THE CONVICTION OF NOVELTY, AND Defence of antiquity.  
OR DEMONSTRATIVE ARGUMENTS of the falsity of the new Religion of England: And truth of the Catholic Roman faith.  
DELIVERED IN TWELVE PRINCIPAL Sylogismes, and directed to the more scholastical wits of the Realm of great Brittany, especially to the ingenious students of the two most renowned universities of Oxford & Cambrige.  
AUTHOR R. B. Roman Catholic, and one of the English, Clergy, and Mission.  — GRATIAS AGO 〈◊〉 MEO PERIESUM CHRIstum pro omnibus 〈…〉 vestra annuntiatur in universa 〈◊〉. Rom. 1.6. 
QVISQVIS ES ASSERTOR NOVORUM Dogmatum quaeso te ut parcas Romanis auribus, parcas fidei quae ab Apostolico ore laudata est. S. Hier. op ad ●amachium & Oceanum.  
CATVAPOLI, Apud viduam MARCI WYONIS. Anno M.DC.XXXII.   

THE PREFACE AND DEDICATION of the work.  
ONe & none of the smallest differences betwixt truth & falsity is, that truth is able to defend itself only by truth, neither doth it ever appear so decent either in public or private as in it own natural habit: whereas on the contrary falsity as being of an imperfect & base quality can not possible subsiste & maintain itself except it be apparelled with the furtive robes of truth. And therefore our divine Saviour knowing & previding how easily his servants might be deceived by taking the one for the other, that is false doctrine for true, as a most prudent, circumspect, & loving master he gives us a special warning to beware of those who come unto us in the garments of sheep, insinuating hereby that it is the common practice of teachers & preachers of false doctrine to use false colours, 
Attendite à falsis Prophetis qui 〈◊〉 ad ●●s in ve s●ementis ●uium, intriniecus autem saint lup● rapaces Matth. 7.15.  & to carry the badge of truth tho' they have no truth in them, or at the least none but such as is mingled with much falsity & deceit: & for the same cause he addeth of such false Prophets, that inwardly they are ravenous wolves, that is what soever out ward show they make, & how soever they colore the matter, they are not true Pastors, 
Perdere volebant mactare & oc●idere. Videamus illos si for●e ipsi intrant per ostium in ovile qui ipsius Christi nomine gloriantur. Innumerabiles enim sunt qui se videntes non solum, iactant, sed à Christo illuminator videri volunt. Sunt aute haretici. tract. 45. in joan.  they come not truly to feed the flock of Christ's, but as S. Augustin saith of the gentilicall Philosophers & heretics they come to kill, & destroy.  
just in this manner doth it pass with the teachers & establishers of the new Religion in England. They veste themselves with sheep's skins in that they make profession of reformers of the Church, but under the specious & pleasant colour of reformation, they deform all true Religion, & faith, & virtue. King Henry the 8. altho' he was not of this Religion which is at this present professed & practised in England, yet was he the first that opened the way unto it, & this under the colour of reformation: an yet what monster was ever more deformed than he? he was uniformiter deformiter deformis, deformed I mean both with in & without, both in body & soul. What a ravenous wolf was he? How many religious convents, & monsteries did he deform deface & destroy. What a number of religious persons did he turn to the wide world to lead an irreligious life, exposing them to the breach of their solemn vows to God.  
Finally what a general liberty did he introduce, both in faith & manners, in all sorts of people, he himself being the master of misrule & ringleader to all licentiousness.  
And according to this beginning, his son & successor did continue, who altho' his tender years & weakness of body did not permit him to imitate the vices of his Father, yet had he tutors & protectors that were not fare behind their old master, neither in corruption of faith nor manners. Who seeking for new Evangelists in foreign countries, found Bucer, Martyr, & others whoes fingers tickled to be working in the new harvest, who coming in to the country & finding the people generally inclined to liberty easily made their entrance into change of Religion, & so in a short time under the plausible title of reforming abuses in the Church, they introduced a form of Religion never heard of in England as neither in the rest of the Christian world in all particulars: & thus promising Christian liberty they intruded an  corruption both in doctrine & life, making by that means of an ill beginning in the Father a worse continuation in the son. Which ill beginning & continuation (excepting that religious interruption of Queen Mary's time) had a yet more  progress in the Reign of Queen Elisabeth, who not content with the proceed either's of her Father or brother in that nature, but adding evil to evil for politic ends, as not holding herself & Crown safe except she did first extinguish the ancient Religion of the Realm, by reason of the known flaw of her title, she enacted those severe laws against both Catholic Clergy & laiety which have been still executed by her successors; iltho ' throu' the natural clemency of our present sovereign, not in that sanguinary manner that then they were put in practice & execution.  
And thus I have signified in brief the origine, continuation & progress of the new professed faith in England, which notobstanding it carrieth with it never so glorious a resemblance of reformation, yet is it but a new fashion framed mierly for the profit & conveniency of the inventors, & to please fantastical, & curious itching wits, & minds inclined to liberty: And so daily altering as new fashions in apparel use to alter, by divine providence it will at leingth vanish away & turn to the old fashion again, I mean to the ancient Religion most universally ever professed both there & in the rest of the Christian world, For the furtherance & adnauncement of which, that which here I intend to prove is that the Religion whose beginning & success I have now compendiously declared as publicly & commonly professed at this day in England, is no true Religion but a false & erroneous doctrine, & practice, deceitfully masked & disquised with the apparel of truth: & on the contrary that the present Roman faith is the only true Religion, as with God's assistance by my arguments against the one & in favour of the other it will appear to the learned lovers of truth, to whom chiefly I consecrate these my labours as to the most ingenious & ingenuous minds.   

A brief prelocution to the readers.  
Peradventure at the first sight of this treatise you will expect an other Campian coming to challenge you to disputation.  
It is true I profess I am a Campion in Religion, but not a Champion to provoke you, neither do I intent to persuade you in a Rhetorical manner, but only to propose unto your ingenuous minds & mature judgements pure truth, & pure falsity in their own several & native habits & colours as good an evil, to the end that by your free election you may stretch your hands to the one & leave the other according as you shall find yourselves moved by divineinspiration & force of reason. Yet not so remissely but that if any one should require further satisfaction, let him but obtain me a safe conduct granted by competent authority, & I will not refuse to decipher the Gyrogliffe of my name as ever most ready according to Apostolical advice, to render reason of the faith I profess.  
And althou' perhaps it will be judged more suitable to my manner of proceeding & delivery of my doctrine to have put it in the latin tongue, yet because I considered there are in our country many pregnant & active wits which nevertheless have small knowledge in that language; I resolved rather to publish it in the vulgar tongue to the end that all those who are studious of truth may be free from impediments in their search of reason. Neither is it intended for every pedantical bibleist, but for such as in some sort are instructed in scholastical discipline: qui potest caperecapiat.  
And if by the grace & assistance of God my arguments shall but make so much impression in the readers as only to reduce some passionate & partial minds in matters of Religion to such a point of temper as they shall come to judge it a thing repugnant to reason & conscience that those who have so much reason & so forcible arguments for their cause should be esteemed worthy of contumely & persecution for their profession & defence of the same, I shall never account my pains & time ill employed. And thus I commit & commend you to the grace & protection of Christ our Saviour.   

THE FIRST PARTE OF THE CONVICTION CONTAINING THE IMPUGNATIVE ARGUMENTS.  

