not by their praying to him that he should pray for them This is no true kinde of argumentation but a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi The defence of the Romish Church being this that Saints are to be inuocated after they be dead not as authors but as mediators let this be the question betweene vs whether any such inuocation is commended vnto vs in the holy Scriptures or no Eckius one of their greatest Schoole-diuines that euer was in the Vniuersitie of Ingolstad maketh this free confession that innocation of Saints is not expressly commanded in holy Writ Explicitè sanctorum inuocatio non est praecepta in sacris literis Not in the old testament saith he because the people of themselues were prone to idolatry and the Saints departed were then in Limbus and not in heauen In the new testament the Apostles wrote no such thing left such doctrine should be a meanes to bring the Gentiles backe againe to idolatry as also because the Apostles their selues would not be thought so ambitious as to seeke their owne glory after their death I desire them therefore with Christian sobriety to speake to these foure points First the wisedome of the holy Ghost being such that in the whole body of the Bible such inuocation was not so much as once named for feare of idolatry how can it be denied but this inuocation hath at the least some affinity with idolatry or why should the Church of Rome either withstand or go beyond the wisedome of God to maintaine publish that in their humane policy which God in his diuine wisdome thought fit to be suppressed and concealed or why should not the perill of idolatry bee as carefully shunned now as then it was Secondly forasmuch as the confession of Bellarmine is Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria quae ipsipalam omnibus vulgo praedicarūt that all things which are necessary for the Church to know or which the Apostles in their Sermons by word of mouth did publish teach are written by the Apostles but this inuocation is not mentioned in their writings and therefore was neither taught by them nor held necessary to saluation Why doth the Church of Rome so vehemently maintaine it S. Paul saith No mā must presume to vnderstand aboue that which is meet to be vnderstood but that euery man must sapere adsobrietatem vnderstand with sobriety And what it is plus sapere quà m oportet to vnderstand aboue that which is meet and not according to sobriety he sheweth in another place supra id quod scriptum est sapere when any man shall presume beyond that which is written Thirdly if inuocation of Saints were necessary for the easier obtaining of mercy at the hands of God and the readier way to saue mens soules and yet the Apostles forbeare to publish this doctrine because they would not be thought ambitious they were not faithfull Stewards of the word nor so carefull of the Church of Christ as behoued men of that holy vocation for humane respects neglecting their office Furthermore they did contrary to the rule of Saint Paul in concealing the truth of religion which was to do euil that good might follow which imputation cannot without great impiety bee layed vpon such sanctified vessels Nay which is more how can it stand with that which Saint Paul testifieth of himselfe where he saith I haue kept nothing backe but haue shewed you all the councell of God And againe I haue shewed you all things Fourthly in the same chapter Eckius hauing deliuered that such inuocation is no where expressed in the holy Scriptures yet taketh vpon him to produce many expresse places to proue the same I would therefore bee satisfied with what conscience he could aledge those places to resist a knowne truth But to come to Bellarmine when Mathias was to be elected in the place of Iudas the Apostles prayed after this manner Thou Lord which knowest the hearts of all men shew whether of these two thou hast chosen In which words it is expressed that hee which onely is infinitely wise hath reserued the knowledge of mens hearts to himselfe But this is a ground or principle agreed vpon betweene vs both that we may pray vnto none but onely to him which knoweth the heart He answereth that not onely God but also the Saints departed are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 searchers and vnderstanders of the secrets of mens hearts I reply That belongeth onely to the Creator which made the heart For saith Salomon Heare thou in heauen in thy dwelling place and be mercifull and do and giue euery man according to all his waies as thou knowest his heart for thou onely knowest the hearts of all the children of men He distinguisheth in this manner Non tribuunt Catholici sanctis mortuis diuinitatem id est vim cognoscendi mentium cogitationes Cognoscunt quidem preces nostras non vt sunt in mentibus nostris sed vt sunt in Deo quem vident qui eas ipsis ostendit The Catholickes ascribe not to Saints departed any Deity as if they had power in themselues to bee discerners of mens thoughts And yet they conceiue our prayers though not by any insight into vs or inspection into the inward and hidden man but by vision in the Maiestie of God whom they do see and who reuealeth our prayers vnto them Against this answer I dispute in this manner out of his owne booke in another place If Saints conceiue our prayers in such sort as is aforesaid then it is by a generall illumination or vision by which at their first entrance into the state of happinesse in the Maiesty of God they see all at once or else successiuely by a speciall reuelation from God at such times and seasons onely as prayers in particular are made vnto them he standeth in doubt what he should answer whether it be by such a generall illumination or such especiall reuelation by which of them it is or whether it be by any of them or not he cannot tell For he saith Ex his duabus prior videtur simpliciter probabilior tamen posterior sententia est magis idonea ad conuincendos hereticos It is more probable it should be by vision and yet it is a more safe defence against the heretickes to hold that it is by reuelation In which words you see what weake grounds he buildeth vpon which are onely probabilitas studium contradicēdi the first probility or humane coniecture the second a vaine desire of contradiction to withstand his aduersaries in disputation whether it be by truth or falshood right or wrong by certainty or vncertainty by hap or good cunning he careth not I reply therefore If Saints heare vs not it is very idle to pray vnto them if it were possible that they could heare vs but if we cannot resolue our selues that they do heare vs our praiers
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
