defacing of our doctryn and doings he sheweth first of all the smal reason the K t. had or hath to contemne so proudlie as he doth the Clergie of Q. Maries tyme and of former ages for darknesse ignorance and blyndnes declaring by diuers particulers that they were farre more learned then those that since haue stepped vp in their places and possessed their roomes And from this he passeth to shew that the foresaid two preaÌ„bles about reading scriptures and the punishment of death ther-vnto said to be assigned are no wayes true in any playne meaning sense or interpretation but feigned by the K t. him-selfe and consequentlie can not euer be proued or defended and by occasion of these preambles About reading of scriptures the warder entereth into examination of the things theÌ„-selues declaring how farre the reading of holy Scriptures in vulgar languages is permitted to all men among Catholykes and what restraynt is made therof towards some for what causes and reasons and vpon what necessitie and what is the true state of this controuersie betweene vs and Protestants as also what hurt profit damages or commodities haue or do insue therof with alleaging both reasons authorities and experiences in that behalf To all which discourse of reasons and experiences set downe at good length by the warder and conteyning in deed the principal substance of the controuersie the K â— answereth no one worde nor so much as mentyoneth the same in this his reply but passeth to other matters as by the combat of this insuing Encounter yow wil manifestlie see and behold and pittie the poore K t. for this weaknes The second parte of the vvatchmans impugnation and vvarders defence After this cometh the warder to handle the second parte of this Encounter to wit about the foresaid foure absurd positions grounds and maximes set downe by the K t. for ours which the warder prooueth to be neyther Maximes nor minimes of Catholyke Doctryne for that to proue them Maximes all Catholyke wryters must hold them and to proue them minimes some one at least must hold theÌ„ but that neyther of these can be prooued And consequentlie that they are no positions or principles of Catholyke religion but fictions rather of heretykes and false impositions of the K t. And for the first that ignorance is held by vs to be the mother of deuotion The first forged position for that the watchman bringeth no other proof but only that reading of Scriptures was forbidden to the lay sorte at which distinction also of laytie cleargie he seemeth to iest hervpon the Warder taketh occasion first to proue by many old testimonies the vse and antiquitie of this distinction wher-vnto the K t. in this last reply returneth not any one word of answere and after this agayne the warder declareth largely that this position is neyther Maxime nor minime among Catholykes and that ignorance is neyther held for the mother daughter or kinse-woman of deuotion which he proueth both by the definition of deuotion it self out S. Augustine S. Thomas and others as also by the effects shewing that deuotion is grounded vpon knowledge not vpon ignorance though vpon perticular causes the learnedest men are not alwayes the most deuoute All which discourse the K t. thought good to passe ouer with silence as wel as the former without taking any notice therof in this his last reply and therby yow may see whether yt be more and more substantial that he leaueth vnanswered then that which he answereth About the second position imposed vpon Catholykes The second position that lay men must not medle with matters of religion as the vntruth therof is more apparant then any of the rest so was there lesse written in the refutation but that necessitie inforced the warder to defend S. Thomas of CaÌ„terburie dishonored and slaundered intollerably by the K t. wher-vnto what he answereth in this Wast-woord now and how for defence of his former falshoods he intangleth him-self in diuers new difficulties and inextricable absurdityes shal be seene afterward in the particular discussion of matters that ensue In the third position that the Pope or meanest Priest coming from him is to be obeyed vnder payne of damnation though he command blasphemie The third faygned position c. The warder is more briefe in lyke manner for that the euident falshood therof is apparant to all yet writeth he so much as is needful for a manifest briefe confutation and how litle the K t. hath to answere for deuising of this position and laying it so falsely to Catholykes charge yow shal afterwards see discussed And finally about the fourth and last forged ground of Catholyke religion The fourth false ground to wit that our chiefe remedy for sinne though it were committed immediatly against God him-selfe is to vse the watchmans words A pardon from his Hol. and absolution from his holie Priests but yf the decrees or ordinances of their Romish Synagoue were transgressed hardly any mercy was to be had c. About this I say the warder