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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
treason And the like of her Maiesties deputy in Ireland or any other substitute that hath the Superiors authority fully and amply And albeit heretikes doe wrangle herein and seek to make the matter odious as they are wont by putting downe the bare propositioÌ„ of comparing the Pope with God without any explication at all VVrangling and cauelling of haeretikes yet are there so many restrictions mencioned euen in this place of Hostiensis yf they would consyder them as easely might answere all their cauillations For first where they compare the Pope with God both Panormitan and Hostiensis explicat the comparison of Christ not as he is God but as he is man that is to say betwene the head of the Churche and his Substitute Secondly the comparison is not in all things as in miracles holynes of lyfe nor power of excellency as haue byn sayd or the like but onely in the highest iurisdiction of Ecclesiastical matters deryued from Christ himself and gyuen by him as appeareth by the word consistorium vsed by Panormitan Thirdly euen in this also is added quasi which is a diminution in the excellency and generality of the thing it self Fourthly is put Excepto peccato which exception though Panormitan do affirme to be improper in Hostâ—ensis maner of speaking for that to be able to synne is no power but rather a defect of power Yet is it added here to signifie that the Pope maye synne or erre in matter of fact euen in the exercise of this power that he hath vnder Christ. Yf he vse it not wel for which respect is added also the last restriction of all euen in that very place by Panormitan where he saith Intellige tamen quod Papa omnia potest claue disâ—retionis non errante Panorm Ibi that the Pope can do all things of iurisdiction which Christ his Maister can VVhat is Claâ—is discretionis in the â—ope so long as the key of discretioÌ„ doth not erre which is asmuch as if he had sayd that the Pope is bound in conscience to vse discretion consultation inquisition due deliberation and other fyt meanes to informe himself in matters that he wil do or determyne which in points of faith we are most certayne that Gods holy Spirit promysed to his Churche wil euer direct him vnto and neuer suffer him to erre And so much of this scornful obiection guilfully cast out by heretiks to deceaue the symple and to terrify them by comparing God and the Pope without any exposition or explication as yow haue heard which fraud I passe ouer with diuers other such ridiculous speeches auouched out of other Canonistes in this place without cyting booke volume place or chapter and not woorth the answering and therfore I wil only mentyon our knights conclusion which is this And in a woord saith he the Canonists say roundly in the glosse Dominus noster Deus Papa our Lord God the Pope If the Canonists so roundly affirme it Syr F. taken in cyting Canonists why hath not Sir F. eyther roundly or squarely quoted vs the text Sure it is that I can not fynd it though muche I haue sought and hard yt is to beleeue that any suche text may be fownd which is muche confirmed by that S. F. Proctor comming after him to fil vp the gappes that he had left open and strayning himself muche about this point could not find any one text of Canonist or other that had those wordes and therfore was forced to Father them vpoÌ„ Aug. Steuchus with a notorious falsification as in the chapter following shal be shewed But yet heere to help out S.F. with some parte of his credit A deuise to helpe out Syr F. for very compassion I wil ad a coniecture of a frend of his how he might chance to haue byn deceaued about Dominus Deus noster Papa if he cite it vpon his owne reading for that perchance he might fynd it written thus D. noster D. Papa both D.D. signifying a double Dominus which some cauilling heretike espying iudging it inconuenient to repeat Dominus twyse would needs inforce the second D. to be set for Deus This is my coniecture confirmed somwhat by the similitude of a like fond chance wherof I haue heard as happened in the subscription of an English letter written from certayne Maryners to the Lord Admiral in these words To the right honorable our good L. the L. Admiral which secoÌ„d L. a simple fellow interpreted to signifie the lady Admiral saying that the first L. signifying the Lord himselfe the second L. must needs signifie also his lady If I misse in this coniecture or comparison S. F. is cause therof that cyted not the text therby to cleare all matters and to deliuer both vs of this doubt and himselfe of new suspition of imposture And albeit this were a sufficient answere to so foolish obiections without testimony or authority yet for that our K. wil needs seeme so learned a bible clarke as to terrifie the people with the name of God imparted to creatures Hovv a creature may be called God I wil aske him and his ministers in this place the meaning of a text or two out of scripture it selfe Exod. 7. v. 1. as first those wordes of God in Exodus dixitque Dominus ad Moysen ecce constitui te Deum Pharaonis and God sayd vnto Moyses behold I haue made thee the God of Pharao did God giue away his deity with this thinke yow And againe I would aske him the interpretation of those wordes of Christ wheÌ„ he sayth Nonne scriptum in lege vestra est Ego dixi Dij estis Io. 10. vers Psalm 81. vers 6. Is it not written in your law I sayd yow are Gods And then answereth to the question himselfe thus Si illos dixit Deos ad quos sermo Dei factus est noÌ„ potest solui scriptura If God called them Gods to whom the speach of God was directed and that this scripture cannot be answered or denyed c. These two questions I haue proposed from S. F. and his Ministers instruction not for that I do think any wryter to haue byn so simple as to calle the Pope expressely God though yet we see clearlie by these examples that the word Deus in some sense may be appyed Hierom. lib. 1. in Mat. also to creatures without iniury of the creator And S. Hierome waying and pondering the wordes of Christ vnto his disciples 6. mat Quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis c. And then agayne Vos autem quem me esse dicitis hath these words Prudens lector attende quod ex consequentibus textuque sermonis Apostoli nequaquaÌ„ homines sed Dij appellantur Marke prudent reader that it is euident by the consequence and illation of Christ his wordes that the Apostles are not called men heere but Gods Thus said S. Hierome who yet knew aswel what Idolatry meaneth as S.F. of whom I would
her Ma tie wil needs be pratlyng of these affayres not content with this goeth further to renew worse sores and to accuse both K. Henry himselfe and all the State and Parlament of that tyme with wilful murder and tyranny towards that lady and Queene saying Odious matter brought in by this hungry parasite 1. Pag. 3. The Popes adhaerâ—ntes in England neuer ceased vntil they haâ— brought her Ma ties most innocent Mother to her end which was the greatest griefe that tormented the King lying on his death bed sore repenting himselfe for the wrongful shedding of the innocent Queenes blood neyther did they onlie murder the innocent Mother but also sought by act of Parlament to disable and from the succession to exclude the daughter All this how true or vntrue it is the storie and actes of Parlaments of K. Henries lyfe do testifie Lib. Statute cap. 7. an Hen. 2â— especiallie that of the 28. yeare of his raigne and whether matters passed so long agoe with such publike authoritie deliberation and coÌ„sent as these did may be called now into question againe to the infamy both of the said K. her Maiesties Father and of his state counsel and nobilitie by such a pettie compagnion as this is only to flatter and to get himself a bigger benefice and without all ground or former testimony therof in storie or other authentical register let all the world iudge as also how neare O. E. resembleth heere Oedipus who killed his owne Father to marry his mother which mysterie I leaue to the curious reader to apply in this place One thing is certayne that howsoeuer the matter passed at that tyme for iustice or iniustice the cheife doers therof next to the king himselfe were proteâ—â—ants namelie Cromwel Cranmer that could do most with him at that tyme The dealing of Cromvvel and Cranmer about Q. Anne BolleÌ„ and in effect all and the first of them was principally imployed in the said Queenes condemnation and death as appeareth yet by publike recordes and the second was vsed for her defamacion after her death as is extant at this day in the foresaid statute it selfe where Cranmers sentence is recorded iudâ—ciallie giuen by him An Henry 2â— cap. 7. as Archbishop of Canterburie affirming of his owne accord and knowledge such â—hings as no wyse or modest man I thinke wil beleeue and I â—or thâ— same cause and for dewtiful respect to her Maiestie do forbear to repeat the same heere though it be vnder his hand and seale but such a good fellow was Cranmer the first piller of protestant religion in England Sand. lib. 1. de Schis that for gayne of liuing or fauour and for enioying quietly his woman which he caried about with him in a truÌ„ke at those dayes he would say or sweare or vnsay any thing the sentence may be seene by him that wil for it is extant in print in the English booke of Statutes Neyther can this Sycophantes caluÌ„niatioÌ„ affirming the said Queens death to be procured by the Popes adhereÌ„ts in EnglaÌ„d haue any probabilitie at al seing that no adherent to the Pope was in credit or authoritie in that tyme but rather in all disgrace and daunger and so much of this After the foresaid Sycophancie and foolish calumniations vsed against Catholikes for wishing euel to her Maiestie our Minister turneth agayne to his worke of flatterie and telleth more prayses of her Maiesties gouernment as though our businesse and controuersy stoode in this and not rather in the euel euents which