to be deceiued with the difficulty of this question let him take counsaile of the Church meaning thereby the vniuersall knowne Catholike Church they hauing abandoned this way of Diâ— Ecclesiae tell the Church and of recourse thereunto as to the Columna firmamentum veritatis the pillar and stay of truth so called by S. Paul what remayneth then to theÌ„ for their vltima resolutio but their owne heads and priuate iudgments which are those fancyes oâ— their own braynes which M. Barlow recyted before our of S. Augustine And this shall I make manifest by the ensuing example Yf fiue or six learned men of different ReligioÌ„s should meet togeather in Germany or Transiluania to wit a Roman Catholike a Hussite an Arrian a Trinitarian a Lutheran a Zuinglian or a Caluinist for that all these different Religions are there publikely professed and both by speaches books and sermons preached and maintayned and that you should demauÌ„d of each one of these the reason of his fayth and his vltima resolutio or last rest about the same you should find their answers far diâ—fereÌ„t For if you should demand of the Catholicke for example why he belieueth the Reall Presence he would answere you because it is reuealed by God If you aske him further how he knoweth it is reuealed by God he will say it is conteined in his word eyther written or vnwritten or both Yf you aske him againe how he knoweth it is coÌ„teined in Gods word in that sense that he defends it he will answere for that the knowne Catholike Church doth tell him so by whose authority he is taught what is Gods word and how it is to be vnderstood And if you demand of him further how he knoweth the Church to haue such authority and the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church he will alledg for the former diuers Scriptures acknowledged also by the opposite Sectaries as that before mentioned wherin she is called The pillar and stay of truth and for the second he will alledge so many demonstrations of the beginning growth increase continuance succession and visible deâ—cent of that Church confirmed from time to time with so many miracles other manifest proofes and arguments of credibility as no man in reason can contradict the same so as his vltima resolutio or last stay is vpon the Church testifying vnto vs tâ—e word of God and testified by the same But now the other fiue though neuer so learned in their profession will not answere you thus but being demaunded euery one of them seuerally why they are of that peculiar sect more then of any other and why they are different from the Catholicke in the former article of Reall Presence they will all answere conformably for the first step that they doe build vpon the word of God yea the writteÌ„ word only But if you go a step further demand of them how they know that this written word is well vnderstood by them for so much as they are of fiue different Religions founded by them all vpon the same written word here now they cannot passe any further to the foresaid Catholike Church for finall resolutioÌ„ as the first did for that they all do impugne her but ech man must defend his different interpretation of that written word by his owne iudgement or els by the iudgement of his owne Congregation and Sect which in effect is the same So as these fiue learned men do remaine irreconciliable as you see for want of a ground from whence to take their vltima resolutio and do shew themselues according to the former speaches of Vincentius and S. Austine both Heretikes and Idolatours in that following the â—ule resolution of their owne heads they adore as many Gods as they haue selfe-conceipts for ground of their fayth And will you say that this poynt of vltima resolutio was wisely brought in by M. Barlow being a thing wherby himselfe and his are condemned to haue no last resolution or certayne ground at all for their beliefe but only their owne â—eads But oh sayth he you depend for resolution vpon the Pope which is so vncertaine as what one Pope decrees another disallowes But I haue now answered that we depend vpon the Catholicke Church as propounding vnto vs and expounding Gods word and we depend of the Supreme Pastour as head of that Church vnto whoÌ„ we rest assured by Gods owne word and promise that he will assist him with his spirit for all resolutions in matters of fayth which shal be necessary for his sayd Church nor can M. Barlow prooue that what one Pope decrees in these matters of fayth another disallowes One of them may well alter matters of policy gouernment Ceremonies or the like but for poynts of fayth we do allow M. Barlow sixteene hundred yeares to seeke them out And if in so long time he could haue produced but one true example I suppose we should haue had it I doe willingly pretermit a great deale more of idle impertinent speach which M. Barlow vseth about this matter of Catholiks Consciences â—hewing indeed to haue little himselfe nor yet to know well what it meaneth and much lesse speaketh he to the present purpose For he telleth vs first that if pressure of conscience may serue for good Plea of Recusancy to Princes lawes there is neyther malefactor for crime nor hereticke for schisme but that will make that his Apology Wherunto I answere that causes persons merits and demerits are to bee distinguished in this matter and not to be confounded For what hath the malefactour for crime or hereticke for schisme to doe in this affaire From the first I thinke the aduersaries themselues will deliuer them or at leastwise theyr neyghbors among whome they dwell and as for the second of heresy and schisme we haue spoken now already sufficiently to shew where those imputations may and must lye not vpon the Catholickes who are opposite to that charge Secondly then he telleth vs that we lacke the light within vs which should driue away the darkenesse of our consciences and purge the eye therof from mist dust lime And vpon this he maketh vs an exhortation that we take heed of Caligo tenebrarum in this life that dusketh the eies of our vnderstanding to perdition especially by worldly delightes desire of honour and wealth this being puluis pigmentarius sayth he the Merchants dust which tickleth the eies and blindeth the sight of the wisest as do also enuy by emulation preiudice of affection wilfulnes by opposition which like vnto lyme tormenteth the eye and peruerteth the iudgement c. And is not this a very graue and serious exhortation comming from such a man as he is knowne to be so clearely inlightned as neyther mist nor dust nor lyme of ambition can sticke vpon a man so hating worldly delights honour and wealth as no part of this merchants dust can tickle his eyes Are not his mortifications
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-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
Sacraments care of soules possessing Cures and Benefices absoluing from sinnes spirituall iurisdiction and all Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy deryued from hence And are all these thinges only Ceremoniall without substance or essence of religion Doth M. Barlow discharge his duty of a Champion eyther towardes his king or his old Lord from both which it seemeth alâ—eady he hath receaued large fees in bringing both their authorities in Ecclesiastical matters to be meere Ceremonies No man I thinke will sue to be his Clyent hereafter iâ— he can plead no better But let vs yet see a little further how he hath aduanced his Maiestyes spirituall authority Thus he writeth of his being Moderator in the Conference betwene the Puritans and Protestants This difference sayth he about thinges indifferent his Maiesty desirous to reconcile vouchsafed his Princely paynes to moderate mediate In which wordes first doe you note againe his often repetition that they were thinges indiffereÌ„t to wit whether his Maiesty should haue Supreme Primacy in Church causes or renounce the same and cast it downe togeather with his Scepter before the Presbytery of the Puritans and whether the Lord of Canterbury should leaue of his Lordship and Graceship and become a simple Minister equall with the rest And so likewise M. Barlow himselfe to leaue the Sea of Lincolne and title of Lordship which none that knowes the humor of the man will imagine that he holdeth for a thing indifferent or a meere Ceremony This I say is the first Notandum for if these things be indifferent what need so much a doe about them And the second Notandum is that he saith that his Maiesty did moderate and mediate in this Conference which is a very moderate and meane word indeed to expresse so high and eminent Authority Ecclesiasticall as sometimes they wil seem to ascribe vnto his Maiesty For who cannot moderate or mediate in a Conference if he haue sufficient learning and knowledge of the cause though he haue no eminent authority at all to decide the same But who shall determine or define the Controuersy Here no doubt M. Barlow wil be in the brakes For that a little after being pressed with the free speach and deniall of S. Ambrose vnto Valentinian the Emperour when he medled in Ecclesiasticall affairs and in particuler when he sent for him by Dalmatius a Tribâ—ne with a Notary to come and dispute in the Consistory before him his Counsell and Nobility with the Hereticall Bishop Auxenâ—ius S. Ambrose refused vtterly to goe yeelding for his reason that in matters of faith and religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops which deniall M. Barlow well alloweth saying that Ambrose did well in it and sayd well for it his fact and reason were both Christianlike But suppose that his Maiesty had sent for the Bishops to dispute and confer with the doctors of the Puritan party in his presence as the Emperour Valentinian did S. Ambrose that they had refused to come with the same reasoÌ„ that S. Ambrose did would M. Barlow that wrote the Conference haue defended the same as good and lawful Or would his Maiesty haue taken the same in as good part as ValentiniaÌ„ did I doubt it very much as also I doubt whether S. Ambrose if he had disputed would haue suffered ValentiniaÌ„ suppose he had bin learned to haue moderated mediated in that disputatioÌ„ as M. Baâ—low saith his Maiesty did in this But if without effect that he could not conclude who should giue iudgment of the matter The Bishops They were party and theyr whole interest lay therein The Puritan Doctors They were also a party and therby partiall His Maiesty could not doe it according to M. Barlowes doctrin in this place if any point of religion were handled therein Who then should iudge or giue sentence The Church saith M. Barlow in another place But who maketh that Church Or who giueth authority of iudgement to that Church if the supreme Head and gouernour haue it not in himself Do you not see how intricate this matter is hard to resolue And according to this as it seemeth was the effect and consequence of this meeting if we belieue M. Barlow himselfe who maketh this question Did thâ—se great and Princely paynes which his Maiesty tooke with the Puritâ—ns worke a generall conformity And then he answereth VVith the iudicious and discreet it did wherof M. Barlow was one but the rest grew more aukward and violent So he But all this while if you marke it there is nothing said to the point for which all this was brought in to wit why the like fauour had not beene shewed to Catholikes for a Conference also with them about their Religion M. Barlow doth touch some number of reasons as that our opinions doe touch the very head and foundation of religion That his Maiesty was perfect in all the arguments that could be â—rought for the aduerse part and that he throughly vnderstanding the weaknes of them held it both vnsafe and vnnecessary to haue them examined That the Protestant religion being throughly well placed and hauing so long continued is not now to be disputed c. Which reasons being either in themselues fond or against himselfe I will not stand to refute One only contradiction wil I note that our argumeÌ„ts being so weake yet that it should be vnsafe to haue them examined and that the long continuance of Protestant religion in England should make it indisputable whereas more then ten times so long prescription of Catholike religion could not defend it by shew of a conference or dispute hâ—ld at VVestminster at the beginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne when the same was changed and put out And finally I will end this with a notable calumniation insteed of a reason vttered by M. Barlow why this Conference ought not to be granted to Catholikes for sooth For that euen in their common petition for toleration they â—isâ—hed his Maiesty to be as great a Saint in heaueÌ„ as he is a King vpon earth shewing thereby saith he that gladly they would be rid oâ— him but wâ—ich way they care not so he were not here And may not this Prelate now beare the prize for calumniation and Sycophancy that out of so pious an antecedent can inferre so malicious a consequent The Catholickes doe wish vnto his Maiesty both life present and euerlasting to come here a great King and there a great Saint M. Barlow seemeth not to care much for his eternity so he may enioy his temporality by the which he himselfe gayneth for the present and hopeth euery day to do more more it importâ—th him litle how great a Saint his Maiestie be in heauen so vpon earth he liue longe to fauour him and to furnish him with fat benefices And thus he inforceth me to answere him contrary to my owne inclination for repressing somewhat his insolent malignant speach which is the most
the name of diuine things the possession of this or that materiall Church Or if he would be so bold now I assure my self he would not haue bene so in Queene Elizabeths dayes whose spirituall Supremacy though femininae seemed much more to be esteemed of him then this now of his Maiesty as preseÌ„tly will appeare The third refusall of S. Ambrose to the Emperour was when the said Emperour sent his Tribunes and other officers to require certaine Vessels belonging to the Church to be deliuered which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do answering as before hath bene set downe That iâ— thâ—◠〈◊〉 could not obey him and that if he loued himselfe he should abstâ—â—â—e to offer such iniurie vnto Christ c. which answer also M. Barlâ—â— well alloweth signifying therby that he would aâ—â—werâ— in the same sort to the magistrates officers of King Iamâ—â— if he should send them vpon any occasion to require at his hands the CoÌ„munion cup or any other such vessels belonging to any Church in Lincolne Diocesse And will any man belieue this that he will be so stout But it is a pastime to see how he chatteth about this matter as though he would say somewhat indeed but yet saith nothing at least to the purpose Let vs heare what he bringeth Things separated saith he to holy vse are not to be alienated to 〈◊〉 vsage Here now euery man will laugh that remembreth how the Vessels Vestments and other such things dedicated vnto God and consecrated to Ecclesiasticall vses in the Catholike Church haue bene handled by Protestants taken away defaced and conuerted to prophane vses which this man I presume dareth not to condemne Let vs heare him further God hath in them saith he a 〈◊〉 right as King Dauid confesseth first as his gift to man secondly as mans gift agayne to him which twofold cord tyeth them so strong as it is an Anathema or curse for any man not consecrated to chalenge them yea for them which are consecrated if they do not only pâ—â— them to that vse alone for which they were dedicated And do you see now heerâ— how zealous M. Barlow is become vpon the suddayne for defence of consecrated vessels in the Church What Vessels haue they consecrated thinke you Or what kind of consecration do they vse therein He sayth it is an anathema for any person not consecrated to chalenge them the sacred Emperour and King do demand them in this our case if their persons be sacred then in M. Barlows sense they are also consecrated and they may demaund these Vessels which as I said are very few in the Protestant Church and if they had beene as few in the Church meant by S. Ambrose it is not likely that the Emperour would haue troubled himselfe so much in sending Tribunes and other officers for the same But suppose the vessels were of like number price and value in the one and the other Church Yet I thinke M. Barlow will not deny but that the manner of consecrating them was far different which may be seene in the â—â—gâ—â—churgians themselues in the fourth Century and by S. Ambrose in his second booke of Office cap. 29. where he putteth downe two sorts of Church-Vessels dedicated to diuine vses the one initiata hallowed or consecrated and the other not yet hallowed and that in the time of necessity to redeeme Captiues or to relieue the poore the second sort are first to be broken and applied to these holy vses but the former with much more difficulty for that they were now hallowed Which difference I thinke the Protestants do not greatly obserue in their hallowed Vessels S. Gregory Nazianzen in like manner talking of such consecrated Vessels as were vsed in the Church in his time sayth that it was such as it made it vnlawfall for lay men to touch them which I thinke M. Barlow will not lay of his Communion-Cup which all men take in their hands But now to the question it selfe Do you thinke that M. Barlow would deny vnto King Iames that Communion-Cup or any other Vessels of a Church if he should as earnestly demand them as Valentiniaâ— the Emperour did when he sent his Tribunes and other chiefe officers to require them of S. Ambrose If he would what kind of Supremacy doth he allow his Maiesty in spirituall matters if he may be denyed and disobeyed in these also that are in a certaine sort mixt and in some part conioyned with temporall respects And truly when I do consider with my selfe with what degrees M. Barlow doth descend and go downeward in defending of the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of his Maiesty bringing it as it were to nothing from that high pitch wherin King Henry the eight both placed it and left it his children King Edward and Queene Elizabeth continued the same I cannot but wonder and admire the prouideÌ„ce of Almighty God that hath wrought the ouerthrow in effect of that new Protestant Idoll of spirituall Authority in temporall Princes euen by Protestants themselues Iohn â—aluin beginning the battery as all men know calling it Antichristian the Puritans following him in that doctrine and now M. Barlow though vnder-hand and dissemblingly confirming all that they haue sayd or doâ—â— therin The first pitch wherin King Henry did place the same was as appeareth by the Statute it selfe in the twentith six yeare of his raigne That he and his herres should be taken â—ccepted and reputed the only Supreme head on earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia and should haue and enioy â—â—nexed â—nd vnited to his Imperiall Crowne asiâ—eli the title style therof as also all honours dignities preheminences iurisdictions priâ—iledges to the said Dignity of supreme Head belonging c. Wherby is euident that the Parlament gaue vnto him as great authority ouer the Church of EnglaÌ„d as the Pope had before And this very fame authority was translated after him to his Sonne King Edward though a child yea all Preachers were commanded to teach the people that his Minority of age wâ—â— no impediment to his supreme spiritual gouernment for that a King is as truly a King at one yeares age as at â—wenty so as the exception made by M. Barlow that Valentinianâ—he â—he Emperour was yong when he commanded S. Amâ—roâ—e to dispute before him maketh nothing according to this Doctrine against his spirituall authority if he were Head of the Church as King Edward was And further the Parliament in the first yeare of King Edward explaining this authority hath these words That all authority of Iurisdictions spirituall and reÌ„porall is deriued and deducted froÌ„ the Kings Maiesty as supreme head of the Churches and Realmes of England and Ireland vnto the Bishops and Archbishops c. And the like was passed ouer also to Queene Elizabeth by a Statute in the first yeare of her raigne wherin it is said That all such iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall as by any spirituall
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
