that the King and those about him did say that the Archbishop had styrred vp the K. of Fraunce and the Earle of Flanders against them and that this was held by them for most certayne vppon diuers euidences But what these euidences were none of them do set down So that heere is no condemnation at all from the Card themselues but only that they relate what the King and his part sayd and yet yow must note that S. Francis besydes other euil translation of the words hath wilfully corrupted the last clause of all to make it seeme as though it proceeded from the Card. iudgment to wit Quadrileg de vita B. Thom. lib. 5. cap. venientes as is by diuers euidences most certayn wheras in latyn after the first words Asserebat Rex sucrum pars c. The king with the greater part of his affirmed that the Archbishop had done this c. yt followeth Sicut sibi pro ceâ—to constabat euidâ—ntibus apparebat indicijs as to them it was held for certayne and appeared by euident signes Out of which woords S. F. of purpose cutteth of both sibi and indicijs False dealing of Syr Francis to them signes For that by the first yt was euident that this was spoken in the name of the King and his frends and not of the Card. and by the second appeareth that the euidence which the King and his had of this matter and accusation was founded only in signes and coniectures which being euident to our K â— he did not only stryke out the sayd words but maketh also a seuere inference vpon the rest that are left mangled by him self as yow haue seene his inference is this Pag. Ibid. Now sayth he for a subiect to styrre vp forrein states to make warre vpon his soueraygne and countrey was at all tymes high treason but that Becket did so by the Card confession was by diuers euidences most certayne Therfore Becket not now his enemies but his brethren the sonnes of his owne mother being iudges was a traytor Lo heer the inuincible argument of our learned knight yf any man can trust him hereafter vpon his woords I shal much maruaile seing him so shamelesse in a matter so euideÌ„t For who discouereth not the impudency of his second proposition when he sayeth that Becket did so by the Card. confession whâ—ras the Card. confesse no such thing but only say that the king and his people did affirme it nether did the Card. say as our K t. falsly chargeth them that the matter was certayne to them by diuers euidences but only that the king sayd yt was certayn or seemed so to him by diuers euident signes and coniectures Shamefully then hath our K t. abused the authority of these Card. as he doth comonly all authors that come through his haÌ„ds And with this I end this controuersy of S. Thomas his cause with the King which cause whatsoeuer the K t. tatleth to the coÌ„trary yet was yt neuer accouÌ„pted treason or named so by any author that wrote in that tyme eyther frend or foe nor shal S. F. be able to alleadge me any one instance to the contrary before Luthers dayes And as for the King himself though he pursued him eagerly for that he would not yeild to his desyre touching Eccles. iurisdiction yet neuer is it read that he euer called or couÌ„pted him for a traytor nor any forrayne Prince whatsoeuer And within 8. yeares after his death as before I noted both he and Lewes the K. of Fraunce went in Pilgrimage to his tombe at Canterbury which is lykely they would not haue done nether the one nor the other yf they had reputed him for a traytor Iohn Stow putteth downe the relation thus The 27. of August both the Kings came to Canterbury Stovv anno Domini 1179 reg Hent 21. 25. where they were with due honor receaued c. Lewes K. of France offered vpon the tombe and to the shryne of Thomas Becket a riche cup of gold he gaue also that renowned pretious stone that was called the regal of France which K. Henry the 8. put afterwards in a ring wore yt on his thombe c. Thus saith Stow out of other authors And whether king Lewes of France would haue taken a iorney into England to the shryne of a man that he knew and had talked withal few yeares before and would haue offered such pretious gyfts yf he had suspected him for a traytor or that his miracles had byn faynd as after Sir F. affirmeth and whether king Henry himself being no way forced therunto wold haue accompained him in such an action to his owne disgrace who commonly was reputed to haue byn the cause of his death yf he had held him for a traytor let euery man iudge And so we shal passe from his point to another about his miracles wherin the cauillers shew themselues more vayne conscienslesse and malitious yf it may be then in the former OF S. THOMAS HIS myracles and what may be thought of them and other such lyke with the malitious corruption and falshood vsed by Iohn Fox and S. F. to discredit them There is handled also the different manner of Canonising sainctes in their and our Churche CAP. XI AMONG many other arguments that I vsed in the VVardword for the holynes of this Archbishop to all which this VVastword answereth no one word at all I said also that many miracles haue byn recorded by graue authors and publike testimony of the whole Iland 〈◊〉 3. and of forraine wryters to haue byn wrought by God at his sepulcher and otherwise by his intercession in witnes of his sanctity Vpon which words Syr F. taketh occasion with his heretical spirit of incredulity to iest and blaspheme at all miracles of Pope-made Saints for that is his coÌ„tumelious terme but with what reason truth prudeÌ„ce or piety we shal somwhat here examine by this occasion noting first two poynts to this purpose The first that the miracles of S. Thomas doÌ„ne presently after his death had a circuÌ„staÌ„ce annexed vnto them Tvvo especial confiderations in the miracles of S. Thom. which greatly confirmeth their certainty to wit that they brought with them the publike reproof of one of the greatest kings that day in Christendome if not the greatest of all which was king Henry the second by whose fault he was put to death who laboured with all his power for auoyding that infamy eyther to suppresse or improue the miracles that fel out And who knoweth not what the force and fauour of such a Prince may do in such a cause and yet was the multitude and euidency of S. Thom. his miracles such as they brake through all obstacles that the king could put against them and so conquered himself also as he finally yeilded and went to his sepulcher wept did pennance as by all authors is euident This then is the first poynt of consideration in this affayre
