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
you neither doe I intend to persuade you in a Rhetoricall manner but onely to propose vnto your ingenuous myndes mature iudgements pure trueth pure falsitie in their owne seuerall natiue habits colors as good an euill to the end that by your free election you may stretch your handes to the one leaue the other according as you shall finde your selues moued by diuineinspiration force of reason Yet not so remissely but that if anie one should require further satisfaction let him but obtaine me a safe conduct graunted by competent authoritie I will not refuse to decipher the Gyrogliffe of my name as euer most readie according to Apostolicall aduise to render reason of the faith I professe And althou ' perhaps it will be iudged more sutable to my manner of proceeding deliuerie of my doctrine to haue put it in the latin tongue yet because I coÌ„sidered ther are in our countrye manie pregnant actiue wits which neuerthelesse haue smale knowledge in that language I resolued rather to publish it in the vulgar tongue to the end that all those who ar studious of trueth may be free from impediments in their search of reason Neither is it intended for euerie pedanticall bibleist but for such as in some sorte are instructed in scholastical discipline qui potest caperecapiat And if by the grace assistance of God my arguments shall but make so much impression in the readers as onely to reduce some passionate partiall myndes in matters of Religion to such a point of temper as they shall come to iudge it a thing repugnant to reason conscience that those who haue so much reason so forcible arguments for their cause should be esteemed worthy of contumelie persecution for their profession defence of the same I shall neuer accounte my paines tyme ill employed And thus I comit commende you to the grace protection of Christ our Sauior THE FIRST PARTE OF THE CONVICTION CONTAINING THE IMPVGNATIVE ARGVMENTS THE FIRST PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT AND for confutation of the English Religion which I assume for the firste parte of my disputation beginning with the name Catholike I argue in this manner All Religions which are not Catholike are false Religions But the Religion now publiklie professed in England is not Catholike Ergo the religion nowe publiklie professed in England is a false Religion In the Maior conclusion of this Sylogisme there is no difficultie neither can the aduersaâ—ies denie them The minor onelie is in controuersie it I proue with another Sylogisme in the manner following All Religions which are not vniuersall geâ—erall or common are not Catholike But the Religion now professed in England is not vniuersall generall or common Ergo the Religion now professed in England is not Catholike That the Religion is not Catholike which â—s not vniuersall generall or common is cleaâ—elie demonstrated by the signification of the worde Catholike which importeth vniuersallitie or generallitie according to the vse which euen our aduersaries themselues make of it Who in their Bibles for the Latin wordes â—pistola Catholica translate put in English the generall epistle of Iames Iude c. Not to stand vpon the ancient authoritie of sainct Augustin other Fathers Councels who when they speake of the true Church or faith â—se the name Catholike in that same seÌ„se as after shall appeare And by this the maior propoâ—ition of the second Sylogisme is sufficientlie â—roued to be true Now touching the minor â—o wit that the Religion publiklie professed in England is not generall vniuersall or common 〈◊〉 likewise proue by distinguishing all the diuers kindes of vniuersallitie which according either to Philosophie or moral doctrine can be imagined by conuincing that none of them agree to the Religion of England which I prosecute in this manner All vniuersallitie in Religion is either in the matter or material obiect of faith or in the time place persons that professe it or els in the rule or reason which directs them in the faith profession of it For proofe declaration of all which particulars that none of them be founde in the Religion of England it is to be supposed as certaine that the worde vniuersall signifieth not onelie generallitie but also vnitie so that the thing which is vniuersall must be one in itselfe as well as common to others that which not onelie the vsuall acception of the worde doth shewe which by Aristotle the rest of the Philosophers both ancient moderne is commonly taken for vnum in multis that is one thing in manie or one common to manie but also the verie etymologie sounde of the same word doth plainely declare Yea the ancient Fathers also affirme the same in those places where speaking of the vniuersallitie of the Church in place they say the Church is one and yet dispersed ouer the whole world Lib. 2. c 2. As doth Sâ— Augustin against the epistle of Gaudentius Where vsing the testimonie of sainct Cyprian among â—other words of his he relates these Vnum caâ—ut est origo vna vnamater foecundis successibus copiosa She meaning the Church â—s one head one origen Maieres nâ—stri Catholicam nominarnus vt ex ipso nomine â—stenderent quia per tâ—tum est De vnit Eccl. cap. 2. one mother replemished with frutefull successes And in the second chapter of his booke of the vnitie of the Church he saith that our ancetors called the Church Catholike to the end they might shewe by the name it selfe that she is in whole In like manner Vincentius