A discussion of the ansvvere of M. VVilliam Barlovv, D. of Diuinity, to the booke intituled: The iudgment of a Catholike Englishman liuing in banishment for his religion &c. Concerning the apology of the new Oath of allegiance. VVritten by the R. Father, F. Robert Persons of the Society of Iesus. VVhervnto since the said Fathers death, is annexed a generall preface, laying open the insufficiency, rayling, lying, and other misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing.

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 ob∣iection that might be made by the ad∣uersary, which I thought good by ••••ti∣cipation to satisfy in the very last num∣ber of the first par•• 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 say•• that the li•••• course is held in the Catholicke States against them•• whome we esteeme as heretickes. I shall repeate my owne words, and then see what M. Barlow answereth to the same.

* 1.1

Here if a man should obiect, quo••h I, that among vs also, men are vrged to take Oathes, and to abiure ••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 ••biure his opinions, with re∣pugnance of conscience, it should be a sinne to the infor∣cers, if they knew it, or suspected it: neyther is it practi∣sed or•• permitted in any Catholicke Court, that eue•• I knew. But you will reply, that if he doe it not, he shalbe punished by d••ath, or otherwise, as the crime requireth, and Canons appoint, and consequently the like may be v∣sed towards Catholikes, that will not renounce their old opinions of the Popes authority. But heere is a great diffe∣rence, for that the Catholike Church hath ius acquisitum, ancient right ouer heretickes, as her true subiects, ••or that by their baptisme, they were made her subiectes, and left her afterwards•• 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 iu•• 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 times•• neither is t••e••e by any Catholicke forraine Monarch, now liuing vpon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and consequently, by no ••e••son or right at all, can En∣glish Catholicke men, be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience, or be punished, be••••••••, or destroyed, if for their conscience they refuse to take t••e same: humbly offering notwithstanding to their Soue∣raigne, to giue him all other dutifull satisfaction, for their

temporall obedience and allegiance, which of loyall Ca∣tholicke 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 vehemēcy the tor∣ments and tortures of our Inquisitions, which are vsed, as he saith,* 1.2 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 be∣lieueth, 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 mild∣ly, 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 iud∣ges, that are most interessed in the controuersie, I do not meruaile, though they neuer yield themselues for conui∣cted. But if any indifferent iudgment or triall might be admitted, I do not doubt, but that their euiction and cō∣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,* 1.3 as namely Doctour Sanders his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Monarchy, Cardi∣nall Baronius in the continuation of his Annales, G••nebrar•• in his Chronology, Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuer∣sies:

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.

* 1.4 M•• 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 Dio∣cesse, or Prouince, the Roman Church cannot be the Ca∣tholicke or Vniuersall Church,* 1.5 for that it is but a parti∣cular 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 can∣not the Romish Church neyther in this sense be the Ca∣tholik 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 Iuris∣diction 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 sup∣pose

that he hath both the one & the other from the king•• 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 Gouer∣nour 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:* 1.6 Euen so the Bishop of Rome hath two relations or references, the one as a seue∣rall Bishop, ouer that people, and so had S. Peter who was Bishop of the same place, euen as S. Iames had of Ieru∣salem, 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 eminēcy of her Pa∣stour, & that the sayd Pastour therof is but a member also of the Catholik Church, but yet the chiefest mēber, wher∣unto 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 Ca∣tholike 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.* 1.7 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 ante∣cedent, I say, is most ••uidently false, and impertinent, for

that Isay the Prophet in the place cited, doth not rep••••∣hend the Religion of the Iewes, but their life and ••••••∣ners; nor doth he so much as name their Church or Syna∣goge, 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, I••••••, Ioel, Nahum, Habacuc, with the whole Church and Syna∣gog not admit the same, but resisted also what they might, which is a signe that their faith was pure and good. Wher∣fore 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: Q••••∣modo facta es meretrix, Ciuitas fidelis, plena iudicy? I••st••ia ha∣bitauit 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 mur∣therers? Thy siluer is turned into drosse, & thy wine is mixed with water.