saith Bellarmine though first they knew him yet whē they made the calfe they had forgotten him How proueth he that Fecerūt vitulū in Horeb they made a calfe in Horeb they worshipped the molten image forgat God which saued them and did wonderfull things in Aegypt To which I answer by distinction that forgetfulnesse is of two sorts one which is ignorance when a man letteth slip out of his memory that which once he knew or heard or saw as when Peter heard the cocke crow he remembred the words of Iesus the other of ingratude as where it is written The Butler did not remember Ioseph but forgat him that is he was ingratefull to him And in that sense the Israelites forgate God Againe any impiety negligence presumption disobedience is called forgetfulnesse as Dauid speaketh The wicked shall be turned into hell and all they which forget God And that the forgetfulnesse of the Iewes could not be the obliuion of ignorance I proue by the text it selfe cras erit solemnitas Iehouae tomorrow shall a solemne feast be kept to the God Iehoua Which Iehoua is the proper name of the God of heauen knowne then onely among the Iewes so that they worshipped Iehoua in the calfe But saith Bellarmine Respondeo fortè Iudaeos illos qui plures Deos veros esse tradebant non putasse hoc nomen esse proprium sed appellatiuum Peraduēture those Iewes which held a multitude of true Gods thought that Iehoua was not a name proper to one but common to many To which I reply That besides religion must not be grounded vpon Bellarmine his PERADVENTVRES and idle coniectures how can he auoid this text parallell vnto that to shew what was the opinion of the Iewish Idolaters where Mica his mother saith Sanctificaui voui Iehouae c. I haue sanctified the siluer and dedicated it to Iehoua to make a molten Image Forasmuch as there by his owne words Ieboua sculptile God and the molten Image are two seuerall things votum quod est sculptile numen cui sculptile vouetur the vow which is the molten image and the God Iehoua to whom the image is deuoted she could not thinke that image to be Iehoua To come to the worship of the Gentiles what answer doth he make to these arguments First they did vni Deo plura simulacra erigere erect many idols to one God For example they acknowledge but one Iupiter yet in euery country were idols of Iupiter therefore they made a difference betweene the God himselfe and his idoll consequently they did not thinke the idoll to be a God His answer is Habuerunt alios Deos in coelo alios interrâ nec putauerunt absurdum si vnus Deus coelestis vt Iupiter vel Apollo haberet interrâ multos collegas minores id est multa idola eiusdem nominis The heathens had some Gods in heauen some on earth neither did they thinke it an absurdity that one God in heauen as Iupiter or Apollo should haue many fellow Gods inferiour vpon earth that is many idols to beare their names And I pray you what is this answer but a confession or grant of that which I haue alledged that the heathens accompted their Gods which they thought to be in heauen to be Gods indeed these vpon earth before whom they prostrated themselues to be but idols and representations of them which were in heauen therefore they did not thinke they were Gods Secondly they framed dayly new idols and yet said not that they made new Gods His answer is Putarunt Gentes senouos Deos facere saltem terrestres The Gentiles so doing thought at the least they made such Gods as were vpon earth although not such as were in heauen which is no more then he spake before to the first obiection a grant of that which I haue obiected Thirdly Mutarunt simulacra pro arbitrio nec tamen Deos mutarunt They changed their idols at their pleasure whereas their Gods continued the same To it he saith Respondeo Ethnicos eâdem stultitiâ quâ putabunt Deos posse fieri manibus hominum potuisse etiam credere Deos aliquos potuisse destrui manibus hominum As the heathens in their foolishnesse thought they could make Gods with their hands so in as great folly they thought they could destroy the Gods which they had made And this is no more then was in the answer to the first obiection where he confessed that in the opinion of the heathen their idols were but idols and no true Gods Fourthly S. Augustine relateth that when the Gentiles were accused of idolatry they answered that Non colebant idolum sed numen quod per idolum significabatur they did not worship the idoll but the God which was represented by it This obiection Bellarmine repeateth in his 2. booke and 11. chapter But in the 13. chapter where he taketh vpon him to answer the arguments going before as I haue shewed he passeth this ouer with silence But to to come the reasons which Bellarmine produceth against vs for proofe of this defence If saith he they did not beleeue these idols to be very gods but representations only of God and so worshipped not them but God in them why do the Prophets labour so much to perswade them that they were no gods I answer whatsoeuer we prostrate our selues before in our prayers consequently we make it our god not by our opinion but by that adoration which is the prostrating of our selues before it not directly but by a consequent And because the people did so the Prophets and S. Paul in those places by him cited do not so much labour to proue them no Gods as if the people had thought them to be so but because they prostrated themselues before them and so by a consequent made them gods But saith Bellarmine if they did not thinke them to be gods why did they inuocate and call vpon them why did they pray vnto them vnlesse they thought that they did heare them I answer out of the Roman Catechisme which holdeth this doctrine that they must pray to the images of saints in the Romish Churches not thinking that the images can heare them but that the saints which by those images are represented should heare them when they pray before their images The words are these Quum ad imaginem sancti alicuius quis dominicam orationem pronunciet ita tum sentiat se ab illo petere vt secum oret sibique postulet ea quae Dominicae orationis formulâ continentur sui denique sit interpres deprecator apud Deum When any man saith the Lords prayer before the image of any saint let his meaning be thus that he craueth of the saint himselfe whose image it is that the saint would pray with him and obtaine for him those petitions which in that forme of prayer are comprehended and so that he would be for him insteed of
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
AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE ENGLISH SEMINARIES AMD IESVITES Shewing their loose kind of writing and negligent handling the cause of Religion in the whole course of their workes By IOHN DOVE Doctor in Diuinity IEREMY 47. 10. Cursed be he that doth the worke of the Lord negligently TAM ROBVR TAM ROBOR NI = COLIS ARBOR IOVIS 1610. LONDON Printed for SIMON WATERSON dwelling in Pauls Church-yard at the signe of the Crowne 1610. TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD MY VERY GOOD Lord TOBY by the prouidence of God Lord Arch-bishop of Yorke Primate and Metropolitan of England MOST Reuerend Father in God my especiall good Lord. Albeit there is no end in writing many books and much reading is a wearinesse to the flesh as the wise man speaketh yet doth the condition of this present age require a multitude of bookes neither ought we to be weary so long as the labour onely is ours the cause Gods and not our owne Our Aduersaries are neuer weary of withstanding the truth they neuer cease to prouoke vs by bookes our names are daily traduced in their papers that vnlesse the Spirit of God waxe cold and the zeale of his house be quenched in vs we cannot be silent And as your Grace hath laboured these fourty yeares without intermission like a silfull Maister-builder of Gods house a painefull husbandman in the Vineyard a vigilant Pastour ouer the flocke and were neuer yet weary of wel-doing so my trust is this small volume shall not seeme tedious which heere I offer vnto your reading and humbly present vnto your Grace Since your Grace hath bene called to the office of a Bishop as with S Paule it is a worthy worke so it hath bene with you all your time hitherto a worke rather then a promotion neither haue you fainted vnder so great a burthen My prayer is for you that God wich hath begun this good worke in you will also performe it vntill the day of Jesus Christ That as you haue deserued that good report which the godly Emperour Theodosius in the Church of Constantinople gaue of S. Ambrose then Bishop of Milanie so you may contiuue still another Saint Ambrose in our Church to the glory and honour of God to whose goodnesse and mercy I commend your Grace and your godly labours Your Graces most humble in the Lord. IOHN DOVE THE INTRODVCTION DECLARING WHAT IS THE drift and intent of the Author I Acknowledge my selfe with Saint Paul to be a debter vnto all men to the Greeke and the Barbarian to the wise and the vnwise so farre as lyeth in me to win some of all sorts to Iesus Christ Hauing already by the will of God published a short treatise of perswasion to the ignorant Recusants to reconcile themselues to our Church I hold it my duty to speake somewhat to them also which fit in the chaire of Moses which would be accounted the great Masters in Israël guides of the blinde lights to them which sit in darknesse instructers of them which lacke discretion and teachers of them which are vnlearned My purpose is not to speake of all points concerning which there is controuersie and difference betweene them and vs for so should I make a tedious volume but onely by instance in some few places for example sake in liew of all the rest to aduertise them of such errours as dayly they commit in the whole course of their writings when they handle the cause of religion to the preiudice of the cause it selfe which they take in hand and to the slander of learning That I may vse the words of the Apostle This is not to cast away the cloakes of shame but still to walke in craftinesse to handle the word of God deceiptfully and not in the declaration of the truth neither so doing can they approue themselues to their owne consciences in the sight of God They would beare the world in hand that they are more exact in their iudgement more painfull in their studies more acute in their arguments more aduised in their answers more diligent in all things they vndertake then any other of the contrary religion whereas due examination being had it doth appeare they slubber vp many things negligently and performe them loosely They despise all our Schooles of learning in respect of their owne Vniuersities as if solid learning and true Schoole-diuinity were no where taught but among themselues they hold all others to be superficiall and yet contrary to all Schoole-learning they suppresse the truth by fallacies throughout their bookes they transgresse the rules and lawes of disputation and in no place will they stand to the orders receiued in Schooles Their yong frye of Seminaries and seed-men which are trained vp vnder them see not with their owne eyes but receiue their sophismes for true syllogismes vpon the credit trust which they repose in their teachers as if it were impiety to call any thing into question which their Readers haue taught them or heresie to examine their grounds by the rules of Art which are the true touch-stone and onely try all of arguments In their discourses which they publish they vse such prolixity that the matter which is plaine and obuious to any man of reasonable capacity seemeth perplexe and very difficult they deliuer the state of the question so vncertainly that the reader looseth himselfe as in a labyrinth not conceauing what is the scope and drift of the Author whether he hold the affirmatiue part or the negatiue In the end hauing seemed to stand long in opposition against vs they concurre with vs. They alledge no other arguments in defence of the religion which they do maintaine but such as haue bene oftentimes answered by Caluin Beza Kemnitius and other Protestant Writers which arguments being already answered are of no validity and therefore we expect they should reply against the answers and not produce the same things againe Neither will their disciples take notice of any answer but alledge these triuiall things for nouelties and rare inuentions as neuer heard of before These things are but Satan transformed into an Angel of light deceptio visus to deceiue the world as the Babylonian Priests did the King Astyages making him beleeue that Bell did eate and drinke and was a liuing God when he was but a dead Idoll The King at the first because hee found the doore of the temple sealed vp with his owne signet the meate deuoured and the wine drunke vp which hee set before the idoll but saw not the priuy entrance which was vnder the table cryed out with a lowd voyce Great art thou ô Bell and in thee is no deceipt But when Daniel shewed him the footing of the Priests and their wiues and children in the ashes which he strewed on the pauements and the priuy doore which they came in at he confessed there was deceipt in the Priests of Bell and he saw plainly that Bell was no God but an idoll So
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
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
