lesse the true substance of things handled by him I do pretermitt as very fond and impertinent the next passage that ensueth and is the last in this matter in M. Barlow his booke where he maketh this demaund But what if there be none or few that make such conscience or take such offence at the admission of the Oath as he speaketh of To this question I say it is in vaine to answere for if there be so few or no Catholikes that make conscience or scruple to take the Oath the contention will be soone at an end But presently he contradicteth himselfe againe taking another medium and saying that there would be none if they were not threatned by vs to haue their howses ouerturned as some Donatists sayth he confessed of themselues by the witnesse of S. Augustine that they would haue bene Catholikes if they had not bene put in feare ne domus corum euâ—rtâ—râ—ntur by the Circumcellians perhaps which M. Barlow sayth may spiritually be applyed to our threatning that such as take the Oath shall be accompted Apostataes and to haue renounced their first fayth and to be no members of the Catholike Church and finally that we shall remayne branded in euerlasting record with Balaams infamy that taught Balaac to lay a scandall or occasion of fall to the people of Israell To all which I answere first that he that layeth forth the truth of Catholike doctrine vnto Catholike men may not iustly be sayd to threaten or terrify but to deale sincerely and charitably with them laying truth before their eyes what their obligation is to God before man and how they are bound as members of his true Catholike Church to hould and defend the vnity and integrity of â—ayth and doctrine deliuered by the same though it be with neuer so much temporall danger And as for laying a scandall wherby they may fall into the ruine of their soules it is easy to iudge whether wee do it rather that teach them to deale sincerely with God and their Prince wherby they shall preserue their peace and alacrity of conscience or you that indeauoâ—r to induce thâ—â—â—â— sweare and doe against the same wheâ—eby they shall be sure to leese both their peace in this life and their euerlasting inheritance in the next THE ANSVVER TO AN OBIECTION BY OCCASION VVHEROF IT IS SHEVVED THAT POSSESSION and Prescription are good proofes euer in matters of Doctrine AND The contrary is fondly affirmed by M. Barlow CHAP. V. THERE remaineth now for the finall end of this first Part to examine an obiection that might be made by the aduersary which I thought good by â—â—ticipation to satisfy in the very last number of the first parâ— of my Letter And it was that wheras we complaine of so great pressures layd vpon vs for our conscience especially by this enforced Oath some man may sayâ— that the liâ—â— course is held in the Catholicke States against themâ— whome we esteeme as heretickes I shall repeate my owne words and then see what M. Barlow answereth to the same Here if a man should obiect quoâ—h I that among vs also men are vrged to take Oathes and to abiure â—heir opinions in the Tribunalls of Inquisitions and the like and consequently in this Oath they may be forced vnder punishment to abiure the Popes temporall authority in dealing with Kings I answere first that if any hereticke or other should be forced to â—biure his opinions with repugnance of conscience it should be a sinne to the inforcers if they knew it or suspected it neyther is it practised orâ— permitted in any Catholicke Court that eueâ— I knew But you will reply that if he doe it not he shal be punished by dâ—ath or otherwise as the crime requireth and Canons appoint and consequently the like may be vsed towards Catholikes that will not renounce their old opinions of the Popes authority But heere is a great difference for that the Catholike Church hath ius acquisitum ancient right ouer heretickes as her true subiects â—or that by their baptisme they were made her subiectes and left her afterwardsâ— and went out of her and she vseth but her ancient manner of proceeding against them as against all other of their kind and quality from the beginning But the Protestant Church of England hath nullum iuâ— acquisitum vpon Catholickes that were in possession before them for many hundred yeares as is euident neither was there euer any such Oath exacted at their hands by any of their Kings in former Catholicke timesâ— neither is tâ—eâ—e by any Catholicke forraine Monarch now liuing vpon 〈◊〉 and consequently by no â—eâ—son or right at all can English Catholicke men be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience or be punished beâ—â—â—â— or destroyed if for their conscience they refuse to take tâ—e same humbly offering notwithstanding to their Soueraigne to giue him all other dutifull satisfaction for their temporall obedience and allegiance which of loyall Catholicke subiects may be exacted And this shall suffice for this first point concerning the contents and nature of this Oath This was my speach and conclusion then And now shal we take a vew how it is confuted by M. Barlow First be amplifyeth exaggerateth with great vehemeÌ„cy the torments and tortures of our Inquisitions which are vsed as he saith with the most extreme violence that flesh can indure or malice inuent wherin he sayth more I thinke then he knoweth and more perhaps then he belieueth and at leastwise much more then is true in my knowledg For of twenty that are imprisoned there not one lightly is touched with torture and when any is in the case by law appointed it is knowne to be more mildly then commonly in any other tribunall But let vs leaue this as of least moment and depending only vpon his asseueration and my denyall and let vs passe to that which is of more importance for iustifying the cause it selfe to wit by what right of power and authority the Roman Church proceedeth against heretickes and how different it is from that wherby Protestants pretend to be able iustly to proceed against vs for matters of Religion First of all he sayth that I do take as granted that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church which we deny sayth he and the chiefest learned of their side could as yet neuer conuict our denialls Wherto I answere that if themselues may be iudges that are most interessed in the controuersie I do not meruaile though they neuer yield themselues for conuicted But if any indifferent iudgment or triall might be admitted I do not doubt but that their euiction and coÌ„uiction would quickly appeare and many learned men of our dayes haue made most cleare demonstrations therof by deducing the Roman Church doctrine and fayth from the Apostles dayes vnto our times successiuely as namely Doctour Sanders his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Monarchy Cardinall Baronius in the continuation of his Annales Gâ—nebrarâ—
the other he concludeth triumphantly saying Let the vnpartiall tryall be the seuere iudge either way Which I also desire and withall aduertise the Reader that in some things I am the shorter where much aduantage is giuen for that the same is afterwards by F. Persons himself handled in due place in the ensuing discussion 43. The controuersy then in hand is about the comfort which our meritorious actions do yield and what confidence is to be reposed in them which the Cardinall deliuereth in three Conclusions the last whereof M. Barlow will haue not only to contradict the two former but to be opposite to all the â—iue bookes which are written of that matter which because as F. Persons well noted it seemed strange that fiue bookes should be contradictory to one propositioÌ„ M. Barlow telleth him he should rather haue thought it to be a very strange conclusion which in so small a roomth should haue matter to crosse a discourse so large This then we shall now discusse and for better perspicuity I will lay downe togeather the three conclusions of the Cardinall which M. Barlow will haue to be so contradictory and then examine his proofes for the same The first is The confidence of holy men which they repose in God proceâ—dâ—th not from only faith but from then good merits and therfore we are to labour all we can fâ—â— merits that therby we may haue confidence in God The second Some confidence may be placed in good merits whicâ— are knowne to be such so that pride be auoyded The third For the vncertainty of our righteousnes and danger of vaine glory the surest way is to place all our confidence iâ— the only mercy and bounty of God So Bellarmineâ— prouing ech assertion out of the Scriptures auÌ„cient Fathers but before-hand giuing this caueat to the Reader which cleane dasheth a good part of M. Barlowes verball assault that it is not all one to say that confidence may arise or grow from merits and that confidence may be placed in merits for it may so fall out that a maâ— may repose almost no confidence in his merits for that he knoweth not certainly whether he haue any true merits or not and yet he may abound both with true great merits and out of these merits there may proceed in him a great confidence towards God by which distinction the whole câ—ntrouâ—rsy may be decided and diuers authorities of Scriptures and Fathers which othâ—rwisâ— may seeme repugnant be reconciled Thus the Cardinallâ— Now let vs see what Syr William doth bring to impugne this doctrine and to proue it contradictory 44. He beginneth with a diuision of vera and perâ—â—câ—a iustitia which he calleth the two principall hâ—ads to which all the chiefe questions of that conâ—rouersy in Bellarmine may by reduced By iusticeâ—e â—e vnderstandeth inherent and by perfect iustice that which is able to abide the triall of Gods iudgement But â—ere is much mistaking for that neyther doth Bellar. â—n this sense call our iustice perfect neyther can the perfectioÌ„ of a thing which must needes be intrinsecall â—o the essence be said properly to depend of an extrinsecall effect as is the triall of Gods iudgement or the reward which is giuen in respect of our righteousnes that proceedeth froÌ„ the inhereÌ„t grace within vs without any relatioÌ„ or depeÌ„daÌ„ce of the future iudgmeÌ„t at al. 45. From this diuision he coÌ„meth to a distinction of vncertainty which he saith is either rei or personae of righteousnes it self or of the party that hath it This is as wise as the former for I would faine know of M. Barlow how there can be incâ—rtiâ—udo rei vnles it be de futuris contingentibus for a thing as it is existent cannot be vncertaine but hath his being essence and therewith his truth vnity And in M. Barlowes example the hypocrite who hath no true righteousnes and consequently not inherent cannot be said to haue incertitudinem râ—i for that it is certaine as we do suppose that he hath no righteousnes at all and all the vncertainty depeÌ„ds on the person who thinketh him to haue righteousnes when he hath it not not of the thing it self which is determinatae Veritatis of determinate truth in the affirmatiue or negatiue and truth to vse M. Barlowes Martiall manner of speaking either of â—ssâ—nce or propriâ—ty cassiâ—res all vncertainty the affirmatiue or negatiue so aâ— still M. Barlow stumbleth and with his subtile distinctions ouerreacheth himself and confoundeth all learning 46. Well then this vncertainty being of the person