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
onely concerne ciâ—ill obedience All which speach of his if I should grant as by hiâ— it is vttered yet doth it not so much as impugne any of the former foure waies wherby it was shewed that diuers points of Catholike religion are touched in the said Oath and impugned therby so as a Catholike man cannot admit the same without preiudice of his conscience which these groundes do nothing impugne But now let vs see how well grounded are these his two groundes impertinently brought in for some shew of answere The first is that ciuill obedience to a lawfull Prince requireth the subiect to sweare not onely affirmatiuely that he is his lawful Soueraigne but also negatiuely against any intruder challenger or vsurper which we deny not but do deny that the Pope as supreme Pastour ouer alâ— Christendome is to be called an Intruder Challenger or Vsurper when for preseruation of Christian Religion he doth interpose his authority for the restraint of any Christian Prince that is or ought to be vnder his iurisdâ—ction And as for his second ground that this authority of the Pope is a temporall intrusion and no spirituall iurisdiction we deny it in like sort for though it be temporall in some respects yet is it no intrusion but giuen by Christ himselfe as contained in the most ample spirituall charge and commission deliuered to S. Peter for gouerning of all soules belonging to the sayd charge which cannot be sufficiently gouerned and prouided for if there had not beene such power left also whereby euill Princes might be restayned from peruerting their Kingdomes especially by infection of heresy And whereas for proofe of this temporall intrusion as he calleth it he saith that for to doe me a fauour he will remit me to T. M. the elder to wit to Thomas Morton â—is full SatisfactioÌ„ part 3. whom he saith I doe feare as the racke who among many others haue canuased saith he this point in a Confutation to the Popes confusion I will to quit his fauouâ— send him backe to the sayd M. Morton againe recanuased by me vpon this point in two seuerall Bookes of answere wherein so many notorious lyes are charged and convinced vpon him as may serue not only for his Confutation but also for the Confusion of all his friendes wherof this Copes-mate M. Barlow may well be one and so much the more iustly be shamed therein for that he may be presumed to haue seene one at least of my sayd bookes and the lies therein so openly layd forth and pressed as he cannot but with impudency speake here as he doth in remitting me to M. Mortons canuase and that I â—eared it as the racke c. But now let vs come to looke a little into M. Barlowes impugnation of the Popes authority ouer kinges This authority of the Pope saith he if it be a spirituall Iurisdiction it must be either from heauen or of men grounded vpon law either Diuine or Ecclesiasticall Nam quod ampliâ—u est à malo est sayth a deuout Father to a great Pope all execution therof not deriued from eyther of these implyes a Tyranny importes no right If vpon diuine law then eyther the Old or the New Testament not the Old the Priestes among the Iewes had no such authority ouer theiâ— Kinges eyther vnited to their Priesthood by God or assumed by themselues confessed so by a Iesuite that the Staâ—e of the Iewes was rather earthly then heauenly therfore the carnall part was more eminent that is Kinges had the soueraigntie ouer the Priestes Not in the new for then S. Peter should haue had it eyther when the Keyes were giuen him Matt. 16. or wheÌ„ that trebled Pasce was inioyned him Ioan. 21. If it be so then had he this Iurisdiction directly from Christ and â—â—â—uersally ouer the world but that is not so saith Robert the Cardinall this Robert his Eccho but only ouer Christian Princes and that indirectly and obliquely in ordine ad Deâ—â—â— nay neither directly nor indirectly saith Sanders for there being a dubble power of ChristiaÌ„ fortitude constant suffering couragious attempting that power of suffering as the more excellent Christ chose as the fittest sibi suis for himselfe and those that belong to him or if you will for himselâ—e and his Apostles So then to suffer oppression vnder kinges not to inferre vpon them Rebellion and disloalty was the power Apostolicall in respect of Princes This is M. Barl. his assault which I haue thought good to set downe at large both faithfully and punctually in his owne very words as my custome is not contractedly and perfidiously peruerted as he euery where vseth to set downe myne and that in a different letter as often I am forced to complain as though they were my wordes indeed And now to this passage of his I say that there is much impertinent stuffe many falsities sundry great abuses misapplications and wrong senses from the Authors owne meaning whom he citeth For first it was impertinent to cite that sentence of S. Bernard Nam quod amplius est à malo est for that he vseth the same to a far different purpose as euery man may see that will read the place in his second booke de Consideratione which particular quotation Maister Barlow did pretermitt citing only Bern. ad Eugen. therby to make the finding thereof more hard S. Bernard hauing written fiue bookes to Eugenius Secondly that which he alleageth out of Salmeron that the State of the Iewes was rather earthly then heauenly and therefore the carnall part was more eminent that is Kings had the soueraignty ouer Priestes is notably both peruerted and falsifyed For first Salmerons wordes speaking of the Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Iewes in comparison of that which was giuen to the Christian Churches are Synagoga Iudaeorum dicebatur terrenum potiùs quà m caeleste regnum The Synagogue of the Iewes was called rather an earthly then a heauenly kingdome meaning that their Power was but earthly their Sacrifices earthly their promises and blessinges earthly in respect of the heauenly and spirituall power Sacramentes Sacrifice and Promises of the new Testament Nor doth he make comparison betweene the Kings power and the power of Priestes calling the former earthly and carnall the other heauenly as most falsely seditiously M. Barlow here after M. Morton doth auer but only the Ecclesiasticall authority of the Iewes Synagogue with the excellent spirituall power of the Christian Church And as for the comparison betweene kingly Priestly eminency amongst the Iewes the said Salmeron in the same place doth not only affirme but proueth also by sundry arguments and one by the worthines of the Sacrifice offered in the first place for the Priest before the King that Priestly dignity was aboue Princely in that people and much more amongst the Christians So as here is notorious falshood on M. Barlowes behalfe which is much the more
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
Kinges and Emperours had bene so priuiledged by the power of their Empire aâ— they might not be censured by the high Pastours and Prelates himselfe would neuer haue cenâ—ured and excomunicated his Emperour Theodosius as he did The wordes then are found not in S. Ambrose his Booke de Apologia Dauid cap. 4 10. as here is cited for there are two Apolygies prior and posterior which M. Barlow by his citation seemeth not to haue vnderstood and the first containâ—th but 7. Chapters in all and in the 4 is only this sentence talking of the pennance of King Dauid Qui â—ullis tenebatur legibus humanis indulgentiam petebat cùm qui tenentur legibuâ— aeudent suum negare peccatâ—m King Dauid that was subiect to no humane lawes asked forgiuâ—nes when they that are bound by lawes presume to deny their sinnes But in his enarration vpon the 50. psalme of Dauid he hath the thing more plainely for thus he saith Rex vtique erat nullis ipse legibuâ— tenebatur quia liberi sunt Reges à vinculis delictorum neque enim illi ad poenam vocaÌ„tur legibus tuti Imperij potestate Dauid was a King and thereby was not vnder lawes for that Kinges are free from the bandes of their offences for that they are not called to punishment by lawes being safe by the power of their Empire So S. Ambrose Wereby is seene that he vnderstandeth that Princes commonly are not subiect to humane lawes for that they will not nor may be called to accompt for their offences as priuate meÌ„ are being free by their powâ—r or that no man is able to compell them And this priuiledge perhaps is tolerable in their priuate and personall sinnes but if the same should breake out in publicke and against the vniuersall good of Christians then may we learne by the foresaid act oâ— S. Ambrose in Excommunicating the Emperour Teodosius that God hath leâ—t some power by diuine law to râ—straine them for the coÌ„seruation of his Church and Kingdome And so we may see that al that which M. Barlow hath chirped here to the contrary is not worth a rush but to shew his penury and misery hauing bene forced of eight Authors heere alleadged by him to wit Salmeron Saâ—ders Victoria Bellarmine Barkley Sigebert Espencaeus S. Ambrose to misalledge and falsify seauen as you haue heard that is to say all of them sauing Barkley who in this matter is of lesse accompt then any of the rest if the booke be his which is extaÌ„t vnder his name For that he being no Deuine hath taken vpon him to defend a Paradoxe out of his owne head only different from all other writers of our dayes both Catholiks Heretiks graunting against the later all spiritual authority vnto the Pope ouer Princes Christian People throughout the world but denying against the former all temporall authority eyther directly or indirectly annexed vnto the spirituall wherin as he is singular from all so he is like to be impugned by all and is by M. Barlow in this place for the Protestants calling him our owne Writer And for the Catholikes Cardinall Bellarmine hath lately written a most learned booke against him by name confuting his priuat fancy by the publique authority weight and testimonies of all Catholike Deuines And so much for this OF CERTAINE NOTORIOVS Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his aduersary which no wayes can be excused from malice witting errour §. II. AS the former fraud discouered and conuinced against M. Barlow of abusing authors against their owne wordes and meaning is a foule fault and very shaÌ„full in him that pretendeth to haue conscience or care of his credit so is the crime of appareÌ„t and willfull Calumniation bearing no shew of truth or reason at all much more foolish wicked Foolish for that it doth wholy discredit the Calumniator with his Readers wicked for that it sheweth plaine malice and will to hurt although with his owne greater losse So then it falleth out in this place that M. Barlow finding himselfe much pressed and strained with the reasonable and moderate speach which I vsed in my Epistle throughout three numbers togeather concerning the Oath freely taken as was said by many Catholikes both Priests and Laicks expounding their taking of the Oath in a good sense he doth so malignantly peruert the same by open calumniatioÌ„s as euery child may discouer not only the falshood but the fury also of his passion against me nothing being in his answere but exorbitant rayling apparent lying For whereas I in reason deserued rather approbation and commendation from him for expounding plainly and sincerely that meaning which those Catholikes if they were Catholikes had or could haue in their taking of the Oath without all Equiuocation or mentall reseruation which I condemned in an Oath as altogeather vnlawfull concerning any point of religion that ought to be confessed he not being able to abide the light of this truth and plaine dealing falleth into a certaine frenzy of rayling against me for the ground of his accusation â—ayeth hiâ— owne fiction that I doe teach them perswade them 〈◊〉 Equiuocate in this very case For cleare confutatiâ—â— wherof it shal be sufficieÌ„t first to set down my own wordâ— as they ly in my epistle and then to consider and ponder the collections and inferences that he maketh vpon theâ— And if by this you doe not finde him to be one of the loosest conscience and lawâ—est tongue and least respectiuâ— of his owne credit honesty that euer yow saw I am much deceiued My words then were these that follow As for that multitude of Priestes and Lâ—ickes which he sayth haue freely takâ—n the Oath as their freedome was that which now I haue mentioned and a principall motiue as may be presumed the desire they had to giâ—e his Maiesty satisfaction and deliuer themselues and otheâ—â— so much as lay in them from that inference of disloyall meaning which vpon the denyall therof some do vse 〈◊〉 make so I cannot but in charity assure my selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as coâ—cerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in â—ome such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sincerity of true Catholike doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath not authority without iust cause to proceed againâ—â— them Quia illud possumâ—â— quod iure possumus saith the law ouâ— authority is limited by Iustice. Directly also the Pope may be denyed to haue such authority against Princes but indirectly only in ordine ad spiritualia when certayne great important and vrgent cases concerning Christian religion fall out which we hope will neuer be betweene ouâ— Soueraigne and the Sea Apostolicke for so much as they haue past already many yeares though in different Relions in peace and quietnes euen since
