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
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
I gather that Victor out of his elation pride first chalenged that Primacy to him ouer all churches which your Popes at this day still vsurp and retaine This Pope Victor being one of those who couet ' aiem ' aristcucin cai ' yperochòn ' émmenai ' allon to aduance himselfe as the best and cheifest aboue all other Bishops CARD BELLARM. You do much disaduantage your selfe in alleadging this example considering the time wherein Victor liued to wit in the yeare 198. An age during the which your selfe hath hertofore confessed that the church â—f Rome did suffer no alteration in her Religion Now M. Doctour wheras you cast an aspersion of pride vpon this most ancient and reuerend Pope I wish you take heede that you do not incurre the censure passed vpon Diogenes who is said to haue reprooued Plato his pride with greater pride D. WHITAKERS It is certaine that many churches and Fathrs were offended with Victors proceeding therein and particulerly that ancient and pious Father Irenaeus which is an infallible argument of Victors vsurpation For if Victor had true power to excommunicate the churches of Asia as it is graunted he actually had why should Irenaeus and those churches be offended or reprehend him for putting onely in execution his lawfull Authority CARD BELLARM. You must call to minde here M. Doctour the reason why Victor did excommunicate the Churches of Asia which was because the Bishops of Asia were vnwilling to conforme themselues to the Church of Rome in keeping of Easter day to wit to keepe it onely vpon Sunday whereas they would needs continue the keeping of it vpon the 14. of the Moone according to the custome of the Iewes Now for this their reluctation herein against the Church of Christ Victor did excommunicate them But when this seemed as being but a Ceremony and for a time tollerated through the weaknes of the Iewes in the iudgment of diuers too smal an occasion to excommunicate and cut off so many famous Churches therfore Victor was censured by diuers to be ouer seuere in prosecuting with so great a punishment so smal a seeming fault From which their thus censuring of Victor we may rather gather his Primacy aboue other Churches then otherwise and the reason hereof is because we do not finde any of the sayd Bishops to charge Victor with any Innouation in vnduely assuming to himselfe this Authority ouer other Churches which doubtlesly they would haue done if Victor had first taken this priuiledge to himselfe they being so iustly prouoked thereto but they did onely rebuke as is sayd his ouermuch rigid seuerity in punishing as they thought so rigorously so smal a disobedience in the Bishops of Asia Yea which is more that Irenaeus who was most forward in taxinge Victor with his sharp proceeding ascribeth to Victor a soueraignety ouer all Churches For besides that Irenaeâ—s is reprehended by the Centurists for acknow ledging the Primacy of the Roman Sea Eusebius thus writeth of Irenaeus touching this point Irenaeus admonisheth Victor by letters that he would not for the obseruation of a Tradition so long vsed quite cut of so many Churches from the body of the Vniuersall Church Thus Eusebius Now I here demand why should Irenaens dissuade Victor from excoÌ„municating those Churches but that he was persuaded that Victor had power to excommunicate them And thus farre of this instance which may be of force perhaps to prooue that Victor was ouer seuere but not that he had not true power ouer other Churches for which point it is by you M. Doctour vrged But I pray you passe to other instances onely here by the way I will put you in minde that careles and obstinate Christians and such it well may be some of those Asian Christians were haue in some respect small reason to feare the excommunication of the Pope since these men through such their disobediency do commonly excommunicate themselues D. WHITAKERS It is cleare that Zozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus all Bishops of Rome did chalenge superiority ouer other Bishops by forging of a Canon of the Nicene Councell Which proceeding manifesteth the then vsurped Authority of those Popes to be contrary to the institution of Christ Thus these your Popes thirsted after all domination and Power though at other times rhey made shew by styling theÌ„selues Serui Seruorum and by their other affected Humility to contemne all honours and eminency Cur vultis esse in mundo qui extra mundum estis CARD BELLARM. It is most strange to see how