Doth here the Prophet speake of factes, think yow, or else of fai••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 i•• 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 māners 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 Gētile would in those daies haue left his Idolatry in the time of Isay the Prophet, and haue desired to haue bene mad•• 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,* 1.8 which hath no simi∣litude 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,* 1.9 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 h•••••• not wanted hereticks from time to time, that haue de••i∣sed particuler doctrines, and erected particuler congrega∣tions: yet were they nothing in respect of the vniuersall consent of those of the Catholike Church, whose I•••• acquisitum, or ancient right and power, vpon all Heretickes for theyr correction and punishment, I sayd, was mani∣fest, for that by baptisme they were made her subiectes. Vnto which point M. Barlow would seeme now to say somewhat,* 1.10 though neuer so impertinent: therefore he telleth vs a tale of an indument, and a stripping to be conside∣red in Baptisme, vnder the wordes, Credo, and Abre••••••••i••, 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 subdiui∣sions, 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,* 1.11 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 Catho∣like Church, by some Hereticall Congregation; yet not∣withstanding 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 inten∣tion 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 men•• inducemēts: yet remai∣neth stil that obligation of subiectiō. Which superiority o•• the Catholik Church practized frō time to time vpon He∣retiks,* 1.12 and Schismatikes, that haue gone forth from her (which the Aduersary will also graunt for sundry ages after Christ) cānot be pretended by the Protestant Church vpō 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 extāt•• and visible, or publickly receyued in our Country, as the Roman hath bene: and consequently wee English Catho∣likes 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, & ex∣ercised this power of punishing Sectaries frō time to time: wherunto M. Barlow answereth in a strange manner. Posses∣sion,* 1.13 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 & de∣clare, 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,* 1.14 & that the Darnell was ouer sprinckled afterwardes, and that truth of Christian religion was first planted by our Sa••iour, & heresies afterward sprong vp, then are the Antiquity of posses∣sion, and the Plea of Prescription very excellent good argumēts

to conuince all Hereticks: for that the former must need•• be true,* 1.15 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 Praescripti••••••∣bu••, of Prescriptiōs, 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 allu∣sion to our Sauiours words before repeated, of good corne and darnell: Ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse Dominicum & re∣rum, quod est prius traditum: id autem extraneum & ••alsum, quod est posteri••s immiss••m.* 1.16 By the order it selfe of sowing the corn & darnell•• it is made manifest, that to be true and pertay∣ning 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 of greatest an∣tiquity, yea from the Apostles times themselues, he giueth also a Prescription how to try them. If any heresies (saith he) dare presume to thrust themselues into the Apostles age, edant origi∣nes Ecclesiarum suarum, euoluant ordines Episcoporum, let them publish the beginninges of their Churches, and let them lay forth the order & successiō of their Bishops. And with this he thought their mouthes stopt. And yet in another place he canua••eth thē againe with the same Prescription, saying: Qui estis vos? vnde, & quando venistis? vbi tam diu latuistis? VVhat are you? whence, and when came you? and where haue you lur∣ked so long? signifying herby that the Priority of time was a great argument against them.

And furthermore he disputing against Marcion the He∣reticke, hath these wordes:* 1.17 Ego dico meum Euangelium verum, Marcion suum &c. I say that my Ghospell is true, and Marcio•• faith his: I do affirme Marcion to haue falsified, and Mar∣cion sayth I haue done it: who shal determine the matter between vs, but the difference of time, that will giue Au∣thority to that which shalbe found to be most ancient, and pronounce that to be corrupted which shalbe proued to be the later? So as here supposing that which before we haue touched, that Catholick doctrine was planted first,

before any heresy sprang vp, by the Prescription of time,* 1.18 is not only a sound argument in case of religion (which fondly M. Barlow denieth) but a conuincent demonstration also of truth; and to that effect vsed commonly by all Fa∣thers, that wrote against Hereticks after Tertullian. Tardè mihi (saith ancient Hilarius against the Arians) hos pijssimos Doctores ••ta•• nunc huiu•• saeculi protulit, s••r•• h••s habui•• fides mea ma∣gistros.* 1.19 Too late hath this present age brought ••orth these pious Doctours (he speaketh in scorne) too late are they come to be maisters of my faith. And S. Hierome writing against the Luci••erian Hereticks, vseth the same argument: Ex h••c ipso (saith he) qu••d posteriùs instituti sunt, ••os ess•• indica••t ••••os ••uturos Apostolus annunci••••i••. Euen by this it ••el••e, that Lu∣ci••erans haue risen vp later, they shew thēselues to be those deceyuing Hereticks, of whome the Apostle doth forwarn vs, and bid vs take heed of. And the same S. Hierom talking to an Heretick, saith:* 1.20 Cur post quadringentos annos d••cere ••os ••i∣teris, quod ante nesciuimus? vsque ad hunc diem ••ine vestra doctrina Christianus mundus fuit. Wherefore after foure hundred years, dost thou go about to teach vs that which before we knew not? Euen vntil this day the Christian world hath endu∣••ed without this your doctrine. And to this effect I might alleadge the saying of many other Fathers, who vse this argument of Prescription of time as a principall demon∣stration against Hereticks and Heresies.

