belongeth to our Sauiour Christ and which Saint Paul ascribeth to him and so I will reconcile Luther which saith faith is the rocke vnto Caluin which affirmeth that this rocke is Iesus Christ As a gold ring of very small weight hauing a precious stone in it of great value may be iustly estimated at an high price not for the due value of the gold it selfe but for the worth of the precious stone which is set in it it may be said to be worth an hundred pounds so faith is said to saue though saluation belong to Iesus Christ and to be the foundation of the Church though Christ be properly that foundation because he is the obiect of our faith and our Sauiour Christ and faith are so inseparably ioyned together that they cannot be diuided one from the other or conceiued one without the other Thus haue I briefly declared how the Church is not founded vpon S. Peter But suppose it could be proued how can it be deriued from him to the Pope The office of Apostleship was personall and died with S. Peters person The Apostles were equall in authority It was said to them all Go and preach as well as to Peter That which was said seuerally to Peter To thee will I giue the keyes was said ioyntly to all the Apostles Whose sinnes ye remit they shall be remitted And this confession of Peter was made in the name of them all so saith Theophilact and Saint Ambrose But if it were granted that Saint Peter was aboue all the rest of the Apostles this giueth no preheminence to the Pope being no Apostle For Apostleship consisteth in these things They were immediatly called of God they saw our Sauiour in the flesh they could giue the holy Ghost by imposition of hands the Spirit of God did so direct them that in their writings they could not erre which things belonged personally vnto them but are not left hereditary to the succeeding ages The foundation being thus shaken the building falleth of it selfe That I may come nearer to the man of Rome to discusse this question whether there ought to be one head ministeriall of the Church vniuersall militant vpon the earth or no Bellarmine to proue the affirmatiue part argueth out of Aristotle in this manner A Monarchy is the best most absolute state of gouernment therefore the gouernment of the vniuersal Church ought to be monarchicall I answer It is a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi in so much as Aristotle his Antecedent and Bellarmine his Consequent are not vnderstood Ad idem secundum idem c. A Monarchy is the best state of ciuill gouernment and for one country but not of Ecclesiastical gouernment nor for the whole world No one secular Prince is sufficient to gouerne a world neither if any one man could be supposed sufficient could it stand with iustice that one should gouerne a world because no man can attaine to be such a Monarke but by oppression and violent inchroching vpon the dominions of other Princes Againe a Monarchy is the best state of ciuill gouernment of one country but the Ecclesiasticall gouernment cannot simply be so but onely when the Church so gouerned is in such a country as is subiect to one secular Prince and not in an Aristocraticall or Democraticall state because the Ministers of the Church must be subordinate to the supreme secular magistrates and the Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Church must be subordinate and answerable to the ciuill gouernment of the country where that Church is Againe as one man cannot gouerne the ciuill state of the world so much lesse can one man be head of the whole Church all authority both ciuill and Ecclesiasticall being deriued from our Sauiour Christ which is both the head of the Church and the Prince of the Kings of the earth and all power is giuen to him from God his Father both in heauen and earth Our Sauiour Christ is considered two manner of wayes as he is God so is hee the King of the whole world by the right of his creation as he is the Redeemer so is he the Head of the vniuersall Church by right of his redemption as he is God he hath his Vicegerents ouer the world and they be his secular Magistrates Ego dixi vos dij estis I haue said ye are Gods But as hee is the head of the Church he hath no Copartener nor Vicegerent no copartener for so he were an vnperfect mediator no vicegerent among men for no man is able to supply his place in that behalfe which I proue by this argument The office and worke of his mediation proceedeth from his two natures God and Man which concurre in one action of the same person so that he which supplyeth his office must be of an infinite power which is not to be found in any man besides himselfe Now lest it should be obiected that he hath said of Ministers also Ego dixi vos dij estis I haue said ye are Gods as well as of Princes and therfore it should be concluded that they are his vicegerents for the Church as Princes for the common wealth I answer the argument doth not hold For as both Princes Ministers haue their authority deriued from him so after a different manner Princes as vicegerents