Caluyn in matter of the Queenes Supremacy which he denyeth Beza in the whole gouernment of their Churche Or why should I beleeue S. F. or his new masters of EnglaÌ„d rather theÌ„ these that were more learned then he or his or what reason rule or foundation haue any of these men to beleeue their owne opinion more then others but only self wil and fancy This then is the first and greatest spiritual benediction or malediction rather that I fynd to haue happened to our realme and nation by this wooful alteration of religion that wheras before we had a direct rule squyre pole-starre to follow which was the vniuersal Churche now euery man being set at liberty holdeth beleeueth and teacheth what he listeth Nor is there any way or meane left to restrayne him for straight way he appealeth bodlie and confidentlie to the Scriptures and there he wil be both maister and Pilot boteswayne him-self to gouerne the bark at his pâ—easure for he admitteth no iudge no interpreter no authoritie no antiquitie nor any other manner of tryal which is the greatest madnes and malediction that euer could happen among men of reason And the very same cause that moued the Warder to be so liberal then in setting downe this poynt hath moued me now to repeat the same againe in this place And what do yow think that the knight his champion haue replyed to all this playne and manifest demonstration would not yow think that both of them for their credits sake should haue buckled vp them-selues to ioyne in this yssue with the warder shewing what certainty they haue or which of the two wayes they wil take proposed by him seeing he sayth there are no other or that they should theÌ„-selues at least appoynt some other way but consider good reader the force of euident truth they are so blanked and their mouthes so shut vp with this interrogation of the warder as the K t. thought it best to passe it wholie ouer with silence as before hath byn touched The minister with more shame then the K t. hath tatled somwhat Idle tatling in a grauâ— question telling vs that our religion is not Catholyke that the vniuersal Church could not deliuer it vnto vs quia actiones sunt suppositorum as yow haue heard that StapletoÌ„ teacheth that the Churche hath power to proue taxe and consigne the books of holy Scripture And that vniuersal tradition is the most certayne interpreter therof And finally that the fayth of Papists is buylt vpon the Popes fancie and opinion and it is ful of nouelties and old heresies and the like as before yow haue heard All these tatlings he hath vpon this discourse before rehearsed of the warder and almost in as many words as I haue recyted theÌ„ but to the matter it selfe about certainty or vncertainty in religion ne griquidem he answereth no one word at all only to the later parte or appendix of the discourse where the warder sayth that to make the matter more playne how protestants haue no other rule of beleef he asketh S. F. not of any Catholyke Doctors nor auncient Fathers whome he esteemeth not but of their owne new Doctors Luther Caluyn Beza and the like authors of their owne sects why English Protestants at this day should preferre their owne iudgments before these also whom they graÌ„t to haue had great store of the holy ghost in all matters doctrines and interpretation of Scripture where they dissent from them To this I say all the other storme being past it seemed good to the minister to make his answere in these wordes But sayth this Noddy why should yow beleeue more your owne opinions then Caluyn concerning the Q. supremacy Luther concerning the Real presence and Beza in the Churche gouernment I answere first that these mennes priuate opinions concerne not fundamental poynts of fayth Pag. 21. A most foolish ansvvere of O. E. about Luther Caluyn c. and therfore they are not to be brought foorth for instance in this cause where we talk of the foundations and reasons of Christian fayth Marke wel his answere good reader iudge who is the noddy he sayth two things the one that the iudgments of Luther Caluin and Beza be but priuate opinions among them the other that the poynts wherin they differ from them to wit the real presence in the Sacrament her Ma ties Supremacy ecclesiastical and the whole gouernemeÌ„t of the Churche are no fundamental poynts of their faith For the first I would gladly know what authority is auayleable among them in teaching preaching and interpretation of Scriptures yf Luther Caluyn and Beza be reiected as priuate and particuler men where they differ from them our Doctors and Churche they do defy the ancient Fathers they look not willingly after them their owne parlament this maÌ„ sayth a litle before doth not appoynt but admit their religioÌ„ only who then is hee or who are they that must determine and defyne in this case For the second yf the difference with Luther about the real presence of Christs real body in the Sacrament be no fundamental poynt of fayth seing they accuse vs of the highest cryme vnder heauen about the same that is of idolatry and holding a creature to be the creator and we them againe of most heynous blasphemy highest wickednes vpon earth in discrediting Christ in his owne words that said it was his bodie his whole Church that euer so vnderstood him vnto this day yf the matter of supremacy be no fundamental poynt of fayth VVhat pointes are fundamental in protestants doctryne wherby all their ecclesiastical hierarchie standeth at this day in England as their Bishops Deanes Archdeacons and other prelates and parsons of the Spiritualty who otherwise must needs be playne intruders and meere lay men If their whole gouernmeÌ„t of their Churche be not fundamental wherof dependeth whether they haue any true ministers preachers and teachers lawfully allowed or no consequentlie whether their Sacraments be Sacraments and be administred by them that haue authoritie so to doe if all these poynts I say be not fundamental in O.E. opinion what are fundamental And what Atheisme doth this Martial minister diuels deane bring in vpon vs But beleeue me good reader these good fellowes do only eate of the ministerie and beleeue as please them and this being a compagnion of many occupations wil liue by that which wil yeild him most according to that also shal be his doctrine and beleef Of their great grand-father fryer Martyn Luther he sayth here in the words folowing his former answere Pag. â—1 O. E. his contemptious speach of Luther and Caluyn VVe suspend our opinion and giue no approbation to Luthers opinion concerning the carnal presence of Christs body in the Sacrament for that we see the doctrine to be newe and not taught by the Apostolyke Churche nay we find yt to be repugnant to the Apostles doctrine deliuered in Scriptures
c. Marke the arrogancy of thâ—s petty chaplaâ—n we suspend we see we finde who are those wee I pray yow Oh that Doctor Martyn Luther were aliue againe to canuase this arrogant barking bastardly whelp of his he would proue him but a very demy puppie Of Caluyn he sayth when Caluyn was better informed about the Supremacy he changed his style and retracted his opinion but where and when I pray yow why haue yow not noted the place and tyme for Caluyn was to great a man I trow to change style or retract opinions were it neuer so false or impious and whether he changed in this let his Elizeus that had his cloke spirit of wickednes double I meane Theodor Beza be witnes who is more to be beleeued in this case then O. E. that is but a fugitiue of Caâ—uyns campe going about to betray his Captayne Lastlie about the gouernment of his English Churche he addeth concerning Beza Pag. 22. I say that in external gouernment it is not necessarie that all Churches should concur and agree Loe his saying and albeit he say madlie yet I trust he wil not say but that in one and the selfe same Churche agreeing all in one true doctryne of Iesus Christ as in the former leafe he affirmeth all sortes of protestants do it is necessarie they agree in the substantial poynts at least of some gouernement among them-selues Pag. 18. as for example Atheistical Doctrine O.E. of some one head the cheife members therof as whether the Prince be supreeme head ecclesiastical and may make Bishops and whether the Bishops be true Prelates and may make ministers and whether they be of Gods or the diuels making that are so made which is the proper controuersie betweene them of England and Beza at this day and was with Iohn Caluyn also while he lyued To deny this I say were a very mad new doctrine for souldiour O.E. to teach now vnder a ministers coate to wit that none of all these things are necessarie poynts of doctrine but indifferent rather and that in his Churche a minister a ministrel a preacher and a pyrate a bishop and a bytesheep a deane and a diuel are all one And that this fellow and his compagnions haue no religion nor conscience in saying and denying The Suruey of pretended holy discipline c. printed by Io. VVolf 159â— cap 2â— fol. â—54 admitting or reiecting at their pleasures it may appeare by one of their publyke books printed and set foorth against the puritanes where they haue a whole Chapter of accusations against the said puritanes for reiecting conteÌ„ning new ghospelling wryters of their owne when they make against them which yet yow see practised here by O. E. him-self though no Puritane and that euen against the very cheife heads and syres of both their religions Luther Caluyn Beza yea some are of opinion that O.E. was the Author of that book wherin the Puritanes are so eagerly argued for this fault of coÌ„temning their owne wryters wheÌ„ they make against them though I cannot easely beleeue the same for that it seemeth les fondly writteÌ„ in that kynd then could be expected of this maÌ„nes shallow cacitie that wrote this doltish answere to the Wardword but be it how it wil yow shal see the Puritanes taken vp very sharply by protestants in that book for reiecting both their owne authors and auncient Fathers which yet yow see this arrogant foole doth practise heere in the one I meane touching their owne and yow shal heare afterward how egregiously his fellowes dâ— the like in the other that is to say concerning the auncient Fathers But first let vs see what is obiected to the Puritanes in the former poynt In a certayne place Pellican Bullinger Bucer Illyricus Suruey c. 28. Pap. â—54 and Musculus all great Doctors among the Lutherans being brought in against the Puritane doctrine Cartwright answereth them thus Puritans coÌ„teÌ„pt of their ovvne Doctors If they were for one a hundred they could not beare downe the Apostle to wit standing with him as he presumeth But after these is brought in Luther himselfe interpreting a peece of Scripture otherwise then they would haue it but they answere that his exposition is out of season T. Cartvv li. 2. Pag. 313. 314. Then is brought in Bishop Ridly and brother Bucer great doers in K. Edwards dayes in England but the first is dismissed thus Bishop Ridley being a partie in this cause ought to be no witnes the second thus Ibid. pag. 398. Bucer hath other grosse absurdityes sometymes Homer sleepeth his reasons are ridiculous c. Iewel and Fox do folow but Fox is shaken of with this saying that he took greater payne in his story to declare what is done then how iustlie or vniustlie how conueniently or vnconuenieÌ„tlie it was done Iewel receyued this iyrke as a contumely ingrauen in his tombe as the Protestant complayneth B Iewel calleth the doctryne of the ghospel wantonnesse Ibi. Pag. 11â— Finally they write thus of all the cheif English protestants in K. Henry K. Edward Q. Mary and in this Q. tyme before them-selues their knowledge was in part T. Catvv li. 1. Pag. 196. and being sent out in the morning or 〈◊〉 the Sunne of the ghospel was rysen so high they might ouer see many things which those which are not so sharpe of sight as they were may see for because that which they want in the sharpnes of sight they haue by the benefit clearnes of the Sunne and light greater then in their dayes Loe heere the growing and disagreeing protestant fayth and euery man his new light and lanterne in his hand Whosoeuer cometh after presumeth to see more then his fellow that went before him Wher wil this matter end but marke their wrangling spirites one within an other the puritanes are sorely reprehended for this contemptuous vsing their owne authors but are the puritanes more arrogant or bolder in this poynt then yow haue heard O.E. before euen with the first parent of their profession As for the old Doctors of the ancient Cath. Churche Suruey Pag. 329. the foresaid book of protestaÌ„ts hath also a special chapter of examples of the Puritanes contempt against them calling S. Ignatius scholler to S. Iohn the Euangelist a counterfet and vayne man S. Irenaeus is reiected except sayth the Suruey he wil frame his speech after the new cut Sur. pag. â—3â— Annot Bezae in act â—4 1. Timoth. 5. euen according to Bezaes pleasure Iustinus Martyr being vrged that lyued presentlie after the Apostles answere is made that in the dayes of Iustine there began to peepe out in the ministerie some things Th. Cartvv li 2. Pag. 621. which went from the simplicitie of â—he ghospel To S. Iustine is added S. Hierome whom they answere thus Corruption groweth in tyme as the tymes are so are they that lyue in them there is not such sinceritie to be
