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—
corruption in it either in life or doctrine as he pretendeth nor if it had in life doth it preiudice the truth of Doctrine as by the testimony of our Sauiours owne wordes wee remaine assured These two obiections then that the Roman Church for that she hath a determinate Prouince as also for that shee hath sundry euill liuers in her are shewed to bee of no force at all Not the later for that euill manners may stand with true doctrine not the first for that wee doe not say the Roman Church is the whole Catholick Church but a chiefe member thereof as hath bene sayd whereby also will appeare what wee meane by the name of the Catholicke Church to wit that visible vniuersall Church which being erected and founded by Christ our Sauiour when he was vpon earth hath continued euer since and descended visibly from age to age by succession of Bishops throughout all Christendome vnto our times and shall so continue vnto the worldes end by which description may appeare also how vaine another obiection is of M. Barlow in these wordes If Vincentius rule be true that that only is to be accounted Catholicke Doctrine quod semper vbique ab omnibus creditum est neyther shall Rome be proued Catholicke nor England hereticke when any of these is soundly determined then let him plead her Ius acquisitum VVhereto I answere that the rule of Vincentius is verified by that which I haue sayd before of the nature of the Catholicke Church to wit that it began vnder Christ and hath descended from age to age and so shee teacheth quod semper creditum est And for that she hath imbraced all nations she teacheth quod vbique in respect of place and for that shee hath vnion of Doctrine shee teacheth quod ab omnibus creditum est For albeit there hâ—â—â— not wanted hereticks from time to time that haue deâ—ised particuler doctrines and erected particuler congregations yet were they nothing in respect of the vniuersall consent of those of the Catholike Church whose Iâ—â— acquisitum or ancient right and power vpon all Heretickes for theyr correction and punishment I sayd was manifest for that by baptisme they were made her subiectes Vnto which point M. Barlow would seeme now to say somewhat though neuer so impertinent therefore he telleth vs a tale of an indument and a stripping to be considered in Baptisme vnder the wordes Credo and Abreâ—â—â—â—iâ— and that neyther the spirituall mystery nor the prescribed forme nor intended effect of Baptisme doe make him and his liable to Rome Whereunto I answere that the whole action in that Sacrament without so many diuisions and subdiuisions as here he maketh to obscure the matter doth make him and all other Christians liable to the Catholike Church For that euery man that is baptized as he is made a member and seruant of Christ therby and entreth into his Church as by the first dore soe is he made a subiect to the sayd Church and is liable to her correction if he should renounce change or peruert that fayth which there he professeth as a child of the sayd Church And all this I thinke M. Barlow will not deny but onely his question may be of such as are baptized out of the Catholike Church by some Hereticall Congregation yet notwithstanding the matter is cleare for that such baptisme houlding only so far forth as they haue intention to doe that in their baptisme which the true Catholicke Church doth and vse the forme of wordes which the sayd Church prescribeth to wit I baptize thee in the name of the Father◠〈◊〉 the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost for that otherwise if either of these conditions to wit eyther the forme or the intention of the Catholike Church doe faile the baptisme is not auaylable it is euident I say that such as are so baptized out of the Church are liable notwithstanding to the same for any offence that they shall commit against the fayth of the sayd Catholike Church for so much as their baptisme had relation to this Church as is now declared And albeit they be departed from the same eyther by their own wilfulnes or other menâ— inducemeÌ„ts yet remaineth stil that obligation of subiectioÌ„ Which superiority oâ— the Catholik Church practized froÌ„ time to time vpon Heretiks and Schismatikes that haue gone forth