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
my purpose is to finde their falshood by their footing to shew how they enter in at the false doore and go not the right way to detect their sleights and iuggling casts whereby they aduance errour and falshood but stand in opposition against the truth Forasmuch therefore as if the Gospell be yet hidden it is hidden to them which are lost the Lord of his mercy take away from their disciples and followers that veile or couering which vntill this time hath continued vntaken away and remoue from them the spirit of slumber that hereafter seeing they may see The Lord of his goodnesse endue the teachers themselues with his grace that henceforth as sincere Pastors and faithfull Stewards of his word they may walke in simplicity and handle his word plainly in the declaration of the truth that they may approue themselues to euery mans conscience in the sight of God that when the chiefe Sheepheard and Archbishop of our soules shall appeare they may receiue an incorruptible crowne of glory through Iesus Christ our Lord Amen CHAP. 1. Of the Head of the Church ANd that I may first with Saint Iohn the Baptist lay the axe to the roote of the tree because the Cardinall deriueth the Popes supremacy from S. Peter let vs therefore examine by what right he entituleth S. Peter to that supremacy For his supremacy being shaken the Popes authority which is grounded vpon it cannot stand Our Sauiour vpon Saint Peter his confession where he saith Thou art the Christ the Sonne of the liuing God answered Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church It is as impossible to reduce these words into a true syllogisme or forme of argumentation as it was for the Oracles to speake when the Sonne of God had enioyned them silence or for the Aegyptians to make lice when the finger of God was against them Euery lawfull syllogisme must consist onely of three parts or termes as they call them but here are fower Petrus Petra persona Petri structura Ecclesiae the person of him that made the confession his name his confession it selfe which is called the rocke or foundation stone and the building of the Church His person and his name where it is said Tues Petrus thou art Peter the confession or foundation stone vpon this rocke the aedifice or building it selfe will I build my Church The medius terminus or argument whereby euery conclusion ought to be proued must bee one and the selfe same as well in the Minor proposition as in the Maior but here it cannot be so for it is Petra in Maiori Petrus in Minors the rocke in the Maior and Peter in the Minor as if they should conclude in this manner The rocke is the foundation of the Church but the Apostle which made this confession is Peter therefore the Apostle which made this confession is the foundation of the Church But this is not in Moode and Figure the medius terminus being not the same in both propositions Therefore if they will correct it and reduce it into a true forme they must conclude in this manner Whosoeuer is the rocke he is the foundation of the Church But the Apostle which made this confession meaning Peter is the rocke therefore the Apostle which made this confession is the foundation of the Church And then besides that they do confound the confession and the confessor S. Peters person and his doctrine which are two seuerall and distinct things the Minor is vntrue and contrary to the assertion of our Sauiour Christ For he doth not say Tues Petra thou art the rocke but tues Petrus thou art Peter nor super hunc Petrum sed super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam vpon this Peter but vpon this rocke will I build my Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then where he saith THOV he speaketh of his person and mentioning PETER he telleth what is his name speaking of the ROCKE he iustifieth his religion being three seuerall points besides the aedifice and building of the Church whereof that religion is the foundation stone Now before we proceed any further in this argument let vs auoyde such exceptions as the aduersary bringeth against the analysing of this text First Bellarmine obiecteth that our Sauiour spake in the Syrian tongue and in that language this one word CEPHAS is nomen proprium viri commune saxi the proper name of a man and a name common to all stones as also in the Greeke tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both Peter and a stone and it is plaine in the Syriac text he said Thou art Cephas and vpon this Cephas will I build my Church And thereupon he concludeth that Cephas in the first place should not signifie his name and in the second the rocke as I deliuered in my Analysis but in both places the rocke so that there may be tres tantùm termini onely three termes or parts to make a true syllogisme and consequently that Peter is the rocke To which I reply there can be no good argument drawne from the authority of the Syriac text not onely because of the ambiguity of the word which maketh the matter doubtfull