God for which you suffer See the like texts noted in the margent That the auncient Fathers mantayned the doctrine of merit of works see for greater breuity Ignatius Ireneus Basill Chrysostome Nazianz Nyssene Cyprian Ambrose Austin Ierome The iudgment of the auncient Fathers touching merit of works is discouered besides by their owne testimonyes euen from the acknowledgment of the Protestants For first we find D Humfrey to confesse in this s 〈…〉 rt Ireneus Clemens and others called Apostolicall haue in their wrytings merit of Works In like sort the Centurists thus charge Chrysostome Chrysostome handleth impurely the doctrine of iustification and attributeth merit to works They also t 〈…〉 censure Origen Origen made works the cause of our iustification Brentius in like sort saith that Austin taught assiance in mans merits towards remission of Sinns Luther styleth Ierome Ambrose Austin and others Iustice Workers of the old Papacy D. Whitakers thus wryteth of the age of Cyprian Not only Cyprian but almost all the most holy Fathers of that tyme were in that errour as thinking so to â—ay the payne due to sinne and to satisfy Gods iustice D. Whitguift as afore of praying to Saincts so of merit of works thus confesseth Almost all the Bishopps and Wryters of the greeke Church and Latin also were spotted with doctrine of merit Bullenger confesseth the great antiquity of the doctrine of merit in these words The doctrine of Merit satisfaction and iustification of works did incontinently after the Apostles tyme lay their first foundation To conclude this point M. Wotton no obscure Protestant reiecteth the authority of Ignetius the Apostles scholar touching merit of works in this sort I say plainly this Mans testimony is nothing worth because he was of little iudgment in Diuinity Thus farre touching our Aduersary acknowledgments of the Fathers iudgment herein Now that some learned Protestants do teach and beleiue the doctrine of Merit of Works to be true and Orthodoxall doctrine is no lesse euident then the former point For it is taught as true doctrine by the Publike Confessions in their Harmony by M. Hooker by Melanctâ—on and by Spandeburge the Protestant To the former doctrine of merit of Works I will adioyne the doctryne touching works of Supererogation Which doctrine is greatly exagirated and depraued by many Protestants who are not ashamed to traduce the Catholicks and to diuulge both by penne and in Pulpit that the Catholicks do hould that their works can do more then merit Heauen But this is the Protestant◠〈…〉 lumny since the Catholicks do not hould or beleiue any such thing Therefore I will sette downe the true definition of an Euangelical Counsell distinguished from a Precept seing vpon Euangelicall Counsells works of Supererogation are grounded An Euangelicall Counsell of Perfection is called any good Worke Which is not commanded by Christ but only commended by him and poynted on to vs by hym As the Vowe of Chastity of Pouerty of Obedience and diuers other good Works not commanded by God It differeth from a Precept First because the subiect of a Precept is more facill and easy then that of a Councell Secondly in that a Counsel doth include in it the Performance of a Precept and something more then a Precept Thirdly in that Precepts are common to all Men to performe Counsells are not so Fourthly Precepts of their owne nature do oblige Men to their performance Counsells are in the choyce of one to performe or not performe Lastly Precepts being obserued are rewarded being not obserued the transgression is punished Whereas Counsells being obserued and kept haue a greater reward being not kept no punishment followeth Thus far touching the definition of an Euangelicall Counsell Which in other words may be also thus defined An Euangelical Counsell is any such good Worke of high Perfection to the performance whereof we are not bownd as that we sinne in not doing of it Now whereas it is commonly obiected against the doctrine of Euangelicall Councells That we are so obbliged to God as that we cannot euer do more then we ought to do It is therefore heare to be conceaued that if we consider Gods benefitts bestowed vpon vs we willingly acknowledge that Man can not do more good then he ought no not the thousand part of that he ought to do in that Man cannot render or retaliate any thing of equall valew and worth to Gods benefitts Neuerthelesse Yf we consider the Law and Commande imposed by God vpon vs then man may be sayd to do more then indeede he is obliged by Gods Law to do For although Man cannot exceede or equall Gods benefits with his owne works yet he is not become guilty hearby seing Men is not obliged to performe more then that only which God commaundeth Euangelicall Councells take the cheife and first proufe from sacred Scripture As wheare it is said There are certaine Eunuchs who haue gelded themselfs for the Kyngdome of Heauen Which place is expounded of the Euangelicall Counsell of Chastity by Cyprian Chrysostome Austin and others A second text to omit diuers others for breuity is that where our Sauiour sayth to the yong Man Yf thou wilt be perfect go and sell all that thou hast and giue it to the poore and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen Which text is interpreted of the Euangelicall Counsell of pouerty by S. Ambrose S. Ierome and S Austin The foresayd doctrine is further confirmed by the authority of the auncient Fathers For b 〈…〉 es their expositions of the foresaid places of Scripture this doctrine is further taught by Origen Athanasius Basil Chrysostome Nazianzene Cyprian Ambrose Ierome and finally by Austin who speaking of Precepts and Counsells vseth the very Word Supererogation thus saying of precepts and Counsells Dominus debitum imperat nobis in his autem si quid amplius supererogaueritis in reddendo reddet nobis The doctrine of Euangelicall Councells is warranted and taught besydes by the former auncient fathers of the Primatiue Church euen by diuers learned Protestants According hearto we find it is mantayned for true doctryne by M. Hooker by D. Coâ—ell and by Bucer And thus fâ—r breifly of Iustification by Works of merit of Works and of works of Supererogation The Catholicke Doctrine touching Indulgences THe Viâ—ulency of Protestants against the doctrine of Indulgences is most remarkable Wherefore for their better conceauing of the state of this Question or Indulgences this following in the Catholicke Doctrine First that Mortall sinne is remitted by the Sacrament of Confession so far forth only as concerneth the guilt or offence of God and the punishment of eternall damnation yet so that this eternall punishment by Gods Mercy is turned into temporall punishment as appeareth by the example
Work A matter so euident and confessed by our aduersaryes as that D. Fulke thus exprobrateth the Catholicks in these words You can name the notable personages in all ages obserue these words in all ages and their gouerment and ministery and especially the succession of the Popes you can rehearse in order and vpon your fingars Thus D. Fulke 3. Thirdly We prooue the former assertion of our Catholicke Church its Visibility during the first six hundred years after Christ and consequently during the whole period of the Primatiue Church by taking a view in generall how the cheife auncient Fathers of those tymes are pryzed and entertayned by the Protestants who indeed dispensing with all Ceremonyes herein do absoluâ—ly reiect them as inexcusable and grosse Papists For as for these last thousand yeares It is acknowledged by all Protestant whosoeuer that our Church hath bene most visible tyrannyzing they say ouer the true Church for so many ages And according hereto M Powell sayth From the yeare of Christ six hundred and fyue the professed company of Popery hath been very visible and conspicuous But to proceede If the most auncient most reuerend Fathers of the Primatiue Church I meane Ignatius Dionysius Areopagita Iustinus Ireneus Tertulâ—an Origen Cyprian Athanasius Hilarius the Cyrills the Gregoryes Ambrose Basill Optatus Gaudentius Chrysostome Ierome Austin and diuers others be accounted by our aduersaryes most earnest Professours of our Catholicke and Roman fayth then followeth it ineuitably that our Catholicke Church was most conspicuous in those dayes since those Fathers were then the visible Pastours of the Church and then consequently the Church whereof they were Pastours must needs be visible That these primatiue Fathers were Papists as our Aduersaryes