deceyts day and night geuing them-selues ouer to lustes of the flesh being spotted with adulteries and besydes all this most of them did hault in the articles of their fayth And after this he cometh to talk of religious orders in lyke sorte Religious men also corrupted and principally of those that hauing no possessions liued by almes and were most corrupted and set on by wicliffe against those that had possessions of whome WalsinghaÌ„ sayth suae professionis immemâ—res c. possessionatis inuidentes c. being vnmyndful of their profession and enuying such of other religious orders as had possessions in tantum illam veritatis professionem suam maculabant vt in dâ—ebus illis c. They did spot so farre foorth their profession of truth as in those dayes yt was in euery mÌ„anes mouth that this is a Fryar ergo a lyar This is the discourse of WalsinghaÌ„ wherin yow see first that he speaketh not of all fryars nor against the profession it selfe of fryars which he sayth was the profession of truthe but against such as being forgetful therof and brought â—o maligne and enuie other orders that had possessions which was the art and doctrine of Wicliffe became lyars so as these were S r. F. his fryars and not of S. Francis as before I noted and when he telleth their faults he vttereth the shame of his new ghospel Fox in Calend 2. lan which begane in England by VVicliffe as Fox doth testifie who maketh this first prophet of theirs a Saynt and kalender Martyr Fox monumeÌ„t Pag. 421. though he died in his bed at his benefice in Lincolneshire as Fox denyeth not yet such was his talent in making martyrs And besydes this he discouereth to the Reader to much false dealing in that amoÌ„g all the faultes of Bishops nobilitie comonaltie and religious orders touched seuerally as yow haue heard by his author walsingham he culled out only the lying of Fryars Syr F. taken in false dealing and those not of ours but of his fryars who were made lyars not by their owne institution or by our religion but by the principles of Wiclifs Doctrine which S.F. acknowledgeth I think for his Consider then the mannes wit in alleaging this exaÌ„ple and his truth in handling the same And by this one iudge of the rest though there wil not want other occasions after to coÌ„template also the same much more And hitherto now we haue talked of the general charge of lying and falshood layd to S r. Francis and how he hath sought to auoyd the same by recharging vs and some of ours againe with like fault which as if they were true and could be verified they deliuer not him of his fault so being found also to be false they double his former error and make him more culpable to which effect and for iustifying more the charge layd vpon him of bould false assertions we are now to examine some other particulars of lyke qualitie For more clearer performance wherof I shal set downe some lynes of the Warder which conteyne the first controuersie or charge Thus then he wrote at that tyme. But before S.F. cometh to the matter that is VVardvvord Pag. 1â— to set downe those absurd principles of ours he maketh for his preface a certayne poetical descrâ—ption of the darke cloudy and mistie state of things in Queene Maries tyme in these words It is not vnknown sayth he to many yet liuing neyther can it be altogether hidden from the yonger sort that lyâ—ed with them what a darke mistie cloude of ignorance which brought in popish Idolatrie Deuised darknes and all manner of superstition did ouer shade the whole land c. And againe after In these darke cloudy dayes least the sunshine of knowledge should disperse the mistes of ignorance and geue light to the dimme of sight c. Doth it not seeme that this graue geÌ„tleman describeth the lake of Auernus in Italie or some foggie marsh in England or some smokie kitchen or woodhouse of his owne without a window when he speaketh of our famons country in sormer tymes for aboue a thousand yeares the state of England and the Princes people nobilitie and learned men therof had continued in that Egyptian or rather Cymerian darknes which this gentleman describeth vnder clouds mistes and shadowes vntil his new sunneshine doctors came to inlighten the same And it was accompted then as wyse learned holy valiant noble and florishing a kingdome aswel for religion as otherwise as France Italie Spayne and other reading the scriptures in English could not iudge whether matters of doctrine and religion taught them by their Prelats were true or no as though now they could do it by english reading and that for this cause and for lack of Scriptures in English a number of lving miracles were beleeued and in steed of Christs blood the blood of a duck was worshipped as the blood of Hales was playnly proued to be Syr Francis posed in dicerning a duckes blood from other and openly shewed at Paules crosse in K. Hen. dayes which yet I would aske our Kâ— how a ducks blood could be discerned froÌ„ other blood after so many yeares All this I say and many other such manifest vanities See aftervvard cap. 6. vvhat O. E vvryteth also of this matter and knowne vntruthes as that Bishops in Q. Maries tyme did not preach nor others for them except certayne strawbery sermons of â—â—otting fryars and the lyke These bold assertions I say and contumelious irrisions being knowne to be false aswel by aâ—l that are yet liuing and sawe those tymes as by the books of Homelies and sermons yet extant I meane not to stand vpon the answering in this place but to passe ouer to matter of more substance and to consider of an example or two of ignorance in Q Maries tyme and before For this Kâ— for a ful and irrefragable proof that all was ignorance among Catholykes before the light oâ— Luthers Gospel began to shine VVastvvord Pag. 32. The storie of D Bassinet a â— frenche Apostata Fryar he bringeth vs the only examplâ— as he sayth of D. Bassinet â— man of great learning and autâ—oritie in France whâ— confessed his owne ignoraÌ„ce vntil he fel to read the Scriptures though he had byn a Iudge vpon heretiks beforeâ— Look heere gentle reader the important proof that he alleageth for his purpose cyting only Iohn Fox his Acts and Monuments in the Margent Fox edit ver Pag. 862. but neyther he nor Fox do alleage any one Author where we may read the storie for this is also Fox his shift among others wheÌ„ he meaneth notorious treacherie and yf the whole narration of this Bassinet confessing himself to be ignorant before he fel into the new ghospel were true what authoritie or credit may the saying of an Apostata Fryar fallen into heresy haue against his former state and condition is it maruaile yf he say that he was in ignorance
though much be practised as to our greef we see From this he passeth to alleage certayne ould verses cyted by KeÌ„nitius as true a wryter 〈…〉 as he saith in a stone in a 〈…〉 the Bituriges in Aquitany 〈…〉 nothing at all 〈…〉 only exhorting men to 〈…〉 in respect of the 〈…〉 by God and 〈…〉 of scripture themselues 〈…〉 our knight lacking other 〈…〉 them in against 〈◊〉 Some of them I shal alleage heare for examples sake 〈◊〉 Pag. 69. Hic des deuotè caelestibus associate Mentes aegrotae per munera sunt tibi lotae Ergo veni tote gentes à sede remotae Qui datis estote certi de diuite dote Hic si largè des in caelo sit tua sedes Qui serit hic parcè parcè comprendit in arce Syr Francis his translation Giue freely heer in heauen a place prepare Your sickly soules by giftes cleane purged are Come people then which dwel farre from this place Ye that do giue rest sure of mickle grace Yf thow giue freely heere heauen is thy hyre He that giues litle shal litle there acquire These verses alleadgeth S r. FraÌ„cis to make sporte at indulgences but if yow take away the simplicity of the latyn and poeÌ„sy incident to that age they contayne no absurdity at all but do set forth the force and vertue of almes in the very words almost that are found in scripture For in the 〈…〉 Daie dabitur vobis c. 〈…〉 giuen vnto yow In 〈…〉 words of our Sauiour 〈…〉 omnia vobis munda sunt 〈…〉 all is cleane and purged 〈…〉 the rest ending with the 〈…〉 in the last verse Qui parcè semini◠〈…〉 he that soweth litle shal reap 〈…〉 expressely of almes And with what folly theâ— are these things brought in by way of scoffe against pardons and indulgences which nothing appertayne vnto them and are sentences taken out of the scripture it self He addeth to this purpose a complaint of the Princes of Germany as he calleth them exhibited against the Popes pardons at a counsel in Norenberg Pag. 71. Malitious concealing of circumstances to deceaue the reader but he telleth not in what yeare this was nor what maner of counsel nor that these Princes were new protestants nor that Luther did endite this complaint for if he had told any one of these circumstances it would haue infringed the credit of his tale Ibid. Pag. 72 as that which he telleth of one Tecelius the Popes pardon marchaunt as he termeth him of whome he wryteth a iest how he was deceyued and cosened in selling of pardons but for that he citeth neyther author book time nor place I giue it the credit as such pulpit tales of Sir Francis ministers do require That old obiection also of Card. Como his letter to Parry wherin he is affirmed to say 〈…〉 pardon of all your sinnes as 〈…〉 answered For first it is 〈…〉 in his letter to Pope 〈…〉 from Paris when he 〈…〉 1583. discouered no 〈…〉 any particular enterprice 〈…〉 only in general that he 〈…〉 great matters for the 〈…〉 Cath. religion for recompence of the â—urts which he had done diuers yeares before by spiery for the state of England And this appeareth as wel by the letter yet extant as for that he vttering his whole plot to her Ma â—ie and her counsel at his first comming in was notwithstanding fauorably handled for a great space vntil falling into discontentment through want he practised with him that discouered his teachery Secondly the Popes graunt of Indulgence vnto him was meant only with due circumstaÌ„ces if he were contrite and confessed of his sinnes which is wont to be added coÌ„monly in all indulgences or is necessary to be vnderstood For which cause this obiection is to no purpose at all Wherfore I would leaue of in this place to speak any more of this argument of indulgences as vnable to be disprooued eyther in doctrine or practise by Sir Francis but that I must discouer one trik of his more about alleadging Durandus pag. 70. before I end my speech As for the authority saith he wher-vpon your indulgences are grounded your owne men confesse as namely among the rest Durandus De indulgentijs pauca dici possunt per certitudinem qui 〈…〉 ijs loquitur sancti etiam 〈…〉 Hieronymus Augustinus mit 〈…〉 gentijs c. Litle can be 〈…〉 indulgences because 〈…〉 speaketh expressely of the 〈…〉 Fathers Ambrose Hilary 〈…〉 make no mention of them 〈…〉 confesse that yow haue neyther warrant 〈…〉 nor of the auncient fathers for your popish 〈…〉 go they currant c. Howsoeuer they go currant Syr knight among vs yet go not yow curraÌ„t but do hault downe to the ground and that in three things about this one text First in the citation then in the deductioÌ„ or illation of the sense thirdly in the words themselues alleaged And let the reader consider whether falshood may be found in more points then these in the handling or alleadging of any author For the first though he name Durandus yet quoteth he no place The first shift where yow may find it which for the most part as before we haue noted implyeth lightly some deceyt or subtile trick in the allegation which he would not haue discouered as now by experience we haue learned and the third point shal declare For the second about the illation he maketh out of the words of Durand The second shift if they were all in all respects truly alleaged it is false and cauillous For if any Arrian or Anabaptist in the dayes of S. Ambrose Hilary and Ierome whome 〈…〉 haue made lyke 〈…〉 and sayd as they 〈…〉 of Homousion 〈…〉 as also the baptisme 〈…〉 to be found in 〈…〉 such and such auncient 〈…〉 Iustinus and others of that 〈…〉 thing of it ergo yow hold 〈…〉 neyther haue warrant in 〈…〉 of auncient Fathers This argument I say or illation against these doctrynes had byn as good as this of Syr Francis against pardons and yet had it byn naught and deceytful and the reason is for that albeyt those doctrines for the blessed Trinity and baptisme of children were not expressely conteyned in scripture yet were they sufficiently deduced therof And albeit those former fathers as Iustinus Irenaeus and others had not occasion expressely to handle or treat of these controuersyes being occupied in other matters yet neuer taught they the contrary other fathers following after them did teache testifie that doctrin to be Catholike which was sufficient And the very like may be answered by vs in this behalfe as by the third poynt of Syr Francis paltry dealing shal appeare The third point then is his fraudulent alleaging of the words of Durand The 3. shift leauing out some which are greatly to the purpose and do plainly insinuate the answere that now I haue giuen For first after Durand had said that the scripture did not 〈…〉 indulgences he alleaget◠〈…〉 scripture as Tibi