from her which the Aduersary will also graunt for sundry ages after Christ caÌ„not be pretended by the Protestant Church vpoÌ„ Catholiks for that we went not out of them but they out of vs which in England is most perspicuous For that since our first Conuersion by S. Augustine the Monke to Christian Religion it cannot be sayd with any shew of probability that euer there was a Protestant Church extaÌ„tâ— and visible or publickly receyued in our Country as the Roman hath bene and consequently wee English Catholikes cannot be said to haue gone out of them but they out of vs and soe by their baptisme and admission to Christianity they are liable to the Roman Catholike Church in matters of Religion not the Roman Church to them But now besids this reason of obligation by baptisme I do alledge another of former possession and prescription whereby the English Catholike Church hath had exercised this power of punishing Sectaries froÌ„ time to time wherunto M. Barlow answereth in a strange manner Possession saith he for hould and Prescription for time may be Pleas in ciuill Courtes but not sound arguments in case of Religion Which is so absurd an answere as nothing could more shew declare that he had nothing to say then this For if wee suppose that to be true which Christ our Sauiour affirmeth in the Ghospell that the good corne was first soone that the Darnell was ouer sprinckled afterwardes and that truth of Christian religion was first planted by our Saâ—iour heresies afterward sprong vp then are the Antiquity of possession and the Plea of Prescription very excellent good argumeÌ„ts to conuince all Hereticks for that the former must needâ— be true and the later must needs be false For which cause old Tertullian writing in the second age after Christ against hereticks thought good to intitle his book de Praescriptiâ—â—â—buâ— of PrescriptioÌ„s shewing therby that heretiks are by no way so euidently conuinced as by Prescription Priority of time And first of all he giueth this generall rule by allusion to our Sauiours words before repeated of good corne and darnell Ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse Dominicum rerum quod est prius traditum id autem extraneum â—alsum quod est posteriâ—s immissâ—m By the order it selfe of sowing the corn darnellâ— it is made manifest that to be true and pertayning to our Lord which was first deliuered and that to be false and forreyne which is thrust in afterward And then passing to examine particuler heresies and beginning with them that pretended to be
steeple and the like are vnfit both for his Maiesties â—ares and presence But now he doth insinuate further that some other figgs also are exhibited now then in that assembly 〈◊〉 bitter then these as namely about the Powder-traitours and absoluing them by the Iesuites Those dreadfull cruel positions also saith he of Popes deposing Kings exposing them to murther incyting their subiects to rebellion and determining such parricide be to meritorious c. And furthermore what an excellent vaine both Popes hâ—â—e in figging ech other away by poison and Iesuits too as the Priests relate in dispatching with such pleasant pilles any that stand in their light c. Which be meere caluÌ„niations and malicious maledictions vnworthy eyther to be heard by his Maiesty or to be refuted by me as also that insulse insolency of the Minister where he maketh his Maiesty to vse those odious words against all of the Catholike religioÌ„ O Romanistae seruum pecus O Romanists slauish beastsâ— as though there were no Princes and Monarches of that religion that might take in euill part this insolencie of the malepart Minister as if it had some allowance from his Maiesty for that in his name he speaketh it doth dedicate his booke vnto him And thus much about this point of adulation wherunto also I must add one thing more tending to the same effect and much talked of at this present both at home and abroad which is That these new Maisters of the little Vniuersity and other their friendes haue perswaded his Maiestie that they are valiant men in writing against their Aduersaries and would performe great exploytes therin if besides their Vniuersities Cathedrall Churches they had some speciall Colledge of writers erected for that purpose which men