in lyfe by this new religion but all worse And Luther himselfe vpon his owne tryal Luth Poâ—â—iâ— sup Dom. â— Aduent both wrote and printed Mundus fit quotidiè deterior sunt nunc homines magis immodesti indisciplinati multoque deteriores quam fuerunt in Papatu The world is daylie worse men are now more immodest more indisciplinable and a great deale worse then they weare vnder the Popedome And Aurifaber Aurif de dictis Luth. Pag. 623. one of his cheife schollers testifieth these woords of him that he was often wont to say Post reuelatum Euangelium virtus est occâ—sa iustitia oppressa temperantia ligata deuotio pulsa nequitia facta quotidiana Since the ghospel was reuealed vertue of lyfe is slayne iustice is oppressed temperance is bound deuotion is put to flight wickednes is daylie increased Thus said these men in the very primitiue Churche of their new ghospel and what our men especially in England may say now of this argument I leaue it to common experience to iudge And Syr F. least he should goe to farre in this matter of good workes saith Tvvo cautions of the K. against good vvorkes we must take heed to auoid two extremities The first proud presumption before God that we put no opinion of merit in our workes secondlie that before men we auoid all hypocritical ostentation Lo heere good reader two great peryls of good workes layd before thee but no vtilityes remeÌ„bred Trulie I had thought when I heard him talke of two extremityes that as the one was to attribute to much to good workes so the other should haue byn to attribute to litle but both are cautioÌ„s against good workes and therfore I maruaile how they may be called extremities Absurdity seing they may be both in one and the selfe same man to wit presumpsion hipocrisy which yet is against the nature of extremes yf S. F. remember wel his Sophistry learned in Oxford But marke I pray yow the difference of spirit and Doctrine in these men from holy Scripture which euery where encorageth vs exceedingly with the merit and reward of good workes Math. 5. Rom 2. 7. Cor 9. Coloss 1 1. Timoth 2. Iam 2. 2. Pet. 1. 2. Pet. 1. as also that they should shine before men wheras our ProtestaÌ„ts are careful to warne vs that they are perilons things to engender presumption and ostentation Wher-vnto their Father Luther addeth further that they are also pernicious to saluatioÌ„ which yf yow ponder wel is but a cold exhortation to the exercise of good workes Luth. â—om 2. â—ol 322 rom 5 in Gal cap. 4. fol. 382.400 for that yf not only they haue no merite but are perilous also for presumption and hypocrisie yea pernicious sometymes to saluation and that on the other syde our corrupt nature sensualitie flveth them and swayeth to the contrarie of her owne inward instinct who wil leese his pleasure to labour in them and consequently it is no maruaile though these fruits grow so thinly vpon protestants trees as their neighbors I weene wil beare them witnesse in England And as for Syr F. himselfe notwithstanding his protestatioÌ„ afterward that he would be loath to yeild to any Papist whatsoeuer in this poynt of good workes seing it is a peculiar blessing of his people as yow see yet I do not heare nor vnderstand that this blessing doth so abound in him for the practise Syr F. not so famous for good vvorkes as he vvould seeme as that his tenants and neighbours wil be his witnesses thervnto especiallie if the common fame be true of certayne things which heere I wil not name for christian modestie sake for respect eyther of himselfe or his familie or of both though he in his owne person litle sheweth to deserue that respect not hauing held the same with others of greater moment yea princes themselues but I shal deale more modestlie with him and let him goe free from further â—ouch at this tyme but for the matter it selfe concerning him and his in general for good lyfe and workes excepting in particuler those that may be excepted I may coÌ„clude as S. Augustine did a litle before about the Churche that as it is most insolent madnesse to dispute against that which the whole Churche doth practâ—se so to auouch that of Protestants liues and good works wherof all countryes and nations do see and proue the contrarie and their owne authors also do coÌ„fesse as hath byn shewed is litle lesse madnesse And with this I might end this poore protestant blessing of good works especially seeing that after againe I am to treat of the same subiect but that our knight wil needs alleadge S. Bernard for his former caution against the merit of good workes in these words Cap. 15. S. Bernard abused Bona opera sunt via regni non causa regnandi which he according to his fashion fraudulentlie expoundeth thus good works are the way wherein we must walke to the kingdome of heauen but not the cause wherfore we shal obtayne that kingdome c. Wherein first yow must note that he vseth heere also his foresaid old shifte not to quote the place or book where we may fynd this in S. Bernard least he should be taken tripping as a litle before about the other two Fathers S. Hierome S. Augustine yet hauing sought much in S. Bernard at length we fynd the place in the verie end of an excellent treatise he wrote Catholike doctrine about merites of good vvorkes De gratia libero arbitrio shewing therin how Gods grace doth concurre with mans freewil in all meritorious workes by stirring vp mans wil to worke with promise of reward and strengthening him to the performance therof by the assistaÌ„ce of his diuyne grace in respect wherof to wit of the free promise made by God to reward our good workes wherto he was not bound and of the preuenting and assisting vs by his holie grace to the working of the same our merites are to be attributed vnto him as to the first and chiefe efficient cause and not to our selues though our concurrance be necessarie thervnto also and in this sense S. Bernard in the place by our knight aleadged hauing spoken much of the merits of good workeâ— wrought in Christ and by the force of his grace he concludeth thus Merita nostra spâ— quaedam sunt seminaria Bernar. traâ—â— de gratia libero arbitrio ad finem charitatis incentiuae occultae praedestinationis indicia futurae felicitatis praesagia via regninon causa regnandi Our merites are certayne seedes of hope inkindlers of charitie signes of secret predestination foresages or tokens of our felicitie to come the way to the kingdome of heauen but not the cause of our raigning Thus sayth he and that he meaneth heere by the cause of our raigning the principal efficient cause and author which titles are proper only to God and so
