signify three yeares and a halfe which short compasse of tyme cannot in any sort be applyed to the Bishop of Reme as Antichrist teaching the present Roman Religion seeing he hath coÌ„tinued preaching the sayd Doctrine Religion euen by the Protestants confessions as now I see many hundred of yeares But good my Lord Cardinall if there be any other reasons behinde to impugne this sayd change I would intreate your Lordship to descend to them for in matters of great importance variety seldome breedeth satiety CARD BELLARM. I am willing therto And for the further prosecution therof I am to put you in mind M. Doctour partly according to my former Method set downe in the beginning that wheras the Professours of the Church of Rome were in the Apostles dayes the true Church of Christ as is aboue on all sides confessed and consequently the most ancient Church since truth is euer more ancient then falsehoode and Errours It therfore followeth that all Hereticks whatsoeuer who make choyse of any new doctrine in Fayth do make a reuolt and seperation from that Church of the Apostles according to those words of S. Iohn exierunt a nobis they went out of vs and answerably to that other text certaine that went forth from vs which very words do contayne a Brande or Note vpon the Authour of euery Heresy Since the Apostle and the Euangelist do meane hereby that euer first Hereticke goeth out from a more aucient society of Christians then by him is chosen So as to go out of a precedent Church or society of Christians is not only an infallible note of Heresy in the iudgment of Vincentius Lyrinensis quis vnquam Haereses instituit nisi qui priùs ab Ecclesiae Câ—â—boli ae Vniuer sitatis antiqnitatis consensione discreâ—â—it but euen by your owne Brethren for we finde Osiander among others thus to write Nota Haeretici ex Ecclesia progrediuntur Thus do Hereticks euer forsake the generall most ancient company of Christians as smale Brooks do often leaue the common channell of the mayne Riuer Now here I demaÌ„d of you M. Doctour to shew from what company or society of Christians more ancient did we Catholicks in those former tymes when first you say this chaÌ„ge of Faith was made depart or from what Church afore in being went we out The euidency of this Note is manifested in Caluin Luther the Waldenses the Wicliffians and all other ancient acknowledged Sectaries of whom it is confessed that all of them were originally Members of our Catholicke Church and by their making choise of particuler Doctrines so Iudas the Apostle who departing from the company of the Apostls after became Iudas the Traitour did go and depart out of the present Roman Church and therby became Hereticks The like M. Doctour I do here expect that you should prooue by authority of Ecclesiasticall Histories of the present Catholicke and Romane Church which if you cannot then is the inference most strong that the present Church of Rome neuer made any such reuolt from or departing out of that Church which was established by the Apostles at Rome and consequently that the present Church of Rome neuer suffered any change in Fayth since it first being a Church D. WHITAKERS Your Church hath departed from that Fayth which the Apostles first preached in Rome and I hope this departure and going out without other proofs is sufficient enough And here I answere with M. Newstubâ— one of our learned Brethren That when you require who were they that did note your going out c. This question I say is vnvecessary c. we haue taken you with the manner that is to say with the Doctrine diuerse from the Aposties and therfore neither Law nor Conficience can force vs to examen them who were witnesses of you first departing Thus my Brother M. Newstubs And my Lord as it is far better for one to haue a cleare sight then to enioy the best helps for curing a bad sight so we here prefer the truth of the Doctrine first preached at Rome by the Apostles and manifested vnto vs by the perspicuity of the scripture before all humane reasons and arguments directed to the discouerie of Romes after embraced Innouation CARD BELLARM. What strang Logicke is this and how poore a Circulation do you make The mayne question betweene vs is whether the present Church of Rome hath changed it Fayth or no since the Apostles dayes To prooue that it hath not Iverge that the professours therof did neuer go out of any more ancieÌ„t Church and consequently euer retayned without change it former Fayth Now you in answere hereto as not being able to instance the persons by whom or the tymes when any such departing or going out was made by the Professours of our Religion reply that it Doctrine is different from the Doctrine of the Apostles and therfore the Church of Rome hath changed it Religion since the Apostles tymes and this sophism you know is but Petitio Principij or a beginning of the matter in question and is nothing els but without answering to any of my premisses the denyall of my Conclusion which kynd of answenng I am sure impugneth all Logicke and therfore all Reason since Logicke is but Reason sublimated and refined But to proceed further In euery introduction of a new Religion or broaching of any innouation in Doctryne the Professours therof receaue a new denomination or name for the most part from the first authour of the new doctryne and sometymes from the Doctrine its selfe like vnto a running riuer which commonly taketh the name of that riuer into which it falleth Thus the Arians the Valentinians Marcionists Manicheans from Arius Valentinus Marcian and Manicheus c. or from the doctrine it selfe as the Hereticks Monothelites Agnoitae Theopaschitae c. though this more seldome This Note or Marke of imposing a new name of the Professours of euery arrising Heresy may be exemplified in all Heresies without exception ingendred since the Apostles tymes euen to this day a poynt so exempt from all doubt as that your learned Man M. Doctour Feild thus writeth Surely it is not to be denyed but that the naming after the names of Men was in the time of the Primatiue Church peculiar and proper to Hereticks and Schismaticks with whom agreeth M. Parks both of them borrowing it from the ancieÌ„t Fathers and particulerly from Chrysostome who thus saith Prout Haeresiarchae nomen it a Secta vocatur Well then this being thus acknowledged on all sides If the present Church of Rome hath made a change from her first Primatiue Fayth then the Professours therof by introducing of new Heresies and Opinions became Heretickes and consequently they haue taken according to our former grounde some name either from the first broachers of these new Doctrines or from the doctrines themselues But you cannot M. Doctour shew any such name to be imposed vpon vs
auncient Christians did follow Thus we see that this authority and words of Saint Basill simply a necessity of confession of our sinnes to the Priest and consequently a particular relation of them Saint Leo thus conspireth with Saint Basill Cum reatus conscientiarum sufficiat solis Sacerdotibus iudicari confessione sâ—creta c. Seing it is sufficient that the guiltines of our consciences be made knowne only to Priests in secret confession c. where you may see that confession of sinnes in those dayes was made secret and only vnto Priests Saint Austin thus agreeth with the former Fathers Non solum post paenitentiam c. Not only after Pennance is prescribed a Man ought to keepe himselfe from those vices but also before pennance whiles he is sound who if he should deferre it all his last end Nescit si ipsam pâ—nitentiam accipere Deâ— Sacerdoti peccata sua confiteri poterit He knoweth not whether he shall haue power to receaue his pennance and to confesse his sinnes to God and to a Priest S. Cyprian thus wryteth of this poynt quantò fide maiore timore meliore sunt qui quantumâ—â—uis nullo sacrifiâ—ij aut libelli faciâ—ore constricti quontam tomen de hoc vel cogitauerunt hoc ipsum apud Sacerdotes Dei volenter simpliciter confidentes exomologesni conscientiae faciunt animi pondus expenum salutâ—rem meaelam paruis licet modicis vulneribus exquirunt How much more greater fayth and better feare haue they who though they be not guilty of any cryme touching Sacrifice or giuing vp a Libel yet because they had such a conceate or thought they do with greiffe and simplicity confesse this to Priests c. Thus do they disburden their consciences and seeke to apply a healthfull remedy to their small wounds Now heere by the words Sacrifice and Libel are to be vnderstood sacrifizing to Idolls in the tymes of the Heathen Emperours and giuing vp their names in a booke that they were content to sacrifize To be short Tertullian thus sayth of this custome of confessing our sinnes to a Priest Plerosque hoc opus aut subfugere aut de die in diem differie presumo pudorâ—â— magis memores quam salutis velut illi qui in partibus verecundieribus corporis contracta vaxatione scientiam Medentium vitant ita cum eâ—â—bescentia sua pereunt I do presume that diuers do eyther anoyd this worke meaning of confessine their sinnes or do deferre 〈◊〉 from day to day being more mindfull of their shame then of their health They being heerein like to those Men who hauing some disâ—â—se in their more secret parts of their body do flee the cure of Physitians and so they perish through their owne shame Thus Tertullian from whose