say is appointed to be at Chelsey and that the matter is very forward and that his Maiesty hath assigned therunto both situation of a house and other great helpes which if it be so I doubt not but that it proceedeth from him out of a most honourable respect for aduancing learning but I assure my selfe this will not serue though there were twenty Colledges more applyed to this end except his Maiestie should giue them a new cause to write oâ— â—or oâ— this betweene Catholikes and Protestants albeyt they multiply books neuer so fast they will neuer be able to write with credit either of them selues or of their founders for that falsity cannot be defended but by â—alshood nor one vntruth but by another and consequently their cause being such as it is their multuplying of writers and increasing the number of bookes is but to multiply their owne disgrace whereof some scantling may be taken in the last two bookes not to speake of any others that haue gone â—orth on the Catholicke side to wit the Reckoning with M. Morton and the Search of Francis VValsingham wherein the proper argument now in hand is treated about true or false writing And yet on the other side if the said designement shall go forward I thinke our English Catholickes will be glad thereof First for that it will honour not a litle their cause it appearing by this that the learneder sort of Protestants do feele the weight of their weapons for the besides the forsaid Vniuersities Scholes Churches they are forced to seeke yet further furniture for their defence Secondly it may be hoped that forraine Catholick Princes hearing of this matter will thinke themselues bound in zeale and honour of their owne Religion to assist in like manner for erection of some House or Colledge for English Catholike writers to defend the same Thirdly it may in reason be expected that this little Vniuersity of Protestant Writers will for their honour and credits sake deale effectually with his Maiestie that the passage of Catholike bookes written in answere vnto theirs may be more free and not so subiect to losse danger and vexation 〈◊〉 â—â—therto they haue bene especially if they be written modestly and to the purpose only for that otherwise it would seeme a very vniust matterâ— to open as it were a Schoole of fence and yet to forbid the entrance of any that would offer to try their manhood and skill with them or as if proposing a goale for runners they would bynd the leggs of such as should runne with them But fourthly and lastly our greateâ—â—â— help of all would be in this case that his Excellent Maiestie as before in part hath bene touched beeing inuited by this occasion to read some bookes of both sides would by the sharpnes of his Great Capacity enlightened with Gods grace discouer in tyme where truth and where falsity remayneth where substance or fraud is stood vpon which would be the greatest benefit that we can possibly desire or wish for at Gods hands for the common benefit of our cause ABOVT TOLERATION OR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE demaunded by humble petition at his Maiesties handes by Catholikes whether it were height of pryde or not AS Also concerning the contention betweene Protestants and Puritans CHAP. IIII. AS by that which hath bene set downe in the former Chapter we haue seene and beheld the good talent that M. Barlow and his fellowes haue in flâ—tering the memory of Queene Elizabeth now dead and his Maiesty liuing so now there ensueth another large Treatise of his that sheweth his iniquity and virulent humor of most bitter calumniation against all sortes of Catholicks for making humble supplication to his Maiesty after his entrance to the Crowne for some liberty of conscience or toleration at least in matters concerning religion which petition though proposed as hath bene sayd with neuer so much humility and prostrate subiection of the petitioners and many most forcible and apparent reasons alleaged for the same yet will M. Barlow needs defend it for a supreme height of Pryde in them to haue hoped for such a matter or made supplication for the same The clemency of his Maiesty saith he wrought in them that height of pride that in confidence therof they directly did expect and assuredly promise vnto themselues liberty of