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
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
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
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