testimony is necessarily euicted particular confession of our priuat sinnes euen according to the nature of his similitude heere vsed This point of the auncient Fathers iudgment touching confession of our particular sinnes to a Priest is so deere and manifest that the Centurists discoursing of the vse thereof in those former tymes thus plainly acknowledge Si quis paenitentiam agebant peccatum prius confirebantur ac enim confessionem magnoperè Tertullianus vrget in libro de Pâ—nitentia institutem fuisse priuatam Confessionem qua delicta cogitata praua confessisunt ex aliquot Cypriani locis apparet c. Yf any in those tymes did pennance they did first confesse there sinnâ—e for thus doth Tertullian mightely vrge Confession in his booke de Paenitentia And that priuate Confession was then in vse by the which sinnes euen wicked thoughts were confessed appeareth from certaine places of Cyprian to wit out of his fift sermon de Lapsis lib. 3. Epist epist 14. and 16. Thus farre the Centurists all eminent Protestants who we see do grant that in those tymes euen priuat thoughts much more particular actuâ—ll sinnes were accustomed to be confessed Which Centurists do further witnesse that the Priest did in those tymes absolue the penitent besides by pronouncing the words of Absolution with the Ceremony of imposing her hand a ceremony which at this very day is vsed by the Priests And thus My Honorable Lord and you M. Vice-Chancelour you both may from hence perceaue how neere to the Apostles dayes Confession of particular sinnes euen by the acknowledgment of the Protestants was vsually practized Which point being granted it must by force of all Reâ—son follow that Christ did first institute this Sacrament of Confession and the Apostles did first exercize their authority therein giuen to them by Christ Since otherwise it cannot probably be conceaued that a dogmaticall point of fayth and Religion so crosse and repugnant to Mans nature as Confession is could in so short a tyme inuade the whole Church of God without any contradiction or resistance VICE-CHANCELOVR Michaeas you haue spoken much in warrant of ConfessioÌ„ and Asolution geuen by the Pryest But the question in regard of your former alledged authorityes is not so much whether Confession of particular sinns was generally taught by those auncient Fathers as whether they had iust reason and warrant so to teach But I will passe no censure of them touching this point But Michaeas what do you say to that assumed authority and priuiledge which you Pryests vendicate to yourselfes in the sacrifice of the Masse Wheare you bease the people in hand that you sacrifize and offer vp the true and naturall body and bloud of Christ to his Father I am assured that the auncient Church of God cannot affoard you any example hereof And the rather since it is manifest that the doctrine of Transubstantiation vpon which your doctrine of sacrifice is grounded was first brought into the Church at the Councell of Lateran by Innocentius the third Which Councell was houlden anno â—215 And therefore it was celebrated many hundred yeres after the Period of the Primatiue Church MICHAEAS M. Vice-Chancelour The sequâ—le will show of what Antiquitie the doctrine is conceâ—ning the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ Which is dayly offered vp by the Priest But first I will take away your stumbling block touching the name of Transubstantiation imposed by the Councell of Lateran For the better remouall whereof you are to conceaue that the doctrine of the reâ—ll being of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament of the 〈◊〉 and Sacrifice of the Masse was taught in all the precedentages though the word Transubstantiation for the better explicating of the doctryne was then and not before inuented Euen as the doctrine of the Trinity was eueâ— in the first infancy of the Church generally beleeued yet the word Trinity was first imposed vpon the doctrine by Councell of Nice But to proceede further touching the Antiquity of the doctryne of the sacrifice of the Masse We first answeare herto that it receaued it first institution and beginning euen from the night before the
of you the second time for all the Protestants do not precisely consent herein how longe do you thinke that the Church of Rome did continue in her Verginall state and Purity without any stayne in her Faith D. WHITAKERS I thinke that during the first six hundred yeares after Christ the Church was pure florishing and inuiolably taught and defended the Fayth deliuered by the Apostles During all which ages the Church of Christ in respect of truth in Faith and Religion was as I may say in the full assent of the wheele And although to speake by resemblance there are found euen many irregularities in the regular motions of the Heauens yet I am fully perswaded that for the space of the first six hundred yeares no annomalous exorbitancies of errours or superstition did accompany the heauenly preaching of the Ghosple in the Church of Christ CARD BELLARM. M. Doctour indeed part of what you here say are your owne words in your booke against D. Sanders and you deale more liberally herein then diuers of your Breehren by affording a hundred and fifty yeares more to the true Church then most of them will allow Now you granting the purity of Faith to continue in the Church of Rome for the space of the first six hundred yeares after Christ do withall implicitly and inferentially grant that no change of Faith was made in that Church within the compasse of the afore mentioned 160. yeares seeing the said 160. yeares are included within the first six hundred yeares as being part of them But to proceed further you are here M. Doctour to call to minde what your selfe at other times no doubt at vnawares haue writen I do finde to instance only in some two or three points that you affirme that Victor who liued anno 160. after Christ was the first that exercised iurisdictō vpon forraine Churches That not Cyprian only who liued anno 240. to vse your owne words but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in errour touching the Doctrine of good works as thinking so to pay the paine due to sinne to satisfy Gods iustice Finally that Leo who was Pope anno 440. to speake in your owne dialect was a great Architect of the Antichristian kingdome Are not all these your assertions M. Doctour D. WHITTAKERS I cannot but acknowledge them for mine since they are extant to be read in my owne bookes loath I am to be so vnnaturall as to disauow or abandon any issue begotten on my owne brayne CARD BELLARM. Marke well then M. Doctour my deduction If the Chucrh of Rome remayned in her purity of Fayth without any change for the first six hundred yeares for your owne confessiō aboue expressed is that the Church of Christ so long continued a chast and intemerate Spouse And if as your owne penne hath left it written the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy was taught by Victor the first The doctrine of Merit of Works was mainteyned by Cyprian generally by other Fathers of that age and to be short if Leo were a great Architect of the kingdome of Antichrist you meaning of our present Roman Religion all which said Fathers to wit Cyprian Victor Leo and the rest did liue diuers ages before the sixt age or Century to what time you extēd the purity of the Faith of the Church of Rome doth it not then ineuitably result out of your owne Premisses if al this be true as you affirme it is that the doctrin of the Popes Supremacy the doctrine of merit of workes and our Catholicke Doctrine generally taught by Antichrist as you tearme the Pope were no innouations but the same pure doctrines which the Apostles first plāted in the Church of Rome Se how your felfe through your owne inaduertēcy hath fortified the truth of that doctrine which your selfe did intende to ouerthrow And thus farre to show that their neuer was made any chāg of Fayth in the Church of Rome prooued from the distribution diuision of those two different times which by the learned Protestants acknowledgments do contayne the Periods of the Church of Rome her continuance in the true Fayth of the Publicke and generall Profession of our now present Romane Fayth D. WHITTAKERS My L. Cardinall Whereas you haue produced seuerall testimonies from our owne learned Protestāts who teach that in the second third fourth age after Christ such such an Article of the Papists Religion had it beginning It seemeth in my iudgment that these their authorities do more preiudice then aduantage your cause Since such testimonies if so you will stand to them do shew a beginning though most anciēt of those doctrines after the Apostles deaths and consequently a change of Faith in the Church of Rome For if you will admit the authorities of the Protestants granting the antiquities of the present Romish Religion in those former times you are also by force of reason to admit their like authorities in saying that at such tymes and not before those Articles were first taught for seing both these points are deliuered by the Protestants in one the same sentence or testimony why should the one part thereof be vrged for true and the other reiected as false MICHAEAS M. Doctour Here with my L. Cardinall and your owne good licence I am to make bould to put in a word or two This your reply M. Doctour by way of