spake as I certainly perswade my selfe it is it cannot be any way of equall authority with the Greeke and Latine besides that many things are found in that edition distasting to men both godly and learned Againe Valde probabile est Euangelium Matthaei epistolam Sancti Pauli ad Hebraeos Syriacà linguà scripta esse There is great probability onely that S. Matthew his Gospel and S. Paule his Epistle to the Hebrews were written in the Syrian tongue There he doth not take it as a cleare case that S. Matthew his Gospell was written in Syriac by himselfe but onely he leaueth it as a probable coniecture But the Greeke he will haue to be without exception Constat nouum testamentum Graecè scriptum ab ipsis Apostolis vel Euangelistis quorum nomina in titulis singulorum librorum vel epistolarum praefiguntur exceptis duntaxat euangelio Matthaei Marci et Epistola ad Hebraeos It is manifest that the new testament was written in Greeke by those Apostles or Euangelists whose names are praefixed to euery booke or Epistle excepting the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Marke the Epistle to the Hebrews But Athanasius existimat ab Apostolo Iacobo Matthaei euangeliū in Graecam linguam esse translatū alij verò Iohāni Apostolo at alij ipsi Matthaeo eam translationē attribuunt sed cuiuscunque sit it a recepta est ab Ecclesiâ illa trāslatio acsi eâ linguâ scriptū fuisset euangeliū Mathaei Athanasius thinketh S. Matthews Gospel was translated into Greeke by S. Iames the Apostle others by S. Iohn the Apostle others by S. Matthew himselfe but by whomsoeuer it was translated the Greeke translation is so approued by the Church as if it had bene originally written in that tongue Againe Itaque Graeca editio noui testamenti vniuersa Apostolos Euangelistas authores habet Therefore all the Greeke edition was set forth by the Apostles and Euangelists And as for the vulgar Latine edition it is by the Councell of Trent imposed vpon all Romish Catholickes vpon paine of excommunication to be receiued as authenticall and without exception Therefore according to the rules of their Catholicke religion I argue against the Catholickes more safely and firmly out of the Greeke and Latine which are plaine and of whose authority they make no question then Bellarmine doth against vs out of the Syriac which is both ambiguous and of no authority in the Church to build vpon So then for asmuch as by the decree of that Councell nothing can be held for truth in the Syriac which is repugnant to the Latine but the Latine maketh for vs I conclude that my Analysis of the text is without exception let him refute it if he can Now this being the question whether the Church be founded vpon the person or vpō the doctrine of Saint Peter If they say vpon his person I reply the Church was from the beginning of the world and it stood as firme as now it doth before the conuersion of S. Peter When S. Peter was not the Church was one and the same which now it is and it could not stand without a foundation But the faith which he professed was more ancient then himselfe euen from the beginning common to the whole Church so that the Church might well be builded vpon that faith though not vpon Saint Peter nor vpon the person of any sinfull man And therefore our Sauiour saith he will build his Church that is the members of the Church vnder the Gospell which make but vnam Ecclesiam aggregatam one Church ioyntly with that which was vnder the time of nature and the time of the law vpon the same foundation being all stones of the same building But Bellarmine alledgeth out of Saint Chrysostome Hom. 55. in Matth. Where he saith Tues Petrus super te aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Thou art Peter and vpon thee will I build my Church And Hom. 4. in Esaiae cap. 6. Quid autem Petrus ille basis Ecclesiae What shall we say of Peter the foundation of the Church As if Saint Chrysostome did not acknowledge the doctrine but the person not the confession but the confessor himselfe to be the foundation of the Church To the first place I answer I haue examined but finde no such place in that Homily but that which is contrary to it But supposing that to be true which he hath so faisified I answer to it as likewise to the secōd place which is rightly by him produced that it is but the fallacy of aequiuocatiō For he alledgeth that out of Chrysostome as a speech proper which is but metonymically vnderstood It is a figure called Metonomia causae So Abram speaketh to the rich man They haue Moses and the Prophets meaning not the men themselues which were dead but their bookes which were extant So Saint Paul teacheth that we are built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles that is vpon the faith which is taught in the Propheticall and Apostolicall writings so that there is but one faith one ground or foundation vpon which the old Church from the beginning and the new Church vnder the Gospell are builded vpon these two being but one as before I haue deliuered And that the meaning of Saint Chrysostome is metonimicall and not proper it appeareth by his owne exposition of himselfe where he saith in the same Homily contrary to that which Bellarmine hath alledged super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam id est fidem confessionem I will build my Church vpon this rocke that is vpon this faith and confession which thou hast made And it is iustified to be a true exposition by the consent of other Fathers as of Saint Hilary which saith super hanc confessionis Petram aedificatio Ecclesiae est vpon this rocke of confession is the Church founded And of Cyrillus which saith Petram opinor nihil aliud quà m inconoussam firmissimam discipulifidē vocauit He called the faith of S. Peter arocke because it was stedfast as a rocke that cannot be moued And by the way to preuent that which may in subtilty but not in sincerity be obiected against vs that the foundation must be answerable to the building but we which are builded vpon that foundation are all liuing stones and we come to him which is also a liuing stone disallowed of men which is Iesus Christ as the building is personall so there must be a personall foundation the persons of men are these liuing stones I answer the onely true and proper foundation of the Church is Christ as the Apostle teacheth No other foundation can any man lay then that which is already layed which is Iesus Christ I will therefore explaine the meaning of Saint Chrysostome Saint Hillary and Saint Cyril in what sort faith may be verified to be the foundation of the Church and yet with a due reseruation of that prerogatiue which
