these that follow The summe of all that hath byn said about blessings and cursings First in spiritual affayres to haue no certayntie of religion at all as hath byn proued no stay no foundation no final rule to try or iudge to determin but onlie euery maÌ„s owne priuate head and fancie wrangling and iangling without end for that it is without iudge or meanes to make an end nouelties without number libertie of lyfe without feare or force of ecclesiastical discipline to restrayne it And then in teÌ„poral matters the blessings are such as haue byn discouered our realme deuided shiuered in a thousand peeces our Princesse in yeares without children or hope of any our crowne without succession our old frends allies made our enemyes our new frends vncertayne our owne flesh and countrymen most pittifullie deuided within their owne bowels and most miserably tossed and tormoyled both abroad and at home abroad and in other couÌ„tryes with prisons yroÌ„s chaynes gallyes and other afflictions euen to death it selfe for being protestants pyrates spyes practisers or other such imputations incident to enemyes At home afflicted with no lesse persecutions of our owne Magistrats for being Catholikes or deemed to be such So as I would fayne know who they are in our litle Iland that feele these innumerable benefits blessings by change of religion which this gentleman talketh of seing there are verie fewe eyther of one religion or other that tast not of the miseries wherof I haue spoken eyther in themselues their frends children seruants kynsfolkes goods honors or otherwise and most of al the realme and commoÌ„ wealth it selfe c. To all this speach and reason of the warder Syr F. answereth onlie in foure or fiue lynes thus Pag. 2â— Vayne and ydle ansvvering As for your building of Castels in the Ayre by supposal oâ— blessings that might probably haue ensued if religion had not byn altered because I meane not to take the paynes to follow yow in your extrauagant discourses and because they are indeed nothing but the imaginations of an ydle brayne I leaue them to M r. Moores Fictio Vtopica Who could answere with fewer words or lesse matter so large important a discourse then Syr F. doth heere or who could go further â—rom the purpose then he that leaueth out the substance of all his aduersaries allegation and entertayneth himselfe in tryfles of his owne deuising Let the reader iudge whether his answere be rightlie termed a wastword or no. I must needs conclude as S. Augustine did against Iulian with this interrogation Aug. lib. 1. contra Iulianum cap. 1. Quaero abs te cur libâ—o meo saltem spetie tenus te respondisse glorieris cum libri mei partem nec quartam reprehendendo tetigeâ—is eosque saltus in praetereundis meis disputationibus feceris quasi omnino despâ—rares veriusque operis mei scilicet tui quenquam esse posse lectorem qui ista deprehenderet I aske of yow Syr F. as good a disputer or shifter rather as was Iulian how yow can glorie to haue answered my former book wheras yow haue not so much as touched the fourth parte therof and haue made such leapes in passing ouer my arguments disputatioÌ„s as though yow dispayred that any reader would view both workes and fynd out your falshood in this behalfe VVHAT O. E. ANSVVEreth to the former chapter about diuision and vncertainty in religion CAP. XV. I HAVE signifyed vnto thee gentle reader before that where the knight fynding matters somwhat hard or vneasie to answere seeketh now and then with some regard of honor and reputation to step ouer without stumbling and to salue some matters by smothe sylence there bold bayard the minister rushing in with more resolution masking himselfe with the vizard of two vowels O. E. which may stand perhaps in his cypher for Owles Eyes to looke thorough and to see and not be seene agayne layeth on load both in babling and scoulding saying somwhat to euery thing though nothing in deed to all and folowing the threed of my speach and narration he picketh quarrels to whatsoeuer seemeth most capable of cauillation and this appeareth to be his cheifely entended exployt in this his enterprise of answering the proofe shal be seene by experience And first of all wheras the warder obiecteth diuision disvnion and disagreement to him and his as you haue heard and this not onlie from Catholikes but also from their owne ghospellers Pag. 4. as from the Lutheranes in Germany and Denmarke to vse the warders owne wordes from Zwinglians in Zuitzerland from Caluinists in Geneua France Holland and Scotland from Puritanes Brownists and other sects at home that impugne Protestants daylie of the parlament religion This fellow denyeth first verie flatlie Pag. 19. that there is any diuision among them at all And heere he wynneth the first garland of impudencie as yow see but look vpon an other more cleare then this Great impudency of O. E. Secondly sayth he the Churches of Zwitzerland Germany France England do neyther hold of Zuinglius Caluyn nor Luther but of Christ Iesus and of his Apostles and Prophets Lo reader how quicklie this matter 〈◊〉 dispatched and how soone disagreement 〈◊〉 made betweene them see the 4.5 and 6. former chapters for tryal of this poynt and note by the way that of purpose he leaueth out heere the Puritanes espetialie mentyoned by the warder for that he hauing written so earnestlie against them a litle before caÌ„not with his honour now make attonemeÌ„t with them as he doth with the Lutheranes of Germany Zuinglians of Switzerland and Caluinists of France vniting them all in one Churche and in the true doctryne of Iesus Christ and consequentlie also with himselfe and his Churche of England according to the rule principle Quae conueniunt in aliquo tertio inter se etâ—an conueniunt those things that agree in a thirdâ— agree also betweene themselues which he expoundeth also presentlie after by the wordeâ— next folowing As â—or our selues sayth he al of vs professe the doctryne of Christ Iesus Pag 19. according to that rule that was established by common consâ—â—â— of the Churche of England from which if any digresse he is no more to be accounted of our society thâ—â— the Papists c. Marke heere good reader the guyddy head of this gagling goose first he ioyneth together in the true doctryne of Iesus Christ Most foolish inconstancy and contradiction to himselfe and of his Apostles and prophets as wel all Lutherans and Zuinglians as also all kynde of Caluinists and consequently Puritanes whome yet presentlie he cutteth oâ— agayne Pag. 17. no less then Papists and those of the Popes retinue whom before he said to be no Christians nor to hold any one article a right of christian fayth if they do digresse in any thing from the rule of fayth established by common consent of the Churche of England which all doe
and consequentlie he doth as much as if with one hand he should embrace lul and coople together both Lutherans Zuinglians and Puritanes acknowledging them for his deare and tender brethren and with the other should beat them of detest them as enemyes and publike heretikes for so he doth in effect seing it is euident that neyther the sectaryes of LutheraÌ„s Zuinglians or Puritan-Caluinists of Geneua France ScotlaÌ„d HollaÌ„d or England do agree which O. E. his rule of fayth here mentioned to wit the rule established by common consent at this day in the Churche of England And this is euidentlie and aboundantly proued by their owne books and sayings before recyted in the 4.5.6 and sequeÌ„t chapters of this Encounter But for that our Minister maketh mention heere of a certayne rule of fayth wherby he and his are directed and others that digresse from the same are to be reiected from their communion and societie I meane to examine â—he same brieflie in this place and to see what 〈◊〉 is And first of all that there is and must be â—ome certayne rule among Christians That their is some certayne rule of fayth as vvel hovv to beleeue as also vvherby to interpret scriptures wherby â—o know and stay their fayth and to discerne â—ew Catholykes from heretykes is most â—â—ident both by reason it selfe and by the authoritie of the verie first founders of our religion who often do make mention and admonish vs therof as S. Paul to the Corinthians secundum regulam nostram 2. Cor. 10. according to our rulâ— and to the Philippenses in eadeÌ„ permaneamus regula let vs persist in the same rule And to the Gallatians Phil. 3. quicúnque hanc regulam secuâ—â— fuerâ—â—t pax super illos whosoeuer shal follow this rule of fayth Gal. 6. peace vpon them and other such places Rom. 12. as namely to the Romanes Prophetia secundum rationem fidei prophesy by which iâ— vnderstood heere principallie interpretatioâ— of scriptures according to the rule or analogie oâ— fayth for so is the greek word By all which places is manifest that there iâ— a certayne publike rule of fayth and was eueâ— among the Apostles them-selues and thesamâ— continued afterward by all the Fathers oâ— euery age wherby it was easye to distinguiâ—â— betweene such as were Orthodoxi or Catholykes and others that were new fangled oâ— wrangling people that would follow no rulâ— but their owne head and fancyes of whiâ—â— rule make mention also in the primitiâ—â— Churche Ignatius after the Apostles epist. adâ—â—â—gnetianos Iustinus Apol 2. pro Christianis Irenaeus 〈◊〉 1. cap. 1. 