Ministers onely as actiue instruments For the keyes of the Church being in number but two the one of the Word Sacraments the other of Gouernment In the opening and shutting with these keyes which is the execution it selfe are to be considered two things the actiue instrument and the principall agent The Ministers are onely the actiue instruments to preach to the outward eares of men when God alone giueth the gift of Faith conuerteth the heart inwardly as the principall agent they conferre the outward elements only in the ministration of the Sacraments hee alone sealeth remission of sinnes and giueth inward graces they lay hands vpon men to ordeine them Ministers which is the outward calling he doth call them inwardly and make them able by giuing them his holy Spirit they testifie and pronounce before the congregation in iure fori that wicked men are excommunicated out of the Church but God onely ratifieth it in iure poli and cutteth them off from being members of Christ and shutteth the kingdome of heauen against them From the Head to all the members must be such an influence as possible cannot be from any sinfull man as I haue deliuered in my former Treatise Thus you see how idly and weakly the Popes supremacy is by them defended And therefore vnlesse stronger arguments be alledged and more substantially proued they cannot iustly blame vs for withdrawing our neckes out of the obedience to the sea of Rome CHAP. 2. Of Image Worship BEcause they write that worshipping images they commit no idolatry in that they distinguish betweene an image an idoll that an image is the representation of somthing that
by M. Williat for Generall and the Patriarkes of the Apostolike seas there present and the Councel of Constance not of vnequall authority the Councell of Trent to passe others with 6. Cardinals 4. Legats 3. Patriarkes 32. Arch-bishops 228. Bishops and 5. Abbots there assembled as Doctor Doue telleth vs that Protestancy in all places is false and Catholicke religion true where no Protestant Church can shew any one such like authority for their cause The third part of such an assembly would haue bene a great countenance to Protestant religion farre greater then euer it had or is likely to procure To which I answer First concerning the Councell of Florence in all those 25. Sessions which in it were held 15. of them being at Ferraria where the Councell began and the other at Florence where the Councel was concluded there is scarce any one point of religion touched of which there is any controuersie betweene Protestants and Recusants onely while it was at Ferraria before the acts of the first Session the question of Purgatory was superficially disputed Therefore that Councell was farre from cōdemning Protestancy or approuing Catholike religion Secondly of the Councell of Constance which he will haue to be of no lesse authority Bellarmine his selfe denyeth it to haue any authority at all or credit of a generall Councell alledging that it is in the Catalogue of those 15. Synods which the Catholicke Church hath not receiued It seemeth therefoe that this Author was not well acquainted with the generall Councels Thirdly as I confessed such a number of Prelates to be present at the Councell of Trent so I alledged reasons why it could not bee a lawfull councell which he is so farre from answering that he passeth them ouer with silence As also he spareth to repeate the residue of my words which make against him according to his accustomed fallacy wherein I derogated from the credit of this assembly shewing that they were there onely at the end of the Councell being then newly created by the Pope to countenace the Synod and so to subscribe to all conclusions for forme sake But at the beginning when matters were argued there were but forty Bishops and foure Legates too small an assembly to deserue the name of a generall Councell Albeit it is not a bare multitude of suffrages and presence of Bishops that can giue coūtenance to a generall Councell For the whole multitude of Priests and others cryed against our Sauiour Christ Crucifie him The Kings stood vp and the Princes tooke councell together against the Lord and his annoynted So then if he argue from the Councell of Florence to condemne our religion I deny his antecedent If from the Councell of Constance I deny his argument If from the Councell of Trent it is but a Fallacy Petitio principij because hee taketh that for a proofe which is the matter in dispute THE ANSVVER TO A TREATISE INTITVLED A SEARCH MADE INto matters of Religion By FRANCIS WALSINGHAM Deacon of the Protestants Church before his change to the Catholicke Dedicated to the Kings Maiestie Against Luther Caluin Zuinglius Beza Iewel Williat Doue Rogers and other Protestants IEREMY 47. 