points of doctrine the greatest Papists in the world agree with vs. Perswas page 11. These are my words I deny them not Moreouer I did instance in these fundamentall points wherein they consent with vs and thereupon I inferred that they did rashly condemne vs for heretickes what then followeth will he therefore inferre that either holding the fundamentall points therefore their superstitions and errours may safely be maintained or that therefore they may be iustly excused for not communicating with vs as if their consenting with vs in fundamentall points should be a cause why they should the rather abhorre our Church religion It is a sufficient preiudice to the cause of their religion that they dispute in such loose manner Againe he saith So Doctor Doue in his whole Treatise neuer chargeth the Church of Rome either with schisme or heresie but laboureth to excuse themselues offering that we shall communicate with them without any change of opinion and yet hee setteth downs this for an infallible position THIS PROPOSITION IS VNDOVBTEDLY TRVE NO HERETIKE OR SCHISMATIKE IS TO BE COMMVNICATED WITHAL Perswas pag. 5. In that I haue not charged them with schisme or heresie I haue shewed that we are more charitable to them then they are to vs which do charge vs with both In that hee saith I onely laboured to excuse our selues as if I had proued nothing to cleare vs from that iniust aspertion I referre him to the place it selfe where I haue made due proofe that we are free from both heresie and schisme by such sound reasons as this Author cannot answer But whereas he saith it is offered on my part that they shall at their pleasure communicate with vs without change of opinion he burdeneth me with an vntruth by himselfe diuised and not to bee quoted out of any of my bookes In so writing he may fill vp a volume but he shall neuer strengthen his owne cause of weaken ours Moreouer saith he he giueth vs security that by no possibility according to the former reason of generall Councels the Romane Church can be iudged hereticall His words bee these pag. 14. No Church can be condemned and iudged hereticall by any priuate censure but it must be publicke by a generall Councell as he there expoundeth himselfe and is granted before But what doth he cōclude out of this That because the Church of Rome is not condemned by a generall Councell to bee hereticall it must needs be therefore orthodoxall This is such a consequent as neither Protestants nor any other of sound iudgement will grant Fifthly he chargeth me thus Touching Sacraments he alledgeth pag. 27. 28. that according to our definition of a Sacrament there are as many as we teach and this shall not breede any iarre betweene vs that therefore we should refuse to communicate together And transubstantiation it selfe shall be no barre but if we will receiue at their hands they will not examine how we expound these words Hoc est corpus meum This is my body pag. 29. And of discipline he writeth In that Councell of Trent they set forth such wholsome Canons concerning discipline as were fit for a reformed Church I deny not these words but I deny that they make any thing for the defence of Recusancy Concerning the word Sacrament as it is a name diuised by man but not found in the Scriptures so it is not any matter of saluation to vary about the number of Sacraments especially among them with whom it is not agreed what a Sacrament is For where words are not vnderstood ad idem secundem idem c. nothing hindereth but contrary or contradictory propositions may be both true as to say There are seuen and there are not seuen Sacraments For so concerning the number of Sacraments they and we differ in words when we may easily agree in substance The word Sacrament is strictly taken with vs and so according to M. Caluin his definition it is an outward signe ordeined of God to be cōtinued in his Church as a part of his diuine Seruice offering to all men but sealing onely to the faithfull his inward grace for the strengthening of their saith the applying of Christ his death vnto them And so there can be but two according to the confession of Saint Augustine A resurrectione Domini quaedam pauca signapro multis eademque factu facillima intellectu augustissinta obseruatione castissima ipse Dominus Apostolica tradidit disciplina baptismum coenam Domini Since the Lord his resurrection our Sauiour his selfe and from him his Apostles haue commended to vs for outward signes or seales a very few in steed of many and those for performance most easie for signification most ample for obseruation most pure and holy and they are Baptisme and the Lords Supper But this word Sacrament is more largely taken in the Church of Rome for a signe in generall although it do not apply vnto vs and represent before our eyes the death of Iesus Christ And it is defined to be Signum rei sacra an outward signe of any holy thing And according to that definition there may be not only 7. but also 70. Sacraments Of transubstantion hauing first proued that the bread and the wine in the Eucharist cannot be transubstantiated and yet not denying them to be the body and bloud of our Sauiour because he hath said they are so I said in that we both agree onely the difference betweene vs is how the words This is my body are to be vnderstood whether really or sacramentally properly or mystically And that it should be no barre or scruple to their consciences in what sense we vnderstand it so as we deliuer it to them according to the institution of our Sauiour Christ and that if they will in all other things submit themselues to the lawes of our Church we will not presse them so farre in examining them how they expound the words but rather yeeld so much to their weaknesse in this one poynt vntill God shall reueale a further measure of the knowledge of his truth vnto them So these words of mine import nothing in fauour of transubstantiation Thirdly the Councell of Trent hath set downe wholsome Canons cōcerning discipline as in part the 3. Lataran Coūcell did long before as namely for preaching and learned ministers c. And the reformed Churches of England Scotland Germany Netherland Geneua haue receiued many of those Canons although they come from the Pope as deeming them fit for a reformed Church But these my words make nothing for the allowance of that Councell it selfe or of the points of doctrine there concluded neither yet of their Recusancy among whom for the most part these Canons of discipline are not receiued Sixthly Concerning the Popes supremacy of Europe there can be no question For generally Protestants agree with Field Doue Ormerod that the regiment of the West Churches among which this nation is one belonged to the Pope of