But let vs heare the reasons alleaged by M. Barlow,* 1.21 why Possession for hould (for so are his wordes) and Prescription for time may be Pleas in ciuill Courtes, but no sound arguments in case of Reli∣gion. For the first, sayth he, may be clayme by intrusion, which is their case that plead for Rome, & the other may be antiquity of error, for so is prescription without verity: therefore when truth appeares, let custome yeld to truth, was the conclusion of a Councell.* 1.22 So he. And citeth in the margent Concil. Carthag. apud Cyprian. But he that shall read that Councell of Carthage in S. Cyprian, shall find first that these wordes are not a conclusiō of a Coun∣cell, but the saying of one Bishop in that Councell, to wit Zozimus of Tarassa:* 1.23 and secondly M. Barlow wel kno∣weth, or should know, that, that Councell or Synod was

reiected after by a•• the Catholik Christian world, for tha•• it was gathered in fauour of rebaptization of heretiks that were baptized in heresie, as may appeare largely in S. A••∣gustine in his booke against the Donatists, where he setteth downe the sentences of diuers of that Councell, and a∣mong other one of Zozimus, which he sayth was this: so it appeareth also in S. Cyprian: Reuelatione facta veritatis, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 error veritati, when the truth is reueyled, let error yeild to truth. Vpon which wordes S. Augustine maketh this note, Noluit quide•• iste dicere consuetudinem, sed errorem. This Bishop would not say that custome s••ould yield, but error. And yet M. Barlow against the testimony of them both would needes relate it otherwise, let custome yeeld to truth, and say it was the Conclusion of a Councell, which was neyther of the Councel, nor any in the Councell; for that sometims cu∣stome conteyneth truth it selfe, and giueth testimony to truth, and wee know it to be truth by tradition of cu∣stome: so as the ancient Fathers went warily herein, & not so rashly against all kind of custome, as M. Barlow & his fellowes and followers doe.

But perhaps he will alledge out of M. Morton & other his fellow-writers, the saying of S. Cyprian himselfe in his Epistle ad Pompeium: Consuetudo sine veritate, vetustas erroris est, Custome without truth, is antiquity of error: which all men will grant, but maketh nothing to our case. For wee suppose true religion to haue bene planted first by Christ & afterward heresie to haue risen: which supposall being true, the argument of the Fathers before mentioned is most effectuall. We were before you in Christian religion and you rose vp after vs,* 1.24 professing a different faith from vs: Er∣go, our religion is Catholike, and yours Heresy. For that this is to be accounted Catholike doctrine, as M. Barlow before alledgeth himselfe out of Vincentius, quod semper credi∣tum est, that alwaies hath bene beleiued since the begin∣ning of Christianity; and soe that which is most ancient is truest. And where M. Barlow sayth, that possession may be a claime by intrusion, it may be indeed in temporall possession, but not in this our case, especially when it is ioyned with

Prescription from antiquity. For supposing that the true Catholike religion was first put in possession by our Saui∣our, and his Apostles, as hath bene sayd, and that it can be proued that this possession hath beene continued by Pre∣scription, time out of mind, euen from the beginning, as we offer to proue: & that on the contrary side no knowne interruption can be shewed of this possessiō, eyther by in∣trusion or other wise, as M. Barlow cannot proue that there hath bene, nor doth he go about to proue it, though he blush not to say it; Possession in this case togeather with Prescription doth euince the verity of our cause.

And for the saying of S. Cyprian, That custome without verity is the antiquity of errour, though in it selfe it be true, yet doth S. Augustine tell vs, that it was ill applied by S. Cypri∣an, again••t the custome of the Church in his dayes, for not rebaptizing Heretikes, when himselfe was in that er∣rour, that they ought to be rebaptized, & the Catholikes vrged the force of custome, and antiquity against him. But yet otherwise when he was out of that necessity of de∣fending an errour, himselfe sayth, he did not only allow of custome, but also did often vrge the custome, and traditiō of the Church for very good arguments, and proueth many Catholicke doctrines therby, as the necessity of Chrisme or Vnction, lib. 1. Epist. 12. the offering of wine togeather with water in the Sacrifice, lib. 2. Epist. 3. saying that it is Dominica ••r••di••io, a tradition of our Lord, and o∣ther like poynts of Christian religion, which he proueth by the like force of Tradition, Antiquity, and Prescrip∣tion,* 1.25 wherof I haue treated more largely in my Booke a∣gainst M. Morton, shewing the same more aboundantly out of S. Augustine: and that both S. Augustine and S. Cyprian are in this poynt and many others abused by him.