was this I find no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholike affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith and what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true Mother therby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother but only the declaration Wherfore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth is a meere calumniation amongst the rest So in my former writing now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points In the first whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obedience he is very briefe for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation that the Popes Breue forbids not temporall Obedience No saith he it forbids the Oath wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance But this we deny and haue often denied and still must deny and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands who though he hath often affirmed the same yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue For that being once proued all controuersie about this Oath were ended And it is a strange kind of demeanour so often and euery where to affirme it and neuer to proue it He addeth for his reason in this place He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne and sayth neuer a word more But what doth this proue Or in what forme is this argument For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor that we do so or that the Popes Breue doth so we vtterly deny it as manifestly false For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour Wherfore this proofe is nothing at allâ— But he hath another within a leafe after which is much more strange for he bringeth me for a witnes against my selfe in these words VVhat hitherto sayth he he â—aâ— laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue â—â—insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grâ—â—teth If this be so that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduantage and some cause to vaunt but if no word of this be true and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen that is forced to inuent these silly shifts Let vs lay forth then the mystery or rather misery of this matter as himselfe relateth it The Pope saith he being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause or reason of the vnlwâ—ulnes of the Oath the Epistler saith there are as many reasons that it is vnlawfull as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion against which they must sweare And is not this a good reason say I Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the coÌ„science of a Catholike man from swearing But how doth be proue by this that I confesse the Breue to forbid temporall Obedience Do you marke I pray you his inference and consider his acumen But there is no one poynt sayth he in the Oath that doth not so to wit that doth not concerne Religion euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience I do sweare before God that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme c. Ergo I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles and consequently leaueth no Obedience ciuill or temporall But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion euen the very first Article that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience â—hen doth it not touch religioÌ„ in our sense For that we do distinguish these two deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts the one conteyning points of temporall obedience for acknowledging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes the other concerning points of Catholike Religion belonging to the Popes Authority To the first wherof we refuse not to sweare but only against the second And now M. Barlow sayth that all concerne religion and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedience but denieth all And is not this a worthy dispute But let vs passe to the second question whether the Pope or Church hath authority to make new Articles of faith as the Apologer obiected And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part that the Catholicke Church preâ—endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith that were not of themselues true and of faith before he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Hermes and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall Whereto I answere that Doctor Stapleton sayth only that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not admitted before as for example the Epistles of S. Iames the two bookes of Machabees the Epistle of Iude and diuers others as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and suâ—scribed so hath the same Church at this day and shall haue vnto the worlds end authority to do the same Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret sayth Doctour Stapleton that is if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto herâ— librum aliquem alâ—â—m nâ—ndum in Canâ—nem recepâ—um Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes
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
put to the horne at Edenburrough 19. In another place going about to proue that the Right which the Church hath against heretikes eyther for their conuersion or chastisement is Ius innatum bred within it inseparable from it how thinke yow doth he proue the same against F. Pâ—rsons who sayd that is was Ius acquisitum Very pithily yow may imagine for thus he writeth No sooner was there a Church designed but this right was annexed Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis as the enmity for contradiction so the right for suppression is natiue Thus M. Barlow no more And is not this well proued thinke yow The seed of the woman shall bruze the serpents head that is Christ the Sonne of the Virgin shall ouercome the diueâ— ergo it is Ius innatum to punish heretikes Me thinkes this argument proues M. Barlow more to be a Naturall then any natiue right to be in the Church For what is there here to signify the Church to signify heretikes to signify this in-bred right Truly I see no more coherence betweene the Scripture and the foresaid argument then I see in this which followes Our Sauiour cured a man of the palsy ergo M. Barlow is troubled with the gout But let vs go on 20. Last of all for adding to the holy text what more euident example can be desired then that which he bringeth out of Deuteronomy to proue that bloudy artycle of the Kinges Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes Bloudy I say for that more effusion of bloud of Ecclesiasticall men hath bene made for that one point enacted by Parlament then by all the lawes of former tymes for the space of a thousand yeares togeather which yet is not only by all Catholikes denyed reiected by Caluin and the Puritans but vtterly condemned also by the Lutherans and all learned Protestants Against all which M. Barlow will needes proue by Scripture this vsurped authority saying God in his Word hath appointed Kinges to be Guardians of bâ—th the Tables to commaund prohibite not in ciuill affaires only but in matters also concerning religion saith S. Augustine and citeth Deuteron 17. 18 verse But in our bookes eyther Hebrew Greeke or Latin we fynd no such commission giuen to Kinges nor any one syllable of their being Guardians of both Tables or of any commaund in matters of Religion in this place as elsewhere by the Author of the Supplement he is more fully and roundly tould And so yow see to what desperate attempts this Minister is driuen to defend a falsity 21. Touching the last point which remayned to be treated of M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of diuinity for that it is his chief profession I shall more inlarge my self therein ioyne issue with him in one entire disputation and that not the meanest but rather the chiefest of his whole booke for in no other that I know doth he vse so many tearmes of art or make so great vauÌ„t or shew of learning courage coÌ„fidence as in the same to wit his discourse to proue a contradiction in Bellarmine concerning three Conclusions of his about Iustification and confidence to be reposed in our good workes But before I enter this combate it will not be amisse to let the Reader see some part of his skill in another matter or two that thereby he may take a scaÌ„tling of the rest 22. First then he must know that eyther M. Barlowes choice was so bad or iudgement so small that he neuer almost cyteth the Maister of Sentences S. Thomas of Aquine or other Schoolemen but that he doth commonly very ignorantly mistake them or maliciously bely them or some way or other peruert them For example he maketh S. Thomas to say That if an Vsurper or Intruder commaund thinges vnlawfull yet in those thinges the subiects must notwithstanding obey propter vitandum scandalum aut periculum and then addeth Of this Diuinity Iudge not ti 's their owne But I answere t' is M. Barlowes lye not S. Thomas his Diuinity who answering an argument that the power of many Kinges is vsurped and therefore they not to be obayed saith That a man is â—ound to obey so far forth as the order of Iustice doth require and therefore if they haue not lawfull principality but vsurped or commaund vniust thinges the subiects are not bound to obey them vnles perhaps per accidens for auoyding of scandall or daunger So S. Thomas and here is no mention of vnlawfull things commaunded but of vniust for a King may commaund things that are vniust as that his subiects giue him all the money or goodes they haue whereto for feare of daunger they may yield which they could not doe were the thing of it owne nature vnlawfull which is S. Thomas his expresse doctrine in the next precedent article neyther is there here must notwithstanding obey but the contrary that absolutely they are not bound to obey vnles perhaps it be for some other cause as of scaÌ„dall or daunger in which cases they may to saue their liues or for auoyding the hurt and offence of others doe those thinges which are vniustly commaunded theÌ„ so they be not of their owne nature vnlawfull but only in respect of the CoÌ„maunder who eyther coÌ„trary to iustice or by vsurped authority doth coÌ„maund theÌ„ 23. Of this nature is that graue resolution of his taken as he would haue it seeme from S. Thomas his scholler Medina That to full liberty is required an vnlimited scope for the iudgement to deliberate Of which he shall heare more afterwards for this vnlimited scope for the iudgmeÌ„t is no other thing theÌ„ the vnlimited ignorance of Syr William which passeth all bound measure Againe where he citeth S. Thomas touching actiue passiue scandall which is refuted in this worke at large and where he sayth very boldly but ignorantly that the said Doctour confineth al proud men within two sortes one of theÌ„ which aduance themselues aboue others the other of such which arrogate to themselues that which is aboue them and beyond their pitch which seemeth to be aboue the pitch of his skill for S. Thomas maketh 4. sortes of pride as any may see in the place cited in the margent though in the place which M. Barlow citeth I confesse there be not so many sorts specified for in his 33. question and 5. article he meÌ„tioneth none at all So as M. Barlow roues at randome and speaketh without booke and thinkes all to be well so he say somewhat true or false and make a fond florish with the citing of schoolmen Of this very stamp is his other of fatum and prouidence in denying fatum to be prouidence retorted vpon him by F. Persons in this Answere And truly if M. Barlow be wise he will if he write againe be more wary in dealing with Schoolmen and alleadging their authorities for that kind of learning far surpasseth the compasse of his shallow capacity 24.
Another thing may be to consider what strange Paradoxes he inserts here and there as positioÌ„s dogmaticall which who so listeth in practise to follow shall either haue no religion or faith at all or insteed of Christs Ghospell the Turks Alcoran For exaÌ„ple what more grosse and wicked assertion can there be then to teach that Kings euen against our conscience are to be obeyed For thus he replyeth against F. Persons saying that Kings were to be obeyed propter coÌ„scientiaÌ„ sed non contra conscientiaÌ„ This saith M. Barlow is no sound doctrine in the negatiue part for euen against a mans Conscience the Prince is to be obeyed Againe There is nothing more easy for proofe or euident for dâ—monstration then that obedience is to be enioyned â—uâ—n against conscience if it be erroneous and leaprous and against religion if forged and falsely so called And is not this a very learned Axiome For more euident refutation whereof let vs suppose that for which we powre forth our daily prayers to God that his Maiesty were as all his Noble Progenetors of both Realmes haue alwayes bene a Catholick Prince and as zealous for the truth therof as now he is for the Protestant cause if then he should propose vnto Syr WilliaÌ„ the Oath of Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome so cleerly out of Scriptures and all antiquity proued and euinced to be true but yet in the blind eyes and leaprouâ— conscience of this Minister thought to be false what would he doe therin Will he sweare it to be true But in his conscience he thinketh it to be false and against the Scriptures Will he refuse it But Kings saith he euen against conscience are to be obeyed 25. Neyther doth he help the matter any thing at all by his distinction of leaprous and erroneous conscience for with men of his stamp conscience is like a cheuerell point which they may stretch loose at their pleasure For who knoweth not that in the tyme of Q. Mary they were held to haue erroneous leaprous consciences euen by the iudgement of the greatest deuines in Geneua who manteyned that women were to be obeyed albeit they were Queenes euen in ciuill and temporall affaires But within one yeare after this errour and leaprosy was so transposed that the quite contrary was taught and they were not only held to haue leaprous and erroneous consciences who denyed ciuill obedience but were condemned also as Traitours by Parlament if they did deny Q. Elizabeth to be the Supreme head or Gouernesse of the Church of England So that it was not only lawfull but necessary for her to haue all Temporall and Ecclesiasticall gouernmeÌ„t in her hands as she was Queen which yet in Q. Mary to haue ciuill only euen by reason of her sex was iudged monstrous vnnaturall and repugnaÌ„t to the Scriptures and law of God Many other examples might be produced in this kind to shew this new Gospell to be as constant as the weathercocke which neuer turneth but when the wynd doth change to wit as often as occasions fall out that may fit their purpose for then they will strayne all conscience and honesty also to conforme themselues become good subiects 26. Much like vnto this of obeying Kings against our conscience is his other prophane and barbarous assertion of the Supremacy of the heathen Emperours Nero Domitian and the rest ouer the Christian Church yea which is more strange that the auncient Fathers Iustinus Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian and others acknowledged the same But you must know that M. Barlow in cyting their words for proofe of this paradox is very silent howsoeuer with all coÌ„fideÌ„ce as a maxime in his new Deuinity vncoÌ„trollable he deliuereth the same saying That they acknowledged the Emperors Supremacy indepeÌ„dant vpon any but God And a litle after that Queene Elizabeth in her Supremacy was no vsurper by Nouell-claime but accepted what God himselfe had annexed to her crowne Out of which I first note that by this Doctrine the Great Turke is supreme Head of the Christian Church in Greece and that if M. Barlow were there for such he would acknowledge him Secondly the Pythagoricall manner of speaking which our Aduersaries vse in matters of greatest moment and controuersie For whereas before King Hâ—nry the eight no Christian King euer tooke that title or vsurped any such authority ouer the Church yea for challenging much lesse Constantius was called Antichrist both by S. Athanasius and S. Hilary these men without all profe but not without singuler impupudency thinke it sufficient to sayâ— that the King is head of the Church that he was so acknowledged by the ancient Fathers that not only a woman may haue the same authority of Supremacy in all causes Ecclesiasticall but that also the heathen Emperours had it as annexed to their Crowne and Imperiall Dignitie euen against the whole torrent of all writters the practise of the Christian world and euident text of Scripture it selfe no Fathers no history no monument no shew or shaddow of proofe or authority in former tymes being found for the same without many straines violent enforcements or ridiculous illations made there-upon as in the arguments of the Protestants who haue treated this controuersie is euery where to be seene 27. Lastly the Reader may note that M. Barlow is so poore a Deuine as eyther he knoweth not what belongeth to matters of faith or els is so wicked as against his owne knowledge he will auouch that for true which is checked euen by his owne brethren and conuinced by common sense and experieÌ„ce to be most false to wit that the Protestants and the Puritanes in England differ only in maâ—ters cerimoniall and agree in all â—ssâ—ntiall and substantiall points concerning religion in which this Prelate is very cathegoricall for ignorance as himself elswhere telleth vs out of Fathers and Philosophers though he cite no place or sentence is the mother of aâ—dacious assertions and vndertakings and writteth thus Faine they woulâ— possesse the world that we are at iarre among our selues about our religion whereas the quarrell though it be indeed vnkind yet is it not in this kind sauâ— only for cerimonyes externall no points substantiall c. So he Which though it be kindly spoken as you see yet he must giue me leaue to belieue him at leasure and in the meane tyme â—o aske him one question to wit whether the ProtestaÌ„ts and Puritans vnderstand their owâ—e differences that are between theÌ„ or not If notâ— then we need not belieue M. Barlow as speaking of that which he doth not vnderstand If they doe how commeth it to passe that they condemne ech other of idolatry heresy and false religion as any may read in the Suruey and dangerous Positions set forth by Sâ—â—cliffe and the last Superintendent of Canterbury for the Protestants and Cartwright Gilby Mâ—rtin Senior and others for the Puritans 28. To this answereth M. Barlowes Comicall companion of
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
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
in extolling or rather belying Q. Elizabeth farr beyond all truth or desert calling white black and black white making light darknes darknes light after he hath made her of all liuing creatures the most admirable on earth with many boÌ„basting phâ—ases setting forth her praise who yet in her life tyme did nothing or very little God wot that was praise worthy leauing after 44. yeares raigne no other monument in the land of her liuing in it but that she had pulled downe many Churches 〈◊〉 howses and not so much as buylt or let vp oneâ— or â—rected any thing for posterity to remayne after 〈◊〉 But as Xenophon in Cyrus did not so much write 〈◊〉 life as in him describe what a good King should beâ— so M. Barlow in his transformed Queen Elizabeth â—â—â—leth vs not so much what she was indeed as what 〈◊〉 should haue bene or as now they would for the crâ—dit of their Ghospell wish that she had bene After aâ—â— these Encomions giuen of her life I say thus he adâ—uaunceth her after her death to heauen and withoâ—â— authority will needs canonize her before her tyme to vse his owne phrase make her an eternized Saintâ— His words be theseâ— For her reward in heauen if restraints of liberty and pursuites of malice for Gods truthâ— inflicted through Iealousie and indured with singular patâ—â—ence if a release from them vnexpected followed with hâ—â—nours and blessings neyther interrupted by others wheâ—ther treasons or inuasions nor blemished by herselfe with vice criminall or continued if life shut vp after length 〈◊〉 dayes and a full age with a courage defying death withâ— prayâ—rs imploring mercy with faith assuring the prayers with testimoâ—ies witnessing her assurance can be preceding coniectures or rather euidences of vnspeakable happinesseâ— we may safely conclude that she which passed through 〈◊〉 Crowne of thornes borne so constantly to a Crowâ—e of Gold worne so tryumphantly hath nâ—w gotten the thirâ— of Glory to enioy for euerlasting 115. So M. Barlow with more to the same effectâ— telling how she was an example of vâ—rtue for her owne to follow and a loadst irre for other Nations to admire coÌ„cluding with this Apostrophe Now this renowned Queen this eternized Saint c. And not to enter into disputâ— of the truth of his words nor yet to aske him by what â—ertainty he knowes that she passed from one of these â—hree Crownes to another especially from the gold â—o glory which requireth other proofe then this verâ—all florish of a few Rhetoricall figures bare imagiâ—ary coniectures of that courage prayers faith and testimonies witnessing assurance which this man sitting in his chamber doth faigne but she at her death if we belieue eye witnesses of much better credit then himselfe did little feele to omit this I say as an idle fancy or fiction rather of this foolish Parasite two things I would demauÌ„d of him the first that seeing he will needs draw his glorious Queen into the Calendar of Saints what title or place she shall haue amongst them in the same for that in ours there is no Saint of that sex but is either Virgin or Martyr or both or else nec Virgo nec Martyr as are Wiues Widdowes and repentaÌ„t sinners M. Barlow shall do well in his next to tell vs in which of these degrees this his new Sainted Queen Elizabeth is to be placed perhaps when he hath thought better on the matter he may find some perplexity be content to let her passe for one that was nec Virgo nec Martyr and thrice happy had it bene for her if she had bene indeed a true repentant sinner 116. The other thing is to know what he thinketh of the renowned Mother of his Maiesty whom by this canonizing of Q. Elizabeth he must needs condemne to hell-fire for it is impossible that one heauen should hold both these Queenes in life and beliefe so quite opposite the one with great commendation of vertue remayning in the vnity of the Catholick faith in which and for which she dyed to the great admiration and amazement of the whole world to 〈◊〉 a Queene Mother of a King indeed for religion 〈◊〉 vnder the colour of â—reason to which foule spot as 〈◊〉 Orator well noteth Royall dignity was neuer lyablâ— against all law with all disgrace â—o lâ—ose her heâ—d 〈◊〉 an ordinary malefactor by way of publick and coÌ„ 〈◊〉 iustice whiles the other liued in all ruffe pride and pleasure followed the fancyes of new vpstart Ghospellers hated and persecuted that faith wherin notwithstanding vntill the fall of her vnhappy Father 〈◊〉 whole Iland froÌ„ the first CoÌ„uersion had remayned 〈◊〉 in the end shut vp a wicked lyfe with a miserable pâ—tiful death if that may be sayd to be pitifull miserable which was without all remorse of conscience for fâ—â—mer sinnes all remonstrance of piety in and before her agony all remembrance of her future weale oâ— woe in the life to come all naming God as of her selfe or enduring others that did name him for her or put her in mind of him whatsoeuer this lying Minister who is true in nothing with a few fine phrases chatteth and forgeth to the contrary 117. And if it would but please his most Excellent Maiesty out of his Royall respect to his most Noble Mother to see who in her person haue alwaies most honoured or dishonoured his he should soone find that as in her life tyme the Catholiks had her in highest esteeme so since her death haue registred her in the raÌ„ke of Martyrs of whome the glory of this age Cardinal Bâ—ronius to name one for all the rest writeth thus Porrò eamdâ—m Ecclâ—siam nobilissâ—mam c. Moreouer God in this our age hath permitted that most noble Church of Scotland to be tempted that it might yield a most noble example of Christian coÌ„stancy when as a moÌ„gst â—ther Martyrs which no other Country hath hitherto â—ad it hath deserued to haue their owne Queene the â—â—nguler glory and ornament of the Catholick faith â—efore tryed by a long imprisonment for to be honouâ—ed with the Crowne of Martyrdome So he As conâ—rariwise in M. Barlows brethrens bookes both at home â—nd abroad he shall find the most iniurious slanders â—â—ying reports and reproachfull villanies powred forth â—gainst that innocent Princesse as will make any mans â—ares to glow and hart to rue to see so little respect of â—rincely Maiestie or such insufferable liberty in Proâ—estant writers conioyned with singular impudency â—nd fraudulent malignity in imputing the outragious â—ttempts of the trayterous subiects to the Queen herâ—elf as though she had bene the Author of that misâ—hiefe which in hart she detested with many bitter â—eares the true tokens of vnfaygned griefe most pittiâ—ully bewailed let one Reusnâ—rus in his Genealâ—gyes be â—eene whose words I abhore to set downe and the Reader will not thinke me too sharp and I must conâ—esse that in respect
