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
lesse the true substance of things handled by him I do pretermitt as very fond and impertinent the next passage that ensueth and is the last in this matter in M. Barlow his booke where he maketh this demaund But what if there be none or few that make such conscience or take such offence at the admission of the Oath as he speaketh of To this question I say it is in vaine to answere for if there be so few or no Catholikes that make conscience or scruple to take the Oath the contention will be soone at an end But presently he contradicteth himselfe againe taking another medium and saying that there would be none if they were not threatned by vs to haue their howses ouerturned as some Donatists sayth he confessed of themselues by the witnesse of S. Augustine that they would haue bene Catholikes if they had not bene put in feare ne domus corum euâ—rtâ—râ—ntur by the Circumcellians perhaps which M. Barlow sayth may spiritually be applyed to our threatning that such as take the Oath shall be accompted Apostataes and to haue renounced their first fayth and to be no members of the Catholike Church and finally that we shall remayne branded in euerlasting record with Balaams infamy that taught Balaac to lay a scandall or occasion of fall to the people of Israell To all which I answere first that he that layeth forth the truth of Catholike doctrine vnto Catholike men may not iustly be sayd to threaten or terrify but to deale sincerely and charitably with them laying truth before their eyes what their obligation is to God before man and how they are bound as members of his true Catholike Church to hould and defend the vnity and integrity of â—ayth and doctrine deliuered by the same though it be with neuer so much temporall danger And as for laying a scandall wherby they may fall into the ruine of their soules it is easy to iudge whether wee do it rather that teach them to deale sincerely with God and their Prince wherby they shall preserue their peace and alacrity of conscience or you that indeauoâ—r to induce thâ—â—â—â— sweare and doe against the same wheâ—eby they shall be sure to leese both their peace in this life and their euerlasting inheritance in the next THE ANSVVER TO AN OBIECTION BY OCCASION VVHEROF IT IS SHEVVED THAT POSSESSION and Prescription are good proofes euer in matters of Doctrine AND The contrary is fondly affirmed by M. Barlow CHAP. V. THERE remaineth now for the finall end of this first Part to examine an obiection that might be made by the aduersary which I thought good by â—â—ticipation to satisfy in the very last number of the first parâ— of my Letter And it was that wheras we complaine of so great pressures layd vpon vs for our conscience especially by this enforced Oath some man may sayâ— that the liâ—â— course is held in the Catholicke States against themâ— whome we esteeme as heretickes I shall repeate my owne words and then see what M. Barlow answereth to the same Here if a man should obiect quoâ—h I that among vs also men are vrged to take Oathes and to abiure â—heir opinions in the Tribunalls of Inquisitions and the like and consequently in this Oath they may be forced vnder punishment to abiure the Popes temporall authority in dealing with Kings I answere first that if any hereticke or other should be forced to â—biure his opinions with repugnance of conscience it should be a sinne to the inforcers if they knew it or suspected it neyther is it practised orâ— permitted in any Catholicke Court that eueâ— I knew But you will reply that if he doe it not he shal be punished by dâ—ath or otherwise as the crime requireth and Canons appoint and consequently the like may be vsed towards Catholikes that will not renounce their old opinions of the Popes authority But heere is a great difference for that the Catholike Church hath ius acquisitum ancient right ouer heretickes as her true subiects â—or that by their baptisme they were made her subiectes and left her afterwardsâ— and went out of her and she vseth but her ancient manner of proceeding against them as against all other of their kind and quality from the beginning But the Protestant Church of England hath nullum iuâ— acquisitum vpon Catholickes that were in possession before them for many hundred yeares as is euident neither was there euer any such Oath exacted at their hands by any of their Kings in former Catholicke timesâ— neither is tâ—eâ—e by any Catholicke forraine Monarch now liuing vpon 〈◊〉 and consequently by no â—eâ—son or right at all can English Catholicke men be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience or be punished beâ—â—â—â— or destroyed if for their conscience they refuse to take tâ—e same humbly offering notwithstanding to their Soueraigne to giue him all other dutifull satisfaction for their temporall obedience and allegiance which of loyall Catholicke subiects may be exacted And this shall suffice for this first point concerning the contents and nature of this Oath This was my speach and conclusion then And now shal we take a vew how it is confuted by M. Barlow First be amplifyeth