2. Clemens lib. 4. stromatum aduersus 〈◊〉 reses Tertullianus lib. de velandis virginibus 〈◊〉 Alexandrinus as S. Basil cyteth him lib. de spiriâ—â— cap. 29. and many other Fathers commendiâ—â— highlie and inculcating often the obseruatiâ—â— of this rule as wel for beliefe as also for inteâ—â—pretation of Scriptures but especiallie to câ—â—â—cerne heretikes who to vse these Fathers owne words do no sooner begin to pratle but that by digressing from this rule do bewray them-selues and shew what they are and thus far that there is a rule which our enemies cannot deny But now what that rule is it may be that our Minister and I shal not so soone agree VVhat the rule of faith is or vvas in old tyme. but yet first of all that it cannot be onlie Scripture is euident by his owne speach and confession in this place Pag 19. where he sayth that his people of England do professe the Doctrine of Christ Iesus according to that rule that was established by common consent of the Churche of England from which rule sayth he if any digresse they are none of our societie â—o more then Papists By which words is euident that his rule consisteth of the consent and establishment of certayne men in England what to belieue which is a different matter from scriptures though they wil say perhaps that in this establishment they folowed Scriptures as wil also the Puritanes and others that heere are excluded by this established rule And besyds this confession of O. E. himselfe there are many other conuincing reasons that this rule named by the Apostles was not â—cripture and among other this that eyther â—one or very litle of the newe Testament was written when this rule of fayth was published â—or no vse and practise among Christians as â—ppeareth by the often repetition therof made â—y the same Apostles afterward when they â—ame to write Wel then not to be longer for so much as this rule could not be onlie scripture the best way perhaps to vnderstaÌ„d what it was and is at this day wil be to heare some of the ancieÌ„t Fathers describe the same Holy Ignatius writing to the same Churche that S. Paul did a litle before cyted to wit Phil. 3. Igâ— â— epist. 〈◊〉 Philippenses to the Philippenses sayth id ipsum dicatis omnes idem sentientes in hoc ipso fidei regulas praeceptáque seruaui sicut Paulus erudâ—ens nâ—s dicit Do yow say and teach the selfe same and be of one iudgment for by this haue I obserued the rules of fayth as Paul instructing vs sayd Lo heere the iudgment of Ignatius who affirmeth him-selfe to haue obserued the rule of fayth for that he said and taught that which all said and taught and thought that which all thought and folowed no singularitie eyther of his owne or others Irenaeus calleth this rule the order of traditioâ— from the Apostles tyme to his Iren. aduers. haeres lib. 2. cap 3 4. The great estimation of â—he old rule of faith by which he sayth that all heretikes are conuinced in such sorte that Catholykes shut vp their eares as soone as they heare them speake contrarie to the said rule of vniuersal fayth deliuered by tradition from age to age Iren. ibid. Traditionem Apostolorum fayth he in toto mundo manifestatam in omni Ecclesia adeâ—â— perspicere omnibus qui vera velint audire c. We may see the tradition of the Apostles in euery Churche if we wil heare the truth and we can number those Bishops that were instituted by the Apostles and their successors vnto our dayes who taught not that which these heretikes dreame c. Thus said he accompting this rule to be the whole tradition of our Ancestors coÌ„ming downe by succession of Bishops and Pastors Terâ— lib. de praescript contr haeret cap. 27. To whom agreeth Tertullian presentlie after him calling this rule the fulnesse of the Apostles preaching si ergo incredibile est sayth he ignorasse Apostolos plenitudinem praedicationis vel omnem ordinem regulae omnibus non edidisse c. if it be incredible that the Apostles did not know the fulnes of the preaching of the ghospel or that they did not deliuer vnto all Christians all the order of the rule of beliefe c. And the same man in an other place Tert.
te prolatam in qua non author esse debes sed custos non institutor sed sectator non ducens sed sequens c. This pawne or pledge is a thing geuen yow in credit and not inuented by yow a thing which yow haue receyued and not deuised a matter not of wit but of doctrine not of pryuate vsurpation but of publyke tradition a thing brought downe vnto yow not brought forth first by yow a thing wherof yow must not be author but keep only not the fownder but a follower not a leader but one that is led Thus sayth he of the rule of faith in his tyme which rule also serueth vs no lesse at this day against all sorte of protestants then it did them at that tyme against their aduersaryes but rather much more for that our prescription of this rule is by many hundred yeares elder then theirs was and so this shal suffise about this matter of the Ecclesiastical rule of fayth what yt was and what the auncient Fathers did thinke and esteeme therof and now we wil examine a litle what styrre the minister maketh about his goodly rule of the present particular Churche of England OF THE ENGLISH rule of beliefe set downe by O. E. And what substaÌ„ce or certaintie it hath how they doo vse it for excluding Puritanes other Protostantes and of diuers shameful shifts of O. E. CAP. XVI NOTHING is more true in that kynd then the saying of the philosopher A â—ift lib. 1. Phis. Contraria iuxta se posita clarius elucescunt That contraryes being layd togeather do make each other better seene and vnderstood as a ragged garment layd by another that is fayre and pretious maketh the ragges and patches more euident and contemtible and euen so this ridiculous new deuised rule of O. E. if we compare it with the former auncient rule commended vnto vs by the old holie fathers we shal see more perspicuously the vanitie therof for that he sayth Pag. 19. As for our selues that is the Protestants of England all of vs professe the doctrine of Iesus Christ according to that rule that was established by the common consent of England and whosoeuer doth digresse from this is not of our societie c. But here I would aske him what rule this is and in what yeare it was established by whom and how many and what authoritie they had to establish or to make any new rule from the old receyued before in matters of religion See the statutis anno Henr. 8.25 c. 14. an 26. cap. 1. an 27. c. 15 19. an 31. ca. 14. an 34. 35. cap 1. for yf he speake of K. Henry the 8. his dayes when the first chaunges beganne and when diuers new rules were set downe in parlament with this expresse commendation that they were taken out of the pure and syncere only woord of God I doo not think that O. E. wil admit them or stand vnto them though Iohn Fox do hold all that tyme of K. Henrie his mutations after his breach with the Churche of Rome for the tyme of the ghospel and so doth terme it euery where In K. Edward dayes also he being head of the Churche An 1. Ed c. 1.2 11. an 2. 3. cap. 1.21.23 though but 9. yeares old there was two or three new rules made and altered about matters of religion and their communion book all pretended out of the word of God with reuocation of that which K. Henry the Father and his Parlaments out of the same woord had appoynted before which rule also vnder K. Edward I do not know whether our ProtestaÌ„ts wil allow in all poyntes now but sure I am our Puritanes do not nor wil not as appeareth by theire owne bookes what assurance then is there in this mutable and controuerted rule of so fewe yeares in age But the most important question is who and what men and by what authoritie they made this rule The Warder knew no other when he writ but the Lords of the ParlameÌ„t and so called it parlament religion wherwith O. E. is very angry Pag. 19. and sayth where he calleth our religion parlament religion he speaketh like himselfe that is falsly and slaunderously for albeit the same be receyued by authoritie of the Prince state yet is it Christs reâ—igion and not the Princes Soone spoken but how doth he proue it here is styl that old shifte of petiâ—io principij hissed out by learned men which consisteth in setting downe that for a principle which most needeth proof as heere where our minister wil needs haue his religion to be Christs religion whether we wil or no and that it was but receyued and promulgated only by the parlament but then must I aske him agayne what authoritie besydes the parlament hath determyned it to be Christs religion as also that the Puritans religion is not Christs religion notwithstanding they pretend Christ and his Apostles no lesse then doth the protestant and then if we fynd that the only authoritie that defyneth this matter is the Parlament allowing the one and condemning the other for that scriptures of themselues can not do it quia actiones sunt suppositorum as a litle after he vrgeth and then must needs the credit truth of English religion depend of the parlament and therof worthelie be called Parlament religion But harken good reader what an example he hath found to auoyd An example making against himself that his religion may not be called Parlament religion The Emperors Gratian Valentinian and Theodâ—sius decreed sayth he that all people of their gouernment should hold the doctryne of Peter the Apostle Pag. 19. taught by Damasus bishop of Rome and Peter bishop of â—lexandria that they should beleeue one God and three persons yet I hope this Noddy wil not cal the fayth of the Trinitie an imperial fayth See this haÌ„dled more largely before in the annâ—t vpon the letter of O. â— to the reader c. Yes surelie Syr Noddy-maker I would cal and proue it so if the case were like that is if these three Emperors had determined this fayth as of theÌ„selues and by their imperial authoritie and that it had byn a different beliefe from the rule of fayth receyued before throughout Christendome as your parlament religioÌ„ was and is hauing no other ecclesiastical Authoritie â—or her establishment but only the authoritie of your Prince and parlament which defyned it to be trew religion and coÌ„forme to the word of God and determined that the other which was there before in vse to wit the Catholike to be opposite and contrarie to thesaid word and therfore to be abolished so as the allowance of the one and reprobation of the other proceeded from the parlament But the proceeding of the foresaid three Emperors in this their alleaged decree was farre otherwise which O.E. if he had had any more wit then a Noddy would neuer
