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
by his owne exposition this word ador amus we adore them is no more then if he had said We honour them and thinke reuerently of them or vse them reuerently because they be for exercise of deuotion and make difference betweene them and other things which are appointed only for ciuill vses And to make good this his expositiō he referreth vs to that decree of the Councel of Trent which before I haue alledged Moreouer he sheweth that as there is one adoration which is religious belonging to God so there is an other onely officious belonging to all Ecclesiasticall rites and ceremonies and such things as are vsed in the Church And to that purpose he alledgeth the authority of the 2. Councell of Nice which speaketh more in fauour of images then all other Councels and decreeth in this sort Imagines sunt venerandae non quidem cultu latriae sed honore illo quo prosequimur sacras literas vasa sacra Images are to be worshipped but how not with such worship as belongeth to God but onely to be honoured as the Church bookes and the Church vessels But I thinke no Catholicke holdeth that the Bible the Basen the Font and the Chalice are to be worshipped by adoration And so they call them sacras imagines sacred images as they call other things which belong to the Church res sacras holy things as the Communion cuppes vasa sacra holy Chalices the Font lauacrum sacrum their Priests personas sacras their Churches Aedes sacras their Bibles Biblia sacra and yet adore them not And thus as men ashamed of themselues they qualifie the matter by such subtilties among the learned to auoid suspition of idolatry continue the people in ignorance and grosse idolatry Againe whereas Aquinas and other Catholicke Doctors haue before deliuered in grosse tearmes that images are to be worshipped cultu latriae with diuine worship or such worship as is due vnto God Bellarmine to qualifie the matter and to reduce them to the meaning of the Councell of Trent would seeme to make a more milde exposition of these words coigning this distinction Inter sanctos eorum imagines reliquias betweene the Saints themselues and their images and reliques So inter Christum eius imagines reliquias betweene our Sauior Christ his images reliques And so he hath written that the images reliques are to be worshipped with the same worship as they whose images reliques they are and so the images reliques of Saints with the worship of doulia and of Christ with latria But yet at the length as a Cow that giueth a paile full of milke and then kicketh it downe with her heele he doth by a distinction so qualifie the matter and set downe such a state of the question whereby all is ouerthrowne For saith he that worship which is called latria and that which is doulia are of two sorts one is cultus verus a true worship which is due to the persons themselues the other but analogicus an analogicall or equiuocall worship onely which is due to the images and reliques But what difference is betweene analogum and analogatum a liue Saint and the picture of a Saint I referre the consideration thereof to the iudgmēt of all Scholers which haue learned but Aristotle his Antipredicaments As a painted man or analogical man is no man so analogical worship is no worship a painted man is but the resemblance of a man so analogicall worship is but a resemblance of worship and not worship it selfe But it is hard to deuise how they should make such a resemblance of worship before the image and not worship the image And howsoeuer if it were possible yet the Apostle teacheth how they ought to auoid all shew of euill And thus hath he auoyded that which was alledged against him by aequiuocation which is contrary to the law of Schooles To leaue their doctrine come to their scandalous practise we charge them with breach of the second commandement because they fall downe before their images Bellarmine in defence thereof saith They do not cultū tribuere simulacris tāquam Dijs worship their images as Gods but onely they worship God in the images of God Saints in the images of those Saints before whom they fall downe and that such worship is not prohibited in holy writ Now therefore vpon this point let vs ioyne our issue If to prostrate themselues before the image and say they worship not the image but God in the image might be lawful then might both Iews Gentiles which did the like haue excused their idolatry forasmuch as neither of them hold their idols to be Gods when they fall downe before them For knowing by the light of nature there was a God but knowing him not as he ought to be knowne nor in what sort he should be worshipped they framed idols worshipped him in those idols yet for so doing they were condemned in the holy Scriptures because he being a Spirit would be worshipped in Spirit but not in an idol and so he will not be worshipped in an image Concerning the Iewes which were idolaters they knew their golden calfe was no God but worshipped God in the calfe Bellarmine therefore asketh why they said Faciamus Deas qui praecedant nos let vs make Gods to go before vs Hi sunt Dij qui eduxerunt te de terra Aegypti these be the Gods which brought thee out of Aegypt I answer their maner was to call idols Gods but Deos repraesetatiuos gods by represetation because they made thē to represent God vsing the figure called enallage numeri Gods for God the plural number for the singular I answer him also by his owne distinction they did meane Deos analogicos non veros Gods analogically but not truly vniuocally vnderstood So in the story of the Iudges speaking of Micha the idolater the text saith This man Micha had an house of Gods the holy Ghost would not call his idols Gods but in this sense because they were idols There it is plaine that in the Scriptures that which is knowne vnderstood to be no God but an idol yet is called a God And that I may somwhat inlarge this point for the better satisfaction of the reader The Iewes knew that God in particular which brought thē out of Aegypt before the golden calfe was made for a little before he came down in their sight vpon mount Sina they heard him speake with their own eares he appeared in thundering lightning his presēce was so terrible they were afraid they said to Moses Talke thou with vs and we will heare thee but let not him talke with vs lest we dy therfore could not think this calfe which they made afterward to be the same God which could not speake nor terrifie them at all and consequently they held it to be but an analogicall or representatiue God But
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
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
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