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
euen against conscience but of this we will not dispute any more now but only I say that conforme to this his doctrine English Catholickes are admoniâ—hâ—d also to consider with what intention this new Oath â—gâ—inst the authority of the Bishop of Rome is exacted whether to preiudice Catholike Religion or no. For that â—â—is may increase their obligatioÌ„ of refusall or acceptance â—â—en according to M. Barlowes doctrine in this place But for the second point concerning the fact of Iulian the Apostata in demaunding Heathen wryters to be deliâ—ered vp of Philosophy and Poetry that in this case I say there should be the like obligation not to obey that Emperour but rather to deny to obey yea and to dy for the sayd deniall if need were as many did for the other I confesse that I cannot conceaue M. Barlowes mystery therin For who euer wrote this before Or who was euer accounted a Martyr in the Church of God for refusing to deliuer vp â— Heathen Poet or Philosophers booke Doth not now M. Barlow shorten againe and straiten greatly the lymits of temporall obedience to Princes when hâ— graunteth that ChristiaÌ„ Subiects may deny to obey them when they exact the deliuery vp of a Poeticall prophane booke to wit a Catullus or Tibullus or Ouids Metamorphosis or some such other fit for M. Bâ—rlowes reading Is not the man very constant to himsâ—lfe in his assertions that sometimes so ouerlasheth in extending temporall obedience and sometimes so excâ—ssiuely contracteth the same He sayth that Iulian herby did meane to bereaue Christians of all knowledge and therby to take from them the true meanes of their instruction and for this he noteth in the margeÌ„t the Ecclesiasticall History of Socrates lib. 3. cap. 12. But as in all other citations commonly he erreth more or lesse wherof I might allâ—adge some scores of examples if I would stand therupon and therby giueth iust suspition that he neuer read the Authors themselues but had them out of other mens noteâ—bookes as M. Mortoâ— confessed of himselfe when he was pressed therunto so here no such matter is found in the Chapter by him cyted but in two Chapters after Socrates hath these words Atque Iulianus Imperator c. And Iulian the Emperour applying his mind earâ—estly to this thing made a law that Christians should not be instructed in the doctrine of the Gentiles most certainly assuring himselfe that the fâ—bles that are read in Heathen writers would â—asily be turned by the said Christians to the reproofe of his Religion Which is anothâ—r thing you see then this which here is set downe by M. Barlow And much more likely that he was afraid that Christians reading the Pagan wryters would turne the folly and foulenes of Heathen fablâ—s against his religion and not that Christians should want true meanes of instructionâ— for want of those fables as M. Barlow here fableâ—h Albeit if he instruct his flocke with no better meanes of instructions I must needs graunt that they are in a miserable case But let vs go forward to examine a little further his very next lines as they ly in his booke about teÌ„porall obedience to Princes in which point he runneth so forth backe from extremes to extremes as it is strange to consider for hauing so diminished the same in hiâ— former example of the Emperour Iulian as now you haue heard that Christians might disobey him euen about the deliuery of a Poeticall Booke though he had neuer so earnestly required or coÌ„manded the same now he starteth to the other end againe saying as out of S. Thomas Aquinas that temporall Princes are to be obeyed euen in things vnlawfâ—â—â— His words are these From subiection to Princes there is no startling exception sayth Aquinas vnlesse he be either an vsurper or Iâ—truder which commaunds and this is not our case God be thanked or that he commaund things vnlawfull if he say this is their case we deny it but let vs suppose it yet their Angelicall Doctour will tell them that in those things they must notwiâ—hstanding obey propter viâ—andum scandalum aut periculum of this diuinity I iudge not it is their owne Is this our owne Syr Not so properly as it seemeth that lying cogging is your owne for we acknowledge not this doctrine but with due lymits far different from your allegation But you do absolutely abuse both S. Thomas and the Reader and cannot choose but know that here is falshood vsed by you except you will confesse extreme ignorance in not vnderstanding the sense of S. Thomas whom you alleadge though it be most cleare and plaine for children to conceaue that haue the latin tongue The title of S. Thomas hâ—s Article is VVâ—ether Christians b◠〈◊〉 to obey secular Powers or not And he proueth that they are by an euident argument deduced out of the 3. to the 〈◊〉 that the fayth of Christ hindreth not the order of Iâ—stice appoynted by the Law of Nature and consequently that no man is excused by being a Christian from performing due obedience to temporall Princes and for better strengthning of this his assertion he proposeth an obiection according to his custome and solueth the same The obiection is this S. Augustine in his fourth booke of the Citty of God teacheth that great Kingdomes when they cast of iustice become great robberies and theâ—uedomes but Christ his lâ—w doth not bind Christians to obey such vniust Princes Magistrates and therfore in all cases Christians are not bound to temporall obedience Wherunto he answereth thus that forsomuch as the order of Iustice is the ground of all Obedience therfore a Christian man is bound so far forth to obey secular Princesâ— as order of iustice requireth and therfore if such Princes haue not iust principality but vsurped or that they should command vniust â—hinges his subiects are not bound to obey him â—iâ—i fortè per accidens ad vitandum scâ—ndalum vel periculum except perhaps accidentally for auoyding of scandall or perill And this is the Diuinity that M. Barlow scoffeth at saith he will not iudge of it for it is our owne And I say that the Diuiâ—ity is very good and so would haue appeared if M. Bâ—rlow had eyther vnderstood it rightly or truly alleaged it for that the doctrine of S. Thomas is very cleare and incontrollable that Christian subiects are bound to obey their lawfull temporall Princes so long as they commaÌ„d lawfull thinges but if they be vsurpers in which â—ase I say also with M. Barlow God be thanked we are not or command vnlawfull thinges then are not subiects bound to obey them at leastwise by obligation of iustice and conscience which is the true foundation of obedience though perhaps saith S. Thomas accidentally they may be somtimes bouÌ„d therunto for auoyding scâ—ndal perill As for example if a Prince sâ—ould demaund of me the one halâ—e of my goodes vniustly I were not boâ—nd in
tome of the German History he shall find what that Author writeth of Petrus de Vineis his going to the Councell of Lyons for speaking of the Emperour he saith Qâ—i non comparuit sâ—d Râ—sponsales prose transmisit minùs sufficientes Fredericke appeared not in the Councell but sent in his behalfe vnsufficient Embassadours to wit Petrâ—s de Vineis and Thaddaeus Sinuessanus Will M. Barlow say that he sent two Chayres or Oracles That truely had bene a strange Embassage Or will he tell vs that when our King Richard the first his Embassadors went to Rome to withstand the Bishop of Roane complayning against him â—s Nubrigensis writeth Responsales quoque Regis è vestigio secuti in conspectu summi Pontificis in faciem illi restitere The Embassadours also of the King presently following resisted him to his face before the Pope that he sent Chaires or Oracles to Rome Or were these Chayrs or Oracles so earnest before the Pope in his defence I know not whether this thing deserue rather laughter or compassion Laughter for that it is so foolish and ridiculous in it selfe Compassion to see one to beare himself for Bishop of Lincolne so ignorant as to translate Responsalis for a Chaire or Oracle with this insulting adiection to the same much lesse by his Breue interdict But let vs come to the second 11. The other example of his Grammaticall construction is concerning a place of Bellarmine about the authority of Kinges where the Cardinal refelling an obiection that the exemption of Clergy-men from tributes and appearing at secular tribunalls is de iure humano and so may be repealed by Princes answereth that it doth not follow both for that not only Kings but Popes and Councels haue giuen this exemption to Clergy-men as also for that the whole world hath consented to the same which hath bestowed vpon Kinges that power which they haue So he Now let vs heare M. Barlow conster these words thus then he Englisheth them Orbis terrae t' is within the compasse of the inferiour orbe from whence is giuen to Kinges that power which they haue So he And let him turne ouer againe his Grammaticon or MaÌ„matrecton Cooper or Calepine and he shall neuer fynde these two wordes which himself setteth downe in latin to wit orbis terrae to signify t' is within the compasse of the inferiour orbe and therefore perhaps his wits were without that compasse when he wrote it and likewise his honesty was scant at home when within 3 leaues after out of this selfe same Chapter he cyteth in different letters and many of them capitalls this passage as the expresse wordes of Bellarmineâ— The Clergy is not bound to obey Kings longer then Kings are THEIR SVPERIOVRS and that is so long as THE POPE WILL for whome HE EXEMPTES they are all FRE and citeth in the margent de Cler. lib. 1. Cap. 28. â— Respondeo negando But let him read the place that list and he shal find no such thing And what then will yow say to such forgery falsity But for these two pointes I referre him to the Author of the Supplement where they are more largely discussed And were not M. Barlow of a seared conscience and his cause desperate he would neuer vse such legier-de-main and discredit himself in this base manner If his Spartans ready for the combat can fight no better it were more for his Maiestys honour and their owne honesty that they kept themselues out of the field staid at home to tend gooslinges then thus to betray their cause and shame all From Grammar let vs come to Philosophy 12. It seemeth that in this science M. Barlow is very meanly seene and not to haue read or which I rather thinke not to haue vnderstood Porphyries Introduction to the same For what puny-Sophister is there in Oxford or Cambridge who knoweth not that species producatur de pluribus differentibus numero But quite contrary M. Barlow tells vs that the powder-plot was not singular from all examples there hauing bene the like done by Protestants though not in specie yet in indiuiduo as at Antwerp c. which is asmuch as if one should say Although so grosse ignorance as we see in M. Barlow of Lincolne cannot be found in any other man yet is it to be found in many M. Barlowes whereas M. Barlow of whome we speake is but one and the selfe same man and ignorance may be found in other men as well as in him especially if they be Ministers as he is but of this also he shall see more in the ensuing Discussion And doth not he deserue to be brought againe ad inferiora subsâ—llia and to sit amongst the Sophisters in Cambridge till he hath learned to speake more like a Philosopher 13. Againe what more sollemne foolery can there be then so ignorantly to insult vpon his adâ—ersary for saying that S. Leo in a certayne place spake of vnity of names as M. Barlow doth for thus he sayth What learning will iustifie that phrase of speach An vnity of names c And againe that one name imparted to seuerall persons should be called an vnity let all the Onomasticks and Nomenclators or Mathematicians or Schoolemen be searched and t' will not be found So he Doe you not thinke that this man hath searched far into the matter read all bookes and seene what all say that so resolutly and generally pronounceth this sentence yet Aristotle could tell him that all aequiuoca vniuoca analoga agree in one name and none but one as ignorant as M. Barlow will deny that the name Father agreeth to men and God but in different manner so that it is true to say that the name of Father is all one in God and man though in nature it differ And what can be required more to the vnity of names Or can M. Barlow conceaue that they haue one name without all vnity Truly as well as conceaue that a man may be a foole without foolery or as simple as himselfe vvithout simplicity 14. And if this thing in no Schoole man can be found then must S. Thomas be blotted out of that raÌ„ke whose wordes are Ostenait Aristoteles quòd sâ—li vnitas nominis non sufficit ad vnitatem enuntiationis Aristotle sheweth that vnity of name sufficeth not for the vnity of a proposition And in his Quodlibets he expresly proueth this vnity of names which he calleth vnitateÌ„ vocis the vnity of appellatioÌ„ for that els there were no vniuoca But of this also he will heare more then he would or euer will be able to refell by the Author of the Supplement It sufficeth me to detect only his ignorance which as it is here both grosse and palpable so also combyned with singular arrogancy and pride in so resolutly affirming that no learning will iustifie this speach when as Aristotle and S. Thomas the great Philosopher and most learned of all Deuines do
Ely of whome whiles he was silent many had some opinion of learning but since all is resolued to lying immodest rayling and some few light Terentian Plautinian phrases which aswel bâ—seeme a Deuine writing in matters of such moment and in defence of so great a Monarch to dally withall as it doth a Bishop to lead a morrice-daunce in his hose and dublet This man I say answereth hereunto that perhaps so the case stood then when those Protestants did write but that is well neere 20. yeares agoe but now it is otherwise Which is asmuch as if he had said that this new beliefe in England is not like the old alwayes one but is refined altered with the tyme and therefore no argument can be drawne from a thing done 20. yeares past for that is to great antiquity for so new-fangled a fayth which is alwaies in motion and hath her waynes changes quarters and full like the Moone But yet I must aske him further how he will proue by any example of the Puritan writers this their change and submission to the Protestants conformity of doctrine with theÌ„ more now then 20. yeares past Are they not still in the same degree of difference and oppositioÌ„ as before Doe they not still deny our Sauiours descent into hell Do they not disclay me from the English Hierarchie Will they acknowledge the Kings Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall as King Henry did challenge it Or will they recall what they haue written of their discipline that it is an essentiall marke of the Church without which there were no Church no Faith no Ghospell and consequently the Protestants to be no Ghospellers to be out of the Church out of the number of the faithfull 29. But for further confutation of both these Superintendents and more cleere explication of the thing it selfe besides what is afterwards said in this booke touching this point it shall not be amisse here to set downe the words of a few Protestant and Puritan late and yet liuing writers what they iudge of ech other in this affayre that our very enemyes may be iudges of the most shamefull assertion of these two Prelates That the Protestants and Puritans differ in matters only cerimoniall and agree in essentiall And the reason that I produce no more in this kind is for want of their bookes which being not worth the sending so far seldome come to our hands I will begin with the Protestants 30. And to omit Thomas Rogers whose testimony is after to be produced in the Discussion it selfe what other thing doth Oliuer Ormerod in his discouery of Puritan-Papisme annexed to his Picture of a Puritan prooue but that the said Puritans are Hereticks and haue ioyned themselues with