being in the iudiciall part then is there required power in the will or appetite to choose or refuse freely without ballancing on eyther part eyther by feare hurt preferment hatred interest or other potent and forcible impositions By which doctrine if you ponder well you shall find that Catholikes had not free choice to sweare the Oâ—th when losse of goods and lands do ballance on one side nor you perhaps M. Barlow may be said to haue free power or liberty to refuse it for so much as the current of the time the Princes fauour the weight of so fat a benefice as the Bishoprick of Lincolne is and other crummes that you haue gathered togeather and hope to increase do so powerâ—ully preponderate on the one side that you haue your iudgment so fast fixed to that obiect as the sheepe by nature hath hers And if you haue not this tye or indetermination in your iudgement yet in your will and affection which is sufficient to make you no free-man from which thraldome Almighty God deliuer you who onely can do it and breake your bandes For as our Sauiour saith If the sonne of God deliuer you then shall you be truly free indeed And so much of this matter concerning our freedome to sweare or not to sweare wherin I haue detayned my self some what longer then I had purposed for that it is the most principall question of this our controâ—â—â—sy whether there be free election giuen in taking the Oath or nâ— ABOVT RECOVRSE MADE to the Bishop of Rome for decision whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English Catholiks or no wherin also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations §. VI. AND now hauing followed M. Barlow thus farre in this controuersy we must turne back againe some pages to take the whole argument with vs which he had ouerrunne to handle the question of freedome before meÌ„tioned And first he telleth vs that when the Oath came forth and was vrged the Garnettistes did differ from the Blackâ—eâ—iâ—tes some aâ—â—owing Equiuocation saith he in matters of â—aith and others noâ— which is a notorious vntruth For the question was not whether the Oath might be taken with Equiuocation but whether it might lawfully be takeÌ„ as it lay with a good exposition wherin some difference being found of opinionâ— it seemed a iust cause to referre the decision to the vniuersall Pastour about which point M. Barlow dealeth not vprightly as commonly neuer he doth in alleaging my words but with notorious corruptions I shal be forced to repeat againe briefly what I then said My wordes were these What should Catholikes do they first consulted the case with learned a men at home then also abroad And albeit at home some were moued in respect of the compassion they had of the present perill if it were refused 〈◊〉 thinke that in some sense the Oath might be taken yet none abroad were of that mind For that they allowed 〈◊〉 of any sort of Equiuocation in matters touching faith and religion And in these I hearesay that the Iesuites were among the chiefe and most forward as heere also is confessed who notwithstanding before were most accused bayted and exagitated both in bookes pulpits and tribunalls for allowing in some points the lawfull vse of Equiuocation About which doubt Catholikes according to their rule of subordination and spirituall obedience in such affaires referring the matter to the iudgement and consultation of their supreme Pastour whome by the principles of their religion they belieue that our Sauiour giueth assistance for the direction of mens soules they receyued from him after due deliberation this answere That the whole Oath as it lay could not be admitted with the integrity of Catholike faith For that albeit diuers parts therof were lawfull to wit all such clauses as appertayned to the promise of ciuil and temporall obedience yet other things being interlaced and mixt therwith which doe detract from the spirituall authority of their said highest Pastour at least wise indirectly the whole Oath as it lyeth was made thereby vnlawfull And this I vnderstand to be the substance of the Popes resolution and answer though all these particularities be not set downe in his Breues but only the Oath declared to be vnlawfull in conscience to Catholike men as it lieth without distinction And what malicious tricke of the Diuel then this may be thought where sheepe do make recourse to their spirituall Pastour in so great and important occasions of their soules as these are I see not Doe English Catholicks any other thing in this then that which all English subiects both great small learned vnlearned haue done and practised from our first Christian Kinges â—ntill the tiâ—e of King Henry the eight vpon the point of a 〈◊〉 and yeares Let tâ—e answere to Syr Edward Cooks Book oâ— Reportes lately set forth be examined wether it doth not shâ—w that in all those ages recourse was euer made to the Sea Apostolicke in like occasions without preiudice of subâ—ects temporall duties to their temporall Princes No one English Christian King though they were many did euer aâ—solutely deny recourse to Rome in spirituall thinges notwithstanding in some other ciuill or mixt matters vpon different occasions some restraints were sometimes made froÌ„ our first King Ethelbert to King Henry the Eight as by the said discourse and answere is euidently proued and much more throughout the whole â—anke of the Christian Kings of Scotland his Maiesties Progenitours vntill his most Renowned Progenitrix by whome and from whom he hath his Royall Right of both Crownes who is knowne and reputed throughout Christendome to haue died for defence of this Catholike Doctrine For so much as if she would haue abandoned that there had bene little doubt of making her away And the like may be said of all other great Christian Catholicke Princes of our daies as the Emperour himselfe the Potent Kinges and Monarches of Spaine France Polonia and other States Common-wealthes and Poâ—entates doe not thinke it any disgrace diminution of honour perill or iniury vnto them that their subiects for matters of conscience doe make recourse to the Sea Apostolicke or that which is consequent thereof the said Sea or generall Pastour doe interpose his iudgement declaration or decision in such affaires This is the Catholike doctrine practice this hath bene in vse throughout Christendome from all antiquity and no where more then in our Realmes of England Scotland as hath bene said In this beliefe and practice liued and died all our forefathers and our Noble Kinges that were our Soueraignes all our Bishops and Prelates that were our Pastours all our great Counsellours and Lawiers that by their wisdome learning gouerned the Land all our Nobility Gentry Priests Laity So as if now this be houlden for a malicious tricke oâ— the Diuel dishâ—â—â—â—â—ble and preiudiciall to his Maiesty his Soueraignty Crowne Dignity