THE FIRST PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT.  
AND for confutation of the English Religion which I assume for the firste part of my disputation's beginning with the name Catholic, I argue in this manner.  
All Religions which are not Catholic, are false Religions.  
But the Religion now public professed in England is not Catholic.  
Ergo the religion now public professed in England is a false Religion.  
In the Mayor, & conclusion of this Syllogism there is no difficulty, neither can the adversaries deny them. The minor only is in controversy, & it I prove with another Syllogism in the manner following.  
All Religions which are not universal, general, or common, are not Catholic.  
But the Religion now professed in England is not universal, general, or common.  
Ergo the Religion now professed in England is not Catholic.  
That the Religion is not Catholic which ●s not universal, general, or common is cleanly demonstrated by the signification of the word Catholic which importeth universality or generality, according to the use which even our adversaries themselves make of it: Who in their Bibles for the Latin words ●pistola Catholica, translate & put in English, the general epistle of james, jude etc. Not to stand upon the ancient authority of saint Augustin & other Fathers, & Counsels, who when they speak of the true Church, or faith, ●se the name Catholic in that same sense, as after shall appear. And by this the mayor proposition of the second Syllogism is sufficiently ●roued to be true. Now touching the minor ●o wit that the Religion public professed in England is not general, universal, or common, 〈◊〉 likewise prove by distinguishing all the diverse kinds of universality which according either to Philosophy, or moral doctrine can be imagined, & by convincing that none of them agree to the Religion of England; which I prosecute in this manner.  
All universality in Religion is either in the matter or material object of faith, or in the time, place, & persons that profess it: or else in the rule or reason which directs them in the faith, & profession of it. For proof & declaration of all which particulars, & that none of them be found in the Religion of England, it is to be supposed as certain that the word universal signifieth not only generality but also unity, so that the thing which is universal must be one in itself as well as common to others: that which not only the usual acception of the word doth show which by Aristotle & the rest of the Philosophers both ancient & modern is commonly taken for unum in multis, that is one thing in many, or one common to many: but also the very etymology & sound of the same word doth plainly declare. Yea & the ancient Fathers also affirm the same in those places where speaking of the universality of the Church in place, they say the Church is one, and yet dispersed over the whole world. 
Lib. 2. c 2.  As doth S● Augustin against the epistle of Gaudentius. Where using the testimony of saint Cyprian among ●other words of his he relates these. Vnum ca●ut est, & origo una, unamater foecundis successibus copiosa. She (meaning the Church) ●s one head, one origen, 
Maieres n●stri Catholicam nominarnus ut ex ipso nomine ●stenderent quia per t●tum est. De unit. Eccl. cap. 2.  one mother replemished with fruitful successes. And in the second chapter of his book of the unity of the Church; he saith, that our ancestors called (the Church) Catholic to the end they might show by the name itself that she is in whole. In like manner Vincentius Lyrinensis in the third ch. of his book, to the universality of the Church joineth consent, or union. And Venerable Bede upon the 6. chap. of the Canticles affirms that the Church is called Catholic, quia per omnes mundi parts in unapace, in uno Domini timore aedificatur. That is, because it is planted or built in all parts of the world in one peace, & one fear of God. And thus it plainly appears that the word Catholic, or universal, whatsoever else it includes, yet it must of necessity have unity in that generality which it signifies.  
This being supposed as a truth which even our adversaries cannot resist. I prove against them first that there is no universality in the matter or object of their Religion, with this argumentation following.  
All religions which are not one, & the same in matter or object which Christ, & his Apostles preached, want universality in object, or matter.  
But the Religion professed in England at this present, is not one, & the same in object or matter which Christ & his Apostles preached.  
Ergo the Religion professed in England at this present wants universality in object or matter.  
The mayor of this Syllogism is iucluded in the supposition before declared at the least in part: & granted even by our adversaries as I suppose, it being nothing else in sense, but only that the particular objects or matters which a Catholic or universal believer embraceth by faith; are one, & the same doctrine in every point, which God hath reveiled, & the most universal Church proposeth to be believed by all persons in the universal orb. And this appears most true especially if we consider that the doctrine or object or any Religion cannot be conceived to be universal except it be taken in this form & manner, in regard that in this sort, & not otherwise, it attracteth or draweth unity from the founder, & so hath the property of being one, without which unity it cannot possible be one and the same in many, in which nevertheless the total nature or essence of universality consists.  
Now touching the minor or second proposition of the same Syllogism, I prove it in this manner; first, because the Religion which our Saulour, & his Apostles preached was uniformerlie, & indistinctlie one & the same both in matter & form, I mean both in object or matter of faith, & in the assent of faith itself, & therefore the Apostle Ephes. 4. as he affirms there is one only Lord or God, so doth he in the same tenor affirm there is one faith. Vnus Dominus, unafides: meaning that faith is one as well object as in act. And yet this is otherwise according to the doctrine of the English Church, whose professors distinguish the object of their faith, in to fundamentals, & not fundamentals; which division of theirs cannot possible stand with unity, as both natural reason and common sense most plainly teach: And consequently the matter or obtect of the English faith cannot be one, & the same with the object or matter of that religion which Christ & his Apostles delivered to the universal world, in which true Religion there is no part nor partial which is not truly and propethe fundamental, & to be uniformly, & universally believed upon for feature of eternal Salvation, according to that formidable commination of the supreme judge himself who without any division or distinction pronounceth sentence of condemnation against all such who obstinately err in their assent of faith to any matter by him, 
Qui vere non ●rediderit condemnabitur. Marc. V●●. 〈◊〉 ●●ntes 〈…〉 omni● qua●unque mandavi vobis. Math. 28.  & his Apostles reveiled to his Church, & by here for such proposed to the people, how small soever it may seem to be in it own nature or condition, & how necessary, or uncessarie it is in itself to salvation, in regard that it being once delivered for true by God who cannot lie or deceive, it is really invested with the same formal reason and motive of credibility, which the most noble & sublime object or matter either humane, or divine can have, that is with the infallibility of the prime revealing verity, to which all faith & credit is due, & necessarily to be truly & entirely adhibited under pain of eternal punishment.  
secondly I prove the same Minor proposition; because the object or matter of the Religion published by our Saviour, & his Apostles hath annexed unto it a certain relation or reference of universality 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 judgement, which relation is grounded in the ordinance & command of Christ himself to his Apostles saying: 
Marc. vlt.  Euntes in mundum universum praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae. Where by the words all creatures is understanded all nations or people, as saint Matthew more plainly declares in the same passage of his Gospel where thus he relates our Saviour's speech. Euntes docere omnes gentes. And likewise S. Gregory commenting the same text gives an ingenious exposition of it to the same purpose teaching that by those words: omni creaturae: is meant all men; for saith he, Sed omnis creaturae nomine signatur homo. And in the same place he adds an other explication of the same words yet more plain & clear for this our purpose saying, that by the name of every creature, all nations also may be signified. Potest etiam creaturae nomine, omnis natio gentium designari. So that it is void of controversy that the Religion which Christ & his Apostles preached hath this relative, or respective universality of object, or matter: of which contrarily, the English Religion is quite destitute in regard that, at the least, for the space of 9 centenary of years together partly by some of the pretended reformers, & partly by evidence of fact, it is convinced not to have been preached in any part or partial of the universal world in all points as it is now professed in our English nation. A matter so clear & manifest by the testimony of all histories both of those former times & ours; that I never heard of anic of the professors of it, who either in writing, or private discourses, or public sermons, hath absolutely averred it to have been preached without interruption ever since the time of Christ, & his Apostles.  
And thence it proceeds that for the avoiding the force of this or the like probation, I conceive not what other refuge they can have then to say, that notobstanding the object or matter of their Religion neither is at this present, nor hath been 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 five hundreth years after the law of Christ, it may be termed universal in object or matter even at this present, especially supposing it is not the multitude of believers which makes the object or matter of Religion universal, but the totality, or latitude of the doctrine itself, as being in all points the same which Christ delevered to his Apostles to be preached to all nations.  
But to this I reply, it is no solution but a miere cuasion of the former argument. Yet I confess that if it were true and solid, the pretended reformers had reason to applaud it as a most compendious and easy course for the maintaining of their new Religion. But the truth is that this can not stand in unity with the doctrine, & faith which our Saviour delivered to his Apostles, & they to the rest of the world, which was not to continue only for some d●i●, months, or years, but until the very ●nd or consummation of the world. And therefore Christ our Saviour to those words of the text of saint Mathewe: Euntes docete om●es geutes, going teach ye all nationes, presently for conclusion of his speech he added, & accents eos seruare omnia quaeeumque mandavi ●obis & ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus die●us usque ad consummationem seculi, teaching them to observe allthings which I have commanded you, & behold, I am with you all days to the consummation of the world. In which words is included not only universality of ●atter, but also perpetual continuation of time, supposing it was unnecessary for Christ to have promised his contiwal assistance to his Apostles except the Religion which he delivered unto them had been necessarily to be perpetually preached in all times without interruption even till the day of judgement, in which respect it implies that relation of universality which my former argument con●udes,  
And to this I join secondly: that the other ●rte of the maintainers of the English faith ●ho enterprise the defence of the visibility of there Religion in all ages, are yet farther out ●f square then the other. In regard by this ●●eanes they enter in to a task which (as the lustration of their trial in that particular ●ath already given experience) they will ne●er be able to perform. By all which it is evidently appears that the English Religion hath no such relation or respect unto all future times intrinsically included in it object, or matter: or if any reference it had, it was of such temporary, & small continuance that it quite lost it by the way in all that  space of time which passed between the Popedom of saint Gregory, & the Apostasy of Martin Luther.  
Thirdly I yet farther add, that the defenders of the English faith assume false & abuse their hearers when they so commonly affirm that their Religion is the same which was taught & preached by Christ & his Apostles, which I prove because it doth not indeed agree in all particulars with the object & matter of the faith & doctrine which Christ & his Apostles published to the world as manifestly appears by comparing some several points of them both & conferring the one with the other. For where can the novelistiss find either in the scripture, Fathers, or authentical history that Christ & his Apostles taught that those only books of scripture are Canonical which the Church of England holds for such? or that Christians are justified by that faith only by which they believe their sins are remitted & the justice of Christ applied unto them by the faith same, & that every one in particular is bound so to believe, & that this faith only is necessary & sufficient to salvation? or where do they find that Christ & his Apostles preached that the only written word is necessary & sufficient to salvation? where do they read 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 err in faith? that there is no Purgatory, nor place of satisfaction either in this world or the next for lesser sins, or the pain due to greater? or that in the Sacrament of Eucharist the body & blood of Christ at not contained & received other wise then figuratively & by faith alone? I know they can show us none of these several propositions either in scriptures, or doctors of the Church, or by any authentical history or relation that the same have been taught by Christ or his Apostles. I am assured that all they can perform in this case, is to produce certain texts of scripture which to the ignorant sort of people may seem to have resemblance with those their positions, but none so plain that without detortion of either sense or words or both, or without their own fallatious illations & consequences, can possible contain any such doctrine. For example for their solifidian justification or their justification by faith only, they allege diverse passages out of the epistles of S. Paul, as that man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith, & that faith is reputed to justice, & yet none of those show that faith only justifies & much less do they mention or insinuate that peculiar faith of remission of their sins by which the professors of the English Religion believe they are justified: that which is evidently convinced by the tenor of the texts than selves in which neither of the parts of the former position is contained but added by the expesitions & glosses of those who violently draw the scriptures to their perverse purpose. And the like practice of the Novellists may easily be discovered to be used in the rest of the several propositions above rehearsed, in Bellarmin & other Catholic Controvertists, who professedly confute the new 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 uncapable of more large proceeding.  
And hence it appears that the professors of the English faith must needs confess that according to the premises here briefly declared & confirmed the matter & object of their Religion doth not agree with that doctrine which Christ & his Apostles planted & published, which is the Minor proposition of my second syllogism above propunded, & the very same I here intent to convince. And now to the confirmation of the instance, I respond: I grant the multitude of believers doth not cause & formally constitute universality in theobiect of Religion: nevertheless if comparing one Religion wit an other it is discovered to be apparently certain that the one hath ever had a greater multitude of professors in all times & places since the first foundation of the true faith, than the other, yea & that the one hath had a greater number of faithful persons for many ages together, when as the one had none at all: In this case I say it is manifest that the multitude of believers doth evidently argue the Religion so believed & professed to be no other but that same Religion which was first founded by Christ our Saviour with his promise of perpetual visibility & cantinuation; & with multiplicity of faithful people, & consequently that it only hath universality in matter & object: & that on the contrary the other Religion which can show no such multitude of professors, but is notoriously defective in this particular, hath not any universality at all in the several points of doctrine which it teacheth them to believe. And now this may suffice to demonstrate that there is no universality to be found in the object or matter of the English Religion.  
The second kind of universality of Religion is in time, which I prove not to be had in the English Religion in the form following.  
That Religion wants true universality of time which hath not been visibly extant in all times since the true Religion was first founded.  
But the Religion of England hath not been visibly extant in all times since the first foundation of true Religion.  
Therefore the Religion of England wants true universality of time.  
The mayor is most certain & maintained by many of the professors of the English faith if not by all. Yet because they are not wholly united in this point as fare as I can perceive by their doctrine, & because of those who maintain the visibility of the Church, few or none of them grant that the Church hath been always since the times of Christ so visible as the Romanists hold it to have been, that is with visible Pastors & teachers and a visible flock or congregation of people assignable in all ages and times: therefore I will prove it first by plain texts of Scripture, then by authority of ancient Fathers, & first that the true Church is absolutely visible, then that it is perpetually visible.  
The absolute visibility of the Church is ●aught in all those places of Scripture which speak of the Church as of a known congregation or company of people, as S. Math. 
Die Ecclesi● confirma fratr●t tues. Pasce oves meas. Pascite qui in vobis est gregem Dei.  the ●8. tell the Church. S. Luc. 22. confirm thy brothers. ●ohn. 20. feed my sheep. 1. Pet. 5. feed the flock 〈◊〉 God which is among you. S. Paul 1. Cor. 15. Affir●nes that he himself did persecute the Church. And most commonly his Epistles are directed ●o the Churches as to the Church of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus. And finally there is scarce ●nie mention of the Church in the whole Bible where the visibility of the same is not plainly signified, & therefore it is compared to a city upon a mountain Math. 5. 
In illo monte est qui implevit orbem terrarum.— nunquid sic ostend. mus Ecclesia● fratres? nun aperta est● nonn● manifesta? etc. Aug. trac. 1. in r. ep. loan.  according to the exposition of that place made by S. Augustin in his book of the unity of the Church the ●4. & 20. Chapter. Of which invisibility there are likewise plain texts in the second chapter of Isaias, & the fourth of Micheas: where conformable to the cited words of S. Math. the ● wo Prophets affirm, that there will be in the latter Days a mount aine prepared, the house of God. Which words Saint Augustin most perspicuously interprets of the Church of Christ.  
Also there is a very 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, etc. Luc. 18.  Which words Christ himself in the fourth of S. Luke doth plainly insinuate to be meant of his Church in regard he applies some of the precedent words of the same chapter of isaiah, to himself & the propagatior of the same Church by his preaching.  
And according to these & the like phrase of Scripture the ancient Fathers do commonly speak of the Christian Church. S. Augustin in his second Book against Cresconius Saith thus. Extat Ecclesia cuncta clara atque perspicua, 
Cap. 36.  quip civitas quae abscondi non potest supra montem constituta. The Church is all clear & perspicuous, as being a city which cannot hiden be placed upon a mountain. And S. Chrysostome in hi● fourth homily upon the 6. chap. of Isaias hath that memorable sentence. Facilius est solem extingui quam Ecclesiam obscurari. The sun m● more easily be extinguished then the Church obscured.  
I could allege most plain words to th● same purpose out of the rest of the ancient Doctors: but because those two alone are of segreat authority that they ought to satisfy ani● unpartial judgement in matter of testification of the sense & doctrine of ancient time touching this point, therefore I esteemed 〈◊〉 supersluous to produce their several sentences.  
Perhaps some of our adversaries will say the do not deny but both scriptures and Father do teach in general that the Church is visible: yet they deny that scriptures & Fathers reach that it must necessarily be visible in all ages & times, but rather that like unto the noon it suffers Eclipses and defects by perseeution, or by other means.  
To this which is a miere voluntary evasion as any one of judgement may easily perceive, I answer first that supposing both the sentences of scriptures & Fathers of the visibility of the Church are general, absolute, & without limitation, it is manifestly convinced that their meaning could not be that the Church is visible only for a time, or at certain times, and not perpetually, by reason that according to ●he common rule of interpretation general words are to be understood properly, & with ●ll their extension as long as no inconvenience follows thereof, as certain it is & apparent that none can follow of the continual visibi●tie of the Church, whereas on the contrary both many & great in conveniences ensue of the want of the same, as after shall be declared. Neither can any one place either of scripture or Fathers be produced by the opposers of this doctrine in which any such limitation of the sentences of the Fathers is contained either ●n words or sense, or in any other sort so plainly as by the generality of the foresaid Phrases of Scripture & ancient Doctors all refriction is excluded.  
Secondly I impugn the same evasion for that if it be once granted that the Church is not always visible, than it follows that in the times of the invisibility 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 thereiss no Church either visible or invisible, by reason that a Church whether we feign it to be visible or invisible essentially consists of people, which people, are in like manner essentially visible as muchas corporal, nor can they if they would, be visible except it be either by miracle or else by art magic, or some such unlawful means. Nay more if they were once invisible either by miracles, art, or nature, how can it be known but by their own testimony that they ever were truly extant? to which nevertheless no man can prudently give credit especially in a matter of such importance.  
And thus we see that out of this one absurdity of the want of visibility in the Church a thousand others do follow, as that there are vivisible Pastors & yet invisible, that there are visible people & yet invisible, that there is a Church yet no Church. And if our adversaries say there are true Pastors, true faithful people, & a true Church, & that there wants only a true profession of faith in the Pastors, people, & Church. Then I reply first; it is manifest that if there be no prefession of faith in neither Pastors, people, nor any part of the Church, then can it not possible be a true Church or the Church of the Predestinate as they will have it, but a Congregation only or company of timorous & cowardly people which dare not profess their faith, 
o'er autem confessio fit ad salutim  & consequently not the Church of Christ in which not faith only but also profession of faith is necessary to salvation according to the doctrine of the Apostle saying that, with the hart we believe unto justice, 
Rom. 10.  but with the mouth coufesion is made to salvation.  
And howbeit I conceive that the defenders of the invisibility may instance & say that profession of faith is not required to the essence of the true Church, & by consequence that it may subsist with internal faith only: nevertheless I rejoin to this, that althou' I should grant profession of faith in metaphisical rigour to be no essential part of the true Church, yet is it so necessarily annexed to the true Church as it neither is nor ever will be found without professors: neither is there any authority either of scriptures or Fathers whereby it can be proved that any such true Church ever were or ever will be consisting of internal faith only. But all those places which I have above alleged both of the absolute visibility of the Church & necessity of profession of faith to salvation required by the ordinance & commandment of Christ manifestly convince the contrary. Well may our adversaries out of their accustomed temereity & spirit of contradiction against the Roman Church, & because they have no other means to maintain the subsistence of their own new Congregation, affirm & teach that internal faith alone without profession makes a true Church yet no judicious man will ever be persuaded but that position is assumed by them mierlie for the advantage of their own ill cause which without the use of it or some such other of like nature, cannot possible be defended in the controversy whether the true Church be ours or theirs. To omit that if no external profession of faith be required to the true Church, it is impossible to conceive how any man could ever come to know that such a Church as consisteth of internal faith only, was ever extant in the world any in part of time since it was once planted & established by our Saviour & his Apostles. And yet admit that it is not wholly impossible to conceive the possibility of a true Church without the attribute of external profession, yet this is but a Metaphysical case grounded only in the discourse of him who so conceiveth it, & by consequence it is not secure for any man to venture his salvation upon it, as being either plainly false in itself, or at the least very subject to error & fallibili●itie: but every prudent man ought rather to follow the tenor of speech of the scripture & Fathers in the places before alleged, & particularly the sentence of saint Augustin in the ●1. chapter of his 19 book against Faustus. 
In nullum nomen religionis seu verum seu falsuu● coagulari homines possunt nisi aliquo signaculorum vel Sacramentorum visibilium consortio colligentur.  Where he affirms that men cannot be congregated or assembled together under one name of Religion, unless they be tied together with some consort or socictie of visible signs, or Sacraments: In which words althou' he makes no express mention of profession of faith as required to a Church, yet doth he in effect affirm the same in other words teaching the communication of Sacraments to be necessary to the constitution of a Church: Which communication of Sacraments is profession of faith in one of the highest degrees, as no man can deny.  
And now having sufficiently confuted the foresaid evasion of our adversaties touching the visibility I will yet further add positive proofs of the perpetuity of the visible Church.  
First therefore I prove it by those places of scripture which affirm that the Church of Christ shall never perish; as math. the 16. 
Porta insert none pravalibuut adversunam.  The Ports of hell shall not prevail against it. Where we see the Prophecy & promise of our Saviour touching the perpetuity of his Church, is general & without limitation of time: & he speaks here of the same Church of which those places of scripture speech which declare it to be visible which I have already cited to that purpose; & for the adversary to limit these words to the invisible Church as if Christ had meant that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his invisible Church only, is a miere voluntary explication of their own invention repugnant both to the text itself & reason: to the text in regard that all the words & circumstances of it demonstrate that Christ speaks of his visible Church either only or chiefly, as is the government of the Church by saint Peter, which Church was to consist of men whose sins the same Peter had power promised him to bind & lose, & that upon earth, all which particular● sound nothing but things visible.  
Now the foresaid explication of our adverfaries is also contrary to reason. First for that supposing Christ planted such a Church upon earth in which there were to be always visible pastors & preachers to administere the Sacraments, 
Ephes. 4. 1. Cor. 12. Act. 20. Luc. 12.  & teach, & publish the Gospel, as the scriptures testify: And supposing he did not only command us to have his faith, but also to profess his name before men, it is most absurd to imagine that he would, or did not use his providence in the conservation of the same visible Church in all times & occasions, as well as the invisible Church if any such he had established in the world.  
secondly the same exposition is against reason in respect that by that limitation of our Saviors' words which our adversary's use, they give us to understand that Christ promised much, but performed little or nothing of importance in this particular. For if he assisted his Church so weakly that for the space of many years together the members of it were driven to conceal their faith which nevertheless he himself obledgeth them to profess in all occasions, surely he did not only come fare short of his promise, but also in a certain manner contradicted himself & deceived them. And if for the gates of hell to have so fare much urged & vexed the Church as to have le● all the members thereof with a bare secret; & dissembling faith only without any professing, or use of Sacraments for the space of many succeeding ages, is not absolutely to have prevailed against it, & consequently that Christ's words are falsified: then certainly neither had they been falsified in case hell gates had so fare prevailed as quite to extinguish even the professors themselves, yea & by an impossibility to haveleft faith alone hanging upon the hedges for want of other subject all which sequels being most absurd & yet consequent to our adversary's gloss upon the words of scriptures above cited, they evidently argue the falsity of that their construction.  
An other pregnant place for the perpetual continuation of the visible Church, is that of the 4. to the Ephesians: where the Apostle saith that Christ appointed Pastors etc. 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 unity of faith & into aperfect man: That is until the day of judgement. Upon which place saint Augustin in his 12 book of the City, hath large discourses to this purpose in the 16.17. & 18. chapters. And the truth is that Christ himself having in this special manner designed such persons for governors & teachers in his Church till the end of the world, doubtless his meaning was not that they should be such dumb dogs as the establishers of the invisibility do affirm them to have been in their imaginary Church for a long time together: But his divine will & pleasure was they should be custodes jerusalem qui tota die & tota nocte non tacebunt in perpetuum. That is Christ would have them such watchmen or keepers of jerusalem (that is to say the Church) as shall not be silent till the end of the world in no time, nor upon any occasion Which perpetuity of the visible government of the Church is grounded in the perfection of Christ's divine providence & mercy towards the members thereof for whom of his infinity goodness he pleased to have the way to salvation continually open: Which otherwise if the true Church had been at any time hidden or invisible as at the least some of those against whom I now dispute will have it, than it could not possible have been so: Yea & many thousands or rather millions of men had lived & died out of the state of salvation as being impossible for them to find & enter into the true Church all that space of time in which it is feigned by them to have remained invisible or out of knowledge.  
And thus much for the impugnation of that part of our adversaries which defeds that the true Church is not perpetually or in all differences of times visible: the absurdity of which doctrine diverse of the defenders of the English Church of later standing advertiseing, & also because they find it not so plausible to their auditors as they could wish, they have ventured upon another course, endeavouring to shewo that the same Church & Religion which is now established in England hath been always visible in the world from the time of Christ & his Apostles even till this present: Which manner of proceeding of theirs altho' it is much more difficult & hard to be defended then the other now confuted, & that by this means the maintainers of it do but incidere in syllam, that is by avoiding of one inconvenience they fall in to a greater: Yet because they persuade themselves they come nearer to the mark of proving their Church to be Catholic in this respect as well as the Roman Church hath ever been, (which indeed they might perform if they were able truly to prove their visibility) therefore I will briefly demonstrate that they have no such visibility as is necessary to the constirution of the true Catholic Church as they pretend.  
Wherefore to come to the purpose & the more clearly to convince my intent, I frame this Syllogism against the visibility of their Church.  
That Church wants perpetual visibility 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 time of the Apostles to this present.  
Therefore the Church of England wants perpetual visibility.  
The mayor is not denied by our adversaries, the minor hath all the difficulty & that I prove.  
And inprimis that the defenders of the English faith can produce no scripture for this point is most certain and evident for that this is only 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 defend the visibility of their Church do not proceed consequenter to that other negative principle of theirs to wit that nothing is to be believed by faith but which is either expressly or by necessary illation contained in the scriptures, which general rule of theirs in this case is manifestly defective for that in it neither scripture nor deduction or consequence of scripture can seruo their turn in this particular.  
And if they reply that they can prove their visibility a priori, by scriptures by those places which teach perpetually visibility in the Church, than I say that this is not the matter now in question but a subtlety to delude the reader, for the controversy is whether they can prove their visibility a posteriori, that is whether they can yielded us any authentical proof or testimony whenby it may certainly appear that the Religion now professed in England hath been in deed perpetually visible in in all ages as the scripture & Fathers above alleged affirm the true Church ought to be, otherwise they do only suppose their Church is the same which is described in the scripture, but prove it not. Neither do we ask them to she we us that such a Church in general there is in the world as the scriptures do mention, but we urge them to demonstrate that their Church in particular hath the property or attribute of perpetual visibility as the scriptures requires to be found in the only individual true Church of Christ: & till they can perform this they neither speak according to the sense of scriptures, nor satisfy us in our demand.  
Wherefore I prove the minor proposition of of the argument above framed, because no authentical history can beproduced in which it is related that this Religion of England now commonly there professed, believing & maintaining that there are but 22. books of Canonical scripture only. That they are to be expounded by the spirit of every private person. That man is justified by faith only. That there are only two sacraments instituted by Christ. That the body of Christ is given, received, & eaten in the Sacrament in a spiritual manner that is by faith only: finally I say that for testimony of that these & diverse others of the 39 articles of the English Religion have been taught or preached in all ages since the time of Christ & his Apostles in any Kingdom, province, town or yet in any one corner of the whole world tho' never so obscure, there is not extant any kind of record: And therefore it is incredible in the highest degree that any professors of it can be produced in every several age since the foundation of the true Church of Christ: for that if any such had been in any time or place for so long a space together, it is as certain as it is certain there hath been in all that success of time sun, moon, & stars in the firmament, or fishes in the sea, that some writer or other would have made mention of the same. And if Historiographers be so curious & exact in this nature, that there was never any conventicle of sectaries so small or obscure but it hath been noted & related by some of them, much less could such a Church as our English Novellists pretend theirs to be, have lurked so close as that no mention of it should be found in histories or records of former ages before the days of Luther. It is not absolutely impossible to conceive that Christ might have established an invisible Church in this world at the least for a time, but that he should have ordained his church with pertetuitie of visible pastors, & yet that neither their names, seats, parishes, or any other monument of them either dead or alive, can be produced to make it visibly appear that they were professors in all points of the same Religion which now is professed in England, this I say is above all admiration neither can it possible seem credible to any sound understanding, on mature judgement.  
Secondly I prove the same minor, for that diverse of our English aluersaries having of late used the uttermost of their power & industry in this particular, yet have they not come near the performance of their purposes, but in lieu of producing professors of their Religion in the several ages of the Church, they cast in to their Catalogue either such as have been flatly against them in diverse points in which they differ from the Roman Church, or such as have been condemned for heretics in times past, & that partly even for doctrine contrary to some of the articles of the English faith as appears for example in wiclef & Hus, 
Maledicta ergo doctrina Wiclef quo consider iubet etc. Wald. p 3. c. sep. & seq.  of which the first defended, that more confidence is to be placed in man's own proper merits then in humble prayer: that a priest in mortal sin cannot validly baptise, that for Ecclesiastical persons to have possessiones is contrary to scripture. The second neue●idenyed the real presence, nor merit. Or else those whom the defenders of the English faith dusigne for members of the same, were such as because they speak some thing doubtfully in only some one point of the Roman doctrine (of which rake is Presbyter Bertrame) they puti●hem in their list as if they were wholly & intyrely theirs. Notobstanding they are known to be quite apposite unto them in all the rest of their faith & profession. The which how poor & inconsiderate a shift it is, the judicious reader will presently perceive & condemn their weak & false proceeding.  
Lastely for confirmation of the impossibility of ever proving the perpetual visibility of ●he Church of England, it may be added that King james who was the greatest & most ●amous defender of the new Religion that ●uer writ, as it seems considering better this ●oint than others that follow him, was so wary 〈◊〉 circumspect that he would never cast him●elfe into this most dangerous gulf, as appears by his monitory in which altho' his whole drift was to prove his own Church to ●e the true Church of Christ, yet did he make ●o express mention of the visible Church more ●hen of the invisible, but only proceeds 〈◊〉 general terms & without distinction, as ●oulding it impossible to maintain the visibi●●tie of it in all former times & ages, for which ●●ason he prudently declined that controversy.  
And in deed the truth is that who soever he 〈◊〉 that shall undertake the task of proving perpetual visibility in any of the pretensive ●●formed Churches, will be no more able to ●rforme it then an infant were able to roll ●siphus stone, or accomplish the labours of Hercules. whence it is consequent that 〈◊〉 adversaries what soever they pretend, true● want universality of time in their Church whether they defend it to be visible or in●●sible, which is that same which the mayor & minor, of my second syllogism above proposed do affirm, & which may suffice for thi● part of the discourse I here prosecute.  
Now touching the other two kinds o● universality to wit of place & persons, they are 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 every 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 follows, that if it was not for many ages together in any place of the world it is also manifest it was not for the same spac● of time in any person in the world, & by reason of this connexion betwixt the universality of place & persons, I will treat of the● both under the name of place, supposing for certain that whatsoever defect of universality of place shall be discovered in the English Religion, the same defect is found to be i● they muersallitie of persons & professors of it And here also I give the reader notice by th● way that when the Romanists exact of their adversaries only to produce some professors ●f their Religion in every several age, they ●se no small favour towards them in that man●er of proceeding, in regard that to convince ●heir Church to have been perpetually visible, properly speaking, they ought not only to ●nde out some few persons of any sort of people what soever, but they are obledged in ●eason to show a perfect order or jerarchie of ecclesiastical persons to have been continually 〈◊〉 their Church, for that both the visible Church of Christ was so planted in the world ●y himself, & also progated by his Apostles: 〈◊〉 more over because the Romanists defacto ●an show the same to have been perpetually in ●●e Church & Religion which they profess, ●hat is in that Church of which have ever been ●eades or Chief Pastors the Popes of Rome ●y continual & ininterrupted succession from 〈◊〉. Peter who was the first Bishop & Pope of ●hat most famous seat.  
Now this being supposed I prove there is no ●niuersallitie of place in the Church of En●land by this syllogism following.  
There wants universality of place in that Religion which in all points of it doctrine nei●her is nor ever hath been preached or professed in all or most places of the world.  
But the Religion of England in all points of it doctrine neither is nor ever hath be● preached or professed in all or most places 〈◊〉 the world.  
Ergo the Religion of England hath no v●uersallitie of place.  
I prove the Mayor, first by the etymology or prime signification of the word universal which as I have already above declared importeth one in many or rather one in all, a● appeareth in humane nature abstracted which is not only one & the same in many, b●● also participated in every particular or individual person. And altho' it is true that universality of Religion as being only a moral matter, can not be understood with so much metaphysical rigour as in natural things it useth to be taken: yet for the verification of such general sentences as we find both in scripture 〈◊〉 Fathers, it must of necessity be accepted with as great latitude as morally can be imagined For example if there be any doctrine in the world which for the space of almost 16. hundreth years neither is nor hath been preached taught or professed in either all, or at the least in most places of the world, then doubtless can that universal proposition of the Apostles into all the earth hath the sound of them gone forth & that of S. Augustin. She (the Church) is like unto a vine diffused or spread in euer●● place, never be truly verified of it: & consequently such a doctrine can not be truly said 〈◊〉 have such universality in it as scripture & ●athers require to the only true Religion, & ●hich in reason can not be judged less than ●at in all the for said great number of years, ●either is at th●s present, or hath been in times ●ast preached & professed generally at the least 〈◊〉 the greater part of the world if not in every ●arte thereof.  
And touching the universality of persons ●hich as I declared before is either included or necessarily connected to the universality of ●ace, it is a matter so clear & apparent that 〈◊〉 is not to be found in the English Religion ●ther for the time paste or present, that even ●●e chief of the professors of it dare not auer●e it to be universal in that nature, as is manifest by the authority of King james himself ●he Solomon of their sect. Who althou' he laboureth much in his book to Christian Princes 〈◊〉 persuade them he defends no other than ●he Catholic faith, yet in the end of the same ●e is forced to confess that (notobstanding he includes in the number all the professors of the pretended reformation even in other country's ●●gge & rag) yet they do nor by much amount to so many as profess the contrary, ●hat is the Catholic Roman doctrine, & Re●gion: preached & practised in so many several nations & places of the of the universal orb. In so much that if any of our adversaries were so impudent as to conteste or repugns to so plain a truth, Regina Austri, I mean even the Infidels & jews will be ready to rise & protest against him in the day of judgement.  
By which and the rest I have delivered, it is clearly consequent that the English Religion (especially if it be intended as it is singular & different in diverse points from the rest of the pretensive reformed congregations) cannot possible with any colour of truth, be named Catholic or universal in number of persons; supposing that according to the doctrine of Fathers, & the common acception of the word among Christians, this appellation or sacred surname agrees only to that Christian Religion which hath generality of persons as well as of time, place, object or matter, which generality cannot possibly be conceived but in order or with relation to the greater number of believing professing Christians, as being quite repugnant to reason that the lesser part of a any multitude or total number should be named either general or common, & much less reason there is it should obtain the most ample and  denomination of universal especially where both parties are extant & remain in the same present time.  
But perhaps our adversaries will say that to ●he verifying of those & the like general sentences of scripture & Fathers, it is not necessary ●hat the true Religion either is or hath been already diffused over all or most parts 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 been verified in the English Religion as yet, never the less it will be so extended in the time to come.  
To this I reply that altho' there is some variety among divines about● the sense of the place cited & some other places of scripture to the same purpose to wit whether they be understood of the Apostles only or of them & their successors, 
In omnem terram exivit sonus corum etc. Rom. 10.  as also whether they signify the time present or future, & finally whether they be verified in all rigour or only in a common moral manner, nevertheless I find they all agree in that the Church of Christ hath been already so fare extended either by the Apostles themselves, or at least by them & their successors, that it may be truly affirmed to have been long since diwlged, & planted in the whole world defacto, & not in power or virtually only, even according to the sense of the foresaid words & other places of scripture which speak in the future tense, as appeareth plainly by the words of S. Paul in his first chapter to the Colossians, where he affirms that even in his time the Gospel was come unto 'em, also it is (saith he) in the universal world & doth fructify, & increasens it doth in them. Which words I say are so clear that there is no place of tergiversation or reply in this particular, but that according to them it must of necessity be granted by our adversaries (except they will plainly contradict S. Paul & the scriptures) that the foresaid extension of the faith of Christ doth not expect the time to come, but is already made as much as serveth for explicating & verifying of the same S. Paul to the Romans before related, whose words in my judgement are manifestly coū●nced, at the least in a chief part, to be understood in the present tense by those otherwords of himself in the epistle to the Collossenses even now by me related, which doubtless contain a plain exposition of the former, as appears by the comentary of S. Chrysostome upon them saying of the Church of Christ. Adest ubique, suporat, & ob●inet ubique; praestat ubique.  
And altho' I am not ignorant that both ancient Fathers & modern divines teach that (as S. Hierome speaks upon those words. Pr●●●● dicabitur Euangelium hoc in universo mundo) the compliment or conclusion of the preaching of the Gospel in every place shall not be performed before the consummation of the world, as being a precedent sign thereof: nevertheless as this is true in itself, so it in no respect (speaking absolutely) contrary to the universality of the Church which at this present is & in times past hath ever been, as is evidently convinced by the writings of the same ancient Fathers & modern divines who most frequently teach that the true Church of Christ was sufficiently spread in the world to make it universal even in their own primative ages, as their words by me rehearsed in diverse places of this treatise, clearly testify: who also if they had lived in these present days might with fare greater reason have affirmed the same of the Roman church in which then own books  them to have lived as parts & members, being now much more extended then at that time it was.  
And certainly for the defenders of the Church of England to imagine that altho' their Religion hitherto hath not been universal in the world, yet that hereafter it will be universal before the end of the world, is both void of probability & ridiculous.  
First because it is the nature of true Religion to bring zeal & fervour with it especially in the beginning as appeareth in the Apostles & their successors in the first ages who not obstanding all the impediments that the devil by humane wit, & malice could contrive, yet d●d they extend & propagate the faith of Christ in diverse nations & kingdoms both remote & barbarous. Wherefore if the Religion of England had been the true faith of Christ doubtless it would by the professors of it have been long since so extended & dilated that it should not need to be brought to those streits as to fetch their universality from the very end of the world.  
Secondly because the nature of the Religion of England is such that it hath no convenient means for propagation of itself in the whole world, inregard that those to whom the charge of preaching & teach the same is committed, are men that are all either actually tied to wife's children, & posterity or else live in expection, & & desire of those temporal, or transitory commodities, & scarce ever dream of extending their Religion farther than their own several Parishes: yea & their doctrine itself teaches them that either they must all marry of necessity as some of them maintain, or at the least that it is more expedient, & secure for them to marry then to lead a single life: supposing which particulars it is morally impossible for them ever to preach their faith to all nations (as Christ commandeth) with such clogs at their heels as are wife, children, & posterity.  
thirdly it is certainly known that since the Religion of England was established in the form & manner that now it is in, the professors of it never went to ante forens nation purposely to preach their faith, & much less have they ever taken any general course for the conversion of infidels by any mission of Ministers, or by other means. Or if any of them have traveled into strange countries (which are known to be very few in number) it hath been only, or chiefly for temporal respects as for that they have been silenced in their own country for preaching some extravagant errors, or else for some other crime or public offence committed; or perhaps some poor unbenificed, ignorant, & threedbare fellows who for want of means to maintain themselves, resolve desperately to try their fortune in an other place only for that respect & not for charity or zeal of reduceing people to Christian Religion. And if perhaps they find any poor blackamoor, or other barbarian that hearing the name of Christians, desires to be of their Religion, yet these false Apostles proceed so superficially with them, & give them so small & ill instruction, that it is to be feared that after they have baptised them on their fashion, they still remain as black as they were before both in body & soul. Nay their devotion is so could in this nature, that they themselves are ashamed either to write or to brag of it, as experience doth teach for that there is not any book extant that e●er I could hear of, in which it may appear that they have performed any notable matter in this particular. 
The discalced Carmelits at this present have obtained Bishops for their mission in Persia even by the King's permission as I am informed.  Whereas yet on the contrary histories are full of the infinite number of Infidels which the professors of the Roman Church have converted & daily convert to the Christian faith both in the Oriental & Occidental Indies & other places, & that with loss of their lives & whatsoever other comodities they have in this world, as is manifest especially in the four Orders of Mendicants & the jesuits, who not obstanding innumerable difficulties, still continue their annual Missions ordained to that same end & purpose of propagating Catholic Religion in all countries & nations.  
lastlly I say that for the professors of the English faith to say, that their Religion will be extended through the whole world before the day of judgement is mierlie their own prediction, to which no man of mature judgement ought to give credit except they first prove themselves to be true Prophets which in my opinion they can no more perform than they can prove the descent of their pedigree from saint Michael the Archangel. And thus wesee plainly that the English Religion as now it is professed being destitute of all means to propagate itself: as hitherto it neither is nor ever was universal in the world, so neither can it be imagined with any probable colour of reason that ever it can possible in future times come to be spread over all the nations of the whole world as according to scriptures & Fathers the true Church ought to be, & the mator of my former Syllogism doth affirm. And not to insiste any longer in this matter, I in like manner prove the minor proposition of the same argument by the same reasons which I have used for the proof of the foresaid mator, which if they be duly applied to the English Religion they will plainly demonstrate, that the Religion of England neither hath been, is, nor ever will be preached & published in all parts of the world & consequently that it hath not universality of place which is that which the conclusion of the argument doth contain.  
It is true I further conceive that the professors of the English faith as men disposed to cavil, may yet once again reply, & say that in regard their Religion is the same with the Religion of the Apostles, therefore it hath the same universality which the Apostolical Religion hath.  
But to this I rejoin anser firste that I have showed before that the Religion now processed in England doth differ in diverse points from the faith of the Apostles, the particulars of which difference I have before specified, as is that of justification by faith only, the deny all of the real presence & the rest.  
secondly I say that this reply is that kind of absurdity in disputation which the Logicians call petitio Principij that is, when that is assumed by the disputant for a true & certain Principle which ought to be proved as being the very matter in question, & so this is only an evasion of the adversary which hath no more force them his own authority gives it, which is none at all.  
And now by this & that more which hath been said touching the universality of place & persons, it is most apparent that the English Religion hath no such attribute & consequently that it is defective in that nature.  
Wherefore hence I pass to the last gender or kind of universality which is that of the general rule of faith, of which there be two sorts, the one is nothing else but the word of God as it is contained in the scriptures or divine & Apostolical traditions. The other rule is the visible Church by whose authority we come to know certainly & infallibly the true sense of the word of God, & all those things which his divine majesty hath revailed as matter of faith to be believed by all sorts of people, or otherwise necessary to salvation.  