attributed by all Catholike writers and not the secoÌ„darie instrumental meritorious cause ascribed by vs to good workes is euident first by the very next immediate woords folowing in S. Bernard vpon the former Rom. â— Quos iustificauit sayth he non quos iustos inuenit hos magnificauit God hath magnifyed and exalted to his kingdome not those whom he found iust of themselues but whom he by his grace did make iust by which words S. Bernard doth inferre that all the merits of our good workes together with the reward promised to them do come originallie and principally from God and consequentlie both the one and the other are to be ascribed vnto him as vnto the chiefest cause though also by our voluntarie concurrance thervnto when we are moued by God we haue our interest therin and are trulie said to merit lyfe euerlasting which S. Bernard doth explicate most excellentlie a litle before in the same place his wordes are these hauing spoken first verie largly of good workes Bernard ibid. Verum haec sayth he cum certum sit diuino in nobiâ— actitarâ— spiritu Deâ— sunt munera quia verò cum nostrae voluntatis assensu nostra sunt mâ—rita Wheras it is certayne that these good workes by me before mentyoned are wrought in ys by the spirit of God they must needs be called the giftes of God And for that they are done also by the consent of our wil they are our merits Thus sayth he and then doth he prosecute the same with a large and learned discourse vpoÌ„ the words of S. Paul to Timothie where he sayth Bonum certaemen certaui c. I haue fought a good fight â— Tim. 4. I haue ended my course I haue kept my fayth and for the rest then is layd vp for me a crowne of Iustice which God the iust iudge shal restore vnto me at that day Vpon which wordes S. Bernard sayth thus If it be so that the verie wil of doing good in S. Paul wherof all merit doth depend was not his owne but receyued from God how doth he cal it a croune of Iustice which he assureth himselfe to be layd vp for him is it perhaps for that whatsoeuer is freelie promised it may be iustlie after the promise made required as due debt c. he saith further for that S. Paul beleeued the promiser he now confidentlie exacteth the promise which promise though it were of mercy yet now it is to be payd of iustice c. For it is iust that God should pay whatsoeuer he oweth and he oweth whatsoeuer he hath promised c. and of this iustice it pleased God to make Paul a partener Iustitiae Paulum Deus voluit habere consortem vt coronae faceret promeritorem Bern. pag. 1069. to the end he might make him also a deseruer of his crowne and in this he made him both partener of his iustice and deseruer of his crowne when he vouchsafed to make him his helper or coadiutor in doing good works wherunto his crowne is promised further he made him his coadiutor when he made him to consent to his holy wil and motion Lo heere how S. Bernard doth connect ioyne togeather the operation of God and cooperation of man in the matter of merit attributing to God the first and principal motion of grace mercy promise and inabling vs to worke and vnto man that he concurreth freely by cooperation with Gods instinct so as the reward of this worke which is the Kingdome of heauen yf we respect the first cause which is God it is mercy and yf we consider the secondary instrumental cause which is man the promise of God made vnto him it is called iustice and dew debt let vs heare S. Augustine in the same matter Aug. hom 14. lib 50. homiliarum 2. Tim. 4. and vpon the same words of the Apostle For the rest saith the Apostle there remayneth to me a crowne of iustice which God the iust iudge shal restore to me at the last day Behould he saith that God shal restore a crowne vnto him ergo he is his debter Aug. in Psal. â—â— And againe in another place vnde debitor accepit aliquid c. Whence is God become a debter hath he receyued any thing or doth he owe any thing to any man and yet behould Paul doth hold him for his debter saying God shal restore vnto me c. what shal he restore vnto thee Paul but that which he oweth whence doth he owe any thing vnto thee what hast thow giuen vnto him Truly God hath made himselfe a debter not by receyuing any thing but by promising so as yt may not be said vnto him restore that which thow hast receyued but pay that which thow hast promised Thus do wryte these holy Fathers shewing how God becometh debiter to the merits of our good works not by their owne nature but by his owne voluntary free promise and mercy yet deny they not the truth of this merit nor blaspheme yt as our foÌ„d K. doth saying that it is a proud presumption before God to put any opinion of merit to our works Pag. 19. but yow haue heard out of the Fathers how they do not only put opinion of merit in good works but do plainly affirme and teach yt and that it is dew debt supposing Gods promise made to reward them Wherof also it followeth that albeit the saying of S. Bernard be most true in the sense alleadged that our merits be the way to the Kingdome of heauen but not the cause speaking of the first and principal cause yet were those words not truly but frandulently translated by our K. that they are not the cause wherfore we shal obtayne the Kingdome as though they were no cause at all which is false and absurd for that noe man can deny them to be the instrumental meritorious causes of obtayning heauen seing God hath promised heauen as a reward vnto them and hauing promised is bound in iustice to preforme the same as now yow haue heard by the Fathers declared And so much of this matter for this place The fift beatitude which this blessing-maker bringeth is freedome from persecution The 5. blessing freedome from persecution and as he calleth them halcyon dayes when he sayth The litle barke of Christ Iesus before tossed with the waues and stormes of furious and bloudy presecution hath found now some repose and rest Pag. 20. About which blessing I would aske the K. certayne questions therby to come to the truth of the matter auoyd impostures and first I would aske him whether this freedome from persecution be common to all or to some only that is to protestants and then whether this be passiue or actiue in them that is whether they stand out free in them-selues or do suffer other men also to be free from persecutioÌ„ for yf it be not a common blessing to all but particular to themselues then can yt