according to the grammaticall construction and very vncertaine but also because that text is disalowed by the Church of Rome whereas the Latine text out of which I made this Analysis maketh for me and is vpon paine of anathema to be receiued as authenticall and so I touch him to the quicke and slay him with his owne sword As Cephas according to Grammer signifieth both the name of a man a stone yet in this place it cannot signifie both of them because it is otherwise in the Greeke which is the originall without exception and in the vulgar Latinetranslation which do make that very plaine where the first Cephas is Peter and the second a stone and so that which is or might seeme to be ambiguous and yeeld matter of controuersie in the Syriac is cleared in these editions and all ambiguity is taken away there is no starting-hole left for the Sophister to cauell vpon Concerning the Syriac text Bellarmine maketh doubt where he writeth thus De testamento nouo maior est dubitatio Of the whole edition of the Syriac new testament there is a greater doubt whether it were written in that tongue by the Authors themselues or no Againe hee deliuereth his owne iudgement in these words Quod si editio Syriaca aetate horū patrum posterior est vt ego quidem mihi certè persuadeo non potest eius authoritas tanta esse vt cum editione Graecâ aut Latinâ meritò comparari possit vt interim illud non omittam quod non desunt etiam quaedam in eâ editione quae viris doctis pijs non admodum placeant If the Syriac edition be of lesse antiquity then these Fathers meaning Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Eusebius Athanasius others of whom there he
houses with whom for their vnworthinesse the peace of the Apostles could not abide The points which especially I vrged were proued out of Bellarmine their owne Doctor and in the places by me produced I falfified nothing but dealt sincerely let the learned disproue me if they can If they examine my arguments according to the lawes of Schooles they shall finde nothing false that may iustly bee denied nothing equiuocall that needeth distinction so that they must either answere me with silence or else if they deale ingeniously say with the inchanters Digitus Dei est It is the finger of God and make as open a confession of euiction as Iulian the Apostata did when hee cryed out Vicisti Galilaee Thou hast gotten the victory thou Galilean yet haue I beene contradicted but how iustly let the learned reader iudge An author without a name printed a booke at Paris Anno 1607. with this Title The first part of Protestant proofes for Catholicke Religion and Recusancy taken onely from the writings of such Protestant Doctors as haue bene published since the reigne of his Maiesty Which booke is nothing else but an vndigested Chaos or Miscellanea of halfe sentences rudely consarcinated together a confused heape of places some meerely diuised by himselfe and not to be found in these Protestant Doctors some wrested and falsly applied some truly alledged but impertinent to the argument hee taketh in hand all of them being praemisses without conclusions to make an idle shew of proofe where nothing is proued and of a confutation where nothing is confuted These proofes he saith he collected out of the bookes of the reuerend Father in God the Lord Bishop of Winchester Doctor Suckliffe Doctor Field Doctor Downam Doctor Morton Mr. Egerton and my selfe among many others in defence of his Recusancy and Romish religion But hee hath not vndertaken to answer any of our books neither can any iudicious man hold such recital of our words to be a confutation of our works Of these learned Writers and reuerend men I say with the parents of the blinde man Aetatem habent they are sufficient to answer for themselues and therefore I vndertake nothing in their behalfe onely for Apology of mine owne selfe I may truly say Because it is as impossible for him to make a iust reply against me as it was for the Centurion to deny the power of God in our Sauiour Christ when being conuicted by euident demonstration he said Verè filius Deiest In truth he was the sonne of God Therefore he hath with Elimas peruerted the straight waies of the Lord and withstood the truth by indirect and sinister meanes as Iamnes and Iambres resisted Moses For I pressed them by way of sound reason and strong argument he hath dealt by Elenches and Sophismes as the Apostle speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deceiuing them by paralogismes First he hath these words The greatest number of Protestant writers Doctor Succliffe Doctor Doue c. do teach there is no matter of faith no materiall or substantiall point or difference in religion betweene Protestants Puritants but they are of one Church faith and religion But we doubt whether they will stand to their positions they writ in Queene Elizabeth daies seeing they defend they may often change at the least at the change of euery Prince Doue perswasion Pag. 31. Wherein let the reader iudge whether he hath dealt with me ingenuously