I haue abused both the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine That I haue not abused the Councell witnesse the Councell it selfe that I haue not abused Bellarmine witnesse Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 11. Thirdly they agree with vs concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures that in them are deliuered all things necessary to saluation contrary to the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome So Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 10. He is not ashamed to say In reading the place hee hath discouered a notable fraude Whether I haue dealt fraudulently or sincerely let the reader iudge But wherein lyeth the fraude He saith that Bellarmine speaketh these words onely by way of answer to an obiection I conclude therefore it is no fraude If I had taken that for positiue doctrine which was spoken by way of obiection it had bene fraude in me but seeing it is an answer to an obiection it is no fraude but sincere dealing Fourthly they hold with vs that Purgatory is a tradition and not to be found in the holy Scriptures witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 4. He thinketh to auoid vs by saying that Bellarmine speaketh onely antagonistically by way of obiection out of Luther and not dogmatically out of his owne iudgement which is but Petitio principij a begging of the question For it was questioned by me whether Bellarmine spake out of his owne iudgement or not and the affirmatiue was by me proued concluded He bringeth no proofe for the negatiue part but onely maketh that for his allegation which is the question it selfe Fifthly they discent not from vs about the authority of the Scriptures that it is aboue the authority of the Church witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 10. He repeateth the words but maketh no answer to them He chargeth me with Papistry because I confessed that our Church was condemned as hereticall by the Councell of Trent which is but Petitio principij for I denyed our Church to be euer the more hereticall for the censure of that Councell whose authoriry I disinabled by sufficient reasons to which he maketh no answer and therefore in that place I haue not played the Papist Whereas I exhorted the Recusants diligently to reade as well our writers as their owne our answers as well as their obiections and then to examine their owne iudgements before they passe their sentence against vs to condemne vs of heresie He maketh two answers first that they haue already done so to which I reply they haue done it partially Secondly that vnlearned men and women are not able to do so and therefore they must relye vpon the iudgement of the Catholicke Church To which I reply that if they be not able the fault is in the the Catholicke Church of Rome which holdeth the people still in ignorance whereas S. Iohn teacheth that they ought to be of such knowledge as to try and examine the Spirits and the Citizens of Berea are commended by the holy Ghost because they were able to examine Saint Pauls doctrine And I say with the Apostle That if the Gospell bee hidden it is hidden to them which are lost I alledged that few things are in our booke of Common praiers which are not taken out of the Bible or out of that which was good in the Masse booke so that if they allow of the Bible their Masse booke they caÌ„not disallow of our Seruice book He answereth in these words If all the Seruice booke were taken out of the Bible it selfe as most of all heretical Seruice hath bene in euery age pretended to be yet might the collection and combination be such as might make it vnlawfull and pestiferous as when the Arrians did sing Gloria patri cum filio per filium and the Catholickes filio The difference in sound of words was small but in substance and malice execrable To which I reply that forasmuch as he maketh such a supposition but sheweth no such collection or combination in our Seruice booke neither any thing in it like to that of the Arrians he speaketh idlely and to no purpose neither is any thing thereby derogated from the credit of our Seruice booke To the Recusants which obiect that there are dissentions among vs I answered that so there were among them I named Eckius Pighius Thomas Scotus nay there were dissentions among the Apostles themselues so that dissention is no argument to disinable vs from being the true Church for in religion we agree M. Walsingham chargeth me with three absurdities the first of ignorance or folly for that Eckius Pighius Thomas Scotus dissented onely in matters disputable and not determined by the Church for points of faith In which words he maketh the Church of Rome to be so negligent in their determination of matters of religion as if they held the doctrine of iustification wherein Eckius and Pighius disagreed and of merit wherein the Thomists and Scotist disagreed not to appertaine vnto faith and to be matters so indifferent as if they afforded onely cause of disputation but needed not to be discided The second absurditie he saith is impiety for that the Apostles contentions were not about matters of different doctrine I say no more are ours The third he saith is ridiculous audacity to deny so absolutely disagreement in matters of religion among vs whereof the whole world can be witnesse out of our owne books and inuectiues one against another To which I answer that albeit some particular factious spirits among vs write seditious pamphlets one against another this imputation cannot iustly be layd vpon our Church which by all manner of good meanes suppresseth dissention but maintaineth peace and vnitie Thus much I thought fit to deliuer not for answer to his disgracefull speeches vttered against me which I passe ouer with silence as not touching the cause of religion but in defence onely of the truth which I tooke in hand that our aduersarieÌ„s may vnderstand how we haue not suffered those things so loosely to passe our hands which they so loosely haue published against vs to the view of the world And so leauing them to the mercy of the Lord my prayer is Vincat Christus cadat haeresis that falshood may still be detected and truth may get the vpper hand Amen FINIS Ecclesi 12. 12. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sixtus Senensis Biblioth sanctae lib. 4. Rom. 1. 14. 2. Cor. 4. 2. The History of Bell and the Dragon Mat. 3. 10. Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 10. Mat. 16. 18. Caesar Bar. in apparat 13. Exod. 8. 19. De Rom. Pontifice l. 1. c. 10. De verbo Dei l. 2. c. 4. De verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 7. Concil Trid. Sess 3. De Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10. Luk. 16. 29. Eph. 2. 20. Chryss hons 55. in Mat. Lib. 6. de Trinit Lib. 4. de Triniâ—… 1 Pet. 2. 5. 1. Cor. 3. 11.