Caluyn in matter of the Queenes Supremacy which he denyeth Beza in the whole gouernment of their Churche Or why should I beleeue S. F. or his new masters of EnglaÌ„d rather theÌ„ these that were more learned then he or his or what reason rule or foundation haue any of these men to beleeue their owne opinion more then others but only self wil and fancy This then is the first and greatest spiritual benediction or malediction rather that I fynd to haue happened to our realme and nation by this wooful alteration of religion that wheras before we had a direct rule squyre pole-starre to follow which was the vniuersal Churche now euery man being set at liberty holdeth beleeueth and teacheth what he listeth Nor is there any way or meane left to restrayne him for straight way he appealeth bodlie and confidentlie to the Scriptures and there he wil be both maister and Pilot boteswayne him-self to gouerne the bark at his pâ—easure for he admitteth no iudge no interpreter no authoritie no antiquitie nor any other manner of tryal which is the greatest madnes and malediction that euer could happen among men of reason And the very same cause that moued the Warder to be so liberal then in setting downe this poynt hath moued me now to repeat the same againe in this place And what do yow think that the knight his champion haue replyed to all this playne and manifest demonstration would not yow think that both of them for their credits sake should haue buckled vp them-selues to ioyne in this yssue with the warder shewing what certainty they haue or which of the two wayes they wil take proposed by him seeing he sayth there are no other or that they should theÌ„-selues at least appoynt some other way but consider good reader the force of euident truth they are so blanked and their mouthes so shut vp with this interrogation of the warder as the K t. thought it best to passe it wholie ouer with silence as before hath byn touched The minister with more shame then the K t. hath tatled somwhat Idle tatling in a grauâ— question telling vs that our religion is not Catholyke that the vniuersal Church could not deliuer it vnto vs quia actiones sunt suppositorum as yow haue heard that StapletoÌ„ teacheth that the Churche hath power to proue taxe and consigne the books of holy Scripture And that vniuersal tradition is the most certayne interpreter therof And finally that the fayth of Papists is buylt vpon the Popes fancie and opinion and it is ful of nouelties and old heresies and the like as before yow haue heard All these tatlings he hath vpon this discourse before rehearsed of the warder and almost in as many words as I haue recyted theÌ„ but to the matter it selfe about certainty or vncertainty in religion ne griquidem he answereth no one word at all only to the later parte or appendix of the discourse where the warder sayth that to make the matter more playne how protestants haue no other rule of beleef he asketh S. F. not of any Catholyke Doctors nor auncient Fathers whome he esteemeth not but of their owne new Doctors Luther Caluyn Beza and the like authors of their owne sects why English Protestants at this day should preferre their owne iudgments before these also whom they graÌ„t to haue had great store of the holy ghost in all matters doctrines and interpretation of Scripture where they dissent from them To this I say all the other storme being past it seemed good to the minister to make his answere in these wordes But sayth this Noddy why should yow beleeue more your owne opinions then Caluyn concerning the Q. supremacy Luther concerning the Real presence and Beza in the Churche gouernment I answere first that these mennes priuate opinions concerne not fundamental poynts of fayth Pag. 21. A most foolish ansvvere of O. E. about Luther Caluyn c. and therfore they are not to be brought foorth for instance in this cause where we talk of the foundations and reasons of Christian fayth Marke wel his answere good reader iudge who is the noddy he sayth two things the one that the iudgments of Luther Caluin and Beza be but priuate opinions among them the other that the poynts wherin they differ from them to wit the real presence in the Sacrament her Ma ties Supremacy ecclesiastical and the whole gouernemeÌ„t of the Churche are no fundamental poynts of their faith For the first I would gladly know what authority is auayleable among them in teaching preaching and interpretation of Scriptures yf Luther Caluyn and Beza be reiected as priuate and particuler men where they differ from them our Doctors and Churche they do defy the ancient Fathers they look not willingly after them their owne parlament this maÌ„ sayth a litle before doth not appoynt but admit their religioÌ„ only who then is hee or who are they that must determine and defyne in this case For the second yf the difference with Luther about the real presence of Christs real body in the Sacrament be no fundamental poynt of fayth seing they accuse vs of the highest cryme vnder heauen about the same that is of idolatry and holding a creature to be the creator and we them againe of most heynous blasphemy highest wickednes vpon earth in discrediting Christ in his owne words that said it was his bodie his whole Church that euer so vnderstood him vnto this day yf the matter of supremacy be no fundamental poynt of fayth VVhat pointes are fundamental in protestants doctryne wherby all their ecclesiastical hierarchie standeth at this day in England as their Bishops Deanes Archdeacons and other prelates and parsons of the Spiritualty who otherwise must needs be playne intruders and meere lay men If their whole gouernmeÌ„t of their Churche be not fundamental wherof dependeth whether they haue any true ministers preachers and teachers lawfully allowed or no consequentlie whether their Sacraments be Sacraments and be administred by them that haue authoritie so to doe if all these poynts I say be not fundamental in O.E. opinion what are fundamental And what Atheisme doth this Martial minister diuels deane bring in vpon vs But beleeue me good reader these good fellowes do only eate of the ministerie and beleeue as please them and this being a compagnion of many occupations wil liue by that which wil yeild him most according to that also shal be his doctrine and beleef Of their great grand-father fryer Martyn Luther he sayth here in the words folowing his former answere Pag. â—1 O. E. his contemptious speach of Luther and Caluyn VVe suspend our opinion and giue no approbation to Luthers opinion concerning the carnal presence of Christs body in the Sacrament for that we see the doctrine to be newe and not taught by the Apostolyke Churche nay we find yt to be repugnant to the Apostles doctrine deliuered in Scriptures
