necessary to make recourse to the Sea Apostolicke and to demaund resolution thereof according to the custome that had bene obserued in the like cases in England during the raigne of all Catholike Christian Kinges from their beginning of Christianity vntill king Henry the eight as else where largely hath bene proued by a seuerall booke writteÌ„ lately of that argument And as the English Catholickes were desirous to exhibite vnto their King all dutiâ—ull obedience and subiection in temporall matters so were they desirous also not to doe any thing against their consciences in spirituall affaires towardes their supreme Pastour whome they acknowledge to gouerne them in place of Christ our Sauiour And this was the cause why the one Oath was not consulted with Pope Clement the Eight the other was with Pope Paulus the fifth not somuch for his particuler and personall iudgemeÌ„t in Diuinity though it be great as in respect of his place and the most certaine assistancâ— which almighty God giueth him and all other in that place for gouerning of his people as also for the particuleâ— obligation that all Catholick Christians haue to obey their supreme Pastour whose authority receaued from our Sauiour is more to be respected then the gift of humane learning which I suppose M. Barlow in the Kinges Royall Authoritâ— and Person will not dare to deny or thinke it good dealing or lawâ—ull proceeding if when he setteth our a Proclamation his Subiectes should demaÌ„d what skill in Law or Diuinity he hath for auouching â—he same And much more if the question had bene made in the time of Q. Elizabeth who profeâ—â—ed not so much learning as this King and yet would be obeyed no lesse then he iâ— her dayes euen in matters Ecclesiastical although I think that the neuer studied Diuinity It followeth in M. Barlow Of Pius Quintus saith he who absolued the Queenes sâ—â—iects â—rom their obedience it was said by some of his owne that he was homo pius doctus sed nimis credulus religious and learned but too easy of beliefe But of this Paulus Quintus who hath interâ—â—cted the Subiects of our Soueraigne King to sweare their obedience eyther for his Diuinity or Piety we haue heard nothing Whereunto the answer is easy for if you haue not heard therof it is for that you are loath to heare so much good as you may of his Holines in both points His profession was not the faculty of Diuinity but rather of Ciuill and Canon law before God did choose him to the place dignity where now he is It is well knowne that his Holines hath great sufficiency also in the other for discharging of his obligation in that high Office and hath moreouer so many learned men about him in all sciences to consult withall wheÌ„ matters of weight do occurre as this poore exception of the Hereticke about learning in his Holines is a good witnes of his want of better matter what to speake to the purpose And as for his Piety which is the other point let his Holines life and actions be looked vpon as we know they are by all Heretikes in the world and curiously pried into not only at home in their owne Countreys but in Rome it selfe where many do go to certify theÌ„selues in this and sundry other like pointes and do depart much edified therby and sundry of them conuerted dayly by seeing the contrary to that which before they heard wherof my selfe among others can be a good witnes that haue seene the effect hereof in sundry of our Nation as others can say the like by theirs And this amongst other things is very notable and knowne spoken and confessed by all sortes of people in Rome to be in him to wit an Angelicall purity of life throughout the whole course therof in so much that he was neuer yet stained with the least blemish of suspicion to the contrary Which publike voice testimony how well it hath bene deserued of M. Barlow his Matesâ— I remit my selfe to the common fame of their next Neighbours or such as know them best As for that he saith of Pope Pius Quintus that he was accompted by Catholikes themselues nimis credulus notwithstanding he was homo pius doctâ—s as it is no great accusâ—tion so is it spoken and vttered without any testimony at all and therfore of small credit as comming from one that is found so full of vntruthes in most of his allegations wherof we haue giuen so many examples and shall do more in the residue of this our Answere as I doubt not but that he will scarsely seeme worthy to be belieued when he bringeth witnesses and much lesse without them But there remayneth a more large impertinency of M. Barlow coÌ„cerning this Pope his skill in Diuinity setdown in these wordes taken from the comparison of S. Peter S. Paul S. Peter saith he whose successour he is stiled and S. Paulâ— whose name he hath borrowed had their Diuinity indeed by inâ—â—sâ—â—n but their writings reuealed it to the world So that Peter we know and Paul we know to be singular Dâ—uines but who is this No men that seeketh to be â—amous doth any thing in secret say the bretheren of our Sauiour VVhere then are his labours his Sermons his Treatises his Commentaryes his Epistles Theologicall his doctrinall determinations his Iudiciall Decisâ—â—s all which are vsuall attractiues to draw an opinion vpon a man that he is a sound resoluer So he But Syr stay your Maister-ship these are no sound groundes to build the certainty of resolution vpon in a Magistrate especially such as the supreme Pastour is but rather the promised assistance that Christ our Sauiour made to S. Peter and his successours sitting in the Apostolike Chaire That Hell-gates should neuer preuaile against the same And how many haue written Sermons Treatises Commentaries Epistles Determinations and Decisions and do write dayly to whome notwithstanding we ascribe not this certainty albeit the last two for DeterminatioÌ„s and Decisions I doubt not but his Holines hath maâ—â— many in his dayes and those very profound and learned hauing bene a Iudge in diuers great affaires as the world knoweth before he came to this dignity whereto he ascended not by fortune or fauour or negotiation but by the merit of his great and rare vertue correspondent to the worthines of the noble and ancient family from the which he is descended And this wil be euident to any man that shall consider the eminent offices and dignityes wherwith he hath bene honoured euen from his youth as of Referendary in the high Court of Signatura de Gratia of Vice-Legate in Bologna of Nuntius Apostolicus into Spaine for most important matters and of Auditor de Camera in all which charges and imployments he gayned such reputation of learning wisedome and integrity that Pope Clement the eight of blessed memory held him to be most worthy of the dignity of a Cardinall wherto
that he in the day of iudgment to wit our Saâ—iour will giue reward for our good works almes is now also ready to shew himselâ—e a most benigne heater to him that shall come vnto him by prayer works and so did Cornelius the Centurion merit to be heard as doing many almes vpon the people sayth the Scripture And when about nyne of the clocke the sayd Centurion prayed an Angell stood by him and gaue testimony of his good works saying Cornelius thy prayers and almes haue ascended vp before God citò orationes ad Deum ascendunt quas ad Deum merita nostâ—i operis imponunt Our prayers do quickly asceÌ„d vnto God which the merits of our good works do lay before him c. And preseÌ„tly with this Scripture he ioyneth the other out of Toby Sic Raphel Angelus c. So the Angel Raphael did testify vnto Toby alwayes praying alwayes working wheÌ„ thou didst pray togeather with Sara I did offer the memory of thy prayer in the sight of God when thou didst bury the dead and leaue thy dinner for doing the same I was sent by God to tempt thee and afterward to cure thee I am Raphael one of the seaâ—en iust Angels who do assist conuerse in the sight of God c. Where we see that S. Cyprian maketh another manner of accompt of the holynes and meryt of this worke and of the truth of this Angell then M. Barlow doth And the very self same speach S. Cyprian vseth in his booke de Mâ—â—talitate alleadging this place of Toby and testimony of the Angell Raphael in the commendation of Tobies fact in burying the dead against the Kinges commandement So as white and black hoat and cold or the two poles are not more opposite one to the other then the spirit of S. Cyprian and that of M. Barlow in this point And truly it seemeth that a man may gather by good consequence that for so much as he condemneth that fact of Toby in burying the dead bodies of the Iewes in persecution he would also if he had bene there not only not haue buried these dead bodies against the Kings Edict but also neyther haue receaued the persecuted into his house agaynst the commaundement of the sayd King Nay he would haue rather deliuered them vp to the persecutors hands and the like if he had liued amongst Christians vnder Nero Domitius and Dioclesian And this is M. Barlows piety in respect of that of holy Toby and S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Augustine and other such sincere pious men who both approued and commended this fact Now let vs passe on to the rest After these examples of Scriptures there were alleadged by the Apologer sundry authorityes of ancient Fathers which shew the obligation that subiects haue to obey their temporall Princes which in my Letter I declared no way to preiudice our cause who both acknowledge and offer all dutifull obedience in temporall affaires which is so much as the sayd ancient Fathers doe teach and for that the sayd authorityes are cleare for vs in that behalfe I shall â—et downe here what I answered to the same As these places of Scripture said I alleaged against vs do make for vs so much more do the authorities produced out of the ancient Fathers for that they go about to proue the very same point that we here hold that in teÌ„porall cyuill affayres we must obey dutifully our temporall Princes though Infidels or Pagans but not in matters concerning God our Religion or Conscience And his very first example out of S. Augustine is such as I meruaile much that he would cyte the same but that somwhat for shew must be alleadged For it maketh so clearly directly against him as if it had beene written purposely to confute him in this our case But let vs heare what it is Agreable to the Scriptures saith he did the Fathers teach Augustine speaking of Iâ—dian saith thus Iulian was an vnbelieuing Emperour was he not an Apostata an oppressor and an Idolatour ChristiaÌ„ souldiars serued that vnbelieuing Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they would acknowledge no Lord but him that is in heauen when he would haue them worship Idolls sacrifice they preferred God before him but when he said Go forth to fight inuade such a nation they presently obeyed they distinguished their eternall Lord from their temporall and yet were they subiect euen vnto their temporall Lord for his sake that was their eternall Lord and Maister Thus he And can any thing be spoken more cleerly for vs and for our cause then this For euen this do we offer to our King Soueraigne we will serue him we wil obey him we will go to warre with him we will fight for him and we will do all other offices belonging to temporall duty but when the cause of Christ commeth in hand who is Lord of our Consciences or any matter concerning the same or our Religion there we do as S. Augustine heere appoynteth vs preferre our eternall King before our Temporall And like to these are all the other places of Fathers cyted by him who distinguish expresly betweene the Temporall honour and Allegiance due to the Emperour and the other of our Religion Conscience belonging only to God And to that playne sense are Tertullians words cyted by the Apologer VVe honour the Emperour in such sort as is lawfull for vs and â—xpedient for him as a man second after God and as hauing receyued from God whatsoeuer he is and only lâ—sse thâ—n God And will not the Catholicks of England vse this speacâ— also vnto their King Or will the Apologer himselfe deny that Tertullian heere meant nothing els but in temporall affayres for somuch as the Emperors at that tyme were Heathens Gentils and consequently were noâ— to be obeyed in any point against Christian faith or Religion The like playne sense haue the words of Iustinâ—â— Martyr to the Emperour himselfe cited here in the third place to wit VVe only adore God and in all things we cheerfully performe seruice to you prosessing you to be Emperours and Princes of men And do not all English Catholickes say the same at this day in all other things that concerne not God his Obedience by rule of Catholicke Religion they offer cheerfully to serue his Maiesty acknowledging him to be their liege Lord and King inferiour only to God in his Temporall Gouernment And how then are these and such other places brought in for witnesse as though they had somewhat to say against vs The other two sentences in like manner cited out of Optatus and S. Ambrose the first saying That ouer the Emperour there is none but only God that made the Emperour And the other That teares were his weapons against the armes and souldiars of the Emperour That he neither ought nor could resist neyther of theÌ„ do make
colour of this power to discerne spirits giuen theÌ„ by M. Bâ—â—loâ— out of the words of S. Iohn there would neuer be an end And lastly it appeareth by all this that his lâ—st distinction wherin he sayth that the King may iudge for the truth and not of the truth is a meere delusion giuing somewhat in wordes but nothing in deed for that if the iudging for the truth be nothing els but to execute allow and approue that which others haue defined determined and appointed out vnto him to be belieued and defended as the truth then hath he no more free choice or superiority in iudgment in this case then euery subiect or common man who is likewise bound to belieue and defend the same according to his ability and power Now then to conclude the matter and to reduce all to a briefe summe for so much as M. Barlow taketh away from his Maiesty of England not only the title and style Of Head of the Church which was giuen to King Henry and confirmed to King Edward but the Papall authority in like manner for decision of matters which was ascribed vnto them both by Parlament and confirmed to Queene Elizabeth and here saith that he cannot iudge in cases of religion and fayth iudicio definitiâ—o to define and determine any thing but only execuâ—iuo to execute what the Church of England to wit what the Bishops shall define and ordayne and for somuch as he addeth yet further now in that which before we haue discussed three other particuler cases out of S. Ambrose wherin he conâ—esâ—eth that his Maiesty hath no authority but may be resisted to wit if he should call before him a Bishop to dispute with another of a different religion as Valenâ—inian did S. Ambrose and he denyed him If he should commaund a Bishop to deliuer ouer a Church to a people of a different religion and if he should command a Bishop to deliuer vp the Veâ—els of his Church as the said Empeâ—ouâ— did and the â—ther refused to obey all these things I say laid â—ogeâ—tâ—er â—ut of M. Barlows doctrine do so much diminish the greatnes of his Maiesties Supreme power in causes Ecclesiasticall as in effect it commeth to be no more thâ—n Catholike doctrine doth ordinarily allow to euery Catholicke Temporall Prince for the obseruance and execution of that which the Church determineth And this is M. Barlâ—â—â—â— heroycall exployt to marre the matter he takes in hand for his Clyent Let euery man iudge how well he hath deserued the good fee which already he hath recâ—aâ—ed for his plea and hopeth to receaue more hereafter if he may speed according to his expectation OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE Or Iâ—stance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall §. III. THERE followeth another controuersy betweene M. Barlow me about a certayne fact of S. Gregory the Great concerning the Law of Mauritius the Emperour prohibiting souldiars and such as were accomptable to the Emperours Courtes for offices borne by them to enter into monasteries and professe a religious life without his licence whereof I wrote thus in my letter Neyther doth the last place cited out of S. Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauritius make any thing moâ—e for our Apologers purpose of taking Oathes against Conscience For albeit the same Father do greatly complaâ—ne in diuers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius whome though otherwise a Catholike Emperour he compareth in that poynt to Nero and Dioclâ—siâ—n saying Quid Nero quid Dioclesiâ—â—â—s qâ—id deâ—ique isteâ— qui â—oc tempore â—â—â—lesiam persequitur Nâ—mqâ—â—◠〈◊〉 omnes porta Inferi Whâ—t was Nero What was Dioclesâ—â—â— what is he who at this time doth persecute the Church Are they not all gates of Hell Yet in this place alleaged by the Apologer he yealded to publish and send abroâ—d into diuers Countreys and Prouinces a certayne vniust law of the sayd Emperours that prohibited Sâ—uldiars and such as had bene imployed in matters of publike accompts of the CoÌ„mon-Wealth to make theÌ„selues Monks Wâ—ich law though S. Gregory did greatly mislike and wrote sharply agaynst it to the Emperour himselfe yet to shew his due respect in temporall thinges vnto him and for that indeed the law was not absolutly so euill but that in some good sense it might be tolerated to wit that Souldiars sworn to the Emperours wars might not during the said Oath obligation be receaued into Monasteries but with the Princes liceÌ„ce yet for that it tended to the abridgmeÌ„t of Ecclesiastical freedome in taking that course or state of life which ech man chooseth for the good of his soule S. Gregoâ—y misliked the same and dealt earnestly with the Emperour to relinquish it or to suffer it to be so moderated as it might stand without preiudice of Christian liberty wherunto the Emperour at length yeelded and so S. Gregory sent the same abroad vnto diuers Primates and Archbishops of sundry Kingdomes mentioned by him but corrected first and reduced by himselfe as supreme Pastour to a reasonable lawfulnes and temperate moderation to wit that those who had borne offices of charge in the Common-wealth and after desired to be admitted to religious life in Monasteries should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their full accompts and had obtayned publicke discharge for the same And that Souldiars which demanded the like admittaÌ„ce should be exactly tryed and not admitted vnto Monasticall habite but after they had liued three yeares in their lay apparell vnder probation This determineth S. Gregory in his Epistle beginning Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi Vrbicio Dyrachitano c. adding further in the same Epistle as hath bene said De qua re Serâ—issâ—mus Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur about which matter our most Clement and Christian Emperour is wholy pleased and content So as in this S. Gregory shewed his pastorall care and power in limiting and moderating the Emperours law according to the law of God though in temporall respectes he shewed him the Obedience that was due vnto him But what is this vnto our Oath May we thinke that S. Gregory that would not passe a temporall law of the Emperour without reprehension of the vnlawfulnes thereof to the Emperour himselfe and correction therof in the publication for that indirectly it did infringe the liberty of Religious life when men were called therunto that he would not haue much more resisted the admission of an Oath about such affaires if it had bene proposed No man I thinke in reason can imagin the contrary To this declaration of mine M. Barlow beginneth his reply thus But that of Gregory saith he toucheth the very quicke who as he thought his duty discharged to God in shewing the reasons why he disliked the Law so did he performe it very readily to the Emperour in promulging
such repeale made concerning the said illegitimation of Queene Elizabeth And King Henry himselfe in that Parlament of the 35. cap. 1. doth professe that he had authority by Parlament to giue and dispose the said Imperiall Crowne by his Letter Patent at his wil pleasure which sheweth that he might if he would appoint her to succeed in default of other issue though she were neuer so much illegitimate seing all was referred to his owne appointment But for so much as M. Barlow doth make so light accompt of this sentence of Parlament as after you shall heare out of his owne conteÌ„ptible words against the same I haue thought it good briefely to repeate them heere and therby shew the weight and moment therof Thus then they ly in the Statute And albeit most dread soueraigne Lord saith the Parlament that the said acts were then made as it was then thought by your Maiesties Nobles and Commons vpon a â—â—re perfect and cleare foundation thinking the said mâ—rriage then had betwene your Highnes the said Lady Anne in their consciences to haue bene pure sincere pâ—râ—â—â—â— and good and so was reputed accepted and taken in the Realme till now of late that God of his infinite goodnes from whom no secret things can be hid hath caused to be brought to light euident and opeÌ„ knowledg as well certaine iust true and lawful impediments vnknown at the making of the sayd acts and fithence that tyme confessed by the sayd Lady Anne before the most Reâ—erâ—nd Father in God Thomas Archbishop of CaÌ„terbury Metropolitan and Primate of all England sitting iudicially for the same by the which plainely appeareth that the said marriage betwene your Grace and the said Lady Anne was neuer good nor correspondent to the lawes but vtterly void and of no effect by reason wherof your Highnes was and is lawfully diuorced and separated from the bands of the said marriage in the life of the sayd lady Anne And this notwithstanding most gracious and soueraigne Lord the Lady Elizabeth your Daughter being borne vnder the said vnlawfull marriage by vertue and authority of the act of your Succession aboue remembred for lack of Heirs-males of your Body should immediatly succeed as your lawfull heiâ—e in the most royall Estate of your Imperiall Crowne of this Realme against all honor equity reason and good conscience if remedy should not be prouided for the same This was the sentence which is graue and weighty as yow see for that the whole Parlament affirmeth that such impediments were discouered by Gods infinite goodnesse and conâ—essed by Queene Anne in publicke iudgment before the Archbishop Cranmer sitting vpon the same matter as by the same it was euideÌ„tly conuinced that she was neuer King Henries true wife indeed and consequently that the lady Elizabeth was neuer his true and lawfull daughter And did not this deserue that M. Barlow should haue brought forth authenticall testimony to the contrary For if this attestation of the Parlament King and Metropolitan were good and true that Queene Anne was neuer in her life lawfull wife to King Henry then could not any future Parlament though neuer so faine it would afterward make her legitimate or lawfully giue her the Crowne in preiudice of the next lawful heire after Queene Maries death which at that time was his Maiesties Mother Queene of France and Scotland But here now M. Barlow would seeme to make some answere to these last words of mine saying that being once true quoth he to wit the illegitimation no humaÌ„ power could make it vntrue to the preiudice of another then he answereth If the illegitimation had byn in her bloud it is true no law could make it good against the right Heire And do you grant thus much Syr That if the illegitimation had bin in her bloud no law could make it good Wherein then I pray you was this illegitimation Was it in her bones or in her flesh or skinne For in one of these foure it must needs be for asmuch as it descended by her birth from her Father Mother But saith M Barlow her bloud being sound seming allegations and plausible inferences might for a time dazell not alter her right but they being cleared and reuersed these second deliberations did not so much establish her right which was inherent in her blâ—ud as make it more apparent and sensibly incontrollable Here now is indeed that begging of the question which without cause it pleaseth M. Barlow sometimes for fashioÌ„s sake to obiect against me For here our questioÌ„ being whether Queene Elizabeth was sound in bloud or no he supposeth it for a principle that it being so then seeming allegatioâ—s or plausible inferences cannot hurt her right but the Parlament supposeth proueth the coÌ„trary that she was not souÌ„d in bloud but wholy vnsouÌ„d by her birth natiuity and the same do we suppose by the authority of this Parlament and by the testification both of her Father and Mother And how ridiculous then is it that M. Barlow should suppose the conâ—â—ary without proofe saying that supposing she was sound plausible inferences could not hurt her Secondly he calleth the resolute and seuere asseuerations of King Henry himselfe and of Archbishop Cranmer and of all the Lords both spirituall and temporall of the Parlament togeather with the iudiciall confession of Queene Anne her selfe beâ—ore her execution he termeth them I say but seeming allegations and plausible infereâ—ces which thing considering both the greatnes of the persons and grauityâ— of the matter both in the sight of God and man and the most weighty consequences which therof did depend is the grieuous iniury that in words could be offered to so great authority For it is to make them all wicked men and lyers they affirming the matter to be true and to hâ—ue beene reuealed by gods infinite goodnes so euidently as there is set down and M. Barlow saying to the contrary that they are nothing but seeming allegations plausible inferences Thirdly where he sayth that these plausible inferences being cleared and reuersed in the second deliberation to wit of the Parlament did not so much establish her right which was inherent in her bloud as make it more apparent he beggeth againe the question and supposeth that for his ground which we deny vntill he can proue it to wit that the former determination of Parlament was reuersed concerning her illegitimation For why should not this appeare in the Satute booke as well as the former And wheras he sayth that her right of successioÌ„ was but dazeled not altered by this Decree of Parlament for that it was inherent in her bloud we haue now shewed that it is a ridiculous tergiueâ—sation for that the Parlament condemning and disanulling vtterly the marryage of her mother with her father doth therby condemne her whole bloud for vnlawfull to succeed except M. Barlow will say she had other bloud which she tooke not from Father
depriued by the Pope of the kingdome of Nauarre and himselfe I meane this King of France forced to begge so submissiuely the relaxation of his excommunication as he was content to suffer his Embassadour to be whipped at Rome for pennance All these examples sayd I in my Letter were heaped togeather to make a muster of witnâ—sses for profe of the dangers that Princes persons are or may be in by acknowledging the Popes supreme Authority adding this for answere But first quoth I in perusing of these I find such a heape indeed oâ— exaggerations additions wrestings and other vnsincere deâ—lings as would require a particuler Booke to refute them at large And the very last here mentioned of the present King of France mâ—y shew what credit is to be giuen to all the rest to wit Romeâ— the latin Interpreter turneth it Vt Legatum suum Romae virgis caesum passus sit as though he had byn scourged with rodds vpon the bare flesh or whipped vp and downe Rome wheras so many hundreds being yet aliue that saw the Cerimony which was no more but the laying on or touching of the sayd Embassadours shoulder with a long white wand vpon his apparell in token of submitting himselfe to Ecclesiaâ—tical discipline it maketh them both to wonder and laugh at such monstrous assertions comming out in print and with the same estimatioÌ„ of punctual fidelity do they measure other things here auouched As â—or example that our King Henry the second was whipped vp and downe the Chapter-house and glad that he could escape so too â—or which he citeth Houeden and this he insinuateth to be by order of the Pope in respect wherof he saith the King had iust cause to be afraid But the Author doth plainely shew the contrary first setting downe the Charter of the Kings absolution where no such pennance is appointed and secondly after that againe in relating the voluntary pennance which the King did at the Sepulcher of S. Thomas for being some occasion of his death doth refute therby this narration as fraudulent and vnsincere that the King was whipped like a school boy by order of tâ—e Pope as though it had not come from his owne free choice and deuotion Thus sayd I in my Letter To these two last examples of whipping both in the King of France his â—mbassadour our King Henry the second of England M. Barlows reply is only in certaine scoffs for intertaining of tâ—â—e A wand saith he was laid soâ—tly on the Embassadour of France his shoulders c. Is the rod of Ecclesiasticall discipline in Rome turnâ—d now inâ—o a white wand soâ—tly laid on Againe after Herby a man may coniecture what the selâ—e-whipping of Iesuits and Romanâ—sts is VVill they not sâ—y when they haue the â—â—ip in their hands as S. Peter said to his Maister Parce tibi be good to your selâ—e Syr For no man yet euer hated his owne flesh but nourished it which is a better place of Scripture against selfe-whipping then tâ—e Popâ— hath any for turning the rod of correction into a wand of Cerimony So he And whether it be a better place of Scripture or no I wilâ— not decide but sure I am that the practice is more â—asy and sweet to nourish a mans owne flesh then to disciplin the same and more allowed I doubt not by M. Barlow such as follow his spirituall directions But yet about this better place of Scripture auouched by M. Barlow against whipping it shall not be amisse to consider somewhat how rightly it is aleadged and therby see what becoÌ„meth of Scriptures when it is once brought into these mens possessions The place is cited togeather as you see all in a different letter as if S. Peter had spoken the whole yet in the margent he quoteth Matth. 16. and Ephes. 5. wherby those that are learned vnderstand that the former words only of Parce tibi spare your selfe Syr are of S. Peter and the later of nourishing our flesh against disciplining is of S Paul And not to stand vpon the former clause albeit that it differ from the vulgar translation surely the place of S. Paul beareth not M. Barlows sense and application against disciplining of our flesh which is so farre of from the Apostles true drift and meaning as nothing can be more His words are these Husbands ought to loue their wiues as their owne bodies and he that loueth his wife loueth himselfe for no man euer hated his owne flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth the same euen as Christ the Church And is this so good a place of Scripture now as M. Barlow saith against selfe-whipping for so much as here the Apostle speaketh of husbands nourishing and cherishing their wiues as Christ doth his Church Which though he loued as his owne flesh yet doth he often whip and chasten as all men do both see and feele that liue in her This then is impertinent and nothing to S. Pauls meaning But what were it not a better place to the contrary for whipping and chastening a mans owne flesh voluntarily when the same apostle saith Casâ—igo corpus meum in â—â—râ—itutem â—eâ—igo It do chasten my owne body and doe bring it into seruitude the Greeke word also being more forcible to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to make blacke or â—lew as also where he talketh of Vigiliae ieiunia multa of manie Vigills and fastings practized by him and other Apostles Doth not this proue that a selfe-chastizing of a mans bodie is pleasing to God What will M. Barlow say to that other precept of â—erramâ— do you mortifie your members vpon earth Doth not voluntary mortification of the members of our body include voluntary chaâ—tisment of the flesh and consequently allso whipping sometimes if need require What will he say of that crucifying our members wherof the same Apostle speaketh Doth not crucifying imply as much as self whipping But it semeth that these things are strange paradoxes to M. Barl. that was neuer acquainted with the same but being accustomed rather with the other paâ—t of the sentence of nourishing cherishing his flesh by good cheere soft apparell and other delicacies of life so far â—orth as he hath bene able to procure it laughing at them that taâ—ke oâ— whipping quia aniâ—alis homo non percipiâ—â—a qu◠〈◊〉 spâ—â—itus Dâ—â— because the fleshly man doth not vnderstand those thingâ— that appertaine to the spirit of God And this shal be a sufficient answer to M. Barlowes trifâ—ing about whipping both in the King of France his Embassadour at Rome and King Henry the second at Canterburie in England But yet one thing is to be noted for conclusion about whipping King Henry the second of whom it was sayd before that he was whipped vp and downe the Chapter-â—ouse like a schoole boy and glad to escape so too now being prâ—ssed by my answer thereunto out of Houeden and other