Lyrinensis in the third ch of his booke to the vniuersallity of the Church ioyneth consent or vnion And Venerable Bede vpon the 6. chap. of the Canticles affirmes that the Church is called Catholike quia per omnes mundi partes in vnapace in vno Domini timore aedificatur That is because it is planted or built in all partes of the world in one peace one feare of God And thus it plainely appeares that the worde Catholike or vniuersall whatsoeuer els it includes yet it must of necessitie haue vnitie in that generallitie which it signifies This being supposed as a trueth which euen our aduersaries cannot resist I proue against them first that there is no vniuersallitie in the matter or obiect of their Religion with this argumentation following All religions which are not one the same in matter or obiect which Christ his Apostles preached waÌ„te vniuersallity in obiect or matter But the Religion professed in England at this present is not one the same in obiect or matter which Christ his Apostles preached Ergo the Religion professed in England at this present wantes vniuersalitie in obiect or matter The maior of this Sylogisme is iucluded in the supposition before declared at the least in parte graunted euen by our aduersaries as I suppose it being nothing else in sense but
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
apparent that the English Religion hath no such attribute consequentlie that it is defectiue in that nature Wherefore hence I passe to the last gender or kynde of vniuersallitie which is that of the generall rule of faith of which there be two sortes the one is nothing els but the word of God as it is contained in the scriptures or diuine Apostolicall traditions The other rule is the visible Church by whose authoritie we come to knowe certainely infallibly the true sense of the worde of God all those things which his diuine maiestie hath reuailed as matter of faith to be beleeued by all sortes of people or otherwise necessarie to saluation Tract 1. Suarez de fide disp ◠sec 2. fine And of these two rules which some diuide in to three or more thou ' in my opinion not so properlie conuenientlie the second which is the authoritie of the Church is commonlie called in the schooles regula proponens that is a rule or way by which the prime reuailing veritie or diuine authoritie which is the formall obiect foundation of supernaturall faith is immediatelie applied vnto beleeuers And altho' if indeed the worde of God were so cleare that euerie one by reading the wordes of scripture or Apostolicall traditions as they are sett downe in the Councels or other recordes of the Church could not but vnderstand them in a true vniforme sense the first of those two rules might suffice alone yet because the scriptures are obscure difficult in their vnderstanding as both themselues experience testifie also because out of the imperfection of nature mens iudgements often times disagree in matters of doctrine practice therefore besides that speachlesse rule I meane in decision of matters of controuersie there was necessarie another liuing vocall rule by which the true meaning of the first prime rule which is the worde of God might so infallibly be declared vnto thē as all doubts scruples excluded their mindes consciences might safely rest in euerie point of faith by it proposed without anie further question or tergiuersation Now to come to the purpose in that first foundation of faith which is the authoritie of God as he reuaileth matters to his Church without which true faith cannot stand the defenders of the English Religion agree with the Romanists as also they agree with them in the first of the two rules at the least so farre as concernes this controuersie that is they hould Gods worde to be a rule of faith as the Roman Catholikes hould But the difference is in that our aduersaries will needs haue the worde of God to be the scripture onelie that interpreted by the spirit of euerie priuate person who reades it consequenter they hould this onelie for their rule proponent by which the diuine authoritie is applied to euerie point of faith in the beleeuers Whereas on the contrarie we Romanists beleeue vse the authority of the most vniuersall Church as the infallible applyer of Gods reuailing veritie vnto vs in all matters of faith manners And in this rule vpon which all certaintie of faith dependes quoad nos that is for as much as toucheth the beleeuers or credents I here proue that the English Religion wanteth this vniuersallitie as well as the rest of the obiect circumstances aboue discussed the which I demonstrate in this forme of argument That onelie proponent rule of faith his vniuersall which is one the same in all or at the least in the greater parte of beleeuers But that which the professors of the English Religion hould for their proponent rule of faith is not one the same in all or the greater parte of beleeuers Ergo that which the professors of the English Religion hould for their proponent rule of faith is not vniuersall The maior of this Sylogisme is euident by the definition of vniuersall which according to the doctrine of Philosophers is one in all if it be taken in rigor of Logike or as the Metaphisitians vse the worde Or at the least it signifies the greater parte if it be accepted onely in a morall sense as here I take it From which declaration of the word vniuersall is collected no lesse cleare conuincent proofe of the minor proposition which affirmeth that the proponent rule