in Dei maâ—u non quâ—uis Euery man is not in the hand of God And finally Deus non colitur ab homine malo Serm. 55. God is not worshipped by an euil man c. In all which sentences yow se there is need of some censure examimation according as this Index doth note and albeit by marginal notes they are pretended to be taken out of auncient Fathers yet neyther is it alwayes so nor do they coÌ„teyne good doctrine as yow see it appertayneth to the sollicitude of the Cath. churche to giue notice therof where need is least simple people be deceaued And thus yow se that we haue iustified the practise of our Churche in this behalf and haue shewed the quarrels to be vayne and foolish and not sincerely treated by him and when all is sayd and considered yow shal fynd it farre from his purpose which is and ought to be to proue if he could that we forbid lay men to meddle in matters of religion which â—e proued first for that they had not the scriptures in English and then for that we peruert as he sayth the ancient Fathers with the ceÌ„sure of deleatur when any sentence lyketh vs not Of which two proofes whether is most from the purpose let the reader iudge who hath heard them both discussed The calling in of O. E. But wil yow heare now in a woord or two what S r. F. FraÌ„cis souldiar of supply O.E. saith in this point VVhat the minister O. E. saith about this controuersy First yow must imagine he had seene all both what the watchman and the Warder had said before and what Syr Francis also had replied and yet he commeth in with a flat new assertion as though he had seene nothing hitherto Pag. 5â— Likewayes saith he they teach that laymen may not medle with matters of religion that is that Princes haue no power to reforme the Churche nor make Ecclesiastical lawes Yea Syr Minister wil yow run out at that hole and is that the meaning of the K t. assertion How then followeth the second part that therby we make all laymen carelesse of God and all godlynes and how doth the K t. himself go about to defend it by saying that we barre â—ay-men from reading scriptures in English can this be vnderstood only of Princes and their authority to make ecclesiastical lawes Who euer saw such brasen faces as not to blush thus to disagree But harken to his inference vpon this bold assertion and confesse that he may beare the bel for impudency Yf the Papists sayth he do so remoue lay-men from gouernment in Eeclesiastical causes that they need not to care how God is serued then are they not wroÌ„ged by S r. Francis c. Who would loose tyme to dispute with this compagnion and much lesse to answere him in his â—rantick contumelious speech against F. Persons which all men knowing to be vniust and false and so to be prooued by infinit witnesses and to proceed only from a slaunderous and ignominious tongue of a lewd malitious minister is rather to be â—ontemned then answered And so this shal suffice for examination of this position ABOVT S. THOMAS of Canterbury whether he were a traytor or no as malitiously he is called by sir Francis and O. E. and what notorious impostures both they and Fox do deuise to disgrace him against the testimony of all ancient wryters CAP. X. BVt now we must come to a greater controuersy about S. Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury whome Syr Francis without all occasion bringeth into controuersy among other impertinent points to maintayne matter of talk For his subiect being of lay-men debarred the scriptures and therby as he sayth made carelesse of God all godlynes how might it fal to his purpose think yow to rayle at this blessed archbishop martyred so long agoe and raigning now in heauen for so many hundred yeares but that such prince-parasits as these do think they cannot grace themselues sufficiently with Kings and Queenes now a dayes in EnglaÌ„d except they haue a fling at this hoâ—y man who stood in the gappe and lost his lyfe for the defence of his Churches liberty Wherfore S r. F. hauing both falsely and foolishly witten in the watchword that among Catholyks there was no more required at lay-mens handes to the exercise of pieâ—y but only to go deuoutly to masse and to confession once a yeare and then though he were to be taynted with the grossest sinnes yet Rome had a trick to hale them into the rabble of their saints and so to canonise them Yow se how liberal this gentleman is in canonizing that requireth no more perfection but once a yeare to go to masse and confession and then he addeth Of this we haue example of Tho. Becket in K. Henry the 3. his tyme whose treason to the Prince was apparant and manifest c. Thus saith he in his Watchword wherin the Warder tooke him vp for diuers vntruthes and absurdities as namely for saying that we hold it for sufficient perfection of holines to heare masse and confesse once a yeare and that a man may be a Saint with vs yea canonized though he be taynted with the grossest sinnes that may be That S. Tho. of Canterbury was such a one canonized in the tyme of K. Henry the third c. which last point to omit the rest about the tyme of the death A grosse error About the tyme of S Thomas his death and canonization of S. Thomas vnder K. Henry the third as this man saith and not the second is shewed not only to be false but of grosse ignorance also seing that K. Henry the 3. nephew to the second was borne more then 30. yeares after the death and canonization of S. Thomas to which represension of error in story I do not fynd that S. F. giueth any reason of iust excuse in this his reply now nor yet O. E. for him but rather as though nothing had byn said against him for it turneth to repeat againe the same error vnder pretence of a namelesse author though in the manner of telling his tale he would couertly seeme somwhat to answere the obiection for thus he wryteth To examyne a litle saith he the State of this Becket Pag 55. who was a traitor as I do affirme and not I only but * None euer except some late heretiks many before me against king Henry the second but to vse the words of my author taken vp and shryned for a new saint made of an old rebel 50. yeares after his death which was in the fourth yeare of king Henry the third c. But this being so notorious an vntruth if he meane of his canonization as by his former woords in the Watch word may appeare he being reprehended for it before as yow haue heard for modesties sake should at least haue named his author for some shew or defence For if it be Iohn Fox or