exaggerateth with great vehemeÌ„cy the torments and tortures of our Inquisitions which are vsed as he saith with the most extreme violence that flesh can indure or malice inuent wherin he sayth more I thinke then he knoweth and more perhaps then he belieueth and at leastwise much more then is true in my knowledg For of twenty that are imprisoned there not one lightly is touched with torture and when any is in the case by law appointed it is knowne to be more mildly then commonly in any other tribunall But let vs leaue this as of least moment and depending only vpon his asseueration and my denyall and let vs passe to that which is of more importance for iustifying the cause it selfe to wit by what right of power and authority the Roman Church proceedeth against heretickes and how different it is from that wherby Protestants pretend to be able iustly to proceed against vs for matters of Religion First of all he sayth that I do take as granted that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church which we deny sayth he and the chiefest learned of their side could as yet neuer conuict our denialls Wherto I answere that if themselues may be iudges that are most interessed in the controuersie I do not meruaile though they neuer yield themselues for conuicted But if any indifferent iudgment or triall might be admitted I do not doubt but that their euiction and coÌ„uiction would quickly appeare and many learned men of our dayes haue made most cleare demonstrations therof by deducing the Roman Church doctrine and fayth from the Apostles dayes vnto our times successiuely as namely Doctour Sanders his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Monarchy Cardinall Baronius in the continuation of his Annales Gâ—nebrarâ—
Ely of whome whiles he was silent many had some opinion of learning but since all is resolued to lying immodest rayling and some few light Terentian Plautinian phrases which aswel bâ—seeme a Deuine writing in matters of such moment and in defence of so great a Monarch to dally withall as it doth a Bishop to lead a morrice-daunce in his hose and dublet This man I say answereth hereunto that perhaps so the case stood then when those Protestants did write but that is well neere 20. yeares agoe but now it is otherwise Which is asmuch as if he had said that this new beliefe in England is not like the old alwayes one but is refined altered with the tyme and therefore no argument can be drawne from a thing done 20. yeares past for that is to great antiquity for so new-fangled a fayth which is alwaies in motion and hath her waynes changes quarters and full like the Moone But yet I must aske him further how he will proue by any example of the Puritan writers this their change and submission to the Protestants conformity of doctrine with theÌ„ more now then 20. yeares past Are they not still in the same degree of difference and oppositioÌ„ as before Doe they not still deny our Sauiours descent into hell Do they not disclay me from the English Hierarchie Will they acknowledge the Kings Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall as King Henry did challenge it Or will they recall what they haue written of their discipline that it is an essentiall marke of the Church without which there were no Church no Faith no Ghospell and consequently the Protestants to be no Ghospellers to be out of the Church out of the number of the faithfull 29. But for further confutation of both these Superintendents and more cleere explication of the thing it selfe besides what is afterwards said in this booke touching this point it shall not be amisse here to set downe the words of a few Protestant and Puritan late and yet liuing writers what they iudge of ech other in this affayre that our very enemyes may be iudges of the most shamefull assertion of these two Prelates That the Protestants and Puritans differ in matters only cerimoniall and agree in essentiall And the reason that I produce no more in this kind is for want of their bookes which being not worth the sending so far seldome come to our hands I will begin with the Protestants 30. And to omit Thomas Rogers whose testimony is after to be produced in the Discussion it selfe what other thing doth Oliuer Ormerod in his discouery of Puritan-Papisme annexed to his Picture of a Puritan prooue but that the said Puritans are Hereticks and haue ioyned themselues with the Pharisies Apostolickes Arians Pebuzians Petrobusians Florinians Câ—rinthiaÌ„s Nazarens Begardines Ebionites Catababdites Eâ—theusiasts Donatists Iouinianists Catharists And least any should thinke that this coniunction is only in matters cerimonial he laieth to their charge these ensuing heresies that there is no diuersâ—â—y between a Priest and a Bishop that Bishops haue no iuâ—isdiction that all synnes be equall that the Minister is of the essence of baptisme with the like And in the second dialogue he maketh in plaine tearmes this obiection that there is no difference in matters fundamentall but accidentall and then answereth the same that they do differ from the Protestants in some things that are fundamentall