what saith he thereunto In this he is somewhat briefe but very confident and concludeth thus If it be of the person then merit is cut of And why good Sir For merit saith he raiseth a confidence but where there is no comfort there can be no coÌ„fidence in vncertainty there is no comfort for relyance on that whereof a man doubts causeth rathâ—r a feare to be deceaued then a confidence to be releiued So he Which argument supposeth as graunted that our meritorious workes breed confidence which we deny not if he meane of that confidence towards God before mentioned then it ruÌ„neth in this forme Where there is no comfort there is no confidence but in vncertainty there is no comfort ergo no confidence and so consequently no merit That the force of this syllogisme may the better appeare I shall apply it to another matter thus Where there is no comfort there is no confidence but when our Sauiour prayed in the garden sayd tristis est anima mea vsque ad mortem and cryed ouâ— on the Crosse my God my God why hast thou forsaken me there was no comfort ergo no confidence and then Caluins blasphemous and desperate illation of our Sauiours despairing on the Crosse will soone be proued from which all learned Protestants no lesse then Catholicks do worthily disclaime But this is the diuinity of Syr William 47. Againe there is great equiuocation in the word vncertainty which M. Barlow taketh in the most generall and absolute signification as excluding all manner of certainty and knowledg whatsoeuer when as in Bellarmyne it is taken far otherwise for in the second Chapter of his third booke hauing distinguished two sorts of certaintyes the one euident the other obscure Of this later he maketh three degrees the first is of the certainty of faith cui nulla ratione potest subesse falsum the second of such things as are belieued for humane authority but so common as it excludeth all feare though not all falsity for that all men may be false and either deceaue or be in such things deceaued Of this sort he puteth for examples that Cicero and Virgil were famous men that Augustus Caesar was Emperour that Alexandria is in Egypt Constantinople in Thrace Hierusalem in Palestine Antioch in Asia and then declareth the last degree in this manner Tertium
was this I find no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholike affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith and what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true Mother therby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother but only the declaration Wherfore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth is a meere calumniation amongst the rest So in my former writing now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points In the first whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obedience he is very briefe for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation that the Popes Breue forbids not temporall Obedience No saith he it forbids the Oath wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance But this we deny and haue often denied and still must deny and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands who though he hath often affirmed the same yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue For that being once proued all controuersie about this Oath were ended And it is a strange kind of demeanour so often and euery where to affirme it and neuer to proue it He addeth for his reason in this place He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne and sayth neuer a word more But what doth this proue Or in what forme is this argument For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor that we do so or that the Popes Breue doth so we vtterly deny it as manifestly false For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour Wherfore this proofe is nothing at allâ— But he hath another within a leafe after which is much more strange for he bringeth me for a witnes against my selfe in these words VVhat hitherto sayth he he â—aâ— laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue â—â—insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grâ—â—teth If this be so that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduantage and some cause to vaunt but if no word of this be true and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen that is forced to inuent these silly shifts Let vs lay forth then the mystery or rather misery of this matter as himselfe relateth it The Pope saith he being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause or reason of the vnlwâ—ulnes of the Oath the Epistler saith there are as many reasons that it is vnlawfull as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion against which they must sweare And is not this a good reason say I Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the coÌ„science of a Catholike man from swearing But how doth be proue by this that I confesse the Breue to forbid temporall Obedience Do you marke I pray you his inference and consider his acumen But there is no one poynt sayth he in the Oath that doth not so to wit that doth not concerne Religion euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience I do sweare before God that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme c. Ergo I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles and consequently leaueth no Obedience ciuill or temporall But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion euen the very first Article that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience â—hen doth it not touch religioÌ„ in our sense For that we do distinguish these two deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts the one conteyning points of temporall obedience for acknowledging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes the other concerning points of Catholike Religion belonging to the Popes Authority To the first wherof we refuse not to sweare but only against the second And now M. Barlow sayth that all concerne religion and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedience but denieth all And is not this a worthy dispute But let vs passe to the second question whether the Pope or Church hath authority to make new Articles of faith as the Apologer obiected And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part that the Catholicke Church preâ—endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith that were not of themselues true and of faith before he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Hermes and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall Whereto I answere that Doctor Stapleton sayth only that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not admitted before as for example the Epistles of S. Iames the two bookes of Machabees the Epistle of Iude and diuers others as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and suâ—scribed so hath the same Church at this day and shall haue vnto the worlds end authority to do the same Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret sayth Doctour Stapleton that is if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto herâ— librum aliquem alâ—â—m nâ—ndum in Canâ—nem recepâ—um Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes
both teach and demonstrate the same 15. Another exaÌ„ple in this kind I might here produce touching his doctrine of contradictions and his grosse mistaking of the same but that will come after in due place to be discussed where I examine his dispuâ—ation about the first contradiction obiected to Belâ—armine Now let vs see his ignorance in historyes In historyes what greater ignorance can there be committed then to relate fictions for truth which haue no coherence eyther in place tyme or persons And yet M. Barlow doth this so confidently as he did the former of vnity of names Let one example suffice for this matter by which alone the Reader may of himselfe coniecture of the rest Alexander the third is charged to haue seÌ„t Fredericke the first his picture to the Turke that he might by the same know him kill him also if he came into his hands and that euen whiles he was fighting the Lords battailes which obiection M. Barlow saith pincheth the Pope to the quick And I must confesse that had the matter bene as he doth relate itâ— none can deny but it had bene very barbarous indeed But in the last chapter of F. Parsons ensuing Discussion it is shewed and conuinced most euidently that Alexander was dead at least 7. yeares before that Frederick euer thought of going against the Turke and eight before he came into Armenia VVhat ignorance then is there in this Minister so to write and triumph vpon lyes How shall his Auditory belieue what he teacheth them out of the pulpit that blusheth not to vtter such false and iniurious slanders in a printed booke 16. I might heere most of all insist vpon his dealing with Pope Innocentius the fourth whom he relateth to haue done many things against Frederick the second vpon the credit of Vrspergensis and yet that very Author saith that they fell out betweene Gregory the 9. and Fredâ—rick many years before Innocentius was Pope And yet such a writer is M. Barlow as that he will not only ascribe all vnto Innocentius but also from that supposall draw this most malicious inferenceâ— That he went about to poyson the said Emperour What more blind ignorance and malicious dealing can be imagined then this But for that this is afterwards very largely handled in the last Chapter of the ensuing Discussion I will here no further treat therof nor yet of his telling the Reader out of Binnius Cicarella that Pope Sixtus statua of brasse was for that he was extremely hated after his death cast downe c. which all Rome and the statua it selfe yet standing conuince to be a lye Binnius hath no such word in this Popes life neyther doth Cicarella say at all that it was cast downe But it delighteth M. Barlow like a blynd horse in the battaile boldly to aduenture vpon any thing be it neuer so false fond or improbable The like â— kill he sheweth in making Conradus à Lichetenau to be a different writer from Vrspergensis and Petrus à Vinâ—is to differ from Petrus à Vinea with other infinite like ouersights in this kind which cleerly shew that to be true of himselfe wherwith he charged his aduersary F. Parsons but could exemplify in no particular In storyes he is a great florisher but a false relator of them 17. Neyther is he a more false relator of historyes then an vnkillfull interpreter of the holy Scriptures in which it is strange to see how he tosseth the text what sense he yieldeth and what Commentaryes he maketh thereon and that either by mistaking the meaning of the words or by ridiculous application or by forcing arguments from the same which haue no dependance no coherence or agreement with the place he cyteth yea not sticking â—ometymes to corrupt the very text it selfe with â—ome addition of his owne thereunto to make it conclude more forcibly against vs so saucy he is â—n so sacred a matter I will giue briefly one example â—n ech kind where the Spouse in the Canticles is commended for all manner of vertuesâ— vnder the allegoricall types of Myrh Frankencense and all Aâ—othecaryes dust what thinke you doth Barlowâ—ake