haue succeeded by change of religion And to helpe S r. F. out from the charge of flatterie layd vnto him after much ydle babling Sup cap. 1. about particular blessings wherin notwithstanding he agreeth not with the K. as before hath byn and after shal be shewed he runneth to the same common place before mentyoned of flatterie vsed by courtiers and canonists to the Pope the force of which shifte and refuge how vayne it is yow haue heard before discussed Cap â— and it neadeth not to be repeated heere and the examples and instances which he bringeth are the same for the most part which S r. F. touched before and are before answered as that of Panormitan and other canonists affirming Panorm in c. licet de election idem esse Christi Papae Consistorium Christ and the Pope as his substitute to haue one and the selfe same Consistorie or Tribunal Ioan. in c. Quanto de translat Epis. whereof we haue treated in the former Chapter There is that other also how the Pope is or may be called God in the sense before meÌ„tyoned this man alleadgeth it thus Augustin Steuâ—hus doth honour him as a God Audis sayth he Pontificem Deum appellatum habitum pro Deo Doest thow heare the Pope called God and held for God and then noteth in the margent contra donationem Constantini Steuchus saith it in his booke against the Donation of Constantyne in which fewe wordes there are so many cousenages or rather knaueries vsed as no man would beleeue but in such a cogging Mâ—nister as comming latelie from Irish warres hath not learned yet to haue any conscience or honestie For first of all that most learned man Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus bishop of Kysam wrote no booke against the Donation of Constantyne as heere is imposed vpon him Diuers falshoodes ofâ— the coÌ„scieÌ„celes minister but rather for it prouing the same most learnedlie out of all antiquitie against Laurentius Valla the grammarian that fondlie had impugned the same Secondlie the words heere alleadged out of Steuchus though they be in his booke yet are they alleadged by him not in his owne name but as comming from Constantyne the great by the testimony of Nicolaus primus Pope of Rome about 800. yeare agoe who cyteth out of the said Donation of Constantine Cap. 2. that amongst other honorable tytles he calleth him also God in that sense no doubt which before is shewed by scripture that both Moses and other holie men were called Gods and herevpon Bishop Steuchus addeth those wordes before mentyoned Audâ—s summum Pontificem à Constantino Deum appellatum habitum pro Deo Aug Steuchus in Lauren Vall. de donat Constant fol. 230. hoc videlicet factum est cùm eum praeclaro illo Edicto decorauit adorâ—uit vti Deum vti Christi Petri successorem velut viuam Christi imaginem veneratus est Do yow heare how the Pope is heere called God by Constantine and held for God this was done when he did honour him so highlie with that excellent edict in his fauour adoring him as God and as the successor of Christ and Peter and reuerencing him as the liuelie image of Christ himselfe Heere now we see how Pope Siluester was honored by our famous Britane Emperour Constantine the great and yet no man would cry out then The great honor donne by Constant. the great to Pope Siluester
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—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
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
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
looked for at Hieroms hands as from others that went before him T. Cartvv lib 1. Pag 103. Clement Anacletus Epiphanius Anicetus Zozemenus Volutianus Ambrose and Augustine are cyted by Protestants against them Contempt of old Doctors Surv. Pag. 337 wherto they answere the bringing of those authorities against vs by protestants is the moouing and summoning of hel the tymes wherin these men liued were not pure and vyrgynlyke Clement Anacletus Anâ—cetus are discharged for rogues and men branded in the forhead Epiphanius wrote according to the tyme he liued in Ambroâ—e holdeth other things corruptlie Zozemenus Volutianus wrote not according to that which was but according to the custome and manner of the age wherin they wrote Augustines sentence say they yf it should be admitted would make a wyndow to bring in all popery Loe these mennes spirit Doctor Whitgift vrgeth them with testimonies out of Pope Sixtus the Martyr D. vviâ—g pag. 344. Pope Damasus S. Hierome Zozemenus and Socrates they answere two of them are counterfets Damasus spoke in the Dragons voice the best ground among men beareth thistles those tymes were corrupt Twelue other Doctors are alleaged together against them but they answere what then yf they were for one a hundred Surv. Ibid. they cannot counteruaile truth must not be measured by the crooked yeard of men Iosephus Iudaeus is cyted with great commendation of Eusebius Beza answereth he is ridiculous and foolish The exposition of 7. greeke and latyn doctors is alleadged vpon certayne words in the Epistle to the Romanes Cap. 12. vers â— qui distribuit c. T. Cartvv li. 3. Pag. 8. 9. Cartwright contemneth it and sayth that by strayning the text in steed of mylke they drawe out blood And generally this surueing protestant sheweth that the puritanes do conteÌ„ne condeÌ„ne both Fathers councels within the first 500. yeares charging them with corruptioÌ„ fauouring Antichrist the Pope of Rome alleaging for this their owne wordes and senteÌ„ces as this for example of Beza The fathers sayth he in the first councel of Nice vnderlayd the seat of the harlâ—t Pag â—43 And T. Cartwright Beza his scholler The fathers imagined fondly of Antichrist they dealt like ignorant men they were ouer-maistred of their owne affections And then further of the Apostles tyme it selfe Surv. Ibid. Although sayth he the tower of this Antichristian buylding was not then set vp yet the foundation therof was secretlie layd in the Apostles tyme c. I might passe further in raking this chanel of desperate contemptuous speaches of these new fantastical brethren against antiquitie but what do these protestant writers that gather these things against puritans ameÌ„d the matters themselues No trulie but rather do worse then they or as bad whensoeuer occasion is offred and that they are so pressed with the fathers Authorities as they cannot shift them of with any sleight or subtile interpretatioÌ„ wherof let the writings of Fulke against D. Bristow D. Allen and others be witnesses as Whitakers also against D. Sanders who hath this general caueat VVhitâ—k cont sand Pag. 92. if yow argue sayth he from the witnesses of men be they neuer so learned and auncient we yeild no more to their words in cause of fayth and religion VVe perceaue then we perceyue to be agreable to Scripture neyther thinke your selfe to haue proued any thing though yow bring against vs the whole consent and swarme of Fathers except that which they say be iustified not by the voice of men but by God himself Loe heere good reader ponder this with they self and let vs make an end consider what vnitie or way to vnitie what certaintie or meane of certainty haue these men who disagree not only in poynts and articles of beleef but euen in the very principles and first grounds how to be tryed who shal be witnesses who iudges who moderators who interpreters and lastly who shal determine the matter in such sort as other ther-vpon may be bound to obey all talk of Scriptures and all appeale to Scriptures but they agree not nor euer wil who shal geue the meaning of Scriptures antiquitie they infame by obiecting corruptions old Fathers and councels they disdayne new Doctors of their owne they contemne when they dissent from them ours they hate flye and detest all parties do vrge the words of S. Paul to the Romaynes Rom. 12. that Scriptures must be expounded according to the analogy proportion and rule of fayth wherby they confesse yf yow marke that Scriptures must be ruled by fayth and not all fayth by Scriptures but what fayth this is which must be the rule for interpreting Scriptures this is not so easy to be agreed vpon and for that each part hath a different fayth and consequentlie also a different rule of fayth which in heretykes sectaries is their owne brayne in Catholykes the vniforme coÌ„sent of antiquitie hervpon foloweth that the selfe same Scriptures are differentlie expounded by them and different collections made vpon them each man according to his fayth and beleef and so this rule with heretykes is nothing els but an endles laborinth them-selues do confesse it and proue it also by experience as may appeare by that which is said before in the 4. and 5. chapters of this encounter about the eueÌ„t of their Councels Synodes and other meetings and by other testimonies of their owne Authors But for vpshot of this Chapter I meane to alleage then one only that hath written of late Rob Robertson Anabaptist his meanes for tryal printed his booke in HollaÌ„d his name is Robert Robertson a teacher as it seemeth among Anabaptists of that country who complayning much that his people and other of the same new ghospel who agree as he sayth in one against the Pope and Papists and all of them professe to follow only Scriptures can neuer notwithstanding agree about the meaning therof wher-vpon considering the great inconuenience and hurt that of this doth ensue he hath thought vpon another meane of agreement which is to make sute vnto the States to grant them leaue in some field or towne to assemble themselues seuerally and to pray to God first the one syde and then the other to obtayne some euident myracle for decision of their controuersies and to know which syde should yeild to the other And to the end that the diuel may not enter in or deceyue them with a false miracle this man fayth that he hath thought of one allowed and testified in Scripture it selfe and such as the diuel cannot woorke which is to make the Sunne to staÌ„d stil for a while therfore would haue both sâ—des seuerally to pray for this myracle and therby end their controuersie nothing doubting but that God they being so special seruants of his wil of his great goodnes condescend vnto their petition in so iust and necessarie a demand Heere loe is this mannes opinion for the meane to
