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 aduersa­ [...]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, ge­ [...]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 [...]s not vniuersall, generall, or common is clea­ [...]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 [...]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, [...]se the name Catholike in that same sēse, as af­ter shall appeare. And by this the maior propo­ [...]ition of the second Sylogisme is sufficientlie [...]roued to be true. Now touching the minor [...]o wit that the Religion publiklie professed in England is not generall, vniuersall, or common, [...] likewise proue by distinguishing all the di­uers [Page 12]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 S [...] Augustin against the epistle of Gaudentius. Where vsing the testimonie of sainct Cyprian among [Page 13] [...]other words of his he relates these. Vnum ca­ [...]ut est, & origo vna, vnamater foecundis suc­cessibus copiosa. She (meaning the Church) [...]s one head, one origen, Maieres n [...] ­stri Catho­licam no­minarnus vt ex ipso nomine [...]stenderent quia per t [...]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, wāte 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 onelie that the particular obiects or matters which a Catholike or vniuersall beleeuer im­braceth by faith; are one, & the same doctrine in euerie point, which God hath reueiled, & the most vniuersal Church proposeth to be belee­ued by all persons in the vniuersal orbe. And this appeares most true especiallie if we consi­der that the doctrine or obiect or anie Reli­gion cannot be conceiued to be vniuersal ex­cept it be taken in this forme & manner, in regard that in this sorte, & not otherwise, it attracteth or draweth vnitie frō the founder, & so hath the propertie of being one, without which vnitie it cannot possible be one and the same in manie, in which neuerthelesse the to­tal nature or essence of vniuersalitie consists.

Now touching the minor or second propo­sition of the same Sylogisme, I proue it in this manner; first, because the Religion which our [Page 15]Saulour, & his Apostles preached was vnifor­merlie, & indistinctlie one & the same both in matter & forme, I meane both in obiect or matter of faith, & in the assent of faith itselfe, & therefore the Apostle Ephes. 4. as he affir­mes there is one onelie Lord or God, soe doth he in the same tenor affirme there is one faith. Vnus Dominus, vnafides: meaning that faith is one as well obiect as in acte. And yet this is otherwise according to the doctrine of the English Church, whose professors distinguish the obiect of their faith, in to fundamentals, & not fundamentals; which diuision of theirs cannot possible stand with vnitie, as both na­tural reason and common sense most plainelie teach: And consequentlie the matter or ob­tect of the English faith cannot be one, & the same with the obiect or matter of that religion which Christ & his Apostles deliuered to the vniuersal world, in which true Religion there is no parte nor partial which is not truelie and propethe fundamental, & to be vniformelie, & vniuersallie beleeued vpon for feture of eternal Saluation, according to that formidable com­mination of the supreme Iudge himselfe who without anie diuision or distinction pronoun­ceth sentence of condemnation against all such who obstinatelie erre in their assent of faith to anie matter by him, Qui vere non [...]redi­derit con­demna­bitur. Marc. V [...]. [...] [...]ntes [...] omni [...] qua [...]unque mandaui vobis. Math. 28. & his Apostles reueiled to his Church, & by here for such proposed to [Page 16]the people, how smale soeuer it may seeme to bee in it owne nature or condition, & how ne­cessarie, or vncessarie it is in it selfe to saluation, in regard that it being once deliuered for true by God who cannot lye or deceiue, it is reallie inuested with the same formal reason and mo­tiue of credibilitie, which the most noble & sublime obiect or matter either humane, or diuine can haue, that is with the infallibilitie of the prime reueiling veritie, to which all faith & credit is due, & necessarilie to be truelie & intirelie adhibited vnder paine of eternal pu­nishment.

Secondlie I proue the same Minor proposi­tion; because the obiect or matter of the Reli­gion published by our Sauiour, & his Apostles hath annexed vnto it a certaine relation or reference of vniuersalitie to all those particular persons to which it is to be preached, that is to all people which were, are, or will be in the world till the consummation, or day of iudge­ment, which relation is grounded in the ordi­nance & commaunde of Christ himselfe to his Apostles sayeing: Marc. vlt. Euntes in mundum vniuer­sum praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae. Where by the wordes all creatures is vnderstanded all nations or people, as sainct Mathew more plainelie declares in the same passage of his Gospel where thus he relates our Sauiours speech. Euntes docere omnes gentes. And like­wise [Page 17]S. Gregorie commenting the same text giues an ingenious exposition of it to the same purpose teaching that by those wordes: omni creaturae: is ment all men; for saith he, Sed omnis creaturae nomine signatur homo. And in the same place he addes an other explication of the same wordes yet more plaine & cleare for this our purpose saying, that by the name of euerie creature, all nations also may be signi­fied. Potest etiam creaturae nomine, omnis natio gentium designari. So that it is voyde of con­trouersie that the Religion which Christ & his Apostles preached hath this relatiue, or respectiue vniuersalitie of obiect, or matter: of which contrarily, the English Religion is quite destitute in regarde that, at the least, for the space of 9. centenarie of yeares togither partely by some of the pretended reformers, & partely by euidence of fact, it is conuinced not to haue ben preached in anie parte or partial of the vniuersal world in all points as it is now professed in our English nation. A matter so cleare & manifest by the testimo­nie of all histories both of those former times & ours; that I neuer heard of anic of the pro­fessors of it, who either in writing, or pri­uate discourses, or publike sermons, hath ab­solutelie auerred it to haue ben preached with­out interruption euer since the time of Christ, & his Apostles.

And thence it proceeds that for the auoiding the force of this or the like probation, I con­ceiue not what other refuge they can haue then to say, that notobstanding the obiect or matter of their Religion neyther is at this pre­sent, nor hath ben in all precedent ages taught or preached: yet that in respect their Religion is the same which was preached by the Apo­stles, & their successors in the first fiue hun­dreth yeares after the lawe of Christ, it may be tearmed vniuersal in obiect or matter euen at this present, especiallie supposing it is not the multitude of beleeuers which makes the ob­iect or matter of Religion vniuersal, but the totalitie, or latitude of the doctrine it selfe, as being in all points the same which Christ de­leuered to his Apostles to be preached to all nations.

But to this I replye, it is no solution but a miere cuasion of the former argument. Yet I confesse that if it were true and solid, the pre­tended reformers had reason to applaude it as a most compendious and easie course for the maintaining of their new Religion. But the trueth is that this can not stand in vnitie with the doctrine, & faith which our Sauior deli­uered to his Apostles, & they to the rest of the world, which was not to continue onelie for some d [...]i [...], monethes, or yeares, but vntil the verie [...]nd or consumation of the world. And [Page 19]therefore Christ our Sauior to those wordes of the text of sainct Mathewe: Euntes docete om­ [...]es geutes, going teach yee all nationes, pre­sentlie for conclusion of his speech he added, & [...]centes eos seruare omnia quaeeumque mandaui [...]obis & ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus die­ [...]us vsque ad consummationem seculi, teaching them to obserue althings which I haue commaun­ded you, & behold, I am with you all dayes to the consumation of the world. In which wordes is included not onelie vniuersalitie of [...]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 vni­ [...]ersalitie which my former argument con­ [...]udes,

And to this I ioyne Secondlie: that the other [...]rte of the maintainers of the English faith [...]ho enterprise the defence of the visibilitie of there Religion in all ages, are yet farther out [...]f square then the other. In regarde by this [...]eanes they enter in to a taske which (as the [...]ustration of their tryall in that particular [...]ath alreadie giuen experience) they will ne­ [...]er be able to performe. By all which it is [Page 20]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 [Page 21]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 [Page 22]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 [Page 21]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 Religiō.

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 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 [Page 25] [...]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 Eccle­si [...] cōfirma fratr [...]t tues. Pasce oues meas. Pas­cite qui in vobis est gregē Dei. the [...]8. tell the Church. S. Luc. 22. confirme thy brothers. [...]ohn. 20. feede my sheepe. 1. Pet. 5. feed the flocke [...] God which is among you. S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. Affir­ [...]nes that he himselfe did persecute the Church. And most commonly his Epistles are directed [...]o the Churches as to the Church of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus. And finally ther is scarce [...]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 mōte est qui im­pleuit orbē terrarum. — nun­quid sic o­stend. mus Ecclesia [...] fratres? nō ­ne aperta est [...] nonn [...] 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 [...]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 [...] 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 [Page 26]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 hi [...] fourth homilie vpon the 6. chap. of Isaias hath that memorable sentence. Facilius est solem ex­tingui quam Ecclesiam obscurari. The sunne m [...] more easily be extinguished then the Church obs­cured.

I could alledge most plaine words to th [...] same purpose out of the rest of the ancient Do­ctors: but because those twoe alone are of se­great authoritie that they ought to satisfie ani [...] 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: [Page 27]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 [...]he common rule of interpretation generall wordes are to be vnderstood properly, & with [...]ll their extension as long as noe inconueniēce followes thereof, as certaine it is & apparent that none can followe of the continuall visibi­ [...]tie of the Church, wheras on the contrarie both manie & great in conueniences insue of the want of the same, as after shall be decla­ [...]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 [...]n wordes or sense, or in anie other sorte so [...]lainely as by the generalitie of the foresaid Phrases of Scripture & ancient Doctors all re­ [...]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 absur­ [...]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 aduersa­ [...]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, [Page 29]& 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 cōsisting 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 [Page 30]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, [Page 31]or at the least verie subiect to error & fallibili­ [...]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 [...]1. chapter of his 19. booke against Faustus. In nullum nomen re­ligionis seu verum seu falsuu [...] 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 [Page 32]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 particular [...] 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 [Page 33]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 le [...] 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 [Page 34]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 donec [...] occurramus omnes in virum perfectum. That is, he appointed some Bishops, other pastors, & others Doctors &c. To the consummation of the Saints till we meet all into the vnitie of faith & into aperfect man: That is vntill the day of iudgement. Vpon which place sainct Augustin in his 12 booke of the Citie, hath large discourses to this purpose in the 16.17. & 18. chapters. And the trueth is that Christ himselfe hauing in this speciall manner designed such persons for gouernors & teachers in his Church till the end of the world, doubtlesse his meaning was not that they should be such dumme dogs as the esta­blishers of the inuisibilitie doe affirme them to haue ben in their imaginarie Church for a long time together: But his diuine will & pleasure was they should be custodes Ierusalem qui tota die & tota nocte non tacebunt in perpe­tuum. That is Christ would haue them such watchmen or keepers of Ierusalem (that is to say the Church) as shall not be silent till the end of the world in no time, nor vpon anie oc­casion [Page 35]Which perpetuitie of the visible gouer­nement of the Church is grounded in the per­fection of Christs diuine prouidence & mercie towardes the members thereof for whome of his infinitie goodnes he pleased to haue the way to saluation continuallie open: Which other­wise if the true Church had ben at anie time hidden or inuisible as at the least some of those against whome I nowe dispute will haue it, then it could not possible haue ben so: Yea & manie thousands or rather millions of men had liued & dyed out of the state of saluation as being impossible for them to finde & enter into the true Church all that space of time in which it is feigned by them to haue remained inui­sible or out of knowledge.