poynts contayned in this matter the one we haue gotten that in some cases spiritual prelates though subiects in temporalityes may reprehend and resist yea chasten also by Ecclesiastical punishment their liege lords and temporal princes without being traytors for the same The second whether the examples be like we are to examine a litle in this place And first I would aske our minister that denyeth the fitnes of the examples The comparison of S. Thom vvith S. Ambrose Hillary and other fathers as also his master that chafeth at them what and where about were the foresayd Saints contentions with their temporal Princes were they not for the defence of the lawes of Christ and his Churche did not S. Iohn Baptist withstand Herod his temporal Lord to his face for breaking the lawes of wedlock and was not the strife of S. Ambrose with Valentinian his Emperour first for that he would not deliuer vp a Catholike Churche to the vse of Arrians as he and his mother had commaunded and secondly for that he would not giue vp the treasure and vessels of his Churche into the Emperors owne hands as he required Heare his owne testimony thereof S. Ambr. in orat in AuxoÌ„ de Basilicia traden Cum esset proposituÌ„ saith hee vt ecclesiae vasa iam traderemus c. when it was proposed vnto vs in the Emperours name that wee should deliuer him the vessel of our churche I gaue this answere If any thing of my owne were demaunded eyther land howse gold or siluer I would easely yeild vnto him any thing that were belonging vnto mee But from the Churche of God I told him that I could take nothing for that I had receyued it not to deliuer but to keep And that with this I had respect also of the Emperours saluation For that it was neyther expedient for mee to giue nor for him to receyue Accipiat ergo vocem liberi sacerdotis c. Let his Maiestie then receyue the word of a free priest if he wil haue care of his owne saluation let him cease to offer iniury to Christ. Lo here the answeare of an ecclesiastical Prelate but a temporal subiect to his highest Prince doth not this seeme to bee speach of some Catholyke Bishop to a Protestant Prince that would inuade Churche goods possessions against which poynt S. Ambrose was so resolute to stand as he sayth in the same place that yf sorce were vsed towards him his flesh might bee troubled but not his mynd and that he was readie yf the Emperour would vse his kingly authority in offring violence to stuffer that which belonged to a good Priest to beare And what doth this differ now from the cause of S. Tho. of Canterbury who stood vpon defence of his Ecclesiastical iurisdictioÌ„ against K. Henry his temporal Prince that vsurped the same Heare the words of S. Thomas himself vsed to K. Henry in a CouÌ„cel at Chynon in FraÌ„ce as D. Houeden sets them downe Rog. Houe in vit Henr. 2. pag. 285. Non deberetis Episcopis praecipere absoluere aliquem vel excommunicare trahere Clericos ad saecularia examina iudicare de decimis de ecclesits interdicere Episcopis ne tractent de â—ransgressione fidei vel Iuramenti c. Yow ought not to take vpon yow to commaund Bishops to absolue or excomunicate any man neyther to draw cleargie men to the examinatioÌ„s of seculars neyther to iudge of tythes or of churches or to forbid Bishopâ— to treat of transgressioÌ„s against faith or against oathes broaken or the like c. Doe not wee seme to heare in this place the voice of S. Ihon Baptist to his K. Herod It is not lawful for the to haue the wyfe of thy brother S. Marc. 1â— Or is not this agreable to the speach of S. Ambrose to Valentinian that he could not force him to deliuer any churche or holy vessels thereof and that he would dy in that quarrel against him But let vs heare an other controuersy of his with another Emperour more deuout religious then the former The contention of S. Ambrose vvith Theodosius the Emperor to wit Theodosius the great in Millain for that he would not do publike pennance prescribed by this holy B. to him for the excesse in punishing those of Thessalonica and had not this beene rebellioÌ„ and treason by Protestants law for a priest to driue his king and Emperour that by their diuinity was head of their churche to publike penance and to go out of his Churche as S. Ambose did compel Theodosius to go out of the churche of Millan But let vs go forward and see the rest of examples before touched Pallad in vit Chrysost. was not the contention of S. Chrisostome with Arcadius and Honorius his Princes Emperours and with their wyues when he kept some of them by force out of his churche about ecclesiastical liberty and iurisdiction also And that also of S. Athanasius Hilarius against Constantius their Emperour and supreme head also according to the Protestants opinion in spiritual matters for that he fauored Arrians deposed Catholike Bishops and made himself vmpyre in ecclesiastical affayres as Protestants Princes doe now a dayes Did S. Tho. Primate of England say or write more to K. Henry at any tyme then S. Gregorie Nazianzen a particular Archbishop sayd vnto his Emperour that was present and angry with him Nazian orat ad Ciues Imper. â—rasceÌ„tem Vos quoque potestati meae meisque subsellijs lex Christi subiecit scio se esse ouem mei gregis sacri gregis sacram ouem Yow also o Emperour the law of Christ hath made subiect vnto my power and to my tribunal I know thee to bee a sheep of my flock a sacred sheep of a holy flock If Nazianzene had sayd this to an English King or should doe at this day how would our Protestants Prince-parasytes cry out and say that he were a proud Prelate as they say of S. Thomas The cheif and onelie contention of king Henry with the Archbishop as before in part you haue heard was about ecclesiastical iurisdiction as the articles set downe by all wryters doe testify The articles vpon vvhich S. Tho. disagreed vvith the king as namely that no Bishop might appeale to the Sea Apostolike without licence of the king that no seruant or tenant holding of the king might be excommunicated without his licence that no Bishop should bee able to punish any man for periury or breaking his faith that all cleargie men might bee forced to secular iudgments as all controuersyes also pertâ—yning to tythes and other like cases And now yf these controuersyes should haue fallen out as in part they did betweene the auncient christian Emperours and the holy Bishops before named would they not think you haue stood in them with no lesse feruour then S. Thomas did But now let vs heare and examine how Syr F. doth proue this holy Archbishop to bee a