conscience equality in all things with vs his Maiesties most best and faythfull subiects And doe not you see how great and grieuous a charge this is especially if you cut of the second part as you must do to wit equality in all things with Protestants his Maiesties best subiects For this was neuer demaunded in the petition of Catholicks much lesse either directly or indirectly expected and least of all assuredly promised to themselues For then should they haue demaunded also to share equally with Bishops and Ministers in their benefices which we may assure our selus they neuer so much as dreamed of or of other preferments in the common wealth with that equality which heer they are made to haue assured themselues of Their petition then was only for liberty of conscience as hath bene sayd or if not that yet at least wise some moderate toleration of
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
and defy this communion in fayth with them and haue set forth whole bookes to proue the same which were too long here to repeate Yea Caluinian and Zwinglian Ministers themselues are witnesses hereof in many of their Treatises as namely the Tigurine Deuines who confesse that theyr differences and contentions with the Lutherans are about Iustification Free-will the Ghospell the law the Person of Christ his descent into hell of Gods election of his children to life euerlasting de multis alijs non leuis momenti articulis of many more articles of no small importance which is euident for that Ioannes Sturmius another Zwinglian or Caluinist addeth other controuersies as of the Supper of our Lord and Reall Presence of Predestination of the Ascension of Christ to heauen his sitting at the right hand of his Father and the like adding also that the Lutherans do hould the Protestant Caluinian Churches of England France Flanders and Scotland for Hereticall and their Martyrs for Martyrs of the Diuell And conforme to these their writings are their doinges and proceedings with them where they haue dominion for that they admyt them not to cohabitation nor to the common vse of marriage betweene them nor to be buryed with them after theyr deaths as they well know who haue liued or do liue among them And thus much for the Lutherans of the one syde Now let vs see somewhat also of the Purytans of the other And first of all this matter hath beene handled dyuers times and demonstrated by Catholicke English wryters of our dayes agaynst this absurd assertion of M. Barlow that the differences at this day betweene Protestants and Purytans are not at all concerning religion nor of any substantiall and essentiall poyntes thereof but only Ceremoniall and in particuler the same is conuinced and made most manifest in the Preface of a late Booke intituled An answere to the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports where the different grounds of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power betweene Protestants Puritans and Catholickes being examined it is found that their differences are such as cannot possibly stand togeather to make one Church and house of saluation but that if one hath the truth the other must necessarily remayne in damnable error which is euident also by the writings of Protestants themselues especially by the bookes intituled Dangerous positions set forth and imprinted at London 1593. and the Suruey ofpretended holy discipline made as they say by him that is now Lord of Canterbury and Doctor Sutcliffe as also the Booke intituled the Picture of a Purytan writen by O. O. of Emanuel printed 1603. and other like bookes But especially at this time will I vse for proofe of this poynt the testimony of Thomas Rogers Minister and Chaplin as he styleth himselfe to his Lord of Canterbury who of late hauing set forth by publike authority the fayth doctrine and religion of England expressed in 39. articles vpon the yeare 1607. doth in his Preface to his said Lord haÌ„dle this matter of the differences betweene the Puritans and Protestantes though partially agaynst the discontented brethren he being theyr aduersary but yet setteth downe out of their owne words what their iudgment is of the importance and moment of the controuersyes betwene them to wit that they are not only about Ceremonies and circumâ—tances