inference may seeme to lessen the antiqurty of our ancient Iewish Law and therfore I hold my selfe obliged to discouer the weakenes therof though not out of desire to entertaine any contestation with you Grant then that some miscreants or Heathen Writers as Enemies to the Law of Moyses affirme that the Religion of the Iewes had it beginning in the tyme of Esdras for example This their testimony may iustly be alleaged to prooue that our Iewish Law was as auncient at least as Esdras but it cannot be alleadged to prooue that our Law tooke it first beginning at that time only and not before in the dayes of Moyses Therefore in the Authorities of this Nature produced from our Aduersaries writinges we are to distinguish and seuer that which the Aduersaries granteth in the behalfe of vs from that which he affirmeth to his owne aduantage What he grāteth for vs against himselfe so farre we are to embrace his authority seing it may be presumed that ordinarliy no learned man would confesse any thing against himselfe his Religion but what the euidency of the truth therein enforceth him vnto and therefore one of the ancient Doctours of your Christian Church if I do remember his words in this respect said well I will strike the Aduersaryes with their owne weapons But what the Aduersary affirmeth in fauour of his owne cause and against vs their we are not to stand to his own authority since no man is to be a witnes in his owne behalfe and it well may be presumed that such his sentence
is confessed for true But only the Question heare is whether Christ our Sauiour did geue an absolute Command vnto his Apostles and their Successours of administrating the said Sacrament vnder both kynds to wit of breade and Wyne so as the deliuering of it to the Laity vnder one kynd only should be a breach of our Lords precept therein The Protestants affirme it to be an absolute transgression of onr Sauiours precept The Catholicks denye it mantayning that our Sauiour in the first institution of the Sacrament did leaue no precept touching the maner how it is to be administrated to the Laity The Catholicks do further iustify that the Protestants in this place do ignorantly confound a Precept with an Institution betwene which two theare is great differeÌ„ce For example God did first Institute and ordayne Mariadge yet he gaue no precept or command thereof For if he had then all Men should haue bene bownd to marye The Catholicks prooue this their doctryne first from our Lord and Sauiours owne words Who as he some tymes maketh mention of both kynds so often doth be mention but ore Kynd only as wheare he sayth He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Againe This is the bread that commeth downe from Heauen in both which places besides diuers others be maketh no mention of the Cup. Secondly the sâ—me doctrine is proued from the practise of our Sauiour hymselfe who being at Emaus with his two Disciples at supper did take breade and as S. Luke relateth and blesse and breake it and did reach it to them Wheare S. Luke mentioneth not the Cup. That by this breade is vnderstoâ—de the â—ucharist is taught by S. Austin and euen by some Protestant Wryters Thirdly from the Apostles practize after Christs tyme. For wereaâ—â— that S. Luke â—eaking of the beleiuers and the faythfull thus sayth They f were perseuering in the doctrine of the Apostles and in communication of breaking of bread and in prayers Heare is no mention of the Cup to the Laity And yet â—eare by breaking of breade is vnderstoode the Eucharist both because it is ioyned with doctrine and prayers as also by the testimonies of the auncienâ— Fathers the Protestants Concerning which place of S. Luke wee are to conceaue that S. Luke related not what the Apostles did who no dowbt did consecrate in both hynds but only what the Laity did and vnder what kynd they did receaue Fourthly the foresaid doctryne of the Laity communicating vnder one kynd or both is confessed by diuers learned Protestants as a matter of Indifferency only and not of Necessity For Luther thus writeth heareof They sinne not against Christ who vse one kind seing Christ hath not commanded to vse both but hath leâ—fâ—â—t to the will of euery one In lyke sort Hospinian the Protestant relateth that certaine Protestants as houlding it a matter of indifferency did actually communicate vnder one kynd To be short Melancton thus writeth heareof Concerning both the kinds of the Lords supper c. The Pope with out any hurt might easely healpe these inconueniences Yf taking away the prohibition he would leaue the vse free And this liberty would noting hurt vs Of such indifferency we see Melancton maketh this poynt to be In the next place we will examine our Aduersaries cheifest arguments produced out of the Scripture to the contrarie And first they obiect the words of our Sauiour Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you To this I answeare first that according to diuers learned Protestants these words do not concerne the Sacrament of the Eucharist But that by eating and drinking in this place is vnderstood beleiuing in Christ Secondly admitting the same words to concerne the B. Eucharist and withall supposing them to include a precept as indeed they include no precept yet this precept resteth not in the Maner of receauing but in the thing receaued to wit the body and bloud of Christ But the body and bloud of Christ are as fully receaued vnder one kynd as vnder both as hereafter shal be showed Our Aduersaryes further obiect those other words of our Sauiour drinke you all of this Which words they will needs extend as spoken to all the Laâ—ty To this I first answeare that the word All is not euer taken in the Scripture Vniuersally for all Men or all things but often for all only of some certayne kynd And according hearto we thus reade All Men sinned and yet from hence Christ is excepted Againe we also reade 〈◊〉 cryed Crucifye hym And yet the Apostles were exempt out of this All. And so heare in the former words Drinke you all of this The word All is to be restrayned only to all the Apostles who then were with Christ For if it were to be extended to all Men vniuersally and without restraint then should the Sacrament of the Cup be giuen to Iewes Turks Infidels and Children all which not withstanding are exempted from thence by the confession of the Protestants Moreouer Drinke yee all of this was spoken onely to those to whom was said do yee this in remembrance of me But this was spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to Preists their successours Now seeing as aboue it is proued Communion vnder one or both kynds is a thing of Indifferencie The Church of God out of her authoritie hath debarred the Laity from the Cup moued thearto besides some other reasons out of a due reuerrence to this highe and venerable Sacrament For if the Laity should drinke of the Cup it would not morally speaking be otherwyse but that through the negligence of diuers of the Laity theare would be frequent spilling of the Cup vpon the ground a thing most indecent and irreuerent and which the auncient Fathers had a speciall care to preuent Neither can it be heare replyed that to the Laity as being retayned from the Cup but a halfe and imperfect Sacra ment is geuen and that thereupon the Laity is depryued of much grace and fruyte imparted by receauing it vnder both kinds To this I answere First the Protestants haue small reason to vrge the want of Grace or fruit by giuing it vnder one kind seing by their doctrine this Sacrament actually giueth no grace or fruit at all but only by representation or signification But this representation of our Sauiours death is perfectly accomplished vnder one kind only As we see it was fully figured in the old Law in the Manna alone and in the Paschall Lambe alone Secondly and more particularly I say that neither is this Sacrament giuen by halfs only as our Aduersaries suggest neither is lesse fruit imparted by one kind then by both the reason hereof is because the Catholicks do ioyntly teach that vnder eyther kind is truly contayned whole Christ to wit his Body Bloud Soule and Diuinity That
