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
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
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
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
Rome Page 29. 30. I spake of the Popes supremacy and my words are these What authority soeuer the Pope had ouer the Latine Church or West part of the world it hath bene giuen him by humane constitutions onely and generall consent of Princes and States which they suffered him to enioy during their good liking and no longer And hauing thus shewed that the Popes authority ouer other Churches was not by diuine institution but onely by humane permission not certaine but during the pleasure of Princes and States my words fauour not his supremacy ouer vs in England out of which by consent of Prince and Parliament hee hath beene abandoned long since And therefore I say the Bishop of Rome is little beholding to me for his title of supremacy This is a very loose and negligent kinde of disputation Seuenthly saith he Doue Persw pag. 15. referreth the question what books be Canonicall Scriptures to the two Doctors S. Augustine and S. Hierom. His words be these Catholikes proue them to be Canonical out of S. Augustine we that they be Apocripha out of S. Hierome both which Doctors are of no smal authority in the Church of Rome therefore in this we differ no more from them then S. Hierome did from S. Augustine Therefore I hope for many causes Protestants will giue place to us in this question I deny not but the question being propounded concerning the bookes of Toby Iudith Baruch Ecclesiasticus Wisedome the Maccabes and the fragment of Esther whether they were Canonicall as the Church of Rome doth hold or Apocripha as our Church maintaineth I answered that forasmuch as there is Canon fidei morum One Canon or rule of good life another of faith and that may be Canon morum quodnon est fidei Arule and patterne of good life for vs to follow which is not a sufficient ground of doctrine to build our faith vpon they were both Canonicall and Apocripha Canonicall according to Saint Augustins for rules of good life Apocripha according to S. Hierome because they were no true grounds of doctrine And so the Church of Rome and our selues rightly vnderstanding one another as Saint Hierome and Saint Augustine vnderstood themselues there needed not be any difference concerning this point betweene vs. But how can he inferre vpon this that therefore we must giue place to him in this question As Saint Hierome gaue no place to Saint Augustine so will we giue no place to any onely I wish they would better vnderstand both vs and themselues and giue place to the truth And forasmuch as they allow both of Saint Hierome and Saint Augustine to be Orthodoxall Doctors they cannot receiue S. Augustine his opinion but they must also embrace S. Hieroms exposition where it is explained what is the meaning of S. Augustine where hee alloweth those bookes to be Canonicall Eighthly saith he Concerning the vulgar Latine translation allowed among Catholikes D. Doue writeth thus pag. 16. We grant it fit that for vniformity in quotation of places in Schooles and Pulpits one Latine text should be vsed and we can bee contented for the antiquity thereof to preferre the old vulgar translation before all other Latine bookes and so much we yeeld to the Councell of Trent The praemisses are mine but what is his conclusion Because we ascribe to the vulgar edition more then to all other Latine translations and therein agree with the Church of Rome and because we yeeld to the Councell of Trent so farre as reason doth require and no further but disagree both from the Church of Rome and that Councel in things which are erroneous Concedendo vera negando falsa will he therefore take this for a Protestant proofe of his Catholicke religion Non taliauxilio nec defensoribus istis Roma caret If the Church of Rome had no better champions it would not stand Ninthly Doctor Couel writeth No translation whatsoeuer is authenticall Scripture And Doctor Doue addeth All translations haue many faults page 16. In so writing I write the truth For onely God is free from errour and therefore only the originall text is authenticall Scripture All men are subiect to errours Omnis homo mendax but all translations are the workes of men But how idlely is this brought in as a Protestant proofe of Recusancy well may it serue against Recusants which ascribe more to the translation thē to the originall If no translation be authenticall then it followeth as a firme consequent that the vulgar Latine edition cannot be authentical howsoeuer the Councel of Trent hath imposed it vpon vs as authenticall Tenthly For this time and place saith he I will only make amplification of Doctor Doue his grant confession which followeth in these words When the Masse was first put down King Henry had his English litourgie and that was then iudged absolute without all exception But when King Edward came to the Crowne that was cōdemned and another was in the place which Peter Martyr and Bucet did approue as very consonant to Gods word When Q. Elizabeth began her reign the former was iudged to be full of imperfections and a new was diuised allowed by consent of the Clergy But about the middle of her reigne we grew weary of that booke great meanes haue bene wrought to abandon it establish another which although it was not obtained yet we do at the least at euery change of Prince change our booke of Common praier we bee so want on we know not what we would haue Pag. 31. Hitherto his words and he freely confessed errours in all these states and changes For defence whereof besides that these words are written by way of obiection from them rather then any confession made by our selues I did not so much as intimate that there were errours in all these states and changes as he vniustly chargeth me but onely that in the Seruice bookes of King Henry and King Edward some things were iudged to sauor of the superstitions of the Church of Rome But as for the Seruice booke which was allowed by Queene Elizabeth it stood not only during her time without alteration but also it is ratified by his Maiestie and allowed of by the State albeit by some particularmen it hath bene impugned as nothing else can be by the wit of man so well deuised but mans wit can dispute against it And as for those errours which were reformed in the books of K. Henry and King Edward they were the superstitions onely of the Church of Rome the land being not then sufficiently reformed nor purity of religion so perfectly established as now it is because the Bishops Clergy men by whom those bookes were written their selues were too much so wred with the Romish leauen And our daily renouncing those superstitions and receiuing greater light of the Gospell could be no Protestant proofe that we should any way fauour their superstitions Eleuenthly he writeth thus Why may we not say with the Councell of Florence cited