or no For I spake only of the manner of compiling our Seruice booke he chargeth me as if I had spoken of faith materiall and substantiall points of religion I spake of fact what we did concerning our Seruice booke and they concerning their Breauiry which haue changed as often as we he speaketh of right as if I had said we not onely then might vpon such good considerations as then iustly moued vs but also may euer hereafter when there is no such iust cause to induce vs thereunto change and alter our faith and grounds of religion My words were antagonisticall and by way of obiection from them with answere to their obiection he doth make relation of them as if they were dogmaticall and as a grounded conclusion maintained among vs. Therefore I charge him with two fallacies The first is Fallacia accentus For when wordes spoken interogatiuely are repeated indicatiuely or words spoken ironically as if they were spoken plainely or by way of obiection as if they were dogmaticall and all such like are referred to that fallacy Secondly he citeth part of my words which are the obiection and leaueth out the other part which are the answere which is comprehended vnder the Elenche called Fallacia diuisionis of which one species is Quando citatur imperfecta sententia non integra when part of the words are recited which the Sophister thinketh may serue his turne the other part is omitted lest the whole sentence should make against him Secondly he writeth thus The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull men in which the pure word of God is preached the Sacramēts duly administred according to Christs ordinance in all things that are of necessity required to the same Couel Field Doue be of the same minde Perswas page 23. I confesse I am of the same minde not onely in thesi but also in hypothesi that our Church is such a congregation that Gods word is truly preached and the Sacraments duly administred among vs according to Christ his institution But this is not with Sampson to fetch meat out of the eater Our words make for our selues but yeeld no aduantage to our aduersaries among whom neither Gods word is truly preached nor the Sacramēts duly administred Therefore they are idlely produced by him to delude the reader in making a shew of proofe for their religion and of confutation for ours when there is no MEDIVS TERMINVS wherby any thing should be proued or confuted And if he apply it by hypothesis to the Church of Rome that it is such a visible cōgregation c. and that therfore Recusants may safely continue in it and refuse to communicate with vs we were neuer of that minde neither can that be any Protestant proofe But it is a Petitio principij begging of the question which he taketh as granted when it is denyed Thirdly thus M. Williats words To errors of doctrine which are not fundamentall euen the true Church of Christ is subiect So Field ordinarily in his bookes of the Church so Sutcliffe Doue Perswa pag. 31. 32. But what doth he cōclude out of these words That therefore Recusants may wilfully maintaine the errours of the Church of Rome rather then be reconciled to our Church which is purged from such errors These words are no Protestant proofe of Catholike religion Hoc est ludere non argumentari this is to play the wanton not the Logitian Fourthly he chargeth me in this manner Concerning doctrine Doctor Doue writeth in these termes In fundamentall
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
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
is in the nature of things as in Salomons temple were the images of Lions and Oxen but an idoll is made onely to represent somewhat that neuer was as the idols of Mercury and Iupiter which are but false Gods of the Gentiles Gods by imagination and not indeed And therefore they hold it for a slander to their religion that their images are called Idols Let the first question therefore be concerning the truth of that distinction that yee may examine their fiue reasons whereby that distinction is by them auouched First saith Bellarmine Images which are a true representation of somewhat are neuer called Idols in the holy Scriptures as in Salomons temple The images but not the idols of Lions and Oxen. To which I answer first it is but a kinde of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or contention about words which be they vnderstood howsoeuer be they confounded or distinguished the worshipping of them is the breach of Gods commandement where we are forbidden to worship any grauen image or the likenesse of any thing Secondly this negatiue proofe drawne from Scriptures is no sufficient argument but contrary to the lawes of disputations as is plainly set downe in the Topic called Pronunciatum Authoritas non valet in negatiuis Thirdly I bring instance against him out of the holy Scriptures where the image of a Calfe is called an Idoll For so saith Saint Stephen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they made a calfe in those daies and offered sacrifice to an idoll There in plaine termes the image or true representation of a calfe is called an idoll By this you see what smal credit is to be giuē to this distinction and what false grounds Catholike doctrine is builded vpon Againe Idols by Bellarmine himselfe are called statuae and are so translated in the Latine 1. Kings 10. 