defacing of our doctryn and doings he sheweth first of all the smal reason the K t. had or hath to contemne so proudlie as he doth the Clergie of Q. Maries tyme and of former ages for darknesse ignorance and blyndnes declaring by diuers particulers that they were farre more learned then those that since haue stepped vp in their places and possessed their roomes And from this he passeth to shew that the foresaid two preaÌ„bles about reading scriptures and the punishment of death ther-vnto said to be assigned are no wayes true in any playne meaning sense or interpretation but feigned by the K t. him-selfe and consequentlie can not euer be proued or defended and by occasion of these preambles About reading of scriptures the warder entereth into examination of the things theÌ„-selues declaring how farre the reading of holy Scriptures in vulgar languages is permitted to all men among Catholykes and what restraynt is made therof towards some for what causes and reasons and vpon what necessitie and what is the true state of this controuersie betweene vs and Protestants as also what hurt profit damages or commodities haue or do insue therof with alleaging both reasons authorities and experiences in that behalf To all which discourse of reasons and experiences set downe at good length by the warder and conteyning in deed the principal substance of the controuersie the K â— answereth no one worde nor so much as mentyoneth the same in this his reply but passeth to other matters as by the combat of this insuing Encounter yow wil manifestlie see and behold and pittie the poore K t. for this weaknes The second parte of the vvatchmans impugnation and vvarders defence After this cometh the warder to handle the second parte of this Encounter to wit about the foresaid foure absurd positions grounds and maximes set downe by the K t. for ours which the warder prooueth to be neyther Maximes nor minimes of Catholyke Doctryne for that to proue them Maximes all Catholyke wryters must hold them and to proue them minimes some one at least must hold theÌ„ but that neyther of these can be prooued And consequentlie that they are no positions or principles of Catholyke religion but fictions rather of heretykes and false impositions of the K t. And for the first that ignorance is held by vs to be the mother of deuotion The first forged position for that the watchman bringeth no other proof but only that reading of Scriptures was forbidden to the lay sorte at which distinction also of laytie cleargie he seemeth to iest hervpon the Warder taketh occasion first to proue by many old testimonies the vse and antiquitie of this distinction wher-vnto the K t. in this last reply returneth not any one word of answere and after this agayne the warder declareth largely that this position is neyther Maxime nor minime among Catholykes and that ignorance is neyther held for the mother daughter or kinse-woman of deuotion which he proueth both by the definition of deuotion it self out S. Augustine S. Thomas and others as also by the effects shewing that deuotion is grounded vpon knowledge not vpon ignorance though vpon perticular causes the learnedest men are not alwayes the most deuoute All which discourse the K t. thought good to passe ouer with silence as wel as the former without taking any notice therof in this his last reply and therby yow may see whether yt be more and more substantial that he leaueth vnanswered then that which he answereth About the second position imposed vpon Catholykes The second position that lay men must not medle with matters of religion as the vntruth therof is more apparant then any of the rest so was there lesse written in the refutation but that necessitie inforced the warder to defend S. Thomas of CaÌ„terburie dishonored and slaundered intollerably by the K t. wher-vnto what he answereth in this Wast-woord now and how for defence of his former falshoods he intangleth him-self in diuers new difficulties and inextricable absurdityes shal be seene afterward in the particular discussion of matters that ensue In the third position that the Pope or meanest Priest coming from him is to be obeyed vnder payne of damnation though he command blasphemie The third faygned position c. The warder is more briefe in lyke manner for that the euident falshood therof is apparant to all yet writeth he so much as is needful for a manifest briefe confutation and how litle the K t. hath to answere for deuising of this position and laying it so falsely to Catholykes charge yow shal afterwards see discussed And finally about the fourth and last forged ground of Catholyke religion The fourth false ground to wit that our chiefe remedy for sinne though it were committed immediatly against God him-selfe is to vse the watchmans words A pardon from his Hol. and absolution from his holie Priests but yf the decrees or ordinances of their Romish Synagoue were transgressed hardly any mercy was to be had c. About this I say the warder obserueth only the apparant cauils ignorances and falshoods of the watchmaÌ„ as first that the greatest sinner immediatly committed against God him-selfe are to be remitted among vs by pardons which is a malitious cauil for that we hold such pardons to be auaylable only for the payne due to venial sinnes or for remitting the temporal punishment remayning after mortal synne forgeuen before Secondlie that he conioyneth together Popes pardons and the absolution of Priests in the Sacrament of pennance as though they were both one which is ignoraÌ„ce for that the later remitteth all sinne and the first not And thirdly that the transgressors of the decrees and ordinances of the Churche can hardlie euer obtayne mercie and that they are more hardly pardoned then the grossest sinnes committed against God himseâ—f the warder sheweth to be a most malitious fiction without any grounde or colour of truth To all which obseruations and deductions of the warder the K t. answereth nothing at all in this last replie but filleth vp paper with tales eyther deuised by himself or taken out of Ihon Fox as for example of one â—esselius a merchant of Pardons and of the absolution of one Symon a Monke that is forged to haue poysoned K. Ihon and other such stuffe which yow shal heare discussed and refuted afterward and therby see and perceyue how iustlie this last replie of S â— Francis is called a Wast-word And so we shal passe on to the particular examination of matters point by point ABOVT THE GENERAL charge of false dealing layd to sir Francis in this Encounter and how euil he auoydeth thesame by committing new falshoodes treacheries CAP. II. FIRST then the general charge layd to our K t. throughout this whole second Encounter concerneth two poyntes to wit falsitie and falsifying the later wherof hath this differeÌ„ce from the first that it is both witting and willingly committed and
tyrant may lawfully and meritoriouslie yea ought to be slayne by any vassal or subiect of his whether yt be by force or flatterie or secret traynes notwithstanding any â—ormer othe of fidelitie or confederation made with him and this without expecting any sentence giuen against him or the commandement of any Iudge whatsoeuer This was one article of Ihon Husse condemned by a special decree of the said councel in the end therof Pag. 326â— as is to be seene and the reason why the councel condemned it so solemnly was both the falsitie of the doctrine Desperate dangerous doctryne of Husâ—e and the scandal which the Emperor other Princes there present took of yt And finally for that he reserued to his owne censure and to those of his sect who was a Tyrant and who was not to wit any Prince that should be contrarie to them Enc. 1. cap. 6. as before I haue shewed of our Puritan Caluenists And this being so what gayneth S. F. by vaunting of the learning of Ihon Husse yf all were true that he alleadgeth for him and being false as I haue shewed what booteth him to ly so shamefully for his sake and how doth he alleage Ihon Husse who teacheth so many things contrarie to him and to Caluins doctrine and from whome Luther in his disputation with Ecchius at Lipsia in Saxony in the yeare 1519. Io. Cochl de act Luth. an 1519. Pag. 16. did openlie disclayme together with all his Sect in Bohemia saying Numque mihi placuit nec in aeternum placebit It neuer pleased me nor euer shal yt please me By this then a man may see what vnion ground or certainty these meÌ„ haue in religion that gather such members as these into their Churche nay what conscience also they haue in treating these matters wherof take an example not only in this K t. but also in Ihon Fox the Saint-maker who hauing layd out to the reader an infinite rable of things about this Ihon Husse good aud bad Iohn Fox his mad treatise of Io. Husse true and false but all to his prayse for 80. columnes or pages together of his vaste book but with such confusion as no man can tel what to say or iudge of yt at length he commeth to repeat the absurd propositions before mencioned namely about Prelats and Princes that they leese their authoritie when they fal into mortal sinne which Fox is so farre of from misliking or denying as he wryteth that Husse defended the same and sayd he would proue yt not only out of Scriptures by example forsooth of Saul that was deposed and slayne but by the authorities also of all old auncient doctors Fox Pag. 564. 