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
malicious and intolerable in him for that he had seene me to haue obiected the same falsehood and vntrue dealing vnto M. Morton in my booke of Mitigation that the sayd M. Morton was so farre of from being able to answer the same as in his last Reply he left it quite out now lately I haue obiected the â—ame to him again in my last Reckoning with him cap. 6. 7. whervnto I refer M. Barl. to help him out And so much of this point It followeth in M. Barlowes speach that iâ— S. Peter had receiued of Christ with the keyes Math. 16. this IurisdictioÌ„ ouer Princes which we pretend then had it bene directly vniuersally ouer the whole world But this is not necessary for he might receiâ—â— the same indirectly as included and comprehended in the spirituall to be vsed for the preseruation of the Church when spirituall necessity should require as before haâ—â— bene said And as for Vniuersall ouer the world it is sufficient that it be ouer Christian Princes and people only wâ—â— are properly the sheep and lambes that are commended 〈◊〉 the chiefe Pastours feeding or gouernement Ioan. 21â— though vpon Infidell Princes also he may haue some power in certaine cases as when they will go about to let the preaching of the Ghospell authorized by these wordes Praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae But this appertayneth not to our question But wheras he sayth that Cardinall Bellarmiâ—e I do affirme that the Pope hath only authority ouer Princes indirectly obliquely in ordine ad DeuÌ„ we graunt the word indirectly but as for obliquely in ordine ad Deum he will not I thinke find the phrase in any writing of ours but only â—â— ordine ad spiritualia which is to say that the Pope hath such authority vpon Princes when the preseruation of the spirituall affaires doth so require to wit the saluation of souls he that shall read the place of Bellarmin here by M. Barlow quoted for of myne he citteth nothing to wit lib. 5. de Pontif. cap. 4. 6. shall find this sentence in ordine ad spiritualia but neuer I suppose in ordine ad Deum for that all power of the Pope is in ordine ad Deum propter Deum whether it be spirituall or temporall but in ordine ad spiritualia hath an other meaning as now hath bene shewed to wit that the Pope hatH directly only spirituall authority to execute spirituall functions but when this cannot be coÌ„sâ—â—uâ—d or executed without the help of temporall he may vse that also for defence of the other So as it seemeth that this our great Doctour doth not vnderstaÌ„d the very terms of Deuinity in this matter wherof he disputeth and this his ignorance sheweth it selfe no lesse here then before about indeterminatio iudicy in free choice Nor doth he onlâ— relate falsely ignorantly this point as out oâ— Cardinall Bellarmine and me but much more doth he abuse the name of D. Sanders in the very next words that do ensue as though he should say that neither directly nor indirectly hath the Pope this temporall authority from Christ but rather power to suffer as now you haue heard him say he citing for it de claue Dauid lib. 2. cap. 13. wheras D. Sanders doth hold the quite contrary in that booke throughout sundry Chapters to wit that the Pope hath receaued from Christ vtrumque gladium temporalem spiritualem both swords that is both temporall and spirituall authority and proueth it by many arguments and demonstrations only in the 13. Chapter he demandeth why theÌ„ had not the Apostoles depriued Nero and Domitius of their Empires Whereto he answereth among other causes that these were Pagan Tyrants and not vnder the charge and power that was giuen to the Church ouer sheepe lambes And then in the 14. Chapter he demandeth further why the Apostles first Christians had not elected some new King Christan for the good of the Church at the beginning Whereto he answereth alleaging sundry reasons why it was not conuenient that the Christian Church should be planted with violence but that for the space and time appointed by Gods prouidence Christians should exercise the other part of ChristiaÌ„ fortitude which coÌ„sisteth in suffering as is before touchedâ— but yet he neuer denyeth notwithstanding that the sayd temporall power ouer Christian Princes was in the Church Head therof though that season admitted not the vse but rather proueth it expressely and consequently is egregiously abused and falsifyed by M. Barlow when he sayth Doctor Sanders to affirme that the Pope had neyther directly or indirectly any such power from Christ. But will you see this our doughty Doctour ouerthrown confouÌ„ded both in him selfe and by himselfe then harken to his words in the very next page It is so sayth Sanders S. Peter with the Keyes receyued both powers temporall and ciuill Is it so Syr and why then did you euen now deny it Are you so mutable within the compasse of two pages What misery is this of your cause to be driuâ—n to these shiftes But let vs see another deuise which is â—â— oppose Franciscus de Victoria to this saying of Sanders 〈◊〉 thus you bring him in No not so sayth a Iesuit for this power oâ— the Keyes est alia à ciuili potestate is another power diffeâ—â—â— from the ciuill thus they iarre say you But whether we iarre or no one Catholike writer with another sure I am â—â—at you iarre with your selfe and seeme not to haâ—â— your witts at home For euen now you cited Doctoâ—â— Sanders as denying the Popes temporall power to coâ—â— neyther directly nor indirectly from Christ and now you say him to affirme that S. Peter receyued both powers with the Keyes Are not these playne contradictions How can this iarre be excused by you But I haue further to say to you yet in this matter foâ— that in the very next wordes where you would make a contradiction betweene Doctor Sanders Franciscus de Victoria you shew much more folly if not a worse quality For wheras you write that a Iesuite sayth No not so for 〈◊〉 the power of the keyes is different from ciuill power and do quoâ— the place of Victoria in the margent first in calling him Iesuite who was a Dominican fryar you shew much ignorance if you erre not of purpose For who knoweth not that Iesuites and Dominicans are two different Religious Orders the very first page of the booke and words of the title which are Reuerendi Patris Francisci de Victoria Ordinis Praedicatorum Relectiones c. might haue taught you that Victoria was no Iesuite but it may be that you seeing the words Ordinis Praedicatorum and vnderstanding that Iesuits did vse to preach also you did full wisely imagine Victoria to be a Iesuite and by the same reason you might â—â—well haue imagined him to be a Minister of your
coat for you preach also if I be not deceaued though with shame inough somtims as you did against your Maister the Earle of Essex after that you had heard his Confession and consâ—quently in this your sense you may be counted in like manneâ— Ordinis Praedicatorum of the order of Preachers and so a Iesuite But this is ridiculous Let vs come to that which is more malicious You write that the Iesuite Victoria doth iarre with Doctor Sanders about this temporall power of the Pope for that wheras Doctor Sanders sayth that the Pope receiued both powers spirituall and ciuill together with the keyes you make Victoria to contradict him saying No not so for that this power of the keyes is another power different from the ciuill But what iarre is this both speaches are true in both Authors senses and meanings For as it is true that S. Peter with the keyes receyued both powers spirituall and teÌ„porall the one directly and the other indirectly as Doctour Sanders teacheth so yt is also true which Victoria writeth that these two powers are different one from the other in their owne natures especially when they are in different subiectes as the one in the Pope and the other in the King in which sense Victoria spake yea also and when they are found in one and the selfe same man as namely the Pope for that he hath them by different manners the one immediatly and directly which is the spirituall the other secondarily and indirectly which is the temporall so as here is no iarre or contradiction but a cosenage rather of M. Barlow in misalleadging the playne meaning of this new made-Iesuite Franciscus de Victoria And no lesse abuse doth he offer to Cardinall Bâ—llarmine in alleadging him quite against his owne meaning in the very last vpshot of his pretended proofes out of Scriptures a little before wherof he maketh his Conclusion in these wordes By law Diuine then sayth he it was excluded to wit this temporall authority giuen to S. Peter for no man can traÌ„sferre that to another which he hath not himselfe but this royall Soueraignty ouer Princes to depose them or dispose of their States Christ â—ad not as he was man and yet he sayd Omnis potestas data est mihi in caelo in terra yea such power had bene vnprofitable and superfluous sayth the Grand Cardinall therefore he could not traÌ„sferre it to S. Peter or the rest This is his Conclusion that this temporall poâ—â—r was excluded by Gods law which he promised to proue out of the old and new Testament and it is to be considered how substantially he hath performed it For out oâ— the old Testament he hath alleadged no one proofe senteÌ„ce or example but only brought in the Iesuite Salmerâ—â— to affirme the same who hath no such matter but proueth of purpose the playne contrary And out of the new Testament hath as little though he falsify and wrest both D. Sâ—ders Franciscus de Victoria to make some shew but especially the Grand Cardinall to vse his owne wordes whom moâ—â— notably he abuseth For albeit the Cardinall doth affirme that Christ as he was man and as he came to worke ouâ— redemption had not any temporall kingdome for that it was not needfull or profitable to the high spirituall end of our saluation which he had before his eyes yet had he by his supreme spirituall authority power also to disposâ— of all temporall affaires whatsoeuer so far forth as should be needfull to that spirituall end of his for so teacheth the Cardinall expressely in these words Finis adueâ—us Christi in mundum c. The end of Christ his comming into the world was the redemption of mankind and to this end temporall authority was not needfull but spirituall for so much as by this spirituall authority Christ had power to dispose of all temporall things also as he thought to be expedient to mans redemption So the Cardinall whereby is euident that albeit he holdeth with the commoÌ„ opinion of Deuines that Christ vpon earth had no meere teÌ„porall kingdome or ciuill power yet could he by his spirituall power dispose of all teÌ„porall matters in order to his spirituall end and that this power he gaue also to S. Peter to wit indirectly and in ordine ad finem spiritualem So as the Grand Cardinall denieth not this but proueth the same at large for diuers Chapters togeather both by Scriptures reasons and examples out of â—n my Histories both diuine Ecclesiasticall and it had bene good that M. Barlow had answered to some of them if he had thought him selfe able to meddle in this matter or at leastwise he ought not to haue so fraudulently cited Card. Bellarmine against his owne meaning as now you haue seene But now next after Scriptures M. Barlow commeth to Ecclesiastical law requiring to haue this power proued by Canons Councells Decrees and Practises for which I referre him to the Booke Chapters now cited in Bellarmine And for so much as this temporall power of S. Peter is founded vpon his spirituall commission as a thing necessarily following the same and needfull therunto for the perfect gouerment of the whole Church that this spirituall power is founded most euidently aboundantly in the new Testament and consent of all antiquity vpon the same as the sayd Cardinall doth proue and demonstrate throughout many Chapters of his first and second Bookes De Romano Pontifice I will weary the Reader no longer in this matter but remit him thither I meane to the foresaid Cardinall Bellarmine where he shall find store of proofes for both powers in the Pope I meane both spirituall and temporall though differently deriued vnto him the one immediatly and directly the other secondarily and indirectly And albeit this were sufficient for this point yet to the end that M. Barlow shall not say that I doe leaue out any thing of momeÌ„t which herein he setteth downâ— I shall repeat his owne wordes of conclusion in this maâ—ter with far more fidelity then he doth mine Thus then he writeth borrowing all in effect out of M. Morton in his late Preambulatory Reply For Ecclesiastical law no Canon Councel Decree Practice extaÌ„t reckon to 600. years after Christ by Bellarm. confession yea to 1000. ampliùs saith one of their own writers doth â—uow it in so much that a Friar of account writing in the year 1088. cals then the Doctrine therof a Nouelâ—y if not an â—eresie that act of Hildebrand that famously infamous Pope who first tooke vpon him to depriue an Emperour of his Regiment is by a Popish Deuine called nouellum Schisma a rent â— rent of nouelty The challeng of this authority vtterly vnknowne to the Fathers who haue proâ—ounced Kings to be no way liable to any violent Censure or penal law of man â—â—i Imperij potestate their Empire Soueraignty exempting priuileging them therfrom This is his discourse whereof he
inferreth that 〈◊〉 temporall authority of the Pope by vs pretended beiâ—â— but humanum inuentum a humane inuention or ratâ—â—â— intrusion or vsurpation as he calleth it the matter of the Oath wherby the same is excluded must needâ—◠〈◊〉 meerly Ciuill no lesse then if it were against any oâ—â—â—â— meere temporall Prince that would vsurpe any part of our Soueraignes temporall right or Crowne Whereunâ—â— I answer that if this were so and that it could be proued that this temporall power of the Pope as we teach it were but a humane inuention indeed and not founded in any authority diuine or humane then M. Barlow had sayd somewhat to the matter and the comparison of an Oath taken against any other teÌ„poral Prince might haue place But for that we haue shewed now that this is not 〈◊〉 but that there is great difference betweene this temporall power of the Pope deriued from his supreme spirituall authority as vniuersall Pastour which no temporall Prince is and the pretension of any meere temporall Potentate therfore is the swearing against the one but a ciuil obedience and the other a point belonging to conscience and religion with those that belieue the sayd power to come from God But now for answering this his last collection of authors I say first that Bellarmine in the place by hiâ— cited hath no one word of any such matter his booke being de Concilys and his purpose is to shew both in the 13. Chapter here cited as also in the precedent Câ—iâ— sâ— congâ—egare Concilâ—a to whome it belongeth to gather Councels which he sheweth to appertaine to haue appertained alwaies to the Bishops of Rome and not to Kings and Emperoures albeit they being the Lordes of the world the sayd Councels could not well be gathered withoâ—â— their consent and power But of Excommunication or of deposition of Princes Bâ—llarmine hath no one word in this place and so M. Barlowes assertion and quotation iâ— both false and impertinent about the first six hundred yeares after Christ. But if he will looke vpon Bellarmine in other places where he handleth this argument of Excommunicationâ— and depositions of Princes as namely in his second and fiâ—th booke de Rom. Pontis he will find more ancient examples at least of ExcommunicatioÌ„ which is the ground of the other then the six hundred yeares assigned out of Bellarmine For that Bellarm. beginneth with the Excommunication of the Emperour Arcadiuâ— and Eudoxia his wife by Pope Innocentiâ—â— the first for the persecution of S. Iohn Chrysostome which was about two hundred yeares before this tyme assigned by M. Barlow and diuers other examples more ancient then the 1000. years allotted by Doctor Barkley the Scottishman here alleadged as the excommunication of Leo Isauricuâ— surnamed the Image-breaker by Pope Gregory the second the example also of King Chilperiâ—us of France by Zacharias the Pope the example also of Pope Leo the third that translated the Empyre from the East to the West And as for the Friar Sigebert brought in here for a witnesse he should haue sayd the Monke for that the religious orders of Fryars were not instituted a good while after this who is sayd to call the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes A Nouelty is not an Heresy it is a notable calumniation as may be seene in the wordes of Sigebert himselfe in the very place cyted by M. Barlow For though Sigebert following somewhat the faction of the Emperour Henry the third excommunicated by Pope Vrbanus the second did often speake partially concerning the actions that passed betweene them which many tymes seemed to proceed of passion more then of reason and iustice yet doth he neuer deny such power of Excommunicating deposing for iust causes to belawfull in the Pope but the playne contrary Neyther doth he call that doctrine Noâ—elty or Heresy that the Pope hath this authority as falsely M. Barlow doth here affirme but only that it seemed to him a new doctrine which he would not call Heresy to teach that vicious Princes were not to be obeyed for so are his wordes Nimirum vt pace omnium dixerim haec sola nouiâ—as non dicam hâ—resis necdum in mundo emerserat vt 〈◊〉 Dei doceant populum quâ—d maliâ— Regibus nullam debeâ—â—t 〈◊〉 To wit that I may speake without offence of all this only nouelty I will not say Heresy was not yet spâ—â—â—â— vp in the world that the Priestes of God should teach 〈◊〉 people that they ought no obedience at all to euill Priâ—ces c. In which wordes you see that Sigebert doth 〈◊〉 deny or reproue the authority of Excommunication 〈◊〉 deposition of Princes especially if they be for heresy bâ—â— only the Doctrine that no subiection or obedience is dâ—â— to vicious or cuill-liuing Princes which is false and scandalous doctrine indeed As for the fourth Author alleadged in this place 〈◊〉 wit Claudius Espencaeus that he should call the fact of Pope Gregory the seauenth his excommunicating Henry the thiâ—d Nouellum schisma a new rent or schisme which is borrowed out of M. Morton as the rest which in this poynt he alleageth I will referre him for his answer to the answer that is made of late to M. Morton himselfe which is called The quiet and sober Reckoning where this matter is returned vpon him with so â—uident a conuiction of wilful falsity as is impossible for him to cleare his credit therin For that these wordes are not spoken by Espencaeus himselfâ—â— but related only by him out of a certaine angry Epistle written by certaine schismaticall Priestes of Liege that were commaunded by Paschalis the second to be chastised by Robertâ—arle â—arle oâ— â—landers and his souldiers newly come from Ierusalem about the yeare 1102. for their rebellious behauyour Which passionate letter of theirs Espencaâ—â— doth only relate out of the second Tome of Councells expresly protesting that he wil not medle with that controuerâ—y of fighting betweene Popes and Emperours though he prâ—ue in that plâ—ce by sundry exâ—mples both of Scriptures Fathers and Councels that in some cases it is lawful for Priests to vse temporal armes also when need iustice requireth So as this falsification must now fall aswell vpon M. Barlow as vpon M. Morton before and we shall expect his answere for his dâ—fence in this behalfe As for the last authority of S. Ambrose that Kinges and Emperours be tuti Imperij potestate sate by power of their Empire from any violent censure though I find no such matter in any of the two Chapters quoted by M. Barlow out of his Apologia Dauid yet seeking â—urther into other bookes of his I find the wordes which is a token that our Doctor writeth out of note-bookes of some Brother and neuer seeth the places himselfe but though I find the wordes yet not the sense which he will inferre but wholy peruerted to another meaning For that if S. Ambrose had bene of opinioÌ„ that