And thus much for the impugnation of that parte of our aduersaries which defeds that the true Church is not perpetuallie or in all diffe­rences of times visible: the absurditie of which doctrine diuers of the defenders of the English Church of later standing aduertiseing, & also because they find it not so plausible to their auditors as they could wish, they haue ventu­red vpon another course, indeuoring to shewo that the same Church & Religion which is now established in England hath ben alwayes visible in the world from the time of Christ & his Apostles euen till this present: Which man­ner of proceeding of theirs altho' it is much [Page 36]more difficult & hard to be defended then the other now confuted, & that by this meanes the maintainers of it doe but incidere in syllam, that is by auoyding of one incouenience they fall in to a greater: Yet because they persuade themselues they come nearer to the marke of prouing their Church to be Catholike in this respect as well as the Roman Church hath euer ben, (which indeed they might performe if they were able truelie to proue their visibi­litie) therfore I will breefelie demonstrate that they haue no such visibilitie as is necessarie to the constirution of the true Catholike Church as they pretend.

Wherefore to come to the purpose & the more clearelie to conuince my intent, I frame this Sylogisme against the visibilitie of their Church.

That Church wantes perpetuall visibilitie which cannot produce some visible professors of their doctrine in all points & in all ages since the time of the Apostles till this present.

But the Church of England cannot produce some visible professors of their doctrine in all points & ages since the tyme of the Apostles to this present.

Therfore the Church of England wantes perpetuall visibilitie.

The maior is not denyed by our aduersaries, the minor hath all the difficultie & that I proue.

And inprimis that the defenders of the En­glish faith can produce no scripture for this point is most certaine and euident for that this is onelie a matter of fact which succeeded since the scriptures were published. By occasion of which the reader may note that those profes­sors of the English religion who in this manner defende the visibilitie of their Church doe not proceed consequenter to that other negatiue principle of theirs to wit that nothing is to be beleeued by faith but which is either expressely or by necessarie illation contained in the scrip­tures, which generall rule of theirs in this case is manifestlie defectiue for that in it neither scrip­ture nor deduction or consequence of scripture can seruo their turne in this particular.

And if they replie that they can proue their visibilitie a priori, by scriptures by those places which teach perpetuall [...] visibilitie in the Church, then I say that this is not the matter now in question but a subtiltie to delude the reader, for the controuersie is whether they can proue their visibilitie a posteriori, that is whether they can yealde vs anie authenticall profe or testimonie whenby it may certainelie appeare that the Religion now professed in England hath ben in deed perpetually visible in in all ages as the scripture & Fathers aboue alledged affirme the true Church ought to bee, otherwise they doe onely suppose their [Page 38]Church is the same which is described in the scripture, but proue it not. Neither doe we aske them to she we vs that such a Church in gene­rall ther is in the world as the scriptures doe mention, but we vrge them to demonstrate that their Church in particular hath the pro­pertie or attribute of perpetuall visibilitie as the scriptures requires to be founde in the onely indiuiduall true Church of Christ: & till they can performe this they neither speake accor­ding to the sense of scriptures, nor satisfie vs in our demaunde.

Wherfore I proue the minor proposition of of the argument aboue framed, because no authenticall historie can beproduced in which it is related that this Religion of England now commonly ther professed, beleeuing & main­taining that ther ar but 22. bookes of Canoni­call scripture onely. That they ar to be expoun­ded by the spirit of euerie priuat person. That man is iustified by faith onely. That ther ar onely two sacraments instituted by Christ. That the bodie of Christ is giuen, receiued, & eaten in the Sacrament in a spirituall manner that is by faith onely: finally I say that for testi­monie of that these & diuers others of the 39. articles of the English Religion haue ben taught or preached in all ages since the tyme of Christ & his Apostles in anie Kingdome, prouince, towne or yet in anie one corner of [Page 39]the whole world tho' neuer so abscure, ther is not extant anie kinde of recorde: And ther­fore it is incredible in the highest degree that anie professors of it can be produced in euerie seuerall age since the foundation of the true Church of Christ: for that if anie such had ben in anie tyme or place for so long a space together, it is as certaine as it is certaine ther hath ben in all that successe of tyme sunne, moone, & starres in the firmament, or fishes in the sea, that some writer or other would haue made mention of the same. And if Histo­riographers be so curious & exact in this na­ture, that ther was neuer anie conuenticle of sectaries so smale or obscure but it hath ben noted & related by some of them, much lesse could such a Church as our English Nouellists pretend theirs to be, haue lurked so closse as that no mention of it should be founde in histo­ries or recordes of former ages before the daies of Luther. It is not absolutely impossible to cōceiue that Christ might haue established an inuisible Church in this world at the least for a tyme, but that he should haue ordained his church with pertetuitie of visible pastors, & yet that neither their names, seates, parishes, or any other monument of them either dead or aliue, can be produced to make it visibly appeare that they were professors in all points of the same Religion which now is professed in En­gland, [Page 40]this I say is aboue all admiration neither can it possible seeme credible to anie sounde vndestanding, on mature iudgment.

Secondly I proue the same minor, for that diuers of our English aluersaries hauing of late vsed the vttermost of their power & indu­strie in this particular, yet haue they not come neare the performance of their purposes, but in lieu of produceing professors of their Reli­gion in the seuerall ages of the Church, they cast in to their Catalogue either such as haue ben flatly against them in diuers points in which they differ from the Roman Church, or such as haue ben condemned for heretikes in tymes past, & that partely euen for doctrine cō ­trarie to some of the articles of the English faith as appeares for example in wiclef & Hus, Maledicta ergo doctri­na Wiclef quo consi­dere iubet &c. Wald. p 3. c. sep. & seq. of which the first defended, that more confidence is to be placed in mans owne proper merites then in humble prayer: that a preist in mortall sinne cānot validly baptize, that for Ecclesiasticall persons to haue possessiones is contrarie to scripture. The se­cond neue [...]idenyed the reall presence, nor merit. Or els those whom the defēders of the English faith dusigne for members of the same, were such as because they speake some thing doubt­fully in onely some one point of the Roman doctrine (of which rake is Presbiter Bertrame) they puti [...]hem in their list as if they were wholely & intyrely theirs. Notobstanding [Page 41]they are knowne to be quite apposite vnto them in all the rest of their faith & profession. The which how pore & inconsiderate a shifte it is, the iudicious reader will presently perceiue & condeme their weake & false proceeding.

Lastely for confirmation of the impossibi­ [...]itie of euer prouing the perpetuall visibilitie of [...]he Church of England, it may be added that King Iames who was the greatest & most [...]amous defender of the newe Religion that [...]uer writ, as it seemes considering better this [...]oint then others that follow him, was so warie [...] circumspect that he would neuer cast him­ [...]elfe into this most dangerous gulfe, as ap­ [...]eares by his Monitorie in which altho' his whole drift was to proue his owne Church to [...]e the true Church of Christ, yet did he make [...]o expresse mentiō of the visible Church more [...]hen of the inuisible, but onely proceedes [...] generall termes & without distinction, as [...]oulding it impossible to maintaine the visibi­ [...]tie of it in all former tymes & ages, for which [...]ason he prudently declined that contro­ [...]ersie.

And in deed the trueth is that who soeuer he [...] that shall vndertake the taske of prouing [...]erpetuall visibilitie in anie of the pretensiue [...]formed Churches, will be no more able to [...]rforme it then an infant were able to rowle [...]siphus stone, or accomplish the labors of [Page 42]Hercules. whence it is consequent that [...] aduersaries what soeuer they pretend, true [...] want vniuersalitie of tyme in their Church whether they defend it to be visible or in [...] ­sible, which is that same which the maior & minor, of my second sylogisme aboue propo­sed doe affirme, & which may suffice for thi [...] parte of the discourse I here prosecute.

Now touching the other twoe Kyndes o [...] vniuersallitie to wit of place & persons, they ar so annexed one to the other, that they a [...] morally speaking either all one, or at the lease out of the negation of the one, is necessarity inferred the nagation of the other. For example if it be true that the religion of England nei­ther is nor was in euerie place of the world, it thence infallibly falloweth that it neither i [...] nor was in all persons of the world: as in like manner it also followes, that if it was not for manie ages together in anie place of the world it is also manifest it was not for the same spac [...] of tyme in anie person in the world, & by reason of this connexion betwixt the vniuer­sallitie of place & persons, I will treate of the [...] both vnder the name of place, supposing for certaine that whatsoeuer defect of vniuersal­litie of place shall be discouered in the English Religion, the same defect is found to be i [...] they muersallitie of persons & professors of it And here also I giue the reader notice by th [...] [Page 43]way that when the Romanists exact of their [...]duersaries onely to produce some professors [...]f their Religion in euerie seuerall age, they [...]se no smale fauor towardes them in that man­ [...]er of proceeding, in regarde that to conuince [...]heir Church to haue ben perpetually visible, [...]roperly speaking, they ought not onely to [...]nde out some few persons of anie sorte of [...]eople what soeuer, but they ar obledged in [...]eason to shew a perfect order or Ierarchie of [...]cclesiasticall persons to haue ben continually [...] their Church, for that both the visible Church of Christ was so planted in the world [...]y him selfe, & also progated by his Apostles: [...] more ouer because the Romanists defacto [...]an shewe the same to haue ben perpetually in [...]e Church & Religion which they professe, [...]hat is in that Church of which haue euer ben [...]eades or Cheefe Pastors the Popes of Rome [...]y continuall & ininterrupted succession from [...]. Peter who was the first Bishop & Pope of [...]hat most famous seat.

