundement of Christ manifestlie convince the contrarie Well may our aduersaries out of their accustomed temeritie spirit of contradiction against the Roman Church because they haue no other meanes to maintaine the subsistance of their owne new Congregation affirme teach that internall faith alone without profession makes a true Church yet no iudicious man will euer be persuaded but that position is assumed by them mierlie for the aduantage of their owne ill cause which without the vse of it or some such other of like nature cannot possible be defended in the controuersie whether the true Church be ours or theirs To omit that if no externall profession of faith be required to the true Church it is impossible to conceiue how anie man could euer come to knowe that such a Church as consisteth of internall faith onely was euer extant in the world any in parte of time since it was once planted established by our Sauior his Apostles And yet admit that it is not wholely impossible to conceiue the possibilitie of a true Church without the attribute of externall profession yet this is but a Metaphisicall case grounded onelie in the discourse of him who so conceiueth it by consequence it is not secure for anie man to venture his saluation vpon it as being either plainelie false in it selfe or at the least verie subiect to error fallibiliâ—itie but euerie prudent man ought rather to followe the tenor of speach of the scripture Fathers in the places before alledged particularlie the sentence of sainct Augustin in the â—1 chapter of his 19. booke against Faustus In nullum nomen religionis seu verum seu falsuuâ— coagulari homines possunt nisi aliquo signaculorum vel Sacramentorum visibilium consortio colligentur Where he affirmes that men cannot be congregated or assembled together vnder one name of Religion vnlesse they be tyed together with some consorte or socictie of visible signes or Sacraments In which wordes althou ' he makes no expresse mention of profession of faith as required to a Church yet doth he in effect affirme the same in other wordes teaching the communication of Sacraments to be necessarie to the constitution of a Church Which communication of Sacraments is profession of faith in one of the highest degrees as no man can denie And now hauing sufficientlie confuted the foresaid euasion of our aduersaties touching the visibilitie I will yet further adde positiue proofes of the perpetuitie of the visible Church First therefore I proue it by those places of scripture which affirme that the Church of Christ shall neuer perish as math the 16. Porta insert non praualibuut aduersunam The Portes of hell shall not preuaile against it Where we see the Prophecie promisse of our Sauior touching the perpetuitie of his Church is generall without limitation of time he speakes here of the same Church of which those places of scripture speach which declare it to be visible which I haue alreadie cited to that purpose for the aduersarie to limit these wordes to the inuisible Church as if Christ had meant that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against his inuisible Church onelie is a miere voluntarie explication of their owne inuention repugnant both to the text itselfe reason to the text in regarde that all the words circumstances of it demonstrate that Christ speakes of his visible Church either onelie or cheefelie as is the gouernement of the Church by sainct Peter which Church was to consist of men whose sinnes the same Peter had power promised him to binde loose that vpon earth all which particularâ— sounde nothing but things visible Now the foresaid explication of our aduerfaries is also contrarie to reason First for that supposing Christ planted such a Church vpon earth in which there were to be alwayes visible pastors preachers to administere the Sacraments Ephes 4. 1. Cor. 12. Act. 20. Luc. 12. teach publish the Gospell as the scriptures testifie And supposing he did not onelie commande vs to haue his faith but also to professe his name before men it is most absurde to imagin that he would or did not vse his prouidence in the conseruation of the same visible Church in all times occasions as well as the inuisible Church if anie such he had established in the world Secondlie the same exposition is against reason in respect that by that limitation of our Sauiors wordes which our aduersaries vse they giue vs to vnderstand that Christ promissed much but performed little or nothing of importance in this particular For if he assisted his Church so weakelie that for the space of manie yeares together the members of it were driuen to conceile their faith which neuerthelesse he himselfe obledgeth them to professe in all occasions surelie he did not onelie come farre shorte of his promisse but also in a certaine manner contradicted himselfe deceiued them And if for the gates of hell to haue so fare much vrged vexed the Church as to haue