Angels or no Cap. 6. num 6. num 8. Whether the name of Lucifugi scripturarum or scripture-battes vsed by Tertullian do properly agree to protestants or Catholyks Cap. 6. num 24.25.26 c. Whether ignorance be held by Catholyks to be the mother of deuotion Cap. 7. num 1.2 c. Whether ignorance in some points coÌ„cerning religion may in some people be comendable and meritorious as S. Hilary saith or no ibid cap. 8. num 3. Whether the distinction of fides implicita and explicita be a true necessary distinction for the saluation of many mennes soules which caÌ„not possibly be saued wiâ—hout the vse thereof Cap 7. num 6. Whether it be true that Catholyks teach that laymen must not medle in matters of Religion and how farre they are to medle Cap. â— Why the Cath. Churche doth vse Index expurgatorius against the corruption of heretyks and their books how it must be vsed and what great good ensueth therof Cap. 9. num 23.24 c. Whether S. Thomas of Canterbury were a true martyr and of his miracles Cap. 10. 11. Whether his case were lyke the case of S. Iohn Bapt. with his King or of S. Ambrose with his Emperor or no Cap. 10. Whether the miracles wrought by S. Thomas of Canterbury after his death were true miracles and did proue him a Saint or no. Cap. 11. Which is the better spirit and more conforme to scripture and the old fathers to beleeue easily miracles or to discredit them cap. 11. num 19. How true saints may be knowen and whether Fox-made saincts or Pope-made Saints as S.F. calleth them are more substantially Canonized Cap. 11. num 15.16 c. Whether Catholyks do hold that the Pope or any comming from him is to be obeyed though he commauÌ„d blasphemies Cap. 12. 13. Whether the merits and sufferings of Saints may be lawfully mentioned in our prayers as motiues to mooue God with all Cap. 12. Whether no man may say to the Pope vvhy do yovv so though he lead infinite soules to hel as O. E. cauilleth Cap. 13. num 17.18 c. Whether Catholyks do vse the Popes pardons for their cheefest remedies against all sort of sinnes as heretyks do accuse them Cap. 14. In what degree or sense pardons are auaileable to Christians ibid. num 8. cap. 15. num 1.2.3 c. Whether Iames Clement that slue the last K. of France were absolued for the fact before the committing therof Cap. 15. Whether it be true that K. Iohn of England was poysoned by a monk or that the monk was absolued for the same before he comitted the fact as Iohn Fox and S.F. do hold cap. 15. num 4.5 c. Whether the doctrine of saluation by only faith be a common cartway to hel for all libertines or no cap. 16. The third and fourth Tables as wel of shiftes and wilful falsifications by Syr Francis and O. E. as of the principal matters conteyned in these two Encounters are to be seene in the end of the book AN ANSVVER TO A CERTAYNE VAYNE AND ARROGANT EPISTLE OF O. E. minister vnto N. D. author of the Ward-word SMall contentment geÌ„tle reader can any Christian modest man take that hauing to handle a graue serious cause seeth himselfe drawne or rather driuen from thesame to contention of wordes by the insolencie and importunitie of his quarrelling aduersarie 2. Tim. 2. which teÌ„deth to nothing as the Apostle also noteth but to the subuersion of the hearer and yet when we are forced to this disorder somwhat also must be sayd least silence in speach shew diffidence in truth and that a foole as the Scripture insinuateth if he be not answered in his folly begin to thinke himself wyse Prouerb 26. We haue signifyed before in our preface how a certayne contentious minister desyrous to be doing and to play a parte but yet not without a visard in respect of the follyes perhaps he was to vtter resolued to mask and cypher his name vnder the letters of O. E. and then hauing pervsed the reply of S. FraÌ„cis Hastings to the Ward-word and misliking as it seemeth the same as insufficient he bâ—ckled himselfe to make in his owne opinion a better defence though in other mens iudgment of two bad this is farre the worse both in respâ—ct of the substance of matters and controuersies handled wherof this man treateth no one groundedlie any where but only quarrelleth at the words and sentences of his aduersarie as also in regard of his outragious intemperate speach which runneth alâ—o oftentymes both to turpitude scurrilitie the reason wherof we thinke to be in parte for that the minister perswading himselfe to be masked presumeth to vtter any tâ—ing as vnknowne and I am content for this tyme to let him so passe though in deed his deportment be such against all kynd of Catholique men neuer so learned vertuous worshipful or honorable as no way he deserueth any such fauour and that I could dismaske him he may perceyue by diuers poynts which afterward I shal haue occasion to touch Now â—hen letting passe this we shal looke into the argument of this present Epistle of O.E. to N.D. which yow shal see to consist of three principal poynts Tâ—â—e poynts of â—his Epistle to wit notorious folly apparant falshood ridiculous vanitie in bragging vauÌ„ting let vs see them all in order This Epistle prefixed before his booke hath this inscription To N. D. alâ—as Noddie O. E. vvisheth knovvledge of truth c. and then beginneth he his Epistle thus Sir N.D. or Noddie or hovvsoeuer it shal please yovv to style your selfe being a man but of tvvo or three letters c. Heeâ—e yow see beginneth a graue contention betweene O. E. and N. D. about the worde Noddie which none but a Noddy in my opinion would euer haue brought into examination especially in print â—or that N. D. being but consonants and hauing no sound of their owne cannot make Noddie excâ—pt yow ad the sound of O.E. vnto them that are vowels to geue lyfe vnto the word wherof it foloweth that seing consonants are but the material parte of a worde and vowels the formal O. â— must needs be the formal Noddie and that N.D. doth but lend him a coople of consonants to make him a Noddie and thus much for the name it selfe But as for the nature and essence of a Noddie to which of the two it doth best agree shal appeare afterward in the discussion of matters throughout this whole combat and one poynt of a Noddie yow may presentlie perceaue in these verie words alleadged wheras O.E. obiected to N.D. that he is a man but of two or three letters which is answered sufficientlie by numbring onlie how many letters O. E. do make and so agayne afterward and verie often in his repliâ— he obiecteth to N. D. that he durst not put downe his name at length which yet himselfe being at home vpon his owne ground and among
all matters being by both their iudgments to be referred and all other iudges and trials left a side as they require they come to fal out presently about the sense and interpretation wherin it is affirmed by their owne wryters that so many men so many myndes and so many diuers interpretations among them-selues of the selfesame words of scripture are to be found as yow may see set downe at large in another book of the softer Caluinists set forth by the same publike authority as the former and intituled A suruey of the pretented holy Discipline imprinted at London An. 1593. especially in the 31. Chapter whose title is this How and with what disagreement they wrest and misconster the scriptures c. Where hauing shewed by many examples that fiue or six diuers interpretations are giuen sometymes vpon one and the selfe same sentence of scripture by these his puritane brethren He addeth further these wordes Suruey c. 31. Caterbraulis of ProtestaÌ„ts and PuritaÌ„s Vnto these Caterbraules and pitiful distractions which now I haue shewed I might ad a great heape of other confusions all proceeding from such intollerable presumption as is vsed by peruerting and false interpretation of the sacred Scriptures And agayne whosoeuer doth deale with the Scriptures in this sort as these fellowes do wel may he speake proud things exalt himselfe promise mountaynes brag of the Prophets Apostles but in the end all cometh to nothing c. Loe heere what this brother sayth of the rest of the caterbraules and pittiful distractions from them of their intollerable presumption in peruerting and false interpreting scriptures of their swelling pryde in bragging of hauing the prophets and Apostles on their syde when they haue nothing but vanitye yet these brags of scriptures prophets and Apostles must be good and currant proofe when they deale with vs against the authoritye of the vniuersal Churche as yow shal see by O.E. in the next Chapter and when we tel them of any diuision among themselues they wil deny it on all handes as Syr F. doth heere of the Puritanes and O. E. afterward though he hath written against them most spitefully and doggedly for he hath no other style as it seemeth and fynally let all men iudge but especially the reader whom it most importeth for his instruction with what truth and conscience Syr F. can say and wryte as he doth matters staÌ„ding as I haue shewed that not only the professors of their ghospel in England but all other Churches also in Christendome where the ghospel is imbraced are of one Iudgement and thervpon coÌ„clude with this hypocritical prayer to mock God withall And in this blessed vnitie grounded vpon veritie the Lord for euer keepe vs. Whervnto I say also amen so long as they remaine enemies to Gods Catholike Churche wherin only veritie and vnitie is to be found AN ANSVVERE TO three fond obiections or interrogations of Syr F. with an addition about O. E. who is called vp agayne to the stage to tell his opinion about this first blessing of vnitie in veritie CAP. VII AND this now might be sufficient for refutation of this first ridiculous blessing set downe by the knight were it not that I am forced to follow him yet a litle further into an other poynt which is that he forseing how albeit this first blessing of vnitie among them could be proued as it cannot yet might it not be alleaged for a peculiar blessing of his men except it could be shewed also that it were singular to them alone and not commoÌ„ also to Catholikes before they and their religion sprong vp for if we had vnitie also in fayth before them then cannot vnitie be accompted their blessing more then ours for which cause he endeauoureth to shewe that Catholikes had no vnitie of fayth before Luthers ghospel began which paradox he wil needs proue by three graue interrogations which I pray yow note and therby obserue the mans singular wit and learning Yow vaunt sayth he of a general vnitie before alteration of religion Pag. 13. but how worshipped yow one God when yow worshipped so many Idols To this I answere that if we worshipped Idols Three foâ—d interrogatioÌ„s â—f the K. and so were Idolators this error was so vniuersally receyued among vs as euen in this poynt also we had vnitie which protestants cannot shew in their errors and falsityes as before hath byn declared And so this question is both ydle and easy to answere for the consequent but for the antecedent it is most false for we deny that any Idols were among Catholikes August de vtilitate ieiunij tomo 9. â—ub finem S. Hier. in c. 6. Amos in c. â—2 Ose. S. Augustines and S. Hieroms sentence is cleare and sound as before hath ben noted that heretikes are the Idolaters of the new Testament for adoring their own fansies Secondly he asketh agayne how we could haue vnitye when as we were so miserably rent into innumerable sectes of fryers and monkes To which I answere that all these professed one fayth without any difference in any one article of beliefe And consequently this question is more simple then the former for that difference of habytes or particular manner of lyfe breaketh not vnity of religion Thirdly he asketh and vrgeth yet more sharpely how caÌ„ yow haue one head of your Churche vnles yow reiect Christ that is the onely head To this I wil answere out of his owne wordes that we can haue one external and ministerial head vnder Christ by the same reason that himselfe in the same place sayth that English Protestants haue one head of their Churche which is Christ the Lord and his substitute annoynted their Soueraigne Q. vnder him So that yf it do not exclude Christ among the Protestants to haue a womaÌ„ head of their Churche vnder Christ much lesse doth it exclude Christ among vs to haue a man head a Priest head of this reason I am content to make any man iudge And with this I wil end my treatise of the first benediction of vnitie in veritie which is as truly and fitly applyed to Protestants as if a man should assigne it for a special blessing of Greeks and Germanes aboue other nations neuer to exceed in drinking or of those of Guinea neuer to fal out or fight among themselues who neuer lightly are occupyed in other things And lastly I wil close vp all with the sentence and prophesy of no worse a man then Martyn Luther himselfe Luthers prophesye of Protestants coment in Psalm 5. who wryteth thus Certè non alia ratione confligit Deus cum haereticis quam vt inter illos existat factiosus quidam dissensionis spiritus ex â—llorum enim discordia interitus quoque perditio consequitur Trulie God doth not fight by any other meanes with heretikes then by permitting among them a certayne seditious spirite of dissentioÌ„ by which their ouerthrow also and perdition doth ensue Thus