conscience at all in that place but only assigneth the same as a thing necessarily requyred to the end and perfection of the Law For the wordes of the Apostle are these Finis prâ—cepti est charitas de corde puro conscientia bona fide non ficta The end of the coÌ„mandement or law is charity out of a pure hart a good conscience faith not fayned Which is no description of a good conscience as you see but of the end perfection of thâ— law which is Charity according to that which in another place the same Apostle sayth Pleâ—itudo legis Charitas the fullnes or fulfilling of the Law is charity But here he describeth more at large what manner of charity it must be to wit proceding out of a pure hart as also out of a good conscience which â—â—geâ—â—â—â—â— hope and out of vnfayned fayth So as here trâ—e charity 〈◊〉 described and not a good conscience which iâ— named â—â—â—ly as a condition needfully required to the fulfilling of the Law and not described as M. Barlow falsely affâ—â—â—â—â—â— For if a thing be described that hath many parts of 〈◊〉 requiâ—ed to the complement thereof it were very◠〈◊〉 to say that euery one of the said parts or parcels it described therby or that the said description may be ascribed 〈◊〉 euery one of them As if a man should describe a Knight or a Captaine that is to go to the wars what â—â—â—â—iâ—ure iâ— required to wit a horse sâ—ddle speare armour and the like it cannot be said that a horse is here described or a saddle or a speare but only the Knight himself who hath need of all these thinges So as in this M. Barlow is found 〈◊〉 haue peruerted the whole text and meaniâ—g of S. Paul There remaineth then his conclusion that for so much as Hereticks and Schismatickes also doe plead conscience for their standing out and that there is no one article in the Oath offered that can be proued to be contrary to a good conscience and true Christian religion therefore standeth the Apologers conclusion incoÌ„trollable still That the Pope hath prohibited English Catholikes to performe euen ciuill obedience to their Soueraigne But all this hath beene now answered by that which hath beene treated before for that Shiâ—matikes and Heretikes though they be â—ound both to informe reforme their consciences that be erroneous yet so long as that repugnaÌ„cy indureth they should sinne in doing contrary to the dictamen therof And as for the articles in the Oath that are contrary to Englisâ— Catholikes consciences and to theyr religion they are so many as do any way impeach or preiudice their religion which are the most part in the Oath as is knowne Neyther must M. Barlow run to this ordinary shift and say as he is wont that their consciences are not well cleansedâ— and that their religion is not true Christian Religion therefore they ought not to haue scruple in sweatingâ— for that now it hath been shewed that it is sufficient for binding them from swearing that their conscyences doe tell them the contrary which conscience to them doth appear good and their religion true in which respect the Pope that is of the same conscience and Religion hath defined it to be vnlawfull vnto them to sweare against this their coÌ„science and religion so long as it standeth as it doth And therefore if M. Barlow will haue them sweare without sinne in this case he must first make them Protestants and so giue them a new conscience and new religion for in that they haue they cannot doe it albeit for temporall obedience they offer all that may be exacted at their hands by any law of Christian subiection to their temporall soueraigne And this much may be sufficient for discussing of this point Whether subiects may or must obey their Princes when they command things against their consciences which in my Letter I denyed And whereas the Apologer did alleadg dyuers authorities out of Scriptures Fathers and Councels to proue the obedience of Subiects to theyr Princes not only Christian but also Infidels as to king Nabuchodonosor of Babylon to king Pharao of Egypt King Cyrus of Persia my answer then was this He alledgeth for examples out of the Scriptures that the children of Israel obeyed the King of Babylon as also they exhibited temporall Obedience vnto King Pharao of Egypt as in like manner to Cyrus King of Persia All which examples we grant to be true and could add many more both of the Iewes and Christians that lyued peaceably vnder Infidell Princes in those dayes But let one example as I said be brought forth wherin they obeyed them in points contrarie to their Conscience or Religion and it shall be sufficient We read in the Prophesie of Danielâ— that those three famous Iewes Sidrach Misach and Abdenago were most trustie vnto King Nabuchodonosor in temporall affayres and so much esteemed by him as he made them his vniuersall Gouernors ouer all the workes of the Religion of Babylon saith the Scripture and yet when it came to the poynt that he would haue them for his honour and pleasure and vpon his commandement adore the golden Statua which he had set vp they forsooke him flatly and said to him in the presence of all his Nobility assembled togeather that they were not so much as to answere him in that Commandement not would they do as he had appoynted them The like in effect did the ancienter Iewes do with King Pharao of Egypt for that albeit in temporall affayres they obeyed him euen in that tyme when he oppressed and persecuted them most yet in that he would haue had them stay and sacrifice in Egypt and not follow Moyses their Spiritual Superiour into the desert notwithstaÌ„ding that the King had some cause perhaps to suspect their temporall Allegiance also by that departure they being a potent multitude of people yet would they not obey him nor do as he would haue them when they persuaded themselues that God would haue the contrary I let passe how Daniel and his fellowes would not eate the meates of the King of Babylon nor Tobie those of the Assyrians much lesse would he leaue of to bury the dead though it were forbidden by Proclamation vnder payne of death The Machabees in like manner obeyed King Antiochus so long as he commanded nothing against their Law and Conscience but when he went about to force them to sacrifice and to eate swynes-flesh and other things against their Law and Conscience they refused openly to performe that Obedience So as these places of Scriptures alledged by the Apologer do proue nothing for him at all but are rather flat against him and for vs as yow haue seene Thus I wrote then now let vs see how M. Barlow ouerthroweth it First as concerning the 3. Pagan Kings Pharao Cyrus and Nabuchodonosor wherof I sayd the Iewes obedience vnto them was in temporall matters only
of Supreme 〈◊〉 of the said Church belonging c. And in another Statute two yeares after that From hâ—â—cefâ—rth he shall accept râ—pute â—â—d take the Kings Maiestie to be the â—â—ly Supreme Head oâ— earth of 〈◊〉 Church of England c. And that the refusers of this Oath 〈◊〉 reputed traytours and suffer the pâ—yâ—es of â—â—ath c. And in other Statutes it is decrâ—â—d that it â—halbe â—reasâ—â— tâ—â—eny thâ—â— tytle 〈◊〉 Headship and that this was held of such importance vnder King Edward who succeeded his Father that it is decreed by Statute that all authority of iurisdiction spirituall and temporall in the Biâ—â—ops and Miâ—istry 〈◊〉 deduâ—ed and deriued frâ—◠〈◊〉 Kings Maiestie as Supreme 〈◊〉 c. Vpon this important doubt I was so bold as to stay my selfe a little as now â—lso I must intreating M. Barlow to giue the solution therofâ— to wit that forsomuch as this matter of the Headship of 〈◊〉 Chuâ—ch was held of so great weight by thâ—ir prime aâ—d principall Protestantâ— and especially by their Paâ—riarkes Cranmer â—idley Hâ—â—per and others then holding the places of Bishops in Parlament when the sayd Title was not only confirmed in the Child King but declared alsâ— to be the fountayne of all spirituall â—uthority and iâ—risdiction in the Clergie and that it was treason to deny this Tytle of spirituall influxe in the Clergie how this matter came about that it should be so little esteemed as to be left of and changed now yea to be denyed expressely by their principall wryâ—â—â—â— as namely by Doctour Iohn â—â—ynolds in his â—oÌ„ference with M. Hart where he flatly deâ—yeth that they doe call the Queene Supreme Head but only Supreâ—◠〈◊〉 which if they be Synoâ—â—ma and all one then what necâ—â—â—â—â—ie to hâ—ue denyed 〈◊〉 vnto herâ— But iâ— Goâ—ernour do signify any thing lesâ—e then Supreme Head then haue they changed their principall point oâ— doctrine wheron dependeth the lawâ—ulneâ— of their whole Clâ—rgie aâ— you seâ— and so the matter being of such weight I thought it worth the staying to haue some answere But M. Barlow falleth into a great chafe for this my stay The giddy fellow sayth he hath an other err and to do not 〈◊〉 of the way but by the way The Scripture setteth a more esseâ—â—iâ—â—◠〈◊〉 vpon such by-way takers saying That wicked men declinant 〈◊〉 oâ—â—iquationâ—s take all the by-wayes nâ—okes aâ—d lanes they câ—â— passe for feare to be descryed or apprehended This is one reprehension as you see insteed of answering the matter Yoâ— shall heare anoâ—hâ—r more châ—leriâ—ke It is a vexing tormeâ—◠〈◊〉 a man sayth he thâ—â— is inioyned a ioâ—rney vpon a speed◠〈◊〉 requiring a serious dispatch to traâ—aile with a triâ—ling companâ—â—â— that will make many erâ—ands by thâ— way or hath many acquaintances to stop him in the way or is forced to make often returnes vpâ—â— forgeâ—fullnes of dâ—â—ers â—hingâ— c. And I expected that he would haue sayd also that he must needâ— dâ—inke at eueâ—y Ale-house as he passeth by But this perhaps he thought would haue caused more reflection then he esteemed conuenient and those other triflings are inough for so much as they yield such a veâ—ing tâ—rmeâ—â— to M. Barlow in his iâ—ioyned 〈…〉 â—pon so speedy a busines But why did he not giue me 〈◊〉 a speedy answere without tryfling and so dispatch both me and himselfe quickly Truly you haue heard somewhat largely bâ—forâ— what he can say to this matter â—nd therfore I meane noâ— to dwell theron long in this plâ—â—e especiâ—lly for so much as the man is in such hast and so impatient of stay You haue heard what hath bene treated before about this point of spirituall authority in the temporall Prince and to â—ow â—ow a pitch he bringeth the same euen in effect to agree with vs granting â—nto the Prince the power â—â—ly oâ— execution of such things as are determâ—â—ed by the Church But now in a woâ—â— let vs see how he shifteth of the change of the name of Supreme Head First he sayth that 〈◊〉 Maiesty did not leaue it out oâ— his Title vpon â—uer-awed 〈◊〉 to take it forasmuch as God gaue the said Tyâ—le to a far worse King I pray you note the phrase which is strang from a sâ—biects pen to wit to Saul when he said he was Caput in Triâ—â—busâ— Head among the Tribeâ—â—f Israel And S. Paul nameth the â—â—sband head of the wife But what is this to our purposâ— that do talke of the spirituall Head of the Church Nay it seemeth rather to make against M. Barlowes prouing that the Tytle oâ— Head was lawfull and so it was in the true sense of ciuill Head ship and consequently it should haue bene conâ—inued wheras we demand why it was left of chanâ—ed So as this first answere is nothing to the purpose His second is that it is but identity of commaund expressed 〈◊〉 â—iuersitie of termes But why then was it changed And why doth M. Doctour Reynolds by M. Barlowes owne â—â—â—â—iâ—ony giue the Title not of Headâ— but of Supreme Gouernour What need that expresse negatiue if they were all one If you should deny to the Kings Highnes the Tytle of King and of Supreme Head of the Common-Wealth and call him only supreme Gouernour would it be taken well or excused by identity No man can be ignorant but that in euery state neuer so popular there is a supreme Gouernour â—hough no King Thirdly he sayth that the change of supreme Head into supreme Gouernour was made by Parlament the first yeare of Queene Elizabeths raigne at the request of the Nobles and Deuines of the Land But the question is why and vpon what ground forsomuch as it may be presumed there were as great Deuines in King Henry the Eight hâ—â— time in the Parlament And if not yet at least in King Edwards Parlament that did approue and establish this Tytle of supreme Head It was saith M. Barlow not in regard of Queene Elizabeth her sexe for she being descended as she was she had as absolute authority in the fruition of the Crowne for both powers spirâ—tuall and temporall as any Male-Monarch whatsoeuer And a little after agaiâ—e he saith that this change was made least a weaker 〈…〉 thinke that they gaue vnâ—o Kings tâ—â—t Tiâ—le secundum interioreâ— influâ—um according to â—he inâ—â—riour influence which 〈◊〉 the prâ—pâ—â— office of the head as being the fountayne of moisture and is â—he â—â—st 〈◊〉 attribute of Christ alone But not to speake in this place of this internall influxe of grace that commeth originally from Christ alone although instrumentally also froÌ„ men as in the administration of Sacraments according to Câ—tholike doctrine what will he say of the externall influâ—â— of power iurisdiction ouer soules of preaching teâ—ching administring Sacraments ordayning Ministers and the like Could this power come aswell from a Feminine as a Masculine Monâ—rch If it couldâ— I do
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