exaÌ„ples of pardons abused by Catholyks as S.F. alleageth and both of them false with a notorious imposture about the poysoning of K. Iohn Cap. 15. The speech of the Warder is defended where he calleth the way of saluation by only faith the coÌ„mon cart-way of protestaÌ„ts The truth of which doctrine is examined c. 16. The warning and admonition about this second Encounter first to S. F. Hastings then to O.E. his chaplain and champion Cap. 17. An addition by the publisher of this book wherin he sheweth first a Reason why these two EncouÌ„ters go alone then the dâ—fference he findeth in the wryters and their wrytings thirdly how a man may vse this which heer is sayd to the decisioÌ„ of any coÌ„trouersy of our tyme. Cap. 18. THE SECOND TABLE OF THE CHEIF CONTROVERSIES HANDLED IN THESE two Encounters In the first Encounter WHo are properly Catholyks and who heretyks by the old lawes of Cath. Christian Emperors and whether the lawes made against heretyks by these Emperors do touch protestants or Papists at this day in England annotat vpon the epist. of O.E. cap. 2. num 2. How a man may make a most cleere and euident deduction of Cath. Religion by the forsaid Emperial lawes if no other proof were and whether euer any Christian were punishable before our tymes for sticking to the Pope of Rome in Religion ibid. num 12.13.27.28 c. How old Christian Emperors did promulgate lawes about Religion against the transgressors therof how different a thing it was from that which ProtestaÌ„t Princes are taught to do at this day Ibid. What was the old rule of faith so much esteemed and talked of amoÌ„g the auncieÌ„t fathers how Cathol heretyks may easily euidently be tryed by thesame Cap. 15. Whether the English-parlament rule of faith set downe by O.E. be sufficient to discerne Catholyks from heretiks and whether a paâ—lament can make any rule of faith Cap. 16. num 1.2 c. Whether Canonists do cal the Pope God or no and how false S. Francis and his Chaplayne are found in this point Cap. 2. 3. Enc. 2. cap. 3. num 10.11.12 c. In what sense a creature may be called God and how ConstaÌ„tine the great did cal Pope Siluester so Cap. 2. 3. What wonderful reuerend opinion the auncient Fathers had of the high and diuine power giuen to Priests vpon earth especially to the highest Priest Ibid. Whether protestants haue vnion among them or any meane to make vnion or to find out certainty in matters of faith cap. 4. num 10. Item cap. 5.6.14.15.16.17 What Synods and Councels conferences conuenticles and other meetings protestants haue had throughout the world to procure some shew of vnion but eueâ— haue departed more disagreeing then before Cap. 4. num 12.13 Whether Lutherans and Caluinists may any way be said to be brethreÌ„ or of one Churche as both S. F. Iohn Fox do hold cap. 3 4.5 c. Whether Zwinglians and Caluinists and other Sacramentary Protestans be truly heretiks according to the iudgment and sentence of Martyn Luther and what blessing he giueth them as to bastard children ca. 5. n. 1.2.3 c. Whether English protestants and Puritans do agree in Iesus Christ crucified as S. F. saith or may be accompted true brethreÌ„ of one Churche ca. 6. 10 n. 8. c. 12. n. 6. Whether liberty for all vnlearned to read scriptures in English without difference or restraint be a blessing or a curse profitable or hurtful to the people ca. 8. Enc. 2. c. 3. Whether publyke seruice in English be a hurt or benefit to all sort of people cap. 8. num 7. cap. 9. Whether and how the merits of holy men may stand with merits satisfaction of Christ. Cap. 9. num 7.8.9 Whether aboundance of good works be a peculiar blessing of Protestants or no as S. F. defendeth cap. 10. n. 2.3 4.5 cap. 17. 18. Whether English nobility and commonalty be richer at this day then in old tyme by change of religion cap. 11. num 7.8.9 c. Whether it be a special grace and blessed nature of Protestants to persecute no man for religion Cap. 10. Whether freedome from exactions long peace great power in other countreys great welth of the land and more aboundant multiplying of children then before be special benefits and benedictions brought into England by change of Religion Cap. 11. Whether the vniuersal Churche may be said properly to teach vs or no which O. E. denieth Cap. 11. num 12. Whether the sacrifice of the masse be a new inuention or no and whether the number of 7. Sacraments were not agreed on before the late Councel of Trent as O.E. affirmeth Cap. 13. num 7.8.9.10 c. How farre Catholyke men do depeÌ„d of the Pope for the certainty of their religioÌ„ Ca. 16. n. 17.18.19 Enc. 2. c. 13. n. 16. Whether any one new or old heresy can be prooued truly to be in the doctrine of Papists at this day and how that there be many properly and formally held by Protestants Cap. 16. num 20. What differences of doctrine or opinions may be among Cath. men without heresy or breach of the Rule of faith according to the auncient Fathers Cap. 16. num 6. How coÌ„temptuously the Protestants do speak not only of the old Fathers but also of their owne wryters when they make against them Cap. 17. num 17. Whether temporal blessings entred into England and other countreys round about with the new ghospel and change of the old religion Cap. 12. 13.14 18. How many and how great Inconueniences in matters of State otherwyse haue ensued in England by change of Religion since K. Henry the 8. his departure from the vnion of the Roman Churche Cap. 17. 18. In the second Encounter Whether there were more darknesse ignoraÌ„ce in Q. Maryes tyme former ages then now whether Protestants be better learned then Catholyks Cap. 2. num 18.19 cap. 3.4 6. Whether fryars weâ—e braue lyars in K. Richard 2. his tyme as S.F. saith and what manner of fryars they were to wit corrupted by Wickliffe Cap. 2. num 11. Whether scripture were read generally in English in S. Bede his tyme or no Cap. 3. num 5.6 c. Whether Iohn Husse and Martyn Luther offered disputation to Catholyks or no and whether they were of one and thesame religion or that any of them did agree fully with S. Francis and O. E. in their religion now professed Cap. 3. 4. Whether the Catholyks or Hugonote ministers in the conference at Poysy in France anno Domini 1561. had the better Cap 4. num 14. Whether Catholyks did euer hold it for heresy to read scriptures in English or haue euer put men or women to death for that fact only Cap. 4. 5. 6. num 12. 15. cap. 9. num 3. Whether the auncient Fathers did vse to pray to Saints and
Angels or no Cap. 6. num 6. num 8. Whether the name of Lucifugi scripturarum or scripture-battes vsed by Tertullian do properly agree to protestants or Catholyks Cap. 6. num 24.25.26 c. Whether ignorance be held by Catholyks to be the mother of deuotion Cap. 7. num 1.2 c. Whether ignorance in some points coÌ„cerning religion may in some people be comendable and meritorious as S. Hilary saith or no ibid cap. 8. num 3. Whether the distinction of fides implicita and explicita be a true necessary distinction for the saluation of many mennes soules which caÌ„not possibly be saued wiâ—hout the vse thereof Cap 7. num 6. Whether it be true that Catholyks teach that laymen must not medle in matters of Religion and how farre they are to medle Cap. â— Why the Cath. Churche doth vse Index expurgatorius against the corruption of heretyks and their books how it must be vsed and what great good ensueth therof Cap. 9. num 23.24 c. Whether S. Thomas of Canterbury were a true martyr and of his miracles Cap. 10. 11. Whether his case were lyke the case of S. Iohn Bapt. with his King or of S. Ambrose with his Emperor or no Cap. 10. Whether the miracles wrought by S. Thomas of Canterbury after his death were true miracles and did proue him a Saint or no. Cap. 11. Which is the better spirit and more conforme to scripture and the old fathers to beleeue easily miracles or to discredit them cap. 11. num 19. How true saints may be knowen and whether Fox-made saincts or Pope-made Saints as S.F. calleth them are more substantially Canonized Cap. 11. num 15.16 c. Whether Catholyks do hold that the Pope or any comming from him is to be obeyed though he commauÌ„d blasphemies Cap. 12. 13. Whether the merits and sufferings of Saints may be lawfully mentioned in our prayers as motiues to mooue God with all Cap. 12. Whether no man may say to the Pope vvhy do yovv so though he lead infinite soules to hel as O. E. cauilleth Cap. 13. num 17.18 c. Whether Catholyks do vse the Popes pardons for their cheefest remedies against all sort of sinnes as heretyks do accuse them Cap. 14. In what degree or sense pardons are auaileable to Christians ibid. num 8. cap. 15. num 1.2.3 c. Whether Iames Clement that slue the last K. of France were absolued for the fact before the committing therof Cap. 15. Whether it be true that K. Iohn of England was poysoned by a monk or that the monk was absolued for the same before he comitted the fact as Iohn Fox and S.F. do hold cap. 15. num 4.5 c. Whether the doctrine of saluation by only faith be a common cartway to hel for all libertines or no cap. 16. The third and fourth Tables as wel of shiftes and wilful falsifications by Syr Francis and O. E. as of the principal matters conteyned in these two Encounters are to be seene in the end of the book AN ANSVVER TO A CERTAYNE VAYNE AND ARROGANT EPISTLE OF O. E. minister vnto N. D. author of the Ward-word SMall contentment geÌ„tle reader can any Christian modest man take that hauing to handle a graue serious cause seeth himselfe drawne or rather driuen from thesame to contention of wordes by the insolencie and importunitie of his quarrelling aduersarie 2. Tim. 2. which teÌ„deth to nothing as the Apostle also noteth but to the subuersion of the hearer and yet when we are forced to this disorder somwhat also must be sayd least silence in speach shew diffidence in truth and that a foole