our selues and so vsing these shiftes in euerie place matter sentence and almost periode and lyne which he alleageth of myne yow may ghesse to what bulke it may aryse in the whole worke and what certayntie the reader may haue of any thing that is alleaged by him and that these false laddes by these corruptions and shiftes do indeauour not to establish any trueth at all but to fil all with dowtes and diffidence and so much of this beere for that afterwards occasion wil be offred to returne to some of this treatise agayne Now then let vs passe on to the remnant of S r. F. Blessings OF THE SECOND AND third blessings which are reading of scriptures and publike seruice in English CAP. VIII HOw trew the former first blessing hath bene of vnitie in veritie we haue sufficientlie I think declared Conditions of true blessings Now folow the other nine about which we must remember that which before hath byn touched to wit that to proue them peculiar and special blessings of Protestants it must be shewed that they were not among Catholikes before and theÌ„ also that they are matters of such weight and moment as they do or may deserue the name of blessings and yet further that they are trulie found in deed in Protestants doctryne and not feigned or supposed by our knights only fancie or imagination and lastlie that they are general and vniuersal to the whole Churche of Protestantes and so according to these fower conditions and circumstances of true blissings we shal examine the rancke of them that do ensue in this chapter some 2. or 3. of them seuerallie Wherfore to come to the matter he sayth that his second blessing is The second blessing about reading scriptures in English that the scriptures are now in English for euery man and womaÌ„ to read c. This blessing say I hath not the â—ormer conditions required for first it is not general to all seing that such as vnderstood the latyn toÌ„gue before receyue no blessing herby nor yet those that had licence before vnder the Catholikes from their ordinaries and pastors for that was alwayes permitted as the world knoweth to read scriptures in the English tongue haue receyued any blessing therby so that this benediction must needs be restrayned to those people alone that being simple and ignorant of the latyn tongue were accompted before by their pastors and Prelates vnfit to profit by such reading of scriptures at their pleasure in their vulgar tongue but rather had need to be instructed otherwise and to haue so much scripture deliuered to them by other meanes of cathechismes homiles preachings and such like instructions as they were capable of without laying opeÌ„ to them the whole corps of scriptures to conster and misconster as their fancies should aford them This was the censure and iudgement of the Catholike Churche before Protestants arose which course our knight calleth darknes anâ— blyndnes and the contrarie course of permitting scriptures to all without distinctioÌ„ he 〈◊〉 needs haue to be a singuler blessing broughâ— in by his men Of diuers that perished by reading â—criptures in vulgar Languages but yet I would aske him whaâ— blessing it was to such as fel into heresies anâ— perished therby that of liklihood would noâ— haue happened vnto them yf that libertie freedome of reading scriptures in English haâ— not byn permitted And I gaue for example of this in the wardâ—word an instance of one Ioane Bourcher aliaâ— knel in king Edwards dayes Stovv anno 1549 Edovvardi 6. reg anno 3. who being a simple woman but yet heady and wilful by reading scriptures in English learned to hold and defend that Christ had not takan flesh of his mother the Virgyn In like manner I aske was it a blessing to the tanner of Colchester her copsmate Stovv Ibid. who picked out of reading scriptures that Baptisme was worth nothing so held to his death affirming that he could defend the same by playne and euident scriptures so as neyther Cranmer Archbishop of Canterburie nor the rest of the Protestants in those dayes who had taught them to read scriptures could conquere or coÌ„uert them by scriptures but were fayne to burne them with fyre for the good effect proceeding of this their owne blessing if it be a blessing wherby all are permitted and inuited to read scriptures in English George Paris also a simple duitchman was burned by the said Archbishop in the same kings raigne Stovv Holinsead Ibid. for houlding that Christ was not equal to his Father which he auouched to haue learned out of the sacred bible that he had studyed in his owne language and could not be dryuen from it by any disputatioÌ„ of Cranmer Rydley or any other our English ministers but only by the fyre which at length they vsed to conuert him into ashes In this Queenes dayes also at the verie beginning when scriptures were first published in English Stovv anno 1561. Reg 3. Elizab. William Geffrey and Iohn More did read so earnestlie and interprete so soundlie as they learned to hold and affirme that Christ was not in heauen were whipped publikelie for the same vntil they confessed the contrarie so as the reading scriptures in English was no blessing to these men but onlie a blessing with a whip as yow wil confesse In the 17. yeare also of her Maiesties raigne when 27. Anabaptists vulgar people were apprehended togither Stovv an 1575. 1576. and punished in London by order of the L. Mathew Parker of Canterburie for denying Christ to haue taken flesh and other such opinions and two of them burned in Smythfeild and fiue others of the familie of loue brought in publike pennance at Paules crosse for heresies who all auouched notwithstanding that they had drawne their newe doctryne out of the reading of scriptures in the vulgar tongue what blessing I pray yow was this to theÌ„ or to such other as haue fallen into other sectes since that tyme both of Brownisme Puritanisme other fancyes condemned by the Protestants themselues detested by the present state of EnglaÌ„d which yet they had neuer done by all likelihood if this publike reading of scriptures without restraint or due moderation had not byn permitted to the ignorant Systers of London in the suruey of dangâ—erous positions Those busy sisters of London also and other citties wherof the late protestaÌ„t wryters do so much complayne in their books against Puritanes who gad vp downe with English bibles vnder their armes and wil defend any thing against any man out of scriptures would not so much haue troubled eyther themselues their husbands or the common wealth if this blessing had not byn permitted to them or if it may be accompted a blessing and not a cursing that maketh both them and other ignorant people so mad and franticke in heresie So as now it is to be considered whether the blessing of Catholikes be greater among
and consequentlie he doth as much as if with one hand he should embrace lul and coople together both Lutherans Zuinglians and Puritanes acknowledging them for his deare and tender brethren and with the other should beat them of detest them as enemyes and publike heretikes for so he doth in effect seing it is euident that neyther the sectaryes of LutheraÌ„s Zuinglians or Puritan-Caluinists of Geneua France ScotlaÌ„d HollaÌ„d or England do agree which O. E. his rule of fayth here mentioned to wit the rule established by common consent at this day in the Churche of England And this is euidentlie and aboundantly proued by their owne books and sayings before recyted in the 4.5.6 and sequeÌ„t chapters of this Encounter But for that our Minister maketh mention heere of a certayne rule of fayth wherby he and his are directed and others that digresse from the same are to be reiected from their communion and societie I meane to examine â—he same brieflie in this place and to see what 〈◊〉 is And first of all that there is and must be â—ome certayne rule among Christians That their is some certayne rule of fayth as vvel hovv to beleeue as also vvherby to interpret scriptures wherby â—o know and stay their fayth and to discerne â—ew Catholykes from heretykes is most â—â—ident both by reason it selfe and by the authoritie of the verie first founders of our religion who often do make mention and admonish vs therof as S. Paul to the Corinthians secundum regulam nostram 2. Cor. 10. according to our rulâ— and to the Philippenses in eadeÌ„ permaneamus regula let vs persist in the same rule And to the Gallatians Phil. 3. quicúnque hanc regulam secuâ—â— fuerâ—â—t pax super illos whosoeuer shal follow this rule of fayth Gal. 6. peace vpon them and other such places Rom. 12. as namely to the Romanes Prophetia secundum rationem fidei prophesy by which iâ— vnderstood heere principallie interpretatioâ— of scriptures according to the rule or analogie oâ— fayth for so is the greek word By all which places is manifest that there iâ— a certayne publike rule of fayth and was eueâ— among the Apostles them-selues and thesamâ— continued afterward by all the Fathers oâ— euery age wherby it was easye to distinguiâ—â— betweene such as were Orthodoxi or Catholykes and others that were new fangled oâ— wrangling people that would follow no rulâ— but their owne head and fancyes of whiâ—â— rule make mention also in the primitiâ—â— Churche Ignatius after the Apostles epist. adâ—â—â—gnetianos Iustinus Apol 2. pro Christianis Irenaeus 〈◊〉 1. cap. 1. 2. Clemens lib. 4. stromatum aduersus 〈◊〉 reses Tertullianus lib. de velandis virginibus 〈◊〉 Alexandrinus as S. Basil cyteth him lib. de spiriâ—â— cap. 29. and many other Fathers commendiâ—â— highlie and inculcating often the obseruatiâ—â— of this rule as wel for beliefe as also for inteâ—â—pretation of Scriptures but especiallie to câ—â—â—cerne heretikes who to vse these Fathers owne words do no sooner begin to pratle but that by digressing from this rule do bewray them-selues and shew what they are and thus far that there is a rule which our enemies cannot deny But now what that rule is it may be that our Minister and I shal not so soone agree VVhat the rule of faith is or vvas in old tyme. but yet first of all that it cannot be onlie Scripture is euident by his owne speach and confession in this place Pag 19. where he sayth that his people of England do professe the Doctrine of Christ Iesus according to that rule that was established by common consent of the Churche of England from which rule sayth he if any digresse they are none of our societie â—o more then Papists By which words is euident that his rule consisteth of the consent and establishment of certayne men in England what to belieue which is a different matter from scriptures though they wil say perhaps that in this establishment they folowed Scriptures as wil also the Puritanes and others that heere are excluded by this established rule And besyds this confession of O. E. himselfe there are many other conuincing reasons that this rule named by the Apostles was not â—cripture and among other this that eyther â—one or very litle of the newe Testament was written when this rule of fayth was published â—or no vse and practise among Christians as â—ppeareth by the often repetition therof made â—y the same Apostles afterward when they â—ame to write Wel then not to be longer for so much as this rule could not be onlie scripture the best way perhaps to vnderstaÌ„d what it was and is at this day wil be to heare some of the ancieÌ„t Fathers describe the same Holy Ignatius writing to the same Churche that S. Paul did a litle before cyted to wit Phil. 3. Igâ— â— epist. 〈◊〉 Philippenses to the Philippenses sayth id ipsum dicatis omnes idem sentientes in hoc ipso fidei regulas praeceptáque seruaui sicut Paulus erudâ—ens nâ—s dicit Do yow say and teach the selfe same and be of one iudgment for by this haue I obserued the rules of fayth as Paul instructing vs sayd Lo heere the iudgment of Ignatius who affirmeth him-selfe to haue obserued the rule of fayth for that he said and taught that which all said and taught and thought that which all thought and folowed no singularitie eyther of his owne or others Irenaeus calleth this rule the order of traditioâ— from the Apostles tyme to his Iren. aduers. haeres lib. 2. cap 3 4. The great estimation of â—he old rule of faith by which he sayth that all heretikes are conuinced in such sorte that Catholykes shut vp their eares as soone as they heare them speake contrarie to the said rule of vniuersal fayth deliuered by tradition from age to age Iren. ibid. Traditionem Apostolorum fayth he in toto mundo manifestatam in omni Ecclesia adeâ—â— perspicere omnibus qui vera velint audire c. We may see the tradition of the Apostles in euery Churche if we wil heare the truth and we can number those Bishops that were instituted by the Apostles and their successors vnto our dayes who taught not that which these heretikes dreame c. Thus said he accompting this rule to be the whole tradition of our Ancestors coÌ„ming downe by succession of Bishops and Pastors Terâ— lib. de praescript contr haeret cap. 27. To whom agreeth Tertullian presentlie after him calling this rule the fulnesse of the Apostles preaching si ergo incredibile est sayth he ignorasse Apostolos plenitudinem praedicationis vel omnem ordinem regulae omnibus non edidisse c. if it be incredible that the Apostles did not know the fulnes of the preaching of the ghospel or that they did not deliuer vnto all Christians all the order of the rule of beliefe c. And the same man in an other place Tert.