can neither be effectuall nor yet made with a good conscience That they cannot be effectuall it is the doctrine of Saint Iames Euery thing which we aske must be asked in faith and not with doubting c. That such prayers are made with an ill conscience and are sinne it is the doctrine of Saint Paul He that doubteth is condemned because hee doth it not of faith and whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne Let euery man bee fully perswaded in his minde But we cannot be assured that they heare vs seeing there is no ground nor proofe thereof in the holy Scriptures neither can the classicall Authors and and maintainers of that doctrine yeeld any plaine or firme reason to satisfie either vs or their owne selues how it may be so that we should beleeue it and subscribe vnto it He alledgeth many arguments in defence of inuocation of Saints as mediators to pray for vs which arguments haue bene alledged long before his time by Eckius and other Catholicke Doctors And they haue bene long since ansered by Peter Martyr Caluin Kemnitius other Protestant writers before his booke came forth Now it was to be expected for the Catholike credit of Bellarmine so great a Doctor that he should not haue produced these old arguments againe whose answers were published in print so long since for that is no cunning but he should haue bene furnished with new stuffe or at the least haue replyed vpon the answers hic labor hoc opus est which he hath not done The answers therefore being so sufficient that hee doth not reply vpon them as his proofes are but the same which were before so it shall be sufficient to answer them as they were answered before and so to satisfie old arguments with old answers Saints saith Bellarmine do pray for the good estate of the whole Church in generall and for such men in particular as do pray vnto them and we ought to pray vnto them that they would particularly pray for vs. And that I may speake to these three propositions although I deny not the first that Saints do pray for vs in generall yet I will examine the validity of his arguments which he alledgeth for proofe thereof to shew how weake the grounds are which they build vpon and so I will in order descend to the rest only to set downe his arguments and Kemnitius his answers to those arguments published in print long before for the satisfaction of others by whom they were before obiected as followeth That Saints departed do pray generally for the whole Church BEll Hieremy 15. The Lord said to me though Moses and Samuel should stand before me yet my affection could not be towards this people Therefore Moses and Samuel being dead both then could and vsually at other times did pray for the people alioqui inepta esset Dei loquutio otherwise God had spoken these words impertinently as if a man had said If my Oxe pray for thee he shall not preuaile meaning that Oxen cannot pray Kemnitius We deny not but Saints departed do pray for the whole Church but it cannot be proued by this text First a conditionall proposition proueth nothing vnlesse the condition were performed but Moses and Samuel did not thē stand before God therfore they made no intercession for the people Secondly by the confession of the Church of Rome they were then in Limbus as all other Saints departed vntill the death of our Sauiour Christ therefore they could make no intercession Thirdly the idolatry of the people was so odious in the sight of God that if Moses and Samuel had bene aliue to make intercession for the people as in their life time they did yet God would not heare them Fourthly this supposition was made of Moses and Samuel being aliue and not after their death To which I adde my owne answer this argument is a fallacy called the ignorance of the Elenche Bellarm. 2. Maccab. 15. Iudas in a vision saw Onias the Priest and Ieremy the Prophet pray for the people but that booke of Maccabes is held for Canonicall Concil 3. Carthag cap. 47. Kemnitius First that is but a dreame and not a story is related to animate the Souldiers to fight valiantly Secondly notwithstanding the relation of this dreame neither Iudas Maccabeus nor yet his army did inuocate Onias or Ieremy but onely God Thirdly that booke is vnderstood to be Canonicall for examples of life but not for ' points of doctrine and therefore maketh not for this purpose Bellarm. Apoc. 5. 8. The 24. Elders fell downe before the throne hauing their phials full of odours which were the praiers of Saints Kemnitius These praiers as they were their owne and not of other men which were made vnto them so they were onely a thankesgiuing to God for their owne redemption for the redemption of the whole Church but no intercession Bellarm. 2. Pet. 1. 15. I will endeuour therefore alwaies that ye may be able to haue remembrance of these things after my departure Kemnitius Saint Peter did this endeuour by his epistle while he liued not by his praiers after he was dead Bellarm. Luk. 16. The glutton in hell praied for his kindred much more do the iust in heauen pray for the whole Church Kemnit First we must not forsake the Scriptures to receiue instruction from them which are damned in hell which being forsaken of God seeke for comfort any where rather then at the hands of God Secondly this is but a parable and not a story Thirdly if it were a story yet this prayer is not heard Fourthly he saw Abram whom he prayed vnto and receiued answer from him what is this to Saints departed whom we see not neither heare them make any answer Fifthly the glutton remembred in what state he left his kindsfolks when he departed but they might haue repented after his departure for any thing that hee knew This proueth not that the dead know the state of them which are aliue neither yet that they pray for the Church in generall That Saints departed do pray for particular men which pray to them BEllarm The Saints do not onely pray forvs but also take charge ouer men and whole Countries and Prouinces as the Angels do Concerning the Angels we haue proofe Toby 12. Zach. 1. Apoc. 8. Dan. 10. Psal 19. Matth. 18. And much more the Saints departed which are as the Angels Luk. 20. and haue a prerogatiue aboue Angels because they are members of the body of Christ and are neerer vnto vs and better able to haue a feeling of mens infirmities being men themselues Kemnit The booke of Toby is not Canonicall to proue any point of faith but onely for examples of good life That Angell in Zachary is our Sauiour Christ which maketh intercession for his Church and his praier is his owne which is there mentioned and not the praier of the Church The Angel in the Apocalips which offereth the praiers
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
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