as the Scripture insinuateth if he be not answered in his folly begin to thinke himself wyse Prouerb 26. We haue signifyed before in our preface how a certayne contentious minister desyrous to be doing and to play a parte but yet not without a visard in respect of the follyes perhaps he was to vtter resolued to mask and cypher his name vnder the letters of O. E. and then hauing pervsed the reply of S. FraÌ„cis Hastings to the Ward-word and misliking as it seemeth the same as insufficient he bâ—ckled himselfe to make in his owne opinion a better defence though in other mens iudgment of two bad this is farre the worse both in respâ—ct of the substance of matters and controuersies handled wherof this man treateth no one groundedlie any where but only quarrelleth at the words and sentences of his aduersarie as also in regard of his outragious intemperate speach which runneth alâ—o oftentymes both to turpitude scurrilitie the reason wherof we thinke to be in parte for that the minister perswading himselfe to be masked presumeth to vtter any tâ—ing as vnknowne and I am content for this tyme to let him so passe though in deed his deportment be such against all kynd of Catholique men neuer so learned vertuous worshipful or honorable as no way he deserueth any such fauour and that I could dismaske him he may perceyue by diuers poynts which afterward I shal haue occasion to touch Now â—hen letting passe this we shal looke into the argument of this present Epistle of O.E. to N.D. which yow shal see to consist of three principal poynts Tâ—â—e poynts of â—his Epistle to wit notorious folly apparant falshood ridiculous vanitie in bragging vauÌ„ting let vs see them all in order This Epistle prefixed before his booke hath this inscription To N. D. alâ—as Noddie O. E. vvisheth knovvledge of truth c. and then beginneth he his Epistle thus Sir N.D. or Noddie or hovvsoeuer it shal please yovv to style your selfe being a man but of tvvo or three letters c. Heeâ—e yow see beginneth a graue contention betweene O. E. and N. D. about the worde Noddie which none but a Noddy in my opinion would euer haue brought into examination especially in print â—or that N. D. being but consonants and hauing no sound of their owne cannot make Noddie excâ—pt yow ad the sound of O.E. vnto them that are vowels to geue lyfe vnto the word wherof it foloweth that seing consonants are but the material parte of a worde and vowels the formal O. â— must needs be the formal Noddie and that N.D. doth but lend him a coople of consonants to make him a Noddie and thus much for the name it selfe But as for the nature and essence of a Noddie to which of the two it doth best agree shal appeare afterward in the discussion of matters throughout this whole combat and one poynt of a Noddie yow may presentlie perceaue in these verie words alleadged wheras O.E. obiected to N.D. that he is a man but of two or three letters which is answered sufficientlie by numbring onlie how many letters O. E. do make and so agayne afterward and verie often in his repliâ— he obiecteth to N. D. that he durst not put downe his name at length which yet himselfe being at home vpon his owne ground and among
verity then in forrayne churches for this is the gay deuised title of this first benediction I could be content Vnity among forraine Protestants that our knight could shew vs yf not vnity in veâ—ity which is impossible yet vnity at least in falsity among his professors so as some name of vnity might be among them for in verity which is but one the Protestants cannot possibly be at vnity being so deuided and repugnant among themselues as presently I shal shew In falsytie also it is very hard for them to hould vnion Tertul. praeâ—script contra haeres for that as Tertullian sayth mendacâ—um mendacio difficulter cohaeret onely doth hardly stand with another ly in peace and concord for which cause he sheweth that all heresyes lightly haue fallen at bickering among themselues but in none more hath this byn obserued then in the newe gospel of our tyme brought in by Luther Zwinglius Oecolampadius Carolstadius Caâ—uyn Melanthon Beza and others the head doctors of Syr F. externe churches in Germany France Suizerland and other places which haue byn lightes and lanternes to ours of England and their first doctors and as it were Apostles who yet were no sooner knowen to the world but that they fel at mortal debate and dissention among themselues and so continued all their liues sealing it also wâ—th their deathes as by their owne workes testimonyes historyes appeareth For first who knoweth not that Luther begining his doctrine in the yeare of our Lord 1517. and going forward with adding â—leidaÌ„ Surius Lauater alij in hist. altering chopping and changing for 7. yeares togeather before it could be made any certaine body of doctryne Luthers beginning and going forvvards consisting in it selfe it fel out that with-in those 7. first yeares to wit an 1524. three of Luthers cheefest schollers Andreas Carolstadius Ioannes Oecolampadius and Vldericus Zuinglius the first and last of the number Apostate priests the second a frier as Luther also had byn began the new sect of Sacramentaries quite opposite to Luther and within two yeares immediatly following the three named doctors Sacramentaries their deuisions profited so wel in new diuisions also among themselues as by Luthers owne testimony publikely giuen in a sermon after printed they were deuided into six seueral sects Luth. ser. de sacra Haga 〈◊〉 habit anno 1527. Yea the Lutheran preachers of Brema wryting not long after that againe to VVestphalus a great Superintendent in Saxony do soleÌ„nly auouch Concionat Bremens Ep. de Eucharist ad VVestphalum that there was inâ—â—nita penè opinionum apud Sacramentarios varietas an infinite variety of opinioÌ„s amongst the SacrameÌ„taries that denyed the Real presence in the Sacrament And did this dissention euer end think yow amongst these fellowes Genebr Suâ—ius hoc an No truly but rather encreased dayly euen vnto their deathes and after also for out of Luthers doctryne besides these Sacramentaries there arose in like maner the Anabaptists Sectaries sprong from Luther Svvinglius and Caluin anno 1527. as themselues glory taking occasion by his Epistle ad VValdenses where he sayth That it is better to leaue of baptisme altogeather then to baptise children that haue no fayth Whervpon they left of baptisme of infants and went forward in the rest of their heresyes euen against Luther himselfe at the last After this there sprong vp also out of the same sect of Luther the potent diuision of molles and rigidi Lutherani which endure with open emnity to this day as their bookes do testifie Rigid and soft LutheraÌ„s VVestphalus Illiricus and others of highe Saxony being the heads of the rigid faction who resemble our puritans in EnglaÌ„d that would haue nothing but Caluins pure prescription as these men would Luthers but on the other side Melanchton and his folowers founders of the softer partie would folow Luther by discretion taking so much as â—â—rued for their purpose and no more where vnto also do draw neere our Parlament Protestants in England as yow know who receaue Caluin with the limitations and restrictions which they thinke best that is nothing at all of his ecclesiastical plot of gouernment nor diuers poynts of his doctrine And thus much of Luthers owne sect But out of that of Vldericus Zuinglius father of the Sacramentaries issued other children not much different from the former for their dissention and disobedience both to father and mother Caluin Seruetus Valent Gentils to wit Iohn Caluin and Theodore Beza and from these againe departed into another faction other good fellowes as Michel Seruetus Vid. lib. Caluini de Act. Seruet libel Geneuae editum de act Valentin Iohn Caluins coleage whome they afterward burned at Geneua for denying the blessed Trinity and Valentinus Gentilis a new Arrian whose followers yet remayne though himselfe was burned also by other Protestants at Argentine With these ioyned Ioannes Paulus Alciatus Gribaldus and others which made afterward the sect of new Arrians and Trinitarians that yet remayne in Germany Poland and especially in Transiluania as their bookes do shew All these and many others not only Sectaryes but Arch-heretikes and heades of new sectes haue sprong vp out of the new gospel with-in these fourskore yeares and haue framed Churches and conuenticles to themselues in diuers contreyes all opposite and repugnant one to another and themselues also deuided amoÌ„gst themselues though at the bâ—â—ginning all proceeded of one only diuision from Catholike vnion raysed by Luther So as we Catholikes may wel insult and rightly say of them as S. Augustine said to Parmenian Aug. contra Parm. lib. 1. cap 4. multa frusta de isto frasto per totam Africam facta sunt sic sic necesse est vt minutatim secti conscissique dispereant qui tumorem animositatis suae sanctissimo Catholicae pacis vinculo praetulerunt Many peeces are already made throughout Africa of this one peece or diuision wherwith yow began so so is it necessary that they should perish by diuision and renting into most smal peeces who haue preferred the pride or swelling of their owne animosity before the most holy band of Catholike peace and vnitie Thus saith this holy Father neither is there any hope or meane to reconcile these parties togeather as in the Ward-word I affirmed here wil prooue for that the scriptures which are the only pretented meanes admitted by them No meanes of vnion amongst Protestantes see of this morâ— infra cap. 14. 15. euery party pleadeth for himselfe with such obstinacy in his owne sense as no iudge being acknowledged it is vnpossible to come to any determination And as for Synodes councels wheron old fathers rested much for decision of controuersies these men laugh at them thoughe yet at last pressed by necessity and much wearied with continual wrangling about scriptures diuers sects of our tymes for all it is impossible to draw togeather haue byn forced