his Maiesty begâ—â— first to raiâ—ne But concerning the generall Question to deny simply and absolutely That the Pope is supreme Pastour of the Catholiâ—â— Church hath any authority leâ—t him by Christ eyther directly or â—â—â—â—â—â—ctly with cause or without cause in neuer so great a necessity or for â—euer so great and publicke an vâ—ility of the Câ—ristian Religion to proceed against any Prince whatsoeuer temporally â—or his restraint or aâ—endmeâ—â— or to perâ—it other Princes to do the sâ—me this I suppose was neuer tâ—eir meaning that tooke the Oath for that they should therby contradict the generall conseâ—t of all Catholicke Deuines and conâ—â—sse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruation of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous for that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great and excessiue an euill as that way might fall outâ— Wherefore for so much as some such moderate meaning must needs be presumed to haue bene in those that tooke the Oath for safeguard of their Consciences if it might please his Maiesty to like well and allow of this moderation and fauourable interpretation as all forraine Catholicke Kings and Monarchs doe without any preiudice at all of their safety dignity or Imperiall prehemiâ—ence I doubt not but he should find most ready conformity in all his said English Catholicke Subiects to take the said Oath who now haue great scruple and repugnance of Conscience therin both for that the chiefeâ—t learned men of their Church doe hold the same for vtterly vnlawfull being mixed and compounded as it is and the voyce of their chiefe Pastour to whome by the rules of their Religion they thinke themselues bound to harken in like cases hath vtterly condemned the same and the very tenour of the Oath it selfe and last lines therof are That euery â—â—e shall sweare without any Equiuocation or mentall reseruation at â—â—l that is to say hartily willingly and truely vpon the true fayth of a Christian. Which being so they see not how they may take the said Oath in truth of conscience for so much as they find no such willingnes in their harts nor can they induce themselues in a matter so neerely concerning the Confession of their faithâ— to Equiuocate or sweare in any other sense then from his Maiesty is proposed and therfore do thinke it lesse hurt to deny plainly aâ—d sincerely to sweare then by swearing neyther to giue satisfaction to God nor to his Maiesty nor to themselâ—â—â—â— nor to their neighbours And so much for this point Hitherto haue I thought good to relate my forâ—â—â— words somewhat at large to the end the Reader may seâ— my reasonable and dutiâ—ull speach in this behalfe aâ—â— vpon what ground M. Barlow hath fallen into such a raâ—e against me as now shall appeare by his reply First of aâ—â— he condeÌ„neth me of hâ—pocrisy saying Let the Reader câ—â—â—â—der â—â—at an â—ypocrite he is for it is an inseparable marke of â—n hypâ—câ—â—â—â— to iudge oâ— otheâ— mâ—ns conâ—â—iences the hart of man is Gods peculiâ—â— â—oâ— anâ— man to place his consâ—sâ—ory there is high presumpâ—ion so be â—â—nneth out in that comon place which maketh nothing at all to ouâ— purpose as you see For I did not iudgâ—t or conâ—â—mne then conâ—ciâ—nces that tooke the Oath but excâ—sâ—â— the same yea interpreted their â—act in good sense giuing my â—eaâ—ons for itâ— that they being good Catholike could not be presuâ—â—d to meane otherwise then the inâ—â—gritie of Catholicke doctrine did permit them for that otherwise they should be no good Catâ—olickes if they should haue done any thing contrary to that whicâ— theâ— selues held to appertaine to the same in which I did not excuse their fact which my whole booke proueth to be vnlawâ—ull but only their intention and meaning touching the integrity of Catholick doctrine And this is far difâ—erent from the nature of hypocrisy which forbiddeth not all iudging but only euill and rash iudging of other mâ—ns actions or intentioÌ„s thereby to seeme better more iâ—st then they For if two for example sake should see M. Barlow to sup largely with flesh and other good meate vpon a vigill or fasting-day and the one should iudge it in the worst part saying that he did it for the loue of hâ—s belly and sensuality the other should interpret the same spiritually as done for glorifying God in his creatures by his thanks-giuing for the same for liberty also of the ghospell and for to make him the more strong able to â—peake preach his Seruice and Sermon the next day I doubt noâ— but that this second iudgement would not be censured by him for hypocriticall And this is ouâ— very case with those that tooke the Oath For that I hearing what they had done and that they were Catholicks did interprete their meaning to the best sense And was not this rather charity then hypocrisy But let vs see a little if you please how M. Barlow can defend this generall proposition of his that it is an inseparable mâ—rke of an hypocrite to iudge of other mens consciences You haue heard before how wisely he defended a certain definition which he gaue of an Oath now you shall see him as wisely learnedly defend an inseparable propriety or marke of an hypocrite And first you see that here is no distinction or limitation at all whether he iudg well or ill with cause or without cause rashly or maturely how then if wee should heare a man or woman speake ordinarily lewd wordes can no iudgement be made of the speakers consciences without hypocrisie If a man should see another frequeÌ„t bad howses or exercise wicked actions may no man iudge him to haue an ill conscience from whence these things doe proceed but he must be â—n hypocrite Moreouer if this bee an inseparable marke or propriety as he saith then according to Aristotle Porphyriâ—â— it must conuenire omni soli semper agree to all only and euer For if it do not agree to all and euer it is not inseparable and if it agree to others besides hypocrites it is not alwaies the marke of an hypocrite and therefore albeit that I had iudged their consciences as M. Barlow imposeth vpon me he could not by good consequeÌ„ce haue inferred that I was an hypocrite But this is ridiculous that all hypocrites and only hypocrites iudge of mens consciences for first the hypoâ—rite that soundeth a trumpet before his almes whose conscience doth he iudge The other also that kneeleth and prayeth in the corners of streetes whose conscience doth he iudge or condemne Those also that came to tempt Christ about the woman taken in â—dultery and about Tribute to be payd to Cesar I reade not whose consciences they iudged and therefore would be loath to doe them iniury except M. â—arlow can bring any iust accusation against them and yet were they called hypocrites by our Sauiour whereby iâ— inferred that all hypocrisy is not subiect to
such aboundance of Scriptures to proue or infer that God the Father is greater then Christ Iesuâ— his Sonne what other way was there for Catholicks to say but that I distinguish as Christ Iesuâ— was man he was inâ—erior to his Father his Father greater then he but as Christ Iesuâ— is God as well as Man he is equall to his Father Will M. Barlow heere compare these two distinctions to Sedecias his two hornes Or will he call them proâ—unda Sathanae the profound mysteries of Sathan and iniquity And the like examples I might alleadg in great store of many other heresies discouered and disâ—olued by the help of distinctions as namely that of the Eutiâ—hians that denied two distinct natures in Christ that of the Nestorians that affirmed two persons to be in Christ that of the Monothelites that held one only Will to be in Christ by distinguishing on the Catholick party were vâ—â—erly ouerthrowne and confounded And now in these our dayes when the Anabaptists deny al Magistrates authority in iudging Christians especially in matters of life and death allâ—dging for their ground these words of our Sauiour â—olitâ— iudicare do not iudge we haue no refuge but a distinction that we are forbidden to iudge rashly and without iust cause and without due authority but with these circumstances we may iudge and Magistrates are lawfull And will here M. Barlow againe cry out of Proâ—â—nda Sathanae and of the hornes of Sedecias if he do I will send him to Scotland to be horned there For truely he is worthy of it to wit to be horned from the company of all lâ—arned sober men if he persist in these absurdities for that I dare auouch against him that there are many hundred places in the Bible that cannot rightly be vnderstood nor expounded without the vse of some distinction Well then distinctions in generall cannot be reproued without profunditie of folly Perhaps then my two distinctions here in particular are inueyghed against for 〈◊〉 they are false or not incident vnto the matter or of aâ—y moment or necessity for explicâ—tion of the thing aâ—d controuersy in hand or for direction of consciâ—nceâ— of Catholike men that are pressed to take the Oath Thâ—â— then let vs examine in a word or two and that as briefly and perspicuously as wee may The question is whether the Bishop of Rome as vniuersall Paâ—tour of Christendome by Catholike doctrineâ— may at his pleasure by that Pastorall power of his depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdomes at his pleasure for so is the coÌ„mon obiection framed against vs. Vnto which question the answer may be made eyther affirmatiue or negatiue according to the different senses and interpretations of the words which cannot be done but by distiâ—guishing to wit that if we vnderstand that the Pope may depose at his pleasure without iust cause it is denied but with iust cause Catholicke doctrine doth allow it And sâ— againe to vnderstand that the Pope may do it by his Pastorall power directly or immediately it is denied for that this power is spirituall and giuen to a spirituall end and to spirituall actions but if we vnderstand it indirectly as included in the other for defence and conseruation of the spirituall it is graunted And are not these distinctions needfull in this affaire Do they not cleare the doubt in controuersy Do they not remoue confusion Would M. Barlow haue Christian men to sweare swallow vp a bundle of wordâ— knit togeather without opening and looking into theâ— That is meete for his conscience that hath no eies perhaps to see nor will to receiue light but is ready to sweare any thing that may turne to his temporall commodity but Catholikes that feare God are not so taught but rather to looke before they leap and to examine well what they say or sweare for so much as they shall giue an accompt to Almighty God either to their saluation or damnation for the same By â—hâ—s then wee see the Iniquity of M. Barlow his proceeding in exclaming against me so exorbitantly for vsing the forme of two distinctioÌ„s or explanations about taking the Oath and aboue al the iniury offered me or rather to himselfe and his owne credit in saying that I doe teach Equiuocation here in this Oath num 30. contrary to that I taught a little before numb 14. His wordes are these No sort of Equiuocations is lawâ—ull saith Father Persons in matters of fayth and religion and yet sayth the same Father Persons Equiâ—â—cating in this matter of faith is lawâ—ull and may stand with the integâ—iâ—y and sincerity of true Catholik religion so then in matters of faith and religion it is not lawfull in any sort to equiuocate but yet in this matâ—â—r though it concerne â—ayth religion F. Persons sayth it is lawfull These are my contradictions according to M. Barlow And truly I confesâ—e I should blush acknowledge my ouersight if they were truly related but being falsely eyther of malice or ignorance collected by him he ought to blush and be sory for his sin For as I doe confesse the former part numb 14. that I allowed not any sort of Equiuocation in matters concerning faith and Religion so doe I vtterly deny the later clause num 30. that I doe allow Equiuocation in this particuler fact of taking the Oath Let the places be read in my booke thereby he will remayne conuinced For I do say expresly that these two clauses of explication added by me that the Popes power in deposing Princes is indirectly with iust cause must both be expressed by the swearer and accepted by the Magistrate and then are they no Equiuocations at all but direct assertions For that they are no mentall reseruations wherein consisteth the nature and force of Equiuocation Here then M. Barlow that accused me a litle before of making no conscience of God or common honesty must looke how he will defend his owne eyther conscience or honesty if he haue any in this foule calumniation wherein I doe not see what tergiuersation he can vse for his excuse And so I would leaue him in this matter if he did not continue on his rayling and raging beyond all measure as though by this my explication distinction vsed I had committed the greatest crime in the world I will demaund saith he of this Iesuit first whether â—his be not a Paganish delusion of God and men VVherto I answer that it is â—â— delusion at all but rather an instruction and a necessâ—â—y explication not Paganish but Christian for directiâ—â— mens consciences Nay saith M. Barlow it is the very 〈◊〉 oâ— Lisander that children are to be mocked with toyes and 〈…〉 Oathes Indeed Plutarke in his comparison of Lisâ—â—der and Silla recordeth that one said of Lisander Leuem esse apâ—d Liâ—â—â—drum iurisiurandi religionem Lisander made no scruple of aâ— Oath that he gaue couÌ„saile to deceiue men with Oathes as children with toyes and
Israel Dâ—mâ—tam posteriora tua interficiam de Achab mingentem ad parietem Si mortâ—us fuâ—rit Achab in Ciuitate comedent eum canes si autem in agro comedeÌ„t eum volucres caeli The hinder part of thy life I shall cut oâ— shall kill of thy stocke that shall make water agâ—inst the wall And if that Achab dye in the Citty the dâ—â—gs shall eâ—t him and if he dye in the field the birds of the â—airâ— shall deuoure him And the like to his Queene Iezabell The doggs shall eat â—ezabel in the field of Iezraell And finally to let passe Baltasar Ieroboam Iebu Manasses and many other Kings whome God threatned dared and performed also the same without any such respectiue warinesse as M. Barlow doth fancy his wordes and meaning are plaine and generall in Iob that when Princes are warned and do not amend Si non audierint transibunt per gladium If they obey not they shall passe by the sword And this is Gods plaine speach and plaine dealing for that Princes to him are no more then poore men all flesh and dust albeit whilst they liue vpon earth beare rule in his place he will haue them respected obeyed and honoured as his Deputies in all that they shall command not contrary to his lawes which he will haue obserued both by Prince and people and detesteth all such prophane flattery as heere we haue heard vttered by M. Barlow And so much for this matter Now then to come to my former proposition that the Prouidence of God might seeme to be defectuous if his diuine Maiestie had left no remedy for so great an euill it is founded vpon all those places of Scripture where it is sayd that Gods workes are perfect as Deuter. 32. and that they are made in wisedome Psalme 103. vers 24. that is to say in most high wisedome ordinata sunt saith S. Paul Rom. 13. they are according to order well ordered the like Out of all which is inferred that whatsoeuer the perfection of wisdom good order doth or can prescribe in any worke that is to be presumed to be in Gods works yea with far higher perfection then mans wisedome can reach vnto Whereby it followeth that as when a prudent humane Law giuer instituteth a CommoÌ„-wealth he prouideth for all inconueniences that by humane probability may fall out vnto the same so much more Christ our Sauiour being not only man but also God must be presumed to haue prouided sufficiently and aboundantly for his Kingdome and Common-wealth which is the Christian Church purchased with his owne bloud for preuention of all hurtes and euills imminent to the same which seemeth had not bene done if he had left this greâ—t gâ—ppe vnstopt and this mayne mischeife vnprouided for which might come thereunto by the incorrigibilitie of some deplored Prince impugning the same for so much as all humane Law-giuers and Erectors of Common-wealths doe neuer faâ—â—e coÌ„monly in this particuler for the defensiue part and much lesse may it be thought that Christ our Sauiour would be wanting in so important a point Neyther is this any way blasphemous or disgracefull to our Sauiours infinite wisdome and prouidence as M. Barlow would most impertinently seeme to vrge but highly rather to his honour for somuch as wee professe that he hath prouided for this euill and the Protestants hold that he hath not For as when a man beholdeth a house made by some excellent Architect and considereth all the partes commodities thereof with prouision for all vses and prouidence for all cases that may fall out he admireth the coherence dependance of one thing vpon another prayseth and extolleth the wisedome and foresight of the Author saying If this or that had not bene foreseene and prouided for as excellently it was it had byn a great want and defect but being prouided for it doth infinitly commeÌ„d his sayd care wisedome foresight and prouidence And euen soe in our case when a man considereth the admirable excellency of Christ our Sauiours wisedome in other pointes concerning the gouerment of his Church how carefully and orderly he hath prouided for the same in all necessary points as in part the holy Apostle doth describe both to the Corinthians and Ephesians appointing some Apostles some Prophetes some Euangelists some Doctors some Pastours ad consummationem Sanctorum in opâ—s ministerij in aedificationem Corporis Christi for the consummation of the Sayntes and for the works of the ministery for the building vp the body of Christ which is his Church with exact order prouidence and subordinatioÌ„ of things men and offices one to another with sufficient power and authority for euery party to doe his office these things I say being well considered do inferre that it cannot possibly stand with such high wisedome prouidence of our Sauiour to leaue his sayd body and Church vnprouided of sufficient authority to preuent or remedie so mayne a calamitie as might fall vpon the sayd Church by temporall Christian Princes if there were no restraint or punishment for them Nor do the Protestants themselues pretermit to vse such kind of arguments and consequences for their owne defence when they deale with domesticall Aduersaries to wit with Protestants of other Sects As for example when the Puritan refuseth all Bishops Archbishops and other distinction of subordination in the Clergy what vrgeth in effect the Protestant on the other side but that it belonged to Christ his diuine prouidence to leaue such distinction and subordination and consequently that it might be noted for defectuous if he had left but the Puritan parity in all The like passeth with the Lutheran who denying the temporall Prince to be Head of the Church and confesseth consequently that their Church is headlesse vpon earth but only dependeth on Iesus Christ as head in heauen is refuted by the English Caluinists with the same argument of the defect of Gods prouidence if he had not prouided some Head on earth also And much more holdeth this argument against the Anabaptists who hold that Christ hath left no temporall power or Magistrate in his Church to iudge or condemne and especially to death for any cause whatsoeuer for that he sayth nolite iâ—dicare do not iudge which I doubt not but our English Protestants will reâ—ute by this argument of Gods prouidence which would haue bene iudged insufficient if he had left so many Common-wealthes and Kingdomes as are conteyned within this Christian Church without any temporall Magistrate at all Whereby remayneth confuted the inâ—ulse insultation of M. Barlow against the same for that our inference is noâ— as he fraudulently telleth his Reader except the Popes triple Crowne had power to depose Princes Gods prouidence had bene defectuous but if his diuine Maiesty hauing prouided most sufficiently for all other inconueniences it would haue bene a note of defect in the same not to haue prouided for this case of extreme