Now this being supposed I proue ther is no [...]niuersallitie of place in the Church of En­ [...]land by this silogisme following.

Ther wants vniuersallitie of place in that Religion which in all points of it doctrine nei­ [...]her is nor euer hath ben preached or profes­ [...]ed in all or most places of the world.

But the Religion of England in all points [Page 44]of it doctrine neither is nor euer hath be [...] preached or professed in all or most places [...] the world.

Ergo the Religion of England hath no v [...] ­uersallitie of place.

I proue the Maior, first by the etymolog [...] or prime signification of the word vniuersa [...] which as I haue alreadie aboue declared im­porteth one in manie or rather one in all, a [...] appeareth in humane nature abstracted which is not onely one & the same in manie, b [...] also participated in euerie particular or indiui­duall person. And altho' it is true that vniuer­sallitie 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 Apostle [...] into all the earth hath the soūde of them gone forth & that of S. Augustin. She (the Church) is like vnto a vine diffused or spred in euer [...] place, neuer be truely verified of it: & conse­quently [Page 45]such a doctrine can not be truely said [...] haue such vniuersalitie in it as scripture & [...]athers require to the onely true Religion, & [...]hich in reason can not be iudged lesse then [...]at in all the for said great number of yeares, [...]either is at th [...]s present, or hath ben in times [...]ast preached & professed generally at the least [...] the greater parte of the world if not in euerie [...]arte therof.

And touching the vniuersalitie of persons [...]hich as I declared before is either included or [...]ecessarily connected to the vniuersalitie of [...]ace, it is a matter so cleare & apparent that [...] is not to be founde in the English Religion [...]ther for the time paste or present, that euen [...]e cheefe of the professors of it dare not auer­ [...]e it to be vniuersal in that nature, as is mani­ [...]est by the authoritie of King Iames himselfe [...]he Salomon of their sect. Whoe althou' he la­ [...]oreth much in his booke to Christian Princes [...] persuade them he defendes no other then [...]he Catholike faith, yet in the end of the same [...]e is forced to confesse that (notobstanding he [...]cludes in the number all the professors of the [...]retended reformation euen in other countries [...]gge & ragge) yet they doe nor by much a­ [...]ounte to so manie as professe the contrarie, [...]hat is the Catholike Roman doctrine, & Re­ [...]gion: preached & practised in so manie seue­ [...]all nations & places of the of the vniuersal [Page 46]orbe. In so much that if anie of our aduersari [...] were so impudent as to conteste or repugn [...] 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 cānot possibly be conceiued but in order or with relation to the greater nū ­ber of beleeuing professing Christiās, 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 [Page 47] [...]he verifying of those & the like generall sen­ [...]ences of scripture & Fathers, it is not necessarie [...]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 about [...] 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 lōg 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 [Page 48]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 coū [...]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 euē now by me related, which doubtlesse cōtaine a plaine expositiō of the for­mer, as appeares by the comentarie of S. Chry­sostome vpon them saying of the Church of Christ. Adest vbique, suporat, & ob [...]inet vbique; praestat vbique.

And altho' I am not ignorāt that both ancient Fathers & moderne diuines teach that (as S. Hierome speakes vpon those wordes. Pr [...] 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 [Page 49]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 euē 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 dayes might with farre greater reason haue affirmed the same of the Romā church in which then owne bookes manifeste them to haue liued as partes & members, being nowe much more extended then at that time it was.

And certainely for the defenders of the Church of England to imagin that altho [...] their Religion hi [...]herto hath not ben vniuersall in the world, yet that hereafter it will be vniuer­sall before the end of the world, is both voyde of probabilitie & ridiculous.

First because it is the nature of true Religion to bring zeale & feruor with it especially in the begining as appeareth in the Apostles & their successors in the first ages who not obstanding all the impediments that the deuill by humane wit, & malice could contriue, yet d [...]d they ex­tend & propagate the faith of Christ in diuers nations & kingdomes both remote & barba­rous. [Page 50]Wherefore if the Religion of England had ben the true faith of Christ doubtlesse it would by the professors of it haue ben long since so extended & dilated that it should not need to be brought to those streits as to fetch their vniuersalitie from the verie end of the world.

Secondly because the nature of the Religion of England is such that it hath no conuenient meanes for propagation of itselfe in the whole world, inregard that those to whome the char­ge of preaching & teach the same is committed, are mē that are all either actually tyed to wiues children, & posteritie or els liue in expection, & & desire of those temporall, or transitorie com­modities, & scarce euer dreame of extending their Religion farther then their owne seuerall Parishes: yea & their doctrine it selfe teaches them that either they must all marie of neces­sitie as some of them maintaine, or at the least that it is more expedient, & secure for them to marie then to lead a single life: supposing which particulars it is morally vnpossible for them euer to preach their faith to all nations (as Christ commaundeth) with such clogges at their heeles as are wife, children, & posteritie.

Thirdlie it is certainelie knowne that since the Religion of England was established in the forme & manner that now it is in, the profes­sors of it neuer went to ante foren nation pur­posely [Page 51]to preach their faith, & much lesse haue they euer taken anie generall course for the conuersion of infidels by anie mission of Mini­sters, or by other meanes. Or if anie of them haue trauelled into strange countries (which are knowne to be verie fewe in number) it hath ben onelie, or cheefely for temporall res­pects as for that they haue ben silenced in their owne countrie for preaching some extrauagant errours, or els for some other crime or publike offence committed; or perhaps some pore vn­benificed, ignorant, & threedbare fellowes who for want of meanes to maintaine them­selues, resolue desperatelie to trye their fortune in an other place onelie for that respect & not for charitie or zeale of reduceing people to Christian Religion. And if perhaps they finde anie pore blackamore, or other barbarian that heareing the name of Christians, desires to be of their Religion, yet these false Apostles pro­ceed so superficiallie with them, & giue them so smale & ill instruction, that it is to be feared that after they haue baptized them on their fashion, they still remaine as black as they were before both in bodie & soule. Nay their deuotion is so could in this nature, that they themselues are ashamed either to write or to brag of it, as experience doth teach for that there is not anie booke extant that e [...]er I could heare of, in which it may appeare that they [Page 52]haue performed anie notable matter in this particular. The discal­ced Carme­lits at this present hane obtai­ned Bishops for their mission in Persia euen by the Kings per­mission as I am infor­med. Whereas yet on the contrarie hi­stories are full of the infinit number of Infidels which the professors of the Roman Church haue conuerted & dayly conuert to the Chri­stian faith both in the Oriental & Occidental Indies & other places, & that with losse of their liues & whatsoeuer other comodities they haue in this world, as is manifest especiallie in the foure Orders of Mendicants & the Iesuits, who not obstanding innumerable difficulties, still continue their annuall Missions ordained to that same end & purpose of propagating Catholike Religion in all countries & nations.

Lastelie I say that for the professors of the English faith to say, that their Religion will be extended thro' the whole world before the day of Iudgement is mierlie their owne predi­ction, to which no man of mature iudgement ought to giue credit except they first proue themselues to be true Prophets which in my opinion they can no more performe then they can proue the descent of their pedegree from sainct Michael the Archangell. And thus we­see plainelie that the English Religion as now it is professed being destitute of all meanes to propagate it self: as hitherto it neither is nor euer was vniuersall in the world, so neither can it be imagined with anie probable coulour of reason that euer it can possible in future [Page 53]times come to be spred ouer all the nations of the whole world as according to scriptures & Fathers the true Church ought to be, & the mator of my former Sylogisme doth affirme. And not to insiste anie longer in this matter, I in like manner proue the minor proposition of the same argument by the same reasons which I haue vsed for the proofe of the foresaid ma­tor, which if they be duelie applied to the En­glish Religion they will plainelie demonstrate, that the Religion of England neither hath ben, is, nor euer will be preached & published in all partes of the world & consequentlie that it hath not vniuersallitie of place which is that which the conclusion of the argument doth containe.

It is true I further conceiue that the profes­sors of the English faith as men disposed to cauille, may yet once againe replie, & say that in regarde their Religion is the same with the Religion of the Apostles, therefore it hath the same vniuersallitie which the Apostolicall Re­ligion hath.

But to this I reioyne anser firste that I haue shewed before that the Religion now proses­sed in England doth differ in diuers points from the faith of the Apostles, the particulars of which difference I haue before specified, as is that of iustification by faith onelie, the de­ny all of the reall presence & the rest.

Secondlie I say that this replie is that kinde of absurditie in disputation which the Logitiās call petitio Principij that is, when that is assu­med by the disputant for a true & certaine Principle which ought to be proued as being the verie matter in question, & so this is onelie an euasion of the aduersarie which hath no more force them his owne authoritie giues it, which is none at all.

And now by this & that more which hath ben sayd touching the vniuersallitie of place & persons, it is most 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 [Page 55]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, & [Page 56]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 [Page 57]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 [Page 58]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 [Page 59]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 is certaine for that if it were the same, it would be founde conformable & subordinate to the spirit of the greater parte of the Christian Churches, & the Religion of England would be agreable to the Religion of the same Churches both in doctrine practice & gouer­nement, which neuer thelesse we see to be con­trarie & repugnant vnto them.