Tract. 1. Suarez de fide disp. ●. sec. 2. fine.  And of these two rules (which some divide in to three or more thou ' in my opinion not so properly & conveniently) the second which is the authority of the Church is commonly called in the schools regula proponens, that is a rule or way by which the prime revailing verity or divine authority which is the formal object & foundation of supernatural faith, is immediately applied unto believers, And altho' if indeed the word of God were so clear that every one by reading the words of scripture, or Apostolical traditions as they are set down in the Counsels or other records of the Church, could not but understand them in a true & uniform sense, the first of those two rules might suffice alone, yet because the scriptures are obscure & difficult in their understanding as both themselves & experience testify: & also because out of the imperfection of nature men's judgements often times disagree in matters of doctrine & practice, therefore besides that speechless rule, (I mean in decision of matters of controversy) there was necessary another living & vocal rule by which the true meaning of the first & prime rule which is the word of God, might so infallibly be declared unto them as all doubts & scruples excluded, their minds & consciences might safely rest in every point of faith by it proposed without any further question, or tergiversation.  
Now to come to the purpose, in that first foundation of faith which is the authority of God as he revaileth matters to his Church, & without which true faith cannot stand, the defenders of the English Religion agree with the Romanists, as also they agree with them in the first of the two rules, at the least so fare as concerns this controversy, that is they hold God's word to be a rule of faith as the Roman Catholics hold: But the difference is in that our adversaries will needs have the word of God to be the scripture only, & that interpreted by the spirit of every private person who reads it, & consequenter they hold this only for their rule proponent by which the divine authority is applied to every point of faith in the believers.  
Whereas on the contrary we Romanists believe & use the authority of the most universal Church as the infallible applyer of God's revailing verity unto us in all matters of faith & manners. And in this rule upon which all certainty of faith depends quoad nos that is for as much as toucheth the believers or credents, I here prove that the English Religion wanteth this universality as well as the rest of the object & circumstances above discussed the which I demonstrate in this form of argument.  
That only proponent rule of faith his universal which is one & the same in all or at the least in the greater part of believers.  
But that which the professors of the English Religion hold for their proponent rule of faith is not one & the same in all or the greater part of believers.  
Ergo that which the professors of the English Religion hold for their proponent rule of faith is not universal.  
The mayor of this Syllogism is evident by the definition of universal, which according to the doctrine of Philosophers is one in all if it be taken in rigour of Logic, or as the Metaphisitians use the word. Or at the least it signifies the greater part if it be accepted only in a moral sense, as here I take it. From which declaration of the word universal is collected no less clear & convincent proof 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 part of believers. That which I she we first, because the private spirit of every professor of the English Religion which is the only immediate rule of saith they profess to follow in matters of faith as the very sound of the word doth declare, is peculiar to those that have it. & not common to all, therefore it cannot possible be general or universal.  
That the spirit by which the professors of the English Religion interpret the word of God is peculiar to some only & not common to all such as exteriorly profess the faith of Christ it is manifest in that it neither passeth into other countries with comformity in all points of belief to all the rest of the pretended reformed Churches as appeareth in the controversy of the real presence with the lutherans, the inamissibilitie of grace, 
In his book 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 itself, as both King james doth plainly suppose where he granteth there are many Puritans in his Realm besides Papists & Protestants: & also experinental knowledge doth manifest the same, it being certainly known & generally confessed on all sides that those three sorts of people be not governed by one uniform spirit, but every one by their own rule of faith, the rule of the Romanists being one & common among themselves in all places of the world, but on the contrary the rule of the Protestants, & Puritans, being divided & several both in their own country & out of it, both among themselves & also from the Catholics wheresoever they be: which division both from themselves & others is an infallible argument that they have no universality in their propounding rule of saith. That which yet more plainly appears & is confirmed by a work lately published by a Protestant Doctor (his name I do not remembers) who describes several sects of Puritans or pure Caluinists all different both among themselves & from the English Protestants. Which diversity of sects cannot stand without a different spirit or rule of faith.  
secondly I prove the spirit of the professors of the English religion is not one & the same in all or the greater part of credents, because it is not that spirit by which the visible Church hath been in all times, places, & persons successively governed without interruption, ergo it is not an universal spirit but only particular & private. The antecedent of this argument is certain for that if it were the same, it would be found conformable & subordinate to the spirit of the greater part of the Christian Churches, & the Religion of England would be agreeable to the Religion of the same Churches both in doctrine practice & government, which never thelesse we see to be contrary & repugnant unto them.  
Thirdly, the spirit of the maintainers of the present Religion of England is not conformable to the spirit of their antecessors for above nine hundreth years together at the least, therefore it is not universal. That the spirit of the maintainers of the present Religion of England is not conformable to the spirit of their ancestors, I prove by the authority of all historiographers & wirters even the pretended reformers themselves who have either expressly testified or at the least not denied but that in all this space of time even until the days of King Edward the sixth which is not yet a hundreth years, the Mass & real presence was generally approved, the communion under one Kind practised, Altars & pictures used in Churches with honour & reverence. Purgatory & prayer to saints taught & allowed, & finally all the points of doctrine & manners between the Romanists & Anglicans now controversed were publicly professed, all which nevertheless 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 regard they are quite apposite & contradictory in themselves, & consequently the spirit of those who profess to tepugne to that same doctrine which they know & acknowled their predecessors to have embraced as sound & pious & conformable to the world of God, so many former ages successively, cannot be conceived to be an universal spirit, but private & proper to themselves.  
Fourtly the spirit of the preachers & teachers of the English Religion is quite different from the spirit of the doctors & writers that have adhered & abeyed the Roman Church, in every several age, as is manifest to those who read them & compare their works with the writings of the pretensive reforming doctors of our times the doctrine of those that have writ even from the first Centurie of years immediately following the Apostles being sprinkled with piety & devotion towards the saints in heaven & especially the virgin Marie, as their sermons, Homilies upon their feasts, & other their works do testify, of which matter good store is to be found especially in S. Basil, Cyprian, Chrysostome, Hierome, Ambrose, Augustin. Gregory, Damacene, Bernard, & the rest of the Roman divines which have writ ever since, even till this present time, in whom also there is frequent mention & commendation of miracles operated by the saints & their relics: none of which particulars appear in any of the Writings of the professors of the English Religion, but rather in their books & ordinary sermons they indevore most earnestly to persuade the people that they ought not to hearken after any such matters, but hold them either for false & superstitious, or at the least for idle, superfluous & impertinent, & so we clearly see by this that the spirit of the English professors is contrary to the spirit of the whole torrent of the most learned & renowned men of all ages past even to this present day; & consequently it can not be general, common or universal, nor a true spirit, except the owners of it will condemn the contrary spirit of the most learned, judicious, & pious men of all ages since the time of Christ & his Apostles to have been false & erroneous, & theirs only the reight spirit of God. Which is the highest degree of temereity 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 succeeding times since the first foundation of the same: a great part of whose writings are replenished with rules & driections for prayer & contemplation, mortification of the body & inordinate passions of the soul, by fasting, use of hereclothes, disciplines, prostrations, acts of obedience, & resignation of their wills to the command of superiors, vows of obedience, chastity & poverty, monastical institutions, solitary life of monks, Anachorites & Ermites', & other Religious conventual men & women, & finally with all other meames which possible could be imagined as either necessary or convenient for the exercise of a religious & virtuous course of life. None of all which or at the least very little is to be found in the books of the teachers of the English Religion, or heard in their public sermons or private exhortations.  
And altho' it is true that some of them as it seems moved with emulation of the Romanists (who even in this present age labour much in that kind as our adversaries cannot deny) have published some thing in the nature of prayer or devotion, yet is it in such a manner as they reduce the exercise of a Christian life either to the exercise of faith only or chiefly, excluding or at the least not inducing to external works of Penance and mortification of the body. Or else they proceed in such a new fashion (as being only suitable to their own new Principles of faith & manners) as never was heard in any age of the world before the days of Luther.  
That which doth particularly appear in a certain new work lately published & entitled. The handmaid of piety, which nevertheless hath not one dram of true piety or one spark of that spirit which hath reigned in the visible Church since the the first plantation of Christian Religion: which book not obstansting it hath the name of a manual yet is it not conform either to the manual of S. Augustin, or any other ever used hitherto among Christian people: but forged in the anthors own proper brain, & consisting of such frothy spittle as fallen beside the pulpit when he made his preaching, full of pedantik terms & affectation as the word supparte & others, & as the very first words of the title plainly testify which are in Latin to make it more admired: & dedicated to a falsely supposed Patroness of his religion. whom altho' the world did win for a small time, yet it never perverted her noble & constant judgement, who now hath returned to her ancient home with fare greater glory unto it than it lost by her absence.  
And that which is more untolerable the profane minister with his fervour & devotion he now & then mingleth a lie or a paradox. As page 617. wheres speaking of the fast of lent, he affirms. That those of his profession place not Religion or the substance of God's worship in fasting or feasting, as saith she the Papist, do. And in the page following he saith in his own name & in the name of his brother Puritan. We hold not fasting to be a work pleasing to God. And yet in his page 609. he grautes that to fast religiously at some time is God's commandment. And pag. 611. that lent fast is partly religious & ordered by the Church for religious ends & bindeth the conscience mediately: which larring positions of this grand Doctor I am not able to reconcile. And yet for a part of twelve days devotion he putteth the payment of tithes, which indeed is a devotion far more profitable to himself then pleasing to others. All which particulars do manifestly declare that whatsoever apish imitation these fellows use in writing some few books of devotion & prayer, yet is their spirit quite contrary to the common spirit of the universal Church, & wholly vertigenous, extravagant, & peculiar to themselves.  
And to this the like may be added of their Church service & form of administration of Sacraments as may be seem in their book of common prayer, which, as it manifest to them that read it, doth notably differ from all the Liturgies & public forms of prayers & pastorals that ever were used in the Church before the preachings of Luther, not only in the manner of administrating the Sacraments and service, but also in some substantial points of them both. Their being not any mention in the book of common prayer of either anointing with Chrism in Baptism, or of extreme unction of the sick: nor of consecrarion of the Eucharist, or absolute command to receive it, but only with condition or rather with express order or precept that there be a whole congregation that is some persons more disposed to communicate with the infirm party besides himself, & that otherwise he must have patience & take his journey to an other world without his Viaticum. Neither is it there ordained directly that that the Communicants shall use the homologesis, or Sacrament of Pennance consisting of contrition, confession, & satisfaction as a necessary preparation to the communion, except only in in case they find their consciences troubled with any weighty matter, & that when they are at the point of death: contenting themselves at all other times of their receiving the Lords supper with a general confession only; made either by one of the communicants, or by the ministerin the name of the rest. The contrary of all which particulars are nevertheless found in all Lythurgies, Missals, & Directories of former times, in all places of the Christian world, as may be seen in the jerarchie of Saint Denis, & the Roman Order, of which even the newer of the two was practised in the Church at the least 80● years ago.  
But now to conclude having passed throu all the several kinds of universality that can be imagined with an exact discussion of the nature & properties of the same, & finding none of them in the Religion now publicly professed in England: & besides this, it being certain both according to the doctrine of the ancient Doctors of the Church & modern divines that the word Catholic is the same that universal, 
Lib. 2. c. 38.  general or common as is apparent by S. Augustins responsion to Petilianus where he saith that the name Caetholicum signifies secundum totum: 
Lib. 2. c. 2.  as also against the epistle of Gaudentius. Teacing that the Church therefore is called Catholic of the Greek word because it is extended throu' the whole world. This I say being infallibly true, it doth by necessary conclusion follow of the premises that the English Relilion is not Catholic, but a private conventicle or Congregation in which true faith is not found, & in which by consequence no salvation can be hoped or expected for such as obstinately separating themselves from the unity and universality of the most universally received Religion live and die in it. And this may suffice for the declaration & confirmation of my first ptincipall argument or demonstration.   