Athanasius himselfe in a long Epistle of this matter where he also recouÌ„teth the bold speach of bishop Osius the famous Confessor of Corduba who was one of the 318. Fathers that saâ—â— as Iudges in the first Councell of Niâ—e and vsed the saâ—â— liberty of speach to the forsayd Emperour at another time which the other Bishops had done before him saying to him Leaue of I beseech thee o Emperor these dealingâ— in Ecclesiasticall affayres remember thou art mortall feare the day of Iudgement keep thy selfe free from this kind of sin do not vse coÌ„mandements to vs in this kind but rather learne of vs for that God hath coÌ„mitted the Empire vnto thee to vs the things that appertaine to his Church c. All which speaches doth S. Athanasius allow highly coÌ„mend in the same place adding further of his owne That now the sayd Constantius had made his Pallace a tribunall of Ecclesiasticall causes in place of Ecclesiasticall Courtes and had made himselfe the cheife Prince and head of spirituall Pleas which he calleth the abhomination foretold by Daniel the Prophet c. Which speach if old Athanasius should haue vsed to his Maiestie in the presence of all the rest and seconded by others that sate theâ—e with him could not in all reason but much moue especially ifâ— So Gregory Nazianzen and S. Ambrose should haue recounted their admonitions about the same to their temporall Lord and Emperour Valentinian as when the former sayd vnto him as is extant yet in his Oration That he should vnderstand that he being a Bishop had greater authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperor and that he had a tribunall or seat of Iudgment higher then the Emperour who was one of his sheep and that more resolutly S. Ambrose to the same Emperour when he comaunded him to giue vp a Church to the handes of the Arians Trouble not yourselfe o Emperor sayth S. Ambrose in commanding me to delyuer the Church nor do you persuade your selfe that you haue any Imperiall right ouer these things that are spirituall and diuine exalt not your selfe but be subiect to God if you will raigne be content with those things that belonge to Cesar and leaue those which are of God vnto God Pallaces appertayne vnto the Emperor and Churches vnto the Preist And these three Fathers hauing thus briefly vttered their sentences for much more might be alleaged out of them in this kind let vs see how the fourth that is to say S. ChrysostoÌ„ Archbishop of Constantinople coÌ„curred with theÌ„ Stay o king saith he within thy bounds limits for different are the bounds of a kingdome the limits of Priesthood this Kingdome of Priesthood is greater then the other Bodies are committed to the King but the soules to the Priest And againe Therfore hath God subiected the Kings head to the Priests haÌ„d instructing vs therby that the Priest is a greater Prince then the king according to S. Paul to the Hebrews the lesser alwaies receaueth blessing from the greater These foure Fathers then hauing grauely set downe their opinions about this point of spirituall power not to be assumed by teÌ„porall Princes let vs imagine the other three to talk of some other mater as namely S. Hierome that he vnderstandeth diuers pointes of the heresie of Iouinian and Vigilantius against whome he had with great labour written seuerall Bookes to be held at this day in his Maiesties kingdomes of England Scotland which could not but grieue him they being coÌ„demned heresies by the Church S. Augustine also vpon occasion giuen him may be imagined to make his coÌ„plaint that he hauing written amongst many other books one de cura pro mortuis agenda for the care that is to be had for soules departed both in that booke and in sundry other partes of his workes said downe the doctrine and practice of the Church in offering prayers Sacrifice for the dead and deliuering soules from purgatory and that the sayd Catholicke Church of his time had condemned Aërius of heresy for the contrary doctrine yet he vnderstood that the matter was laughed at now in Eâ—gland and Aërius in this point held for a better Christian then himselfe yea and wheras he S. Augustine had according to the doctrine and practice of the true Catholicke Church in his dayes prayed for the soule of his Mother besought all others to doe the like his Maiestie was taught by these new-sprong doctors to condemn the same neither to pray for the soule departed of his mother dying in the same Catholicke fayth nor to permit others to do the same All which Saint Gregory hearing â—et vs suppose him out of that great loue and charity wherwith he was inflamed towardes England and the English Nation to vse a most sweet and fatherly speach vnto his Maiestie exhorting him to remember that he sent into England by the first preachers that came from him the same Catholicke Christian Religion which was then spread ouer the whole world and that which he had receiued by succession of Bishops and former ages from the said Fathers there present and they from the Apostles and that the said ancient true and Catholicke Religion was sincerely deliuered vnto his Maiesties first Christian predecessor in England King Ethelbert and so continued from age to age vntill King Henry the eight If I say this graue assembly of ancient holy Fathers should be made about his Maiesty he fitting in the middest and should heare what they say and ponder with what great learning grauity and sanctitie they speake and how differently they talke from these new maisters that make vp M. Barlowes little Vniuersitie I thinke verily that his Maiestie out of his great iudgment would easily contemne the one in respect of the other But alas he hath neyther time nor leysure permitted to him to consider of these thinges nor of the true differences being so possessed or at least wise so obsessed with these other mens preoccupations euen from his tender youth and cradle as the Catholicke cause which only is truth could neuer yet haue entrance or indifferent audience in his Maiesties â—ares but our prayers are continually that it may And now hauing insinuated how substantially this little Vniuersity of ancient learned Fathers would speake to his Maiesty if they might be admitted eyther at table or time of repast or otherwise Let vs consider a little how different matters euen by their owne confession these new Academicks do suggest for that M. Barlow going about to excuse his fellow T. M. the yonger from that crime of Sycophancy which was obiected for his calumniations against Catholikes in his table-talke trifling first about the word what it signifyeth in greeke according to the first institution therof to wit an accusation of carrying out of figges out of Athens as before hath bene shewed and then for him that vpon small matters accuseth another as
sola meritum is nothing els but meere foolery as shal be afterwards shewed 59. From Diuinity he comes to Logick making his entrance with a vaunting insultation of his Aduersaries ignorance and want of skill about the true nature of a contradiction In deliuering of which the poore man is so embroyled as he knoweth not what he saith but cleane mistaketh euery thinge which he speaketh of For first he supposeth that a conâ—radiction must be where some generall proposition â—ither expresly or implicatiuely is crossed by a particuâ—er but this is no equall and perfect diuision for that â— contradiction requireth not alwaies a generall proâ—osition but may be between two particuler so that â—he subiect remaine indiuisible to wit vnder one and â—he selfsame respect vnder them both For if I should â—ay that M. Barlow hath skill in Logicke though it be â—ery little and M. Barlow hath not skill in Logick â—gaine M. Barlow is Bishop of Barlowâ—s â—s not Bishop of Lincolne c. I do not doubt but that â—e would thinke these propositions though both parâ—iculer to be truly contradictory and consequently his â—wne supposition to be false as that also is very fond â—hich for explication of his expresse and implyed conâ—radiction he ioyneth saying contradictionâ—n â—n negato the other in opposito or adiecto of the first â—ort are these examples wherin the negatiue note is expresâ—ed as omnis homo est aliquis non est of the second â—ort are such wherin the note negatiue is omitted and yet â—ne member ouerthrowes another So M. Barlow out of Logick And this as I said is very fond for that it is not â—f the nature of a contradiction in adiecto to be impliâ—d but rather the contrary to be expressed in termes â—t being all one with that which is called implicantia â—n terminis an implicancy or contradiction in the â—ery termes themselues For example If I should say M. Barlow