The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, Part 1 · Author to opponent
To J. R. AUTHOR OF THE BOOKE CALLED A paire of Spectacles.
I Received a Treatiſe from you, (Mr. J. R.) not long ſince publiſhed againſt me by the title of A paire of Spectacles, or, An Anſwer to a booke called Via tuta, The ſafe way: wherein you ſay the booke is ſhewed to be a Labyrinth of Errours, and the Author a blinde Guide.
To what end your Spectacles were made for a blinde man I cannot tell; for ſure I am, if I were blinde, a paire of your Spectacles could not make me ſee: howſoever if the indifferent Reader will look but upon the Frontiſpice of your own book, he ſhall eaſily diſcerne that your glaſſes are deceitfull, and do juſtly occaſion a Writ of Error to be brought againſt your ſelfe, for making that to ſeem in S. Auſtin, your firſt Author, which is not. Your words are theſe:Qui autem praetergreditur regulam fidei, non accedit in viâ, ſed recedit de viâ. Aug. in Joh. Tract. 98. Tom. 9. p. 487. He that goeth beſides the rule of faith (which is the Catholique Church) doth not come in the way, but goeth out of the way: wherein you have added theſe words of your owne (viz.) which is the Catholique Church, in the ſame character with S. Auſtin: and in lieu of Scripture you pretend the Church to be the rule of Faith; whereas that ancient Father aſſures us,Civitas Dei credit Scripturis—Undè fides ipſa concepta eſt, ex quâ juſtus vivit. Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 19. c. 18. Tom. 5. Sancta Scriptura noſtrae doctrinae regulam figit. Idem de bono Viduitatis. Tom. 4. c. 1. that from the holy and canonicall Scriptures, that faith is formed and bred by which the juſt doe live. Nay more, hee expreſſely profeſſeth with us, that the holy Scripture doth fix or ſettle the rule of our doctrine. And thus in your firſt citation you falſifie S. Auſtin, and go beſides the rule of faith and good manners alſo, and by ſtumbling at the threſhold, you ſhew your ſelfe to bee the blinde guide you ſpeake of in the firſt page, and the firſt place.
I proceed to your Dedicatorie Epiſtle; firſt, you begin to deſcant upon my name, in paralelling the words Lyend and Lye, howſoever (ſay you) The title of Sir will be left for you.
Theſe bee the firſt flowers of your eloquence, and they ſavour ſweetly. Now if I ſhould repay you in your owne language, and ſhew you what men are branded with the letter (R) which ſtands for your name; if I ſhould ſhoot backe (I ſay) your arrowes, even bitter words, into your owne boſome, would it not ſhew rather want of matter than proofe of doctrine? If you delight to ſit in the ſeat of the ſcornefull, it ſhall be my comfort to tread in the ſteps of my Saviour, who when hee was reviled, reviled not againe. To let paſſe your bitter reproaches of my learning and breeding, I will come to the matter.
You have not ſtated the queſtion (ſay you) fully and truly, for you were to ſhew the viſibilitie of the Church by perſons in all ages. Then you demand of me where the Church was, which S. Paul called the houſe of God, and pillar of truth; and thus you preſcribe mee my weapons, and teach mee how to fight.
Touching the viſibilitie of the Church, it is not to be confined within the narrow compaſſe of an Epiſtle; and therefore I will anſwer you and your Jeſuites challenge at large in place convenient: and as touching your demand where the Church was, which is called the pillar of truth, I anſwer in briefe, not in Rome, but in Epheſus; for otherwiſe it might ſeeme incongruous, that the Apoſtle ſhould exhort Timothy to walke circumſpectly in the Church of God, becauſe the Church of Rome was the pillar and firmament of truth. And therefore the Turke may better alledge this place to prove Mah mets religion, being now ſubject to his power, than you to juſtifie the Romiſh religion, becauſe Epheſus was the pillar of truth.
You proceed, and by way of prevention you tell me the controverſie is not ſo much of the doctrine as of the perſons: and then you conclude ſimply in the very ſame page, The queſtion is not of the doctrine, but of the perſons. Oportet eſſe memorem: I will but let you ſee your contradiction, I quarrell it not, onelyonly I pray you tell mee in the words of ſoberneſſe and truth, did ever any wiſe man (except your ſelfe) undertake to prove the true Church by the viſibilitie of the perſons? May not Jewes and Heretiques by the ſame reaſon claime a true Church, becauſe they had viſible perſons in all ages?