errein such particular poynts But the Case 〈…〉 otherwyse When many of the cheife Pastours and Father 〈…〉 seuerall Ages of the Primatiue Church do concurrently teach a poynt of doctrine as an Article of fayth And that they are not contradicted by any other of the Fathers for their mantayning of the said doctrine And in this sort is the former doctrine of the sacrifice of the Masse taught without any opposition at all not only by the former alledged Fathers but by many others or rather all othors for breuiuy heare omitted Now in this Case M. Vice-Chancelour we Catholicks do hould that such their doctryne so ioyntly by the Fathers taught without any contradiction is most agreable to Gods word For seing the Fathers of the Primatiue Church were in those dayes the cheife Pastours of Christs Church Yf they should ioyntly â—rreâ— in fayth then would it follow that the whole Visible Church of God should erre an assertion most repugnant to the promisse of our Sauiour Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Et portae Inferi non praualebant aduersus eam and to that honerable title giuen to the Church by the Apostle styling it columna firmamentum veritatis Now what reuerence and respect we are to giue to the Primatiue Church and how we are to conceaue of the authority of it I will for the closure of this passage referre you M. Vice-Chancelour to the sentences of your own Brethreh being most learned and remarkable Protestants from whose iudgment therefore herein you cannot without great branch of modesty decline First then we find Kempnitius thus to aduance the authority of the Primatiue Church We doubt not but that the Primatiue Church receaued from the Apostles Apostolicall Men not only the text of the Scripture but also the right and natiue sense thereof The confession of Bohemia thus magnifyeth the same The auncient Church is the true and best Mistres of Posterity and going before leadeth vs the way Finally D. Iewell is no lesse sparing in his prayses heereof saying The Primatiue Church which was vnder the Apostles and Martyrs hath e 〈…〉 r a been accounted the purest of all others without exception Such transcendency of speeches you see your owne more sober and learned Brethren are not afrayd to ascrybe to the Fathers of those primatiue tymes L. CHEIFE-IVSTICE Michaas I grant you haue spoken fully in defence of your owne state and of the seuerall offices thereof practized by you Priests And though I will not say like to Agrippa h A little you haue persuaded me to become a Catholicke yet I must ingenuously acknowledge I neuer heard a cause of this Nature with stronger better arguments defended Yet for the more perfect balanâ—â—g and weighing the force of your authorityes my selfe not being conuersant in the written Monuments of the auncient Fathers I must remit this poynt to the more mature disquisition of our learned Deuins MICHAEAS Though your Lordship will not apply to your selfe the fore-said words of Agrippa yet I will make bould to reply to you such is my charitable wishing of your chiefest good in the phraze of S. Paul to Agrippa I wish to God both in little much that your L. were such as I am except this my wat of liberty But my worthy Lord. Here now begmneth the Tragedy of the disconsolate and mournefull state of Priests and Catholicks in this Country You haue heard my L. of the Antiquity of Priesthood of the like antiquity of the Sacrament of Confession and Pennance and lsstly of the antiquity of the most holy sacrifice of the Masse And yet notwithstanding all this it is decreed as your L. well knowes by the pennall lawes of this Country that Priesthood shal be Treason the releiuing of any one such Priest death to the Releiuer Confession of our sinns to a Priest and absolution of them reputed to be in the Penitent a renouncing of his Loyalty and the hearing of Masse attended on with a great fine of siluer And thus by these means euery good Priest and Catholicke are at the first sight become Statute traytours And indeed such is the case heere that neither Priest nor Catholicke can with safety of conscience giue any yeelding obedience and satisfaction to the Magistrate touching those lawes since here not to offend were to offend Obedire oportet Dee magis quam hominibus And touching my selfe and other Priests in particular your L. is to take notice that not speaking of our Blessed Sauiour who was the first Priest nor of his Apostles succeeding him therein most of the auncient Fathers were Priests enioying the same Priesthood practizing the same function in hearing of Confessions absoluing the Penitents saying of Masse which the meanest Priest of England at this day doth Therefore your Lordship may truly suppose That before you at this present stand arraigned only for being Priests exercizing that their function S. Austin S. Ambrose S. Ierome S Cyprian S. Athanasius S. Chrysostome S. Ignatius and many more of those primatiue blessed Doctours What I am they were I stand but here as their Image and they are personated in me Neither can you impleade or condemne me but that your sentence must through my sides wound them so indisâ—oluble an vnion there is betweene their stares myne no other difference betwene vs but difference of tymes But my good Lord. To passe on further to the despicable detected state of Lay Catholicks a theame not vnseasonable at these tymes I will not insist in particularizing the pennall statuts decreed agaynst them Neuerthelesle my tongue vnder your L. licence can hardly pretermit one point in silence Among then so many Calamityes and vexations wherewith on eich syde they stand plunged Not any one pressure is more insufferable to them or more opprobâ—â—ous in the eares of strangers who are ready to trumpet forth the same to the irreparable dishonour of this noble Nation otherwise famous throughout all Christendome Then to obserue the houses of Catholicks to lye open to the search of the Common base Pusuâ—uants Who vnder colour of looking for a Priest do enter their houses at most vnseasonable tymes euen by force And there opening their Trunks Chests perusing their Euidences of their Estats taking the Maysters of the houses bound in great sommes of money for their after appearance in Courts of Iustice and violently breaking downe what may seeme to withstand their present furye do by strong hand cary away any gold siluer Iewells Plate or any other portable thing of worth And all this vnder the pretext of them being forfeyted through Recusancy And the least resistance agaynst these men here made is punished as an Act of Disloyalty Neither are any English Catholicks the Nobility excepted free from these Indignityes the dead pittylesse law herein promiscuously taking hold of all without difference Now my Honorable Lord Is it not a thing deseruing astonishment
except the name Catholicks which was euen in the Primatiue Church the surname of all Christians according to that Christianus mihi nomen est Catholicus vero cagnomen Illud me nuncupat istud me osteÌ„dit though the contrary we can shew of you who haue the names giuen to you of Lutherans Caluenits Besits c. Therfore it clearely followeth that the Professours of the present Roman Church haue neuer changed their Fayth first planted by the Apostles D. WHITAKERS Now my L. Cardinall you are foiled with your owne argument For haue you not the name of Papists peculiarly appropriated to your selues to distinguish you from the true professours of the ghospel In like sort are not some of your religious Men called Bernardins others Franciscans Benedictins Augustins c. so taking their appellation from particuler Men and thus your owne argument rebutteth vpon your selfe with great disaduantage Therfore my Lord be not so confident aforehand in the force of your alleaged reasoÌ„ but remember that Thraâ—y's prò'erysóù ' ec pollóù cacòs who is euer bould before the worke is attempted is commoÌ„ly indiscreete CARD BELLARM. M. Doctour You so seriously here trifle as that I euen blush in your behalfe to obserue how you wroÌ„g yourfollowers and Proselits with such weake transparency of reasons For you are here to vnderstand that the Surnames of Peculiar Hereticks as the Arians Eutichians Maniches and of all others were imposed vpon the Professours of these Heresies euen at the first beginning and rising of the sayd Heresies and were inuented out of necessity to distinguish their Heresies from all other Doctrines but now the word Papist M. Doctour was coyned but lately by Luther himselfe against vs this not out of necessity but of reproach our Fayth and Doctrine being acknowledged aboue by your leaned Brethren to haue bin in the world many hundred yeares before Luthers dayes Agayne the Word Papist is not restrained to any one Pope or any peculiar Doctrine taught by the present Church of Rome but it is indifferently extended to all Popes and all doctrines taught by the sayd Popes so fowly M. Doctour are you mistaken in alleadging the name Papist against vs and so much do you and other Protestants wrong vs euen for that very name we vndergoing herein by your Brethrens calumnies the like misfortune which Collatinus Tarquinius suffered who was depriued of his honours and subiect to disgrace and reproach by the Romans only for the hatefull name of Tarquinius Touching those names of Franciscans Bernardins Benedictans c. It is so cleare that these names are not imposed for change of Fayth but only for institution of seueral degrees of a vertuous and religious life as that I will answere you in your former Brother D. Feild his words who thus solueth this your obiection We must obserue that they who professe the Fayth of Christ haue bin sometymes in these later ages of the Church called after the special names of such Men as were the Authours beginners and deuisers of such courses of Monastical Profession as they made choyse to follow as Benedictans such like Thus D. Feild MICHEAS I thinke M. Doctour vnder yonr fauour that these your instances of names taken from the first institutours of seueral religious Orders in the Church of Christ do not imply any change of Fayth made by them and therefore the force of my L. Cardinal his argument borrowed from new imposed appellations is not weakned but rather fartified by this your reply My Reason is this in our Iewish Law we read that ther were some called Rechabits and others Nazarites both professing a more strict course of life then the vulgar and common people did In like sort Iosephus and Philo report much of the austerity of the Essenes among vs Iewes who in regard of such their peculiar