tome of the German History he shall find what that Author writeth of Petrus de Vineis his going to the Councell of Lyons for speaking of the Emperour he saith Qâ—i non comparuit sâ—d Râ—sponsales prose transmisit minùs sufficientes Fredericke appeared not in the Councell but sent in his behalfe vnsufficient Embassadours to wit Petrâ—s de Vineis and Thaddaeus Sinuessanus Will M. Barlow say that he sent two Chayres or Oracles That truely had bene a strange Embassage Or will he tell vs that when our King Richard the first his Embassadors went to Rome to withstand the Bishop of Roane complayning against him â—s Nubrigensis writeth Responsales quoque Regis è vestigio secuti in conspectu summi Pontificis in faciem illi restitere The Embassadours also of the King presently following resisted him to his face before the Pope that he sent Chaires or Oracles to Rome Or were these Chayrs or Oracles so earnest before the Pope in his defence I know not whether this thing deserue rather laughter or compassion Laughter for that it is so foolish and ridiculous in it selfe Compassion to see one to beare himself for Bishop of Lincolne so ignorant as to translate Responsalis for a Chaire or Oracle with this insulting adiection to the same much lesse by his Breue interdict But let vs come to the second 11. The other example of his Grammaticall construction is concerning a place of Bellarmine about the authority of Kinges where the Cardinal refelling an obiection that the exemption of Clergy-men from tributes and appearing at secular tribunalls is de iure humano and so may be repealed by Princes answereth that it doth not follow both for that not only Kings but Popes and Councels haue giuen this exemption to Clergy-men as also for that the whole world hath consented to the same which hath bestowed vpon Kinges that power which they haue So he Now let vs heare M. Barlow conster these words thus then he Englisheth them Orbis terrae t' is within the compasse of the inferiour orbe from whence is giuen to Kinges that power which they haue So he And let him turne ouer againe his Grammaticon or MaÌ„matrecton Cooper or Calepine and he shall neuer fynde these two wordes which himself setteth downe in latin to wit orbis terrae to signify t' is within the compasse of the inferiour orbe and therefore perhaps his wits were without that compasse when he wrote it and likewise his honesty was scant at home when within 3 leaues after out of this selfe same Chapter he cyteth in different letters and many of them capitalls this passage as the expresse wordes of Bellarmineâ— The Clergy is not bound to obey Kings longer then Kings are THEIR SVPERIOVRS and that is so long as THE POPE WILL for whome HE EXEMPTES they are all FRE and citeth in the margent de Cler. lib. 1. Cap. 28. â— Respondeo negando But let him read the place that list and he shal find no such thing And what then will yow say to such forgery falsity But for these two pointes I referre him to the Author of the Supplement where they are more largely discussed And were not M. Barlow of a seared conscience and his cause desperate he would neuer vse such legier-de-main and discredit himself in this base manner If his Spartans ready for the combat can fight no better it were more for his Maiestys honour and their owne honesty that they kept themselues out of the field staid at home to tend gooslinges then thus to betray their cause and shame all From Grammar let vs come to Philosophy 12. It seemeth that in this science M. Barlow is very meanly seene and not to haue read or which I rather thinke not to haue vnderstood Porphyries Introduction to the same For what puny-Sophister is there in Oxford or Cambridge who knoweth not that species producatur de pluribus differentibus numero But quite contrary M. Barlow tells vs that the powder-plot was not singular from all examples there hauing bene the like done by Protestants though not in specie yet in indiuiduo as at Antwerp c. which is asmuch as if one should say Although so grosse ignorance as we see in M. Barlow of Lincolne cannot be found in any other man yet is it to be found in many M. Barlowes whereas M. Barlow of whome we speake is but one and the selfe same man and ignorance may be found in other men as well as in him especially if they be Ministers as he is but of this also he shall see more in the ensuing Discussion And doth not he deserue to be brought againe ad inferiora subsâ—llia and to sit amongst the Sophisters in Cambridge till he hath learned to speake more like a Philosopher 13. Againe what more sollemne foolery can there be then so ignorantly to insult vpon his adâ—ersary for saying that S. Leo in a certayne place spake of vnity of names as M. Barlow doth for thus he sayth What learning will iustifie that phrase of speach An vnity of names c And againe that one name imparted to seuerall persons should be called an vnity let all the Onomasticks and Nomenclators or Mathematicians or Schoolemen be searched and t' will not be found So he Doe you not thinke that this man hath searched far into the matter read all bookes and seene what all say that so resolutly and generally pronounceth this sentence yet Aristotle could tell him that all aequiuoca vniuoca analoga agree in one name and none but one as ignorant as M. Barlow will deny that the name Father agreeth to men and God but in different manner so that it is true to say that the name of Father is all one in God and man though in nature it differ And what can be required more to the vnity of names Or can M. Barlow conceaue that they haue one name without all vnity Truly as well as conceaue that a man may be a foole without foolery or as simple as himselfe vvithout simplicity 14. And if this thing in no Schoole man can be found then must S. Thomas be blotted out of that raÌ„ke whose wordes are Ostenait Aristoteles quòd sâ—li vnitas nominis non sufficit ad vnitatem enuntiationis Aristotle sheweth that vnity of name sufficeth not for the vnity of a proposition And in his Quodlibets he expresly proueth this vnity of names which he calleth vnitateÌ„ vocis the vnity of appellatioÌ„ for that els there were no vniuoca But of this also he will heare more then he would or euer will be able to refell by the Author of the Supplement It sufficeth me to detect only his ignorance which as it is here both grosse and palpable so also combyned with singular arrogancy and pride in so resolutly affirming that no learning will iustifie this speach when as Aristotle and S. Thomas the great Philosopher and most learned of all Deuines do
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.
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
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
this â—axatio â—f iudging consciences and consequently this is no inseparâ—ble marke that agreeth to all In like manner also it agrâ—â—â—â— not soli that is only to the sinne of hypocrisie to iudgeâ— of other mens consciences for pride may do it anger may do it temerity may do it reuenge may do it this withoâ—â— hypocrisy or iustifying of himselfe For if to a knowne vsâ—rer for example you should obiect or exprobrate the finne of vsury he answere you againe that he suspected yoâ—â— conscieÌ„ce of like sinne here he iudgeth of your conscience perhaps falsly and yet not by hypocrisie for he iustifietâ— not himselfe ergo this is not propriuÌ„ quarto modo any inseâ—arable marke or propriety of hypocrisie to iudge of other mens conâ—ciences Lastly let vs consider if you please the definition of hypocrisy which should indeed haue bene the first iâ— consideration for trying out of the true nature of this marke propriety for so much as according to Aristotles doctrine and the thing in it selfe is euident by Philosophy prâ—priâ— passiones flâ—unt ab essentijs rerum proprieties doe flow from the essence of things and therefore they are best vnderstood knowne by reâ—erence to the sayd natures and essences conteyned as Aristotle sayth in their definitions The definition theÌ„ of hypocrisie is according to S. Isidorus in his Etimologies simulatio alienae personae when a man pretendeth to be another maâ— and better then he is and according to S. Augustine Qui se vult videâ—iquâ—d non est hypocrita est hâ— that will seeme to be that which he is not is an hypocrite which the greeke word also whereof it is deriued to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth confirme that it signifieth dissimulation this definition I say which must conuerâ—i cum deâ—iniâ—o clâ—areth vs that this iâ—separable marke or propriety deuised by M. Barlâ— to be in all hypocrisie is both ignorantly falsly â—eygned by himselfe as not knowing the true nature of propriâ— pasâ—â— for that there be many wayes of dissimulation of â—eygâ—ing our selues to be better then we are without iudging otheâ— mens consciences that is to say there be many sâ—eâ—iâ— and kinâ—s oâ— hypocrisie and hypocrites that haue not this marke propriety as before hath byn shewed consequently not inseparable that is no proper or inseparable propriety at all no more then it is to â—ay that it is an inseparable propriety to horses to be white for that some few are found white And so we see M. Barlow when he coÌ„meth to speake of any matter of substance and learning sheweth himselâ—e a very feeble man scarce to vnderstand the very termes and first principles of the same But let vs passe on now to another more grieuous calumniation against me He is not content to make the former outcry against me for hypocrisie and iudging mens consciences but addeth also another assault â—saying that I doe teach Equiuocation to be vsed in thiâ— Oath which is so far froÌ„ all truth as I do teach the playne contrary as now hath appeared by my owne words before alledged For I say there of them that tooke the Oath I cannot in charity but assure 〈◊〉 selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as concerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in sâ—me such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sinceâ—iâ—y of true Christian doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath â—ot â—uthority â—ithout iust cause nor directly but indirectly only in â—â—dine ad spiritualia So I wrote then and the cleare addition that these exceptions and clauses must be expressed by the swearers and accepted by the Magistrate doth clearly exclude Equiuocation which consisteth of mentall reseruation not expressed nor vnderstood or accepted of him to whom it is vsed and moreouer within very few lines after continuing my speach and desiring his Maiesty to accept of these clauses of moderation Catholike exposition I doe yield this reason that Catâ—olikes doâ— not hold it lâ—wfull in a matter so neâ—rely concerning the Conâ—ession of their sayth to equiuocate or sweare in any other sense then from his Maiesty is proposed Can any thing be spoken more plainly With what face then can M. Barlow accuse me of the quite contrary and so reuile against me for the same Wherof some shal be here set downe Let the Reader bâ—hold sayth he a malicious trick of a notable Equiuocaâ—â—uâ— that cannot be contented to be him selfe alone the Diuells schâ—ller that ancient Equiâ—ocatourâ— but must be 〈◊〉 his Deuility Reader or Schoole-man to teach others â—o distinguish themselues tâ— hell fire sheweth him selfe to be verè spiritus mendaâ— iâ— ore Propâ—â—tarum framing two distinctions like the two 〈◊〉 of Sedecias the false Prophet such another as himselfe fuâ—â— of thâ— spirit putting them into their moâ—thes the first that the Pope 〈◊〉 not Authority withouâ— iust cause to proceeâ— against Princes the secâ—â—â— that the Pope hath not this authority directly but indirectly in ordine ad spiritualia c. So he Whereby wee see how much the man delighteth himselfe in comparing these two distinctions or explications of mine to the two iron-hornes of Sedecias though the Scripture hath not the particuler number of two but M. Barlow addeth that of â—is owne to make theâ— meet the more fitly with the number of my two distinctions for besides the parity of number which yet is false there is no other parity or likenes at all For what haue hornes to do with distinctions And yet after a large and lewd blast of rayling against me for the same he concludeth thus And now let the Christian Reader that maketh a conscience eyther of God or common honesty consider whether this be not the profunda Sathanae in the Reuelatió euen the very mist and mysterie of Iniquitie But what Syr to distinguish or vse distinctions in a matter that may haue diuers senses or intendmeÌ„ts Is this the profundâ—tie of Sathan or is not this rather profound ignorance and absurdity in you to say so Doe not you know that to distinguish belongeth to the wise and learned according to Aristotle and not to distinguish est imperâ—â—â— mulâ—itudinis appertaineth saith he to the vnlearned vulgar sort Doth not reason and expeâ—ience teach vs that to diâ—tinguish matters that be obscure perplexed into their cleere sâ—nses or that be confused into their seuerall parts members or that may haue many senses into their different significations is a high worke of wit that giueth life to our vnderstanding to conceiue the truth and light to our will to make choice of the same How many foule heresies in the Church oâ— Chrisâ— since her beginning haue beene beaten downe principally by pious and prudent distinguishing which otherwise would neuer perhaps haue bene ouercome As namely the Arians when they alleaged
bables This was the fact of a Pagan Atheist What doth the matter appertayne to vsâ— do we esteeme so litle a false Oath Why then doe Catholickes stand so much in England against the receiuing of this Oath Why doe they put themselues in danger of leesing the Princes fauour their goods theyr lands their Countrie their liues rather then to take the same againâ—â— their consciences It seemeth rather that M. Barlâ—â— concurreth with Lisanders opinion who will haue theâ— take it although it be against their consciences for thiâ— is to haue leuem iurisiurandi religionem little conscience of an Oath But yet he goeth further in this matter and cannot get out of it for he will needs proue this my distinctioâ— and as he calleth it Equiuocation not only to be Pagaâ—iâ—â— but more then Heatheniâ—h that euen by Aristotles testimony in his Booke of Rhetoricke to King Alexander his wordes are these Nay this delusion is more then Heathenish â—or Aristotle was of opinion that he which doubteth in his Oath for thâ—â— i◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sweare with a mentall addiâ—ion hath neither â—ear oâ— Goâ—â— vâ—ngeance or shâ—me oâ— mens reproof But truely I hauing conâ—idered the place of Aristotle how far his meaning is from that which here is alledged in his name me thinkes that M. Barlow should feare these two last pointes of Gods vengeaÌ„ce mans reprofe For Aristotle hath not a word of dâ—â—bâ—ing in his Oath or of mentall addition or reseruatioÌ„ in an Oath bâ—t only of plaine forswearing For his argument is hauing treated in that booke to Alexander how by the preceptes of Rhetoricke an Orator may proue or improue any fact or crime that shall come in question as by signes by arguments by coniectures by probability by witnesse and by torture he coÌ„meth at leÌ„gth to shew how it may be proued or improued by an Oath His words are these Iufiuranduâ— est cum diuina veneratione dictio probationis expeâ—s c. An Oath is a speach without proofes with diuine veneration wherefâ—re if we will confirme our Oath and the credit thereof we must say thâ—â— no man truly will forsweare himselfe both in respect of the â—eare of punishment from the Gods as also of disgrace among men and we may add that men may be deceyued but the Gods cannot But now if the aduersary will flie also to an Oath and we would extenuate or discredit the same then we must shew that the man that will not sticke to dâ—e euill will not sticke also to forsweare himself for that he which thinketh he may ly hidden from the Gods after he hath committed an eâ—ill â—act will thinke that