obserueth only the apparant cauils ignorances and falshoods of the watchmaÌ„ as first that the greatest sinner immediatly committed against God him-selfe are to be remitted among vs by pardons which is a malitious cauil for that we hold such pardons to be auaylable only for the payne due to venial sinnes or for remitting the temporal punishment remayning after mortal synne forgeuen before Secondlie that he conioyneth together Popes pardons and the absolution of Priests in the Sacrament of pennance as though they were both one which is ignoraÌ„ce for that the later remitteth all sinne and the first not And thirdly that the transgressors of the decrees and ordinances of the Churche can hardlie euer obtayne mercie and that they are more hardly pardoned then the grossest sinnes committed against God himseâ—f the warder sheweth to be a most malitious fiction without any grounde or colour of truth To all which obseruations and deductions of the warder the K t. answereth nothing at all in this last replie but filleth vp paper with tales eyther deuised by himself or taken out of Ihon Fox as for example of one â—esselius a merchant of Pardons and of the absolution of one Symon a Monke that is forged to haue poysoned K. Ihon and other such stuffe which yow shal heare discussed and refuted afterward and therby see and perceyue how iustlie this last replie of S â— Francis is called a Wast-word And so we shal passe on to the particular examination of matters point by point ABOVT THE GENERAL charge of false dealing layd to sir Francis in this Encounter and how euil he auoydeth thesame by committing new falshoodes treacheries CAP. II. FIRST then the general charge layd to our K t. throughout this whole second Encounter concerneth two poyntes to wit falsitie and falsifying the later wherof hath this differeÌ„ce from the first that it is both witting and willingly committed and
he should be found to be an heretike so as the whole community of Christendome hath to pray for him and his saluation as head of the Churche vnder God And this is the answere of S. Boniface about the danger of Popes that lyue euil and attend not to their office as also for their priuiledge and exemption from mannes iudgmeÌ„t in this lyfe except in case of heresy And finally that faithful people in steed of calling them to iudgement should pray for them as Supreme magistrates of Christ Churche And thus much is in this Canon si Papa cyted by O.E. and no more is there to be found Wel then yow wil aske perhaps what is become 〈…〉 that albeit 〈…〉 soules to hel yet no 〈…〉 do yow so This our 〈…〉 and shew where 〈…〉 an obiection 〈…〉 and pulpit euery 〈…〉 later part is not in 〈…〉 els to the sense 〈…〉 it For though in another 〈…〉 farre different of the Canon law I â—o find some such words in the glosse that in some cases no man may exact à reason of the Popes doyngs when they depend only of his wil and arbitrement yet are they not spoken to such purpose as here they are alleadged nor annexed with the former words of drawing infinite soules with him to hel but appertayning only to a particular case as namely of free disposing or transferring of Churche goods from one Churche to another without obligation to yeild reasons for the same but only his iudgment and wil. The words of the glosse talking of this particular case are these Licet inferiores iura vnius Ecclesiae in aliam sinâ— certa solennitate transferre non possunt Gloss. in eâ—trau Apost Ioan. 2. â— tit 5. c. 2. contiâ—etâ—â— Papa tamen gaudet plenitudine potestatis hoc facere potest nec est qui audeat dicere Domine cur ita facis cùm in ijs quae de iure positiuo sunt possit pro libito super his dispensare Albeit inferior Prelats cannot transferre the rights of one particular Churche to another but by a certaine prescript forme of solemnity appoynted by law yet the Pope being general hâ— Enc. 〈…〉 fulnesse of his 〈…〉 man that may be so 〈…〉 he doth so seein◠〈…〉 are only of 〈…〉 uine law he may 〈…〉 This is the speech and 〈…〉 â—ohn de Fanâ— in his glosse 〈…〉 a certayne canon the 〈…〉 good to examine more at large 〈…〉 that by some few examples our contrey 〈◊〉 may be taught to take heed of these false deceauing companions who speak truth in no one point they treat And mark I pray yow how many sleights and falshoods they haue vsed in this one allegation For first of all they peruert the whole meaning of S. Boniface speech in the Canon sâ— Papa turning that to flattery which he wryteth for dreadful admonition and reprehension of euil Popes as yow haue hard Then wheras he saith that euil Popes do draw many to perdition with them these fellowes do corrupt the whole sense saying that yf he should draw infinite yet no maÌ„ must say to him why do yow sâ— thirdly they ioyne falsly togeather these two sentences as vttered in one place and to the self same purpose which are found in two distinct volumes of the Canon law wrytten vpon different occasions and grounds and in different matter and neyther of them to