But ſay you this hath beene the way which the holy Fathers have taken, either in proving the Catholique faith, or diſproving of hereſies; and for your Aſſertion, you cite Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Optatus and Auguſtine: give me leave to examine your Authors, for as yet you have produced but one ancient Father, and him you have falſified in the Frontiſpice of your booke.
Touching your firſt Author,Tertull. preſcript. c. 32. & lib. 3. Car. adverſ. Marcion. Tertullian, (in the firſt place cited by you) hee demonſtrates two wayes how to diſcerne the Church: firſt, by ſhewing ſome Apoſtle or Apoſtolicall perſon to have founded it; next, by the conformity of the doctrine to the Apoſtles: and in his third book againſt Marcion (which is your ſecond citation) hee hath nothing at all for your purpoſe.
Touching your ſecond Author,Iren. l. 3. c. 1, 2, 3. & l. 4. c. 43, 45, 46. Irenaeus, hee is expreſſely againſt you; for in the firſt chapter and third booke (cited by you) he ſaith, By the will of God they have delivered the Goſpel to bee the pillar and foundation of truth. In the ſecond hee ſaith, that when Heretiques are convinced by the Scriptures, they fall to accuſe them, as if they were not right, or of authoritie, and that they are ambiguous and doubtfull. In the third hee proveth the truth of the Church by the conformitie of doctrine to the Apoſtles, not by the viſibilitie, as you pretend. In his fourth booke cited by you, he ſhewes that bare ſucceſſion is no note of the Church; and in his 45. chapter, which you quote, there is nothing that maketh for your queſtion. And laſtly, in the 46. chapter he proveth that the New Teſtament is as ſevere againſt fornication as the Old, or rather more: and this may touch the free-hold of that Church which diſpenſeth with Stewes; but of the point in queſtion he ſpeakes nothing at all.
Touching your third Author, S. Cyprian, Cypr. Ep. 52. & 76.in the 52. Epiſtle cited by you, he perſwades Antonianus rather to adhere to Cornelius than Novatianus: and in his 76. Epiſtle alledged by you, hee ſhewes that Novatianus ſucceeding none in that See, was ordained by himſelfe, and therefore could bee no true Biſhop; but as touching the controverſie in queſtion, Ne gry quidem.
Touching your fourth Author, Optatus, Optat. adverſ. Parmen. lib. 2.he handleth not the queſtion, neither maketh any thing at all for you.
Laſtly,Auguſt. Pſal. 2. part. Don. & Ep. 165. & de Utilit. credendi. c. 7. touching S. Auſtin you cite the ſecond Pſalme, and there is nothing handled of the queſtion: you cite likewiſe his 165. Epiſtle, wherein hee declares a ſucceſſion of Biſhops from the Apoſtles time to Anaſtaſius: Si ordo Epiſcoporum ſuccedentium conſiderandus eſt. Ep. 165. p. 751. Preculdubio ab Eccleſiâ Catholicâ ſumendum exordium. De Utilit. credendi. c. 7. Idem contr. Creſc. l. 1. c. 33.If (ſaith he) an orderly ſucceſsion of Biſhops is to be conſidered.
Yea but S. Auſtin (ſay you) particularly proves the queſtion, where he tels his friend Honoratus, he muſt begin his enquirie from the Catholique Church.
Hee that told the Manichees, wee muſt take our Exordium from the Church, told the Donatiſts likewiſe, wee muſt reſort to that Church for the reſolution of our faith, which the ſacred Scriptures undoubtedly demonſtrate to be the true Church: for in them (ſaith he) we have knowne Chriſt, Idem Ep. 166.in them wee have knowne the Church. If you can derive your ſucceſſion in perſon and doctrine, from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, we will anſwer you as ſometimes S. Auſtin anſwered Petilian the Donatiſt: Idem contr. l. Petil. l. 2. c. 85.Whether of us be Schiſmatiques we or you? aske you not mee, I will not aske you, let Chriſt bee asked, that hee may ſhew us his owne Church.
After theſe ſeverall paſſages you returne againe to your firſt Author Tertullian, Tertull. preſcript. c. 19.and with him you conclude; where it ſhall appeare that there is the truth of Chriſtian diſcipline and faith, there ſhall bee the truth of Scriptures and Expoſitions. And from hence you inferre, that we are firſt to ſeeke the perſons that profeſſe the faith, that is, the Church. Whereas in truth his teſtimony doth rather prove the perſons by the doctrine, than the doctrine by the perſons, and this is moſt agreeable to his owne Aſſertion in the third chapter,Idem c. 3. Ex perſonis probamus fidem, an ex fide perſonas? As if hee ſhould ſay, wee plainly prove the perſons by the doctrine, not the doctrine by the perſons.