The second is that this matter of miracles is an ordinary common place wherin the scurrility of incredulous and scoffing heretiks doth enlarge it self very much and often it being a subiect sit for that purpose seing that miracles being aboue the common course of natural things must needs haue some disproportion or improbability in the sense of ordinary vnderstanding that measureth all by that they see with their eyes and then being set forth also with mocks and moes in the most ridiculous sort that malice can deuise and the improbability increased commonly by such lying circumstances as are added by the reporter it serueth to entertayne and make mery the incredulous ignorant or light of hart and to bring them by litle aed litle to trust or beleeue nothing that passeth sense or excedeth the reach of euery particular mannes reason These two obseruations then being premised in this matter vve shal passe to examine what our vnbeleeuing knight bringeth in to discredit miracles And first to beginne withall and to make some path and preamble to the infidelity which heere he meaneth to teach he alleadgeth vs an old prouerbe as he calleth it which for more credit he setteth downe in different letter VVastvvord Pag. 58. That many are worshipped for Saints in heauen whose soules are burning in hel And for this in his margent he quoteth ex Auentino Ex Auentino but Auentinus his works and storie being verie great why did he not quote the book chapter or place For though Auentinus be not of much credit with Catholikes in his historie yet might we haue examined vpon what occasion and in what sense he said it for that in some sense it may be somwhat true and yet help nothing Syr F. his cause nor the infidelity he endeauoureth by his doctryn to establish For suppose yf that should fal out so that some christians were deceaued about the particular holines of some persons who being honored vpon earth for Saints were none in deed but rather damned as it is reported by some that S. Ambrose by reuelation discouered that two bodyes which had byn honored by some simple people for martyrs not to haue byn those martyrs but rather the bodyes of two malefactors which suppose it were true what hurted that the Churche of God or what hindred that the merit and deuotion of those simple people that being deceaued honored those memories as of special seruants and saincts of Christ and receaued no doubt the reward of their deuotioÌ„ according to their meaning and holy intention not according to the external error happened in the material obiect Material error in honoring saintes huâ—â—eâ—h not the deuout as yf when Christs body was rysen from the sepulcher the Iewes had put one of the two theeues bodies there that were crucified with him and S. Mary Magdalyn and the rest had annoynted that body thinking it to be Christs had this think yow diuinished their merit or made their act superstitious as heretyks cal it So as theÌ„ this material error litle importeth and consequently the place out of Auentinus yf it be there is nothing to the purpose For auoyding notwithstanding of the which and lyke errors great care was had in the primitiue Churche that the acts of Martyrs deathes and burials should be diligently obserued and distinctly coÌ„mitted to wryting for which cause not only the Bishops themselues were imployed therin euery one in his owne diocesse but a deacon also vnder euery Bishop The diligeÌ„ce of the primitiue Churche about Martyrs and S. and a subdeacon vnder euery deacon and a publyke Notarie vnder euery subdeacon were assigned to attend to this particular care And in Rome for that it was so big and deuided into 7. regions seauen deacons and seauen subdeacons with seueral notaries vnder them had this charge as appeareth in the Romane register ascribed to Damasus in the lyfe of Clement Damas. Pontifical in vit Clement Fab. c. Fabian Anteros Iulius and other Bishops of Rome And the-same to haue byn obserued also in the Churche of Millan testifieth Paulinus the Notarie of S. Ambrose Bishop of that cittie who wryting the lyfe of thesayd sainct sayth he was vnder the charge of Castus deacon to gather such things togeather of saincts Paul in vita Ambros. c. And before this agayne Pontius the deacon of S. Cyprian afirmeth that blessed Bishop and Martyr to haue byn so sollicitious in gathering the gests of Martyrs Pont. Diac in vita Cypriani as he would haue the very dayes exactly noted in which each one suffred which S. Cyprian testifieth also himself in his Epistle to the Priests Deacons of his Churche of Carthage Ep. Cyprian ad presb Diacon and of other Bishops before him Pont ibid. thesayd Potius sayth that they were so studious in this care as not only of all Baptised Christians but also of Catecumeni if they were martyred order was giuen to haue their acts written c. And this we read also put in practise by many other Churches of the world as by that of Vienna in Austria by Lions in France by AlexaÌ„dria in Egypt and the lyke as appeareth by their Epistles registred by Eusebius and other wryters This was the spirit of the ancient primitiue Churche and the very same diligence by lyke spirit hath byn continued by the Catholyke Churche euer since The processe needful to CanonizatioÌ„ of saincts not only in the acts and gests of martyrs but of other holy men also since martyrdome in great part hath ceased as may appeare by the long processe and most diligent examination of hundrethes of witnesses by lawful and indifferent iudges appoynted when any man is to be Canonized or declared for holy in the Churche after his death which thing for more certayntie and lesse partialitie is done by order and authoritie of the highest iudge and Pastor in spiritual causes and it is not done but vpon many yeares examination commonly except the cause be otherwayes made euident to all This is the practise of the Cath. Churche heere now let S r. F. or any other wrangler or calumniator equal to himself tel me if any meane of trying meÌ„nes merits holines be to be had in this lyfe what better or more indifferent way can be taken then this which is by the highest and most vniuersal Magistrate that we haue in our Churche Fox-made-saincts not to be compared to Pope-made-saincts wheras amoÌ„g them euery particular man as Ihon Fox for exaÌ„ple maketh saincts and vnmaketh them at his pleasure and putting them downe in his Calender in great red letters for martyrs or confessors or in black lesser letters for lesser saincts as he thinketh best without any other examination or approbration of superior authority and that which is most ridiculous of all he careth not of what fayth or religioÌ„ they were of among themselues so they were contrarie in any one part to the Catholykes yea