Thirdly, the spirit of the maintainers of the present Religion of England is not confor­mable to the spirit of their antecessors for aboue nine hūdreth yeares together at the least, ther­fore it is not vniuersall. That the spirit of the maintainers of the present Religion of England is not conformable to the spirit of thir ance­stors, I proue by the authoritie of all historio­graphers & wirters euen the pretended refor­mers [Page 60]them selues who haue either expressely testified or at the least not denyed but that in all this space of tyme euen vntill the dayes of King Edward the Sixt which is not yet a hun­dreth yeares, the Masse & reall presence was generally approued, the communion vnder one Kynde practiced, Altars & pictures vsed in Churches with honor & reuerence. Pur­gatorie & prayer to saints taught & allowed, & finally all the points of doctrine & manners betweene the Romanists & Anglicans now controuersed were publikly professed, all which neuerthelesse is at this time condemned & quite renounced & abandoned by the pro­fessors of the present English faith. Of which both they & we are eye witnesses at this day. Which two things can not possible be done by one & the same spirit of God in regarde they ar quite apposite & cōtradictorie in them selues, & consequently the spirit of those who professe to tepugne to that same doctrine which they know & acknowled their prede­cessors to haue imbraced as sound & pious & conformable to the worlde of God, so manie former ages successiuely, cannot be conceiued to be an vniuersall spirit, but priuate & proper to them selues.

Fourtly the spirit of the preachers & teachers of the English Religion is quite different from the spirit of the doctors & writers that haue [Page 61]adhered & abeyed the Roman Church, in euerie seuerall age, as is manifest to those who read them & compare their workes with the writings of the pretensiue reforming doctors of our tymes the doctrine of those that haue writ euen from the first Centurie of yeares imediately following the Apostles being sprin­ckled with pietie & deuotion towardes the saints in heauen & especially the virgin Marie, as their sermons, Homilies vpon their feasts, & other their workes doe testifie, of which matter good store is to be founde especially in S. Basil, Cyprian, Chrysostome, Hierome, Ambrose, Augustin. Gregorie, Damacene, Bernard, & the rest of the Romā diuines which haue writ euer since, euen till this present tyme, in whome also ther is frequent mention & comendation of miracles operated by the saints & their reliques: none of which particu­lars appeare in anie of the Writings of the professors of the English Religion, but rather in their bookes & ordinarie sermons they in­deuore most ernestly to persuade the people that they ought not to hearken after anie such matters, but hould them either for false & superstitious, or at the least for idle, superfluous & impertinent, & so we clearely see by this that the spirit of the English professors is con­trarie to the spirit of the whole torrent of the most learned & renowned men of all ages past [Page 62]euen to this present day; & consequently it can not be generall, common or vniuersall, nor a true spirit, except the owners of it will condemne the contrarie spirit of the most lear­ned, iudicious, & pious men of all ages since the tyme of Christ & his Apostles to haue ben false & erroneous, & theirs onely the reight spirit of God. Which is the highest degree of temeritie that can be imagined.

Lastely. In practice of virtue & exercise of good life the spirit of the preachers & teachers of the English Religion now professed, is disa­greeable to the practice & exercise of virtue of the doctors & pastors of the Roman Church in all succeding tymes since the first foundation of the same: a great parte of whose writings ar replenished with rules & driections for prayer & contemplation, mortification of the bodie & inordinate passions of the soule, by fasting, vse of hereclothes, disciplines, prostra­tions, acts of obedience, & resignation of their willes to the commaunde of superiors, vowes of obedience, chastitie & pouertie, monasticall institutions, solitarie life of monkes, Ana­chorites & Ermites, & other Religious con­uentuall men & women, & finally with all other meames which possible could be imagi­ned as either necessarie or conuenient for the exercise of a religious & virtuous course of life. None of all which or at the least verie little is [Page 63]to be founde in the bookes of the teachers of the English Religion, or heard in their publike sermons or priuate exhortations.

And altho' it is true that some of them as it seemes moued with emulation of the Roma­nists (who euen in this present age labore much in that kinde as our aduersaries cannot denie) haue published some thing in the nature of prayer or deuotion, yet is it in such a manner as they reduce the exercise of a Christian life ei­ther to the exercise of faith onely or cheefly, ex­cluding or at the least not inducing to externall workes of Pennance and mortification of the bodie. Or els they proceed in such a newe fa­shion (as being onely sutable to their owne newe Principles of faith & manners) as neuer was heard in anie age of the world before the dayes of Luther.

That which doth particularly appeare in a certaine newe worke lately published & inti­tled. The handmaid of pietie, which neuerthe­lesse hath not one dramme of true pietie or one sparke of that spirit which hath reigned in the visible Church since the the first plantation of Christian Religion: which booke not obstan­sting it hath the name of a Mannuall yet is it not conforme either to the Mannuall of S. Augustin, or anie other euer vsed hitherto a­mong Christian people: but forged in the an­thors owne proper braine, & consisting of such [Page 64]froathie spitle as fell beside the pulpit when he made his preach [...]ngs, full of pedantik termes & affectation as the worde supparte & others, & as the verie first words of the title plainely testi­fie which are in Latin to make it more admired: & dedicated to a falsely supposed Patronesse of his religion. whome altho' the world did winne for a smale time, yet it neuer peruerted her no­ble & constant iudgement, whoe now hath re­turned to her ancient home with farre greater glorie vnto it then it lost by her absence.

And that which is more vntolerable the pro­fane minister with his feruor & deuotion he now & then mingleth a lye or a paradox. As page 617. where speaking of the fast of lent, he affirmes. That those of his profession place not Religion or the substance of Gods worship in fasting or feasting, as saith she the Papist, doe. And 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 [Page 65]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, [Page 66]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. [Page 67]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 [Page 68]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 [Page 69]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 [Page 78]made but that they be sacred & Canonicall. The second order is of those of which ther hath b [...]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 & Naziāzene, 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 [Page 72]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 [Page 73]not possible haue certaine knowledge of the canō. 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 [Page 74]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. E [...]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 vo [...]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 ele [...]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. D [...]uin. nom. c 4. Sa­p [...]ence or the booke of wisedome is alledged [Page 75]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 [Page 76]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. [...]. 1. S. Athanasius & Nazian­zene of which at the least the two latter au­thors to wit Athanasius & Nazianzene (euen [Page 77]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 & vn [...]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 Canōdoth. Cap. 11. n. 4. So that it remaineth most euident there was no such certaine traditiō 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 euē till they sweate in prouing their Canon to be the same with the Canon of the ancient Iewes, yet doth not one of the [...]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 In­nocētius 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 [Page 79]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 cōuinced 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 [Page 80]against Rufinus, he declareth his meaning in the foresaid Prologue was not to signifie his opinion in that particular, but onely to relate the 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 [Page 81]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 [Page 82]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 ont 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 [Page 83]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 [Page 84]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 thē ­selues 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 [Page 85]is not due to thē whose cheefe studie is with neglect of that sense which those anciēt expositors who haue gone before them both in time, virtue, & learning, to inuent & violent­ly drawe newe interpretations of Scripture out of the Etymologies & first imposition of wordes according to the verbal sounde and not according to the common acception of them, which yet is the common practice of the Nouelists of these our dayes as is most appa­rent euen by that particular passage which I haue in hād that is the place aboue cited in the second chapter of the Acts, thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell. Lib. 5. de descen. Christ. c. [...]. n. Aboute which Daniel Cha­mier hauing turned himselfe euerie way, & tos­sed all the dictionaries he could finde for his purpose, yet could he not finde one author more ancient then Iohn Caluin his great master and first founder of his Religion, whoe teacheth that either in this place or in anie other place of scripture according to the proper & ordinarie vse, the word [...] doth signifie the bodie car­casse, or life, & the word [...] the graue as he & his fellow partners will needs haue thē to si­gnifie, & as they vsually translate them in their Bibles, excepting onely Arias Montanus if he be truely cited by Chamier, In Idio­tismis He [...] braeis. how be it himselfe grauntes that in the cited place of the 16. psalme the Hebrewe wordes in steed of which the Sep­tuagint putteth [...] & [...], doe signifie the [Page 86]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 [Page 87]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 [Page 88]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 [Page 89]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 [Page 90]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 [Page 91]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 [Page 92]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 [Page 94]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 [Page 95]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 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. [Page 96]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 [Page 97](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 [Page 98]agree either in vocation, mission, or Ordina­tion with their predecessors: as appeareth par­ticularly in Master Parker who not obstanding he was the cheefe of thē 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, who [...]s by the foresaid defender of the English ministerie reported to haue ben the [Page 99]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 consecratiō euer vsed in any Chri­stian Church since the Christian Religion was founded, the persons cōsecrated or ordained ac­cording to the tenor of it, cānot 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 thē Apostolicall power [Page 100]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 [Page 101]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 [...]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 Nag­ges head tauerne as it was related by Master [Page 102]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 [Page 103]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 [Page 104]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 whē they crye out & say it is Apostolicall doctrine but proues it not, as ordinarily they do both in their bookes & preachings.

Peraduēture 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 [Page 105]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 [Page 106]Chymericall conceite & paradox of their owne forgeing, an Idea of Plato abstracted one­ly by distracted myndes.

Finally for proofe that the English Religion hath no true Preists & Bishops I adde, that our Sauior ordained his Apostles not onely to preach his worde but also to remit sinnes & offer sacrifice according to those two texts of scripture: [...]. 22. whose sinnes you shall remit they shall be remitted. And doe this in my remembrance. Wherfore our aduersaries the profess [...]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 [...]is other respect truely be called Preists, & Bishop but onely by force & virtue of that sophisticall & ridiculous conse [...]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 iudgemēts that the pre­ [...]iuereformed clergie of England bath no au­thoritie power, or [...]ud [...]sdiction to preach or reache the Gospell, & consequently that they ar not true Pr [...]sts nor Bishops. I lay the foūdatiō of my argument vpon the whole streinth of [Page 107] [...]at diuine Principle of S. Paule. Quomodoprae­ [...]abum nisi mittantur? how shall they preach [...]cept they be sent? which as being an expresse [...]xt of scripture is receiued by both parties for [...]infallible trueth. I contriue my silogisme in [...]is manner.