Now put on your Spectacles, and take a review of your Authors. The firſt maketh nothing for you, the ſecond is expreſſely againſt you, the third ſpeakes not to the point in queſtion, the fourth and fifth handle the queſtion, but not at all to your advantage, or our prejudice: and thus you have produced foureteene ſeverall places out of the ancient Fathers in one page, and all either impertinently, or falſly, or directly againſt your ſelfe: by which the Reader may conjecture what is like to bee the iſſue of your whole worke, who have ſo groſſely falſified ſo many authorities in your Epiſtle, and before the entrance into the body of your booke.
From your lame proofes of the Churches authoritie, you proceed to the juſtification of your maimed commandements, viz. in leaving out the ſecond, and altering the fourth in your Breviaries and Pſalters. You ſay you print them in your Bibles, and therefore they are not abſolutely left out, as long as they are elſewhere: Mute quod ſcimus. It is true the words are contained in your Bibles. But Dic quod rogamus, why doe you not publiſh Gods commandements as hee wrote them? Admit that in your Catechiſmes you ſhould ſet downe this forme of Baptiſme, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and leave out the Sonne, and the Holy Ghoſt, would it be ſufficient to ſay it is not abſolutely left out, becauſe it is contained in the Bible? Shew mee the man amongſt your Papalins that dare alter a Kings command or a Popes Breve, and will your Church attempt more againſt the Precepts of God, than againſt a Popes Bull or a Kings Proclamation? But the truth is, and you know it too well, if the ſecond precept were expreſſely ſet downe in your Pſalters, the common people would be too buſie in expoſtulating the cauſe why Image-worſhip ſhould be commanded by the Church, and yet condemned by Gods word.
Yea, but it is part of the firſt commandement (ſay you) or otherwiſe it is ceremoniall.
Let it bee one or other, ſince God thought it needfull to be added, how dare you leave it out?Deut. 4.2. It was the voice of God himſelfe, You ſhall not adde unto the word which I command, neither ſhall you diminiſh ought from it, that you may keepe the commandement of the Lord your God. Againe, how is it a part of the firſt if it be ceremoniall, when the firſt is agreed on all hands to be naturall & morall? The truth is, it is not ceremoniall, but morall, and plainly diſtinct from the former; for the firſt forbids the true worſhip of any falſe god, the ſecond forbids any falſe worſhip of the true God; and howſoever Pereſius and Catharinus, and you for company, would have gladly the Law againſt Images to be poſitive and ceremoniall, and ſo to ceaſe at the comming of Chriſt; yet your owne Bellarmine diſavowes it with a Non probatur: Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. c. 7.This opinion is not allowed of us, both for the reaſons made againſt the Jewes, and for that Irenaeus, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, and S. Auſtin, doe all teach that the commandements, excepting the Sabbath, are a Law wholly naturall and morall.
After your Apologie for your maimed commandements, you grow ſo virulent, as if the poyſon of Aſpes were under your lips, you crie out, I notoriouſly falſifie ſome Authors, and impertinently alledge others; you charge me with execrable perjurie, you ſay, I am a framer of lies, and I offend in all kinde of falſhood: and laſtly, you conclude the booke to bee none of mine, but ſome Miniſters, becauſe you heare it from ſome, that I ſcarce skill of ordinarie Latine.