as M. Barlow pretendeth but about poyntes contayned in scripture in the very Ghospell it selfe They are compryzed say they in the booke oâ— God and also be a part of the Ghospell yea the very Ghospell it selfe so true are they and oâ— such importance that if euery hayre of our head were a life we ought to affâ—ard them all in defence of these matters and that the articles of religion penned and agreed vpon by the Bishops are but childish toyes in respect of the other So they And will any man thinke or say now that these men doe not hould that theyr differences with the Protestants are differences in religion as M. Barlow sayth or that they are only matters of ceremonyes and not of any one substantiall poynt concerning religion Let vs heare them yet further telling theyr owne tale and related by M. Rogers The controuersy betwene them and vs say they of the Protestants is not as the Bishops and their welwillers beare the world in hand for a cap or tippet or a Surplisse but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry and regiment of the Church according to the word of God The first wherof which is a true Ministry they Protestants shall neuer haue till Bishops and Archbishops be put downe and all Ministers be made equall The other also will neuer be brought to passe vntill Kings and Queenes doe subiect themselues vnto the Church and doe submit their Scepters and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and licke vp the dust of the feete of the Church and willingly abyde the Censures of the Church c. This they write and much more in that placeâ— which I trow is more then M. Barlow ascribeth vnto the matter For if it be contayned in Gods booke yea a part oâ— the Ghospell the very Ghospell it selfe about which they contend what proterâ—ity is it on the other part to call it a matter only of Ceremony But yet further within two pages after agayne they doe explayne themselues and theyr cause more in particuler saying Our controuersy with the Protestants is whether Iesus Christ shal be King or no and the end of all our trauell is to bâ—yld vp the walls of Ierusalem and to set vp the throne of Iesus Christ 〈◊〉 heauenly king in the myddest thereof And are these poyntes also not substantiall nor any wayes touching religion but Ceremonies Harken then yet further what they do inferre vpon the Protestantes Church for dissenting from them in these pointes Neyther is there among them say they a Church or 〈◊〉 least wise no true Church neither are they but titular Christians no true Christians indeed And yet will M. Barlow continue to say that there is no difference at all in Religion and that I lyed when I sayd that his Maiesty yeelded to a Conference between Protestants Puritans concerning their differences of Religion VVhat will he answere to the two precedent members touched by the Puritans to witâ— that their strife is for a true Ministry a lawfull gouermeÌ„t therof expounding their meaning to be that for obtaining the first all Bishops and Archbishops must be put downe for the second all temporall Princes Kings Queenes must leaue their superiority ouer the Church submit themselues and their Crownes vnto the same Church to wit their Presbyteries as M. Rogers expoÌ„deth their words And is there no substantiall point neyther in all this but only matter of Ceremony And doth not the very life soule of the Church depend of these two things a true Ministry and lawful Head Is not the power of preaching teaching administration of
abroad p. 50. more contayned therin then ciuill obedience p. 70. 71. 280. humble petition to his Maiesty for the expositioÌ„ therof p. 89. Scandall in exhibiting therof p. 126. 127. c. No such Oath euer enacted before by former Princes p. 156. Card. Bellaâ—mins opinion therof pag. 346. 347. c. deuided into 14. parts p. 357. difference betweene the said Oath and an Indenture pag. 362. Oath of Supremacy p. 353. defeÌ„ded by M. Barlow 354. 355. Obedience against God mans conscience none pag. 282. Obedience of our temporall Prince how far when it bindeth p. 291. defined by S. Thomas 339. Ordination of Protestant Bishops first vnder Q. Elizabeth praf n. 136. P PAVLVS Quintus Pope defeÌ„ded 54. 55. 56. 