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
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
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
is in the nature of things as in Salomons temple were the images of Lions and Oxen but an idoll is made onely to represent somewhat that neuer was as the idols of Mercury and Iupiter which are but false Gods of the Gentiles Gods by imagination and not indeed And therefore they hold it for a slander to their religion that their images are called Idols Let the first question therefore be concerning the truth of that distinction that yee may examine their fiue reasons whereby that distinction is by them auouched First saith Bellarmine Images which are a true representation of somewhat are neuer called Idols in the holy Scriptures as in Salomons temple The images but not the idols of Lions and Oxen. To which I answer first it is but a kinde of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or contention about words which be they vnderstood howsoeuer be they confounded or distinguished the worshipping of them is the breach of Gods commandement where we are forbidden to worship any grauen image or the likenesse of any thing Secondly this negatiue proofe drawne from Scriptures is no sufficient argument but contrary to the lawes of disputations as is plainly set downe in the Topic called Pronunciatum Authoritas non valet in negatiuis Thirdly I bring instance against him out of the holy Scriptures where the image of a Calfe is called an Idoll For so saith Saint Stephen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they made a calfe in those daies and offered sacrifice to an idoll There in plaine termes the image or true representation of a calfe is called an idoll By this you see what smal credit is to be giuē to this distinction and what false grounds Catholike doctrine is builded vpon Againe Idols by Bellarmine himselfe are called statuae and are so translated in the Latine 1. Kings 10. 16. 17. and what is statua but an image Secondly saith he An idoll is in the Hebrue tongue Leuit. 19. 26. Num. 23. Ose 6. a vaine thing a false thing a lye alwaies signifying some false representation a false image and not a true image as Abacuc 2. 18. Which reason because it is but colewoorts twise sodden a mere tautologie and all one with the former I answer to it as before Thirdly he argueth out of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 8. 4. We know an idoll is nothing It is something saith he in respect of the matter whereof it is made as wood stone mettall but nothing in respect of the forme because it representeth that which is not To which I answer as before by deniall in as much as the golden calfe being for the matter gold represented that which in forme was somewhat a bodily substance animal mugibile a lowing beast And that I may make a better exposition of Saint Pauls words out of S. Paul himselfe of that proposition Idolum nihil est an idoll is nothing as in matter it is something so in respect of any diuine vertue in it which the idolater ascribeth to it it is nothing And againe by the analogie of that place it is nothing either in respect of sanctification or pollution of those meats which are offered to it And if there be any that cannot or will not be satisfied with this answere let them reply against it Fourthly saith he S. Hierom vpon Abac. 2. Zach. 13. compareth heresies and idole together because as an idol is a false image so an heresie is a false imagination To which I answer S. Hierom might as iustly haue compared heresies with images which are many times as vnlike the man for whose pictures they are made as heresy is different frō the truth But he fayleth in the maine point of his comparison because this proposition is not generally true that an idol is a false image because the calfe in Horeb of which I first spake was both an idoll and a true image Fiftly out of Eustachius lib. 11. Odyss saith he an idoll is properly such a representation as the shadowes of men flying phantasies and imaginations of the braine which we thinke we see when nothing is before our eyes ghosts apparitions of such as be dead To which I answere out of the vulgar Latine Bible which is of better authority with the Church of Rome then euer Eustachius was that the word image is also vsed in the same manner as In imagine transit homo Man passeth away as an image or a shadow And Iob saith In the thoughts of the visions of the night when sleepe falleth on men feare came vpon me and dread which made all my bones to tremble and the winde passed before me and made the haires of my flesh to stand vp then stood one I knew not not his face imago animage was before mine eyes and in silence heard I a voyce c. Thus vnder a colour and shew of learning hath he made an idle and fruitlesse discourse to intangle the simple reader with no small preiudice to the Romish religion which is defended by such sleight shifts rather then by manifest truth This scruple being remoued it remaineth in the second place that we discusse this question whether images are to be worshipped or not And herein the practise of the Romish Church is contrary to the doctrine they do teach because in their Churches they worship images set them vp to be worshipped and inioyne the people to adore them and yet not able to