Profession were called Essenes and to whom God vouchsafed many spiritual fauours and consolations Happy men since he is most fit to walke vpon the hight of celestial contemplation who liueth in the vale of a voluntary humility retyrednes and mortification In whom the fyre of the spirit doth euer extinguish the fire of the flesh and sensuality thus the greater heare putting forth the lesse heate Now shal any man thinke that these men instituted a Fayth and Religion different from that of Moyses It is both absurd to entertayne such a thought and withall it is a wrong and dishonour to the Law of Moyses And in my iudgment both these instances of the Old Testament produced by me and those other of the Franciscans c. obiected by you M. Doctour in a true and eauen libration of theÌ„ do prooue that which my L. Cardinal first endeauoured to prooue from the imposition of new Names For they manifest the seueral changes and alterations which were made both in the old Testament and the new touching a more austere profession of a vertuous life which was the subiect of those changes as these other new imposed names of Arians Nestorians Maniches and the rest aboue specified do necessarily euict a change first made in Doctrine by Arius Nestorius Manicheus c. But my L. Cardinall if you wil enlarge your selfe no further vpon this poynt I humbly intreate you to proceed to some other argument CARD BELLARM. Learned Micheas I wil proceed to that which at this instant shal be my last though for weight and force it might wel take the first place And it shal be taken M. Doctour from the first plantatioÌ„ of Christianity in your owne Country which though immediatly it concerneth but one Nation yet potentially it prooueth that ther was no change of Fayth at all made in the Church of Christ in any former tymes by the Professours of the present Roman Religion But here M. Doctour I am to demand your iudgment touching the times in which and the Person by whom the Britons of Wales were first conuerted to the Christian Fayth D. WHITAKERS All we Protestants agree that the Britons of Wales whre conuerted in the Apostles tyme by Ioseph of Aramathia and this we prooue not only form the authority of Sainct Bede who did write the history therof in the yeare 724. but also from the authority of our Principal Historiographers for thus M. Cambden our learned Countryman writeth Certum est Brit 〈…〉 in ipsa Ecclesiae infantia Christianâ—m Religionem imbibisse It is Certaine that the Britons receaued the Christian Religion euen in the infancy of the Church Who thus further discourseth of this Poynt In hac floruit Monasterium GlastenburieÌ„sis c. Here florished the Monastery of GlasteÌ„bury which taketh it ancieÌ„t beginning from Ioseph of Aramathia c. for this is witnessed by the most ancient Monuments of this Monastery c. nether is there any reason Why we should doubt therof Thus far M. Cambden with whom conspire all other Chroniclers as Harrison in his description of Britanny and others Yea of vs
Vniuersall much practised by our Aduersaries For according hereto if they can finde any Father or any moderne Catholicke Authour to mantaine though therein contradicted by other Fathers and Catholicks but one or two Points of Protestancy they blush not to auerre that the said Father or Catholicke writer are entire Protestants in all points 9. If your Aduersary should produce some supposed disagreements in doctrine among Catholicks you may reply that their differences rest only in some Circumstances of a Catholicke Conclusion and not in the Conclusion it selfe And if he produce any presumed Catholicke denying the Conclusion it selfe of the doctrine then are you to tell him that such a man ceaseth by this his deniall vnlesse ignorance or inconsideration excuse to be a member of the Catholicke Church therefore this his deniall doth not preiudice the Catholicke Faith this being contrary to the Protestants proceeding who wittingly mantaining contrary conclusions of Faith do remaine neuerthelesse by the iudgments of many of them good brethren and true Professours of the Ghosple 10. If your Aduersary contest that all the writinges and memory of Protestants in former ages were extinguished by the Popes of the said and after succeeding ages you may show how absurd this assertion is And the reason hereof is in that the Popes of those times could not presage that Protestancy should on these our times sway more then any other Heresies condemned in their very times which other Heresies remaine yet registred euen to this day by the acknowledgment of of the Protestants And therefore by the same reason Protestancy supposing it to be professed in those former times should also haue remained recorded either in the writings of the Protestants themselues if euer any such were or else by the censure and condemnation of them by the Popes of those daies 11. Whereas you may alleadge diuers acknowledged Heresies both in the iudgment of Protestant and Catholicke out of the bookes concerning diuers persons who beleeued some few points of Protestancy recorded in the said bookes here I speake of VValdo VVicliff c. Now if here your Aduersary disputant doth auouch as many Protestants do that these Heresies were falsly obtruded vpon the then said Protestants by their Enemies you may here reply that to affirme this is against the force of all reason For seeing the said bookes do indifferently make mention both of the Protestant Opinions and of the other Heresies defended by the same men either the said Bookes are to be beleeued in both or to be reiected in both If the first then it is certaine that those men beleeued those acknowledged Heresies and then they can not be instanced for perfect Protestants If the later then the said Bookes are not of any sufficient authority to prooue that there were any Protestants in those ages 12. There is great disparity betweene Protestants confessing some points which do aduantage the Catholicke faith as for examples that the Primitiue Fathers were Papists in all cheife Articles of Papistry as the Aduersary vse to tearme it and other Protestants impugning the said Confessions Seeing the first men speake against themselues and their Cause which they being learned would neuer do but as conuinced with the euidency of the truth therein whereas these other do deny the Confessions of their owne Brethren in behalfe of their owne Religion and so such their denialls are to be reputed more partiall In like sort there is great difference to be made betweene Protestants speaking against themselues and yet beleeuing the Protestant doctrine and conclusion touching some Circumstances whereof their said Confessions are and betweene some others who afore were Catholickes and after do defend some one point or other of Protestancy Since these later men do not speake against themselues but in defence of such their Protestant doctrine then newly entertained by them and consequently in defence of their owne opinions and therefore such their authorities are not to ballance equally with the Confessions of the former Protestants 13. If your Aduersary doth produce any authorities either from the Popes Decrees or from Generall Councels by the which the Antiquity of some Catholicke Article may be impugned Be carefull 1. That particular Councels or Councels Scismaticall not warranted by the Popes authority be not obtruded vpon you for true Generall Councells 2. That the point vrged out of the Councell doth concerne Doctrine of faith and not matter of fact touching which later point it is granted a Councell may alter it Decrees vpon better and later informations 3. That the Canon or Decree poduced out of the Councell do immediately concerne the doctrine it selfe of some Article of faith then supposed to be brought in and not the name only to be imposed vpon the said doctrine afore beleeued as it happened in the Councell of Lateran touching the word Transubstantiation 4. That the Decree of the Pope or Councell deliuered only touching the better execution of some Catholicke point afore partly neglected as for example touching Confession the vnmarried life of the Cleargy or keeping set times of fasting and the like be not fraudulently extended by your Aduersary to the first institution of the said doctrine he so suggesting a more reformed execution or practise of the Catholicke doctrine for the first institution of it 14. If your Aduersary produce the ancient Fathers in defence of Protestancy first aske him if he will inappealeably stand to their iudgments If he will then vrge the Protestants whose bookes are most plentifull in such like accusations charging them as Patrons of Papistry If he will not stand to their authority then demand to what end he doth alleadg them And further let him know that it is the ioynt consent of Fathers without contradiction of other Orthodoxall Fathers which the Catholicks do admit Where some Protestants obiect that diuers points of the Cathoclike Religion were condemned in some Hereticks by the Orthodoxall Fathers of the Primitiue Church you may truely reply hereto that the Article or conclusion it selfe of any Catholick point was not condemned by them but only some absurd and wicked Circumstance annexed by the said Hereticks to the Article was condemned by the Fathers Thus the Catholicks are charged by D. Fulke and others to borrow the praying to Saints and Angels from certaine old Heretickes condemned by Epiphanius for this doctrine Whereas those Heretickes praied both to good bad Angels to those who were falsly tearmed Angels accoūpting them as Patrons of their wickednes And for these Circumstances only Epiphanius registreth thē for Hereticks This sleight is much practised by diuers Protestāts in certaine points of the Catholicke Religion Therefore be sure to see the words of the Fathers so condemning them in the Fathers owne bookes which if you do you shall discouer wonderfull forgery and deprauation of the said Fathers writings vsed by the Protestants 16. If it be vrged that the deniall of Free-will for example and so of other Articles of Protestancy was taught