I profeſſe for my learning I cannot boaſt of it; I doe willingly aſſume that ſaying of Origen, Gratias ago Deo, quod ignorantiam meam non ignoro. Orig. 1 Cor. 1.27. Pſal. 82.I am not ignorant of my ignorance: but let me tell you, as in Gods cauſe I ſeeke no praiſe, ſo I feare no reproach; for God hath choſen the fooliſh things of the world to confound the wiſe; nay more, out of the mouth of babes & ſucklings he hath ordained ſtrength, to ſtill the enemie and the avenger. And howſoever ſeemingly you condemne mee for ignorance, yet I am verily perſwaded that if I were more ignorant than you make mee, you would love me the more: for your Church commends Ignorance for the mother of Devotion: and the rather, becauſe your owne Clemangis tels us,Nich. Clemang. c. 6. before the dayes of reformation, Many Prieſts who had cure of ſoules, were ſent to their flocks, not from their ſtudies, or from the ſchoole, but from the plough, and they underſtood as much Latine as Arabick; nay, they could not read, and that which was ſhamefull, they could not diſtinguiſh an Alpha from a Beta. Neither can it be denied, that many Popes have diſpenſed with ignorant men, who per ſaltum, without any learning, have leaped into a Biſhopricke. Pope Paul the third created Robertus Venantius Arch-Biſhop of Armach, for two ſpeciall qualities;Tum quod Miſſam bellè canere, tum quia curſu Veredario in equo vehi peritè diceretur. Gentil. Exam. Concil. Trid. l. 2. ſeſſ. 1. p. 33. the one, becauſe hee could ſing Maſſe ſweetly; the other, becauſe he could ride a Poſt horſe skilfully. And in the latter ages it was ſo uſuall to admit any Ignoramus's into a Biſhoprick, that when our King Edward the third ſollicited Pope Clement the ſixth, to create Thomas Hartfield Biſhop of Durham, notwithſtanding the Cardinals cried out he was a Lay-man, and an Ideot, the Pope replyed, If the King of England had entreated for his Aſſe, Si Rex Angliae pro aſino ſuo ſupplicâſſet, votum ſuum hac vice obtinuiſſet. Walſing. citat. apud Antig. Brit. in vita foh. Uffordi. And Godwin in his Catal. of Biſhops, p. 526. Eraſ. Encom. Mor. Heb. 7.3.he ſhould have obtained it at that time. To come neerer to the times; Julius the third made the keeper of his monkey a Maſſe-prieſt, and I preſume he had ſmall ſtore of Latine. The Friar who would prove from the words of Chriſt, An non decem facti ſunt mundi? that God made ten worlds, had ſcrace skill of ordinarie Latine. And laſtly, hee was Sr. John Lack-Latine, who would prove that Melchiſedeck offered ſalt with bread and wine, becauſe he read in the text, Rex Salem, which is, the King of peace.
I ſpeake not this by way of recrimination, but to let you know, how well you and your fellowes are read in the two titles of the Law, De maledicis, & De Clerico promoto per ſaltum.
Take therefore from me what learning you will, diſtraine it, and impound it at your pleaſure, I will never trouble you with Replevin: onelyonly I ſay with S. Auſtin, Seeke others of more learning, but beware of them that preſume of learning.
And whereas you conceive a Miniſter made my booke, and I beare the name onelyonly for to countenance the worke: If I had received help from ſome in this kinde, you need not blame me for it, for it is ordinarie with your men, to have whole Colledges joyne their helping hand in defence of your cauſe. But in anſwer to your ſuppoſall, and to vindicate our Miniſters from thoſe great aſperſions of ignorance, of corruption, of obſtinacie, of perjurie, laid unto their charge (as Authors of the worke) I witneſſe a true confeſſion before God, who knowes I lye not, a Miniſter was ſo farre from making my booke,Via Tuta. Via Devia. that I neither had help from Clergy-man nor Lay-man, for compoſing or making either of my bookes.
Let it ſuffice for me to have ſaid the truth, which although it appeare never ſo ſimple, yet it is able to remove a mountaine of learning: if there be in mee, I ſay not any talent, but onelyonly a mite of a talent, my prayer unto God is, & ever was, it may be beſtowed wholly to the honour of his truth, and the benefit of his Church. And whereas you charge mee with obſtinacie and malice (which, ſay you, is the true cauſe of all my errours) let mee tell you, if I were in an errour, you have not the patience to ſhew it me, but by bitterneſſe and railing. Your learning haply may worke miracles in the eares of the unlearned that cannot judge; but it cannot turne darkneſſe into light, nor errour into truth. And although your bitterneſſe might juſtly occaſion that malice, of which you accuſe me; yet it is ſo farre from my thoughts, that I pitie you, and in requitall of your paines, I pray for you: and that which S. Paul ſaid of the Iſraelites, Rom. 10.1.I wiſh to the Romaniſts and members of your Church, Brethren, my hearts deſire and prayer to God is that they may be ſaved.
But (ſay you) theſe were not your firſt fruits, for you tranſlated and publiſhed Bertram, an obſcure Author, with a preface of your owne, and thereby gave ſufficient triall of your ignorance and corruption, whereof you were convinced by (O.E.) but never cleered your ſelfe of ſo foule a taxe.
It is true that ſome ten yeeres ſince I cauſed Bertram to be reprinted, and publiſhed with a preface before it; and it is as true, that hee being a Romiſh Prieſt taught our doctrine of the Euchariſt above eight hundred yeeres ſince, and therefore by way of prevention, you terme him an obſcure Author, though he were famous in his time.