â—ake of this dust Doth he interpret it to signifie any particuler vertue Nothing lesse For he saith it is worldly delights of honour and wealth for that 's pâ—luis pigmentarius saith he the Merchants he should say Apothecaryes wisestâ— and quoteth in the margent the Canticles and place where it is to be found And is not this trow you a great commendation of the Spouse that she ascendeth through the desert of this earth with al worldly delights of honor wealth which tickle the eyes and blindes the sight of the wisest What may not be proued by Scriptures where such application is allowed And here to make the best Commentary in M. Barlowes excuse there is at least great mistaking of the true sense of the word dust which I thinke in no other Author besides himself is taken for worldly delights of honour and wealth as neyther in any Dictionary that euer I saw is pigmentarius taken for a Merchant But M. Barlow hath absolute authority to gayne-say both Grammar Scriptures and all manner of learning 18. As for ridiculous application what more fond conceipt could he make then to compare Gods diuine prouidence vnto Rammes-hornes for thus speaking thereof he saith The prouidence of God in gouerning of his Church is like the ruinating of the walls of Hierico by Rammes-hornes it is powerfull not violent spirituall but not visible by meanes weake in shew mighty in â—ffect So he And to omit the ridiculous interpretatioÌ„ or rather inuersion of trumpets into Rammes-hornes whereas they were of mettall as S. Hierome Origen and others affirme or made of horne as some later writers and so to be called rather Cornets then Rammes-hornes with which I thinke no man can souÌ„d any blast to omit this foolish error I say me thinkes M. Barlow in this Commentary is very forgetfull of himself for in another place he maketh these powerfull spirituall and mighty Rammes-hornes to be very weake poore and feeble for thus he speaketh of his Maiestyes Apology with contempt to F. Persons As if saith he the Apologers Answer like Hiericoes walls should presently fall with the blast of a Ramms-horne and a few turnes about it and citeth the same place as before So as now the force of the Ramms-hornes is very feeble for the ruinating of the walls by this reasoÌ„ is more to be ascribed to their owne weakenes then to any power of the Rammes-hornes For in case they were so powerfull spirituall and mighty the resemblance which here Syr William makes should be very simple for I thinke he will not say that the Apologers Answere is more powerfull then Gods prouidence which before he compared to the Rammes-hornes Or if he doe I can say no more but that for his labour he well deserueth to be
necessity in some occurrents which we say he hath done by leauing sufficient authority in S. Peterâ— Successours to remedy the same not by their triple Croâ—â—es but by vertue of their Supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority including indirectly this temporall when great necessity vrgeth euen then when they were most poore and lay in caues and vawâ—es vnder ground though there occurred not then occasions to vse the same And thus now would I end this matter but that I must say a word or two concerning two Authours cited in the margent about the same The first is of Aluarus Pelagius an ancient Canonist saith he of their owne who talking of the Mathematicall donation of Constantine saith Palea est at Ecclesia pro granâ— habeâ— And then doâ—h English it that is chaffe indeed though the Church doth hold it for good corne which word though they be in Aluarus yet are they alledged by M. Barlow no lesse theÌ„ commonly are other Authours by him cyted with a guilty conscience for that he well knew that Aluarus doth not hold that Donation to be chaffe but doth approue the same to be true in diuers places of his workes as namely lib. 1. cap. 43. lib. 2. cap. 29. and elswhere which M. Barlow could not choose but know by Aluarus his owne words and whâ—le discourse as also for that otherwise he had coâ—fessed himselfe to hold against the Church who being a Catholike an ancient Canonist of our owne as M. Barlow sayth would neuer haue done nor can be presumed to haue done What then will you say was his meaning in those words quae palea est at Ecclesia pro grano habeâ— Surâ—ly his meaning is far differeÌ„t from that wherin M. Barlow cyteth him And this is that Gratian Compiler of the Canons hauâ—ng this word Palea set downe in his Dâ—cretall and prefixed before diuers Chapters not to signify therby Châ—ffe or contemptible matter to be conteyned therin◠〈◊〉 rather that it was eyther the collection or addition of one Protopalea that was a Cardinall as diuers graue Authors do write or some later collections of Gratiaâ— himselfe noted in the margent for memory and distinction sake with this word Palea deriued eyther from the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth ancient or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifieth rursum or againe as who would say they were additions to the former collections whereof the Reader may see more in the Preface to the first volume of Gratian his Decretalls But in what sense soeuer the word Palea is there takeÌ„ certayne it is that it doth not signify Chaffe in Alâ—arâ—â— his iudgement though he doth allude to the words Chaffe and corne for that the common signification of the latin word Palea importeth Chaffe but that he himselfe did not hold those things for Chaffe and contemptible which are conteyned in Gratian vnder the titles of Palea may appeare by the very first Chapter so intituled which conteyne the words and determination of S. Gregory the first written vnto S. Augustine our Apostle and recorded by Venerable Bede so that the meaning of Aluarus was that albeit this donation of Constantine was recorded by Gratian vnder the title of Palea yet the Church doth hold it for corne that is to say for a matter of truth about which I remit me to those Authors that did write of that affaire loÌ„g before Gratian as Petrus Damianus accompted for a most holy learned man before the Conquest Iuo CarnoteÌ„sis others So as here the vntruth of M. Barlow alledging of Aluarus against his owne meaning is euident that he intended therby to deceiue his Reader As for the second that is Bertrand in the addition vpon a glosse of the Common law whom M. Barlow alleadgeth to say that our Lord sauing his reuerence had failed in his discretion for gouernment of this Church if he had not left such a gouernement therein for deposing of incorrigible Princes there is no great matter to be stood vpon therin but only his manner of simple speach which M. Barlow out of his sincerity maketh alwayes worse by his relation for wheras Bertâ—and saith Videretur Dominus God should seeme to haue fayled this man maketh him say God had fayled and wherâ—s Bertrand saith vt cum reuerentia eiâ— lâ—quar that I may speake it with due reuerence or regard vnto him M. Barlow translateth sauing his reuerence which iâ— our English phrase seemeth contemptible And thus he helpeth himself out at euery tuâ—ne with sleights and shifts neuer vsing sincerity commonly in any thing that passeth from his pen against vs. VVHETHER THE DEVISING AND VRGING OF THIS NEVV OATH VVERE A BLESSING or no eyther to the Receauers or Vrgers AND first of the Receiuers Wherein is handled also of Conscience and of swearing against Conscience CHAP. IIII. AFTER humble supplication made in my Letter to his Maiesty as you haue heard that it would please him to admit the acceptance of this Oath by his Catholicke subiects in the forme and substance that should be allowable by Catholicke Doctrine by yielding all dutifull temporall obedience vnto his Maiesty his heires and successors with reseruation only of their consciences in points that concerne their Religion I was forced to â—â—swere some few lines about that which was sayd in the Apology that God did blesse this godly deuise and intent of making and vrging this Oath by â—he admittancâ— therof by so many Prieâ—â—es and Laickes I thinke it good to repeat my owne wordes againe to the end I may be the better vnderstood But before I do this it shall not be perhaps amisse to set downe the relation of my sayd wordes by M. Barlow wherby you may see how faithfully and sincerely he doth relate them as well here as in all other places for this is his fashion albeit he set them downe in a seâ—erall distinct letter to the end the Reader may imagine that they be mine indeed Is it be a blessing saith he it must bee so first to the takers which are of two sortes eyther in act which are sworne already or in desire which wish they might and dare not The fiâ—st haue no outwarâ— blessing of liberty for they are still imprisoned if inward blessing of comfort he knowes not But to the other it is the greatest pressure of conscience and angariation of minde that euer beâ—ell them for that opprâ—ssion exceedes all other eyther corporall for paines or worldly for losse This is my speach as he setteth it downe both ragged scarce coherent if you consider it well and this couâ—se he holdeth throughout the whole booke that he maketh me speake as pleaseth him to appoint me My owne speach is that which ensueth somewhat more cleare and perspicuous at least wise as you wil see About this matter sayd I where the Apology saith That God did blâ—sse this godly deuise and intent of making and vrging this Oath by the admittance
to be deceiued with the difficulty of this question let him take counsaile of the Church meaning thereby the vniuersall knowne Catholike Church they hauing abandoned this way of Diâ— Ecclesiae tell the Church and of recourse thereunto as to the Columna firmamentum veritatis the pillar and stay of truth so called by S. Paul what remayneth then to theÌ„ for their vltima resolutio but their owne heads and priuate iudgments which are those fancyes oâ— their own braynes which M. Barlow recyted before our of S. Augustine And this shall I make manifest by the ensuing example Yf fiue or six learned men of different ReligioÌ„s should meet togeather in Germany or Transiluania to wit a Roman Catholike a Hussite an Arrian a Trinitarian a Lutheran a Zuinglian or a Caluinist for that all these different Religions are there publikely professed and both by speaches books and sermons preached and maintayned and that you should demauÌ„d of each one of these the reason of his fayth and his vltima resolutio or last rest about the same you should find their answers far diâ—fereÌ„t For if you should demand of the Catholicke for example why he belieueth the Reall Presence he would answere you because it is reuealed by God If you aske him further how he knoweth it is reuealed by God he will say it is conteined in his word eyther written or vnwritten or both Yf you aske him againe how he knoweth it is coÌ„teined in Gods word in that sense that he defends it he will answere for that the knowne Catholike Church doth tell him so by whose authority he is taught what is Gods word and how it is to be vnderstood And if you demand of him further how he knoweth the Church to haue such authority and the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church he will alledg for the former diuers Scriptures acknowledged also by the opposite Sectaries