is a brute beast the adiectum or terminus â—rute beast destroyeth the subiect to wit M. Barlow whose behauiour though it be often tymes very bruâ—ish and beastly yet is he by nature a man and that also a very naturall one 60. But the greatest mistaking and ignorance of all the rest is in the example which he maketh of this his implyed contradiction for hauing made this proposition Euery Bishop of Rome is vnder Christ the immeatate and sole chief Pastour of the whole Church in the Christian world this saith our Philosopher may be contradicted two wayes first expresly Some Bishop oâ— Rome is not the immediate and sole chief pastour c. Thiâ— is a contradictory with the negatiue Secondly it may be crossed by implicatioÌ„ as thus The patriarch of Constantinople is vnder Christ the immediate and sole chief pâ—stour of the Eastâ—rne Church This though it be a contradiction in opposito yet doth it as mainly oppose thâ— former generall proposition as if it had a negatiue noâ— c. Thus far M. Barlow as good a Philosopher aâ— M. Morton who though he professe to haue bene â— Reader of Logick yet shaped vs out a syllogisme oâ— six termes to proue Equiuocation in an oath to bâ— vnlawfull such great Deuynes are these menâ— as they know not the first elements of this faculty For haâ— not M. Barlow bene exceeding ignorant of the first rule and necessary condition of a contradiction â— which is that both parts câ—nnot togeather be eytheâ— true of false he would neuer haue giuen this for aâ— example seeing himself neyther belieueth the Bishop of Râ—mâ— to be head of the whole or Patriarke of Constantinople of the Easterne Church And where theâ— is the contradiction And is not M. Barlow well seenâ— in Philosophâ— who chooseth out an example to proue a contradiction in which euen in his owne opinion there is no contradiction at all Truly I may well suspect that he neuer came to be Bishop â—f Lincolne for his learning which euery where he â—heweth to be lesse then meane and therfore ouerlaâ—heth without measure but for some other inferiour quality little perhaps befitting that calling Let vs to make him conceaue his errour the better exemplifie in some more familiar examples The L. of Canterbuâ—y is Primate of all and euery part of England and â—he L. of Yorke is Primate of all the North part is with me no contradiction for that I hold both propositions to be false and neyther of them both to haue any Primacy at all in that Church and as the later will not claime it so M. Abbots may be sure I will not assigne it vnto him whome I doe as much hold to be Abbot of Wâ—stminster as Bishop of Cantâ—râ—ury And the like must M. Barlow needs say of his two propositions for that neyther of them in his iudgmeÌ„t â—s true and therefore are more contrary then contradictory as are also these omnis homo currit nullus homo currit and the like 61. Wherefore if it be as M. Barlow will needs haue it our very case in hand euen by the verdict of all skilfull Philosophers in the world the Cardinall will be quit at least from a contradiction and it is but childish babling yet very frequent in M. Barlow to make the oppositioÌ„s of the termes theÌ„selues saying that hâ—re is a double contradictioÌ„ both subiecti praedicaâ—i the Patriarke of Constantinople crosseth the Bishop of Rome the Eastâ—rnâ— Church and the whole world contradict ech othâ—r implicitely This I say is but babling for there is as great opposition between the former two propositions before set downe as in this Cantâ—rbury crâ—ssâ—th Yorke all England the north parts And againe omnis cannot stand with nullus currit with non currit and yet he will sooner bring Constantinople to Romeâ— and Yorke to Canterbury then proue any contradictioÌ„ to be in the same But let vs draw to an end of M. Barlows dispute 62. I passe ouer the rest he addeth concerning this matter although his chiefest fraud and cosenage be conteyned in the same For of an exhortatiue proposition in the Cardinall he maketh an absolute and necessary by cogging in the words is must thus mans confidence is to be reposed in the alone mercy of God and some confidence of man must be placed in his owne merits which are his owne forgeryes and not the Cardinalls assertions and then further in falsly charging F. Persons as though he said that good workes increase confidence in their owne nature and therfore will needs haue his doctrine to be condemned by Pius V. amongst other like assertions of a Louain Doctor but all is forgery for the Father speaketh not of our workes as alone they proceed from vs but as they proceed also from Gods grace within vs and for that cause calleth them the good workes of a ChristiaÌ„ it is vnchristian dealing in this Prelate to say that this proposition was euer condemned by Pius V. or any other Pope or Councell who only
wicked spirit of these hereticks is different from the spirit of Christ to wit as cleane opposite as Hell to Heauen truth to falshood darknes to light And with what face or forhead theâ— can this Minister turne the masculine gender into the feminine the Swenckfeldianâ—pirit â—pirit into Gods reuelatioÌ„ Yea with what conscience can he say that this reuelation may be an illusion As some superstitious people saith he take that fire for a walking spirit which is but ignis fatuus an illuding meteor so Pharisaycall and melancholick conceipts may thinke them to be infusions of the holy Ghost which are but speculatiue imaginations of their owne Ghost Thus M. Barlow very profoundly as you see or rather most profanely comparing Godâ— reuelation for of that Bellarmine speaketh which is alwayes certayne and certainly knowne of him to whome it is made to his walking spirit or ignis fatuus to Pharisaycall and melancholick conceipts as though the truth of the said reuelation depended on the disposition of the receauer and not wholy vpon the infallible authority of Almighty God who reuealeth the same I will not say that M. Barlow is either Pharisaycall or melancholick but that he is fatuus or else fanaticus albeit I say it not yet the thing it self will speake if his malice were not greater then his folly in this point which I meane not to discusse 68. After all these vntruthes and manifold ignorances he concludeth his disputation with a Sermon and is become very deuout vpon the suddaine and of a tender conscience telling vs that it is better for the Cardinall to acknowledge an ouersight in a long discourse then to ouerthrow one soule redeemed by Christs bloud Contradictions in assertions wounds but one opposite member but vnsoundnes in doctrine concerning saluation doth wound the weake conscience of a Christian. And then runneth on in the same descant which is as much as if some Harlot after she had wearied her tongue with rayling and lying on her neighbour should presently take vpon her the person and state of a graue vertuous Matrone foris Helena intus Hecuba to vse S. Gregory Nazianzâ—ns phrase or a false thief preach of truth and honesty For how many falshoodes ignorances and forgeryes haue bene shewed to be in this one dispute of his How many and how grosse lyes haue bene detected whereof his booke is so fraught and furnished to the full as it is hard to say whether any one number be free from the sameâ— For in one only thing in the compasse of little more then one page in laying downe 14. proofes he hath made at least 15. vntruthes whereby the Reader may see how I should be ouercloyed if in laying forth examples of his dealing in this kind which now I come to treat of I should stand vpon all particulers But I will take a shorter course and to this disputation adioyne a short examen of some few lyes and these such only as concerne the person of his Aduersary wherin as I am sure that I haue left very many