1. col num 5. to wit S. Augustine Ierome Chrysostome Gregory Cyprian Bernard a most impudent brag of a shamels heretyke and when Ihon Fox hath told all this and much more and made a long Catalogue or treÌ„tal of his worst articles he putteth downe his Iudgment of him in those words These hrings sayth he thus declared Fox Pag. 569. col 1. nu 5â—â— a man may easely vndestand that Ihon Husse was not accused for holding any opinion coÌ„trary to the Articles of our fayth but because he did stowtly teach and preach against the Kingdome of Antichrist for the glory of Christ and restoring of the Churche Lo heere the truth of IhoÌ„ Fox that Husse was not so much as accused much lesse condemned for holding any one opinion against any article of our Christian fayth But let the reader see the articles in the councel and then wil he cry shame of Ihon Fox and all his crooked cubbes though they haue no shame especially in that they obiect to vs so often the doctrine of our schoole deuines for allowing the punishing of TyraÌ„ts in some cases with so many limitations conditions and restrictions as by vs are set downe therin And yet these meÌ„ approue the wicked opinion of Husse in this place as also of the Puritans before recited that permitteth euery one of their Sect to attempt it at their owne pleasure and iudgment which all Catholykes do condemne as doth also this councel of Constance that condemneth Iohn Husse nominatim of the same But let vs passe on to the other famous Champions of their Religion before mencioned For of Ihon Husse this is sufficient yf not ouer much he being so contemptible an heretyke as by this storie appeareth Yet Ihon Fox sanctifieth canonizeth him in his Calender as before hath byn sayd the Hussites in Prage do keep for an honorable relyke of his sanctitie an old payre of leather breches in their publyke Churche and do shew and kisse the same with great reuerence at certayne tymes which yet I thinke both Ihon Fox and S. F. would take scorne to do and so do Catholykes also and thus much of Husse which in the Bohemiam tongue signifieth a goose the K t. sheweth himself but litle better for bringing him in and giuing him place in the forefrunt of his champions OF THE LEARNING glorious disputatioÌ„s of Martyn Luther Symon Grinaeus Peter Martyr Beza and other protestants boasted of by our K t. CAP. IIII. I Must now come downe lower to other more fresh champions of Protestant Religion to wit from Io. Husse to Martyn Luther and other by him named And as for the first that is Luther I wil be much shorter detecting only some notorious false points affirmed by S.F. partly as I take it of ignoraÌ„ce partly perhaps of worse meaning the ignorance appeareth in that he sayth Martyn Luther first to haue gone to Wormes there by disputation to defend his doctrine before the Emperour and States and after agayne to haue gone to Augusta to the same before Cardinal Caëtan the Popes Legat Cochl Sursleid in their histories an 1518. 1521. wheras in deed his going to Augusta was three yeares before his going â—o Wormes to wit 1518. where the other was 1521. as both by Cochleus Surius and Sleidan others both Catholyke and heretical writers is manifest Secondly the whole narration of S.F. is false touching the stout behauiour of Luther to the Cardinal legat to wit that he stood to iustifie his assertions and offered there or els where to defend them VVast Pag. 3â— sending a wryting in defence to the Card to iustifie his opinion by the Scriptures and that the Card. would heare no Scriptures but willeth him to come no more to his presence vnlesse he would recant In all these words I say though somwhat be true yet are there many falshoods and diuers vntruthes ioyned therwith For first it is set downe both by Cochleus that was present and Surius that lyued soone after yf not at that same tyme had authentical relation of that which passed that Maximilian the Emperor being yet aliue called this yeare a diet at Augusta partly for warre against the Turks partly for troubles raysed vp by Luthers new doctrine
begunne the yeare before Pope Leo decimus sent Card. Caëtan for his Legat thither for both causes Luth. at Augusta 151â—â— For albeit he had cited Luther to Rome before vpon relation of his new opiuions yet by intercession of Frederick Duke of Saxony desyring the Iudges might be appoynted to heare the cause inâ—â—ermany he had committed the hearing yf the said cause vnto the said Card. to whom Luther came by force and not of free wil as our K â— fayneth neyther had he yet safe conduct of the Emperor but only the letters of his patron Duke Frederick in his commendation to the sayd Card. Legat requesting that he might returne safe Wherfore he being afrayd what the Card. would decree of him The dissimâ—lation of Martyn Luther vvith Card. Caâ—tan gaue him the fayrest words in the world and the first day being vrged to recaÌ„t his opinions desyred space only to deliberate and the second day comming to him agayne and finding foure of the Emperors counsel with him to dissemble the more gaue vp this protestation in wryting Ego frater Martinus Luthers first protestation an 1512. c. I Fryar Martyn Luther of the order of S. Augustine do protest that I do reuerence and follow the holy Roman Churche in all my sayings and doings both present past and to come and that if any thing hath byn sayd by me or shal be said contrarie or otherwyse then this I do desyre that it should be esteemed and holden as not spoken And after this being vrged agayne by the Card Cochl Sur ibid. to reuoke his errors perticularly he desired that he might answer in wryting flattering the Card. with many prayses and fair words but yet so tempered he his style in answering as the Cardinal easely did see that he meant to proceed in the said errors stil and signified so much vnto him whervpon he being afrayd least the Card. would imprison him he procured by his frends a publyke safe coÌ„duct of the Emperors officers which assone as euer he had he appealed from the Legat to the Pope and put the appellation vpon the walles of the towne so stole away wryting first notwithstanding very fayre letters to the Card at his departure but vnto others very skoffingly and contemptuouslie of him This is the summe of that which the two foresaid Authors and others do write of the doings of Luther this yeare at Augusta let the reader iudge how worthelie S. F. doth vaunt of his chalenge and disputation and how many lyes there be in his words before set downe The second vaunt of Luthers disputation at Wormes before the new yong Emperor Charles the fifth Luther at VVormes 1521. before the Emperor and his parlament there gathered together three yeeres after to wit 1521. is much more vayne and vntrue For wheras S.F. sayth VVast Pag. Ibid. that before the Emperor himself and the whole states of the Empire he mayntayned his doctrine answered the aduersaries and with the Emperors fauour departed in safetie though ful sore against the mynds and wils of some Papists Yet the truth is this that ensueth for which I alleage my two Authors aforesaid one of them present at the act it selfe which he published soone after in print S. F. alleaging none at all for his vanities At the sayd diet or Parlament of Wormes when the most learned man Ieronimus Aliander the Popes Nuntius had propounded the great troubles and dissentions which had rysen the last three yeares since Luthers being at Augusta by continuance and increase of his heresies Cochl in vita Lutheri Sur. in hist anno 1521. and had recyted out of one of his books De captiuitate Babilonica lately come forth aboue 40. places which tended all to sedition perturbation of the common wealth Fredericus Duke of Saxony his Patron being much astonished to heare those things requested that he might haue safe conduct to be sent for and so he was by a Pursevaunt of the Emperors named Sturmius so that this tyme also his coming was not of free wil as S. F. wil haue yt but of necessitie nor came he to dispute but to answere for himselfe And the foresayd Authors do name his compagnions that came with him * Ionas Scurfus Ambsdorfius the sumptuous and delicate manner of his iorney the good chere and musick in his Innes Luthers behauiour in his iorney to the Emperour and how he himself being yet in a fryers weed played opeÌ„ly on a Lute as he rode in the Coache and other such things as Cochlaeus being present did see with his eyes and I let passe to recount yt in particular for breuities sake But for the principal matter in hand which is his braue disputing wherof S. F. braggeth I read of none at all For in his first comming before the Emperor and States the first day he was commaunded to harcken only Luthers ansvvers and behauiour the first day before the Emperour and to speak nothing that was not demaunded and then the Catalogue of his books going in his name before recyted publykely he was asked whether he acknowledged them for his or no which he saying that he could not deny but they were his being asked agayne whether he would recal them or noe he desyred most humbly to haue space of deliberation which with much a doe they graunted him vntil the next day at the same houre His ansvvere the second day which being come he appeared agayne when not answering simply but deuiding his books into three kynds sought only to draw out the tyme which they perceyuing he was so pressed by the Emperor and nobles present to say of or on that in the end he sayth he would do nothing against his conscience nor recal any book of his except he were conuicted first by the testimony of the Scripture and then he concludeth with these German words Got helf myr Amen that is God helpe me Amen shewing therby the feare that he was in Then foloweth the sentence of the Emperor some dayes after giuen against him written with his owne hand to the Lords and Princes of the Empire a noble sentence and worthy to be read by all Princes The determination of Charles the Emperor against Luther after he had heard him he being not past 20. yeates of age maketh such a ProtestatioÌ„ of his Catholyke fayth according to the belief of all his Ancestors as may be an example to all other Princes And towards the end of the said Parlament he published an Edict against Luther and all his followers by consent of the whole couÌ„cel affirming amoÌ„gst other things Lutherum non hominem sed diabolum esse sub humana specie That Luther was no man but a deuil vnder the shape of a man and this was the end of that combat of Luther But he wrote afterward these Actes of Wormes himselfe and sayth among other vayne adulations of himselfe that the people so much fauored