10. Cursed be he that doth the workes of the Lord negligently LONDON Printed for SIMON WATERSON dwelling in Paules Church-yard at the signe of the Crowne 1610. THE ANSWER TO A TREATISE INTITVLED A Search made into matters of Religion by FRANCIS WALSINGHAM Deacon of the Protestants Church before his change to the Catholicke dedicated to the Kings Maiesty Against Luther Caluin Zuinglius Beza Iewel Williat Doue Rogers and other Protestants IN my perswasion to the Recusants to reconcile themselues to our Church I vsed these words The ignorant Recusant pretendeth his conscience saying It is against my conscience to come to Church and whatsoeuer I do against my conscience is sin I confesse whatsoeuer is done without testimony or warrant of conscience is sin to them that do it be that which is done in it selfe neuer so lawfull because the Apostle saith He that doubteth is condemned if he eate because he eateth not of faith and whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne In which words by faith is vnderstood conscience But by the way they must see that their conscience be rightly informed else it will bee their damnation Out of which words M. Walsingham maketh this collection That I seemed to him substantially to iustifie out of these words of S. Paul the Recusancy of Catholickes if they can proue they haue a good ground or motiue of conscience It is true one absurdity being granted many others will follow Therefore to this hypothetical proposition I answer by granting the Maior and denying the Minor For they cannot proue they haue any such good ground or motiue of conscience therfore their Reculancy is not iustified out of these words It is but Petitio principij a begging of the question Againe he saith If their conscience were erroneous and grounded vpon false grounds and principles yet so long as that perswasion endureth it seemeth they may not be forced The insufficiency of which argument I will lay open by the like Hee that hath not examined himselfe may not come to the Lords table lest he eate and drinke vnworthily and so eate and drinke his owne damnation not discerning the Lords body Shall this want of examination of a mans selfe be therefore a warrant to any man to liue like an infidell neuer to examine himselfe and so neuer to come to the Lords table and so to be exempted from the authority and coactiue power of the Church He must be forced to examine himselfe and communicate So the Recusant whose conscience is erroneous and founded vpon false principles must be forced to renounce his errours to build his religion vpon sounder principles to receiue instruction and informe his conscience better and so to come to the Church He taketh vpon him to disproue my definition of conscience which is that it is an application of a generall knowledge grounded vpon Gods word to particular actions and intents He saith This definition is defectiue being not so large as the thing that is defined because the heathens which know not Gods word yet haue a conscience grounded onely vpon the law of nature I answer that if conscience be by him vniuocally vnderstood as all things ought to be which are defined my definition cannot be disproued But when he instanceth in the consciences of heathen men he flyeth to equiuocation whereas an equiuocall thing cannot bee defined In like manner if I should define religion to be a rule of faith and life grounded vpon Gods word he might take the same exception against it and say that the religion of the Turkes is grounded vpon the Alcaron the religion of the Iewes is grounded partly vpon the Talmod the religion of the Catholickes partly vpon the Traditions of men If I define a man to be animal rationale a body indued with a reasonable
by his owne exposition this word ador amus we adore them is no more then if he had said We honour them and thinke reuerently of them or vse them reuerently because they be for exercise of deuotion and make difference betweene them and other things which are appointed only for ciuill vses And to make good this his expositiō he referreth vs to that decree of the Councel of Trent which before I haue alledged Moreouer he sheweth that as there is one adoration which is religious belonging to God so there is an other onely officious belonging to all Ecclesiasticall rites and ceremonies and such things as are vsed in the Church And to that purpose he alledgeth the authority of the 2. Councell of Nice which speaketh more in fauour of images then all other Councels and decreeth in this sort Imagines sunt venerandae non quidem cultu latriae sed honore illo quo prosequimur sacras literas vasa sacra Images are to be worshipped but how not with such worship as belongeth to God but onely to be honoured as the Church bookes and the Church vessels But I thinke no Catholicke holdeth that the Bible the Basen the Font and the Chalice are to be worshipped by adoration And so they call them sacras imagines sacred images as they call other things which belong to the Church res sacras holy things as the Communion cuppes vasa sacra holy Chalices the Font lauacrum sacrum their Priests personas sacras their Churches Aedes sacras their Bibles Biblia sacra and yet adore them not And thus as men ashamed of themselues they qualifie the matter by such