57. his Breues discussed part 2. per totuÌ„ whether he forbad temporall odedience to his Maiesty therin p. 323. deinceps â— Persons calumniated by M. Barlow pag. 204. belyed p. 263. Petrus de Vâ—â—â—is extolled by M. Barlow p. 499. iustified pag. 509. censured 523â— Philip the Emperour his murder pag. 470. Plutarke abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. Popes power ouer Infidel Princes p. 76. how they are particuler Bishops of Rome Pastours of the whole Church pag. 145. whether they can make new articles of faith or no pag. 324. 325. deinceps whether they command Princes to be murdered pag. 394. 395. c. Powder-treason pag. 13. 14. 15. c. F. Persons accused therwith by M. Barlow p. 23. Powder-plot of Antwerp pag. 18. of Hage p. 19. of Edenborrow ibid. Prescription of the Church of Rome part 1. cap. 5. per totum good argument in case of Relion pag. 150. 152. vide Antiquityâ— the same vrged by the Fathers ib. belyed shamefully pag. 246. Protestants gone out of the Catholike Church pag. 149. their Ecclesiasticall power ouer Puritans pag. 259. their basenes beggary pag. 265. their conflicts with Puritans about matters of Religion pag. 270. their Church basest of all others praef n. 36. Prouidence of God discoursed of by S. Augustine pag. 416. Q QVEENE Mary of ScotlaÌ„d put to deâ—th for Religion pag. 51. preached against by M. Barlow pag. 212. Queene vide Elizabeth R RESOLVTION of Catholiks in maters of faith p. 123. of Protestants none at all ibid. 124. what resolution is taken from the Pope pag. 125. M. Reynolds writing against Whitaker pag. 457. Rome Recourse to Rome about the Oath of Allegiance p. 50. 51. 52. c. The same practised in all difficulties by our English Princes people pag. 53. 377. Church of Rome impugned p. 144. S SALMERON abused by M. Morton M. Barlow p. 75. Salomons fact of killing Adoniah condemned pag. 105. D. Sanders abused by M. Barlow pag. 77. Scandall in exhibiting the Oath of Allegiance p. 128. 129 130. c. of actiue and passiue scandall pag. 132. 134. 135. scandall of Balaaâ— pag. 139. Sigebert calumniated pag. â—3 K. Sisâ—nandus his submission to the Councell of Toledo p. 36â— Statute of Association pag. 429. Sâ—â—pition vide Idolâ—try foure kinds of suspition pag. 119. Supremacy mascuâ—â—ne feminine pag. 395. how it was giuen to K. Henry the 8. pag. 29â— to K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth â—bid to K. Iames. pag. 29â— M. Barlowes iudgment therupon ibid. pag. 300 Sycophancy vide Flattery M. Barlowes diuision of Sycophancy pag. 242. Sixtuâ— vide Pope T S. THOMAS his opinion coÌ„cerning obedience pag. â—â—â— about Totally praef n. 52. abused by M. Barlow pag. â—36 Threatnings of God vnto Kings pag. 108. Tâ—byes breach of the King of Niniue his comaâ—ndment about burying of the dead Iewes p. 289. § 2. the ancient Fathers iudgment therof pag. 288. the credit of the History of Toby pag. 287. Toleration of Religion humbly demanded of his Maiesty part 2. cap. 4. per totum Thomas vide Morton Treason vide Powder-treason V VESSELS consecrated to Church vses ancieÌ„t p. 237. Viâ—es of wicked Kings recounted after their deaths in Scripture pag. 199. Vniuersity of M. Barlow little p. 236. W M. VVHITAKER a terrour to Card. Bellarmine in M. Barlowes iudgment pag. 455. his booke refuted by M. Reynolds pag. 457. his ignorance ibid. VVilliam vide Barlow VVorkes-Good works may giue cause of confidence in God p. 440. Syr Henry VVotton a wodden Embassadour praef n. 70. his pranks at Ausburge Venice ibid. X XYSTVS 5. belyed about the murder of King Henry the 3. of France pag. 115. Z ZISCA the blind Rebell of Bohemia pag. 456. FINIS Three things declared in this preface for the Readers satisfaction Why M. Barlowes book was answered by F. Persons The cause of the stay of this edition What manner of writer M. Baâ—low is Isa. 1â— Tertull. dâ— praesâ—rip cap. 41. Aug. tract 45. in IoaÌ„nem Bernard serm 65. in Cantica M. Barlow in his epistlâ— Dedicatory to his Maiâ—sty M. Barlowes maÌ„ner of writing M. Barlowes ignorance in GraÌ„meâ— Humanity Barlow pag. 15â— pag. 295â— Gregor lib. 2. Ep. ep 65. Barl. pag. 174. A very grosâ—e Grammaticall errour Fragmentum historiâ—um in anno 1238. â—omo 1. hist. Germ. Casarum Bellarm. l. 1. de Cler. cap. 28. Barlow pag. 342. A strange construction of Orbis terrae Bellar. lâ—â— citato M. Barlowes ignorance in Philosophy Leo ep 89. D. Thâ— lec 12. in Periber lit F. M. Barlows ignorance in histories Barlow pag. 298. Barlow pag. 292. deinceps Barlow pag. 245. pag. 288. pag. 295. M. Barlowes ignorance in interpreting the Scriptures Barl. pag. 53. Cant. 3. Barlow pag. 43. Iosue 6. Pag. 201. Iosue 6. Pag. 60. Gen. 3. Matth. 