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
more like indeed to a wel tippled head then extatical spirit neyther can any methode set downe in the wardword hold him to any as it doth oftentymes the K t. but that he wil rush vpon that first which I handle almost last and consequently trouble order in euery point And as for the learned meÌ„ of his order alleaged by S r. F. to wit Ihon Husse Martyn Luther Symon Grynaeus Peter Martyr Beza Bassanet and others before treated of this fellow doth not so much as name them esteeming himself as aequal with the best and a principal pillar of his poor churche He falleth then vpon the controuersie before handled by me against S r. F. whether Catholykes do hold reading of Scriptures to be heresie S r. F. as yow haue heard weÌ„t so farre in that matter as he said that though it were but only a desyre to read vpon the holy book of God eyther the old or new Testament then heretike was his name and heresie was his fault c. Cap. 5. nu 1. But seing him to to farre ouer the shuwes in that exaggeratioÌ„ of speach VVhether â—atholiks hold reading of Scriptures in vulgar languages to 〈◊〉 heresy I dealt more mildly with him to recal his wordes from desire to deed and fact of reading shewing against him that not only the inward desire but neyther the external reading it self was held by vs for heresy confirming thesame with diuers reasons Ser. sup ca. 5. most euident and manifest as that it can neuer be found in catalogue of heresies written by any of our syde neyther that it can be conteyned in the definition of heresie geuen by vs. And finally for that we do permit reading of Scriptures in all languages yea vulgar translations also with discretion and choyce and with licence of the superior which we would not or could not permit if it were heresie But on the coÌ„trarie syde as yow haue heard the proofes which the K t. alleageth to proue that we hold reading of Scriptures for heresie are so chyldish as they need no other answere but only to relate them as namely for that we forbid some vulgar translations and diuers of the common people to read them that some haue â—yn apprehended and put in prison for reading Scriptures Cap 5 nu 4.5.6 c. and the like which yow may see discussed more largely in the foresaid chapter But now after all this said and doÌ„ne and the same both seene and read by O. E. doth this wise noddle that euery where calleth his aduersarie noddy eyther hold his peace in this controuersie or bring matter of more moment no truly for he can do neyther pryde and lack of wit forcing him to the former and truth learning sayâ—ng him in the second But let vs heare his owne words yf yow please and mark that when I cyte his wordes in a different letter it iâ— euer with all sinceritie exactnes of truthe but he contrariwise maketh me speak oftentymes afâ—â—r his phrase and therby altereth the whole sense Pag. 4â— For the first saith he it is very eâ—idâ—ntly dâ—sprâ—ued to wit that we accompt not râ—adâ—ng of the byble to be heresie by diuers examinations in K Henry the eyght and Q. Maries dayes where it is obâ—ected to lay men that they read the Scriptures in Englisâ— which should not haue byn done vnles by that article they should haue byn conâ—â—â—nced of herâ—sie Lo heere his whole argument and all that hevseth in this behalf so as where Sir F. had alleaged 3. arguments such as they were and published thesame in print before this poore compagnion comming after him and seing what he had done would needs be tampering also and make a new shew The ministers fond behauiour by alleaging one of the three and the worst of all adding vnto it a childish consequeÌ„ce that some men being examined in Catholike tymes vpon suspition of heresy for that contrarie to their bishops and Princes commandment they were found reading of pohibited vulgar translations of Scripture Ergo the verie reading of scriptures it self is accompted by vs for heresy The ridiculous fondnes of which inference is examined * Sup. Enc. 1. cap. 8. 9. Eâ—c 2. cap. 5. before by diuers examples as yf playing at dice for examples sake should be tearmed theft for that sometymes it may induce suspicion of theft and the like And this for the first poynt whether reading of Scriptures be heresy in it self As for the second wherin Sir F. also was conuinced of falshood affirming that we did braÌ„ale men to death for only reading Scriptures This copesmate is no lesse therin rash and ridiculous then in the former for thus he proueth it Pag. 44. In the bâ—ginning of King Henrie the eight his raigne saith he certayne were condemned for reading the Epistle of S. Paule in English as appeareth by the register of Lincolne Dioces Wel what if it were soâ— condemning and burning are two things a man may be condemned in other punishmeÌ„ts then burning and yet here is â—o author cyted for this at all except Ihon Fox tel vs this tale as he doth many other as fond and false as this But it followeth in this good fellowes narration And B. Longland preaching at the burningâ— said Pag. Ibid. that they were damned that moued their lippes in reading those chapters of Scriptures c. Yeaâ— and who testifyeth this for heere is no author cited and the tale is so improbable to them that knew how graue and learned a man B. Longland was as without an author they wil not beleeue it though this compagnion do wearie his lippes neuer so long in telling it Wherfoâ—e at last the minister commeth to proue both these points with one authoritie of much lesse force and with much more impudency then the other Both these points saith he are proued by the prouincial constitution of Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Caunterberie who saith in a prouincial constitution Const. Prou. C cap. PraetereaÌ„ de haereticis statuinâ—us vt nemo textum aliquem sacrae scripturae authoritate sua in Linguam Anglicanam seu aliam transerat â—â—c legatur aliquis huiusmodi liber vel publicè velocculte sub paena maioris excoÌ„municationis Qui verò contra hoc fecerit vt fautor haeresis erâ—â—â—s similiter punâ—atur We do ordayne that no man vpon his owne head and authoritie do translate into the English or other tongue any part of the holy Scripture nor that any such book if it should be translated be read eyther publikely or priuately vnder the payne of the greater excommunication And he that shal do contrarie to this ordination of ours let him be punished as a fauourer of error and heresie This ordayned that Archbishop almost three hundred yeares agoe And yet yf yow remember I haue shewed * Cap. 3. Enc. 2. num 6. before how the sayd Archbishop in his Synod holden at Oxford dyd appoint
and suche other like vsed among vs can not be a hinderaÌ„ce to knowlege as the K t. would seme to affirme but rather a furtherance for that otherwise why hath Ihon Foxe so many pictures and payntings in his book but to teache men therby the contents of his writings But consider reader here as before I haue sayd the substance of heretical answering which runneth vp and downe neuer commeth to the purpose Hath not the warder offred our watchman fayre and frendly that whereas he hath affirmed written published in print that it is a Maxime among vs rule infallible that ignorance is the mother of deuotion we are content that he proue it only a Minime And where as for proof of the former he was bound to shew that all Catholike wryters or the most part of them auouched it we are content to accept the woord or testimony of any one Cath. author learned or vnlearned that euer wrote or printed such a position And is not S r. F. then with his whole presbyterie of ministers maruelously shamed yf they bring not forthe some one suche wryter Impertinent dealing of our aduersaries Can a more easie or indulgent satisfaction be required of so rigorous a charge wel what then do they After running hither thither and telling vs a tale how Pâ—us Quintus went on foot for edifying the people as much apperteyning to this matter as the steeple of CaÌ„terbury to the Church-yard of Paules they come out at length with this proofe I say thâ—â— Doctor Fulke doth iustly charge your Rhemists with this old impudent proposition VVast pag. 6â— that ignorance of the scriptures is the mother of deuotion for what meant els their so strickt forbidding to Laymen the reading of scriptures in the vulgar tonge Loe here a witnes a reason againe repeated of this Maximè To the witnes the answere is quickly made Aske my fellow whether I be a theef The reason being ridiculous and refuted before bringeth a new forged assertion with yt that laymen are by name stricktly forbidden the reading of scriptures which is as shamles as the former yf he meane it generally of all lay men as the woords doe stand and consequentlie noe lesse impossible for Sir Frauncis to shew out of any Cath. A nevv false position brought foorâ—h by the knight Author liuing or dead then the former position of Ignorance to be the mother or daughter of deuotion And besydes it is apparantly ridiculous to very chyldren who see how many laymen are learned and reade scriptures daylie and some laymen haue wrytten also commentaries vpon the scriptures So as to be a layman bringeth noe impediment in it self to reade Scriptures Wherfore after this he runneth to an impertinent excursion by iesting at our distinction of Fides implicita explicita Pag. 49. The controuersy about fides implicita explicita Hence saith he hath growen your deuise of fides implicita a faith wrapped foulded vnder the obedience of the Church namely that it is sufficient though they know not distinctly what they ougâ—t to beleue but obediently submit their vnderstauding to the Churche beleuing as the Churche beleueth though what the Churche beleueth they know not This Carbonaria