CARDINALL what dignity title it is pag. 8. Cardinall Bellarmine abused by M. Barlow pag. 80. his Letter to the Archpriest discussed pag. 345. deincâ—ps his opinion of the Oath of Allegiance p. 346. 347. deinceps cleered from false imputation pag. 386. 387. defended from ContradictioÌ„s pag. 432. 442. 443. 448. 449. Charles the Great Emperour his zeale in reformation of manners in the Clergy pag. 313. Châ—lsey erection for wryters pag. 248. Clement 8. his Breues sent into England pag. 342. Clergymen freed from secular burtheÌ„s whence it first proceeded pag. 371. L. Cooke Chiefe Iustice of the CoÌ„mon Pleas his booke of Arraignments pag. 188. his definition of Misery by Copia â—nopia ibid. his poore Deuinity pag. 190. Conscience erroneous how and when it bindeth p. 33. 277. Contentions betweene Popes and Emperours pag. 480. deinceps Controuersie betweene S. Gregory and Mauritius the Emperour pag. 304. Councell of Aâ—les how it submitted it selfe to the Emperour pag. 313. Councells Generall alwayes assembled by the B. of Rome p. 320. Councell of Millaine corrupted by M. Barlow pag. 33â— Councell 4. of Toledo in Spaine of the Oath prescribed to Subiects therin pag. 365. dâ—inceps Difference betweene that the Oath of Allegiance pag. 381. 384. falsified by M. Barlow pag. 369. Whether it agreed with the Protestant Church of England 377. S. Cyprians iudgment of such as dy out of the Catholik Church pag. 222. D DESCENDING of Christ into hell pag. 377. Difference Essentiall betweene Protestants Puritans praef n. 32. Differenâ—e between the writing of F. Persons M. Barlow praef n. 132. Diuells concurrence with M. Barlow pag. 450. Diuinity of M. Barlow carnall p. 133. fit for the Court pag. 177. Diuision of the worke pag. 2. Doctâ—ine of the Church not preiudicated by euill life p. 147. E EARLE of Eâ—sex his Confession reuealed by M. Barlow p. 22. Preached against by him 212. Edward vide Cooke Eleazar his glorious death for not eating of swines flesh pag. 541. Q. Elizabeth her life discussed paâ—t 2. cap. 1. 2. per totum Her manes pag. 161. 166. Canonized for a Saint by M. Barlow pâ—g 164. praef n. 114. her Mortifications pag. 168. § 2. per totum No cloistred Nunne â— 170. her Felicities Infelicities part 2. cap. 2. per totum her birth pag. 201. her sicknes and death pag. 209. § 3. her Purgation about the Q. of Scotlands death pag. 215. her disastrous end pag. 216. 217. held for an Heretike pag. 226. How she was a ioy Iewell to the Christian world pag. 422. her Illegitimation p. 424. declared by her owne Father in Parlament pag. 426. nec Virgo nec Martyr praef n. 115. Equiuocation not lawfull in matters of Religion pag. 30. confounded with lying by M. Barlow pag. 384. 385. Excommunication of Princes practised in the Primitiue Church pag. 102. F FAITH diuine humane distinguished pag. 392. Feliâ—ities and Infelicites of Q. Elizabeth part 2. c. 2. per totum Felicity temporall no argument of spirituall p. 181. 182. 183. AncieÌ„t Fathers discourses therupon p. 184. 185. 186. Festiuities Masses of Saints p. 379. B. Fisher abused by M. Barlow p. 328. Flattery of his Maiesty by Mininisters partâ— 2. cap. 3. per totum of the nature of flattery p. 231. Fox his rabble of Martyrs p. 233. Fâ—edericke the first Emperour his submission to the Pope p 466. Fredericke the second his contention with Popes pag. 480. deinceps his voyage to the holy land 481. 48â— his counterfait sicknes ibid. his vices and bad life pag. 514. his barbarous cruelty 517. his blasphemy 519. Gods punishment laid vpoÌ„ him 520. G F. Garnets face in the straw p. 23. Gemen the Turke poysoned pag. 533. Gracchus abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. S. Gregory rayled at by M. Barlow praef n. 108. H HEAD of the Protestant Church monstrous p. 200. Henry vide Wotton Henry the 4. Emperour taken vp again out of his graue after buriall pag. 398. His deposition 411. Henry the 5. Emperour his insurrection against his father pag. 410. Henry the 3. of France his murder pag. 414. Henry the 8. of England iniured by M. Barlow pag. 428. Henry the 2. of England his absolution pag. 463. Henry the 6. Emperour his coronation pag. 466. S. Hieromes Discourse of felicity and infelicity pag. 185. Hope cannot stand without certainty of faith praef n. 48. Huldericus Mutius a Lutheran pag. 398. Hypocrisy what it is and what is the marke of an hypocrit p. 91. I IAMES vide King Idolatry suspition not cause of feare alwayes pag. 118. M. Iewell contrary to himselfe prâ—f n. 41. Immunity of the Clergy whence it first proceeded pag. 371. Inconstancy vide â—arlow Infelicity vide Felicity Infidels denyed Christian buriall 408. also Heretikes and excoÌ„municated persons ibid. Innocentius the 4. Pope abused by M. Barlow pag. 509. 510. 511. his death lamentation therof 513. 514. Ioâ—n vide Fox Syr Ioâ—n Cuâ—â— abused by M. Barlow in the pulpit praf n. 112. Iosâ—phsâ—â—lling â—â—lling into Egypt p. 421 K KING Iames said to be the Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance part 1. cap. 11 § 1. Why his Maiesty was not named in the booke pag. 5. that he neuer â—ead the booke â—ttentiâ—ely ibid. Iniured by M. Barlow pag. 12. flattered by Ministers egregiously part 2. cap. 3. per totum His mild disposition diuerted pag. 230. Kings their vices recounted in Scripture pag. 199. King Henry the 2. of England his absolution pag. 46â— King Henry the 4. of France his Embassador at Rome and the Ceremony of publike absolution pag. 465. L S. LEO rayled at by M. Barlow â—raf n. 108. 109. Liberty of Conscience demaunded by all forraine Protestants p. 256â— Liberty of Conscience vide toleration M MACHIAVELS principles agree with ProtestaÌ„t doctrine pag. 390. Maister what it signifieth how it is a title of honour pag. 9. Marriage of Priests and M. Barlows forgery therabout p. 373. Decree of the Councell of Toledo against the same pag. 374. 375. 376. Martyrs in Q. Elizabeths dayes pag. 206. Medina misunderstood by M. Barlow p. 43. explicated 44. 45. Mâ—riâ— of workes pag. 377. Misery defined by the L. Cooke pag. 188. Moone in the Asses belly p. 103. Monkes punished liuing disorderly pag. 380. M. Morton canuased pag 73. 74. his abuse of Salmeron 75. Mortification of M. Barlow pag. 126. of Q. Elizabeth pag. 163. externall Mortification and internall pag. 169. 171. 176. Mortification for Princes pag. 177. Mortification in time of Lent pa. g 376. N NABVchodonosors punishment pag. 195. more happy then Q. Elizabeth ibid. Neâ—o Domitiâ—n Heades of the Church in M. Barlowes opinion pag. 200. O OATH of Allegiance discussed partâ— 1. cap. 1. 2. per totum whether the taking of it be a blessing from God p. 37. part 1. c. 4. per totum what freedome the taking thereof bringeth to Catholikes p. 39. coufuted both at home and
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
they expected came not to consecrate them they dealt with Sâ—ory of Hâ—râ—ford to doe it who when they were all on their knees caused him who kneeled downe Iohn Iewell to rise vp Byshop of Salisbury he that was Robert Horne before to rise vp Byshop of Winchester and so forthwith all the restâ— which Horse-head Ordering was after confirmed Synodically by Parlament wherin they were acknowledged for true Byshops and it was further enacted that none should make any doubt or call in question that ordination 137. This was the first ordering of M. Iewell the rest as I haue bene enformed by one that heard it from M. Neale Reader of the Hebrw lecture in Oxford who was there present an eye witnes of what was done and passed Perhaps for a further complemeÌ„t to supply all defects in the matter or forme of this ordering Q. Elizabeth as Head of the Church did as a noble Woman is said to haue done neere Vienna of whom Schererius the Lutheran writeth Ante paucos annos non procul hinc mulier quaedam nobilis per impositionem muliebrium suarum manuum lintei quo praecingebatur loco stolae filiorum suorum preceptorum ad praedicanticum officium vocauit ordinauit consecrauit A few yeares since not farr from hence a certayne Noble woman did call the Maister of her children to the office of a Preacher or Minister and did order and consecrate him by the imposition of her hands and of her apron which she did vse in steed of a stole Whether any such imposition of hands aprons or kyrtles were vsed to these first Prelates by Q. Elizabeth afterwards I know not but I haue bene credibly enformed that Maister Whitgift would not be Byshop of Canterbury vntill he had kneeled downe the Queene had laid her hands on his head by which I suppose ex opere operato he receaued no grace 138. To conclude seeing that against M. Doctor Harding M. Iewell could neuer proue himself a Bishopâ— as the Reader may see at large in the place here by 〈◊〉 cyted I will not put M. Barlow to proue the same fâ—â— I see the length of his foote quid valeant humeri qâ—â—â— ferre recusâ—nt where M. Iewell failed to seeke M. Barlowes supply were ridiculous it shall suffice him to answere for al his owne ouersights in this booke to learne to be modest to take heed how he dealeth with Schoole men to write truely to study to vnderstand well the controuersie wherof he writeth and finally to write as a Scholler as a Deuine at least as an honest man of all which the very easiest is too hard in my opinion for him to performe theÌ„ I dare promise him that with all candor sincerity and modesty by one or other he shall be answered And if in some things I might seeme to haue bene too sharp yet in respect of his base and bitter veyne whatsoeuer I haue said will seeme I doubt not to be both myld and temperate Faultes escaped in the Preface Quateâ—n c pag. 1. nu 10. in margine versus finem adde Nubrig l. 5. cap. 21. Eodem quatern pag. 3. lin 26. nu 12. species producatur lege species praedicatur Quatern d pag. 3. lin 24. nu 22. Iudge not â—ege I iudge not Quatern f pag. 7. lin 30. num 45. dele the affirmatiue or negatiue Quatern k pag. 1. l. 6. nu 73. F. Persons lege Fathers person OF POINTS CONCERNING THE NEVV OATH OF ALLEGIANCE Handled in the Kings Apology before the Popes Breues AND Discussed in my former Letter CHAP. I. FOR as much as good order and method in writing giueth alwaies great light and ease to the Reader my meaning is in this ensuing Worke to insist speciâ—lly vpon the three parts toucâ—ed rather then treatâ—d at large in my Letter against the Apology which Letter M. Barlow hath in his booke pretended to answerâ— and that also in three parts according to the former diuision of the Epistle wherof the first part doth conteine such points as the Apology did handle by way of preface as it were before the Popes two Breues especially concerning the substance and circumstances of the new Oath The second such other matters as by occasion of the sayd two Breues were brought into dispute by way eyther of impugnation or defence The third doth comprehend Cardinall Bellarmiâ—â— his letter to M. Blackwell togeather with the view and examination of what had beene written in the Apology against the same And albeit it doth grieue me not a little to be forced to leese so much good tyme froÌ„ other more profitable exercises as to goe ouer these matters againe especially with so idle an aduersary as you will find in effâ—ct M. Barlow euery where to be yet shall I endeuour to recoÌ„pence somewhat to the Reader this losse of time by choosing out the principall matters only by drawing to light my said Aduersaries voluntaâ—y and affected obscurity vsing also the greatest breuity that I may without ouermuch preiudice to perspicuity which I greatly loue as the lanterne or rather looking glasse wherby to find out the truth and for that cause so carefully fled by my aduersary as in the progresse of this our contention will be discouered For that as diuinely our Sauiour sayd Qui male agit odit lucem non venit ad lucem ne arguantur opâ—ra eius He that doth euill hateth the light and will not come at it least his workes be discouered therby But we must draw him hereunto and for better method we shall reduce the most chiefe and principall heades of ech part vnto certayne Sections or Paragraphes which may help the memory of the Reader ABOVT THE TRVE Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance §. I. FIRST then for that it hath byn sufficiently obserued before and the reader hath byn aduertised also therof that in all my aduersaries allegatioÌ„s of my words when they are in any number he commonly falsifieth them or offereth some other abuse to the same by altering them to his purpose or inserting his owne among mine and yet setting downe all in a different letter as if meerly they were myne I shal be inforced as occasion is offered to repeat my owne lynes as they ly in my owne Booke that therby I may be vnderstood and his answere to me conceaued which hardly can be as he hudleth vp both the one and the other desiring to walke in a mist of darknes the euent shall shew whether I speake this vpon good grounds or no. Now to the narration it selfe And so first hauing receaued from my friend in England the aforesayd Apology of triplex Cuneus concerning the new Oath of Allegiance now called the Kings and perused the same with some attention I wrote backe againe to my sayd friend as followeth being the very first lines I cannot but yeild you harty thankes my louing friend for the new booke you sent me
rayse and reuiue the same agayne after his death and make it his owne by this sinfull vnchristian exprobration therof But what maketh this to the purpose we haue in hand surely nothing but to shew the malice and misery of the slaunderer For let Father Persons be a ranging voluntary runegate and Hispanized Camelion as here he is termed or any thing els which an intemperate loose or lewde tongue can deuise for his conâ—umely what is all this to the matter in hand that is to say to the writing of the former letter or who was the author thereof Doth not here malyce and folly striue which of them shall haue the vpper hand in M. Barlow But yet one point he hath more of singularity in folly which I suppose will goe neere to make the reader laugh if he be not in choler with him before for his malice For wheras I had professed my selfe to be perswaded vpon the reasons set downe that his Maiestie was not the penner of the Apologie though it was printed by Barker his Printer and set forth authoritate Regia by the Kings authority alleadging for example that first of the minister T. M. knowne afterwardes to be Thomas Morton who published some yeares gone his lying and slaunderous Discouery against Catholikes and gaue it this approbatioâ— that it was set forth by direction from Superiours though perhaps no Superiour euer read it and the like I sayd might be suspected that this other Apologie furnished with authoritate Regia might perhaps proue to be the worke of some other T. M. to wit Thomas Montague somewhat neere to his Maiestie by reason of his Ministeriall office which then he held all which declaration notwithstanding Maister Barlow is so set to haue men thinke that I knew and perswaded my selfe that it was the Kings booke indeed and that by those two letters T. M. I meant Tua or Tanta Maiestas By those ciphers saith he of T. M. if he will speake without equiuocation he meant Tua or Tanta Maiestas And haue you euer heard such a dreame or deliration in one that professeth wit Marke his sharpenes I doe say that this second T. M. doth signify Thomas Montague do sett it downe expresly in the margent I doe describe the person and office neere the king as being then Deane of his Chapell though I name it not I doe shew probabilities how he might presume to write and set forth that booke authoritate Regia by shewing it only to the king And how could I then by those two letters of T. M. meane Tua or Tanta Maiestas or what sense of grammer or coherence of phrase would those latyn wordes make for so much as I wrot in English what shall I say is not he worthy to pretend a Bishopricke that hath no more wit then this But let vs goe forward to examyne other poyntes He standeth much vpon the exception taken of calling Cardinall Bellarmine Maister Bellarmine and his defence consisteth in these poyntes distended impertinently throughout diuers pages That his Maiestie being so great a King might call such an vpstart officer that knoweth not where to rake for the beginning of his sublimity Maister That Christ our Sauiour was called Rabbi by Nicodemus Rabboni by Mary Magdalen and that Christ himselfe acknowleged the title to his disciples Iohn 13. You call me Lord Maister you do well for so I am That S. CypriaÌ„ called Tertullian his Maiâ—ter Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris was called Maister oâ— the Sentences in all which speaches sayth he the word Maister is taken for a name of credit and not of reproach These are his arguments Wherâ—unto I answer