Rome Page 29. 30. I spake of the Popes supremacy and my words are these What authority soeuer the Pope had ouer the Latine Church or West part of the world it hath bene giuen him by humane constitutions onely and generall consent of Princes and States which they suffered him to enioy during their good liking and no longer And hauing thus shewed that the Popes authority ouer other Churches was not by diuine institution but onely by humane permission not certaine but during the pleasure of Princes and States my words fauour not his supremacy ouer vs in England out of which by consent of Prince and Parliament hee hath beene abandoned long since And therefore I say the Bishop of Rome is little beholding to me for his title of supremacy This is a very loose and negligent kinde of disputation Seuenthly saith he Doue Persw pag. 15. referreth the question what books be Canonicall Scriptures to the two Doctors S. Augustine and S. Hierom. His words be these Catholikes proue them to be Canonical out of S. Augustine we that they be Apocripha out of S. Hierome both which Doctors are of no smal authority in the Church of Rome therefore in this we differ no more from them then S. Hierome did from S. Augustine Therefore I hope for many causes Protestants will giue place to us in this question I deny not but the question being propounded concerning the bookes of Toby Iudith Baruch Ecclesiasticus Wisedome the Maccabes and the fragment of Esther whether they were Canonicall as the Church of Rome doth hold or Apocripha as our Church maintaineth I answered that forasmuch as there is Canon fidei morum One Canon or rule of good life another of faith and that may be Canon morum quodnon est fidei Arule and patterne of good life for vs to follow which is not a sufficient ground of doctrine to build our faith vpon they were both Canonicall and Apocripha Canonicall according to Saint Augustins for rules of good life Apocripha according to S. Hierome because they were no true grounds of doctrine And so the Church of Rome and our selues rightly vnderstanding one another as Saint Hierome and Saint Augustine vnderstood themselues there needed not be any difference concerning this point betweene vs. But how can he inferre vpon this that therefore we must giue place to him in this question As Saint Hierome gaue no place to Saint Augustine so will we giue no place to any onely I wish they would better vnderstand both vs and themselues and giue place to the truth And forasmuch as they allow both of Saint Hierome and Saint Augustine to be Orthodoxall Doctors they cannot receiue S. Augustine his opinion but they must also embrace S. Hieroms exposition where it is explained what is the meaning of S. Augustine where hee alloweth those bookes to be Canonicall Eighthly saith he Concerning the vulgar Latine translation allowed among Catholikes D. Doue writeth thus pag. 16. We grant it fit that for vniformity in quotation of places in Schooles and Pulpits one Latine text should be vsed and we can bee contented for the antiquity thereof to preferre the old vulgar translation before all other Latine bookes and so much we yeeld to the Councell of Trent The praemisses are mine but what is his conclusion Because we ascribe to the vulgar edition more then to all other Latine translations and therein agree with the Church of Rome and because we yeeld to the Councell of Trent so farre as reason doth require and no further but disagree both from the Church of Rome and that Councel in things which are erroneous Concedendo vera negando falsa will he therefore take this for a Protestant proofe of his Catholicke religion Non taliauxilio nec defensoribus istis Roma caret If the Church of Rome had no better champions it would not stand Ninthly Doctor Couel writeth No translation whatsoeuer is authenticall Scripture And Doctor Doue addeth All translations haue many faults page 16. In so writing I write the truth For onely God is free from errour and therefore only the originall text is authenticall Scripture All men are subiect to errours Omnis homo mendax but all translations are the workes of men But how idlely is this brought in as a Protestant proofe of Recusancy well may it serue against Recusants which ascribe more to the translation thē to the originall If no translation be authenticall then it followeth as a firme consequent that the vulgar Latine edition cannot be authentical howsoeuer the Councel of Trent hath imposed it vpon vs as authenticall Tenthly For this time and place saith he I will only make amplification of Doctor Doue his grant confession which followeth in these words When the Masse was first put down King Henry had his English litourgie and that was then iudged absolute without all exception But when King Edward came to the Crowne that was cōdemned and another was in the place which Peter Martyr and Bucet did approue as very consonant to Gods word When Q. Elizabeth began her reign the former was iudged to be full of imperfections and a new was diuised allowed by consent of the Clergy But about the middle of her reigne we grew weary of that booke great meanes haue bene wrought to abandon it establish another which although it was not obtained yet we do at the least at euery change of Prince change our booke of Common praier we bee so want on we know not what we would haue Pag. 31. Hitherto his words and he freely confessed errours in all these states and changes For defence whereof besides that these words are written by way of obiection from them rather then any confession made by our selues I did not so much as intimate that there were errours in all these states and changes as he vniustly chargeth me but onely that in the Seruice bookes of King Henry and King Edward some things were iudged to sauor of the superstitions of the Church of Rome But as for the Seruice booke which was allowed by Queene Elizabeth it stood not only during her time without alteration but also it is ratified by his Maiestie and allowed of by the State albeit by some particularmen it hath bene impugned as nothing else can be by the wit of man so well deuised but mans wit can dispute against it And as for those errours which were reformed in the books of K. Henry and King Edward they were the superstitions onely of the Church of Rome the land being not then sufficiently reformed nor purity of religion so perfectly established as now it is because the Bishops Clergy men by whom those bookes were written their selues were too much so wred with the Romish leauen And our daily renouncing those superstitions and receiuing greater light of the Gospell could be no Protestant proofe that we should any way fauour their superstitions Eleuenthly he writeth thus Why may we not say with the Councell of Florence cited