16. 17. and what is statua but an image Secondly saith he An idoll is in the Hebrue tongue Leuit. 19. 26. Num. 23. Ose 6. a vaine thing a false thing a lye alwaies signifying some false representation a false image and not a true image as Abacuc 2. 18. Which reason because it is but colewoorts twise sodden a mere tautologie and all one with the former I answer to it as before Thirdly he argueth out of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 8. 4. We know an idoll is nothing It is something saith he in respect of the matter whereof it is made as wood stone mettall but nothing in respect of the forme because it representeth that which is not To which I answer as before by deniall in as much as the golden calfe being for the matter gold represented that which in forme was somewhat a bodily substance animal mugibile a lowing beast And that I may make a better exposition of Saint Pauls words out of S. Paul himselfe of that proposition Idolum nihil est an idoll is nothing as in matter it is something so in respect of any diuine vertue in it which the idolater ascribeth to it it is nothing And againe by the analogie of that place it is nothing either in respect of sanctification or pollution of those meats which are offered to it And if there be any that cannot or will not be satisfied with this answere let them reply against it Fourthly saith he S. Hierom vpon Abac. 2. Zach. 13. compareth heresies and idole together because as an idol is a false image so an heresie is a false imagination To which I answer S. Hierom might as iustly haue compared heresies with images which are many times as vnlike the man for whose pictures they are made as heresy is different frō the truth But he fayleth in the maine point of his comparison because this proposition is not generally true that an idol is a false image because the calfe in Horeb of which I first spake was both an idoll and a true image Fiftly out of Eustachius lib. 11. Odyss saith he an idoll is properly such a representation as the shadowes of men flying phantasies and imaginations of the braine which we thinke we see when nothing is before our eyes ghosts apparitions of such as be dead To which I answere out of the vulgar Latine Bible which is of better authority with the Church of Rome then euer Eustachius was that the word image is also vsed in the same manner as In imagine transit homo Man passeth away as an image or a shadow And Iob saith In the thoughts of the visions of the night when sleepe falleth on men feare came vpon me and dread which made all my bones to tremble and the winde passed before me and made the haires of my flesh to stand vp then stood one I knew not not his face imago animage was before mine eyes and in silence heard I a voyce c. Thus vnder a colour and shew of learning hath he made an idle and fruitlesse discourse to intangle the simple reader with no small preiudice to the Romish religion which is defended by such sleight shifts rather then by manifest truth This scruple being remoued it remaineth in the second place that we discusse this question whether images are to be worshipped or not And herein the practise of the Romish Church is contrary to the doctrine they do teach because in their Churches they worship images set them vp to be worshipped and inioyne the people to adore them and yet not able to stand in the defence thereof by their Writers they forsake their old defence and by their Canons deny that any diuine worship is due vnto them For the Councell of Trent hath these wordes Imagines Christi sanctorum honorandae sunt modo tamen in imaginibus non collocetur fiducia nec ab ijs aliquid petatur nec in ijs esse credatur aliqua diuinit as sed solum honorentur propter eos quos nobis repraesentant Images are to be honored not to be adored and they are to be honoured onely with such limitations that we put no trust or confidence in them that we pray not vnto them that we ascribe not any diuine vertue to them but onely they are to be honored for their sakes whose images they are and whose likenesse they represent to vs. There you see plainly what their doctrine is how they deny them adoration And yet by their practise they do not onely prostrate themselues before them as the Gentiles did before their idols but plainly shew in action that they suppose some diuine power to be in them in that they pray to them and by their long peregrinations weary themselues in visiting some images rather then others yea they trauell very farre to prostrate themselues before the images of our Sauiour Christ and the virgin Mary and other Saints in farre countries when they haue in their owne Churches at home the images of the same Saints yea farre more beautifull then are abroad Bellarmine saith Omnes cruces ador amus we adore all images of the crosse And yet