with Waldo so descending to Luthers dayes seing by this playne method the Reader might at the first sight and sensibly obserue that he hath omitted contrary to the title of his Booke eleuen hundred yeres without giuing any one instance of Protestancy for all those seuerall ages Therefore he craftily beginneth to instance in the tymes before Luther and so ryseth vpward some foure hundred yeres from this day in his pretended Examples Thus hoping that the vulgar Reader would either through not perusing the booke to the End or through want of Iudgment not so easely and instantly espye how far and no further he had proceeded in these Examples Now touching his Examples he first instanceth in Hus and Ierome of Prage who liued anno Domini 1400. that is some hundred and twenty yeres or thereabouts before Luthers Apostasy To this Example of Hus in which the Pamphleter cheifly insisteth for as for Ierome of Prage he but embraced some of Hus his errours as learning them from him I First answere that supposing Hus had broached all poynts of Protestancy yet followeth it not that Luther had receaued the said Doctryne from Hus by an vninterrupted descent of Beleife as this Authour pretendeth for it may well be that Hus his Errours were extinct in respect of any beleiuers before Luthers dayes Euen as Aerius denyed prayer for the deade and the Hereticke Manichaeus freewill as S. Austin witnesseth yet were those Heresyes vtterly extinguished for many ages till Luther reuiued them Secondly the articles which Hus mantayned different from the Roman Church were but foure as they are recorded by Fox himselfe Of which the doctrine of Communion vnder both kinds was the cheifest though according to the iudgement of Luther it is a point but of In differency In all other points Hus was Catholicke which this Authour calumniously concealeth Thirdly Hus mantayned that acknowledged Heresy on all sydes that Bishopps Princes being in mortall sinne were not to be obayed but thereby did loose all their authority Which Heresy is in like sort wholy concealed by this Pamphleter Concerning the particular prouffes of all which points euen from the Protestants Confessions I referre the Reader to the former Dialogue where Michaeas discouereth them at large as the like he doth of Wicklefe Waldo and others hereafter alledged by this Treatiser Fourthly if the Visibility of the Protestant Church may be iustifyed in Hus or in Waldo Wicklefe or in any other hereafter obtruded for a Protestant by this Pamphleter because eich of them taught two or three at the most of Protestant points then by the same reason may the Protestant Church de sayd to haue beene visible in the Arians for reiecting of Traditions for perpetrating many sacrileges agaynst the Sacraments Altars and Priests in Pelagius for teaching euery sinne to be mortall in Vigilantius for condemning all religious virginity and affirming the relicks of Saincts are not to be worshipped In the Manichees for denying of freewill And in diuers such others All branded Hereticks and registred for such by the orthodoxal Fathers of the Primatiue Church Now this Inference I would entreate the Reader to obserue with peculiar application to all the pretended examples of Protestancy alledged in this Pamphlet Fiftly if we should grant heere all that which is spoken of Hus yet it but warranteth the visibility of the Protestant Church only for the age in which Hus did liue His doctrine not being taught in ages before Now here in this discourse touching Hus I am to put the Reader in mind how this Authour spendeth many idle leaues in showing how the Nobles of Bohemia mantayned the errours of Hus And that they came into the field in great forces agaynst the Emperour in defence of the same so much sayth he was the doctrine of Hus dilated He also introduceth some one or other inueighing against the Popes manners and Cleargy of those tymes and for such their proceedings he tearmeth them Protestants And this method he mightely obserueth throughout his whole Pamphlet Idly inferring as if fayth which resids in the vnderstanding were not different from manners and conuersation which rest in the Will Or that abuses in manners will not euer be in some members of the Church Or finally that a Protestant for charging of some Ministers of his part with disorders of life or Puritans for their bitter inuerghing against the Bishops here in England were therefore to be reputed Roman Catholicks so loosly and weakly he disputeth herein But all these his Digressions in respect of the vndertaken subiect of his discourse are meerly extrauagant And in my iudgment his intention in these and other such dilations and declamatory inuectiues wherewith his Treatise is in many places hereafter fraught is cheifly but to fill vp leaues of paper that so his booke might grow to some reasonable quantity For seeing all his supposed examples of Protestancy in his Treatise might well be contayned omitting all froathy ambages and circumstances in two sheets of paper and seeing such a poore thing could not come forth alone with any credit to the cause or reputation to the writer He therefore thought it more fit to interweaue in his Pamphlet diuers long and tedious discourses how improfitable soeuer This to thinke I am the rather induced in that we may further obserue in how great and large a letter his Booke is printed and how spacious the margent of his leaues are being almost as much paper in quantity as that which is printed And all this as probably may be coniectured to the end that this his learned Tome forsooth might contayne some indifferent number of leaues See how suttle Heresy is in triffles and things of no moment The Authour hauing finished his discours of Hus his adherents followers in the next place riseth to the Waldenses who as is here alledged denyed Purgatory Transubstantiatiō blessing of Creatures First touching Transubstantion what the Pamphleter here deliuereth is a vast Vntruth as appeareth from the testimony euen of Calu 〈…〉 thus wryting Formula Confessionis c. The forme of Cōfession of the Waldenses doctrine doth inuolue all those in eternall damnation who do not confese that the Bread is become truly the body of Christ In lyke sort touching the doctrine of Purgatorie Benedictus Montargensis a Lutheran chargeth the Waldenses therewith from which two Examples we may take a scantling what credit is to be giuen to the Pamphleter in his other Assertions hereafter But grant that the Waldenses did teach some one or other poynt of Protestancy yet in regard of their far greater Number of Catholicke Articles euer beleiued by them and their many execrable Heresies condemned for such both by Catholicks and Protestants both which poynts this Pamphleter pretermitted in silence The Waldenses cannot iustly be exemplified for Protestants Now of the Catholicke Articles as also of the Heresies beleiued by the Waldenses see the Dialogue aboue in the
he aboundantly declareth that Wâ—clefe was condemned by the Church of Rome for his defence of many errours and Heresyes he subtilly beareth the Reader in hand though he expresseth not any of them in particular that all these Heresyes condemned in him were points of protestancy thereby to make show what a great number of protestant articles were beleiued in those dayes and how much the said Men did participate in doctrine with the protestants of these tymes But this is a meere sleight and imposture seeing it is euident that besides some few points of protestancy beleiued by Wiclefe Huâ— the Waldenses or Albigenses there were many more Heresyes mantayned by them then condemned by the Church of Rome Which are acknowledged for Heresyes both by Catholicks and Protestants and such as in no sort concerne the Protestant Religion as way euidently appeare from the perusing of the seuerall passages of the former Dialogue wherein the heresies of Wiclefe Hus the Waldenses and others are at large displayed From Wiclefe the pamphleter commeth to Geffray Chaucer And thus he is forced by his owne poetizing and forging art to beg some prouffe from Poets Of Chaucer he thus wryteth He did at large paint out the pryde lasciuious vicious and intellerable behauiour of the Popes Cardinalls and Cleargy c. adding much more securiliâ—y of his owne and setting downe certaine verses of Chaucer But what prooueth this For first we are not in reason to giue credit to euery verse dropping from the satyricall penne of Chaucer Secondly admit all were true that Chaucer writeth yet seeing his reprehensions do only touch manners and conuersation and not fayth it followeth not that Chaucer