c. Marke the arrogancy of thâ—s petty chaplaâ—n we suspend we see we finde who are those wee I pray yow Oh that Doctor Martyn Luther were aliue againe to canuase this arrogant barking bastardly whelp of his he would proue him but a very demy puppie Of Caluyn he sayth when Caluyn was better informed about the Supremacy he changed his style and retracted his opinion but where and when I pray yow why haue yow not noted the place and tyme for Caluyn was to great a man I trow to change style or retract opinions were it neuer so false or impious and whether he changed in this let his Elizeus that had his cloke spirit of wickednes double I meane Theodor Beza be witnes who is more to be beleeued in this case then O. E. that is but a fugitiue of Caâ—uyns campe going about to betray his Captayne Lastlie about the gouernment of his English Churche he addeth concerning Beza Pag. 22. I say that in external gouernment it is not necessarie that all Churches should concur and agree Loe his saying and albeit he say madlie yet I trust he wil not say but that in one and the selfe same Churche agreeing all in one true doctryne of Iesus Christ as in the former leafe he affirmeth all sortes of protestants do it is necessarie they agree in the substantial poynts at least of some gouernement among them-selues Pag. 18. as for example Atheistical Doctrine O.E. of some one head the cheife members therof as whether the Prince be supreeme head ecclesiastical and may make Bishops and whether the Bishops be true Prelates and may make ministers and whether they be of Gods or the diuels making that are so made which is the proper controuersie betweene them of England and Beza at this day and was with Iohn Caluyn also while he lyued To deny this I say were a very mad new doctrine for souldiour O.E. to teach now vnder a ministers coate to wit that none of all these things are necessarie poynts of doctrine but indifferent rather and that in his Churche a minister a ministrel a preacher and a pyrate a bishop and a bytesheep a deane and a diuel are all one And that this fellow and his compagnions haue no religion nor conscience in saying and denying The Suruey of pretended holy discipline c. printed by Io. VVolf 159â— cap 2â— fol. â—54 admitting or reiecting at their pleasures it may appeare by one of their publyke books printed and set foorth against the puritanes where they haue a whole Chapter of accusations against the said puritanes for reiecting conteÌ„ning new ghospelling wryters of their owne when they make against them which yet yow see practised here by O. E. him-self though no Puritane and that euen against the very cheife heads and syres of both their religions Luther Caluyn Beza yea some are of opinion that O.E. was the Author of that book wherin the Puritanes are so eagerly argued for this fault of coÌ„temning their owne wryters wheÌ„ they make against them though I cannot easely beleeue the same for that it seemeth les fondly writteÌ„ in that kynd then could be expected of this maÌ„nes shallow cacitie that wrote this doltish answere to the Wardword but be it how it wil yow shal see the Puritanes taken vp very sharply by protestants in that book for reiecting both their owne authors and auncient Fathers which yet yow see this arrogant foole doth practise heere in the one I meane touching their owne and yow shal heare afterward how egregiously his fellowes dâ— the like in the other that is to say concerning the auncient Fathers But first let vs see what is obiected to the Puritanes in the former poynt In a certayne place Pellican Bullinger Bucer Illyricus Suruey c. 28. Pap. â—54 and Musculus all great Doctors among the Lutherans being brought in against the Puritane doctrine Cartwright answereth them thus Puritans coÌ„teÌ„pt of their ovvne Doctors If they were for one a hundred they could not beare downe the Apostle to wit standing with him as he presumeth But after these is brought in Luther himselfe interpreting a peece of Scripture otherwise then they would haue it but they answere that his exposition is out of season T. Cartvv li. 2. Pag. 313. 314. Then is brought in Bishop Ridly and brother Bucer great doers in K. Edwards dayes in England but the first is dismissed thus Bishop Ridley being a partie in this cause ought to be no witnes the second thus Ibid. pag. 398. Bucer hath other grosse absurdityes sometymes Homer sleepeth his reasons are ridiculous c. Iewel and Fox do folow but Fox is shaken of with this saying that he took greater payne in his story to declare what is done then how iustlie or vniustlie how conueniently or vnconuenieÌ„tlie it was done Iewel receyued this iyrke as a contumely ingrauen in his tombe as the Protestant complayneth B Iewel calleth the doctryne of the ghospel wantonnesse Ibi. Pag. 11â— Finally they write thus of all the cheif English protestants in K. Henry K. Edward Q. Mary and in this Q. tyme before them-selues their knowledge was in part T. Catvv li. 1. Pag. 196. and being sent out in the morning or 〈◊〉 the Sunne of the ghospel was rysen so high they might ouer see many things which those which are not so sharpe of sight as they were may see for because that which they want in the sharpnes of sight they haue by the benefit clearnes of the Sunne and light greater then in their dayes Loe heere the growing and disagreeing protestant fayth and euery man his new light and lanterne in his hand Whosoeuer cometh after presumeth to see more then his fellow that went before him Wher wil this matter end but marke their wrangling spirites one within an other the puritanes are sorely reprehended for this contemptuous vsing their owne authors but are the puritanes more arrogant or bolder in this poynt then yow haue heard O.E. before euen with the first parent of their profession As for the old Doctors of the ancient Cath. Churche Suruey Pag. 329. the foresaid book of protestaÌ„ts hath also a special chapter of examples of the Puritanes contempt against them calling S. Ignatius scholler to S. Iohn the Euangelist a counterfet and vayne man S. Irenaeus is reiected except sayth the Suruey he wil frame his speech after the new cut Sur. pag. â—3â— Annot Bezae in act â—4 1. Timoth. 5. euen according to Bezaes pleasure Iustinus Martyr being vrged that lyued presentlie after the Apostles answere is made that in the dayes of Iustine there began to peepe out in the ministerie some things Th. Cartvv li 2. Pag. 621. which went from the simplicitie of â—he ghospel To S. Iustine is added S. Hierome whom they answere thus Corruption groweth in tyme as the tymes are so are they that lyue in them there is not such sinceritie to be
consequentlie much more reprehensible then the first especially in a knight and how think yow doth he deliuer himself now from this charge Pag. 2â— yow shal heare presentlie by his owne pen for after a fewe words of some compunction and humilitie as it might seeme wherin he wrote that he would beare this charge of lying according to the councel of an ancient Father who said that God suffreth slaunders to assault vs that pryd may not surprise vs as who would say that his learned Wach-word had byn so glorious a work as yt might haue put him into some pryd and set him a loft had not the warder by his answere taken him downe agayne and taught him to know himself After this I say he runneth presently to a certayne shifte before meÌ„tioned of laying the lyke charge of lying to other men also of our syde as yf that might excuse him somewhat to haue some compagnions in that exercise and as yow haue heard before in the precedent Encounter that being charged with flatterie he raÌ„ne straight wayes to Canonists saying that they flattered much more the Pope then he the Queene and state so now being charged with lying he leapeth in lyke manner to lay the same charge vpon fryars heare his narration VValsingham sayth he an ancient Chronicler wryteth of Friars in Richard the second his tyme Pag. 29. that they were of long tyme so infamons for lying that it was counted a good argument both in matter and forme This is a fryar ergo a lyar And it should seeme the Romanists keep stil their old wont by that famous ly which also of late they haue sent vs ouer not only in print but in picture too namely that some of the mayntenours of their Catholyke Religion haue byn by vs heere put into beares skinnes so hayted to death with Maistâ—ues a ly printed in the English College at Rome 1584. with Gregorie the 13. his priuilege so great a ly as no place was fit to vtter it but only Rome Lo heere thou maist see good reader put in practise agayne the refuge before mentioned of excusing one fault by an other which is a most absurd shifte for as S. Ierom. sayth peccantium mulâ—itudo non parit errori patrocimuÌ„ Hiero. epist. 