stand in the defence thereof by their Writers they forsake their old defence and by their Canons deny that any diuine worship is due vnto them For the Councell of Trent hath these wordes Imagines Christi sanctorum honorandae sunt modo tamen in imaginibus non collocetur fiducia nec ab ijs aliquid petatur nec in ijs esse credatur aliqua diuinit as sed solum honorentur propter eos quos nobis repraesentant Images are to be honored not to be adored and they are to be honoured onely with such limitations that we put no trust or confidence in them that we pray not vnto them that we ascribe not any diuine vertue to them but onely they are to be honored for their sakes whose images they are and whose likenesse they represent to vs. There you see plainly what their doctrine is how they deny them adoration And yet by their practise they do not onely prostrate themselues before them as the Gentiles did before their idols but plainly shew in action that they suppose some diuine power to be in them in that they pray to them and by their long peregrinations weary themselues in visiting some images rather then others yea they trauell very farre to prostrate themselues before the images of our Sauiour Christ and the virgin Mary and other Saints in farre countries when they haue in their owne Churches at home the images of the same Saints yea farre more beautifull then are abroad Bellarmine saith Omnes cruces ador amus we adore all images of the crosse And yet
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
before one another in order but not in time because they are eternall the other three though in Gods booke they be also eternall in respect of his determination yet in respect of the men that are called iustified and glorified as they are acts proceeding from his decrees to execute and accomplish that in them which God hath decreed not only in order but also in time they follow after as they are not in eternity but in time These things being duly considered let vs come to the state of the question Our doctrine is that God by eternall decree hath ordeined some to saluation others to damnation the cause which moued him so to do being not in them but only in himselfe and that is onely his will and pleasure The subiects therefore of this disputation are two sorts of men Paucitas saluendorum the paucity or small remnant of them which are saued And concerning them Bellarmine his defence is all one with ours that they are saued no cause being in themselues but onely in God without any foresight of any thing in them He saith it is a doctrine consonant to Scriptures to the tradition of the Church to reason grounded vpon Scriptures and Fathers The difference betweene him and vs is only concerning them which are comprehended in the second ranke which is numerositas damnatorū the great multitude of them which are damned Of them he saith Caluiniani contendunt homines ante praeuisionem paccati ad mortem destinatos quod cum Dei iustitiâ pugnat It cānot stand with the iustice of God to ordeine men to destruction without foresight of some cause to be in themselues Our answer is God ordeined them to destruction of his owne will not for their sinnes and yet not being without sinne but bringing with them into the world from their natiuity and conception sufficient matter of condemnation before his decree should be put in execution as the Hebrues when they were in Aegypt did both build for Pharaoh and also finde straw their selues to make morter for the building We distinguish inter vasa ipsa vniuersam massam betweene the vessels in particular which are made to condemnation and the whole lumpe out of which they are fashioned and framed Though they were ordeined to damnation for no iniquity which was particularly in themselues yet that there might be no iniustice with God he had a generall respect to the mould of iniquity whereof they were made He hated Esau in his owne person not for any thing that was in Esau but there was matter enough in the whole lumpe out of which he was created wherefore he should hate him Saint Augustine saith Merito iniustum videretur quod fiunt vasa ad perditionem nisi esset in Adam vniuersa massa damnata It might seeme iniustice that any should be vessels ordeined to destruction had it not bene so that the whole lumpe out of which those vessels were formed had bene damned before in Adam So he maketh the foundation of this decree to be the fall of Adam and yet so that the fault and guilt of condemnation should rest in themselues and yet this fall of Adam not to be an antecedent or cause of this decree but a consequent or sequele of that decree But concerning the vessels in particular which are comprehended in this lumpe the Apostle saith God hated Esau that his purpose might remaine according to election not by workes but by him that calleth where he plainly deliuereth this doctrine That God in this reprobation of Esau respected nothing in his person but the cause which moued him to this hatred was onely in himselfe If the aduersay alledge as vsually he doth that albeit God did no hate him ex operibus for his euill workes which were in in him because then he was vnborne yet he did hate him ex praeuisis operibus because he foresaw those euill workes which afterward when he should be borne he would commit I answer That obiection is