he may also escape punishment after he hath â—orsworne himselfe This is Aristotles discourse which maketh no mention at all as you see of doubting in an Oath and much lesse of mentall addition or reseruation And albeit M. Barlow do bouldly and ignorantly say that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by all Interpreters doth signifie peierare to periure or forsweare doth import also to sweare with mental addition yet is this only a fiction of his nor can he bring forth one example out of Aristotle or any Greeke writer which doth vse it in that sense nor could Aristotle vse it so in this place where he vseth the sayd wordes thrice in these lines by me alleaged alwaies for peierare to forsweare and neuer for doubting or mentall addition Nay it cannot stand with any sense of Aristotles discourse for if Aristotle should say that no man truly will doubt in his Oath or haue a meÌ„tall reseruation both for feare of Gods chastisement discredit amongst men it were a ridiculous speach for that men do not knowe when a mentall reseruation is made or when a man doubteth in his Oath but when he forsweareth himselfe it may come to be knowne And in like manner it is more ridiculous to say against the aduersary as Aristotle teacheth vs that he which sticketh not to doe wickedly will not sticke to doubt also in his Oath or to vse a mentall addition which no man I thinke would vnderstand or can read without laughing Wherfore seing that Aristotle speaketh only of forsweâ—ring and that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken by him and by all other Greeke Authors wherof we might heâ—â— alledge infinite examples M Barlow cannot alleadge one for his fiction it is euidently seene that he miserable man is sore pressed when to sustaine his bad cause he is forced to falsifie and corrupt Authours by peruerting and wresting them aside quite contrary to their meaning purpose But now we shall passe to some other poyntes THE REASON IS EXAMINED WHETHER GODS PROVIDENCE MIGHT SEEME DEFECTVOVS if no authority had bene left in the Christian hurch to restraine and punish euill Kings AND Whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. I SAID in my former Letter as in the precedent Chapter hath bene seene that I could not perswade my self that such Catholikes as were sayd to haue accepted the Oath did meane to abiure al authority of the Pope for depoâ—ing temporall Princes for any cause whatsoeuer for that therin they should contradict the gâ—nerall consent of all Catholike Deuines and confesse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruatiâ—â— of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous For that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great perilous an euill as that way might fall out by the exorbitant actions of some incorrigible Prince To this my speach M. Barlow answereth thus If by Catholike Deuines he meaneth Scriptures Councells Fathers Stories for a thousand yeares after Christ the Reader must take it for a mendacious vanity and let it passe for no better Wherto I reply that as I do meane it it is no mendacious vanity but a religioâ—â— verity for that I meane by Catholike Deuines in this place all such of that profession as haue handled the question particularly of this temporall Authority of the Pope in certaine vrgent occasions which are principally Scholasticall Deuines especially those of this age that haue written against all sorts of Heretikes that denied the same And albeit M. Barlow in his rayling vayne do challenge the Schoole-men as blasphemously detorting Scriptures yet he that shall read them with iudgment and attention without this furious passion of hatred against them and lacke of capacity to vnderstand them shall quickly perceiue that their skill in Scriptures Councels Fathers Stories is far superiour by infinite degrees to that of M. Barlow and his Mates that crake so much against them and their sincerity in expounding them according to their true meaning and is also without comparison more sound as may appeare by the many grosse and wilfull corruptions which I haue noted in him before in that kind And albeit in some hundreds of yeares after Christ there had
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
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
is of your owne thrusting in and put in place therof that the sayd Sonne may be the sooneâ— induced to graâ—t them that liberty in respect of their former dutifulnes and loyalty to his mother in her distresses and the consequence will not be euill To the third of his Maiesties confessed experience of the loyalty of Catholickes both towards himselfe and his Mother in their distresâ—es he sayth That his Maiesty nameth not Catholiâ—kes at all in his said Booke but only prosesseth that be found none so stedfastly to abide by him in his greatest straites as they which constantly kept their true Allegiance to his Mother Well Syr and who I pray you were they Catholickes or Protestants Let the acts of those times be seene the Authors noted the effectes considered Yet sayth M. Barlow noâ— iâ— is very probable that when his Maiesty hath cast vp his accompt of forâ—er disloyalties he shall â—ind the moderate â—nd dirâ—ct Protestantâ— that incliâ—es neither to right hand nor left to be the first and faithfâ—ll subiect Well Syr this may be pâ—rhaps fâ—â— the time to come for your selâ—e saith thaâ— it is but probable but for the time pâ—st his Maiestie hauing now cast vp his accompts hath found that reckonyng as he hâ—th set it downe And the common rule of wisdome is to beleeue as we haue found vntill different experience teach vs the contrary And by the way we mustâ— learne here M. Barlowes new deuised epithetons of a moderate and direct Protestant that as he sayth is neythâ—r Iesuâ—ted nor Geneuated that is neither Catholicke nor Puryâ—an but moderate and direct that is to say moderate in not belieuing to much on any sâ—de if it stand not with his profit and direct in following iump the Prince and State that may aduance him whatsoeuer they should determine in matters of religion This is the man by M. Barlowes direction vpon whome his Maiestie must buyld and not the Purytan or zealous Catholicke for that they are ouer scrupulous I could wish that M. Barlow had bene a litle more scrupulous in the very next ensuing number where without all blushing he casteth out two notorious lyes agaynst Father Pâ—rsons to make him odious thereby to his Maiestie saying first that he pronounceth his sayd Maiestie to be a desperate and â—orlorne hereticke but cyteth no place where it is to be found nor indeed is there any such place to be found where Father Personâ— vseth any such words as euer I could yet see Secondly he alleadgeth for Father Persons expresse words these That whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant is a most grieuous and damnable sinner and citeth for the same Dâ—lâ—man pag. 216. which quotation serueth only to condemne M. Barlow of a notorious wilfull calumniation for that these expresse wordes are not there found nor is there any mention of the Succession of a Protestant but in generall is sayd thus That for any man to giue his help towards the making of a King whome he iudgeth faulty in religion and consequently would aduance no religion or the wrong if â—e were in authority is a grieuous sinne of what syde soeuer the truth be c. So as neither Protestant nor Succession is named in this place but mâ—king of a King by such as my haue authority to doe the same and it may as well hould agaynst the entrance of a Catholicke Prince as of any other sect whatsoeuer And consequently both of these are sâ—landerous accusations the first being a meere inuented vntruth and the second a malicious peruerted calumniation so as in respect of both I may well say with the Prophet Dilexisti omnia verba praecipitationis lingua dolosa and I pray God the threat next insuing do not take place Propterea Deus destruct to in finem c. I desyre not his destruction but his amendment After this followeth in my foresaid Letter a narration of the Dutifull demeanour of Catholickes towardes his Maiestie euen from his first entrance and how by the vniust perswasions of their enemyes they began quickly to feele his hard hand borne ouer them euen before the powder-plot as by the confirmation of all Queen Elizabethâ— penal lawes in the first yeare of his Maiesties raigne with the execution therof afterward doth well appeare wherof many particuler examples are set downe and among other things it is touched as a matter of speciall disfauour that his Maiestie vouchsafing in his owne Royall Person to giue publicke audience both to Protestants and Purytâ—â— for 3. dayes togeather concerning the differences of their Religion no such grace at all was graunted vnto Catholickes Vpon which words M. Barlow stayeth himselfe and maketh this coÌ„mentary It is a strange humour sayth he that this Epistler hath iâ— he sayth truth he lyeth It is true there was a conference but about difference in Religion it is vtterly false sayâ—â— they would possesse the world that we are at iar among our selues abâ—â—â— our Religion whereas the quarrell though it be indeed vnkind yet it iâ— not in this kinde saue only for Ceremonyes externall no poynt substâ—â—tiall c. But now of this I haue spoken somewhat before shewing that if this vnkinde quarrell betweene Protestaâ—â—s Purytans as he calleth it be only about externall Ceremonies then is both his Prelacy and that of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop only an externall Ceremony And if his phrase of vnkind quarrell be of the same kind that he mentioned before to be in Queene Elizabeth towards Queene Mary of Scotland whose heâ—d she cut ofâ— then is the matter somewhat substantiall not only Ceremoniall and indeed he that shall consider what the Purytan in this vnkind quarrell pretendeth agaynst the Protestant and his Church shall see that he striketh at the head indeed or rather striketh of the head of the sayd Church whether we consyder either the externall and ministeryall head thereof to wit the Princes Ecclesiasticall power and of Bishops vnder him or the internall head metaphorically taken for the life spirit and essence of the sayd Church in denying it to be a true Christian Church but only a prophane Congregation without any spirituall power at all This appeareth by all the course and drift of Puritan wryters and bookes extant of the differences acknowledged also by Protestant writers in their Treatises against them so as to me it seemeth not only a shameles bouldnes to deny it as M. Barlow here doth but a shamâ—full basenes also and beggary so to runne after their enemyes intreating them to haue some association with them whereas the other do both contemne and detest them For this falleth out not only in this case but also with the Lutherans whom M. Barlow and his fellowes when they deale with vs will needes haue to be theyr brethren of one and the same Church fayth and beliefe for all substantiall poyntes of doctrine Whereas the Lutherans on the other syde do both deny
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
that he in the day of iudgment to wit our Saâ—iour will giue reward for our good works almes is now also ready to shew himselâ—e a most benigne heater to him that shall come vnto him by prayer works and so did Cornelius the Centurion merit to be heard as doing many almes vpon the people sayth the Scripture And when about nyne of the clocke the sayd Centurion prayed an Angell stood by him and gaue testimony of his good works saying Cornelius thy prayers and almes haue ascended vp before God citò orationes ad Deum ascendunt quas ad Deum merita nostâ—i operis imponunt Our prayers do quickly asceÌ„d vnto God which the merits of our good works do lay before him c. And preseÌ„tly with this Scripture he ioyneth the other out of Toby Sic Raphel Angelus c. So the Angel Raphael did testify vnto Toby alwayes praying alwayes working wheÌ„ thou didst pray togeather with Sara I did offer the memory of thy prayer in the sight of God when thou didst bury the dead and leaue thy dinner for doing the same I was sent by God to tempt thee and afterward to cure thee I am Raphael one of the seaâ—en iust Angels who do assist conuerse in the sight of God c. Where we see that S. Cyprian maketh another manner of accompt of the holynes and meryt of this worke and of the truth of this Angell then M. Barlow doth And the very self same speach S. Cyprian vseth in his booke de Mâ—â—talitate alleadging this place of Toby and testimony of the Angell Raphael in the commendation of Tobies fact in burying the dead against the Kinges commandement So as white and black hoat and cold or the two poles are not more opposite one to the other then the spirit of S. Cyprian and that of M. Barlow in this point And truly it seemeth that a man may gather by good consequence that for so much as he condemneth that fact of Toby in burying the dead bodies of the Iewes in persecution he would also if he had bene there not only not haue buried these dead bodies against the Kings Edict but also neyther haue receaued the persecuted into his house agaynst the commaundement of the sayd King Nay he would haue rather deliuered them vp to the persecutors hands and the like if he had liued amongst Christians vnder Nero Domitius and Dioclesian And this is M. Barlows piety in respect of that of holy Toby and S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Augustine and other such sincere pious men who both approued and commended this fact Now let vs passe on to the rest After these examples of Scriptures there were alleadged by the Apologer sundry authorityes of ancient Fathers which shew the obligation that subiects haue to obey their temporall Princes which in my Letter I declared no way to preiudice our cause who both acknowledge and offer all dutifull obedience in temporall affaires which is so much as the sayd ancient Fathers doe teach and for that the sayd authorityes are cleare for vs in that behalfe I shall â—et downe here what I answered to the same As these places of Scripture said I alleaged against vs do make for vs so much more do the authorities produced out of the ancient Fathers for that they go about to proue the very same point that we here hold that in teÌ„porall cyuill