as that before mentioned wherin she is called The pillar and stay of truth and for the second he will alledge so many demonstrations of the beginning growth increase continuance succession and visible deâ—cent of that Church confirmed from time to time with so many miracles other manifest proofes and arguments of credibility as no man in reason can contradict the same so as his vltima resolutio or last stay is vpon the Church testifying vnto vs tâ—e word of God and testified by the same But now the other fiue though neuer so learned in their profession will not answere you thus but being demaunded euery one of them seuerally why they are of that peculiar sect more then of any other and why they are different from the Catholicke in the former article of Reall Presence they will all answere conformably for the first step that they doe build vpon the word of God yea the writteÌ„ word only But if you go a step further demand of them how they know that this written word is well vnderstood by them for so much as they are of fiue different Religions founded by them all vpon the same written word here now they cannot passe any further to the foresaid Catholike Church for finall resolutioÌ„ as the first did for that they all do impugne her but ech man must defend his different interpretation of that written word by his owne iudgement or els by the iudgement of his owne Congregation and Sect which in effect is the same So as these fiue learned men do remaine irreconciliable as you see for want of a ground from whence to take their vltima resolutio and do shew themselues according to the former speaches of Vincentius and S. Austine both Heretikes and Idolatours in that following the â—ule resolution of their owne heads they adore as many Gods as they haue selfe-conceipts for ground of their fayth And will you say that this poynt of vltima resolutio was wisely brought in by M. Barlow being a thing wherby himselfe and his are condemned to haue no last resolution or certayne ground at all for their beliefe but only their owne â—eads But oh sayth he you depend for resolution vpon the Pope which is so vncertaine as what one Pope decrees another disallowes But I haue now answered that we depend vpon the Catholicke Church as propounding vnto vs and expounding Gods word and we depend of the Supreme Pastour as head of that Church vnto whoÌ„ we rest assured by Gods owne word and promise that he will assist him with his spirit for all resolutions in matters of fayth which shal be necessary for his sayd Church nor can M. Barlow prooue that what one Pope decrees in these matters of fayth another disallowes One of them may well alter matters of policy gouernment Ceremonies or the like but for poynts of fayth we do allow M. Barlow sixteene hundred yeares to seeke them out And if in so long time he could haue produced but one true example I suppose we should haue had it I doe willingly pretermit a great deale more of idle impertinent speach which M. Barlow vseth about this matter of Catholiks Consciences â—hewing indeed to haue little himselfe nor yet to know well what it meaneth and much lesse speaketh he to the present purpose For he telleth vs first that if pressure of conscience may serue for good Plea of Recusancy to Princes lawes there is neyther malefactor for crime nor hereticke for schisme but that will make that his Apology Wherunto I answere that causes persons merits and demerits are to bee distinguished in this matter and not to be confounded For what hath the malefactour for crime or hereticke for schisme to doe in this affaire From the first I thinke the aduersaries themselues will deliuer them or at leastwise theyr neyghbors among whome they dwell and as for the second of heresy and schisme we haue spoken now already sufficiently to shew where those imputations may and must lye not vpon the Catholickes who are opposite to that charge Secondly then he telleth vs that we lacke the light within vs which should driue away the darkenesse of our consciences and purge the eye therof from mist dust lime And vpon this he maketh vs an exhortation that we take heed of Caligo tenebrarum in this life that dusketh the eies of our vnderstanding to perdition especially by worldly delightes desire of honour and wealth this being puluis pigmentarius sayth he the Merchants dust which tickleth the eies and blindeth the sight of the wisest as do also enuy by emulation preiudice of affection wilfulnes by opposition which like vnto lyme tormenteth the eye and peruerteth the iudgement c. And is not this a very graue and serious exhortation comming from such a man as he is knowne to be so clearely inlightned as neyther mist nor dust nor lyme of ambition can sticke vpon a man so hating worldly delights honour and wealth as no part of this merchants dust can tickle his eyes Are not his mortifications
Eliâ—abeths affaires his answere in his owne words is this But dearely beloued there is a difference in faults of men as in diseases some onely are hurtfull to the parties themselues some loathsome and infectious to others the first are to be buried with their bodies forgotten but the other will annoy and therfore must be remembred after death In Scripture some Kinges that were vicious had their faultes touched euer after their buriall but no more yet some are neuer named in Scripture but their sinne is branded vpon their name as often you may see of â—eroboam neuer mentioned but presently addeth the sonne of Nebat which made Israell to sinne This was the mans answer at that time for that it serued for his purpose the same may serue me now against him for if the case of Ieroboam that made Israell to sinne might be applied to the Earle of â—ssex that was of their owne religion and changed nothing therein so far as is knowne and was but a priuate person how much more may the same be applyed to Queene Elizabeth that indeed brought in that fatall diuision and new worship of Ieroboam into her Kingdome which she found quiet vnited with the rest of Christendome in the knowne Catholicke fayth of Christs Church But saith M. Barlow reproaches are vttered eyther for reprâ—ose to amend or for vexation to grieue the parties calumniated both which endes doe cease in death Whereunto I answere that if they be reproches and contumelyes indeed without truth wherof M. Barlowes tongue and pen are fulâ— they serue to neyther of these ends but principally to shew the wiked mind of the vtterer but if they be true as those things are which I haue touched concerning Q. Elizabeth her infelicities â—heÌ„ albeit they be vttered to none of these two foolish ends mentioned by M. Barlow eyther to amend or vex the dead yet are they recorded to warne instruct them that are aliue by shewing Gods iustice vpon sinne his prouidence his power and his care to feare men by terror of euerlasting inâ—amy from the like offences many other such holy ends for the which in Scripture it is a most common ordinary thing to heare the sinnes of wicked Princes repeated and reiterated after death M. Barlow himselfe cannot deny it I did further add also in my former Letter the example of diuers ancient Fathers as Iustinus Martyrâ— Irenaeus Tertullian and others who to comfort the afflicted Christians in theyr dayes and to honour more the cause for which they suffered did put them in mind what manner of pâ—ople and Princes their first persecutors were as namely Nero and Domitian what life they led what end they made and that indeed they were â—it instruments to be the first actors in such a worke which I applying to Queene Elizabeth sayd that the like obseruation and comparison might be made she being the strangest woman that euer perhaps liued for diuers admirable circumstances before touched and the very first absolutely of that sex eyther Christened or created that tooke vpon her Supreme Power in Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters c. Wherunto M. Barlow comming to answere and hauing nothing at all to say to the purpose doth so childishly trifle as is most ridiculous telling vs first that if the Papists may comfort themselues for that they haue bene beaten by a woman then may the diuell comfort himselfe also that a woman is prophesied in Genesis according to our interpretation to breake his head Sysera also the Captaine may glory that he was ouerthrowne by a woman But this is triflingâ— for I doe not say simply by a woman but by such a woman as neuer was the like in diuers points of enormity against Câ—thâ—licâ—â— religion and therin was the Fathers obseruations of enormous manners of Nero and Domitian and not in the sex as they were men Secondly he sayth that diuers Popes were more like to Nero and Domitian then Queene Elizabeth but this is also trifling For neyther is the matter proued if it could be yet doth it not improue my comparison as it was some comfort to the ancient afflicted Catholickes to consider what manner of Princes they were that first began most sharpe persecution against them so might English Catholickes doe by consideration of the person of Queene Elizabeth that first of all women persecuted them in England and with inspeakable monstrosity made her selfe Head of the Church Thirdly he sayth about this matter that heauen and hell arâ— not more different then those Christian martyrs of the Primitiue Church from these later of English Papists for they sayth he acknowledged the Emperors supremacy independant vpon any but God prayed for them seriously both lyuing and dying c. But this now is more then trifling for it seemeth to me meere madnes to say that ancient Christian martyrs vnder Nero and Domiâ—ian did acknowledge those Emperours Supremacy independant vpon any but God which inferreth to my vnderstanding that they acknowledged them for Supreme Headeâ— of the Catholicke Church in those dayes for so signifieth the worde Supremacy in the controuersy betweene vs and the wordes immediatly following independant vpon any bâ—â— God doe seeme playnely to confirme the same as doth also the comparison and contrariety it selfe which hee putteth betweene those old Martyrs and ours For if he had meant of temporall Supremacy there had not bene any difference or contrariety betweene them For â—hat our Martyrs also doe acknowledge temporall Supremacy to Kings and Princes though not spirituall which inferreth that M. Barlow ascribing more to the ancient Martyrs vnder Nero and Domitian must needes meane that they held them â—or Heades of their Church euen in spirituall Ecclesiaâ—ticall aâ—fayres although they were Pagans and â—oe consequently might and ought to repayre to them in matters of controuersy about Christian Religion and were â—ound to follow their direction therein And if this be not more then trifling especially for a Prelate to vtterâ— I leaue to the discreet Reader to consider But now let vs see briesely some of his answers to the points before rehearsed of Queene Elizabeths life and death First he sayth to the note about her birth and disgrace by her Father and Parlament that the Scriptures are not soe Censorious for God himselfe mislikes the Prouerb that it should be sayd the fathers did eat sower grapes and the childrens â—eeth were sett on edge but this is folly for I alleadged it not as a sinne of hers for the sinne was her fathers and mothers but as some disgrace in temporall felicity Then he telleth vs that in some places the ciuill Lawes doe permit some bastards to succeed Item that she shewed well by her courage and other Princely qualities that she was King Henries daughter Item that her selfe did so far coÌ„temne those slaunders published in print as shee would neuer consent to haue them cleared but rather scorned them Item that