the sense or meaning for which heer they are alleadged And this could not be hiddeÌ„ or vnknowen to 〈…〉 their error 〈…〉 of authors is 〈…〉 dealing vnchristian 〈…〉 God to giue 〈…〉 〈…〉 HE FOVRTH 〈…〉 wherby Catholikes are said â—â—â—se Pardons for their cheefest remedy against all sinnes wherin the truthe of Catholik doctrine is declared and the manifold falsifications of our heretikes are detected CAP. XIIII FOR discussion of this fourth forged principle and maxime obiected by our knight The fourth â—ayned position for that it is a common pulpit matter among our ministers wherin they cheefly abuse the simple people and was the first ground and occasion of their new gospel by Martyn Luther and for that by the shifting and shuffling reply of Syr Francis to that which before was answered by the Wardword it may easily be descryed how litle in substance they haue to say in this poynt of pardons and indulgences besydes lying cauilling and calumniation I meane to stand a litle vpon this poynt And first to begyn with the former answere and explanation of the warder which was as followeth There 〈…〉 ground or 〈…〉 would needs 〈…〉 this he setteth 〈…〉 wing And hauing thus 〈…〉 out stop to the mark and 〈…〉 so hemmed men in as they 〈…〉 escape daunger but by them 〈…〉 them they propounded vnto them a 〈…〉 from all daungers euen when they sinned immediatly against God which is a pardon from his Hol. and absolution from his holy priests But yf the decrees or orâ—inances of the Romish Sinagoge were transgressed â—ardly any mercy could be had Thus wryteth our knight saith the Warder yf yow wil beleeue him but hauing taken him trip in so many falshoods forgeryes and calumniations before I presume that the discreet reader wil giue credit to him and his assertions herafter by waight and measure looking to his fingers as wel as to his lippes as men vse to do when they deale with Egiptians Now then let vs examine what truth there is in this tale of his Many cauiâ—â— falshoodâ— First and formost who seeth not how egregious a cauil it is to say that Catholiks by teaching men to obey their Superiors simply and for conscience sake and vnder paine of sinne as yow haue heird also S. Paul to teach that therby they bring men into snares Rom. â—â— or hem them in as this maÌ„s phrase is by which argument he may prooue also that God himself when he gaue the law to the Iewes did hem them in to snares of synne 〈…〉 hemently 〈…〉 of his Epistle to 〈…〉 a notorious 〈…〉 we prescribe of 〈…〉 of synne is 〈…〉 greater and more◠〈…〉 he addeth by a 〈…〉 immediatly against God 〈◊〉 〈…〉 doctrine is cleare 〈◊〉 poynt that the Popes and Churches 〈…〉 〈…〉 auayle not to remooue mortal sinâ—â—â— but only are giuen where all such sin is already pardoned by contrition and confession and vertue of the Sacrament and that thâ— remayneth only some temporal punishment in this or the next lyfe to be remitted Neyther can the Pope pardon the guilt of syn it self by indulgences or by any other way then by the meanes of the Sacrament of confession absolution which Sacrament hath his force of the bloud of Christ as euery ordinary priest authorized to heare confessions may do the like And so thirdly it is great ignorance in our knight if not malice or both to ioyne togeather as he doth the Popes pardon and the absolution of his Holy Priests which haue great difference in this matter for that the pardon stretcheth not to remit syn it self as hath
what this or that man thinketh but that yow take counsel rather of holy scriptures and learne by them which are true riches indeed Thus saith S. Chrisostome and now let vs briefly examine how many wayes the K. hath peruerted this one place The abuse offred by S. F. to 5. Chrysostome to make it sound somewhat to his purpose albeit not muche though it were as he alleageth it But first of all he wresteth his whole meaning as before I haue noted which is the greatest sinne in alleaging any author that may be For S. Chrysost treateth a far differeÌ„t question from ours to wit of true and false riches as in the title of the Chapter he professeth and hauing handled it largely he concludeth in those first woords by me alleaged and guâ—lfully cut of and left out by S r. F. Quae cumita sint c. which things being so let not vs follow the opinion of the vulgar sort about true riches and pouerty but let vs consider thinges â—â— they be in theÌ„selues c. which woords do wholy ouerthrow S r. F. principal illation that vnlearned people should not follow other mens opinions to wit their Pastors in matters of religion but go try it in scriptures wherof S. Chrysostome neuer so much as dreamed Secondly the first woords alleaged by the K t. in Latyn Quomodo absurdum non est c. are not so in S. Chrysostome as yow see by those which I haue alleaged which is a token that he had them out of some Ministers notebook and read them not himself Thirdly the woord praeposterum left out in his translation importeth some fraud also for that this woord sheweth the