inconsiderately you proceed For here you say that these Popes first introduced this innouatios of the Superiority of the Bishop of Rome ouer other Churches and immediatly afore and with all one breath you ascribe the beginning thereof to Victor who liued two hundred yeares before any of these three Popes If these later Popes brought it in then Victor did not If Victor did begin it then those Popes could not See how irreconciliable these your two Assertions are From the actions of all which Popes you can truely gather that they onely practised an Authority which the Church of Rome euer had but not that they assumed any soueraignty to them which poynt is only in q 〈…〉 estion which afore that Church had not D. WHITAKERS M. D. Fulke conspireth with me in alledging the foresaid examples and he was a man well conuersant in Ecclesiasticall Histories his words are these Zozimus Bonifacius Celestinus did challeng prerogatiue ouer the Bishop of Afrik by forging a false CanoÌ„ of the Nicene CouÌ„cel And this Doctours indgmenâ— I much pryze in matters of controuersyes CARD BELLARM. Both D. Fulke his iudgment how learned soeuer you repute him and your owne also must of necessity yeald to the truth herein seing the example of Victor afore infisted vpon by you doth vindicate and free these three later Popes from all innouation in this poynt And as touching the supposed forging of a Canon of the Nicene Councell for the erection of the Primacy of Rome It is most false for euen your owne wryters to wit Caluin himselfe and Peter Martir do mention the said Canon as truly made Only they say that the Popes did misalleadge this decree as made by the Councell of Nice which was made by the Councell of Sardis And so their Error admitting that they did erre consisteth only in mistaking by whether Councell the said Canon was decreed D. VVHITAKER What say you of Boniface the third It is certain that this Boniface the third was then the first that intituled the Roman Church to be caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches CARD BELLARM. M. Doctour you weary me by idly diuerberating the ayre with these impertinent Examples and force me to entertayne them with a fastidious neglect For do not the former Examples of Victor Zozimus Bonifacius the first of that name and Celestiuus all more ancient then this Boniface the third take away the weight
points touching fayth and Religion and different from the then Roman fayth wherewith Waldo Wicklefe Hus c. were then charged would be professed beleâ—ued and mantayned in these dayes by the enemyes of the Church of Rome And therefore it necessarily followeth that the accusations passed in former times vpon Waldo Wicklefe Hus and the rest are either in generall true or in generall false If false then haue we no sufficient Records that there were any in those dayes who beleiued any points of protestancy If true then certayne it is that as Waldo Wicklefe Hus c. mantayned some points of protestancy so with all that they mantayned diuers explorate Heresies and acknowledged for such both by Catholicks and Protestants Secondly the Pamphleter obiected in the Catholicks name in this sort None of all those which hitherto haue beene named or can be named meaning for Protestants but in some knowne confessed and vndowbted Opinions did varye from you And therefore they and you Protestants may not be said to be all of one Church This difficulty he salueth with a most impudent and bare denyall saying All those whom before I haue named did generally for all mayne Matters teach the same Which we now teach What forhead or shame hath this Man For First as touching Waldo Wiclef Hus and their followers in whom through out this Pamphlet the Authour principally insisteth It is confessed by Osiander Luther Fox and other Protestants as also it appeareth by some of their owne Wrytings that they agreed with the Catholicks in most points of Catholicke Religion which were of greatest moment as in the Reall Presence seuen Sacrements praying to Saincts Purgatory frewill Merit of Works and in all other most principall Articles of the present Roman Religion Concerning the proufe of all which poynts I remit the Reader to the Former Dialogue Secondly touching other obscure Men alledged by the Pamphleter for Protestants he commonly and for the most part some two or three excepted exemplifieth no other Article of Protestancy defended by them then their disobedience and inueighing against the Bishop of Rome But if he could haue iustly auerred them for Protestants in all chiefe Articles why would he not as well particulary