saith Bellarmine though first they knew him yet whē they made the calfe they had forgotten him How proueth he that Fecerūt vitulū in Horeb they made a calfe in Horeb they worshipped the molten image forgat God which saued them and did wonderfull things in Aegypt To which I answer by distinction that forgetfulnesse is of two sorts one which is ignorance when a man letteth slip out of his memory that which once he knew or heard or saw as when Peter heard the cocke crow he remembred the words of Iesus the other of ingratude as where it is written The Butler did not remember Ioseph but forgat him that is he was ingratefull to him And in that sense the Israelites forgate God Againe any impiety negligence presumption disobedience is called forgetfulnesse as Dauid speaketh The wicked shall be turned into hell and all they which forget God And that the forgetfulnesse of the Iewes could not be the obliuion of ignorance I proue by the text it selfe cras erit solemnitas Iehouae tomorrow shall a solemne feast be kept to the God Iehoua Which Iehoua is the proper name of the God of heauen knowne then onely among the Iewes so that they worshipped Iehoua in the calfe But saith Bellarmine Respondeo fortè Iudaeos illos qui plures Deos veros esse tradebant non putasse hoc nomen esse proprium sed appellatiuum Peraduēture those Iewes which held a multitude of true Gods thought that Iehoua was not a name proper to one but common to many To which I reply That besides religion must not be grounded vpon Bellarmine his PERADVENTVRES and idle coniectures how can he auoid this text parallell vnto that to shew what was the opinion of the Iewish Idolaters where Mica his mother saith Sanctificaui voui Iehouae c. I haue sanctified the siluer and dedicated it to Iehoua to make a molten Image Forasmuch as there by his owne words Ieboua sculptile God and the molten Image are two seuerall things votum quod est sculptile numen cui sculptile vouetur the vow which is the molten image and the God Iehoua to whom the image is deuoted she could not thinke that image to be Iehoua To come to the worship of the Gentiles what answer doth he make to these arguments First they did vni Deo plura simulacra erigere erect many idols to one God For example they acknowledge but one Iupiter yet in euery country were idols of Iupiter therefore they made a difference betweene the God himselfe and his idoll consequently they did not thinke the idoll to be a God His answer is Habuerunt alios Deos in coelo alios interrâ nec putauerunt absurdum si vnus Deus coelestis vt Iupiter vel Apollo haberet interrâ multos collegas minores id est multa idola eiusdem nominis The heathens had some Gods in heauen some on earth neither did they thinke it an absurdity that one God in heauen as Iupiter or Apollo should haue many fellow Gods inferiour vpon earth that is many idols to beare their names And I pray you what is this answer but a confession or grant of that which I haue alledged that the heathens accompted their Gods which they thought to be in heauen to be Gods indeed these vpon earth before whom they prostrated themselues to be but idols and representations of them which were in heauen therefore they did not thinke they were Gods Secondly they framed dayly new idols and yet said not that they made new Gods His answer is Putarunt Gentes senouos Deos facere saltem terrestres The Gentiles so doing thought at the least they made such Gods as were vpon earth although not such as were in heauen which is no more then he spake before to the first obiection a grant of that which I haue obiected Thirdly Mutarunt simulacra pro arbitrio nec tamen Deos mutarunt They changed their idols at their pleasure whereas their Gods continued the same To it he saith Respondeo Ethnicos eâdem stultitiâ quâ putabunt Deos posse fieri manibus hominum potuisse etiam credere Deos aliquos potuisse destrui manibus hominum As the heathens in their foolishnesse thought they could make Gods with their hands so in as great folly they thought they could destroy the Gods which they had made And this is no more then was in the answer to the first obiection where he confessed that in the opinion of the heathen their idols were but idols and no true Gods Fourthly S. Augustine relateth that when the Gentiles were accused of idolatry they answered that Non colebant idolum sed numen quod per idolum significabatur they did not worship the idoll but the God which was represented by it This obiection Bellarmine repeateth in his 2. booke and 11. chapter But in the 13. chapter where he taketh vpon him to answer the arguments going before as I haue shewed he passeth this ouer with silence But to to come the reasons which Bellarmine produceth against vs for proofe of this defence If saith he they did not beleeue these idols to be very gods but representations only of God and so worshipped not them but God in them why do the Prophets labour so much to perswade them that they were no gods I answer whatsoeuer we prostrate our selues before in our prayers consequently we make it our god not by our opinion but by that adoration which is the prostrating of our selues before it not directly but by a consequent And because the people did so the Prophets and S. Paul in those places by him cited do not so much labour to proue them no Gods as if the people had thought them to be so but because they prostrated themselues before them and so by a consequent made them gods But saith Bellarmine if they did not thinke them to be gods why did they inuocate and call vpon them why did they pray vnto them vnlesse they thought that they did heare them I answer out of the Roman Catechisme which holdeth this doctrine that they must pray to the images of saints in the Romish Churches not thinking that the images can heare them but that the saints which by those images are represented should heare them when they pray before their images The words are these Quum ad imaginem sancti alicuius quis dominicam orationem pronunciet ita tum sentiat se ab illo petere vt secum oret sibique postulet ea quae Dominicae orationis formulâ continentur sui denique sit interpres deprecator apud Deum When any man saith the Lords prayer before the image of any saint let his meaning be thus that he craueth of the saint himselfe whose image it is that the saint would pray with him and obtaine for him those petitions which in that forme of prayer are comprehended and so that he would be for him insteed of