comparison not to be betwene reading of scriptures other mens testimonies especially our ordinarie Cath. Pastors as he would haue it seme Fourthly those other woordes But for more excellent thinges simplie to follow other mens sayinges are not in the text as yow may see by comparing it but are deceitfully layd together to make men think that simple obedience or belief of our teachers in Gods Churche is here repreheÌ„ded by S. Chrisostome and that euery man and woman is willed to go to the scriptures And for this cause fifthly he translateth those woordes diuinarum legum sententiam the testimony of the law of God where as the sentence or determination of these deuine lawes heere spoken of by S. Chrysostome as they be conteyned partly in scriptures and partly in the traditioÌ„ of Gods Churche which was before scriptures were written so is it not necessary for euery man and woman to be remitted to reading of scriptures for learning them as heer is pretended It followeth sixtly in S. Chrysostome VVherfore I pray and besech yow all that in these things yow wil not stand vpon what this or that man thinketh c. Which woords S r. F. translateth thus I pray and besech yow that yow wil leaue what this or that man thinketh c. leauing out of purpose the woords that make most to the matters de hijs rebus of these things to wit of true and false riches which is the subiect handled by S. Chrysostome And S r. F. would haue his readerâ— thinke though neuer so vnlearned that he is prayed in all matters of Religion to leaue what this or that man thinketh though it be his Pastor or any other Cath. teacher and enquire all those things of the scriptures which is most absurd and furthest from S. Chrysostomâ— meaning And in these very last woordes of the K t. there be two or three shiftâ—s and manifest corruptions for where as S. Chrysostome sayth Scripturas sacras de eis consulatis he translateth it and enquire all these things of the scriptures adding the woord all of purpose to disguise the meaning of S. Chrysostome as though he would haue all matters by euery man and woman imediatly searched out from the scriptures as though he had not handled a particuler argument for which the scriptures were to be consulted against the vayne opinioÌ„ of vulgar men about true and false riches for which cause the K t. cutteth of also the next imediat woords following in the self same senteÌ„ce for explication of S. Chrysostoms meaning ac quae verae sint opes cognoscatis and that yow may knowe which are true riches And thus I haue byn longer then I thought to be in notifying vnto yow this maner of dealing of S.F. and his Minister as in the precedent Chapter yow haue sene also about the handling of Hosius when they cite any Fathers or Authors of moment against vs which commonly is with such fraud and deceit corruption and mangling as if the controuersy were for mens shuwes not soules or for shuw-soles or as if it were for some teÌ„poral and earthly tryfles and not for the euerlasting possession of hel or heauen But let vs see more of this kind of proceeding in the K t. It is reâ—orded saith he that some of the learneder sort of your Cleargie haue vsed to say among their friends Pag 54. Paralip Abb. vrspergen Pag 448. Sic dicerem in Scholis Sed tamen manet inâ—er nos c. I would say so in the Scholes but yet let it be kept secret amongst our selues I think the contrary These woords I do not fynd in the Author by him alleaged cited in the margyn and therfore God knoweth from what forge they come perhaps by some Ministers notebook that eyther deuised or corrupted them in cyting But suppose they may be found and that some Schole readers in matters eyther of philosophie or diuinity for he specifieth no science not belonging to any article of faith should say thus Impertinent matter brought in that in the schooles for not offending any part he would follow the coÌ„mon opinions of that vniuersity of schole though in priuat for himself he were of an other opinion what doth this proue or to what end was this brought forth by the K t. to confirme his principal propositioÌ„ that we forbid laymeÌ„ to medle in matters of religion do yow see what direct proofes they bring But harken yet further to another charge immediatly following more heynous then this The Fathers sayth he yow haue mangled and depraued where their testimonies were pregnant against your errors Pag. 54. as for example that plaine place of Gregory Nissene eam solummodo uaturam quae increata est colere venerari dâ—dicimus we haue learned to adore and worship only that nature which is vncreated where your Spanish diuines in their Index expurgatorius set downe this direction deleatur dictio solummodo put out the word only and sundry such places as both Of diuers Iudices printed and pablished in sundry contries our learned men haue discouered and in your Indices are to be found out c. Yf our Indices be extant Sir and that in print to shew to the world what we do in this behalf then is not necessary the