can neither be effectuall nor yet made with a good conscience That they cannot be effectuall it is the doctrine of Saint Iames Euery thing which we aske must be asked in faith and not with doubting c. That such prayers are made with an ill conscience and are sinne it is the doctrine of Saint Paul He that doubteth is condemned because hee doth it not of faith and whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne Let euery man bee fully perswaded in his minde But we cannot be assured that they heare vs seeing there is no ground nor proofe thereof in the holy Scriptures neither can the classicall Authors and and maintainers of that doctrine yeeld any plaine or firme reason to satisfie either vs or their owne selues how it may be so that we should beleeue it and subscribe vnto it He alledgeth many arguments in defence of inuocation of Saints as mediators to pray for vs which arguments haue bene alledged long before his time by Eckius and other Catholicke Doctors And they haue bene long since ansered by Peter Martyr Caluin Kemnitius other Protestant writers before his booke came forth Now it was to be expected for the Catholike credit of Bellarmine so great a Doctor that he should not haue produced these old arguments againe whose answers were published in print so long since for that is no cunning but he should haue bene furnished with new stuffe or at the least haue replyed vpon the answers hic labor hoc opus est which he hath not done The answers therefore being so sufficient that hee doth not reply vpon them as his proofes are but the same which were before so it shall be sufficient to answer them as they were answered before and so to satisfie old arguments with old answers Saints saith Bellarmine do pray for the good estate of the whole Church in generall and for such men in particular as do pray vnto them and we ought to pray vnto them that they would particularly pray for vs. And that I may speake to these three propositions although I deny not the first that Saints do pray for vs in generall yet I will examine the validity of his arguments which he alledgeth for proofe thereof to shew how weake the grounds are which they build vpon and so I will in order descend to the rest only to set downe his arguments and Kemnitius his answers to those arguments published in print long before for the satisfaction of others by whom they were before obiected as followeth That Saints departed do pray generally for the whole Church BEll Hieremy 15. The Lord said to me though Moses and Samuel should stand before me yet my affection could not be towards this people Therefore Moses and Samuel being dead both then could and vsually at other times did pray for the people alioqui inepta esset Dei loquutio otherwise God had spoken these words impertinently as if a man had said If my Oxe pray for thee he shall not preuaile meaning that Oxen cannot pray Kemnitius We deny not but Saints departed do pray for the whole Church but it cannot be proued by this text First a conditionall proposition proueth nothing vnlesse the condition were performed but Moses and Samuel did not thē stand before God therfore they made no intercession for the people Secondly by the confession of the Church of Rome they were then in Limbus as all other Saints departed vntill the death of our Sauiour Christ therefore they could make no intercession Thirdly the idolatry of the people was so odious in the sight of God that if Moses and Samuel had bene aliue to make intercession for the people as in their life time they did yet God would not heare them Fourthly this supposition was made of Moses and Samuel being aliue and not after their death To which I adde my owne answer this argument is a fallacy called the ignorance of the Elenche Bellarm. 2. Maccab. 15. Iudas in a vision saw Onias the Priest and Ieremy the Prophet pray for the people but that booke of Maccabes is held for Canonicall Concil 3. Carthag cap. 47. Kemnitius First that is but a dreame and not a story is related to animate the Souldiers to fight valiantly Secondly notwithstanding the relation of this dreame neither Iudas Maccabeus nor yet his army did inuocate Onias or Ieremy but onely God Thirdly that booke is vnderstood to be Canonicall for examples of life but not for ' points of doctrine and therefore maketh not for this purpose Bellarm. Apoc. 5. 8. The 24. Elders fell downe before the throne hauing their phials full of odours which were the praiers of Saints Kemnitius These praiers as they were their owne and not of other men which were made vnto them so they were onely a thankesgiuing to God for their owne redemption for the redemption of the whole Church but no intercession Bellarm. 2. Pet. 1. 15. I will endeuour therefore alwaies that ye may be able to haue remembrance of these things after my departure Kemnitius Saint Peter did this endeuour by his epistle while he liued not by his praiers after he was dead Bellarm. Luk. 16. The glutton in hell praied for his kindred much more do the iust in heauen pray for the whole Church Kemnit First we must not forsake the Scriptures to receiue instruction from them which are damned in hell which being forsaken of God seeke for comfort any where rather then at the hands of God Secondly this is but a parable and not a story Thirdly if it were a story yet this prayer is not heard Fourthly he saw Abram whom he prayed vnto and receiued answer from him what is this to Saints departed whom we see not neither heare them make any answer Fifthly the glutton remembred in what state he left his kindsfolks when he departed but they might haue repented after his departure for any thing that hee knew This proueth not that the dead know the state of them which are aliue neither yet that they pray for the Church in generall That Saints departed do pray for particular men which pray to them BEllarm The Saints do not onely pray forvs but also take charge ouer men and whole Countries and Prouinces as the Angels do Concerning the Angels we haue proofe Toby 12. Zach. 1. Apoc. 8. Dan. 10. Psal 19. Matth. 18. And much more the Saints departed which are as the Angels Luk. 20. and haue a prerogatiue aboue Angels because they are members of the body of Christ and are neerer vnto vs and better able to haue a feeling of mens infirmities being men themselues Kemnit The booke of Toby is not Canonicall to proue any point of faith but onely for examples of good life That Angell in Zachary is our Sauiour Christ which maketh intercession for his Church and his praier is his owne which is there mentioned and not the praier of the Church The Angel in the Apocalips which offereth the praiers