was a protestant as I haue intimated in the former examples or that the Protestant Religion was in his dayes professed which is the only point here to be prooued Thirdly if it must be concluded that Chaucer for such his wryting was a protestant then by the same reason may Spencer the Poet for his bitter taxing of the Cleargy in his Mother Hubbardstale and Daniel for his controuling of the present tymes touching Religion and Learning in his Musophilus be reputed Catholicks or Papists yet it is well knowne they both were Protestants and the later rather a puritan The Pamphleter next insisteth in one Walter Bruit an English Man liuing anno 1393 and puteth him forth for a protestant for his defending of diuers supposed doctrines of protestancy there set downe To this I answere first he alledgeth no authenticall writer affirming so much but only an obscure Register of the Bishop of Hereford and therefore it may iustly be suspected to be meerely suppositions and forged or rather that it is but feigned that such a writing is seeing such a writing may with more facility be coyned without any discouery of deceat therein as being to he found only among the Antiquityes belonging to the sayd Bishop who is a protestant Secondly suppose all for true yet seeing that Scedule prooueth the sayd Bruite to be a protestant but only in some points it followeth that he was Catholicke in the rest and therefore can no more be challenged for a protestant then for a Catholicke being the fayth of a professour in any Religion ought to be entyre perfect compleate otherwise no man can take his denomination and name from the same fayth Thirdly suppose him to be a Protestant in all points yet seing he is but one particular man that it cannot be prooued that others did communicate with him in doctrine his example cannot prooue the visibility of the Protestant Church since one man alone cannot be accounted for a Church Lastly this example serueth admitting it for true but for the tyme that Bruyte liued It not being able to be prooued that the doctrines of Protestancy imputed to him were taught and beleiued in all other Ages and Centuryes This donne the Pamphleter proceedeth to diuers burnt and put to death for their Religion in the dayes of King Henry the fourth the fift and the sixt King Edward the fourth and King Henry the seauenth Which testimonyes he taketh out of that lying Legend of Fox to which booke no more credit is to be giuen then to Esop fables But to these examples I reply first The Treatiser setteth not downe the Protestant articles mantayned by these men for their defence of which they are here presumed to be burned And therefore it well may be that they suffered death for their broaching of some other heresyes or blasphemyes not controuerted between the Protestant and the Catholicke therefore such Examples are wholy impertinent Secondly if we do admit the authority of Fox herein yet it proueth that those men lost their liues but for one two or three particular points at the most of protestancy mantayned seuerally by eich of them they embracing all other poynts of Catholicke Religion being both more in number and of greater importance And if it be otherwise then let this Authour prooue 〈◊〉 were Protestants in all chiefe Articles of Protestancy Now how insufficiently such examples can be suggested for the visibility of the Protestant Church in former Ages appeareth both from that already set downe in this Suruey as also more fully from the perusall of the former Treatise And here the Reader is to obserue that as such men aboue mentioned cannot iustly be taken for Catholicks so may they truly be ranged for hereticks seing a stubborne and contumacious beleife but of one heresy maketh a man an hereticke Whereas it must be an â—nanimous fayth of all points of true Religion without exception of any which is exacted for making a man a true beleiuer For the nature of true fayth doth here participate of the nature of an action morally vertuous Which is become defectiue through the want of one due circumstance only but is made perfect and complete by the necessary presence of all due circumstances After the former examples he commeth to Marsilius de Padua an acknowledged Hereticke Who cheifly erred in denying the Popes authority Now the Pamphleter to make his doctrine in this one point to seeme more diuers in seuerall points from the doctrine of the Catholicks subtilly deuideth it in setting it downe into seuerall branches But to what end is this example pressed Seing it was the errour but of one Man at that tyme and principally but in one Controuersy He comparting with the Catholicks in the doctrine of the Reall presence Purgatory Freewill praying to Saints merit of Works Traditions c. In the next place he vrgeth two Italian Poets Dante 's and Petrach for Protestants because they did wryte somewhat in depressing the Popes Authority in behalfe of the Emperour Now to discouer more fully the Pamphleters falshood in his producing these two Italian Poëts Dante 's and Petrach as supposed by him to teach that the Pope is Antichrist and Rome Babilon I will heare proue from their owne wrytings the meere contrary to this his
diuers others were of the true Church of God of which poynt peruse S. Austin Furthermore Irenaeus saith that theare were diuers CouÌ„tryes of Christians which beleiued only by preaching and by force of Tradition without enioying any Scripture at all And it is certaine that after our Sauiours passion theare was a distance of tyme before any part of the New Testament was written And after when it was penned what partly by violence of persecution and partly through scarsity of Manuscripts the New Testament could but come to the hands of few in respect of the whole number of Christians then in being which being true how then could the Scripture or the preaching of the Word be a knowne Marke to all other Christians of those dayes Neyther auayleth it heere to reply that whatsoeuer was then deliuered by Tradition was agreeing and answerable to what was afore or after written by the Apostles Euangelists This satisfyeth not the point seing admitting so much for true yet what was then deliuered was receaued by the hearers through the authority only of the Church and not by Note or direction of the Scripture which is the point here concrouerted But to proceede further I do aueâ—re that this Position of erecting the preaching the word for a Note for the ignorant to fynd out the true Church implyeth in it selfe an absolute contradiction The reason is this First euery true Note of anything must first be knowne it selfe to the party so ignorant and doubting But it is impossible that the true preaching of the Word should be knowne to one as long as he conâ—nues ignorant or doubâ—fâ—ll therefore it is impossible that to such a man the true preaching of the Word should become a Note of the Church Seconâ—ly True sayth is no sooner knowne but that withall the true Church is knowne Therefore true preaching of the Word from whence springs true sayth cannot be any Note of the Church Since that thing of which any Note is giuen ought not to be coincident with the Note but is to be knowne after the Note is knowne and not immediatly at oâ—â— and the same tyme with the Note seing the end of the Note is after to know a thing of which it is a Note My last argument here vsed shal be taken from the consideration of the obscurity and difficulty in generall of the Protestant Note here giuen For if the Scripture be in it selfe most sublime abstruse and the sense thereof impenetrable without Gods directing grace therein how then can it be obtruded for a Note of the Church not only to the learned but to the illiterate and vnlearned Now that the Scripture is most difficult is a point acknowledged by all learned men and prooued by senerall Media First because the Scripture is authenticall only in the originalls according to those words of D. Whitakers Nullam nos editionem nisi Hebraicam in vetere Graecam 〈◊〉 Nouo Testamentâ— authenâ—â—cam facimus This being admitted how can the ignorant in the Hebrew and Greeke tongues know which is true Scripture or which is the true sense of the Scripture Yf it be replyed that they are to know true Scripture from the Translations of it I say hereto that besydes no Translation of Scripture â—s authenticall Scripture both in the former Doctours iudgement as also in the censure of D. Couell seing there are many Translations made of Scripture by the Protestants and one mainly differing from an other and accordingly eich such translation is charged as Hereticall and erroneous by other Protestants the ignorant in the tongues cannot discerne which translation among so many is the truest And as touching the English Translation in particular it is thus condemned by the Protestants themselues A Translation which taketh away from the text which addeth to the Text and that sometymes to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost And yet more A Translation which is absurd and senselesse peruerting in many places the meaning of the Holy Ghost Now then if the ignorant who can but reede is thus stabled how shall all they do who cannot reede at all And yet to all such Men God who would haue all men saued hath left some meanes for their direction to find out the true Church which meanes must be sutable to their