saith Bellarmine though first they knew him yet whē they made the calfe they had forgotten him How proueth he that Fecerūt vitulū in Horeb they made a calfe in Horeb they worshipped the molten image forgat God which saued them and did wonderfull things in Aegypt To which I answer by distinction that forgetfulnesse is of two sorts one which is ignorance when a man letteth slip out of his memory that which once he knew or heard or saw as when Peter heard the cocke crow he remembred the words of Iesus the other of ingratude as where it is written The Butler did not remember Ioseph but forgat him that is he was ingratefull to him And in that sense the Israelites forgate God Againe any impiety negligence presumption disobedience is called forgetfulnesse as Dauid speaketh The wicked shall be turned into hell and all they which forget God And that the forgetfulnesse of the Iewes could not be the obliuion of ignorance I proue by the text it selfe cras erit solemnitas Iehouae tomorrow shall a solemne feast be kept to the God Iehoua Which Iehoua is the proper name of the God of heauen knowne then onely among the Iewes so that they worshipped Iehoua in the calfe But saith Bellarmine Respondeo fortè Iudaeos illos qui plures Deos veros esse tradebant non putasse hoc nomen esse proprium sed appellatiuum Peraduēture those Iewes which held a multitude of true Gods thought that Iehoua was not a name proper to one but common to many To which I reply That besides religion must not be grounded vpon Bellarmine his PERADVENTVRES and idle coniectures how can he auoid this text parallell vnto that to shew what was the opinion of the Iewish Idolaters where Mica his mother saith Sanctificaui voui Iehouae c. I haue sanctified the siluer and dedicated it to Iehoua to make a molten Image Forasmuch as there by his owne words Ieboua sculptile God and the molten Image are two seuerall things votum quod est sculptile numen cui sculptile vouetur the vow which is the molten image and the God Iehoua to whom the image is deuoted she could not thinke that image to be Iehoua To come to the worship of the Gentiles what answer doth he make to these arguments First they did vni Deo plura simulacra erigere erect many idols to one God For example they acknowledge but one Iupiter yet in euery country were idols of Iupiter therefore they made a difference betweene the God himselfe and his idoll consequently they did not thinke the idoll to be a God His answer is Habuerunt alios Deos in coelo alios interrâ nec putauerunt absurdum si vnus Deus coelestis vt Iupiter vel Apollo haberet interrâ multos collegas minores id est multa idola eiusdem nominis The heathens had some Gods in heauen some on earth neither did they thinke it an absurdity that one God in heauen as Iupiter or Apollo should haue many fellow Gods inferiour vpon earth that is many idols to beare their names And I pray you what is this answer but a confession or grant of that which I haue alledged that the heathens accompted their Gods which they thought to be in heauen to be Gods indeed these vpon earth before whom they prostrated themselues to be but idols and representations of them which were in heauen therefore they did not thinke they were Gods Secondly they framed dayly new idols and yet said not that they made new Gods His answer is Putarunt Gentes senouos Deos facere saltem terrestres The Gentiles so doing thought at the least they made such Gods as were vpon earth although not such as were in heauen which is no more then he spake before to the first obiection a grant of that which I haue obiected Thirdly Mutarunt simulacra pro arbitrio nec tamen Deos mutarunt They changed their idols at their pleasure whereas their Gods continued the same To it he saith Respondeo Ethnicos eâdem stultitiâ quâ putabunt Deos posse fieri manibus hominum potuisse etiam credere Deos aliquos potuisse destrui manibus hominum As the heathens in their foolishnesse thought they could make Gods with their hands so in as great folly they thought they could destroy the Gods which they had made And this is no more then was in the answer to the first obiection where he confessed that in the opinion of the heathen their idols were but idols and no true Gods Fourthly S. Augustine relateth that when the Gentiles were accused of idolatry they answered that Non colebant idolum sed numen quod per idolum significabatur they did not worship the idoll but the God which was represented by it This obiection Bellarmine repeateth in his 2. booke and 11. chapter But in the 13. chapter where he taketh vpon him to answer the arguments going before as I haue shewed he passeth this ouer with silence But to to come the reasons which Bellarmine produceth against vs for proofe of this defence If saith he they did not beleeue these idols to be very gods but representations only of God and so worshipped not them but God in them why do the Prophets labour so much to perswade them that they were