the Pharisies Apostolickes Arians Pebuzians Petrobusians Florinians Câ—rinthiaÌ„s Nazarens Begardines Ebionites Catababdites Eâ—theusiasts Donatists Iouinianists Catharists And least any should thinke that this coniunction is only in matters cerimonial he laieth to their charge these ensuing heresies that there is no diuersâ—â—y between a Priest and a Bishop that Bishops haue no iuâ—isdiction that all synnes be equall that the Minister is of the essence of baptisme with the like And in the second dialogue he maketh in plaine tearmes this obiection that there is no difference in matters fundamentall but accidentall and then answereth the same that they do differ from the Protestants in some things that are fundamentall and substantiall which he proueth by the article of Christs descending into hell And he might haue proued it further by the aboue rehearsed articles for which Iouinian Aerius and others were reputed by the auncient Fathers and condemned for Hereticks 31. VVith this Oliuer of Cambridge agreeth A. N. of Oxford in his Bible-bearer towards the midest for thus he writeth They refuse to subscribe to the Kings lawfull authority in causes Ecclesiasticall to the article of religion to the booke of Common prayer and the orders rites and cerimonies of our Church nay they dissent from vs in things accidentall and cerimoniall So he By which last antithesis of accidentall cerimoniall differences it is most euident that the former were essentiall fundamentall Neither doe I see how this can be denyed by any for if the Puritans refuse to subscribe to the articles of Protestant religion who seeth not that they approue it not and consequently differ in essentiall points and that M. Barlow ouerlashed very much when he wrote that their vnkind quarrell with Puritans was in another kind and not in matters of religion wherein forsooth out of his great kindnes he will haue them to agree 32. And not to stand more for proofe hereof from Protestants D. Couel cleereth the matter when he saith But least any man should thinke that our contentions were but in smaller points and the difference not great both sides haue charged the other with heresies if not infidelities nay euen such as quite ouerthrow the principall foundation of our Christian faith Thus he And this I thinke is another manner of matter then externall cerimonies or accidentall differences for if this be not a plaine iarre amongst Protestants and Puritans in Religion I would faine know what M. Barlow will more require thereunto but I see S. Gregories wordes verified in these men where he saith solent haeretici alia apertè dicere alia occultè cogitare the heretikes are wont to speake otherwise openly then inwardly they thinke for when they deale amongst themselues then are Protestants and Puritans heretikes and infidells to ech other but when they answere vs then all are friendes all good Christians all vnited in doctrine deuided only in cerimonies accidentall differences This is another manner of equiuocation then any of our schooles will allow and only fit for such as are his schollers qui in veritate non stetit sed mendax fuit ab initio 33. From Protestants I come to Puritans who in this case are no lesse eager playne and resolute then the Protestants but rather more for this in expresse tearmes the Author of the Twelue generall arguments concludeth against all the Superintendents of England togeather that they are Vsurpers and Tyrants and execute an vsurped power ouer the Church and one reason to proue the same is ex concessis for that their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction is deriued from the King else say they it is a flat deniall of his Supremacy as there they shew And in the next reason which is the 4. and last brought in for proofe of their assumption or minor thus they conclude There are no true and sober Christians but will say that the Churches of Scoâ—land France the Low Countryes and other places that renounce such Archbishops and Bishops as ours are as Anti-christian and vsurping Prelates are true Churches of God which they could not be if the authority prerogatiues they claime to themselues were of Christ and not vsurped for if it were the ordinance of Christ
Iesus that in euery kingdome that receaueth the Ghospell there should be one Archbishop ouer the whole kingdome one Bishop ouer many hundred Pastors in a kingdome and all they inuested with that authority and iurisdiction Apostolicall which they clayme iure diuino to be due `vnto them by the ordinance of Christ certainly that Church which should renounce and disclayme such an authority ordayned in the Church cannot be a true Church but the Synagogue of Sathan for they that should renounce and deny such must needs therin renounce and deny Christ himself Thus the assumption is cleared So the Author 34. To which argument as the Catholicks for true Bishops will willingly graunt the sequeleâ— that the Church of the Puritans is no Church but a Synagogue of Sathan for that it wanteth themâ— so I see not what Mâ— Barlow and his Protestants can reply thereuntoâ— for if Episcopall authority be diuinoâ— then cell of Rome condemned the same togeather with the Author therof So these Lutherans But with our beggarly English Protestants all is fish that coÌ„meth to the neâ—â— and of these outcast raggs they must patch vp a Church or els confesse that before Luther they haue none to whome they can accrew 39. And truly it is a pittifull thing to see what raggs some of them are not ashamed to gather vp what Hereticks I say they will professe to ioyne withall in opinions most brutish and blasphemous deuided amongst themselues and discarded by the more learned Protestants that the Reader may well with the Poâ—t demaund quid sequar aut quem For M. Symons draweth in Petrús Abilardus who though he died a repentant Catholicke and a religious Monk of the Abbey of Cluny in France which singuler grace I find only graunted by Almighty God to no other Sect. Maisters but Berengarius him yet whiles he liued in error he maintayned that Christ tooke not flesh to redeeme mankind that he had two persons that he was not God and the like Doth not this man stoope low for help thinke you Againe he togeather with M. Fox admitteth for brethren the beastly and barbarous Albigenses who had their beginning as Massonius writeth from one Henry Bruis of whom and whose filthy life S. Bernard maketh mention And these were so far of from being Ghospellers as they could not endure the Ghospell it self which hauing first most villainously abused at the siege of 〈◊〉 they cast it ouer the Walls towards the Catholike Army shooting many arrowes after it and crying aloud vnto the Souldiers ecce lex vestra miseri behould o miserable men your law or as Matthew Paris relateth it sitâ— behould your law we care not for it take it to your selues I omit their execrable blasphemies against our Bl. Sauiour himself S. Mary Magdalen not to offend Christian eares therwith for which our Sauiour seemed to take reuenge vpon them on the feast and in the Church of the same Saint where 7000. of them were slaine as saith Massaeus or many more as Heisterbachius who then liued Now what greater discredit can there be to the Protestants and their cause then then to rake Hell and make Saints of these damned soules enemies of all piety most seditious and rebellious spirits But to proceed 40. To these by M. Buckley Fox Abbotts others are adioyned the Waldenses whom they will haue to be but schollers or rather followers of the former but this following is only in tyme not in doctrine if we well consider what most authors write of them both and M. Fox is not ashamed to draw into his den fanatical Almericke making him for more credit of a Priest a Byshop But M. Iewell with one blast bloweth away all these clouted patches of this beggarly Church saying thus Of Abilard and Almerick and certaine other your strange names M. Harding meaneth Apostolicks Petrobusians Waldâ—nses Albigenses Image-breakers we haue no skill they are none of ours So he ouerthrowing in few words all M. Fox his laborious endeauours to make them Saints Martyrs true Ghospellers so well do these men agree among themselâ—es in buylding vp the babylonicall tower of their new deuised and confused Synagogue one denying what another graunteth yea one and the selfe same man fighting with himself saying vnsaying affirming and denying For in the very tenth page of that defence M. Iewell writeth As for Iohn Wickliff Iohn Husse Waldo and the rest they were godly men their greatest heresy was this that they complayned of the dissolute and vitious liues of the Clergy c. 41. Lo here Waldo is a godly man without error in doctrine yet of his followers M. Iewell hath no skil they are none of his Whereas notwithstanding you may be sure the schollers agreed in all things with their maisters Which of these two M. Iewell wil you beleeue Truely as for the godlines of Waldo I find no great record so neither will M. Iewell be able to shew wherin he disagreed from the Waldensians who as Guido the Carmelite writeth did hold amongest diuers other things which I pretermit that no man might iudge another for life and death because it is written nolite iudicare Iudge you not That Lay-men had authority giuen them from Almighty God to heare Confessions and absolue from sinnes That all carnall copulation when men are tempted therunto is lawfull They contemned the Apostles Creed and would haue Masse said but once in the yeare to wit on Maunday-Thursday by saying seauen Pater Nosters and blessing the bread and wine c. This and much more was the godly doctrine of M. Iewells Doctor Waldo whose learning was equall to his vertue for he could scant as most Authors affirme either write or read But I meane no further to prosecute this argument of which who listeth to read more may peruse what Coccius the Author of the Protestants Apology F. Persons in the last part of his three Conuersions haue written hereof and he will rest satisfied Now I come to examin M. Barlowes disputation what skill of Diuinity he sheweth in the same 42. He entreth into the list with great courage tells the Reader that F. Persons standeth ouer the Cardinall as if he were gasping for breath vnder the blow he hath receaued for his contradictions and makes the Father as a Chirurgion of the camp to cure three or foure of them which M. Barlow will needs lance againe and cut as he thinketh to the quick but vseth such dull instruments that so weakely as he doth neither cut nor bruze though much he labour to do his best and after some ten pages spent in idle babling lying and ignorant disputing like a victorious conquerour in the end excusing himself for the length of his discourse by reason that F. Persons did set vp saith he his crest and rest vpon it that if in this there be any contradiction he will yield that the Apologer hath not ouerlashed in
so much from this acknowledgment or testimony of the Councell of VVormes which did but set downe the sense of the Christian Church in these dayes but from other far more ancient proofes and testimonies as M. Barlow wel knoweth though here he dissembleth the same and chaâ—eth exceedingly saying That this fugitiue for such is his modesty of speach wil fâ—tch a 〈◊〉 sentence from this Councel to warrant no Councel to be good that iâ— celebrated without the Popes Authority and therby at one push ouerthrow the credit of al Councels both general and particuler for the better part of 900. yeares after Christ. Wherto I answer first that to be a fugitiue for the cause of Catholicke Religion is no reproach at al but a high commendation warranted by Christes owne words when he willed them that were persecuted in one Citty to fly into another and much more happy is it to be a fugitiue then a persecutour S. Athanasius in his booke de fugasua of his flight and persecution doth handle the matter at large to whom I remit the Reader Secondly as for the summoning gathering of CouÌ„cels general or particuler our controuersy is principally of General Councels for as for Diocesian Synods as they may be assembled by ech Bishop in his district and the Prouincial Councels by the Metropolitan which Protestants themselues wil not deny so by the due proportion of good order General Councels must be gathered by commandment or consent at least of the general Pastour though in States subiect to temporal Princes good reason requireth that the matter be done in like manner with the approbation of the said temporal Princes for the houlding of the said Councel in this or that place of their Dominions And this was obserued in the first 4. General Councels which were commanded to be gathered by Constantine Theodosius the elder Theodosius the yonger and Martian the Emperours by the assent and approbation of the Popes Syluester Damasus Celestinus and Leo which besides other proofes of seueral histories is made euident by the last of the said 4. Councels to wit that of Chalcedon where in the first action the heretical Archbishop Dioscorus was punished publikely and forbidden to sit amongst the Bishops for that he had presumed to call a Councell without the authority of the Apostolike Sea Quâ—d numquam licuiâ— say they numquam sactum est that neuer was lawfull nor euer was done And consequently this prooueth that all the first 4. Generall Councells were gathered by the consents and approbations of the Bishops of Rome though with the concurrence also of the Emperours without whose good liking the meeting of so many Bishops in their States could not be permitted as before hath bene said But now here before I passe any further I must make you acquainted with a solemne foolery and falshood of M Barlow concerning Cardinall Bellarmine for that hauing vttered the words before mentioned that CouÌ„cels were to be gathered by the Emperours and not by the Bishops of Rome though he citeth no one argument for the same yet saith he this is a thing so cleare and radiant that Bellarmine himselfe being dazeled with behoulding the euidence euen as S. Peter not wiâ—â—ing what he said though he laboured to build for the Pope yet labâ—â—reth be also to build for the Emperour and in that same place he â—â—eweth diuers reasons why it rather belongeth to Emperours then to Popes for â—o assemble Councells citing for the same in his margent Bellar. de Concil cap. 13. But truly when I went to the place of Bellarmine and read his words I was ashamed on M. Barlowes behalfe and his folly was so radiant in my eyes to vse his phrase that I could not read them without blushing for that in the Chapter by him cited and in the other going before Bellarmine doth proue most substantially by many arguments both out of Scriptures Fathers Councels reasons histories practice and examples that it appertayneth not to the Emperour only or principally but to the Bishop of Rome to call General CouÌ„cells or at leastwise that it may not be done without the said Bishops consent and approbation first had so as the very contradictory proposition to this which M. Barlow sets downe is found in these expresse words in Bellarmine â—sse reuerà Pontiâ—icis non Imperatoris congregare Synodum generalem that is belongeth truely to the Pope and not to the Emperour to gather a generall Councell Adding notwithstanding 4. particuler reasons and temporall respects why diuers generall Councells could not be gathered togeather vnder the Emperours who were temporal Lords of the world without their likings consents Not saith he for that a Councell gathered without the authority of the Emperour among Christians should not be of validity as our aduersaries doe dreame whereas S. Athanasiuâ— saith plainely in his epistle to them that lead a solitary life Quando vmquam iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritateÌ„ habuit when did euer the iudgment of the Church take authority from the Emperour but for that the temporall state of Christendome standing in the Emperours hands no such meeting could be made without their approbation And can this stand with that which M. Barlow here affirmeth in his name that he shewes diuers reasons why it rather belonged to Emperours then to the Pope to assemble Councells Will he not blush and be ashamed of this shameles calumniation or rather forgery As for that he obiected coÌ„cerning the Graunt giuen to Charles the Great by Adrian the Pope to haue authority to approue the Election of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops and Archbishops and to dispose of the Sea Apostolike c. I referre him to Cardinall Baronius for his answer in his Annales of the yeare 774. where he discusseth the matter at large and proueth it a meere fiction and plaine fraud inuented registred first by Sigebertus in fauour of the cause of Henry the fourth Emperour excommunicated by the Pope which he proueth by many playne euidences out of all the ancient writers for the space of 300. years after Charles his time who neuer made mention of any such Graunt as also the expresse testimony of Eginhardus that was Notary to Charles the Great and was alwayes about him and wrote his life and by diuers other proofes which were too long here to recite Therfore with this shall we end this Chapter VVHETHER THE POPE IN HIS BREVE DID FORBID TEMPORALL OBEDIENCE to his Maiesty of England AND Whether the said Pope hath Power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII WHERAS in the Apology a great coÌ„plaint was made against the Pope for that in his Breue he did forbid temporall Obedience to be performed to his Maiesty as a poynt against fayth and saluation of soules moreouer chargeth him with assuming vnto himselfe infallibility of spirit to make new Articles of sayth when euer it shall please him c. my answer therunto