shewed the greatest gaule against him yet coÌ„fessing the helps of nature that were in him to vse his owne words he addeth Fox act and mon. pag. 1â—6 col 2. n. 4. Besydes this sayth he he was of a chast and strickt lyfe yf the histories be true Mark Iohn Fox his exception if the histories be true why should he cal in doubt auncient histories more in this point then in others But yow must vnderstand that this Fox hauing a special spite against this blessed man being desirous by all meanes possible to disgrace him and his actions in his false lying martyrologe and finding no authors in the world before Luthers heresy to serue his purpose or to speak or wryte euil of him but all rather highly in his commendation what course taketh the miseriable man think yow truly a most desperate which is to vse these authors against themselues and against both their owne sayings and meanings and so patcheth he vp as it were out of them a long treatese and narration of aboue 40. pages of paper against S. Tho. pretending to take it out of the foresaid authors but yet spicing it with so many â—fs ands Fox his egregiouâ— falâ—e dealing against S. Thomas adioyning so many glosses parentheses notes obseruations interpretations commentaries and censures of his owne both in the text and margent as he maketh all those wryters to tel a quite contrary story to that they purposed and for which they wrote their books in such sort as if a man should set out the byble or new Testament it self with such corruption and peruersion it would more disgrace Christian religion for whose confirmation it was wrytten theÌ„ any other wicked book whatsoeuer yea then the Turks Alcaron it self And this is the dealing of Iohn Fox in cyting and corrupting authors as after shal appeare more particularly But Sir Francis taketh another course which is to tel his tale at his pleasure without cyting any testimony or author at all wherof I take the reason to be that which Iohn Fox telleth vs in these words plainly Iohn Fox discrediteth all ould vvryters Pag. 204. col 1. n. 4. Scarse any testimony is to be taken of that age being all blynded and corrupted with superstition Thus he saith and this is the cause why Sir F. alleageth no author and Fox forceth them to speake as he would haue them But I would aske Iohn Fox againe if no wryter of the age it self wherin S. Tho. liued be to be credited about his affaires how shal we beleeue wryters of later ages that must needs take it from the former if they write with foundation not deuise matter of themselues Againe I would aske whether it be probable that so great a king as K. Henry the second was could get no man to wryte the Story indifferently for him in his age How likely a fiction is this of Fox And this may be sufficient for the first point for seing all the foresaid wryters and their woorks are ful of high prayses of S. Thom. for his sanctity and perfection of lyfe and for that cause are specialy discredited heere by Iohn Fox it shal be sufficient to remit the reader in this behalf to thesaid volumes and wrytings before mentioned For the second which is his cause with the king whether his resisting as Primate of England for liberty to the English Churche were treason to the K. or no VVhether S. Thom. vvas a traitor is easy to be iudged by him that is not passionate and wil without flattery of temporal Princes consider indifferently the dignity preheminence duty and obligation of Ecclesiastical gouernours in this behalf for defence of their spiritual iurisdiction To which purpose the Warder said as followeth If in euery contention or dissention that a bishop VVard p. 22. priest or other spiritual subiect or Ecclesiastical Prelate may haue with his temporal prince That all spiritual men resisting temporal magistrats in Ecclesiastical matters are not traytors Marc. 18. the subiect shal presently be condemned of treason according to this seruile ceÌ„sure of our knight who for flattering princes doth make them absolute lords both of body and soule then Iohn Baptist also must be accompted a traitor that dealt so peremptorily with his king Herod his liege lord in temporal affaires Or yf yow wil haue examples of christian princes S. Ambrose must be a traytor first for resisting openly his â—ord and King Theod. lib 4. ca. 6. lib. 9. cap. 17 deinceps Valentinian the yonger and then for handling so hardly the elder Theodâ—sius in Miliayn as he shut him out of the Churche and made him go home againe with shame and do pennaÌ„ce Zozomenus lib. 8 fere pet totum S. Hilarius also and S. Athanasius shal be traytors for their contentions with Constantius their lawful Emperor and temporal lord who banished them from their bishopricks and the former of the two wrote two vehemeÌ„t books and inuectiues against thesaid Emperor and yet no man euer accompted him a traytor for thesame but rather a great Saynt for his christian liberty and constancy S. Chrysostome in like maner shal be condemned