no gods I answer whatsoeuer we prostrate our selues before in our prayers consequently we make it our god not by our opinion but by that adoration which is the prostrating of our selues before it not directly but by a consequent And because the people did so the Prophets and S. Paul in those places by him cited do not so much labour to proue them no Gods as if the people had thought them to be so but because they prostrated themselues before them and so by a consequent made them gods But saith Bellarmine if they did not thinke them to be gods why did they inuocate and call vpon them why did they pray vnto them vnlesse they thought that they did heare them I answer out of the Roman Catechisme which holdeth this doctrine that they must pray to the images of saints in the Romish Churches not thinking that the images can heare them but that the saints which by those images are represented should heare them when they pray before their images The words are these Quum ad imaginem sancti alicuius quis dominicam orationem pronunciet ita tum sentiat se ab illo petere vt secum oret sibique postulet ea quae Dominicae orationis formulâ continentur sui denique sit interpres deprecator apud Deum When any man saith the Lords prayer before the image of any saint let his meaning be thus that he craueth of the saint himselfe whose image it is that the saint would pray with him and obtaine for him those petitions which in that forme of prayer are comprehended and so that he would be for him insteed of
not by their praying to him that he should pray for them This is no true kinde of argumentation but a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi The defence of the Romish Church being this that Saints are to be inuocated after they be dead not as authors but as mediators let this be the question betweene vs whether any such inuocation is commended vnto vs in the holy Scriptures or no Eckius one of their greatest Schoole-diuines that euer was in the Vniuersitie of Ingolstad maketh this free confession that innocation of Saints is not expressly commanded in holy Writ Explicitè sanctorum inuocatio non est praecepta in sacris literis Not in the old testament saith he because the people of themselues were prone to idolatry and the Saints departed were then in Limbus and not in heauen In the new testament the Apostles wrote no such thing left such doctrine should be a meanes to bring the Gentiles backe againe to idolatry as also because the Apostles their selues would not be thought so ambitious as to seeke their owne glory after their death I desire them therefore with Christian sobriety to speake to these foure points First the wisedome of the holy Ghost being such that in the whole body of the Bible such inuocation was not so much as once named for feare of idolatry how can it be denied but this inuocation hath at the least some affinity with idolatry or why should the Church of Rome either withstand or go beyond the wisedome of God to maintaine publish that in their humane policy which God in his diuine wisdome thought fit to be suppressed and concealed or why should not the perill of idolatry bee as carefully shunned now as then it was Secondly forasmuch as the confession of Bellarmine is Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria quae ipsipalam omnibus vulgo praedicarūt that all things which are necessary for the Church to know or which the Apostles in their Sermons by word of mouth did publish teach are written by the Apostles but this inuocation is not mentioned in their writings and therefore was neither taught by them nor held necessary to saluation Why doth the Church of Rome so vehemently maintaine it S. Paul saith No mā must presume to vnderstand aboue that which is meet to be vnderstood but that euery man must sapere adsobrietatem vnderstand with sobriety And what it is plus sapere quà m oportet to vnderstand aboue that which is meet and not according to sobriety he sheweth in another place supra id quod scriptum est sapere when any man shall presume beyond that which is written Thirdly if inuocation of Saints were necessary for the easier obtaining of mercy at the hands of God and the readier way to saue mens soules and yet the Apostles forbeare to publish this doctrine because they would not be thought ambitious they were not faithfull Stewards of the word nor so carefull of the Church of Christ as behoued men of that holy vocation for humane respects neglecting their office Furthermore they did contrary to the rule of Saint Paul in concealing the truth of religion which was to do euil that good might follow which imputation cannot without great impiety bee layed vpon such sanctified vessels Nay which is more how can it stand with that which Saint Paul testifieth of himselfe where he saith I haue kept nothing backe but haue shewed you all the councell of God And againe I haue shewed you all things Fourthly in the same chapter Eckius hauing deliuered that such inuocation is no where expressed in the holy Scriptures yet taketh vpon