and substantiall which he proueth by the article of Christs descending into hell And he might haue proued it further by the aboue rehearsed articles for which Iouinian Aerius and others were reputed by the auncient Fathers and condemned for Hereticks 31. VVith this Oliuer of Cambridge agreeth A. N. of Oxford in his Bible-bearer towards the midest for thus he writeth They refuse to subscribe to the Kings lawfull authority in causes Ecclesiasticall to the article of religion to the booke of Common prayer and the orders rites and cerimonies of our Church nay they dissent from vs in things accidentall and cerimoniall So he By which last antithesis of accidentall cerimoniall differences it is most euident that the former were essentiall fundamentall Neither doe I see how this can be denyed by any for if the Puritans refuse to subscribe to the articles of Protestant religion who seeth not that they approue it not and consequently differ in essentiall points and that M. Barlow ouerlashed very much when he wrote that their vnkind quarrell with Puritans was in another kind and not in matters of religion wherein forsooth out of his great kindnes he will haue them to agree 32. And not to stand more for proofe hereof from Protestants D. Couel cleereth the matter when he saith But least any man should thinke that our contentions were but in smaller points and the difference not great both sides haue charged the other with heresies if not infidelities nay euen such as quite ouerthrow the principall foundation of our Christian faith Thus he And this I thinke is another manner of matter then externall cerimonies or accidentall differences for if this be not a plaine iarre amongst Protestants and Puritans in Religion I would faine know what M. Barlow will more require thereunto but I see S. Gregories wordes verified in these men where he saith solent haeretici alia apertè dicere alia occultè cogitare the heretikes are wont to speake otherwise openly then inwardly they thinke for when they deale amongst themselues then are Protestants and Puritans heretikes and infidells to ech other but when they answere vs then all are friendes all good Christians all vnited in doctrine deuided only in cerimonies accidentall differences This is another manner of equiuocation then any of our schooles will allow and only fit for such as are his schollers qui in veritate non stetit sed mendax fuit ab initio 33. From Protestants I come to Puritans who in this case are no lesse eager playne and resolute then the Protestants but rather more for this in expresse tearmes the Author of the Twelue generall arguments concludeth against all the Superintendents of England togeather that they are Vsurpers and Tyrants and execute an vsurped power ouer the Church and one reason to proue the same is ex concessis for that their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction is deriued from the King else say they it is a flat deniall of his Supremacy as there they shew And in the next reason which is the 4. and last brought in for proofe of their assumption or minor thus they conclude There are no true and sober Christians but will say that the Churches of Scoâ—land France the Low Countryes and other places that renounce such Archbishops and Bishops as ours are as Anti-christian and vsurping Prelates are true Churches of God which they could not be if the authority prerogatiues they claime to themselues were of Christ and not vsurped for if it were the ordinance of Christ
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
between him that should say F. Persons was almost vpon the Sea coast of England expecting the issue of the powder-plot and his that should auer that he was vpon the sea coast and shipt for England So he 73. This vntruth both for the iniury done to F. Persons for the improbability of the thing it self which hath not so much as any shaddow of truth deserueth the first place all Rome knowing the contrary to be most true that for the yeare before and after the powder-plot the said Father was alwayes in the Citty or in the places neere adioyning and at this very tyme wheÌ„ M. Barlow would haue him to be on the sea coast he was sick in bed in which as his weakenes would permit either himselfe to write or to dictate to another he refuted the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports which refutation is vnanswered as yet by him and not answerable by any Neyther can M. Barlow plead ignorance in this case seeing that in the arraignment of F. Garnet where there was so much forcing and streyning of things to the vttermost as well against the said F. Persons in particuler as the whole Order in generall there was no mention made heerof nor yet in the printed bookes both English and Latyn which since haue been set forth of that matter 74. VVas the thing so small trow you as that it deserued not a remembrance at least in that action in which far lesse presumptions then this were so tragically exaggerated Or could there haue byn imagined a more forcible proofe or more direct meanes for the discrediting that Order then to haue conuinced by this iourney