the consequeÌ„ce of this argument Wherunto I answere that I alleadged diuers reasons why our Catholick Priests dyed for religion not for treason First for that no such treason could be proued against them in the sense and iudgement of any indifferent man that was present at their arraignments to wit of the one hundred and thirty that before I mentioned Secondly for that the publike Registers themselues and Histories as Iohn Stâ—w and others in their Chronicles doâ— obiect no other treason to the most of them but only being Priests their taking of holy Orders beyond the seas which in no sense can be treason no more then the confessing of the blessed Trinitie can be made treason by the Trinitarians in Transiluania Thirdly for that they themselues dying did protest vpon their consciences as they should be saued they neuer meant treason in thought word or deed against Queene Elizabeth And then â—ourthly for confirmation of this I alleaged this other reason so much scorned by M. Barlow they hauing life offered them if they would renounce the Pope conforme themselues to the State they refused the same which he saith is a false and faulty inference and I say it is very good and true and that if M. Barlow had any moderate skill of the case according to the rules â—yther of Philosophy or Diuinity he would be ashamed to say as he doth in Philosophy it being a common axiome that omnis actus specificatur ab obiecto fiâ—e euery action is specified that is to say taketh his nature and essence from his obiect and end As if a man should kill one to gayne his goods this act hath both the nature of man-slaughter theft the first from the obiect the second from the end or intention of the doer which Philosophicall principle being applyed to our case doth euidently proue that the choice of death in him that hath life offered vpon conditioÌ„ he will doe some act against his faith as going to the Protestants Church is esteemed by Catholickes though otherwise he were nâ—uer so great a delinquent before is an act of Martyrdome for that it hath both the obiect and the end therof the obiect to wit death the end which is the profession of his faith And so if we passe to consider the same by Theologyâ— which more properly treateth of this vertue of Martyrdome the controuersy will be made much more cleare for that the word Martyrdome being a Greeke wordâ— and signifying a Testimony or bearing of witnesse as the word Martyr signifyeth him that yealdeth testimony or beâ—reth witnesse euery testmony or bearing of witnesse is not meant by the word Martyrdome but only such a testimony as is giuen by dying for God in the defeÌ„ce of some truth belonging to our faith either expressely impugned or implyed in the impugnation of some other vertue that containeth the sayd truth of our faith therin which last clause is added for that a man may be a true Martyr though he dye not for any expresse article of faith or part therof but it is sufficient that he dy for the defence of any one vertue as Chastity Obedience Iustice and the like according to the saying of our Sauiour Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam Blessed are they that suffer persecutioÌ„ for righteousnes And S. Iohn Baptist is acknowledged by all Deuines for a true Martyr although he died for no article of faith but for reprehending the incestuous marriage of King Herod with more libertie of speach and spirit then any such Prince-flatterer base mind as M. Barlow would euer haue done in the like case if we may ghesse at his vertue by his writing But to apply the former ground and vncontrollable principle to our present purpose in hand whether these Priests died for refuâ—ing the Oath of the Feminine Supremacy or for that they were made Priests beyoÌ„d the seas or â—or that they refused to come to your heretical seruiceâ— certaine it is according to the rules of Catholicke Diuinity that they died for deâ—ence of their faith or maintenance of vertue which is sufficieÌ„t to iustify their Martyrdomes hauing so great warrant and store of all manner of witnesses â—or the truth and doctrine they suffered for as might well in conscience assure them of the righteousnesse of their cause and that they died for that Religion in which all the Princes and people of Christendome for so many yeares ages both liued and died And wheras M. Barlow impugneth this by two cases or examples they are but so many arguments of his owne ignorance Let vs speake a word or two of them both The first is of Absolom putting the case that he was an Idolator as well as a traitor and that King Dauid after sentence passed against him â—or his treasons would acquite him froÌ„ death conditionally that he should renounce his Idolatry and that vpon reâ—usall he should be executed Shall we say sayth M. Barlow that he died â—or Religion or for treason We will say good M. Barlow that he died rather for false religion that is to say Idolatry then for treason and was the Diuels Martyr and none I thinke can deny the same vnles he be as ignorant as your selfe as shall further appeare by the answere to the next example which in effect is all one with this to wit that a yonger sonne should aspire his fathers death with hope to haue his riches and that being condemned his father should offer to saue him if he would go to Church and leaue his euil life of following queaneâ— c. Shall â—e say quoth M. Barlow that he is executed for his whore-domes or for this parâ—icide against his father But here I would aske M. Barlow why he leaueth out going to Church which was the first part of the condition and nameth only whore-domes no doubt but the honest man would haue the staying from the Church in Catholicks and whore-domes seeme to be companions But now I answere to his question that if he meane by refusing to go to Church such as is practised by Catholikes for Conscience sake and not to deny thereby the truth of the Catholicke faith which forbiddeth to go to hereticall Churches then dyeth he for the truth of his faith and consequently he is a Martyr But if he choose to dye for loue of wicked life and whoredome it is no cause of Martyrdome and consequently he is the Diuells Martyr as we said before of the Idolator But as for Parâ—icide cleere it is that he cannot be sayd to haue died for it properly as the immediate cause of his death for that it was remitted vnâ—o him and their passed another election on his mind to wit that he would leaue his old life so as â—or this he died propriè proximè properly and immediately and for the parricide only remotè occasiâ—naliter a far of and as from that which gaue the first occasion of his death What
hartily sincerely I do desire it without any worse affectioÌ„ towards her then harty coÌ„passion notwithstanding all the outcryes raging exclamations made by this intemperate Minister against me for the contrary to wit â—or malice and hatâ—ed against her and for iudging her before the tyme against the prescription of the Apostle S. Paul which I haue not done For Gods iudgements are secret cannot absolutly be known in particuler before the last day when according to the Scripture all shal be made maniâ—est so far as it shal be conuenient for men to know But yet in this lyfe men also may giue a ghesse and take notice according to our present state of many things how they are to fal out afterwards as S. Paul doth often repeate and affirme most resolutly that such as shall commit such and such delicts as he there recounteth shall neuer attayne to the Kingdome of heauen but be damned eternally according to their workes as loose life murthers fornications adulteryes sectes schismes heresies and the like And if one should see or know some persons to commit all these sinnes togeather or the most of them so dye without contrition or peÌ„nance for the same to his knowledg might not he by good warrant of S. Paul affirme that in his opinion they are daÌ„ned Nay doth not S. Paul giue this expresse liberty of iudging to his Scholler Timothy by him to vs when he saith as before also hath bene noted Quorumdam hominum peccata maniâ—â—sta sunt praecedentia ad iudicium quosdam autem subsequentur The sinns of some men are manifest going before them vnto iudgmeÌ„t and others haue their sinnes following them So as iâ— eyther before their death or after their death wheÌ„ the particuler iudgment of euery soule is to be made any mans griâ—uous sinnes be made manifest there is no doubt but that men may iudge also in a certaine sort or at least make to theÌ„selues a very probable and likely coniecture of the miserable state of that party yea more theÌ„ a coÌ„iecture if the Church should censure him for any great sin coÌ„mittedâ— dâ—ing aâ—terwards in the same without due repeÌ„taÌ„ce which is wont to be declared by denying vnto him Christian burial as when they murther themselues the like But aboue all when the said Church doth cut of any body by ExcoÌ„munication from being any more a member thereof for schisme heresy or other offence of this quality a man may make iudgement of his daÌ„nation yea must also for then is he in the case whome S. Paul affirmeth to be sâ—buersum subuerted by heresy that is as much to say turned vpside downe or pluckt vp by the rootes proprio iudicio condemnatum condemned not only by the iudgment of the Church but also by his owne iudgmeÌ„t in like manner when he coÌ„meth to answere the matter for that being bound to follow the direction of the Church he became Haeretiâ—us homo as the Apostles words are that is to say an Hereticaâ—l man one that out of choice or election would neâ—des follow his owne iudgment This point then that a man or woman dying in the excoÌ„munication of the known Catholicke Church may be pronounced to be damned and cannot possibly be saued albeit their liues were otherwise neuer so good and apparent holy is a thing so generally earnestly and resolutely affirmed and incultated by the ancient Fathers of the primitiue Church that no man can doubt of it without pertinacity or impiety For S. Cyprian that holy Bishop and Martyr doth treat the same largely in diuers places saying first that an hereticke or schismatike that is out of the Church cannot be saued though he should shed his bloud for Christ inexpiabilis culpa quae nec passione purgatur it is an inexpiable synne to be an Hereticke or Schismaticke that is to say not euer to be forgiuen nor can it be purged by suâ—fering for Christ himselfe And againe he sayth that such a man can neuer be a martyr though he should dye for Christ nor yet receiue any Crowne for confession of Christian fayth euen vnto death which death saith he non erit â—idâ—i corona sed poena 〈◊〉 it shall not be a Crowne of fayth but a punishment oâ— perâ—idiousnes And many other like places and sâ—yings he hath which for breuity I omit wherin also do coacurre with him the other ancient Fathers that ensued after and namely S. Augustine in many parts of his workeâ— in particuler where he saith against the Donatists That neither baptisme nor Martyrdome profiteth an heretike any thing at all which he repeateth oâ—ten times and in another place he saith If thou be out oâ— the Church thou shalt be punished â—ith eternall paines although thou shouldest be burned quicke for the name of Châ—ist And yet againe the same Father Hereâ—ikes dâ— sometimes brag that they do giue much almes to the poore and do suâ—â—er much for truth but this is not for Châ—ist buâ—â—or their Sect. â—â—oke for whom thou sufferest quia for as miâ—â—us es ideo miser es â—or that thou art cast sorth of the communion of the Church therfore art thou miserable whatsoeuer thou doest or sufferest otherwise For harken to the Apostle saying to himselfe Iâ— I should giue all that I haue to the poore and deliuer my body to the â—ire without â—harity I am nothing he that is out of the Church liueth out of chariâ—y And let the Reader see more of this in S. Aâ—gusâ—ine Serm. Domini in mome cap. 9. lib. 2. contra Petilianum Donatist cap. 98. lib. 1. contra Gaudâ—ntium cap. 33. in Conc. de gâ—stis cum Emeâ—â—â—o where he hath these words Iâ— vnto an heretike that is out oâ— tâ—â— Church it should be said by an enemie of Christ Offâ—r vp sacrifice to my idols and adore my Gods and he in refusing to adore should be put to death by the sayd enemy of Christ for this fact yet shall â—â—le damnâ—d and not crowned I pretermit in this matter S. Chrysostome hom 11. in â—â—ist ad Eâ—â—es S. Pacianus Bishop of Barcelona that liued sâ—mâ—what beâ—ore him Epist. 