affayres we must obey dutifully our temporall Princes though Infidels or Pagans but not in matters concerning God our Religion or Conscience And his very first example out of S. Augustine is such as I meruaile much that he would cyte the same but that somwhat for shew must be alleadged For it maketh so clearly directly against him as if it had beene written purposely to confute him in this our case But let vs heare what it is Agreable to the Scriptures saith he did the Fathers teach Augustine speaking of Iâ—dian saith thus Iulian was an vnbelieuing Emperour was he not an Apostata an oppressor and an Idolatour ChristiaÌ„ souldiars serued that vnbelieuing Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they would acknowledge no Lord but him that is in heauen when he would haue them worship Idolls sacrifice they preferred God before him but when he said Go forth to fight inuade such a nation they presently obeyed they distinguished their eternall Lord from their temporall and yet were they subiect euen vnto their temporall Lord for his sake that was their eternall Lord and Maister Thus he And can any thing be spoken more cleerly for vs and for our cause then this For euen this do we offer to our King Soueraigne we will serue him we wil obey him we will go to warre with him we will fight for him and we will do all other offices belonging to temporall duty but when the cause of Christ commeth in hand who is Lord of our Consciences or any matter concerning the same or our Religion there we do as S. Augustine heere appoynteth vs preferre our eternall King before our Temporall And like to these are all the other places of Fathers cyted by him who distinguish expresly betweene the Temporall honour and Allegiance due to the Emperour and the other of our Religion Conscience belonging only to God And to that playne sense are Tertullians words cyted by the Apologer VVe honour the Emperour in such sort as is lawfull for vs and â—xpedient for him as a man second after God and as hauing receyued from God whatsoeuer he is and only lâ—sse thâ—n God And will not the Catholicks of England vse this speacâ— also vnto their King Or will the Apologer himselfe deny that Tertullian heere meant nothing els but in temporall affayres for somuch as the Emperors at that tyme were Heathens Gentils and consequently were noâ— to be obeyed in any point against Christian faith or Religion The like playne sense haue the words of Iustinâ—â— Martyr to the Emperour himselfe cited here in the third place to wit VVe only adore God and in all things we cheerfully performe seruice to you prosessing you to be Emperours and Princes of men And do not all English Catholickes say the same at this day in all other things that concerne not God his Obedience by rule of Catholicke Religion they offer cheerfully to serue his Maiesty acknowledging him to be their liege Lord and King inferiour only to God in his Temporall Gouernment And how then are these and such other places brought in for witnesse as though they had somewhat to say against vs The other two sentences in like manner cited out of Optatus and S. Ambrose the first saying That ouer the Emperour there is none but only God that made the Emperour And the other That teares were his weapons against the armes and souldiars of the Emperour That he neither ought nor could resist neyther of theÌ„ do make
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
the same immediately according to coÌ„mandment Wherto I answere first that howsoeuer it be the quicke of our question is little touched hereby for that we treat whether an Oath offered against the conscience of the swearer may be taken or not especially when the points therof concerne matters of Religion and here the question betweene S. Gregory Mauritius is about the publishing of a law partly temporall for as much as it concerned the Emperours Army Officers and publike accompts and partly also including some touch against Ecclesiasticall liberty intaking that holy profession of Monasticall life for help of their soules for which laâ—er respect S. Gregory was most earnest with the said Emperour to be content to haue the said Law mitigated tempered as he had proposed the same and so in the end obtained his purpose as by his words now recited doth appeare Secondly then the chiefest point oâ— difference betweene M. Barlow me in this matter seemeth to be whether S. Gregory did yield to the publishing oâ— this Law before the mitigation correction therof or not He sayth he did But Cardinall Baronius who seemeth more practised in the writings of S. Gregory then M. Barlow in his CoÌ„munion booke holdeth the contrary and proueth it out of S. Gregories owne words and writings vnto the foresaid Archbishops MetropolitaÌ„s Eusebius of Thessalonica Vrbiâ—iâ—â— of Dyrachium ConstaÌ„tius of Millane Iohn oâ— Corynth Iohn of Creet others mentioned in his said lâ—tter which letter he sent togeather with the said Law vnto those chiefe Biâ—hops Metropolitans to be diuulged but first moderated and corrected saith Baronius in the two points before by me mentioned Adding fuâ—ther that this Epistle oâ— S. Gregory concerning this coâ—recâ—ion is found in his Register not in his due place ranke but remoued from thence as many other of his â—piâ—tles also are which haue giuen some occasion to M. Barlow for to wrangle about the matter for that in two other Epistles of his that go before this to wit the 62. to the Emperour himselfe and 65. to Theodorus his Phisitian he intreateth earnestly for the Emperours consent to this mitigation wherof no man can meruaile considering the humility and sweetnes of S. Gregories nature that the Law it selâ—e seemed to be made vpon great reason for the Common-Wealth for some abuses perhaps that had passâ—d might passe and consequently was no such Ecclesiastical Law as M. Barlow would haue it to be taken for And so much the more reason had S. Gregory to deale humbly by way of petition with the sayd Mauritiusâ— for allowing of his modification for that the Law did not directly repugne any Ecclesiasticall matter but by a consequence only the subiect of the Law being grounded vpon temporall respects which consequence notwithstanding S. Gregory as a careâ—ull supreme Pâ—stour would not suffer to passe witâ—out due reflection made theron with endeauour to haue it amended But whâ—ther this were before or after his first sending oâ— the law into diuers Prouinces aâ— he sayth Epist. 62. lib. 2. or after as he writeth to the foresayd Metropolitans Epist. 11. lib. 7. or whether he sent it two times â—iâ—t to the Prouinces with some aduertisements to be considered of vntill he should haue obtained the Emperours consent and then againe vnto the sayd Metropâ—litans with more full resolution and â—ssurance that the Emperour was content and satisfyed I shall leaue the matter to be disputed betweene Cardinall Baronius and M. Barlow albeyt the matter it selfe be of smâ—ll moment to our purpose as I haue sayd for that as S. Gregory did on the one side shew himselfe subiect vnto Mauritius at that time in teâ—porall â—ffaires so did he not neglect his Pastorall office supreme care in dealing with those Arcâ—bishops Metropolitans of diuers Nations to whom he sent the Emperours Law to practise the samâ— according to the temperament and declaration sent them And if his spirituall authority had bene acknowledged to haue bene no more at that time then ouer the Roman Diocesse only as now our Protestants will acknowledge no more to our present Popes he would neuer haue taken vpon him to write and send the Law with his exposition to so many great Archbishops of diuers other Realmes and Nations And if Mauritius the Emperour had held himselfe for Head of the Church in those dayes and to haue power aswell in Ecclesiasticall affaires as temporall and that S. Gregory had not bene Head he would neuer haue sent the law to haue bene published by him to the Metropolitans both of the East and West Greeke and Latin Church himselâ—e liuing in Constantinople being neerer vnto diuers of the said Metropâ—litans then was Rome but would haue sent the same immediately vnto them as from himselfe And this might be suâ—ficient for this matter but that I may not let passe without the note of another egregious ignorance and malice or rather malicious ignorance of M. Barlow conioyned togeather in this placeâ— The malice standeth in this that he accuseth me of falsifying for leauing out wittingly certayne wordes of S. Gregory in his forâ—said Epiâ—tle to the Metropolitans whereby he assureth them that the Emperour was pacifyed and contented with his mitigation of the law sent vnto them This â—alsiâ—ying Iesuit saith he mentioneth the Epistle but leaueth out the wordes very cunningly mihi credite Belieue me our Gratiâ—â—s Emperour is so contented Whereas if you looke backe vpon my wordes you shall find them set downe by me thus as they stand in S. Gregory De qua re Serenissimus Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur About which matter our most Clement Christian Emperour is wholy pleased contended if mihi credite were pretermitted it importeth little to the matter This then was malicious let vs see the ignorance coupled with more then with a single malice when he speaketh of S. Gregories wordes written vnto Theodoruâ— the Emperours Phisitian as before hath beene mentioned sending a letter to him to be deliuered to the said Emperour at his good commodity M. Barlow relateth the matter thus He writes to Theodore the Emperours Phisitian saith he and intreats him to deale with his Lord and Soueraigne about it The reasons wherof he had not yea he would not he saith à RespoÌ„sali suo publicè dare publikely yeald as froÌ„ his Chaire and Oracle much lesse by his Breue interdict but hauing suggested it priuatly he left it to God and the Emperours leasure and wisdome In which words besides the grosâ—e ignorance in taking Responsali for the Popes Chayre or Oracle wherin he defineth matters for direction of Christendome whereas the word signifieth only his MesseÌ„ger Nuntius or Legat there are diuers euident fraudes discouered as first that he doth interprete the Popes priuate letter or suggestion as S. Gregory calleth it which he sent to Theodore to be giuen to the Emperour by the words yealding of reasons publikly
which is far from S. Gregories meaning as presently shall appeare And secondly to make the sentence of S. Gregory more appliable to his fond purpose of interpreting it a Chayre or Oracle he chaÌ„geth dari into dare The words of S. Gregory be Nolâ— eam scilicet Epistolam vel suggestionâ—m à Responsali meâ— publicèdari quia vos qui ei familiariùs seruitis loquiei liberiùs apeâ—tiâ—â— pâ—â—â—stiâ— que pro eius sunt anima I will not haue my sayd â—â—â—â—er or suggestion to be giuen to the Emperour publikly by my Legate or Agent for that you who do serue him more familiarly may speake vnto him more freely and openly those things which be for his soule Which words being most plaine who but an ignorant man or most malicious would translate Responsali as from hiâ— Chayre and Oracle which cannot stand in the sight of euery child either with signification of Responsaliâ— or with the reason of S. Gregory here alleadged For what sense may it haue if S. Gregory should say to Theodore the Phisitian as M. Barlow feigneth him to say I haue not nor will not yield reasons publickely from my Chayre and Oracle and much lesse iâ—erdict by Breue for that you seruing him more familiarly may speake more boldly and openly But as I say the wilfull ignorance or malice is manifest for that he can neuer in his whole life shew vs in any one example where Responsalis is taken for the Popes Chayre or Oracle but for a Messenger Embassadour Nuntius Legate or Agent named otherwise Apoâ—rysiarius We could shew him a multitude of places out of S. Gregory him selfe if we would stand vpon it as namely in his 30. Epistle lib. 6. to Mauritius the Emperour talking of the Legates of Cyriacus Archbishop of CoÌ„stantinople he saith Responsales Fratris Consacerdotis mei Cyriaci benignè suscepi I benignly receaued the Legates or Messengers of my Brother and fellow Priest Cyriacus And agayne afterward in the same Epistle Responsales eius mecum feci Sacra Missarum solemnia celebrare I caused his Messengers to celebrate the holy solemnity of the Masses togeather with me Where I hope M. Barlow will not say that he receaued Bishop Cyriacuâ— his Chayre with benignity or that he made his Câ—aire and Oracle to say masse with him And the very same speach he vseth againe in the very next ensuing epistle to Eâ—logius Bishop of Alexandria and to Anastasius Bishop of Anâ—ioch And agayne in his epistle 38. to Iohn Archbishop of Constantinople Et antè per Râ—sponsales meâ—s nunc per communem filium meum Sabinianum Diaconum alloqui Fraâ—erniâ—â—tem vestram volui I resolued first to admonish your Brotherhood by other Messengers of myne and now by our coÌ„mon sonne Sabinianus the Deacon Many other such like exaÌ„ples might be alleaged which for breuity I pretermit doe take pitty of M. Barlow to see him erre so grossely as to imagine that Responsalis should signify a Popes Chayre or Oracle And so much of this VVHETHER COVNCELS HAVE SVBMITTED THEMSELVES VNTO CHRISTIAN EMPERORS in Spiâ—ituall affayres and namely that of Arles to Charles the Great CHAP. VI. AFTER the examination of the Authorities of Scriptures and Fathers alleaged by the Apologer for the prerogatiue of temporall Princes in matters of Religion there followeth also in â—he third place somewhat of Councells that seemed to submit themselues in tâ—eir Decrees about Religion vnto the iudgment and liking of Emperours which to the end the Reader may the better conceaue and â—ee the whole conflict betwene M. Baâ—low and me in this poynt wherin as in all the rest â—e seekâ—th to be obscure I shall set downe the whole speach â—sed in my former Letter thus then it was The last thing theÌ„ said I that iâ— cited without purpose by the Apologer are certayne Councels which arâ— said to haue submitted themselues to Emperours as that of Arles in France vnto Charles the Great their King for that in the last words of the said Councell the Bishops there gathered togeather presenting the same to the said Charles write thus Haec sub breuitate quae emendatione digna perspeximâ—s c. these thinges