tearme vs appeareth euidently out of these few confessions here following which for breuity I haue discerped out of the great store of like acknowledgments of this point occurring in our aduersaryes bookes And first Peter Martyr thus confesseth of this point As long as we insist in the Fathers so long we shal be conuersant in their errours Beza thus insulteth ouer the Fathers Euen in the best tymes meaning the tymes of the Primatiue Church the ambition ignorance and lewdnes of the Bishopps was such as the very blind may easily perceaue that Satan was president in their Assemblyes or Conncells D. Whitguift thus conspireth with his former Brethren How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned wryters of the Greeke Church Latin also for the most part spotted with doctrines of freewill of merit of Innocation of Saints and such like meaning such like Catholicke doctrines Melancthon is no lesse sparing in taxing the Fathers who thus confesseth Presently from the beginning of the Church that is presently after Christ his Ascension the auncient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the Iustice of Fayth increased ceremonyes and deuised peculiar Worshipps But Luther himselfe shall end this Scene who most securiously traduceth the Fathers in these words The Fathers for so many ages meaning after the Apostles haue bene blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures They haue erred all their lifetyme and vnlesse they were amended before their deaths they were neither Saincts nor pertayning to the Church Thus Luther And thus much touching the Fathers of the Primatiue Church being professours of our present Catholicke Fayth and Church and consequently that our Catholicke Church was most uisible and florishing in those primatiue tymes 4. Fourthly The former inexpug 〈…〉 verity is proued from that the Church of Rome neuer suffered change in fayth since it first plantation by the Apostles Now if the Church of Rome neuer suffered chauge in Religion if it hath euer continued a Church since the Apostles dayes and lastly if at this day it professeth our present Catholicke fayth then followeth it demonstratiuely that there were visible Professours of our Catholicke fayth in the Church of Rome euer since the Apostles and consequently that our Catholicke Church hath euer bene uisible since those tymes To proue that the Church of Rome neuer brooked change of fayth since the Apostles dayes I referre you to the first former Dialogue of the Conuerted Iew. 5. Fiftly and lastly our foresaid Assertion is acknowledged for true vndoubred euen from the penns of our learned Aduersary who most frequently in their wrytings do intimate so much And here I am to craue pardon if I iterate some few testimonies and acknowledgments of Protestants aboue produced in this Dialogue Which as they there did prooue an inuisibility of the Protestant Church in those former Ages so here also diuers of them prooue so neerely do these two points interueyue the one the other a continuall visibility of our Catholicke Church during the said tymes To come then to these confessions of the Protestants in this point touching the euer visibility of the Catholicke Church I will ascend vp by degrees euen to and within the Apostles dayes And this because some Protestants as lesse ingenuous and vpright in their writings do affoard to our Catholicke Church a shorter tyme or Period of visibility then others of their more learned and well-meaning Brethren are content to allow First then M Parkins thus sayth During the space of nyne hundred yeares the Popish Heresy hath spreed it selfe ouer the whole earth This point is further made cleere from the Penns of the Centurists and Osiander all which do in euery of the Centuryes from S. Gregories tyme to Luther name and record all the Popes 〈◊〉 cheyfe Catholicke Bishops and diuers others professing our Catholicke fayth according to the Century or age wherin eich of them liued But to ascende higher M. Nappier confesseth of a longer tyme thus saying The Popes Kingdome hath had power ouer all Christians from the tymes of Pope Sâ—luester and the Emperour Constantyn for these thousand two hundred and sixtie yeares And also againe from the tyme of Constantyn vntill theese our dayes euen one thousand two hundred and sixty yeres the Pope and the Cleargy hath possessed the outward visible Church of Christians But M. Napper in an other place dealeth more bountifully with vs herein for thus he witnesseth During euen the second and third ages the true temple of God and light of the Gospell was obscured by the Roman Antichrist Sebastianus Francus alloweth the Visibility of our Church from the tyme immediatly after the Apostles thus wrytinge Presently after the Apostles tymes all things were turned vpsyde downe c. And for certaine through the worke of Antichrist the external Church together with their fayth and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure With this Protestant D Fulke conspireth thus saying The true Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles tymes Which being spoken by him of the Protestant Church then may we infer that the Church of Rome and it fayth as presumed to be by the iudgment of this Doctour the false Church was visible immediatly
of knowledge the Saincts do know our prayers Or lastly because we offer iniury to God and Christ if we pray to any other then to him alone But this is the least of all true seing by the same reason it should not be lawfull for vs to pray to the liuing that they would pray for vs And then consequently Saint Paul should haue beene most iniurious to God and Christ in praying to the Romans the Ephesians the Thessalonians the Colossians and the Hebrews to pray for him to God Therefore as it is no iniury but an honour to Kings when their friends are honored and Embassadours are sent to them Euen so heere there is no iniury done to God but honour when the Saincts of God are honored by praying vnto them not as to Gods but as to the friends of God since otherwise it would follow that he should commit an iniury to God as is aboue sayd who should desire entreate the prayers of the liuing This argument is vnanswerable and the rather since the Saincts in Heauen are members of the same Church of which the liuing are they also wholy relye vpon the same intercession of Christ with the liuing for what they desire for vs that they desyre of God through the merits of our Sauiour Christ This doctrine of Inuocation of Saincts is further prooued from seuerall auncient Councells whose places for greater breuity I referre the Reader to As to the Epistle of the Bishops of Europe written to Leo the Emperour which epistle is adioyned to the Councell of Calcedon the Councell of Chalcedon it selfe the sixt generall councell the seauenth generall couÌ„cell besides diuers others That the auncient Fathers of the Primatiue Church beleiued practized this doctrine of praying to Saincts is euident from the references herein the margent See then hereof Dionisius Areopagita Ireneus Eusebius Athanasius h Basill Chrysostome Gregory Nyssene Hilary Ambrose Ierome Austin and others This point of the Fathers iudgment and practize herein is so manifest as that we fynd it to be thus confessed of them by the learned Protestants M. Fulke thus sayth I confesse that Ambrose Austin and Ierome did hould Inuocation of Saincts to be lawfull The sayd D. Fulke doth further thus write In Nazianzen Basill and Chrysostome is mention of Inuocation of Saincts And yet more fully the same D. thus confesseth Many of the auncient Fathers did hould that the Saincts departed do pray for vs. In which generall condemnation of the Fathers herein D. Whitguift the Archbishop of Canterbury thus coÌ„spireth with the foresayd D. Fulke Almost all the Bishopps and Wryters of the Greeke Church and Latin also for the most part were spotted with the doctrine of Inuocation of Saincts and such like points To conclude D. Couell thus 〈…〉 peth with the former Protestants saying Diuers both of the Greeke and Latin Church were spotted with the errour about the Inuocation of Saincts Now that the Protestants do not only confesse the auncient Fathers iudgment hearein but that also diuers of them do beleiue the doctrine 〈◊〉 selfe to be true is no lesse cleare For we find Luther hymselfe thus to wryte De intercessione diuorum cum tota Ecclesia Christiana sentio Sanctos a nobis honâ—randos esse inuocandoâ— With whom agree Oâ—colampadius Latimer and diuers Protestants in Polonia Now I