the only Superiour of all the English mission to haue knowne and approued the same No M. Barlow had this happened all you Ministers genus irritabile vatum had sounded it out with full mouth all pulpits all bookes had proclaimed it all Princes Courts yea all cornes of Christendome had been cloyed with Embassages pamphlets Inuectiues and clamors against him and therefore to set downe this fiction in print well sheweth how far your malice ouerwent your wit howsoeuer you temper the first place with this parenthesis as some report for you could not but know that they reported a lie as you doe againe with exceeding impudent malice when you write but proue it not that F Persons had his hart hand and head in the powder-plot But I see that in you verified pudet non esse impudentem you are ashamed that you are not shamelâ—sâ— 75. In the 98. page of his booke he makes in a different letter cyting also the place F. Persons to say That as some of the Fathers who to amimate the persecuted Christians dâ—scribed the lâ—wd life and fearefull end of their persâ—cutors as Nero and Domitian so he to comfort the Catholick traytors must reuile and bely that worthy Queene the rather for that she was a woman So he printing only the word bely in ordinary letters as though all the rest had byn the words of the Father But without any belying M. Barlow I must tell him that here are three lyes in two lynes for neyther doth F. Persons call Catholiks Traitors whome in most of his bookes he hath defended and cleared from that false imputation neyther doth he say that he must reuyle Queene Elizabeth neyther that he will doe it the rather for that she is a woman and yet M. Barlow presently replyeth saying If F. Persons haue no other comfort thâ—n to cheer them vp because a woman quelled their insolency then may the diuell be comforted c. What â—ill you say to this man F. Persons saith that Q. Elizabeth was the first woman christian or created that tooke vpon her supreme power in spirituall or Ecclesiasticall matters and M. Barlow cannot refell the same nor doth he go about it but from his owne chayr of Oracles tels vs without further proofe that she was no vsurper by nouell-clayme and that God had annexed it to her crowne and insteed of prouing this entreth into the commendation of women as if F. Persons had discommended them but the truth is he saw that thereby he had more matter for talke and authority for proofe then in the barren subiect of the feminine Supremacy of which before Q. Elizabeth no example can be shewed and therfore he accommodated F. Persons text to serue to his purpose in that behalfe 76. Againe M. Barlow saith that F. Persons in his Viro doloso his Doleman had renounced his part in our Soueraigne and pronounced him elswhere a desperate and forlorne hereticke yea they are his expresse words whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant is a most greiuous and dâ—mnable sinner So he and here I must tell him that this is an expresse lye or rather that here be as many lyes as lynes for neither hath F. Persons renounced his part in our Soueraigne neyther euer pronounced him elswhere a desperate and forlorne hereticke with which none but some desperate forlorne hereticke indeed like M Barlow would euer haue charged him neyther are the other F. Persons expresse words for in that place he neyther nameth nor meaneth a Protestant more then a Puritan Brownist or else a Catholik as in the place by me here cyted is by himselfe declared And doth not theÌ„ M. Barlow for his writing deserue a good reward of a siluer â—hetstone Is this dealing Episcopall or not rather Diabolicall by such lying and forged fictions to do so open iniury to others Another in this kind he maketh in his Commentary on these words of F. Persons as he cyteth them for in the text they are other as I shall shew As for Catholiks saith he they accept euen the least fauour gratefully as hoping to haue receaued much greater as due vnto theÌ„ if his Maâ—â—sty had not bene preuâ—ntâ—d by sinister information So M. Barlow relateth his words by making a parenthesis at as due vnto them and then setting downe the other as immediatly following if his Maiâ—sty had not byn prâ—uented by sinister information But let vs heare F. Personâ— speak in his owne words as they lye in the Letter thereby both the fidelity of M. Barlow in cyting them and the truth of his answere in replying against them will the better appeare Thus then he saith As for Catholicks they accept gratefully whatsoeuer least fauour hath bene or is done vnto thâ—m and do not doubt but that if his Maiâ—sty had not bene preuented by sinistâ—r information and perswasion of others they had tasted of much greatâ—r as due vnto them in that thâ—y are naturall borne subiâ—cts of the râ—alme most Loyall in hart and affâ—ction and neuer meaning otherwise but to liue in most ordâ—rly dutiâ—ull subiection obediâ—nce to his Highnes as to their liâ—ge Lord and Souerâ—yâ—ne c. So F. Pâ—râ—ons And who could vse more myld and moderate words to expresse the dutifull mindes of Catholiks towards
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.