66 ad Ruffinum The multitude or society of offenders doth not protect or geue patronage to the errour But much more in this case when many pointes be different for I would aske the K t. what releef or discharge is this to him yf both these examples were true as after they wil proue false to wit yf fryarâ— were such lyars in King Richard the 2. his tyme why should â—nights be lyars in Q. Elizabeths tyme â— or yf a printer or paynter in Rome or both or these that set them a worke liuing a thousand myles from England should haue â—rrâ—d in â—ome one particular fact wrâ—tten or related from thence what excuse may this be to S. F. who writing in England is accused to haue lyed and faâ—sified things present and such as all England doth or may know to be false furthermore he cannot be so ignorant but that he must know that there is a great differeÌ„ce betweene historical and doctrinallyes the first much more perdonable then the second * The relaâ—â—t of the diâ—putation betvveene Plessy Mornay and â—he Bâ—â—h oâ— Eurâ—ux bâ—fore the K of Fâ—aunce in May anno 1600. and that one of our countrymen of late hath offred to shew an infinitie of doctrinal lyes out of diuers principal protestant wryters and especially out of Ihon Fox by name this maÌ„nes maister that within the coÌ„passe of two leaues yet doth he pardon him all meere historical lyes such as by euil information he might be deceaued in the relating of Fox act and â—oâ— 115. as namely that of Iohn Marbeck the singer of Windsore diuers others whome he setteth doâ—ne for martyrs and boâ—h printedâ— and paynted with fyer about â—hem their bodies burned to ashes whiles they were yet aliue and meâ—râ—e when Fox printed his book With much more equitie then do we deale with S.F. and his frends then he wâ—â—h vs yf the matters alleaged were both true to his purpose And wheras he addeth that this report of the beares skin is priuileged for truth by Pope Gregorie the 13. it is a childish cauil for that Princes priuileges do warrant only the printing and not the truth of the book for yf her Ma ties priuilege to Fox and Iewels books for example sake or to this poore one of S.F. should be an obligation to her Ma tie to defend all the lyes and falshoods therin conteyned it were a pitiful case and dangerous also to the authors and wryters them-selues for then were her Ma tie obliged in honor to see the same punished when they are found out and at least to graunt the demaund of the foresaid relator of Plessy Morney his disputation to haue our protestants falshoods come to publyke tryal before her person or counsel as those of Plessis Mornayes impostures were examined and conuinced in presence of the K. of France which were a daungerous point in England as matters now stand I meane daungerons to the credit of ProtestaÌ„ts doctrine and dealing but otherwyse profitable for the truth most honorable to her Ma tie and memorable for posteritie But now let vs examine the fact it self obiected about this beares skinne for of this I meane to treat first About the man bayted in the beares skinne and of the fryars afterward true it is that at my being in Rome I sawe among other pictures on the English Churche wals of old and new martyrs diuers representations and of some cruel vsage of Catholykes for their conscience sake in our dayes and among other this portrayture of one in a beares skyn bayted with dogs and for that I had not heard nor read of any such matter publikely done in England I beganne to maruaile how it came to be paynted there yet considering on the other syde as euery indifferent man should that they being graue and learned men that were in Rome at that tyme and gaue the instructions to the paynter in that matter and that it was nor likly they would be so wicked or foolish or so litle respect their owne credits as to inuent or fayne any such matter of them-selues set it soorth so publikely to be seene and red of all the world I beganne to ymagin that eyther themselues knew it to be true which I knew not or els might perhaps by letters be informed therof out of England froÌ„ some frends who might affirme it of their owne knowledge to haue byn done in some priuate manner for that the said persons in Rome were now dead I beganne to informe my selfe of others and presently I fel vpon a very sufficient geÌ„tleman of Lincolne shyre who tould me that in the parish of Lowth it is most certayne that in K.
Henry the eyght his dayes a Catholyke man was so put to death being made odious first for the title of Supremacy and then so bayted in a beares skinne and that this was done by certayne vehement heretykes at that tyme but whether by publike authoritie or by particular fury he could not tel but sure he was that the fame therof is fresh yet in Louth among all men as easely may be learned I found also an other gentleman of good worship who tould me that he heard S Edward Carew brother to the now L. Chamberlayne talk of an other such like fact practised by certayne nobles or gentlemen for their disport vpon a Catholyke man in this Q. dayes bayting him with their Spaniels and whether this be true or no yt may be easely tryed the partie yet being a liue but by this it appeareth that they which caused that picture to be paynted in Rome might haue more ground for yt then euery man at the first sight knoweth and yf they had byn misinformed so farre of from England as Fox confesseth he was in diuers things in England yt self it had byn rashnes in them I grant to put it eyther in print or wryting But this litle releeueth S.F. his cause who is accused to haue set downe and printed things that him-self did know and must needs know to be false when he printed them which is error not of ignorance but of obstinacie and playn lying And this being the true state of our question I come now to the fryars whom our K t. seeketh to disgrace with this note in his margeÌ„t Fryars braue lyars but for brauery it agreeth better to gilten spurres then to gray hoods and as for lying we shal now examine the matter wherin the reader shal fynd our K t. to haue vsed a far worse and more dishonorable shift theÌ„ the former that being but a sleight this a playne imposture abusing the Author Walsingham by him alleadged quite coÌ„trarie to his owne sense dryft and meaning as now we shal declare And first I do grant that the historiographer Thomas Walsingham lyuing almost 200. yeares agone or more wryteth in effect as S t. F. alleageth that it was a common saying in K. Richard the 2. his tyme that fryars were lyars but what fryars were these trow yow for herein lyeth the whole matter which the K â— very craftely concealeth and yet might he imagyn easely that it would be espied by his aduersarie for that WalsinghaÌ„ being a Catholyke and religious man cannot be thought to haue condemned all fryars in general who then were those fryars by him condemned surely he sheweth yt euidently that they were more of S.F. humour Fryars corrupted by vvickclif in K. Rich the â— his tyme. then of S. Francis holinesse for they were such begging fryars as Wicklif newly sprong vp had corrupted with his pestilent heresie and had set against other religious orders that had possessions for that was Wâ—ckclifs first cunning wickednes to set beggâ—ng fryars against monkes and such as had riches to make these monkss more odious to the people these fryars gaue themselues by Wickclifs good instructions to inuent infinit lyes of them wherby they made not so much their aduersaries as themselues in famous for lying and Thomas Walsingham beinge one of the sayd Monkes of S. Albans monasterie no maruayle though he complayned of them Behold heere the state of the question and the honest dealing of S. F. which point that yow may the better vnderstand yow must know that the sayd Thomas Walsingham doth describe the most barbarous rebellion of the common people vnder wat Tyler and Iack straw VVat Tyler Iack Stravveâ— rebellioÌ„ anno 1â—â—1 and others in the 4. yeare of K. Richard the 2. in which they spoyled London took the King beheaded the Archbishop of Canterbury and the L. Treasurer and meant to haue slayn all the Bishops and other Ecclesiastical and religious men of possessions within England reseruing only the begging fryars And to the end we may vnderstand that all this proceeded of Wâ—ckcliffes doctrine as the lyke did in Germany in the yeare * Vide sup Enc. 1 cap. â— 1525. of Luthers walsingham in the beginning of this lamentable storie VValsing an 1381. sub Rich 2. Pag. 256. wryteth thus in latyn Anno Dominicae incarnationis 1381. c. In the yeare of the incarnation of our Sauiour a thousand three hundred fourescore and one and in the 4. yeare of the raigne of K. Ricâ—ard the sâ—cond after the conquest That true Hypocryte the Angel of Sathan the forerunner of Antichrist vnworthy to be named I meane the heretyke Iohn VVickclif or rather weeckebeleefe continuing his dreames seemed that he would now drinke vp the ryuer of Iordan and cast all good Christians into the dungeon of Hel c. Thus beginneth Walsingham this yeare and presently entereth into the pitiful narration of the former tragedy of the popular rebellion of wat Tyler c. hauing ended all beginneth to search the causes why God did suffer such exceeding calamities as these to happen vpon the land and sayth that some did lay the fault vpon the Bishops and Prelates of the Churche for that they had not looked better Nobility and gentry corrupted by VVickclifs Doctrine and more diligently to stop and punish Wickclifs heresie at the beginning Cum nouissent indignè agere filios suos Ioannem VVickclif â—ius sequaces dagmatizando peruâ—rsam damnatam doctrinam c. Wheras they knew diuers of their Children as Iohn Wickcliffe and his followers to liue vnworthilie to set abroad peruerse and damned doctrine c. Others he sayth did attribute this calamitie to the sinnes of the gentry and nobilitie Quia maiores penè Prouinciarum eorum se quebantur errorem For that the principal almost in euery shire did follow these mennes errors agayne Quia in Deum erant fictae fidei nam quidam illorum credebant nullum esse Deum nihil esse sacramentuÌ„ Altaris nullam post mortem resurrectionem c. And for that they were of a fayned fayth towards God some of them beleeuing no God at all and that the Sacrament of the Altar was nothing and that there was no resurrection after death but that man endeth as doth a beast c. Behold the yssue presentlie vpon heretical doctrine what effect it brought foorth in the nobilitie But what brought it forth any better fruite in the common people The coÌ„mons corrupted No for that their acts do shew in this barbarous rebellion wherin they made profession to slea euery one that was learned VValsing Ibid. Pag. 2â—1 or bare a pen and ynkhorne at his gyrdle And besyds Walsingham sayth viuebant rixando litigando fraudes falsitates iugiter meditando libidini dediti adulteijs maculati c. Et super haec omnia in sidei articulis plurimi claudicabaut They liued in brawling and contention deuising falshood and