lib de praescrip coÌ„tr hâ—r cap. 1â— Fides in regulae posita est cedat curiositas fides certè aut non obstrepant aut quiescant aduersus regulam c. Fayth consisteth in rule let curiositie yeild to fayth and let heretikes eyther not prate or be silent against this rule So saith he and in an other place if saith he we wil doubt or aske questions in matters of religion let vs inquyre oâ— our owne men to wit Catholykes Ibid. and in such matters as Salua regula fidei possit in quaestiâ—nem deuenire which without breach of the rule of fayth may be called into controuersie By all which sayings we see of what accompte this rule of fayth was in the Primitiue Churche and that it conteyned in deed the verie summe and corps of Christian doctrine deliuered at the beginning by the miracles preachings of the Apostles 1. Cor. 1â— wherof S. Paul said to the Corinthians sic praedicauimus sic credidistis so we haue preached and so yow haue beleeued And afterward partly by writing and partly by tradition continued and conserued to posteritie by the general consent and succession of the Catholyke Churche and her gouernors and among other things this rule conteyned the Symboâ—um or Creed of the Apostles VVhat the old rule of fayth conteyned Tert. lib. coÌ„t heres cap. 13. Rom. 12. Tertullian expresly testifieth and besydes this it comprehended many things more in particular as explication of diuers hydden mysteries with direction how to vnderstand scriptures as is playne by S. Paul before alleadged where he would haue prophesying or exposition of Scriptures to be according to the anologie proportioÌ„ of this rule of fayth to wit that no exposition should be made according to the priuate spirit of any man but according to that fayth and beliefe which before was generally receyued 2. Pet. 1. as S. Peter expresly aduiseth vs wherby it came to passe as sayth Epiphanius that no heretyke could euer put vp his head and begin any thing against this rule but that presentlie by the force therof he was discouered and discomfyted euen as now O.E. in this place as yow see goeth about to reiect Puritanes and exclude them from his societie for that they dissent from his particular new rule established by a fewe in the Churche Parliament of EnglaÌ„d this rule of his made but yesterday and by a fewe and not yet throughly agreed vpon among themselues is thought of such force as it can exclude reiect so many learned of their owne syde how much more the ancient rule made by the Apostles and continued euer since by all the Catholyke world is sufficient to condemne all new sectaries of our tyme that dare iangle against it And this might be sufficient for declaration of this rule the antiquitie force vse therof but that I can not wel omit a peece of one example out of old Tertulian aboue 14. hundred yeares agone who after the words before cyted where he sayth this rule is the fulnesse of the Apostles preaching and note that he sayth preaching and not wryring come downe in the Churche by dissent and tradition he not onlie teacheth but vseth also the same rule the eminent force therof against all heretikes of his tyme who as ours do now pretended that this rule corpes of fayth deliuered by the Apostles might perchance be corrupted altered misunderstood or changed by their successors and that the later Churches were not so pure as the former and consequentlie this rule so much vrged of tradition and vniuersal coÌ„sent might not be infallible to which absurditie after many other reasons reprehensioÌ„s Tertulian sayth as foloweth Tertul lib. de pâ—esâ— contr haeret cap. 26. Age nunc omnes errauerint c. Go to now let vs grant that all Churches or the most of them after the Apostles haue erred that the holy ghost sent for this cause by Christ A notable discourse of old Tertul. against all heretiks and for this cause demanded of his Father to be the teacher of truth vnto them hath not respected them and that this steward of God and vicar of Christ hath neglected his office vpon earth permitting the Churches of Christianitie to beleeue otherwise and to vnderstand matters differently from that which the selfe same holy ghost did preach by the Apostles But tel mâ— ys it likely that so many so great Churches ouer ChristeÌ„dome haue all erred and yet haue agreed in one faith Error of doctrine by all liklihood would haue brought in as it hath done among Protestants varietie also of doctrine among those Churches but that which it found to be one Quod apud multos vnâ—Ì„ inuenituâ— no est erratuâ—â— sed traditâ— and the selfe same among many is not to be thought to come by error but by tradition and can any maÌ„ dare to say that they did erre who lefte behind them those Traditions but howsoeuer yow shal cal yt error yet this Error raygned for truth vntil heresies rose vp to impugne yt belike truth beeing oppressed expected the comming of Marcâ—onithes and Valâ—ntinians to deliuer her out of captiuity and in the meane space all preaching was in error A scorne of Tertullian falling iustly vpon protestanâ—â— all beleeuing in error so many thowsands of thowsands baptised in error so many good workes of fayth done in error so many vertues so many graces miracles wrought in error so many priesthoods and mysteries exercised in error and finallie so many martyrdomes crowned by error c. Thus farre and much farther passeth on Tertullian to vrge and conuince the heretikes of his age by force of this rule deliuered by tradition of the Apostles receyued by Christendome and conserued by the Apostles successors vnto his tyme and the same rule of general consent deliuered by succession of Bishops do vrge all old auncient Fathers in like sorte each one in his age after Tertullian August Vine lyâ— lib. contr heres cap. 27. but in steed of all let S. Augustine be red vrging this rule against all sortes of heretikes but especially and more largely against the Donatests and Pelagians and after him againe the very next age Vincentius Lirenensis who after a longe discourse to this purpose vrgeth the words of S. Paul to Timothy 1. Tim. 6. o Timothee depositum custodâ— c. o Tymothy keepe wel thy pleadge or pawne lefte with thee which pawne as wel this father as the reste do interpret to be the forsayd rule of tradition of fayth Quid est deposituÌ„ sayth he what ys the pleadge or pawne lefte by the Apostles with Timothy and other Bishops of the Churche and he answereth presently Id est quod tibi creditum est non quod a te inuentum quod accepists non quod excogitasti rem non ingenij sed doctrine non vsurpâ—tionis priuatae sed publicae traditionis rem ad te perductam non a
te prolatam in qua non author esse debes sed custos non institutor sed sectator non ducens sed sequens c. This pawne or pledge is a thing geuen yow in credit and not inuented by yow a thing which yow haue receyued and not deuised a matter not of wit but of doctrine not of pryuate vsurpation but of publyke tradition a thing brought downe vnto yow not brought forth first by yow a thing wherof yow must not be author but keep only not the fownder but a follower not a leader but one that is led Thus sayth he of the rule of faith in his tyme which rule also serueth vs no lesse at this day against all sorte of protestants then it did them at that tyme against their aduersaryes but rather much more for that our prescription of this rule is by many hundred yeares elder then theirs was and so this shal suffise about this matter of the Ecclesiastical rule of fayth what yt was and what the auncient Fathers did thinke and esteeme therof and now we wil examine a litle what styrre the minister maketh about his goodly rule of the present particular Churche of England OF THE ENGLISH rule of beliefe set downe by O. E. And what substaÌ„ce or certaintie it hath how they doo vse it for excluding Puritanes other Protostantes and of diuers shameful shifts of O. E. CAP. XVI NOTHING is more true in that kynd then the saying of the philosopher A â—ift lib. 1. Phis. Contraria iuxta se posita clarius elucescunt That contraryes being layd togeather do make each other better seene and vnderstood as a ragged garment layd by another that is fayre and pretious maketh the ragges and patches more euident and contemtible and euen so this ridiculous new deuised rule of O. E. if we compare it with the former auncient rule commended vnto vs by the old holie fathers we shal see more perspicuously the vanitie therof for that he sayth Pag. 19. As for our selues that is the Protestants of England all of vs professe the doctrine of Iesus Christ according to that rule that was established by the common consent of England and whosoeuer doth digresse from this is not of our societie c. But here I would aske him what rule this is and in what yeare it was established by whom and how many and what authoritie they had to establish or to make any new rule from the old receyued before in matters of religion See the statutis anno Henr. 8.25 c. 14. an 26. cap. 1. an 27. c. 15 19. an 31. ca. 14. an 34. 35. cap 1. for yf he speake of K. Henry the 8. his dayes when the first chaunges beganne and when diuers new rules were set downe in parlament with this expresse commendation that they were taken out of the pure and syncere only woord of God I doo not think that O. E. wil admit them or stand vnto them though Iohn Fox do hold all that tyme of K. Henrie his mutations after his breach with the Churche of Rome for the tyme of the ghospel and so doth terme it euery where In K. Edward dayes also he being head of the Churche An 1. Ed c. 1.2 11. an 2. 3. cap. 1.21.23 though but 9. yeares old there was two or three new rules made and altered about matters of religion and their communion book all pretended out of the word of God with reuocation of that which K. Henry the Father and his Parlaments out of the same woord had appoynted before which rule also vnder K. Edward I do not know whether our ProtestaÌ„ts wil allow in all poyntes now but sure I am our Puritanes do not nor wil not as appeareth by theire owne bookes what assurance then is there in this mutable and controuerted rule of so fewe yeares in age But the most important question is who and what men and by what authoritie they made this rule The Warder knew no other when he writ but the Lords of the ParlameÌ„t and so called it parlament religion wherwith O. E. is very angry Pag. 19. and sayth where he calleth our religion parlament religion he speaketh like himselfe that is falsly and slaunderously for albeit the same be receyued by authoritie of the Prince state yet is it Christs reâ—igion and not the Princes Soone spoken but how doth he proue it here is styl that old shifte of petiâ—io principij hissed out by learned men which consisteth in setting downe that for a principle which most needeth proof as heere where our minister wil needs haue his religion to be Christs religion whether we wil or no and that it was but receyued and promulgated only by the parlament but then must I aske him agayne what authoritie besydes the parlament hath determyned it to be Christs religion as also that the Puritans religion is not Christs religion notwithstanding they pretend Christ and his Apostles no lesse then doth the protestant and then if we fynd that the only authoritie that defyneth this matter is the Parlament allowing the one and condemning the other for that scriptures of themselues can not do it quia actiones sunt suppositorum as a litle after he vrgeth and then must needs the credit truth of English religion depend of the parlament and therof worthelie be called Parlament religion But harken good reader what an example he hath found to auoyd An example making against himself that his religion may not be called Parlament religion The Emperors Gratian Valentinian and Theodâ—sius decreed sayth he that all people of their gouernment should hold the doctryne of Peter the Apostle Pag. 19. taught by Damasus bishop of Rome and Peter bishop of â—lexandria that they should beleeue one God and three persons yet I hope this Noddy wil not cal the fayth of the Trinitie an imperial fayth See this haÌ„dled more largely before in the annâ—t vpon the letter of O. â— to the reader c. Yes surelie Syr Noddy-maker I would cal and proue it so if the case were like that is if these three Emperors had determined this fayth as of theÌ„selues and by their imperial authoritie and that it had byn a different beliefe from the rule of fayth receyued before throughout Christendome as your parlament religioÌ„ was and is hauing no other ecclesiastical Authoritie â—or her establishment but only the authoritie of your Prince and parlament which defyned it to be trew religion and coÌ„forme to the word of God and determined that the other which was there before in vse to wit the Catholike to be opposite and contrarie to thesaid word and therfore to be abolished so as the allowance of the one and reprobation of the other proceeded from the parlament But the proceeding of the foresaid three Emperors in this their alleaged decree was farre otherwise which O.E. if he had had any more wit then a Noddy would neuer