him to produce many expresse places to proue the same I would therefore bee satisfied with what conscience he could aledge those places to resist a knowne truth But to come to Bellarmine when Mathias was to be elected in the place of Iudas the Apostles prayed after this manner Thou Lord which knowest the hearts of all men shew whether of these two thou hast chosen In which words it is expressed that hee which onely is infinitely wise hath reserued the knowledge of mens hearts to himselfe But this is a ground or principle agreed vpon betweene vs both that we may pray vnto none but onely to him which knoweth the heart He answereth that not onely God but also the Saints departed are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 searchers and vnderstanders of the secrets of mens hearts I reply That belongeth onely to the Creator which made the heart For saith Salomon Heare thou in heauen in thy dwelling place and be mercifull and do and giue euery man according to all his waies as thou knowest his heart for thou onely knowest the hearts of all the children of men He distinguisheth in this manner Non tribuunt Catholici sanctis mortuis diuinitatem id est vim cognoscendi mentium cogitationes Cognoscunt quidem preces nostras non vt sunt in mentibus nostris sed vt sunt in Deo quem vident qui eas ipsis ostendit The Catholickes ascribe not to Saints departed any Deity as if they had power in themselues to bee discerners of mens thoughts And yet they conceiue our prayers though not by any insight into vs or inspection into the inward and hidden man but by vision in the Maiestie of God whom they do see and who reuealeth our prayers vnto them Against this answer I dispute in this manner out of his owne booke in another place If Saints conceiue our prayers in such sort as is aforesaid then it is by a generall illumination or vision by which at their first entrance into the state of happinesse in the Maiesty of God they see all at once or else successiuely by a speciall reuelation from God at such times and seasons onely as prayers in particular are made vnto them he standeth in doubt what he should answer whether it be by such a generall illumination or such especiall reuelation by which of them it is or whether it be by any of them or not he cannot tell For he saith Ex his duabus prior videtur simpliciter probabilior tamen posterior sententia est magis idonea ad conuincendos hereticos It is more probable it should be by vision and yet it is a more safe defence against the heretickes to hold that it is by reuelation In which words you see what weake grounds he buildeth vpon which are onely probabilitas studium contradicēdi the first probility or humane coniecture the second a vaine desire of contradiction to withstand his aduersaries in disputation whether it be by truth or falshood right or wrong by certainty or vncertainty by hap or good cunning he careth not I reply therefore If Saints heare vs not it is very idle to pray vnto them if it were possible that they could heare vs but if we cannot resolue our selues that they do heare vs our praiers
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
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
I haue abused both the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine That I haue not abused the Councell witnesse the Councell it selfe that I haue not abused Bellarmine witnesse Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 11. Thirdly they agree with vs concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures that in them are deliuered all things necessary to saluation contrary to the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome So Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 10. He is not ashamed to say In reading the place hee hath discouered a notable fraude Whether I haue dealt fraudulently or sincerely let the reader iudge But wherein lyeth the fraude He saith that Bellarmine speaketh these words onely by way of answer to an obiection I conclude therefore it is no fraude If I had taken that for positiue doctrine which was spoken by way of obiection it had bene fraude in me but seeing it is an answer to an obiection it is no fraude but sincere dealing Fourthly they hold with vs that Purgatory is a tradition and not to be found in the holy Scriptures witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 4. He thinketh to auoid vs by saying that Bellarmine speaketh onely antagonistically by way of obiection out of Luther and not dogmatically out of his owne iudgement which is but Petitio principij a begging of the question For it was questioned by me whether Bellarmine spake out of his owne iudgement or not and the affirmatiue was by me proued concluded He bringeth no proofe for the negatiue part but onely maketh that for his allegation which is the question it selfe Fifthly they discent not from vs about the authority of the Scriptures that it is aboue the authority of the Church witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 10. He repeateth the