subtilties among the learned to auoid suspition of idolatry continue the people in ignorance and grosse idolatry Againe whereas Aquinas and other Catholicke Doctors haue before deliuered in grosse tearmes that images are to be worshipped cultu latriae with diuine worship or such worship as is due vnto God Bellarmine to qualifie the matter and to reduce them to the meaning of the Councell of Trent would seeme to make a more milde exposition of these words coigning this distinction Inter sanctos eorum imagines reliquias betweene the Saints themselues and their images and reliques So inter Christum eius imagines reliquias betweene our Sauior Christ his images reliques And so he hath written that the images reliques are to be worshipped with the same worship as they whose images reliques they are and so the images reliques of Saints with the worship of doulia and of Christ with latria But yet at the length as a Cow that giueth a paile full of milke and then kicketh it downe with her heele he doth by a distinction so qualifie the matter and set downe such a state of the question whereby all is ouerthrowne For saith he that worship which is called latria and that which is doulia are of two sorts one is cultus verus a true worship which is due to the persons themselues the other but analogicus an analogicall or equiuocall worship onely which is due to the images and reliques But what difference is betweene analogum and analogatum a liue Saint and the picture of a Saint I referre the consideration thereof to the iudgmēt of all Scholers which haue learned but Aristotle his Antipredicaments As a painted man or analogical man is no man so analogical worship is no worship a painted man is but the resemblance of a man so analogicall worship is but a resemblance of worship and not worship it selfe But it is hard to deuise how they should make such a resemblance of worship before the image and not worship the image And howsoeuer if it were possible yet the Apostle teacheth how they ought to auoid all shew of euill And thus hath he auoyded that which was alledged against him by aequiuocation which is contrary to the law of Schooles To leaue their doctrine come to their scandalous practise we charge them with breach of the second commandement because they fall downe before their images Bellarmine in defence thereof saith They do not cultū tribuere simulacris tāquam Dijs worship their images as Gods but onely they worship God in the images of God Saints in the images of those Saints before whom they fall downe and that such worship is not prohibited in holy writ Now therefore vpon this point let vs ioyne our issue If to prostrate themselues before the image and say they worship not the image but God in the image might be lawful then might both Iews Gentiles which did the like haue excused their idolatry forasmuch as neither of them hold their idols to be Gods when they fall downe before them For knowing by the light of nature there was a God but knowing him not as he ought to be knowne nor in what sort he should be worshipped they framed idols worshipped him in those idols yet for so doing they were condemned in the holy Scriptures because he being a Spirit would be worshipped in Spirit but not in an idol and so he will not be worshipped in an image Concerning the Iewes which were idolaters they knew their golden calfe was no God but worshipped God in the calfe Bellarmine therefore asketh why they said Faciamus Deas qui praecedant nos let vs make Gods to go before vs Hi sunt Dij qui eduxerunt te de terra Aegypti these be the Gods which brought thee out of Aegypt I answer their maner was to call idols Gods but Deos repraesetatiuos gods by represetation because they made thē to represent God vsing the figure called enallage numeri Gods for God the plural number for the singular I answer him also by his owne distinction they did meane Deos analogicos non veros Gods analogically but not truly vniuocally vnderstood So in the story of the Iudges speaking of Micha the idolater the text saith This man Micha had an house of Gods the holy Ghost would not call his idols Gods but in this sense because they were idols There it is plaine that in the Scriptures that which is knowne vnderstood to be no God but an idol yet is called a God And that I may somwhat inlarge this point for the better satisfaction of the reader The Iewes knew that God in particular which brought thē out of Aegypt before the golden calfe was made for a little before he came down in their sight vpon mount Sina they heard him speake with their own eares he appeared in thundering lightning his presēce was so terrible they were afraid they said to Moses Talke thou with vs and we will heare thee but let not him talke with vs lest we dy therfore could not think this calfe which they made afterward to be the same God which could not speake nor terrifie them at all and consequently they held it to be but an analogicall or representatiue God But