leâ— all the members thereof with a bare secret dissembling faith onely without anie professing or vse of Sacraments for the space of manie succeeding ages is not absolutelie to haue preuailed against it consequentlie that Christs wordes are falsified then certainelie neither had they ben falsified in case hell gates had so farre preuailed as quite to extinguish euen the professors themselues yea by an impossibilitie to haueleft faith alone hanging vpon the hedges for want of other subiect all which sequels being most absurde yet consequent to our aduersaries glosse vpon the wordes of scriptures aboue cited they euidentlie argue the falsitie of that their construction An other pregnant place for the perpetuall continuation of the visible Church is that of the 4. to the Ephesians where the Apostle saith that Christ appointed Pastors c. Ad consummationem Sanctorum donecâ— occurramus omnes in virum perfectum That is he appointed some Bishops other pastors others
in the page following he saith in his owne name in the name of his brother Puritās We hold not fasting to be a worke pleasing to God And yet in his page 609. he grautes that to fast religiously at some time is Gods cōmaundemēt And pag. 611. that lent fast is partely religious ordered by the Church for religious endes bindeth the cōscience mediately which larring positions of this grand Doctor I am not able to recōcile And yet for a parte of twelfe dayes deuotiō he putteth the paymēt of tithes which indeed is a deuotiō far more profitable to himself then pleasing to others All which particulars doe manifestly declare that whatsoeuer apish imitation these fellowes vse in writing some fewe bookes of deuotion prayer yet is their spirit quite contrarie to the common spirit of the vniuersall Church wholely vertigenous extrauagant peculiar to themselues And to this the like may be added of their Church seruice forme of administration of Sacraments as may be seeme in their booke of common prayer which as it manifest to them that read it doth notably differ from all the Lyturgies publike formes of prayers pastorals that euer were vsed in the Church before the preachings of Luther not onely in the manner of administrating the Sacraments and seruice but also in some substantiall points of them both Their being not anie mentiō in the booke of common prayer of either annointing with Chrisme in Baptisme or of extreme vnctiō of the sicke nor of consecrariō of the Eucharist or absolute commaunde to receiue it but onely with condition or rather with expresse order or precept that ther be a whole congregation that is some persons more disposed to communicate with the infirme partie besides himselfe that otherwise he must haue patiēce take his iourney to an other world without his Viaticum Neither is it ther ordained directly that that the Communicants shall vse the homologesis or Sacramēt of Pennance cōsisting of contrition confession satisfaction as a necessarie preparation to the communion except onely in in case they finde their cōsciences troubled with anie weightie matter that when they are at the point of death contenting themselues at all other times of their receiuing the Lords supper with a generall confession onely made either by one of the communicants or by the ministerin the name of the rest The contrarie of all which particulars are neuerthelesse found in all Lythurgies Missals Directories of former times in all places of the Christian world as may be seene in the Ierarchie of Sainct Denis the Roman Order of which euen the newer of the twoe was practiced in the Church at the least 80◠yeares agoe But now to conclude hauing passed throu all the seuerall kindes of vniuersalitie that can be imagined with an exact discussion of the nature properties of the same finding none of them in the Religion now publikely professed in England besides this it being certaine both according to the doctrine of the ancient Doctors of the Church moderne diuines that the worde Catholike is the same that vniuersall Lib. 2. c. 38. generall or cōmon as is apparent by S. Augustins responsion to Petilianus wher he saith that the name Caetholicū signifies secundū totum Lib. 2. c. 2. as also against the epistle of Gaudentius Teacing that the Church therfore is called Catholike of the Greeke worde because it is extēded throu ' the whole world This I say being infallibly true it doth by necessarie conclusion follow of the premisses that the English Relilion is not Catholike but a priuate conuenticle or Congregation in which true faith is not founde in which by consequence no saluation can be hoped or expected for such as obstinately seperating themselues from the vnitie and vniuersalitie of the most vniuersally receiued Religion liue and die in it And this may suffice for the declaration confirmation of my first ptincipall argument or demonstration THE SECOND PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT MY