an interpreter and a spokes man for him with God So then as the Catholike prayeth to the image of the saint that the saint his selfe may heare him and not the image likewise the Gentile prayeth to the idoll not that the idoll but God should heare him Other arguments he produceth weaker then these as namely That the Gentiles thought their idols to be gods because they were so taught by their Priests and the world did so beleeue because the idols did seeme to speake when indeed not they but the diuels spake out of them as also because they had the shape of men they thought they had in theÌ„ life motion To which I answer their Priests did not so teach them neither did the world beleeue that they were gods but analogically as before For the Gentiles held that God was a spirit and not a body the diuels speaking out of them could not make the GeÌ„tiles beleeue they spake no more theÌ„ the friers speaking out of the rood-loft maketh the Catholike thinke that the image in the rood-loft speaketh Again the diuels speaking out of them did imitate God which spake out of the fiery bush wheÌ„ it could not seeme probable that the bush spake but God out of it Lastly that their idols had the shape of men it maketh against him for that should be an inducement rather to make them thinke they were no gods but rather men And to conclude that I may not be tedious concerning the erecting of images in the Church whether it be lawfull or no They alledge for proofe of the lawfulnesse thereof the example of God himselfe which commanded images to be erected in the temple of Salomon and thereupon conclude we may by that warrant erect images in our Churches which is but to deceiue the simple with a fallacy called A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Salomon lawfully erected images in his temple hauing receiued a commandement from God therfore we may erect them in our churches when God hath not giuen any such commandement The Israelites lawfully robbed the Aegyptians when God appointed them so to do but we may not do the like hauing no such dispensation from God He is liberrimum agens a free agent and aboue his law but we are vnder it and may not breake it without warrant from him God saith Non facies tibi sculptile thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen image and yet we may Deo sculptilia facere make grauen images to God that is when he doth so appoint it and so Salomon did CHAP. 3 Of Predestination FOr the better vnderstanding what predestination is it behoueth vs to know first that God hath written three bookes the one of nature to hold vs without excuse in which we may reade there is a God and that is the fabrike of the world The other of Grace to saue our soules which is the holy Bible where he hath manifested himselfe in his Sonne The third of life for our farther assurance which is his secret counsell and it he reserueth to himselfe in his owne bosome In it we cannot reade particularly whose names are written because it is not published as the two other are but it is sealed vp with seuen seales and none can open it but the Lambe Christ Iesus Yet out of the booke of Grace we are taught that some few are written in the booke of life and the lambe Christ Iesus hath reuealed to S. Paul his chosen vessell seuen leaues of that booke containing seuen heads or principall chapters to giue vs some small light and taste thereof that we may not be meerly ignorant of so much as in his wisedome he thought fit to impart vnto vs. The Apostle hath these words We know that all things worke together to the best to them that loue God euen to them that are called of his purpose for those whom he knew before he hath predestinated to be made like the image of his Sonne that he might be the first-borne among many brethren Moreouer whom he hath predestinated them he called whom he called them he iustified whom he iustified them also he glorified And in another place He hath chosen vs in him meaning Christ before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blamelesse before him in loue who hath predestinated vs to be adopted through Iesus Christ vnto his selfe according to the good pleasure of his will In which words are deliuered these seuen principall heads to wit Purpose Fore-knowledge Predestination Election Vocation Iustification Glorification which all of them I define after this manner His purpose is his eternall and immutable decree in generall that he will be glorified by his creatures Fore-knowledge is his eternall and immutable decree proceeding meerly from his will and pleasure that he will be glorified by the saluation of men Which fore-knowledge called in Latine praescientia is not deriued of the verbe scio which signifieth barely to know but of sâ—isco which is antè decernere to know with a certaine decree or determination that he will haue it to be so as where it is written This foundation remaineth sure God knoweth who are his And againe where our Sauiour saith in the gospell to the false apostles I know you not For otherwise though the foreknowledge of God be immutable it cannot be the cause that any thing should come to passe for nothing cometh to passe because he knew it would be so but because he ordained that it should be so Predestination is his eternall and immutable decree proceeding onely from his will and pleasure that he will be glorified by the saluation of some particular men aboue the rest as where it is written I haue loued Iacob and hated Esau Election is his eternall and immutable decree proceeding from his will and pleasure that the whole lumpe being a lumpe or masse of iniquity they which are predestinated to be vessels of honour should be separated from the other clay which serueth to make vessels of wrath and destruction And all these foure go before the conception of man the other three follow after not in Gods secret determination but onely in his execution two of them in this life and the other in the life to come Vocation is an action of especiall grace in this life in which by the holy Ghost inwardly working the Minister of the word outwardly preaching and the will of man vnfainedly consenting man is effectually conuerted to the faith and piety of life Iustification is a sentence of grace in this life out of which they which are effectually called are by him through Christ absolued from sin and consequently from the sentence and decree of death Glorification is an action of glory in the life to come by which corruption being cast off he doth cloath them with immortality after the similitude of the resurrection of Iesus Christ These are subordinate one to the other the first foure being