And so now to returne to our argument of Possession and Prescription, and to end also with the same this first Part of our Answ••re, I say, that Possession and Pr••scri∣ption•• 〈…〉〈…〉 hath bene declared, the cause of M. Barlow is vtterly o••er∣throwne, for that he wilbe neuer able to prooue, eyther

Intrusiō in our Possession, or Errour in our Antiquity; which for a finall vpshot to the Reader in this behalfe, I shall demonstrate by this ensuing reason. If euer the Protestant•• Church or Religion were receyued publikely in Christen∣dome, from Christs time downward vnto ours, that is to say, in any one or more ages, and was that first visible Church that was founded by Christ, into which M. Bar∣low sayth, that we entred afterward by intrusion and fi•••• ••orce, and so possessed Christendome, in such sort as for many ages the said Protestant Church appeared not publikely, vntill these our dayes, I would demaund of M. Barlow,* 1.26 Whether this his Church so put to flight from the eies of Christendome, did perish, or lay hidden only. For if it perished, then the true Church of Christ perished, and the promises made by him, were not performed,* 1.27 That he wo••ld be with the same vnto the end of the world: That the gates of hell should not preuaile against it:* 1.28 for that in this case, the sayd hell should haue preuailed. Moreouer I would demaund, if she once perished how could she be raised to life againe? In which case S. Augustine writing against the Donatists, saith thus: Si peri••t Ecclesia, vnde ergo Donatus apparuit? Dic de qua terra germinauit? De quo mari emersit? De quo caelo cecidit? If the true Church did perish, from whence is Donatus come vnto vs? Out of what groūd is he sprong? Out of what sea hath he peept? From what heauen is he fallen? which S. Augustin•• saith, for that if the true Church were perished before Do∣natus was borne, in what Church was he borne, and how came he into the true Church, that now he braggeth of? and how did that Church rise from death to life againe!

But if M. Barlow will say, that the Protestant Church which flourished in, and after the Apostles times, did not perish, but fled only into the wildernes, and lay hidden, being spread visibly before ouer all the whole world (for so he must say, if she were the Catholike Church:) then would I demaund him, whether this Church being thus in exile, and couert, but yet liuing, did make profession of her fayth or not, and if she made profession therof, as she was bound, for that as S. Paul sayth to the Romans, Ore

〈…〉〈…〉 a•• salutem; Confession of our faith is necessary to our saluation: then by this confession she must needs make her selfe knowne, as Martyrs, and Confessours did in time of persecution, and then she cannot be sayd to haue layen hidden, and couert from the sight of the world, no more then the Christian Church lay hidden in the time of per∣secution, in Rome, and other places, when men and wo∣men lay in caues vnder ground, but yet the confession of their fayth appeared vnto the whole world: and no more then the Catholike religion may be sayd to ly hidden now at this day in England, when all Christendome can be wit∣nes of their Confession of the Catholike fayth: which point I thinke M. Barlow doth not take vpon him to proue of the Protestants Confession in ancient ages.

Yf then he will say, that the sayd Church lay alto∣geather hidden indeed, without any publicke confession of their fayth: then must he confesse that the state and con∣dition of this Church which was the only true Church which Christ had vpō earth, & of whose exceeding glory the Prophets did foretell so many wonderfull things, was more miserable then any least Sect of heretickes that euer was; ye•• then the Church of the Iewes themselues in any of theyr Captiuities; for that still they confessed their reli∣gion, and euery Sect did the like in their times, and had some meeting or Congregation & exercises of their Reli∣gion, registred by some Authors, which the Protestant Church of this our age cānot proue to haue had visibly in the world, and dstinct from other people in any age be∣fore ours. And this demonstration is sufficient to conuince the vanity of M. Barlow his assertion, that Possessio•• and Prescription for time, are no good arguments in case of Religion.

The last point which he toucheth, as he passeth it ouer very sleigtly, so shall I as briefly answer the same. I sayd in my Letter that among other considerations, this was one very considerable, that there was neuer any such Oath as this is, exacted at the hands of Catholicke sub∣iects, either by any of their owne Kings, or Princes at

home in former Cat••olick times: ••or yet by any ••orraine King, or Monarch now liuing vpon earth.* 1.29 Whereunto I may also adde, if I be not deceiued, all Protestant Princes in other Countries, of whome I neuer heard or read, tha•• they odered such Oathes to their subiects that were of dif∣ferent opinion in religion: all which M. Barlow in effect confessing, or not contradicting, sayth:* 1.30 If other Princes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not the like, we iudge them not: perhaps it is in some of them an in∣fused persuasion, that it is not lawfull: in others peraduenture it is a violent restraint, yea gladly they would, but cannot be suffered. Where you see that all his answers goeth by i••s and ands, perhaps and peraduentures, and yet is the matter of moment, and sequele, if it be well pondered, to take a course of ex∣traordinary rigour, different from all other Christian Princes besides.