of the Saints is expressed Heb. 9. to be our Sauiour Christ the mediator of the new Testament which maketh his appearance in our behalfe Heb. 13. through him we offer our sacrifices of praiers to God Againe to the Angels God reuealeth so much concerning the affaires of men on earth as appertaineth to the ministery of those Angels and they haue the charge of men committed vnto them But it cannot be proued that the like charge is committed to Saints departed neither can the argument follow which is drawne from Angels to men That Saints departed are like the Angels in heauen is ment there onely concerning single life that they marry not as it appeareth by the text And this is not onely the exposition of Kemnitius but also of the English Seminaries themselues in their notes vpon the same place printed at Rhemes And whereas Bellarmine alledgeth for proofe that Saints departed haue the regiment of whole Prouinces because it is written Apoc. 2. He that ouer commeth shall haue power ouer nations It is to be vnderstood of the discipline and doctrine of the Church in this life whereby nations shall be conuerted but not of any gouernment of theirs after they be deceased Bellarm. The Fathers make for vs. Kemnit The Fathers were falsified by the Papists See Kemnitius at large how he satisfieth the obiections out of the Fathers Bellarm. It is also proued by many apparitions of Saints which appearing to men in dreames haue testified that particularly they did pray for vs. Kemnit This can be no proofe without testimony out of the word of God For Moses saith Deut. 13. 5. Thou shalt not hearken to the words of the Prophet or vnto the dreamer of dreames for the Lord your God proueth you to know whether yee loue the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soule c. Heb. 1. In times past God spake many waies to our Fathers by the Prophets but in these last dayes he hath spoken to vs by his Sonne And post illam postremam patefactionem non est expectanda reuelatio alterius noui dogmatis After God hath deliuered his will vnto vs this last time by his Sonne we must not looke for any latter reuelation by which any new doctrine should be reuealed vnto vs. That Saints are to be inuocated BEllarm Iob. 5. 1. Call now if any will answer thee and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne Kemnit The meaning is not that Iob in his calamity should flye to the Saints for succour but that instance could not be giuen in any Saint whom euer God punished without iust cause Bellarm. Iob. 33. 23. If there be an Angell with him one of a thousand to declare vnto man his righteousnesse then will hee haue mercy vpon him and say Deliuer him that he go not downe into the pit for I haue receiued a reconciliation Kemnit If there be present a minister of Gods word for ministers are called Angels and out of the word of God he shall shew vnto man what is right and iust and so the ministery of the word shall be applyed for comfort to the terrified and distressed conscience God will worke by this ministery repentance vnto saluation Bellarm. Exod. 32. 13. Moses praieth for the people in these words Lord remember Abraham Isaac and Israël thy seruants c. In which is to be noted that when Moses thought not himselfe sufficient to pacifie the wrath of God he was glad to flye to the helpe of the Patriarkes which Patriarkes because then being in Limbus did not ordinarily vnderstand or conceiue the praiers of the liuing therefore it was not the custome in the old Testament to say O holy Abram pray for me but onely in those daies men praied vnto God but in their praiers they alledged the merits of Saints departed that by the merits of those Saints their praiers might more easily be heard So Dauid Psalm 131. Lord remember Dauid with all his troubles And many other places are parallell vnto these Kemnit In the praiers which are recited in the old Testament oftentimes the good workes of the Patriarkes and Saints are mentioned to shew that they which so praied relyed vpon the promises and couenants which God made with the Patriarkes and Saints departed while they liued That they flye not vnto them for helpe it is plaine by their doctrine which they professe Esay 63. 16. Abraham is ignorant of vs Israel knoweth vs not yet thou ô Lord art our Father Neither doe they mention the workes of the Patriarkes in this sense as if they should say Heare vs ô Lord for their sakes because they haue deserued it at thy hands but heare vs Lord for thy promise which thou diddest make for thy oathes sake which thou diddest sweare vnto them when they beleeued thee obeyed thee and did those workes Bellarm. In the Scriptures as 1. King chap. 7. Rom. 15. c. They do pray to the lining Saints that they would pray for them Much more then is it lawfull to inuocate the dead Saints whose soules do reigne with Iesus Christ If it be not lawfull then either because they will not or because they cannot heare vs or because they vnderstand vs not or else because it is derogatory to God or to our Sauiour Christ But it cannot be said that they will not because being in heauen their charity is greater then whē they were on earth neither that they cannot because if they could being strangers and pilgrims vpon earth much more can they in heauen which is their natiue country neither that they vnderstand not forasmuch as the Angels Luk. 15. vnderstand when a sinner is conuerted but the Saints are like to the Angels as before it was proued neither that it is a dishonour vnto God or to our Sauiour Christ for then had it bene a dishonour to them to inuocate the Saints liuing Kemnit An argument cannot be drawne from those things which are done vpon earth to proue what is done in heauen without some testimony of the Scriptures For the eye hath not seene nor the care hath not heard neither can the heart of man conceiue the things which are in heauen further then by the Scriptures they are reuealed Secondly if any man should desire them which are liuing to pray for him in that manner as the Papists pray to dead Saints that by their intercession merits they may bee heard the praiers vnto the liuing were also derogatory to the Priest-hood of Iesus Christ To the other parts contained in that diuision is answered before An Answere to the Booke intituled PROTESTANT PROOFES OF CATHOLICKE RELIGION IT pleased God I published a short Treatise of perswasion to the ignorant Recusants to reconcile themselues to our Church I might happily haue perswaded them at the least to be halfe Conuerts as Saint Paul did King Agrippa to bee halfe a Christian had they not beene as a plot of ground vnapt to receiue good seed and like those