will end this poynt in setting the iudgment of learned Fathers and Catholicks touching the manner how Saincts do heare out prayers Which is that Saincts as being in Heauen euen from their first beginning of their beatitude and happines do see all things in God as in a cleare glasse which belong vnto them any way according to that Quid est quod ibi nâ—sciunt qui scie tem omâ—â—a sciunt And therefore they see and heare our prayers directed vnto them And hence it is that the holy Soules before our Sauiours Incarnation and Ascention being in Lyâ—bus Patrum were not prayed vnto because they then not being in Heauen could not heare the prayer of the liuing made to them And therefore no maruayle if neither in the old Testament nor in the new we find no expresse examples of prayer made to Saincts To the former maner how saincts do see the actions of the liuing and do heare their prayers I may adioyne an other manner of hearing theÌ„ allowed taught by S. Austin other Fathers Which is that God out of his speciall fauour and loue to his Saincts doth open and reueale to them the particular states and prayer of their friends yet liuing in the World Now how agreable it is to all force of Reason that Saincts in Heauen should know the affayres of their liuing friends is seuerall wayes proued First because the Angells in Heauen reioyce at the conuertion of a sinneâ— Therefore the Angells know the particular states of liuing Men. But if the Angells do then by the same Reason the Saincts doe seeing so far as concerne this poynt theare is no difference betweene the Angells and the Saincts Secondly the Nature of their beatitude requireth such knowledge of the affayres of their liuing friends For seeing their Happynes is a mayne Ocean of all ioyes no kind of happines being to them wanting which is requisite for them to haue therefore it followeth that for their greature measure of their felicity they are to haue notice of the miseryes wants prayers of their liuing friends And this the rather seing Nature is not abolished but betered and perfected by grace from whence we may gather that the Saincts in heauen do not abandon reiect the cares states of their liuing friends but do still retayne though with greater perfection their former naturall desire to know releiue the state of their said friends Thirdly This priuiledge of Saincts knowing the state and hearning the prayers of the liuing best sorteth to the nobility and worth of their beatificall and happy Vision of God For if God hath honored diuers of his friends whyles they liued in this world with the guyft of Prophecy as he did Daniell Ezechiel Esay Dauid and many others wheareby diuers of them reuealed many things to come meerely depending of Mans freewill and therefore not forseene in their causes as also did tell at the very tyme they were donne things donne in places far distant and remote from them How can it then otherwyse be but that his diuine Maiesty is most willing to communicate vnto his Saincts the state and prayers of the liuing To the force of which Reason S. Austin subscribeth in theese words Yf the Prophet Elizaeus absent in body did see the brybe his seruant Geizi did take of Nâ—man syrus c. How much more in that spirituall bodye shall Saincts see all things c. When God shal be All in all vnto vs Lastly the damned spirits and
signify three yeares and a halfe which short compasse of tyme cannot in any sort be applyed to the Bishop of Reme as Antichrist teaching the present Roman Religion seeing he hath coÌ„tinued preaching the sayd Doctrine Religion euen by the Protestants confessions as now I see many hundred of yeares But good my Lord Cardinall if there be any other reasons behinde to impugne this sayd change I would intreate your Lordship to descend to them for in matters of great importance variety seldome breedeth satiety CARD BELLARM. I am willing therto And for the further prosecution therof I am to put you in mind M. Doctour partly according to my former Method set downe in the beginning that wheras the Professours of the Church of Rome were in the Apostles dayes the true Church of Christ as is aboue on all sides confessed and consequently the most ancient Church since truth is euer more ancient then falsehoode and Errours It therfore followeth that all Hereticks whatsoeuer who make choyse of any new doctrine in Fayth do make a reuolt and seperation from that Church of the Apostles according to those words of S. Iohn exierunt a nobis they went out of vs and answerably to that other text certaine that went forth from vs which very words do contayne a Brande or Note vpon the Authour of euery Heresy Since the Apostle and the Euangelist do meane hereby that euer first Hereticke goeth out from a more aucient society of Christians then by him is chosen So as to go out of a precedent Church or society of Christians is not only an infallible note of Heresy in the iudgment of Vincentius Lyrinensis quis vnquam Haereses instituit nisi qui priùs ab Ecclesiae Câ—â—boli ae Vniuer sitatis antiqnitatis consensione discreâ—â—it but euen by your owne Brethren for we finde Osiander among others thus to write Nota Haeretici ex Ecclesia progrediuntur Thus do Hereticks euer forsake the generall most ancient company of Christians as smale Brooks do often leaue the common channell of the mayne Riuer Now here I demaÌ„d of you M. Doctour to shew from what company or society of Christians more ancient did we Catholicks in those former tymes when first you say this chaÌ„ge of Faith was made depart or from what Church afore in being went we out The euidency of this Note is manifested in Caluin Luther the Waldenses the Wicliffians and all other ancient acknowledged Sectaries of whom it is confessed that all of them were originally Members of our Catholicke Church and by their making choise of particuler Doctrines so Iudas the Apostle who departing from the company of the Apostls after became Iudas the Traitour did go and depart out of the present Roman Church and therby became Hereticks The like M. Doctour I do here expect that you should prooue by authority of Ecclesiasticall Histories of the present Catholicke and Romane Church which if you cannot then is the inference most strong that the present Church of Rome neuer made any such reuolt from or departing out of that Church which was established by the Apostles at Rome and consequently that the present Church of Rome neuer suffered any change in Fayth since it first being a Church D. WHITAKERS Your Church hath departed from that Fayth which the Apostles first preached in Rome and I hope this departure and going out without other proofs is sufficient enough And here I answere with M. Newstubâ— one of our learned Brethren That when you require who were they that did note your going out c. This question I say is vnvecessary c. we haue taken you with the manner that is to say with the Doctrine diuerse from the Aposties and therfore neither Law nor Conficience can force vs to examen them who were witnesses of you first departing Thus my Brother M. Newstubs And my Lord as it is far better for one to haue a cleare sight then to enioy the best helps for curing a bad sight so we here prefer the truth of the Doctrine first preached at Rome by the Apostles and manifested vnto vs by the perspicuity of the scripture before all humane reasons and arguments directed to the discouerie of Romes after embraced Innouation CARD BELLARM. What strang Logicke is this and how poore a Circulation do you make The mayne question betweene vs is whether the present Church of Rome hath changed it Fayth or no since the Apostles dayes To prooue that it hath not Iverge that the professours therof did neuer go out of any more ancieÌ„t Church and consequently euer retayned without change it former Fayth Now you in answere hereto as not being able to instance the persons by whom or the tymes when any such departing or going out was made by the Professours of our Religion reply that it Doctrine is different from the Doctrine of the Apostles and therfore the Church of Rome hath changed it Religion since the Apostles tymes and this sophism you know is but Petitio Principij or a beginning of the matter in question and is nothing els but without answering to any of my premisses the denyall of my Conclusion which kynd of answenng I am sure impugneth all Logicke and therfore all Reason since Logicke is but Reason sublimated and refined But to proceed further In euery introduction of a new Religion or broaching of any innouation in