Those who haue no mission want authoritie [...]ower, or Iurisdiction to preach & teach the Gospell.

But the newe English clergie hath no mis­sion.

Ergo the newe English clergie wantes [...]uthoritie, power or Iurisdiction to preach [...]ne [...]otpell.

The maior proposition is so plainely con­ [...]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 Religio [...] haue no extraordinarie missiō I need not labor [...] to proue in regarde I knowe, excepting thos [...] of the Puritan faction, extraordinarie missio [...] is not maintained by our aduersaries. And i [...] anie either Puritan Anabaptist, or other se­ctarie will auerre is mission to beexterordinari [...] thē for the same reason that he defendes it to b [...] extraordinarie he is bounde to proue it by ex­traordinarie meanes, he must shoue his paten [...] or letters of ordination brought from heaue [...] & 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 commōly 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.

Ordina [...]e nussion can be receiued of those onely who [...] by conti [...]all succession of [Page 109]Bishops & Preists from the Apostles.

But the professors of the English Religion [...]ue not receiued their mission from those [...]ho haue continuall succession of Bishops & Preists from the Apostles.

Ergo the professors of the English Religion [...]aue no ordinarie mission.

The minor propositiō in which alone the diffe­rence & controuersie may seeme to stand if [...]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 [...]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 [...]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 [Page 110]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 virtu [...] 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 iurisdictiō: I ingenuously cōfesse my iudgemēt 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 [...]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 thē is so suspicious that they ought not to moue anie prudēt 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 consciēces 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 greater force for iustification of the ordi­nation of our English pretensiue reformed cler­gie then the writings of an vsurarie contract iu­stifie an vsurer in his recept of money in that vnlawfull manner which they declare. And so [Page 112]I conclude both for this & the reasons aboue al­ledged & particularly for their most apparent defect of vocation, & mission, that their case is verie considerable yea & lamentable both in respect of themselues, & in regarde of those whose soules are by their owne misfortune cōmitted to their charge, & gouernement. And this may now suffice for the declaration & confirmation of this my fift cheefe & generall argument which concludeth the faith of En­gland to be an erroneous & false Religion.

THE SIXT PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT.

MY sixt principall argument is this.

That Religion is false which hath no true adoration or worship of God proper to him onely.

But the English Religion hath no adoratiō nor worship of God proper to him onely.

Ergo the Religiō of Englād is a false religiō.

The Maior must of necessitie be graunted by the professors of the English Reignō least other­wise they destroye & amhilate the verie life of all Religion which is the worship or adoration of one onely God with such honor as is proper & due vnto him as both diuine faith & leight of [Page 113]nature doe teach: yea & doutlesse the trueth of this proposition is contained in the first com­maundement which doth not onely exclude the pluralitie of Gods & their adoration, but also includeth that worship which is due & proper to one onely God & not to anie creature or o­other entitie whatsoeuer. And for this cause God himself in other places cōmaundes: Domi­num Deum tuum adorabis & illi soli seruies. Thou shalt adore thy Lord thy God & serue him one­ly. And, honorē meū alteri non dabo. I will not giue my honor to another: wher God calles it his owne honor because ther is a kinde of honor due & proper vnto him onely & not common to others. And now this precept being groun­ded in the lawe of nature, the naturall instinct of reason doth likewise suggest the same, so that no rationall creature can denie it.

Nowe the Minor of my silogisme in which all or the greatest parte of the difficultie con­sists I proue it by an other silogisme in this manner.

That Religion hath no true adoration or worship of God which hath no exercise of a true & proper sacrifice or oblation.

But the Religion of England hath no exer­cise of a true & proper sacrifice or oblation.

Ergo the Religion of England hath no true adoration or worship of God.

The Maior of the latter silogisme in case it [Page 114]should be denied by our aduersaries, & proue first by scripture & then by testimonies of an­cient Fathers to wit that true Religion cannot stand without true & proper worship of God by frequent vse or exercise of a true & proper sacrifice.

And altho' this might be sufficiently proued by a generall induction drawne not onely from the practice of the vniuersall world in all ages as well in the professors of the true God of which the old Testament giueth euidence as also from the false religion of all sortes of Ido­laters, Gentils & Paganes. Yet because I knowe the Nouelists out of their presumption & impudencie will not stick to denie the con­sequence I will omit to persecute this manner of argumēt, & onely insist in those authorities of Scripture & doctors of the Church which immediatly conuince the same to be true also in our Christian Religion of the new Testa­ment.

My first proofe of scripture I take out of some certaine places of the Prophets, which notobstanding they seeme to belong to the old testament yet in realitie they appertaine to the newe as being predictions of the state of Religion in the same. To which purpose the Prophesie of Malachie is most plaine for the future practice of a proper & generall sacrifice in the new Testament, affirming. That the [Page 115]Lord of Hostes saith this. I haue no will in you (meaning the Preists of the old Testament) nor will I receiue an offering at your handes for from therising of the sunne to the setting my name is great among the Gentils, & in euerieplace is ther Sacrifi­ced & offered vnto my name a cleane oblation, be­cause my name is great among nations. Thus farre the Prophet. Now the wordes & circumstāces of this place so plainely demonstrate that the Prophet Malachie speakes of some kinde of sacrifice which was not thē or euer before vsed in anie time or place but was to be vsed in the new testament, that our aduersaries least they should be conuinced of error in their Religion for that it hath no externall oblation to God at all, they finde no other refuge then to feigne that the Prophet speaketh onely of the meta­phoricall sacrifice of prayer & good workes. Which interpretation of theirs altho' it were neuer so true (as it is most clearely false) yet is it little sutable to other positions & practice at least of Caluinists, Vid. Dan. Cham. as that good works are sinnes in themselues yea & damnable if God did not mercifully perdon them: & that they are not pleasing to God. Nay prayer & good workes are so litle & couldly practiced among them all that if ther were no other sacrifice in the world, doubtlesse God almightie should, by them especially, be verie couldly serued.

How be it that cleare it is out of the related [Page 116]text that Malachie treates not of anie vnpro­persacrifice. First because it is euident that he prophesied of such a future sacrifice as should be more proper & pleasing to God then thesa­crifices offered in the time of the old lawe which neuerthelesse being properly and truely sacrifices altho' in other respects defectiue, that which should succeed vnto them could not in comparison of them be esteemed more proper & pleasing sacrifice to God then they were, if truely and properly it had not ben a sacrifice.

Secondly. The Hebrewe text with the cleane oblation ioyneth incense which con­iunction of both those rites togither doth ma­nifestly shewe the Prophesie to be of an exter­nall rite & oblation to God, & consequently a proper sacrifice.

Thirdly. It is plaine by the wordes of the text that the Prophet speaketh of such an externall ritie as mayntaines the greatnes of Gods name euen among Gentiles & infidels, which prayer & good workes onely cannot effecte by reason they ar neither so apparent & knowne among thē, nor so publike a testimonie of the maiestie of God as sacrifice is without which his diuine renowne, magnificence & soueraintie would be extinguished in people in processe of time.

Fourthly true & proper sacrifice is an essen­tiall parte of a true & proper Religion & a maine distinctiue signe from vn proper & false [Page 117]Religions, & of such a one the Prophet treates as is both different from the sacrifice of the Gentiles yea & of the Iewes them selues: now prayer & workes ar common to euerie Religion euerie one according to their seuerall manner.

And to this declaration of the text I adde the expesitions of all those ancient Fathers who haue applyed this place of malachie to the Eu­charist as to the onely & proper sacrifice of the newe Testament ther being not one extant in all antiquitie who hath deliuered anie con­trarie sense of it, or that hath explicated it of prayers or workes alone. S. Iustin martyr who liued within the compasse of the second age, speaketh plainely to this purpose citing the wordes of the prophet, Dialogo c [...] Tryphone. in which he affirmes that malachie foretels a newe oblation to suc­ceed the sacrifice of the Iewes, saying. De hostijs quae ipsi (deo) à nobis Gentibus vbique offeruntur id est Eucharistiae, tum predicit cum ait, à nobis nomen suum gloria affici vobis autem pollui. Which is this in English. God by Malachye the Prophet (for in this māner Iustin speaketh in his precedent wordes) doth prophesie of the hoastes or sacrifices which are in euerie place offered by vs Gentils (meaning conuerted Gentils) that is of the bread of the Eucharist, & likewise of the cup of the Encharist, when he saith that his name is glorified by vs but [Page 118]polluted by you, meaning the Preists of the old Testament.

Now since this renowned martyr both par­ticularly declares that the Prophet Malachies prediction is meante of the Eucharist, & sup­posing he further affirmes the same Eucharist to haue ben offered by the Christian Preists of his tyme in all places, yea & that therby the name of God is glorified: it is extreame want of iudgement or rather plaine madnes in our aduersaries, to denie that the Prophet speaketh of a true & proper sacrifice.

And althou the same Father in his precedent lines doth insinuate that the Eucharist is a gra­tiarumaction or rendering of thankes for di­uers benefits receiued by Christians at the han­des of God as the creation of the worlde & the memorie of their Redemption & other of that nature: yet those or the like causes of the offe­ring of the Eucharist doe no more diminish the nature of a true sacrifice included in the same, then hostia pacifica the hoaste of pacification did cease to be a true oblation or sacrifice be­cause it was offered by way of thankes giuing for benefits receiued, or els to obtaine new fa­uors & graces of God almightie. By which also the friuolous euasion of kemntitius & other Nouellists appeares to be voyde of force while they endeuoure to illude the streingth of this most pregnant testimonie for the proofe of the [Page 119]Euchariticall sacrifice of the lawe of Christ, for that reason to wit because the author of the same testimonie in the same place affirmes our sauior to haue comaunded the Eucharist to be celebrated in remembrance of his death an pas­sion, as if the one & the other could not be in­cluded in the same action either according to diuine scripture or naturall reason, neither of which is founde repugnant but rather most conformable & agreeing. Lib. 4. cap. 32. Eum qui est ex crea­tura pa nem acce­pit, & gra­tias egit di­cens. Hoc est corpus meum & salicem similiter qui est ex ca crentura qua est se­cundum nos suum sanguinem confessus est & noui Testamenti nouam do­cuit obla­tionem. Quam Ec­clesia ab Apostolis accipiens offert Deo in vniuerso mundo ei quialimen­ta nobis prastat pri­mitias suo­rum mu­nerum de quo & in duodectm Prophetis sic Mala­chias pra­signauit. Lib. 4. cap. 32.