THE SECOND PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT.  
MY second principal argument which proveth the falsity of the English Religion is this. That Religion is false which hath a false or at the least an uncertain Canon of scripture.  
But the Religion of England hath a false or at the least an uncertain Canon of scripture.  
Ergo the Religion of England is a false Religion. The Mayor doubtless is granted by our adversaries. The minor which they deny, I prove. And for the proof of it I suppose that the true Canon of scripture can not be known but by some external authority or means distinct from itself whether it be the judgement of every faithful person assisted by the divine spirit as many of our adversaries affirm, or whether it be the declaration of the Church assisted by divine inspiration of which it shall be disputed in an other place. More over these means or this authority must be infallible otherwise it can engender no such certainty in the minds of the believers touching the matter in question, but they would remain still doubtful of the same. And the reason for which this external authority is thus required to the knowledge of the just quantity of the written word of God & for the distinguishing of the true parts of the same from the Apochrypha & doubtful, is because that as the scriptures do in no places affirm & declare themselves either in totallitie 〈◊〉 part reflectively to be the true word of God delivered by Christ & his Apostles, so they much less aver these determinate books or parts of the Bible & no other, to be the only true authentical scriptures.  
This being now supposed as certain on both sides, I prove the foresaie minor to wit that the Church of England hath a false, or at least an uncertain Canon of scripture by an other syllogism in this manner.  
That Canon of scripture is false, or at the least uncertain which disagreeth from all other Canons that ever were in any Christian Church before the days of Luther.  
But the Canon of scripture used now in England is disagreeable to all other Canons that ever were in any Christian Church before the days of Luther.  
Ergo the Canon of scripture used now in the Church of England is a false or at the least an uncertain Canon.  
In the Mayor of this syllogism there is no doubt. The minor I prove by comparing the Canon of England with those several Canons which according to the diversity of opinions in that point among some of the ancient Fathers in former times, are found to be three in number, howbeit of those three there was one which was ever more commonly received then the rest, to wit that Canon which in the Counsels of Florence & Trent was defined to be infallible & is that same which at this present the Roman Church useth rejecting all other for Apocryphal & inauthenticall.  
Now the first of those three Canons or Orders of divine volumes consisteth of those books of which there was never any doubt made but that they be sacred & Canonical. The second order is of those of which there hath b●n always doubt neither hitherto are received by the Church, to wit, the third & fourth books of Esdras & the third of the Machabies. The third order containeth those books of which there hath been doubt in former times. Which are Hester. judith Tobias. The two first books of the Machabies. The Ecclesiasticus, the book of wisdom & the Prophet Baruch. Which belong to the old Testament. And in the new Testament the epistle to the Hebrews. The epistles of S. james & jude, the second of S. Peter, & the second & third of S. john with his Apochalips.  
Now that the Canon of the Church of England doth not agree with the first order consisting of such books of scripture as of which no doubt hath been ever made, it is most evident for that in their Canon of the old Testament is included the book of Hester of which doubt hath been made by Melito, Nazianzene & S. Athanasius: & in the new Testament they admit the epistle to the Hebrews & the Apochalips (to omit others) of which nevertheless doubt hath been made, of the first by origen, & of the second by Eusebius, which was also quite omitted by Cyrill & Nazianzene, nay & that which is more to this purpose, Luther did expressly reject them both with the epistle of S. james.  
Touching the second Order or Canon, there is no need to bring any proof, in regard it is well know that the Church of England doth not admit the two first books of Machabeis, & much less do they allow of the third as likewise neither they allow the third and fourth of Esdras.  
Lastely touching the third & laste Order, they admit Hester into their Canon as by the sixth article of their new Creed doth appear, but they reject judith, Toby, the Machabeiss, 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 book of judith it is confessed by saint Hierome that it is read to have been numbered or counted among the holy scriptures by the Council of Nyce, which book not obstanding is expressly 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. james & jude, the second & of saint Peter, the second & third of saint john & his Apocalips, which yet in former times by some authors of account have been either quite excluded from the Canon, or at the least held for doubtful. So we see that our English professors differ & descent in their Canon from all the several Canons of scripture that either they themselves or any other can imagine to have been in the world in any former age, yea even from the Lutherans themselves whom nevertheless they use to rank among their brothers at the least whensoever they make for their purpose & advantage against the Romanists.  
Further more if perhaps they say they have the true Canon of scripture because they have the same books of the old Testament which the jews by infallible authority held for Canonical: And the same books of the new Testament which the Roman Church holds for Canonical. Then I demand of them first how they come to know that their Canon is just the same with that of the jews neither more nor less, & how they be assured that the ancient jews who only & not the modern jews, were the true people of God & by him guided & ruled, by what infallible means I say do they know that those jews excluded those same books of the old Testament, out of their Canon as Apochriphas which the Roman Church holds for Canonical? To wit judith, Toby, Sapience, Ecclesiasticus, Machabies. And I urge them thus. Either they had that knowledge from the jews themselves, or from the scriptures themselves, or by tradition of the Church, or by the spirit or inspiration of God. From the jews they could not possible have certain knowledge of the canon. For that altho' their authority were once infallible in receiving the true Canon of scripture either in itself or by the assistance & providence of God: yet after the coming of Christ & his establiment of the Evangelicall law, that infallible authority of theirs ceased, & so by them no infallible knowledge of Canonical scriptures could possible be from thence derived unto the Church of Christ: Nay neither was it suitable to the dignity of Christ & his Church that the jews should interpose their authority in that nature.  
secondly from the scriptures themselves it is clear our adversaries could not receive infallible knowledge of the Canon of the old Testament in the manner before declared, because neither the old nor new scripture doth testify that those only books are Canonical which the English Catalogue includes: neiter do the writers of the new Testament cite places out of those books only, but also out of either all or at the least some of those which peculiarly the Roman Church alloweth for Canonical, & which I have above rehearsed. For Ester is cited by saint Augustin in his epistle to Edicia: 
Epist. 199.  & before him by saint Chrysostome in his third Homily to the people of Antioch, & Origen defends for Canonical even those last chapters of Hester of which some doubt hath been made even by some Romanists. Baruch is most frequently cited by the ancient Fathers under the name of Hieremte, as particularly may be known by saint Augustin in his 18. book of the City & 33. chapter. Yea & diverse of the Fathers produce Baruch by name. 
Cyp. l. 2. contra jud. cap. 5.  As saint Cyprian who cities those words of his. Hic est Deus noster etc. And in his sermon upon our Lord's prayer he cities the Epistle of Hieremie contained in the last chapter of Baruch: 
Lib. 10. cont. julian.  saint Cyrill also cities the same Baruch by name. The like do S. Hilary in the preface of his commentary upon the psalms saint Clement Alexandrine, 
Lib. 2. Pedag. cap. 3. E●seb. lib. 6. demonst. Euang. cap. 19  saint Ambrose in his first book of faith & second chapter. Eusebius cities his third chapter, adding that, nothing ought to be added to divine vo●●●s. By which words he declareth Baruch to be divine scripture; as also doth Theodoretus in express words & commenteth upon the whole book. 
Serm. de ele●m.  Toby is cited & approved for scripture in which the holy Ghost doth speak by saint Cyprian. Saint Ambrose calls the same book Prophetical scripture. 
Inl. de Tob cap. 1.  The like do saint Basil in his oration of avarice, & saint Augustin in his book entitled speculum, judith is mentioned by the great Council of Nyce as saint Hierome testifies. 
D●uin. nom. c 4.  Sapience or the book of wisdom is alleged by ancient S. Denis, & the same do Melito in his epistle to Ones. saint Cyprian, 
Lib. count. julian.  in his book of the habit of Virgens, & saint Cyrill calls it divine scripture, saint Augustin also calls it Canonical in his first book of Predest. the 14. chap. Ecclesiasticus is cited by Clement Alexandrine, saint Cyprian, Epiphanius, & Ambrose as divine Oracles, & saint Augustin calls it divine scripture producing those words: Altiorate ne quaesieris. 
In lib. ad Oros. contra Priscil.  The same Fathers with Gregory Nazianzene cite the Machabies as appeareth by saint Cyprian in his exhortation to Martyrdom the 11. chapter. Nazianzene in his oration of the Machabies, saint Ambrose in his second book of job the 10.11. & 12. chapters saint Isidore in his sixth book. First cap. saint Augustin in two several places allows of these books & often times citeth them. As in his 18. book of the city of God. Chapter 36. & in his second book against the epistles of Gaudentius, & chapter 2.3. All which is a convincent argument that those books out of which the foresaid places are cited in this manner & by these ancient & grave renowned Doctors are Canonical & of as great authority as the rest how beit they might otherwise have been unknow for such to the jews both in regard that as the law of Christ is more perfect than the old law was, so it ought in reason to have more perfect knowledge of the word of God as likewise it hath of diverse other mysteries of faith, than the professors of that law had: as also for that as in the law of Christ there are other matters of faith, manners, & government than were in the time of the old testament, so might it be necessary for the greater confirmation of Christ's doctrine & discipline that some of those books which were not known to the jews, should be declared to Christians for Canonical scripture.  
Thirdly from tradition of the Church the English Canon could not possible receive authority, first because the maintainers of it deny the authority of the visible Church to be infallible, & consequently it is clear the Canon of scripture cannot have sufficient warrant from it. secondly. It is most apparent that the Primative Church was not certain in some of the first ages whether all the books of the old Testament which the English Church holds for Canonical were in the Canon of the jews, which uncertainty still remained until the Council of Carthage celebrated in S. Augustine's time determined the matter. Against which English Canon are also authentical witnesses Mileto, 
Cham. lib. 〈◊〉 Camone cap. 14. ●. 1.  S. Athanasius & Nazianzene of which at the least the two latter authors to wit Athanasius & Nazianzene (even according to the grant of Daniel Chamier one of our most peremptory adversaries) do omit the book of Hester in the computation of their Canon of the old testament whom 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 book he numbereth both the same Athanasius & Nazianzene as defenders of his own Canon which nevertheless includeth Hester as the English Canondoth. 
Cap. 11. n. 4.  So that it remaineth most evident there was no such certain tradition in the Primative Church as could make the English Canon as they now use it, infallible, the whole Church at that time having determined nothing judicially about that particular: & consequently it is manifestly false for the professors of the English Religion to affirm that they have the tradition of the Church for proof of their Canon. To which may be added that our adversaries in maintaining their Canon by tradition, they should proceed preposterously in respect that whereas in all other points of doctrine they relect the authority of traditions as insufficient & contrarie to the word of God, or at the least as uncertain: yet in this particular of the Canonical scripture which is one of the most important points of all other, & upon which all the rest of Christian faith depends, they would offer to rely upon the same.  
And altho' our adversaries, & particularly Daniel Chamier, do labour even till they sweat in proving their Canon to be the same with the Canon of the ancient jews, yet doth not one of the ●●thors that have writ since the matter was determined by the Council of Carthage, exclude from the Christian Canon those books which the Roman Church did receive for Canonical ever since that Council. And how be it S. Hierome is he that of all antiquity doth favore our adversaries in this particular point: yet besides that he writ before the matter was determined by Pope Innocentius the first & the Council of Carthage: nevertheless as he doth not so defend the Canon of the jews but that he admitteth of the authority of the first Council of Nyce in receiving the book of Hester in to the Canon of the Christian Church: so doubtless if he had lived in succeeding times, he would have done the same touching the rest of the books of the old Testament which were afterwards added by the foresaid Council of Carthage & other since that tyme. To omit that the professors of the pretended reformation neither proceed consequenter to their own Principles if in establishing of their Canon they follow the authority of Fathers whom they make account to be subject to error & deceit, neither do they deal securely in casting the main foundation of their faith upon the authority of one only man, especially considering that S. Hierome out of an inordinate opinion & affection he had to joseph the jew, not only in this but also in some other points of doctrinesuffered himself to be carried somat' beyond the limits of reason tho' never beyond the limits of the true Catholic faith. And yet I here desire the reader to be advertised that this which I have uttered touching the agreement of the English Canon of S. Hierome, is only by way of concessive supposition in favour of my antagonists with whom I dispute even upon terms of this liberal grant: persuading myself nevertheless that the Canon of the old Testament which S. Hierome rehearseth in his Prologue, is not taken by him for the only true authentical Canon of the Christian Church, but only his meaning is to relate the number of those books of the ancient scripture according to the most common opinion of the jews of his tyme. That which is manifestly convinced by the authority of the same S. Hierome in the like case touching certain chapters of the Prophet Daniel, of which altho' in his preface to that book he once affirmed them not to be of authentical authority, yet afterwards in his second Apology against Rufinus, he declareth his meaning in the foresaid Prologue was not to signify his opinion in that particular, but only to relate the doctrine or saying of the jews. Now this being so, it is plainly certain that our adversaries of all the ancient Fathers have not as much as one S. Hierome undoubtedly in favour of their Canon, but only the authority of the jews.  
Secondly our adversaries cannot have recourse to the spirit for the approbation of the Canon of the old Testament: first because if they rely upon this, they ought to prove it before to be the true spirit of God which moveth them to believe their Canon to be of infallible authority, & that either by some other Canonical scripture, or by some other convincent reason or motive as by miracles, sanctity, or by other external testimony, otherwise they themselves can neither safely rely upon it, nor we can justly give credit unto it, for that it is manifestly declared in the authentical scriptures themselves that there be evil spirits as well as good by which men are moved, yea & that same spirit which seems good is often times discovered & known to be the spirit of the common animie who the more easily & coulerably to deceive & delude, doth transform himself in to an Angel of leight notobstanding he is darkness itself.  
Finally that spirit by which the defenders of the judaical canon (for so our adversaries suppose theirs to be) prove the authority of it, is contrary as well in other points of faith as in this, to the spirit of the most visible & flourishing Church in all ages, neither is it common & general & conformable to the greater part of Christians, but extravagant, singular, private & particular to themselves as I have showed in my precedent argument, & consequently it can not be the spirit of God, but an ill spirit, a familiar, a be in a box, to which who soever doth obey & follow will doubtless be led at the length in to a labyrinth of errors where he will perish without redemption.  
More over for as much as concerneth the Canon of the new Testament, for our adversaries to say they have it from us, is a very poor shift, & considering the want of authority which they hold to be in our Church as being in their opinion of no credit in other matters of faith, yea plainly erroneous & Antichristian, it doth thence manifestly follow upon their Principles that their Canon can not possible have infallible certainty in regard that the whole ground on which such certainty depend this supposed to be the authority of our Church which they neverthesse's peremptorily aver not only to besubiect to error, but also to have already erred in diverse points of faith. from whence & from the rest which hath been inculcated in the proof of the minor of my second syllogism the consequence both of it & my first syllogism doth inavoidably follow to wit that the Religion of England is plainly false as not having any certain & infallible rule whereby to know the true Canonical scriptures of the old & new Testament.   