necessity in some occurrents which we say he hath done by leauing sufficient authority in S. Peterâ— Successours to remedy the same not by their triple Croâ—â—es but by vertue of their Supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority including indirectly this temporall when great necessity vrgeth euen then when they were most poore and lay in caues and vawâ—es vnder ground though there occurred not then occasions to vse the same And thus now would I end this matter but that I must say a word or two concerning two Authours cited in the margent about the same The first is of Aluarus Pelagius an ancient Canonist saith he of their owne who talking of the Mathematicall donation of Constantine saith Palea est at Ecclesia pro granâ— habeâ— And then doâ—h English it that is chaffe indeed though the Church doth hold it for good corne which word though they be in Aluarus yet are they alledged by M. Barlow no lesse theÌ„ commonly are other Authours by him cyted with a guilty conscience for that he well knew that Aluarus doth not hold that Donation to be chaffe but doth approue the same to be true in diuers places of his workes as namely lib. 1. cap. 43. lib. 2. cap. 29. and elswhere which M. Barlow could not choose but know by Aluarus his owne words and whâ—le discourse as also for that otherwise he had coâ—fessed himselfe to hold against the Church who being a Catholike an ancient Canonist of our owne as M. Barlow sayth would neuer haue done nor can be presumed to haue done What then will you say was his meaning in those words quae palea est at Ecclesia pro grano habeâ— Surâ—ly his meaning is far differeÌ„t from that wherin M. Barlow cyteth him And this is that Gratian Compiler of the Canons hauâ—ng this word Palea set downe in his Dâ—cretall and prefixed before diuers Chapters not to signify therby Châ—ffe or contemptible matter to be conteyned therin◠〈◊〉 rather that it was eyther the collection or addition of one Protopalea that was a Cardinall as diuers graue Authors do write or some later collections of Gratiaâ— himselfe noted in the margent for memory and distinction sake with this word Palea deriued eyther from the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth ancient or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifieth rursum or againe as who would say they were additions to the former collections whereof the Reader may see more in the Preface to the first volume of Gratian his Decretalls But in what sense soeuer the word Palea is there takeÌ„ certayne it is that it doth not signify Chaffe in Alâ—arâ—â— his iudgement though he doth allude to the words Chaffe and corne for that the common signification of the latin word Palea importeth Chaffe but that he himselfe did not hold those things for Chaffe and contemptible which are conteyned in Gratian vnder the titles of Palea may appeare by the very first Chapter so intituled which conteyne the words and determination of S. Gregory the first written vnto S. Augustine our Apostle and recorded by Venerable Bede so that the meaning of Aluarus was that albeit this donation of Constantine was recorded by Gratian vnder the title of Palea yet the Church doth hold it for corne that is to say for a matter of truth about which I remit me to those Authors that did write of that affaire loÌ„g before Gratian as Petrus Damianus accompted for a most holy learned man before the Conquest Iuo CarnoteÌ„sis others So as here the vntruth of M. Barlow alledging of Aluarus against his owne meaning is euident that he intended therby to deceiue his Reader As for the second that is Bertrand in the addition vpon a glosse of the Common law whom M. Barlow alleadgeth to say that our Lord sauing his reuerence had failed in his discretion for gouernment of this Church if he had not left such a gouernement therein for deposing of incorrigible Princes there is no great matter to be stood vpon therin but only his manner of simple speach which M. Barlow out of his sincerity maketh alwayes worse by his relation for wheras Bertâ—and saith Videretur Dominus God should seeme to haue fayled this man maketh him say God had fayled and wherâ—s Bertrand saith vt cum reuerentia eiâ— lâ—quar that I may speake it with due reuerence or regard vnto him M. Barlow translateth sauing his reuerence which iâ— our English phrase seemeth contemptible And thus he helpeth himself out at euery tuâ—ne with sleights and shifts neuer vsing sincerity commonly in any thing that passeth from his pen against vs. VVHETHER THE DEVISING AND VRGING OF THIS NEVV OATH VVERE A BLESSING or no eyther to the Receauers or Vrgers AND first of the Receiuers Wherein is handled also of Conscience and of swearing against Conscience CHAP. IIII. AFTER humble supplication made in my Letter to his Maiesty as you haue heard that it would please him to admit the acceptance of this Oath by his Catholicke subiects in the forme and substance that should be allowable by Catholicke Doctrine by yielding all dutifull temporall obedience vnto his Maiesty his heires and successors with reseruation only of their consciences in points that concerne their Religion I was forced to â—â—swere some few lines about that which was sayd in the Apology that God did blesse this godly deuise and intent of making and vrging this Oath by â—he admittancâ— therof by so many Prieâ—â—es and Laickes I thinke it good to repeat my owne wordes againe to the end I may be the better vnderstood But before I do this it shall not be perhaps amisse to set downe the relation of my sayd wordes by M. Barlow wherby you may see how faithfully and sincerely he doth relate them as well here as in all other places for this is his fashion albeit he set them downe in a seâ—erall distinct letter to the end the Reader may imagine that they be mine indeed Is it be a blessing saith he it must bee so first to the takers which are of two sortes eyther in act which are sworne already or in desire which wish they might and dare not The fiâ—st haue no outwarâ— blessing of liberty for they are still imprisoned if inward blessing of comfort he knowes not But to the other it is the greatest pressure of conscience and angariation of minde that euer beâ—ell them for that opprâ—ssion exceedes all other eyther corporall for paines or worldly for losse This is my speach as he setteth it downe both ragged scarce coherent if you consider it well and this couâ—se he holdeth throughout the whole booke that he maketh me speake as pleaseth him to appoint me My owne speach is that which ensueth somewhat more cleare and perspicuous at least wise as you wil see About this matter sayd I where the Apology saith That God did blâ—sse this godly deuise and intent of making and vrging this Oath by the admittance
common Catholicke Church nor in that vnitie without good life especially if he should die in any of these sinns mentioned before by S. Paul that goe bâ—fore or follow him to Iudgement The minor proposition is that Q. Elizabeth is noted most grieuously in both these kinds Ergo there may be a iust feare of her euerlasting damnation Neyther doth this preiudice Almightie God his extraordinarie mercies to whome he listeth we speake here of the ordinarie way of saluation reuealed vnto the Church and in that sense onely shal be sayd somewhat to the Minor proposition wherin standeth the cheife moment of this our question That Queene Elizabeth was excommunicated by name by two or three Bishops of Rome whome we hould for supreme heades on earth of the knowne Catholike Church no man can deny that she was likewise excommunicated by conâ—equence though not by name by the General Councel of Trent in all tâ—ose Canons anathematizations which were made against Protestants for their doctrine which she also held no maÌ„ can doubt of as neither but that she was coÌ„prehended in all the cases that touched her faith or actions in Bulla Coenae euery yeare repeated and pronouÌ„ced against Heretikes Schismatikes Vsurpers of Ecclesiasticall power and authority whereof she auouched herselfe to be Head in her owne kingdomes And now that this externall visible Church called Catholike and knowne by that name throughout the world aswell by friends as enemies which S. Augustine sayth is an argument that it is the true Church indeed is the selfe same visible Church that was in the foresaid Fathers times and visibly deduced by succâ—ssion from their dayes to ours is so manifestly to be proued as no man can with reason deny the same and consequently if it were so certaine a damnation to be excommunicated or put out of that Church as now you haue heard the said Fathers to affirme then is it soe now aâ—â—o and then goâ—th hard the case of Queene Elizabeth as you see for that it is not knowne that she was euer reconciled or taken into the sayd Church againe And as for the other point concerning other sinnes meant or mentioned by the Apostle as on the one side I will not take vpon me to determine what or how many or how great she committed so on the other considering the frailty of mankind the temptations of the triple enemie the world the flesh and the diuell the many occasions she had in her free state of life to fall into sinne and that in the space of foure and fourty yeares at least after the entrance to her Crowne she neuer vsed the ordinary help of ancient ChristiaÌ„s for purging her soule which the foresaid Fathers doe teach vs to be not onely contrition but also Sacramental Confession absolution of the Church her state I say being this it must needs follow that so many as belieue and acknowledg this Sacrament of the Church to be necessary to saluation when it may be had yea is câ—mmaunded by the sayd Church vnder paine of Censures to be reiterated euery yeare once at least if not oftener that this woman neuer making the same and dying in that state cannot be saued according to the iudgment of all those that belieue follow that Church that condemneth her which Church being spread throughout the whole world as it was in S. Augustines time and hauing obtayned the same priuiledge which he tooke to be sufficient to demonstrate the true Church to wit that she is knowne by the name of Catholicke both to friends enemies true Christians and Heretickes according to the common sense of men for he proueth that neuer heretical Congregation could obtayne to be so much as called Catholike throughout Christendome or to be knowne by that name this thing I say being soe we see what a dreadful preiudice this may appeare to be against the euerlasting saluation of Queene Elizabeth For if there were so great mayne a difference betwene bodily Phisitianâ—â— both for number skil experience antiquity and authority about the temporall death of any Prince as there is here in all these qualities betweene the spirituall Phisitians of Christendome Catholike and English Protestants concerning the eternall death of Queene Elizabeths soule to wit that so many more temporall Phisitians in number without comparison so much more learned so much more experienced in corporall Phisicke as the other exceed them in spirituall yea further and that they had so many deadly Symtomes Chryâ—es and Prognosticons conâ—â—med out of the authority of Hipocrates Galâ—â— and other ancienâ— Phisitians all tending to mortality as the other haue out of the doctrine iudgment and perpetuall practice both of the said Church and holy Ghostly Fathers of the same foâ— Queene Elizabeths euerlasting death I doubt nothing but that the sayd Princes temporall life would be held for very dangerous or rather his death were very probable Neither did I say any more of the spirituall death of Queene Elizabeth most likely to accompany her corporall I beseech the mercie of Almighty God that it be not soe And here I might adde also another plaine familiar proofe out of the said ancient Fathers and namely out of S. Augustine to the end we may see how his Church did agree with ours or rather the vniuersall known Catholicke Church in his dayes with that Church that hath the same name notes in ours For besides that number of authorities which I cited out of him before as agreeing with other Fathers that it is impossible for an Heretick Schismatick or an ExcoÌ„municated person dying in that state to be saued he goeth further in an other place into more particulers for being required by his freind Quod-Vult-Deus to set downe vnto him a briefe Catalogue or enumeration of all the particuler heresies that the Catholicke Church had condemned from the beginning of Christianitie vnto their time or did hould for heresies in those dayes he set downe aboue fourescore and added in the end that if any man should professe or belieue any of those heresies or any other that had or sâ—ould spring vp he could not be a Christian Catholicke and consequently neyther be saued but euerlastingly damned Now in this Catalogue or booke of heresies which was also gathered vnto their dayes by Philastrius and S. Epiphanius before him S. Augustine setteth downe for damned heresies some that Queene Elizabeth did manifestly â—ould and so was thought to hould and for any thing that we know died in the same as namely those heresies of the Hereticke Aërius that solemne fasts appoynted by the Church were not to be obserued but euery man or woman to fast when they would least they should seeme to be vnder the law So sayth that hereticke And then which maketh most to our present purpose that prayer and sacrifice were not to be offered vp for the dead nor did profiâ— them any thing at all vpon which later poynt I am induced to make
he sayth that therin I do abuse the Reader for that they shewed their obedience sayth he to be due and performed the same in matters of spirituall seruice wherat I thinke no man can but laugh that M. Barlow is become so spirituall as that he can make those Infidell Kings to be spirituall Superiours also or at leastwise to haue spirituall power euen in spirituall thinges ouer Gods faithfull people Let vs see his proofes of so strange an assertion To offer sacrifice saith he vnto the Lord in the desert is an â—igh case of conscience and religion yet would not the Iewes in Egypt attempt it without asking and obtayning the Kings leaue And why was that Was it for that they held him for their supreme Gouernour in all causes Ecclesiastiacll and temporall Then they ought to haue obeyed him when he would haue had them offered sacrifice in Egypt which they refused to doe for that their spirituall gouernour Moyses though a naturall borne subiect of King Pharao â—ould them that Gods will was contrary and as for their asking and obtayning leaue before they went to sacrifice in the Desert who doth not see but that it was in respect of temporall danger which might ensue vnto them if so great a number of their vnarmed people should haue aduentured to depart without his licence But I would demaund of M. Barlow who sayth that the people of Israel shewed their obedience to be due vnto Pharao and performed it in matter of spirituall seruice what manner of obedience was that which came alwaies in the Imperatiue mood Thus saith our Lord Dimitte populum meum Let go my people And when he yeelded not therunto he was plagued and punished with so many afflictions as are set downe in Exodus for 9. or 10. Chapters togeather in the end what leaue obtayned they but against his will when he durst no longer deny them Which appeareth for that his feare being somewhat mitigated he pursued them afterward againe And will M. Barlow make this an example of spirituall obedience to temporall Princes that was thus extorted Or of spirituall iurisdiction in heathen Princes ouer faithfull people in causes Ecclesiasticall that was contradicted both in word and fact by Moyses himselfe But let vs heare his second instance for it is more ridiculous So saith he the commaundement of King Cyrus was in a cause meerly Ecclesiasticall viz. the building of the Lords house in IerusaleÌ„ and transporting thither the consecrated vessels But who doth not see that these things as they were ordayned by King Cyrus were meere temporall as is the building of a materiall Church for that otherwise the Masons Carpenters Architects that build the same should be Ecclesiastical officers albeit they were Gentiles If King Cyrus had had authority to appoint them out their sacrifices to dispose lawfully of their sacred actions therein as he had not nor could haue being a Pagan and not of their faith religion then might they haue sayd that he had beene a spirituall Superiour vnto them but for giuing them leaue only to go to Ierusalem to build their Temple and to carry their consecrated vessels with them that had been violeÌ„tly taken away from thence argueth no more spirituall iurisdiction in him then if a man hauing taken away a Church-dore key so as the people could not go in to pray except he opened the dore should be said to haue spirituall iurisdictioÌ„ ouer that people for opening the dore letting them in that they in praying him to open the said dore did acknowledg spiritual obedience vnto him And is not this meere childish trifllng worthy the wit of M. Barlow What definition trow you will M. Barlow giue of spirituall power and Iurisdiction therby to verifie these monstrous and absurd propositions which in this affaire he hath vttered partly by his assertions and partly by his examples Truly I know no other set downe by Deuines but that it is a power giuen by God to gouerne soules for their direction vnto euerlasting saluation euen as ciuill power is giuen for gouerning the coÌ„mon wealth to her prosperity and temporall â—elicity And will M. Barlow say that God gaue this spirituall power to Pharao and Cyrus that were Heathens and knew not God for gouerning directing the soules of the Iewes that liued vnder them whose religion or God they neyther knew nor cared for Or that Nero the Emperour or Claudius had this spirituall power and Iurisdiction vpon the soules of S. Peter and S. Paul that liued vnder them in Rome and were their temporall Lordes and Princes These thinges are so absurd that I am ashamed to exaggerate them any further and therfore let vs passe forward to the rest As for the other examples by me alleaged how Sydracâ—â— Mysach and Abdenago refused to obey Nabuchodâ—â—â—sor their King in adoring the Statua as also refuâ—ing the meates of the King of Babylon Toby of the Assyrians and the Macâ—abees for refusing to eat Swines-flesh at the commandment of their King Antiochus he sayth that all these had their warrants for defence of their consciences from the word or will of God as who should say Catholickes haue nothing for iustification of their Conscience which is a meere cauill and as Logitians call Petitio principij and wholy from the question for that we affirme first that they haue sufficient groundes for iustification of their consciences in that behalfe as they will easily verify in euery point if they might be hard with any indifferency And secondly if they had not but their consciences were erroneous yet so long as that dictamen rationis or prescript of conscience standeth to the contrary and telleth them that they haue sufficient ground they may not doe against it without sin as now hath bene proued Let vs see what he saith of the other example of Tobies breach of King Senacherib his commaundement in Niniue which wee shall examine in the next ensuing Paragraph VVHETHER TOBY DID well or no in breaking the commaundement of the King of Niniâ—e concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authorities of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy §. II. AMong other examples and testimonies alleaged by me out oâ— Scripture of lawfull disobeying temporall Princes commaundements when they are vnlawfull the exaÌ„ple of Tobias that disobeyed the edict of King Senacheriâ—â— of Niniue about burying such as were slayne seemed to haue troubled most M. Barlow in this answere and so after some discussion of the matter vp and downe whether he did it openly or in secret by day or by night by stealth or contempt he maketh this conclusion Take it eyther way sayth he was his disobedience in such a cause iustifiable No. Grauely resolued as you see and Doctour-like but yet without any testimony except only his owne For first the context of the story it selfe hauing recounted the circumstances of the fact in the
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