Rome Page 29. 30. I spake of the Popes supremacy and my words are these What authority soeuer the Pope had ouer the Latine Church or West part of the world it hath bene giuen him by humane constitutions onely and generall consent of Princes and States which they suffered him to enioy during their good liking and no longer And hauing thus shewed that the Popes authority ouer other Churches was not by diuine institution but onely by humane permission not certaine but during the pleasure of Princes and States my words fauour not his supremacy ouer vs in England out of which by consent of Prince and Parliament hee hath beene abandoned long since And therefore I say the Bishop of Rome is little beholding to me for his title of supremacy This is a very loose and negligent kinde of disputation Seuenthly saith he Doue Persw pag. 15. referreth the question what books be Canonicall Scriptures to the two Doctors S. Augustine and S. Hierom. His words be these Catholikes proue them to be Canonical out of S. Augustine we that they be Apocripha out of S. Hierome both which Doctors are of no smal authority in the Church of Rome therefore in this we differ no more from them then S. Hierome did from S. Augustine Therefore I hope for many causes Protestants will giue place to us in this question I deny not but the question being propounded concerning the bookes of Toby Iudith Baruch Ecclesiasticus Wisedome the Maccabes and the fragment of Esther whether they were Canonicall as the Church of Rome doth hold or Apocripha as our Church maintaineth I answered that forasmuch as there is Canon fidei morum One Canon or rule of good life another of faith and that may be Canon morum quodnon est fidei Arule and patterne of good life for vs to follow which is not a sufficient ground of doctrine to build our faith vpon they were both Canonicall and Apocripha Canonicall according to Saint Augustins for rules of good life Apocripha according to S. Hierome because they were no true grounds of doctrine And so the Church of Rome and our selues rightly vnderstanding one another as Saint Hierome and Saint Augustine vnderstood themselues there needed not be any difference concerning this point betweene vs. But how can he inferre vpon this that therefore we must giue place to him in this question As Saint Hierome gaue no place to Saint Augustine so will we giue no place to any onely I wish they would better vnderstand both vs and themselues and giue place to the truth And forasmuch as they allow both of Saint Hierome and Saint Augustine to be Orthodoxall Doctors they cannot receiue S. Augustine his opinion but they must also embrace S. Hieroms exposition where it is explained what is the meaning of S. Augustine where hee alloweth those bookes to be Canonicall Eighthly saith he Concerning the vulgar Latine translation allowed among Catholikes D. Doue writeth thus pag. 16. We grant it fit that for vniformity in quotation of places in Schooles and Pulpits one Latine text should be vsed and we can bee contented for the antiquity thereof to preferre the old vulgar translation before all other Latine bookes and so much we yeeld to the Councell of Trent The praemisses are mine but what is his conclusion Because we ascribe to the vulgar edition more then to all other Latine translations and therein agree with the Church of Rome and because we yeeld to the Councell of Trent so farre as reason doth require and no further but disagree both from the Church of Rome and that Councel in things which are erroneous Concedendo vera negando falsa will he therefore take this for a Protestant proofe of his Catholicke religion Non taliauxilio nec defensoribus istis Roma caret If the Church of Rome had no better champions it would not stand Ninthly Doctor Couel writeth No translation whatsoeuer is authenticall Scripture And Doctor Doue addeth All translations haue many faults page 16. In so writing I write the truth For onely God is free from errour and therefore only the originall text is authenticall Scripture All men are subiect to errours Omnis homo mendax but all translations are the workes of men But how idlely is this brought in as a Protestant proofe of Recusancy well may it serue against Recusants which ascribe more to the translation thē to the originall If no translation be authenticall then it followeth as a firme consequent that the vulgar Latine edition cannot be authentical howsoeuer the Councel of Trent hath imposed it vpon vs as authenticall Tenthly For this time and place saith he I will only make amplification of Doctor Doue his grant confession which followeth in these words When the Masse was first put down King Henry had his English litourgie and that was then iudged absolute without all exception But when King Edward came to the Crowne that was cōdemned and another was in the place which Peter Martyr and Bucet did approue as very consonant to Gods word When Q. Elizabeth began her reign the former was iudged to be full of imperfections and a new was diuised allowed by consent of the Clergy But about the middle of her reigne we