vntouchedâ— so doe I also thinke that some of them are more vrgent and iniurious then those are which now I shall produce 69. The cause wherefore immediatly after M. Barlows transpareÌ„â— ignorance I adioyne his vntruthesâ— is for that if it be possible one of them may excuse the other it being a receaued axiome amongst Deuines that it is a lesse syn to lye out of ignorance then of maliceâ— and the Apostle excused himself by this meaneâ— when he said Qui priùs blasphâ—mus fui persecutor contumâ—liâ—sus sed misericordiam Dei consecutus sum quiâ— ignorans feci in inâ—redulitate I who before was a blasphemer and a persecutor and contumelious but I haue obteyned Gods mercyâ— because I did it being ignorant in incredulity And I wish from my hart that this mercy after so many blasphemyes iniuryes done to Catholicks and most contumelious reproaches against all sorts of men of neuer so singular sanctity learning powred now forth in the tyme of his ignoraÌ„t incredulity may fall vpon M. Barlow which is the worst and greatest reuenge I doe wish him 70. This I say I would wish but such as know the dispositioÌ„ of these meÌ„ although they find theÌ„ ignoraÌ„t inough yet not alwayes to offend of ignorance as it is a negatioÌ„ of knowledg but rather of that which of the Deuines is called ignoraÌ„tia prauae dispositionis because they will follow their erroneous iudgmeÌ„t loue lyes more then the truth howsoeuer to make fooles fayne they cry out against Equiuocation such as do maintayne the same For so did also our late woodden Embassadour at Venice who against the Iesuits and their doctrine in this point would be often very free as himself thought very ingenious also but more free in this art of Lying For being at Auspurge requested to write some motto or sentence with the subscription of his name thereunto was not ashamed to professe it to be the chiefest point of his office writing the definition of an Embassadour thus Legatus est virbonus peregrè missus ad mentiendum Reipublicae causa Domino Ioanni Fleckhamero in perpetuum amicitiae pignus Henricus Wottonius Serenissimi Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hyberniae Regis Orator primus ad Venetos Augustae Vindeliciae 16. Augusti anno Christiano 1604. That is An Embassadour is a good man sent far from home to lye for the good of the CoÌ„mon-wealth To M. Iohn Fleckhamer for a perpetuall pledge of friendship Henry Wotton the first Embassadour of the most Soueraigne King of England Scotland France and Ireland to the Venetians At Augusta Vindelica the 16. of August in the Christian yeare 1604. 71. So this witty Gentleman defining himselfe to vse M. Barlowes fantasticall phrase by his essentiall kindly parts to with a good man that can lye well And whether in the last tumults of Venice betwixt the Sea Apostolick and that CoÌ„mon-wealth he discharged not throughly this part of his charge and that very essentially kindly also I refer me to them who receaued his letters and know what he wrote Surely M. Barlow in this booke is so copious therein that if other of his owne ranke in our Countrey were to be defined by him a Protestant English Bishop should be nothing els but an ignorant Superintendent that can lye raile flatter notoriously Of his ignorance we haue already seene some proofe now let vs see how well he can lye 72. In the twelueth page he telleth the Reader that F. Persons hauing wished the destruction of the Kings Maiesty by the gunpowder-plot and by hope deuoured the same he came on his iourney a good step as some report towards England that he might haue song Te Deum in his natiue Countrey for the good successe of that happy exployt And this againe he repeats in the 217. page saying As if there were no difference
and security as here is insinuated it must needes be for that the Diuell indeed hath made some change in other men matters by altering of opinions and apprehensions For the Catholickes are the same that they were wont to be do thinke the same belieue the same teach the same and practice the same that all their Predecesâ—ours haue done before them This was my declaration discourse What substantiall answer or argument can M. Barlow bring against thisâ— You shall see how he will gnibble at the matter as a mouse at the cheese-vate and cannot enter He saith first that I am in my element when I am in this argument of recourse to Rome vsed to be made from age to age by our ancient Christian English people Prelates and Princes that there is scarce any Epistle Preface Pamphlet Booke or Petition of myne but that this is therein the Cypres-tree to make Rome the loadstone for drawing thither the tryall of our gould in both senses and the like That I borrowed all from Cardinall Allen in his Apology that we haue receyued full satisfactory answers in this behalfe to wit that when the Bishops of Rome in purer times did beare theÌ„selues as religious members not as presumptuous heads of the Church and lyued as ghostly Fathers to counsaile not as Superiors to controle our realme being then also rude and learning scant Religion new sprong vp and no where setled I say then and in those dayes M. Barlow graunteth that the recourse was made to Rome but yet vpon deuotion and mere necessity and not then neither without leaue of the Prince This is his tale And doe you not see what gnibling this is Doe you not behould the poore man in what straites he is to say somewhat What more euident or more strong demonstration could or can be made if he would ioyne really to see and confesse the truth to proue the right and continuance of the Bishop of Rome his supreme spirituall authoriâ—y ouer England and recourse made vnto him therein then that which was made against Syr Edward Câ—â—ke in the answer of the fifth part of Reportes that from King Ethelbert our first ChristiaÌ„ King vntil the defection of King Henry the eight vpon the poynt of a thousand yeares and almost a hundred Christian Kinges it was inuiolably obserued in England to make such recourse in matters of doubt concerning Ecclesiasticall and spirituall affaires vnto the Sea Apostolike and the vniuersall Pastour thereof as lawfull iudge not for counsaile only but for sentence determination and decision both beâ—ore after the Conquest So as except M. Barlow do see more then all they did and haue more learning and piety then any of them who â—ollowed also therein not their owne sense and iudgement only but that of the whole Christian world besides all these spruse and princocke exceptions of â—urer tymes rudenesse of the land lacke of learning theyr being of new Christians and the like are but ridiculous inuentions of an idle busy-head and so not worth the standing vpon to answer them for that they are euidently false in the eyes of al the world And like vnto these are the other â—oyes that do ensue pag. 25. 