Monasteries of Virgins eyther to say Masse or otherwise but such as be of approâ—ed vertue How peace is to be held betweene Bishops Earles and other Great men especially in execution of Iustice That weightes and measures be iust and equall and that none worke vpon holy dayes That all Tythes be payd al ancient possession mantayned to the Churches That no secular courtes be held in Churches or Church porches That no Earles or other Great men do fraudulently buy poore mens goods c. These then were the pointes of Reformation decreed in that Councel of Arles at the instance of Charles the Great who was so zealous a Prince in this behalfâ— as he caused fiue seueral Councels to be celebrated in diuers Partes of his Dominions within one yeare to wit this of Aâ—les another at Towers a third at Chaloâ—s a fourth at Mentz the fifth at Rhemes and another the yeare before which was the â—ixt ad Theodonis villam which is a towne in Luxemburge Al which Prouincial Synodes are extant iâ— the third Tome of Councels togeather with the Canons and Decrees which are such as could not be put in execution but by the temporall fauour authoritie and approbation of the Emperour in such matters as concerned his temporall Kingdome and iurisdiction Wherfore iâ— for these respects the Councell did present vnto the Emperour these Canons to be coÌ„sidered of by his wisedome whether any thing were to be added altered or taken away for the publike good of the Common Wealth no Controuersy of faith being treated therin what is this to proue eyther that the Emperour in spirituall matters was superiour to the said Bishops or that if he had proposed vnto them any such Oath as this is wherin by proâ—essing their temporall Allegiance they must also haue impugned some poynt of their faith that they would haue obeyed him And so much of this Councell This was then my speach yielding furthermore a reason why I did not stand vpon the places of some particuler Councels alleadged for that the discussion of this one made manifest all the rest that they tended only to this end that they proued temporal obedience in subiects towards their Princes in temporal affaires which Catholicks deny not and so in effect they proue nothing to the purpose in hand But yet it shall be good to ponder a little what M. Barlow bringeth in against that which heere I haue written First he saith that not only these Prouinciall Councels of Arles in France and diuers others submitted themselues wholy to the Emperour Charles the Great in most humble termes but the foure Generall Councels also sâ—mmoned at the beck and command of the Emperour submitted themselues for the validity and establishing of their Decrees to his most Royal assent And within three lines after againe VVhole Councels saith he submitted themselues in all dutifull reuerence to their Soueraignes not only in matters of temporall affaires but in faith and religion And yet further in the very next page The Emperour saith he that hath the sole authority to summon a Councel hath the sole power to make good or voyd what it concludes And we must note that he putteth downe the words to make good or voyd in a different markable letter therby to signify that this is an Axiome of great solidity And yet I suppose that he could not be so forgetfull or negligent as not to see that all this is quite contrary to that which he wrote within three leauesâ— before to wit that in cases of religion and faith Princes could not iudge any thing iudicio definitiuo to define or determine but only executiuo to put in execution that which the Church determineth But now if not only the Councell of Arles and other Prouincial Councels but the first foure General Councels submitted themselues also for the validity and establishment of their Decrees which are knowne to haue bene concerning points of religion and faith vnto the Emperours Royal assent so as whatsoeuer was decreed there by the Church this not a Prouincial or National Church only of England but the whole Vniuersall Church gathered in those first foure Councâ—ls should haue no validity except the Emperour approued the same this is more then iudicium executiuum to execute that which the other had determined For here the Emperour doth iudge of al yea euen of the iudges themselues and of their Iudgments and decrees and consequently hath the last and supreme iudgment deâ—initiue to define and determine what Decrees are truly and rightly made and to ratify or make void what he shall think good which is as much as we do or can ascribe vnto the Pope And this is confirmed in like manner by M. Barlows second assâ—ueration That Councels must submit themselues in all dutifull reuerence not only in matters of temporall affaires but of faith and religion alsoâ— What can be â—poken more plainly in contradiction of his former assertion And what more absurdly then that which followeth in the third place That the temporall Prince hath sole power to make good or voydâ— what the Councell concludes For that hereby all the Conciliabula or vnlawfull false Councels that met togeather often in the primitiue Church as that of Aâ—iminum for the Arians against the Catholickes that of Carthage against Cecilianus that of Constanâ—inople against Marcellus that of Antioch against Athanasius that of Burges in France against S. Hilary diuers other hauing the assent and approbation of hereticall Emperours then bearing rule shal be good and lawfull Councels and all other Councels gathered for the Catholicks against these to be voyd of no validity Do you see heere M. Barlows manner of writing and how he plungeth himself aboue the eares in contradictions without marking or respecting what he said before so he may say somewhat for the present But do you thinke that he wil stand to this now No. For that in the very next ensuing leafe he being pressed by me to answere what submission that was which the Councel of Arles made to Charls the Great for his approbation and whether it were of matters concerning faith he runneth quite backe againe denying that Emperours haue any such authority To iudge saith he definitiuely which are matters of faith or no is not for the Emperour but to ratify by hiâ— assent and command by his authority what the Church or Councell so assembled hath defined to be matter of faith is proper to Emperâ—â—rs and Kings Which words if you consider them well do coÌ„taine most euidently the contradictory of that he sayd before That Councels were to submit themselues for the validity of their Decrees to the Emperours Royall assent and that not only in temporall affaires but in faith and â—eligion and that they only haue power to make good or voyde all conclusions of Councels which contayneth manifestly power also to define it is but a shift to say heere that it is not for the
Emperour to iudge definitiuely which are matters of faith or not For it is not the chiefe question which matters belong to faith and which not for that is easily discerned in general but which opinions in these matters be true or false doubtfull dangerous Catholicke or Hereticall in particuler Wherin forasmuch as the Decrees that are or shal be made by the Councels assembled must take their validity from the Emperours assent yea euen as they are matters of fayth and religion and that without this assent they are vtterly voâ—de it is a ridiculous thing to see M. Barlow play fast and loose as he doth in this matter taking away with one hand that which he giueth with the other then yielding againe that which before he had taken away which proceedeth of the miserable labyrinth wheriâ— he seeth himselfe to be in this question about the Kings spirituall authority which he would seeme to defend â—â—t in effect ouerthroweth the same when he commeth to the point as before hath byn noted And this necessity driueth him to such contradictory speaches not knowing well where to rest himselfe as euen heere in these his last wordes there is a notorious intanglement if they be wel considered For first he sayth that it belongeth not to the Emperour definitiuely to iudge which are matters of faith but to ratify by his assent what the Councel had defined to be matter of faith Suppose that some Councel had decreed that Christ was the Sonne of God and equal in Godâ—ead to his Father as diuers did vnder Constantius the AriaÌ„ Emperour and he would not ratify the â—ayd decrees by his assent were they all voyd for this and had they no validity Or was this Councel bound to submit it selfe in these points of faith and religion vnto that Emperour as M. Barlows former doctrine inferreth though heere he would seeme to moderate the matter but indeed he knoweth not where to consist For if no Decrees of Councels in any matters of faith or religion haue any validity without the Emperours ratification and assent as heere also he doth insinuate then must we needs allow also vnto him power to iudge definitiuely and not only to execute as before hath beene proued And as for the instance which he alleageâ—h out of the Synod of Aquileia held vnder the raigne of Gratian Valentiâ—â—an and Theodosius ioynt Emperours wherin was S. Ambrose that wrote with the rest of the Bishops vnto the foresaiâ— Emperours humbly and earnestly desiring them saith M. Barlow that they would vouchsafe to make good what the Bishops â—ad in thâ—s Assemâ—ly concluded it is meerely false For first no such speach is found in the place by him cited secondly though the sayd Bishops doe complayne much in that letter of certaâ—ne disorderly hereticks that troubled their peace namely Valence and Attalâ—â— and did request the protection oâ— tâ—e â—ayd Emperours for their quiet yeâ— doe they not as M. Barlow falsely affirmeth desire thâ— Emperours to ratify their Decrees set downe in matterâ— oâ— faith or to make good what they had concluded foâ— that had byn to haue made them Iudges of their said Decrees against which thing as attempted by the heretiks Sâ— Ambrose excepteth in that very place saying That Priesâ— must iudge of lay men and not lay men oâ— priests in matters beloâ—gâ—â—â— to religion but they did demaund their temporall help anâ— protection only for defence of that which they had decreed and for peaceable obseruing thereof putting thâ— said Emperours in mind to haue first respect vnto thâ— reuerence of the Catholick Church and then vnto thâ— obseruation of their owne laws therby Reuerentiam priâ—â—â— Ecclesiae Catholicae deinde etiam legibus vestris Pietas Vestra deferâ—â—â—ubeat â—hat your Piety doe first commaund reuerence tâ— be exhibited to the Catholicke Church and afterward tâ— your owne laws So S. Ambrose with that Synod Whereâ—by may appeare what reuerence and respect they requyred at these three Christian Emperours hands vnto theiâ— Ecclesiastical decrees they representing the Church before their owne Imperiall lawes Vnto the sentence which I doe cite in my Letter onâ— of the Councell of VVormes that Councels may not bâ— held without allowance oâ— the Bishop of Romeâ— M. Barlâ—â— anâ—wereth with more choller then reason That it is a manifest vntruth made good by an obscure author out of a Councel â—euer assembled or neuer recorded But if it be so manifest why had not he alleadged so much as one author old or new since that time which is aboue 800. yeares agone thaâ— denied the same vntill this our age Whereas we alleadgâ— for the affirmatiue that there was such a Councell held at VVormes vpon that yeare of 770. both out of the life oâ— Charles the Great written by a very ancient Author aâ— alâ—o out of the 6. and 7. Bookes de Capitularibuâ— Franc. and out of mâ—ny Histoâ—ies after them as namely Rhegine thaâ— liued full 700. yeares agone and mentioneth that Councell of VVormes vpon the same yeare yea the Authorâ— themselues mentioned by M. Barlow namely Genebraâ—d Bynâ—â—â— and Caranza being confessed by him to mention such â— Councel do proue also that it was recorded And as foâ— his negatiue argument out of Canisius in his short table of Chronography prefixed before his Catechisme who â—â—ming some Councels doth not name that Councel of VVormes hath no substance at al. For that Canisius his purpose was not to name all Councels especially such as were Prouinciall as this of VVormes was but some only 〈◊〉 example sake for in that very Age of 800. wherein Châ—â—les did florish as Emperour I find 5. or 6. at least preâ—â—rmitted by Canisius as Ratisponense Altinense Constantinopâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 Actinacense Lugdunense and some others And in the precedent age when Charles was King of France I fâ—nd aboue a dozen Prouincial Councels left out of Caâ—â—â—â—â—s his Chronology and so might this also be of VVorâ—es albeit there is a Councel of VVormes registred by him about the middle of the age of 800 which also may be this that we talke of though placed by the Printer somewhat lower in the Columne then it should be But why do we stand spending of time in these triâ—â—ing obiections brought in by M. Barlow against himselfe If the Councâ—ll be confessed by so many as himselfe mentioneth here in this place to wit Genebrard Byâ—nius and Caranza and the sentence before cited for the necessity of the Popes consent in gathering of the Councels cannot be denied but that it is registred in the history before mentioned de Capitularibus Franc. as Bynnius also expresly affirmeth though concealed by Mâ— Barlow who doth not see but that one or two ancient Authors affirming any thing are to be preferred before many that hould their peace and say nothing to the contrary But as for the mayne question it selfe whether it appertayne vnto the Popes authority to call Councels and approue the same the profe is not taken
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
and Clâ—ments Constituâ—ions before mentioned So teacheth Doctor Stapleton and the reason of his saying is for that the authority of the Church is the same now shal be vnto the worlds end as it was in the first ages to iudge of Scriptures when occasion is offered And if the Church should admit any such booke now into the Canon of holy Scriptures which was not held for Scripture before which yet is a case not like to fall out then should noâ— this booke be made Scripture by the Church but only declared to be such which was so from the beginning though not so knowne declared So as the Church in this case should not giue infallibility of truth vnto the booke but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost that this booke was such from the beginning though not so accepted So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in cyting Doctour Stapletons words first to conceale his first condition Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret if the holy Ghost should suggest the same vnto the Church and then these other two conditions if it were written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose to make M. Doctour Stapletons speach to appeare more naked and improbable but indeed it was to keep his old custome which is neuer commonly to relate things truly in all respects in any citation whatsoeuer His second obiection is out of Bishop Fisher VVho sayth quoth he that whatsoeuer the Pope with a Councell deliuereth vs to be belieued that is to be receiued as an Article of fayth which we graunting to be true do ad only this that it is to be vnderstood according to our former declaration and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it against â—uther out of Scotus saying Non quòd â—unc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but â—or that it did declare it to be true and to haue bene deliuered by God and this by direction of the holy Ghost promised by our Sauiour to the Church So sayth Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neyther the Church nor the Pope Head therof do pretend to make any new Article of fayth that was not in it selfe an article of fayth before yea and so belieued also fide implicita by implyed fayth in the faith of the Church but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to haue byn such from the beginning though not so knowne or declared and therfore men were not bound to belieue it fide explicita by expresse fayth as now they are after the Churches definition and declaration therof And that this is the common sense of all Catholicke Deuines according to my former wordes that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much adoe as though it were false is proued among other learned men of our dayes by Gregorius de Valentia whose wordes are that it is Sententia communis Theologorum the common opinion of Deuines for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors principall Schoolemen And his whole discourse founded vpon Scriptures Fathers Councells and other arguments consisteth in this that as whatsoeuer is now belieued by the Church for matter of fayth was in substance belieued before in all other precedent ages vnto Christes time actu fidei implicito by an implyed act of fayth that is to say the belieuing in generall whatsoeuer the Church belieued so many thinges are now belieued by the Church actu fidei explicito by expresse fayth which were not so belieued before for that the Church froÌ„ time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clearly and expresly which before were belieued by an implied faith only As for example the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the pâ—oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne as was afterward declared vnto vs by the Church but that it belieued the same yet may we not deny but that it belieued the same not fide expliciâ—a but implicita only And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications therof made by the subsequent Councels about the vnity of the Person differeÌ„t Natures in Christ that his Mother should be called the Mother of God were belieued implicitè by those of the Councel of Nyce and consequently were then also Articles of faith though they were not belieued by them explicitè as we are bound to do after the explication made by the Church Let vs conclude therfore with Bishop Fiâ—â—ers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tameâ—si nequeat Sumâ—â—â— Pontisex c. That albeit the Pope with a Councel that is to say the Catholick Church cannot make any thing true or false that is not true or false of it selfe and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith yet whatsoeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs as an Article of faith that al true Christians ought to belieue as an Article of faith which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth Thus Bishop Fisher whome you see how impertinently M. Barlow alleadgeth against my assertion saith the very same that I do Let vs go forward Thirdly then he obiecteth S. Thomas of Aquine who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith some more large and some more briefe demandeth to whome appertayneth noua Editio Symboli the new Edition of a Creed when the necessity of new heresies doth require And he sayth it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church And what is this against me Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed though he were not Pope with addition of many Articles for explanations sake which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed though in substaÌ„ce of truth they were nothing different Did not diuers Councells set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before All which standeth vpon this ground so much pondered by â— Irenaeus that the Apostles had all truth reuealed vnto them by Christ and they left the same in the Church so as whatsoeuer is or hath or shal be added afterward by the said Church are only explications of that first reueiled truth and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the coÌ„trary is to no purpose at al for he citeth diuers authors for that which we deny not but yet alwaies commonly with addition of some vntruth of his owne as heere he alleadgeth out of the Iesuit Azor that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei Doctrines of faith which we deny not but when he addeth that this belongeth vnto the Pope only and not to a Councel this is his owne inuention for Azor ioyneth them
appertaineth to the ancient Oath and not to this wherin nothing is demanded but Ciuil Obedience only which the Cardinal denyeth and in the very first leafe of his answere vnder the name of Torâ—â—â— ioyneth issue principally vpon that point saying Primùm â—stendâ—mus Iuramentum hoc Catholicis propositum non solum ciuilem obedientiam sed etiam Catholicae fidei abnegationem requirere We shal first proue that this later oath proposed vnto Catholicks doth not only require ciuil Obedience but abnegatioÌ„ also of Catholick faith And he proueth it by fiue or six arguments First by the words of the English Statute the title wherof is for the detecting and repressing of Papists which word of Papists importing such as stick to the Pope or defend his Supremacy maketh it euident that the Statute was not intended only against them that deny ciuill Obedience but rather the Kings Supremacy in spiritual affaires Secondly by the words of the Oath themselues that the Pope cannot by himselfe or any other or by any authority of the Church depose c. Which is some denyal of the Pope his authority and consequently not meerely only of temporal Obedience and so out of foure or fiue points more by him obserued and there set downe which as I had not seene when I wrote my Epistle before the publicatioÌ„ of the said Cardinals booke so I vsed not those arguments nor any of them but contented my selfe with one only taken out of the Cardinals words in the beginning of his Letter to M. Blackwel as sufficiently prouing the same that in it selâ—e was most cleare I said as followeth This exception against the Cardinal for mistaking the state of the cause seemeth to be most clerely refuted by the very first lynes almost of the letter it selfe For that telling M. Blackwel how sory he was vpon the report that he had taken illicitum Iuramentum an vnlawfull Oath he expoundeth presently what Oath he meaneth saying Not therâ—ore deare Brother is that Oath lawfull for that it is offeâ—â—â— sâ—â—ewhat tempered and modified c. Which is euidently meant of the new Oath of Allegiance not only tempered with diuers lawfull clauses of Ciuill Obedience as hath bene shewed but interlaced also with other members that â—each to Religion wheras the old Oath of Supremacy hath no such mixture but is plainly and simply set downe for absolute excluding the Popes Supremacy in causâ—s Ecclesiasticall for making the King supreme Head of the Church in the same causes all which is most euident by the Statutes made about the same from the 25. yeare of King Henry the 8. vnto the end of the raigne of King Edward the sixt To this declaration of myne M. Barlow is in effect as mute as a Macedonian frogge if to say nothing at al to the purpose be to be mute though words and wynd be not wanting But first to the Cardinalls six argumentes he sâ—yth neuer a word albeit he had both seene and read them as may be be presumed To my reason of the difference between the Oath of Supremacy and this of Allegiance for that this is modified and tempered with different clauses of thinges partly touching ciuil ObedieÌ„ce and partly Religion wheras the other is simply of Religion against the Popes Supremacy to this I say he answereth with this interrogation If this Oath be so modified iâ— comparison of the other why is it accounted by â—he Censurer the greatest affliction and pressure that euer befel the Catholickes Do you see what a question he maketh and how farre from the purpose My intention was and is to proue that for so much as Cardinall Bellarmine did particulerly impugne this mixt and tempered Oath therfore he did not mistake the question by impugning only the other Oath of Supremacy as was obiected there being between them this difference amongst others that the one to wit of AllegiaÌ„ce is compounded of different clauses as hath bene said partly touching ciuill Obedience and partly Religion wheras this other of Supremacy is simply of Religion This was my demonstration And to what purpose then for answere of this was brought in that other demâ—und of M. Barlow asking vs very seriously why this second Oath should be afflictiue vnto vs if it be modifyed and tempered Is there any sense in this We say for so much as it is compounded and tempered as the other is not therfore it was meant by the Cardinal and not the other M. Barlow saith if it be so tempered why doth it afflict yow We say first that this is nothing to the purpose noe more then VVhich is the way to London A poke â—ull of plummes Secondly to M. Barlowes impertinent demand we say that albeit we grant that this second Oath is modifyed and tempered yet we say not that it is moderate and temperate for a law that in substance is mild may be by some clauses or circumstances so modified that is to say framed in such manner as it may be seuere and rigorous and a thing may be tempered aswell with exasperating ingredientes as mollifying and as well with afflictiue as lenitiâ—e compounds and so is this Oath more sharpe perhaps then the other and so doth M. Barlow him selfe confesse within a few lynes after saying that this last Oath of Allegiance is more pressâ—ng pitthy and peremptorie and in all circumstâ—nces a more exact and searching touch-stone then the â—ormer of the Supremacy And yet as though we did not see nor feele this he will needs haue vs to acknowledge in the same place that this Oath is allaied tempered corrected and moderated for all these are his wordes by the variety of clauses therein contayned theron foundeth his subsequent discourse of our ingratitude in not accepting the same wheras both he and we do hold the contrary that it is more stinging as now you haue heard and that euen by his owne confession what then shall we say of this manner of M. Baâ—lowes disputing Is he fit to be a Kings ChaÌ„pion in writing But heere now by the way I must tell the Reader that in my Letter I interposed a few lines in this place for noting the different style vsed by King Henry King Edward in their Statutes concerning the Oâ—â—h of Supremacy and this othâ—r now related in the Aâ—â—logy in thesâ— wordes I. â— do vtterly tâ—stify and declare 〈…〉 that the Kingâ— Hâ—ghnes is the only Suprâ—me Gouerâ—â—◠〈◊〉 in all causes Ecclâ—siaâ—tâ—call as tempâ—rall wheras in tâ—e Sâ—tute of twenty sixt of king Henry the Eight where the Tytle of Supremacy is â—nactâ—d the wordes are these 〈…〉 â—â—â—cted by this present Parliament that the King his Heires 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cessors â—â—albe taken â—â—â—epted and repâ—tâ—d the â—nly Supâ—eme 〈…〉 earth of the Church of England and shâ—ll 〈◊〉 aâ—d â—niâ—y 〈◊〉 and vnited vnto the Imperiall Crowâ—e of this Realme asâ—â—â— the tytle and style therof as all honours dignitieâ— authorities 〈◊〉 profites and commâ—ditiâ—s 〈◊〉 the said dignityes