grew weary of that booke great meanes haue bene wrought to abandon it establish another which although it was not obtained yet we do at the least at euery change of Prince change our booke of Common praier we bee so want on we know not what we would haue Pag. 31. Hitherto his words and he freely confessed errours in all these states and changes For defence whereof besides that these words are written by way of obiection from them rather then any confession made by our selues I did not so much as intimate that there were errours in all these states and changes as he vniustly chargeth me but onely that in the Seruice bookes of King Henry and King Edward some things were iudged to sauor of the superstitions of the Church of Rome But as for the Seruice booke which was allowed by Queene Elizabeth it stood not only during her time without alteration but also it is ratified by his Maiestie and allowed of by the State albeit by some particularmen it hath bene impugned as nothing else can be by the wit of man so well deuised but mans wit can dispute against it And as for those errours which were reformed in the books of K. Henry and King Edward they were the superstitions onely of the Church of Rome the land being not then sufficiently reformed nor purity of religion so perfectly established as now it is because the Bishops Clergy men by whom those bookes were written their selues were too much so wred with the Romish leauen And our daily renouncing those superstitions and receiuing greater light of the Gospell could be no Protestant proofe that we should any way fauour their superstitions Eleuenthly he writeth thus Why may we not say with the Councell of Florence cited
catalogue of heresies many reckoned vp which are so farre from directly impugning faith that indeed they do not at all impugne the faith as that of Aerius which denied prayer and sacrifice for the dead and the set fasts of the Church To which I answer out of S. Augustine First these Fathers which make such long catalogues of heresies do not write as if they in their owne iudgements did hold all these to be heresies but onely they deliuer what opinions in seuerall ages haue bene condemned as hereticall leauing it to the priuate iudgement of the reader whether they were iustly condemned as hereticall or not but their selues deliuer not what is their owne iudgement For saith he Quid faciat haereticum regulari quâdam definitione comprehendi sicut ego existimo aut omninò non potest aut difficillimè potest To deliuer by a lawfull definition what thing maketh an hereticke in my opinion it is impossible or at lest of great difficulty Againe that in the catalogue of heresies the Fathers do not agree concerning the number of them but some recken vp more some fewer he saith Quod vtique non euenisset nisi aliud vni eorū videretur esse haeresis aliud alteri The cause was for that such an opinion as seemed heresie in the iudgement of one Father in the iudgement of another was not hereticall And concerning Epiphanius the Bishop of Cypris Philestrius Bishop of Brix which both writ of heresies the one making a longer Catalogue then the other he saith Procul dubio in eâ quaestione vbi disceptatur quid sit haeresis non idem videbatur ambobus reuer à hoc omnino definire difficile est ideo cauendum quum omnes in numerum redigere conamur ne pretermittamus aliquas quum hareses sint aut enumeremus aliquas quum haereses non sint That which seemed an heresie to one of them did not seeme so to the other and to define truly what is heresie is very hard and they which will write the Catalogue of heresies must be very circumspect lest they leaue out of the Catalogue some opinions which are indeed hereticall put in others which are no heresies Secondly the Fathers in those Catalogues did not vnderstand this word Heresie so strictly as in our age it is vnderstood but generally for euery sect in religion differing from the receiued opinion of the Church as it appeareth by S. Augustine in the words going before where hee maketh an heresie and a sect all one shewing Quantum inter se differunt de numero sectarum How much Epiphanius and Philastrius discent concerning the number of sects where he calleth them sects which before he called heresies And it is no maruaile though with those Fatheres all heresies do not directly impugne the Faith when by thē onely sects are vnderstood But to make euery opinion an heresie which not only directly but also by a consequent impugneth faith as M. Walsingham will haue it is to make no difference betweene errour and heresie but to call euery errour in religion an heresie as Ludouicus Viues speaketh Haeresis nomen rebus leuissimis impingitur The name of heresie is layd vpon euery light matter And of him it may one time or other be verified which Alphonsus de Castro speaketh Idcirco fit vt hiqui tam leuiter de haeresi pronuntiant non expendentes de quâre loquantur saepè suà ipsorum sagittâ feriantur incidantque in eam foueam quam alijs parabant It happeneth that they which so