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
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
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
conscience iustice to giue it him yet if I should doubt that by my deniall he would take away the other halfe also or perhaps my life or that some scandall would follow as that other men by my example would shew disobedience in greater thinges I should be bound in prudence and pâ—ety for auoyding of these greater euilâ— both to my selfe and others to obey and giue him the halfe of my goodes which he demaundeth but this is not directly by force of iustice and conscience as you see but per accidens that is to say â—accidentally for auoyding of those greater euills of scandall and perill if I obey noâ— But now let vs see the truth of M. Barlow in relating this resolution of S. Thomas First he cutteth of the words nisi forè per accidens which do alter the whole case and â—ayth that their Angelicall Doctour telleth them that in vnlawfâ—ll things commaunded they must obey â—or auoyding scandall and perill wheras S. Thomas sayth non teâ—tentur obedire si iniusta praecipiâ—â—â— that they are not bound to obey their Princes if they commaund vniust things Secondly M. Barlow distinguisheth not when vnlawfull things are commaunded whether they be vnlawfull only vnto the Prince that coÌ„maundeth or to the subiect in like manner to whom they are commaunded And it may be that the Ministers head conceaued not the distinction or if he did he concealed it by guile and fraud for the thing importeth much to the resolution of the case for when the thing commaunded is vnlawfull only to the commaunder as in the former example when he commaundeth me to giue halfe of my goods wrongfully then may I out of prudence as hath bene sayd for auoyding of greater euils obey that vniust commaundment but if the thing commaunded should be vnlawfull not only to the Prince to coÌ„maund but to me also to performe as to do another man iniury or to endanger my owne soule or to offend God by any sin whatsoeuer then may not I according to S. Thomas his doctrine for auoyding any scandall or perill whatsoeuer perâ—orme the same This was craftily here concealed by M. Barlow for I will not hold him so grossely ignorant as that he did not consider it and the câ—â—se oâ— this concealment was for that it maketh wholy agâ—â—st him in our mayne controuersy of temporall Obedience For that the swearing to the new Oath coÌ„maunded vnto Catholikes in preiudice of their conscience Religion is of the number of those vnlawfull things that are vnlawfull not only to the commaunder but also to â—â—e performer and consequently neither for the auoyding scandall or perill may be obeyed And therby is cut of all M. Barlowes idle discourse which he maketh in this place of â—â—e danger and perill that by taking this Oath he sayth may be auoyded vrgeth vs with the doctrine of S. Thoâ—â—â— therin that euen in things vnlawfull we must obey our temporall Princes But in this you haue seene both the depth and fidelity of the man Now let vs see a poynt or two more and so end this Parapraph Pag. 190. he hath these words against me The Epistler saith he makes the way to end this Paragraph for as coÌ„cerning Rome beiâ—g Babylon he speakes not a word as by silence granting that to be true which Cardinall Matthew playnly also acknowledgeth and â—â—sesseth to be that Babylon of the Apocalyps So hâ— And truly it is strange and ridiculous to see men of reason to proceed in this manner so without reason for it Cardinall Bellâ—rmine and other Catholikes do graunt that Rome was called Babylon by S. Iohn in the Apocalyps and by S. Peter also that wrote his Epistle from thence vnder the name of â—abylon and if S. Hierome and other Fathers do expound 〈◊〉 of Râ—me as it was Heathen persecuted the Martyrs in â—hose dayes and not of Christian Rome or the Christian people of Rome who were holy and Saynts in those dayes if this I say be so and that the Protestants be told therof aboue an hundred times and yet still their writers do comeâ— forth with this doughty Argument that Rome was Babylon what shall a modest man do but passe it ouâ—r with silence and contempt There followeth a certayne contentioÌ„ about the two â—reues of Clemens Octauus written into England at two different timesâ— about the point of succession to the Crowne â—fteâ— the Queenes death the first exhorting the Catholickeâ— to doe their best indeâ—uours â—or procuring a Cathâ—â—licke Prince