preuented and fully satisfied by the words themselues in that which followeth after Concerning the words themselues Saint Augustine saith Si futura opera quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaqum diceret non ex operibus sed ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quaestionem immò nullam omnino quam solui opus esset faceret quaestionem If the Apostle had vnderstood foresight of workes to be any cause he had not said as he did NOT OF WORKES but he would rather haue said God hated him because of the workes which he foresaw in him and so he would not onely haue resolued this question but also haue made it so plaine that it should haue bene without question But in the words which follow Saint Paul expresseth his owne meaning to be as I haue deliuered first by making answer to this obiection Is there iniquity with God God forbid For flesh would obiect that it were iniustice condemnare hominem non natum to condemne the child vnborne To which obiection he answereth It is no iniquity which answer in defence of Gods iustice had bene needlesse and the obiection as fruitlesse if it were so that God did in his decree condemne him out of a foresight of sinne which he knew he would commit forasmuch as God in his foresight could not be deceiued and his decree was not to be executed vntill the sinne were committed and that were in mans iudgement no iniquity or iniustice Secondly he cleareth the matter by inlarging that point to make it more apparant to mans capacity where he saith He will haue mercy vpon whom he will haue mercy and where he will he hardeneth And againe it is not in him that willeth meaning mans indeuours nor in him that runneth meaning the workes of man but in God that sheweth mercy There he reacheth that the onely law of iustice and rule whereby God in his predestination and reprobation is directed and the highest cause which moueth him thereunto is onely his will Non potest iniuste agere cuius volunt as est iusticiae regula He cannot do iniustice which is tyed to no other rule of iustice but his will Whatsoeuer is the will of God the same with him is iustice Hauing thus layed open the state of the question and shewed briefly what is our defence let vs examine what may be said against vs. Our aduersaries which we are to conclude withall are Bellarmine and Becanus two famous Iesuites Bellarmine seemeth in words somewhat to discent from vs by wilfull mistaking both of vs and of Saint Augustine from whom he would deriue the grounds of his disputation as a man that will not see that which plainly he seeth He goeth about the bush by sleights and subtilties that he might at the least beare the world in hand he standeth in opposition against vs but when he commeth to the point he discenteth not from vs. As for Becanus which hath written after
Potter may do Neither is this to condemne men the cause being not heard for the whole lumpe being corrupted the particulars could not be cleare neither was any particular to expostulate with God the whole lump being iustly damned more then Moses was to be admitted to plead for himselfe why he should not be cast into the water when it was decreed generally that all male children of the Hebrues should be cast into the water It was sufficient without further arguing the case that Moses was a male childe of the Hebrues so it was sufficient that Esau was the sonne of Adam That God elected but a small remnant and damneth many millions it is no new doctrine our Sauiour saith Many are called but few are chosen Saint Augustine saith God is glorified as well by destroying as by sauing of mankinde else he would not create so many millions whom he knew before should be damned If all saith Augustine which are borne of Adam should be saued lateret beneficium quod donatur indignis Gods mercy to them which are saued which are indeed vnworthy of saluation would not appeare Plures Deus facit damnandos quà m saluandos incomparabili multitudine vt reiectorum multitudine ostenderetur quà m nulli momenti est apud Deum iustū quantalibet numerositas iustissimè damnatorum atque vt hinc quoque intelligant qui ex ipsâ damnatione redimuntur hoc fuisse massae illi vniuersae debitum quod tam magnae eius parti redditum cernerent God ordeined more to condemnation then to saluation without all cōparison first that it might appeare by the maier part of them which are damned how little God which is so iust regardeth the destruction of whole multitudes of sinners which are most iustly punished Secondly they which are redeemed from that damnation may by their owne redemption confesse when they see the maior part damned that that damnation was due to the whole lumpe which was adiudged to the greater part And last of all if he thinke it an hard speech in Caluin to say that God inciteth men to sin that so he might take occasion to punish them let Saint Paul answer it out of whom Caluin did alledge it where he saith God hardened and God stirred vp Pharaoh for this purpose that he might shew his power in him and that his name might be declared through all the earth To conclude whereas he obiecteth 1. Tim. 2. It is the will of God that all men should be saued And Ose 13. Perditio tua ex te salus ex me Israël that thou art damned it proceedeth from thy selfe that thou art saued it is to be ascribed to me ô Israël