set the said Articles of Protestancy downe as he did the other touching their disclayming from the authority of the Bishop of Rome Ad hereto that many are produced for Protestants by this Authour only for their sharply speaking and writing against the manners and conuersation of the Cleargy in those dayes they not dissenting from the doctrine of the then Church of Rome in any one article whatsoeuer euer euen ackuowledging the Primacy of that Sea To all the former poynts I may adioyne this following Consideration That supposing the forsaid alledged Men were protestants in all poynts yet do they not proue the Visibility of the true Church of Christ for these Reasons ensuing First because they were but few in number and in regard of such their paucity the Predictions of the amplitude largnes and continuall splendour of Christ Church could not be performed in that small number Touching which predictions peruse the beginning of the Dialogue Secondly because neither this Authour nor any other Protestant liuing how learned soeuer can proue that there were in those tymes specified by this Pamphleter any Administration of the Word and Sacraments practized by any of these supposed Protestants which euer necessarily concurs to the existence and being of the true Church as is demonstrated in the former Tract Thirdly because the former Men could but serue for instances during their owne lyues and no longer The Pamphleter not being able to name any one Man for a Protestant for the space of many Ages and Centuryes together which poynt being so impugneth not only the Nature of Christs true Church which must at all tymes and ages be most visible but also it crosseth the Title of this Pamphlet wherein the Authour vndertaketh to proue the Visibility of his Church in all Ages Thus far now Good Reader I haue labored in surueighing this Idle Pamphlet Now for they better memory I will breifly recapitulate and repeate certaine chiefe impostures and deceatefull deportements practized by this Authour throughout his Booke And then I will remit both him and his Treatise to they owne impartiall Iudgment 1. First then I may remember his putting no name to his Booke nor taking any Notize of the then late Conference in London touching the Visibility of the Protestant Church nor once naming M. Fisher and M. Sweete the two then disputants Which concealed Cours our Pamphleter purposly affected in all probability seing otherwise he might well thinke that the setting of his owne Name downe especially if the Authour were either D. Whyte or D. Featly or hauing in this discours particular reference to the foresaid Disputation might sooner draw on an answere to his Pamphlet from one of the said two Fathers or from some other Priest 2. Secondly You may call to mynd that in the first part of his Treatise he laboreth to proue rather the Inuisibility of the true Church then the Visibilitie thereof contrary to the Inscription of his Pamphlet cheifly to intimate thereby that a continuall Visibility of the true Church is not so necessarily to be exacted as we Catholicks do teach it is and consequently that what few weake mayâ—ied and imperfect proufs and examples for the continuance of protestancy he was after to alledge the same might be thought sufficient and strong enough for the establishing of his owne Churches Visibility 3. Thirdly The pamphleter callengeth any one for a Protestant who did but hould one or two Articles of protestancy and especially if he did but impugne the Popes authority or did wryte against the Manners conuersation of the Cleargy of those dayes though otherwyse he did agree with the Church of Rome in all Articles of fayth 4. Fourthly He callengeth those for protestants who were condemned by the Church of Rome for other Errours then are mantayned by the protestants so making the ignorant Reader beleiue that the Pope in those dayes condemned only the doctrines of Protestants for Heresies this the pamphleter doth to the end that the number of the professours of his Church in those dayes might seeme the greater in his Readers eye 5. Fyftly he most cauteously concealeth the Catholicke doctrynes euer beleiued by Hus Wiclefe Waldo c. as also sic most falsly extenuateth such Heresies as they mantayned are acknowledged for Heresies euen by learned protestaÌ„ts The Treatizer subtelly forbearing to name or set downe in expres Words any one of their Heresies 6. Sixtly For want of better Authours he fleeth to the testimonyes euen of Poëts as Chaucer Daâ—â—es Petrarch vrging them for protestants only by reason of their Satyrs written against the supposed abuses of Rome 7. Seauently he most impertinently dilateth and spreadeth hymselfe in long and tedious discourses touching the increase of the Doctrine of Waldo Hus Wiclef