the other altogether in fauour and recomâ—mendation of the aduancement of his Maiestie that 〈◊〉 is of which two Breues I wrote in my Epistle that hauiâ—â— procured some knowledg about that point I found thâ—â— they were sent into England not both togeather nor iâ—â—mediatly before the late Queenes death as was obiected but the one diuers yeâ—res before she died to wit vpon thâ— yeare 1600. and the other 3. yeares after to wit vpon thâ— yeare 1603. immediatly after the sayd Queenes death contrary to which M. Barlow sayth that Tortâ—â— affirmâ—â—â— that hauing the Copyes of 2. Breues in his hand 〈◊〉 findeth that they were sent in togeather vpon the yearâ— 1600. But the reconciliation of this is easy For thaâ— those two Breues named by Tortus are accounted by me bâ— one Breue for that they were all of one matter but dâ—plicated in effect the one to the Archpriest and Clergie thâ— other to the Laity so that there is no contradiction at alâ— For that besides that first double Breue there was anotheâ— sent in of another Argument wholy in fauour of hiâ— Maiestie in particuler as now hath bin said vpon thâ— yeare 1603. And so there iâ— no contradictioÌ„ at all in this but that both the assertions are true Only that is falsâ— which is here in parciculer affirmed by M. Barlow that iâ— the first Breue was set downe that no man might be admitted except he would first sweare not only to tolerate but also to promote the Romish Catholicke Religion which wordes are not there neither is swearing once mentioned in either of these duplicated Breues And as this is vntrue so that which ensueth is parasiticall when vnto my speach of Pope Clements particuler good opinion and affection towards his Maiesties Person when he was King of Scotland to wit that he loued him most hartily and alwayes spake honorably of him treated kindly all those of his Nationâ— that said they came froÌ„ him or any wayes belonged vnto him and oftentimes vsed more liberality that way vpon diuers occasions theÌ„ is conuenient for me perhaps to vtter here caused specialâ— prayer to be made â—or his Maiestie c. To all which M. 〈◊〉 answereth in these words That albeys there is nothing 〈◊〉 Mâ—â—â—stie but that which is amyable and admirable his parts of 〈◊〉 art grace all so singular that by the eminency of his place 〈◊〉 descryed far and neere they must needes excite great loue to his
for England and his that 〈◊〉 aâ—â—rte that he was at the sea-cost and shipt for England â—â—erto I answer first for the word almost left out Secondly 〈◊〉 the example The words of the Apologer about the likenes of our 〈◊〉 to the Toletane action are thrice repeated by me first in the beginning of the matter p. 76. n. 11. where repeating the Apologers words I said almost euery point of that action is 〈◊〉 to ours In the end also p. 81. n. 19. I related his words â—â—s that almost euery point of that action hath agreeance with that of 〈◊〉 c. So as twice the word almost is repeated though in the third place pag. 77. num 12. It is said euery point of that 〈◊〉 c. which might be as well the errour of the writer or printer as ouerslip of the Authour And how then can this be called fraudlent impudeÌ„cy Or rather was iâ— not more fraudulent in M. Barlow not to tell his reader that it was twice put downe though once left out As for the two meÌ„bers alleaged they are both known to be false that either Father Parsons was almost vpon the Sea-coast for England or vpon the Sea-coast and shipt for England to expect the â—â—â—der-â—lot for that hundreds of witnesses will testifie in 〈◊〉 that neither at that time nor in al that yeare was he out of that Citty so as this is somewhat more then almost two vntruthes And this is as much as in effect he answereth to this matter But I went forward in my Letter to shew out of the Councell and Histories of Spaine the occasions causes and circumstances of this Councell and how it was procured by the King of Spaine Sisâ—nanduâ— of the Gothish bloud who hauing ceposed his Lord and Maister King Suintila was somewhat iealous least the Oath of fâ—â—elity made vnto him by the Spaniards would not be obserued and therfore made recourse vnto the Bishops and Clergy for assisting him in that behalfe with their Ecclesiasticall authority as they did both confirming the one and excluding the other wherupon is set downe in the preface of the said Councell that he comming into the same accompanied with many Noble and honourable persons of his trayne coram Sacerdotibus Dei bumiprostratus cum