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
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
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
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.
my purpose is to finde their falshood by their footing to shew how they enter in at the false doore and go not the right way to detect their sleights and iuggling casts whereby they aduance errour and falshood but stand in opposition against the truth Forasmuch therefore as if the Gospell be yet hidden it is hidden to them which are lost the Lord of his mercy take away from their disciples and followers that veile or couering which vntill this time hath continued vntaken away and remoue from them the spirit of slumber that hereafter seeing they may see The Lord of his goodnesse endue the teachers themselues with his grace that henceforth as sincere Pastors and faithfull Stewards of his word they may walke in simplicity and handle his word plainly in the declaration of the truth that they may approue themselues to euery mans conscience in the sight of God that when the chiefe Sheepheard and Archbishop of our soules shall appeare they may receiue an incorruptible crowne of glory through Iesus Christ our Lord Amen CHAP. 1. Of the Head of the Church ANd that I may first with Saint Iohn the Baptist lay the axe to the roote of the tree because the Cardinall deriueth the Popes supremacy from S. Peter let vs therefore examine by what right he entituleth S. Peter to that supremacy For his supremacy being shaken the Popes authority which is grounded vpon it cannot stand Our Sauiour vpon Saint Peter his confession where he saith Thou art the Christ the Sonne of the liuing God answered Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church It is as impossible to reduce these words into a true syllogisme or forme of argumentation as it was for the Oracles to speake when the Sonne of God had enioyned them silence or for the Aegyptians to make lice when the finger of God was against them Euery lawfull syllogisme must consist onely of three parts or termes as they call them but here are fower Petrus Petra persona Petri structura Ecclesiae the person of him that made the confession his name his confession it selfe which is called the rocke or foundation stone and the building of the Church His person and his name where it is said Tues Petrus thou art Peter the confession or foundation stone vpon this rocke the aedifice or building it selfe will I build my Church The medius terminus or argument whereby euery conclusion ought to be proued must bee one and the selfe same as well in the Minor proposition as in the Maior but here it cannot be so for it is Petra in Maiori Petrus in Minors the rocke in the Maior and Peter in the Minor as if they should conclude in this manner The rocke is the foundation of the Church but the Apostle which made this confession is Peter therefore the Apostle which made this confession is the foundation of the Church But this is not in Moode and Figure the medius terminus being not the same in both propositions Therefore if they will correct it and reduce it into a true forme they must conclude in this manner Whosoeuer is the rocke he is the foundation of the Church But the Apostle which made this confession meaning Peter is the rocke therefore the Apostle which made this confession is the foundation of the Church And then besides that they do confound the confession and the confessor S. Peters person and his doctrine which are two seuerall and distinct things the Minor is vntrue and contrary to the assertion of our Sauiour Christ For he doth not say Tues Petra thou art the rocke but tues Petrus thou art Peter nor super hunc Petrum sed super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam vpon this Peter but vpon this rocke will I build my Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then where he saith THOV he speaketh of his person and mentioning PETER he telleth what is his name speaking of the ROCKE he iustifieth his religion being three seuerall points besides the aedifice and building of the Church whereof that religion is the foundation stone Now before we proceed any further in this argument let vs auoyde such exceptions as the aduersary bringeth against the analysing of this text First Bellarmine obiecteth that our Sauiour spake in the Syrian tongue and in that language this one word CEPHAS is nomen proprium viri commune saxi the proper name of a man and a name common to all stones as also in the Greeke tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both Peter and a stone and it is plaine in the Syriac text he said Thou art Cephas and vpon this Cephas will I build my Church And thereupon he concludeth that Cephas in the first place should not signifie his name and in the second the rocke as I deliuered in my Analysis but in both places the rocke so that there may be tres tantùm termini onely three termes or parts to make a true syllogisme and consequently that Peter is the rocke To which I reply there can be no good argument drawne from the authority of the Syriac text not onely because of the ambiguity of the word which maketh the matter doubtfull according to the grammaticall construction and very vncertaine but also because that text is disalowed by the Church of Rome whereas the Latine text out of which I made this Analysis maketh for me and is vpon paine of anathema to be receiued as authenticall and so I touch him to the quicke and slay him with his owne sword As Cephas according to Grammer signifieth both the name of a man a stone yet in this place it cannot signifie both of them because it is otherwise in the Greeke which is the originall without exception and in the vulgar Latinetranslation which do make that very plaine where the first Cephas is Peter and the second a stone and so that which is or might seeme to be ambiguous and yeeld matter of controuersie in the Syriac is cleared in these editions and all ambiguity is taken away there is no starting-hole left for the Sophister to cauell vpon Concerning the Syriac text Bellarmine maketh doubt where he writeth thus De testamento nouo maior est dubitatio Of the whole edition of the Syriac new testament there is a greater doubt whether it were written in that tongue by the Authors themselues or no Againe hee deliuereth his owne iudgement in these words Quod si editio Syriaca aetate horū patrum posterior est vt ego quidem mihi certè persuadeo non potest eius authoritas tanta esse vt cum editione Graecâ aut Latinâ meritò comparari possit vt interim illud non omittam quod non desunt etiam quaedam in eâ editione quae viris doctis pijs non admodum placeant If the Syriac edition be of lesse antiquity then these Fathers meaning Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Eusebius Athanasius others of whom there he