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
the Church of Rome since the Apostles dayes Which Position is indeed the iuncture without which the whole frame almost of all other Controuersies hang loose Doctour Whitakers vndertaks to proue the Contrary In whom rather then in any other Protestant I haue peculiarly and ex professo made choyce to personate all the speeches and arguments vsed to proue this supposed change in the Church of Rome principally because there is no Protestant wryter that I know who hath so much prosecuted this presumed change as Doctour Whitakers hath done as appeareth in his Bookes agaynst the Cardinall himselfe agaynst Father Campion that blessed Saint and cheifly against Duraeus where the Doctour vndertaketh to instance diuers examples of this imaginary Reuolt Yet here you are to conceaue that I haue not so dwelled in the only wrytings of Doctour Whitakers as that I neglect what other Protestants haue also written in maintenance of this change for I assure you I haue omitted nothing of Moment which I could fynd in their Bookes to be obiected in proofe thereof though Doctour Whitakers is introduced to deliuer or speake it And withall I haue made speciall references to their Books where such their sentences or authorities are to be found And yet learned Men notwithstanding all that which can be vrged by any of them in this behalfe sooner shall they prooue that the fixed starrs haue changed their postures situations in their Orbe then that Rome hath changed it fayth So true are those words of an auncient Father Vetus Roma ab antiquis temporibus habere rectam fidem semper eam retinet What sentences authorities or instances of change Doctour Whitakers hath vsed in any of his Bookes by me alledged the same I haue set downe with citation of the Books and in a seuerall Character from that which he speaketh at large in the person of a Protestant and this to the end that the Reader may seuer the Doctours owne words from the words of a Protestant in generall In like sort what intemperate speeches euen loaded with malice and rancour the Doctourâ—seth â—seth against the Church of Rome are not by me forged and fathered vpon him But are especially those which are most virulent his owne words yet extant in his Bookes and accordingly they are printed in a different letter with the Latin words set in the margent So carefull I am not to wrong the Doctour by vniustly obtruding vpon him any scurrilous and vndecent Inuectiues or Pasquills The Conclusion consisteth in retorting that vpon our Aduersartes where with they here charge the Church of Rome I meane in demonstrating that it is the Protestant who hath made in fayth this change and innouation from the auncient fayth of the Apostles And thus by comparing these two contrary fayths doctrines together and the antiquity of the one and innouation of the other you shall find that errour is best knowne by truth as death is knowne bylife Now here your ingenuities are to suppose for the tyme that Cardinall Bellarmine and Doctour Whitakers are at this present liuing In like sort that the Cardinall hath read all bookes written either in Latin or English which are in this Dialogue alleadged Which like supposalls you are also to make in the other subsequent Dialogues touching the Persons in them produced as that they are now liuing and that they all liued at one tyme c. All which imaginations are fully iustifiable in the true methode of Dialogues since in this kind of writing the Persons you know are forged for the matter and not the matter for the Persons And thus much touching the first Dialogue Now to descend to the second Dialogue The subiect wherof is to demonstrate that the visibility of the Protestant Church cannot be iustifyed from the Primitiue Church much lesse from the Apostles dayes till Luthers reuolt And which is more that not any one Man during all that long Period of tyme nor Luther himselfe can be truly insisted vpon for a perfect absolute Protestant and such as the present Church of England can or will acknowledge to be a member of it Which point being once euicted How deadly it woundeth the Protestants may easily appeare in regard of the euer necessary and vndeniable visibility of Christs true Church whose expansion enlargment and vneclypsed radiancy at all tymes is much celebrated in Holy writ Her sunne shall not be set nor her Moone hid as