A Case for the Spectacles, Response to dedication
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 fi…st 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 anywise 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.
Tertull. prescript. c. 32. & lib. 3. Car. advers. Marcion.Touching your first Author, 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.
Iren. l. 3. c. 1, 2, 3. & l. 4. c. 43, 45, 46.Touching your second Author, 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. cred…nd… 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 consideran…us est. Ep. 165. p. 751. Proculdubio 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 inf…rre, 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 th…s 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: Mate 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 B…ble? 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? It was the voice of God himselfe,Deut. 4.2. 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 B…shopricke. 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 per tè 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 supplicâss…t, votum suum hac vice obtinuisset. Walsing. citat. apud Antig. Brit. in vita Joh. 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: on ly 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 aspersion… 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 transl…ting 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 Transl…tion 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 Whe…stone 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 ha…h 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.