of the Saints is expressed Heb. 9. to be our Sauiour Christ the mediator of the new Testament which maketh his appearance in our behalfe Heb. 13. through him we offer our sacrifices of praiers to God Againe to the Angels God reuealeth so much concerning the affaires of men on earth as appertaineth to the ministery of those Angels and they haue the charge of men committed vnto them But it cannot be proued that the like charge is committed to Saints departed neither can the argument follow which is drawne from Angels to men That Saints departed are like the Angels in heauen is ment there onely concerning single life that they marry not as it appeareth by the text And this is not onely the exposition of Kemnitius but also of the English Seminaries themselues in their notes vpon the same place printed at Rhemes And whereas Bellarmine alledgeth for proofe that Saints departed haue the regiment of whole Prouinces because it is written Apoc. 2. He that ouer commeth shall haue power ouer nations It is to be vnderstood of the discipline and doctrine of the Church in this life whereby nations shall be conuerted but not of any gouernment of theirs after they be deceased Bellarm. The Fathers make for vs. Kemnit The Fathers were falsified by the Papists See Kemnitius at large how he satisfieth the obiections out of the Fathers Bellarm. It is also proued by many apparitions of Saints which appearing to men in dreames haue testified that particularly they did pray for vs. Kemnit This can be no proofe without testimony out of the word of God For Moses saith Deut. 13. 5. Thou shalt not hearken to the words of the Prophet or vnto the dreamer of dreames for the Lord your God proueth you to know whether yee loue the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soule c. Heb. 1. In times past God spake many waies to our Fathers by the Prophets but in these last dayes he hath spoken to vs by his Sonne And post illam postremam patefactionem non est expectanda reuelatio alterius noui dogmatis After God hath deliuered his will vnto vs this last time by his Sonne we must not looke for any latter reuelation by which any new doctrine should be reuealed vnto vs. That Saints are to be inuocated BEllarm Iob. 5. 1. Call now if any will answer thee and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne Kemnit The meaning is not that Iob in his calamity should flye to the Saints for succour but that instance could not be giuen in any Saint whom euer God punished without iust cause Bellarm. Iob. 33. 23. If there be an Angell with him one of a thousand to declare vnto man his righteousnesse then will hee haue mercy vpon him and say Deliuer him that he go not downe into the pit for I haue receiued a reconciliation Kemnit If there be present a minister of Gods word for ministers are called Angels and out of the word of God he shall shew vnto man what is right and iust and so the ministery of the word shall be applyed for comfort to the terrified and distressed conscience God will worke by this ministery repentance vnto saluation Bellarm. Exod. 32. 13. Moses praieth for the people in these words Lord remember Abraham Isaac and Israël thy seruants c. In which is to be noted that when Moses thought not himselfe sufficient to pacifie the wrath of God he was glad to flye to the helpe of the Patriarkes which Patriarkes because then being in Limbus did not ordinarily vnderstand or conceiue the praiers of the liuing therefore it was not the custome in the old Testament to say O holy Abram pray for me but onely in those daies men praied vnto God but in their praiers they alledged the merits of Saints departed that by the merits of those Saints their praiers might more easily be heard So Dauid Psalm 131. Lord remember Dauid with all his troubles And many other places are parallell vnto these Kemnit In the praiers which are recited in the old Testament oftentimes the good workes of the Patriarkes and Saints are mentioned to shew that they which so praied relyed vpon the promises and couenants which God made with the Patriarkes and Saints departed while they liued That they flye not vnto them for helpe it is plaine by their doctrine which they professe Esay 63. 16. Abraham is ignorant of vs Israel knoweth vs not yet thou ô Lord art our Father Neither doe they mention the workes of the Patriarkes in this sense as if they should say Heare vs ô Lord for their sakes because they haue deserued it at thy hands but heare vs Lord for thy promise which thou diddest make for thy oathes sake which thou diddest sweare vnto them when they beleeued thee obeyed thee and did those workes Bellarm. In the Scriptures as 1. King chap. 7. Rom. 15. c. They do pray to the lining Saints that they would pray for them Much more then is it lawfull to inuocate the dead Saints whose soules do reigne with Iesus Christ If it be not lawfull then either because they will not or because they cannot heare vs or because they vnderstand vs not or else because it is derogatory to God or to our Sauiour Christ But it cannot be said that they will not because being in heauen their charity is greater then whē they were on earth neither that they cannot because if they could being strangers and pilgrims vpon earth much more can they in heauen which is their natiue country neither that they vnderstand not forasmuch as the Angels Luk. 15. vnderstand when a sinner is conuerted but the Saints are like to the Angels as before it was proued neither that it is a dishonour vnto God or to our Sauiour Christ for then had it bene a dishonour to them to inuocate the Saints liuing Kemnit An argument cannot be drawne from those things which are done vpon earth to proue what is done in heauen without some testimony of the Scriptures For the eye hath not seene nor the care hath not heard neither can the heart of man conceiue the things which are in heauen further then by the Scriptures they are reuealed Secondly if any man should desire them which are liuing to pray for him in that manner as the Papists pray to dead Saints that by their intercession merits they may bee heard the praiers vnto the liuing were also derogatory to the Priest-hood of Iesus Christ To the other parts contained in that diuision is answered before An Answere to the Booke intituled PROTESTANT PROOFES OF CATHOLICKE RELIGION IT pleased God I published a short Treatise of perswasion to the ignorant Recusants to reconcile themselues to our Church I might happily haue perswaded them at the least to be halfe Conuerts as Saint Paul did King Agrippa to bee halfe a Christian had they not beene as a plot of ground vnapt to receiue good seed and like those