THE THIRD PRINGIPAL ARGUMENT.  
MY third principal argument against the English Religion 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 & fence of scriptures.  
Ergo the English Religion is a false Religion. The mayor can not be denied by our adversaries. The minor in which only the question consisteth, I prove first on't of their translations of the Bible in to the English tongue of which that most famous defender of the new English faith King james of great Brittany in the public assembly had by his authority as Hampton Court the year 1604. sitting as Precedent Cathedratically pronounced that he had never yet seen any Bible (qnid adhuc egemus testibus) reightly translated into the English tongue. And altho' the same King james for that reason caused an other new 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 have myself printed at london the year 1608. that it containeth still diverse of the same errors which were in the first translations of which the King himself did complain: as appeareth by the second chapter of the Acts. 
Vers. 27.  Where for the words, non relinques animam meam in inferno, that is in plain English: thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, the foresaid Bible hath thou will not leave my soul in grave, using also the very same translation upon the words of the 16. psalm, out of which they are 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 than that those who please may freely defend their negative position of the real descent of Christ in to hell (as Beza ingenuonsly confesseth in his annotation upon this place) the affirmative of which nevertheless the Apostolical Creed doth expressly teach us. In which passage our adversaries show both extreme great partiality & great impudency in regard that in the Greek text which they themselves most superstitiously profess to follow, hath the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place which by the septuagint is put commonly for the word sheol in Hebrew, & as it is also by themselves translated in other places of scripture, & as S. Hierome doth in like manner turn the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in to infernus in Latin, in English hell, throu' the whole Bible.  
And altho' Daniel Chamier in his book upon Christ's descent in to hell not daring to dame this manner of translation to have been made by the septuagint & S. Hierome, 
Tom. 2. Pantrat. l. 5. cap 5.  doth somat● murmur & grumble at them for the same as if they did often times detorte the Greek & Latin words to the sense of the Hebrew with neglect of the property of the language: yet this is but one Doctor's opinion, & if he had more to allege of his own sect it were no great matter, for that by the common judgement of the whole Christian world those two sacred Translators fare surpass in knowledge of the scriptures all the Doctors that ever were or will be of his faction tho' they esteem themselues never so wise & learned.  
And suppose the Septuagint & S. Hierome do in deed frequently follow the sense rather than the property of the Hebrew words, what offence commit they in that? Nay then what commendation do they not rather deserve? in respect it is a generally known rule of the best Translators not to tie themselves to the words but to the sense. As on the contrary what reprehension is not due to them whose chief study is with neglect of that sense which those ancient expositors who have gone before them both in time, virtue, & learning, to invent & violently draw new interpretations of Scripture out of the Etymologies & first imposition of words according to the verbal sound and not according to the common acception of them, which yet is the common practice of the Novelists of these our days as is most apparent even by that particular passage which I have in hand that is the place above cited in the second chapter of the Acts, thou wilt not leave my soul in hell. 
Lib. 5. de descent. Christ. c. ●. n.  About which Daniel Chamier having turned himself every way, & tossed all the dictionaries he could find for his purpose, yet could he not find one author more ancient than john Caluin his great master and first founder of his Religion, who teacheth that either in this place or in any other place of scripture according to the proper & ordinary use, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify the body carcase, or life, & the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grave as he & his fellow partners will needs have them to signify, & as they usually translate them in their Bibles, excepting only Arias Montanus if he be truly cited by Chamier, 
In Idiotismis He● braeis.  how be it himself grants that in the cited place of the 16. psalm the Hebrew words in steed of which the Septuagint putteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do signify the soul & hell which is all that we can desire. For if the Hebrew text be the fountain of all true translations as all the Novelists will have it, neither can their translation of this place be true nor ours false, for that theirs according to our adversary Chamiers, dissents from the Hebrew & ours agrees.  
divers other places of the English Novelists corrupted translations might be produced, as that of the 26. of S. Mathewe, where for Hymno dicto in the Latin & hymnizantes in the Greek, they translate, when they had sung a psalm. In the 28. of the Acts: overseers for Bishops. And in the ninte chapter of the first to the Corinthians. Have we not power to lead about a wife, where they put a wife for a woman as if all woman were wives. And in the first chapter of the second epistle of S. Peter, they leave out the words, by good works, which nevertheless are found in diverse Greek copies, yea & Caluin himself grants that if they be not expressed in the text, yet they are subintellected or understood.  
And to this may be added by the way that altho' it is not ill of itself to translate the Bible into vulgar languages if it be done truly & sincerely & by the authority of the Church or her chief Pastor, yet by these few examples we may learn how greatly the word of God is abused by false translations, & how fare the truth is preiudicated by such partial proceeding, supposing that all the foresaid places as they are by them turned in to the English tongue do favore diverse points of their new doctrine whereas on the contrary they expressly make against it if they be truly tranflated. And particularly those words of their sixtineth psalm, thou wilt not leave my soul in grave, are so absurdly contrary to sense & so extravagant in the phrase & manner of speech as the like is not to be found in any translation that ever was extant ever since the scriptures were first published in vulgar tongues even among the pretended reformers themselves. But now this may suffice for examples of false translation of the scriptures used by our adversaries, & for the first proof of the Minor of my syllogism above framed.  
Which I further prove 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 pretensive reformers use, is scarce in any thing coformable to the exposition of the ancient Fathers & Doctors of the precedent ages as it ought to be according to the rule of S. Augustin in his second book against julian where in the beginning he faith the Christian people ought rather to adhere to the Fathers then unto those which teach the contrary: & towards the end of the same book he addeth thus: that which they (to wit the Fathers) found in the church they hold, that which they had from their Fathers, they delivered to their sons. But our new interpreters as they are in their positions, so are they in their expositions of the word of God singular & full of affected apish imitation of the jewish glosses: neither do they scarce ever allege any other expositions or constructions then those of Rabbi Solomon. Rabbi Kimchi, Aben Ezra & the rest of that rabble. Notobstanding they cannot be ignorant, but that some of them were either Scribes, Phariseiss, or Saduceis if not all, of whom it may be presumed with reason that they frame their expositions more commonly according to their own false traditions than according to the true sense & meaning of the law. By which proceeding the reader may consider how impossible it is for our adversaries to satisfy their consciences in the delivery of such doctrine as depends upon so uncertain & failable grounds; & in how miserable a case that flock is which hath his instruction in matters of salvation from such Pastors as partly out of the writings of those profane jews & enemies of Christ, partly also by their own industry coin new sense out of the old, obstruse, decayed significations of words which they find in pedantik humanists Lexicons & Dictonaries, neglecting the common current acceptions & Ecclesiastical use of the same. By all which the conclusion of my proposed argument doth appear true & sound which is that the Professors of the English faith have no certain and infallible interpretation & sense of the divine scriptures, & consequently their Religion must needs be void of truth.   

THE FOURTH PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT.  
MY fourth principal argument I propound in the form 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 Religion is a false Religion.  
The mayor is not denied by our adversaries & therefore it needs no proof: And it they should be so refractory as to deny it: It is convinced by the very leight of natural reason which teacheth that the ruled follows the nature of the rule so that it cannot possible be straighter than the rule itself, no more than a boton can be round if the mould be square.  
Now that the English Religion hath a false rule of faith which is the Minor of my syllogism, I demonstrate thus by an other syllogism.  
The Religion of England hath for the rule of faith scriptures interpreted & expounded by every particular member of their Church.  
But the scriptures interpreted & expounded by every 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 every particular member of the Church is a false rule of faith I evidently prove, because the true rule of faith is of it own nature certain, common, & known to all believers, not private, unknown, & certain to him only who hath it. Otherwise no man can certainly & infallibly know what it is except himself & consequently none but he only can follow it: whereas the true rule of faith is such as every one is bound to know & embrace upon peril of his salvation.  
Secondly I prove that this English rule is false because it is subject to error the maintainers of themselves confessing that no man can infallibly interpreter the scriptures so that his expositions even in the greatest matters of faith be undoubtedly true & certain in such sort as he can infallibly persuade others that they are according to that sense which the holy Ghost intended when he dictated them to the divine writers. For confirmation of which I further add that our adversaries commonly teach that not only every particular & private person may err in faith but also the whole number of Bishop's 〈◊〉 Prelates of their Church assembled in a Synod or Council. Out of which it is infallibly consequent that their rule of faith is not certain either in itself, or at the least not to others: neither can others lawfully follow it for the same reason that it is unknown unto them & subject to error, & deceit. Besides altho' the professors of the English Religion should deny this same, 
1. Cor. 2.  yet is it convinced & concluded by scripture itself saying, for what man knows 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 every member of the Church, it would thence necessarily follow that there were no need of preachers & teachers in the Church of England to propose & declare the word of God un the people, because every particular man & woman that can read the Bible can sufficiently understand & expound it themselves at the least for as much as concerns their salvation. And for the ignorant sort which can not read, it were also in vain for them to have preachers in regard they can propose unto them no other rule of faith than scriptures expounded by their own particular spirit, which nevertheless even according to their own doctrine is fallible & subject to error & by consequence obledgeth no man to follow it but rather to avoy de it by all means possible.  
Fourthly I prove the same, because this rule of our adversaries serves no man's turn but his own who hath it, & that but unto wardely, neither doth it obledge others to believe it, neither is it one & the same, but as many as there be people in the whole Church of England all which is most absurd & repugnant to the nature of true faith which ought to be one in all the Christian world, certain, in fallible, & binding all persons to embrace it by divine precept & command which nevertheless could not be such if the rule which it followeth were not one without all multipllcation & division. And to this may be joy ned for conclusion of the proof of this argument that which I have delivered touching our adversary's false translation & erroneous manner of interpretation of divine scriptures.   

THE FIFT PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT.  
MY fift principal argument in order to prove the falsity of the English Religion is this.  
That Religion is false which hath not a perpetual & disinterrupted succession of Bishops & Priests derived from the Apostles.  
But the English Religion hath not a perpetual disinterrupted succession of Bishops & Priests derived from the Apostles.  
Ergo the English Religion is a false Religion.  
The mayor proposition is so certain and clear that our adversaries a the least all or most of those of the Protestant faith can not deny it. And if perpaps any of them or any other Sectaries should be so frontless & imprudent as to deny it, they are manifestly convinced by those places of scripture which prove the perpetuity of the government of the Church of Christ in general. As in the fourth to the Ephesians, where it is affirmed that Christ gave to his Church Pastors & doctors that is Bishops & Priests to the consummation of the saints unto the word of the ministerit & that to rule, govern, & feed the flock of the Church until the consummation of the world. And the Prophet David in his 47. psalm faith that God founded his city (that is the Church as S. Augustin expounds it) for ever. And surely if God established his, Church for ever as truly according to this he did: it can never want Bishops & Priests for that if it should want them, than it were no more a true Church according to the saying S. Hierome. Where there is no Priest there is no Church. In which word sacerdos Priest, 
Contra Luciferianos.  he includeth also Bishops as being chiefly Priests, & those without whom no Priests can be made of ordained. saint Cyprian also in the second epistle of his fourth book towards the end teaches that the true Church cannot stand without Bishops & Priests. And saint Augustin saith plainly that it is the succession of Priests (by Priests he meaneth also Bishops) which keeps him in the Church. 
Contra part. Donat.  And in his epistle 165. & upon the psalm against Donatus, he challengeth his adversaries the Donatists to number the Priests which have been even from the seat of saint 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 even from S. Peter to Anastasius who was Pope in his time) because he findeth not one Donatist, therefore he concludes that their Religion is false & not to be followed. So that the reader may plainly perceive by these authorities (of which kind many more might be alleged if need were & the place did admit any larger discourse) that the ancient Fathers held the want of succession of Bishops & Priests for a common & infallible argument of the falsity of that Religion which not obstanding whatsoever other colores of truth it might seem to have by pretext of scripture or otherwise, was destitute of the same. That which is sufficient for the proof of the mator of my Syllogism in case any of the defenders of the English Religion should have the face to deny it.  
Wherefore hence I pass to the minor to wit that the English Religion hath not a continual & disinterrupted succession of Priests & Bishops derined from the Apostles, which I prove first: Because it is certain by the testimony of all writers of those ages that from the time of saint Gregory Pope of Rome who sent saint Augustin the Monk into England to plant the then professed Roman faith there were no other Priests or Bishops but such as had their authority derived from the Roman seat, & such Bishops only as were ordained & consecrated with the same matter & form of Order & with Unction, Mitre, Crosier & other such ornaments & ceremonies as the Church of Rome actually useth at this day. Nay nor yet in the time of Wiclif or since is there any mention in any history, writer or record either Catholic or Protestant of any kind of either Bishops, Priests, or ordination of the same, used in England before the Reign of Edward the sixth. Wherefore altho' we should grant the Patrons of the English faith that their Religion was professed in England in more ancient times as they pretend (the contrary of which nevertheless is as certain as it is certain there is no mention of it in any more ancienthistorie or record then the days of Edward the sixth) yet is it manifest that it hath had a notable interruption in the succession of Bishops & Priests to wit for the space of 800. years at the least even according to the confession of our adversaries: And consequently it is evident that it hath not a continual & disinterrupted succession of Bishops & Priests derived from the Apostles.  
secondly I prove there is no continual & disinterrupted succession of Bishops & Priests in the English Religion derived from the Apostles. Because altho' we should admit that in the time of King Edward by reason of the immediate succession of his new Religion to the Religion of his Father Henry the 8. at whose death we do not deny but there were true Bishops & Priests left who might perhaps for as much as concerneth the essence of the Order (thou ' not lawfully) either have consecrated others, or they themselves have served in the Church according to the new form of the same, (which fact I need not here dispute but omit as ungranted) Nevertheless it is certain & granted by both parties that even in this there was another plain interruption, & that within a very short time upon the succession of Queen Marie to the Crown in here brother's place, who exauthorizing all that new brood of Bishops & Priests, reestablished the Roman Religion in the same form & with such Prelates & Priests as had been in the Realm in all former times, as not only all written histories & records, but also some eye witnesses who then did see the change, & being yet alive can at this day testify the same. So that even in this particular manner the new Religion of England hath suffered an interruption in the succession of Bishops & Priests.  
thirdly. I prove the same minor proposition because at the time of the last change of Religion at the death of Queen Marie, all the Roman Bishops were deposed & deprived of their dignities excepting only the Archbishop of Canterbury whose seat was vacant by his death; & others were put in their places by the authority of Queen Elizabeth & here parliament: who nevertheless were such as did not agree either in vocation, mission, or Ordination with their predecessors: as appeareth particularly in Master Parker who not obstanding he was the chief of them as being Archbishop of Caterburie & primate, yet is he confessed by Master Mason a minister & professed defender of the new clergy of England, to have been the first of 70. Archbishops since fainct Augustin that received Orders & consecration without the Pope's Bulls, & the rest of the ceremomes used in the ordination of all those 70. that preceded him. And the same he might have said of the new Bishops of these days comparing them with all that long 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 schismatical in itself & contrary to the practice of ancient times even before the days of saint Augustin the Apostle of our country, as both the writings of the ancient Fathers (which I will produce in an other place) & also some ancient authentical histories or records of the Realm do testify: Yet even according to the Principles of the English Religion there is an essential defect found in the same, in regard that Master Barlowe, who●s by the foresaid defender of the English ministry reported to have been the consecrator of Parker, had never any consecration himself. Or if he had any, he was made Bishop, (if not Priest also) only according to the form divised in the time of Edward the sixth, & confirmed by Queen Elizabeth the eight year of her Reign. That which I suppose Master Mason himself doth not deny. Which form as it is set in their Ritual or manner of making Bishops, Priests, & Deacons, printed at London 1607. as being neither found in scripture, nor conformable to any other form of consecration ever used in any Christian Church since the Christian Religion was founded, the persons consecrated or ordained according to the tenor of it, cannot possible betrue Bishop's priests or Deacons, & by necessary consequence neither Master Parker nor any other of his fellow Bishops could receive 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 essential matter & form which hath been commonly used in the Christian world in ancient ages: But only according to that new form which as Master Mason confesseth being devised & authorized only by King Edward & Queen Elizabeth who had no power to alter the form of Ordination practised generally in the Christian Church before their times, could not possible give them Apostolical power of ordination, & consequently they had no continual disinterrupted succession in that nature derived from the Apostles, which is that by the minor of my argument I intent to convince.  
Peradventure our adversaries will reply & say. First that the whole essential matter & form of Order consisting of imposition of hands & the words, receive the holy Ghost were applied to Master Parker & the rest of the ministry in their ordination, & the Roman rites or Ceremonies only omitted, which neither make nor mar the substance of the Order.  
But to this I rejoine first that this doth not clear Master Barlowes consecration of which there being no authentical register or record extant, he cannot be esteemed to have been a true Bishop, & consequenthe he had no power to consecrate others, & so Master Parker supposing he had the true matter & form of Episcopal Order applied unto him, yet could he not be true Bishop for want of authority in his ordainer, who could not possible give that he had not himself.  
secondly. It is false that those words, receive the holy Ghost, with imposition of hands only, are the whole matter & form of consecration of Bishops, for that neither scripture, Counsels, nor Fathers, nor the ancient practice of the Church, do teach the same: but rather on the contrary, it is manifest that another form of Ordination was used in the primative Church as doth appear) to omit other authorities) by the words of saint Ambrose upon the 13. chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Where expounding those words, jeiunantes, imponentesque ●is manies: He saith that imposition of hands is mystical words, where with the person elected is confirmed to this work receiving authority (his conscience bearing him witness) that he may be bold in our Lord's name to offer sacrifice to God. By which words, the reader may plainly perceive that in saint Ambroses' time there was more required in the matter & form of consecration of Bishops than imposition of hands only with those words receive the holy Ghost, to wit some other words by which the person ordained receiveth power to offer Sacrifice, which words nevertheless were never used in the consecration either of Master Parker or any other of the Bishops or ministers of the English Church as by them themselves is confessed who by necessary sequel must also needs confess the same Bishops & ministers to be essentially defective & voy de of true ordination.  
thirdly according to the story of the Nagges head tavern as it was related by Master Neale some time professor of languages in Oxford, who was a man that both by reason of his ancient years, as also for the means he had to know the truth as being employed about this same business by Bishop Boner then deposed & prisoner, aught 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 Reign of King Enwarde, (& because Master Kitching being a true Bishop tho' then deposed with the rest of the Catholic Bishops of Queens Maries time, partly out of scruple of conscience, & partly for fear of Excommunication menaced towards him by Bishop Bonner, refused to consecrate the new superintendents,) undertook the work in the foresaid Tavern where a meeting was made to that purpose, & Scorie causing them all to kneel, he took the Bible & laid it upon them bidding them take authority to preach the word of God sincerely, who without any more words or deeds all escaped Bishops of the new fashion: And Master Parker having either better fortune or better favour than the rest, for his parce he got the Archbishoprie of Canterbury and the primacy of England. The others being seized according to their several lots and election of the Queen.  
Whence it clearly appeareth that by which soever of these form's Master Parker & his fellows were consecrated, yet they have no true Canonical ordination neither according to the scriptures nor according to the ancient practice of the Church, & by unavoidable consequence they have no true succession derived from the Apostles, but as an ancient Father saith of other heretics of his time, so we may say of them, that succeeding to none they are prodigiously borne of themselves. 
Cypr. 〈◊〉. de simple. Prael.  And saint Cyprian of others saith in like manner that without any law of ordination they prefer themselves, & assume the name of Bishops not having the Episcopate coferred upon them by any. Both which sentences may very aptly be applied to our nominal Bishops of England who as I have declared receive their Bishopries without law full authority.  
Yet notobstanding all this which hath been said, perhaps some of them will insiste further in their own defence & say that althou' they have no personal succession, yet they have doctrinal succession from the Apostles in respect they maintain the same doctrine which the Apostles & their successors in the primative Church preached & taught.  
To which I anser that this is the common evasion of those only who defend the invisibility of the Church, but it doth nothing avail those who pretend to defend the continual visibility of the same as they do against whom I now dispute. secondly whosoever maintains this, It is but a miere shif or cloak wherewith to cover the nakedness of their new born Religion, which if it had not falsely disguised itself with the Apostolical robes it could not for shame have appeared in public by reason of the great deformity it hath in doctrine.  
Thirdly. If the English Religion hath succession of doctrine & not of persons, where was it from the fift or sixth hundreth year till the days of Luther. Was it in men or in beasts? In beasts they will not say for the avoiding of their own shame. And if it was in men, then show us where, & when those men lived, otherwise we will give no more credit unto our adversary's words than we do when they cry out & say it is Apostolical doctrine but proves it not, as ordinarily they do both in their books & preachings.  
Peradventure they will say their Religion was neither in men nor beasts but in books they mean in the books of the old & new Testament. But this is yet more false & absurd then the rest, for that doctrine involved in books can not make succession, succession being and order or series of things immediately following one & other, which order doctrine meluded in papers or partchement can not possible have as being one & the same object of faith, & quite indistinguible in itself, & can be only intentionally or obiectively distinguished or divided by the persons in which as an accident it is subjected & received. Besides. All the time that those fantastikes imagine their doctrine to have been continually successive in the Bible, if they themselves or at least other their companions in sect were not, as there confess, how can they know at this present that any such books or doctrine was then in the world when themselves were not. If they say they have that knowledge from the Romanists, then say I why do they not also give credit unto the same Romanists in other matters of faith, as particularly in that point of the number of Canonical scriptures, & of the true sense of them as they are applied to every Controversy betwixt us & them during that long space in which there were none of their Religion extant, among all which points of difference there is none more important than that of the infallible knowledge of those divine books (which the Romanists had in their custody all the time of their adversaries non existence) to be the only true authentical word of God. So that for these men to affirm they have all ways had a doctrinal succession from the Apostles without a personal is a miere Puritanical dream, & a Chymericall conceit & paradox of their own forging, an Idea of Plato abstracted only by distracted minds.  
Finally for proof that the English Religion hath no true Priests & Bishops I add, that our Saviour ordained his Apostles not only to preach his word but also to remit sins & offer sacrifice according to those two texts of scripture: 
〈…〉. 22.  whose sins you shall remit they shall be remitted. And do this in my remembrance. Wherefore our adversaries the professors of the new Religion of England who have not all this specified in the form of their ordination cannot possible according to divine institution & truth of the scriptures, be judged to receive either of the two powers when they are created Ministers, & so they cannot in ●●is other respect truly be called Priests, & Bishop but only by force & virtue of that sophistical & ridiculous consequence, they have benefices & Bishoprikes, therefore they are Priests & Bishops. And yet besides this, I have one other argument. So urgent & forcible against our adversaries that it alone is sufficient to convince even the most obstinate judgements that the pre●●●iuereformed clergy of England bathe no authority power, or ●ud●●sdiction to preach or reach the Gospel, & consequently that they are not true Priest's nor Bishop's. I lay the foundation of my argument upon the whole streinth of ●at divine Principle of S. Paul. Quomodoprae●●abum nisi mittantur? how shall they preach ●●cept they be sent? which as being an express ●●xt of scripture is received by both parties for ●infallible truth. I contrive my syllogism in ●is manner.  
Those who have no mission want authority ●ower, or jurisdiction to preach & teach the Gospel.  
But the new English clergy hath no mission.  
Ergo the new English clergy wants authority, power or jurisdiction to preach ●ne ●otpell.  
The mayor proposition is so plainly contained in scripture that I am persuaded even the most pure Caluinist or Caluinian Puritan dares not absolutely deny it.  
For proof of the minor I suppose & agree with my adversaries that there are two only genders or kinds of mission. Viz. Either ordinary or exterordinarie. This agreement so supposed I argue thus  
If the professors of the English Religion have mission it is either ordinary, or exterordinarie.  
But the professors of the English Religion have neither ordinary, nor extraordinary mission.  
Ergo the professors of the English Religion have no mission.  
That the professors of the English Religion have no extraordinary mission I need not labor● to prove in regard I know, excepting thos● of the Puritan faction, extraordinary mission is not maintained by our adversaries. And i● any either Puritan Anabaptist, or other sectary will aver is mission to beexterordinari● them for the same reason that he defends it to b● extraordinary he is bound to prove it by extraordinary means, he must shove his paten● or letters of ordination brought from heaue● & firmed with the broad seal of miracles, prophecy, or other manifestly divine testimony, or else it is to be rejected as counterfeit evidence, forged to deceive & cousin simple & ignorant people with evident prejudice to their eternal salvation. And so leaving this as a fictitions of the founders or inventors of it void of both divine & humanane authority neither giving any satisfaction to mature & solid judgements, I pass to the ordinary mission which our adversaties most commonly pretend, & will manifestly prove they ardestitute of it, because as exterordinarie mission can not be obtained but by exterordinarie means, so neither can ordinary mission be had but by ordinary means. Now this supposed I proceed thus in form of argument.  
Ordina●●e nussion can be received of those only who 〈◊〉 by continual succession of Bishops & Priests from the Apostles.  
But the professors of the English Religion ●ue not received their mission from those ●ho have continual succession of Bishops & Priests from the Apostles.  
Ergo the professors of the English Religion ●aue no ordinary mission.  
The minor proposition in which alone the difference & controversy may seem to stand if ●nie there be, I prove because those who succeed from the Apostles in the foresaid manner & of whom the professors of the English faith against whom I now dispute, confess they received their mission if any they have, are ●either from the Popes of Rome, or such others as derived their authority from that seat.  
But now it is a fact clearer them the clear light of the clearest day that neither the Pope himself, nor any other who derived his authority from him did ever confer any mission, power, inrisdiction, or authority to preach teach, or minister sacraments upon any of the professors of the English Religion: that which ●demonstrate by this dilemma. For all those who can be imagined to have given any mission to the professors of the English faith at the time of change of Religion, either they were Roman catholics at that present, or not if they still remained Roman Catholic than is it infallibly certain they would never have offered to give mission are power to them whom they held for heretics an enemies to their own faith & profession: yea & if they had attempted any such matter, their attempt had be void in regard the Roman Church by virtue of her Ecclesiastical canons anulles all such collation of iurisdictionarie power to heretics And according to this it is hereby apparently concluded that the professors of the English Religion neither one way nor other could possible receive any mission, power or authority to preach the Gospel or minister sacrament after their manner at their first admittance to the ministry.  
It is true Doctor Cranmer from whom the Bishops and ministers of the English Religion allege they immediately had their mission, is supposed to have had the character of Episcopal & presbyteral Order, yet supposing by reason of his separation from the faith & obedience of the Roman Church (from which he received all the power of order & jurisdiction they pretend) he was deprived of jurisdiction: I ingenuously confess my judgement is convinced by force of argument that they cannot possible have any ordinary mission of Episcopal or priestly function, for the preaching of the word of God & administration of the Sacraments either according to divine or Ecclesiastical institution.  
And I know indeed son of our adversary's ●ot many month's paste after a long time of deliberation hoping to satisfy their own restesse minds an others in this their most important business produced certain new found registers for testimony of their predecessors ordination. But in my judgement the authority of them is so suspicious that they ought not to move any prudent understanding. And if they were authentical why did they conceal them till this present time in which no man urged them in any special manner to bring them to leight? Whereas yet they have so often since the change of religion demanded been to show their letters of ordination in other occasions.  
Moreover, suppose their registers were never so true & authentical: yet since they do not testify that their ordination was in matter, form, & authority of the ordinators perpetually used in the Catholic Church, they neither satisfy us in our demand, nor yet are they sufficient warrant either to the consciences of those that use them, or those who rely upon the effect of them in their reception of the Sacraments. Neither surely are those registers of any greater force for justification of the ordination of our English pretensive reformed clergy then the writings of an usurarie contract justify an usurer in his receipt of money in that unlawful manner which they declare. And so I conclude both for this & the reasons above alleged & particularly for their most apparent defect of vocation, & mission, that their case is very considerable yea & lamentable both in respect of themselves, & in regard of those whose souls are by their own misfortune committed to their charge, & government. And this may now suffice for the declaration & confirmation of this my fift chief & general argument which concludeth the faith of England to be an erroneous & false Religion.   