for a great traytor who had greater contentions with his temporal lords Arcadius and Honorius christian Emperors Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 16. and with their wiues Theodosia and Eudoxia then euer S. Thomas had with K. Henry the second Zozom lib. 8 cap. 17. for he preached against them publikely with great vehemency and thundered out excommunication against them Niceph. li. 14. cap. 43. and was twice banished and dryuen out of his bishoprick by their disfauours and died in exile And yet was he neuer called or accompted a traytor but a singular holy man and Theodosius the yonger sonne of Arcadius brought his body with great solemnity honor and reuerence into Constantinople and wept most bitterly for the synnes of his parents in persecuting so blessed a man as the Story saith made prayer to him now dead for pardon of his fathers synnes as did also often both our K. Henry the second himself and his sonne for the offence of his father Math. Parisien in vit Henr. who had ben some cause of the death of this iust man his pastor and spiritual father Thus wrote the Warder then and what replyeth now our knight or his minister to all this yow shal heare the knight in his owne woords VVho saith he but such a one as hath sold himself to all impudency and shamelesse gaynsaying the truth Pag. 54. would seek to couer Beckets rebellion by the facts of S. Iohn Baptist Ambrose Hilary Athanasius and Chrysostome which haue as much agreement with the cause of Becket as hath light with darknesse good with euil sweet with sower Heer yow se the knight in a great heat but his minister O. E. answereth somwhat more temperately saying only that These examples fit not Thomas Beckeâ—s cause Wel then of two
byn sayd but only the temporal paynes due vnto syn after it is remitted But Priests absolution in the sacrament of confession is sufficieÌ„t to remit any syn if the penitent be contrite according to commission 〈…〉 â—um remiseritis peccata 〈…〉 â—inueritis retenta sunt who 〈…〉 shal be forgiuen and who 〈…〉 â—ayne shal be retayned 〈…〉 is a different matter 〈…〉 pardon Fourthly that the 〈…〉 decrees and ordinances of the Catholyke Church which wickedly he nameth the Romish Synagogue be more hardly forgiuen among vs then greater sinnes and those namely that be immediatly committed against God himself is a shameles slaunder and neuer taught by any Catholyke man in the world and so vnworthy to be further refuted Thus farre the Warder in examination and refutation of Syr Francis his follies and falshoods Cath. doâ—trine about indulgences and for perspicuous declaration of â—ath doctrine about indulgences which coÌ„sisteth in this 2. Reg. 12. 13. 14. that seing after the guilt of mortal sinne remitted as for example the murder and adultery of King Dauid remitted by God and signified by the voyce of Nathan the prophet there remayneth ofteÌ„tymes some temporal satisfaction and paynes to be borne by him that sinned for better satisfaction of Gods most exquisite iustice as we read that the death of Dauids sonne begotten of that adultery as also the insurrection of his sonne Absalon with other afflictions folowing therof assigned by God for this satisfaction after the guilt of the forsaid sinne was pardoned 〈…〉 our Sauiour Christ in his 〈…〉 which for the dignity of 〈…〉 finite valour beâ—ides the 〈…〉 he did merit vnto vs 〈…〉 of our sinnes as also grace 〈…〉 works were infinitely 〈…〉 that they were penal and 〈…〉 nothing to satisfie for his owne person he left in his Churche an infinite treasure of these satisfactory works to be applyed to satisfie for them that caÌ„not satisfie for themselues to which treasures do also appertayne though in a lower degree the satisfactory works of his saints done by his grace and vertue more then for their owne persons they had obligation to do or suffer Out of which publyke treasure of Christs Churche The treasure of satisfactory vvorks remayning in Christs Churche Catholyks do hold that the Bishops Pastors and gouernoures therof especially the cheef supreme Pastor of all may vpon iust causes and to persons penitent otherwayes wel disposed and not so wel able to satisfie for themselues in these temporal paynes dispense and distribut spiritual helpes to the assistance and supply of there wants and infirmities And this is properly that which we cal an indulgence or pardon when any thing is remitted or released that was dew to be paid of our parte in which sense also Esay the Prophet vseth the word IndulgeÌ„ce though in a more general signification when talking of Christ he sayth Esay 61. that he should be sent praedicare capâ—iuis â—dulgentiam to preach Indulgence to them that were in captiuity 〈…〉 vseth in his gospel 〈…〉 sentence 〈◊〉 Esay he 〈…〉 praedicare captiuis remissio◠〈…〉 to them that are 〈…〉 places though they 〈…〉 of all sinnes as wel 〈…〉 nishment thervnto beloÌ„g 〈…〉 by Christ yet hath the 〈…〉 word indulgence and applyed the same also by vse to this remission or mitigation