of Supreme 〈◊〉 of the said Church belonging c. And in another Statute two yeares after that From hâ—â—cefâ—rth he shall accept râ—pute â—â—d take the Kings Maiestie to be the â—â—ly Supreme Head oâ— earth of 〈◊〉 Church of England c. And that the refusers of this Oath 〈◊〉 reputed traytours and suffer the pâ—yâ—es of â—â—ath c. And in other Statutes it is decrâ—â—d that it â—halbe â—reasâ—â— tâ—â—eny thâ—â— tytle 〈◊〉 Headship and that this was held of such importance vnder King Edward who succeeded his Father that it is decreed by Statute that all authority of iurisdiction spirituall and temporall in the Biâ—â—ops and Miâ—istry 〈◊〉 deduâ—ed and deriued frâ—◠〈◊〉 Kings Maiestie as Supreme 〈◊〉 c. Vpon this important doubt I was so bold as to stay my selfe a little as now â—lso I must intreating M. Barlow to giue the solution therofâ— to wit that forsomuch as this matter of the Headship of 〈◊〉 Chuâ—ch was held of so great weight by thâ—ir prime aâ—d principall Protestantâ— and especially by their Paâ—riarkes Cranmer â—idley Hâ—â—per and others then holding the places of Bishops in Parlament when the sayd Title was not only confirmed in the Child King but declared alsâ— to be the fountayne of all spirituall â—uthority and iâ—risdiction in the Clergie and that it was treason to deny this Tytle of spirituall influxe in the Clergie how this matter came about that it should be so little esteemed as to be left of and changed now yea to be denyed expressely by their principall wryâ—â—â—â— as namely by Doctour Iohn â—â—ynolds in his â—oÌ„ference with M. Hart where he flatly deâ—yeth that they doe call the Queene Supreme Head but only Supreâ—◠〈◊〉 which if they be Synoâ—â—ma and all one then what necâ—â—â—â—â—ie to hâ—ue denyed 〈◊〉 vnto herâ— But iâ— Goâ—ernour do signify any thing lesâ—e then Supreme Head then haue they changed their principall point oâ— doctrine wheron dependeth the lawâ—ulneâ— of their whole Clâ—rgie aâ— you seâ— and so the matter being of such weight I thought it worth the staying to haue some answere But M. Barlow falleth into a great chafe for this my stay The giddy fellow sayth he hath an other err and to do not 〈◊〉 of the way but by the way The Scripture setteth a more esseâ—â—iâ—â—◠〈◊〉 vpon such by-way takers saying That wicked men declinant 〈◊〉 oâ—â—iquationâ—s take all the by-wayes nâ—okes aâ—d lanes they câ—â— passe for feare to be descryed or apprehended This is one reprehension as you see insteed of answering the matter Yoâ— shall heare anoâ—hâ—r more châ—leriâ—ke It is a vexing tormeâ—◠〈◊〉 a man sayth he thâ—â— is inioyned a ioâ—rney vpon a speed◠〈◊〉 requiring a serious dispatch to traâ—aile with a triâ—ling companâ—â—â— that will make many erâ—ands by thâ— way or hath many acquaintances to stop him in the way or is forced to make often returnes vpâ—â— forgeâ—fullnes of dâ—â—ers â—hingâ— c. And I expected that he would haue sayd also that he must needâ— dâ—inke at eueâ—y Ale-house as he passeth by But this perhaps he thought would haue caused more reflection then he esteemed conuenient and those other triflings are inough for so much as they yield such a veâ—ing tâ—rmeâ—â— to M. Barlow in his iâ—ioyned 〈…〉 â—pon so speedy a busines But why did he not giue me 〈◊〉 a speedy answere without tryfling and so dispatch both me and himselfe quickly Truly you haue heard somewhat largely bâ—forâ— what he can say to this matter â—nd therfore I meane noâ— to dwell theron long in this plâ—â—e especiâ—lly for so much as the man is in such hast and so impatient of stay You haue heard what hath bene treated before about this point of spirituall authority in the temporall Prince and to â—ow â—ow a pitch he bringeth the same euen in effect to agree with vs granting â—nto the Prince the power â—â—ly oâ— execution of such things as are determâ—â—ed by the Church But now in a woâ—â— let vs see how he shifteth of the change of the name of Supreme Head First he sayth that 〈◊〉 Maiesty did not leaue it out oâ— his Title vpon â—uer-awed 〈◊〉 to take it forasmuch as God gaue the said Tyâ—le to a far worse King I pray you note the phrase which is strang from a sâ—biects pen to wit to Saul when he said he was Caput in Triâ—â—busâ— Head among the Tribeâ—â—f Israel And S. Paul nameth the â—â—sband head of the wife But what is this to our purposâ— that do talke of the spirituall Head of the Church Nay it seemeth rather to make against M. Barlowes prouing that the Tytle oâ— Head was lawfull and so it was in the true sense of ciuill Head ship and consequently it should haue bene conâ—inued wheras we demand why it was left of chanâ—ed So as this first answere is nothing to the purpose His second is that it is but identity of commaund expressed 〈◊〉 â—iuersitie of termes But why then was it changed And why doth M. Doctour Reynolds by M. Barlowes owne â—â—â—â—iâ—ony giue the Title not of Headâ— but of Supreme Gouernour What need that expresse negatiue if they were all one If you should deny to the Kings Highnes the Tytle of King and of Supreme Head of the Common-Wealth and call him only supreme Gouernour would it be taken well or excused by identity No man can be ignorant but that in euery state neuer so popular there is a supreme Gouernour â—hough no King Thirdly he sayth that the change of supreme Head into supreme Gouernour was made by Parlament the first yeare of Queene Elizabeths raigne at the request of the Nobles and Deuines of the Land But the question is why and vpon what ground forsomuch as it may be presumed there were as great Deuines in King Henry the Eight hâ—â— time in the Parlament And if not yet at least in King Edwards Parlament that did approue and establish this Tytle of supreme Head It was saith M. Barlow not in regard of Queene Elizabeth her sexe for she being descended as she was she had as absolute authority in the fruition of the Crowne for both powers spirâ—tuall and temporall as any Male-Monarch whatsoeuer And a little after agaiâ—e he saith that this change was made least a weaker 〈…〉 thinke that they gaue vnâ—o Kings tâ—â—t Tiâ—le secundum interioreâ— influâ—um according to â—he inâ—â—riour influence which 〈◊〉 the prâ—pâ—â— office of the head as being the fountayne of moisture and is â—he â—â—st 〈◊〉 attribute of Christ alone But not to speake in this place of this internall influxe of grace that commeth originally from Christ alone although instrumentally also froÌ„ men as in the administration of Sacraments according to Câ—tholike doctrine what will he say of the externall influâ—â— of power iurisdiction ouer soules of preaching teâ—ching administring Sacraments ordayning Ministers and the like Could this power come aswell from a Feminine as a Masculine Monâ—rch If it couldâ— I do
of which discourse what trow yoâ— doth M. Barlow infer He secretly saith he girds a his Maiesty for being both a Philosopher which is hâ—â— Maiestâ—es great glory our Realmes happinesâ— for true Philosophy ioyned to goâ—ernment regulates the scepter to the subiects comfort and the Kingdomes renowne and an heretick also a perfect slaunder in them both for by that religion which they call heresie he doth truly glorifie the God of heauen So he and who can denyâ— but that here is also besmearing as M. Barlow hath framed his CoÌ„meÌ„tary but I verily thinke that God is little glorified by such bad glosses so little coherent yea so cleane repugnanâ— to the text Let vs come to the last for hasten to aâ— end of this Preface meane not to make any longer demurr vpon this kind of sycophancy 95. The most potent proofe of all the rest to euince that F. Persons wrote against his Maiesty and not T. M. which M. Barlow will haue to be demonstratiue and therfore setteth it out with his Ministeriall eloquence and Episcopall grauity is taken from these words of the said Father where hauing aÌ„swered the obiectioÌ„s made against the liues of some Popeâ— he concludeth thus If a man would goe about to discredit Kingly authority by all the misdeeds of particuler Kings that haue byn registred by Historiographers since the tyme that Popes began he should finde no doubt aboundaÌ„t maâ—â—er and such as could not be defended by any probability And yet doth this preiudicate nothing to Princely power or dignity and much lesse in our case where the facts themselues obiected are eyther exaggerated increased wrested orâ— altogeater falsified 96. To this what replyeth M. Barlow Here first saith he is verified that speach of Seneca nemo personam diu ferre potest Art cannot long estrange nature But as the Apologue dâ—scribâ—s Venus transformed waiting-mayde who beeing trickt vp like a GentlewomaÌ„ mink'st it a while till she spied a Mouse but then made it knowne she was a Cat So this Censurer who all this while would make the Reader belieue that he confuted onely one T. M. the yonger and would seeme to take no knowledge that our Graâ—ious Soueraigue had to doe in the Apology now being exaspâ—rate with this round canuasinâ— of the Pope and knowing that it will be descried for the stile and veine of more thâ—n an ordinary man he forgets his dissembled aduersaryâ— likâ— a perfit Iesuit retorts vpon the King Thus he But how is this proued Heare I pray and admire the wisdome of Syr William For if T. M. saith he were the truâ— Apologâ—r the recrimination had bene more fit both in respâ—ct of these precedeÌ„t instances of Popes and that suppâ—sâ—d Author to haue made the comparison between Bishops Ministâ—rs But if I answere him againe that it was more fitly made betweene Kingâ— Popes in respect of their supreme authority which is not lost by the demerit of their liues he hath nothing to reply therunto but that all they who weare the habit or are inuested into holy orders amongst Protestants I vse his â—wne words are not free from notorious vices and scandalous to the world which I confesse and none I thinke can with any reason or truth gaine-say the same 97. By these then and such like reasons he would proue F. Persons to haue written against hiâ— Maiesty whatsoeuer he said against Thomas Mountague and consequently to haue railed against him which although they be very childish ridiculous and impertinent as you haue seene prouing nothing but his owne sicophancy yet as though they were cleerer mathematicall demonsâ—rations then any in Euclide he buildeth all his accusation vpon them and sayth as you haue heard that he could not without touch of disloyaltie forbeare from reproach and that in respect of F. Persons reuiling veyne nothing at all was to be pared or spared telling his Maiesty that neyther the shame of the world nor feare of God nor grace of the spirit can mortify his nature or restraine his tongue but citeth no senteÌ„ce word or syllable for the same but such as you haue heard With M Barlow whose rayling I meane heere to examine I will deale more really and out of his owne words shew what feare of God he hath what shame of the world what grace of the spirit what mortified nature what modâ—st tongue and then leaue it to Readers iudgment to determine whether in such brutish reuiling no sparing or paring were to be vsed or not 98. In his Epistle Dedicatory which is not very long besides the reproaches mentioned of rancour scorning ribaldry defiling besmearing regorging and the like he calleth F. Persons a debosâ—ed abiect and vnreformed Hypocrite belike M. Barlow is a reformed one a Rakeshame Rabshekah of a prostituted conscience impudency whose very name is the epitome of all contumely being as currant in a proâ—erb as was once the name of Daedalus In omni fabula Daedali execratio for no libell can come from Rome but Persons is presently supposed and noysed to be Author and the more vile the more Persons like a creature that doth rage snarle c. Thus much to his Maiesty himselfe And is not this thinke you fit for a Prince to read or preâ—eÌ„ded Prelate to write Is the grauity learning modesty and vertue of the English Clergy for which our Country before this reuolt was most famous so lost as insteed of answering like Deuines to see one bearing himselfe for a Bishop to renew the old Comedy in an epistle to his Soueraigne a Booke written in his defeÌ„ce which eueÌ„ on the heathen stage was so much misliked condemned by all 99. To this begining is sutable the whole worke which followes or rather much worse For in the very entrance after he hath set down what order he will obserue and repeated some of F. Persons words but falsly after his accustomed manner he calleth him a ranging voluntary runnagate an Hispanized Camelion the brat of an Incubus filius terrae no true Englishman eyther in hart or by birth This is his first assault rude Ruffianlike as you see and then afterwardes he telleth of the disgorging the gall of his bitternes and the venemous rancour of his cancred hart by his Rabshakeis pen that he is the abstract quintessence of all coynes coggeries forgeries that lyes dissembles equiuocates at euery word this fugitiue tenebrio Persons Robin Cowbucke parasite and trayterous clawbacke a knowne incendiary this serpens Epidaurius the Diuells schollar his Deuillity reader Spiritus mendax in ore omnium Prophetarum this boutefeaux he disgorgeth out of his filthy throat by his diuelish pen c. And is there heer no paring nor sparing to be vsed in the iudgment of M. Barlows exact Surueyers Truely eyther their Suruâ—y was not very exact or their iudgmeÌ„t small or els they were not his frieÌ„ds that would permit such scurrility