second principal argument which proueth the falsitie of the English Religion is this That Religion is false which hath a false or at the least an vncertaine Canon of scripture But the Religion of England hath a false or at the least an vncertaine Canon of scripture Ergo the Religion of England is a false Religion The Maior doubtlesse is graunted by our aduersaries The minor which they denie I proue And for the proofe of it I suppose that the true Canon of scripture can not be knowne but by some externall authoritie or meanes distinct from it selfe whether it be the iudgement of euerie faithfull person assisted by the diuine spirit as manie of our aduersaries affirme or whether it be the declaration of the Church assisted by diuine inspiration of which it shall be disputed in an other place More ouer these meanes or this authoritie must be infallible otherwise it can ingender no such certainetie in the myndes of the beleeuers touching the matter in question but they would remaine still doubtfull of the same And the reasō for which this externall authoritie is thus required to the knowledge of the iuste quantitie of the written worde of God for the distinguishing of the true partes of the same from the Apochrypha doubtfull is because that as the scriptures doe in no places affirme declare them selues either in totallitie 〈◊〉 parte reflectiuely to be the true worde of God deliuered by Christ his Apostles so they much lesse auerre these determinate bookes or partes of the Bible no other to be the onely true authenticall scriptures This being now supposed as certaine on both sides I proue the foresaie minor to wit that the Church of England hath a false or at least an vncertaine Canon of scripture by an other silogisme in this manner That Canon of scripture is false or at the least vncertaine which disagreeth from all other Canons that euer were in anie Christian Church before the dayes of Luther But the Canon of scripture vsed nowe in England is disagreeable to all other Canons that euer were in anie Christian Church before the dayes of Luther Ergo the Canon of scripture vsed nowe in the Church of England is a false or at the least an vncertaine Canon In the Maior of this silogisme ther is no doubt The minor I proue by comparing the Canon of England with those seuerall Canons which according to the diuersitie of opinions in that point among some of the ancient Fathers in former tymes ar founde to be three in number howbeit of those three ther was one which was euer more commonly receiued then the rest to wit that Canon which in the Councels of Florence Trent was defined to be infallible is that same which at this present the Roman Church vseth reiecting all other for Apochryphall inauthenticall Now the first of those three Canons or Orders of diuine volumes consisteth of those bookes of which
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
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
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
ordained consecrated with the same matter forme of Order with Vnction Miter Crosier other such ornaments ceremonies as the Church of Rome actuallie vseth at this day Nay nor yet in the time of Wiclif or since is there anie mention in anie historie writer or recorde either Catholike or Protestant of anie kinde of eyther Bishops Preists or ordination of the same vsed in England before the Reigne of Edwarde the sixt Wherefore altho' we should graunt the Patrons of the English faith that their Religion was professed in England in more ancient times as they pretend the contrarie of which neuerthelesse is as certaine as it is certaine there is no mention of it in anie more ancienthistorie or recorde then the dayes of Edward the sixt yet is it manifest that it hath had a notable interruption in the succession of Bishops Preists to wit for the space of 800. yeares at the least euen according to the confession of our aduersaries And consequentlie it is euident that it hath not a continuall disinterrupted succession of Bishops Preists deriued from the Apostles Secondlie I proue there is no coutinuall disinterrupted succession of Bishops Preists in the English Religion deriued from the Apostles Because altho' we should admit that in the time of King Edward by reason of the immediate succession of his newe Religion to the Religion of his Father Henry the 8. at whose death we doe not denie but there were true Bishops Preists lefte who might perhaps for as much as concerneth the essence of the Order thou ' not lawfullie either haue consecrated others or they themselues haue serued in the Church according to the newe forme of the same which fact I need not here dispute but omit as vngranted Neuerthelesse it is certaine graunted by both parties that euen in this there was another plaine interruption that within a verie shorte time vpon the succession of Queene Marie to the Crowne in here brothers place who