points of doctrine the greatest Papists in the world agree with vs. Perswas page 11. These are my words I deny them not Moreouer I did instance in these fundamentall points wherein they consent with vs and thereupon I inferred that they did rashly condemne vs for heretickes what then followeth will he therefore inferre that either holding the fundamentall points therefore their superstitions and errours may safely be maintained or that therefore they may be iustly excused for not communicating with vs as if their consenting with vs in fundamentall points should be a cause why they should the rather abhorre our Church religion It is a sufficient preiudice to the cause of their religion that they dispute in such loose manner Againe he saith So Doctor Doue in his whole Treatise neuer chargeth the Church of Rome either with schisme or heresie but laboureth to excuse themselues offering that we shall communicate with them without any change of opinion and yet hee setteth downs this for an infallible position THIS PROPOSITION IS VNDOVBTEDLY TRVE NO HERETIKE OR SCHISMATIKE IS TO BE COMMVNICATED WITHAL Perswas pag. 5. In that I haue not charged them with schisme or heresie I haue shewed that we are more charitable to them then they are to vs which do charge vs with both In that hee saith I onely laboured to excuse our selues as if I had proued nothing to cleare vs from that iniust aspertion I referre him to the place it selfe where I haue made due proofe that we are free from both heresie and schisme by such sound reasons as this Author cannot answer But whereas he saith it is offered on my part that they shall at their pleasure communicate with vs without change of opinion he burdeneth me with an vntruth by himselfe diuised and not to bee quoted out of any of my bookes In so writing he may fill vp a volume but he shall neuer strengthen his owne cause of weaken ours Moreouer saith he he giueth vs security that by no possibility according to the former reason of generall Councels the Romane Church can be iudged hereticall His words bee these pag. 14. No Church can be condemned and iudged hereticall by any priuate censure but it must be publicke by a generall Councell as he there expoundeth himselfe and is granted before But what doth he cōclude out of this That because the Church of Rome is not condemned by a generall Councell to bee hereticall it must needs be therefore orthodoxall This is such a consequent as neither Protestants nor any other of sound iudgement will grant Fifthly he chargeth me thus Touching Sacraments he alledgeth pag. 27. 28. that according to our definition of a Sacrament there are as many as we teach and this shall not breede any iarre betweene vs that therefore we should refuse to communicate together And transubstantiation it selfe shall be no barre but if we will receiue at their hands they will not examine how we expound these words Hoc est corpus meum This is my body pag. 29. And of discipline he writeth In that Councell of Trent they set forth such wholsome Canons concerning discipline as were fit for a reformed Church I deny not these words but I deny that they make any thing for the defence of Recusancy Concerning the word Sacrament as it is a name diuised by man but not found in the Scriptures so it is not any matter of saluation to vary about the number of Sacraments especially among them with whom it is not agreed what a Sacrament is For where words are not vnderstood ad idem secundem idem c. nothing hindereth but contrary or contradictory propositions may be both true as to say There are seuen and there are not seuen Sacraments For so concerning the number of Sacraments they and we differ in words when we may easily agree in substance The word Sacrament is strictly taken with vs and so according to M. Caluin his definition it is an outward signe ordeined of God to be cōtinued in his Church as a part of his diuine Seruice offering to all men but sealing onely to the faithfull his inward grace for the strengthening of their saith the applying of Christ his death vnto them And so there can be but two according to the confession of Saint Augustine A resurrectione Domini quaedam pauca signapro multis eademque factu facillima intellectu augustissinta obseruatione castissima ipse Dominus Apostolica tradidit disciplina baptismum coenam Domini Since the Lord his resurrection our Sauiour his selfe and from him his Apostles haue commended to vs for outward signes or seales a very few in steed of many and those for performance most easie for signification most ample for obseruation most pure and holy and they are Baptisme and the Lords Supper But this word Sacrament is more largely taken in the Church of Rome for a signe in generall although it do not apply vnto vs and represent before our eyes the death of Iesus Christ And it is defined to be Signum rei sacra an outward signe of any holy thing And according to that definition there may be not only 7. but also 70. Sacraments Of transubstantion hauing first proued that the bread and the wine in the Eucharist cannot be transubstantiated and yet not denying them to be the body and bloud of our Sauiour because he hath said they are so I said in that we both agree onely the difference betweene vs is how the words This is my body are to be vnderstood whether really or sacramentally properly or mystically And that it should be no barre or scruple to their consciences in what sense we vnderstand it so as we deliuer it to them according to the institution of our Sauiour Christ and that if they will in all other things submit themselues to the lawes of our Church we will not presse them so farre in examining them how they expound the words but rather yeeld so much to their weaknesse in this one poynt vntill God shall reueale a further measure of the knowledge of his truth vnto them So these words of mine import nothing in fauour of transubstantiation Thirdly the Councell of Trent hath set downe wholsome Canons cōcerning discipline as in part the 3. Lataran Coūcell did long before as namely for preaching and learned ministers c. And the reformed Churches of England Scotland Germany Netherland Geneua haue receiued many of those Canons although they come from the Pope as deeming them fit for a reformed Church But these my words make nothing for the allowance of that Councell it selfe or of the points of doctrine there concluded neither yet of their Recusancy among whom for the most part these Canons of discipline are not receiued Sixthly Concerning the Popes supremacy of Europe there can be no question For generally Protestants agree with Field Doue Ormerod that the regiment of the West Churches among which this nation is one belonged to the Pope of
