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
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
houses with whom for their vnworthinesse the peace of the Apostles could not abide The points which especially I vrged were proued out of Bellarmine their owne Doctor and in the places by me produced I falfified nothing but dealt sincerely let the learned disproue me if they can If they examine my arguments according to the lawes of Schooles they shall finde nothing false that may iustly bee denied nothing equiuocall that needeth distinction so that they must either answere me with silence or else if they deale ingeniously say with the inchanters Digitus Dei est It is the finger of God and make as open a confession of euiction as Iulian the Apostata did when hee cryed out Vicisti Galilaee Thou hast gotten the victory thou Galilean yet haue I beene contradicted but how iustly let the learned reader iudge An author without a name printed a booke at Paris Anno 1607. with this Title The first part of Protestant proofes for Catholicke Religion and Recusancy taken onely from the writings of such Protestant Doctors as haue bene published since the reigne of his Maiesty Which booke is nothing else but an vndigested Chaos or Miscellanea of halfe sentences rudely consarcinated together a confused heape of places some meerely diuised by himselfe and not to be found in these Protestant Doctors some wrested and falsly applied some truly alledged but impertinent to the argument hee taketh in hand all of them being praemisses without conclusions to make an idle shew of proofe where nothing is proued and of a confutation where nothing is confuted These proofes he saith he collected out of the bookes of the reuerend Father in God the Lord Bishop of Winchester Doctor Suckliffe Doctor Field Doctor Downam Doctor Morton Mr. Egerton and my selfe among many others in defence of his Recusancy and Romish religion But hee hath not vndertaken to answer any of our books neither can any iudicious man hold such recital of our words to be a confutation of our works Of these learned Writers and reuerend men I say with the parents of the blinde man Aetatem habent they are sufficient to answer for themselues and therefore I vndertake nothing in their behalfe onely for Apology of mine owne selfe I may truly say Because it is as impossible for him to make a iust reply against me as it was for the Centurion to deny the power of God in our Sauiour Christ when being conuicted by euident demonstration he said Verè filius Deiest In truth he was the sonne of God Therefore he hath with Elimas peruerted the straight waies of the Lord and withstood the truth by indirect and sinister meanes as Iamnes and Iambres resisted Moses For I pressed them by way of sound reason and strong argument he hath dealt by Elenches and Sophismes as the Apostle speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deceiuing them by paralogismes First he hath these words The greatest number of Protestant writers Doctor Succliffe Doctor Doue c. do teach there is no matter of faith no materiall or substantiall point or difference in religion betweene Protestants Puritants but they are of one Church faith and religion But we doubt whether they will stand to their positions they writ in Queene Elizabeth daies seeing they defend they may often change at the least at the change of euery Prince Doue perswasion Pag. 31. Wherein let the reader iudge whether he hath dealt with me ingenuously or no For I spake only of the manner of compiling our Seruice booke he chargeth me as if I had spoken of faith materiall and substantiall points of religion I spake of fact what we did concerning our Seruice booke and they concerning their Breauiry which haue changed as often as we he speaketh of right as if I had said we not onely then might vpon such good considerations as then iustly moued vs but also may euer hereafter when there is no such iust cause to induce vs thereunto change and alter our faith and grounds of religion My words were antagonisticall and by way of obiection from them with answere to their obiection he doth make relation of them as if they were dogmaticall and as a grounded conclusion maintained among vs. Therefore I charge him with two fallacies The first is Fallacia accentus For when wordes spoken interogatiuely are repeated indicatiuely or words spoken ironically as if they were spoken plainely or by way of obiection as if they were dogmaticall and all such like are referred to that fallacy Secondly he citeth part of my words which are the obiection and leaueth out the other part which are the answere which is comprehended vnder the Elenche called Fallacia diuisionis of which one species is Quando citatur imperfecta sententia non integra when part of the words are recited which the Sophister thinketh may serue his turne the other part is omitted lest the whole sentence should make against him Secondly he writeth thus The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull men in which the pure word of God is preached the Sacramēts duly administred according to Christs ordinance in all things that are of necessity required to the same Couel Field Doue be of the same minde Perswas page 23. I confesse I am of the same minde not onely in thesi but also in hypothesi that our Church is such a congregation that Gods word is truly preached and the Sacraments duly administred among vs according to Christ his institution But this is not with Sampson to fetch meat out of the eater Our words make for our selues but yeeld no aduantage to our aduersaries among whom neither Gods word is truly preached nor the Sacramēts duly administred Therefore they are idlely produced by him to delude the reader in making a shew of proofe for their religion and of confutation for ours when there is no MEDIVS TERMINVS wherby any thing should be proued or confuted And if he apply it by hypothesis to the Church of Rome that it is such a visible cōgregation c. and that therfore Recusants may safely continue in it and refuse to communicate with vs we were neuer of that minde neither can that be any Protestant proofe But it is a Petitio principij begging of the question which he taketh as granted when it is denyed Thirdly thus M. Williats words To errors of doctrine which are not fundamentall euen the true Church of Christ is subiect So Field ordinarily in his bookes of the Church so Sutcliffe Doue Perswa pag. 31. 32. But what doth he cōclude out of these words That therefore Recusants may wilfully maintaine the errours of the Church of Rome rather then be reconciled to our Church which is purged from such errors These words are no Protestant proofe of Catholike religion Hoc est ludere non argumentari this is to play the wanton not the Logitian Fourthly he chargeth me in this manner Concerning doctrine Doctor Doue writeth in these termes In fundamentall
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.