I haue abused both the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine That I haue not abused the Councell witnesse the Councell it selfe that I haue not abused Bellarmine witnesse Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 11. Thirdly they agree with vs concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures that in them are deliuered all things necessary to saluation contrary to the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome So Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 10. He is not ashamed to say In reading the place hee hath discouered a notable fraude Whether I haue dealt fraudulently or sincerely let the reader iudge But wherein lyeth the fraude He saith that Bellarmine speaketh these words onely by way of answer to an obiection I conclude therefore it is no fraude If I had taken that for positiue doctrine which was spoken by way of obiection it had bene fraude in me but seeing it is an answer to an obiection it is no fraude but sincere dealing Fourthly they hold with vs that Purgatory is a tradition and not to be found in the holy Scriptures witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 4. He thinketh to auoid vs by saying that Bellarmine speaketh onely antagonistically by way of obiection out of Luther and not dogmatically out of his owne iudgement which is but Petitio principij a begging of the question For it was questioned by me whether Bellarmine spake out of his owne iudgement or not and the affirmatiue was by me proued concluded He bringeth no proofe for the negatiue part but onely maketh that for his allegation which is the question it selfe Fifthly they discent not from vs about the authority of the Scriptures that it is aboue the authority of the Church witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 10. He repeateth the words but maketh no answer to them He chargeth me with Papistry because I confessed that our Church was condemned as hereticall by the Councell of Trent which is but Petitio principij for I denyed our Church to be euer the more hereticall for the censure of that Councell whose authoriry I disinabled by sufficient reasons to which he maketh no answer and therefore in that place I haue not played the Papist Whereas I exhorted the Recusants diligently to reade as well our writers as their owne our answers as well as their obiections and then to examine their owne iudgements before they passe their sentence against vs to condemne vs of heresie He maketh two answers first that they haue already done so to which I reply they haue done it partially Secondly that vnlearned men and women are not able to do so and therefore they must relye vpon the iudgement of the Catholicke Church To which I reply that if they be not able the fault is in the the Catholicke Church of Rome which holdeth the people still in ignorance whereas S. Iohn teacheth that they ought to be of such knowledge as to try and examine the Spirits and the Citizens of Berea are commended by the holy Ghost because they were able to examine Saint Pauls doctrine And I say with the Apostle That if the Gospell bee hidden it is hidden to them which are lost I alledged that few things are in our booke of Common praiers which are not taken out of the Bible or out of that which was good in the Masse booke so that if they allow of the Bible their Masse booke they caÌ„not disallow of our Seruice book He answereth in these words If all the Seruice booke were taken out of the Bible it selfe as most of all heretical Seruice hath bene in euery age pretended to be yet might the collection and combination be such as might make it vnlawfull and pestiferous as when the Arrians did sing Gloria patri cum filio per filium and the Catholickes filio The difference in sound of words was small but in substance and malice execrable To which I reply that forasmuch as he maketh such a supposition but sheweth no such collection or combination in our Seruice booke neither any thing in it like to that of the Arrians he speaketh idlely and to no purpose neither is any thing thereby derogated from the credit of our Seruice booke To the Recusants which obiect that there are dissentions among vs I answered that so there were among them I named Eckius Pighius Thomas Scotus nay there were dissentions among the Apostles themselues so that dissention is no argument to disinable vs from being the true Church for in religion we agree M. Walsingham chargeth me with three absurdities the first of ignorance or folly for that Eckius Pighius Thomas Scotus dissented onely in matters disputable and not determined by the Church for points of faith In which words he maketh the Church of Rome to be so negligent in their determination of matters of religion as if they held the doctrine of iustification wherein Eckius and Pighius disagreed and of merit wherein the Thomists and Scotist disagreed not to appertaine vnto faith and to be matters so indifferent as if they afforded onely cause of disputation but needed not to be discided The second absurditie he saith is impiety for that the Apostles contentions were not about matters of different doctrine I say no more are ours The third he saith is ridiculous audacity to deny so absolutely disagreement in matters of religion among vs whereof the whole world can be witnesse out of our owne books and inuectiues one against another To which I answer that albeit some particular factious spirits among vs write seditious pamphlets one against another this imputation cannot iustly be layd vpon our Church which by all manner of good meanes suppresseth dissention but maintaineth peace and vnitie Thus much I thought fit to deliuer not for answer to his disgracefull speeches vttered against me which I passe ouer with silence as not touching the cause of religion but in defence onely of the truth which I tooke in hand that our aduersarieÌ„s may vnderstand how we haue not suffered those things so loosely to passe our hands which they so loosely haue published against vs to the view of the world And so leauing them to the mercy of the Lord my prayer is Vincat Christus cadat haeresis that falshood may still be detected and truth may get the vpper hand Amen FINIS Ecclesi 12. 12. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sixtus Senensis Biblioth sanctae lib. 4. Rom. 1. 14. 2. Cor. 4. 2. The History of Bell and the Dragon Mat. 3. 10. Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 10. Mat. 16. 18. Caesar Bar. in apparat 13. Exod. 8. 19. De Rom. Pontifice l. 1. c. 10. De verbo Dei l. 2. c. 4. De verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 7. Concil Trid. Sess 3. De Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10. Luk. 16. 29. Eph. 2. 20. Chryss hons 55. in Mat. Lib. 6. de Trinit Lib. 4. de Triniâ—… 1 Pet. 2. 5. 1. Cor. 3. 11.