and security as here is insinuated it must needes be for that the Diuell indeed hath made some change in other men matters by altering of opinions and apprehensions For the Catholickes are the same that they were wont to be do thinke the same belieue the same teach the same and practice the same that all their Predecesâ—ours haue done before them This was my declaration discourse What substantiall answer or argument can M. Barlow bring against thisâ— You shall see how he will gnibble at the matter as a mouse at the cheese-vate and cannot enter He saith first that I am in my element when I am in this argument of recourse to Rome vsed to be made from age to age by our ancient Christian English people Prelates and Princes that there is scarce any Epistle Preface Pamphlet Booke or Petition of myne but that this is therein the Cypres-tree to make Rome the loadstone for drawing thither the tryall of our gould in both senses and the like That I borrowed all from Cardinall Allen in his Apology that we haue receyued full satisfactory answers in this behalfe to wit that when the Bishops of Rome in purer times did beare theÌ„selues as religious members not as presumptuous heads of the Church and lyued as ghostly Fathers to counsaile not as Superiors to controle our realme being then also rude and learning scant Religion new sprong vp and no where setled I say then and in those dayes M. Barlow graunteth that the recourse was made to Rome but yet vpon deuotion and mere necessity and not then neither without leaue of the Prince This is his tale And doe you not see what gnibling this is Doe you not behould the poore man in what straites he is to say somewhat What more euident or more strong demonstration could or can be made if he would ioyne really to see and confesse the truth to proue the right and continuance of the Bishop of Rome his supreme spirituall authoriâ—y ouer England and recourse made vnto him therein then that which was made against Syr Edward Câ—â—ke in the answer of the fifth part of Reportes that from King Ethelbert our first ChristiaÌ„ King vntil the defection of King Henry the eight vpon the poynt of a thousand yeares and almost a hundred Christian Kinges it was inuiolably obserued in England to make such recourse in matters of doubt concerning Ecclesiasticall and spirituall affaires vnto the Sea Apostolike and the vniuersall Pastour thereof as lawfull iudge not for counsaile only but for sentence determination and decision both beâ—ore after the Conquest So as except M. Barlow do see more then all they did and haue more learning and piety then any of them who â—ollowed also therein not their owne sense and iudgement only but that of the whole Christian world besides all these spruse and princocke exceptions of â—urer tymes rudenesse of the land lacke of learning theyr being of new Christians and the like are but ridiculous inuentions of an idle busy-head and so not worth the standing vpon to answer them for that they are euidently false in the eyes of al the world And like vnto these are the other â—oyes that do ensue pag. 25. 26.27 As for example that there was no need to make recourse to Rome for deciding the doubts about the Oath which he proueth forsooth and that very â—oberly out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. Is there not a wise man among you among al the Priests secular â—esuited in EnglaÌ„d that can determine a controuersy about the Oath of Allegiance Might not your Arch-Priest Blackwell so authorized by the Pope so commended and countenanced by two Cardinals Caiâ—tan and Burghesius be sufficient But al this is simple geere as you see and hangeth not togeather but rather maketh for his aduersary For if the Arch-Priest that then was had his authority from the Pope then reason was it that in so great a doubt concerning the soules of so many the matter should be consulted with the Superiour as we see it vsuall in England that lower Iudges in difficult cases doe consult with them from whom they had their authority Neyther doth S. Paul here alleaged meane that the Corinthians should choose some contemptible man to be their iudge in Spirituall or Eccleâ—aâ—ticall matters for in all those he biddetâ— all Christians to be subiect to their Bishops spirituâ—ll Pastours that haue to render accouÌ„t for their soules but hâ— meaneth in temporall matters and particuler sutes and ciuill controuersies betweene man man which he houldeth to be contemptible thinges in respect of the spirituall and especially to contend for the same before Infidell Iudges as they did And so doth M. Barlâ—â— wholy peruert S. Paul as his fashion is commonly in most Scriptures and authorityes that he alleageth But now we come to another argument of his against our recourse made to Rome for decision of this great doubt concerning the taking or not taking the Oath And albeit you haue heard how many impertinent and childish arguments he hath vsed before about the same yet none of them can be compared with this for absurdity and impertinency and it consisteth in taking exceptions against the very person of the Pope Paulus Quintus that now sitteth in the Sea who being so eminent for his good partes rare vertues as laying aside his supreme dignity of Vniuersall Father of Christs Catholick Church the same doth grieue exceedingly the hartes of all Heretickes that hate the Apostoâ—â—cke Sea and him only for that he sitteth and gouerneth so worthily therein which they cannot abydeâ— But let vs see what they obiect against him in this behalfe VVhat is there saith he in this Pope for his iudgment in Diuinity that his determination should be expected about this Oath of Allegâ—â—â—ce to his Maiestie more then in his predecessour Clemens whose opinion was not inquired of about the Oath for conspiracy against the whole Realme Wherunto I answer that for so much as the other Oath of conspiracy if any such were was but betweene certaine particuler men who did vpon discontentmeÌ„t coÌ„spyre togeather and bynd one the other by Oath to secresy did presume that both Pope Clement this Pope if they had bene made priuy therof would haue letted their bad intentions therfore the conspirators neuer proposed the mâ—â—ter vnto them but concealed it from their knowledge whome they asâ—urâ—d to find opposite to their designements in such like attempts But this other Oath called of Allegiâ—â—ce for that it was a publike matter and vrged publikly to be taken by all Catholicks with most grieuous penalties of loâ—se of goods landes liberty proposed for the refusers and for that the sayd Catholikes had a great doubt whether they might receiue the same with a safe conscience in respect of diuers clauses therein contayned tending to the deniall or calling into question the Popes supreme authority ouer Christian soules therefore they thought it
out of Plato Aristophanes and other Greeke Authors may be proued And albeit I will not stand to defend that in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Barlow doth wrong Plutarke and Gracchus in translating headdy vndertaker rather then magnanimous yet doth he offer them open iniury in translating the other epithete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a rash speaker whereas indeed it signifyeth to Graccâ—us his praise a prompt and ready man in speaking eloquent copious and the like But as for the other exprobrations of a most violent spirit impatient of contradiction and the rest he abuseth â—gregiously both Gracchus Plutarke for not only are those reproaches not found there as applyable to Gracchus but the very contrary is sayd of him and therin is he preferred before his brother Caius in these words of Plutarke Vulâ—u obtutu motu blaâ—dâ— erat compositus Tyberius acer Caius vehemeÌ„s Deinde or atiâ— sulnâ—nans Caij dulcior Tyberij pari modo in victu mensa frugalis sâ—â—rplex Tyberius c. lenis etiam placidus confragosus alter seruidus Tyberius both in countenance and motion was aâ—â—â—ble and composed Caius sharpe and vehement and consequently to this the Orations of Caius were thundering but those of Tyberius more sweete and in like manner Tyberiâ—â— was more frugall and simple in his dyet and table then his brother Caius he was also very gentle and pleasing in his behauiour and speach but the other was rough and feruent c. Now then let the prudent reader see and consider how all this doth agree to the description of Tyberiâ—â— set downe by M. Barlow and how true a man he is in all his assertions And how false soeuer he was in the allegation certaine it is that he dealt most wickedly in the application of all to the person of his Holines that now liueth And this much shall suffice about this matter It followeth pag 27. 28. after he had discharged such a storme against the Popes owne person as now you haue heard for his medling in this Oath and giuing his decisioÌ„ therof he sayth that this was to be Iudg in his owne cause alleaging a Poet for his proofe about sur latro one pleading at the barre the other sitting at the bench But doth not the malicious man see that this his cauillation toucheth the interest of all Princes as though they might not be Iudges or giue sentence in cases wherein themselues haue a part if law stand with theÌ„ For to cause other men to do it in their name by their authority is as much as to do it themselues And what did the Pope more in this case theÌ„ this making a decision by counsaile of his learned men according to Christian law that this case of England touched points of Religion concerning the Sea Apostolick which authority no Pope can infringe or diminish without sinne if he would for that it was giueÌ„ not only to him but to his antâ—cessors and successors in like maÌ„ner to indure for the good of the whole Church to the worlds end But saith M. Barlow it had bene plaine dealing in the Pope if before he had sent his Breues of Interdiction he had acquainted his Maiâ—stie with encounters of doubt that bred the quarrell and the ouer-swaying reason that carried him to the negatiue Very wisely spoken and worth the wit of M. Barlow And would his Maiesty haue admitted the messenger or message who seeth not that there is nothing heere but trifling and caueling But I may adde also scoulding for he breaketh presently into a most desperate blast of rayling against F. Persoâ—s calling him trayterous Absolom that careth not to set his â—â—â—e friendes land yea to see his natiue soile on a light fire so he may purchase the Popes fauour All which is spoken with much passion little reason for that the probability is much more that Maister Barlow flattereth the Kinges Maiesty for hope of preferment whereof he is capable and hath gotten possession of a good part already then â—a Persons the Pope whose state and condition of life hath no need of such preferment nor can it be proued that euer Father Persons spake for a fee forward and backward as M. Barlow hath done in his best Patrones cause As for the authority of the sixt Councell of Carthage about appellations to Rome noted in the margent it is not worth the answering both for that the words nor sense alleadged by him are there found and the controuersie about Appeales to Rome from Africa is so handled by me at large in my last Reckoning with M. Morton and he found so faulty and defectuous in that accomptâ— as if M. Barlow will take vpon him to pay that debt and to answer that only Paragraph for him I shall say that he is his friend indeed Wherefore I expect the euent In the very next lines following M. Barlow doth so brokenly recite my wordes about Mâ—â—â—is aliena another mans haruest for so did the Apologer write that English Catholikes are to the Pope that he maketh neyther me nor himselfe to be vnderstood Read I pray you his relation of my wordes pag. 29. numb 5. and see whether you can vnderstand him about Mâ—ssâ—â—aliena My words were plaine inough for thus I wrote page 12. numb 20. by him cited For first about putting the Popes hooke in anoâ—â—er mans haruest supposing as we do that we â—â—â—aâ—e of Catâ—olike people onely and according to Catholike doctrine and in matters belonging to Catholike mâ—ns soules and consciences it cannot be called Messisaliâ—na another mans haruest that the Pope dealeth in England with such kind of people in such cases as well as in Spaine France Flaunders Italy Germany Polonia and other States and kingdomes for that they are no lesse appertayning to his â—â—ock care charge and haruest then the rest Neyther doth the materiall separation of our Iland separate vs from the vnion of one body nor of one obedience to one and the selfe same generall head and Pastour no more then it doth froÌ„ the vnion of one beliefe and of one number and forme of Sacraments of one manner of seruice and other like pointes belonging to the internall and externall vnity of Catholike Religion And is not this plaine inough How doth he reply You shall heare it in his owne wordes and he will so imbroyle himselfe therin as he will let fall neere halfe a dozen of absurdities ignorances and open falsities by the way Do you stand attent then â— thus he bringeth his answere to my former discourse of Messis aliena This is a 〈◊〉 argument no doubt quoth he the Pope hath to do in England saitâ— the Censurer because some Catholikes suppose he hath but before this supposall be brought into a positiue resolute conclusion it will aske a longer time then such a Pamphlet c. Where you see first that he quite mistaketh me eyther
folly for saying but a supposal as though it were a speach of vncertainty I haue said sufficieÌ„t before There remaineth his vntruth in saying that Bellar. doth suppose that if the rest of the Apostles were not made Bishops by S Peter then cannot the Church of Rome be the Mother-Church of other Churches nor the Bishop vniuersal Bishop For first as coÌ„cerning the latter part about the Vniuersall Bishop Bellarmine hath no one word thereof but teacheth the quite contrary founding the power and authority of S. Peter ouer all other Churches vpon other groundes and namely vpon the commission of Christ Matth. 16. â—oan 20. not vpon his ordayning or not ordayning Bishops of the other Apostles about which question he doth but set downe the opinion of Ioannes de Tuâ—reâ—remata lib. 2. Summae de Ecclesia Cap. 32. with his reasons â—or the same and consequently doth not â—et it downe as a supposall certaine ground or principle but as a probable and disputable opinion though himself hould the opinion of Turrecremata to be more probable But on the other side Franciscus de Victoria heere cited by M. Barlow himselâ—e though he be of a contrary opinion to Turrecremata and to Bellarmine about the Ordination of all the Apostles by S. Peter yet doth he in the very same place professe that S. Peter was Vniuersall Bishop ouer all the Church of God Primus Princeps cum summa supertotam Ecclesiam potâ—state That among the Apostles he was the first and principall with supreme power ouer all the Church So as the denial of this particulâ—r priuiledge in S. Peter that he ordained all other Apostles Bishops doth not inâ—eâ—e that he was not vniuersall Bishop of the whole Church as here we see M. Barlow most falsely to inferre And whereas he noteth in the margent with great diligence diuers Catholicke writers that dâ—â— hold the question to be probable on both sids as Salmeron Victoria Suarez and Gregorius de Valâ—ntia that is but an old trick to shuâ—â—le and make a noice where there is no need for Bellarmine doth not hold the thing to be de fide or infallible supposall and consequently it little importeth to bring in this diuersity of opinions of the aâ—oresayd Authors about the matter Now then to come to the second vntruth that the Pope by decreeing the Oath as it lay was vnlawfull did also forbid euen that very point of sâ—earing ciuill obedience which is so notoriously vntrue as whosoeuer doth but read the Popes Breue it selfe or Cardinall Bellarmine his explication therof or my Letter wherin the contrary is euery where protested wil maruaile to see such impudent proceeding But of this more afterward Now wee shall passe to discusse whether there be any pointes in the sayd Oath concerning the religion and consciences of Catholicks whereby the taking thereof was made vnlawfull vnto them For this doth Maister Barlow vtterly deny as now you shall heare WHETHER THE OATH BE ONLY OF CIVILL OBEDIENCE Or whether there be any clauses in it against Catholicke Religion CHAP. II. THIS point being one of the most chief of al my Treatise about the Oath is haÌ„dled by me somewhat largely pag. 13. of my Letter where vpon the deniâ—ll of the Apologer that any thing is there required but Ciuill obedience my wordes are these And how shall we cleare tâ—is important matter to wit VVhether there be any poyntes in thâ— Oath belonging to religion besides ciuill obedience and I do answer that it is vâ—ry