only of temporal punishment remayning after the â—ternal guilt of mortal sinne is forgiuen by the Sacrament of pennance So that heerby we se that neyther indulgeÌ„ces do serue for the remitting of the aeternal guilt To vvhome indulgenceâ— aâ— auailablâ— nor are they auayleable to all sorts of men but to such only as are not in mortal sinne and otherwyse so piously disposed by deuotion in Gods seruice as they are capable of this Indulgence remission and fauour in Gods Churche And thus hauing briefly explaned what Catholyks do truly hold about this point which heretyks wil neuer suffer their readers sincerely to vnderstand we shal come to examine what S r. F. replyeth to the discouery of all those cauils and falshoods wherin the Warder took him trip they were foure if yow remember or wil vouchsafe to look back vpon them to all which he answereth no one word in particular but only this in general VVhat say I more in my accusation about 〈…〉 knoweth to be true 〈…〉 a general answere it 〈…〉 he meaneth I know not 〈…〉 he had a world of 〈…〉 he might haue alleaged 〈…〉 ours in all this world 〈…〉 one of these foure 〈…〉 which in this place are 〈…〉 his charge by the Warder and so haue saued his honour in this behalf but hauing produced none after so much bragging in his VVatchword and so much battery in the VVardword now to come and cry agayne that he hath a world with him when the tyme had byn to haue brought some forth is a pittiful plight for so honorable a knight to see him self in But what doth he answere nothing at all in particular think yow to all these charges of vntruthes layd vnto him but only that the whole world knoweth his assertions to be true Yes Ibid. Pag. 69. for thus it followeth in the same place The Cath. doctrine is as our champion sayth that the Popes and Churches indulgences auayle not to remooue mortal sinnes c. neyther doth the pardon remooue the guilt of sinne c. But Syr whatsoeuer your doctrine is in this point your practise is quite conâ—ary c. Mark heer gentle Reader wheras hitherto the knight hath charged our doctrine now being put to the proof he saith VVhatsoeuer our doctrine be yet our practise is to the contrary as though he had sayd that howsoeuer it be false and slaunderous which hitherto he hath affirmed of our 〈…〉 he shew that we 〈…〉 kynd of argument if a 〈…〉 vse against a Christian 〈…〉 doctrine for teaching 〈…〉 being dryuen from it by 〈…〉 and by shewing that 〈…〉 teach the contrary if 〈…〉 as S r. Francis doth from 〈…〉 and say as he sayth that whatsoeuer your 〈◊〉 be yet is your practise contrary and many wicked men are among yow ergo your religion is naught would any man cal this other then playne cauilling But what doth our knight prooue any one authentical poynt in this part also of practise though I do not deny but that some abuses may haue byn committed by particular persons About abuses of Indulgences in the vse of indulgences also as there want not euil liners among Christians doth he bring forth I say any one example of any one publyke practise to the coÌ„trary No truly but only sayth in general Pag. 70. that the Counsels of Laâ—eran Vienna and Trent haue made prouision â—or reformation of abuses about Indulgencâ—â— which maketh for vs rather then for him for that it sheweth we desyre that abuses or contrary practise should not be or if it hath byn it was not permitted by Cath. doctrine or publyke authority no more then wicked lyfe is in Christian religion
though much be practised as to our greef we see From this he passeth to alleage certayne ould verses cyted by KeÌ„nitius as true a wryter 〈…〉 as he saith in a stone in a 〈…〉 the Bituriges in Aquitany 〈…〉 nothing at all 〈…〉 only exhorting men to 〈…〉 in respect of the 〈…〉 by God and 〈…〉 of scripture themselues 〈…〉 our knight lacking other 〈…〉 them in against 〈◊〉 Some of them I shal alleage heare for examples sake 〈◊〉 Pag. 69. Hic des deuotè caelestibus associate Mentes aegrotae per munera sunt tibi lotae Ergo veni tote gentes à sede remotae Qui datis estote certi de diuite dote Hic si largè des in caelo sit tua sedes Qui serit hic parcè parcè comprendit in arce Syr Francis his translation Giue freely heer in heauen a place prepare Your sickly soules by giftes cleane purged are Come people then which dwel farre from this place Ye that do giue rest sure of mickle grace Yf thow giue freely heere heauen is thy hyre He that giues litle shal litle there acquire These verses alleadgeth S r. FraÌ„cis to make sporte at indulgences but if yow take away the simplicity of the latyn and poeÌ„sy incident to that age they contayne no absurdity at all but do set forth the force and vertue of almes in the very words almost that are found in scripture For in the 〈…〉 Daie dabitur vobis c. 