first that the greater the Prince is the more commonly they doe abound in courtesy of honorable speach and consequently his Maiesties greatnes made rather for my coniecture then otherwise that if he had beene the Writer of the booke he would not haue vsed that terme of contempt to such a man and secondly for so much as concerneth the dignity degree of a Cardinall in it self so much scorned by M. Barlow it shal be well that he do read ouer the fourth chapter of Carâ—inall Bellarmines last booke of answer to his Maiesâ—â—es â—reâ—ace De comparatione Regis Cardinalis where he shâ—â—l 〈◊〉 so much raked togeather to vse his owne phrase of conteâ—pt for the dignity and high estimation of that state in the Catholike Church as he wil be hardly â—bâ—e to diâ—perse the same in the sight of godly and wâ—sâ— men with all the contumelious speach he can vse therof espâ—câ—ally for so much as Cardinall Bellarmine his wordeâ— oâ—â—â—omise are these AdducaÌ„iudicium testimonis Paâ—â—â—m vâ—tâ—rum qui primis qâ—â—ngentis annis sloruerunt quos à sâ— â—ecipi Rex ipse supra testatus est I wilâ— bring forth the iudgment and teâ—timonies saith he of the ancient Fathers which florished in the first fiue hundred yeares after Christ whom the King before testified that he doth admit and receiue So he Thirdly where he alleageth that Christ was called Rabbi and Rabboni and acknowledged himselfe to be so to wit a Maister and Teacher helpeth nothing Maister Barlowes purpose at all For we graunt that the word Maister may signify two thinges first the authority of a teacher or doctor and so our Sauiour in respect of the high and most excellent doctrine that he was to â—each vnto the world for saluatioÌ„ of soules was called Maister by exâ—ellenâ—y yea the only Maister for so doth our Sauiour expressely affâ—â—me in S. Matthews ghospell Be you not called Maisters for that Christ is only your Maister In which sense he is also called Doctor by eminency in the Prophet Isay who promised amoÌ„g other things in the behalf of God to his people Non saciet aâ—olâ—re ad tevâ—â—â—â— Doctorem tuum He wil not take froÌ„ you agâ—ine your Doctor or Maister Iosue also in this sense writeth that he called togeather Principes Iudices Magistâ—os The Princes Iudges Maisters of the people So as in this sense of teaching gouerning directing the word Maister beareth a great dignity and our Sauiour ioyned the same with the word Lord when he sayd you call me Lord Maister you do well therin And so if the Apâ—logeâ— whosoeuer he were had this intentioÌ„ to honâ—ur Card. Bellarmine with the dignity of Doctor teacher wheÌ„ he called him M. Bellarmine I graunt that no discourtesy was offered vnto him by that title But now there is another sense in vsing this word Maâ—â—ter as it is a common title giuen to vulgar men and the leaâ—tâ— lowest of all other titles of courtesy accustomed to be giuen for that aboue this is the word Syr aboue that agayne Lord and then Excellency Grace Maiestâ— and the like And in this sense and common acceptance of the word Maister I sayd in my Letter that it might be taken in contempt
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
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
folly for saying but a supposal as though it were a speach of vncertainty I haue said sufficieÌ„t before There remaineth his vntruth in saying that Bellar. doth suppose that if the rest of the Apostles were not made Bishops by S Peter then cannot the Church of Rome be the Mother-Church of other Churches nor the Bishop vniuersal Bishop For first as coÌ„cerning the latter part about the Vniuersall Bishop Bellarmine hath no one word thereof but teacheth the quite contrary founding the power and authority of S. Peter ouer all other Churches vpon other groundes and namely vpon the commission of Christ Matth. 16. â—oan 20. not vpon his ordayning or not ordayning Bishops of the other Apostles about which question he doth but set downe the opinion of Ioannes de Tuâ—reâ—remata lib. 2. Summae de Ecclesia Cap. 32. with his reasons â—or the same and consequently doth not â—et it downe as a supposall certaine ground or principle but as a probable and disputable opinion though himself hould the opinion of Turrecremata to be more probable But on the other side Franciscus de Victoria heere cited by M. Barlow himselâ—e though he be of a contrary opinion to Turrecremata and to Bellarmine about the Ordination of all the Apostles by S. Peter yet doth he in the very same place professe that S. Peter was Vniuersall Bishop ouer all the Church of God Primus Princeps cum summa supertotam Ecclesiam potâ—state That among the Apostles he was the first and principall with supreme power ouer all the Church So as the denial of this particulâ—r priuiledge in S. Peter that he ordained all other Apostles Bishops doth not inâ—eâ—e that he was not vniuersall Bishop of the whole Church as here we see M. Barlow most falsely to inferre And whereas he noteth in the margent with great diligence diuers Catholicke writers that dâ—â— hold the question to be probable on both sids as Salmeron Victoria Suarez and Gregorius de Valâ—ntia that is but an old trick to shuâ—â—le and make a noice where there is no need for Bellarmine doth not hold the thing to be de fide or infallible supposall and consequently it little importeth to bring in this diuersity of opinions of the aâ—oresayd Authors about the matter Now then to come to the second vntruth that the Pope by decreeing the Oath as it lay was vnlawfull did also forbid euen that very point of sâ—earing ciuill obedience which is so notoriously vntrue as whosoeuer doth but read the Popes Breue it selfe or Cardinall Bellarmine his explication therof or my Letter wherin the contrary is euery where protested wil maruaile to see such impudent proceeding But of this more afterward Now wee shall passe to discusse whether there be any pointes in the sayd Oath concerning the religion and consciences of Catholicks whereby the taking thereof was made vnlawfull vnto them For this doth Maister Barlow vtterly deny as now you shall heare WHETHER THE OATH BE ONLY OF CIVILL OBEDIENCE Or whether there be any clauses in it against Catholicke Religion CHAP. II. THIS point being one of the most chief of al my Treatise about the Oath is haÌ„dled by me somewhat largely pag. 13. of my Letter where vpon the deniâ—ll of the Apologer that any thing is there required but Ciuill obedience my wordes are these And how shall we cleare tâ—is important matter to wit VVhether there be any poyntes in thâ— Oath belonging to religion besides ciuill obedience and I do answer that it is vâ—ry easy to cleare the same by fower seuerall and distinct waâ—es First by the expresse wordes sense and drift of the Oath it selfe that besides the acknowledgemenâ— of temporall respects to wit that our Soueraigne is tâ—â—â— Kâ—ng rightâ—ull Lord ouer all his dominions and â—hat the swearer is his true loyall subiect to obey him in all temporall affayres and other like clauses whereat no man sticketh or maketh difficulty there be other clauses also against the authority of the Supreme Pastour which doe iustly breed scruple of conscience to a Catholicke to â—dmit or take the same Secondly I shewed the same by the Popes wordes in his Breues wherin he doth conioyne the taking of this Oath with the going to the Churches and Seruice of a different Religion pronouncing the one and the other to be vnlawfull Thirdly I declared the same out of the iudgment of Cardinall Bellarmine other learned men who hauing considered well the nature of this Oath and different clauses therin coÌ„tayned do hold it for so cautelously compounded by artificially ioyning togeather Temporal and Spirituall thinges to wit Ciuill Obedience forswearing the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority as no man can thereby profâ—sse his temporall subiection and detest treason and conspiracy which all Catholikes are most willing to doe but he must be forced also to renouÌ„ce the Primacy of the Sea Apostolicke from which all good Cathoâ—ick consciences do iustly abhorre Fourthly for a more full and finall clearing of this matter that I could thinke of no better nor more forcible meane then to make this reall offer on the behalfe of euery English Catholicke for better satisfaction of his Maiestie in this poynt so much vrged of their ciuill and temporall obedience First that he will sweare and acknowledge most willingly all those partes and clauses of the Oath that do any way appertayne to the Ciuil and Temporall obedience due to his Maiesty whom he acknowledgeth for his true and lawfull King and Soueraigne ouer all his dominions and that he will sweare vnto him as much loyalty as euer any Catholicke Subiect of England did vnto their lawfull Kinges in former tymes and ages before the change of King Henry the eight or that aâ—y forrayne subiect oweth or ought to sweare to any Catholicke Prince whatsoeuer at this day These were the â—oure wayes which then occurred 〈◊〉 my mind wherunto it shall be good to examine brieâ—â—y what M. Barlow hath bene able to say in this his answâ—â—â— He beginneth resoluâ—ely as though he had intention 〈◊〉 ioynâ— really indeed Now then saith he this must be cleâ—â—â—â— whether the Oath doth onely concerne ciuill obedience yea or no 〈◊〉 that it doth not the Censurer taketh vpon him to satisfy in eight â—â—â—bers â—rom the 20. to the 28. and that foure seuerall waies So â—e And what doth he alleage against these foure waie◠〈◊〉 eâ—fect no word at all though he babble not a little of diuers matters impertinent to the purpose VVe laying this 〈◊〉 our ground saith he that first both swearing and performing 〈◊〉 obedience is aswell negative against any intruder challenger or vsâ—â—per as affirmatiue â—or the lawfull gouernours and Soueraignes Secondly that this challeng of the Pope in dethroning and deposing of Priâ—ces is a temporall intrusion and no spirituall iurisdiâ—tion do câ—â—clâ—â—â— with a strong and apparant euidence that the whole bulke of the Oâ—â—â— both in the submissiue and exclusiue part doth
inferreth that 〈◊〉 temporall authority of the Pope by vs pretended beiâ—â— but humanum inuentum a humane inuention or ratâ—â—â— intrusion or vsurpation as he calleth it the matter of the Oath wherby the same is excluded must needâ—◠〈◊〉 meerly Ciuill no lesse then if it were against any oâ—â—â—â— meere temporall Prince that would vsurpe any part of our Soueraignes temporall right or Crowne Whereunâ—â— I answer that if this were so and that it could be proued that this temporall power of the Pope as we teach it were but a humane inuention indeed and not founded in any authority diuine or humane then M. Barlow had sayd somewhat to the matter and the comparison of an Oath taken against any other teÌ„poral Prince might haue place But for that we haue shewed now that this is not 〈◊〉 but that there is great difference betweene this temporall power of the Pope deriued from his supreme spirituall authority as vniuersall Pastour which no temporall Prince is and the pretension of any meere temporall Potentate therfore is the swearing against the one but a ciuil obedience and the other a point belonging to conscience and religion with those that belieue the sayd power to come from God But now for answering this his last collection of authors I say first that Bellarmine in the place by hiâ— cited hath no one word of any such matter his booke being de Concilys and his purpose is to shew both in the 13. Chapter here cited as also in the precedent Câ—iâ— sâ— congâ—egare Concilâ—a to whome it belongeth to gather Councels which he sheweth to appertaine to haue appertained alwaies to the Bishops of Rome and not to Kings and Emperoures albeit they being the Lordes of the world the sayd Councels could not well be gathered withoâ—â— their consent and power But of Excommunication or of deposition of Princes Bâ—llarmine hath no one word in this place and so M. Barlowes assertion and quotation iâ— both false and impertinent about the first six hundred yeares after Christ. But if he will looke vpon Bellarmine in other places where he handleth this argument of Excommunicationâ— and depositions of Princes as namely in his second and fiâ—th booke de Rom. Pontis he will find more ancient examples at least of ExcommunicatioÌ„ which is the ground of the other then the six hundred yeares assigned out of Bellarmine For that Bellarm. beginneth with the Excommunication of the Emperour Arcadiuâ— and Eudoxia his wife by Pope Innocentiâ—â— the first for the persecution of S. Iohn Chrysostome which was about two hundred yeares before this tyme assigned by M. Barlow and diuers other examples more ancient then the 1000. years allotted by Doctor Barkley the Scottishman here alleadged as the excommunication of Leo Isauricuâ— surnamed the Image-breaker by Pope Gregory the second the example also of King Chilperiâ—us of France by Zacharias the Pope the example also of Pope Leo the third that translated the Empyre from the East to the West And as for the Friar Sigebert brought in here for a witnesse he should haue sayd the Monke for that the religious orders of Fryars were not instituted a good while after this who is sayd to call the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes A Nouelty is not an Heresy it is a notable calumniation as may be seene in the wordes of Sigebert himselfe in the very place cyted by M. Barlow For though Sigebert following somewhat the faction of the Emperour Henry the third excommunicated by Pope Vrbanus the second did often speake partially concerning the actions that passed betweene them which many tymes seemed to proceed of passion more then of reason and iustice yet doth he neuer deny such power of Excommunicating deposing for iust causes to belawfull in the Pope but the playne contrary Neyther doth he call that doctrine Noâ—elty or Heresy that the Pope hath this authority as falsely M. Barlow doth here affirme but only that it seemed to him a new doctrine which he would not call Heresy to teach that vicious Princes were not to be obeyed for so are his wordes Nimirum vt pace omnium dixerim haec sola nouiâ—as non dicam hâ—resis necdum in mundo emerserat vt 〈◊〉 Dei doceant populum quâ—d maliâ— Regibus nullam debeâ—â—t 〈◊〉 To wit that I may speake without offence of all this only nouelty I will not say Heresy was not yet spâ—â—â—â— vp in the world that the Priestes of God should teach 〈◊〉 people that they ought no obedience at all to euill Priâ—ces c. In which wordes you see that Sigebert doth 〈◊〉 deny or reproue the authority of Excommunication 〈◊〉 deposition of Princes especially if they be for heresy bâ—â— only the Doctrine that no subiection or obedience is dâ—â— to vicious or cuill-liuing Princes which is false and scandalous doctrine indeed As for the fourth Author alleadged in this place 〈◊〉 wit Claudius Espencaeus that he should call the fact of Pope Gregory the seauenth his excommunicating Henry the thiâ—d Nouellum schisma a new rent or schisme which is borrowed out of M. Morton as the rest which in this poynt he alleageth I will referre him for his answer to the answer that is made of late to M. Morton himselfe which is called The quiet and sober Reckoning where this matter is returned vpon him with so â—uident a conuiction of wilful falsity as is impossible for him to cleare his credit therin For that these wordes are not spoken by Espencaeus himselfâ—â— but related only by him out of a certaine angry Epistle written by certaine schismaticall Priestes of Liege that were commaunded by Paschalis the second to be chastised by Robertâ—arle â—arle oâ— â—landers and his souldiers newly come from Ierusalem about the yeare 1102. for their rebellious behauyour Which passionate letter of theirs Espencaâ—â— doth only relate out of the second Tome of Councells expresly protesting that he wil not medle with that controuerâ—y of fighting betweene Popes and Emperours though he prâ—ue in that plâ—ce by sundry exâ—mples both of Scriptures Fathers and Councels that in some cases it is lawful for Priests to vse temporal armes also when need iustice requireth So as this falsification must now fall aswell vpon M. Barlow as vpon M. Morton before and we shall expect his answere for his dâ—fence in this behalfe As for the last authority of S. Ambrose that Kinges and Emperours be tuti Imperij potestate sate by power of their Empire from any violent censure though I find no such matter in any of the two Chapters quoted by M. Barlow out of his Apologia Dauid yet seeking â—urther into other bookes of his I find the wordes which is a token that our Doctor writeth out of note-bookes of some Brother and neuer seeth the places himselfe but though I find the wordes yet not the sense which he will inferre but wholy peruerted to another meaning For that if S. Ambrose had bene of opinioÌ„ that