2. ad Sâ—mpronium S. Fulgâ—ntius tâ—at liued the next age after lib. de fide ad Pâ—trum cap. 29. whose wordes are these spoken with a vehement spirit and some men ascribe them to S. Augustine Firnassime tene 〈◊〉 dubiâ—â—s c. Do thou hould â—or most firme and certayne and no wayes doubt but that whosoeuer is an hereticke or â—chismaticke and therby out of the Church tâ—ough he be baptized in the name of the Father the Sâ—nne and the holy Ghost do neuer so good workes giueâ— nâ—uâ—r so â—â—ch almes no though he should shed his bloud for thâ—nâ— mâ— oâ— Christ yet can he not be saued Well then this is the Maior proposition no Christian man or woman though of neuer so good life can be saued â—ut of the vnitie of the knowne
and defy this communion in fayth with them and haue set forth whole bookes to proue the same which were too long here to repeate Yea Caluinian and Zwinglian Ministers themselues are witnesses hereof in many of their Treatises as namely the Tigurine Deuines who confesse that theyr differences and contentions with the Lutherans are about Iustification Free-will the Ghospell the law the Person of Christ his descent into hell of Gods election of his children to life euerlasting de multis alijs non leuis momenti articulis of many more articles of no small importance which is euident for that Ioannes Sturmius another Zwinglian or Caluinist addeth other controuersies as of the Supper of our Lord and Reall Presence of Predestination of the Ascension of Christ to heauen his sitting at the right hand of his Father and the like adding also that the Lutherans do hould the Protestant Caluinian Churches of England France Flanders and Scotland for Hereticall and their Martyrs for Martyrs of the Diuell And conforme to these their writings are their doinges and proceedings with them where they haue dominion for that they admyt them not to cohabitation nor to the common vse of marriage betweene them nor to be buryed with them after theyr deaths as they well know who haue liued or do liue among them And thus much for the Lutherans of the one syde Now let vs see somewhat also of the Purytans of the other And first of all this matter hath beene handled dyuers times and demonstrated by Catholicke English wryters of our dayes agaynst this absurd assertion of M. Barlow that the differences at this day betweene Protestants and Purytans are not at all concerning religion nor of any substantiall and essentiall poyntes thereof but only Ceremoniall and in particuler the same is conuinced and made most manifest in the Preface of a late Booke intituled An answere to the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports where the different grounds of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power betweene Protestants Puritans and Catholickes being examined it is found that their differences are such as cannot possibly stand togeather to make one Church and house of saluation but that if one hath the truth the other must necessarily remayne in damnable error which is euident also by the writings of Protestants themselues especially by the bookes intituled Dangerous positions set forth and imprinted at London 1593. and the Suruey ofpretended holy discipline made as they say by him that is now Lord of Canterbury and Doctor Sutcliffe as also the Booke intituled the Picture of a Purytan writen by O. O. of Emanuel printed 1603. and other like bookes But especially at this time will I vse for proofe of this poynt the testimony of Thomas Rogers Minister and Chaplin as he styleth himselfe to his Lord of Canterbury who of late hauing set forth by publike authority the fayth doctrine and religion of England expressed in 39. articles vpon the yeare 1607. doth in his Preface to his said Lord haÌ„dle this matter of the differences betweene the Puritans and Protestantes though partially agaynst the discontented brethren he being theyr aduersary but yet setteth downe out of their owne words what their iudgment is of the importance and moment of the controuersyes betwene them to wit that they are not only about Ceremonies and circumâ—tances as M. Barlow pretendeth but about poyntes contayned in scripture in the very Ghospell it selfe They are compryzed say they in the booke oâ— God and also be a part of the Ghospell yea the very Ghospell it selfe so true are they and oâ— such importance that if euery hayre of our head were a life we ought to affâ—ard them all in defence of these matters and that the articles of religion penned and agreed vpon by the Bishops are but childish toyes in respect of the other So they And will any man thinke or say now that these men doe not hould that theyr differences with the Protestants are differences in religion as M. Barlow sayth or that they are only matters of ceremonyes and not of any one substantiall poynt concerning religion Let vs heare them yet further telling theyr owne tale and related by M. Rogers The controuersy betwene them and vs say they of the Protestants is not as the Bishops and their welwillers beare the world in hand for a cap or tippet or a Surplisse but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry and regiment of the Church according to the word of God The first wherof which is a true Ministry they Protestants shall neuer haue till Bishops and Archbishops be put downe and all Ministers be made equall The other also will neuer be brought to passe vntill Kings and Queenes doe subiect themselues vnto the Church and doe submit their Scepters and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and licke vp the dust of the feete of the Church and willingly abyde the Censures of the Church c. This they write and much more in that placeâ— which I trow is more then M. Barlow ascribeth vnto the matter For if it be contayned in Gods booke yea a part oâ— the Ghospell the very Ghospell it selfe about which they contend what proterâ—ity is it on the other part to call it a matter only of Ceremony But yet further within two pages after agayne they doe explayne themselues and theyr cause more in particuler saying Our controuersy with the Protestants is whether Iesus Christ shal be King or no and the end of all our trauell is to bâ—yld vp the walls of Ierusalem and to set vp the throne of Iesus Christ 〈◊〉 heauenly king in the myddest thereof And are these poyntes also not substantiall nor any wayes touching religion but Ceremonies Harken then yet further what they do inferre vpon the Protestantes Church for dissenting from them in these pointes Neyther is there among them say they a Church or 〈◊〉 least wise no true Church neither are they but titular Christians no true Christians indeed And yet will M. Barlow continue to say that there is no difference at all in Religion and that I lyed when I sayd that his Maiesty yeelded to a Conference between Protestants Puritans concerning their differences of Religion VVhat will he answere to the two precedent members touched by the Puritans to witâ— that their strife is for a true Ministry a lawfull gouermeÌ„t therof expounding their meaning to be that for obtaining the first all Bishops and Archbishops must be put downe for the second all temporall Princes Kings Queenes must leaue their superiority ouer the Church submit themselues and their Crownes vnto the same Church to wit their Presbyteries as M. Rogers expoÌ„deth their words And is there no substantiall point neyther in all this but only matter of Ceremony And doth not the very life soule of the Church depend of these two things a true Ministry and lawful Head Is not the power of preaching teaching administration of
and Clâ—ments Constituâ—ions before mentioned So teacheth Doctor Stapleton and the reason of his saying is for that the authority of the Church is the same now shal be vnto the worlds end as it was in the first ages to iudge of Scriptures when occasion is offered And if the Church should admit any such booke now into the Canon of holy Scriptures which was not held for Scripture before which yet is a case not like to fall out then should noâ— this booke be made Scripture by the Church but only declared to be such which was so from the beginning though not so knowne declared So as the Church in this case should not giue infallibility of truth vnto the booke but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost that this booke was such from the beginning though not so accepted So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in cyting Doctour Stapletons words first to conceale his first condition Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret if the holy Ghost should suggest the same vnto the Church and then these other two conditions if it were written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose to make M. Doctour Stapletons speach to appeare more naked and improbable but indeed it was to keep his old custome which is neuer commonly to relate things truly in all respects in any citation whatsoeuer His second obiection is out of Bishop Fisher VVho sayth quoth he that whatsoeuer the Pope with a Councell deliuereth vs to be belieued that is to be receiued as an Article of fayth which we graunting to be true do ad only this that it is to be vnderstood according to our former declaration and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it against â—uther out of Scotus saying Non quòd â—unc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but â—or that it did declare it to be true and to haue bene deliuered by God and this by direction of the holy Ghost promised by our Sauiour to the Church So sayth Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neyther the Church nor the Pope Head therof