words but maketh no answer to them He chargeth me with Papistry because I confessed that our Church was condemned as hereticall by the Councell of Trent which is but Petitio principij for I denyed our Church to be euer the more hereticall for the censure of that Councell whose authoriry I disinabled by sufficient reasons to which he maketh no answer and therefore in that place I haue not played the Papist Whereas I exhorted the Recusants diligently to reade as well our writers as their owne our answers as well as their obiections and then to examine their owne iudgements before they passe their sentence against vs to condemne vs of heresie He maketh two answers first that they haue already done so to which I reply they haue done it partially Secondly that vnlearned men and women are not able to do so and therefore they must relye vpon the iudgement of the Catholicke Church To which I reply that if they be not able the fault is in the the Catholicke Church of Rome which holdeth the people still in ignorance whereas S. Iohn teacheth that they ought to be of such knowledge as to try and examine the Spirits and the Citizens of Berea are commended by the holy Ghost because they were able to examine Saint Pauls doctrine And I say with the Apostle That if the Gospell bee hidden it is hidden to them which are lost I alledged that few things are in our booke of Common praiers which are not taken out of the Bible or out of that which was good in the Masse booke so that if they allow of the Bible their Masse booke they caÌ„not disallow of our Seruice book He answereth in these words If all the Seruice booke were taken out of the Bible it selfe as most of all heretical Seruice hath bene in euery age pretended to be yet might the collection and combination be such as might make it vnlawfull and pestiferous as when the Arrians did sing Gloria patri cum filio per filium and the Catholickes filio The difference in sound of words was small but in substance and malice execrable To which I reply that forasmuch as he maketh such a supposition but sheweth no such collection or combination in our Seruice booke neither any thing in it like to that of the Arrians he speaketh idlely and to no purpose neither is any thing thereby derogated from the credit of our Seruice booke To the Recusants which obiect that there are dissentions among vs I answered that so there were among them I named Eckius Pighius Thomas Scotus nay there were dissentions among the Apostles themselues so that dissention is no argument to disinable vs from being the true Church for in religion we agree M. Walsingham chargeth me with three absurdities the first of ignorance or folly for that Eckius Pighius Thomas Scotus dissented onely in matters disputable and not determined by the Church for points of faith In which words he maketh the Church of Rome to be so negligent in their determination of matters of religion as if they held the doctrine of iustification wherein Eckius and Pighius disagreed and of merit wherein the Thomists and Scotist disagreed not to appertaine vnto faith and to be matters so indifferent as if they afforded onely cause of disputation but needed not to be discided The second absurditie he saith is impiety for that the Apostles contentions were not about matters of different doctrine I say no more are ours The third he saith is ridiculous audacity to deny so absolutely disagreement in matters of religion among vs whereof the whole world can be witnesse out of our owne books and inuectiues one against another To which I answer that albeit some particular factious spirits among vs write seditious pamphlets one against another this imputation cannot iustly be layd vpon our Church which by all manner of good meanes suppresseth dissention but maintaineth peace and vnitie Thus much I thought fit to deliuer not for answer to his disgracefull speeches vttered against me which I passe ouer with silence as not touching the cause of religion but in defence onely of the truth which I tooke in hand that our aduersarieÌ„s may vnderstand how we haue not suffered those things so loosely to passe our hands which they so loosely haue published against vs to the view of the world And so leauing them to the mercy of the Lord my prayer is Vincat Christus cadat haeresis that falshood may still be detected and truth may get the vpper hand Amen FINIS Ecclesi 12. 12. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sixtus Senensis Biblioth sanctae lib. 4. Rom. 1. 14. 2. Cor. 4. 2. The History of Bell and the Dragon Mat. 3. 10. Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 10. Mat. 16. 18. Caesar Bar. in apparat 13. Exod. 8. 19. De Rom. Pontifice l. 1. c. 10. De verbo Dei l. 2. c. 4. De verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 7. Concil Trid. Sess 3. De Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10. Luk. 16. 29. Eph. 2. 20. Chryss hons 55. in Mat. Lib. 6. de Trinit Lib. 4. de Triniâ—… 1 Pet. 2. 5. 1. Cor. 3. 11.
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