houses with whom for their vnworthinesse the peace of the Apostles could not abide The points which especially I vrged were proued out of Bellarmine their owne Doctor and in the places by me produced I falfified nothing but dealt sincerely let the learned disproue me if they can If they examine my arguments according to the lawes of Schooles they shall finde nothing false that may iustly bee denied nothing equiuocall that needeth distinction so that they must either answere me with silence or else if they deale ingeniously say with the inchanters Digitus Dei est It is the finger of God and make as open a confession of euiction as Iulian the Apostata did when hee cryed out Vicisti Galilaee Thou hast gotten the victory thou Galilean yet haue I beene contradicted but how iustly let the learned reader iudge An author without a name printed a booke at Paris Anno 1607. with this Title The first part of Protestant proofes for Catholicke Religion and Recusancy taken onely from the writings of such Protestant Doctors as haue bene published since the reigne of his Maiesty Which booke is nothing else but an vndigested Chaos or Miscellanea of halfe sentences rudely consarcinated together a confused heape of places some meerely diuised by himselfe and not to be found in these Protestant Doctors some wrested and falsly applied some truly alledged but impertinent to the argument hee taketh in hand all of them being praemisses without conclusions to make an idle shew of proofe where nothing is proued and of a confutation where nothing is confuted These proofes he saith he collected out of the bookes of the reuerend Father in God the Lord Bishop of Winchester Doctor Suckliffe Doctor Field Doctor Downam Doctor Morton Mr. Egerton and my selfe among many others in defence of his Recusancy and Romish religion But hee hath not vndertaken to answer any of our books neither can any iudicious man hold such recital of our words to be a confutation of our works Of these learned Writers and reuerend men I say with the parents of the blinde man Aetatem habent they are sufficient to answer for themselues and therefore I vndertake nothing in their behalfe onely for Apology of mine owne selfe I may truly say Because it is as impossible for him to make a iust reply against me as it was for the Centurion to deny the power of God in our Sauiour Christ when being conuicted by euident demonstration he said Verè filius Deiest In truth he was the sonne of God Therefore he hath with Elimas peruerted the straight waies of the Lord and withstood the truth by indirect and sinister meanes as Iamnes and Iambres resisted Moses For I pressed them by way of sound reason and strong argument he hath dealt by Elenches and Sophismes as the Apostle speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deceiuing them by paralogismes First he hath these words The greatest number of Protestant writers Doctor Succliffe Doctor Doue c. do teach there is no matter of faith no materiall or substantiall point or difference in religion betweene Protestants Puritants but they are of one Church faith and religion But we doubt whether they will stand to their positions they writ in Queene Elizabeth daies seeing they defend they may often change at the least at the change of euery Prince Doue perswasion Pag. 31. Wherein let the reader iudge whether he hath dealt with me ingenuously or no For I spake only of the manner of compiling our Seruice booke he chargeth me as if I had spoken of faith materiall and substantiall points of religion I spake of fact what we did concerning our Seruice booke and they concerning their Breauiry which haue changed as often as we he speaketh of right as if I had said we not onely then might vpon such good considerations as then iustly moued vs but also may euer hereafter when there is no such iust cause to induce vs thereunto change and alter our faith and grounds of religion My words were antagonisticall and by way of obiection from them with answere to their obiection he doth make relation of them as if they were dogmaticall and as a grounded conclusion maintained among vs. Therefore I charge him with two fallacies The first is Fallacia accentus For when wordes spoken interogatiuely are repeated indicatiuely or words spoken ironically as if they were spoken plainely or by way of obiection as if they were dogmaticall and all such like are referred to that fallacy Secondly he citeth part of my words which are the obiection and leaueth out the other part which are the answere which is comprehended vnder the Elenche called Fallacia diuisionis of which one species is Quando citatur imperfecta sententia non integra when part of the words are recited which the Sophister thinketh may serue his turne the other part is omitted lest the whole sentence should make against him Secondly he writeth thus The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull men in which the pure word of God is preached the Sacramēts duly administred according to Christs ordinance in all things that are of necessity required to the same Couel Field Doue be of the same minde Perswas page 23. I confesse I am of the same minde not onely in thesi but also in hypothesi that our Church is such a congregation that Gods word is truly preached and the Sacraments duly administred among vs according to Christ his institution But this is not with Sampson to fetch meat out of the eater Our words make for our selues but yeeld no aduantage to our aduersaries among whom neither Gods word is truly preached nor the Sacramēts duly administred Therefore they are idlely produced by him to delude the reader in making a shew of proofe for their religion and of confutation for ours when there is no MEDIVS TERMINVS wherby any thing should be proued or confuted And if he apply it by hypothesis to the Church of Rome that it is such a visible cōgregation c. and that therfore Recusants may safely continue in it and refuse to communicate with vs we were neuer of that minde neither can that be any Protestant proofe But it is a Petitio principij begging of the question which he taketh as granted when it is denyed Thirdly thus M. Williats words To errors of doctrine which are not fundamentall euen the true Church of Christ is subiect So Field ordinarily in his bookes of the Church so Sutcliffe Doue Perswa pag. 31. 32. But what doth he cōclude out of these words That therefore Recusants may wilfully maintaine the errours of the Church of Rome rather then be reconciled to our Church which is purged from such errors These words are no Protestant proofe of Catholike religion Hoc est ludere non argumentari this is to play the wanton not the Logitian Fourthly he chargeth me in this manner Concerning doctrine Doctor Doue writeth in these termes In fundamentall