easy to cleare the same by fower seuerall and distinct waâ—es First by the expresse wordes sense and drift of the Oath it selfe that besides the acknowledgemenâ— of temporall respects to wit that our Soueraigne is tâ—â—â— Kâ—ng rightâ—ull Lord ouer all his dominions and â—hat the swearer is his true loyall subiect to obey him in all temporall affayres and other like clauses whereat no man sticketh or maketh difficulty there be other clauses also against the authority of the Supreme Pastour which doe iustly breed scruple of conscience to a Catholicke to â—dmit or take the same Secondly I shewed the same by the Popes wordes in his Breues wherin he doth conioyne the taking of this Oath with the going to the Churches and Seruice of a different Religion pronouncing the one and the other to be vnlawfull Thirdly I declared the same out of the iudgment of Cardinall Bellarmine other learned men who hauing considered well the nature of this Oath and different clauses therin coÌ„tayned do hold it for so cautelously compounded by artificially ioyning togeather Temporal and Spirituall thinges to wit Ciuill Obedience forswearing the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority as no man can thereby profâ—sse his temporall subiection and detest treason and conspiracy which all Catholikes are most willing to doe but he must be forced also to renouÌ„ce the Primacy of the Sea Apostolicke from which all good Cathoâ—ick consciences do iustly abhorre Fourthly for a more full and finall clearing of this matter that I could thinke of no better nor more forcible meane then to make this reall offer on the behalfe of euery English Catholicke for better satisfaction of his Maiestie in this poynt so much vrged of their ciuill and temporall obedience First that he will sweare and acknowledge most willingly all those partes and clauses of the Oath that do any way appertayne to the Ciuil and Temporall obedience due to his Maiesty whom he acknowledgeth for his true and lawfull King and Soueraigne ouer all his dominions and that he will sweare vnto him as much loyalty as euer any Catholicke Subiect of England did vnto their lawfull Kinges in former tymes and ages before the change of King Henry the eight or that aâ—y forrayne subiect oweth or ought to sweare to any Catholicke Prince whatsoeuer at this day These were the â—oure wayes which then occurred 〈◊〉 my mind wherunto it shall be good to examine brieâ—â—y what M. Barlow hath bene able to say in this his answâ—â—â— He beginneth resoluâ—ely as though he had intention 〈◊〉 ioynâ— really indeed Now then saith he this must be cleâ—â—â—â— whether the Oath doth onely concerne ciuill obedience yea or no 〈◊〉 that it doth not the Censurer taketh vpon him to satisfy in eight â—â—â—bers â—rom the 20. to the 28. and that foure seuerall waies So â—e And what doth he alleage against these foure waie◠〈◊〉 eâ—fect no word at all though he babble not a little of diuers matters impertinent to the purpose VVe laying this 〈◊〉 our ground saith he that first both swearing and performing 〈◊〉 obedience is aswell negative against any intruder challenger or vsâ—â—per as affirmatiue â—or the lawfull gouernours and Soueraignes Secondly that this challeng of the Pope in dethroning and deposing of Priâ—ces is a temporall intrusion and no spirituall iurisdiâ—tion do câ—â—clâ—â—â— with a strong and apparant euidence that the whole bulke of the Oâ—â—â— both in the submissiue and exclusiue part doth
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—
Athanasius himselfe in a long Epistle of this matter where he also recouÌ„teth the bold speach of bishop Osius the famous Confessor of Corduba who was one of the 318. Fathers that saâ—â— as Iudges in the first Councell of Niâ—e and vsed the saâ—â— liberty of speach to the forsayd Emperour at another time which the other Bishops had done before him saying to him Leaue of I beseech thee o Emperor these dealingâ— in Ecclesiasticall affayres remember thou art mortall feare the day of Iudgement keep thy selfe free from this kind of sin do not vse coÌ„mandements to vs in this kind but rather learne of vs for that God hath coÌ„mitted the Empire vnto thee to vs the things that appertaine to his Church c. All which speaches doth S. Athanasius allow highly coÌ„mend in the same place adding further of his owne That now the sayd Constantius had made his Pallace a tribunall of Ecclesiasticall causes in place of Ecclesiasticall Courtes and had made himselfe the cheife Prince and head of spirituall Pleas which he calleth the abhomination foretold by Daniel the Prophet c. Which speach if old Athanasius should haue vsed to his Maiestie in the presence of all the rest and seconded by others that sate theâ—e with him could not in all reason but much moue especially ifâ— So Gregory Nazianzen and S. Ambrose should haue recounted their admonitions about the same to their temporall Lord and Emperour Valentinian as when the former sayd vnto him as is extant yet in his Oration That he should vnderstand that he being a Bishop had greater authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperor and that he had a tribunall or seat of Iudgment higher then the Emperour who was one of his sheep and that more resolutly S. Ambrose to the same Emperour when he comaunded him to giue vp a Church to the handes of the Arians Trouble not yourselfe o Emperor sayth S. Ambrose in commanding me to delyuer the Church nor do you persuade your selfe that you haue any Imperiall right ouer these things that are spirituall and diuine exalt not your selfe but be subiect to God if you will raigne be content with those things that belonge to Cesar and leaue those which are of God vnto God Pallaces appertayne vnto the Emperor and Churches vnto the Preist And these three Fathers hauing thus briefly vttered their sentences for much more might be alleaged out of them in this kind let vs see how the fourth that is to say S. ChrysostoÌ„ Archbishop of Constantinople coÌ„curred with theÌ„ Stay o king saith he within thy bounds limits for different are the bounds of a kingdome the limits of Priesthood this Kingdome of Priesthood is greater then the other Bodies are committed to the King but the soules to the Priest And againe Therfore hath God subiected the Kings head to the Priests haÌ„d instructing vs therby that the Priest is a greater Prince then the king according to S. Paul to the Hebrews the lesser alwaies receaueth blessing from the greater These foure Fathers then hauing grauely set downe their opinions about this point of spirituall power not to be assumed by teÌ„porall Princes let vs imagine the other three to talk of some other mater as namely S. Hierome that he vnderstandeth diuers pointes of the heresie of Iouinian and Vigilantius against whome he had with great labour written seuerall Bookes to be held at this day in his Maiesties kingdomes of England Scotland which could not but grieue him they being coÌ„demned heresies by the Church S. Augustine also vpon occasion giuen him may be imagined to make his coÌ„plaint that he hauing written amongst many other books one de cura pro mortuis agenda for the care that is to be had for soules departed both in that booke and in sundry other partes of his workes said downe the doctrine and practice of the Church in offering prayers Sacrifice for the dead and deliuering soules from purgatory and that the sayd Catholicke Church of his time had condemned Aërius of heresy for the contrary doctrine yet he vnderstood that the matter was laughed at now in Eâ—gland and Aërius in this point held for a better Christian then himselfe yea and wheras he S. Augustine had according to the doctrine and practice of the true Catholicke Church in his dayes prayed for the soule of his Mother besought all others to doe the like his Maiestie was taught by these new-sprong doctors to condemn the same neither to pray for the soule departed of his mother dying in the same Catholicke fayth nor to permit others to do the same All which Saint Gregory hearing â—et vs suppose him out of that great loue and charity wherwith he was inflamed towardes England and the English Nation to vse a most sweet and fatherly speach vnto his Maiestie exhorting him to remember that he sent into England by the first preachers that came from him the same Catholicke Christian Religion which was then spread ouer the whole world and that which he had receiued by succession of Bishops and former ages from the said Fathers there present and they from the Apostles and that the said ancient true and Catholicke Religion was sincerely deliuered vnto his Maiesties first Christian predecessor in England King Ethelbert and so continued from age to age vntill King Henry the eight If I say this graue assembly of ancient holy Fathers should be made about his Maiesty he fitting in the middest and should heare what they say and ponder with what great learning grauity and sanctitie they speake and how differently they talke from these new maisters that make vp M. Barlowes little Vniuersitie I thinke verily that his Maiestie out of his great iudgment would easily contemne the one in respect of the other But alas he hath neyther time nor leysure permitted to him to consider of these thinges nor of the true differences being so possessed or at least wise so obsessed with these other mens preoccupations euen from his tender youth and cradle as the Catholicke cause which only is truth could neuer yet haue entrance or indifferent audience in his Maiesties â—ares but our prayers are continually that it may And now hauing insinuated how substantially this little Vniuersity of ancient learned Fathers would speake to his Maiesty if they might be admitted eyther at table or time of repast or otherwise Let vs consider a little how different matters euen by their owne confession these new Academicks do suggest for that M. Barlow going about to excuse his fellow T. M. the yonger from that crime of Sycophancy which was obiected for his calumniations against Catholikes in his table-talke trifling first about the word what it signifyeth in greeke according to the first institution therof to wit an accusation of carrying out of figges out of Athens as before hath bene shewed and then for him that vpon small matters accuseth another as
or Ecclesiasticall power hath hitherto bene or may be lawfully exercisedâ— for the reâ—ormation and correction of all maÌ„ner of errors heresies schismes 〈◊〉 c. all and all manner of Iurisdiction priuâ—ledges and preheâ—â—â—â—â—ces in any wise touching any sprituall or Ecclesiasticall iurisdâ—ctiâ—â—â— with in the Realme was giuen vnto her and vnited vnto the Crâ—â—â—e This was the high doctrine in those daies of the Priâ—ces supreme Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power oâ—er the Church of England no lesse theÌ„ of the Pope himselfe ouer his Church of Rome But now of later dayes and by later writers the case seemeth wonderfully altered for not only haue they taken away the name title of Head of the Church which was treason by King Henries Statutes to deny and many were put to death for not yielding therunto but haue taken away the authority also it selfe if we respect the substance and shifting in words to seeme still to retaine somewhat Wherin among others M. Barlow seemeth eminent and vnder a shew of defending the Kings supremacy to take it quite away For let vs heare first how he handleth the question about the Princes authority for iudging in cases of religion which is the principall of all the rest He both proposeth and solueth the question thus May not then saith he a Prince iudge in cases of Religion and Faith No not iudicio definitiuo to determine what is sound Diuinity or not and so impose that vpon the consciences of men for faith which he alone defines to be so but iudicio executiuo or iurisdictionis he may and ought when the Church hath determined matters of saith command the prosessing therof within his Kingdomeâ— as the soundest and worthyest to be receaued This is his determination whereby it is euident that he permitteth only vnto the King to execute that which his Church in England to wit the Bishops and Clergy therof shall determine about matters of religion which is no one iote more of power in Ecclesiasticall matters then that which Catholicks do ascribe vnto their â—emporall Princes to execute what the Church determineth but yet with this difference of much more dignity that they are bound to the execuâ—ion only of that which the Vniuersall Church shall determine not of their owne subiects alone as it falleth out on the behalfe of his Maiesty of England in this case In which point also I do not see how he can wind himselfe out of this maze that must necessarily follow of his owne doctrine to wit that one should receiue from another that the other receiued from him As for example if the Bishops being his Maiesties subiects as well in spirituall as temporal affaires haue no spirituall iurisdiction but froÌ„ him as the Statute of King Edward doth determine and on the other side his Maiesty to haue no authority to define of any matter belonging to religion at all but only to execute that which the Bishops do define it seemeth that they receiue from his Maiesty that authority which they deny to be in him and so that he giueth them the thing which he hath not in himselfe but is to receaue from them Moreouer it is euident by this doctrine of theirs that the Bishops do make their Courtes Tribunalls for matters of Religion to be absolutly greater then the Kings for that they do allow him no other power for Iudging in spirituall matters but only to execute that which they shall define and determine And albeit for dazeling the simple readers eyes M. Barlow doth in this place fumble vp a certaine distinction not wel vnderstood by himselfe takeÌ„ out of some Schoolmen as he saith noting Occam in the margent that there be three parts of this executiue iudgmeÌ„t the one discretiue to discerne the other directiue to teach others the third decretiue which third he saith is in the Prince both affirmatiuely to bind to the obseruing of that which is so tryed and adiudged and negatiuely to suppresse the contrary and that this last is to Iudge for the truth and the former of defining is to iudge of the truth Yet doth all this reach no further but to the power of execution of that which others haue determined which may be called a power of impotency in that behalfe for that therin he is subiect and not Superiour especially if it lye not in his power either to execute or not to execute as he shall think best which M. Barlow here denveth saying That he may and ought to execute when the Church hath determined But on the other side if he haue power and liberty to execute or not to execute then is the other power of defining in the Bishops to small purpose For that they may define and he not execute his iudgment being that they haue defined eâ—ill and by that way becommeth he their Iudge againe to define whether they haue defined well or no. And this is another circle or labyrinth which I see not how M. Barlâ—â— will easily auoid I doe pretermit diuers other childish thinges that be in this speach of his as where he propoundeth thus the question as first VVhether a Prince may iudge in cases of Religion â—â—d saith as though these two were Sinonyma and all one Whereas religion contayneth many cases as well of life manners and cerimonyes as of faith in all which cases it may be demanded how far the King may be iudge Secondly he saith that the King cannot define and determine what is sound Diuinity or not which is far from the purpose For the question is not whether the King may iudge and determine what is sound Diuinity or Theologie but what is matter of faith and what is to be belieued or not be belieued by a true Christian within his realme Thirdly in like manner when he saith that the King hath only iudicium executiuum or iurisdictionis as though they were all one whereas executio and iurisdictio are two different things iurisdiction is more properly in that party that defineth then in the other that executeth for that the former commaundeth and the second obayeth Fourthly his terme also of discretiuum ascribed by him vnto all Christians to haue power to try spirits whether they be of God or no besides that it seemeth contrary to that of S. Paul to the Corinthians who reckoneth vp discretion of spirits to be a peculiar and seuerall gift vnto some alone saying Alij discretio spirituum c. is nothing well applyed by him to iudicium execuâ—iuum for that it appertayneth rather to iudicium definitiuum for somuch as those that haue power to define to determine of matters are principally to iudge of spirits not their subiects to iudge of theirs for that other wise there must needes ensue an inextricable confusion of trying iudging of one the others spirits As if for example the Bishops oâ— England should try condemne the spirits of the Purytans and they agayne the spirits of the Bishops by