briefly which we haue seene worthy of reformation we haue noted and deemed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour beseeching his Clemency if any thing be wanting to supply it by his wisdome and if any thing be otherwise done then reason requireth it be amended by his iudgment and if any thing be reasonably censured it may be perfected by his help and by the clemency of Almighty God So the Councell And heerof would the Apologer inferre that this Councell of Bishops submitted it selfe to the Emperour But I would aske him wherin To take any Oath that the Emperour Charles should propose vnto them We see no Oath offered nor mentioned and so nothing here to our purpose Wherin then or why are they said to haue submitted themselues For that perhaps it is said in the Preface of the Councell that they were gathered togeather by order and coÌ„maundement of the said Emperour Surely it was hard that so many Bishops and Archbishops should be assembled togeather without his liking and Order But that the consent direction and chiefe Commission for the same came from the Bishop of Rome may easily be gathered for that in the first Councell that he caused to be celebrated in his Dominions which was that of VVormes in the yeare of Christ 770. it was left registred in these words Auctoritas Ecclesiastica atque Canonica dâ—cet non debere absque sententia Romani Pontiâ—icis Concilia celebrari Ecclesiasticall and Canonicall authority teacheth that Councels may not be held without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome And wher in theÌ„ Or why is this submission made For approbation of matters concerning faith No for that yow haue heard before out of S. Ambrose that therin Emperours are not iudges of Bishops but Bishops of Emperours Wherin then or why is this submission or rather râ—mission to the Emperour and his iudgment It was for that this Councell was made onely for reformation of manners and matters at the religious instance of the good Emperour the effectuating wherof did depend principally of his good will and assâ—â—tance and so after the first Canon where briefly is set downe the Confession oâ— the Christian faith all the other 25. Canons for there are only 26. in all are about reformation of matters amisse as for more diligence in daylie prayer for the Emperours person and his children to wit that Masses and â—etâ—â—ies be said daâ—lie for them by all Bishops Abbots Monks and Priests That Bishops and Priests study more diligently and teach the people both by lessons and preachings That lay men may not put out Priests of their benefice without the sentence of the Bishop nor that they take money of them for collation of the said benefices That none be admitted to enter into the
not see why she might not be called aswell supreme Head of the Church as supreme Gouernour And if it could not then is there some difference in the names for that according to the Protestant Bishops diuers of King Edwards dayes that made the forenamed Statute all spirituall power descended from the title of Headship which is here denied to descend from the Title of supreme Gouernour And this shal be sufficient for this place WHETHER THE DENYING Of taking this New Oath doe include the deniall of all the particuler clauses contayned therin §. II. IN the progresse of the Argument here handled about the refusall of this New Oath the Apologer affirmeth first as you haue heard that there was no one clause in the whole Oath that touched Religion but were all and meerly of Ciuill Obedience Secondly that a man could not refuse this Oath but he must refuse all euery one of the clauses therin contained The former point hath bene hâ—ndled in the precedent Chapter of the other we must speake now in this place â—â—d for more perspicuâ—ty we â—â—all set downe heere what I wrote before in my Epistle about the same which was this This later Oath said I albeit the Apologer sticketh â—ot to say that it toucheth not any part of the Popes Spiâ—ituall Supremacy yet in the very next period he contradicteth ouerthroweth himselfe therin For so much as deuiding the said Oath of Allegiance into 14. seuerall partes or parcels twelue of them at least do touch the said Supremacy one way or other as by examination yow will fynd and we shall haue occasion after to declare more at large As for example he writeth thus And that the Iniâ—stice saith he as well as the error of Bellarmine his grosse mistaking in this point may yet be more cleerly discouered I haue thought good to insert immediatly the contrary conclusions to all the poynts Articles wherof â—his other latter Oath doth consist wherby it may appeare what vnreasonable and rebellious poynts he would dryue his Maiesties Subiects vnto by refusing the whole body of that Oath as it is conceaued For he that shall refuse to tâ—ke this Oath must of necessity hold these propositions following First that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames is not the lâ—wfull King of this Kingdome and of all other his Maiesties Dominions Secondly that the Pope by his owne authority may depose c. But who doth not see what a simple fallacy this is which the Logicians do call à composito ad diuisa from denying of a compound to inferre the denyall of all the parcels therin conteyned As if some would say that Plato was a Man borne in Greece of an excellent wit skilfull in the Greeke language most excellent of all other Philosophers and would require this to be confirmed by an Oath some Platoâ—ist perhaps would be content to sweare it but if some Sâ—â—icke or Peripateticke or Professour of some other Sect in Philosophy should refuse the said Oath in respect of the lâ—st clause might a man infer against him in all the other clauses also Ergo he denyeâ—h Plato to be a Man He denieth him to be borne in Greece he denyeth him to be of an excellent wit he denyeth hiâ— to be skilfull in the Greekâ— tongue c. Were not this a bad kind of arguing So in like manner if an Arrian or Pelagian Princeâ— should exact an Oath at his subiects hands concerning diuers articles of Religion that were belieued by them bothâ— and in the end or middle therof should insert some clâ—â—ses sounding to the fauour of their owne sect for which the Subiect should refuse the whole body of that Oath as it was conceyued could the other in iustice accuse hiâ— for denying all the seuerall articles of his owne Religion also which therin are mentioned Who seeth not the iniustice of this manner of dealing And yet this is that which our Apologer vseth heere with Catholicks affirming in good earnest that he which refuseth the whole body of this Oath as it is conceyued in respect of some clauses therof that stand against his Conscience about matters of Religion refuseth consequently euery poynt and parcell therof and must of necessity hold in the first place that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames is not the lawfull King of this Kingdome and of all other his Maiesties Dominions The contrary wherof all Catholicks do both confesse and professe consequently it is a meere calumniation that they deny this This much was written about the matter Let vs consider what is brought by M. Barlow against the same And first concerning the contradiction obiected to the Apologer in that he sayd that the Oath touched not any point of the Popes Supremacy and yet he deuiding the said Oath into foureteene points diuers of them are euidently seene to be agaynst the same M. Barlow after a great deale of fumbling and shuffling of things togeather as desirous to say somewhat thougâ— with such obscurity as that I dare auoâ—ch any ordinary Reader can hardly vnderstand him I find him to say no more in effect but that these clauses excepted against in the Oath do concerne the Popes temporall authoritie not his spirituall Supremacy but that is nothing For as it hath bene often sayd this extraordinary temporall auâ—â—ority to be vsed in some cases belonging to the censurâ—â—g of temporall Princes when other remedy is not fouÌ„d â—s it proceedeth from the Popes spirituall charge and is giuen for the conseruation of the spirituall so consequently can it not be denyed or impugned without preiudice â—â—d impeachment of the sayd spirituall Supremacy it selfe and consequently for so much as in the Oath it is â—â—idently by sundry clauses impugned it must needs follow that the Popes spirituall Supremacy is also impugâ—ed which no man can deny but that it appertaineth to the integrity of Catholike Religion which is contrary to that which M. Barlow saith Thâ—â— only and meerly ciuill obeâ—â—â—â—ce is exacted in this Oath To the Sophisticall fallacy obiected by me of arguing à câ—â—posito ad diuisa that whosoeuer denieth this coÌ„pound 〈◊〉 must needs deny all and euery part parcell therofâ— and to the two examples by me alleadged against the â—â—â—e one of a Philosopher describing Plato the other of 〈◊〉 Arian Prince propounding an oath with many lawfull clauses and one only vnlawfull tending to the setting â—â—â—th of his owne heresie for that they are euident in coÌ„â—on sense and do presse M. Barlow to the quicke he findeth himself in very great straits and to the first he preâ—ermitteth to answer at all seeking to couer himself with a ridiculous calumniation against me for naming a Philosopher He girds sayth he at his Maiestie for beiâ—â—â— Philoâ—â—â—her which is his Maiestâ—â—s great glory our Realmes happinesâ— for true Philosophy ioyned to gouernment regulats the scepter to his subiects câ—â—fort and to the Kingdomes renowne By which words you may see how vigilant
it hath bene sufficiently proued against Syr Francis Hâ—stingâ— that ignorant Knight who following M. Iewell obiected it as spoken once by Doctour Cole meaning if he spake it that some simple people are more deuout then greater learned but that ignorance should be a mother or necessary bringer forth of deuotion was neuer affirmed by any position of Catholikes and was proued to be very false in Syr Francis owne person who shewed himselfe to be very ignorant and yet nothing deuout And the same in due measure and proportion may be verified in M. Barlow if he deny it let vs part our proofes I haue shewed his ignorance in alleaging this Canon that maketh nothing for him let him proue his deuotion From the 24. Canon he steppeth forward againe to the 46. Wherin he saith is decreed that the Clergies immâ—nitie from ciuill molestations and troubles is from the King and by his CoÌ„maund and authority And what maketh this against vs or for the Protestants Why is not this practised at this time in EnglaÌ„d that all Clergie men be free ab omnipublica indictione atque labore â—t lilâ—ri sâ—ruiant Deo sayth the same Canon from all publike taxes labour to the end they may attend to seâ—ue God more freely Is the vse of this Canon more amongst Catholikes or Protestants and if more amongst Catholikes and nothing at all amongst Protestants especially in England what wisdome was this of M. Barlow to bâ—ing it in as a point decreed by the Councel conforme to their doctrine and practice But saith he this immunity came from King Sisenandus his order and commandement True it is that he as a good Catholike Prince was very forward therin yet the Decree was the Councels and therfore it is sayd in the Canon id decreuit Sanctum Concilium the holy Councell decreed it Neither do we teach that this immunity or freedome of the Clergy from secular burthens is without the consent concurrence of Christian Princes proceeding out of their piety and deuotion towards the Church to fauour further that which was esteemed by the Church needfull to Gods seruice conforme to Gods diuine Law both written impressed by nature So as this immunity of Clergy men was brought in both by Diuine and Humane Law as largly learnedly doth proue Cardinall Bellarmine in two seuerall Chapters of his Booke de Clericis to whom as to his Maister I send M. Barlow to Schoole though much against his will where also he will learne that long before this fact of King Sisenandus other Christian Emperours and Kings had consented to these immunities of Clergy men and confirmed the same by their temporall lawes decrees which piety King Sisenandus did follow and imitate in Spaine And would God he would inspire his Maiesty to do the same in England But what helpeth this M. Barlowes cause Truly euen as much as the rest Let vs see if you please what is his fourth Canon which he cyteth for his proof of the CouÌ„cels agreement with Protestants He leapeth then lastly to the 75. Canon which is one more then is in the booke for there be but 74. but this is a small fault in respect of that which presently ensueth His words are these Lastly that all the decrees and Canons of that Councell were confirmed by the Clergy annuente religiosissimo Principe after the Kings royll assent had vnto them and that set downe Can. 75. But first of all if the thing did stand in the Councell as heere it is set downe that the Princes consent and confirmation had bene demaunded to all the Decrees and Canons as M. Barlow sayth yet the words being but annuente Principâ— the Prince consenting therunto I do not see how it can be truly translated as it is by M. Barlow after the Kings Royall assent had vnto them which are the vsuall words whereby Parlament Statutes are confirmed wherein the King as truly supreme head hath chiefe authority to allow or reiect which I doubt not but that King SisenaÌ„duâ— toke not vpon him in this Councell of Toledo nay if the place be rightly examined which is in the very last lynes of the sayd Councell it wil be found that the said consent of the Prince was not about the decrees of the Councell but about the subscribing of all the Bishops names vnto the sayd Councell For they hauing ended all and made a large prayer for the prosperity of the said King and all said Amen it is added lastly Definitis itaque â—is qua superiùs comprehensa sunt annuente religiosissâ—mo Pâ—incipâ— â—lacâ—it dâ—inde c. Et quia prosâ—ctilus Ecclesiae anima nostra conâ—â—niâ—nt iam propria subscriptione vt permaneant roboramus Wherâ—fore hauing defined these things that before are comprehended it seemed good also by the consent of our most Religious Prince that forsomuch as these things that are decreed are profitable for the Church and for our soules we do strengthen them also by our owne subscriptions to the end they may remayne I Isidorus in the name of Christ Metropolitan Bishop of the Church of Siuill hauing decreed these things do subscribe c. And so did all the other Bishops by name Heere then I see not what M. Barlow can gayne by alleaging this Canon For if this allowance of King Sisenaâ—dus be referred to the Bishops subscriptions as it seemeth by that it coÌ„meth after the mention of the made decrees or if it were in generall allowance of the whole Councâ—ll by way of yielding to the execution therof as M. Barlows doctrine â—lse where is it maketh nothing against vs at all For we grant this consent to all Princes whithin their owne Kingdomes therby to haue their assistance for execution especially for such points as interesse or touch the politicall state or CoÌ„mon-Wealth There remaineth then to examine a little the first allegation out of the 43. Canon where he sayth that Priests marriage is allowed in this Canon so it be with the coÌ„sâ—nt of the Bishops Wherin two egregious frauds are discouered so manifestly as he could not but know when he wrote them that they were such The first is for that he translateth Presbyteri for Clerici peruersly thereby turning Clarks into Priests knowing well inough what he did for that he must needs see the difference in the very Canon as presently we shall shew The second fraud is that he knowing that this CouÌ„cell did vtterly disallow the marriage of Priests yet he shamed not to affirme the quite contrary We shall say a word of the one and the other For the first he alleageth as you haue heard the 43. CanoÌ„ whose words are Clerici qui sine consultu Episcopi sui duâ—â—int c. Clarks that without the consultation of their Bishop shall marry wiues c. must be separated from the Clergie by their proper Bishop Which word Cleriâ—i M. Barlow translateth Priests notwithstanding he knoweth iâ— iâ— not