not occurred any such particular occasion of actuall deposing of temporall Princes as did afterwards wherof wee haue treated before for that Princes were not so exorbitant yet the ground and origen of deposing Princes which is excommunication and exclusion from the body of the Church cannot be denied to haue byn practised often in those former ages And when a temporall Prince is so cast out of the Church by excommunication made no member therof much lesse may he be Head if he perseuere obstinate and seeke to infect and destroy the whole body I say in this case what shall the sayd Church and Gouernours therof doe with such a Prince Wherin I sayd that all Catholike Deuines doe agree that our Sauiour in this case hath not left his Church vnprouided of some remedy for that otherwise his diuine prouidence might seeme to haue bene defectuous not to haue left a remedy for so great and vniuersall an euill But now at this reason as strongly pressing him M. Barlow stormeth and stampeth exceedingly saying first it is a tryuiall obiection borrowed by me from Cardinall Allens Apology and by vs both from one Bertrand that vseth the same in his glosse vpon a place of the Canon law But what if all this were true as it is not What were this to the purpose Let the force of the reason be considered for that only importeth Nay but M. Barlow will make vs first a little merriment as he calleth it related out of Ludonicus Viâ—es who telleth this tale affirming that a certaine Countrey man whose Asse drunke at a water where the moone shined and after the sayd moone-light vanished away the Countrey-man sayd that the moone was lost or els it was in his Asses belly and this tale he very fondly applyeth to our present matter that eyther the Popes triple Crowne must haue power ouer Princes or Gods prouidence in the world must be lost and so from this merriment he passeth to a veyne of serious rayling saying that this speach of mine is irreuerent against God yea blasphemous and sauouring of the very spirit of Antichrist But this shall appeare presently by the discussion that is to ensue thereby also will appeare what spirit speaketh in this Minister to wit the most base and abiect spirit of prophane flâ—ttery towards Princes that euer proceeded from any Christian tongue or pen for he maketh God afraid of temporal Kings to walke so warily in his speaches towards them especially in their iealousies as if he were in dread of their power and anger The discourse is rare and singular and I neuer read the deuise in any before at leastwise so playnly set downe and therfore I beseech the Reader to lend me an attentiue eare whilst it is discussed He beginneth this flattery thus for I will set downe his speach more faithfully then he hath any thing of mine which he continually corrupteth and peruerteth as diuers times now I haue aduerâ—ised It is naturall to Kings to be iealous of their thrones wherin they can abide neither Mâ—te for diuision not Check-mate for scorne It cost Adoniah his life for asking Abishag to wife because Salomon did therby take occasion â—â— suspect that he which desired the Fathers bedfellow would also aspire tâ— the brothers throne It was not the blasphemie layd to our Sauiours charge by the Iewes that moued Pilate to sentence him that which hastened his death was a iealous opinion though a false perswasion that he should be a King and therby defeate Caesar of his claime to Iury. In that poynt we shall see God himselfe to be very wary for 〈◊〉 that Psalme which of the Scriptures is the most threatfull to Kings begins with a thundring expostulatioÌ„ Quare â—remuâ—runt gentes aâ—â—iterunt Reges it pleaseth him to conclude it not with a menâ—cing extrusion but with a calme perswasion Osculemini filium or as the vulgar hath it Apprehendite disciplinam And what is that Be wise ô ye Kings and serue the Lord in feare if not wâ—atâ— the danger Ne perâ—atis de via iuâ—ta that is least you loose the right way to heauen and your right in the Crowne of heauen he sayd â—ot your Titles to your Kingdomes nor right to your Crownes on earth God neuer thought it fit to support his Church by daring of Princes prosessors of his name for that had bene the way to haue made them not nourishing Fathers but eyther pinching suppressours or at least cold and wary sauourers of the same Thus far M. Barlow to shew that Almighty God dealeth more warily and respectiuely with temporall Princes theÌ„ doth the Pope which threatneth them losse of their Kingdomes if they be incorrigible and to this effect abuseth pittifully this Psalme here alledged as presently we shall shew But first I would demaund of him why he bringeth in that iealousy of Princes concerning their thrones and that Mate for diuision or Check-mate for scorne Doth he allow of these iealousies as proceeding from sanctity Doth he commend that fact of Salomon for making away his brother Adoniah for asking only Abishag to be his wife Sure I am that diuers ancient Fathers do condemne the same a learned interpreter of this age sayth Excuset qui scit mihi 〈◊〉 occurrit legitiâ—â—a Salomonis excusatio c. Let him defend Salomon that knoweth how to do it for vnto me no lawfull excuse of Salomons fact occurreth for that the sentence of death seemeth to me not only seuere but also vniust So he Now as for the iealousie of Pilate wherby he made away our Sauiour I suppose M. Barlow will not be so shamelesse as to commend the same except Pilate were aliue againe and he his Chaplaine for then perhaps the matter were doubtfull But wherto now doth all this Preface pertaine of Princes iealousies The matter is cleare that it tendeth to shew what great reason God hath to walke warily least he offend Kings and Princes For so it followeth imediately in that point Therefore and marke the inference therefore we shall see God himselfe to be very wary But wherof M. Barlow Is he so wary of not putting Kings and Princes in feare iealousie of their thrones as you call them Why is God afrayd of them For that your therefore would seeme to infer Or is his throne lesse or more weake theÌ„ theirs How then is it ascribed vnto him as a peculiar property Deposuit Potentes de sede exaltauit huâ—riles he hath put downe the powerfull from their seates and thrones and exalted the humble How is it sayd of him Qui aufert spiritum Principum est terribilis Regibus terrae who taketh away the spirit of Princes and is terrible to the Kings of the earth And yet further qui balteum Regum dissoluit pracingit fune renes eorum he that doth loose take from theÌ„ the warlike girdle girdeth their loynes with a rope And in
another Psalme how dareth God to say if he be so very wary Ad alligandos Reges eorum in compedibâ—s Nobiles eorum in manicis serreâ— to bind Kings in feâ—ters and their Noble men in iron manacles And finally how warily was this spoken by the holy Ghost not offending Princes Potentates when he sayth Potentes potenter tormenta paâ—ientur powerfull men shall suffer poweâ—full tormeÌ„ts Was almighty God wary in these speaches But let vs see how this Prince-flatterer doth go about to proue this his foolish impieâ—y out of the Scripture it selfe to wit out of the second Psalme before cited and thereby let the Reader learne what assurance men haue of the true sense of any Scripture by him and his alleaged when it is powdered and seasoned with their exposition God himselfe is very wary saith he in speaking to Princes for that Psalme which of all the Psalmes is most dredâ—ull to Kings and begins with a thundring expostulation Quare fremuerunt gentes Reges astiterunt it pleaseth him to conclude not with a menacing extrusion but with a calme persuasion Osculemini filium ne irascatur Kisse the sonne leaâ—t he be angry or as the vulgar hath it Apprehendite disciplinaÌ„ adâ—â—it discipline And is not this a goodly discourse of Maister Barlow to proue the greatnesse of Princes and that God himselfe doth speake very wariâ—â— vnto theÌ„ The hebrew phrase Kisse the Sonne is as much to say as adore the sonne of God when he shal be man and acknowledg and obey him as your King For as learned Vatabluâ— in his notes vpon the Hebrew text doth obserue it was a signe of submission subiectioÌ„ amoÌ„gst the Iewes to kisse the Princes hand which is here meant by the phrase of the Psalmist Osculemini filium that is kisse his hands and adore him for your King which the Septuaginta Interpreters well vnderstaÌ„ding did many years before the Natiuity of our Sauiour as the Chaldean Paraphrasis in like manner translate it Apprehendite disciplinâ—â— doe you apprehend or admit the discipline and doctrine of the Sonne of God when he shall appeare in flesh and so do all the ancient Greeke and Latin Fathers interprete this passage of the Psalme nor can I see with what shew of reason or probability M. Barlow can bring it for his purpose of flattering Kings in this place he saith that God concludeth not here with a menacing extrusion of Kinges but with a calme persuasion Kisse the sonne this kissing seemes perhaps to him an amiable thing but if it be interpreted as now I haue shewed and S. Hierome doth expound it for a matter of subiection humiliation and of admitting discipline it seemeth not oftentimes so sweet pleasant to Princes as M. Barlow would haue it But what shall we say to other phrases here contayned as wheÌ„ Kings Princes do swell take counsaile against God and his Christ saying Let vs breake their bands and cast of their yoake then sayth the Prophet He that sitteth in heauen will scorne them and our Lord will scoffe at them Then will he speake vnto them in his wrath and terrify them in his fury A little after he sayth That he shall rule them with an iron-rod and shall breake theÌ„ in pieces like a potters vessell And now M. Barlow is this a calme perswasioÌ„ is here no menacing extrusion threatned to Princes wheÌ„ they are threatned to be crushed like a potters vessell Nay marke also the subsequeÌ„t perswasioÌ„ Nunc ergo Reges intelligite c. Now therfore vnderstaÌ„d ô ye Kings be wise Learne how to iudg the earth Serue god in feare and reioyce in him with trembling Admit discipline least he wax angry and you perish froÌ„ your way for so hath the Hebrue text wheÌ„ his wrath shal be but a little kindled happy are all those that trust in him What can be spoken more seuerely to Princes then all this Or was this Psalme well chosen by M. Barlow for his purpose of flattering Kinges and Princes in respect of Gods warynes in his speaches Whereas no Psalme amongst all the rest vttereth so much terror vnto them only the words osculemini Filium do seeme to haue drawne him to this impertinent imagination But now let vs see his Conclusion and application against the Popes pretending authority ouer Kinges for which all the rest hitherto hath bene brought in Ne pereatis de via iusta least you loose the right way to heauen and your right in the crowne of heauen he sayd not your titles to your Kingdomes nor right to your Crownes vpon earth God thought it neuer fit to support his Church by daring of Princes Professors of his name A Godly speach fitting for soe spirituall a man as this Doctour seemeth to bee if for refusing discipline and obedience God doth threaten to Princes the losse of heauen with all the right they haue to that euerlasting Crowne and Kingdome which includeth also their eternall condemnation to hell-fire and torments What great priuiledge is it to spare their titles to their temporall crownes kingdomes on earth that may be lost in an instant and long cannot indure why should God thinke it so inconuenient to support his Church by daring of Princes least perhaps they should wax angry and dare him againe For so it seemeth by the reason giuen heere least by daring they should not be nourishing Fathers to the sayd Church but eyther pinchiâ—g suppressors or cold sauourers And why For that God dareth them forsooth with leesing their temporall states His daring for leesing of heauen seemeth not to trouble them so much but their perill to loose their temporall kingdome if they be incorrigible is the thing that principally troubleth them according to this wise discourse of M. Barlow Doe not his friends take pitty of his folly If I would take vpon me to lay forth the examples that are found in Scriptures of Gods plaine speaches menacing threates vnto Princes let M. Barlow call them darings if he will it would quickly appeare how vaine and prophane the former obseruation of his is that God is so very wary in his speaches towards them For what will you say to that speach of his to King Sennacherib Ponam circulum in naribus tuis camum in labijs tâ—â—s reducaÌ„ in viam per quam venisti I will put a ring in thy nostrills a bit in thy mouth and will bring thee back into the way by which thou didest come That also of Nabuchodonosor the most potent King of Babylon as the Scripture calleth him Eijcient te ab hominibus cum bestijs serisque erit habitatio tua soenum vt bos comedes They shall cast thee out from the company of men and thy dwelling shal be amongst wild beasts thou shalt eat hay as an oxe Was this a wary and respectâ—ue speach to so great a King and Monarch That other speach also of God to King Achab of
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—
in his Chronology Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies two speciall Bookes also in English not long agoe especially published about that matter the Three 〈◊〉 of England and the Answer to Syr Edward Cookes Reports where it is shewed that from age to age after the Apostles the selfe same Church of theirs was continued throughout the world with acknowledgment of the preheminence and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the same Church which course of proofe was held also with the Ancient Fathers S. Augustine Tertullian Irenaeus and others that brought downe the descent of the true Catholike Church by the succession of the Roman Bishops as Heads of the same Mâ— Barlow demaundeth of me in what sense I take the word Catholike when I suppose the Roman Church to be the Catholicke Church For if I take it sayth he for Vniuersall then Rome being but a particuler Citty and the true iurisdiction therof confined within a limited Diocesse or Prouince the Roman Church cannot be the Catholicke or Vniuersall Church for that it is but a particular Prouince But if sayth he I take Catholike for the profession of the true fayth as S. Cyprian doth calling that Church of Africa the Catholike Church then cannot the Romish Church neyther in this sense be the Catholik Church for that which the Prophet Esay said of the Iewes Church Her gould is mixed with drosse and she whose fayth was plighted in Christ is become an Adultresse may be sayd also of the Roman Church of this day and so cannot be the Catholike Church c. Which are two such mighty arguments as well declare the poore mans misery in the defence of his cause For to the first I would aske M. Barlow whether one man may not haue two Iurisdictions or rather one Iurisdiction extended differently to two things one more particuler the other more generall As for example the Mayor of London hath his particuler gouerment first and immediatly ouer his owne howse family and peculiar lands and yet besides that he hath iurisdiction also ouer all the Citty And to make the case more cleare let vs suppose that he hath both the one the other from the kingâ— shall it be a good argument to say that he is Gouernor of his owne particuler landes house and family which is knowne to be confined and limited to such a part of the Citty therfore he vsurpeth by stiling himself lord Gouernour of the whole Citty And the like demaund may be made of the Kings authority first and imediatly ouer his Crowne lands which is peculiar vnto him and limited with confines but yet it impeacheth not his generall authority ouer the whole Realme Euen so the Bishop of Rome hath two relations or references the one as a seuerall Bishop ouer that people and so had S. Peter who was Bishop of the same place euen as S. Iames had of Ierusalem S. Iohn of Ephesus and the like and besids this he hath an vniuersall Superintendency and iurisdiction giuen him ouer all as Head of the rest So as Catholikes doe not deny but that the Church of Rome as it maketh a particuler Prouince or Diocesse is a member only of the Catholicke Church not the whole though a principall chiefe member by the reason of the emineÌ„cy of her Pastour that the sayd Pastour therof is but a member also of the Catholik Church but yet the chiefest meÌ„ber wherunto all the rest are subordinate that is to say the head guid therof So as this is poore argument as you see But the second is more pittifull if you consider it well for if we take