will more fully appeare bereafter in it due place The interlocutours are the foresayd Michaeas the Iew Ochinus who first in King Edward the sixt his dayes did diseminate Protestancy at least seuer all points of Protestancy here lâ— England Doctour Reynolds of Oxford and Neuserus chiefe Pastour of Heidelberg in the Palatinate Why Ochinus Neuserus are brought in as speakers in this Dialogue the Argument prefixed therto will show I haue presumed to incorporate most of what can be vrged for the visibility of the Protestant Church in Doctour Reynolds as a Man who was best able in his dayes to support his owne Church from ruyne And sutably herto the supposed place of this disputation is Oxford I haue in no sort wronged the Doctour whom I well know to haue bene a blazing Comet in your Euang elicall spheare to whom as being of good temperance in his writings in respect of his brother Doctour Whitakers I am vnwtlling to ascrybe too litle only I wish his fauorits had not ascrybed to him too much If any of you shall muse why in these Dialogues all the Protestants being otherwise presumed to be most learned do reply so sparingly eyther to Cardinall Bellarmyne or to Michaeas their answeres and arguments as here you shall find them to do you are to conceaue that it is agreed in the begining of the two first Dialogues among all the Interlocutours to stand indisputably to the freqrent Confessions of the learned Protestants vrged in behalfe of any poynt controuerted Now both the Cardinall and Michaeâ—s for the most part do auoyd the other Interlocutours reasons and instances by the contrary acknowledgments of diuers eminent Protestants as also do produce their owne arguments in defence of their Catholicke articles from the like acknowledgments of the learned Protestants speaking in those points agaynst themselues and in behalfe of the Catholickes Which method being chiefly houlden throughout these Dialogues how then can the Protestant Interlocutours continue any new reply agaynst the Caidinall or agaynst Michaeas But to reflect vpon the subiect of this second Dialogue And here I do auouch that to maintayne that Protestancy was euer before the breaking out of Luther though euen then it was not in it perfection is no lesse absurd in reason then to maintayne that the byrth of any thing can precede it conception and the effect the cause True it is that in diuers former ages there haue bene some secret and indeed blind Moules who working vnder the foundation of the Roman Church haue labored
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
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
impudent assertion And first touching Dante 's He thus wryteth of S. Peter in his Italian verses O luce eternâ— del gran viro A cui nostro Signor lascio le chiaui Ch' ei portò giùda questo gaudio mirâ— In lyke sort touching Rome it selfe he thus discourseth Non pare indeg no al huomo d'intelletto Che ei su de l'alma Roma de suo impero Nel ' empirco ciel ' per padre eletto La quale el quale à voler direilvero Fur stabilite per lo loco sancto r ' fiede il successor del maggior Piero. In which verses Rome is called a reuerend Citty a holy place fortified and strenghtned euen from Heauen and finally the seate of Peter Againe Dante 's was much aduers against Pope Nicolas the third whom being dead Dante 's notwithstanding thus honored with his Verse Et se non fusse ch' aucor le me vieta I ariuerentia delle summe chiani Cheiutenesti vella vita lieta Iover ei parcle ancor più graut In which words Dante 's confesseth plainly that the reuerence which he did beare to this Pope in regard that he receaued the keyes of the Church meaning supreme authority in Christs Church was the cause why he did forbeare to wryte more sharply against hym Finally to omit many other lyke passages Dante 's saith that Boniface the eight Ne summo offitio ne Ordini sacri Guardò in se In which verse he acknowledeth that supreme authority and holy Orders did resyde in Boniface whose manners were otherwise displesing to Dante 's In this next place I will come to Petrarch who thus wryteth in acknowledging the power of the Bishop of Rome Quis quaeso non stupeat simulque non gaudeat si amicus sit Vicario IESV CHRISTI And further Romano Pontifici omnes qui Christiano nomine glortamur non modo consilium sed obsâ—quium insuper obedientiam debemus All we who glory in the name of Christians do owe not only counsell but duty and obedience to the Bishop of Rome Now for greater euidency of this poynt I will descend to the particular prayses geuen by Petrarch to particular Popes