we do testyfie before Godâ— and all the orders of Angells as alsoâ— before the quire of holy Prophets and Apostles and of all Martyrs and before the whole Catholike Church and congregation of Christians that no man intend the destruction of the King that no man attempt any thing against the life of the Prince that no man depriue him of the gouernment of the Kingdome that no man by TyraÌ„nicall presumption vsurpe vnto himself the height of his Kingdome that no man by any machination in his aduersytie do associate vnto him the assistance of Conspirators and if any man shall presume to attempt any of these thinges let him be stroken with our Curse and be condemned to euerlasting iudgment without any hope of remedy Here now M. Barlow tryumpheth and sayth that this is a forme of an oath prescribed and therfore I haue lost my credit that denied the same in the 4. Councel Whereto first I answere that this is rather a protestation of the Councel a commination or threatning to others as appeareth by the punishment appointed theÌ„ any forme of an oath either taken by themselues or prescrybed to others And secondly I say that this is so far different from the forme of our new oath of Allegiance now exacted as nothing can be more which euery man will see by comparing them togeather for I hope M. Barlow will not allow the inuocation of Angells Prophetts Apostles Martyrs called for witnesses as heere is vsed and so the formes are nothing like nor is this an Oath made to the King But let vs see somewhat more of this matter He alleageth my exception that the Oath in the Councell confirmed was an Oath of ciuill Allegiance only which neither the Catholikes refuse now Pope Paulus doth prohibite Against which he maketh a long idle discourse that the same thinges are contayned in the one and the other Oath as the safety of the King the preseruation of his life and Crowne and the like Which though in some part it be acknowledged to be true and in this we haue no difficulty to agree with him yet is not this only sought in the new Oath but the deniall also of the Popes authority Or if M. Barlow will contend that this of the Princes safety is only sought we answere that at least it is not sought by good and lawfull meanes but by such as the Councel of Toledo would neuer haue yielded vnto if their King Sisâ—â—dus should haue demanded them such an Oath with such and so many exceptions against the Popes authoritie wherof in that Oath M. Barlow shal not find one although he search and sist it neuer so narrowly and therfore all that hitherto he hath said is nothing to the purpose There remayneth then only the last clause to be examined whether the said Councell of Toledo did prouide euen for the particuler point of Equiuocation as the Apolâ—gâ—â— said I in my answere denied that there was any mention of Equiuocation in that Councel but only a reprehension of lying and perâ—idious dealing which M. Barloâ— comming now to treate confesseth that there is no mention indeed therof but that lying and Equiuocating is all one which is to rayse vp agayne an old contention that passed betweene M. Morton and me wherein I presume to haue made so euident demonstration that lying and Amphilology or doubtfull speach by others called Equiuocation are far different thinges and cannot stand togeather and much lesse are all one as no man though â—f very meane capacity can but see the same though malice doth not suffer M. Barlow to confesse it To which effect I haue alleaged many proofes out of the nature and definition both of the one and the other many examples out of the holy Scriptures out of the old new Testament the authority of sundry ancient Fathers the practice of many Saints the consent of Schoolmen and other like proofes which M. Barlow hauing read and wel pondered should haue confuted or at least some of theÌ„ in this place before he had cast him selfe anew into M. Mortons absurdities by affirming againe with him that mendaâ—iâ—â— and Amphibologia lying and Equiuocating is all one But he doth not only this but he runneth also to find out certayne Synonima of different soundes of the same sense in the North and South of England as for example Takers in the North doe signify theeues in the Soâ—th 〈◊〉 vsed women in the North are called whâ—res as he saith in the south fit examples for his inuention But all is impertinent for we do not hould that mendacium Equiâ—ocatio are Syâ—â—â—iâ—a but quite different things For a lye as largly hath bin hanâ—ed against M. Morton is when any false thing is vttered contrary to the knowledge of the vtterer but he that doth Equiuocate doth alwayes speake truth in his owne sense and meaning though the hearer doe conceaue another meaning for that the speaker reserued somewhat in his minde which he vttereth not this thing is so ordinary euident in the speaches both of the ancyent Prophets and Apostles and of Christ our Sauiour himselfe as M. Barlow and M. Morton laying their heads togeather will neuer be able to answere the multitude of examples by me alleadged in that behalfe which appeareth sufficiently both by that M. Morton in his late Reply pretermitted them all and durst not as much as take them in hand to answer and the like doth M. Barlow heere but only that this later as more temerarious runneth into other absurdities shewing indeed not to vnderstand well the state of the question or nature of the thing it selfe For thus he describeth Equiuocation lying VVhen a man saith he speaketh any thing contrary to that he thinketh in his mind Equiuocare est say the Iesuits mentiri est sayth the M. of Sentences Wheras notwithstanding euery learned man knoweth that both the Iesuits and others that write of this matter do agree with the M. of SeÌ„tences in this point For whosoeuer speaketh coÌ„trary to that which in his mind he thinketh it is a lye no EquiuocatioÌ„ for he that doth Equiuocate must alwayes haue a true sense in his owne meaning which he cannot haue who doth speake contrary to that which in his mind he thinketh Then goeth he forward in his declaration saying The principall difference which they make is in their purpose for that they do it not with an intent to deceaue but only to defend themselues and then as though this supposed ground were true he goeth forward to shew vpon the same that a good intention is not sufficient to iustifie the doing of that which is euill but this principall difference seemeth to be a principall ignorance in M. Barlow shewing that he doth not vnderstand indeed wherin we do put the principall difference betweene lying and equiuocating which is not in the purpose and intention of the speaker as he sayth but partly in
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
alone hath done both the one and other in this example God send him grace to see repent amend his errour And so much for Fredericke the second I will now end this matter with this aduertisement to the Reader that whereas M. Barlow others of his profession vse to serue themselues much out of the writinges of Matthew Paris Cuspinian Peter de Vineiâ— the truth is that no one of them deserueth so much credit as our Aduersaries would faine force vpon them For the first hath many fables contradictions railinges and dogmaticall assertions which little beseeme a religious spirit or true Catholike which at least he was knowen to be and therfore as well this Matthew as the other being set out by Heretikes and printed at London by order as I haue bene informed from the SuperintendeÌ„t of Canterbury that then was and no other ancient copie being extant that I can heare of that might be conferred with this in print it is very likely that many thinges which are now vrged against vs are not the wordes of Matthew Paris the Monke but of Matthew Parker of Canterbury and he who shal but reade Harpsfields History examine the places which he bringeth or things which on their authority he auoucheth shall soone see that his Matthewes spake otherwayes then these who in many thinges are made to write like good Protestants although hitherto nothing hath bene alleadged out of them by M. Barlow in this matter which I haue not fully answered Iohn Cuspinian as he is a late writer so is he of little credit especially for his bookes of History of the Emperours which himselfe neuer set forth but as Gerbelius writeth morte praeuentus inemendatos ob scriptoris inscitiam soedissimis erâ—oribus deprauatos reliquit being preuented by death he left his bookes of history vncorrected and through ignorance of the writer corrupted with most filthy errors So he By profession Cuspinian was a Phisitian knew perhaps how to frame his potions according to the complexion of the receauers and therfore this Frederick being desceÌ„ded as some thinke or at least by marirage neerly allied to the House of Austria he thought by making the most of him to gratify both Maximilian his maister and yong Charles the fifth of the same family yet seeing he neuer set forth this booke but left it imperfect vncorrected full of errors c. that afterwards it was first published by Nicolas Gerbelius a ProtestaÌ„t-brother of Strasburge as may be presumed who printed it in the yeare 1540. we may well thinke that it was sauced by the setter forth according to the new Ghospell and good appetite of them of his owne profession And as for Petrus de Vineis besides the iust exception of partialitie which I tooke against him in my Letter and that which I haue already answered vnto M. Barlowes Reply therunto I shall not need to adioyne any more Wherfore I will only content my self with two censures which I find in two Authors of him to wit in S. Antoninus an Italian and Tritemius a German The first noteth him in these words Iusto Dei iudicio factum videtur c. The death of Petrus de Vineis seemeth to haue byn procured by the iust iudgment of God that because he had done many things to please the Emperour against the Church in fauour and excuse of him by him he was condemned for whome he had offended both God and the Church So he And Tritemius thus writeth of him Petrus de Vineis c. Peter de Vineis by nation a German Secretary Counsellour of the Emperour Fredericke the second was a learned and eloquent man but in this very faulty that adhering to Frederick he did in fauour of him barke like a foole stolidus latrauit against the Roman Church by whome he was worthily rewarded for hauing in some things offended him he had his eyes pulled out c. So he And in his Catalogue of Worthy men to the like câ—nsure he addeth this clause Hoc praemium eorum c. This is the reward of theÌ„ who do serue the humors of Princes against the obedience of the Roman Sea and Vicar of Christ and like wretches fall headlong into hell except they repent c. Which aduertisment being giuen by so graue an Author before these controuersies were raised by Luther I wish M. Barlow and all other in authority and credit with Princes as Petrus de Vineis was seriously to ponder OF THE EMPEROVR Fredericke the first whose picture was said to haue bene sent to the Soldan by Pope Alexander the third And of the charge of Alexander the sixt touching the death of Zizimus or Gemen M. Barlows innocent Turke §. III. METHOD and rules of learning require that euery thing be put downe in his due place and order and therfore me thinks that Fredericke the first should by all reason haue bene mentioned before the second Fredericke his successour especially seeing that there is another obiection made a litle before out of this very Emperour and Pope wherunto this might well haue bene annexed had it not bene that the margent of the Apology was to be filled with citations and the text with variety of examples to make Popes more odious But the transposition weâ—e pardonable if the thing auouched were true and the Reader not abused by these forged calumniations who through the heat and heape of many words is made to conceaue that M. Barlow sayth much to the purpose and with great sincerity wheras all he hath is nothing else but vaine Thrasonicall ostentation impudent lying that which alwaies accoÌ„panieth the loose liberty of a licentious tongue exorbitant rayling against all sorts and degrees of men whatsoeuer And this as it hath bene euery where already shewed so shall it be more in this and the other ensuing Chapters though with much more breuity then the former least both this Chapter and the whole booke be drawne forth to greater prolixity and length then I haue purposed with myselfe that it should be which only reason hath made me in other places to leaue more aduantages then I might haue taken against M. Barlow albeit I haue taken more then I thinke will stand with his credit or honesty if yet he haue any part or parcell of the one or the other left him But let vs heare him speake if he can without lying which here I assure you he will not but begin with a round one at the very first entrance For thus he sayth Another instance saith he obiected â—y his Maiesty which pincheth their holy Father to the quicke is of that Pope who when Emperour Fredericke was in the Holy-Land â—ighting in Christs quarrell â—earing that his returne would be some annoyance to the Romish Sea betraied him to the Soldan to whome he directs his priuate letters and with them also sent the Emperours picture in case the Soldan should mistake his