I haue abused both the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine That I haue not abused the Councell witnesse the Councell it selfe that I haue not abused Bellarmine witnesse Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 11. Thirdly they agree with vs concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures that in them are deliuered all things necessary to saluation contrary to the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome So Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 10. He is not ashamed to say In reading the place hee hath discouered a notable fraude Whether I haue dealt fraudulently or sincerely let the reader iudge But wherein lyeth the fraude He saith that Bellarmine speaketh these words onely by way of answer to an obiection I conclude therefore it is no fraude If I had taken that for positiue doctrine which was spoken by way of obiection it had bene fraude in me but seeing it is an answer to an obiection it is no fraude but sincere dealing Fourthly they hold with vs that Purgatory is a tradition and not to be found in the holy Scriptures witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 4. He thinketh to auoid vs by saying that Bellarmine speaketh onely antagonistically by way of obiection out of Luther and not dogmatically out of his owne iudgement which is but Petitio principij a begging of the question For it was questioned by me whether Bellarmine spake out of his owne iudgement or not and the affirmatiue was by me proued concluded He bringeth no proofe for the negatiue part but onely maketh that for his allegation which is the question it selfe Fifthly they discent not from vs about the authority of the Scriptures that it is aboue the authority of the Church witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 10. He repeateth the words but maketh no answer to them He chargeth me with Papistry because I confessed that our Church was condemned as hereticall by the Councell of Trent which is but Petitio principij for I denyed our Church to be euer the more hereticall for the censure of that Councell whose authoriry I disinabled by sufficient reasons to which he maketh no answer and therefore in that place I haue not played the Papist Whereas I exhorted the Recusants diligently to reade as well our writers as their owne our answers as well as their obiections and then to examine their owne iudgements before they passe their sentence against vs to condemne vs of heresie He maketh two answers first that they haue already done so to which I reply they haue done it partially Secondly that vnlearned men and women are not able to do so and therefore they must relye vpon the iudgement of the Catholicke Church To which I reply that if they be not able the fault is in the the Catholicke Church of Rome which holdeth the people still in ignorance whereas S. Iohn teacheth that they ought to be of such knowledge as to try and examine the Spirits and the Citizens of Berea are commended by the holy Ghost because they were able to examine Saint Pauls doctrine And I say with the Apostle That if the Gospell bee hidden it is hidden to them which are lost I alledged that few things are in our booke of Common praiers which are not taken out of the Bible or out of that which was good in the Masse booke so that if they allow of the Bible their Masse booke they caÌ„not disallow of our Seruice book He answereth in these words If all the Seruice booke were taken out of the Bible it selfe as most of all heretical Seruice hath bene in euery age pretended to be yet might the collection and combination be such as might make it vnlawfull and pestiferous as when the Arrians did sing Gloria patri cum filio per filium and the Catholickes filio The difference in sound of words was small but in substance and malice execrable To which I reply that forasmuch as he maketh such a supposition but sheweth no such collection or combination in our Seruice booke neither any thing in it like to that of the Arrians he speaketh idlely and to no purpose neither is any thing thereby derogated from the credit of our Seruice booke To the Recusants which obiect that there are dissentions among vs I answered that so there were among them I named Eckius Pighius Thomas Scotus nay there were dissentions among the Apostles themselues so that dissention is no argument to disinable vs from being the true Church for in religion we agree M. Walsingham chargeth me with three absurdities the first of ignorance or folly for that Eckius Pighius Thomas Scotus dissented onely in matters disputable and not determined by the Church for points of faith In which words he maketh the Church of Rome to be so negligent in their determination of matters of religion as if they held the doctrine of iustification wherein Eckius and Pighius disagreed and of merit wherein the Thomists and Scotist disagreed not to appertaine vnto faith and to be matters so indifferent as if they afforded onely cause of disputation but needed not to be discided The second absurditie he saith is impiety for that the Apostles contentions were not about matters of different doctrine I say no more are ours The third he saith is ridiculous audacity to deny so absolutely disagreement in matters of religion among vs whereof the whole world can be witnesse out of our owne books and inuectiues one against another To which I answer that albeit some particular factious spirits among vs write seditious pamphlets one against another this imputation cannot iustly be layd vpon our Church which by all manner of good meanes suppresseth dissention but maintaineth peace and vnitie Thus much I thought fit to deliuer not for answer to his disgracefull speeches vttered against me which I passe ouer with silence as not touching the cause of religion but in defence onely of the truth which I tooke in hand that our aduersarieÌ„s may vnderstand how we haue not suffered those things so loosely to passe our hands which they so loosely haue published against vs to the view of the world And so leauing them to the mercy of the Lord my prayer is Vincat Christus cadat haeresis that falshood may still be detected and truth may get the vpper hand Amen FINIS Ecclesi 12. 12. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sixtus Senensis Biblioth sanctae lib. 4. Rom. 1. 14. 2. Cor. 4. 2. The History of Bell and the Dragon Mat. 3. 10. Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 10. Mat. 16. 18. Caesar Bar. in apparat 13. Exod. 8. 19. De Rom. Pontifice l. 1. c. 10. De verbo Dei l. 2. c. 4. De verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 7. Concil Trid. Sess 3. De Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10. Luk. 16. 29. Eph. 2. 20. Chryss hons 55. in Mat. Lib. 6. de Trinit Lib. 4. de Triniâ—… 1 Pet. 2. 5. 1. Cor. 3. 11.