Doctryne the Professours therof receaue a new denomination or name for the most part from the first authour of the new doctryne and sometymes from the Doctrine its selfe like vnto a running riuer which commonly taketh the name of that riuer into which it falleth Thus the Arians the Valentinians Marcionists Manicheans from Arius Valentinus Marcian and Manicheus c. or from the doctrine it selfe as the Hereticks Monothelites Agnoitae Theopaschitae c. though this more seldome This Note or Marke of imposing a new name of the Professours of euery arrising Heresy may be exemplified in all Heresies without exception ingendred since the Apostles tymes euen to this day a poynt so exempt from all doubt as that your learned Man M. Doctour Feild thus writeth Surely it is not to be denyed but that the naming after the names of Men was in the time of the Primatiue Church peculiar and proper to Hereticks and Schismaticks with whom agreeth M. Parks both of them borrowing it from the ancieÌ„t Fathers and particulerly from Chrysostome who thus saith Prout Haeresiarchae nomen it a Secta vocatur Well then this being thus acknowledged on all sides If the present Church of Rome hath made a change from her first Primatiue Fayth then the Professours therof by introducing of new Heresies and Opinions became Heretickes and consequently they haue taken according to our former grounde some name either from the first broachers of these new Doctrines or from the doctrines themselues But you cannot M. Doctour shew any such name to be imposed vpon vs
Ministers of the ghospel D. Fulke D. Iewell and M. Henoch Clapham do ioyntly teach the same neither did I euer read any one authentical writer to deny it CARD BELLARM. How long M. Doctour do your writers confesse that the Britons did preserue their Fayth receaued in the Apostles tymes free from all change or mixture of innouatioÌ„s D. VVHITAKERS We do confesse that they preserued it pure and not stayned with any Errours til Augustine his comming into England who was sent by Pope Gregory to plant his religioÌ„ amoÌ„g vs English for first thus I finde D. Iewell to auer The Britons being conuerted by Ioseph of Aramathia held that Fayth at Augustins comming as also D. Fulke saying The Catholick Britans with whom Christian Religion had continued in succession from the Apostles tymes would not receaue Augustine To these we may adioyne the like words of M. Fox The Britons after the receauing of the Fayth neuer forsooke it for any manner of false preaching nor for tormeÌ„ts and finally that acknowledgment of D. Humfrey Habuerunt Britanni templa sibi non Romanis c. The Britons had temples and Churches peculiar to themselues not common with the Romans they not subiecting theÌ„selues to the yoake of the Romans CARD BLLARM Well M. Doctour you deale with integrity and playnes hitherto openly discouering what your reading and iudgement are able to deliâ—er herein And your Prayse in so doing is the greater since there are some men so cautelous in their proceedings and speaches and of such an impenetrable closenes of disposition as that we can neuer knowe their minde by their words the one for the most part standing neutrall to the other or rather the Aspect of a Diametricall Opposition But M. Doctour let me enquire further of you You know that there was an interuiew of meeting betweene this Augustine and the Bishops of Britanny or Walles for the conferring of their Religions together at a place called in S. Bede his time Augustineizat which point is further recorded by your Holinshead M. Fox and diuers others Now here I would intreate you sincerely to set downe the greatest differences of Fayth and Religon which at that meeting were found to be betweene the Briton Bishops and the foresayd Augustine D. WHITAKERS I will and my tongue shall truly subscribe to all that which of this point I haue heretofore read And first S. Bede will fully determine this point who relating how Augustine answered the Briton Bishops setteth his answere downe in thâ—se words Si in tribus his obtemperare mihi vultis vt Pascha suo tempore celebretis vt Ministerium Baptizandi quo Deo renascimur iuxta morem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis vt Genti Anglorum vnà nobiscum praedicetis verbum Domini cetera quae agitis quamuis moribus nostris contraria eaquanimiter cuncta toller abimus that is If you Briton celebratingâ—aster â—aster day in it due tyme in conferring of Baptisme by the which we are reborne to God according to the Rites of the Roman and Apostolicall Church and in helping vs to preach to the English all other matters which you do though contrary to our manners we wil tollerate and suffer Thus far S. Bede But to what end my Lord Cardinall do you make so many demaunds touching this matter of the Britons Since I cannot see your proiect herein they neither preiudicing vs Protestants nor aduantaginge you Papists CARD BELLARM. M. Doctour you shal quickly discouer the drift of these my seuerall demaunds which resemble a Torrent stopped for a time that it may in the end ouerflow with greater violence Now to your former acknowledgmeÌ„ts we may adde touching only the three former differences the like Confessions of Holinshead M. Goodwin and the ProtestaÌ„t Authour of the History of great Briton whose words are these The Briton Bishops conformed themselues to the Doctrine Ceremonies of the Church of Rome without difference in any thing specially remembred saue only in the celebration of the feast of Easter c. Now M. Doctour in this last place I would haue you cal to minde what is aboue related touching the Fayth planted by Augustine of D. Humfrey the Centurists and Osiander D. Humfrey his words herin though the iteration of them may perhaps seeme vnpleasing I wil once more repeate for greater weight of our ensuing argument who speaking of Augustins Religion planted in England thus writeth In Ecclesiam verè quid inuexerunt Gregorius Augustinus onus Caeremoniarum c. intulerunt Pallium Episcopale ad sola Missarum solemnia Purgatorium c Oblationem salutaris hostiae Preces pro demortuis c. reliquias c. Transubstantiationem c. nouas templorum consecrationes c. Ex quibus omnibus quid aliud quaesitum est quam vt Indulgentiae Monachaâ—us Paptus reliquuÌ„que Pontificiae superstitionis Chaös extruatur Haec autem Augustinus Magnus Monachus a Gregorio Monacho edoctus importauit Anglis Thus D. Humfrey Are not these his owne words And are not the Centurists and Osiander aboue cited most cleare that Augustine at his comming into England preached the present Roman Religion in all chiefe points to you English D. WHITAKERS It cannot be denyed but that all the foresayd Protestants as also all Histories discoursing of this poynt do coÌ„fidently auerre the same Which said Gregory as he brought in some true wholsome poynts of Christian Fayth so did he mingle them with diuers poisonous superstitions worthily to be avoyded by all good Christians Phármaca pollà mén 〈…〉 esthlà memieména pollà de lyerà for it is most cleare that Augustine in this his plantation of Religion in England did greatly labour ' ar ' ' rostia quadam dianoias with an infirmity or sicknes of iudgment CARD BELLARM. Wel M. Doctour touching the venom you spit out against Augustines Religion I holde it but as fome froth of a distempered stomack and therfore I passe it ouer but to returne to my argument Here now I wil be seruiceable vnto you and by the mixture of all these former Ingredients I will present you with a wholsome Electuary compounded of them all for indeede I holde the demonstration issuing out of the premisses so vnauoydable as that it precludeth and forestalleth the aduersary of all shew of Reply First then it is graunted that the Britons were coÌ„uerted to the Fayth of Christ by Ioseph of Aramathia who as he had the honour to interre our Sauiour lay his sacred Body in a new monument cut out of a rock as the Euangelist speaketh so enioyed he the happines to bury al former infidelity in the Britons and to cloath or infolde their afore stony and rocky harts within the cleane Syndon of a pure Fayth in our Sauiour But to proceed Secondly it is confessed that the Britons retayned this their first Fayth spotles and without change till