colour of this power to discerne spirits giuen theÌ„ by M. Bâ—â—loâ— out of the words of S. Iohn there would neuer be an end And lastly it appeareth by all this that his lâ—st distinction wherin he sayth that the King may iudge for the truth and not of the truth is a meere delusion giuing somewhat in wordes but nothing in deed for that if the iudging for the truth be nothing els but to execute allow and approue that which others haue defined determined and appointed out vnto him to be belieued and defended as the truth then hath he no more free choice or superiority in iudgment in this case then euery subiect or common man who is likewise bound to belieue and defend the same according to his ability and power Now then to conclude the matter and to reduce all to a briefe summe for so much as M. Barlow taketh away from his Maiesty of England not only the title and style Of Head of the Church which was giuen to King Henry and confirmed to King Edward but the Papall authority in like manner for decision of matters which was ascribed vnto them both by Parlament and confirmed to Queene Elizabeth and here saith that he cannot iudge in cases of religion and fayth iudicio definitiâ—o to define and determine any thing but only execuâ—iuo to execute what the Church of England to wit what the Bishops shall define and ordayne and for somuch as he addeth yet further now in that which before we haue discussed three other particuler cases out of S. Ambrose wherin he conâ—esâ—eth that his Maiesty hath no authority but may be resisted to wit if he should call before him a Bishop to dispute with another of a different religion as Valenâ—inian did S. Ambrose and he denyed him If he should commaund a Bishop to deliuer ouer a Church to a people of a different religion and if he should command a Bishop to deliuer vp the Veâ—els of his Church as the said Empeâ—ouâ— did and the â—ther refused to obey all these things I say laid â—ogeâ—tâ—er â—ut of M. Barlows doctrine do so much diminish the greatnes of his Maiesties Supreme power in causes Ecclesiasticall as in effect it commeth to be no more thâ—n Catholike doctrine doth ordinarily allow to euery Catholicke Temporall Prince for the obseruance and execution of that which the Church determineth And this is M. Barlâ—â—â—â— heroycall exployt to marre the matter he takes in hand for his Clyent Let euery man iudge how well he hath deserued the good fee which already he hath recâ—aâ—ed for his plea and hopeth to receaue more hereafter if he may speed according to his expectation OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE Or Iâ—stance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall §. III. THERE followeth another controuersy betweene M. Barlow me about a certayne fact of S. Gregory the Great concerning the Law of Mauritius the Emperour prohibiting souldiars and such as were accomptable to the Emperours Courtes for offices borne by them to enter into monasteries and professe a religious life without his licence whereof I wrote thus in my letter Neyther doth the last place cited out of S. Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauritius make any thing moâ—e for our Apologers purpose of taking Oathes against Conscience For albeit the same Father do greatly complaâ—ne in diuers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius whome though otherwise a Catholike Emperour he compareth in that poynt to Nero and Dioclâ—siâ—n saying Quid Nero quid Dioclesiâ—â—â—s qâ—id deâ—ique isteâ— qui â—oc tempore â—â—â—lesiam persequitur Nâ—mqâ—â—◠〈◊〉 omnes porta Inferi Whâ—t was Nero What was Dioclesâ—â—â— what is he who at this time doth persecute the Church Are they not all gates of Hell Yet in this place alleaged by the Apologer he yealded to publish and send abroâ—d into diuers Countreys and Prouinces a certayne vniust law of the sayd Emperours that prohibited Sâ—uldiars and such as had bene imployed in matters of publike accompts of the CoÌ„mon-Wealth to make theÌ„selues Monks Wâ—ich law though S. Gregory did greatly mislike and wrote sharply agaynst it to the Emperour himselfe yet to shew his due respect in temporall thinges vnto him and for that indeed the law was not absolutly so euill but that in some good sense it might be tolerated to wit that Souldiars sworn to the Emperours wars might not during the said Oath obligation be receaued into Monasteries but with the Princes liceÌ„ce yet for that it tended to the abridgmeÌ„t of Ecclesiastical freedome in taking that course or state of life which ech man chooseth for the good of his soule S. Gregoâ—y misliked the same and dealt earnestly with the Emperour to relinquish it or to suffer it to be so moderated as it might stand without preiudice of Christian liberty wherunto the Emperour at length yeelded and so S. Gregory sent the same abroad vnto diuers Primates and Archbishops of sundry Kingdomes mentioned by him but corrected first and reduced by himselfe as supreme Pastour to a reasonable lawfulnes and temperate moderation to wit that those who had borne offices of charge in the Common-wealth and after desired to be admitted to religious life in Monasteries should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their full accompts and had obtayned publicke discharge for the same And that Souldiars which demanded the like admittaÌ„ce should be exactly tryed and not admitted vnto Monasticall habite but after they had liued three yeares in their lay apparell vnder probation This determineth S. Gregory in his Epistle beginning Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi Vrbicio Dyrachitano c. adding further in the same Epistle as hath bene said De qua re Serâ—issâ—mus Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur about which matter our most Clement and Christian Emperour is wholy pleased and content So as in this S. Gregory shewed his pastorall care and power in limiting and moderating the Emperours law according to the law of God though in temporall respectes he shewed him the Obedience that was due vnto him But what is this vnto our Oath May we thinke that S. Gregory that would not passe a temporall law of the Emperour without reprehension of the vnlawfulnes thereof to the Emperour himselfe and correction therof in the publication for that indirectly it did infringe the liberty of Religious life when men were called therunto that he would not haue much more resisted the admission of an Oath about such affaires if it had bene proposed No man I thinke in reason can imagin the contrary To this declaration of mine M. Barlow beginneth his reply thus But that of Gregory saith he toucheth the very quicke who as he thought his duty discharged to God in shewing the reasons why he disliked the Law so did he performe it very readily to the Emperour in promulging
which is far from S. Gregories meaning as presently shall appeare And secondly to make the sentence of S. Gregory more appliable to his fond purpose of interpreting it a Chayre or Oracle he chaÌ„geth dari into dare The words of S. Gregory be Nolâ— eam scilicet Epistolam vel suggestionâ—m à Responsali meâ— publicèdari quia vos qui ei familiariùs seruitis loquiei liberiùs apeâ—tiâ—â— pâ—â—â—stiâ— que pro eius sunt anima I will not haue my sayd â—â—â—â—er or suggestion to be giuen to the Emperour publikly by my Legate or Agent for that you who do serue him more familiarly may speake vnto him more freely and openly those things which be for his soule Which words being most plaine who but an ignorant man or most malicious would translate Responsali as from hiâ— Chayre and Oracle which cannot stand in the sight of euery child either with signification of Responsaliâ— or with the reason of S. Gregory here alleadged For what sense may it haue if S. Gregory should say to Theodore the Phisitian as M. Barlow feigneth him to say I haue not nor will not yield reasons publickely from my Chayre and Oracle and much lesse iâ—erdict by Breue for that you seruing him more familiarly may speake more boldly and openly But as I say the wilfull ignorance or malice is manifest for that he can neuer in his whole life shew vs in any one example where Responsalis is taken for the Popes Chayre or Oracle but for a Messenger Embassadour Nuntius Legate or Agent named otherwise Apoâ—rysiarius We could shew him a multitude of places out of S. Gregory him selfe if we would stand vpon it as namely in his 30. Epistle lib. 6. to Mauritius the Emperour talking of the Legates of Cyriacus Archbishop of CoÌ„stantinople he saith Responsales Fratris Consacerdotis mei Cyriaci benignè suscepi I benignly receaued the Legates or Messengers of my Brother and fellow Priest Cyriacus And agayne afterward in the same Epistle Responsales eius mecum feci Sacra Missarum solemnia celebrare I caused his Messengers to celebrate the holy solemnity of the Masses togeather with me Where I hope M. Barlow will not say that he receaued Bishop Cyriacuâ— his Chayre with benignity or that he made his Câ—aire and Oracle to say masse with him And the very same speach he vseth againe in the very next ensuing epistle to Eâ—logius Bishop of Alexandria and to Anastasius Bishop of Anâ—ioch And agayne in his epistle 38. to Iohn Archbishop of Constantinople Et antè per Râ—sponsales meâ—s nunc per communem filium meum Sabinianum Diaconum alloqui Fraâ—erniâ—â—tem vestram volui I resolued first to admonish your Brotherhood by other Messengers of myne and now by our coÌ„mon sonne Sabinianus the Deacon Many other such like exaÌ„ples might be alleaged which for breuity I pretermit doe take pitty of M. Barlow to see him erre so grossely as to imagine that Responsalis should signify a Popes Chayre or Oracle And so much of this VVHETHER COVNCELS HAVE SVBMITTED THEMSELVES VNTO CHRISTIAN EMPERORS in Spiâ—ituall affayres and namely that of Arles to Charles the Great CHAP. VI. AFTER the examination of the Authorities of Scriptures and Fathers alleaged by the Apologer for the prerogatiue of temporall Princes in matters of Religion there followeth also in â—he third place somewhat of Councells that seemed to submit themselues in tâ—eir Decrees about Religion vnto the iudgment and liking of Emperours which to the end the Reader may the better conceaue and â—ee the whole conflict betwene M. Baâ—low and me in this poynt wherin as in all the rest â—e seekâ—th to be obscure I shall set downe the whole speach â—sed in my former Letter thus then it was The last thing theÌ„ said I that iâ— cited without purpose by the Apologer are certayne Councels which arâ— said to haue submitted themselues to Emperours as that of Arles in France vnto Charles the Great their King for that in the last words of the said Councell the Bishops there gathered togeather presenting the same to the said Charles write thus Haec sub breuitate quae emendatione digna perspeximâ—s c. these thinges briefly which we haue seene worthy of reformation we haue noted and deemed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour beseeching his Clemency if any thing be wanting to supply it by his wisdome and if any thing be otherwise done then reason requireth it be amended by his iudgment and if any thing be reasonably censured it may be perfected by his help and by the clemency of Almighty God So the Councell And heerof would the Apologer inferre that this Councell of Bishops submitted it selfe to the Emperour But I would aske him wherin To take any Oath that the Emperour Charles should propose vnto them We see no Oath offered nor mentioned and so nothing here to our purpose Wherin then or why are they said to haue submitted themselues For that perhaps it is said in the Preface of the Councell that they were gathered togeather by order and coÌ„maundement of the said Emperour Surely it was hard that so many Bishops and Archbishops should be assembled togeather without his liking and Order But that the consent direction and chiefe Commission for the same came from the Bishop of Rome may easily be gathered for that in the first Councell that he caused to be celebrated in his Dominions which was that of VVormes in the yeare of Christ 770. it was left registred in these words Auctoritas Ecclesiastica atque Canonica dâ—cet non debere absque sententia Romani Pontiâ—icis Concilia celebrari Ecclesiasticall and Canonicall authority teacheth that Councels may not be held without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome And wher in theÌ„ Or why is this submission made For approbation of matters concerning faith No for that yow haue heard before out of S. Ambrose that therin Emperours are not iudges of Bishops but Bishops of Emperours Wherin then or why is this submission or rather râ—mission to the Emperour and his iudgment It was for that this Councell was made onely for reformation of manners and matters at the religious instance of the good Emperour the effectuating wherof did depend principally of his good will and assâ—â—tance and so after the first Canon where briefly is set downe the Confession oâ— the Christian faith all the other 25. Canons for there are only 26. in all are about reformation of matters amisse as for more diligence in daylie prayer for the Emperours person and his children to wit that Masses and â—etâ—â—ies be said daâ—lie for them by all Bishops Abbots Monks and Priests That Bishops and Priests study more diligently and teach the people both by lessons and preachings That lay men may not put out Priests of their benefice without the sentence of the Bishop nor that they take money of them for collation of the said benefices That none be admitted to enter into the