26.27 As for example that there was no need to make recourse to Rome for deciding the doubts about the Oath which he proueth forsooth and that very â—oberly out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. Is there not a wise man among you among al the Priests secular â—esuited in EnglaÌ„d that can determine a controuersy about the Oath of Allegiance Might not your Arch-Priest Blackwell so authorized by the Pope so commended and countenanced by two Cardinals Caiâ—tan and Burghesius be sufficient But al this is simple geere as you see and hangeth not togeather but rather maketh for his aduersary For if the Arch-Priest that then was had his authority from the Pope then reason was it that in so great a doubt concerning the soules of so many the matter should be consulted with the Superiour as we see it vsuall in England that lower Iudges in difficult cases doe consult with them from whom they had their authority Neyther doth S. Paul here alleaged meane that the Corinthians should choose some contemptible man to be their iudge in Spirituall or Eccleâ—aâ—ticall matters for in all those he biddetâ— all Christians to be subiect to their Bishops spirituâ—ll Pastours that haue to render accouÌ„t for their soules but hâ— meaneth in temporall matters and particuler sutes and ciuill controuersies betweene man man which he houldeth to be contemptible thinges in respect of the spirituall and especially to contend for the same before Infidell Iudges as they did And so doth M. Barlâ—â— wholy peruert S. Paul as his fashion is commonly in most Scriptures and authorityes that he alleageth But now we come to another argument of his against our recourse made to Rome for decision of this great doubt concerning the taking or not taking the Oath And albeit you haue heard how many impertinent and childish arguments he hath vsed before about the same yet none of them can be compared with this for absurdity and impertinency and it consisteth in taking exceptions against the very person of the Pope Paulus Quintus that now sitteth in the Sea who being so eminent for his good partes rare vertues as laying aside his supreme dignity of Vniuersall Father of Christs Catholick Church the same doth grieue exceedingly the hartes of all Heretickes that hate the Apostoâ—â—cke Sea and him only for that he sitteth and gouerneth so worthily therein which they cannot abydeâ— But let vs see what they obiect against him in this behalfe VVhat is there saith he in this Pope for his iudgment in Diuinity that his determination should be expected about this Oath of Allegâ—â—â—ce to his Maiestie more then in his predecessour Clemens whose opinion was not inquired of about the Oath for conspiracy against the whole Realme Wherunto I answer that for so much as the other Oath of conspiracy if any such were was but betweene certaine particuler men who did vpon discontentmeÌ„t coÌ„spyre togeather and bynd one the other by Oath to secresy did presume that both Pope Clement this Pope if they had bene made priuy therof would haue letted their bad intentions therfore the conspirators neuer proposed the mâ—â—ter vnto them but concealed it from their knowledge whome they asâ—urâ—d to find opposite to their designements in such like attempts But this other Oath called of Allegiâ—â—ce for that it was a publike matter and vrged publikly to be taken by all Catholicks with most grieuous penalties of loâ—se of goods landes liberty proposed for the refusers and for that the sayd Catholikes had a great doubt whether they might receiue the same with a safe conscience in respect of diuers clauses therein contayned tending to the deniall or calling into question the Popes supreme authority ouer Christian soules therefore they thought it
Salomon or Augustus But I would aske him out of passion if euer he be voyd therof as by report he is very seldome what insolencie hath this Pope shewed in being busy as he calleth it with his Maiesties Person State or Realme For as for his Person he hath alwayes honoured the same both before he was Pope and after wherof many euident testimonies might be alleadged and for his State and Kingdome while he was in Scotland neyther he nor his Predecessours did go about to trouble the same in almost fourty yeares while he reygned there all troubles came from Protestants and their Ministers And when his Maiesty was called into England the Pope that then was by this mans counsaile principally as it may be presumed for that he was Protectour of Scotland wrote to the Catholickes to further their Obedience towards him He neuer medled in any thing vntill this Oath so preiudiciall vnto his Authority and vnto the Consciences of Catholikes was proposed and vrged And as for the peace here named more continuall happy then that of Salomon or Augustus which M. Barlow sayth might be enioyed by his Maiestie with his Subiects if the Pope were not it is well that he will so much as name peace who seemeth in all his speaches to sow the seeds of warres hatred and contention But if his mind were to peace indeed he cannot be so simple but to see that the rigorous and afflictiue courses vsed and this as all men take it by the instigation of those of his coate and order cannot be meanes to peace of mindes howsoeuer otherwise they liue in externall quietnes and deuoyd of tumults And this is all that for the present I haue to write in this matter The end of the first Part. THE SECOND PART About the Breues of Paulus Quintus CONCERNING M. BARLOVVE His exorbitant flattery in exaggerating Queene Elizabeths Vertues and Sanctity CHAP. I. OVR purpose then being as now we haue declared to touch some principal points only handled by M. Barlow in this second and third Part of his answere we shall begin with the point he most standeth vpon dilating himself for twenty leaues togeather coÌ„cerning Queene Elizabeth her raigne life and death as an argument very plausible in his opinion and capable not only of his rayling eloquence and odious amplifications but of all grosse and abiect flattery in like manner togeather with some hopes of other gaines also that way wherunto it seemeth that the poore man hath his tongue and pen most ready to the sale at all turnes and occasions offered But it may be before we end this conference his market may be more then halfe marred in the iudgment at least of disappassionate men especially with his most ExcelleÌ„t Maiesty whome aboue all other he seeketh to gull in this matter turning all vpon him which I both spake and meant to a Minister of M. Barlowes owne ranke so I disclaime from the calumnious imputation that it concerneth any way his Highnesse and shall answere all in the same sense which I then wrote and meant the same reseruing all dutyfull and respectiue reference to his Maiesties Person and Iudgment as bounden duty obligeth me First then occasion being offered or rather necessity imposed to speake of Queene Elizabeth for that albeit the Pope had not so much as named her in any of his two Breues yet had the Apologer brought in her mentioÌ„ with many high praises for disgrasing of Catholickes and their cause and for scorne to the Pope as though he had without cause pittyed and mourned their afflictions vnder her which he saith was none at all for that to his own knowledge she neuer punished any Papist for Religion For these causes I say I was forced in my Letter to say somewhat to this assertiue proposition wherunto the tribulations afflictions calamities spoiles exiles and bloud of so many shed by her did manifestly in the eyes and eares of al men and women that haue liued in our dayes contradict and reclaime And yet did I resolue to do the same as mildly and sparingly as I might answering only the wordes of the Apologie and abstayning purposely from al bitternesse of speach so far as the iust defence of the cause permitted and so shall continue 〈…〉 Barlowes most intemperate prouocation to the contrary VVhereas then in reciting the wordes of the Apologer I mentioned these Hauing sayth he sacrificed as I may say to the Manes of my defunct Soueraigne as well for the discharge of my particuler dutie as loue of veritie I must now performe my dâ—ty also to his Maiestie present c. Vpon which wordes I noted that the phrase of sacrificing to the Queenes Manes or Ghostes seemed to me very profane as proper to the Pagan Sacrifices vsed to those infernall spirits which they called Gods hurtful Gods therfore endeauored to please them with sacrifices My words discourse were these But as for his heathen profane sacrificing to the Manes or Hob-goblins of his late Lady I confesse it is an office fitter for a Protestant-Minister that thinketh it vnlawfull to pray for her soule to deale