lacbryâ—â—â— gemitibus pro se interueniendum postulauit he prostrate on the ground before the Priests of God besought them with teares and sobs to make intercession for him Wherupon the Councell commaunded vpon seuere Censures that no man should practise his death or deposition or breake his Oath of fidelity made vnto him but no particuler forme of oath do I find there to haue bene prescribed or decreed wherby this our new oath may be confirmed or authorized but rather another oath prescribed vnto the King and all his successours Iuramento poâ—liceanâ—ur hanc se Catholicam non permissuros eos violare sidem that they sweare that they will neuer suffer their subiects to violate this Catholike faith And marke said I that he saith 〈◊〉 which was the Catholike fayth then held in Spaine and explicated in these CouÌ„cels of Toledo the particulers wherof do easily shew that they were as oposite to the Protestants fayth as ours is now To all this what sayth M. Barlow He beginneth with a tale as he is wont when he hath little els to say Pericles sayth he as some do affirme had that skill in wrastling that though he receaued a fall yet he would perswade the wrastler that cast him and the spectatours that beheld him that he was the conquerour You will imagine how well this is â—pplyed by him he sayth that there is not one poynt of this which I haue sayd to the purpose or against the Apologer But how doth he proue it First he saith that this Conncell was gathered by the coÌ„mand of King Sisenandus And what maketh this to the purpose Did not we graunt also that Kings within their Kingdomes may cause Prouinciall Councels to be made by their Bishops Archbishops Metropolitans But how submissiuely this King did behaue himselfe in that CouÌ„cell appeareth by his former submission both in fact words And yeâ— by the way the Reader must note M. Barlows smal truth in relating for his purpose these words religiosissimi Sisenandi Regis iussu Imperijs conuenimus we are assembled by the commaund and authority of our most Religious King Sisenandus wheras the true words in the Councel are â—â—m studio amoris Christi ac diligenâ—ia religiosissâ—â—â— Sisenandi Regis apud Toletanam Vrbem in nomine Domini conuenissemus wheras for the loue of Christ and by the diligence of our most religious King we came togeather in the name of God in the Citty of Toledo And then those other words which ensue aâ—terwards to wit eius â—mperijs atque iussis are referred to another thing not to their meeting but what matters they should principally handle touching discipline c. Vt communis a nobis ageretur de quibusdam Ecclesiae disciplinis tractatus In which Treatise of discipline was contayned in like manner the Kings owne temporall cause concerning the assuring of his succession by Ecclesiasticall CeÌ„sures When or wherin then shall we find M. Barlow to deale puÌ„ctually and sincerely But let vs go forward In the next place he sayth that this Councell the Canons therof do make for the Protestants and giueth example in three or foure Canons and concludeth generally in these words The Church oâ— England both for substance in doctrine and ceremony in discipline doth hould the same which maâ—y of the sayd Canons do conclude Well then we shall see presently how many they be He citeth only foure of seauenty and foure and those so impertinently as by the citation he maketh himselfe miserable as now you will perceaue And first he cyteth the 43. CanoÌ„ saying that the marriage of Priests so it be with the consent of the Bishop is therin allowed and he beginneth with this for that it seemeth to him a knocker and to the purpose indeed for authorizing Priests marriages Wherfore we shall handle it in the last place of the foure alleadged by him In the second place then he leapeth back from the 43. Canon to the 24. saying that therin it was positiuely set downe that ignorance is the mother of all errours but not of deâ—â—tion A great obiection no doubt against vs as though we were great friends of ignorance Ignorance sayth the Canon the mother of all errours is most to be auoyded by Priests who haue the office of teaching the people Do we coÌ„tradict this What meane our Schooles Our Seminaries Our Colleges Our Vniueâ—sities for bringing vp and instructing Priests Are our Priests in England or on this side the seas more incumbred with ignorance then the Ministers Why then is this Canon brought in against vs For that perhaps it sayth not that Ignorance is the mother of deuotion nor we neither as