of faith in the professors of the Church of England is not one the same in all or yet in the greater parte of beleeuers That which I she we first because the priuate spirit of euerie professor of the English Religion which is the onelie immediate rule of saith they professe to follow in matters of faith as the verie sounde of the worde doth declare is peculiar to those that haue it not common to all therefore it cannot possible be generall or vniuersall That the spirit by which the professors of the English Religion interpret the worde of God is peculiar to some onelie not common to all such as exteriorly professe the faith of Christ it is manifest in that it neither passeth into other countries with cōformitie in all points of beleefe to all the rest of the pretended reformed Churches as appeareth in the controuersie of the real presence with the lutherans the inamissibilitie of grace In his booke directed to Christian Princes the point of Predestination free will with the Arminians nay nor yet doth it agree with the spirit of all the inhabitants of England it selfe as both King Iames doth plainely suppose wher he graunteth ther ar manie Puritans in his Realme besides Papists Protestants also experinental knowledge doth manifest the same it being certainely knowne generally confessed on all sides that those three sortes of people be not gouerned by one vniforme spirit but euerie one by their owne rule of faith the rule of the Romanists being one common among them selues in all places of the world but on the contrarie the rule of the Protestants Puritans being diuided seuerall both in their owne countrie out of it both among themselues also from the Catholikes wheresoeuer they be which diuision both from themselues others is an infallible argument that they haue no vniuersallitie in their propounding rule of saith That which yet more plainely appeares is confirmed by a worke lately published by a Protestant Doctor his name I doe not remembers who describes seueral sectes of Puritans or pure Caluinists all different both among themselues from the English Protestants Which diuersitie of sectes cannot stand without a different spirit or rule of faith Secondlie I proue the spirit of the professors of the English religion is not one the same in all or the greater parte of credents because it is not that spirit by which the visible Church hath ben in all times places persons successiuely gouerned without interruption ergo it is not an vniuersall spirit but onelie particular priuate The antecedent of this argument
doctrine or saying of the Iewes Now this being so it is plainely certaine that our aduersaries of all the anciēt Fathers haue not as much as one S. Hierome vndoubtedly in fauor of their Canon but onely the authoritie of the Iewes Secōdly our aduersaries cānot haue recourse to the spirit for the approbatiō of the Canō of the old Testament first because if they relie vpon this they ought to proue it before to be the true spirit of God which moueth them to beleeue their Canon to be of infallible authoritie that either by some other Canonicall scripture or by some other conuincent reason or motiue as by miracles sanctitie or by other externall testimonie otherwise they them selues can neither safely relie vpon it nor we can iustely giue credit vnto it for that it is manifestly declared in the authenticall scriptures them selues that ther be euill spirits as well as good by which men ar moued yea that same spirit which seemes good is often tymes discouered knowne to be the spirit of the common animie who the more easily coulerably to deceiue delude doth transforme him selfe in to an Angell of leight notobstanding he is darkenes it selfe Finally that spirit by which the defenders of the Iudaicall canō for so our aduersaries suppose theirs to bee proue the authoritie of it is contrarie as well in other points of faith as in this to the spirit of the most visible florishing Church in all ages neither is it common generall conformable to the greater parte of Christians but extrauagant singular priuate particular to them selues as I haue shewed in my precedent argument consequently it can not be the spirit of God but an ill spirit a familiar a bee in a box to which who soeuer doth obey followe will doubtlesse be led at the length in to a laberinth of errors wher he will perish without redemption More ouer for as much as concerneth the Canon of the new Testament for our aduersaries to say they haue it from vs is a verie pore shift considering the want of authoritie which they hould to be in our Church as being in their opinion of no credit in other matters of faith yea plainely erroneous Antichristian it doth thence manifestly follow vpon their Principles that their Canon can not possible haue infallible certainetie in regarde that the whole grounde on which such certaintie depende this supposed to be the authoritie of our Church which they neuerthesse peremptorily auerre not onely to besubiect to error but also to haue alreadie erred in diuers points of faith Frome whence from the rest which hath ben inculcated in the proofe of the minor of my second silogisme the consequence both of it my first silogisme doth inauoydably followe to wit that the Religion of England is plainely false as not hauing anie certaine infallible rule wherby to know the true Canonicall scriptures of the old new Testament THE THIRD PRINGIPAL ARGVMENT MY third principall argument against the English Religiō I frame in this