capacity and in themselues infallible seeing otherwise they cannot produce true fayth without which the vnlearned cannot be saued The like difficulty of the scripture appeareth not only from the seeming contrary places of the scripture one text in shew of words impugning an other all which to reconcyle though in themselues they are reconcileable there is no small difficulty But also euen from the many Comments of the scripture made euen by the Protestants For if the scripture be easy and facill to what end do theÌ„selues bestow such labour and paynes in illustrating of it And if it be of such difficulty as that it needeth Commentaryes for it further explanation how then can the true sense of it be prostituted especially to the vnlearned as a true Note of the Church Lastly the difficulty of the sense of the scripture is so great as that it selfe needeth other more cleere Notes as I may call them to make it selfe knowne without which Notes it selfe resteth most doubtfull And yet are these second Notes in themselues most vncertaine The Notes for the finding out of the true sense of the scripture are in D. g Reynolds and D. h Whitakers iudgments these following Reading of the Scripture Conference of Places weâ—gâ—â—â—g the Circumstances of the text Skill in 〈…〉 gues Prayer c. In the obseruation of all which a Man stands neuerthelesse subiect to errour and false construction of the scripture euen by the iudgment of D. Whitakers thus saying Qâ—â—lâ—à â—llâ—mediâ— suâ—â— c. Such as the meanes of iâ—terpreting the obscuâ—e places of the scripture are such also is the interpretation but them 〈…〉 es of inâ—â—â—p eâ—ing obscure places are incerta dubià ambigua vncertaine doubtfull and ambâ—guous Therefore it necessarily followeth that the interpretation it selfe is vncertaine si incerta tunc potest esse f 〈…〉 sa and if it be vncertaine then may it be false Thus farre D. Whitakers Now I referre to any Mans impartial iudgment how the true preaching of the Word which euer presupposeth the true sense thereof can be a certaine and infallible Note of the true Church when itselfe necessarily â—elyeth vpon meanes as Notes of it which meanes are in themselues vncertaine and at the most can affoard but a doubtfull and perhapps a false construction of the Scripture And here now I can but commisserate our aduersaries who seing themselfs enuiâ—oned in these strayts touching the finding out of the true sence of the Scripture by Men vnlearned vnskilfulle in the tongues and perhaps not able to reade and consequently touching this their mayntayned Note of the Church are â—â—nally and for their last
God for which you suffer See the like texts noted in the margent That the auncient Fathers mantayned the doctrine of merit of works see for greater breuity Ignatius Ireneus Basill Chrysostome Nazianz Nyssene Cyprian Ambrose Austin Ierome The iudgment of the auncient Fathers touching merit of works is discouered besides by their owne testimonyes euen from the acknowledgment of the Protestants For first we find D Humfrey to confesse in this s 〈…〉 rt Ireneus Clemens and others called Apostolicall haue in their wrytings merit of Works In like sort the Centurists thus charge Chrysostome Chrysostome handleth impurely the doctrine of iustification and attributeth merit to works They also t 〈…〉 censure Origen Origen made works the cause of our iustification Brentius in like sort saith that Austin taught assiance in mans merits towards remission of Sinns Luther styleth Ierome Ambrose Austin and others Iustice Workers of the old Papacy D. Whitakers thus wryteth of the age of Cyprian Not only Cyprian but almost all the most holy Fathers of that tyme were in that errour as thinking so to â—ay the payne due to sinne and to satisfy Gods iustice D. Whitguift as afore of praying to Saincts so of merit of works thus confesseth Almost all the Bishopps and Wryters of the greeke Church and Latin also were spotted with doctrine of merit Bullenger confesseth the great antiquity of the doctrine of merit in these words The doctrine of Merit satisfaction and iustification of works did incontinently after the Apostles tyme lay their first foundation To conclude this point M. Wotton no obscure Protestant reiecteth the authority of Ignetius the Apostles scholar touching merit of works in this sort I say plainly this Mans testimony is nothing worth because he was of little iudgment in Diuinity Thus farre touching our Aduersary acknowledgments of the Fathers iudgment herein Now that some learned Protestants do teach and beleiue the doctrine of Merit of Works to be true and Orthodoxall doctrine is no lesse euident then the former point For it is taught as true doctrine by the Publike Confessions in their Harmony by M. Hooker by Melanctâ—on and by Spandeburge the Protestant To the former doctrine of merit of Works I will adioyne the doctryne touching works of Supererogation Which doctrine is greatly exagirated and depraued by many Protestants who are not ashamed to traduce the Catholicks and to diuulge both by penne and in Pulpit that the Catholicks do hould that their works can do more then merit Heauen But this is the Protestant◠〈…〉 lumny since the Catholicks do not hould or beleiue any such thing Therefore I will sette downe the true definition of an Euangelical Counsell distinguished from a Precept seing vpon Euangelicall Counsells works of Supererogation are grounded An Euangelicall Counsell of Perfection is called any good Worke Which is not commanded by Christ but only commended by him and poynted on to vs by hym As the Vowe of Chastity of Pouerty of Obedience and diuers other good Works not commanded by God It differeth from a Precept First because the subiect of a Precept is more facill and easy then that of a Councell Secondly in that a Counsel doth include in it the Performance of a Precept and something more then a Precept Thirdly in that Precepts are common to all Men to performe Counsells are not so Fourthly Precepts of their owne nature do oblige Men to their performance Counsells are in the choyce of one to performe or not performe Lastly Precepts being obserued are rewarded being not obserued the transgression is punished Whereas Counsells being obserued and kept haue a greater reward being not kept no punishment followeth Thus far touching the definition of an Euangelicall Counsell Which in other words may be also thus defined An Euangelical Counsell is any such good Worke of high Perfection to the performance whereof we are not bownd as that we sinne in not doing of it Now whereas it is commonly obiected against the doctrine of Euangelicall Councells That we are so obbliged to God as that we cannot euer do more then we ought to do It is therefore heare to be conceaued that if we consider Gods benefitts bestowed vpon vs we willingly acknowledge that Man can not do more good then he ought no not the thousand part of that he ought to do in that Man cannot render or retaliate any thing of equall valew and worth to Gods benefitts Neuerthelesse Yf we consider the Law and Commande imposed by God vpon vs then man may be sayd to do more then indeede he is obliged by Gods Law to do For although Man cannot exceede or equall Gods benefits with his owne works yet he is not become guilty hearby seing Men is not obliged to performe more then that only which God commaundeth Euangelicall Councells take the cheife and first proufe from sacred Scripture As wheare it is said There are certaine Eunuchs who haue gelded themselfs for the Kyngdome of Heauen Which place is expounded of the Euangelicall Counsell of Chastity by Cyprian Chrysostome Austin and others A second text to omit diuers others for breuity is that where our Sauiour sayth to the yong Man Yf thou wilt be perfect go and sell all that thou hast and giue it to the poore and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen Which text is interpreted of the Euangelicall Counsell of pouerty by S. Ambrose S. Ierome and S Austin The foresayd doctrine is further confirmed by the authority of the auncient Fathers For b 〈…〉 es their expositions of the foresaid places of Scripture this doctrine is further taught by Origen Athanasius Basil Chrysostome Nazianzene Cyprian Ambrose Ierome and finally by Austin who speaking of Precepts and Counsells vseth the very Word Supererogation thus saying of precepts and Counsells Dominus debitum imperat nobis in his autem si quid amplius supererogaueritis in reddendo reddet nobis The doctrine of Euangelicall Councells is warranted and taught besydes by the former auncient fathers of the Primatiue Church euen by diuers learned Protestants According hearto we find it is mantayned for true doctryne by M. Hooker by D. Coâ—ell and by Bucer And thus fâ—r breifly of Iustification by Works of merit of Works and of works of Supererogation The Catholicke Doctrine touching Indulgences THe Viâ—ulency of Protestants against the doctrine of Indulgences is most remarkable Wherefore for their better conceauing of the state of this Question or Indulgences this following in the Catholicke Doctrine First that Mortall sinne is remitted by the Sacrament of Confession so far forth only as concerneth the guilt or offence of God and the punishment of eternall damnation yet so that this eternall punishment by Gods Mercy is turned into temporall punishment as appeareth by the example