â—ides or Colliars faith is highlie commended by Card. Hosius c. Thus wryteth the K t. and as for the later part of this assertion coÌ„cerning Card. Hosius we shal handle yt a litle after when we come to coople with the Minister O. E. shewing how egregriously he abuseth both Card. Hosius his reader in this point But for the former about the distinction it self of fides explicita and implicita we must handle a litle here with our K t. aduertising first the reader that by fides explicita we meane a cleare distinct and particular faith or belief of any article point or parcel of Christian Religion and by fides implicita we meane a more darck secret or hiddeÌ„ faith implied as it were or wrapped to vse S r. F. woord in the belief of an other more general poynt which includeth this As for example in the article of Christs incarnation we do beleue clerely and distinctly not only that the sonne of God was made flesh for vs but further also in particuler that in two distinct natures there was but one person and yet not one wil only but two distinst wils the like and this is fides explicita But some other men that are not bownd to know 〈◊〉 these and other particularities be ongâ—â—ng to Christâ— an faith in these and other misteries may beleue the same things per fidem implicitum by an implâ—ed faith to wit by beâ—euâ—ng in general that the Sonne of God was maâ—e flesh for our redemption and moreouer beleuing whatsoeuer other points Gods holie Churche teacheth deduceth or beleueth in this behalf albeit they do not clerelie know them or vnderstand them in perticuler And this is so necessarie a point of doctrine for the saluatioÌ„ of the common sort of people as yf we take it away as Sectaries doe who vnderstand it not it must needs follow that thowsands yea millions of Christians must perish for lack of fayth The necessytie of â—ides implicita for saluation of the common sort of Christians seing the whole first Councel of Nice set downe this dreadful foundation as appeareth in the creed of S. Athanasius that it is necessarie for him that â—il be saued to hold the whole Cath. faith which yf any man doe not he must perish eternally wherof must needs be inferred that for so muche as the far greater parte of Christians do not know or vnderstand the forsaid pointes of faith and manie more belonging to many misteries of Christian Religion and consequently can not beleue them but only by fides implicita as hath byn shewed it followeth I say that if we take away the truth and vse of fides implicita which euer hitherto the Cath. Churche hath taught yow must needs teache desperation and damnation to the vnlearned sort that eyther for lack of tyme capacitie learning and other such lets can not come to know and beleue all particulars belonging to a Christian set downe in bookes or handled by learned men but content only with the cleere and distinct beleef of such articles as are most needful and important do beleue the rest fide implicita that is by the implied faith of the Churche Wherfore how so euer this distinction of fides explicita and implicita may trouble the vnlearned Sectaries of our tyme and giue them occasion to iest at that they vnderstand not as S r. F. doth here yet the thing it self is most euidently true and necessary and the same distinction in other woords is set downe by S. Augustine where he speaketh of the differens of the faith of holie men vnder the old testament he not being able otherwise to defend the position of S. Paule and other Apostles affirming the old good Iewes to
what this or that man thinketh but that yow take counsel rather of holy scriptures and learne by them which are true riches indeed Thus saith S. Chrisostome and now let vs briefly examine how many wayes the K. hath peruerted this one place The abuse offred by S. F. to 5. Chrysostome to make it sound somewhat to his purpose albeit not muche though it were as he alleageth it But first of all he wresteth his whole meaning as before I haue noted which is the greatest sinne in alleaging any author that may be For S. Chrysost treateth a far differeÌ„t question from ours to wit of true and false riches as in the title of the Chapter he professeth and hauing handled it largely he concludeth in those first woords by me alleaged and guâ—lfully cut of and left out by S r. F. Quae cumita sint c. which things being so let not vs follow the opinion of the vulgar sort about true riches and pouerty but let vs consider thinges â—â— they be in theÌ„selues c. which woords do wholy ouerthrow S r. F. principal illation that vnlearned people should not follow other mens opinions to wit their Pastors in matters of religion but go try it in scriptures wherof S. Chrysostome neuer so much as dreamed Secondly the first woords alleaged by the K t. in Latyn Quomodo absurdum non est c. are not so in S. Chrysostome as yow see by those which I haue alleaged which is a token that he had them out of some Ministers notebook and read them not himself Thirdly the woord praeposterum left out in his translation importeth some fraud also for that this woord sheweth the comparison not to be betwene reading of scriptures other mens testimonies especially our ordinarie Cath. Pastors as he would haue it seme Fourthly those other woordes But for more excellent thinges simplie to follow other mens sayinges are not in the text as yow may see by comparing it but are deceitfully layd together to make men think that simple obedience or belief of our teachers in Gods Churche is here repreheÌ„ded by S. Chrisostome and that euery man and woman is willed to go to the scriptures And for this cause fifthly he translateth those woordes diuinarum legum sententiam the testimony of the law of God where as the sentence or determination of these deuine lawes heere spoken of by S. Chrysostome as they be conteyned partly in scriptures and partly in the traditioÌ„ of Gods Churche which was before scriptures were written so is it not necessary for euery man and woman to be remitted to reading of scriptures for learning them as heer is pretended It followeth sixtly in S. Chrysostome VVherfore I pray and besech yow all that in these things yow wil not stand vpon what this or that man thinketh c. Which woords S r. F. translateth thus I pray and besech yow that yow wil leaue what this or that man thinketh c. leauing out of purpose the woords that make most to the matters de hijs rebus of these things to wit of true and false riches which is the subiect handled by S. Chrysostome And S r. F. would haue his readerâ— thinke though neuer so vnlearned that he is prayed in all matters of Religion to leaue what this or that man thinketh though it be his Pastor or any other Cath. teacher and enquire all those things of the scriptures which is most absurd and furthest from S. Chrysostomâ— meaning And in these very last woordes of the K t. there be two or three shiftâ—s and manifest corruptions for where as S. Chrysostome sayth Scripturas sacras de eis consulatis he translateth it and enquire all these things of the scriptures adding the woord all of purpose to disguise the meaning of S. Chrysostome as though he would haue all matters by euery man and woman imediatly searched out from the scriptures as though he had not handled a particuler argument for which the scriptures were to be consulted against the vayne opinioÌ„ of vulgar men about true and false riches for which cause the K t. cutteth of also the next imediat woords following in the self same senteÌ„ce for explication of S. Chrysostoms meaning ac quae verae sint opes cognoscatis and that yow may knowe which are true riches And thus I haue byn longer then I thought to be in notifying vnto yow this maner of dealing of S.F. and his Minister as in the precedent Chapter yow haue sene also about the handling of Hosius when they cite any Fathers or Authors of moment against vs which commonly is with such fraud and deceit corruption and mangling as if the controuersy were for mens shuwes not soules or for shuw-soles or as if it were for some teÌ„poral and earthly tryfles and not for the euerlasting possession of hel or heauen But let vs see more of this kind of proceeding in the K t. It is reâ—orded saith he that some of the learneder sort of your Cleargie haue vsed to say among their friends Pag 54. Paralip Abb. vrspergen Pag 448. Sic dicerem in Scholis Sed tamen manet inâ—er nos c. I would say so in the Scholes but yet let it be kept secret amongst our selues I think the contrary These woords I do not fynd in the Author by him alleaged cited in the margyn and therfore God knoweth from what forge they come perhaps by some Ministers notebook that eyther deuised or corrupted them in cyting But suppose they may be found and that some Schole readers in matters eyther of philosophie or diuinity for he specifieth no science not belonging to any article of faith should say thus Impertinent matter brought in that in the schooles for not offending any part he would follow the coÌ„mon opinions of that vniuersity of schole though in priuat for himself he were of an other opinion what doth this proue or to what end was this brought forth by the K t. to confirme his principal propositioÌ„ that we forbid laymeÌ„ to medle in matters of religion do yow see what direct proofes they bring But harken yet further to another charge immediatly following more heynous then this The Fathers sayth he yow haue mangled and depraued where their testimonies were pregnant against your errors Pag. 54. as for example that plaine place of Gregory Nissene eam solummodo uaturam quae increata est colere venerari dâ—dicimus we haue learned to adore and worship only that nature which is vncreated where your Spanish diuines in their Index expurgatorius set downe this direction deleatur dictio solummodo put out the word only and sundry such places as both Of diuers Iudices printed and pablished in sundry contries our learned men haue discouered and in your Indices are to be found out c. Yf our Indices be extant Sir and that in print to shew to the world what we do in this behalf then is not necessary the