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
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
soule he may likewise say that definition agreeth not with a painted man or the picture of a man As speaking of religion I define not false religion but the true Christian religion and speaking of a man I define not an equiuocall or analogicall but an vniuocall man So I define not a darke and erroneous but a sound and true vnderstanding conscience As for the heathens they haue yet left some reliques of the image of God which are reason vnderstanding Therefore the Apostle saith The Gentiles which haue not the law do by nature the things contained in the law hauing not the law they are a law to themselues which shew the effects of the law written in their hearts their consciences also bearing witnesse and their thoughts accusing one another or excusing that is the Gentiles haue not the law absolutely and in such perfect manner as the Iewes to whom God deliuered euery precept of the law expressely by writing yet they haue will they nill they written in their hearts some feeling of religion and are able to put a difference betweene vertue and vice which sufficeth onely to their damnation They do by nature ea quae legis sunt the things contained in the law that is they command things which are honest forbid the things which are vniust set downe punishments for theft adultery and such like offences But by the way Aliud est facere quod lex iubet aliud facere quod lex facit aut ea quae legis sunt facere It is one thing to doe what the law commandeth for that they do not that were to keepe the law another thing to do the things contained in the law or to do as the law doth that is onely to command the things which the law commandeth and to forbid what the law forbiddeth which onely the Gentiles do Neither do they that fully but onely in some part concerning outward things but are farre from the knowledge of true piety to saue their soules So then the conscience of the Gentiles being sufficiently instructed without Gods word by the light of nature onely to their condemnation what doth that concerne my purpose which define a conscience rightly informed and sufficiently grounded to saluation He goeth about to disproue my definition of heresie which I defined to be an errour stiffely and obstinately maintained and defended not by a consequent but directly impugning some article of faith Which definition he saith is also defectiue because it is not so large as the thing which is defined His words are these For if we looke into all the heresies recorded by Ireneus Tertullian Epiphanius Saint Augustine c. we shall not find the lest part directly and expressely against any article of the Apostles Creed which M. D. Doue a little after doth say he meaneth as of the Pelagians which holdeth that a man may do good workes by the power of his owne free will without grace the Aetians that faith was sufficient without good workes to life euerlasting and that Christ had reuealed more to them then to the Apostles the Aerians that denied prayer and sacrifices for the dead and set fasts of the Church Neither can D. Doue proue that his owne example of the Arian heresie by him alleaged did directly impugne any article of the Creed but by a consequent For Arius denied the equality of the Sonne with the Father and by a consequent his Godhead and so by a consequent the second article of the Creed Iesus Christ his onely Sonne our Lord. First I answer he hath not dealt ingenuously with me For I did not in my definition of heresie restraine Faith only to the Creed of the Apostles as the place it selfe will plainely shew for I did mention not onely that Creed but also the Creed of Nice of Ephesus of Constantinople which I sayd we hold and also the text of the Bible to free vs from heresie Secondly the Pelagian holding that a man could do good workes by the power of his owne free will without grace directly impugneth faith euen the text of the Bible where it is written We are not sufficient of our selues to thinke any thing as of our selues but our sufficiency is of God O Lord I know that the way of man is not in himselfe neither is it in man to walke and direct his steppes All the imaginations of the thoughts of mans heart are onely euill continually The naturall man perceaueth not the things that are of God We are dead in sinnes No man can say that Iesus is the Lord but by the Spirit of God The Aëtian saying Faith without good workes is sufficient to eternall life directly denieth the doctrine of the Bible What auaileth it my brethren though a man say he hath faith when he hath no workes can the faith saue him If faith haue no workes it is dead Whereas the Aetian holdeth that Christ hath reuealed more to him then to the Apostles it is expressely and directly against the Scriptures where S. Paul saith I haue kept nothing backe but haue shewed you all the counsell of God That the Arians denied the Godhead of Christ not by a consequent onely but directly witnes S. Augustine and Epiphanius For S. Augustine saith that they held Filium esse creaturam That the Sonne of God was a creature And Epiphanius Non veritus est ipse ac discipuli eius creaturam vocare eum qui omnia creauit verbum ex patre sine tempore sine principio genitum Both he and his disciples feared not to call him a creature which created all things euen the word which was begotten of his Father without time and without beginning As for Aerius he could not be an hereticke for denying prayer and sacrifice for the dead and set fasts of the Church For as much as prayer and sacrifice for the dead are contrary to sound doctrine and fasts are a matter of indifferency and not of faith That he was condemned for an hereticke it was not so much for these opinions as for that first being a Schismaticke because he could not obtaine a Bishopricke he became an Arian as it appeareth by S. Augustine his words are these Doluisse fertur quod Episcopus non potuit ordinari in Arianorum haeresim lapsus propria quoque dogmata addidisse dicens orare pro mortuis vel oblationem offerre non oportere c. He was discontented because he could not obteine a Bishopricke and thereupon he fell into the heresie of the Arians to which he added some opinions of his owne saying it was not lawfull to pray or offer sacrifice for the dead c. These positions of his S. Augustine doth not call heresies but onely opinions Likewise Epiphanius Therefore adhuc saluares est my definition of heresie remaineth sound and not to be by him gainesayd But by the way that I may giue good satisfaction to the reader concerning this poynt We find in the