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
the power and authority of the Pope and Sea Apostolicke c. be any point belonging to religion among Catholicks then is there not only some one word but many sentences concerning Religion in the Oath What answereth M. Barlow This Epistler saith he doth impudently impugne the Oath as vtterly vnlawfull and agaynst religion which yet dependeth vpon an If and is not yet determined for a point of religion that the Pope hath any such authority ouer Kings as in the Oath is mentioned No Syr not among Catholiks for of them only I speake though you leaue it out and doe many wayes corrupt my words Will not they grant the Popes authority in such cases to be a point belonging to their Religion Doth the word If put the matter in doubt that when you say If there be a God this or that is true or false you may be said to doubt whether there be a God or no And when you say If I be a true man this is so you may be thought to doubt whether your selfe be a true man or no Do not you see that this is playne cauelling indeed and not disputing But what more You say that when I do affirme the Popes power I do not distinguish whether in Ecclesiasticall or ciuill causes but you know well inough that I haue often distinguished and so do other Catholicke Deuines that the Popes authority is directly only Ecclesiasticall and spirituall for gouerning and directing of soules to euerlasting life though indirectly for conseruation of this Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall end there is annexed also Temporall in such cases as before hath bene specified concerning temporall Princes And so this is but a shift to say that I doe not distinguish As that is also another about my answere to the second demaund of the Apologer where he demandeth whether any man that taketh the Oath doth promise to belieue or not to belieue any one article of religion contayned in the said Oath For answere wherunto I did set downe sundry clauses of the said Oath wherby it seemeth plaine that the swearer doth make such promise Now you reply with this new shift saying that I doe still beg the question in controuersy So you talke to seem to say somwhat But what is the question in controuersy Is it not whether the swearer doth make promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of religion in taking the Oath Yes And I haue proued that he doth so by diuers examples How then doe I beg the question when I do euince it by proofe You reply that these articles abiured or allowed by him that takes the Oath concerning the Popes authority are not points of â—aith but rather Machiauelismes of the Conclaue But this now is rayling and not reasoning for that a Catholike conscience houldeth the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and all poynts belonging therunto for matters appertayning to fayth Catholicisme and not to Machiauelisme which Machiauelisme agreeth much more fitly to M. Barlows assertions that depend on the pleasures of Prince State alteration of times and temporall vtilities wherof Machiauel was a great Doctour then to the simple positions of Catholikes who without these worldly respects do playnly and sincerely imbrace and belieue all such points of doctrine as the knowne Catholike Church doth deliuer vnto them as any way appertayning to the integrity of Catholike Religion Heere then M. Barlow being driuen from his refuge of my begging the question layeth hand vpon another much more ridiculous in my opinion for it is somewhat like the Sermon of the Parish Priest to his Parishioners which he deuided into three parts the one that he vnderstood and not they the other that they vnderstood and not he the third that neither of them both vnderstood and the third part seemeth to be our case now for as I confesse that I do not conceaue well what M. Barlow would say so I haue reason to suspect that himselfe also can hardly explane his owne meaning or at least wise he doth it not so here as the Reader may easily vnderstand the same His words are these This censurer is an absurd dispuâ—â—nt still to beg the Question as if these articles abiured or allowed were points of â—aith c. This you haue heard answered now there followeth the other member Or as if saith he beliefe were vsed euery where â—heologically and that a Christians beliefe should alwayes be taken for his Christian beliefe â—or there is a naturall beliefe the Obiects wherof are naturall and ciuill things such as in this Oath c. So he And did not I tell you that you should haue mysteries A Christians beliefe is not alwayes a Christian beliefe but a naturall beliefe the good man would haue holpen himself with the School-mens distinction of fides diuina fides â—umana diuine humane fayth if he could haue hit vpoÌ„ it but yet wholy from the purpose if he had found it out nay quite contrary to himselfe For I would aske what fayth or beliefe diuine or humane Christian or naturallâ— did the Apologer meane in his demaund Whether he that taketh the oath do promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of Religion Did not he meane diuine fayth or Theologicall beliefe It cannot be denied for that the obiect being articles of Religion as heere is sayd which are not belieued but by diuine fayth as they are such it followeth that in this question the Apologer maâ—e his demaund of Christian beliefe and not only of a Christians beliefe yea of Theologicall beliefe and not of naturall beliefe that is to say of humane beliefe so conforme to this his quâ—stion were the clauses of my answere I do truly and sâ—â—cerely acknowledge professe testify and declare in my conscience c. And againe I do further sweare that I do from my hart abhorre deteâ—t and abiure as impious doctrine c. And yet further I do belieue and am in conscience resolued c. And is not all this beliefe in Conscience out of Conscience and for Conscience and of things belonging to Catholike Religion to be vnderstood of Christian and Theologicall beliefe but naturall only Who would write so absurdly but M. Barlow who seemeth not to vnderstand what he writeth And that this may be better vnderstood I am mynded to say a word or two more of this matter He maketh a distinction heere as you see betweene naturall and Theologicall beliefe adding for his reason that the Obiects of naturall fayth are naturall and ciuill things and that such are the articles contained in the Oath ayming as before hath bene said at the distinction of diuine and humane faith But he is grosly deceaued in that he distinguisheth these two faiths or beliefes by their materyall obiects and things belieued contrary to the generall consent of all Philosophers and Deuines who do hould that oâ—â—es actus specificantur ab obiectis formalibus that all acts are
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
or Mother or els that he will teach vs by his law or diuinity that albeit her Father and Mother were neuer truely man wife yet she borne by their coniuÌ„ction had true right in her bloud to succeed in the Crowne which yet the Parlament denyeth as yow haue seene And this shall suffice for this matter wherby may appeare what causes some Popes might haue in respect as well of this knowne illegitimation by her Father Mother as also of other many Peâ—â—â—nall demerits of her owne to fauour the right of her next lawfull successour persecuted iniuted finally destroyed by her But now as for the other cauill of recrimination that Dâ—â—â—man in his Booke sayth that it is a grieuous sinne for any man to giue consent to the making of a King that is of a contrary religion it hath beene answered sufficiently before against M. Morton who obiected the same but with fraud and falshood as this man doth leauing out the principall words that do ensue which are that is a sinne to him that doth it â—â—hat side souer the truth be or how good or bad soeuer the party 〈◊〉 that is preferred He doth leaue out also the reason of the speach taken out of the authority of S. Paul in these words For if S. Paul haue pronounced so absolutly and plainly in the place beâ—ore alleadged that euen in eating a peece of meat it is damnable for a man to discerâ—e and yet to eate what may we thinke will it be in so great and important a matter as the making of a King is for a man to â—ssemble or do against his owne conscience and iudgment Here you see is nothing but that a man should not do against his conscience in the choice of a King when that case shall fall out Can M. Barlow say any thing iustly against this if he will not calumniate I see not what But yet he leapeth to another thing in a farre different place where Doleman sayth that the Statute of Association was obiected by other Competitors against the succession of Scotland which Statute was made in the 27. yeare of Queene Elizabeths raigne and intended principally as it seemeth euident both by the Queene and by such as procured the making therof against the sayd succession of the Queene of Scotland and her issue in such forme of words as she being prisoner in England might easily be â—â—trâ—pped therin as afterward she was by the attempt of M. â—abingtâ—n his fellowes and lost her life for the same The Statute contained That if any Act should be atteÌ„pted tending to the hurt of Queene Elizabeths person by or for any person that shall or may pretend any Title to the Crowne of this Realme after her Maiesties discease by any person or with the priuity of any person that shall or may pretend Title to the Crowne c. then all such persoÌ„s shal be excluded and disabled for euer to haue or claime the sayd Crowne c. Hereto M. Barlow answereth now first that they only in this Act are excluded from Succession by whoâ—e meanes Queene Elizabeths life should be taken away not sought and that should not touch their issues except they had bene any wayes assenting or priuy to the same But to this may be replyed that the words now set down in the Statute are coÌ„trary which say that if any act be atteÌ„pted tending to the hurt of her Maiesties most Royall person though not achieued yet they shal be excluded And as for their heires and issues though in the second part of the Statute when Queene Elizabeths life should be taken away by such attempts there is mention of them that it must be by some assent or priuity of theirs yet in the former part now alleadged there is no mention wherby notwithstanding the sayd pretenders for whome or by whose priuityes such attempts only should be made are condemned of treason and made incapable of any pretence to the Crowne which being once effectuated the consequence doth easily ensue in like manner against their heires and issues So that this is but a meere trifling matter brought in for want of other better OF CERTAINE CONTRADICTIONS OBIECTED TO Cardinall Bellarmine AND what confidence may be placed in a mans owne good workes CHAP. IIII. WHERAS among other things there were obiected in the Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance certaine coÌ„tradictions against Cardinall Bellarmine out of his workes as impugning the one the other I thought good in my Letter to looke into some tâ—ree or foure of them leauing the rest for the Cardinall himselfe to answere as he did very sufficiently which answere might serue for vs both but that I hauing enlarged my selfe somewhat for the better explayning of the first obiected contradiction about the placing of confidence in good and meritorious workes M. Barlow hath bene so copious in his reply partly preaching partly pratling without substance or verity as I am inforced to insist more vpon the matter then I had purposed And for more plaine dealing and discouering of his fraud and impertinency I shall here repeat againe what in my Letter I set downe about this controuersy The Apologerâ—quoth â—quoth I doth thus begin his list of coÌ„tradictions against Cardinall Bellarmine First in his bookes of Iustification saith he Bellarmine affirmeth that for the vncertainty of our owne proper righteousnes and for auoiding of vaine glory it is most sure and saâ—e to repose our whole confidence in the alone mercy and goodnes of God which proposition of his is directly contrary to the discourse and current of all his â—iue bookes De Iustificatione wherin the same is conteyned c. Of this first contradiction we haue said somewhat before to wit that it is straÌ„ge that fiue whole bookes should be brought in as contradictory to one proposition For how shall the Reader try the truth oâ— this obiection Shall he be bound to read all Bellarmines fiue bookes to see whether it be true or no Had it not bene more plaine dealing to haue alleaged some one sentence or conclusion contradictory to the other But now shall we shew that there can be no such contradiction betwixt the sentenâ—â— of one part of his said Booke of Iustification the whole discourse or current of the rest for that Bellarmyne doth make all the matter câ—eâ—re by soyling three seuerall Questions in one Chapter which is the seauenth of the fifth Booke here cyted The three Questious are these about Fiducia quae in merit is coâ—â—ocaâ—i possit what hope and confidence may be placed by a Christian man in his good workes and merites The first Question is whether good workes in a Christian man doe increase hope confidence by their owne nature and the proâ—ise of reward made vnto them And Bellarmine answereth that they doe and proueth it by many places of Scriptures as that of Toby the 4. where it is said That almes-dedes shall giue
Hulderiâ—us Mutius a brother-German of M. Barlows I meane of the same Sacramentary faith although as it seemeth of a more sincere historicall faith or fidelity then he relateth the matter thus Mense Augusto venit Fredericus c. In the month of August came Fredericke to Brundusium and making no stay by reason of the insection with all his nauy set forth and went directly for Asia but being on his way he came backe againe with the fleete and returned not without shame for now all did openly cry out thâ—t he was a coward an effeminate and periured person that he neuer intended to go against the enemies of the Christian faith that he was a dishonour of the Empire The Pope when he was certified that Fredericke was returned back againe presently calling a Councell with common and ioynt consent of all assembled iudged the Emperour excommunicated by vertue of the sentence pronounced against him by his predecessor Honorius and againe he doth anathematize him vntill he performe his voyage to Hierusalem and this sentence be caused to be promulgated by his Legates in Germany France and Italy Frederike when he vnderstood this sentence of the Pope to be euery where esteemed himself to be accompted a â—oole and hated of many and that by contempt of the sentence there might arise danger that he might be deposed from the Empire the next spring he sayled with many troopes oâ— German and Italian souldiers into Asia c. So saith this Zuinghan And vâ—â—th him agreeth Nauclerus Crantzius Fazelius Villanus Blondus Saâ—â—llâ—us Taâ—â—agnota Platina Antoninus Sigonius â—o which aâ—so we maâ— adâ— Matthew Paris in whom may be seene both Pope Gregories testimony of the cause why he did excommuâ—icâ—â—â— him as also Frederiks letters to the christian Princes in purgatâ—on of himseâ—â— for his retuâ—ne affirming himselâ— to be vniuâ—tly excommunicated foâ— that as he tâ—â—re saith he was sicke and last of all the Authors iudgment of the fact it selâ—e though otherwise partiall inough to the Emperour For he writeth that vpon the newes of his returne aboue forty thousand souldiers were so discouraged that they returned home Qâ—od sactum Imperatoris sayth he domnosè nimis c. which fact of the â—mperour did redound to the great hurt shame and preiudice of all the whole busines of Christ crucified and for that cause according to the opinion of many the Sauiour oâ— the world as hath bene said shewed himselfe to the Christian people nayleâ— on the Crosse and besprinkled with bloud as it were making open comâ—laint vnto all and euery one of the iniury donâ— vnto him by the Emperour Thus Matthew Paris Whose testimony M Barlow vsing so often in other things I hopâ— he will not reiect in this But let vs go forward It followeth in M. Barlow The next yeare to satiâ—fy the Pope the Emperour determined his iourney but before hiâ— going he called a Councell at Rauâ—nna which he apointed also for the place of ReÌ„dre-vous â—oâ— some of his souldiers to atâ—nd him the Pope camed â—â—â—m â—o 〈◊〉 â—tayed from that meeting way-â—aying tâ—e coastes of Verona and Millaine and tooke order that the souldiers should be spoiled that were prepared for that expediâ—â—on against the Turâ—e itâ— Tâ—us he But by his leaue his Authour Vrspergensis hath it not in such sort as he setteth it downe and therefore it is a shamefull thing in M. Barlow to bely him For the Abbot saith no other tâ—en that when the Emperour had called a Diet to be held in Lent at Rauenna of the Princes of Germany he was hindered from the same by the messages and Embasâ—ages of the Pope Nam Veronenses MediolaneÌ„ses sayth he non permiserunt c. the people of Verona and Millaine would not suffer any to pasâ—e by their Territories spoiling and rifeling euen those that were signed with the Crosse vt asserebaÌ„t auâ—loritate Domini Papae c. as they sayd by the authority of the Pope which alas is a shamefull thing to speake And this is all which that Author hath hereof And here we may see the diâ—â—erence betwene Vrspergensis and M. Barlow in seting downe this thing The â—â—râ—t only relating what the souldiers pretended and â—aid for their excuse and the other most resolutly affirming it for true Vrsâ—ergensis sayth that those of Verona and Millâ—ine affirmed that they spoiled the Emperours souldiers by the Popes authority M. Barlow seteth it not downe as the words and excuse of the souldiers but with a resolute affirmation that the Pope tooke order that the waies should be laied the souldiers spoiled c. wherin also it is to be noted that this thing falling out in the yeare 1228. as is to be seene in Vrspergensis Frederikâ— being excoÌ„municated the yeare before remaining 〈◊〉 vnder ceâ—sures these souldiers hauing relation to the sentence past might well say that they did it by the Pope 〈…〉 to wit by vertue of the excoÌ„munication altâ—ough the Pope him self neuer knew thereof and so you see the obiecâ—ion to be friuolous albeit we should belieue Vrspergensis the Schismaticall Abbot deâ—ending the Emperour â—uen then when he was excommunâ—câ—câ— yet yt had bene weâ—l that M. Barlow for his credits â—ake had cited him as he is â—or he oâ— himself is had inough and litle needed M. Barlows furtherance to haue made him worse The next charge against the Pope is more tragicall then the â—ormer and is thus expressed by M. Baâ—lâ—w The â—mperour being in the Holy-Land and in battail against the Turkes the Pope in his absence enters Apâ—lia part of the Emperonrs dominions surpriseth and takes it to his owne vse and keepeth backe all supply of souldiers which should goe for ayde of the Emperour in that holy warâ—e and which is the height of all impiâ—ty the Emperour hauing performed his promise by that his iorney requeâ—ting absolution from the Pope he not only with contempt denied it but commanded the Christian souldiers in Asia to leaue the Emperour to the Turkes malice as being a publicke enemy of the Church and dispatched secret letters to the Patriaâ—ke of Iâ—rusalem and the souldiers there to rebell against the Emperour as Blâ—â—dus the Popes soothing flatterer is forced to confesse Thus far M. Barlowes pitiâ—ull complaint And as for the first point it is already sufficiently answered in â—hewing Frederick himself to haue bene the Author of the wars in Apulia by giuing order to Râ—â—nald sonne to the Duke of Spoleto and the Emperours Dâ—puty of Sicily to inuade the Popes state in his absence which he did aâ— already at large hath bene declared All the rest which is added contayneth nothing but meere malicious vntruthes and calumniations For vntrue it is that the Pope â—ept backe all supplie oâ— souldiers whilest the Emperour was in the holy-land which he laboured to gather from all parts of Christendome to send thither Neither doth Vâ—speâ—gâ—nsisâ—ay â—ay so much but only