Catholike sayth he for the profession of the true faith as S. Cyprian did when he called the Church of Africa the Catholike Church then cannot the Romish Church be the Catholike Church And why for that her gould is mixed with drosse as the Prophet Isay sayd of the Iewish Church in his tyme. But here are two propositions an antecedent and consequent and both of them false The antecedent is that as the Church of the Iewes in the Prophet Isay his dayes being in her corrupt state was not the true teaching Church in respect of the naughty life vsed therein so neyther the Church of Rome in our dayes being full of the same sinnes bad life can be the true Catholicke Church this antecedent I say is most â—uidently false and impertinent for that Isay the Prophet in the place cited doth not repâ—â—hend the Religion of the Iewes but their life and â—â—â—ners nor doth he so much as name their Church or Synagoge or taxe their false teaching For albeit the wicked King Manasses that afterward slew him did perforce set vp false Gods among the Iewes yet did not only he and other Prophets then liuing to wit Oseas Amos Micheas Iâ—â—â— Ioel Nahum Habacuc with the whole Church and Synagog not admit the same but resisted also what they might which is a signe that their faith was pure and good Wherfore Isay in this place alleadged nameth not their Church or Religion as hath bene sayd but expresly nameth the Cittie of Hierusalem wicked liuers therin saying Qâ—â—modo facta es meretrix Ciuitas fidelis plena iudicy Iâ—stâ—ia habitauit in ea nunc autem homicidae Argentum tuum versum 〈◊〉 in scoriam vinum tuum mixtum aqua Hovv art thou made an harlot thou faithfull Citty that wert once full of iudgement and iustice dwelled therin but now murtherers Thy siluer is turned into drosse thy wine is mixed with water Doth here the Prophet speake of factes think yow or else of faiâ—h Of wicked life or of false doctrine and if it be euident that he speaketh of manners as he doth indeed then how false is the dealing of M. Barlow in bringing it iâ— for proofe of false teaching and to conuince that as the Church of the Iewes could not be the true Catholicke Church of that time in respect of the corrupt maÌ„ners vsed in her so cannot the Church of Rome at this day for the selfe same cause be the true Church But I would demande of M. Barlow what other knowne Church had God in those dayes wherin a man might find true doctrine besides that of the Iewes which he sayeth was not the true Church Will he say perhaps of the Gentills But they liued all in Idolatry And if a GeÌ„tile would in those daies haue left his Idolatry in the time of Isay the Prophet and haue desired to haue bene madâ— one of the people of God by true instruction whither could he haue gone for the same but only to the Iewish Church And whither would Isay haue sent him but to the Gouernours thereof Both false and impious then is this antecedent about the Iewes Church but much more the consequent that would draw in the Roman Christian Church by this example which hath no similitude or connection at all For neither can he proue that it hath such
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
are happy that haue these things O speakers of vanity They said that the people were happy that had these things ô maligni ô vaniloqui ô filij alieni Beatum dixerunt cui haec sunt O malicious and vaine speaking men o strange children they named that people happy that had these things that which was at the left hand they placed at the right they call the people happy that had these things But what dost thou say King Dauid What saist thou o body of Christ o members of our Sauiour you that are Children of God and not aliens what say you Beatus populus cuius Dominus Deus ipsius happy is the people that haue God for their Lord. Thus farre S. Augustine Wherby may be seene his sense the sense of the whole Christian Church in his dayes about the meaning of this Psalme which he sayth I corrupted by my exposition although it were no other then this of S. Augustine as you haue seene And if you would see other Fathers to the same sense you may read S. Hierome in his Commentary vpon the first Chapter of the Prophet Habacuc where he reciteth these temporall prosperities as vanities bestowed vpon the wicked Arnobius also in his CoÌ„mentary vpon the Psalmes after hauing mentioned the sayd temporall prosperities bestowed vpon the wicked coÌ„cludeâ—â— thus Dicant â—rgo incroduli c. Let the faithlesse say then Blessed is the people that hath aboundance of worldly prosperities but let vs say with the Prophet that people to be happy who haue God for their Lord. And these are Fathers of the Latyn Church And if we looke into the Fathers of the Greeke Church we shall find the same conâ—ent for the meaning of this place As for example S. Basil hauing touched the vanity of this temporall felicity he putteth downe the reiection therof made by the Prophet Alij quidem inquit beatâ—â— talia habentes ego verò beatum populum iudico cuius Dominus Deâ—â—est The Prophet sayth that other men do call them blessed that haue these temporall commodities but I sayth he iudge those people to be happy that haue God for their Lord. With S. Basil agreeth S. Chrysostome in his Commentary vpon this place of the Psalme where expresly he sayth that the Prophet Dauid spake these words quorum filâ—j sicut nouella plantationes in inuentuteÌ„ sua and the rest according to the opinion of the vulgar sort and that he himselfe was of a contrary opinion not holding them for happy who possessed those things but that people only cuius Dominus Deus â—ius who haue God for their Lord. Theodoret also in his Commentary vpon the 72. Psalme expoundeth these words in the same sense They call the people happy that had these things for that being deuoyd of truth they were not able to discerne the nature of things but did measure happynes by their delights wealth and power and so did affirme them to be happy that had these things but those that are studious of truth do say with the Prophet Happy is the people whose Lord is Almighty God And according to this writeth Euthymius in his Commentary Many men sayth he do esteeme that people happy which haue this visible aboundance of temporall goods which erroneous opinion of the vulgar sort King Daâ—id hauing mentioned he reiecteth the same and setteth downe a better and more true sentence saying Blessed is the people whose Lord is their God By all which places and many more that might be alleadged M. Barlow in his interpretation of this place of Scripture is conuinced to be one of those fily alieni alient children wherof the Prophet speaketh and I am freed from that fond calumniation of his wherby he sayth that I haue slaundered the holy Ghost by writing that the holy Ghost did scorne this argument of worldlings who say That the people is happy that haue these temporall prosperities For you must note that M. Barlow comming to answere my former speach before set downe he maketh a flourish saying That my answere consisteth of three poyntes first a shifting euasion secondly a false interpretation of the Psalme thirdly a slaunderous imputation of the holy Ghost The euasion he saith consisteth in that I did houâ—d that outward prosperities are no necessary arguments of Gods loue and fauour and consequently neyther in Queene Elizabeth The false interpretatioÌ„ of the Psalme you haue now heard to be the interpretation of S. Augustine S. Hierome S. Basil S. Chrysostome and others now mentioned The slaunderous imputatioÌ„ vpon the holy Ghost that he scorneth at such inferences is proued by the same to be no slaunderous imputation but a true assertion And if the word scorne do seeme vnto him vnworthy of the holy Ghost let him remember the words of the Psalmist talking of such men qui habitat in caelis irridebit eos Dominus subsannabit eos he that sits in heauen shall deride them and our Lord shall laugh them to scorne where you see both the words irridere subsaÌ„nare in one verse yet further in another place Dominus autem irridebit eumâ— quoâ—iaÌ„ prospicit quòd â—eniet dies eius And our Lord shall scorn him because he forseeth that this day of ruyne shall come And in another place talking of Christ as some interpret it he sayth they shall see him and contemne him and God shall scorne them And yet further the same spirit saith to the like men Ego in interiâ—u vestro ridebo subsannabo I will laugh and scorne at your destruction this in words but in fact when God Almighty said of the wicked man miseriamur impio nâ—â— discet iustitiam let vs haue mercy vpon the wicked man he shall not learne iustice was not this a scorne For it followeth straight he shall not see the glory of God What mercie was this when Christ also recounteth in the Ghospell the speach of the rich man that tould how his barnes were full and much riches layd vp for many yeares and therfore bid his soule be merry and our Sauiour calling him foole for his great prouidence aduertised him that that night he would take his soule from him was not this a scornefull speach against them that so much esteeme the beatitude of temporall felicity So as here also M. Barlow is found minus habens But now to come to the solemne definition of misery by copia inopia deuised by the Lord Cooke and patronized by this his Champion and Chaplin out of which he would proue that Queene Elizabeth was not misera femina as Pope Clement called her in his Breue for that misery as he saith coâ—siâ—â—eth oâ— â—ro contraries aboundance and penury aboundance of tâ—ibulation and penury of consolation which sayth he was not in Queene Elizabeth but rather the contrary for that she had perpetuall store of consolations and penury of trâ—bulations c. wherunto I then
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
the vse of that religion which they had receyued from their Ancestours from the first beginning of Christian religion planted in our English Nation and continued in possession for more then nyne hundred yeares togeather vntill the time of King Henry the eight and his children who made the first innouation and by Regall power interrupted the sayd possession wherunto the sayd possessors and ancient tenants though not presuming to demand restitutionem iâ— integrum full restitution of that which by violence was taken from them yet that they might remayne with some kind of quiet and rest for the vse of their said consciences in priuate which they promised to vse with all humility and moderation without scandall or publicke offence whereof they offered very good assurance both for this and for all other dutifull behauour in their ciuil obedience as became true subiects yea adding further also that they would inforce theÌ„selues to continue the payment of that mulct or penalty of Statute layd vpon them for their Recusancy at such a resonable agreed suÌ„me of money yearly to be paid as his Maiesty should thinke conuenient So as by this meanes they might haue some externall peace and quietnes from the continuall molestations which now they suffered in regard of their sayd consciences This was their supplication now why this should be called pride yea the height of pride highest degree of pride further the extreme height and celfitude of pride lastly the summity and sublimity of pride as M. Barlow calleth it I vnderstand not For if pride be defined to be an inordinate desire of excellency aboue others I doe not see that here in this petition either Catholikes doe prefer themselues disorderly before others but are content with a far inferiour degree then Protestants or that their desire in demaunding is disordinate whether we consider the same as it proceeded eyther from themselues to desire a thing so necessary to the health of their soules or as it is directed to his Maiesty their Prince and Soueraigne who is the person that may relieue them and consequently the laying forth of such theyr desires by ordinate meanes of humble supplication to theyr Lord and Prince cannot be called inordinatâ—s appetitus excellentiae â—a disordinate appetite of excellencie aboue others and consequently no pride much lesse celfitude of pride as M. Barlow out of his celfitude of amplification or rather height of hatred doth define it But yet let vs see briefly what reasons he frameth for this his consequence For first sayth he it is impious against God to graunt any such liberty of conscience for that God symbolically forbids such mixture in the linsy-wolsy garment Deut. 22. 11. Ergo it is height of pryde so sue for it But whoseeth not heere that neither the antecedent nor consequent haue any force God did forbid in Deuteronomy 〈…〉 garments Ergo it is sublimity of pride for Catholicks in England to sue to his Maiesty for some toleration of conscience Will their brethren the Protestants of France allow of this argument Let vs see the second Secondly sayth he it being a matter dishonourable to the King is extremity of pryde to demaund it for that honest men euen of their equalls will expect nothing but that which shall stand with the credit and reputation of the granter but this without stayne of the Kings honour cannot be grâ—â—â—ted Ergo it is height of pryde in the Catholicks to sue for it which second or minor proposition for that he imagined we would deny that it would be a staine to his Maiesties 〈◊〉 to grant it he goeth about to confirme the same by diuers weake and fond reasons not vnfit for his inuention as that his Maiestie should be contrary to himselfe and shew too much weaknes and slipperines hauing apprehended the religion which he now professeth from the cradle of his infancy resolued in his conscience mantayned it by disputation enacted it by lawes established it by Oath the like which are reasons quite from the matter For the graunting of toleration vnto Catholickes requireth not change of Religion in his Maiesty no more then it doth in the moderne King of France in granting the sayd toleration to his Protestants or then it did in the Emperor Charles the fifth when he permitted the same in Germany so as M. Barlow here rather roueth then reasoneth And further he is to be put in mind that if it be a good argument which here he vseth that his Maiesty may not change his religion for that he hath professed it from the cradle of his infancy c. which yet hath not the antiquity of fifty years by a good deale what may we say of the continuance of the Catholike religion in our countrey How many fifty yeares are passed since that cradle was rockt And why may not we make the same argument for any other sorâ— of men whatsoeuer that haue liued in any other Religion for so many yeares as his Maiesty hath done in this so little weight or substaunce is in this Ministers words who so he may seeme to say somewhat careth not greatly what it be or how litle to the purpose I leaue his other reasons as triuiall and not worth the answering as that Queene Elizabeth would not graunt this toleration of conscience that our doctrinall positions are dangerous that if his Maiesty should graunt toleration he should loose the loue of all his Subiects the like wherof some are false in the antecedent as the second and third for that our doctrinall positions truly vnderstood are not daungerous to any common wealth but salutiferous nor should his Maiesty leese the loue of his people by vsing such â—lemency to so principall a part of his people not a little pittied by the rest of most wisdome and best natures As for the first though it be true in the antecedent that shee graunted no such toleration yet is it most faâ—se in the consequent that therfore it is height of pride to demaund it of his Maiesty no reason requiring that her actions should be a necessary rule to his Maiesty for his they being no better then they were But now we must see briefly what M. Barlow answereth to all my reasons before alleadged for defending Catholickes from the imputation of height of pride in making this demaund and humble petition to his maiesty which I shall set downe in the very same words which before I vsed And surely I cannot but wonder that this Minister was not ashamed to call this the height of pride which is generally found in all Protestants neuer so humble yea the more humble and vnderlings they are the more earnest are they both in bookes speaches and preachings to proue that liberty of Conscience is most conforme to Gods law and that wresting or forcing of Consciences is the highest Tyranny that can be exercised vpon man And this we may see first in all M. Fox his History especially