must not be like in all but only in the point wherein the comparison is made how will he ouerturne Cardinall Bellarmines comparison betwene the banner of Iulian and the Oath of England His point of comparison was this that as Iulian did set forth in his banner and combine togeather the images as well of the Emperour as of the false Gods seeking to temper and mollify the one by the other to wit by bowing to and honouring the Emperours image which then was held for lawfull to bow also or seeme to bow at leastwise to the other which was not lawfull so in the Oath are combined togeather different clauses some of temporall obedience which are lawfull some othâ—r detractory to the Popes authority which are held by Catholicks for vnlawfull Do you see M. Barlow wherein the comparison is made Then stand to me closely I pray you and let vs examine this maâ—ter without running from the purpose What say you to the former answer made to wit that Iuliâ—n was an Apostata but our Soueraigne is a Christian Iulian changed his religion but our King not he became an Ethnicke but our King is not ashamed of his profession and other such like differences Are these the poyntes wherein Cardinall Bellarmine made his comparison or noe If not then are you from the purpose But what say you now in this your last Reply after mature deliberation You will not I trust fall to the same absurdity of seeking dissimilitudes that are from the point of the comparison it self And yet you must needes do it for so much as you will needs say somewhat and haue nothing to say against the sayd poynt of comparison First then your reply is this that the resemblance betwene the banner and the Oath brought fortâ— by the Cardinall was produced by him for no other purpose but for the mixture of diuersities both in the one and the other VVherin say you the Cardinall hath manifested more malice then iudgement For euen in that very point this similitude as taken with the crampe halâ—s right downe because in the Imperiall pictures though there were different â—eatures yet they all concurred to one end and for the same intent that is for adoration though to the one more openly to the other more couertly c. But in the Oath it is taken cleane contrary which is so far from being a mixture of Allegiance that it separates all acknowledgment oâ— any temporall right or right of any temporall acknowledgment from Pope or any other else but to his Maiestie alone within his Realmes Thus far are the words of M. Barlow who being well as you haue seene towards the end intangleth himself and runneth quite from the purpose He acknowledgeth in the beginning that the comparison of Card. Bellarmine is only to shew the mixtures as of the Images in the banner the one lawfull the other vnlawfull so of the clauses in the Oath the one lawfull the other vnlawfull but presently he steppeth aside to put a difference betwixt the mixt adoration of the one and the mixture of Allegiance in the other wherin Card. Bellarmine made not his comparison no more then betwene the banner it selfe and the Oath or betweene the silke cloath wherein the pictures were painted or the booke or paper wherin the Oath was written or in any other such like differences as might be pickt out wherof this also is one very impertinent to the matter that the banner did tend to a mixt adoration but not the Oath to a mixt allegiance of which mixt allegiance Card. Bellarmine neuer spake word but only that as the mixture of these Images was deuised to deceaue the Christians at that tyme so the mixture of different clauses some conteyning ciuill obedience some ecclesiasticall disobedience the one lawâ—ull the other vnlawfull was deuised to intangle the consciences of the Catholikes And so we see that M. Barlow is forced to run to the same shift that before he condeÌ„ned which is to seek out diuersities in points wherin no comparisoÌ„ was made The second example which is reprehended in Cardinall Bellarmines letter is out of the second booke of Machabees of old Eleazar that venerable man who rather chose to die then to do a thing vnlawfull and against his owne conscience or to seeme to doe it by dissimulation Which example the Cardinall applieth said I to the taking of this vnlawful Oath by such as are Catholikes but especially by the Arch priest Head of the Clergy in England whose case he presumed to be more like to that of Eleazar for his age estimation and authority aboue the rest To which example the Apologer answereth thus That if the Archpriests ground of refusing this Oath were as good as Eleazars was for refusing to eate of the swines-flesh that was proposed vrged vnto him it might not vnfitly be applyed to his purpose But the ground fayling sayth he the buylding cannot stand But this is an escape much like the former that runneth quite from the matter for that the Cardinall supposeth a Catholike conscience in him to whom he writeth to which conscience it is as repugnant to sweare any thing sounding against any poynt of Catholike religion or doctrine as it was to Eleazar to eate swines fleshâ— against the law of Moyses Which supposition being made and that in the Cardinals iudgment this Oath contayneth diuers clauses preiudiciall to some pointes of the said Catholike beliefe and doctrine concerning the authority of the Sea Apostolicke and that the taking therof would not only be hurtfull to the taker but offensiue also and scandalous to many othâ—r of that religion both at home and abroad the application of this example of Eleazar was most fit effectuall This was answered at that tyme. Now M. Barlow commeth with new deuises First he calleth this example aprochryphall for that it is taken out of the second booke of Machabees but Catholicks do hould it for Canonicall and so do the ancient Fathers and so was it declared by a holy Councell aboue 1200. yeares agoe wherein S. Augustine himself sate as one of the Iudges But whether it were or no that maketh nothing to our present purpose but only whether the example be well applied or no. Secondly that eating of swines-flesh refused by Eleazar was forbidden by the law of God but this swearing saith he is warranted by Scripture Wherto I answere that swearing in it owne nature and with due circumstances of truth iudgment and iustice is warranted when true and iust things are sworne but euery Oath in particuler is not warranted by Scripture and namely if it containe any thing that eyther in it self or in the swearers iudgment and conscience is not true or lawfull And such is this Oath to Catholiks in both respectes and therefore not warranted but condemned by Scripture Thirdly he sayth when I am at a stand and can go no further I do wind my self out by ruÌ„ning to the common
Câ—priaÌ„â— iudgment of suâ—h as dye out oâ— the Church 〈◊〉 l 4 〈…〉 17. Auâ—ust 〈◊〉 2â— 4. ad Donatâ— A notable sentence of S. Augustine A â—ard câ—sure against all the â—abble of Iâ—â—n Fox his Martyrs A coâ—uincing argument vpoÌ„ thâ— Premiâ—â—s The hard â—ase of Q. â—lizabeth A remarkable coÌ„parison Q. Elizabeth held condemned heresies Haeresi 53. Aug. l. 9. coÌ„fâ—â—â— c. 13. S. Monica desired to be prayed for at the altar after her death which Q. Elizabeth did not Lett. p. 36. See Answere to Syr Edw. Cook c. 15. His Maiesties mild dispositioÌ„ diuerted The exercise of the Minister T. Montague Barl. pag. 102. Maliciouâ— contradiction Barl. pag. 103. M. Barlow a true parasite Barl. pagâ— 102. About the nature of flattery how Syâ— William demeaneth himselfe therin Augu. in 〈◊〉 69. M. Barlow an egregious flatterer M. Barlows praiers without hope Luc. 10. 21. Flattering of his Maiesty Barl p. 105. Syr VVilliâ—m deserues his fee. About the little Vniuersity These were an other maÌ„ner of Vniuersity Act. â—â— S. Athanâ—sius Epist. ad solitariâ—m vitam ageÌ„tes S. Gregor Nazian S. Ambrose Nazian orat ad â—iues timore perculsos Ambros. epist. 33. ad sororem S. Chrysostome S. Hierome S. Augâ—stine S. Gregory M. Barlows diuision of SycophaÌ„cy Mâ—râ—cles â—â—â—dâ—d and câ—ntemned M. Barl. a good proctor for the Turkes Infidels The myracles of S. Denys The myracle of S. Clement M Barl. turnes an anchor into a milstone Of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus M. Barlows fooleries Sixtus Quartus bâ—lyed Barl. pag. â—08â— Base babling Chelsey erection for writers Barâ— pag. 112. M. Barlow addeth to the text A most resonable and modest request of the Cath. Simple impertinent reasoning of M. Barlow Let. p. 38. In vita 〈◊〉 â—unâ—i Anno 1â—46 Liberty of conscience demanded by al Protestants â— Psal. 113. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Height of pride and in whome it may be said to be Barl. pag. 110. Strange notes of hâ—mility set downe bâ— M. Barlâ—w M. Barlow betrayeth his owne cause Barl. ibideÌ„ The Protestant hath Ecclesiastical power ouer Puritans 1. Ioan. 2. In what case Catholicks may yeld and grant toleration to Protestants Matth. 13. M. Barlow at a Non-plus Vnkind dealing indeed Barl. pag. 124. M. Barlowâ— moderate dirâ—ct Protâ—â—tâ—nt M. Barlow belyeth F. Persons Psal. 5â— Barl. pag. 142. StraÌ„ge impudency Basenesse and beggery of ProtestaÌ„ts Theol. Tigurin in prafat Apol prafix orthodox Câ—n. anno 1578. Lib. 2. de rat ineundâ— Concordiae p. 2. 24. ProtestaÌ„ts and Puritans differ in substaÌ„tial points of religioÌ„ Rogers prâ—fâ—â—e pag. 9. Arrige aures Syr William M. Barlow a bad Aduocate M. Barlow in the brakes Amb. ep 33. Baâ—l pag. â—69 A hard argument for M. Barlow to solue Silly stuffe M. Barlows liâ—le care of his Maiestieâ— eternall life Good euill Princes to be obeyed for conscieÌ„ce but not against coscience Barlow pag. 160. M. Barlow hath the coÌ„science of an Asse a Wolfe A strange wicked assertioÌ„ of M. Barlow 1. 2. q. 19. art 5. The goodnes of the act of our will doth depeÌ„d vpon our reason and iudgment A sinne to doe coÌ„trary to an erroneous coÌ„science What iâ— to be â—one of him who haâ—h an erroneoâ—â— coÌ„science â— Tim. 1. M. Barlowes moÌ„strous doctrines more fitting the Turkes Alcoran then the Ghospell of Iesus Christ. S. Paul abused More coÌ„teâ—ned in the Oath then ciuill obedieÌ„ce Let. p. 51. Apol. pag. 22. Hiâ—r 27. 12. Exod. 5.1 Esdr. 1.3 Dan. 3.12 No obedience against God a mans conscieÌ„ce Deu. 1. 〈◊〉 1. â— Mach. 1. Barl. pag. 161. A strange assertion Weake proofes A simple Discourse Barl. pag. 168. The fact of Toby against the coÌ„mandement of K. Senacherib Tob. 2. v. 9. Tob. 12. M. Barlow a bad Angell The credit of the history of Toby Câ—c Triâ— sess 4. Carth. can 47. Aug. 2. de doc chrism cap. 8. Amb. de Tob. 2. Cyp. de orat Dominica l. de mortaliâ— S. Augustines and other Fathers iudgments of the fact of Toby Cap. 3. Cap. 13. S. Ambr. â—ib de Tob. c. 1. Tob. 12. Cyp. lib. dâ— oratione Dom. This is no ProtestaÌ„t doctrine A great presumptioÌ„ of M. Barlowes piety Letter pag. 52. Authorities of ancient Fathers Apol. p. 23. â— Aug. in Psal. 124. How far we are bound to obey our temporall Prince Apol. p. 23. Tertull. ad Scap. Iust. Apol. 2. ad Anton Imperaâ— Optat. contra ParmeÌ„ lib. 3. Ambros Orat. coÌ„tra Auxent de Basilicis noÌ„ trad lib. 5. Epist. Three occasions in which S. Ambrose resisted the Emperour his temporall Soueraigne Libellus Ambros. epist. 32. Amb. l. â— epist. 33. Amb. ibid. Ambros. Conâ— de Basiliâ—â—s noÌ„ tradenâ—â—â—s M. Barlowes shifting answere to the three places of S. Ambrose Feminine Supremacy more esteemed of M. Barlow then Masculine Barlow pag. 171. Magdeb. cent 4. c. 5. 6. 7. The ancient vse of hallowing Church Vessels Naz. orat de sâ—ipso coÌ„tra Arianos M. Barlows declining in the point of Supremacy Stat. H. 8. anno Domini 1535. The supremacy how it was giuen to Kâ— Henry in what high measure K. Edwarâ— An 1 E 6. cap. 2. Queene Elizabeth M. Barlows iudgment about the Kings supreme Ecclesiastical authority M. Barlows fumbling M. Barlows absurde distinctions diuisions M. Barlows delusion M. Barlow hath marred the market of the Kings supremacy Lett. p. 56. Apolog. pag. 24. How S. Gregory agreed to the publishing of the law of the Emperour â—auritius Greg. l. 2. Epist. 65. Indict 11. Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 1â— Indict 1. Barl. pag. 173. Mauritius his law noâ— altogeather Ecclesiasticall How the Emperors Law vvas Ecclesiasticall A good consideration A fond cauill Pag. 174. Barl. pag. 174. A ridiculous error in GraÌ„mar of M. Barlow Letter pag. â—8 CoÌ„c Arel sub Carol. Can. 26. Viâ—e in Capitularibus Franc. lib. 6. c. 285. de Concilio Wormaâ— Wherin the CouÌ„cell or Arles did submit it selfe to the Emperour a Can. 2. b Can. 3. c Can. 4. d Can. 7. 8. e Can. 13â— f Can. 15. 16. g Can. 20. 22. 23. The zeale of Charlâ— the Great to haue manners reformed by the authority of Bishops Barlow pag. 175. A grosse contradictiâ— in M. Barlow A very forcible argumeÌ„t M. Barlows memory very short M. Barlow plaieth fast loose about the Kings authority A hard question for M. Barlow to answere Barl. pag. 178. False dealing Amb. toÌ„ 5. edit Vatican epist. prâ—fix anâ—e Conâ—il Aquileâ—eÌ„ About the of CouÌ„cel Wormes â—â—oÌ„ ann 77â— 772. 〈◊〉 Fâ—aÌ„c â— 6. c. 28â— â—â— l 7. c. 2â—â— Better to be a fugitiue for the Catholick religion on abroad then to be a persecutour at home Generall Councels â—lwaies called by the Bishop of Rome Barl. pag. 178. The radiant folly of M. Barlow M Barâ—owes impudency Baâ—on tom 9. ann 774. Aâ—oâ— p. 26. â—7 Lett. p. 61. Neither the Pope or Church can make new Articles of Faith Barlow pag. 181. A foolish wrangling of M.