manner That Religion is false which hath not the true interpretation sense of scriptures But the English Religion hath not the true interpretation fense of scriptures Ergo the English Religion is a false Religion The maior can not be denyed by our aduersaries The minor in which onely the question consisteth I proue first on t of their translations of the Bible in to the English tongue of which that most famous defender of the new English faith King Iames of great Britanie in the publike assembly had by his authoritie as Hampton Courte the yeare 1604. sitting as President Cathedratically pronoūced that he had neuer yet seene anie Bible qnid adhuc egemus testibus reightly translated into the English tongue And altho' the same King Iames for that reasō caused an other newe translation to be made in which some thing which were in the former editions are amended corrected yet I find by one of them which I haue my selfe printed at london the yeare 1608. that it containeth still diuers of the same errors which were in the first trāslations of which the King himself did cōplaine as appeareth by the second chapter of the Acts. Vers 27. Wher for the wordes non relinques animam meam in inferno that is in plaine English thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell the foresaid Bible hath thou will not leaue my soule in graue vsing also the verie same translation vpon the wordes of the 16. psalme out of which they ar cited by the author of the Acts of the Apostles That which is done by the professors of the English Religion for no other end then that those who please may freely defend their negatiue positiō of the reall discent of Christ in to hell as Beza ingenuonsly confesseth in his annotation vpon this place the affirmatiue of which neuerthelesse the Apostolicall Creed doth expressely teach vs. In which passage our aduersaries shewe both extreame great partiallitie great impudencie in regarde that in the Greeke text which they them selues most superstitiously professe to follow hath the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place which by the septuagint is put commonly for the worde sheol in Hebrew as it is also by them selues translated in other places of scripture as S. Hierome doth in like manner turne the same worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in to infernus in Latin in English hell throu ' the whole Bible And altho' Daniell Chamier in his booke vpon Christs descent in to hell not daring to deme this manner of translatiō to haue ben made by the septuagint S. Hierome Tom. 2. Pantrat l. 5. cap 5. doth somat◠murmure grumble at them for the same as if they did often times detorte the Greeke Latin wordes to the sense of the Hebrew with neglect of the propertie of the language yet this is but one Doctors opinion if he had more to alledge of his owne sect it were no great matter for that by the common iudgement of the whole Christian world those twoe sacred Translaters farre surpasse in knowledge of the scriptures all the Doctors that euer were or will be of his faction tho' they esteeme thēselues neuer so wise learned And suppose the Septuagint S. Hierome doe in deed frequently followe the sense rather then the propertie of the Hebrewe words what offence commit they in that Nay then what commendation doe they not rather deserue in respect it is a generally knowne rule of the best Trāslators not to tye themselues to the wordes but to the sense As on the contrarie what reprehēsion is not due to thē whose cheefe studie is with neglect of that sense which those anciēt expositors who haue gone before them both in time virtue learning to inuent violently drawe newe interpretations of Scripture out of the Etymologies first imposition of wordes according to the verbal sounde
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
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
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
our aduersaries the professâ—rs of the newe Religion of England whoe haue not all this specified in the forme of their ordination canot possible according to diuine institution trueth of the scriptures be iudged to receiue either of the twoe powers when they are created Ministers so they cannot in â—â—is other respect truely be called Preists Bishop but onely by force virtue of that sophisticall ridiculous conseâ—â—ence they haue benefices Bishoprikes therfore they are Preists Bishops And yet besides this I haue one other argument So vrgent forcible against our aduersaries that it alone is sufficient to conuince euen the most obstinate iudgemeÌ„ts that the preâ—â—â—iuereformed clergie of England bath no authoritie power or â—udâ—â—sdiction to preach or reache the Gospell consequently that they ar not true Prâ—â—sts nor Bishops I lay the fouÌ„datioÌ„ of my argument vpon the whole streinth of â—at diuine Principle of S. Paule Quomodopraeâ—â—abum nisi mittantur how shall they preach â—â—cept they be sent which as being an expresse â—â—xt of scripture is receiued by both parties for â—infallible trueth I contriue my silogisme in â—is manner Those who haue no mission want authoritie â—ower or Iurisdiction to preach teach the Gospell But the newe English clergie hath no mission Ergo the newe English clergie wantes â—uthoritie power or Iurisdiction to preach â—ne â—otpell The maior proposition is so plainely conâ—ained in scripture that I am persuaded euen the most pure Caluinist or Caluinian Puritan dares not absolutely denie it For