do pretend to make any new Article of fayth that was not in it selfe an article of fayth before yea and so belieued also fide implicita by implyed fayth in the faith of the Church but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to haue byn such from the beginning though not so knowne or declared and therfore men were not bound to belieue it fide explicita by expresse fayth as now they are after the Churches definition and declaration therof And that this is the common sense of all Catholicke Deuines according to my former wordes that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much adoe as though it were false is proued among other learned men of our dayes by Gregorius de Valentia whose wordes are that it is Sententia communis Theologorum the common opinion of Deuines for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors principall Schoolemen And his whole discourse founded vpon Scriptures Fathers Councells and other arguments consisteth in this that as whatsoeuer is now belieued by the Church for matter of fayth was in substance belieued before in all other precedent ages vnto Christes time actu fidei implicito by an implyed act of fayth that is to say the belieuing in generall whatsoeuer the Church belieued so many thinges are now belieued by the Church actu fidei explicito by expresse fayth which were not so belieued before for that the Church froÌ„ time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clearly and expresly which before were belieued by an implied faith only As for example the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the pâ—oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne as was afterward declared vnto vs by the Church but that it belieued the same yet may we not deny but that it belieued the same not fide expliciâ—a but implicita only And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications therof made by the subsequent Councels about the vnity of the Person differeÌ„t Natures in Christ that his Mother should be called the Mother of God were belieued implicitè by those of the Councel of Nyce and consequently were then also Articles of faith though they were not belieued by them explicitè as we are bound to do after the explication made by the Church Let vs conclude therfore with Bishop Fiâ—â—ers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tameâ—si nequeat Sumâ—â—â— Pontisex c. That albeit the Pope with a Councel that is to say the Catholick Church cannot make any thing true or false that is not true or false of it selfe and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith yet whatsoeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs as an Article of faith that al true Christians ought to belieue as an Article of faith which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth Thus Bishop Fisher whome you see how impertinently M. Barlow alleadgeth against my assertion saith the very same that I do Let vs go forward Thirdly then he obiecteth S. Thomas of Aquine who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith some more large and some more briefe demandeth to whome appertayneth noua Editio Symboli the new Edition of a Creed when the necessity of new heresies doth require And he sayth it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church And what is this against me Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed though he were not Pope with addition of many Articles for explanations sake which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed though in substaÌ„ce of truth they were nothing different Did not diuers Councells set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before All which standeth vpon this ground so much pondered by â— Irenaeus that the Apostles had all truth reuealed vnto them by Christ and they left the same in the Church so as whatsoeuer is or hath or shal be added afterward by the said Church are only explications of that first reueiled truth and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the coÌ„trary is to no purpose at al for he citeth diuers authors for that which we deny not but yet alwaies commonly with addition of some vntruth of his owne as heere he alleadgeth out of the Iesuit Azor that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei Doctrines of faith which we deny not but when he addeth that this belongeth vnto the Pope only and not to a Councel this is his owne inuention for Azor ioyneth them
the moon in the Asseâ— belly M. Barlows flattery of Kinges Barl. p. 44 3. Reg. 2. Wisely Syr William Salomons fact of killing Adoniah condemned Lucae 2. Iob 36. Psal. 2. The secoÌ„d psalme ill chosen of M. Barlow for flattery of Princes Examples of Gods terrible threats vnto Kings Daniâ—l .4 3. Râ—g 21. Iob 36. Gods prouidence in gouerning his Church perfect no wayes defectuous Alu. Pelag lib. 1. De planctu Eccl. cap. 13. Aluarus Pelagius abused by M. Barl. Gratian Decret part 1. distinct 5. Greg. c. 10. ad interrogata Augustini Beda lib. 1. de hist. Angl. cap. 27. Bertrand in additione ad glos de maioritate obedientia c. â— Barl. p. 49. M. Barlows falfe dealing in alledging his aduersaries wordes â—et p. 20. Prou. â—4 vers 28. Vincen. aduers. hares August de vera rel cap. 38. Idolatry and superstition not alwaies causes of fâ—ar Foure kindâ—s of superstition 1. Tim. 1. M. Barl. prouoked to stand to his own Authors The Maior The Miâ—or An important controuersy to be haÌ„dled If M. Barlow list to accept this offer alâ—beit the author be dead he shall find those that will ioyne with him Barl. p. 52. There is no vltima resolutio with the ProtestaÌ„ts in matters of faith The Catholicks answere concerning his vâ—tima â—esolutio No resolution amongst heretâ—cks What resolution is taken froÌ„ the Pope Pag. 53. M. Barlows hate of ambition scilicet and his mortification M. Barlows stomake for digestion and concoction Barl. p. 54. Letter pag. â—â— Bar. p. 55. M. Barlows idle discourse 1. Pet. 2. 1. Cor. 8. Lett. p. 22. M. Barlowes ill fortune in dealing with Schol men Barl. p. 57. Of â—ctiue passiue scaâ—dall â— 2. q. 43. ar 1. ad 4. Scandal actiue without passiue Ibid. art 2. in coâ—porâ— Carnal Diuinity Bad dealing in M. Barlow The definition of scandal what is actiue and paâ—siue scandall ScaÌ„dalum Pharisaeorum ScaÌ„dalum Pusilloâ—uÌ„ S. Thomas expounded S. Thom. abused The errours of M. Barlow about the matter of scaÌ„dall M. Barlows want of patieÌ„ce M. Barlow vnderstaÌ„deth not the tearâ—es oâ— schoole Diuinity Epist. 50. Who lay the scandall of Balaam Catholicks or Protestants Letter pag. 22. M. Barlow speaketh morâ— then he can proue The successâ—oÌ„ of the Church of Rome Barl. pag. 59. 60. M. Barlows arguments against the Church of Rome The Pope both particuler Bishop of Rome and yet chiefe Pastour of the whole Church M. Barlowes bad argument which is false both in antecedent and consequent Euill life doth not preiudice truth of doctrine Barl. p. 60. M. Barlowes Ministeriall phrases of indument and stripping By Baptisme we are made members of the Church ProtestaÌ„ts gone out of the Catholike Church not Catholikes out of theÌ„ Barl. p. 62â— Mattâ— 13â— Antiquity prescriptioÌ„ good argumeÌ„ts in case of Religion Matth. 13. Tertul. aduers Marc. lib. 4. The Fathers do vrge prescription Hilar. lib. 6. De Trinitate ante medium Hier. Episâ—â— ad Paâ—nachium Pag. â—2 Concil Caâ—thag apuâ— CyprianuÌ„ Bad dealing of M. Barlow How posseâ—sioÌ„ with prescriptioÌ„ are euincing arguments in mâ—tters of fayth Sober Rec. cap. 3. §. 101. c. M. Barlow hardly vrged Matth. vlt. Matth. 16. No such Oath euer exaâ—ted by oâ—her Princes Barl. pag. 62. About Q. Elizabeths raigne life death Lett. p. 27. Queene Elizabeth her Manes M. Barlowes flattering loquence Barl. 64. M. Barl. turnes with the wynd like a weather-cocke Quene Elizabeth otherwise blazoned by forrain writers then M. Barlow reporteth Barlow p. 66. 67. Q. Elizabeth Canonized for a Saint by M. Barlow Q. Elizabeth in M. Barl. his iudgment neuer coÌ„mittâ—d anâ— mortal sinne Q. Elizabeth would neuer haue chosen M. Barlow for her ghostly Father About Q. Elizabeths Manes sacrificing vnto theÌ„ Barl. p. 74. Hierom. Eâ—ist ad Rom. Oratâ—â—em August de Dâ—â—tr Chrisâ—ian M. Barl. his trifling Act. 28. v. 11. 2. Pet. 2. 4. Act. 17. 28. Rom. 14.4 In what cases a maÌ„ may iudg of another 1. Tim. 5. 24. Barl. p. 75. Matth. 6. About externall mortifications 3. Reg. 2â— 27. Achab truly mortified Prophane impietie in M. Barlow Q. Elizabeth no cloystered Nunâ—e A place of S. Paul expounded coÌ„cerning bodily exercise Châ—ysost in comment ad c. 4. in 1. Tim. 3. Reg. 17. M. Barlow no friend to mortifications A strange kind of mortificaâ—â—on Mortification Rom. 8. 13â— Aug. l. 1. confeâ—s c. 5. Bern serm 52. in Cant. Ser. 13 de verbâ—â— Apost Strange kind of answering Gregor 5. moral c. â— Two parts of mortification internall externall Externall mortification in Princes M. Barlow a Deuine for the Court. Apol. pag. 16. M. Barl. foolish shift in answering his Aduersaries obiection about the PersecutioÌ„ vnder Q. Elizabeth Lett. paâ— 18. Let. p. 29. L. Cooke in the book of the late arraignmeÌ„t fâ—l 53. Psal. 143. Barl. p. 78. M. Barlow very forgetfull Temporall felicity no argument of spirituall happines Psal. 72. Hier. 12. Abacuâ— 10. Psalm 77. Bâ—llarm de notis Eccl. cap. 15. A place of Bâ—llarmâ— answered concerning temporall felicity S. August discourse S. Hierome Arnobius S. Basil. S. Chrysostome Theodoret Euthymius Psal. 2. 4. Psa. â— 36.23 Sapien. 4. Prouerb 1. 26. M. Barlâ— moues habens L. Câ—â—â—â— in tâ—e last boâ—ke â—f Arrâ—ignmeÌ„ts pag. 64. A bad definition of Misery by coâ—â—a inoâ—ia Psal. 68. 2. Cor. 1. Syr Edw. Cooke a poore Deuine None soe bold as blind bayard Lett. pag. 29. M. Barlowes weake Philosophy Barlow p. 82. 1. â—eg 31. Eccles. 4. 5. M. Barlow hardly vrged M. Barlowes waÌ„t of Diuinity Strange cases of conscience proposed by M. Barlow Nabuchodonosor more happy then Q. Elizabetâ— Q. Elizabeth her infelicities M. Barlow eueâ— by his owne censure and sentence contemptible M. Barlow followeth not his owne rules â—arlow pag. 96. The vices of wicked Kings recounted after their death in Scripture Letter pag. 35. A monstrous head of the English Protestant Church Barlow pag. 99. Nero and Domitian heads of the Church in M. Barlowes opinion Touching the birth of Queene Elizabeth M. Barl. Babylon Philâ—ra loue-druggs M. Barl. neuer like to be prisoner for religion S. Augusâ—â—â—â—â—o Protâ—staÌ„t Calumnious citations For what cause a maÌ„ may be a Martyr Matth. 5. The Prieâ—â—s that dâ—e â—â—n Q. 〈◊〉 time true Martyâ—s M. Barlows two foolish cases â—arl p. 92. Quodlib pag. 269. 277. M. Barlows trifling M. Barl silence and the cause therof A charitable Bishop Barl. p. 94. Barl. Preface to his sâ—â—mon the fiâ—st sonday in Lent 16â—0 About the making a way his Maiesties Mother Tacitus lâ— 1. Histor. M. Barlow turns his sailes with the wind serues the tyme. Barl. p. 59. Q. Elizabeths purgation about the Q of Scotlands death Hier. 2. 22. About the disastrous death of Q. Elizabeth â—â—5 â—5 The narration of the manner of Q. Elizabeths death In what case we may iudg of other meÌ„s soules after their death 1. Tim. 5. No sin to iudge of men deceased in herâ—sie Cyprian l. 〈…〉 S.