with her Manes or infernall spirites then with Celestiall by praying for her to Saints But would God these Manes might now haue liceÌ„ce to appeare and talke which him and relate what passeth with her after all this ioylity and ruffe in this world I doubt not but they would coole his excessiue vaine of flattering vanity For if all the old platforme of Saints liues prescribed in Scriptures and practised by the seruants of God were not erroneous and vaine as much fasting continual prayer daily mortification frequent recollection diligent chastisement of theyr bodies humble feruent deuotion labouring and working theyr saluation in feare and trembling aboundant almes-deedes haire-cloth and ashes contrition sorrow and sobbing for their sinnes yf these things I say were the ancient wayes to life and euerlasting saluation then must the pathes of Queene Elizabeth which are knowne by most men to haue bene eyther wholy different or most opposite to these led to another opposite end quia vnusquisque recipiet secundum opera sâ—â— Euery one shall receiue according to his or her works and the sentence of the Apostle is cleare resolute Si secundum carnem vixeritis moriemini si facta carnis spiritu mortificaueritis viâ—etis if you liue according to the flesh you shall die but if you shall mortify by spirit the workes of the flesh you shall liue that is to life euerlasting About these words of mine M. Barlow taketh occasion to make very large discourses and to dilate himselfe in three or foure points â—xceedingly First in the excessiue prayses of the Queene then in superlatiue raylinges against me thirdly in iustifying the phrase of sacrificing to the dead Queens ghost fourthly in setting out her frequent mortifications that she vsed but yet in such sort as he well sheweth not only not to feele what mortification
is in it selfe but neither to vnderstand what he saith nor wherof he affirmeth In the first point of Queene Elizabeths praises he straineth his eloqueÌ„ce or rather loquence to the vttermost as though neyther the earth whilst shee was here nor scarce heaueÌ„ where now he assureth vs she is were worthy of her Shee was a daughter of the bloud Royall sayth he borne to the Crowne in the Prophetes wordes from the birth from the wombe from the conception a Princesse aduanced to the Crowne in apparenâ— right and by vncontrolable succession c. Thus he sayth and yet doth the world know what store of controuersies was about that succession and lawfullnes thereof and they are extant in theyr owne Statutes yet in print so as this man talketh that which he thinketh to be most acceptable and fit for his preseÌ„t purpose of adulation more then what he findeth written or registred or belieueth himselfe for that matter and such as know the man and his constitution are of opinion that if his Maiestie that now is had come into England with that minde which his Noble Mother and her husband the King of France are knowne once to haue had to claime iustify her title presently after the death of Queene Mary for so doth Doctor Sanders tâ—stifie that they had that minde and began to put the armes of England vpon all the sayd Queenâ— plate but that by the peace made Calis released vnto theÌ„ for the same they were pacified for that time it is to be presumed that his Maiestie if he had preuayled in his pretence that he should haue found no one man more fit or readie in England or Scotland to haue gon vp to Paules Crosse or to any other place else to iustifie his Maiesties Mothers pretence against Queene Elizabeth or to disgrace her whome now he extolleth so much euen in this point of legitimation from the belly from the wombe from the conception by apparent right incontrolable succession and the like But now the wind bloweth another way and he followeth the blast and turneth his sayles according to the weather let vs then heare him out further She was sayth he an Imperiall Monarch a famous Empresse or rather the very Empresse of â—ame blazoned out not by home-bred fauourites but by forraine trauailers and writers before and since her death yea â—uen by her enemies both for Religion and warre to be in her time and for her Sexe the starre of Soueraignty the mirrour of Principality a terrour to her enemies the Loadstone of Maiesty drawing vnto her both Embassadours Christian and not Christian only for enterview and salutation but in truth for view and admiration for when they had satisfied themselues with her sight and hardly could they be satisfied what Saba's Queene once sayd of King Salomon they all concluded of her that which oâ—ten falls not out sayth the Orator their eyes had ouercome their eares and truth had out-stripâ— fame report was lesse then verity and her renowne was far short of her desert Thus far our Oratour And doth he not seeme to speake well for his fee But yet wheÌ„ he telleth vs how his famous Empresse or Empresse of fame is blazoned not only at home but abroad by forraine writers he will not forget I hope to remember that shee is blazoned by many of them in farre other colours then heere he painteth her out and this partly in respect of her hard measure towards Catholikes whose religion shee professed vnder Queene Mary and made many fayre promises of continuance therin for the breach wherof and contrary proceeding afterward when she came to the Crowne she susteyned so hard a conceipt and bad opinion of all forrayne Princes people Kingdomes Catholik as the memory perhapes of no one Christian Prince or Princesse that euer liued is more vngratefull and odious to them And this is the very truth notwithstanding all this parasiticall flattery of the Minister which I speake as God knoweth with great compassion towards her and our Countrey for her sake and not with any humor of reuenge insultation or exprobratioÌ„ against her The histories are extant their speaches and iudgements are knowne to such as doe trauaile forreine Countreys and with indifferency and attention doe marke what passeth among them But yet this man sitting at home in his warme chaÌ„ber goeth further in his exaltations of her and to pretermit many as ouerlong for this place he sayth That all her actions being Royally vertuous vertuously religious and religiously wise her wisedome seasoned her religion her religion sanctified her policyes her polices graced her descent all of them togeather wrought her immortality and her immortality is accompayned with renowne vpon earth and reward in heauen So he and much more which I pretermit as idle froath of a flattering tongue who taketh vpon him also to Canonize her with the terme of Eternized Saynt and affirmeth resolutely that shee neuer blemiâ—hed her sâ—lâ—e with vice criminall or continued for soe are his words And what he meaneth by continued I know not exept he meaneth as the word importeth that she continued not from vice to vice without interruption which had bene horrible to haue done if not impossible or had perseuered continually in one and the selfe same vice criminall which had bene as bad if not worse He auoucheth further of her that shee neuer in her life committed hellish crime wherby I suppose he meaneth mortall sinne for that the payne punishmeÌ„t therof is hell according to S. Paules doctrine and then I confesse that this were to be accompted an extraordinary sanctity indeed that a woman brought vp in such liberty for so many yeares togeather in so corrupt a time who as M. Barlow here telleth vs was no Cloystred-Nun but a Queene that liued in all prosperity in the midest of all temptations and allurements both of Sathan the flesh and the world should neuer commit so much as one mortall sinne But I would aske M. Barlow how he commeth to know this secret did he euer heare her Confession For if he did he might with far better conscience vtter her vertues knowne thereby to her prayse and to the edification of others then he did the Earle of Essex his vices to his infamy and other mens scandall But I for my part doe thinke that albeit Queene Elizabeth went often to confession in Queene Maries dayes yet from that time to her death which was more then forty yeares she neuer tooke the benefit of that Sacrament in which long time wee may wel imagine what store of dust a house much frequented would haue gathered that had neuer bene swepâ— in so long a space And albeit shee had had both grace wil and time to coÌ„fesse her sins yet do I belieue that she would neuer haue chosen M. Barlow for her Confessour and Ghostly Father and consequently all that he talketh here of her vices criminall and not continued and