And therefore inferreth that the cause of predestination is in our selues not in God I answer first to Saint Paul It is his will that all should be saued that is his reuealed but not his secret will and to Hose our destruction is of our selues and yet it is of God that men are predestinated to destruction for as much as there are two causes of damnation one principall which is his will and that is outward and not in men the other subordinate which commeth betweene the decree and the execution of the decree which is damnation and that is sinne matter worthy enough of damnation and that is inherent in man And thus you see the saying of the Apostle verified of this Iesuite Volentes esse Doctores legis non intelligunt quid loquuntur neque de quibus affirmant They would bee Doctors of the law and yet vnderstand not what they speake neither whereof they affirme CHAP. 4. Of inuocation of Saints THe Church of Rome hath bene for many yeares past charged with the crime of idolatry for yeelding that worship to dead mens soules which is due onely to God Being not able to stand any longer vpon the iustification of themselues the matter appearing so fowle they flye frō their first holds and deuise new defences to auoide that grieuous imputation and yet still to retaine their ancient superstition Therefore concerning inuocation of Saints they deliuer this doctrine Non licet à sanctis aliquid petere vt nobis tanquam auctores aliquid concedāt sed vt corū precibus à Deo nobis beneficia concedantur It is not lawfull to pray vnto Saints as authors and giuers of any good thing which they should bestow vpon vs but onely as helpers and mediators vnto God in our behalfe that by their praiers for vs we may more easily obtaine at the hands of God such things as we shall aske Being charged that their practise is contrary to this doctrine that in the practise of their religion throughout their Churches they pray still in as grosse maner as before they did howsoeuer in their Schoole-diuinity they dare not maintaine it to cleare themselues they say Si quis dicat sancte Petre miserere mei quantum ad verba sic licet dicere sed sensus intelligendus est Miserere mei orando pro me da mihi aditum coeli id est precibus impetra It is lawfull to pray in these termes S. Peter haue mercy vpon me open to me the gate of heauen but that praier is not to be vnderstood as it is conceiued in those expresse words but in another sense which is this Pray for me that I may obtaine mercy by thy praiers obtaine for me that the gate of heauen may be opened vnto me To which I reply that the common people among them are no Schoole-men and therefore this euasion doth not make their prayer to bee lesse idolatrous then it was before This is but to hold the people still in darknesse and to rob God of his honour by the fallacy of equiuocation But let vs examine the grounds of this defence They alledge the words of the Apostle I magnifie my office to try if by any meanes I might prouoke them of my flesh to follow them and might saue some of them And in another place I am made all things to all men that I might by all meanes saue some To these words I answer they are sufficient to proue that while Saint Peter liued God stirred him vp as an instrument of his glory to bring men to the kingdome of heauen and to saue their soules but not after he was departed out of this life So Timothy taking heed to learning and continuing therin might both saue himselfe and them which heard him when he liued but not after his death For who knoweth not that verbum Dei est officio seruatrix humani generis the word of God hath a sauing power and that the ministery of the Gospell is the ordinary meane to saue mens soules But what is this to Saints departed whose ministery ceaseth or to proue the lawfulnesse of prayer to the dead which do not heare vs S. Paul spake of sauing men in his life time not after his death by his preaching to them
not by their praying to him that he should pray for them This is no true kinde of argumentation but a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi The defence of the Romish Church being this that Saints are to be inuocated after they be dead not as authors but as mediators let this be the question betweene vs whether any such inuocation is commended vnto vs in the holy Scriptures or no Eckius one of their greatest Schoole-diuines that euer was in the Vniuersitie of Ingolstad maketh this free confession that innocation of Saints is not expressly commanded in holy Writ Explicitè sanctorum inuocatio non est praecepta in sacris literis Not in the old testament saith he because the people of themselues were prone to idolatry and the Saints departed were then in Limbus and not in heauen In the new testament the Apostles wrote no such thing left such doctrine should be a meanes to bring the Gentiles backe againe to idolatry as also because the Apostles their selues would not be thought so ambitious as to seeke their owne glory after their death I desire them therefore with Christian sobriety to speake to these foure points First the wisedome of the holy Ghost being such that in the whole body of the Bible such inuocation was not so much as once named for feare of idolatry how can it be denied but this inuocation hath at the least some affinity with idolatry or why should the