in his Chronology Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies two speciall Bookes also in English not long agoe especially published about that matter the Three 〈◊〉 of England and the Answer to Syr Edward Cookes Reports where it is shewed that from age to age after the Apostles the selfe same Church of theirs was continued throughout the world with acknowledgment of the preheminence and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the same Church which course of proofe was held also with the Ancient Fathers S. Augustine Tertullian Irenaeus and others that brought downe the descent of the true Catholike Church by the succession of the Roman Bishops as Heads of the same Mâ— Barlow demaundeth of me in what sense I take the word Catholike when I suppose the Roman Church to be the Catholicke Church For if I take it sayth he for Vniuersall then Rome being but a particuler Citty and the true iurisdiction therof confined within a limited Diocesse or Prouince the Roman Church cannot be the Catholicke or Vniuersall Church for that it is but a particular Prouince But if sayth he I take Catholike for the profession of the true fayth as S. Cyprian doth calling that Church of Africa the Catholike Church then cannot the Romish Church neyther in this sense be the Catholik Church for that which the Prophet Esay said of the Iewes Church Her gould is mixed with drosse and she whose fayth was plighted in Christ is become an Adultresse may be sayd also of the Roman Church of this day and so cannot be the Catholike Church c. Which are two such mighty arguments as well declare the poore mans misery in the defence of his cause For to the first I would aske M. Barlow whether one man may not haue two Iurisdictions or rather one Iurisdiction extended differently to two things one more particuler the other more generall As for example the Mayor of London hath his particuler gouerment first and immediatly ouer his owne howse family and peculiar lands and yet besides that he hath iurisdiction also ouer all the Citty And to make the case more cleare let vs suppose that he hath both the one the other from the kingâ— shall it be a good argument to say that he is Gouernor of his owne particuler landes house and family which is knowne to be confined and limited to such a part of the Citty therfore he vsurpeth by stiling himself lord Gouernour of the whole Citty And the like demaund may be made of the Kings authority first and imediatly ouer his Crowne lands which is peculiar vnto him and limited with confines but yet it impeacheth not his generall authority ouer the whole Realme Euen so the Bishop of Rome hath two relations or references the one as a seuerall Bishop ouer that people and so had S. Peter who was Bishop of the same place euen as S. Iames had of Ierusalem S. Iohn of Ephesus and the like and besids this he hath an vniuersall Superintendency and iurisdiction giuen him ouer all as Head of the rest So as Catholikes doe not deny but that the Church of Rome as it maketh a particuler Prouince or Diocesse is a member only of the Catholicke Church not the whole though a principall chiefe member by the reason of the emineÌ„cy of her Pastour that the sayd Pastour therof is but a member also of the Catholik Church but yet the chiefest meÌ„ber wherunto all the rest are subordinate that is to say the head guid therof So as this is poore argument as you see But the second is more pittifull if you consider it well for if we take Catholike sayth he for the profession of the true faith as S. Cyprian did when he called the Church of Africa the Catholike Church then cannot the Romish Church be the Catholike Church And why for that her gould is mixed with drosse as the Prophet Isay sayd of the Iewish Church in his tyme. But here are two propositions an antecedent and consequent and both of them false The antecedent is that as the Church of the Iewes in the Prophet Isay his dayes being in her corrupt state was not the true teaching Church in respect of the naughty life vsed therein so neyther the Church of Rome in our dayes being full of the same sinnes bad life can be the true Catholicke Church this antecedent I say is most â—uidently false and impertinent for that Isay the Prophet in the place cited doth not repâ—â—hend the Religion of the Iewes but their life and â—â—â—ners nor doth he so much as name their Church or Synagoge or taxe their false teaching For albeit the wicked King Manasses that afterward slew him did perforce set vp false Gods among the Iewes yet did not only he and other Prophets then liuing to wit Oseas Amos Micheas Iâ—â—â— Ioel Nahum Habacuc with the whole Church and Synagog not admit the same but resisted also what they might which is a signe that their faith was pure and good Wherfore Isay in this place alleadged nameth not their Church or Religion as hath bene sayd but expresly nameth the Cittie of Hierusalem wicked liuers therin saying Qâ—â—modo facta es meretrix Ciuitas fidelis plena iudicy Iâ—stâ—ia habitauit in ea nunc autem homicidae Argentum tuum versum 〈◊〉 in scoriam vinum tuum mixtum aqua Hovv art thou made an harlot thou faithfull Citty that wert once full of iudgement and iustice dwelled therin but now murtherers Thy siluer is turned into drosse thy wine is mixed with water Doth here the Prophet speake of factes think yow or else of faiâ—h Of wicked life or of false doctrine and if it be euident that he speaketh of manners as he doth indeed then how false is the dealing of M. Barlow in bringing it iâ— for proofe of false teaching and to conuince that as the Church of the Iewes could not be the true Catholicke Church of that time in respect of the corrupt maÌ„ners vsed in her so cannot the Church of Rome at this day for the selfe same cause be the true Church But I would demande of M. Barlow what other knowne Church had God in those dayes wherin a man might find true doctrine besides that of the Iewes which he sayeth was not the true Church Will he say perhaps of the Gentills But they liued all in Idolatry And if a GeÌ„tile would in those daies haue left his Idolatry in the time of Isay the Prophet and haue desired to haue bene madâ— one of the people of God by true instruction whither could he haue gone for the same but only to the Iewish Church And whither would Isay haue sent him but to the Gouernours thereof Both false and impious then is this antecedent about the Iewes Church but much more the consequent that would draw in the Roman Christian Church by this example which hath no similitude or connection at all For neither can he proue that it hath such
corruption in it either in life or doctrine as he pretendeth nor if it had in life doth it preiudice the truth of Doctrine as by the testimony of our Sauiours owne wordes wee remaine assured These two obiections then that the Roman Church for that she hath a determinate Prouince as also for that shee hath sundry euill liuers in her are shewed to bee of no force at all Not the later for that euill manners may stand with true doctrine not the first for that wee doe not say the Roman Church is the whole Catholick Church but a chiefe member thereof as hath bene sayd whereby also will appeare what wee meane by the name of the Catholicke Church to wit that visible vniuersall Church which being erected and founded by Christ our Sauiour when he was vpon earth hath continued euer since and descended visibly from age to age by succession of Bishops throughout all Christendome vnto our times and shall so continue vnto the worldes end by which description may appeare also how vaine another obiection is of M. Barlow in these wordes If Vincentius rule be true that that only is to be accounted Catholicke Doctrine quod semper vbique ab omnibus creditum est neyther shall Rome be proued Catholicke nor England hereticke when any of these is soundly determined then let him plead her Ius acquisitum VVhereto I answere that the rule of Vincentius is verified by that which I haue sayd before of the nature of the Catholicke Church to wit that it began vnder Christ and hath descended from age to age and so shee teacheth quod semper creditum est And for that she hath imbraced all nations she teacheth quod vbique in respect of place and for that shee hath vnion of Doctrine shee teacheth quod ab omnibus creditum est For albeit there hâ—â—â— not wanted hereticks from time to time that haue deâ—ised particuler doctrines and erected particuler congregations yet were they nothing in respect of the vniuersall consent of those of the Catholike Church whose Iâ—â— acquisitum or ancient right and power vpon all Heretickes for theyr correction and punishment I sayd was manifest for that by baptisme they were made her subiectes Vnto which point M. Barlow would seeme now to say somewhat though neuer so impertinent therefore he telleth vs a tale of an indument and a stripping to be considered in Baptisme vnder the wordes Credo and Abreâ—â—â—â—iâ— and that neyther the spirituall mystery nor the prescribed forme nor intended effect of Baptisme doe make him and his liable to Rome Whereunto I answere that the whole action in that Sacrament without so many diuisions and subdiuisions as here he maketh to obscure the matter doth make him and all other Christians liable to the Catholike Church For that euery man that is baptized as he is made a member and seruant of Christ therby and entreth into his Church as by the first dore soe is he made a subiect to the sayd Church and is liable to her correction if he should renounce change or peruert that fayth which there he professeth as a child of the sayd Church And all this I thinke M. Barlow will not deny but onely his question may be of such as are baptized out of the Catholike Church by some Hereticall Congregation yet notwithstanding the matter is cleare for that such baptisme houlding only so far forth as they haue intention to doe that in their baptisme which the true Catholicke Church doth and vse the forme of wordes which the sayd Church prescribeth to wit I baptize thee in the name of the Father◠〈◊〉 the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost for that otherwise if either of these conditions to wit eyther the forme or the intention of the Catholike Church doe faile the baptisme is not auaylable it is euident I say that such as are so baptized out of the Church are liable notwithstanding to the same for any offence that they shall commit against the fayth of the sayd Catholike Church for so much as their baptisme had relation to this Church as is now declared And albeit they be departed from the same eyther by their own wilfulnes or other menâ— inducemeÌ„ts yet remaineth stil that obligation of subiectioÌ„ Which superiority oâ— the Catholik Church practized froÌ„ time to time vpon Heretiks and Schismatikes that haue gone forth from her which the Aduersary will also graunt for sundry ages after Christ caÌ„not be pretended by the Protestant Church vpoÌ„ Catholiks for that we went not out of them but they out of vs which in England is most perspicuous For that since our first Conuersion by S. Augustine the Monke to Christian Religion it cannot be sayd with any shew of probability that euer there was a Protestant Church extaÌ„tâ— and visible or publickly receyued in our Country as the Roman hath bene and consequently wee English Catholikes cannot be said to haue gone out of them but they out of vs and soe by their baptisme and admission to Christianity they are liable to the Roman Catholike Church in matters of Religion not the Roman Church to them But now besids this reason of obligation by baptisme I do alledge another of former possession and prescription whereby the English Catholike Church hath had exercised this power of punishing Sectaries froÌ„ time to time wherunto M. Barlow answereth in a strange manner Possession saith he for hould and Prescription for time may be Pleas in ciuill Courtes but not sound arguments in case of Religion Which is so absurd an answere as nothing could more shew declare that he had nothing to say then this For if wee suppose that to be true which Christ our Sauiour affirmeth in the Ghospell that the good corne was first soone that the Darnell was ouer sprinckled afterwardes and that truth of Christian religion was first planted by our Saâ—iour heresies afterward sprong vp then are the Antiquity of possession and the Plea of Prescription very excellent good argumeÌ„ts to conuince all Hereticks for that the former must needâ— be true and the later must needs be false For which cause old Tertullian writing in the second age after Christ against hereticks thought good to intitle his book de Praescriptiâ—â—â—buâ— of PrescriptioÌ„s shewing therby that heretiks are by no way so euidently conuinced as by Prescription Priority of time And first of all he giueth this generall rule by allusion to our Sauiours words before repeated of good corne and darnell Ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse Dominicum rerum quod est prius traditum id autem extraneum â—alsum quod est posteriâ—s immissâ—m By the order it selfe of sowing the corn darnellâ— it is made manifest that to be true and pertayning to our Lord which was first deliuered and that to be false and forreyne which is thrust in afterward And then passing to examine particuler heresies and beginning with them that pretended to be