seene I doubt not and scorned in great part by his Maiesties prudence yet meane I not to treat therof for that the common refuge of flatterers in this poynt is to say that such as do taxe or mislike their flatterie are enemies or enuious of the prayses giuen to the person flattered and the same is M. Barlowes defence in this place Only then shall I â—eauâ—â—his matter to the iudgment of the Reader but especially of his Maiestie who in this case for mâ—ny respects may be the most competent Iudge notwithstanding the cause doth most concerne himselfe Let vs now seâ— whâ—t Mâ— Baâ—loâ— sayth â—o that which before was obiecâ—ed agâ—inst him and his like and namâ—ly against T. M. the yonger for sycophancie and calumniation against Catholickes and their doctrine by sinister meanes at such times as his Maiesty takâ—th his repast It is true sayth he that his Maiesties 〈◊〉 for the most part at times of repast is aâ— Constantines Court Ecclesiae 〈…〉 a liâ—le Vâ—iuersitie compaâ—sed with learned men in all professions and his Maâ—estie in the middâ—st of them as the Grecian inâ—ituled one lesse deserâ—â—â—â— a liuing Library furniâ—h◠〈◊〉 all handes to replyâ— answere◠〈…〉 explayne 〈…〉 vpon fact or 〈◊〉 vpon 〈◊〉 â— In which wordes for so much as concerneth his Maiesties person I will not meddle withall to conâ—râ—dict but rather to admite and râ—ioyce 〈◊〉 such excellencies of leaâ—ning in so great a Prince and 〈◊〉 most hartily and 〈…〉 Almighty God euery day that his Diâ—ine Maiesty would bestow vpon him the true excellencie and indeed aboue all other learning which is â—he knowledge of his true Catâ—olickâ— Church and doctrinâ— without which as we haue now heard out of the anâ—ient Fathers before alleadged that all other skill and learning is eyther vayne or pernicious for that it shall be as S. Cyprian sayth non corona 〈…〉 His 〈…〉 heard but one part and hath bene â—uer obseâ—t with thâ—sâ— Academicall fellows both in Scotland and England which here M. Bâ—rlow nameth his Table-â—niuersity being indeed â—ut â—râ—ncher-Ministerâ— for in Scâ—oâ—â—â—â— and publicke 〈◊〉 they dare not â—ppeare or 〈◊〉 theiâ— fâ—ce And â—ow thâ—t his Maâ—â—â—ty hath giuen so plentifull occasion of tryall by writing with his hand tâ— all ChristiaÌ„ Princes stirring vp theâ—by great store of learned men to disâ—usse the questions in controuersy we do verily hope in the mercy of Almighty God that as gooâ—d by rubbing and heating is made more cleare so will â—ruth by disputation and examination wherin his Maiestie hauing so principall an interest as now to the world is knowne he will stand more attent to the discussion anâ— issue of all and therby receiâ—e that ligâ—â— which is needfull to euerlâ—sting blisse Aâ—d this concerning his Maiestie with all duty and respectiue loue But as for the little Vniuersitie of learned men of all professions that inuirone his Maiâ—sties table at time of repast I must say somewhat more though verie bâ—eifâ—y also We doe easily imagine by the effects what mâ—â—ner of learned men and of what measure in learning they are that attend his Maiestie at those times and places and we do measure them principally by their bookes whicâ— they haue published for that it iâ— like tâ—at their 〈◊〉 writings are no lesse considerate and weighty then their table-talke ex tempore And then if M. Barlow for example â—hould talke no more substantially in that place and audience then he doth here in this hiâ—â—ooke which he hath published to the world it would proâ—e God knoweth a very poore Vniuersity which his Maiesty should haue about him of such men wherin I remiâ— me for some part to the triall already made in this discussion of mine If we should compaâ—e the Acâ—demies Vniuerâ—â—tyes of learned deâ—ines that his Maiâ—styes noble renowned ancestours both of England and Scotland had about them from time to time for a thousand yeares togeather for resoluing them in all cases necessary for belieâ—e or manâ—â—â— with these new men learâ—ing with learning grauitie with grauity authority wiâ—h authority they being ioyned with all other learned men of the Christian world in vnity of doctrine these men being alone agâ—â—eiâ—g with no other part or sect â—o not of their owne Protâ—staÌ„â— that liue out of England noâ— hauing any other certâ—ine â—â—le of infallible direction but their owne heads the difference will quickly be seene betweene them as also whether his Maieâ—ties furniture be better or not in this behalfe then all theirs and of all other Princes of the Christian world besâ—des And yet further to increase the weight of this consideration somewhat more let vs suppose that this Maiesty our Soueraigne with that great pregnancy of wit and otâ—er guiâ—tes bestowed by Almightie God vpon him should sit downe in an Assembly of halfe a dozen of the ancient learned Fathers and Doctours of the primitiue Christian Church as S. Athanasius S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Câ—rysostome of the Greeke Church S. Ambrose S. 〈◊〉 S. Augustine of the latin all liuing aboue tweluâ—â—â—ndred yeares agone and that S. Gregorie the Greâ—â— though comming somewhat after them yet for that he sent first Christian preachers into England should sit downe with them and that all theâ—e togeather should reason grauely wiâ—h his Maiestie de Regâ—o Dei of the kingdome of God as S. Luke testifieth that our Sauiour did with his disciples after his resurrection for fourtie dayes togeather and that S. Athanasius as somewhat more ancient then the rest should grauely begin and recount vnto his Maiestiâ— what passed betweene him and other Catholicke Biâ—hops and his Lord the Emperour Constantius deceaued by the Arian Preachers and Ministers of that sect who flocked noâ— lesse about him at that time to flatter him â—â—d incite him against Catholickes then doe these Protestant Ministers about his Maiestie in these dayes and namely he should tell him that which he hath left written in a large Epistle of his how the sayd Emperour being auerted now from the Catholickes by the Arian Mâ—â—isters 〈◊〉 for diâ—ers Bishops commanding them in his pâ—â—ence to subscribe to his Imperiall order for the banishing of Athanasius and communion to be frequented with the sayd Arians and that the sayd Catholick Bishops wondâ—ing at his commandâ—ment and telling him that it was against Ecclesiasticall Canons that the Emperor should meddle with such matters he persisting notwithstanding to haue his will done they held vp their hands to heauen appealing vnto God for remedy presuming further to tell him that his Kingdome was not his but from God who gaue it him and it was to be feared least â—b would take it away againe if he proceeded in that course and finally deuounced vnto him the dreadfull day of Iudgement perswading him not to peruert the course of Ecclesiasticall affaires neither intermeddle the Roman Empire in dealing with Ecclesiasticall institutions c. All which and much more is set downe by S.