Church of Rome either withstand or go beyond the wisedome of God to maintaine publish that in their humane policy which God in his diuine wisdome thought fit to be suppressed and concealed or why should not the perill of idolatry bee as carefully shunned now as then it was Secondly forasmuch as the confession of Bellarmine is Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria quae ipsipalam omnibus vulgo praedicarūt that all things which are necessary for the Church to know or which the Apostles in their Sermons by word of mouth did publish teach are written by the Apostles but this inuocation is not mentioned in their writings and therefore was neither taught by them nor held necessary to saluation Why doth the Church of Rome so vehemently maintaine it S. Paul saith No mā must presume to vnderstand aboue that which is meet to be vnderstood but that euery man must sapere adsobrietatem vnderstand with sobriety And what it is plus sapere quà m oportet to vnderstand aboue that which is meet and not according to sobriety he sheweth in another place supra id quod scriptum est sapere when any man shall presume beyond that which is written Thirdly if inuocation of Saints were necessary for the easier obtaining of mercy at the hands of God and the readier way to saue mens soules and yet the Apostles forbeare to publish this doctrine because they would not be thought ambitious they were not faithfull Stewards of the word nor so carefull of the Church of Christ as behoued men of that holy vocation for humane respects neglecting their office Furthermore they did contrary to the rule of Saint Paul in concealing the truth of religion which was to do euil that good might follow which imputation cannot without great impiety bee layed vpon such sanctified vessels Nay which is more how can it stand with that which Saint Paul testifieth of himselfe where he saith I haue kept nothing backe but haue shewed you all the councell of God And againe I haue shewed you all things Fourthly in the same chapter Eckius hauing deliuered that such inuocation is no where expressed in the holy Scriptures yet taketh vpon him to produce many expresse places to proue the same I would therefore bee satisfied with what conscience he could aledge those places to resist a knowne truth But to come to Bellarmine when Mathias was to be elected in the place of Iudas the Apostles prayed after this manner Thou Lord which knowest the hearts of all men shew whether of these two thou hast chosen In which words it is expressed that hee which onely is infinitely wise hath reserued the knowledge of mens hearts to himselfe But this is a ground or principle agreed vpon betweene vs both that we may pray vnto none but onely to him which knoweth the heart He answereth that not onely God but also the Saints departed are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 searchers and vnderstanders of the secrets of mens hearts I reply That belongeth onely to the Creator which made the heart For saith Salomon Heare thou in heauen in thy dwelling place and be mercifull and do and giue euery man according to all his waies as thou knowest his heart for thou onely knowest the hearts of all the children of men He distinguisheth in this manner Non tribuunt Catholici sanctis mortuis diuinitatem id est vim cognoscendi mentium cogitationes Cognoscunt quidem preces nostras non vt sunt in mentibus nostris sed vt sunt in Deo quem vident qui eas ipsis ostendit The Catholickes ascribe not to Saints departed any Deity as if they had power in themselues to bee discerners of mens thoughts And yet they conceiue our prayers though not by any insight into vs or inspection into the inward and hidden man but by vision in the Maiestie of God whom they do see and who reuealeth our prayers vnto them Against this answer I dispute in this manner out of his owne booke in another place If Saints conceiue our prayers in such sort as is aforesaid then it is by a generall illumination or vision by which at their first entrance into the state of happinesse in the Maiesty of God they see all at once or else successiuely by a speciall reuelation from God at such times and seasons onely as prayers in particular are made vnto them he standeth in doubt what he should answer whether it be by such a generall illumination or such especiall reuelation by which of them it is or whether it be by any of them or not he cannot tell For he saith Ex his duabus prior videtur simpliciter probabilior tamen posterior sententia est magis idonea ad conuincendos hereticos It is more probable it should be by vision and yet it is a more safe defence against the heretickes to hold that it is by reuelation In which words you see what weake grounds he buildeth vpon which are onely probabilitas studium contradicēdi the first probility or humane coniecture the second a vaine desire of contradiction to withstand his aduersaries in disputation whether it be by truth or falshood right or wrong by certainty or vncertainty by hap or good cunning he careth not I reply therefore If Saints heare vs not it is very idle to pray vnto them if it were possible that they could heare vs but if we cannot resolue our selues that they do heare vs our praiers
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
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.