that they sinned deadly for being of that opinion And this for the first two vntruthes auouched so audaciously by our K t. other two there are which I wil not staÌ„d vpon The 3. and 4. vntruthes but remit him to the authors that wryte therof First that Pope Sixtus decreed this controuersy against manifest scripture playne testimonies of Fathers and the streame of his owne Doctors And secondly that he tooks 〈…〉 c. Let the is est 〈…〉 of two 〈…〉 the one 〈…〉 other to 〈…〉 Zuares vpon 〈…〉 27. and he shal 〈…〉 fathers Doctorieâ—â—ere are brought for both sides which I do auoyd to alleage of purpose in this place in regard of the constitution of Pius quintus forbidding all wryting of this matter in vulgar tongues to the vnlearned sort who are not capable of this disputation amongst which I accouÌ„t S. FraÌ„cis for one howsoeuer he accouÌ„teth of himself nether doth he only shew himself vnlearned but malignant also who goeth about to calumniate Pope Sixtus for this fact of great prudence and piety in decreeing as he did and not as the false Knight relateth And this may be sufficient for this matter for that the grounds principles of his babling being meerly false and forged as I now haue shewed to wit that eyther Pope Sixtus defined the question affirmatiuely for our B. Ladies conception out of original sinne or that he excommunicated all that held the contrary opinioÌ„ it must needs follow that all the inconueniences and obiected blasphemies buylded by him therin as castles in the ayre must fal and he vnder them and so we leaue him for the present and wil passe ouer to his minister and se what he bringeth or hath to say also in this affayre 〈…〉 by the subiects and how falsly the minister doth behaue himself in all these points CAP. XIII WE hauing hitherto seene and beheld how wel our knight hath discharged himself about the former position of obedience to Popes and their commandements we must needs now giue a litle roome also to his champian or Proctor O.E. who vndertaketh his defence though somewhat more coldly and much more impertinently then the knight himself fighteth for himself You shal see by the issue of the combat how truly this is spoken First this minister hauing cited the words of Syr Francis thus Pag. 53. That albeit the Pope and his cleargie comaund blasphemies c. yet must he be obeyed vpon paine of damnation he addeth presently and his meaning is most true not so much defending the words as the meaning of the wryter as though he had had conference with the knight about it For iustifying of which meaning he bringeth in this substaÌ„tial proof Iames 〈…〉 K. Henry the 〈…〉 the popish 〈…〉 this 〈…〉 the proof 〈…〉 he in the 〈…〉 detestable 〈…〉 example of Gods 〈…〉 most excellent misteries of Christs 〈…〉 c. and then he quoteth in the 〈◊〉 the oration of Sixtus Quintus and la sulmanante c. But first yf all this were true which is most false and wickedly deuised out of his owne fingers ends A vayne riâ—â—culous kind of prouing and that Sixtus Quintus had sayd that it was 〈◊〉 case and a dreadful example of 〈…〉 for that kings euil behauiour and mâ—rder of the Duke of Guise and his brother the Cardinal after his faith giuen to them to the contrary a litle before receauing theron the blessed Sacrament how doth this prooue that we hold the man that so disorderly killed him for a martyr But now the rest which he saith that Sixtus Quintus in the consistory of Cardinals should so much commend that act and compare it to the most excellent misteries of Christes incarnation and resurrection c. is a most shamelesse and heretical fiction without all truth or probability For what similitude or likenes hath the killing of the King of France to the misteryes of Christs incarnation and resurrection or what man is there liuing this day in Rome or 〈…〉 which was hetherto seene 〈…〉 of to this effect And yf by la fulminaâ—â—â— our minister do meane the excommunication against the king of Nauarre that then was the ly is euident for so much as that excommunication was set fourth foure yeares at least before the other king was slayne And by thiâ— yow see how the ministers triumphant demaund is answered who after the former iâ—â—pertinent and forged stuffe set downe asketh And what hath eyther Parsons the Iesuite or this personate Noddy to obiect against vs in this poynt Pag. Ibid. Yow haue hard what is obiected and it seemeth the personate Noddy hath said and is like to say so muche ere he end this combat as the ministers nodle wil be much troubled in answering him and proue himself no personate but a personal and real noddy Wel forward yet he goeth to shew that Catholikes hold themselues bound to obey the Pope though he commaund blasphemies against God About disloyalty to Princes and disloyalties against Princes And for the second about princes it is not a matter to be much discussed heere for that it dependeth of the examination of many causes and circumstances 〈…〉 by which 〈…〉 when the 〈…〉 to the 〈…〉 not And on 〈…〉 as haue byn made 〈…〉 our dayes in Fraunce Germany 〈…〉 Scotland for setting forward of their new ghospel against the wils and commandements of lawful princes Our minister I am sure wil hardly coÌ„fesse them to be disloyaltyes though we think they be And so seing that Protestants do allow wel of such disloyalties when they are in fauour of their owne faction and that we haue shewed in our former Encounter very largely out of their owne words wrytings Enc. 1. cap. 6. that no rule of obedience or subiection holdeth them when they mislike the magistrate or his doings it is malepart saucinesse in this prating minister to keep such a doe about disloyaltyes so much defended and practized by themselues no wayes approued by vs but where lawful authority iust causes and other circumstances do make them loyaltyes There remayneth then the first poynts about blasphemies About Blasphemies And how think yow doth this minister proue that we hold our selues bound to obey the Pope or any priest coming from him though they should commaund blasphemyes Heare his arguments as they ly his first 〈…〉 obedience 〈…〉 this he 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 called an 〈…〉 subiection to 〈…〉 But to the 〈…〉 professe obedieÌ„ce 〈…〉 Vicar and substitute 〈…〉 it follow therby that either the Pope wil command them blasphemies or yf he would or could that they must needes obey him therin seing their obedience to him is in respect of Christ and for Christ and blasphemies are against Christ and this folly is no lesse ridiculous then if one should say for examples sake to the NeapolitaÌ„s at this day yow professe obedience vnto your Viceroy as to the king of Spayne himself ergo if he should command yow treasons against