poynts contayned in this matter the one we haue gotten that in some cases spiritual prelates though subiects in temporalityes may reprehend and resist yea chasten also by Ecclesiastical punishment their liege lords and temporal princes without being traytors for the same The second whether the examples be like we are to examine a litle in this place And first I would aske our minister that denyeth the fitnes of the examples The comparison of S. Thom vvith S. Ambrose Hillary and other fathers as also his master that chafeth at them what and where about were the foresayd Saints contentions with their temporal Princes were they not for the defence of the lawes of Christ and his Churche did not S. Iohn Baptist withstand Herod his temporal Lord to his face for breaking the lawes of wedlock and was not the strife of S. Ambrose with Valentinian his Emperour first for that he would not deliuer vp a Catholike Churche to the vse of Arrians as he and his mother had commaunded and secondly for that he would not giue vp the treasure and vessels of his Churche into the Emperors owne hands as he required Heare his owne testimony thereof S. Ambr. in orat in AuxoÌ„ de Basilicia traden Cum esset proposituÌ„ saith hee vt ecclesiae vasa iam traderemus c. when it was proposed vnto vs in the Emperours name that wee should deliuer him the vessel of our churche I gaue this answere If any thing of my owne were demaunded eyther land howse gold or siluer I would easely yeild vnto him any thing that were belonging vnto mee But from the Churche of God I told him that I could take nothing for that I had receyued it not to deliuer but to keep And that with this I had respect also of the Emperours saluation For that it was neyther expedient for mee to giue nor for him to receyue Accipiat ergo vocem liberi sacerdotis c. Let his Maiestie then receyue the word of a free priest if he wil haue care of his owne saluation let him cease to offer iniury to Christ. Lo here the answeare of an ecclesiastical Prelate but a temporal subiect to his highest Prince doth not this seeme to bee speach of some Catholyke Bishop to a Protestant Prince that would inuade Churche goods possessions against which poynt S. Ambrose was so resolute to stand as he sayth in the same place that yf sorce were vsed towards him his flesh might bee troubled but not his mynd and that he was readie yf the Emperour would vse his kingly authority in offring violence to stuffer that which belonged to a good Priest to beare And what doth this differ now from the cause of S. Tho. of Canterbury who stood vpon defence of his Ecclesiastical iurisdictioÌ„ against K. Henry his temporal Prince that vsurped the same Heare the words of S. Thomas himself vsed to K. Henry in a CouÌ„cel at Chynon in FraÌ„ce as D. Houeden sets them downe Rog. Houe in vit Henr. 2. pag. 285. Non deberetis Episcopis praecipere absoluere aliquem vel excommunicare trahere Clericos ad saecularia examina iudicare de decimis de ecclesits interdicere Episcopis ne tractent de â—ransgressione fidei vel Iuramenti c. Yow ought not to take vpon yow to commaund Bishops to absolue or excomunicate any man neyther to draw cleargie men to the examinatioÌ„s of seculars neyther to iudge of tythes or of churches or to forbid Bishopâ— to treat of transgressioÌ„s against faith or against oathes broaken or the like c. Doe not wee seme to heare in this place the voice of S. Ihon Baptist to his K. Herod It is not lawful for the to haue the wyfe of thy brother S. Marc. 1â— Or is not this agreable to the speach of S. Ambrose to Valentinian that he could not force him to deliuer any churche or holy vessels thereof and that he would dy in that quarrel against him But let vs heare an other controuersy of his with another Emperour more deuout religious then the former The contention of S. Ambrose vvith Theodosius the Emperor to wit Theodosius the great in Millain for that he would not do publike pennance prescribed by this holy B. to him for the excesse in punishing those of Thessalonica and had not this beene rebellioÌ„ and treason by Protestants law for a priest to driue his king and Emperour that by their diuinity was head of their churche to publike penance and to go out of his Churche as S. Ambose did compel Theodosius to go out of the churche of Millan But let vs go forward and see the rest of examples before touched Pallad in vit Chrysost. was not the contention of S. Chrisostome with Arcadius and Honorius his Princes Emperours and with their wyues when he kept some of them by force out of his churche about ecclesiastical liberty and iurisdiction also And that also of S. Athanasius Hilarius against Constantius their Emperour and supreme head also according to the Protestants opinion in spiritual matters for that he fauored Arrians deposed Catholike Bishops and made himself vmpyre in ecclesiastical affayres as Protestants Princes doe now a dayes Did S. Tho. Primate of England say or write more to K. Henry at any tyme then S. Gregorie Nazianzen a particular Archbishop sayd vnto his Emperour that was present and angry with him Nazian orat ad Ciues Imper. â—rasceÌ„tem Vos quoque potestati meae meisque subsellijs lex Christi subiecit scio se esse ouem mei gregis sacri gregis sacram ouem Yow also o Emperour the law of Christ hath made subiect vnto my power and to my tribunal I know thee to bee a sheep of my flock a sacred sheep of a holy flock If Nazianzene had sayd this to an English King or should doe at this day how would our Protestants Prince-parasytes cry out and say that he were a proud Prelate as they say of S. Thomas The cheif and onelie contention of king Henry with the Archbishop as before in part you haue heard was about ecclesiastical iurisdiction as the articles set downe by all wryters doe testify The articles vpon vvhich S. Tho. disagreed vvith the king as namely that no Bishop might appeale to the Sea Apostolike without licence of the king that no seruant or tenant holding of the king might be excommunicated without his licence that no Bishop should bee able to punish any man for periury or breaking his faith that all cleargie men might bee forced to secular iudgments as all controuersyes also pertâ—yning to tythes and other like cases And now yf these controuersyes should haue fallen out as in part they did betweene the auncient christian Emperours and the holy Bishops before named would they not think you haue stood in them with no lesse feruour then S. Thomas did But now let vs heare and examine how Syr F. doth proue this holy Archbishop to bee a
traytor Thus he writeth of the beginning of the controuersy There was as authors doe affirme in that time of Henrie the second Pag 56. more then a hundred murthers besydes other felonyes proued vpon the cleargie which when the king would haue punished according to the lawes of the land A fâ—lse and slâ—undâ—rous beginning of the 〈…〉 Becket opposed himself and beardeth the king in this so iust an action vnder title of standing for the libertyes of the Churche from this strauÌ„ge ground these proceedings ensued In which words of the knight there is to bee noted first that where he saith authors doe affirmè that more then a hundred murders besides other â—ellonies were proued vpon the cleargie no other author is found to mention any such thing but onelie Nubergensis who yet doth not say that they were proued vpon the clergie but his words are Nuberg hist. Angl. l. 2 16. that it was said to haue byn tould the king at a certaine time that aboue a hundred murders had byn committed within the kingdome of England since his raigne by Cleargie men In which woords as you see NubergeÌ„sis doth not say that it was true or that it was proued as our knight doth and secondly he speaketh of the whole tyme of king Henries raigne vntil this contention which was some 14. or 15. yeares and thirdly the falling out of the Archbishop with the king was not for that he would not haue these clergie men punished if they had offended as wickedly this knight giueth to vnderstand saying presently after This proud prelate durst protect fellons and murderers against the king and iustice of the lanâ— but the controuersy was only about the maner of punishing those that did offend and by what iudges and iurisdiction they should be punished to wit whether by ecclesiastical or temporal power for that the Archbishop affirmed that equity required that clergie men offending should first be iudged condemned and degraded by ecclesiastical power according both to the cannon lawes as also the municipal lawes of the land confirmed by all former Christian Kings â—rom the first conuersion of England and that they being thus condemned should be deliuered to secular power for executâ—on of the sentence which is a case that faâ—leth out dayly in Spayn Italy France and other Cath. contreys where Bishops do defend their Eccâ—es iurisdiction in punishing Eccles. persons taking them also by force of censures out of secular iudges hands when occasioÌ„ is offered without all note of rebellion or treason And no lesse was this law of the realme of England confirmed by ancient parliaments and other antiquities then were the secular lawes for which S r. F. standeth and fondly calleth the defence of eccles lawes treason and rebellion Wherfore hauing set downe so false a relation of the beginning of this controuersy falsifying NubergeÌ„sis as yow see in many points he doth prosecute the same with lyke vntruth as presently yow shal see And first he beginneth with a certayne letter of Maud the Empresse vnto the Archbishop which she wrote at the instance of the King her sonne and vpoÌ„ the informatioÌ„ of such courtyers as were contrary to the Bishop and his cause In which letters she chargeth him that to vse S â— F. owne words as much as in him lay he went about to disinherit the King and depriue him of his