belongeth to our Sauiour Christ and which Saint Paul ascribeth to him and so I will reconcile Luther which saith faith is the rocke vnto Caluin which affirmeth that this rocke is Iesus Christ As a gold ring of very small weight hauing a precious stone in it of great value may be iustly estimated at an high price not for the due value of the gold it selfe but for the worth of the precious stone which is set in it it may be said to be worth an hundred pounds so faith is said to saue though saluation belong to Iesus Christ and to be the foundation of the Church though Christ be properly that foundation because he is the obiect of our faith and our Sauiour Christ and faith are so inseparably ioyned together that they cannot be diuided one from the other or conceiued one without the other Thus haue I briefly declared how the Church is not founded vpon S. Peter But suppose it could be proued how can it be deriued from him to the Pope The office of Apostleship was personall and died with S. Peters person The Apostles were equall in authority It was said to them all Go and preach as well as to Peter That which was said seuerally to Peter To thee will I giue the keyes was said ioyntly to all the Apostles Whose sinnes ye remit they shall be remitted And this confession of Peter was made in the name of them all so saith Theophilact and Saint Ambrose But if it were granted that Saint Peter was aboue all the rest of the Apostles this giueth no preheminence to the Pope being no Apostle For Apostleship consisteth in these things They were immediatly called of God they saw our Sauiour in the flesh they could giue the holy Ghost by imposition of hands the Spirit of God did so direct them that in their writings they could not erre which things belonged personally vnto them but are not left hereditary to the succeeding ages The foundation being thus shaken the building falleth of it selfe That I may come nearer to the man of Rome to discusse this question whether there ought to be one head ministeriall of the Church vniuersall militant vpon the earth or no Bellarmine to proue the affirmatiue part argueth out of Aristotle in this manner A Monarchy is the best most absolute state of gouernment therefore the gouernment of the vniuersal Church ought to be monarchicall I answer It is a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi in so much as Aristotle his Antecedent and Bellarmine his Consequent are not vnderstood Ad idem secundum idem c. A Monarchy is the best state of ciuill gouernment and for one country but not of Ecclesiastical gouernment nor for the whole world No one secular Prince is sufficient to gouerne a world neither if any one man could be supposed sufficient could it stand with iustice that one should gouerne a world because no man can attaine to be such a Monarke but by oppression and violent inchroching vpon the dominions of other Princes Againe a Monarchy is the best state of ciuill gouernment of one country but the Ecclesiasticall gouernment cannot simply be so but onely when the Church so gouerned is in such a country as is subiect to one secular Prince and not in an Aristocraticall or Democraticall state because the Ministers of the Church must be subordinate to the supreme secular magistrates and the Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Church must be subordinate and answerable to the ciuill gouernment of the country where that Church is Againe as one man cannot gouerne the ciuill state of the world so much lesse can one man be head of the whole Church all authority both ciuill and Ecclesiasticall being deriued from our Sauiour Christ which is both the head of the Church and the Prince of the Kings of the earth and all power is giuen to him from God his Father both in heauen and earth Our Sauiour Christ is considered two manner of wayes as he is God so is hee the King of the whole world by the right of his creation as he is the Redeemer so is he the Head of the vniuersall Church by right of his redemption as he is God he hath his Vicegerents ouer the world and they be his secular Magistrates Ego dixi vos dij estis I haue said ye are Gods But as hee is the head of the Church he hath no Copartener nor Vicegerent no copartener for so he were an vnperfect mediator no vicegerent among men for no man is able to supply his place in that behalfe which I proue by this argument The office and worke of his mediation proceedeth from his two natures God and Man which concurre in one action of the same person so that he which supplyeth his office must be of an infinite power which is not to be found in any man besides himselfe Now lest it should be obiected that he hath said of Ministers also Ego dixi vos dij estis I haue said ye are Gods as well as of Princes and therfore it should be concluded that they are his vicegerents for the Church as Princes for the common wealth I answer the argument doth not hold For as both Princes Ministers haue their authority deriued from him so after a different manner Princes as vicegerents Ministers onely as actiue instruments For the keyes of the Church being in number but two the one of the Word Sacraments the other of Gouernment In the opening and shutting with these keyes which is the execution it selfe are to be considered two things the actiue instrument and the principall agent The Ministers are onely the actiue instruments to preach to the outward eares of men when God alone giueth the gift of Faith conuerteth the heart inwardly as the principall agent they conferre the outward elements only in the ministration of the Sacraments hee alone sealeth remission of sinnes and giueth inward graces they lay hands vpon men to ordeine them Ministers which is the outward calling he doth call them inwardly and make them able by giuing them his holy Spirit they testifie and pronounce before the congregation in iure fori that wicked men are excommunicated out of the Church but God onely ratifieth it in iure poli and cutteth them off from being members of Christ and shutteth the kingdome of heauen against them From the Head to all the members must be such an influence as possible cannot be from any sinfull man as I haue deliuered in my former Treatise Thus you see how idly and weakly the Popes supremacy is by them defended And therefore vnlesse stronger arguments be alledged and more substantially proued they cannot iustly blame vs for withdrawing our neckes out of the obedience to the sea of Rome CHAP. 2. Of Image Worship BEcause they write that worshipping images they commit no idolatry in that they distinguish betweene an image an idoll that an image is the representation of somthing that