It is not the Parasiticall flattery of a few Ministers at home, respecting their owne trenchers, will worke the State so much honour & security, as the generall mislikes and murmurations abroad, may worke the contrary in time. He sayth, that his Maiesty wanted not a motiue to take this course, for that the Pope was not so insolently busy with any nation, as of late with his Maiesty, and his Kingdome. He addeth further, that if it had not bene for him, our gracious King might haue enioyed a peace more continuall and happy, then Salomon or Augustus.

But I would aske him out of passion, if euer he be voyd therof, as by report he is very seldome, what inso∣lencie hath this Pope shewed in being busy, as he calleth it, with his Maiesties Person, State, or Realme? For as for his Person he hath alwayes honoured the same, both before he was Pope and after, wherof many euident testi∣monies might be alleadged: and for his State and King∣dome, while he was in Scotland, neyther he, nor his Pre∣decessours did go about to trouble the same, in almost four∣ty yeares, while he reygned there: all troubles came from Protestants and their Ministers. And when his Maiesty was called into England, the Pope that then was, by this mans counsaile principally, as it may be presumed, for that

he was Protectour of Scotland, wrote to the Catholickes to further their Obedience towards him. He neuer medled in any thing, vntill this Oath so preiudiciall vnto his Au∣thority, and vnto the Consciences of Catholikes was pro∣posed and vrged.

And as for the peace here named, more continuall & happy then that of Salomon or Augustus, which M. Barlow sayth might be enioyed by his Maiestie, with his Subiects, if the Pope were not: it is well, that he will so much as name peace, who seemeth in all his speaches, to sow the seeds of warres, hatred, and contention. But if his mind were to peace indeed, he cannot be so simple, but to see, that the rigorous and afflictiue courses vsed, and this, as all men take it, by the instigation of those of his coate and order, cannot be meanes to peace of mindes, howsoeuer otherwise they liue in externall quietnes and deuoyd of tumults. And this is all, that for the present I haue to write in this matter.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Letter pag. 22.
• * 1.2

  M. Bar∣low spea∣keth mor•• then he can proue.
• * 1.3

  The succe¦ss••ō of the Church of Rome.
• * 1.4

  Barl. pag. 59. & 60.
• * 1.5

  M. Bar∣lows argu∣ments a∣gainst the Church of Rome.
• * 1.6

  The Pope both par∣ticuler Bi∣shop of Rome, and yet chiefe Pastour of the whole Church.
• * 1.7

  M. Bar∣lowes bad argument which is false both in antece∣dent and conse∣quent.
• * 1.8

  Euill life doth not preiudice truth of doctrine.
• * 1.9

  Barl. p. 60.
• * 1.10

  M. Bar∣lowes Mi∣nisteriall phrases of indument and strip∣ping.
• * 1.11

  By Bap∣tisme we are made members of the Church.
• * 1.12

  Protestāts gone out of the Ca∣tholike Church, not Ca∣tholikes out of thē.
• * 1.13

  Barl. p. 62••
• * 1.14

  Matt••. 13••
• * 1.15

  Antiquity & prescri∣ptiō good argumēts in case of Religion.
• * 1.16

  Matth. 13.
• * 1.17

  Tertul. ad∣uers. Marc. lib. 4.
• * 1.18

  The Fa∣thers do vrge pre∣scription.
• * 1.19

  Hilar. lib. 6. De Tri∣nitate, ante medium.
• * 1.20

  Hier. Epis•••• ad Pa••na∣chium.
• * 1.21

  Pag. ••2.
• * 1.22

  Concil. Ca••∣thag. apu•• Cyprianū.
• * 1.23

  Bad dea∣ling of M. Barlow.
• * 1.24

  How pos∣se••siō with prescriptiō are euin∣cing argu∣ments in m••tters of fayth.
• * 1.25

  Sober Rec. cap. 3. §. 101. &c.
• * 1.26

  M. Bar∣low hard∣ly vrged.
• * 1.27

  Matth. vlt.
• * 1.28

  Matth. 16.
• * 1.29

  No such Oath euer exa••ted by o••her Princes.
• * 1.30

  Barl. pag. 62.