is this will he say to tâ—e Popes consent for his poysoning Surely they are violent inducementes that he thirsted after the Emperours death which way so euer â—or he which would arme the Emperours owne souldiers against him cause a treacherous reuolt from him whilest he was fighting the Lords battaâ—ls betray him into the mouth of Christes sworne enemies inuade his possessions in his absence disperse false rumors of his death coÌ„trary to truth and his owne knowledg and by contemptes and Anathema's doe his best or worst to breake his hart would make litle acompt or conscience to Drench him out this lifâ— yf opportunitie and secrecy would concurre So he Wel pleaded M. Barlow But soft Syr I pray you take me with you What is that which by these violent inducementes as you terme them you go now about to proue Is it not to shew that Innocentius the 4. hired one to poyson Fredericke And are these particulers or any one of theÌ„ which you haue so much vrged for this purpose to be verified of Innocentius Did not all these thinges passe in the tyme of Gregorie the ninth of whose going about to poyson tâ—e Emperour no man hitherto euer so much as dreamed neyther do yow your selfe charge him therewith diuers yeares before Innocentius was Pope How then may these thinges violently induce any man to beleiue that Poâ—e Innocentius did conspire the poysoning of Fredericke Aâ—d to the end that your inducementes may be the more strong we shall reduce the whole force of them into a Logicall argument thus Pope Gregory the ninth armed the Emperours soulddiers against him caused a treacherous reuolt from him whilest he was fighting the Lords battails betrayed him into the mouth of Christs sworne enemies c. Ergo twenty yeares and more after this Pope Innocentius the 4. hired one to poyson him This is M. Barlowes violent inducement set downe in forme to prooue Pope Innocentius the 4. to be guilty of poysoning the Emperour And what force it hath I shall not need to declare For the argument is so ridiculous and transparent as there is no child so simple that doth not see through it And truly M. Barlow cannot here excuse himselfe in my iudgment from willfull malice that alleaging all this out of Vrspergensis who ended his historie with the yeare 1228. or the beginning of the next at what time Pope Gregory liued as he did for 12. yeares after would notwithstanding lay it all vpon Innocentius the 4. for which cause as it may be thought he dissembled Pope Gregories name throughout al his relation which he could not but see expressed in his Author And what will you say to such malicious follie or foolish malice M. BARLOVVS MORE sure and stronger proofes are discouered to be lyes with other things concerning Fredericke the second and Innocentius the fourth §. II. BVT M. Barlow yow may thinke hath some better proof besides these violent inducements to proue the Pope accessory to the poyson and death of Fredericke by which he will make all so cleare as there shal rest no more difficulty in the matter In those perhaps he will vse more sinceritie I say perhaps for that the custome of lying is so habituated and rooted in him as it is difficise mobilis a subiecto hardly to be separated from him as the Philosopher speaketh of all other habits which are not easily separated from their subiectes Let vs see then what demonstratiue proofs and irrefutable arguments he will bring to proue what he intendeth His words are these And yet that presumptions sayth he may not only carry it Cuspinian hauing Authors for both reports relateth the procurers therof doubtfully but the instrument certainly that Mansredus POYSONED him witâ—out controuersie siue ab hostibus siue a Pontiâ—ice corruptus but whether corrupted by enemyes of the Emperour or by the Pope he will not say but so he diedâ— So he What still nothing but lying M. Barlow Did you not promise vs surer argumentes then presumptions And why then doe you beginne with so notorious vntruthes Doth Cuspinian say that Manfred poysoned him Then truly hath M. Barlow belied Cuspinian before for that he saied And Cuspinian agreeth with them to wit Petrus de Vineis and Nauclerus that the Emperour recouering by the help of Phisuians from the poison Manfred tooke a shorter course with him and as Hazael serued Benhadad with a cloth stopped his breath with a pillow So he And yf this be true M. Barlow how then do you here set it out in Capitall letters by the Authority of Cuspinian that Manâ—red POISONED him and that so died for these are your words heere So as if M. Barlow be true in one place he must needes be false in the other For in the one he sayth that he recouered of the poyson in the other that he died of the same which is so playne a contradiction as M. Barlow will neuer be able to make doth partes to agree Besides it is a grosse vntruth to affirme that Cuspinian should say that the Emperour was poysoned by Manâ—red whereof he speaketh nothing at all and therfore where you say that he reported the instrumeÌ„t certainly that Mansredus poysoned him without coÌ„trouersy certainly without conâ—rouersie it is a lie of yours and not the assertion of Cuspinian whose words you might haue seene set downe in my letter alleadged thus Non potâ—it cauere c. The Emperour could not auoide but when he returned into Apulia he perished with poyson the 37 â—eare of his raigne and 57. of his age and the very same day that he was made Emperor for wheras at the towne of Florenzola in Apulia he was daungerously sicke and at length by diligence of Phisitians had ouer come the same he was stifled by Manfredus his bastard-sonne begotten of a noble woman his concubine with a pillow thrust into his mouth whether it were that Manfredus did it as corrupted by his enemies or by the Pope or for that he did aspire to the kingdome of Siâ—ilia So he where you see no mention made of Manâ—red for the poysoning but only for the stiâ—eling And how then doth he relate the procurers of the poyson doubtfully and the instrument certainely I thinke M. Barlow vseth to write sometimes in his sleepe for had he bene waking he would not as I suppose euer haue bene so shameles or ignorant as so to corrupt or mistake the Authors which he citeth in so base a manner And truly Cuspinian himself seemeth to haue dreamed in these few lines here cited as before I haue noted for hauing said veneno peryt he perished or died with poyson yet presently after as you see he saith that by diligence of Phisitians he ouercame the same and afterwards was stifeled And with such sleepers and dreamers are we troubled with all who not seeking to finde out or deliuer the truth in the matters they handle do contradict themselues and runne into
thither For now we haue shewed that Pope Alexander the third died in the yeare 1181. which was sâ—aueÌ„ yeares before Fredericke resolued to weare the Crosse and wage that baâ—taile and more then 8. before his arriuall into Armenia where he was drowned And here to vrge M. Barlow with a Dilemma Eyther he knew this diuersity of time I meanne of the Popes death and Frederickes expedition for the holy-land when he wrot his booke or he knew it not If the first then is he very shameles and malicious who contrary to his owne knowledge and conscience would deceaue his Reader in a printed booke and that in so triumphant manner as you haue heard If he knew it not then truly he is very ignorant and vnworthy to write in defence of so great a Monarch as his Maiestie is and withall very negligent that would not so much as see search his Authors or els very foolish and simple if he would haue vs belieue him without any other authority or proofe then his bare word which I thinke of his next neighbours will not be taken for much And by this example the Reader may know how hereafter to trust him in other places when he vaunteth and braggeth of aduantages for these are but suddaine pangs wherunto the desperatenes of his cause doth driue him when no other answere can be made For what is true or vntrue â—e seemeth to care little or not to seeke much but only indeauoreth to intertaine talke and get his fee and yet this is the man who in his Epistle to his Maiestie thinketh me too weak to dispute with him and so braggeth of himselfe as that he hath neither dallied nor deluded his Reader yea so farre is he confident in this his answere that he sayth he assureth himself security â—rom any sound Reply thereto fâ—oÌ„ me But what eyther of vs haue done in this kind he for Answere or I for Reply not he nor I but the Reader must iudge And yet heere I dare bouldly interpose thus far also mine owne Iudgement that if M. Barlow be no more exact in other thinges then he hath bene in this let him brag as much as he list flatter himselfe with the conquest before euer he see his Aduersaries weapons let him â—ound out his owne triumphes in euery page of his booke and make himselfe as glorious as he can yet it wil be more easâ—e then prayse worthy for any aduersary to refute him seeing his proâ—es are euery where so weake his lies so frequent his citations so corrupt and the whole order method of his discourse so patched harsh and disioynted to speake nothing of his rayling flattery and slanderous detractions as like the apples of Gomorrha with a light touch all wil resolue to smoke and dust as any one who with indifferent attention shall reade ouer the same will soone confesse For what now I pray you is become of all this sharpe charge and virulent accuâ—ation of Pope Alexander Is it not euidently demonstrated vpon the diuersity of the time of Fredericks being in Asia and death of the said Pope to be counterfait to be false to be impossible I thinke M. Barlow will not affiâ—me that Pope Alexander by speciall priuiledge before the generall resurrection did rise againe from death to life to dispatch this busines of betraying the Emperour and yet I call back my word againe for I see by this charge that he is resolutelâ— bent to affirme any thing And this priuiledge the poore man must confesse or else cry guilty against himselfe of as many lyes as there be lines in his accusation to speake the least for here is no pinching instance but a forged fiction no betraying of the Emperour whiles he was in the Holy-Land no letters no pictures no Pope Alexander then liuing noe feare of annoyance to the Romish Sea with which at that time Frederick was vnited in all loue and freindship at Pope Clements request vndertoke that enterprize which M. Barlow truly calleth the fighting in Christes quarrell though it were not for the Protestant Ghospell but for the preseruation of the Catholicke faith in the Holy-Land which this Minister and his Mates in their Bedlam bookes and Sermons call Idolatryâ— the VVhore of Babylon Antichrist and the like But it was sufficient with M. Barlow in this place to make it Christes quarrell because he meant to force it against the Pope such is the wit conscience and sinceritie of the man And truly in this place seing the truth so cleere and testimonies of Authors so consonaÌ„t I was somwhat moued with curiosity to see if eyther in the Apology of the last editioÌ„ with the Monitory Epistle or the Torturers book there were any thing more said for this fable in supply of M. Barl. defect silence in the same In the former I only found meÌ„tioned the History of Fredericke written in dutch in the other many names as the dutch Historie our English Bale Scardius the German Caluinist and besides theÌ„ Barnus Ioannes Marius Cremonensis but all this noyse is but emptie wind all these witnesses but one and he scant worth the taking vp For this dutch Historie Scardius is all one and so is Scardius and Bale the one taking it out of the other the three Catholike names if they be Catholickes serue but for Cyphers to fill vp paper for no words of theirs are cited no workes extant of this matter that we can heare of vnles perhaps lately printed at Amaurâ—t in Vtopia anno magno Platonis and so conuayed into England amongst our Ministers And as for the narration of Bale in his Centuries of this Fredericks death it is so frought with lies those grosse palpable ill coherent and incredible as a learned writer of our age hauing refuted many of theÌ„ addeth in the end his censure or iudgemeÌ„t of the Author in these words Piget taedetque plura vanissima Balai meÌ„dacia percensere quae adeo sunt enormia vt posteros nostros vix puteÌ„ credituros fieri potuisse vt hoc saculum nostruÌ„ tam eâ—â—rontes criminatores caluÌ„niatores protulerit That is to say It doth loath and trouble me to recount more lyes of this most vaine Bale in this matter of Fredericke which are so grosse or enormous as I scarcely perswade my selfe that those who shall liue after vs wil euer be brought to think it credible that this age of ours hath brought forth such shameles accusers and slanderers So he And if any list to make tryall hereof let him turne to the place here by me cyted and he will desire no more satisfaction in this behalfe but for euer after loath from his hart so lying a Mate And here the Reader may with himselfe consider that if we against the knowne testimony written histories of former tymes should alleadge to the contrary our onely bare assertions as M. Barlow doth in this without further authority coniecture or proofe how would our
Barlow Barlow pag. 184. The silly shifting of M. Barlow M. Barlowes acumen M. Barlowes coÌ„tradictioÌ„ Câ—â— 47. â—taâ—leton lib 9. câ—â—troâ— 5. de Câ—◠〈…〉 M. Barlowes fidelity Art 27. câ—ntâ—a Luthâ—rum B Fisher abused ValeÌ„tia in 2.2 disâ— 1. punâ—â—o 6. D. Thomâ— 2. 2. q. 1. art 10. Azor. Inâ—stitut par 2 l. 5. c. 12. Azor abused Suarez abused Suarez â—oÌ„ â— in 3. 〈◊〉 â— 27 3. aâ—t sect 6. â—aâ—l pag. 18â— ToÌ„ 5. CoÌ„c concil 4. Mediolan cap. 1. About the ProfessioÌ„ of faith in the fourth Councâ—l of Millâ—ne fraudulâ—Ì„tly allâ—adged by M. Barlow Azor. par 1. l. 11. c. 4. §. 2. Quaeritur Strange impudency of M. Barlow Azor. par 1. l. 1. c. 11. §. 1â— Quaeritur M. Barlows transcendent impudency Letter pag. 64. See S. Cypr. exhor ad Martyres See Eusebâ— l. 8. c. 4. Aug. de Bapt. l. 7. c. 2. l. 7. coÌ„tra Crescon c. 27. Aâ—nob coÌ„tra Gentes l. 4. in fine M. Barlows slander without end Barl. pag. 187. M Barlowes strange mystery Socrat. lib. â— hist. cap. 14. Socrates peruerted D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 104. articâ— 6. ad 3. Lying cogging is proper to M. Barlow S. Thomas his opinioÌ„ coÌ„cerning ObedieÌ„ce due vnto Princes Aug. 4. de Ciuit. c. 4. An obiection answered by S. Thom. M. Barlowes ignorance or malice more declared Strange dealing of our Aduersaries Letter pag. 65. About the Breues of Clemens Octauus M. Barlowes mind impious M. Barlows cobling and clowting on of his Maiesties prayses M. Barlow more fit to be a Sexton then B. of Lincolne Lett. p. 69. Apologia 56.37 The state of the coÌ„trouersy with Cardinal Belâ—larmine Card Bellarmins opinion of taking the Oath Pag. 44. A cauil Barl. p 201. Iosue 6. 15. Rammes horne Barl. pag. 202. A great vntruth to begin wiâ—h all A foolish fiction of M. Barlow without application M. Barlows triflâ—ng ignorance Barl. pag. 203. M. Barlow answereth argumeÌ„ts by telling of tales those little to the purpose Card. Bellarmine wrongfully charged by M. Barlow for mistaking the question Pag. 164. edit Rom. Lett. p. 71. All is one with M. Barlow for a thing to be moderated or to be modified Barl. pag. 205. Stat. 26. Henr. 8. cap. 1. The first Oath of Supremacy Stat. 28. Henr. 8. cap. 10. Stat. 1. Edw. 6. cap. 2. Barl. pag. 205. M Barlow vexed in defeÌ„ding the Supremacy pag. 209. 1. Reg. 15. 1. Cor. 11. M Barlowes impertinent answeres Reyn. Confer cap. 1. disp 2. p. 55. Q. Elizabeth in M. Barlowes opinion as absolute for Spiriâ—tuâ—ll authority as any Male-Monarch Barl. pag. 207. Letter 74. The Oath deuided into 14. parts Apol. p. 49. Bad kind of arguing Barl. pag. 2â—â— M. Barlow without all occasion plaieth the parasite Barlow pag. 214. M. Barlowes senselesse demand M. Barlow foysteth into his text the word whole and therupon grouÌ„deth al his idle dispute Bellarm. pag. 22. edit Rom. More required to a good action then to an euil Barl. pag. â—15 The difference betweene this Oath and an Indenture Barl. pag. 215. Barl. p. 215. Strange parasitical paradoxes Lett. p. 76. Apologia 52. The Oath of Allegiance confirmed by the authority of Councels The difference betwene the ancient Councels and the Popes counsellâ—ng of the Catholiks Conâ— Tole 4. can 74. A lye in print Barl. pag. 217. About the leauing out the word almost K. â—â—senaÌ„dus his submissiue behauiour to the Bishops in the Councel of Toledo The Catholick Faith confirmed by the Councell of Toledo M. Barlâ—w when he cannot answere filâ— to tellâ—â—g of tales M. Barlows falshood in relating the words of the CouÌ„cell of Toledo M. Barlowes shameles assertion About ignorance deuotion M. Barlow very ignorant but not very deuout Immunitâ— of Clergy men from whence it first proceeded Lib. de Cler. cap. 2â— 29. Vidâ— in câ—dâ—e Theodâ—s lib. 16. tiâ— 2 leg 16 26. â—t in Cod. â—â—stinâ— lâ—ge â—anâ—imus de Saâ—rosan Eccl. M Barlow for a Canon leapeth out of the booke Can. 75. Two notorious frauds of M. Barâ—low M. Barlowes forgery discouered about the Marriage of Priests Conâ— To. lâ—t â— tom 2. Conc. an Dom. 542. The Decree of the CouÌ„cel of Tolâ—dâ— about the chastity of Subdeacons Deacons Priests Let Sâ—r VVilliam B. and his fellowes examine their consciences how they keep this Canon Priests liuing with their wiues noted by the Councell to come from heretikes Whether the 4 CouÌ„cel of Toledo agree more with the ProtestaÌ„t church of EnglaÌ„d or Catholik church of Rome Christs desâ—eÌ„ding into hel to deliuer the Saints Merits of workes Recourse to Rome Beda lib. 1. hist. c. 27. Wax tapers Allâ—lâ—ya Mortification in the time of Lentâ— Masses festiuities of Saints Disorderly Monks punished The difference betwene the Oath of the Councel of Toledo the English oath of pretended AllegiaÌ„ce Barl. pag. 220. Very wisly spoken Concil â— Tolet. A fond triumph of M. Barlow before the victory The CouÌ„cel of Toledo would neuer haue allowed of the new Oath About Equiuocation very ignorantly by M. Barlow confounded with lying * An immodest example vsed by M. Barlow The difference beâ—weene Equiuocation lying A grosse lye of M. Barlow Barl. pag. 226. M. Barlowes principall ignoraÌ„ce M. Barlowes childish imputations against Cardinall Bellarmine Barl. pag. 230. Lett pag. 43 num 24. Two questioÌ„s proposed solued Clauses of beliefe or not belief in the Oath Pag. 12. Barl. pag. â—33 M. Barlowes caueling Barl. pag. 234. Machiauels principles agree better to ProtestaÌ„ts doctrine theÌ„ to the Catholike M. Barlow vnderstandeth not himselfe Barl. pag. 234. M. Barlow his seely distinction M. Barlowes grosse errour in Philosophy Diuine humane faith wherin they are distinguished The Popâ— neuer coÌ„manded any Prince to be murthered Barâ— pag. 217. Barl. pag. 239. Bell. de RoÌ„ Pont. l. 5. c. 6. §. ex quo M. Barlow falsifyeth Bellarmine M. Barlows foolish consequence Lett. p. 87. Naâ—e part 2. geÌ„ â—7 in anno 11â—6 CraÌ„â—â— l. 5. histor Saxon c. 24. M. Barlow i◠〈◊〉 where he 〈◊〉 â—â—â—were Henry the 4. not vnburied by Pope Pascalis Naucl. l. 2. gen 37. 〈◊〉 a Lutheran M. Barlows clouted frauds in his black cloud of witnâ—sses M. Barlow pareth and minceth Authors to his purpose M. Barlow sheweth himselfe a falsificator in capitall Letâ—ers M. Barlow trimmeth Authours to make theÌ„ against their wil 's coÌ„trary to that they write to speake for him Lett. p. 87. M. Barlowes perfidious dealing in alleaging F. Persons words CraÌ„tz l. 5. Hist. cap. 24. Barl. pag. 240. M Barlowes notorious lyes M. Barlowes cloud of witnâ—sses 〈◊〉 Helmod 〈◊〉 l. 1. c. 33. Binnius misconstrued Binnius tom 3. pag. 13 c 4. The ayre cleered of M. Barlowes cloud of witnesses A commoÌ„ false trick of M. Barlow to set down his owne words in a different letter as if they were the words of the Authour by him cited Aug. de Ciuit. l. 1. cap. 13. lib. de cura mort agenda Cypr. Ep.