S. Irenaeus in like manner being one of the same standing testifies that the Prophet Mala­chie did presignifie the Eucharist in those same wordes which he cites & saith. That bread which is made of a creature he (that is Christ) tooke & gaue thankes saying this is my bodie. And likewise the chalis which is of a creature which is according to vs, confessed it to be his owne bloud, & taught vs a newe oblation of the newe Testament, which the Church recei­uing from the Apostles offers to God in the vniuersall world to him who giues vs for nou­rishment the primicies of first frutes of his gif­tes, of which Malachie one of the twelue Pro­phets did so presignifie. Lhaue no pleasure in you. And that sainct Irenaeus speaketh not of an vnproper Sacrifice as Kemnitius & some other sectaries doe cauille, is most euident by other wordes of his towardes the end of the same chapter, where he addeth that the former [Page 120]people that is the Iewes shall cease to offer to God: Yet neuerthelesse that in euerie place a pure Sacrifice is offerred vnto him, & his name glorified among the Gentils.

More ouer in his 24. chapter he saith that one kinde of sacrifice is reproued by God mea­ning the sacrifice of the Iewes, to which the sa­crifice the of Church succeedes. By which dis­course & particularlie by those wordes which he saith of Christ, noui Testamenti nouam docuit oblatiouem, that is he taught a newe oblation of the newe Testament, it is clearelie conuinced that this holie Father by the worde oblation could not possible vnderstand almes as our aduersa­ries contendes because altho' it be in some sorte an oblation to God, yet is it neither newe nor proper to the newe Testament onelie, but com­mon to both old & newe as the scripture it self doth most frequently teach & inculcate. More ouer this place of sainct Irenaeus did so farre conuince the iudgement of Caluin in this par­ticular that like the deuils which according to the relation of the Euangelist, acknowledged Christ against their wils, he confesseth him to haue expounded it of the Masse iuste as the Romanists of later times vse to interpret & applie it, & hath no other refuge then plai­nelie to contradict the foresaid ancient Fathers exposition in this impudent & audatious man­ner sayeing of the Roman diuines. When they [Page 121]obiect the place of Malachie to be vnderstood so (of the Sacrifice of the Masse) by Irenaeus, & the offering of Melchisedech in like manner by Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustin, & Arno­bius: it is breefelie ansered, that the same wri­ters doe in other places also interpret bread the bodie of Christ, but so ridiculouslie that reason & trueth constreineth vs to dissent from them: thus this saucie Nouellist, speakes of his bet­ters, whose pride & bouldnes the Centurists imitate treating this same point in their third Centurie, as if they were the onelie men in the world borne for reason, & not those rather who immediatelie succeeding the Apostles did infinitlie surpasse them both in virtue & know­ledge of Christian doctrine & true sense of Gods diuine worde & institution.

Tertullian declaring the sacrifice prophecied by Malachie against Marcion, Sacrificium purum glo­ria, scilicet, relatio & benedictio, & laus, & hymni &c. Lib. 3. Contra Marc. alluding to his wordes saith thus. In euerie place sacrifice is of­ferred to my name, & pure sacrifice viz. of glorie relation & benediction, prayse & hymnes &c. In which wordes the entyre tenor of the Masse is breefelie described thou' soma't obscurelie as the custome of this author is. By relation he vnderstandes the Epistle & Gospell, by bene­diction the consecration, by praise & himnes the glorie, prayers & other spirituall passages contained in that misterie. And altho' this au­thor in an other place of this same booke doth [Page 122]affirme the place of Malachie to be vnderstan­ded of sacrifice of praier, & in his booke against the Iewes, of spirituall not of terrene sacrifices: Yet in neither place doth he deny it to be truely interpreted of the Eucharist: But in the first place he calleth it a spirituall sacrifice because it was instituted by the diuine spirit & not by humane inuention: as also for that it is not mi­nistred in that carnall & grosse manner in which the Iewish sacrifices were ministred by effusion of bloud, by fire & knife, but by bene­diction & consecration as such a pure oblation ought to be handled & celebrated. In the se­cond place Tertullian onelie interpreteth one parte of the sentence of Malachie to wit the word incense which is in the Hebrewe text, of prayer offered to God. But the other wordes, oblatio munda, he expoundes of the sacrifice of the Masse, in the place nowe cited. To which if we adde an other place of the same author in which he speaketh of the Eucharisticall sacri­fice, De Ora­tione cap. 14. all tergiuersation must necessarily cease in anie indifferent minde touching this authors true meaning. For thus he saith. Will not thy station be more solemne if thou assiste at Gods Al­tar. Hauing receiued & reserued the bodie of our Lord, both the one & the other is safe, the participa­tion of the sacrifice, & the execution of the office. By which wordes it is manifest that ancient Tertullian could neuer denie the Sacrament [Page 123]of the Altar to be a proper oblation who here so absolutelie affirmes it to be a sacrifice cele­brated in the Altar.

S. Cyprian liuing within the third hundreth yeare in like manner cites the same place of Malachie in the 16. chapter of his booke a­gainst the Iewes to proue that which he put­teth in the title of the same chapter, to wit that the anciēt sacrifice is euacuated & a new on ce­lebrated, which newe sacrifice can be no other thē the Eucharist, which onely & no other is new in respect of the sacrifices of the old Testament.

The next in Order & age is Eusebius who liuing in the beginning of the 400. Lib. 1. demonst. Euang. cap. vlt. yeare interprets this place of Malachie in the same sense, sayeing. We therefore sacrifice vnto the most high God a sacrifice of laude: We sacrifice a sacrifice Deo plenum, full of God: And bringing an odoriferous sent with it, & a sacred or Sacrosainct sacrifice, we sacrifice after a newe manner a pure or cleane sacrifice accor­ding to the newe Testament. Where it is plaine that Eusebius applies the place of Malachie to the solemne sacrifice of the Masse, which is performed by prayer & oblation & there­fore called by his a sacrifice of laude, & which onelie can be truelie said to be full of God by reason of Christ whome it containeth, & which onelie can be called truely the sacri­fice of the new Testament, & affirmed to be [Page 124]offered in a newe fashion. All which particu­lar & speciall circumstances no man of iudge­ment or common sense can applie to prayer or almes onelie.

S. Chrysostome in his commentarie of the psalme 95. hauing cited the wordes of Mala­chie addes his exposition of them saying. Be­hould howe copiouslie & clearlie he (Malachie) hath declared the mysticall table which is the in­cruent or vnbloudie hoaste: & furthermore he calleth the sacred prayers which are offered after the hoaste, pure Thymiame or odoriferous perfume. Cōment. in Malac. Thus S. Chry sostome of the Prophet Malachie.

S. Hierome altho' by the worde incense he vnderstandes prayer, yet the worde pure ohla­tion he commonlie interpreteth to be the obla­tion of the Eucharist: as also did sainct Irenaeus before him in the place cited. Which expo­sition is as fit for the Romanists as can be ima­gined supposing the Masse includes both pray­er & pure oblation or sacrifice. And the same I say of sainct Augustin & who soeuer els of the Fathers interprets the foresaid worde in­ [...]ense in the Prophecie of Malachie in that manner.

Moreouer sainct Augustin both in his 18. Cap. 35. Cap. 23. & 19. booke of the Citie vseth the same place of Malachie for proofe of the cessation of the Iewish sacrifices & exercise of the Christian sacrifice by the Preists of Christ according to [Page 125]the Order of Melchisadech, for thus he dis­courseth against the Iewes in the first of the two places cited. I haue no will in yee nor offering will I receiue at your hand. For from the rising of the sunne to the setting my name is great among the Gentils: & in euerie place shall be sacrificed, & a pure oblation is offerred to my name. This sacrifice since we see it offered in all places from the rising of the sunne to the setting by the sacerdoce or Preist function of Christ according to the Order of Melchi­sadech: but the sacrifice of the Iewes (to whome it is said, I haue no pleasure in you) they cannot de­nie to haue ceased, why doe they yet expect an other Christ since this which they reade prophecied & see accomplished could not be fulfilled but by him. It is true sainct Augustin speaketh not so plaine in the second place as here he doth, neuerthelesse he alludes to the same place & in the same sense.

Theodoret also comments vpon this same place of Malachie in the same sense & in most plaine wordes, teaching that according to the prediction of Malachie in lieu of irrationall hoastes is now sacrificed an immaculate lambe.

Lastelie sainct Damacen & Rupert agree to Dam. de fide lib. 4. cap. 14. Rupertus in Com. Malach. the rest in the exposition of the place of Mala­chie whose wordes altho' most plaine I doe not cite because I knowe the Nouellists m [...]st com­monlie reiect their authoritie as not being wri­ters [Page 126]of the first fiue hundreth yeares. In which how little reason they haue to proceed in that manner with learned & graue authors I will not now discusse: onelie this I say that I doubt not but anie indifferent reader will absolutelie condemne them of extreame temeritie in offe­ring to resist such an armie of old soldiers as I haue here placed in battill aray to feight against them. And hence I passe to the produ­cing of testimonies of the new Testament for proofe of a proper sacrifice in the lawe of Christ.

Christ in the fourth chapter of the Euangell of sainct Iohn, affirmeth that the houre is now come when true adorers shall adore the eter­nall Father in spirit & truth: & neither in the mountaine of Samaria nor in Ierusalem as he said immediatly before: Garizim in which place the worde adore signifies to sacrifice as in diuers 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 [Page 127]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 [Page 128]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 [Page 129]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. [Page 130]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 [Page 131]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 related that the Apo­stles were ministing to our lord & fasting. Now to minister to our lord can not consist either in prayer onely, or in singing uf psalmes, which needed no Kynde of ministration more then opening their mouthes & hartes: wher as yet the worde ministere doth necessarily include some externall ryte more thē that as the Greke [Page 132]worde [...] doth clearely denote, & sig­nifie. And therfore Erasmus a great fauorit of the Nouellists doubted not plainely to tran­slate, for the wordes ministantibus Domino, sa­crificeing to God.