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
dabo claues 〈…〉 16. c. Quodcunque ligaueris 〈…〉 of which textes he saith Non 〈…〉 collatione indulgentiarum debeant 〈…〉 cleare than these places of 〈…〉 vnderstood of giuing 〈…〉 words being added to the word 〈…〉 the former clause do euidently signify 〈◊〉 albeit Durand did not think that the doctrine of indulgences was cleerly and expresly contayned in scripture yet that it might be deduced out of scripture for which cause Syr FraÌ„cis cut them out This is one trick let vs see another Immediatly after the words in Durand the Auncient Fathers S. Ambrose Hilary Hierome August made no mention of indulgences c. followeth Gregorius tamen loquitur but S. Gregory speaketh of them This Syr Frauncis dasheth out which was a principal verb in this matter For a man might answere that albeit the particular vse of indulgences were not so treated of by S. Ambrose S. Augustine and other former doctors occupied in other affayres and stryfes with other heretiks yet soone after in S. Gregory the great his tyme which was a thousand yeares agoe the vse and exercise therof was common in the Churche seing Durand in this very place affirmeth not only that S. Gregory speaketh of them but also that he is said to haue ordayned 〈…〉 publike Stations who 〈…〉 to haue begon this 〈…〉 or to haue taught and 〈…〉 contrary to antiquity in 〈…〉 Christ. All which for Syr 〈…〉 dissembled and of purpose 〈…〉 a bad conscience both in him 〈…〉 they striue not for truthe but 〈…〉 faction and falshood 〈…〉 by what meanes so euer which shal appeare also by that which ensueth in the sequent Chapter yf first we take a short vew of that which his Minister O. E. bringeth in to assist him which is such stuffe as is commonly vttered by such broken marchaunts Let vs heare what he saith VVhat O. E. sayeth of indulgences It is most true saith he which Sir Francis affirmeth O.E. Pag. 54. that the Papists when they haue committed most abhominable offences and liued in all filthynes are notwithstanding taught that the Pope hath power to pardon them and absolue them c. Mark here two words subtily ioyned togeather of pardoning and absoluing as though they were one wheras indeed they import farre different things as before hath byn shewed for that absoluing implyeth that it must be done by vertue of the sacrament of pennance and absolution and so reacheth to all synnes neuer so greeuous but pardoning is proper to indulgences and stretcheth no further but to the release of temporal punishment as before hath but declared And thus the minister 〈…〉 of purpose to haue some 〈…〉 he is pressed but all men 〈…〉 heere only of the former to 〈…〉 that it is an abhominable lyf 〈…〉 science to affirme as he doth 〈…〉 are taught that all filthynes and 〈…〉 sences are remitted by the Popes pardon 〈…〉 his lyfe be so licentious and filthy 〈…〉 of him and his courses of 〈…〉 do wel agree thervnto 〈…〉 come to be of our religion he would â—ind other remedyes applyable to him besides pardons that would stick near his skin albeit in leâ—itate spiritus for sauing of his soule But how doth he proue thinke yow that all sorts of sinnes are remitted by pardons Two arguments he alleageth the one of authority the other of practise In both which he lyeth notably His argumeÌ„t of authority is out of Cardinal Bellarmyne in these words Bellarmâ— de indul lib. 1. cap. 10. Bellarmyne saith that indulgences are profitable to all maner of persons Wel what of this wil yow inferre herof that all synnes may be forgiuen by indulgences Cardinal Bellarmyne in the place cyted goeth about to refute Luther who affirmed Indulgentias non esse vtiles nisi publicis scelestissimis peccatoribus Luth. in assert art 1â— that indulgences are not profitable but only to publyke and most wicked sinners which Card. Bellarmine doth refute and shew that they profit also to good men so that this minister would inferre the quite contrary to the authors meaning and 〈…〉 out fraudulently how 〈…〉 the third chapter after 〈…〉 large what maÌ„ner of 〈…〉 them that must be 〈…〉 to wit that they be out of 〈…〉 consequently it is not most 〈…〉 rather and false which this 〈…〉 all filthines and most 〈…〉 to be pardoned among 〈…〉 indulgences yet heare what he appeare also second proof deduced from practâ—â—e For money saith he they pardon Murder of children of men O.E. Pag. 55. of women of wyues of neere kiâ—red fornication adultery incest and all vnnatural abhominations c. To this is answered before that Cath. doctrine neyther teacheth nor alloweth any such matter and if any bad fellow or vnder officer hath gone about by corruption at any tyme to commit such abuses he was as honest a man as O. E. and should do it as lawfully as he and other such lyke ruffianly and rauenous companions do possesse buy sel Cath. benesices instituted for Priests and honest men And last of all that which he addeth out of Taxa Poenitentiariae noted in the margent pro licentia erigendi de nouo publicam synagogam Taxa est suron 60. Ducat 15. is a thing no way to be found by me that haue sought for it in the paenitentiaria it self and their registers and can find no such matter euer in vse and yet if in countreyes where Iewes are permitted some tribute were imposed 〈…〉 to the help of poor 〈…〉 great matter or were this to 〈…〉 as this companion would 〈…〉 diuers protestant States of 〈…〉 Iewes also to dwel among them 〈…〉 we leaue this poor companion 〈…〉 almighty his indulgence and 〈…〉 the Reader seing he hath not 〈…〉 against Catholyk indulgences 〈…〉 is not worth the recital as yow 〈…〉 OF TVVO OTHER examples of Pardons abused by Catholyks as Syr Francis alleageth but both of them false with a notorious imposture about the poysoning of King Iohn CAP. XV. THE knight hauing fled from the point he should haue proued of doctrine against indulgences as before hath byn declared and betaken himself only to shew certayne abuses which if they were true do make nothing against the doctrine after the former alleaged examples there do ensue in his answere others VVastvvord Pag. 74. in these words Sundry Chronicles do make meâ—tion of Symon the monk of Swinsted who poysoned King Iohn that before the fact he confessed his purpose to his Abbot who highly commended his zeale 〈…〉 before-hand for the committing 〈…〉 I might ioyne the 〈…〉 who murdered the K. of Fraunce 〈…〉 hand confessed and absolueâ— of 〈…〉 〈…〉 two examples as they are both 〈…〉 so I answere first to the last 〈…〉 that S r. Frauncis ought to be 〈…〉 to auouch so weighty a 〈◊〉 by whâ—â— as this without naming some appeare also â— bad except he esteeme 〈…〉 no other then â—atling or telling of newes vpoÌ„ euery mannes speech or fond imagination as men are wont to in barbers
approue and highely comend Heer now I would aske is this faith a gooâ— and sauing faith or no which these theeue and murderers haue or only historical as Syâ— Francis calleth it for that it lacketh workâ— No protestant I suppose wil deny it to be â— good and liuely faith and consequently a â— a iustifying and sauing faith for that otheâ— wayes those good saynts that are thus haâ—â—ged should be deceyued or in doubt of the supper which they are taught in no case â— doe but to rest most assured therof throuâ—â— the merit of this faith and yet can no mâ— say that this their faith had fruits or was aâ—â—compained with good works And conâ—â—quently that eyther faith alone and only faith as wel as faith only doth saue these men after the manner that suche good fellow ProtestaÌ„ts are saued or els they are not saued at all seing works they had none And this being so that all malefactors whatsoeuer remayning in their wickednesse may be saued by this only faith The comâ—â—â— cartvvay of Protestants only faith as wel as these that liue wel and haue good works yea much better and more surely yf we beleeue Doctor Luther let the reader iudge whether I rightly called it an open easy cart-way or no. And so much of this controuersy wherof the minister also O.E. keepeth sylence and saith not a word in defence of his knight and maister And so shal we end this second whole Encounter THE VVARNING AND admonition about this second Encounter first to Syr Francis Hastings and then to O. E. his Chaplayn and champion CAP. XVII TO continue my former purpose promise Syr Francis which was to recouÌ„t with yow and breifly to lay out both to your owne and your frends vew in the end of euery encounter what principal points had passed betwene vs in our combate and how wel or euil you had behaued your self therin I am now by way as it were of some short recapitulation to refresh your memory in that behalf and therby also to make matters more cleer in the sight of our diligent and attentiue reader First then to passe on with some order wheras at the very first entrance of the former encounter I complayned of a certayne shift of yours that being charged with flattering her Maiestie and the state of England with so many new deuised blessings as yow affirmed to haue ben brought in by change of Catholike religion Eâ—c 1. cap. 2. yow did runne presently to charge Canonistes and Roman courteours with flattering also the Pope so haue I now the same complaint in the beginning of this second Encounter that yow being charged with diuers notorious vntruthes vttered in your VVatchword about the doctrine of Catholiks auouching them to hold that which they hold not yow do vse the very same shift by running to accuse friars and telling vs that in king Richard the 2. his tyme according to Tho. VValsingham A common stift of S. FraÌ„cis to accuse others for excusing himself Fryars were braue lyars c. which as yf it were in all respects true as yow alleadge the story it would be no iust defence or excuse for your defaults in that kynd so the whole narratioÌ„ therof being peruerted in your allegation as before we haue declared it must greatly diminish your credit Cap. 2. num â— 7.13 c. for all the rest that was or is to ensue after from yow And this yow treat as it were by way of preface or preparation to your poor defence of those vntruthes which are obiected against yow wherin also yow discredit your self not a litle by bringing in other impertinent and forged matters to fil vp paper and help out withal and among other of certayne deuised chalenges of disputation said to be made on your side by Iohn Husse in the councel of Constance and by Martin Luther at VVormes and Augusta and by Simon Grinaeâ—â— at Spire Protestant disputers and by Peter Martyr and Theodore Beza at the conference of Paâ—sy in France c. In all which examples there being discouered many vntruthes as wel in the narration it self as in the applicatioÌ„ and further declared Cap. 3. 