and defy this communion in fayth with them and haue set forth whole bookes to proue the same which were too long here to repeate Yea Caluinian and Zwinglian Ministers themselues are witnesses hereof in many of their Treatises as namely the Tigurine Deuines who confesse that theyr differences and contentions with the Lutherans are about Iustification Free-will the Ghospell the law the Person of Christ his descent into hell of Gods election of his children to life euerlasting de multis alijs non leuis momenti articulis of many more articles of no small importance which is euident for that Ioannes Sturmius another Zwinglian or Caluinist addeth other controuersies as of the Supper of our Lord and Reall Presence of Predestination of the Ascension of Christ to heauen his sitting at the right hand of his Father and the like adding also that the Lutherans do hould the Protestant Caluinian Churches of England France Flanders and Scotland for Hereticall and their Martyrs for Martyrs of the Diuell And conforme to these their writings are their doinges and proceedings with them where they haue dominion for that they admyt them not to cohabitation nor to the common vse of marriage betweene them nor to be buryed with them after theyr deaths as they well know who haue liued or do liue among them And thus much for the Lutherans of the one syde Now let vs see somewhat also of the Purytans of the other And first of all this matter hath beene handled dyuers times and demonstrated by Catholicke English wryters of our dayes agaynst this absurd assertion of M. Barlow that the differences at this day betweene Protestants and Purytans are not at all concerning religion nor of any substantiall and essentiall poyntes thereof but only Ceremoniall and in particuler the same is conuinced and made most manifest in the Preface of a late Booke intituled An answere to the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports where the different grounds of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power betweene Protestants Puritans and Catholickes being examined it is found that their differences are such as cannot possibly stand togeather to make one Church and house of saluation but that if one hath the truth the other must necessarily remayne in damnable error which is euident also by the writings of Protestants themselues especially by the bookes intituled Dangerous positions set forth and imprinted at London 1593. and the Suruey ofpretended holy discipline made as they say by him that is now Lord of Canterbury and Doctor Sutcliffe as also the Booke intituled the Picture of a Purytan writen by O. O. of Emanuel printed 1603. and other like bookes But especially at this time will I vse for proofe of this poynt the testimony of Thomas Rogers Minister and Chaplin as he styleth himselfe to his Lord of Canterbury who of late hauing set forth by publike authority the fayth doctrine and religion of England expressed in 39. articles vpon the yeare 1607. doth in his Preface to his said Lord haÌ„dle this matter of the differences betweene the Puritans and Protestantes though partially agaynst the discontented brethren he being theyr aduersary but yet setteth downe out of their owne words what their iudgment is of the importance and moment of the controuersyes betwene them to wit that they are not only about Ceremonies and circumâ—tances as M. Barlow pretendeth but about poyntes contayned in scripture in the very Ghospell it selfe They are compryzed say they in the booke oâ— God and also be a part of the Ghospell yea the very Ghospell it selfe so true are they and oâ— such importance that if euery hayre of our head were a life we ought to affâ—ard them all in defence of these matters and that the articles of religion penned and agreed vpon by the Bishops are but childish toyes in respect of the other So they And will any man thinke or say now that these men doe not hould that theyr differences with the Protestants are differences in religion as M. Barlow sayth or that they are only matters of ceremonyes and not of any one substantiall poynt concerning religion Let vs heare them yet further telling theyr owne tale and related by M. Rogers The controuersy betwene them and vs say they of the Protestants is not as the Bishops and their welwillers beare the world in hand for a cap or tippet or a Surplisse but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry and regiment of the Church according to the word of God The first wherof which is a true Ministry they Protestants shall neuer haue till Bishops and Archbishops be put downe and all Ministers be made equall The other also will neuer be brought to passe vntill Kings and Queenes doe subiect themselues vnto the Church and doe submit their Scepters and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and licke vp the dust of the feete of the Church and willingly abyde the Censures of the Church c. This they write and much more in that placeâ— which I trow is more then M. Barlow ascribeth vnto the matter For if it be contayned in Gods booke yea a part oâ— the Ghospell the very Ghospell it selfe about which they contend what proterâ—ity is it on the other part to call it a matter only of Ceremony But yet further within two pages after agayne they doe explayne themselues and theyr cause more in particuler saying Our controuersy with the Protestants is whether Iesus Christ shal be King or no and the end of all our trauell is to bâ—yld vp the walls of Ierusalem and to set vp the throne of Iesus Christ 〈◊〉 heauenly king in the myddest thereof And are these poyntes also not substantiall nor any wayes touching religion but Ceremonies Harken then yet further what they do inferre vpon the Protestantes Church for dissenting from them in these pointes Neyther is there among them say they a Church or 〈◊〉 least wise no true Church neither are they but titular Christians no true Christians indeed And yet will M. Barlow continue to say that there is no difference at all in Religion and that I lyed when I sayd that his Maiesty yeelded to a Conference between Protestants Puritans concerning their differences of Religion VVhat will he answere to the two precedent members touched by the Puritans to witâ— that their strife is for a true Ministry a lawfull gouermeÌ„t therof expounding their meaning to be that for obtaining the first all Bishops and Archbishops must be put downe for the second all temporall Princes Kings Queenes must leaue their superiority ouer the Church submit themselues and their Crownes vnto the same Church to wit their Presbyteries as M. Rogers expoÌ„deth their words And is there no substantiall point neyther in all this but only matter of Ceremony And doth not the very life soule of the Church depend of these two things a true Ministry and lawful Head Is not the power of preaching teaching administration of
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