〈…〉 giuen vnto yow In 〈…〉 words of our Sauiour 〈…〉 omnia vobis munda sunt 〈…〉 all is cleane and purged 〈…〉 the rest ending with the 〈…〉 in the last verse Qui parcè semini◠〈…〉 he that soweth litle shal reap 〈…〉 expressely of almes And with what folly theâ— are these things brought in by way of scoffe against pardons and indulgences which nothing appertayne vnto them and are sentences taken out of the scripture it self He addeth to this purpose a complaint of the Princes of Germany as he calleth them exhibited against the Popes pardons at a counsel in Norenberg Pag. 71. Malitious concealing of circumstances to deceaue the reader but he telleth not in what yeare this was nor what maner of counsel nor that these Princes were new protestants nor that Luther did endite this complaint for if he had told any one of these circumstances it would haue infringed the credit of his tale Ibid. Pag. 72 as that which he telleth of one Tecelius the Popes pardon marchaunt as he termeth him of whome he wryteth a iest how he was deceyued and cosened in selling of pardons but for that he citeth neyther author book time nor place I giue it the credit as such pulpit tales of Sir Francis ministers do require That old obiection also of Card. Como his letter to Parry wherin he is affirmed to say 〈…〉 pardon of all your sinnes as 〈…〉 answered For first it is 〈…〉 in his letter to Pope 〈…〉 from Paris when he 〈…〉 1583. discouered no 〈…〉 any particular enterprice 〈…〉 only in general that he 〈…〉 great matters for the 〈…〉 Cath. religion for recompence of the â—urts which he had done diuers yeares before by spiery for the state of England And this appeareth as wel by the letter yet extant as for that he vttering his whole plot to her Ma â—ie and her counsel at his first comming in was notwithstanding fauorably handled for a great space vntil falling into discontentment through want he practised with him that discouered his teachery Secondly the Popes graunt of Indulgence vnto him was meant only with due circumstaÌ„ces if he were contrite and confessed of his sinnes which is wont to be added coÌ„monly in all indulgences or is necessary to be vnderstood For which cause this obiection is to no purpose at all Wherfore I would leaue of in this place to speak any more of this argument of indulgences as vnable to be disprooued eyther in doctrine or practise by Sir Francis but that I must discouer one trik of his more about alleadging Durandus pag. 70. before I end my speech As for the authority saith he wher-vpon your indulgences are grounded your owne men confesse as namely among the rest Durandus De indulgentijs pauca dici possunt per certitudinem qui 〈…〉 ijs loquitur sancti etiam 〈…〉 Hieronymus Augustinus mit 〈…〉 gentijs c. Litle can be 〈…〉 indulgences because 〈…〉 speaketh expressely of the 〈…〉 Fathers Ambrose Hilary 〈…〉 make no mention of them 〈…〉 confesse that yow haue neyther warrant 〈…〉 nor of the auncient fathers for your popish 〈…〉 go they currant c. Howsoeuer they go currant Syr knight among vs yet go not yow curraÌ„t but do hault downe to the ground and that in three things about this one text First in the citation then in the deductioÌ„ or illation of the sense thirdly in the words themselues alleaged And let the reader consider whether falshood may be found in more points then these in the handling or alleadging of any author For the first though he name Durandus yet quoteth he no place The first shift where yow may find it which for the most part as before we haue noted implyeth lightly some deceyt or subtile trick in the allegation which he would not haue discouered as now by experience we haue learned and the third point shal declare For the second about the illation he maketh out of the words of Durand The second shift if they were all in all respects truly alleaged it is false and cauillous For if any Arrian or Anabaptist in the dayes of S. Ambrose Hilary and Ierome whome 〈…〉 haue made lyke 〈…〉 and sayd as they 〈…〉 of Homousion 〈…〉 as also the baptisme 〈…〉 to be found in 〈…〉 such and such auncient 〈…〉 Iustinus and others of that 〈…〉 thing of it ergo yow hold 〈…〉 neyther haue warrant in 〈…〉 of auncient Fathers This argument I say or illation against these doctrynes had byn as good as this of Syr Francis against pardons and yet had it byn naught and deceytful and the reason is for that albeyt those doctrines for the blessed Trinity and baptisme of children were not expressely conteyned in scripture yet were they sufficiently deduced therof And albeit those former fathers as Iustinus Irenaeus and others had not occasion expressely to handle or treat of these controuersyes being occupied in other matters yet neuer taught they the contrary other fathers following after them did teache testifie that doctrin to be Catholike which was sufficient And the very like may be answered by vs in this behalfe as by the third poynt of Syr Francis paltry dealing shal appeare The third point then is his fraudulent alleaging of the words of Durand The 3. shift leauing out some which are greatly to the purpose and do plainly insinuate the answere that now I haue giuen For first after Durand had said that the scripture did not 〈…〉 indulgences he alleaget◠〈…〉 scripture as Tibi