for England and his that 〈◊〉 aâ—â—rte that he was at the sea-cost and shipt for England â—â—erto I answer first for the word almost left out Secondly 〈◊〉 the example The words of the Apologer about the likenes of our 〈◊〉 to the Toletane action are thrice repeated by me first in the beginning of the matter p. 76. n. 11. where repeating the Apologers words I said almost euery point of that action is 〈◊〉 to ours In the end also p. 81. n. 19. I related his words â—â—s that almost euery point of that action hath agreeance with that of 〈◊〉 c. So as twice the word almost is repeated though in the third place pag. 77. num 12. It is said euery point of that 〈◊〉 c. which might be as well the errour of the writer or printer as ouerslip of the Authour And how then can this be called fraudlent impudeÌ„cy Or rather was iâ— not more fraudulent in M. Barlow not to tell his reader that it was twice put downe though once left out As for the two meÌ„bers alleaged they are both known to be false that either Father Parsons was almost vpon the Sea-coast for England or vpon the Sea-coast and shipt for England to expect the â—â—â—der-â—lot for that hundreds of witnesses will testifie in 〈◊〉 that neither at that time nor in al that yeare was he out of that Citty so as this is somewhat more then almost two vntruthes And this is as much as in effect he answereth to this matter But I went forward in my Letter to shew out of the Councell and Histories of Spaine the occasions causes and circumstances of this Councell and how it was procured by the King of Spaine Sisâ—nanduâ— of the Gothish bloud who hauing ceposed his Lord and Maister King Suintila was somewhat iealous least the Oath of fâ—â—elity made vnto him by the Spaniards would not be obserued and therfore made recourse vnto the Bishops and Clergy for assisting him in that behalfe with their Ecclesiasticall authority as they did both confirming the one and excluding the other wherupon is set downe in the preface of the said Councell that he comming into the same accompanied with many Noble and honourable persons of his trayne coram Sacerdotibus Dei bumiprostratus cum lacbryâ—â—â— gemitibus pro se interueniendum postulauit he prostrate on the ground before the Priests of God besought them with teares and sobs to make intercession for him Wherupon the Councell commaunded vpon seuere Censures that no man should practise his death or deposition or breake his Oath of fidelity made vnto him but no particuler forme of oath do I find there to haue bene prescribed or decreed wherby this our new oath may be confirmed or authorized but rather another oath prescribed vnto the King and all his successours Iuramento poâ—liceanâ—ur hanc se Catholicam non permissuros eos violare sidem that they sweare that they will neuer suffer their subiects to violate this Catholike faith And marke said I that he saith 〈◊〉 which was the Catholike fayth then held in Spaine and explicated in these CouÌ„cels of Toledo the particulers wherof do easily shew that they were as oposite to the Protestants fayth as ours is now To all this what sayth M. Barlow He beginneth with a tale as he is wont when he hath little els to say Pericles sayth he as some do affirme had that skill in wrastling that though he receaued a fall yet he would perswade the wrastler that cast him and the spectatours that beheld him that he was the conquerour You will imagine how well this is â—pplyed by him he sayth that there is not one poynt of this which I haue sayd to the purpose or against the Apologer But how doth he proue it First he saith that this Conncell was gathered by the coÌ„mand of King Sisenandus And what maketh this to the purpose Did not we graunt also that Kings within their Kingdomes may cause Prouinciall Councels to be made by their Bishops Archbishops Metropolitans But how submissiuely this King did behaue himselfe in that CouÌ„cell appeareth by his former submission both in fact words And yeâ— by the way the Reader must note M. Barlows smal truth in relating for his purpose these words religiosissimi Sisenandi Regis iussu Imperijs conuenimus we are assembled by the commaund and authority of our most Religious King Sisenandus wheras the true words in the Councel are â—â—m studio amoris Christi ac diligenâ—ia religiosissâ—â—â— Sisenandi Regis apud Toletanam Vrbem in nomine Domini conuenissemus wheras for the loue of Christ and by the diligence of our most religious King we came togeather in the name of God in the Citty of Toledo And then those other words which ensue aâ—terwards to wit eius â—mperijs atque iussis are referred to another thing not to their meeting but what matters they should principally handle touching discipline c. Vt communis a nobis ageretur de quibusdam Ecclesiae disciplinis tractatus In which Treatise of discipline was contayned in like manner the Kings owne temporall cause concerning the assuring of his succession by Ecclesiasticall CeÌ„sures When or wherin then shall we find M. Barlow to deale puÌ„ctually and sincerely But let vs go forward In the next place he sayth that this Councell the Canons therof do make for the Protestants and giueth example in three or foure Canons and concludeth generally in these words The Church oâ— England both for substance in doctrine and ceremony in discipline doth hould the same which maâ—y of the sayd Canons do conclude Well then we shall see presently how many they be He citeth only foure of seauenty and foure and those so impertinently as by the citation he maketh himselfe miserable as now you will perceaue And first he cyteth the 43. CanoÌ„ saying that the marriage of Priests so it be with the consent of the Bishop is therin allowed and he beginneth with this for that it seemeth to him a knocker and to the purpose indeed for authorizing Priests marriages Wherfore we shall handle it in the last place of the foure alleadged by him In the second place then he leapeth back from the 43. Canon to the 24. saying that therin it was positiuely set downe that ignorance is the mother of all errours but not of deâ—â—tion A great obiection no doubt against vs as though we were great friends of ignorance Ignorance sayth the Canon the mother of all errours is most to be auoyded by Priests who haue the office of teaching the people Do we coÌ„tradict this What meane our Schooles Our Seminaries Our Colleges Our Vniueâ—sities for bringing vp and instructing Priests Are our Priests in England or on this side the seas more incumbred with ignorance then the Ministers Why then is this Canon brought in against vs For that perhaps it sayth not that Ignorance is the mother of deuotion nor we neither as
M. Barlow neere euen to the very quicke and I thinke his Church will hardly brooke this seuerity of the old Spanish discipline though you haue heard him promise that he will In the 12. and 13. Canons order is giuen for singing of hymnes in the time of Masse and namely that of the three Children in the fornace and certaine Priests are reprehended quòd in Missa Dominicorum dierum in solemnit atibus martyrum canere negligant that they do neglect to sing the said hymne at Masse on Sondayes and on the festiuall dayes of Martyrs Wherfore this holy Councell doth ordayne sayth the Canon that throughout all the Churches of Spayne and Galicia in omnium Missarum soleâ—â—itate idem in publico decantetur in the solemnity of aâ—l Masses the sâ—me hymne be publikely song vnder payne of loosing their Communion who shall do contrary to this ancient custome of singing this hymne and shall violate this oâ—â— definition So the Councell And will M. Barlows Church admit this doctrine of Masses and celebrating the Martyn feastes In the 51. Canon remedy is prouided for certaine disorderly monks who â—unning ouâ— of their Monasteries non solùm ad saeculâ—m reuertantur sed eâ—iam vxores acâ—ipiaâ—t do not only returne to the world but take wiues also and the remedy is that they must be brought backe to their Monasteries againe poenitentiae deputentur ibique â—â—fleâ—â—t crimina sua and be appointed to do penance and there let them weepe and bewayle their sinnes And what will M. Barlow say to this point of discipline Or at least what would his chiefe doctours and Grandfathers â—â—ther Oâ—colampadius Peter Martyr Ochinus or to come neerer home what would Scory of Hereford Bartlet of Bath and VVells Fryar Bale and others haue sayd therunto Might not Beares as soone be brought to the stake as these men againe to their Monasteries to do penance And yet if they had bene in Spayne at that time this Spanish discipline would haue brought them backe which M. Barlow in generall saith that his Church houldeth also but when iâ— commeth to the particuler I doubt not but he will go from his word againe and therfore I will stand no longer vpon this point though many other examples might be alleaged There remayneth only then now for the conclusion of this Chapter to see and weigh the comparisons that may be made betweene this Oath of fidelity of the Spanish subiects vnto their King Sisenandus the keeping wherof is so earnestly recommended by this Councell and this other English Oath of Allegiance required by his Maieâ—â—ie wherin I sayd I found no more parity or semblance but as that was an Oath of ciuill Obedience to their temporall Prince so is this also in some clauses and therfore as the Councel did well allow yea much recommend and incharge the keeping of that Oath to King Sisenandâ—â— so do all good Catholickes desire the obseruation of the foresaid clauses contayned in this Oath so far forth as they concerne the said temporall obedience But this doth not proue that any such forme of Oath as this new Oath is was there prescribed or decreed either quoad forâ—â—â— or quoad materiam For as for the forme I find no particuler forme set downe or decreed in the Councell as hath bene said but only an admonition to keepe the Oath before taken with an earnest dehortation commination against all perfidious conspiring or rebelling against their King which we most willingly also agree vnto And as for the matter and subiect of the Oath it is cleere that that was of temporall obedience only and had no such clauses against the authority of the Bishop of Rome as this hath nor can it be imagined with any probability that if any such thing had bene proposed by K. â—isenandus to that Councel that they would haue harkened vnto it and much lesse agreed and subiected themselues to â—ake it or allowed it to others to be either proposed or taken Well then what saith M. Barlow to this conclusion Certes he seeketh so say many things but so far from the purpose that he truly may be sayd to say nothing He setteth downe clauses of my speach with his answers thus First quoth I there is noe partyculer forme of an oath put downe in the Councell and consequently this new forme could not be taken from that He answereth Can an oath be kept which was not first taken But what is this to the purpose for the question is not whether the Spaniards did take an Oath to their King or not for that is graunted but whether the forme of the oath were like to this of ours And yet as though he had answered to the purpose he goeth forward to proue that an Oath was taken It appears sayth he in the Canon iâ— self that all of them had taken an 〈◊〉 the State decreed it the subiects of all sorts tooke is the 〈◊〉 inioyned the inuiolable performance thereof So then an oath there wasâ— that is without question and a forme it â—ad iâ— not set downe i◠〈◊〉 Councell what is that to the point Truly Syr nothing at all as is neither this your prouing of that which is not denied but it had bene much to the point to proue that that forme and this forme had bene a like and soe the one confirmed by the other which you attempt not at all to do And yet I pray thee good Reader see heere how he braggeth immediatly Sufficiently sayth he hath the Apologâ—â— euicted what he would to proue that the oath of Allegiance amongst 〈◊〉 is no such strange thing hauing a president in like kind confirmed by diuers Councells about a thousand yeares sithence But I would demaund of M. Barlow what was the question betweene vs Was it whether there were euer any oath of Allegiance to temporall Princes allowed or taken in the Christian world before this of ours For if this were the question then hath he sufficiently euicted his purpose by shewing that so long ago an oath of AllegiaÌ„ce was allowed in the Councell of Toledo But if this was not the question but only whether there was a like Oath to this in forme or matter allowed in the Councell of Toledo then hath M. Barlow euicted nothing but his own disgrace for that he hath run quite from the purpose And yet to seeme to say somewhat he returneth agayne afterward to speake of the forme and matter of this oath recommended in the Councell of Toledo And first he sheweth that albeit the forme be not expressed in the Councel yet must it be persumed to haue bene made in the name of God as is commaunded in Deuteronomy the 6. But this is very general Then he setteth downe a certayne Protestation made by the Bishops and Archbishops in the sixt Councell of Toledo for the temporall safety of their Prince in these words Ideo testamur 〈◊〉 Deo omni ordine Angelorum c. Therefore
the thing it selfe vttered to wit that it be really true in the sense and meaning of the vtterer and then in the quality of the hearer whether he be a lawfull iudge and therby may oblige the speaker to speake to his intention and other such circumstances which are largely haÌ„dled in my foresaid booke and not vnderstood as it seemeth or not read by M. Barlow which me thinkes he ought to haue done meaning to treate of this matter here And so I shall passe no further therin but referre him the Reader to the larger Treatise of that subiect already extant CARDINALL BELLARMINE is cleered from a false imputation and a controuersie about certaine words clauses in the Oath is discussed § II. AFTER this M. Barlow passeth to a poynt concerning Cardinall Bellarmine set downe in the Apology in these words Some of such Priests and Iesuites as were the greatest traytors fomentours of the greatest conspiracies against her late Maiestyâ— gaue vp F. Robert Bellarmine for one of their greatest authorities and oracles So sayth the Apologer noteth in the margeÌ„t Campian Hart in their conference in the Tower This was noted by me in my Letter as an vniust charge both in respect of the two men meÌ„tioned in the margent who were most free from being traytours and much more the greatest Traytours excepting only their Priestly functioÌ„s most iniuriously made TreasoÌ„s against all truth equity as aboundantly else where hath bene proued but much more in respect of Cardinall Bellarmine who was not so mâ—ch as named by any of them in any matter tending to Treason or conspiracy towards the late Queene and therfore if he were by any of them named or mentioned it was in matter only of learning not of Treasons and conspiracies which M. Barlow is also forced here to confesse and sayth that it was meant in matters of the Conference in the Tower but euery man of iudgment will se what the words of the former charge do import and how farre they reach which M. Barlow considering he dareth not stand to his first refuge but addeth that Bellarmine in his Booke which English Priests do study doth teach such doctrine as is the ground of rebellions he blowes sayth he the bellowes of seditious doctrine which flames out by his Schollers conspiracy to the disturbaÌ„ce of the chiefest States of Christendome But this now men will see how passionate and vntrue it is that the chiefest States of Christendome are disturbed by Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine I do not meane to stand vpon the confutation of so childish imputations There followeth a certaine small controuersie about the words temperate and tempered whether they signify the same or no wherof we haue handled somewhat before so shall dispatch it here in a word Cardinall Bellarmine had said in his Letter to M. Blackwell that this Oath is not therfore lawfull because it is offered as tempered and modified with diuers clauses of ciuill Obedience giuing an example out of S. Gregory Nazianzen of the Ensignes of the Emperour Iulian wherin the Images of the Heathen Gods were mingled and conbyned togeather with the Emperors Picture and therby so tempered modified as a man could not adore the one without the other Which speach of the Cardinall was much reprehended by the Apologer as though Bellarmine had misliked the temperate speach vttered in the forme of this oath But that was no part of Bellarmines meaning but that the said Oath was tempered mixt and compounded of different clauses some lawfull and some vnlawfull as a man would say morter is tempered with water sand lyme and this appeareth by his example of the Ensignes before mentioned tempered that is mixt with the images of the Emperours and their false Gods And if M. Barâ—â—â— will needs haue this temperament to haue also with it some temperature which is his only reply now in this place we will not greatly striue with him Let it be esteemed to be some temperature that here are mingled some clauses of ciuill obedience with other concerning Religion it helpeth the mixture but not the scruple of conscience to him that must take it I pretermit all the rest of M. Barlows superfluous and idle speach about this matter as striuing to say somewhat but yet in substance sayth