substantially he must â—â—mayn conuinced of two great calumâ—â—tions For proof then of the first he alleadgeth â—â—ree reasons which are these First that Caâ—holyks do forbid vulgar translations not only of Protestants but also of their owne men 3. Reasons â—or S. F. his ansvvere and neuer a one concluding except the Bishop or Inquisitor giue special licence ergò we hold it for heresy Secondly that yt was obiected to Iohn Lambert for anâ— heretical opinion which he alleageth out of Fox though he name him not that he held Pag. 41. Fox act and monu Pag. 1006. col 1. num 65. That all heads and rulers are bound by necessitie of Saluation to giue the holy Scriptures to their people in theiâ— mother language His third argument is for thaâ— our Rhemists in their preface of the traÌ„slation of the new Testament say They do not publisâ— the Testament in English vpon any erronious opinioâ— of necessitie that the Scripture should alwayes be iâ— our mother tongue or that they ought or were ordaâ—neâ— by God to be read indifferently of all By which threâ— Reasons he thinketh it sufficiently proued that we hold the reading of Scriptures for heresy But who seeth not that no one of these reaâ—sons nor all together do conclude any thing to that effect The 3. reasons of S. F. examined For to the first though Catholyke do forbid men to vse their owne vulgar translations but with liceÌ„se yet do they not forbiâ— yt as heresy for then as I sayd they woulâ— graunt yt to none but they forbid it as a thinâ— wherof being abused heresy may follow as a Father should forbid his children that aâ—â— weak or indiscreet to drink strong wyne without water least they be dronckeÌ„ or catâ—â— an ague he sayth not that the drinking it seâ—â— is drunkennes or an ague but that being abuâ—sed it may cause the same And so to the second the reading of Scriâ—ptures was not obiected to Lambert as heresie but for that he was charged to hold it necessarie vnder payne of damnation to giue the said Scriptures in vulgar languages to all people which was an heretical and false assertion The Rhemists also which is the third obiection do cal the said opinion of Lambert about the necessitie of reading Scriptures in vulgar tongues by all sortes erronious and not the reading of Scriptures yt self Now then let vs heare and examine S. F. argument made vpon the words of our Rhemists before recited Pag. 47. The absurd vulearned manner of reasoning vsed by the Knight Now sayth he yf to think the Scriptures may be read indifferently of all he in your iudgement an heretical opinion then for men to read them is in your iudâ—ement an heretical action Mark good Reader â— F. manner of argument first he peruerteth the words alleaged by himself our of our Rhemists For they say It is erronious to put necessâ—tie for all to read But he sayth they affirme it heretical that all may read Now betweene must may erronious heretical there is much difference Then doth not this second proposition follow of his first for though it be erronious or heretical to hold necessitie of publishing the Scriptures in English to all as Lambert did hold yet followeth it not that â—he reading it self is heretical for a man may haue leaue to read and so auoyd all fault and â— Catholyke man vpon curiositie may chauÌ„ce â—o read without leaue and yet not beleeue heâ—etically that it is necessarie to permit them â—o be read of all And to the end good reader thou maist see the vanitie of his former consequeÌ„ce consider the same in an other exaÌ„ple It is an erronious and heretical opinion to say that all men and women may or must preach teach and administer Sacraments without ordination or licence ergo it is heresy or at least wayes an heretical action to teach preach administer SacrameÌ„ts who seeth not the folly of this consequence But now where-as the warder vpon this occasion entreth into the verie substance of the matter The cheefe substance of the matter omitted by Syr F. shewing at large how and in what sense reading of Scriptures in vulgar tongues is forbidden in the Catholyke Churche and vpon what causes and how farre and to what persons and to what end and with what limitations and how falsely heretykes do cauil and slaunder them in this behalf and confirmeth the same by many authorities arguments and euident reasons as also that the right vnderstanding of Scriptures is a peculiar gift of God and not common to all and that experience both of our and old tymes haue taught vs the great euils and daungers which had ensued by schismes heresies and varieties of opinions gathered out of Scriptures by euil interpretation alleaging also diuers examples for the same To all this I say being the pith and substance of the whole matter S. F. answereth not one word according to his shift of omission before mentioned when he hath nothing to answere and therfore vsing silence in this he passeth ouer to the second vntruth obiected that men are brandled to the slaughter for only reading vpon Gods book leauing the first sticking on his sleaue as yow see and much more confirmed then remoued by his answere For seing he affirmed it so stoutlie before that we held it heresy euen to think or desyre to read Scriptures in English why had he not alleaged some one playne text some Canon some one sentence some one Author of ours some book scrip or scrolle where we say so and where we do pronounce that first for heresie why runneth he to so blynd weake arguments and coniectures as yow haue heard Heerby yow may see what men of their wordâ— conscience and veritie they be and I may say of this K t. as Tertullian said of Marcion the heretyke Tertul. lib. 5. ad Marc. cap. 14â— num 231. quantas foueas fecit aufeâ—endo quae voluit how many great gappes hath he made in my book leauing out what he would or could not answer But now to the second vntruth whether men were put to death in deed for only reading scriptures About the second vntruth vvhether men vvere put to death for only reading scriptures VVastvvord Pag. 43. this dependeth of the first For yf it be euident that we hold not that the only reading of Scriptures is heresie as he affirmeth and we haue shewed the contrarie then followeth yt not to be likely that we brandle men to death with fyer for this fact which is a punishment due to heresie Let vs see then what the K â— sayth heere First of all he picketh a quarrel as though I had added somewhat to his wordes saying Pag. 43. Before I proced to the iustifying of my speach Pag. 43. geue me leaue to tel yow that this word onely by yow thrust into my words is one ly of your coyning though not the only one lye Heere
gentle Reader I wil make the Iudge of this new quarrel to wit whether this new onely lyeth on his syde onlie or on myne and I wil cal no other witnesse but the K t. owne words to try the controuersie Can I deale more franklie then this Heare then himself against himself for thus he wryteth For though it were but onely a desyre to read vpon the holy book c. heretike was his title heresie was his fault and for this he was called before the Romish Cleargie brandled c. If yow fynd only in his owne wordeâ— then do yow lay this new onely where yow find yt and there is an end of that matter for with so open impudency I wil no further stryue It shal be to no purpose also to refute that notorious Pag 43. S. Francis vvorthy to ly for the vvhetstone and ridiculously where without cyting any author at all the K t. sayth that an old Doctor among the Sorbons protested that he had studied more then 50. yeares ore he could tel what the new testament was c. Wil any man beleeue him in this or is he not worthy to ly for the whetstone that wil auouche this in print And yow must vnderstand by the way that the Doctors of Sorbon are Doctors of diuinitie and haue much exercise out of the Scriptures before they can take degree how theÌ„ did this Doctor neuer so much as heare of the new Testament in 50. yeares studie But heare yet another as improbable as this without author also An Italian Bishop sayth he told one Espeucaeus that his contremen durst not read the Scriptures least they should become heretiks therby A goodly tale And what author is cited for this none at all Yow must take it vpon the K â—s credit and what that is or deserueth to be his doings declare But now to the principal poynt how doth he proue that men were brandled to the slaughter for only reading the old or new Testament VVast-vvord Pag. 44. he alleageth diuers exaÌ„ples out of Ihon Fox in these words Our stories are ful of Examples out of your owne registers that reading of Scriptures was accompted heresie and not to stand vpon many Fox act and mom Pag. 752. deinceps vnder Longland B. of Lincolue Agnes welles was conuented and examined whether Thrustan did euer teach her the Epistle of S. Iames in English VVel proued and Thomas Chase was charged for hearing the said Epistle read in English Agnes Ashford for teaching Iames Norden certayne sentences of Scripture in English Robert Pope Ihon Mordon and his wyâ—e that they recited the ten commandements in English Ihon Fippes for that he was rype in the Scriptures and the lyke proceeding was vsed by other Bishops as namely by Tonstal then B. of London before whom many were conuented for that holy heresie of reading Scriptures c. Thus he sayth of whom a man may hardly say whether he brought these exaÌ„ples to proue or disproue his owne saying which is great simplicitie in any writer not to discerne what maketh for him or what against him seing by these examples in steed of prouing his second proposition he ouerthroweth both the first second The second about brandling to death for that these his owne examples do shewe that none of them that were accused were put to death for reading but had some lighter punishmeÌ„t only for their disobedieÌ„ce in that act his first proposition he ouerthroweth also which was that reading of Scriptures was accoÌ„pted heresie for that the fault of reading scriptures in this place is ioyned and equalled with things which no man wil say that we hold for heresies as the reciting of the 10. commandements in English and the cyâ—ing of certayne places in our English tongue out of the Scriptures And consequeutly these exaÌ„ples if they be graunted to be true in fact as the most of them are amplified by Ihon Fox yet proue they not but directly rather do disproue that which the K t. should proue Wherfore the only thing that these exaÌ„ples do proue is Examples fondly alleadged that make against him that the reading of Scriptures in vulgar language without licence and perhaps heretical translations in tymes of heresies and by such persons as can not be presumed to profit therby may be a sufficient cause to the B. to conuent apprehend or examine them vpon suspition of heresie as yf a ciuil Magistrate in tyme when many robberies are committed shal cal in question apprehend or examine certayne men that spend much and haue litle of their owne go gay in apparel play at dice and the lyke by which they may be suspected of theft though the verie act of playing be not theft and as yt should be slaunderous and ridiculous in that case yf any man would crie out of that common wealth or Magistrate saying it were tyrannical that men should be imprisoned for costly apparel faring wel or playing at dice as though those acts were theft or fellonie which in deed are not but only may induce to theft or giue suspition therof euen so in our case it is as meere a calumniation to affirme that we hold reading of Scriptures for heresies which is false though in certayne persons in whome yt may perhaps engender heresie or giue suspition therof thesame may be punished for disobedience and disposition to heresy And this is sufficient or rather superfluous in so vayne a matter against the babling of our fond kinght And by this is answered a loÌ„g tale also that he hath out of Fox of a book seller of Auinion in France condemned to death by the B. of Aix for selling french bybles in the vulgar tongue of whom S. F. concludeth in these words VVastvvord Pag. 46. And so exhorting the people to read the Scriptures he was for this cause only cruely put to death By which he would haue his reader vnderstand that only for reading Scriptures and exhorting men ther-vnto he was cruely put to death which is playne cosenage For in the storie of Fox himselfe which the K t. craftelie omitteth it is conteyned that the bookseller vpon examination was found an heretyke denied the authoritie of the Bishop and his office and other ecclesiastical Iudges saying That they were rather the Priests of Bacchus and venus then the true Pastors of the Churche of Christ Fox act and mon. Pag. â—63 col 2. whervpon sayth Fox he was condemned c. So as S. F. corrupteth also Fox and addeth more lyes to the most famous lyer that euer perhaps took pen in hand and with such men haue wee to do THE EXAMINATION of that which O. E. hath written concerning the former poyntes handled in the precedent fiue chapters and that it is farre more impertineÌ„t desperate then that which the Knight him self hath answered CAP. VI. IT may seeme much perhaps to the Reader that O. E. hath byn kept so long tyed vp from barking somwhat in these
Linvvod lib. 5. de Magistris that there should be a true English traÌ„slation of the whole Byble permitted by approbation of the Bishop to all such common people as should be thought apt to profyt thereby which being considered and that heere only he ordayneth that no particular man of his owne authorytie should translate the scriptures into English or publish thesame to other mens reading without lycens I would know of O. E. why this constitution was alleaged by him seing it proueth nether the one nor the other of the forsaid poyntes both which he sayeth are proued thereby to wyt that reading of Scripture was accompted heresy The Archb. constitution is against O. E vvho alleageth it or punished by brandling nay both these assertions are refuted by this the first for that translation reading of scripture in the English tongue by lycens of the Bishop was permitted ergo it was not heresy for that noe Bishop can permit heresy secondly for that the punishment of excommunication is neyther death nor burning ergò for this they were not brandled Now then look yow in the forehead of this brandled and masked Minister O.E. who concludeth his former discourse in these woordes So it appeareth that the challenger our aduersary lyeth notoriously in both these poinâ—es Pag. 45. Thus he sayeth wherof let the Reader be iudge And a litle after disdayning that I should say this prudent ordinance about translating and reading of Scripture with difference and choice of men to be the ordinance of the Catholike churche he commeth into his accustomed vayn of scurrilytie saying Yf he meane by the Cathol Churche the conuenticle of Trent Pag 45. he is an absurd fellow to think that skum synke of priestes and fryars which theâ—e gathered a councel against Christ to be the Cathol Churche Let any man iudge of this vncleane and vncircumcised tongue About the Cath churche And for the thing it self I would aske him yf the Councel of Trent consisting of the chief Bishops and Prelates of Christendome represented not the knowen Cathol Churche at that day what other Catholike Churche can he shew vs to haue byn extaÌ„t at that tyme seing as he saith in his definition of Catholike afterward in his challenge out of Vâ—ncentius Lirinensis VVe are to hold that which alwayes hath byn beleued of all Christians O. E. chaleng 1. Pag 2. Vincent Lirinen aduers. haeteses ca. 3. for that is trulie and properly Catholike Which if it be true let hym shew vs that in the tyme of the councel of Trent there was any other Christian faith alwayes beleeued of all christians from Christ to that day but only the Romane and then we wil say that albeit for his scurrilytie of speech he be to be accompted of as he deserueth yet that in the rest he hath some reason But if he can not do this then sheweth he himself shamles in both And this might be sufficient for somuch as concerneth this point of reading scriptures wherein yow see how vaynly this vnlearned and ydleheaded Minister behaueth himself running in and out forth and back without rule or order sense or reason But yet I must follow him a litle further in certaine quarrels picked against me The first wherof is for that I do alleage these woords of S. Paule 2. Cor. 3. litera occidit Spiritus autem viuificat The letter killeth but the spirit giueth lyfe therby to proue that it is not sufficient to read only the woords of scripture except they be rightly also vnderstood and consequently that all standeth not in reading specially amongst the ignorant who oftentymes receaue more hurt then good thereby herevpon