this matter there is more on the behalfe of Catholicks then of Puritans for obtayning this toleration notwithstanding their differences in poynts of Religion were or be greater for that the Puritans came out of the Protestants and therby the Protestant Church may pretend to haue Ius aliquod Ecclesiasticum some Ecclesiasticall right vpon them But the Catholicks of England came neuer out of the Protestants nor their Church out of the Protestant Church but were long before them in possession which is the markable poynt so much pondered by S. Iohn to discerne heresy heretickes thereby Prodierunt ex nobis they went out of vs. And consequently the Protestant Church can haue no spirituall iurisdiction vpon the sayd Catholickes and much lesse by right or reason can they barre them the vse of their Religion as they may do to Purytans that were members once of them though they differ in fewer poyntes of beliefe An ExaÌ„ple may be the Iewes in Rome who are tolerated in their religion which Protestants are not though they differ in more poyntes of beliefe but yet for that they were in possession of their Religion before Christians and went not out from them as Protestants did from Catholickes they are tolerated in that place and Protestants not And hereby is also answered M. Barlowes last reason against graunting of toleration which I pretermitted before to be answered in this place which is that if the cause were ours as God be thanked he sayth it is theirs we wil not graunt liberty to them for their religion But how doth he know that seeing soe many Catholike Princes both in France Low-Countryes and Germany doe permit the sayd toleration to diuers and different sectes And if he obiect that in Queene Maries daies it was not permited to Protestants in England nor yet by King Henry the eight much lesse by the foresayd 3. Henryes that went before him yet may the causes and reasons be different now For albeit for equity and iustice the matter do passe as before we haue sayd that no sect in England whatsoeuer as of Lâ—â—lords VVickcliffians Lutherans Zuinglians Caluiâ—ists or the like can haue any right in conscience to deny toleratioÌ„ of their religion vnto them out of which they themselues went and that the Catholike Church hath that right vpon them as going out of her yet may shee leaue to vse that right oftentimes and tolerate different sectaryes also when they are so multiplied as they cannot be restrayned without greater scandall tumult and perturbation according to the parable to our Sauiour concerning the cockle growne vp amongst the wheat which our sayd Sauiour willed rather to be let alone vntill the haruest day left by going about to weed out the one out of due time they might pluck vp the other So as these Catholicke Princes his Maiesties Ancestors that did deny toleration considering their kingdomes to be quietly setled in the Ancient religion of theyr fore fathers did iustly and lawfully resist the new attempts of innouators and iustly also may we affirme that if other forrayne Princes at this day of the same Catholick religion do permit vpon other reasons liberty or toleratioÌ„ of different religion much more may his Maiesty of England do the same to his Catholick subiects for the reasons that haue bene now alleadged And so much of this To the exaÌ„ples of the Lollardes VVickliffian Protestants that made such earnest suite for toleration and liberty of conscience in the dayes of three King Henries 4. 5. and 6. and tooke armes for obtayning the same he sayth that if any such conspiracies were we deâ—end them not subiection to Princes we preach insurrâ—ctions we defy c. And with this he thinketh he hath well satisfyed the matterâ— To the forreyne examples of higher Germany in the time of Charles the fifth and of the low-Countryes in these our dayes he answereth That these are noe fit presidentes for our State the gouerment of the Emperour being limitedâ— and conditionall and we speake of subiects vnder an absolute Monarchy To those of Boâ—hemia Polonia and Hungarie he sayth that it is to be considered VVhether the enâ—rance into those kingdomes be Successiue or Electiue by descent without condiâ—iâ—â—all restraintes and if they were absolute Monarchies what is that to his Maiesty who in cases of religion taketh not mens examples but Gods lawes for his dyrects He knoweth what Princes ought to doe not regarding what they please to doe c. But al this while me thinkes the chiefe point is not answered by M. Barlow which is that those good Protestants were of opinion that toleration or liberty of conscience might be graunted according to the law of God and ought also to be graunted And why is Iordaniâ— now turned backward saith the letterâ— Why is this Ministers voice contrary to the voice sensâ— of all other Protestants The sayd Letter goeth forward laying downe diâ—erâ— considerations which engendred hope in the mindeâ— of Catholicks for obtayning this suite of toleration and namely these three to wit First the first entraÌ„ce of our new King knowne to be of so noble and royall a mind before that time as he neuer was noted to be giueÌ„ to cruelty or persecution for religion Secondly the sonne of such a Mother as held her selfe much behoulding to English Catholiâ—kes And thirdly that himselfe had confessed that he had euer found the Catholicke party most trusty vnto him in his troubles and many conspiraciâ—â— made against him To the first wherof M. Barlow in effect answereth nothing at all but only citeth certayne places of Scripture for punishing of Idolatry To the second he sayth That if his Maiesties Moâ—her had not relied too much vpon the Priested sort in England her end had not bene so suddaine or vnkind Belike he was priuy vnto it that he can tell those particulars And his Epithete of vnkind in cutting off her Maiesties head was very iudiciously deuised by him For indeed there can nothing be deuised more vnkind then for two Queenes so neere of kinred to cut off one the others head and that vpon the suddaine as here is graunted which increaseth the vnkindnes of so barbarous a fact perswaded and vrged principally as al men know by the continuall incitations of those of M. Barlows coate to the despite both of Mother and Sonne and ruine of them both if it had layeâ— iâ— their handeâ— Neyther is this to cast salt into his Maiesties eyes as M. Barlow heere sayth but rather to open the saâ—e that he may seeâ— what kind of people these are that do sâ— much flatter him now and impugned both him and his at that time But let vs heare how Ironically he dealeth with vsâ— in framing a fond argument on our behalfe as to him it seemeth The Mother sayth he loyaltyâ— Ergo the Sonne must giue them liberty of conscâ—â—câ— And iâ— this Syâ— so bad an argument Do you take away the word 〈◊〉 which
Sacraments care of soules possessing Cures and Benefices absoluing from sinnes spirituall iurisdiction and all Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy deryued from hence And are all these thinges only Ceremoniall without substance or essence of religion Doth M. Barlow discharge his duty of a Champion eyther towardes his king or his old Lord from both which it seemeth alâ—eady he hath receaued large fees in bringing both their authorities in Ecclesiastical matters to be meere Ceremonies No man I thinke will sue to be his Clyent hereafter iâ— he can plead no better But let vs yet see a little further how he hath aduanced his Maiestyes spirituall authority Thus he writeth of his being Moderator in the Conference betwene the Puritans and Protestants This difference sayth he about thinges indifferent his Maiesty desirous to reconcile vouchsafed his Princely paynes to moderate mediate In which wordes first doe you note againe his often repetition that they were thinges indiffereÌ„t to wit whether his Maiesty should haue Supreme Primacy in Church causes or renounce the same and cast it downe togeather with his Scepter before the Presbytery of the Puritans and whether the Lord of Canterbury should leaue of his Lordship and Graceship and become a simple Minister equall with the rest And so likewise M. Barlow himselfe to leaue the Sea of Lincolne and title of Lordship which none that knowes the humor of the man will imagine that he holdeth for a thing indifferent or a meere Ceremony This I say is the first Notandum for if these things be indifferent what need so much a doe about them And the second Notandum is that he saith that his Maiesty did moderate and mediate in this Conference which is a very moderate and meane word indeed to expresse so high and eminent Authority Ecclesiasticall as sometimes they wil seem to ascribe vnto his Maiesty For who cannot moderate or mediate in a Conference if he haue sufficient learning and knowledge of the cause though he haue no eminent authority at all to decide the same But who shall determine or define the Controuersy Here no doubt M. Barlow wil be in the brakes For that a little after being pressed with the free speach and deniall of S. Ambrose vnto Valentinian the Emperour when he medled in Ecclesiasticall affairs and in particuler when he sent for him by Dalmatius a Tribâ—ne with a Notary to come and dispute in the Consistory before him his Counsell and Nobility with the Hereticall Bishop Auxenâ—ius S. Ambrose refused vtterly to goe yeelding for his reason that in matters of faith and religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops which deniall M. Barlow well alloweth saying that Ambrose did well in it and sayd well for it his fact and reason were both Christianlike But suppose that his Maiesty had sent for the Bishops to dispute and confer with the doctors of the Puritan party in his presence as the Emperour Valentinian did S. Ambrose that they had refused to come with the same reasoÌ„ that S. Ambrose did would M. Barlow that wrote the Conference haue defended the same as good and lawful Or would his Maiesty haue taken the same in as good part as ValentiniaÌ„ did I doubt it very much as also I doubt whether S. Ambrose if he had disputed would haue suffered ValentiniaÌ„ suppose he had bin learned to haue moderated mediated in that disputatioÌ„ as M. Baâ—low saith his Maiesty did in this But if without effect that he could not conclude who should giue iudgment of the matter The Bishops They were party and theyr whole interest lay therein The Puritan Doctors They were also a party and therby partiall His Maiesty could not doe it according to M. Barlowes doctrin in this place if any point of religion were handled therein Who then should iudge or giue sentence The Church saith M. Barlow in another place But who maketh that Church Or who giueth authority of iudgement to that Church if the supreme Head and gouernour haue it not in himself Do you not see how intricate this matter is hard to resolue And according to this as it seemeth was the effect and consequence of this meeting if we belieue M. Barlow himselfe who maketh this question Did thâ—se great and Princely paynes which his Maiesty tooke with the Puritâ—ns worke a generall conformity And then he answereth VVith the iudicious and discreet it did wherof M. Barlow was one but the rest grew more aukward and violent So he But all this while if you marke it there is nothing said to the point for which all this was brought in to wit why the like fauour had not beene shewed to Catholikes for a Conference also with them about their Religion M. Barlow doth touch some number of reasons as that our opinions doe touch the very head and foundation of religion That his Maiesty was perfect in all the arguments that could be â—rought for the aduerse part and that he throughly vnderstanding the weaknes of them held it both vnsafe and vnnecessary to haue them examined That the Protestant religion being throughly well placed and hauing so long continued is not now to be disputed c. Which reasons being either in themselues fond or against himselfe I will not stand to refute One only contradiction wil I note that our argumeÌ„ts being so weake yet that it should be vnsafe to haue them examined and that the long continuance of Protestant religion in England should make it indisputable whereas more then ten times so long prescription of Catholike religion could not defend it by shew of a conference or dispute hâ—ld at VVestminster at the beginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne when the same was changed and put out And finally I will end this with a notable calumniation insteed of a reason vttered by M. Barlow why this Conference ought not to be granted to Catholikes for sooth For that euen in their common petition for toleration they â—isâ—hed his Maiesty to be as great a Saint in heaueÌ„ as he is a King vpon earth shewing thereby saith he that gladly they would be rid oâ— him but wâ—ich way they care not so he were not here And may not this Prelate now beare the prize for calumniation and Sycophancy that out of so pious an antecedent can inferre so malicious a consequent The Catholickes doe wish vnto his Maiesty both life present and euerlasting to come here a great King and there a great Saint M. Barlow seemeth not to care much for his eternity so he may enioy his temporality by the which he himselfe gayneth for the present and hopeth euery day to do more more it importâ—th him litle how great a Saint his Maiestie be in heauen so vpon earth he liue longe to fauour him and to furnish him with fat benefices And thus he inforceth me to answere him contrary to my owne inclination for repressing somewhat his insolent malignant speach which is the most
he sayth that therin I do abuse the Reader for that they shewed their obedience sayth he to be due and performed the same in matters of spirituall seruice wherat I thinke no man can but laugh that M. Barlow is become so spirituall as that he can make those Infidell Kings to be spirituall Superiours also or at leastwise to haue spirituall power euen in spirituall thinges ouer Gods faithfull people Let vs see his proofes of so strange an assertion To offer sacrifice saith he vnto the Lord in the desert is an â—igh case of conscience and religion yet would not the Iewes in Egypt attempt it without asking and obtayning the Kings leaue And why was that Was it for that they held him for their supreme Gouernour in all causes Ecclesiastiacll and temporall Then they ought to haue obeyed him when he would haue had them offered sacrifice in Egypt which they refused to doe for that their spirituall gouernour Moyses though a naturall borne subiect of King Pharao â—ould them that Gods will was contrary and as for their asking and obtayning leaue before they went to sacrifice in the Desert who doth not see but that it was in respect of temporall danger which might ensue vnto them if so great a number of their vnarmed people should haue aduentured to depart without his licence But I would demaund of M. Barlow who sayth that the people of Israel shewed their obedience to be due vnto Pharao and performed it in matter of spirituall seruice what manner of obedience was that which came alwaies in the Imperatiue mood Thus saith our Lord Dimitte populum meum Let go my people And when he yeelded not therunto he was plagued and punished with so many afflictions as are set downe in Exodus for 9. or 10. Chapters togeather in the end what leaue obtayned they but against his will when he durst no longer deny them Which appeareth for that his feare being somewhat mitigated he pursued them afterward againe And will M. Barlow make this an example of spirituall obedience to temporall Princes that was thus extorted Or of spirituall iurisdiction in heathen Princes ouer faithfull people in causes Ecclesiasticall that was contradicted both in word and fact by Moyses himselfe But let vs heare his second instance for it is more ridiculous So saith he the commaundement of King Cyrus was in a cause meerly Ecclesiasticall viz. the building of the Lords house in IerusaleÌ„ and transporting thither the consecrated vessels But who doth not see that these things as they were ordayned by King Cyrus were meere temporall as is the building of a materiall Church for that otherwise the Masons Carpenters Architects that build the same should be Ecclesiastical officers albeit they were Gentiles If King Cyrus had had authority to appoint them out their sacrifices to dispose lawfully of their sacred actions therein as he had not nor could haue being a Pagan and not of their faith religion then might they haue sayd that he had beene a spirituall Superiour vnto them but for giuing them leaue only to go to Ierusalem to build their Temple and to carry their consecrated vessels with them that had been violeÌ„tly taken away from thence argueth no more spirituall iurisdiction in him then if a man hauing taken away a Church-dore key so as the people could not go in to pray except he opened the dore should be said to haue spirituall iurisdictioÌ„ ouer that people for opening the dore letting them in that they in praying him to open the said dore did acknowledg spiritual