nothing It followeth in my Letter concerning the answering of two questions proposed by the Apologer wherin I shall repeate againe my owne words then vttered thus then I wrote That the Apologer hauing said with great vehemency of asseueratioÌ„ That heauen and earth are no further a sunder then the profession of a Temporall Obedience to a Temporall King is different from any thing belonging to the Catholike fayth or Supremacy of S. Peter which we graunt also if it be meere Temporall Obedience without mixture of other clauses he proposeth presently two questions for application of this to his purpose First this As for the Catholike Religion sayth he can there be one word found in all this Oath tending to matter of Religion The second thus Doth he that taketh it promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of Religion Wherunto I answere first to the first and then to the second To the first that if it be graunted that power authority of the Pope and Sea Apostolike left by Christ for gouerning his Church in all occasions and necessities be any poynt belonging to Religion among Catholikes then is there not only some owne word but many sentences yea ten or twelue articles or branches therin tending and sounding that way as before hath bene shewed To the secoÌ„d question may make answer euery clause in effect of the Oath it selfe As for example the very first I A. B. do truly sincerely acknowledge professe testify declare in my conscience that the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authority of the Sea or Church of Rome hath any power authority c. doth not this include eyther beliefe or vnbeliefe Againe I do further sweare that I do from my hart abhorre detest abiure as impious hereticall that damnable doctrine position That Princes which be excommunicated and depriued by the Pope may be deposed c. Doth not here the swearer promise not to belieue that doctrine which he so much detesteth How then doth the Apologer so grossely forget and contradict himselfe euen then when he goeth about to proue contradictions in his Aduersary It followeth consequently in the Oath And I do belieue and in conscience am resolued that neyther the Pope nor any person whatsoeuer hath power to absolue me from this Oath or any part therof These words are plaine as you see And what will the Apologer say heere Is nothing promised in those words to be belieued or not belieued This was my speach And now see what quarrell M. Barlow seeketh agaynst it First wheras in my answer to the first question I say if it be granted that
buriall within Saints Churches but the apparitions must be presumed to haue bene at certayn particuler places vpon particuler occasions where the said Martyrs willed vt sceleratorum corpora de suis basilicis eiâ—cerentur that the bodyes of certayn heynous wicked men such as Infidells Hereticks excommunicated persons are should be cast out of their Chappels Why doth M. Barlow confine the matter to these Martyrs that were deceased shrined in those places of Germany where the Emperours body lay Hath he a generall licence to take away or adde what he listeth to his Authors words And finally those last words that they would not indure it written in great letters where doth he find them And if he find them not who gaue him leaue to add them and crowne his owne inuention with Capitall letters Is there no law of truth or sincerity Is it lawfull for euery man to deuise add alter cut of or disguise what he wil without controlment Is this the liberty of Ghospellers There haue bene now alleadged by him about this point some eight seueral authors Cuspinian Helmodus Vrspergensis Nauclerus Sigonim Binnius Baronius and Petrus Diaconus and euery one hath receaued his cut Will euer Catholicke writer be found that dealeth so with authors And so much of this point Then followeth the other whether the Pope did stir vp the Emperours Sonne that is Henry the 5. against his Father And first I sayd that it could not be verified of Pope Hildebrand called Gregory the seauenth for that the rebellion of the sonne succeded after Gregories death and the report also was that Gregory the 7. before his death had absolued the same Emperour Henry the fourth And this I alleadged out of the Apologers owne author Cuspinian and moreouer I shewed that the said Cuspinian affirmed that the rising of the Sonne against his Father was by the perswasion of the Marques Theobald and of Berâ—ngarius Count of Noricum now called Stâ—ria and of Otho which was neere a kinne vnto him by his Mothers side and for confirmation of this I alleadged foure other Historiographers besides to wit Vrspergensis Nauclerus Crantzius and Sigonius To all which authorities M. Barlow replyeth neuer a word in this his answer yet to the former point wherin I said that the report was that Gregory the 7. did before his death absolue the Emperour he answereth thus First this is written but for a report then which there is nothing more vncertaine saith the Orator But yet what followes hâ—erof therfore the Pope stirred not vp the Sonne against the Father A weake consequent Whereto I answere that the consequent is good and strong to proue that Pope Gregory the 7. of whome I spake did not stir vp the Sonne against the Father if he absolued him especially if you ioyne this with the other alledged by me that he tooke not armes against the Father till after the said Popes death And as for the other Popes that followed Victor Vrbanus and Pasâ—halis vnder whome the rising of the Sonne against his Father was and vnder whome the said Henry the 4. died almost twenty yeares after the death of Gregory the seauenth the testimonies now alleadged of those other three Noble men that stirred the said Sonne against the father do sufficiently deliuer the sequâ—nt Popes from that calumniatioÌ„ of setting him on albeit it is not denied but that diuers yeares after when that all the States of Germany did generally so much mislike the life gouernment of Henry the fourth as by common consent and counsaile they determined that it was conuenient and necessary for the good of ChristeÌ„dome that he should giue ouer his gouernment to his said sonne Henry the 5. Paschalis the second of that name Pope being informed by the said States of the said necessity and that Christendome otherwise could not be quieted nor infinite miseries calamities and abuses remedied he concurred with them with his consent and approbation though himselfe were at Rome And the Diet or meeting of the States was held at Mentz from which Parlament were sent in the name of the Pope and all the rest three Archbishops to wit of Mentz Cullen and VVormes all Princes of the Empire to take from him that was prisoner in a little castell neere vnto that place all the Imperiall ornaments and ensignes belonging to that State and to deliuer them ouer to his sonne Henry and so was it done And what more orderly proceeding could there be then this in an act of such quality M. Barlow maketh it a hainous point against the Pope for dealing in the matter and bringeth in the testimonies both of Sigonius Genebrard to aggrauate the same but both of them as alwaies somwhat corrupted for albeit he do alleadge these words of Sigonius truly which were spoken by the foresâ—id tâ—ree Embassadors vnto Henry the 4. Ponâ—â—fici Principibusque Germaniae placuit c. It hath seemed good to the Pope and to the Princes of Germany that thou be depriued yet doth he craftily leaue out the reasons yielded of the said deposition by the Embassadors to wit quia tu deterrimo dissidio multos iam annos Dei Ecclesiam lacerasti c. for that thou hast rent the Church of God many yeares by most wicked breach of discord and for that thou hast put to sale both Bishoprickes Abbeys and all other Ecclesiasticall dignities and that thou hast broken all lawfull order in choosing of Bishops c. And that M. Barlow may not except against the testimony of these Embassadours because they were then in actuall opposition against him their sentence in this behalfe may be confirmed by one who was not the Popes friend but of great authority as I suppose with M. Barlow to wit Iohn Caluyn himself who in his 4. booke of Institutions sayth thus Henricus Imperator eius nominis quartus 〈◊〉 leuis temerarius c. Henry the 4. Emperour of that name an vnconstant and rash man of no wit very audacious and of dissolute life had the Bishopricks of all Germany exposed in his Court partly to sale and partly to pillage And a litle after Erat Henricus c. This Henry for his very insolent manner of gouernement was odious to the most part of the Princes So he But not to depart from Sigonius of whose testimony we now specially treat he that shall read what he relateth of him out of Helmodus and Dodecâ—iâ—â—â— touching the horrible abuse done to the Empresse his wife called Adelis by his commandement will be ashamed if he haue any shame in him to praise and commend a man of so monstrous iniquity as I for my part do for meere shame forbeare to expresse the thing And besides that his other excesses were so enormous in the eies of all disapassionate men as he of all others may least seeme worthy to be produced for an example of such as haue susteined wrong at the hands of the Pope in regard
Câ—priaÌ„â— iudgment of suâ—h as dye out oâ— the Church 〈◊〉 l 4 〈…〉 17. Auâ—ust 〈◊〉 2â— 4. ad Donatâ— A notable sentence of S. Augustine A â—ard câ—sure against all the â—abble of Iâ—â—n Fox his Martyrs A coâ—uincing argument vpoÌ„ thâ— Premiâ—â—s The hard â—ase of Q. â—lizabeth A remarkable coÌ„parison Q. Elizabeth held condemned heresies Haeresi 53. Aug. l. 9. coÌ„fâ—â—â— c. 13. S. Monica desired to be prayed for at the altar after her death which Q. Elizabeth did not Lett. p. 36. See Answere to Syr Edw. Cook c. 15. His Maiesties mild dispositioÌ„ diuerted The exercise of the Minister T. Montague Barl. pag. 102. Maliciouâ— contradiction Barl. pag. 103. M. Barlow a true parasite Barl. pagâ— 102. About the nature of flattery how Syâ— William demeaneth himselfe therin Augu. in 〈◊〉 69. M. Barlow an egregious flatterer M. Barlows praiers without hope Luc. 10. 21. Flattering of his Maiesty Barl p. 105. Syr VVilliâ—m deserues his fee. About the little Vniuersity These were an other maÌ„ner of Vniuersity Act. â—â— S. Athanâ—sius Epist. ad solitariâ—m vitam ageÌ„tes S. Gregor Nazian S. Ambrose Nazian orat ad â—iues timore perculsos Ambros. epist. 33. ad sororem S. Chrysostome S. Hierome S. Augâ—stine S. Gregory M. Barlows diuision of SycophaÌ„cy Mâ—râ—cles â—â—â—dâ—d and câ—ntemned M. Barl. a good proctor for the Turkes Infidels The myracles of S. Denys The myracle of S. Clement M Barl. turnes an anchor into a milstone Of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus M. Barlows fooleries Sixtus Quartus bâ—lyed Barl. pag. â—08â— Base babling Chelsey erection for writers Barâ— pag. 112. M. Barlow addeth to the text A most resonable and modest request of the Cath. Simple impertinent reasoning of M. Barlow Let. p. 38. In vita 〈◊〉 â—unâ—i Anno 1â—46 Liberty of conscience demanded by al Protestants â— Psal. 113. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Height of pride and in whome it may be said to be Barl. pag. 110. Strange notes of hâ—mility set downe bâ— M. Barlâ—w M. Barlow betrayeth his owne cause Barl. ibideÌ„ The Protestant hath Ecclesiastical power ouer Puritans 1. Ioan. 2. In what case Catholicks may yeld and grant toleration to Protestants Matth. 13. M. Barlow at a Non-plus Vnkind dealing indeed Barl. pag. 124. M. Barlowâ— moderate dirâ—ct Protâ—â—tâ—nt M. Barlow belyeth F. Persons Psal. 5â— Barl. pag. 142. StraÌ„ge impudency Basenesse and beggery of ProtestaÌ„ts Theol. Tigurin in prafat Apol prafix orthodox Câ—n. anno 1578. Lib. 2. de rat ineundâ— Concordiae p. 2. 24. ProtestaÌ„ts and Puritans differ in substaÌ„tial points of religioÌ„ Rogers prâ—fâ—â—e pag. 9. Arrige aures Syr William M. Barlow a bad Aduocate M. Barlow in the brakes Amb. ep 33. Baâ—l pag. â—69 A hard argument for M. Barlow to solue Silly stuffe M. Barlows liâ—le care of his Maiestieâ— eternall life Good euill Princes to be obeyed for conscieÌ„ce but not against coscience Barlow pag. 160. M. Barlow hath the coÌ„science of an Asse a Wolfe A strange wicked assertioÌ„ of M. Barlow 1. 2. q. 19. art 5. The goodnes of the act of our will doth depeÌ„d vpon our reason and iudgment A sinne to doe coÌ„trary to an erroneous coÌ„science What iâ— to be â—one of him who haâ—h an erroneoâ—â— coÌ„science â— Tim. 1. M. Barlowes moÌ„strous doctrines more fitting the Turkes Alcoran then the Ghospell of Iesus Christ. S. Paul abused More coÌ„teâ—ned in the Oath then ciuill obedieÌ„ce Let. p. 51. Apol. pag. 22. Hiâ—r 27. 12. Exod. 5.1 Esdr. 1.3 Dan. 3.12 No obedience against God a mans conscieÌ„ce Deu. 1. 〈◊〉 1. â— Mach. 1. Barl. pag. 161. A strange assertion Weake proofes A simple Discourse Barl. pag. 168. The fact of Toby against the coÌ„mandement of K. Senacherib Tob. 2. v. 9. Tob. 12. M. Barlow a bad Angell The credit of the history of Toby Câ—c Triâ— sess 4. Carth. can 47. Aug. 2. de doc chrism cap. 8. Amb. de Tob. 2. Cyp. de orat Dominica l. de mortaliâ— S. Augustines and other Fathers iudgments of the fact of Toby Cap. 3. Cap. 13. S. Ambr. â—ib de Tob. c. 1. Tob. 12. Cyp. lib. dâ— oratione Dom. This is no ProtestaÌ„t doctrine A great presumptioÌ„ of M. Barlowes piety Letter pag. 52. Authorities of ancient Fathers Apol. p. 23. â— Aug. in Psal. 124. How far we are bound to obey our temporall Prince Apol. p. 23. Tertull. ad Scap. Iust. Apol. 2. ad Anton Imperaâ— Optat. contra ParmeÌ„ lib. 3. Ambros Orat. coÌ„tra Auxent de Basilicis noÌ„ trad lib. 5. Epist. Three occasions in which S. Ambrose resisted the Emperour his temporall Soueraigne Libellus Ambros. epist. 32. Amb. l. â— epist. 33. Amb. ibid. Ambros. Conâ— de Basiliâ—â—s noÌ„ tradenâ—â—â—s M. Barlowes shifting answere to the three places of S. Ambrose Feminine Supremacy more esteemed of M. Barlow then Masculine Barlow pag. 171. Magdeb. cent 4. c. 5. 6. 7. The ancient vse of hallowing Church Vessels Naz. orat de sâ—ipso coÌ„tra Arianos M. Barlows declining in the point of Supremacy Stat. H. 8. anno Domini 1535. The supremacy how it was giuen to Kâ— Henry in what high measure K. Edwarâ— An 1 E 6. cap. 2. Queene Elizabeth M. Barlows iudgment about the Kings supreme Ecclesiastical authority M. Barlows fumbling M. Barlows absurde distinctions diuisions M. Barlows delusion M. Barlow hath marred the market of the Kings supremacy Lett. p. 56. Apolog. pag. 24. How S. Gregory agreed to the publishing of the law of the Emperour â—auritius Greg. l. 2. Epist. 65. Indict 11. Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 1â— Indict 1. Barl. pag. 173. Mauritius his law noâ— altogeather Ecclesiasticall How the Emperors Law vvas Ecclesiasticall A good consideration A fond cauill Pag. 174. Barl. pag. 174. A ridiculous error in GraÌ„mar of M. Barlow Letter pag. â—8 CoÌ„c Arel sub Carol. Can. 26. Viâ—e in Capitularibus Franc. lib. 6. c. 285. de Concilio Wormaâ— Wherin the CouÌ„cell or Arles did submit it selfe to the Emperour a Can. 2. b Can. 3. c Can. 4. d Can. 7. 8. e Can. 13â— f Can. 15. 16. g Can. 20. 22. 23. The zeale of Charlâ— the Great to haue manners reformed by the authority of Bishops Barlow pag. 175. A grosse contradictiâ— in M. Barlow A very forcible argumeÌ„t M. Barlows memory very short M. Barlow plaieth fast loose about the Kings authority A hard question for M. Barlow to answere Barl. pag. 178. False dealing Amb. toÌ„ 5. edit Vatican epist. prâ—fix anâ—e Conâ—il Aquileâ—eÌ„ About the of CouÌ„cel Wormes â—â—oÌ„ ann 77â— 772. 〈◊〉 Fâ—aÌ„c â— 6. c. 28â— â—â— l 7. c. 2â—â— Better to be a fugitiue for the Catholick religion on abroad then to be a persecutour at home Generall Councels â—lwaies called by the Bishop of Rome Barl. pag. 178. The radiant folly of M. Barlow M Barâ—owes impudency Baâ—on tom 9. ann 774. Aâ—oâ— p. 26. â—7 Lett. p. 61. Neither the Pope or Church can make new Articles of Faith Barlow pag. 181. A foolish wrangling of M.