A Brief Confutation of a Popish Discourse, Part 1 · Answer 1
The first reason.
THe first reasō why a Papist may not go to church, is y• perril of infectiō: which is as good a reasō, as y• a fowle toad may not come into a cléere spring, to wash her, & spewe out her venome, for feare of infection, not of the well (of which there is greater daunger) but of her owne body, vntounto whose poysoned complexion, nothing almost may be added. Or that a man infected with the pestilence, pockes, or other contagious disease, may not come néere the place where phisicke and surgerie is ministred, least hee shoulde bée further infected. So that if a foole or a madde man, bée perswaded that the Phisition will kil him, by this mayne reason, hée must auoyde him. For what other force is in this argument, except trueth bée confessed to bée falshoode, and true phisicke daungerous infection? but marke the argument. Al daunger of infection is to bée auoyded: in going to Church and seruice, there is daunger of infection: therefore it is to bée auoyded. The first parte of this reason, our discourser prooueth by similitude, by authoritie of scripture, of Doctors, by examples, and by experience. Which was altogether néedelesse, excepte it were for young children, that learne to speake, for all men of meane capacitie, and smal discretion, will confesse, that all peryll of infection is to bée auoyded, of them that desire to lyue in health: but the proofe of the seconde parte of the argumente, which is, that in going to Churche and seruice, there is anye daunger of insection, hee bryngeth not one worde, beside his bare affyrmation. A worthye reason, to the hearing whereof the Prince, with her counsell, the learned, with the wise, of all England are called.
Hée that coulde obteine a priuiledge thus to reason, that al which hée affirmeth must be taken for trueth, and that his aduersarie shal not bée admitted to denie any thing that hee saith, may easely proue to bée an …rrefragable Doctor. If this kinde of resoning had béen vsed among Papists only, which are professed to beléeue what soeuer you will teache them, it might hauehave gained you some credite, when it should hauehave had no controlling, but when you publish your arguments, that the Queene and her Counsell (which al denie your principles) and the wise and learned of this lande (of which the most part refuse your doctrine as heretical) may sée that your Clients refusall is vponupon great reason, you declare that as in pride you lacke measure, so in iudgement you want discretion, in reasoning, you want learning, in defending, you want trueth in taking the cause in hande of obstinate contemners to iustifie it. you hauehave shewed neither wisdome, discretion, trueth nor honesty. But this seemeth strange that you cite out of Nicephorus lib. 3 cap. 30. That the Apostles and their schollers, were so wary and circumspect in this case (of auoidyng Heretikes) that they would not so much as once reason the matter with any of them, who indeuoured by their lying, or newe deuises to corrupt the trueth. HaueHave you set out your champion, to challendge the combate, and will you nowe giuegive ouer the battell? must you follow the example of the Apostles and their schollers, not so much as once to reason the matter with vsus, whom you account for here…kes? very well. The Diuell ought the Papistes a shame to make so proude an offer of disputation, which they neuer ment shoulde holde, as appeareth not onelyonly by the present flight of the challenger, notwithstanding hée prosesteth that hée was prepared to suffer any torment, that shoulde bée laide on his body, for his constant confession, but also by the plaine attestation of this his associate, wherby it is euidently bewrayed, that suche bolde prouocation was nothing els but a traiterous and seditious deuice, to erect the peoples mindes in eexpctation, of some change in religion, while other diuilishe practises were in working in Irelande and the like attempted in England. But howesoeuer you bee affected towarde disputation, you slaunder the Apostles and their schollers, and Nicephorus the reporter of this sentence, and Irenaeus the authour of it, in saying they would not so muche as once reason the matter with any heretike. For Saint. Paul whose doctrine and example, the other Apostles, and their schollers vsed and followed, alloweth vntounto eueryevery heretike two solemn admonitions at the least, before he be auoided, before which might be many reasonings, & after also though not with any certaine hope to winne them, yet with certaine profite vntountoTit 3. the hearers, when they see their heresies borne downe with the strength of trueth, and falshood mainteined by obstinate will, and not by might of reasons, when they see the sutle …eightes of Heretikes laide open to their shame, and the plaine trueth of the Gospell hauehave the victorie, to the glory of God, So did the Apostles dispute against the obstinate Iewes, so did their schollers with Heretikes, as is manifest by the concertation of Augustine with the Donatistes, Manichees, and Arrians, and that often in hearing of the people, the recordes whereof are extant, as the disputation of Germanus and Lupus with the Pelagians testified by Beda in the first of his English historie. Neither doth Ireneus say, that the Apostles and their schollers, woulde not once reason the matter with any Heretikes, but shewing how Polycarpus the scholler of Saint Iohn, beeing saluted by Marcion the Heretike, who desired to bee acquainted with him, answered, that hee knewe him alreadie to bee the eldest childe of the Diuell: hee declareth, that ye Apostles and their schollers, were so circumspect, that they woulde not communicate in any worde or familiar spéech with any, that had corrupted the sinceritie of the Gospell, with lying and false deuises. And this circumspection Polycarpus Irene. lib. 3. Cap. 3.learned indeede of Saint Iohn, who saith in his second Epistle, That if any man come vntounto you and bring not this doctrine, receiue him not into your house, nor salute you him, for hee that saluteth him is partaker of his wicked workes.
Finally, where you say, that out of the first sect of Luther dyd spring Lutherans and Zwinglians, Caluinistes, Puritanes, Anabaptistes Trinitaries, Familie of louelove, Adamites and suche like, you bewray not onelyonly your malice, but also your ignorance. For besides that out of the doctrine of Luther so farre as it was consonant too the worde of GOD, no heresie coulde spring, more then out of the worde of God it selfe: the Anabaptistes and Familie of louelove, are olde sectes springing out of the Enthusiastes, Pelagians, Donatistes, Valentinians, and other auncient heresies, The Trinitaries are a broode of the Arrians, Nestorians, Macedonians, and suche like Monsters. The Adamites, were both sprong vp and suppressed by the refourmed Churches of the Bohemians and Morauians, manye yeeres before Luther was borne. The rest whom you name, when you can conuince them of heresie, by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures, you may referre their beginning to what head you please. In the meane time, you must learne to reason better, against your aduersaries, then by challenging the whole cause, without tryall or proofe, otherwise your victorie shalbe as glorious, as your argumentes bee forcible, méete to bée answered with hoopes and hisses of Sophisters, not worthie the hearing of suche as bee wise, and learned in Englande, muche lesse too bée regarded of her moste excellente Maiestie, and the honourable Lordes of her pri…ie Counsell, to all whom you doe not blush, not by begging, but by extorting as you call it a necessary supposition, to offer a clere demonstration.