rashly call euery thing heresie not considering whereof they speake bee oftentimes beaten with their owne weapon and fall into the pit which they digged for others I shewed pag. 10. how Pusillanimity maketh men sometimes do contrary to their owne conscience as Cardinall Pole who dying said The Protestants are the honester men I would be a Protestant were it not for the Church of Rome This I brought for example to illustrate not for argument to proue For exempla non probant examples proue not He turneth it another way saying I broughtit for a reason to proue that Protestants are no heretickes In defence of our Church that it could not be accounted hereticall I called into question the authority of the Councell of Trent by which it was condemned alledging diuers exceptions against that Councell that it could not be a lawfull generall Councell the paucity of the Bishops which were there present their partiality the definition of a generall Councell cited by Bellarmine which could no way be verified of that assembly Hauing produced these arguments to disinable that Councell he doth not so much as repeate any of them much lesse doth he answer them onely he saith that it seemed to him a slight argument and to giue more aduantage to my aduersary then defence to my selfe and my cause I reply that it is no maruaile though a man of slight iudgement which passeth ouer all other things of moment so slightly doe esteeme those arguments to be so slight which his selfe cannot answer To perswade Catholikes to come to our Church I shewed how the learned among them do come euery day nearer to our religion and more and more fauour our opinions He saith it is a dreame I wish this dreamer to awake out of sleepe and with greater vigilancy to consider of the particulars as they are produced by mee I said First the learned Catholickes agree with vs concerning the bookes of Scripture which be Canonicall which Apocripha I writ in this maner The bookes of Toby Iudith Baruch Ecclesiasticus Wisdome Maccabes the fragment of Esther they hold to be Canonicall according to S. Augustine We to be Apocripha according to S. Hierome and in this point we differ no more from them then Hierome did from Augustine which did both agree and were easily reconciled S. Hierome interpreting S. Augustines meaning that they were Canonicall enough to proue rules of life not grounds of doctrine and faith Thus haue we deliuered long since But Bellarmine handling this question at large replieth not against vs nay hee doth not so much as mention this distinction of Canons of faith and Canons of good life Therefore we take it as a thing granted by the lawes of disputation that he holdeth as we hold resteth satisfied with our answer the case to be cleare betweene vs both M. Walsingham blusheth not to deliuer a notorious vntruth saying that Bellarmine handleth this distinction at large and refuteth the same in his first booke De verbo Dei cap. 10. In which booke and chapter no such thing can be found Secondly they agree with vs cōcerning the Bible which is the best and truest edition For wheras we holding the originall text only to be authenticall the Councell of Trent obtrudeth to vs the vulgar Latine translation Bellarmine preferreth the original before the Latine as we do M. Walsingham is not ashamed to charge me that
points of doctrine the greatest Papists in the world agree with vs. Perswas page 11. These are my words I deny them not Moreouer I did instance in these fundamentall points wherein they consent with vs and thereupon I inferred that they did rashly condemne vs for heretickes what then followeth will he therefore inferre that either holding the fundamentall points therefore their superstitions and errours may safely be maintained or that therefore they may be iustly excused for not communicating with vs as if their consenting with vs in fundamentall points should be a cause why they should the rather abhorre our Church religion It is a sufficient preiudice to the cause of their religion that they dispute in such loose manner Againe he saith So Doctor Doue in his whole Treatise neuer chargeth the Church of Rome either with schisme or heresie but laboureth to excuse themselues offering that we shall communicate with them without any change of opinion and yet hee setteth downs this for an infallible position THIS PROPOSITION IS VNDOVBTEDLY TRVE NO HERETIKE OR SCHISMATIKE IS TO BE COMMVNICATED WITHAL Perswas pag. 5. In that I haue not charged them with schisme or heresie I haue shewed that we are more charitable to them then they are to vs which do charge vs with both In that hee saith I onely laboured to excuse our selues as if I had proued nothing to cleare vs from that iniust aspertion I referre him to the place it selfe where I haue made due proofe that we are free from both heresie and schisme by such sound reasons as this Author cannot answer But whereas he saith it is offered on my part that they shall at their pleasure communicate with vs without change of opinion he