4. that none of all these fiue disputing champions alleadged by yow for founders pillers and defenders of your religion churche and doctrine were truly indeed of your religion in all points and consequently also neyther of your churche yow wiâ— easily see what credit yow haue gayned by bringing them in But when yow come to your defence it self of the first two vntruthes obiected against yow Cap. 5. by the Warder to wit that we hold reading of scriptures in any vulgar tongue whatsoeuer for heresy that for this cause only we braÌ„dle men to the slaughter how do yow stand Syr Francis in this defence do yow bring any one sufficient proof at all for any one of these two absurdityes The warder setteth downe a plaine sensible discourse how in what languages scriptures are permitted to al as also why and vpon what causes reasons arguments or vtilitie of what hurt or necessity our Churche hath or ought to make restraint or limitation therof to some who are not to profit therby â—eaping ouer the aduersaryes cheef matter which considerations conteyning indeed the substance and very sinewes of this whole controuersy yow Syr knight like a good Encounterer do leap ouer without answering any one word vrging only against vs for the second point of this controuersy that some of your people haue byn examined sometymes or called in question for suspition of heresy for that against order and commandment of their superiours and without licence they haue taken vpon them to read and interpret the sacred scriptures in vulgar languages and that herof followeth say yow that we hold the very act it self of reading scriptures to be heresy which how fond a sequel it is euery man of meane vnderstanding conceyueth and yow are made ridiculous for this fond inference by diuers examples alleadged in other things more cleere to all men And then furthermore wheras it liketh yow to be pleasant with the Warder affirming that by adding only to your words that for only reading of scriptures men were brandled to the slaughter he made one ly of his owne while he sought to proue thesame against yow the said one ly is redoubled vpon your self by shewing that only is fond in your owne words and consequently that this word only hath not proued one ly against the warder but two or three lies against your self And all this as I said is handled in your preamble to this second Encounter 4 Forged maximes obtruded by the knight the bulk and corps wherof consisteth as yow know in the verifying of foure other false propositions forged by your self assigned for grounds rules and Maximes of our Religion which are nothing so to wit that we hold ignorance to be the mother of deuotion and that
lay men must not medle with matters of religion and that the Pope or any Priest comming from him is to be obayed though he teach blasphemies and finally that our cheef remedy against all sinnes consisteth in buying of pardons c. In defence of which obtruded positions how yow behaue your self and what your carriage is both by flying euery where from the true state of the question cogging dissembling and bringing in other odde matters litle or nothing concerning the controuersy it self and by other such sleights and fhifts See cap. 7.9.12.14 c. I may not heer stand to repeat agayne but do remit the Reader to that which is written in euery chapter of this affayre yet cannot I but put yow in mynd the Reader also that all defaults may better be borne and digested then wilful corruptions and falsifications of authors whome yow alleadge I meane eyther in words yow cite or in sense when yow alleadg them quite contrary to their owne meaning purpose and drift as yow are often shewed to haue done in sundry places and vpon fundry occasions wherof some we shal take the payne to repeat breefly in this place for better establishing the readers memory about your manner of proceeding Diuers authoâ—s abused First then yow are shewed in the second Chapter of this Encounter to haue greatly abused the story of Thâ— VValsingham Cap. 2. nu 7.8 c. in alleading him fraudulently about the lying of corrupted fryars in K. Richard the 2. his tyme concealing craftily both the tyme occasion of his wryting and the men corrupted by VVicliffe Cap. 3. nâ— 3.4 5. c. of whome he wrote And then immediatly in the very next chapter yow are proued to offer no lesse iniury to the authority of S. Bede as though he should allow and testifie the promiscuous reading of holy scriptures in vulgar laÌ„guages in his dayes the truth being nothing so but rather the quite contrary appearing by his wordes and no lesse violeÌ„ce are yow declared to vse in thesame place to Arnobius an anciÌ„ent author Ibid. 9. nu 7. as though he had reproued the pious vse of Christian Images wheras indeed he speaketh only and expressely of idols made Gods among Gentils the title also of his book concealed by yow being Aduersus gentes S. Chrisostome also is prooued to haue byn egregiously misused by yow in the 9. chapter Cap. 9. nu 1â— not only by peruerting his whole sense and meaning in the matter for which yow alleadge him but by cutting of also and mangling his very words and sentences alleadged about which point the Warder noteth no fewer then 8. seueral abuses and falsifications in that place and not vnlyke iniury is shewed to be offered also to Index expurgatorius Hispanicus in thesame place concerning the note obiected by yow in your answere Cap. 9. nu 15. deleatur dictio solumodò in Gregory Nissen his sentence where yow both conceale the reason alleadged by the Index of that deletion or putting out to wit for that it was an error in the coppy and wholy from the authors argument drift and meaning in that place as also for that yow father that sentence vpon Gregory Nissene which is none of his as there is shewed But of all other your dishonorable dealing Syr Francis in this kynd of abusing authors Cap. 10. that doth most exceed which yow do vse in the 10. Chapter against that holy renowned man S. Tho. of CaÌ„terbury FalsificatioÌ„s against S. Tho. of Canterbury where yow ioyne perfidiously with Iohn Fox your maister the most shamlesse corrupter of authors that euer perhaps took pen in hand to disgrace that worthy Saint and Prelate both in his person and cause with the king and for that yow are ofteÌ„ taken attaynted of this trick throughout the whole said tenth chapter and in the other that ensueth especially where yow are shewed to falsifie most egregiously Caesarius Heislerbacius about S. Thom. his miracles I shal not need to set downe heer more particulars Cap. 11. nu 12.13 c. but rather wil end putting yow in mynd only therby to mooue you a scruple yf it might be of these many and notorious corruptions and falsifications vsed by yow and your said scholmaister Iohn Fox concerning the faigned poysoning of king Iohn by a monk and the absolution for the fact before hand in which narration there are so many shamelesse impostures vsed by yow two combyned companions in lying About the poysoning of K. Iohn sup Cap. 15. as I persuade my self the reuewing therof wil make yow blush or at leastwayes your modest reader for yow yf he loue his soule he wil take heed of yow and yours for the tyme to come Aud so for breuities sake I wil passe no further in this recitall but only vse a word or two of aduise to your procter O.E. and so an end Neyther yet wil I enter into any more particulars with him at this tyme About the minister O. E. for that this admonition would grow ouerlong and I am ful wearied already with repeating so much drosse of corrupted myndes that haue no conscience what they say or affirme but yet assure your self that this minister is farre worse then the knight in shamelesse manner of proceeding though somwhat more wary in citations and he that wil know him or take a scantling of his turbulent spirit in wryting let him read the sixt eight and thirteene Chapters of this encounter where he is dealt withall alone and singled into his Ierkin to vse his owne phrase and many of his tricks discouered and layd open and yf by this examen and by the rest of the former Encounter and the Epistles going before the man come not to be sufficiently knowne A nevv match for O. E. in hand then shal I remit me to that which after also is to ensue especially in the seueral answere to his new chalenges which I vnderstand some frend of myne seeing my present lettes occupations is like inough to take in hand and to buccle with him alone singulari certamine which yf my frend do performe as O.E. himself desyreth and craueth I dare fortel hauing considered wel the subiect which they are to discusse that O. E. wil be left in a very poor pickle and made a ridiculous companion as one that vnderstandeth neyther himself nor his aduersary nor the true state of the questioÌ„ he handleth and yf this proue not soo the match going forward then let me be condemned both of temerity and vanity for making that prophesy so long before hand And so to the proof I remit me beseeching in the meane space the moderate and indifferent reader which hath care of his saluation and readeth not so much for curiosity contention or loue to partes and faction as sincerely to be instructed in matter of truth concerning religion that he weigh seriously with himself what good meaning or