commeth in the Minister very hotly Pag. 47. saying He doth shameâ—ully abuse the woordes of S. Paule to the condemning of reading of Scriptures But soft Sir I neither abuse nor vse the woordes of the Apostle to the sense yow falsely say but to that sense which other holy Fathers before me haue vsed alleaged them S. Hier. Ep. ad Nepot in 3. Reg. c. 1. as namely S. Hierome and S. Augustine cyted by me in the Ward-woord and passed ouer craftely by this companioÌ„ Aug. de Spiritu littera c. 4 5. primo Retract c. 4. as though he had neuer heard of them And besides that which there I said I wil heere adioyne an other place of his lib. primo ad Simplician q. 1. where he saith Lex tantummodo lecta non intellecta vel non impleta vtique occidit tunc enim appellatur littera The law of God being read only and not vnderstood nor fulfilled doth kill for that it is called the letter by the Apostle Thus saith he and where as our Minister addeth Bellarmyne his companion may instruct him that none but the Swink feldians and Originists by the letter that killeth vnderstand Scriptures as this Noddy doth Examination of the vvoords of S. Paul littera occidit 2. Cor. 3. shewing himself therein a playne heretike anâ— enemy to the Scriptures This I say sheweth who is the Noddy who is the heretike and who is the enemy to Scriptures yf lying and cogging do put enemytie betwene the lyar and the Scriptures which are truthe it self Bellarm. lib. 1 de verbo Dei Cap. 3. For Cardinal Bellarmyne doth not ioynâ— Swinkfeldians and Originists together in denying scriptures as this man doth but cyting only an interpretation of Origen improueth thesame in one sense though in an other he admitteth it The Swinkfeldians indeed and Lybertines Children of the new Gospel of Martine Luther and consequently our Ministers brethren did deny the external letter of the Scripture founding themselues vpon this place of S. Paule litera occidit which Bellarmyne denyeth to serue to that purpose But this is nothing to our sense who deny not nor condemne as this Noddy slaundreth vs eyther the external letter of Scriptures themselues or the reading therof with discretion due reuerence and order but only rashe and presumptuous reading and interpreting the same according to their owne sense and vnderstanding different from the meaning and interpretation of the auncient Fathers Catholike Churche But yet let vs heare somewhat more how he goeth foreward in this matter Pag. 4â— He telleth vs further saith this Minister that the vnderstanding of scriptures is a particuler gift of God reserued espetialy vnto Christ and by him bestowed vpon the Churche which he proueth by this place Luc 24. Act. 8. Tunc aperuit eis sensum vt intelligerent scripturas then he opened to them the sense wherby they might vnderstand scriptures And againe by the example of the Eunuche that without Philip the Apostles help could not vnderstand the prophecie of Isay. Thus sayeth O. E. and how doth he answere think yow all these reasons of myne yow shal heare in few woords all he sayth Pag. 4â— If Christ be the best Interpâ—etor saith he where should we better vnderstand what his
interpretations are then in holy Scriptures The ministers ridiculous circuling Here is one circle heare an other Is he hath bestowed the gifte of interpreting scriptures on the Churche how should the people be better assured of the excellency of the Churcâ—es interpretation then by seing the same confirmed by scriptures This is the second circle more foolish then the former And mark heere good people the assurance which these men doe teache yow for your safty in reading scriptures when yow vnderstand not the letter of the Scripture first saith he yow must goe to Christ the best interpreter and when yow vnderstand not Christs interpretation yow must returne to the letter of the Scriptures to know the excellency of Christs interpretation and yf yow vnderstand neither then must yow goe to the interpretation of the Churche and yf yow vnderstaÌ„d not that then must yow goe backe againe to the scriptures to assure your self as he saith of the excellency of the Churches interpretation Intricat dealing of hereticks about vnderstanding of scriptures But in all this going and comming turning and wynding I would aske our whirle-headed Minister who shal be iudge or where shal the stay be or how can symple people discerne of these things which he prescribeth One wil think he hath the letter with him anâ— other the sense and spirit a third the inspiracioÌ„ of Christ a fourth the interpretatioÌ„ of the Churche then wil all foure fall out where and what and which is the Churche and must returne to the Scriptures againe and to their owne fancies and interpretations about this and all the rest And this is the graue and sure direction which O. E. deliuereth vs. To my other instance and example of the Eunuch Apostle afterward of Ethiopia as S. Ireney and other fathers do cal hym to whom reading and not vnderstanding the Prophet Isay Iraeneus Christ by his Angel sent Philip to be his interpretor this fellow answereth nothing but that it was not Philip the Apostle but the Deacon who was sent But what of this yf it were so Doth this answere the argument The glosse vpon that place of the Acts saith Nie. de Lyre in cap. â— Act. that diuers learned men were of different opinion about that matter whether it were Philip the Apostle or Philip the Deacon that was sent to the Eunuche And Tertullian more neare to that tyme then our Minister by a thousand and foure hundred yeares Tertul. lib. de Bapt. c. 1â— and more learned then he by ten thousand and fyue hundred yardes doth call this Philip an Apostle twise within fiue lynes But what if it were Philip the Deacon what hurteth it my argument eyther of them is sufficient for our purpose to proue that this Eunuche being a principal cheef man and a Proselyt ore Iew by religion and not vnlearned in both their law and language as appeareth by his reading their scriptures yet had he need of an external interpreter to be sent to him by God Wherof is inferred that muche more vnlearned simple people reading scriptures traÌ„slated into vulgar tongues and for the most part corrupted by Sectaries to their hands haue need to be moderated and wel directed in this matter to the end they gayne and not leese therby whâ—ch poynt the Warder proueth by euident effects of infynit heresyes rysen by rash and vnreuerent reading of the Scriptures Luther in which respect Luther himself against other Sectaries ympugning hym by shew of Scriptures calleth it Librum haereticorum the proper book of heretikes whence all of them by euil interpretacion doe frame their heresyes Wee see also within the space of these fowre score late yeares since the Byble hath byn layd open to all sortes of people in all vulgar languages what a Sea of monstrous sects and diuisions haue flowed vpon vs wherof the Warder also giueth diuers particuler examples in England it self and those punished also by Protestants as of Ioane Burcher William Hacket William Ieffrey and others Vnto all which experience declaration this good fellow answereth breeflie thus It is not reading of Scriptures which he styleth rash reading vsed by lay people Pag 49. but neglect of scriptures bringeth forth errour and heresy So that say what yow wilâ— and proue what yow wil this fellow wipeth of all with a bare denial Yet whether neglect of Scriptures or rash or vnreuerent reading which he doth here bring in as opposit may not in some sense be the self same I leaue to discreet men to ponder and thereby the wit of this wryter And where as he saith that heretiks by Tertullian are called Lucifugae Scripturarum Ibideâ—â— the bars of scriptures for that they fly from the true light of scriptures I would pray the reader by this one place to ponder wel with himself of this the fraudulent cogging companion for he would haue it seme and to that end he brinâ—eth it in that Tertullian did assigne it for peculiar propertie of heretikes to fly reaâ—ing of scriptures wherof here we entreat which is so false as nothing can be more and â—â—at wel knoweth the seared conscience of his deceitful Minister A notable abusing Tertullian Tertul. lib. de praescrip aduers haeret cap. 15. seing that the whole â—earned discourse of Tertullian De praescriptioâ—us aduersus haereticos that is of prescriptions â—prescribing against heretikes is principally 〈◊〉 exclude them from tryal by scriptures â—herof they bragged and wherevnto they â—ould seme to runne as ours do now adayes 〈◊〉 this he doth from the 17. Chapter downewards and before he entreth into this demonâ—â—ration he vseth this Preamble Ipsi de Scriptuâ—agunt de scripturis suadent scripturas obtendunt â—c hac sua andacia statim quosdam mouent Heâ—â—tiks do treat of scriptureâ— do perswade out scripture doe pretend scriptures and with is their audacytie doe moue some peoâ—â—e c. And in the very book alleaged by our Miâ—â—â—ter out of Tertullian De resurrectione caruis sheweth that heretikes are great scripture â—n but to peruert and not to vnderstand them aright and that without scrâ—pture no heresyâ— can be founded Tertul. lib de carnts resurrect c. 40. Haereses saith he esse non possent si non perperam scripturae intelligi possent There could not be heresyes yâ— the scrâ—ptures could not be euil vnderstood And in the very particuler place and controuersy handled by him of the resurrection of the flesh and body against heretikes that denyed thesame vnder preâ—ence of scripture he saith to one of them Ibid. c. 10. Tenâ—s scripturas utbus caro infuscatur tene ettam quibus illustratur Thow dost alleage scriptures wherby the basenes and infirmytie of our flesh is set forth harcken aâ—so to those scrâ—ptures by whiâ—h thesame is exalted and gâ—orified And then passâ—ng ouer to an other poynt of proof he alleageth a place out of the Apostle 1. Thess 5. for resurrection of the flesh saying thus Age
tam quod ad Thessalonicenses vt ipsius solis radio putem scriptum Ibid c 47. ita clareâ— qualtter acciptant Luci fugae isti scripturarum Go to then how wil these scripture-bats the heretiks vnderstand this place of S. Paule to thâ— Thessalonians though it be so cleare as I may think it to be wrytten with the very beame of the Sunne it self Here then yow see that heretikes are noâ— noted or called night-battes by Tertullian foâ— flâ—ing the reading of Scriptures as this faiâ—â— lad would perswade his Reader but ratheâ— the quite contrarie that reading and bragginâ— of Scriptures more then others Hovv heretiks â—re scripture bats yet are theâ—â— so blynd in the true light therof througâ— their owne pryde and malice as they fly the true sense and interpretation heâ—d by the Catholike churche as night-bats do the cleere day light and shynâ—ng of the Sunne which Tertuâ—â—â—an in the forenamed book of praescription and els where doth largely declare and it is our complaint also against Sectaries of our tyme who swarmâ—ng ouer scriptures like blynd bats in the darcknesse of theyr owne passions and imaginations and flyeng the light of auncient doctors and Churches interpretations do break their owne heades and necks of entymes vpon scripture walles in respect wherof thesayd Tertullian in this very book by O.E. alleaged concludeth thus and therein giueth vs good counsel saying â—ecundum praetudicta tot authoritatum scripturas inâ—â—lligi oportebit Ibid. c. 18. non secundum ingenia haereâ—â—corum de â—â—la incredulitaâ—e vementiae Scriptures must be vnderstood according to the fore established iudgments of so many authorities as I haue now alleaged and not according to the wits or wrangling inclinations of heretiks which proceed coÌ„monly of only incredulitie which â—s asmuch to say as that the natures of heretikes being inclyned to incredulytie not to beleue what the authoritie of the Catholike Churche hathe set downe before them they seek to draw the interpretation of scriptures to their owne phansyes Thus wryteth he and his reason is for that heretiks reading scriptures with curiosytie for feeding their owne humors and being bound to no rule or prescriptioÌ„ of interpretations but to take and leaue or like at their pleasures commonly their wits guyded by humaine spirit inclyne to incredulitie calling in question what others haue held or beleued before them and shaking of the foundations of all former belief by their new quarrelling and whether the Sectaries of our tyme haue done this or no by their much reading and tossing of scriptures let experience teache vs. And this shal suffice for this place THE SECOND PART of this Encounter contayning foure absurd groundes of Catholike religion fayned by Sir frauncis and first whether ignorance be the mother of deuotion as also about the controuersy of fides explicita implicita CAP. VII WE haue byn occupied hitherto about so many other falshoodes and vntruthes of these our aduersaries vttered in their preambles as we haue not byn able to come to the principal subiect of this EncouÌ„ter which is a quadruple number of absurd grounds positions which the knight affirmeth vs to hold for general grounds and Maximes of our religion wherof the first and ring leader is that ignorance is the mother of deuotion which he vttereth in these woords VVatch. p. 17 The first forged position In these darck and clowdy dayes saith he least the Sunshine of knowlege should disperse the mystes of ignorance and giue light to the dymme of sight this position was set downe for their Maxime or rule infallible that ignorance is the mother of deuotion that the sacred woord of God which was giuen to be a Lanterne to all our feet and a light to our steps was forbidden to the lay sorte for so they called them as matter vnfit for them to looke into To which the warder beginneth his answere thus How manifest a falshood it is that reading of scriptures is forbâ—dden to all lay men is sufficiently shewed by that which goeth before VVard p. 17. for in any of the three learned tonges any lay man or woman may read them at their pleasure and in vulgar translations also suche as haue lycens and I thinke Sir Frauncis wil not deny that many of the laytie vnderstand Latin How then and with what face complayneth he so piteously or rather hypocritically that the sacred woord of God which was giuen to be a lanterne to our fâ—ete c was forbidden to the lay sort To this interrogatioÌ„ of the warder Sir FrauÌ„cis replieth now noe one syllable more then before is sayd VVhether ignorance be the mother of deuotion And further where as the warder chargeth him sorely with malepart ignorance for scoffing at the woord laymen and aâ— the distinction betwene Laytie and Cleargie and by this occasion sheweth the true meaning of those woords with the auncient begynning vse and practize of the primitiue Churche out of Origen Epiphanius Hierome and diuers other fathers doctors general CouÌ„cels the patient knight dissembleth all this according to the first shift discouered in the beginning Sir F. and O. E. do flie shamfully and saith nothing at all to it neither doth his Proctor O. E. helpe him out herein with any one woord though woords be very good cheape with him After this the warder cometh to the positioÌ„ it self saying But we deny this Maxime or infallible rule to be ours and do say that it is your calumniation only and not our position and that among vs it is neither Maxime noâ— Minime And for yow to proue it a Maxime yow must shew that all Catholykes or the most part do hold it and to proue it a Minime at least yow must shew that some one doth hold it neither of which yow can euer doe and so yow remayne disgraced Thus said he what answereth Sir F. Thus VVast pag. 47. A strange accusation and grieuous slaunder no doubt to charge those men with nourishing the people in ignorance whom all the world knoweth to haue vsed strange meanes to bring them to knowlege For what meant they by the costly setting vp of many faire and wel guylded Images in Churches was it not that they might be lay mennes bookes and by reading on them they might attaine knowlege To this I answere first that this proof is far of from shewing that it is a Maxime and infallible rule among vs that ignorance is the mother of deuotion why is not this proued especially seing S r. F. is required in honor to do it Is the running to the controuersy of Images a sufficient discharge for this Doe not all men see this kynd of shifting But let vs say somewhat to his instance of faire guilded Images as though they made to his purpose First then I say that those faire Images of Christ and his Saints against which he enueigheth if they be ioyned with other instruments of light instruction as are preaching teaching