Augustins comming into England Thirdly it is prooued that at the tyme of the conference betweene Augustine and the Briton Byshops the greatest difference in matters of Fayth and Religion wherupon they stoode were but two poynts cheifly consisting in Ceremony to wit the keeping of Easter day in it vsuall tyme and the forme of Baptizing according to the rites of Rome Fourthly and lastly it is graunted that Augustine here planted and preached to the English all Articles and points of the present Romane Religion or Papistry as you Protestants do vsually style it Now M. Doctour what other resultancy can here be made out of all these Premisses but this To wit that the Church of Rome in Augustins time teaching Papistry was wholy agreeable the two points or Ceremonies of keeping Easter day and of baptising with the Rites of Rome only excepted with the Fayth and Religion which was planted among the Britons by Ioseph of Aramathia in the Apostles daies and consequently that the Church of Rome teaching Papistry did neuer suffer any change in her Faith and Religion since the Apostles departed This is the Argument wherin I graunt I partly insult it is inauoidable it is a demonstration And pryse it Micheas as a strong Aries beating downe bearing before it whatsoeuer may seeme to withstand the Truth in this pointe controuerted MICHEAS In deed my Lord it seemes to me very forcible and you did well to reserue it to the last place that so like sweet-meats it might pleasingly close vp the tast of our iudgments Neuerthelesse the consideration of it doth not diminish with me the force of your other former arguments for though Better be better yet followeth it not but that Good is good D. WHITAKERS My Lord This your argument is tyed togeather with many links and breake but one of them all the rest are loosed And indeed it is but an argument drawne from Authority Negatiuely and by Omission only which you know is little valued in the schooles For the hinge as I may say or weight of it only consisteth in this That at the meeting of Augustine and the Briton Bishops dissented from Augustine But of other greater points we read no mention made among them and therfore for any thing we know the Britons might aswell disagree from Augustine in all other Articles passed ouer in silence as agree with them CARD BELLARM. How improbable how absurd how impossible is this you say And take heede M. Doctour that this your answere be not controuled by your owne secret conscience and beware of much practising the like hereafter since the Character of any bad course impressed by a long habit at length becoms indelible But to the point Consider all the Circumstances of the busines at that tyme handled and then deliuer an impartiall and euen censure The meeting was occasioned only for comparing their Faiths together Augustine imitating therin S. Paul vt conferat cum illis Euangelium quod praedicat in Gentibus The Britons euen by the acknowledgment of M. Fox did beare themselues at the first against Augustine with great pertinacy stubbernes and therfore the lesse probable it is that they would yeeld to him in any point of moment more then was agreeable to their owne Religion The differences betweene them after much disquisition and search are recorded to be only about the two former points of Ceremonies and seeming indifferency The Recorder of this great Passage was principally S. Bede who ex professo did write most elaborately and punctually the Ecclesiasticall History of England in those times and therein was obliged by his designed method not to register the smallest occurrents and wholy to omit the greatest Now then can we dreame that the Doctrines touching the Reall Presence the Sacrifice of the Masse Praying to Saints Purgatory Free-will Iustification by works Images Monachisme the Primacy of Peter and some others all being Articles of greatest importance and particulerly taught by S. Augustine were either not mentioned and not once spoken of in that serious discourse betweene Augustine and the Briton Bishops or they being then painfully discussed and ventilated the Britons being so refractory and stiffe with Augustine in the smalest points would quietly and without resistance embrace all these high doctrines as Innouations and repugnant to their Fayth first planted by Ioseph of Aramathia Or if the Briâ—on Bishops veâ—lded not their assent to these supreame poynts of Fayth of Rome would not such their reluctation and dislike haue bin recorded by S. Bede and other writers of those tymes who would not omit to relate the Britons stifnes and coldnes in the least matters of this History It is great weakenes but to suppose such impossibilities It is madnes and lunacy to beleeue them Therfore my absolute and last resolution here is that the Fayth of Augustine was then one and the same in all Articles with the Fayth of the Britons first preached to them in the Apostles dayes the Ceremonies of Baptising and of keeping Easter day cheifly excepted which lesser errours S. Augustine obseruing the Britons stiffnes thought perhaps would sooner be recalled by a patient sufferance of them for a tyme then by any violent meanes vsed at the first to the contrary like to some diseases which are best cured by continuing the diseases Now for the fuller close of this poynt to wit touching the agreement of the Doctrine taught by S. Augustine with the then Doctrine and Fayth of the Briton Bishops I will adde the acknowledgement of the Briton Bishops themselues of whom S. Bede thus relateth Britones quidem confitentur intellexisse se veram esse viam iustitiae quam praedicaret Augustinus so vnanimous we see were the Britons Augustine in their Fayth and Religion and therfore it was not strange that at the last as D. Fulke affirmeth Augustine did obtayne the ayd of the British Bishops to the conuersion of the Saxons And thus far of this argument the which shall serue as the Catastrophe or end of this my Scene wherin I haue vndertaken though more then by rigour of method I was tyed vnto to prooue by positiue arguments and reasons that the Church of Rome hath neuer suffered any change in her Fayth and religion since the Apostles dayes my cheife allectiue Micheâ—s inducing me therto being only your satisfaction in this your imposed Subiect or Question MICHEAS My L. Cardinall I render you humble thankes and I must say that these your former arguments produced seeme to me very moouing and except M. Doctour be able to repell them with other more forcible arguments they will I coÌ„fesse impell my Iudgment to giue it free and full consent to the beleeuing of that point for the proofe wherof they are by your Lordship alleadged CARD BELLARM. M. Doctour Seeing there is no truth so illustrious and radiant but that in an vndiscerning eye it may seeme to be clowded for the time with the interposition of some weake Obiections
Apostles times Therefore I will end with the Instance of the fast of Quatuor Temporum which was first ordained by Pope Calixtus CARD BELLARM. The Vessell M. Doctour from whence you draw these Instances seemes to runne very low and nere the dreggs Seeing for want of examples for change in dogmaticall points of faith you are forced at the last to descend to the Institution of set times of fasts For what is this to the alteration of Faith and Religion in the Church of Rome in any dogmaticall Article which is the point only to be insisted vpon by you Hath not the Church of Christ authority to appoint fasting dayes The Apostles you know did lawfully command all men to forbeare from eating of bloud and of things strangled and may not the Church succeeding them as lawfully command that at certaine times of the yeare and for some few dayes the Christians shall for beare from eating of fleash and vse a more moderate dyet But it seemes you loue not to feede vpon superstitious Popish fish since many of you accoumpt it so Now as touching the antiquity of this fast of Quatuor TemporuÌ„ Where you say it was first ordained by Calixius you grant hereby that it is aboue fourteene hundred yeares since it first institution for Calixtus was the next successour but one to Pope Victor which Victor liued in the yeare of our Lord and Sauiour one hundred and sixty Thus you are more preiudized then aduantaged by prostituting this your sily supposed Innouation I will annex hereto that whereas M. Doctour you do not produce any ancient authour charging Calixtus with the first beginning of this Fast we on the contrary side can alleadge S. Leo ascribing it to proceede from the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost his words are these following Ecclesiastica ieiunia ex doctrina Sancti Spiritus ita per totius anni circulum distribura sunt And thus much touching the Antiquity and lawfulnes of the Past of Quatuor Temporum whereof you see