To the authoritie of scriptures, I will here adde such testimonies of ancient Fathers as I haue not yet cited, & such as being within the compasse of the fiue priuatiue ages clearly te­stifie the Eucharist to be a sacrifice S. Cyprian saith thus, who is more Preist Dei summi of the cheefe God th [...] our Lord Iesus Christ, Lib 2. ep. 3. who offered sa­crifice to God the Father & offered that same which Melchisedech offered to wit bread & wine, that is his bodie & bloud. Which wordes ar so plaine that they forced the Centurists to confesse of this Father. That he affirmed the Preist to per­forme the office of Christ, & offer sacrifice to God the Father. Now if according to S. Cy­prian the Preist performes the office of Christ & offers sacrifice as the Centurians confesse of S. Centur. 3. col. 83. Cyprian doubtlesse it is no other but the Eu­charist which he offereth. Vice Chri­sti fungi. — Mag­deburg. Centur. 3. or 4.

The glorious martyr S. Hypotelicus in his oratiō of Antichrist, introduceth Christ saying to the Prests of he newe Testament in the day of Iudgement. come you. Rashops & Preist who dayly immolatedor facrificed my pretions bodie & bloud in the world.

S. Ambrose vpon the psalme we did se (saith he) the Paince of Preists coming vnto vs. Wi did se [Page 133]him & heare him offering for vs his bloud. Let vs Preists followe him that we may offer sacrifice vnto him for altho' we be infirme or weake in merit, yet ar we honorable in sacrifice, for altho' Christ doth not at the leaste as they conceiue, now seeme to offer, yet he is offered on earth when Christs boilie is of­fered. Yea & he is manifested to offer in vs whose wordedoth sanctifie the sacrifice which is offered.

S. Gregorie nyssene in his first oration vpon the Resurrection hath these memorable wordes. For inthat ineffable secret, & to men inui­sible manner of sacrifice, by his diuine ordinance he doth prcoccupate the violent brunt, & offers him selfe for vs being both victim & oblation, both Preist & lambe of God. When did this happen? when he exhibited his bodie to be eaten & his bloud to be drunken by his familiar freindes.

S. Chrysostome in his 24. Hom. 2. in posterto­rem Epist. ad Tim. Circa fine. homilie vpon the first to the Corinthians speaking of Christ saith that he commaunded himselfe to be offe­red iusteed of brute beastes. And in another place he speaketh thus. The sacred oblation it selfe whether Peter or Paul, or of what merit soeuer the Preist is who offers it, is the same which Christ himselfe gaue to his disciples, & which now also Preists d [...]e make, this hath nothing lesse them that. Why so? because men doe not sacrifice this, but Christ who had consecrated it before.

S. Augustin in diuers places of his workes, but most clearely in his second sermon vpon [Page 134]the psalme 33. of our sauior saith thus in plaine termes. He (Christ) instituted a sacrifice of his bodie & bloud according to the order of Melchisa­dech. Nostrum sacrificium non solum Euangelicis sed etiam Propheticis libris de­monstratū est. And conformable to this the same S. Au­gustin in his 49. epistle affirmes the sacrifice of vs Catholike Christians to be demonstrated not onely by the Euangelicall but also by the Propheticall bookes. Also in his 20. chapter of his 17. bookes of the Citie of God: he hath most expresse wordes to the same purpose, which because they are somat large & other­wise well knowne, I omit them to be viewed by the reader if he please.

S. Leo the great also one of the writers of the fift age, in his seuenth sermon of the Passion teaches that the sacrifices of the old lawe yeal­ded or gaue place to the sacrifice of the Eu­charist as the shadow to the bodie. His wordes at these. Wherfore to the end that the shadowes should yeald to the bodie, & images to the presence of veritie or truth, the ancient obseruance is taken a way with a newe sacrament: one hoaste is changed in to an other, bloud doth exclude bloud, & the legall sestinitie while it is changed, is fulfilled. And some lines after he addes: but Iesus knowing cer­tainely his counsell, & being vndaunted in the or­dinance of has Father, did consūmate the old Testa­ment, & instituted the newe Pasque for his dis­ciples being set to eate the mysticall supper, when in the Courte of Carphas it was consulted how Christ. [Page 135]should be put to death, he ordaiding the sacrament of his bodie & bloud did teach in what manner an hoaste was to be offered to God. Epist. 81, Ad Disco­rum. And the same Fa­ther in an other place ordaining that more Masses then one be celebrated in one & the same Church when one doth not serue by rea­son of the multitude of the pleople, saith thus. Our will is that when the solemnitie of afeast hath drawne such a multitude of faithfull persons toge­ther as the Church can not receiue, let then the obla­tion of the sacrifice be vndoubtedly reiterated or re­peated. since it is a thing full of pietie & reason that so often as the Church is filled with newe people so often an other following sacrifice be offered. For it must needs be that some parte of the people be depriued of their deuotiō if the custome of celebrating one onely Masse obserued, they onely that come first may offer the sacrifice. Thus this ancient & graue Father, in whose wordes oblation & sacri­fice of the Masse ar three seuerall tymes repea­ted.

Isichius or Hesichius who liued aboute the same tyme hath these wordes touching the same matter. Lib. 2. in Leuit. c. 8. Our lord being at supper with his disciples first with the figuratiue lambe, after­wardes offered his owne sacrifice. Lib. 2. in Exod c. 6.

Rupert in like manner speaketh of the same sacrifice saying. Our lord being in the agome of his Passion, first immolated or sacrificed him selfe to God the Father with his owne proper bandes ta­king bread &c.

Now to cōclude, since the testimonies of these Fathers & doctors of the primatiue Church ar both most ancient as being all included in the circle of the first fiue hundreth yeares next succeeding to the time of Christ & his Apostles, Et quidem ipsā actionē canae Do­minica & quidem ip­sum corpus & sanguī ­no in cana à veteribu [...] vocari sa­ [...]risicium o blationem, hostiam, victimam &c. Kem­nit. pag. 788. & also 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 [Page 137]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 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 Catho­ [...]e, that is it hath vniuersalitie of matter [Page 141]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 [...]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 [Page 142]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 [Page 143]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 founders began to broach their owne pretended reformation.

For first I say that if for either Phocas to giue or Bonifacius to take the title of vniuer­sall Bishop were to reuolt or make a defection [Page 144]from the true faith or Church: then should the whole Generall Councell of Calcedon haue reuolted from the true faith by offering to attribute it to Pope Leo, Lib. 47. Epist. 32. as sainct Gregorie doth testifie: & if this had ben so hainous a busines as our aduersaries contend, it is teme­ritie to affirme or imagine that so famous a Councell consisting of so manie graue & lear­ned Bishops both Grecians & Latin & which our aduersaries themselues admit for legitimate would euer haue as much as mentioned such a matter.

Secondlie. This being a matter of fact which can not be decided by either scriptures or an­cient Fathers or the Primatiue ages in regarde it is knowne to haue happened after them both: our onelie iudges must be those hi­storians who haue made relation of this pas­sage. Now those relators which are Anasta­sius Bibliothecarius, Pulus Diaconus, Ado, & venerable Beda, none of them affirme either that Phocas did giue Boniface anie authoritie of Primacie which he had not afore, nor yet doe they or laye anie censure vpon the one or the other for that action whatsouer it was.

Thirdlie. Certaine it is that neither Boniface nor anie of his successors euer either claimed or vsed in their publike acts or writings thetitle of vniuersall Bishop: but rather all of them humble themselues so farre as they ordinarilie [Page 145]stile themselues no other then seruants of the seruants of God: howsoeuer that title & stile might be offered them or vsed by others for their greater honor & authoritie.

Fourthly. Suppose Pope Boniface & others his successors had accepted & vsed the title of vniuersall Bishop I meane in a true sense that is so as vniuersall Bishop signifies onelie Bishop or pastor of the vniuersall Church, what great & odious crime had this ben therefore to de­serue the name of Antichrist, or vsurper of the supremicie in the vniuersall Church, since that both the title of head of the vniuersall Church, & the authoritie also of the head was attribu­ted vnto precedent Popes long before the time of Phocas, Iustinia­nus senior in epist. ad Io. 2. Valenti­nianus epist. ad Theod. of Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur. Vid. Con­cil. chal. in Epist. ad Leo­nem Pa­pam. Vid. Act. 1. & 3. as doth appeare not onelie by the testimonies of two famous Emperours Iusti­nian & valentinian, but also by the acts of the Chalcedon Councels that title is acknowled­ged in plaine termes. In so much that euen in those prime ages it was turned in to a common prouerbe, that the first seat that is the Roman seat was to beiudged by noman.

Fiftlie, If Pope Boniface is to be accounted Antichrist by the professors of the English Re­ligion because they feigne him to haue vsurped the title & power of vniuersall Bishop, how I pray will their Kings escape the same censure who haue receiued the title, & power of the head of the English Church from their prede­cessor [Page 146]King Henrie the 8. who neuerthelesse had no more power (nay much lesse) to con­ferre it vpon them then the Emperour Phocas had to declare the same, or the like to be due to the Pope.