THE sixth PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT.  
MY sixth principal argument is this.  
That Religion is false which hath no true adoration or worship of God proper to him only.  
But the English Religion hath no adoration nor worship of God proper to him only.  
Ergo the Religion of England is a false religion.  
The Mayor must of necessity be granted by the professors of the English Reignon lest otherwise they destroy & amhilate the very life of all Religion which is the worship or adoration of one only God with such honour as is proper & due unto him as both divine faith & leight of nature do teach: yea & doubtless the truth of this proposition is contained in the first commandment which doth not only exclude the plurality of Gods & their adoration, but also includeth that worship which is due & proper to one only God & not to any creature or other entity whatsoever. And for this cause God himself in other places commands: Dominum Deum tuum adorabis & illi soli seruies. Thou shalt adore thy Lord thy God & serve him only. And, honorem meum alteri non dabo. I will not give my honour to another: where God calls it his own honour because there is a kind of honour due & proper unto him only & not common to others. And now this precept being grounded in the law of nature, the natural instinct of reason doth likewise suggest the same, so that no rational creature can deny it.  
Now the Minor of my syllogism in which all or the greatest part of the difficulty consists I prove it by an other syllogism 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 Mayor of the latter syllogism in case it should be denied by our adversaries, & prove first by scripture & then by testimonies of ancient Fathers to wit that true Religion cannot stand without true & proper worship of God by frequent use or exercise of a true & proper sacrifice.  
And altho' this might be sufficiently proved by a general induction drawn not only from the practice of the universal world in all ages as well in the professors of the true God of which the old Testament giveth evidence as also from the false religion of all sorts of Idolaters, Gentiles & Pagans. Yet because I know the Novelists out of their presumption & impudency will not stick to deny the consequence I will omit to persecute this manner of argument, & only insist in those authorities of Scripture & doctors of the Church which immediately convince the same to be true also in our Christian Religion of the new Testament.  
My first proof of scripture I take out of some certain places of the Prophets, which notobstanding they seem to belong to the old testament yet in reality they appertain to the new as being predictions of the state of Religion in the same. To which purpose the Prophecy of Malachi is most plain for the future practice of a proper & general sacrifice in the new Testament, affirming. That the Lord of Hosts saith this. I have no will in you (meaning the Priests of the old Testament) nor will I receive an offering at your hands for from therising of the sun to the setting my name is great among the Gentiles, & in everieplace is there Sacrificed & offered unto my name a clean oblation, because my name is great among nations. Thus fare the Prophet. Now the words & circumstances of this place so plainly demonstrate that the Prophet Malachi speaks of some kind of sacrifice which was not then or ever before used in any time or place but was to be used in the new testament, that our adversaries lest they should be convinced of error in their Religion for that it hath no external oblation to God at all, they find no other refuge then to feign that the Prophet speaketh only of the metaphorical sacrifice of prayer & good works. Which interpretation of theirs altho' it were never so true (as it is most clearly false) yet is it little suitable to other positions & practice at least of Caluinists, 
Vid. Dan. Cham.  as that good works are sins in themselves yea & damnable if God did not mercifully pardon them: & that they are not pleasing to God. Nay prayer & good works are so little & couldly practised among them all that if there were no other sacrifice in the world, doubtless God almighty should, by them especially, be very couldly served.  
How be it that clear it is out of the related text that Malachi treats not of any unpropersacrifice. First because it is evident that he prophesied of such a future sacrifice as should be more proper & pleasing to God than thesacrifices offered in the time of the old law which nevertheless being properly and truly sacrifices altho' in other respects defective, that which should succeed unto them could not in comparison of them be esteemed more proper & pleasing sacrifice to God than they were, if truly and properly it had not been a sacrifice.  
Secondly. The Hebrew text with the clean oblation joineth incense which conjunction of both those rites together doth manifestly show the Prophecy to be of an external rite & oblation to God, & consequently a proper sacrifice.  
Thirdly. It is plain by the words of the text that the Prophet speaketh of such an external ritie as mayntaines the greatness of God's name even among Gentiles & infidels, which prayer & good works only cannot effect by reason they are neither so apparent & known among them, nor so public a testimony of the majesty of God as sacrifice is without which his divine renown, magnificence & sovereignty would be extinguished in people in process of time.  
Fourthly true & proper sacrifice is an essential part of a true & proper Religion & a main distinctive sign from un proper & false Religions, & of such a one the Prophet treats as is both different from the sacrifice of the Gentiles yea & of the jews themselves: now prayer & works are common to every Religion every one according to their several manner.  
And to this declaration of the text I add the expesitions of all those ancient Fathers who have applied this place of malachi to the Eucharist as to the only & proper sacrifice of the new Testament there being not one extant in all antiquity who hath delivered any contrary sense of it, or that hath explicated it of prayers or works alone. S. justin martyr who lived within the compass of the second age, speaketh plainly to this purpose citing the words of the prophet, 
Dialogo c● Tryphone.  in which he affirms that malachi foretells a new oblation to succeed the sacrifice of the jews, saying. De hostijs quae ipsi (deo) à nobis Gentibus ubique 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 manner justin speaketh in his precedent words) doth prophesy of the hosts or sacrifices which are in every place offered by us Gentiles (meaning converted Gentiles) that is of the bread of the Eucharist, & likewise of the cup of the Encharist, when he saith that his name is glorified by us but polluted by you, meaning the Priests of the old Testament.  
Now since this renowned martyr both particularly declares that the Prophet Malachies' prediction is meant of the Eucharist, & supposing he further affirms the same Eucharist to have been offered by the Christian Priests of his time in all places, yea & that thereby the name of God is glorified: it is extreme want of judgement or rather plain madness in our adversaries, to deny 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 diverse benefits received by Christians at the hands of God as the creation of the world & the memory of their Redemption & other of that nature: yet those or the like causes of the offering of the Eucharist do no more diminish the nature of a true sacrifice included in the same, then hostia pacifica the host of pacification did cease to be a true oblation or sacrifice because it was offered by way of thankes giving for benefits received, or else to obtain new favours & graces of God almighty. By which also the frivolous evasion of kemntitius & other Novellists appears to be void of force while they endeavour to illude the streingth of this most pregnant testimony for the proof of the Euchariticall sacrifice of the law of Christ, for that reason to wit because the author of the same testimony in the same place affirms our saviour to have commanded 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 divine scripture or natural reason, neither of which is found 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 & novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem. Quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens offert Deo in universo mundo ei quialimenta nobis prastat primitias suorum munerum de quo & in duodectm Prophetis sic Malachias prasignavit. Lib. 4. cap. 32.   
S. Irenaeus in like manner being one of the same standing testifies that the Prophet Malachi did presignify the Eucharist in those same words which he cities & saith. That bread which is made of a creature he (that is Christ) took & gave thankes saying this is my body. And likewise the chalis which is of a creature which is according to us, confessed it to be his own blood, & taught us a new oblation of the new Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles offers to God in the universal world to him who gives us for nourishment the primicies of first fruits of his gifts, of which Malachi one of the twelve Prophets did so presignify. Lhave no pleasure in you. And that saint Irenaeus speaketh not of an unproper Sacrifice as Kemnitius & some other sectaries do caville, is most evident by other words of his towards the end of the same chapter, where he addeth that the former people that is the jews shall cease to offer to God: Yet nevertheless that in every place a pure Sacrifice is offerred unto him, & his name glorified among the Gentiles.  
More over in his 24. chapter he saith that one kind of sacrifice is reproved by God meaning the sacrifice of the jews, to which the sacrifice the of Church succeeds. By which discourse & particularly by those words which he saith of Christ, novi Testamenti novam docuit oblatiovem, that is he taught a new oblation of the new Testament, it is clearly convinced that this holy Father by the word oblation could not possible understand alms as our adversaries contends because altho' it be in some sort an oblation to God, yet is it neither new nor proper to the new Testament only, but common to both old & new as the scripture itself doth most frequently teach & inculcate. More over this place of saint Irenaeus did so fare convince the judgement of Caluin in this particular that like the devils which according to the relation of the Evangelist, acknowledged Christ against their wills, he confesseth him to have expounded it of the Mass just as the Romanists of later times use to interpret & apply it, & hath no other refuge then plainly to contradict the foresaid ancient Father's exposition in this impudent & audacious manner saying of the Roman divines. When they object the place of Malachi to be understood so (of the Sacrifice of the Mass) by Irenaeus, & the offering of Melchisedech in like manner by Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustin, & Arnobius: it is briefly ansered, that the same writers do in other places also interpret bread the body of Christ, but so ridiculously that reason & truth constraineth us to descent from them: thus this saucy Novellist, speaks of his betters, whose pride & boldness the Centurists imitate treating this same point in their third Centurie, as if they were the only men in the world borne for reason, & not those rather who immediately succeeding the Apostles did infinitely surpass them both in virtue & knowledge of Christian doctrine & true sense of God's divine word & institution.  
Tertullian declaring the sacrifice prophesied by Malachi against Martion, 
Sacrificium purum gloria, scilicet, relatio & benedictio, & laus, & hymni etc. Lib. 3. Contra Marc.  alluding to his words saith thus. In every place sacrifice is offerred to my name, & pure sacrifice viz. of glory relation & benediction, praise & hymns etc. In which words the entire tenor of the Mass is briefly described thou ' somaed obscurely as the custom of this author is. By relation he understands the Epistle & Gospel, by benediction the consecration, by praise & hymns the glory, prayers & other spiritual passages contained in that mystery. And altho' this author in an other place of this same book doth affirm the place of Malachi to be understanded of sacrifice of prayer, & in his book against the jews, of spiritual not of terrene sacrifices: Yet in neither place doth he deny it to be truly interpreted of the Eucharist: But in the first place he calleth it a spiritual sacrifice because it was instituted by the divine spirit & not by humane invention: as also for that it is not ministered in that carnal & gross manner in which the jewish sacrifices were ministered by effusion of blood, by fire & knife, but by benediction & consecration as such a pure oblation ought to be handled & celebrated. In the second place Tertullian only interpreteth one part of the sentence of Malachi to wit the word incense which is in the Hebrew text, of prayer offered to God. But the other words, oblatio munda, he expounds of the sacrifice of the Mass, in the place now cited. To which if we add an other place of the same author in which he speaketh of the Eucharistical sacrifice, 
De Oratione cap. 14.  all tergiversation must necessarily cease in any indifferent mind touching this authors true meaning. For thus he saith. Will not thy station be more solemn if thou assist at God's Altar. Having received & reserved the body of our Lord, both the one & the other is safe, the participation of the sacrifice, & the execution of the office. By which words it is manifest that ancient Tertullian could never deny the Sacrament of the Altar to be a proper oblation who here so absolutely affirms it to be a sacrifice celebrated in the Altar.  
S. Cyprian living within the third hundreth year in like manner cities the same place of Malachi in the 16. chapter of his book against the jews to prove that which he putteth in the title of the same chapter, to wit that the ancient sacrifice is evacuated & a new on celebrated, which new sacrifice can be no other than the Eucharist, which only & no other is new in respect of the sacrifices of the old Testament.  
The next in Order & age is Eusebius who living in the beginning of the 400. 
Lib. 1. demonst. Euang. cap. vlt.  year interprets this place of Malachi in the same sense, saying. We therefore sacrifice unto the most high God a sacrifice of laud: 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 new manner a pure or clean sacrifice according to the new Testament. Where it is plain that Eusebius applies the place of Malachi to the solemn sacrifice of the Mass, which is performed by prayer & oblation & therefore called by his a sacrifice of laud, & which only can be truly said to be full of God by reason of Christ whom it containeth, & which only can be called truly the sacrifice of the new Testament, & affirmed to be offered in a new fashion. All which particular & special circumstances no man of judgement or common sense can apply to prayer or alms only.  
S. Chrysostome in his commentary of the psalm 95. having cited the words of Malachi adds his exposition of them saying. Behold how copiously & clearly he (Malachi) hath declared the mystical table which is the incruent or unbloody host: & furthermore he calleth the sacred prayers which are offered after the host, pure Thymiame or odoriferous perfume. 
Comment. in Malac.  Thus S. Chry sostome of the Prophet Malachi.  
S. Hierome altho' by the word incense he understands prayer, yet the word pure ohlation he commonly interpreteth to be the oblation of the Eucharist: as also did saint Irenaeus before him in the place cited. Which exposition is as fit for the Romanists as can be imagined supposing the Mass includes both prayer & pure oblation or sacrifice. And the same I say of saint Augustin & who soever else of the Fathers interprets the foresaid word in●ense in the Prophecy of Malachi in that manner.  
Moreover saint Augustin both in his 18. 
Cap. 35. Cap. 23.  & 19 book of the City useth the same place of Malachi for proof of the cessation of the jewish sacrifices & exercise of the Christian sacrifice by the Priests of Christ according to the Order of Melchisadech, for thus he discourseth against the jews in the first of the two places cited. I have no will in ye nor offering will I receive at your hand. For from the rising of the sun to the setting my name is great among the Gentiles: & in every 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 sun to the setting by the sacerdoce or Priest function of Christ according to the Order of Melchisadech: but the sacrifice of the jews (to whom it is said, I have no pleasure in you) they cannot deny to have ceased, why do they yet expect an other Christ since this which they read prophesied & see accomplished could not be fulfilled but by him. It is true saint Augustin speaketh not so plain in the second place as here he doth, nevertheless he alludes to the same place & in the same sense.  
Theodoret also comments upon this same place of Malachi in the same sense & in most plain words, teaching that according to the prediction of Malachi in lieu of irrational hosts is now sacrificed an immaculate lamb.  
lastlly saint Damacen & Rupert agree to 
Dam. de fide lib. 4. cap. 14. Rupertus in Com. Malach.  the rest in the exposition of the place of Malachi whose words altho' most plain I do not cite because I know the Novellists m●st commonly reject their authority as not being writers of the first five hundreth years. In which how little reason they have to proceed in that manner with learned & grave authors I will not now discuss: only this I say that I doubt not but any indifferent reader will absolutely condemn them of extreme temereity in offering to resist such an army of old soldiers as I have here placed in battill array to fight against them. And hence I pass to the producing of testimonies of the new Testament for proof of a proper sacrifice in the law of Christ.  
Christ in the fourth chapter of the Euangell of saint john, affirmeth that the hour is now come when true adorers shall adore the eternal Father in spirit & truth: & neither in the mountain of Samaria nor in jerusalem as he said immediately before: 
Garizim  in which place the word adore signifies to sacrifice as in diverse other places of scripture it doth & particularly the 22. of Genesis where Abraham preparing to sacrifice is son saith to his servants. Expect here with the ass I & the boy making haste thither after we have adored will return unto you. Where it is clear that the word adore cannot signify any other adoration then that which Abraham was about, that is the sacrifice of his son. The likeplace you have john the 12. of certain Gentiles who ascended in to the temple to adore in the feast day. And the Eunuch come to adore in jerusalem the 8. of the Acts. 
In comment. Malach. 1.  In fine according to the judgement of Theodoret & Rupert, this place of saint john alludes to that other of Malachi above cited & discussed & hath the like sense. Which perhaps these two authors received from Eusebius who affirms the same in his first book of his Euang. demonst. & sixth chapter. & thence it is consequent that this place is understanded of the Eucharist as the place of the Prophet is, that is in a proper signification of sacrifice.  
And other principal proof of a proper sacrifice in the new Testament is deduced from the institution of the Eucharist the 28. of saint Matthew the 14. of saint Mark the 22. of S. Luke & the 11. chapter of the first to the Corinthians, in this manner & form of Syllogism.  
A proper sacrifice is an external oblation of some sensible & permanent creature consecrated & changed by mystical rite or Ceremony by a lawful Priest, for the a knowledgement of the divine majesty & supreme power & dominion of God.  
But Christ in his last supper made such an oblation when he instituted the Eucharist.  
Ergo Christ in his last supper offered a proper sacrifice when he instituted the Eucharist.  
In the mayor there is no controversy betwixt us & our adversaries as I suppose, or at the least I persuade myself they will not much stand upon it. The minor I prove by an other Syllogism.  
Christ in his laste supper being a lawful Priest according to the Order of Melchisadech offered his own body & blood to his eternal Father under the sensible forms of bread & wine commanding his Apostles to do the same.  
But this is a true & proper sacrifice.  
Therefore Christ offered & commanded his Apostles to offer a true & proper sacrifice in his last supper.  
The mayor of this latter Syllogism I prove because except Christ had not offered in this manner in his last supper he had never performed the function of a true Priest according to the Order of Melchisadec. Neither had he properly verified & fulfilled the figure of the Pasquall lamb. Nor could he have truly affirmed his blood in his last supper to be the blood of the new testament if he had not offered then both body & blood in sacrifice.  
Moreover the Evanglist S. Luke relating the institution of the Eucharist under the form of wine affirms our saviour to have used these words. This chalis is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you. 
Iuc. 22.  In which words both the word shed which is the present tense, as also the relative which: which (according to the Greek text which our adversary's most esteem & follow) must of necessity have relation to the present shedding of the cup, or chalis: & like wise those words for you, manifestly conclude that our saviour did then in that solemn action of his last supper, sacrifice his blood: & the same is of his body of which the same S. Luke saith in the present tense which is given for you: yea I say all the circumstances plainly demonstrate to all unobstinate minds that Christ did truly & properly sacrifice his body & blood when he instituted & delivered the Eucharist to his Apostles with an express commandment to do the same. And hence it necessarily follows that though Eucharist is a true & proper sacrifice of the new Testament, as often as it is celebrated by Priests according to the institution & precept of Christ.  
An other argument to prove that the Eucharist is a proper sacrifice I frame thus.  
That is a proper sacrifice in which a victim or host is received as a thing offered of given for the receivers in honour of God.  
But in the Eucharist the victim or host of Christ's body & blood is received as a thing offered or given for the receivers in honour of God.  
Ergo the Eucharist is a proper sacrifice.  
In the mayor there is no doubt as I conceive. The Minor in which the controversy stands. I prove first because S. Luke affirms Christ to have said. This is my body which is given for you. 
Cap 22.  And the like he saith of the chalis in the manner above declared according to the phrase of the Greek text. And according to this sense of the Evangelist S. Augustin in the 9 book & 13. chapters of his confessions, relates that his mother day lie served the Altar in which she did know the holy victim or host to be dispensed or ministered. Now that there is oblation in the Eucharist, the very nature of the matter doth plainly argue, for that where a victim or host is, there of necessity must be immolation as being correlatives the one in respect of the other, yea and immolation necessarily includes oblation for the sanie reason of correlation: & moreover both these are included in consecration which by the power of God's word maketh present the body and blood of Christ in such a manner as they may be decently & conveniently consummated by participation of the Sacrament.  
And in this sort the Eucharist included all those conditions which a proper sacrifice even according to our adversaries at least the Lutherans, aught to have. First the substance of the host or victim. Secondly a certain rite or action of offering prescribed by God, which is the celebration of the Eucharist instituted by Christ in the form described by the Evangelists & the Apostle S. Paul. 
1. Cor. 1.  Thirdly the person offering deputed by God to that function which is the Priest. Fourthly. The same intention of offering or the same end which is appointed by God in his word that is to the honour of God & for the representation of the passion of Christ. Neither is it necessary that all these particulars be contained in the Institution in express words, but it is sufficient that they be included in it in some intelligible manner. Otherwises' it follows that the passion of Christ had been no true & proper sacrifice because he used not the words offer or sacrifice when he suffered upon the Cross, which sequel I am persuaded our adversaries will not grant.  
divers other places of scripture are alleged by Bellarmin & other divines for the proof of this point, but for the avoy dance of prolixity, I will conclude with that only of the 13. chapter of the Acts. Where for the ordination of S. Paul & 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 only, or in singing of psalms, which needed no Kind of ministration more than opening their mouths & hearts: where as yet the word ministere doth necessarily include some external rite more than that as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth clearly denote, & signify. And therefore Erasmus a great favourite of the Novellists doubted not plainly to translate, for the words ministantibus Domino, sacrificeing to God.  
To the authority of scriptures, I will here add such testimonies of ancient Fathers as I have not yet cited, & such as being within the compass of the five privative ages clearly testify the Eucharist to be a sacrifice S. Cyprian saith thus, who is more Priest Dei summi of the chief God th● our Lord jesus 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 body & blood. Which words are so plain that they forced the Centurists to confess of this Father. That he affirmed the Priest to perform the office of Christ, & offer sacrifice to God the Father. Now if according to S. Cyprian the Priest performs the office of Christ & offers sacrifice as the Centurians confess of S. 
Centur. 3. col. 83.  Cyprian doubtless 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 oration of Antichrist, introduceth Christ saying to the priests of he new Testament in the day of judgement. come you. Rashops & Priest who daily immolatedor facrificed my pretions' body & blood in the world.  
S. Ambrose upon the psalm we did see (saith he) the Paince of Priests coming unto us. Widow did se him & hear him offering for us his blood. Let us Priests follow him that we may offer sacrifice unto him for altho' we be infirm or weak in merit, yet are we honourable in sacrifice, for altho' Christ doth not at the jest as they conceive, now seem to offer, yet he is offered on earth when Christ's boilie is offered. Yea & he is manifested to offer in us whose wordedoth sanctify the sacrifice which is offered.  
S. Gregory nyssene in his first oration upon the Resurrection hath these memorable words. For inthat ineffable secret, & to men invisible manner of sacrifice, by his divine ordinance he doth prcoccupate the violent brunt, & offers himself for us being both victim & oblation, both Priest & lamb of God. When did this happen? when he exhibited his body to be eaten & his blood to be drunken by his familiar friends.  
S. Chrysostome in his 24. 
Hom. 2. in postertorem Epist. ad Tim. Circa fine.  homily upon the first to the Corinthians speaking of Christ saith that he commanded himself to be offered iusteed of brute beasts. And in another place he speaketh thus. The sacred oblation itself whether Peter or Paul, or of what merit soever the Priest is who offers it, is the same which Christ himself gave to his disciples, & which now also Priests d●e make, this hath nothing less them that. Why so? because men do not sacrifice this, but Christ who had consecrated it before.  
S. Augustin in diverse places of his works, but most clearly in his second sermon upon the psalm 33. of our saviour saith thus in plain terms. He (Christ) instituted a sacrifice of his body & blood according to the order of Melchisadech. 
Nostrum sacrificium non solum Euangelicis sed etiam Propheticis libris demonstratum est.  And conformable to this the same S. Augustin in his 49. epistle affirms the sacrifice of us Catholic Christians to be demonstrated not only by the Evangelicall but also by the Prophetical books. Also in his 20. chapter of his 17. books of the City of God: he hath most express words to the same purpose, which because they are somat large & otherwise well known, 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 seventh sermon of the Passion teaches that the sacrifices of the old law yielded or gave place to the sacrifice of the Eucharist as the shadow to the body. His words at these. Wherefore to the end that the shadows should yield to the body, & images to the presence of verity or truth, the ancient observance is taken a way with a new sacrament: one host is changed in to an other, blood doth exclude blood, & the legal sestinitie while it is changed, is fulfilled. And some lines after he adds: but jesus knowing certainly his counsel, & being undaunted in the ordinance of has Father, did consummate the old Testament, & instituted the new Pasque for his disciples being set to eat the mystical supper, when in the Court of Carphas it was consulted how Christ. should be put to death, he ordaiding the sacrament of his body & blood did teach in what manner an host was to be offered to God. 
Epist. 81, Ad Discorum.  And the same Father in an other place ordaining that more Masses than one be celebrated in one & the same Church when one doth not serve by reason of the multitude of the people, saith thus. Our will is that when the solemnity of afeast hath drawn such a multitude of faithful persons together as the Church can not receive, let then the oblation of the sacrifice be undoubtedly reiterated or repeated. since it is a thing full of piety & reason that so often as the Church is filled with new people so often an other following sacrifice be offered. For it must needs be that some part of the people be deprived of their devotion if the custom of celebrating one only Mass observed, they only that come first may offer the sacrifice. Thus this ancient & grave Father, in whose words oblation & sacrifice of the Mass are three several times repeated.  
Isichius or Hesichius who lived about the same time hath these words touching the same matter. 
Lib. 2. in Levit. c. 8.  Our lord being at supper with his disciples first with the figurative lamb, afterwards offered his own 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 himself to God the Father with his own proper bands taking bread etc.  
Now to conclude, since the testimonies of these Fathers & doctors of the primative Church are both most ancient as being all included in the circle of the first five hundreth year's next succeeding to the time of Christ & his Apostles, 
Et quidem ipsam actionem canae Dominica & quidem ipsum corpus & sanguinno in cana à veteribu● vocari sa●risicium o blationem, hostiam, victimam etc. Kemnit. pag. 788.  & also they being so plain & pregnant that a chief adversary was forced to confess that there is frequent mention in the ancient writers treaking of the Eucharist, of the words, sacrifice, oblation, host, victim, to which may be added that the same Fathers in like manner use the words altar & Priest very commonly, all which are so fit for the purpose of signifiing a true & proper sacrifice, that no writer either divine or profane could ever invent other more significant & apt, as it undoubtedly appears for that their writings manifest that they never used any other words or phrases when they treated of the nature & use of a proper sacrifice: since this I say is so apparently true I earnestly request of my reader to consider how void not only of reason but also of common sense the sectaries of this our present age may justly be judged & how shamelessly obstinate they be who deny that to be a true & proper sacrifice which is as plainly affirmed to be such both by scripture itself & the true Interpreters there of as in words & phrases they possible could declare to humane sense & understanding. And with this I conclude the proof of the mayor of my sixth & last argument framed directly against the English Relion, & hence I pass to the second part of my treatise in which I will positively demonstrate by six other affirmative arguments the truth of the Roman faith now professed in the greater part of the Christian world framing & compounding my silogismes of the contradictory propositions to those which I have used before for the confutation of the English faith, in this ensuing manner.    