M. Doctour your owne bare assertion excepted no certaine beginning can be knowne since the Apostles dayes But Sir proceede further in other instances if so you can D. WHITAKERS Touching further multiplicity of examples I will not much labour The time is already spent And I hope my former examples notwithstanding your subtill euading of them are able to sway with all such who are truly illuminated with the spirit of the Lord. CARD BELLARM. I beleeue you well You will not labour further therin the true reason being because you cannot For I haue perused your bookes written against Duraeus wherein you cheifly instaÌ„ce touching the chaÌ„ge of the faith of Rome and your other Bookes against Father Campian that blessed Martyr as also your writings against my selfe and I can finde no other instances of this imaginary change insisted by you then these alleadged Yea when the said Father Campian as most confident of no change of Faith in the Church of Rome did most earnestly prouoke you Protestants to name the time and other circumstances accompanying this supposed change in those his vehement and inforcing Interrogations QuaÌ„do hanc fideâ—tant opore celebratum Roma perdidit quardo esse desiâ—t quod antefuit quo tempore quo Pontifice qua via qua vi quibus incrementis Vrbem et Orbem Relgio peruasit aliena quas voces quas turbes quae lamenta progenuit Omnes orbe reliquo sopiti sunt dum Roma Roma inquaÌ„ noua Sacramenta nonum Sacrificium nouum Religionis dogma procuderet You though thus a wakened yet in your answere hereto only dwells in your former example of Pope Siricius aboue refuted touching the single life of Priests in place of further satisfaction you thus reply to the said Father Campian Tuverò si dubitas an desierit meaning whether Rome had changed it Religion potes etiam si vis dubitare ansul meridie splendeat Can any man not blinded with preiudice thinke that if you had any materiall proofes for it change being a point of the greatest consequence that is betweene you and vs but that you being thus extremely importâ—ned would haue particularly iusisted in them and would haue enlarged such your reply with all reading wit learning possible And as for your former Instances they are most impertinent and in themselues most false as is aboue demonstrated they being wâ—res I presume wholy wrought in the shop of your owne braine like the spiders web which is spinned out of her owne Bowels MICHEAS M. Doctonr you must giue me leaue to tell you that your Instances aboue vrged do not much sway my iudgment first because they are not in number past some nine or ten in all of which foure do concerne only the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and two the doctrine of the Reall Presence so as it may be iustly coniectured that you Produced seuerall instances for one doctrine purposely therby to make shew in this your so great a scarcity of greater number of Examples The rest concerne Priests nor marying Purgatory auricular Confession and the fast of Quauor Temporum Which doctrines are few in respect of the many controuerted points as I am enformed betweene the Church of Rome and the Protestants Therfore I must presume that no instances can be but suggested or imagined to be giuen of the change of the Church of Rome touching the doctrines of the Visibility of the Church of Praying to Saints of Free-will Merit of workes Workes of supererogation Indulgences Monachisme Lymbus patruÌ„ Images the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament Communion only vnder one kind Vninersallity of Grace the Necessuy and vertue of the Sacraments Inherent iustice the knowledge of Christ a man His being God of God and diuers others Secondly in that touching your former Instances some of the sayd doctrines are so agreeable to the practise of our Iewish Synagogue and the iudgments of our learned Rabbyes as I haue shewed as that I can hardly repute them as Innouations D. WHITAKERS The vnanimous agreement of the Church of Rome with you Iewes in some of the former doctrines is of smale force seeing you well know Micheas that the Law was to be abrogated at the comming of the Messias MICHEAS It is granted that our Law at the comming of the Sauiour of the world was to be disanulled so far forth as concerne either sacrifices or other Ceremonies which did prefigure the comming of the Messias yet seeing many dogmaticall points of faith beleeued by the Iewes haue no reference to his comming as the foresaid doctrines of Purgatory Confession of sinns c. therfore there can be no reason alleadged why the beleife of them in the time of the Lawe should not be a strong argument for their like beleife now in the time of Grace Wee may add hereto that if euery thing which was taught and commanded by the Law should now be abrogated then the tenne Commandements should in no sort belong to
and temporary respects of riches and preferments are so potent and forcible with them as that they câ—nnot or at least they will not be induced to follow the Dictamen and resolution of their owne Iudgments If the subiect of your discourse be about the abstruse Misteries of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist or of some other such sublime points you shall hardly draw them to relinquish naturall reason so deepely are they immersed therein it being indeed their Pillar of Non plus vltra Thus where other Christians enioy two eyes the one of Faith the other of Nature These Polyphemi shutting that of Faith do looke vpon the Articles of Religion only with this of Nature Choose rather to dispute touching matter of fact with in which may be included the proofe of the truth or falshood of the Protestant Religion then touching any dogmaticall point of faith and doctrine as receiuing it proofe from the scripture This I speake not but that the scripture makes most clearly for the Catholicks and against the Protestants But because your aduersary in dispute will euer cauill at your exposition of Scripture reducing it in the end against all antiquity of Fathers and tradition of the Church to the interpretation of his owne priuate and reuealing spirit and so your labour would prooue commonly to be lost thereby Now in matter of fact your Aduersary is forced to stand to the authorities deduced froÌ„ Ecclesiasticall Histories and other such humane proofes and therfore he must either shape a pro bable if not a sufficient answere to them which he neuer can do they wholy making against him euen by his owne learned brethrens Confessions or els he must rest silent And this is the reason why the Protestants are so loath to dispute of the Church since this Question comprehendeth in it selfe diuers points of fact as of it continuall Visibility Antiquity Succession Ordination and Mission of Pastours c. All which QuestioÌ„s receiue their proofes from particuler Instances warranted by shewing the particular times persons and other circumstances concerning matter of fact An other reason of this your choyse of your subiect of dispute may be in that few Men and those only schollers can truly censure of the exposition of scripture whereas almost euery illiterate man enioying but a reasonable capacity is able sufficiently to iudge of the testimonies produced to prooue or disprooue matter of fact And here I would wish you that in your dispute you labour to haue some Catholicks present for where all the Auditory are Protestants certaine it is that they will voice it against you howsoeuer the disputatioÌ„ may otherwise go But because these obseruatioÌ„s are ouer generall I will giue you here some more particuler since most of them may be restrained to certain particular passages which may occurre betweene you and your disputant Aduersary 1. First then let the true state of the Question discussed of be set downe and acknowledged on both sides in regard of the often willfully mistaken doctrine of the Catholicks That done reduce the question disputed of to as few branches as you can since multiplicity of Points is more subiect to confusion and forgetfulnes and giueth greater liberty to extrauagant digressions And will your Aduersary to auoid all such speaches but what are pertinent to the point handled And if he will needs wander in his discourses then you may reduce the force of them by way of Enthimem or syllogisme to the point disputed of that so both your Aduersary and the Auditory may see how roueingly these his speaches were vsed and how lowsely they and the question then handled do hang together 2. If your Aduersary vndertake the part