As touching the foule taxe of ignorance and corruption, in falſe tranſlating it (wherewith you charge mee) you are much miſtaken; for I never tranſlated it, but onelyonly reprinted the old tranſlation: this both hee and you might have ſeene in the Frontiſpice of the booke, in theſe words: Tranſlated and imprinted in the Engliſh tongue, Anno Dom. 1549. and now the third time publiſhed: ſo that the Tranſlation into Engliſh was made before I was borne. Againe, in the end of my preface you ſhall finde theſe words, Pittie it were but this lamp ſhould receive a new light by reprinting him, which the iniquitie of the time had almoſt extinquiſhed. Now I pray, Sir, what cauſe was there of any anſwer to your nameleſſe Author, or rather what cauſe was there of his and your bitterneſſe, in charging mee with falſe tranſlating, with ignorance and corruption? I profeſſe I am not ignorant that your men are guiltie of many ſuch falſe accuſations (ad faciendum populum) to make your Proſelytes beleeve, that all our bookes are full of lyes; of whom I may truly ſay, as S. Auſtin ſometimes ſpake of the Donatiſts, When they cannot by ſlie and wily coſenage creep like Aſpes, with open profeſſed violence they rage like Lions.
Laſtly (you ſay) that an Anſwer to my booke hath hitherto beene deferred, becauſe no man of learning would thinke it worth his paines to make any.
Let mee tell you, I have received three printed anſwers to Via tuta, beſides two written copies from nameleſſe Authors: the firſt was from a Merchant, and that is called Via verè tuta: the ſecond from a Prieſt, and that is called A paire of Spectacles to ſee the way: the third is from a Clerk, and that is termed A Whetſtone of Reproofe. The firſt printed Author is termed Mr. John Heigham, whoſe Treatiſe ſavours too much of blaſphemie and ribaldrie: the ſecond is Mr. John Floyd, whoſe worke is full of bitterneſſe and ſubtiltie: the third is Tom Tell troth (for ſo he termes himſelfe) whoſe pamphlet is fraught with all childiſhneſſe and impertinencie. Now if none of theſe were men of learning, as you confeſſe (becauſe no learned man would take the paines to anſwer it) what may I thinke of your wiſdome, which hath returned an anſwer full of railing accuſations (ſuch as the Angell of God would not have brought againſt the Devill himſelfe)? I ſay, in regard your bitter lines are rather a libell without a name, than a Chriſtian and moderate confutation, I might well have declined a replication to it, and have told you with S. Jerome, Your bitterneſſe deſerves rather an anſwer with ſcorn, Magis indignationem ſcribentis quam ſtudium. Hieron. adverſ. Vigil.than a refutation in earneſt. But when I conſidered it was the fruit of your religion, and common practice of your Church, that for want of matter you commonly fall upon the perſon, I reſolved with my ſelfe to call you to a ſober reckoning, that the truth of God might appeare, and that by your owne bitterneſſe, you might better diſcerne the character of a bad cauſe, and an evill ſpirit.
For a concluſion take but a ſhort view of your bitter reproaches: you term me a blind Guide, & a Miniſteriall Knight; you ſay my booke is a Labyrinth of errours; you crie out my ſirname hath the two firſt letters of a lye; you ſay the title of Sir will be left for me; you condemne me of execrable perjurie; you affirme I am a framer of lyes, and abound in all kind of falſhood; you tell me, I ſcarce underſtand Latine, and it is conceived a Miniſter made my booke; you charge me with obſtinacie, with malice, with corruption, with ignorance, with falſe tranſlating; you proclaime the fearefull judgements of God upon me for perverting ſoules, and as if I were paſt all grace, you ſay I am not capable of any good advice; yet at laſt (as if you would make mee ſome amends for all your accuſation) you conclude: I forbeare to ſay any more, reſting howſoever your well-wiſhing friend.
Surely you have ſaid enough, and you doe well to forbeare to ſay more; for I thinke the words of your Epiſtle are ſo ſufficiently dipt in lye and gall, that they will ſerve for your whole worke: but I pardon you, and ſhall returne you no other anſwer than the Arch-Angell gave to Satan, Jude verſ. 9.The Lord rebuke you: onelyonly let me tell you, I cannot thinke you a well-wiſhing friend, whoſe heart and tongue is full of curſing and bitterneſſe; for I may truly ſay of you as Cato ſometimes ſaid of Lentulus, Dicam falli eos qui negant os habere. Seneca.They are much deceived that deny you to have a mouth (and a foule one too.) In the meane time you muſt remember that for your idle and vaine words you muſt give accompt to God; and for your fifteene ſeverall falſifications you muſt give an accompt to your Reader. And thus by way of Traverſe and deniall to all other things impertinently alledged, I anſwer No: to your railing I anſwer nothing.