catalogue of heresies many reckoned vp which are so farre from directly impugning faith that indeed they do not at all impugne the faith as that of Aerius which denied prayer and sacrifice for the dead and the set fasts of the Church To which I answer out of S. Augustine First these Fathers which make such long catalogues of heresies do not write as if they in their owne iudgements did hold all these to be heresies but onely they deliuer what opinions in seuerall ages haue bene condemned as hereticall leauing it to the priuate iudgement of the reader whether they were iustly condemned as hereticall or not but their selues deliuer not what is their owne iudgement For saith he Quid faciat haereticum regulari quâdam definitione comprehendi sicut ego existimo aut omninò non potest aut difficillimè potest To deliuer by a lawfull definition what thing maketh an hereticke in my opinion it is impossible or at lest of great difficulty Againe that in the catalogue of heresies the Fathers do not agree concerning the number of them but some recken vp more some fewer he saith Quod vtique non euenisset nisi aliud vni eorū videretur esse haeresis aliud alteri The cause was for that such an opinion as seemed heresie in the iudgement of one Father in the iudgement of another was not hereticall And concerning Epiphanius the Bishop of Cypris Philestrius Bishop of Brix which both writ of heresies the one making a longer Catalogue then the other he saith Procul dubio in eâ quaestione vbi disceptatur quid sit haeresis non idem videbatur ambobus reuer à hoc omnino definire difficile est ideo cauendum quum omnes in numerum redigere conamur ne pretermittamus aliquas quum hareses sint aut enumeremus aliquas quum haereses non sint That which seemed an heresie to one of them did not seeme so to the other and to define truly what is heresie is very hard and they which will write the Catalogue of heresies must be very circumspect lest they leaue out of the Catalogue some opinions which are indeed hereticall put in others which are no heresies Secondly the Fathers in those Catalogues did not vnderstand this word Heresie so strictly as in our age it is vnderstood but generally for euery sect in religion differing from the receiued opinion of the Church as it appeareth by S. Augustine in the words going before where hee maketh an heresie and a sect all one shewing Quantum inter se differunt de numero sectarum How much Epiphanius and Philastrius discent concerning the number of sects where he calleth them sects which before he called heresies And it is no maruaile though with those Fatheres all heresies do not directly impugne the Faith when by thē onely sects are vnderstood But to make euery opinion an heresie which not only directly but also by a consequent impugneth faith as M. Walsingham will haue it is to make no difference betweene errour and heresie but to call euery errour in religion an heresie as Ludouicus Viues speaketh Haeresis nomen rebus leuissimis impingitur The name of heresie is layd vpon euery light matter And of him it may one time or other be verified which Alphonsus de Castro speaketh Idcirco fit vt hiqui tam leuiter de haeresi pronuntiant non expendentes de quâre loquantur saepè suà ipsorum sagittâ feriantur incidantque in eam foueam quam alijs parabant It happeneth that they which so rashly call euery thing heresie not considering whereof they speake bee oftentimes beaten with their owne weapon and fall into the pit which they digged for others I shewed pag. 10. how Pusillanimity maketh men sometimes do contrary to their owne conscience as Cardinall Pole who dying said The Protestants are the honester men I would be a Protestant were it not for the Church of Rome This I brought for example to illustrate not for argument to proue For exempla non probant examples proue not He turneth it another way saying I broughtit for a reason to proue that Protestants are no heretickes In defence of our Church that it could not be accounted hereticall I called into question the authority of the Councell of Trent by which it was condemned alledging diuers exceptions against that Councell that it could not be a lawfull generall Councell the paucity of the Bishops which were there present their partiality the definition of a generall Councell cited by Bellarmine which could no way be verified of that assembly Hauing produced these arguments to disinable that Councell he doth not so much as repeate any of them much lesse doth he answer them onely he saith that it seemed to him a slight argument and to giue more aduantage to my aduersary then defence to my selfe and my cause I reply that it is no maruaile though a man of slight iudgement which passeth ouer all other things of moment so slightly doe esteeme those arguments to be so slight which his selfe cannot answer To perswade Catholikes to come to our Church I shewed how the learned among them do come euery day nearer to our religion and more and more fauour our opinions He saith it is a dreame I wish this dreamer to awake out of sleepe and with greater vigilancy to consider of the particulars as they are produced by mee I said First the learned Catholickes agree with vs concerning the bookes of Scripture which be Canonicall which Apocripha I writ in this maner The bookes of Toby Iudith Baruch Ecclesiasticus Wisdome Maccabes the fragment of Esther they hold to be Canonicall according to S. Augustine We to be Apocripha according to S. Hierome and in this point we differ no more from them then Hierome did from Augustine which did both agree and were easily reconciled S. Hierome interpreting S. Augustines meaning that they were Canonicall enough to proue rules of life not grounds of doctrine and faith Thus haue we deliuered long since But Bellarmine handling this question at large replieth not against vs nay hee doth not so much as mention this distinction of Canons of faith and Canons of good life Therefore we take it as a thing granted by the lawes of disputation that he holdeth as we hold resteth satisfied with our answer the case to be cleare betweene vs both M. Walsingham blusheth not to deliuer a notorious vntruth saying that Bellarmine handleth this distinction at large and refuteth the same in his first booke De verbo Dei cap. 10. In which booke and chapter no such thing can be found Secondly they agree with vs cōcerning the Bible which is the best and truest edition For wheras we holding the originall text only to be authenticall the Councell of Trent obtrudeth to vs the vulgar Latine translation Bellarmine preferreth the original before the Latine as we do M. Walsingham is not ashamed to charge me that