of the Answerer suffer not him to oppose though he labour to do so to free himselfe from answering when he shall see himselfe plunged In like sort if he vndergo the part of the Opponent tye him precisely euer to oppose which Scene perhaps he being brought to a Non plus would sleyly transferre vpon you And thus be sure that eich of you keepe your chosen station 3. If your disputant will vaunt that he will prooue all by scripture onely as most of them giue it out they will then force him to draw all his premisses I meane both his Propositions if so they should be reduced to a forme of argument from the scripture alone of which Methode within two or three arguments he is most certaine to faile And if he take either of his Propositions from humane authority or from Naturall Reason you may tell him he leaueth his vndertaken Taske to wit to prooue from Scripture alone and consequently you may deny the force of his argument though otherwise logicall if it were reduced to forme 4. In your proofs drawne from Scripture labour to be much practised in the Protestants Translations of it of which infinite places make for the Catholicks Cause euen as the Scripture is translated by the Protestants This course farre gauleth them more then if you insisted in the Catholicke traÌ„slation 5. If you dispute with any by writing or enterchange of letters this being but a mute Aduocate of the minde write nothing but matter and with as much compendiousnes as the subiect will beare without any verball excursions or digressions since this proceeding will force your Aduersary to reply if he will reply at all to the matter For otherwise leauing the point which is cheifly to be handled he will shape a reply to other lesse necessary stuffe deliuered by you and then his Reply must passe abroad by the help of many partiall tongues for a full answere to your whole discourse 6. In like sort if you attempt to charge a Protestant Authour with lyes or Corruptions in their writings with which many of their bookes are euen loaded rather insist in a few and those manifest and vnanswereable then in a greater number seeing if your Aduersary can make show to salue but three or foure of a greater number which the more easily he may do by how much the number of the instanced falsifications is greater the supposed answereing of theÌ„ chosen picked out by him must seeme to disgrace all the rest vrged by you 7. If you intend to bring and obiect any wicked and vnwarrantable sayings especially out of Luther either against the Blessed Trinity or about his acknowledged lust sensuality be carefull to note the Editions of the Booke wherein such his sayings are to be found For in the later Editions of his workes many such sentences are for very shame left out and vnprinted And hereupon there are diuers Protestants who vtterly deny that euer any such words were written by him 8. Be skilfull in discouering though not in practising Sophistry that so you may the better loose and vntie eâ—â—e Protestants knots of deceipte diuers of them being most expert in all kinds of Paralogisme And particulerly takeheede of that grosse and vulger sleight vnworthy a schollar drawne from the particuler to the
say as of the halfeblood to a Protestant so little affinity there is betweene the Protestants Religion and these Mens religion I grant that some Protestants and these but very few and of meane esteeme do instance through their security of better examples in these your mentioned men but how coldy and weakly we will now discouer And first touching the Booke written against Images in the name of Carolus Magnus I say first that booke concerneth only but one point of Religion and consequently it can giue no proofe of Protestancy in those dayes Secondly I auer that it was forged by some Heretike that denyed the doctrine of Images perhapps in those dayes but neuer made or allowed by Carolus Magnus This I prooue first because Carolus Magnus was wholy addicted and deuoted to the Church of Rome and it fayth in generall And therefore the lesse probable it is that he should wrâ—t or suffer to be written in his name any booke inpugning but any one point of that Religion I will relate the words of Hospinian the Protestant touching his affection to the Catholicke fayth Thus be sayth Carolus Magnus nonsolum publicis edictis c. Charles the Great did not only command by publike Edicts that the Ceremonyes rites the Latin Masse of the Church of Rome and other decresse and Instituts of the Pope of Rome should be obserued through out the whole Empyre but also himselfe did force the Churches to these obseruations vnder payne of impresonments and other kinds of punishments with whom also conspireth in iudgment herein Crispinus M. Cowper and Osiander Secondly in that it is acknowledged by learned writers that Carolus Magnus was an enemy to those who impugned Images For Paulus Aemilius witnesseth that Carolus did send twelue Bishops vnto a Councel houlden at Rome vnder Pope Steuen in confutation of the errour of the Grecians against Images The same doctrine of Images as defended by Carolus is further confessed by the Centurists D. Cowper and by Ioannes Aurelianensis who liued in the tyme of Carolus Magnus Thirdly and lastly there are suspicious of the forgery of that Booke For it appeareth out of the booke of Pope Adrian to Carolus Magnus which booke was purposely written against that booke diuulged in Carolus his name that the said booke was then written by some secret enemy of Images a point so euident that Caluin intimateth the vncertainty of the Authour of that Booke thus saying Eâ—tat refutatorius liber sub Caroli Magni nomine c. There is extant a booke of refutation vnder the name of Carolus Magnus which we may easily gather to be made about that tyme so doubtfully and irresolutly Calum writeth of the authour of that Booke Touching the supposed booke of Beriram written de Corpore Sanguine Domine and dedicated to Charle the Bawld as said to impugne the doctrine of the Reall Presence in the most blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist Which booke some thinke to haue bene forged by Oeculampadius in the name of Bertram I say M. D. first this booke writeth so doubtfully and intricatly of the Reall Presence vsing the words figure spirituall and Mystery with such qualifications as that no strong Argument against the Reall Presence can be drawne from thence yea which is more this booke so much fauoreth the Reall Presence as that the Centurists do thus censure of it Transubstantiationis semina habet Bertramus The booke of Bertram hath in it the seedes of Transubstantiation Secondly the Catholicke wryters of those tymes as Hospinian relateth at large did honour Bertram as a holy Martyr of the Catholicke Church How then is it probable that Bertram should wryte a booke against one of the cheifest Articles defended beleiued by the said Church Thus far of Bertram Touching Vlricke who was Bishop of Augusta who is vrged for a Protestant in that it is supposed he should wryte an Epistle to Pope Nicolas in behalfe of Priests Mariage and printed lately at Basill We reply that by force of all Reason this Epistle is but forged by some enemy of the Roman Church in his name and was written diuers yeares after Pope Nicolas was dead or before that Vlrick was borne For as Onuphrius writeth Pope Nicolas the first to whom it is supposed Vlrick should write was elected Pope anno 858. enioying the same nyne yeares and two months dyed anno 867. Whereas Vlrick was not made Bishop of Augusta till anno 924. Which was after the death of Pope Nicolas And he contemning Bishop fifty yeares dyed anno 973. Of which point we may reade Vspergensis Cytraeus Pantaleon D. REYNOLDS But what say you Michaeas touching Burengarius I hope it cannot be denyed but that he impugned the doctrine of Transubstantiation MICHAEAS I come to Burengarius who liued anno 1051. and was Archdeacon of Angiers who is challenged for a Protestant for his deniall of Transubstantiation in the most blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist I answere first It is true that for a time he impugned the doctrine of Transubstantiation yet afterwards he recanted his Heresy therein and dyed most Catholicke in that Article Secondly I answere that this Heretick-Catholicke Berengarius did hould diuers errours euen in the iudgment of Oecolampadius the Protestant who thus writeth of him Berengarius non nulla affirmat aduersus Baptismum parnulorum coniugium Berengarius affirmeth diuers things against the