crowne Whervnto I answere that truth it is Iohn Fox hath such a letter of thesaid Empresse Maud without telling where Pag â—8 or whence or how he had it or where we may read it for in none of all the authors aboue mentioned I do fynd it Yet one thing I would haue the reader to note S. F vntrue dealing in cyting matters against S. Thom. which testifieth the continuance of S r. F. vntrue dealing in this affayre that wheras in Iohn Fox the whole charge of the empresse against the Archbishop is mitigated by this pareÌ„thesius as the report is which sheweth that these were but suspitions only and reports of his enimies Fox Pag. 201. S r. F. hath left out the parenthesis as the report is as though she had charged him vpon her owne knowledge which is no true dealing or right meaning as yow see But let vs heare further S r. F. his words pretending a more certayne proof of treason rebellion in S. Thomas Pag. 58. But if the Empresse saith he might be thought to speak partialy on the K. her sonnes behalf yet the two Card. sent by the Pope to heare all this controuersy out of question wil not condemne him without iust cause and yet in a letter sent from them to the Pope they do condemne him c. Yf S. F. proue himself a true K â— in verifying this one poynt which here he sayth I am to pardon much of that which hath passed before But yf in this matter of so great moment he be taken in lyke falshood who wil then trust him hereafter Let vs examine then the matter I wil haue none other euideÌ„ces or witnesses but his owne woords for presently after he setteth downe a part of the letter of VVilliam and Otho Card. sent by Pope Alexander to heare the cause betwene the King the Archbishop and hauing trauayled therin the King being in Normandie and the Archb. at Paris they found the matter more hard then they imagined to compouÌ„d False dealing of Syr Fraunces for that the Archbishop demaunded restitution to his lyuings for himself and for his frends and reuocation of certayne lawes lately made preiudicial to ecclesiastical iurisdiction before he could end the matter wherwith the-sayd Card. being somwhat displeased for that they desired to carry with them to the Pope the glory of this accord made by them and for that the King had much gayned their good wil by liberallity towards theÌ„ for these causes they wrote to the Pope somwhat fauorably in the Kings behalf but yet nothing condemning the Archbishop as vntruly out K â— doth auow which now I shal shew out of the woords of their owne letter alleaged heere by S.F. which are these VVilliam and Otho Card. of the Churche of Rome to Alexander the Pope The letter of the tvvo Cardinals to the Pope â— VVe comming to the land of the K. of England found the controuersy betwixt him and the Archbishop of Canterbury more sharp and vehement then we would for the King the greater part about him said that the Archbishop had sâ—yâ—red vp the french King greuously against him as also the Earle of Flaunders his kinsman who was very louing and kynd to him before whome he made his open aduersary ready to wage warre against him as is by diuers euidences most certayne c. These are the words of the Card. by S. F. relation which supposing they were truly alleaged yet he that shal consider and ponder them wel wil see that out of them no more can be vrged against the Archbishop but
4. num 12. Protestants books and wrytings one against the other in general Enc. 1. cap. 5 6. per totum Protestants shal perish finally by diuision among themselues according to Luthers prophesy Enc. 1. cap. 7. nu 4. Protestants of how good lyfe commonly they be according both to Erasmus and Luther Enc. 1. cap. 10. num 1.2.3 c. Protestant cleargie poore and miserable Enc. 1. cap. 11. num 3. Puritans feare greatly toleration of Cath. Religion and why notes vpon the Epist. of S. F. num 8.9.10 c. Puritans books and iudgments against English Protestants Enc. 1. cap. 6. per totum Puritans do complaine greeuously of protestants for persecution Enc. 1. cap. 10. Puritans and Protestants contempt of their owne Doctors when they make against them Enc. 1. cap. 17. nu 13.14 c. R. ROman faith and the practise therof in visiting martyrs sepulchers in S. Hieromes tyme. Enc. 1. cap. 9. nu 3.4 c. Religious men corrupted by VVickliffe Enc. 2. cap. 2. num 10.11 c. Rule of faith what it is among Catholyks that protestants haue none at all wherby to haue any certainty Enc. 1. cap. 14. per totum What Rule of faith O. E. doth appoint by the parlament of England and what authority the Parlament hath or may haue in that case Enc. 1. cap. 15. per totum cap. 16. num 8. S. SAcrifice of the masse acknowledged by auncient Fathers by the Magdeburgians owne confession Enc. 1. cap. 13. num 13. Saints what processe is needful in the Cath. Churche for their Canonization Enc. 2. cap. 11. num 15.16.17 c Fox-made Saints not comparable to Pope-made Saints Ibid. Saints bloud and merit how it may be named in our prayers to God Enc. 2. cap. 12. num 9. Scriptures expounded diuersly by protestants and Puritans one contrary to the other Enc. 1. cap. 6. num 11. Scripture Reading in vulgar tongues hath byn occasion of ruine to many of the simpler sort Enc. 1. cap. â— num 2.3 c. Scriptures in the vulgar tongue permitted in England with moderation and licence in former ages Enc. 2. cap. 3. num 7. See thesame handled more largely ibid. cap. 6. nu 14.15 Et cap 9. per totum Intricate dealing of heretiks about vnderstanding of Scripture ibid. cap. 6. num 22. who are properly Lucifugi scripturarum heretiks or Catholyks ibid. num 25. How Scriptures must be interpreted ibid. nu 26. How the Iewes of Berrea did read the Scriptures act 17. Enc. 2. cap. 9. num 4. Sectaries sprong vp from Luther and their diuisions among them-selues Enc. 1. cap. 4. num 7.8 c. Sectaries burned by Protestants when they are against them though they condemne burning by the Catholyks Enc. 1. cap. 8. num 3.4 c. Stankarus a Polonian Sectary His contumelious woords against Peter Martyr Bullinger and others Enc. 1. cap. 5. num 6. Synods and Councels held by Protestants with more disagreement then before Enc. 1. cap. 4. num 11. 12. c. T. S. Thomas of Canterbury how egregiously he is abused by S. F. and Iohn Fox Enc. 2. cap. 10. nu 17.18.19.20.21 c. S. Thomas his constancy much lyke to that of S. Ambrose and Nazianzen and other Bishops with their Princes Ibid. num 13.14 c. S. Thomas his Miracles and how authentical they are proâ—ed Enc. 2. cap. 11. per totum V. VErtue what effects therof hath new religioÌ„ brought into England Enc. 1. cap. 18. n. 2. Vnity betwene Protestants and Puritans what noteâ— vpon the ep of S. F. n. 9.10 c. Vnion of doctrine among Protestants what it is and how falsely affirmed by Sir F. Enc. 1. cap. 4. n. 3.4.5.6 c. No meanes of vnion among Protestants ibid. n. 10. Vnity in Catholike Religion in S. Bedes tyme among different and opposite nations that were in warre with themselues A great argument for the truthe of that religion Enc. 2. cap. 3. n. 5.6 c. W. WArre of Protestants among themselues in matter of doctrine Enc. 1. cap. 5. per totum VVestphalus what he saith against Caluyn and Caluynists Ibid. n. 5. Good works are not only not profitable but pernitious also to saluation and iustification as Luther holdeth Enc. 1. cap. 10. n. 3. About good works what is the Catholike doctrine ibid. n. 6. Enc. 2. cap. 16. n. 11.12 c. Wickliffe his doctrine what horrible styrre it made in England at the very beginning Enc. 2. n. 10.11.12 c. Wickliffe not only made a saint by Iohn Fox but a martyr also though he died in his bed Encont 2. cap. num 13. THE FIRST TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST ENCOVNTER A Brief Summarie of all that before hath byn said or now is to be added about this first Encounter of blessings cursings by change of Catholike religion Cap. 1. Of the first charge of flattering the state of England laid to Sir Francis and of his owne contradiction to himself therin about the deuised blessings of his new ghospel Cap. 2. Procter O. E. is called vp the stage to tel his tale to help out Sir Francis in this matter of flattering the state and how he playeth his parte farre worse and more ridiculouslie then the knight himself Cap. 3. Of ten new deuised blessings brought in by Sir F. as peculiar to his ghospel wherof the first is vnion in doctrine tearmed by him vnitie in veritie And how false and vayne this is Cap. 4. â—he same matter is prosecuted and the disvnion of Protestants is proued and declared by diuers other meanes out of their owne books and writings especially of forraine Protestants Lutherans Zwinglians and Caluenists Cap. 5. The continuation of thesame narration about vnitie in veritie among ridged and soft Caluenists named Protestants Puritans in EnglaÌ„d ScotlaÌ„d Cap 6. An answere to three fond obiections or interrogatioÌ„s of Sir â—rancis with an addition about O.E. Cap. 7. Of the second third blessings which are reading of scriptures publike seruice in English Cap. 8. The second part of the answere about Churche seruice in English conteyning some authorities alleadged for it but much corrupted and abused by the knight Cap. 9. Of the fourth and fifth blessings affirmed to haue byn brought in by Protestants which are aboundance of good workes fredome from persecution Cap. 10. Of the other fiue imagined blessings that remayne to wit deliuerance from exactions long peace power in forraine countries wealth of the land multitude of subiects encreased Cap. 11. How the contrarie effects to blessings that is to say of great damages and cursings brought in by change of religion both spiritual and temporal and how Syr F. and his Proctor O. E. do answere them Cap. 12. VVhat Procter O. E. saith to this matter of cursings and how absurdly he behaueth himself therin Cap. 13. That Protestants haue not only no agreement or vnitie among themselues in matters of religion but also are depriued of all sure