ignorance to others notwithstanding the K t. and Ministers babble to the contrarie And with this we end our speeche of this first forged position obiected vnto vs. OF THE SECOND forged principle that laymen must not medle in matters of religion wherein is handled againe the matter of reading scriptures in English and why the Catholyke Churche doth forbid some bookes purge others CAP. IX THE second ground or position attributed by Sir F. to Catholykes is set downe by him thus VVatch-vvoord Pag. 20. VVhen they had saith he thus setled this blynd course to keep the people from knowlege c. Then they offer an other position that it was not for Laymen to medle with matters of religion The second fayued position for that beloÌ„ged onely and wholy as a priuilege to Priestes thereby making them secure and carelesse of God and all godlynes This is the position wherevnto the Warder answereth in these woords In setting downe of this forged position by the knight there is some subteltie ioyned with impudency VVachvvord pag. 20. For first in the former parte where he saith we hold that it is not for laymen to medle with religion he subtelly leaueth doubtful this woord medle eyther to signifie that laymen must not determyne or defyne matters of religion or els not to medle or care for them at all In the former sense we graunt that in Synods and councels where controuersies of faith are to be treated Bishops and cleargie men haue only authoritie to defyne and determyne For that S. Paul saith Act. 20. that they are appointed by the holie Ghost to gouerne the Churche though before they do come to determyne they do help themselues also in the searche of truth by the labors learning of laymen and take their iudgment when they may giue light as in all Councels is seene But in the second sense it is most impudent that he inferreth that hereby we would make laymen secure and carelesse of God and all godlines This is the charge How doth Sir F. defend himself now stoutly no doubt for he saith it may be iustified in eyther sense Wel then let vs examine it a litle in the second sense for in the first we striue not muche how with what face caÌ„ the K â— auerre againe that laymen are so barred by vs from medling in matters of religion as therby we make them secure and carelesse of God and all godlines what proofes doth he bring now think yow for answering so notorious a charge Yow shal heare his owne woords Pag. 52. In the later sense saith he I need not labor any more for proof then that before is set downe touching your breeding of Gods children in blyndnes and ignorance and with-holding the key of knowlege from them Very fond reasoning of the Kâ— Doe yow see what he bringeth If the K t. had talked of breeding yong geese he could speak no more fondly then here he doth And what I pray yow is his key of knowlege with-holden from the lay sorte forsooth the reading of the English Byble from such as understand yt not And how many apprentices and good wiues of London with others of other places haue opened so many dores of later yeares to disorders with this key as neither their husbands nor Maisters nor Magistrate could or caÌ„ wel remedy let puritanes brownists louing-families and other like be witnesses And yet as though all stood in this point of reading English Bybles he asketh vs very earnestly in the next woordes following Pag. 52. And how wil yow haue them lay people medle with crâ—are for that they know not And then againe How doe yow permit laymen thus to medle with matters of Religion when as yow take from them the vse of scriptures Did yow euer heare such demands or did euer man deale with suche aduersaries is there no care of piety God or godlines for this is our question but in suche only as read scriptures in English What wil yow say to all those Protestants among yow who can not read nor haue tyme to heare them red wil yow say there is no godlines or care of God in them if yow do I say and yow can not deny it that they are the greatest part of your English protestant people But from this he leapeth to two places of scriptures the first out of the Acts of the Apostles of the men of Berraea who are much commended saith he for searching the Scriptures whether things were so as the Apostles had deliuered The second out of S. Iohns Epistle saying Dearly beloued beleue not euery spirit 1 Ioan. 4. Examination of tvvo places of Scripture for vulgar reading therof but tâ—ie spirits whether they be of God or not Out of both which two places he would haue vs take it for proued that all kynd of lay people men and women learned and vnlearned must searche scriptures dayly in the vulgar tonges to examine and iudge whither their Pastors and teachers say truly or noe And thereby also trie spirits and that without this there is no care of God or godlines in the lay sorte euery man woman and damozel must haue their key of knowlege to open scriptures and trie spirits But first what a common wealth this would make if it were wel executed all men can see secondly the places of scriptures are as fitly alleaged as these men are wont to doe as yow shal see by examination For to the first of the men of Berraea which euery where is alleaged and vrged by Protestants most impertinently to this effect I would aske our K t. how he can proue their case to be lyke ours to wit first that they were vnlearned and vulgar Iewes that searched those scriptures in Berraea to see whether the places of the Prophets alleaged by Paul and Silas about Christ were so or no and secondly that those scriptures which they searched were in the vulgar Syriak tonge and not in the Hebrew which the common people for the most part vnderstood not and thirdly that this searching was a general promiscuous reading of all scriptures translated into vulgar languages for all sortes â—f people to read and examine therby their Priests Pastors doctrine and to iudge therof which three points the K t. and his Minister wil neuer be able to proue so indeed do proue nothing in alleaging this place most impertinent to their purpose For as for the case of the men of Berraea it was a very particular and different yea extraordinary case for that S. Paul and Silas were not the ordinary teachers Pastors of those Iewes of Berraea but taught rather a new and strange doctrine different in many substantial points as appered froÌ„ the auncient Religion of the Iewes and yet they alleaged the sayings and testimonies of the old Prophets and Patriarches for the same Hovv the Ievves of Berraea did search the Scriptures so as the learned sort of Iewes of
Berraea had great reason to searche diligently â—hose places of scriptures to see whether they were so as the Apostles alleaged and interpreted or no and for that the controuersy was not so muche about the woords as the sense and interpretation it is euident that they were of their learned men that took this searche in hand not vulgar people wherof our controuersy is and so muche do the precedent woords of the text cleerly shew if S. F. after his fraudulent manner had not cut them of and dissembled them for thus saith the text of S. Luke Fratres autem confestim c. The brethren out of hand conuayed by night Paul and Silas from the persecution of Thessalonica vnto the towne of Beâ—â—â— Act 17. where being ariued they entred into the Synagog of the Iewes and these were the most noble of them tâ—at dâ—e in Thessalonia who receiued the woord with all gâ—â—â—dines searching dayly the Scriptures if these things alleaged out of the Prophets about Christ by Paul and Siâ—as were so or noe This is the placeâ— Now let the discreet reader waigh prudently whether S.F. haue behaued himself knightlikâ— heer or no first in cutting of these woord which most cleered the doubt to wit thaâ— these were no vnlearned Iewes but no bilioâ—es â— saith the text that is the most principal amoÌ„g them and then in making so impertinent â—illation that for so much as these principâ—â— learned Iewes did in that particuler occasâ—â—â— searche some places of Scriptures therâ—â—â—â— must all our lay peeple read of necessity 〈◊〉 make themselues iudges of their ordinaâ—â— teachers and Pastors To the second place of trying spirits whether they be of God or no I would aske the K t. whether there be no other way or meanes of trying spirits but by remitting all sorts of people to the scriptures and those in vulgar languages About trâ—eng af spiâ—its for if there be any other meanes then it is absurd to tie the Apostles counsel of trying spirits to euery mans reading of scriptures where the trial being remitted to eache maÌ„nes owne interpretation wil â—al out so difficultas no end can be expected For I would aske our K t. for examples sake when wil two women accusing one the other of a scolding spirit try out the truth of eache ones spirit by their owne readâ—ng scriptures especially if there he no Iudge nor the coocking stoole at hand Or to take some greater example when â—il any two Sectaries as Brownistes and any other of our tyme contending about heretical spirits try thesame by scriptures yea though â—hey be of the learneder sorte doth not this â—ppeare by experience dayly and how much â—esse then caÌ„ vnlearned people trie their owne â—r other mens spirits by reading scriptures in â—ulgar languages And with this I would leaue the K t. in this â—oint but that he abuseth so egregiously a â—â—ace of S. Chrisostome to wrest him to some â—ew of his purpose S. Chrysostome notably abused the Kt. as I can not omit to disâ—â—uer it to the reader wherby he may see â—ith what consciences these men treat matâ—â—rs of religion vsing legerdemain in euery â—ing and this not of error or ignorance but of knowne and set malice to deceaue which trick whensoeuer good reader thow doest discouer plainly in any wryter though it were but once yet oughtest thow neuer to trust him againe but much more here in this our controuersy where so often I haue shewed thesame most euidently both in the K t. and his Minister O. E. and the rest But now to the place it self He wil needs make S. Chrisostome to be of his opinion for permitting scriptures in vulgar languages to all sortes of people and that they both learned and vnlearned must examine and discusse all their controuersies thereby Heare his woords S. Chrisostome saith he thinketh it an absurd thing that all men should not thus medle with religion Pag. 53. Quomodo absurdum non est c. VVhat an absurdity is that for money we trust not other men but count it and tel it after them Chris. in 2. Cor. hom 13. but for more excellent things simply to follow other mens sayings especially fith we haue the exactest rule and ballance of all the testimony of the Law of God therfore I pray and beseech yow that yow wil leaue what this and that man thinketh enquire all things of the Scriptures Thus relateth he S. Chrisostome wherein truly there are so many fraudes and shifteâ— vsed to make S. Chrisostome seme of his opinion as is strange in a man of any honor or shamfastnes and the greatest fraud oâ— all is to peruert S. Chrisostoms whole meaning and discourse who handling this argumeÌ„t in the later part of his 13. Homely which he calleth the Moralitie of that he had said before S. ChrisostoÌ„s vvhole argument peâ—uerted to wit pauperem meliori esse conditione quam diuitem that the poor man is in better stare then the riche and he prefixeth these woords for the title of the Chapter which being a Christian Paradox as yow see he prosecuteth thesame most earnestly and piously through out the whole Chapter shewing the perils of the riche security of the poor with many other differences and that we must not in this point follow the common opinion of wordly men that esteme riches for great felicity but attend rather what the lawes and rules of Christ do teache vs and finally he concludeth Ibidem Quae cum ita fint vulgi opiniones ne circumferamus Sed res ipsas expeÌ„â—amus An non enim absurdum praeposterum fuerit nos cum de pecunijs agitar alijs fidem non habere Sed numero calâ—ulo id coâ—â—attere cum autem de rebus iudicandum est in alâ—oâ—um opiniones temere ac velut obtorto collo trahi â—â—que cum exactam rerum omnium lancem amussim baâ—eamus nempe deuinarum legum Sententiam Quoâ—â—â—avos omnes rogo atque obsecâ—o vt quid hic auâ— ille deâ—â—â—â— rebus sential nihil morantes Scripturas sacras â—de en consulatis ac quae verae sint opes cognâ—scatis which woords truly englished do sound thus Which things concerning trueâ—riches and pouertie seing they are so as I haue before declared let vs not carry about with vs the opinions of vulgar men The true interpretation of S. Chrisostomes vvoords but let vs examine thinges as they be in themselues for were it not an â—bsurd preposterous thing when we deale in money matters not to trust other men but to tel and compt it and when we are to iudge of thinges themselues to suffer vs rashly and as it were with a wry neck to be drawe into other meÌ„nes opinions especially where as we haue that exact ballance rule square of all thinges which is the sentence or determination of Gods lawes Wherâ—ore I do pray beseech yow all that in these things yow wil not stand vpon