Baptisme of Infants and Marriage And againe Damnata est Berengarij Opinio Sacerdotio Christiano parum minus tribuens The Opinion of Berengarius is condemned which ascribed ouer little to Christian Priesthood Also Papir Masson in his Annals of France writeth that Berengarius and his followers denyed the grace of Baptisme denyed that men committing mortall sinne could euer obtaine Pardon and further that Berengarius was an enemy to Mariage Thus much of Berengarius his owne and his followers Heresyes though himselfe before his death according to the iudgment of certaine Catholicke Writers recanted his Heresyes But M. D. and you Gentlemen I will conclude this passage with recurring to one obseruation aboue set downe suppose therefore for the tyme that these former bookes were doubtfull but truly penned by the Authours vnder whose name they go suppose also that Berengarius had neuer recanted his heresy in denying of Transubstantiation suppose finally that you may alledge diuers other sectaryes houlding this or that point of Protestancy yet what can all this conuince It can neuer proue any Visibility of the Protestant Church seeing all these thus admitted are but the Examples of one or other priuate Man who was originally Catholicke and after embraced some one or two points of Protestancy still remayning in all other articles wholy Catholicke And therefore I much commend the Ingenuity of D. Fulke herein who foreseing the impertinency of these Examples of Bertram Berergarius and those others reiecteth them in these
points touching fayth and Religion and different from the then Roman fayth wherewith Waldo Wicklefe Hus c. were then charged would be professed beleâ—ued and mantayned in these dayes by the enemyes of the Church of Rome And therefore it necessarily followeth that the accusations passed in former times vpon Waldo Wicklefe Hus and the rest are either in generall true or in generall false If false then haue we no sufficient Records that there were any in those dayes who beleiued any points of protestancy If true then certayne it is that as Waldo Wicklefe Hus c. mantayned some points of protestancy so with all that they mantayned diuers explorate Heresies and acknowledged for such both by Catholicks and Protestants Secondly the Pamphleter obiected in the Catholicks name in this sort None of all those which hitherto haue beene named or can be named meaning for Protestants but in some knowne confessed and vndowbted Opinions did varye from you And therefore they and you Protestants may not be said to be all of one Church This difficulty he salueth with a most impudent and bare denyall saying All those whom before I haue named did generally for all mayne Matters teach the same Which we now teach What forhead or shame hath this Man For First as touching Waldo Wiclef Hus and their followers in whom through out this Pamphlet the Authour principally insisteth It is confessed by Osiander Luther Fox and other Protestants as also it appeareth by some of their owne Wrytings that they agreed with the Catholicks in most points of Catholicke Religion which were of greatest moment as in the Reall Presence seuen Sacrements praying to Saincts Purgatory frewill Merit of Works and in all other most principall Articles of the present Roman Religion Concerning the proufe of all which poynts I remit the Reader to the Former Dialogue Secondly touching other obscure Men alledged by the Pamphleter for Protestants he commonly and for the most part some two or three excepted exemplifieth no other Article of Protestancy defended by them then their disobedience and inueighing against the Bishop of Rome But if he could haue iustly auerred them for Protestants in all chiefe Articles why would he not as well particulary set the said Articles of Protestancy downe as he did the other touching their disclayming from the authority of the Bishop of Rome Ad hereto that many are produced for Protestants by this Authour only for their sharply speaking and writing against the manners and conuersation of the Cleargy in those dayes they not dissenting from the doctrine of the then Church of Rome in any one article whatsoeuer euer euen ackuowledging the Primacy of that Sea To all the former poynts I may adioyne this following Consideration That supposing the forsaid alledged Men were protestants in all poynts yet do they not proue the Visibility of the true Church of Christ for these Reasons ensuing First because they were but few in number and in regard of such their paucity the Predictions of the amplitude largnes and continuall splendour of Christ Church could not be performed in that small number Touching which predictions peruse the beginning of the Dialogue Secondly because neither this Authour nor any other Protestant liuing how learned soeuer can proue that there were in those tymes specified by this Pamphleter any Administration of the Word and Sacraments practized by any of these supposed Protestants which euer necessarily concurs to the existence and being of the true Church as is demonstrated in the former Tract Thirdly because the former Men could but serue for instances during their owne lyues and no longer The Pamphleter not being able to name any one Man for a Protestant for the space of many Ages and Centuryes together which poynt being so impugneth not only the Nature of Christs true Church which must at all tymes and ages be most visible but also it crosseth the Title of this Pamphlet wherein the Authour vndertaketh to proue the Visibility of his Church in all Ages Thus far now Good Reader I haue labored in surueighing this Idle Pamphlet Now for they better memory I will breifly recapitulate and repeate certaine chiefe impostures and deceatefull deportements practized by this Authour throughout his Booke And then I will remit both him and his Treatise to they owne impartiall Iudgment 1. First then I may remember his putting no name to his Booke nor taking any Notize of the then late Conference in London touching the Visibility of the Protestant Church nor once naming M. Fisher and M. Sweete the two then disputants Which concealed Cours our Pamphleter purposly affected in all probability seing otherwise he might well thinke that the setting of his owne Name downe especially if the Authour were either D. Whyte or D. Featly or hauing in this discours particular reference to the foresaid Disputation might sooner draw on an answere to his Pamphlet from one of the said two Fathers or from some other Priest 2. Secondly You may call to mynd that in the first part of his Treatise he laboreth to proue rather the Inuisibility of the true Church then the Visibilitie thereof contrary to the Inscription of his Pamphlet cheifly to intimate thereby that a continuall Visibility of the true Church is not so necessarily to be exacted as we Catholicks do teach it is and consequently that what few weake mayâ—ied and imperfect proufs and examples for the continuance of protestancy he was after to alledge the same might be thought sufficient and strong enough for the establishing of his owne Churches Visibility 3. Thirdly The pamphleter callengeth any one for a Protestant who did but hould one or two Articles of protestancy and especially if he did but impugne the Popes authority or did wryte against the Manners conuersation of the Cleargy of those dayes though otherwyse he did agree with the Church of Rome in all Articles of fayth 4. Fourthly He callengeth those for protestants who were condemned by the Church of Rome for other Errours then are mantayned by the protestants so making the ignorant Reader beleiue that the Pope in those dayes condemned only the doctrines of Protestants for Heresies this the pamphleter doth to the end that the number of the professours of his Church in those dayes might seeme the greater in his Readers eye 5. Fyftly he most cauteously concealeth the Catholicke doctrynes euer beleiued by Hus Wiclefe Waldo c. as also sic most falsly extenuateth such Heresies as they mantayned are acknowledged for Heresies euen by learned protestaÌ„ts The Treatizer subtelly forbearing to name or set downe in expres Words any one of their Heresies 6. Sixtly For want of better Authours he fleeth to the testimonyes euen of Poëts as Chaucer Daâ—â—es Petrarch vrging them for protestants only by reason of their Satyrs written against the supposed abuses of Rome 7. Seauently he most impertinently dilateth and spreadeth hymselfe in long and tedious discourses touching the increase of the Doctrine of Waldo Hus Wiclef