Lastelie. The truth is, that it is not founde in anie of the foresaid historiographers or anie others of the Roman Religion, that Phocas gaue to the Pope eyther the power or yet the title of vniuersall Bishop: but they relate onelie that Phocas by his imperial edict did declare against the presumption of Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople that this title of head or Bishop of the vniuersall Church was proper to the Bishop of Rome but not to him, or anie other: & moreouer that it was no way due to the Bishops of the Constantinopolitan seat or Church. And this onelie the cited au­thors relate without anie mention of the wor­des vniuersall Bishop, but onelie they mention the wordes primate, prime seat, & head of the Churches, or the like phrases, as may be seene in their bookes. So that this is a grosse impo­sture of the Nouellists of our time in vsing the testimonies of these graue authors against the Popes of Rome by miere cheating, & cousi­nage: & by this meanes in steed of prouing their intent they proue nothing els but them­selues to be miere Sycophants & deceiuers, to whome supposing they publish to the world [Page 147]the forsaid supposititious change of Religion made by Pope Boniface in the Romā Church, without either diuine or humane testimonie, more then their owne presumed & presump­tious authoritie, no prudent Christian ought to giue anie more credit then he giues to the incredulous & impious Iewes who calumniate Christ as a peruerter of the lawe of God be­cause he established his owne most perfect Church & Religion in lieu of their Ceremo­niall Synogog. And by this it is cleare that the minor proposition of this my first argument standes still firme & vnanserable to wit that the Roman Religion onelie is & euer was truelie Catholike, which is that I here intend to demonstrate.

THE SECOND PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT.

THIS my second argument I reduce to this forme of Sylogisme.

That onelie Religion is true which hath the true Canon of scripture.

But the Roman Religion onelie hath the true Canon of scripture.

Therefore the Roman Religion onelie is the true Religion.

The maior doubtlesse is graunted as certaine by our aduersaries, wherefore it needes no fur­ther proofe.

The minor which I knowe they denie, I proue because the Roman Church onelie hath that same Canon of scripture which hath ben ge­nerallie receiued in the Church both before & since the time of sainct Augustin who in his second booke of Christian doctrine hath the verie same number & names of diuine [...] volu­mes which at this present the Roman Church vseth & in formor ages vsed since the time of the Apostles: Cap. 8. which Canonical bookes sainct Augustin receiued from the Councell of Car­thage, & this Councell from Pope Innocen­t [...]us the first of that name, who also had them as descending by tradition of all or at the least, of the cheefe & greater parte of the Church since they were deliuered to it by the Apostles, as I haue more largelie declared in the confu­tation of the English Canon, in which point I need not insiste anie longer because the same arguments which I vsed for disproofe of it, abundantelie serue for the proofe of the minor proposition of this my positiue argument, to wit that the Roman Church onelie hath that same Canon of scripture completly & intirely, which hath ben euer most generallie receiued in the Christian world.

THE THIRD PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT.

MY third reason for demonstration of the trueth of the Roman Religion is this.

That Religion onely is true which hath the true interpretation & sense of scripture.

But the Roman Religion onely hath the true interpretation & sense of scripture.

Therfore the Roman Religion 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 th [...] Prelates & Pastors of the Church, duely [...] [...]bled or in e [...]e parti­cular [Page 150]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 Christiā man or womā 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 authētically & with infallible certainelie, but by the publike Prelate [...] & Pastors of the Church & especially by the cheefe pastor of it. Now this being noted & aduertised I proue the min [...] of my argumēt w [...]th an [...] her silogisme in [...] manner.

That o [...]ely Church hath the true interpre­tation [Page 151]& sense of scripture which receiueth it from the Preists, Prelates, & Pastors espe­cially the cheefe Pastor of the Church succee­ding linially frō 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 cōsistes, 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 d [...]e not here professe to make a [...]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 se [...] 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 m [...]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 euē vnto the con­summation of the world in all ages. By which it is euident that since Christ our sauior (as the Apostle relates) [...] [...]point this order & subor­dination of the C [...]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. [Page 153] 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 sēse 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 ma [...]or me est. And in the first Councell of Constantinople [Page 154]vnder Pope Damasus those: Ioan. Amos. 4. Rom. 8. Ego Dominus for­mans tonitru & creans spiritum. And those: spiritus postula [...] 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 the [...]ues & robbers. Lib. 4. c. 43. Qui suc­c. ssionem [...]ent ab Apo [...]o [...]s cum Epis­copatus successione charisma verit [...] tis certum so cund [...]m pla [...]tum Patri [...] acce­pe [...]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 [Page 155]of his secōd 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 Iu [...]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 anciēt Church was in this particular of the peoples receiuing the scriptures expositiō & 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 [Page 156]diuine & infinit, should haue taught the pro­fessors of his faith to playe euerie man in his humor with the sacred scripture, & to haue cō ­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 [Page 157]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 Religiō 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 cōsists, 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 [Page 158]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 & [Page 159]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 [Page 160]the same reasons & arguments I conuinced in the fifte principall Sylogisme of the first parte of this treatise, that the English Reli­gion hath no such succession from whence (vpon the supposit [...]on in which we both agree that there is no other true Religion but theirs or ours) it infalliblie followes that the Roman Religion onlie hath perpetuall succession of Prelates & Pastors.

Secondly. I proue this succession in the Roman Church by graunt of all or the grea­ter parte of the aduersaries who most ordina­rilie vse to distinguish betwixt succession of persons & succession of doctrine leauing the first for vs & claiming the second to them­selues, altho' most falselie as I haue sufficiently demonstrated in my negatiue argument vpon this point. Yet if anie be so obstinate as to de­nie the continuall succession of Pastors in the Roman Church, let him onelie read sainct Au­gustin's epistle to Generosus & he will finde by him related the names of all the Bishops of Rome from sainct Peter to Pope Anastasius who thē did sit as cheefe Pastor in the Church of Rome. And the rest of the Roman Bishops names he may finde in diuers moderne histo­ries or Chronologies, & particularlie in Pla­tina & Onuphrius: Yea & in the Centurists or Centu [...]ators who notobstanding they be aduersaries, yet we are content to admit them [Page 161]for our Iudges in this particular of the perso­nall succession of Pastors in the Church of Rome. And now by this & that which I haue treated touching this same matter in my nega­tiue argument framed against the English Re­ligion in the first parte of my disputation this argument also is sufficientlie declared to be sounde & of approued force & efficacie.

THE SIXT PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT.

I frame my sixt & last principall argument in this manner.

That onelie Religion is true which hath & practiseth a true & proper externall sacrifice.

But the Roman Religion onelie hath & practiseth a true & proper externall sacrifice.

Ergo the Roman Religion onelie is the true Religion.

The Maior which onelie is in question I haue largelie proued alreadie in the declaration & confirmation of my negatiue argument pro­pounded against the English Religion in this point. To which I adde that externall sacrifice is the essentiall parte of the externall seruice of [Page 162]God & the verie quintessence of Religion or­dained for a speciall acknowledgement of his supreme power, dominion & maiestie. And althou' it is true that Christ our Sauior offered himselfe in sacrifice vpon the Crosse for the re­conciliation of humane nature, which sacrifice was of farre greater estimation & value in the sight of God then all the oblations & sacrifices of the old Testament, & therefore had no ne­cessitie to be offered more then once: Neuer­thelesse because this sacrifice was onelie or cheefelie for the redemption of man kynde & was not offered by vs but by him alone for vs, therefore it was further conuenient & necessa­rie that besides that singular & diuine oblation, there should be a quotidian & daylie sacrifice in the Church on our partes both for a perpe­tuall memorie of the former, [...]ge Sacri­f [...]ium. & also for an externall protestation of our owne infirmitie, & the soueraine power & maiestie of him who created vs & conserueth vs by his continuall prouidence & manutention, & for a signe & testimonie of our gratitude towardes him from whome we receiue essence, life, & mo­tion.

Sacrifice onelie is an honor peculiar to God alone of which he himselfe saith, honorem meum alteri non dabo. All other sortes of honor as prayers & prayse of their owne qualitie & na­ture [Page 163]ar common to creatures, for we may law­fullie both praye & prayse mortall men euen in this world, but sacrifice vnto them we can not, no not to the greatest Angell or saint in hea­uen. And in this cheefelie consistes the error of Gentils & Pagan people, which had not ben so grosse if they had not sacrificed to creatures but onelie giuen them supreme honor of laude & prayer. It seemes the verie instinct of na­ture tought men to sacrifice to God, & that God & sacrifice & in some sorte ar correlatiues according to the sayeing of God himselfe of himselfe. Si Dominus sum vbi est honor meus, that worde meus significes propertie in other things & much more in this of sacrifice. Hence it is that no natiō was euer so barbarous which if it did acknowledge anie kynde of God thou neuer so false & absurde, did not honore him with sacrifice. And surely they commit no lesse crime them heigh treason against the di­uine supremacie who depriue God of the ho­nor of sacrifice; yea doublesse they take a course to extinguish by degrees the memorie of that attribute & open the way to Athisme who extinguish the exercise of an externall sa­crifice. If in the tyme of the old Testament sa­crifices were so frequent when God almightie conferred his giftes with a scarce & sparing [...]and: much more frequētly & with farre more [Page 164]deuotion & perfection ought a sacrifice to be offered in the lawe of Christ, which is by ex­cellencie named the lawe of grace because of the infinit abundance of graces, fauors, & be­nefits which God powereth vpon those who embrace the true faith & Religion supposing that by how much the gifts be greater by so much the acknowledgment ought to be more exact & accurate.

Now for conclusion of my whole treatise I aduertice the reader that I haue put all my ar­guments in such a forme of Sylogisme as is most cleare & obuious & of that nature that if the premisses be once graunted for true, the consequence most vndoubtedlie followes. They be also in a mode & figure most knowne & common. For these termes, that Reli­gion are to be accepted for a kynde of vni­uersal or indefinit subiect as signifying one among manie indeterminately, & so euery Sylogisme is in Darij, which both in mode & figure is one of the plaineth formes. Which forme of argument I iudged most fit for my purpose in respect my cheefe designe in this matter is to conuince the vnderstanding of the more intelligent & scholasticall sorte of people in the truth of the Roman Religion, & falsitie of the contrarie: who if they haue so much ingenuitie in them as to yeald to [Page 165]the truth when by iudicious meditation & pondering of the premisses they shall finde it discouered & set in their seight, I doubt not but they will perceiue themselues by force of the consequences concluded & captiuated in obedience of faith, which is that onelie honor or profit I hope & desire to reape of my la­bors.