obedience vnto him And is not this meere childish trifllng worthy the wit of M. Barlow What definition trow you will M. Barlow giue of spirituall power and Iurisdiction therby to verifie these monstrous and absurd propositions which in this affaire he hath vttered partly by his assertions and partly by his examples Truly I know no other set downe by Deuines but that it is a power giuen by God to gouerne soules for their direction vnto euerlasting saluation euen as ciuill power is giuen for gouerning the coÌ„mon wealth to her prosperity and temporall â—elicity And will M. Barlow say that God gaue this spirituall power to Pharao and Cyrus that were Heathens and knew not God for gouerning directing the soules of the Iewes that liued vnder them whose religion or God they neyther knew nor cared for Or that Nero the Emperour or Claudius had this spirituall power and Iurisdiction vpon the soules of S. Peter and S. Paul that liued vnder them in Rome and were their temporall Lordes and Princes These thinges are so absurd that I am ashamed to exaggerate them any further and therfore let vs passe forward to the rest As for the other examples by me alleaged how Sydracâ—â— Mysach and Abdenago refused to obey Nabuchodâ—â—â—sor their King in adoring the Statua as also refuâ—ing the meates of the King of Babylon Toby of the Assyrians and the Macâ—abees for refusing to eat Swines-flesh at the commandment of their King Antiochus he sayth that all these had their warrants for defence of their consciences from the word or will of God as who should say Catholickes haue nothing for iustification of their Conscience which is a meere cauill and as Logitians call Petitio principij and wholy from the question for that we affirme first that they haue sufficient groundes for iustification of their consciences in that behalfe as they will easily verify in euery point if they might be hard with any indifferency And secondly if they had not but their consciences were erroneous yet so long as that dictamen rationis or prescript of conscience standeth to the contrary and telleth them that they haue sufficient ground they may not doe against it without sin as now hath bene proued Let vs see what he saith of the other example of Tobies breach of King Senacherib his commaundement in Niniue which wee shall examine in the next ensuing Paragraph VVHETHER TOBY DID well or no in breaking the commaundement of the King of Niniâ—e concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authorities of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy §. II. AMong other examples and testimonies alleaged by me out oâ— Scripture of lawfull disobeying temporall Princes commaundements when they are vnlawfull the exaÌ„ple of Tobias that disobeyed the edict of King Senacheriâ—â— of Niniue about burying such as were slayne seemed to haue troubled most M. Barlow in this answere and so after some discussion of the matter vp and downe whether he did it openly or in secret by day or by night by stealth or contempt he maketh this conclusion Take it eyther way sayth he was his disobedience in such a cause iustifiable No. Grauely resolued as you see and Doctour-like but yet without any testimony except only his owne For first the context of the story it selfe hauing recounted the circumstances of the fact in the
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
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
it hath bene sufficiently proued against Syr Francis Hâ—stingâ— that ignorant Knight who following M. Iewell obiected it as spoken once by Doctour Cole meaning if he spake it that some simple people are more deuout then greater learned but that ignorance should be a mother or necessary bringer forth of deuotion was neuer affirmed by any position of Catholikes and was proued to be very false in Syr Francis owne person who shewed himselfe to be very ignorant and yet nothing deuout And the same in due measure and proportion may be verified in M. Barlow if he deny it let vs part our proofes I haue shewed his ignorance in alleaging this Canon that maketh nothing for him let him proue his deuotion From the 24. Canon he steppeth forward againe to the 46. Wherin he saith is decreed that the Clergies immâ—nitie from ciuill molestations and troubles is from the King and by his CoÌ„maund and authority And what maketh this against vs or for the Protestants Why is not this practised at this time in EnglaÌ„d that all Clergie men be free ab omnipublica indictione atque labore â—t lilâ—ri sâ—ruiant Deo sayth the same Canon from all publike taxes labour to the end they may attend to seâ—ue God more freely Is the vse of this Canon more amongst Catholikes or Protestants and if more amongst Catholikes and nothing at all amongst Protestants especially in England what wisdome was this of M. Barlow to bâ—ing it in as a point decreed by the Councel conforme to their doctrine and practice But saith he this immunity came from King Sisenandus his order and commandement True it is that he as a good Catholike Prince was very forward therin yet the Decree was the Councels and therfore it is sayd in the Canon id decreuit Sanctum Concilium the holy Councell decreed it Neither do we teach that this immunity or freedome of the Clergy from secular burthens is without the consent concurrence of Christian Princes proceeding out of their piety and deuotion towards the Church to fauour further that which was esteemed by the Church needfull to Gods seruice conforme to Gods diuine Law both written impressed by nature So as this immunity of Clergy men was brought in both by Diuine and Humane Law as largly learnedly doth proue Cardinall Bellarmine in two seuerall Chapters of his Booke de Clericis to whom as to his Maister I send M. Barlow to Schoole though much against his will where also he will learne that long before this fact of King Sisenandus other Christian Emperours and Kings had consented to these immunities of Clergy men and confirmed the same by their temporall lawes decrees which piety King Sisenandus did follow and imitate in Spaine And would God he would inspire his Maiesty to do the same in England But what helpeth this M. Barlowes cause Truly euen as much as the rest Let vs see if you please what is his fourth Canon which he cyteth for his proof of the CouÌ„cels agreement with Protestants He leapeth then lastly to the 75. Canon which is one more then is in the booke for there be but 74. but this is a small fault in respect of that which presently ensueth His words are these Lastly that all the decrees and Canons of that Councell were confirmed by the Clergy annuente religiosissimo Principe after the Kings royll assent had vnto them and that set downe Can. 75. But first of all if the thing did stand in the Councell as heere it is set downe that the Princes consent and confirmation had bene demaunded to all the Decrees and Canons as M. Barlow sayth yet the words being but annuente Principâ— the Prince consenting therunto I do not see how it can be truly translated as it is by M. Barlow after the Kings Royall assent had vnto them which are the vsuall words whereby Parlament Statutes are confirmed wherein the King as truly supreme head hath chiefe authority to allow or reiect which I doubt not but that King SisenaÌ„duâ— toke not vpon him in this Councell of Toledo nay if the place be rightly examined which is in the very last lynes of the sayd Councell it wil be found that the said consent of the Prince was not about the decrees of the Councell but about the subscribing of all the Bishops names vnto the sayd Councell For they hauing ended all and made a large prayer for the prosperity of the said King and all said Amen it is added lastly Definitis itaque â—is qua superiùs comprehensa sunt annuente religiosissâ—mo Pâ—incipâ— â—lacâ—it dâ—inde c. Et quia prosâ—ctilus Ecclesiae anima nostra conâ—â—niâ—nt iam propria subscriptione vt permaneant roboramus Wherâ—fore hauing defined these things that before are comprehended it seemed good also by the consent of our most Religious Prince that forsomuch as these things that are decreed are profitable for the Church and for our soules we do strengthen them also by our owne subscriptions to the end they may remayne I Isidorus in the name of Christ Metropolitan Bishop of the Church of Siuill hauing decreed these things do subscribe c. And so did all the other Bishops by name Heere then I see not what M. Barlow can gayne by alleaging this Canon For if this allowance of King Sisenaâ—dus be referred to the Bishops subscriptions as it seemeth by that it coÌ„meth after the mention of the made decrees or if it were in generall allowance of the whole Councâ—ll by way of yielding to the execution therof as M. Barlows doctrine â—lse where is it maketh nothing against vs at all For we grant this consent to all Princes whithin their owne Kingdomes therby to haue their assistance for execution especially for such points as interesse or touch the politicall state or CoÌ„mon-Wealth There remaineth then to examine a little the first allegation out of the 43. Canon where he sayth that Priests marriage is allowed in this Canon so it be with the coÌ„sâ—nt of the Bishops Wherin two egregious frauds are discouered so manifestly as he could not but know when he wrote them that they were such The first is for that he translateth Presbyteri for Clerici peruersly thereby turning Clarks into Priests knowing well inough what he did for that he must needs see the difference in the very Canon as presently we shall shew The second fraud is that he knowing that this CouÌ„cell did vtterly disallow the marriage of Priests yet he shamed not to affirme the quite contrary We shall say a word of the one and the other For the first he alleageth as you haue heard the 43. CanoÌ„ whose words are Clerici qui sine consultu Episcopi sui duâ—â—int c. Clarks that without the consultation of their Bishop shall marry wiues c. must be separated from the Clergie by their proper Bishop Which word Cleriâ—i M. Barlow translateth Priests notwithstanding he knoweth iâ— iâ— not
witnesses that the pennâ—nce which King Henry did there was voluntary and not enioyned by the Pope now I say M. Barlow answereth it thus VVhether the pennance were voluntary or enioâ—ned to the King who maketh the question the Apologer said no such thing c. But let the words themselues now recited be iudges in the matter which say that he was whipped vp downe the Chapter-house like a schole boy and glad to escape so too Doth this import voluntary or inuoluntary whipping And how then can M. Barlow say that the Apologer said no such thing For if he were glad to escape so too who will not inferre that he would haue escaped with lesse whipping if he could and that therefore the same was inâ—erred which is yâ—t contradicted by those Historiographers that recount the same And I think M. Barlow will find very few school-boâ—es that are voluntarily whipped There remaine now the other examples of the Emperours Frederick the first Henry the sixt and the rest before mentioned affirmed to haue bene iniuriouslie dealt withall by Popes of their time All which I might iustly pretermit as prouing nothing against our case of the Oath though all were graunted which hath bene obiected about them For suppose that some Popes had dealt hardly and rigorously with some Emperours Kings and Princes that should no more take away his authority then it should take away any Kings authority if he should offer iniury to one or more of his Nobilitie But besides this I sayd further in my Letter that in examining the particulers I found many exaggerations additions wrestings and vnsincere dealings in the alleaging of these examples And as for the first of Fredericke that he should ly a grooâ— on his belly and suffer Pope Alexander the third to tread on his necke and say super aspidem basilisâ—um c. is a great exaggeration and refuted as fabulous by many reasons authorities of Authors alleadged by Card. Baronius to whom I remitted the same for that the discourse therof was euer long to be repeated by me in that Letter The other exaÌ„ple also of Henry the 6. Emperour whose Crowne Câ—lâ—stinus the Pope is accused to haue stroken from his head with his foote after he had set it on I held in the same number of fabulous narrations for that it being sayd to be done in Rome it was only mentioned first by an â—nglish writer Roger Hâ—ueden that liued so many hundred miles from the place and thereby might easily be deceaued as Reynold of Châ—ster in like maÌ„ner was that took it of him Whâ—ras no other writer oâ— other nations eyther present 〈…〉 coronation when the thing is faygâ—ed to haue bene doneâ—â— Godâ— fridus 〈◊〉 Secrâ—tary to the said Emperor nâ—r other writers afterward relating the said Coronation 〈◊〉 Naâ—â—â—â—rus Sabâ—llâ—â—â—s Blondus Sigoniâ—s and 〈◊〉 do so much as oâ—â—â— make mentioÌ„ therof which â—s â—mâ—robâ—â—le that they would haue pretermitted being so 〈◊〉 a â—oint if it had fallen out To this last example and my answer about the same M. Barlow hath no reply to make but that Baronius seemeth to take it for a truth and graceth it saith he with a symbolical hieroglyphike expressing what the Pope should meane in doing so Whereto I answer that Baronius relating the matter out of Roger Houeden doth neither affirme it to be true or false but according to that narration of Houeden expounds what it might signify if it had bene true and as it was â—ould Houedâ—n in England But so many other authors that speake of that CoronatioÌ„ mention not this other fâ—ct as â—ow we haue alleadged do make the negatiue much more probable And as for the former about Fredericke the first Emperour and Pope Alexander the third I 〈◊〉 to stand to my former remissioÌ„ therof to the large diâ—cussion of Cardinall Baronius far ouer long to be brought in into this place but there all may be seene at large to wit the meeting of the said Pope and Emperour at Venice vpon the yeare 1177. the kynd and friendly reconcilement betweene them written by the second Archbishop of Salâ—rnum called Româ—aldus who was Legate or â—mbasâ—adâ—ur to the King of Sicily was present saw all that passâ—d whose Recordes are yet extant in an ancient Gotâ—icall character aswell in the Church of Salâ—rnum as in the Vaticam Library He proueth the same also by the epiâ—â—les actâ—s themselues of Pope Alexander yet extant and by the silence of all ancient writers that lyued then or soone after wâ—o mâ—ntioning all that passed very particulerly do not make mention of this act of the Popes putting his foot vpon the Emperours necke nor of any such speâ—ch as super aâ—pidem â—asilisâ—uÌ„ c. And finally he proueth the same to be a table by the disconueniency of diuers other thingâ— there done to make peace as that yt had beene the way to ouerthrow all and to exasperate the Emperour for euer whom the Pope sought by all meanes to pacific and gaine and yt was contrary to that Popes nature and condition who was sweet and curteous with sundry other arguments which I let paâ—â—e reâ—erring the Reader to that coâ—ious discouâ—sâ— and declaration of his about this matter Agaynst all which M. Barlow now alleageth nothing of any moment at all but inueighing â—irst against Baronius for alleaging a manuscript in the Popes Librarie one Romualdus sayth he not yet extant in view and for ought is knowne may aswell be â—orged as true And is not this good dealing when therâ— are so many authors oâ— credit in print to aâ—â—ow this sâ—orie One manuscript vnâ—oâ—h â—bâ—â—ure â—ritâ—r must encouâ—tâ—r the credit of them all So he And agâ—ine after he teaâ—meth the said Româ—aldus A Vatican Desk-creeper c. But the answere is easie that the printing oâ— a booke maketh it not of greater authority for then no worke had beene of authoritie some hundred yeares agoe when there was no print in the world but all were manuscripts And as for the truth of this sâ—orie Baronius toucheth so many particulers of the two Libraries where the worke is extant in Gothicall characters which euery man may see and read as no probable doubt can be that he hath deuised or faigned it as there may well be of VValthramus Naumburgâ—nsis so often alledged against vs of whom notwithstanding we haue no other certainety then the credit of Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran which with vs is very small wheras Baronius remitteth all men to these two auncient manuscripts stil extaÌ„t and to be seene by al that wil. And as for some later writers obiected by M. Barlow to haue affirmed the same of Fredericke Baronius his answere aâ—ter many other proofs is this Si quid huiusmodi per Alexandrum Papam c. If any such thing had byn done by Alexander the Pope how would these writers that were present and wrote euery least thing