exauthorizing all that newe brood of Bishops Preists reestablished the Roman Religion in the same forme with such Prelates Preists as had ben in the Realme in all former times as not onelie all written histories recordes but also some eye witnesses who then did see the change being yet aliue can at this daye testifie the same So that euen in this particular manner the newe Religion of England hath suffered an interruption in the succession of Bishops Preists Thirdlie I proue the same minor proposition because at the time of the last change of Religion at the death of Queene Marie all the Roman Bishops were deposed depriued of their dignities excepting onelie the Archbishop of Canterburie whose seat was vacant by his death others were put in their places by the authoritie of Queene Elizabeth here parleament who neuerthelesse were such as did not agree either in vocation mission or Ordination with their predecessors as appeareth particularly in Master Parker who not obstanding he was the cheefe of theÌ„ as being Archbishop of Caterburie primate yet is he confessed by Master Mason a minister professed defender of the newe clargie of England to haue ben the first of 70. Archbishops since fainct Augustin that receiued Orders consecration without the Popes Bulles the rest of the ceremomes vsed in the ordination of all those 70. that preceded him And the same he might haue said of the newe Bishops of these dayes comparing them with all that longe space of time The which difference in the manner of consecration altho' it were alone sufficient according to the doctrine of the Roman Church to exclude the ordained from true succession as being at the least schismaticall in itselfe contrarie to the practice of ancient times euen before the dayes of sainct Augustin the Apostle of our countrie as both the writings of the ancient Fathers which I will produce in an other place also some ancient authenticall histories or recordes of the Realme doe testifie Yet euen according to the Principles of the English Religion there is an essentiall defect founde in the same in regarde that Master Barlowe whoâ—s by the foresaid defender of the English ministerie reported to haue ben the consecrator of Parker had neuer anie consecration himselfe Or if he had anie he was made Bishop if not Preist also onelie according to the forme diuised in the time of Edward the Sixt confirmed by Queene Elizabeth the eight yeare of her Reigne That which I suppose Master Mason himselfe doth not deny Which forme as it is set in their Rituall or manner of making Bishops Preists Deacons printed at London 1607. as being neither founde in scripture nor conformable to anie other forme of consecratioÌ„ euer vsed in any Christian Church since the Christian Religion was founded the persons coÌ„secrated or ordained according to the tenor of it caÌ„not possible betrue Bishops preists or Deacons by necessarie consequence neither Master Parker nor anie other of his fellowe Bishops could receiue true Order or consecration as being ordained both by one that had no power of Order himself nor yet did cousecrate them with the same essentiall matter forme which hath ben commonlie vsed in the Christian world in ancient ages But onelie according to that new forme which as Master Mason confesseth being deuised authorized onelie by King Edwarde Queene Elizabeth who had no power to alter the forme of Ordination practiced generallie in the Christian Church before their times could not possible giue theÌ„ Apostolicall power of ordination consequentlie they had no continuall disinterrupted succession in that nature deriued from the Apostles which is that by the minor of my argument I intend to conuince Peraduenture our aduersaries will replie say First that the whole essentiall matter forme of Order consisting of imposition of handes the wordes receiue the holie Ghost were applyed to Master Parker the rest of the ministrie in their ordination the Roman rites or Ceremonies onelie omitted which neither make nor marre the substance of the Order But to this I reioine first that this doth not cleare Master Barlowes consecration of which there being no authenticall register or recorde extant he cannot be esteemed to haue ben a true Bishop consequenthe he had no power to consecrate others so Master Parker supposing he had the true matter forme of Episcopall Order applied vnto him yet could he not be true Bishop for want of authoritie in his ordainer who could not possible giue that he had not himselfe Secondlie It is false that those wordes receiue the holie Ghost with imposition of handes onelie are the whole matter forme of consecration of Bishops for that neither scripture Councels nor Fathers nor the ancient practice of the Church doe teach the same but rather on the contrarie it is manifest that another forme of Ordination was vsed in the primatiue Church as doth
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