in his Italian booke written of the liues of Popes We there then find that of Pope Vrbanus 5. he thus writeth Fu nelle sacre Scripture dottissimo santamente visse Vrbanus was most learned in the holy Scriptures and liuod most Sanctly Of Clemens 6. he thus recordeth Fu per nome per fatti di molte virtù pieno Clement was both for his name and for his deeds replenished with much vertue Of Benedict 12. these are his words Beneditto fatto Papa reformò l'Ordine di S. Benedetto c. era feruido nella fide nelle buone operezelatore Benedict being created Pope did reforme the Order of S. Benedict c. He was feruerous in the fayth and zelous in good works c. To be short of Iohn 22. he thus saith Costuifu ottimo glorioso Pastore fece molti bein Hereticiper zelo della fide condamno This man was a very good and glorious Pastour He did many good deeds and condemned Hereticks out of his zeale to the fayth And now I refâ—r to any in different iudgment whether these two Italian Poëtes Dante 's and Petrarch did thinke the Pope of Rome to be Antichrist or no as our Pamphleter semeth to vrge â—hey did and whether the former prayses can be truly applyed to Anthichrist the whoare of Babilon â—o euident it is that what the foresaide PoeÌ„ts did Saâ—yrically wryce was written only against some disorders in the Church of Rome and against the presumed faults of some particular Popes but neuer against their supreme dignity in the Church of Christ And as touching the former Popes by Petrarch so commended We are to remember that his prayses deliuered of them where written after the deaths of the said Popes and therefore his words could not be censured to proceede from adulation and flattery but according to his owne true and secret iudgment passed vpon those Popes In the same manner for their lyke inueâ—ghing against the fulnes of the Popes power and iurisdiction he alledgeth certaine obscure men to wit Dulemus Hayabalus Ioannes Biraensis Ioannes de Rupe scissa three religious Men who liued and dyed in respect of all other poynts in the Roman Church And yet touching Ioannes de Rupe scissa both this Authour and the authour of Catalogus testium veritatis From whom this man taketh it are deceaued if we may beleiue Fox who thus wrytes of hym Ioannes de Rupe scissa liued in the yere 1340. who for his rebuking of the spiritually for their great enormittes and neclecting their office was cast into prison Our Pamphleter after produceth Gerson for a Protestant of whom he thus saith Gerson saw in his ages many horrible abuses of the Church of Rome and in his wrytings spake liberally of it Is not this a learned prouf for Gersons being Protestant in all poynts of Protestancy After all the former â—nstances the Pamphleter euen for want of other matter returneth back againe to the Waldenses or Albigenses iterating with a tedious prolixity his former discouâ—s concerning them and this in many leaues Whereby he sheweth the extreme mendicity of his Cause and that he laboreth with all Art possible to draw out this his Treatise as is aboue said into some reasonable number of sheets But touching the Waldenses I refer the Readeâ— as afore I willed to the pâ—rticular passage of Waldo in the former Dialogue His former Extrauagancyes of discours being ended he is not ashamed to challenge S. Bernard for a Protestant of whom he thus wryteth Before our ascending thus high we might tell you of S. Bernard whom all though it is lykely at the first dash you will challenge as your owne yet when you haue well aduized of hym you may let hym go againe O perfrictam frontâ—m and wonderfull Impudency For who is so ignorant or so bould that wil not confesse S. Bernard to haue bene a Roman Catholicke in all points He was a religious Man and Abbot of Claireuaux and Authour of many Monasteryes in Flanders and France as O siander the Protestant confesseth he also was Pryest and said Masse to his dying day as all Writers of him do testify A poynt so euident that for his being a great and eminent member of our Catholicke Church the Centurists al Protestants thus censure him Bernardâ—â—s coluit Deum Maozim ad nouissimum vitae suae articulum And further they say of him Bernardus fuit acerrimus propugnator sedis Antichristi Bernard was an earnest defendour of the seaâ—e of Antichrist Here now I refer to the candid and vpright Reader what impudency it was in this Man to challenge Bernard for a member of the Protestant Church But heere touching S. Bernard I cannot but abserue
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
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