THE SECOND PARTE OF THE CONVICTION CONtaining the defensive arguments.  — Adhuc excellentiorem viam vobis demonstro. 1. Cor. 12.31. 
ALTHOUGH ' in reality & rigour of truth especially for the more learned sort of people, there is no necessity of other proof of the truth of the Roman Catholic faith, than the disproof which I have already made of the English Religion, in regard that there being only their Religion & ours here in question theirs being false, as I have plainly demonstrated, ours must by unavoy dabble consequence be true, supposing two contradictories cannot be both true in one and the same matter or subject: nevertheless for greater satisfaction of the reader & more clear convincement of the truth, I will briefly proceed by positive & affirmative arguments in defence of the Roman faith & Religion.  

THE HRST PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT.  
I Propound my first syllogism in this form & manner.  
That only Religion is true which is truly Catholic.  
But the Roman Religion only is truly Catholic.  
Therefore the Roman Religion is the only true Religion.  
The Mayor needs no proof, as being granted by our adversaries, & being once admitted with the Minor the other doth thence necessarily follow according to the rules of Logic, which teaches that the premises being, true & truly disposed, the consequence cannot fail.  
The Minor which our Antagonists deny I prone, because the Roman Religion only hath all the conditions required to true Catho●●●●●●e, that is it hath universality of matter or object of faith, it hath universality of time, place & persons that profess it: & also it hath universality of the rule or reason which directs the professors in the confession & exercise of their faith, & with all it hath unity in the same.  
And first that the Roman Religion hath universality in matter it is most manifest for that the adversaries themselves can not deny but that it conprehendeth by faith & believeth not only all that is contained in the scriptures, but also what soever else is proposed by their Church as matter of faith, comprehended either in the written word of God, or divine traditions which are the unwritten word of God: which is the most large & compleit universality of faith that can be imagined, to the latitude of which the object or matter of the English faith comes not near as being by them limited to the bare scriptures only. As likewise because they deny points which the Roman Church maintains for matters of faith. As are Purgatory, prayer to saints etc.  
Secondly. That the Roman Religion hath universality in the rule or reason which guideth the professors of it in their true belief it is also evident in regard they neither believe, nor refuse ●o believe any thing as matter of faith for any other immediate motive or cause then for that it is proposed unto them by the infallible authority of their Church to be believed or not to be believed as the word of God which is the prime & formal object of their faith, which generality or universality of rule is so great & solid that it is inpossible to imagine any more ample & perfect in that nature.  
Thirdly. This most constant & unvariable universality of the total rule of faith as it is but one only in itself, so doth one only agreeable & uniform consent of faith necessarily flow & issue out of it as from a most clear fountain, which is unity in the same faith among all & every one of the professors of it: supposing that according to true Philosophy, where the formal object is one, the actions tho' neverso many, must of necessity be of one & the same species or nature, that which in supernatural faith is yet more certain & apparent by reason the object of it is exceedingly more uniform & unvariable than any natural object is.  
Fourthly. Vniversallitie of time, place & persons is so manifestly found in the Roman Religion: that the adversaries themselves confess that there hath been ever a visible Roman Religion in the world from the time of the Apostles even to this present day: which yet if they were so impudent as to deny, all histories, all writings, all acts & monuncents, even the very stones themselves in many places would quite convince & confounded them. Only one exception or evasion they have to wit by alleging that altho' the Roman Church for the space of the five hundreth first years was a true Church yea & the mother Church of all the rest of the particular Christian Churches, 
Praesatmon.  as great King james doth ingenuously confess, yet say they hath it since failed in faith, & of the Church of Christ is turned in to the seat of Antichrist: viz: when Phocas the Emperor gave unto Boniface the third Pope of that name the title of universal Bishop.  
This therefore is our adversary's common allegation for proof of the supposed defection of the Roman Church in matters of faith, but so feeble frivolous & false that both they themselves, if they were not very bleareyed, & all others might as it were in a miroir, or perspective glass clearly discover this by the view of the success of times to be but false colours & painting whereby to limb their own inexcusable defection from that faith which they found universally established in the Christian world when their first founders began to broach their own pretended reformation.  
For first I say that if for either Phocas to give or Bonifacius to take the title of universal Bishop were to revolt or make a defection from the true faith or Church: then should the whole General Council of Chalcedon have revolted from the true faith by offering to attribute it to Pope Leo, 
Lib. 47. Epist. 32.  as saint Gregory doth testify: & if this had been so heinous a business as our adversaries contend, it is temereity to affirm or imagine that so famous a Council consisting of so many grave & learned Bishops both Grecians & Latin & which our adversaries themselves admit for legitimate would ever have as much as mentioned such a matter.  
secondly. This being a matter of fact which can not be decided by either scriptures or ancient Fathers or the Primative ages in regard it is known to have happened after them both: our only judges must be those historians who have made relation of this passage. Now those relators which are Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Pulus Diaconus, Ado, & venerable Beda, none of them affirm either that Phocas did give Boniface any authority of Primacy which he had not afore, nor yet do they or say any censure upon the one or the other for that action whatsoever it was.  
thirdly. Certain it is that neither Boniface nor any of his successors ever either claimed or used in their public acts or writings thetitle of universal Bishop: but rather all of them humble themselves so fare as they ordinarily style themselves no other than servants of the servants of God: howsoever that title & style might be offered them or used by others for their greater honour & authority.  
Fourthly. Suppose Pope Boniface & others his successors had accepted & used the title of universal Bishop I mean in a true sense that is so as universal Bishop signifies only Bishop or pastor of the universal Church, what great & odious crime had this been therefore to deserve the name of Antichrist, or usurper of the supremacy in the universal Church, since that both the title of head of the universal Church, & the authority also of the head was attributed unto precedent Popes long before the time of Phocas, 
justinianus signior 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 appear not only by the testimonies of two famous Emperors justinian & valentinian, but also by the acts of the Chalcedon Counsels that title is acknowledged in plain terms. In so much that even in those prime ages it was turned in to a common proverb, that the first seat that is the Roman seat was to beiudged by noman.  
fively, If Pope Boniface is to be accounted Antichrist by the professors of the English Religion because they feign him to have usurped the title & power of universal Bishop, how I pray will their Kings escape the same censure who have received the title, & power of the head of the English Church from their predecessor King Henry the 8. who nevertheless had no more power (nay much less) to confer it upon them then the Emperor Phocas had to declare the same, or the like to be due to the Pope.  
lastlly. The truth is, that it is not found in any of the foresaid historiographers or any others of the Roman Religion, that Phocas gave to the Pope either the power or yet the title of universal Bishop: but they relate only that Phocas by his imperial edict did declare against the presumption of john Patriarch of Constantinople that this title of head or Bishop of the universal Church was proper to the Bishop of Rome but not to him, or any other: & moreover that it was no way due to the Bishops of the Constantinopolitan seat or Church. And this only the cited authors relate without any mention of the words universal Bishop, but only they mention the words primate, prime seat, & head of the Churches, or the like phrases, as may be seen in their books. So that this is a gross imposture of the Novellists of our time in using the testimonies of these grave authors against the Popes of Rome by miere cheating, & cousinage: & by this means in steed of proving their intent they prove nothing else but themselves to be miere Sycophants & deceivers, to whom supposing they publish to the world the foresaid supposititious change of Religion made by Pope Boniface in the Roman Church, without either divine or humane testimony, more than their own presumed & presumptuous authority, no prudent Christian ought to give any more credit than he gives to the incredulous & impious jews who calumniate Christ as a perverter of the law of God because he established his own most perfect Church & Religion in lieu of their Ceremonial Synogog. And by this it is clear that the minor proposition of this my first argument stands still firm & unanserable to wit that the Roman Religion only is & ever was truly Catholic, which is that I here intent to demonstrate.   