proofe of the minor I suppose agree with my aduersaries that ther are two onely genders or kyndes of mission Viz. Either ordinarie or exterordinarie This agreement so supposed I argue thus If the professors of the English Religion haue mission it is either ordinarie or exterordinarie But the professors of the English Religion haue neither ordinarie nor extraordinarie mission Ergo the professors of the English Religion haue no mission That the professors of the English Religioâ— haue no extraordinarie missioÌ„ I need not laborâ— to proue in regarde I knowe excepting thosâ— of the Puritan faction extraordinarie missioâ— is not maintained by our aduersaries And iâ— anie either Puritan Anabaptist or other sectarie will auerre is mission to beexterordinariâ— theÌ„ for the same reason that he defendes it to bâ— extraordinarie he is bounde to proue it by extraordinarie meanes he must shoue his patenâ— or letters of ordination brought from heaueâ— firmed with the broade seale of miracles prophecie or other manifestly diuine testimonie or else it is to be reiected as counterfeit euidence forged to deceiue cousen simple ignorant people with euident preiudice to their eternal saluation And so leauing this as a fictitions of the founders or inuenters of it voyde of both diuine humanane authoritie neither giueing anie satisfaction to mature solid iudgements I passe to the ordinarie mission which our aduersaties most commoÌ„ly pretend will manifestly proue they ardestitute of it because as exterordinarie mission can not be obtained but by exterordinarie means so neither can ordinarie mission be had but by ordinarie meanes Now this supposed I proceed thus in forme of argument Ordinaâ—â—e nussion can be receiued of those onely who 〈◊〉 by contiâ—â—all succession of Bishops Preists from the Apostles But the professors of the English Religion â—ue not receiued their mission from those â—ho haue continuall succession of Bishops Preists from the Apostles Ergo the professors of the English Religion â—aue no ordinarie mission The minor propositioÌ„ in which alone the difference controuersie may seeme to stand if â—nie ther be I proue because those who succed from the Apostles in the foresaid manner of whome the professors of the English faith against whome I now dispute confesse they receiued their mission if anie they haue ar â—either from the Popes of Rome or such others as deriued their authoritie from that seat But now it is a fact clearer them the cleare light of the clearest day that neither the Pope himselfe nor anie other who deriued his authoritie from him did euer conferre anie mission power inrisdiction or authoritie to preach teache or minister sacraments vpon anie of the professors of the English Religion that which â—demonstrate by this dilemma For all those who can be imagined to haue giuen anie mission to the professors of the English faith at the tyme of change of Religion either they were Roman Catholiks at that present or not if they still remained Roman Catholike then is it infallibly certaine they would neuer haue offered to giue mission are power to them whom they held for heretiks an enimies to their own faith profession yea if they had attempted anie such matter their attempte had be voyde in regarde the Roman Church by virtuâ— of her Ecclesiastical canons anulles all such collation of iurisdictionarie power to heretikes And according to this it is herby apparently concluded that the professors of the English Religion neither one way nor other could possible receiue anie mission power or authoritie to preach the Gospell or minister sacrament after their manner at their first admittance to the ministrie It is true Doctor Cranmer from whome the Bishops and ministers of the English Religion alledge they immediatly had their mission is supposed to haue had the caracter of Episcopall Presbyterall Order yet supposing by reason of his seperation from the faith obedience of the Roman Church from which he receiued all the power of order iurisdiction they pretend he was depriued of iurisdictioÌ„ I ingenuously coÌ„fesse my iudgemeÌ„t is conuinced by force of argument that they cannot possible haue anie ordinarie mission of Episcopal or Preistlie function for the preaching of the worde of God administration of the Sacraments either according to diuine or Ecclesiasticall institution And I know indeed sonne of our aduersaries â—ot manie monethes paste after a long time of deliberation hoping to satisfie their owne restesse mindes an others in this their most important busines produced certaine new founde registers for testimonie of their predecessors ordination But in my iudgement the authoritie of theÌ„ is so suspicious that they ought not to moue anie prudeÌ„t vnderstanding And if they were authenticall why did they conceile them till this present time in which no man vrged them in anie speciall manner to bring them to leight Whereas yet they haue so often since the change of religion demaunded ben to shewe their letters of ordination in other occasions Moreouer suppose their registers were neuer so true authenticall yet since they doe not testifie that their ordination was in matter forme authoritie of the ordinators perpetually vsed in the Catholike Church they neither satisfie vs in our demaunde nor yet are they sufficient warrant either to the conscieÌ„ces of those that vse them or those who relie vpon the effect of them in their reception of the Sacraments Neither surely are those registers of anie