burdeneth me with an vntruth by himselfe diuised and not to bee quoted out of any of my bookes In so writing he may fill vp a volume but he shall neuer strengthen his owne cause of weaken ours Moreouer saith he he giueth vs security that by no possibility according to the former reason of generall Councels the Romane Church can be iudged hereticall His words bee these pag. 14. No Church can be condemned and iudged hereticall by any priuate censure but it must be publicke by a generall Councell as he there expoundeth himselfe and is granted before But what doth he cōclude out of this That because the Church of Rome is not condemned by a generall Councell to bee hereticall it must needs be therefore orthodoxall This is such a consequent as neither Protestants nor any other of sound iudgement will grant Fifthly he chargeth me thus Touching Sacraments he alledgeth pag. 27. 28. that according to our definition of a Sacrament there are as many as we teach and this shall not breede any iarre betweene vs that therefore we should refuse to communicate together And transubstantiation it selfe shall be no barre but if we will receiue at their hands they will not examine how we expound these words Hoc est corpus meum This is my body pag. 29. And of discipline he writeth In that Councell of Trent they set forth such wholsome Canons concerning discipline as were fit for a reformed Church I deny not these words but I deny that they make any thing for the defence of Recusancy Concerning the word Sacrament as it is a name diuised by man but not found in the Scriptures so it is not any matter of saluation to vary about the number of Sacraments especially among them with whom it is not agreed what a Sacrament is For where words are not vnderstood ad idem secundem idem c. nothing hindereth but contrary or contradictory propositions may be both true as to say There are seuen and there are not seuen Sacraments For so concerning the number of Sacraments they and we differ in words when we may easily agree in substance The word Sacrament is strictly taken with vs and so according to M. Caluin his definition it is an outward signe ordeined of God to be cōtinued in his Church as a part of his diuine Seruice offering to all men but sealing onely to the faithfull his inward grace for the strengthening of their saith the applying of Christ his death vnto them And so there can be but two according to the confession of Saint Augustine A resurrectione Domini quaedam pauca signapro multis eademque factu facillima intellectu augustissinta obseruatione castissima ipse Dominus Apostolica tradidit disciplina baptismum coenam Domini Since the Lord his resurrection our Sauiour his selfe and from him his Apostles haue commended to vs for outward signes or seales a very few in steed of many and those for performance most easie for signification most ample for obseruation most pure and holy and they are Baptisme and the Lords Supper But this word Sacrament is more largely taken in the Church of Rome for a signe in generall although it do not apply vnto vs and represent before our eyes the death of Iesus Christ And it is defined to be Signum rei sacra an outward signe of any holy thing And according to that definition there may be not only 7. but also 70. Sacraments Of transubstantion hauing first proued that the bread and the wine in the Eucharist cannot be transubstantiated and yet not denying them to be the body and bloud of our Sauiour because he hath said they are so I said in that we both agree onely the difference betweene vs is how the words This is my body are to be vnderstood whether really or sacramentally properly or mystically And that it should be no barre or scruple to their consciences in what sense we vnderstand it so as we deliuer it to them according to the institution of our Sauiour Christ and that if they will in all other things submit themselues to the lawes of our Church we will not presse them so farre in examining them how they expound the words but rather yeeld so much to their weaknesse in this one poynt vntill God shall reueale a further measure of the knowledge of his truth vnto them So these words of mine import nothing in fauour of transubstantiation Thirdly the Councell of Trent hath set downe wholsome Canons cōcerning discipline as in part the 3. Lataran Coūcell did long before as namely for preaching and learned ministers c. And the reformed Churches of England Scotland Germany Netherland Geneua haue receiued many of those Canons although they come from the Pope as deeming them fit for a reformed Church But these my words make nothing for the allowance of that Councell it selfe or of the points of doctrine there concluded neither yet of their Recusancy among whom for the most part these Canons of discipline are not receiued Sixthly Concerning the Popes supremacy of Europe there can be no question For generally Protestants agree with Field Doue Ormerod that the regiment of the West Churches among which this nation is one belonged to the Pope of