THE SECOND PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT.  
THIS my second argument I reduce to this form of Syllogism.  
That only Religion is true which hath the true Canon of scripture.  
But the Roman Religion only hath the true Canon of scripture.  
Therefore the Roman Religion only is the true Religion.  
The mayor doubtless is granted as certain by our adversaries, wherefore it needs no further proof.  
The minor which I know they deny, I prove because the Roman Church only hath that same Canon of scripture which hath been generally received in the Church both before & since the time of saint Augustin who in his second book of Christian doctrine hath the very same number & names of diuine● volumes which at this present the Roman Church useth & in formor ages used since the time of the Apostles: 
Cap. 8.  which Canonical books saint Augustin received from the Council of Carthage, & this Council 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 chief & greater part of the Church since they were delivered to it by the Apostles, as I have more largely declared in the confutation of the English Canon, in which point I need not insiste any longer because the same arguments which I used for disproof of it, abundantelie serve for the proof of the minor proposition of this my positive argument, to wit that the Roman Church only hath that same Canon of scripture completly & entirely, which hath been ever most generally received in the Christian world.   

THE THIRD PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT.  
MY third reason for demonstration of the truth of the Roman Religion is this.  
That Religion only is true which hath the true interpretation & sense of scripture.  
But the Roman Religion only hath the true interpretation & sense of scripture.  
Therefore the Roman Religion only is the true Religion.  
The mayor of this syllogism is allowed for true & questionless by both parties. The minor only is in contronersie, for the more clear proof of which it is to be supposed that both parties agree in this point to wit that, that Church only hath the true infallible interpretation & sense of scripture which hath the infallible assistance of the holy Cost in that action: altho' in deed this argreement well considered is only in words, for not obstanding this it yet further remaineth Controversed betwixt us & our adversaries in whom this special assistance of the divine spirit resides whether in th● Prelates & Pastors of the Church, duly 〈◊〉 ●●bled or in e●●●e particular person of the Church. In which controversy nevertheless both parties yet further accord that wheresoever the foresaid true inspuration of God doth assist, there only is the true interpretation of the divine word.  
Besides this, it is to be supposed that there are two manners, or two sorts of means, or ways by which people attain to the true understanding & sense of the scriptures. The one is by a sole conference of one place of scripture with another by every private Christian man or woman learned or unlearned by reading the bare text of the scripture & judging 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 solitary or private conference & comparison of places of scripture one with another, but both by comparing or collating them in that manner, & also by an exact view of the expositions of the holy & learned Fathers or doctors of all former times & succeeding ages even to the present time in which the expounders live, which form of proceeding as it is most mainfest, neither is to be performed by every private person authentically & with infallible certainly, but by the public Prelate's & Pastor's of the Church & especially by the chief pastor of it. Now this being noted & advertised I prove the min● of my argument w●th an● her syllogism in 〈◊〉 manner.  
That o●ely Church hath the true interpretation & sense of scripture which receiveth it from the Priests, Prelates, & Pastors especially the chief Pastor of the Church succeeding lineally from the Apostles, by conference of places & view of expositions of the holy Fathers & doctors of all successive ages from the Apostles to the end of he world & not by every private man or woman.  
But the Roman Church only receines the interpretation & sense of scripture from the Priests, Prelates, & Pastors especially the cheese pastor of the Church in the foresaid manner.  
Ergo the Roman Church only hath the true interpretation & sense of scripture.  
The major of this syllogism in which the difficulty consists, I could prove first by scriptures which both in the old & new Testament assign this faculty & power to Priests, Bishops, & Pastors as governors & rules of the Church with a strict command for the people to obey them. But because I d●e not here profess to make a●ie exact & large discourse upon that point, but only intent briefly to make good & justify my former argumentation, therefore I remit the rest of the places of scripture which I could allege to be se●● as they at cited & declared by Bellarmin & other divines, & will urge only that one text of S. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians which is most clear & pregnant for this purpose.  
Wherefore in his 4. 
Bell. lib. 3. de verbo Dei c. 4 & sequent.  chapter of this Epistle speaking of the institution of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy by Christ, he saith thus. And he gave some Apostles, & some Prophets, & other some Evangelists, & others pastors & doctors to the consummatior of the saints unto the work of the ministry, unto the edification of the body of Christ, until we meet all into the unity of faith, & knowledge of the son of God, into a perfect man, into the m●sure of the age of the fullness of Christ, that now we be not children wavering with every wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men in craftiness of the circumvention of error. By which words it is manifest that our saviour among the rest appointed Pastors & doctors & them not only for the Ecclesiastical government of the Church but also to deliver the true doctrine of Christ to the people lest if they were left to themselves in that particular of the knowledge of the true faith, they should fall into errors, & this was thus ordained by Christ not for any limited time but even unto the consummation of the world in all ages. By which it is evident that since Christ our saviour (as the Apostle relates) 〈◊〉 ●●point this order & subordination of the C●●gie in his Church for the government & instruction of the members thereof in true faith & perfection of virtuous life, & as superiors to whom he commanded them to obey according to that of the Apostle. Obedite prepositis & subiacete eyes. It is I say by necessary consequence most manifest that Christ's divine pleasure also was that the common people should not be their own carvers, but should receive the interpretation & sense of his divine word from those whom he himself designed for their rulers & superiors in all matters concerning the safety of their souls, supposing as a certain & evident truth that the whole structure & perfection of a Christian faith & life doth necessarily depened upon the orthodox sense & meaning of the word of God. That which the general & perpetual practice of the Church from time to time doth manifestly convince, which in all occasions of controversy in matters of faith & manners hath used no other proceeding then by assembling of Counsels consisting of the Prelates & Pastors & chiefly of the chief & supreme Pastors the Bishops of Rome according to their several times & standings, for deciding of doubdts & questions broached by erroneous teachers: & that by declaration of the true sense of those places of scripture about which the controversy was begun. For so did the General Council of Nyce under Pope Silvester expound & declare to the whole Church & every particular member thereof the true sense of those words! Pater ma●or me est. And in the first Council of Constantinople under Pope Damasus those: 
joan. Amos. 4. Rom. 8.  Ego Dominus formans tonitru & creans spiritum. And those: spiritus postula● pronobis. In the Council of Ephesus under Pope Celestin against Nestorius those: 
Math. 26. Philip. 2.  Deus Deus meus quare me dereliquisti. And those: habitu inventus ut homo. In the Council of Chalcedon under Pope lo against Entyches those: 
joa. 1.  verhum carofactum est.  
To this I add consent of Fathers who writ of this matter generally teaching this same doctrine. 
Lib. 3. c. 4.  S. Irenaeus in his book against heresies saith thus. We ought not still to seek for the truth 〈◊〉 others, which may easily befounde in the Church, since the Apostles have most abundantly deposited in it as in a rich storchouse all things appertaining to truth, 
Potum vitae.  that all those that will may receive 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 words it is plain that by the Church S. Irenaeus understands no other than the Bishops & chief Pastors from whom as he teaches, the rest of the people must receive their doctrine. And therefore he adds in another place that those (meaning Bishops) who have succession from the Apostles jointly with the succession of their Episcopate or Bishoprie received a certain grace or gift of truth according to the pleasure of God the Father.  
And in this same matter in like fort S. Augustin speaketh in his first & tenth chapter of his second Book against julian 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 destroy by the sentenees of Bishops who have handled the scriptures with great commendation or glory, by the assistance of God, thy machinations o Iu●●an. And a little after he adds of the same Bishps & Doctors, 
Cal. Instit.  saying whom Christian people ought to antepose or prefer before your profane novelties, & adhere to them rather than to you. By which words S. Augustin who even in our adversary's judgement is a faithful witness of antiquity, plainly testifies what the practice of the ancient Church was in this particular of the people's receiving the scriptures exposition & sense from their superiors & not from any other private person or every one by his own reading & industry, how soever he may seem to have the spirit of God for interpretation of his word.  
And now by this (to omit of her testimonies of Fathers to this purpose which cannot be included in so small a compass) I conclude the whole confirmation & force of my syllogism assuring myself that none of solid judgement can firmly persuade themselves (how be it for temporal respects & to accommodate themselves to the current of the time they may exteriorly profess the contrary) to be credible that Christ our Saviour whose wisdom was divine & infinite, should have taught the professors of his faith to play every man in his humour with the sacred scripture, & to have committed the true authentical exposition of it to every jack & Gill rather them to his▪ Priests, Bishops & chief commanders of his Church in a linial succession from the Apostles, as being public & visible ministers to whom it should obey especially in matters of faith & salvation.   

THE FOURTH PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT.  
MY fourth argument for positive proof of the Roman Religion is as followeth.  
That Religion only is true which hath a public & known rule of faith.  
But the Roman Religion only hath a public & known rule of faith.  
〈◊〉 to Roman Religion only is the true Religion.  
Touching the filogisme there may seem to be controversy betwixt us & the Novelists both in the Mayor & the Minor wherefore I will prove them both several tho' briefly as the nature of my disputation requires.  
The Mayor proposition I prove advertising the reader by the way that by a public rule of faith I mean such a rule as is cognoscible or as may be known to all sorts of people as well those which are already members of the true Church & faith, as also to others who as yet being out of it desire by their conversion to be received into it. This supposed I argue in this manner.  
It is a necessary property of the true Religion to have a public & known rule of faith. Therefore the true Religion necessarily hath a Public & known rule of faith.  
The antecendent of the argument in which only the difficulty of it consists, I prove because if the true religion hath not a public known rule of faith it is impossible for such as want it to find it in regard that finding cannot be had but by seeking, 
quarite & invenietis.  & to seek or inquire for that which is not so public that it can possible be found, is to seek & not to find & consequently to labour in vain. Now true Religion is of it own nature such as may befound by those who endevore to knowe it as day lie experience doth teach. And therefore our Saviour saith: quaerite & invenietis, seek & you shall find: which sentence being general, it cannot be more comodiouslie understanded then of true Religion as being the most important business which people can inquire for or seek in this world as being the only way to salvation.  
Concerning the minor of both my Sylogismes which in substance are one & the same proposition, to wit that the Roman Religion only hath the necessary property of a true Religion and not the English faith, that is a public & known rule of faith, it is most evident for that the rule of faith which the Roman Church proposeth to be followed is the word of God expounded by the public, visible, & known authority of the Bishops & Pastors of the most universal Church in the manner & form above declared in my precedent demonstration: And not as the professors of the English Religion teach to wit by every private person in a sense secret & only known to him who hath it: & which cannot possible be any more understanded or perceived by others than the most secret cogitations of an others mind: All which as it plainly appeareth is quite repugnant & as it were doth directly intercept the means ordained by God for the salvation of souls, who out of his infinite bounty & mercy hath provided a way to Paradise so plain & perspicious that even children may be able to find & walkein. And now by this the force of my fift argument remains confirmed & established & the truth of the Roman Religion convinced.   

THE FIFT PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT.  
MY fift positive argument I propose in this manner.  
That Religion only is true which hath a perpetual & disinterrupted succession of true Bishops & Priests derived from the Apostles.  
But the Roman Religion only hath a perpetual & disinterupted succession of true Bishops & Priests derived from the Apostles.  
Ergo the Roman Religion only is the true Religion.  
The mayor I know not certainly whether the adversaries will grant or no but in case they deny it, I have sufficiently proved it before in my demonstration of their want of succession.  
The minor in which the controversy either entirely or cheesely consists, I prove first by the same reasons & arguments I convinced in the fifth principal Syllogism of the first part of this treatise, that the English Religion hath no such succession from whence (upon the supposition in which we both agree that there is no other true Religion but theirs or ours) it infallibly follows that the Roman Religion only hath perpetual succession of Prelates & Pastors.  
Secondly. I prove this succession in the Roman Church by grant of all or the greater part of the adversaries who most ordinarily use to distinguish betwixt succession of persons & succession of doctrine leaving the first for us & claiming the second to themselves, altho' most falsely as I have sufficiently demonstrated in my negative argument upon this point. Yet if any be so obstinate as to deny the continual succession of Pastors in the Roman Church, let him only read saint Augustin's epistle to Generosus & he will find by him related the names of all the Bishops of Rome from saint Peter to Pope Anastasius who then did sit as chief Pastor in the Church of Rome. And the rest of the Roman Bishops names he may find in diverse modern histories or Chronologies, & particularly in Platina & Onuphrius: Yea & in the Centurists or Centu●●ators who notobstanding they be adversaries, yet we are content to admit them for our judges in this particular of the personal succession of Pastors in the Church of Rome. And now by this & that which I have treated touching this same matter in my negative argument framed against the English Religion in the first part of my disputation this argument also is sufficiently declared to be sound & of approved force & efficacy.   

THE sixth PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT.  
I frame my sixth & last principal argument in this manner.  
That only Religion is true which hath & practiseth a true & proper external sacrifice.  
But the Roman Religion only hath & practiseth a true & proper external sacrifice.  
Ergo the Roman Religion only is the true Religion.  
The Mayor which only is in question I have largely proved already in the declaration & confirmation of my negative argument propounded against the English Religion in this point. To which I add that external sacrifice is the essential part of the external service of God & the very quintessence of Religion ordained for a special acknowledgement of his supreme power, dominion & majesty. And althou' it is true that Christ our Saviour offered himself in sacrifice upon the Cross for the reconciliation of humane nature, which sacrifice was of fare greater estimation & value in the sight of God than all the oblations & sacrifices of the old Testament, & therefore had no necessity to be offered more than once: Nevertheless because this sacrifice was only or chiefly for the redemption of man kind & was not offered by us but by him alone for us, therefore it was further convenient & necessary that besides that singular & divine oblation, there should be a quotidian & daily sacrifice in the Church on our parts both for a perpetual memory of the former, 
●●ge Sacrif●ium.  & also for an external protestation of our own infirmity, & the sovereign power & majesty of him who created us & conserveth us by his continual providence & manutention, & for a sign & testimony of our gratitude towards him from whom we receive essence, life, & motion.  
Sacrifice only is an honour peculiar to God alone of which he himself saith, honorem meum alteri non dabo. All other sorts of honour as prayers & praise of their own quality & nature are common to creatures, for we may lawfully both prey & praise mortal men even in this world, but sacrifice unto them we can not, no not to the greatest Angel or saint in heaven. And in this chiefly consists the error of Gentiles & Pagan people, which had not been so gross if they had not sacrificed to creatures but only given them supreme honour of laud & prayer. It seems the very instinct of nature taught men to sacrifice to God, & that God & sacrifice & in some sort are correlatives according to the saying of God himself of himself. Si Dominus sum ubi est honor meus, that word meus significes property in other things & much more in this of sacrifice. Hence it is that no nation was ever so barbarous which if it did acknowledge any kind of God thou never so false & absurd, did not honore him with sacrifice. And surely they commit no less crime them heigh treason against the divine supremacy who deprive God of the honour of sacrifice; yea doubtless they take a course to extinguish by degrees the memory of that attribute & open the way to Atheism who extinguish the exercise of an external sacrifice. If in the time of the old Testament sacrifices were so frequent when God almighty conferred his gifts with a scarce & sparing ●and: much more frequently & with fare more devotion & perfection ought a sacrifice to be offered in the law of Christ, which is by excellency named the law of grace because of the infinite abundance of graces, favours, & benefits which God powereth upon those who embrace the true faith & Religion supposing that by how much the gifts be greater by so much the acknowledgement ought to be more exact & accurate.  
Now for conclusion of my whole treatise I advertice the reader that I have put all my arguments in such a form of Syllogism as is most clear & obvious & of that nature that if the premises be once granted for true, the consequence most undoubtedly follows. They be also in a mode & figure most known & common. For these terms, that Religion are to be accepted for a kind of universal or indefinite subject as signifying one among many indeterminately, & so every Syllogism is in Darij, which both in mode & figure is one of the plaineth forms. Which form of argument I judged most fit for my purpose in respect my chief design in this matter is to convince the understanding of the more intelligent & scholastical sort of people in the truth of the Roman Religion, & falsity of the contrary: who if they have so much ingenuity in them as to yield to the truth when by judicious meditation & pondering of the premises they shall find it discovered & set in their seight, I doubt not but they will perceive themselves by force of the consequences concluded & captivated in obedience of faith, which is that only honour or profit I hope & desire to reap of my labours.  
FINIS▪    

APPROBATIO.  
VIso testimonio, cuiusdam viri docti mihi de fide & doctrina probê noti, quotestatur tractatum hunc Anglicanum, qui inscribitur Conuictio novitatis & antiquitatis defensio, nihil contra fidem aut bonosmores continere, dignum eundem iudicavi qui praelo committeretur. Datum Duaci 28. Novembris. Anno Domini 1632.  
GEORGIUS COLVENERIUS etc.   

THE PRINTERS ERRORS.  
Page 3. line 5. for Campion read Campian. And p. 40. in the marginal note for quo read quę. The I rest remit to the reader's discretion.