9. Barlow pag. 334. M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of Diuinity Barlow pag. 188. D. Thom. 2.2 q. 104. ar 6. ad 3. 〈◊〉 pag. â—7 pag. 57 〈◊〉 pag. 114. D. Tho. 2.2 q. 162 â—â— 4. in 〈◊〉 pag. 246. M. Barlowes paradoxes Barlow pag. 160. The Protestantes coÌ„science like a cheuerall point A prophane and barbarous assertion of M. Barlow Barlow pag 99. Athan. ep ad solitarâ—aÌ„ vitâ—m ageÌ„tâ—s Hilarius lib. 1. in ConstaÌ„t AugustuÌ„ paulo post â—nitium Barlow pag 2â—2 Barlow paâ—â— 142. see supra pag. 120. D. Andr. Respons ad Apol. cap. â—5 pag. 343. §. Porrâ— negat part 2. cap. 4. Printed anno 160â— An. 1607. D. Couell in his iust and temperate defence ar 11. pag. 67. liâ— 8. in Iob. cap. 2. Puritans acknowledge an essentiall difference betweene them and the Protestants in matters of religion An. 160â— arg 10. circa medium Si nons Vpoâ— the Arâ—c pag. 142. sâ—e Baâ—on tom 12 in anno 1140. sâ—â—â—nnius tom 4. pag. 1223. and S. Bern. ep 187. 188. dem â—ps Pâ—pyâ—ius Maâ—souius l 3. Annal. in Phâ—â—ppo August pag. 268. Bern. ep 240. â—â—â—nar Luâ—â—en et 〈…〉 Aâ—bizen es 〈…〉 see Christianus Massaeus l. 17. Chron. ad an 1206. Caesaâ—ius Heiesterb l. 5. illust mirac cap. 21. see the Protestants Apology pag. 343. Iewel defence pag. 48 M. Iewell contrary to himself Guido Carmelita in suÌ„ma cap. 9. de
the moon in the Asseâ— belly M. Barlows flattery of Kinges Barl. p. 44 3. Reg. 2. Wisely Syr William Salomons fact of killing Adoniah condemned Lucae 2. Iob 36. Psal. 2. The secoÌ„d psalme ill chosen of M. Barlow for flattery of Princes Examples of Gods terrible threats vnto Kings Daniâ—l .4 3. Râ—g 21. Iob 36. Gods prouidence in gouerning his Church perfect no wayes defectuous Alu. Pelag lib. 1. De planctu Eccl. cap. 13. Aluarus Pelagius abused by M. Barl. Gratian Decret part 1. distinct 5. Greg. c. 10. ad interrogata Augustini Beda lib. 1. de hist. Angl. cap. 27. Bertrand in additione ad glos de maioritate obedientia c. â— Barl. p. 49. M. Barlows falfe dealing in alledging his aduersaries wordes â—et p. 20. Prou. â—4 vers 28. Vincen. aduers. hares August de vera rel cap. 38. Idolatry and superstition not alwaies causes of fâ—ar Foure kindâ—s of superstition 1. Tim. 1. M. Barl. prouoked to stand to his own Authors The Maior The Miâ—or An important controuersy to be haÌ„dled If M. Barlow list to accept this offer alâ—beit the author be dead he shall find those that will ioyne with him Barl. p. 52. There is no vltima resolutio with the ProtestaÌ„ts in matters of faith The Catholicks answere concerning his vâ—tima â—esolutio No resolution amongst heretâ—cks What resolution is taken froÌ„ the Pope Pag. 53. M. Barlows hate of ambition scilicet and his mortification M. Barlows stomake for digestion and concoction Barl. p. 54. Letter pag. â—â— Bar. p. 55. M. Barlows idle discourse 1. Pet. 2. 1. Cor. 8. Lett. p. 22. M. Barlowes ill fortune in dealing with Schol men Barl. p. 57. Of â—ctiue passiue scaâ—dall â— 2. q. 43. ar 1. ad 4. Scandal actiue without passiue Ibid. art 2. in coâ—porâ— Carnal Diuinity Bad dealing in M. Barlow The definition of scandal what is actiue and paâ—siue scandall ScaÌ„dalum Pharisaeorum ScaÌ„dalum Pusilloâ—uÌ„ S. Thomas expounded S. Thom. abused The errours of M. Barlow about the matter of scaÌ„dall M. Barlows want of patieÌ„ce M. Barlow vnderstaÌ„deth not the tearâ—es oâ— schoole Diuinity Epist. 50. Who lay the scandall of Balaam Catholicks or Protestants Letter pag. 22. M. Barlow speaketh morâ— then he can proue The successâ—oÌ„ of the Church of Rome Barl. pag. 59. 60. M. Barlows arguments against the Church of Rome The Pope both particuler Bishop of Rome and yet chiefe Pastour of the whole Church M. Barlowes bad argument which is false both in antecedent and consequent Euill life doth not preiudice truth of doctrine Barl. p. 60. M. Barlowes Ministeriall phrases of indument and stripping By Baptisme we are made members of the Church ProtestaÌ„ts gone out of the Catholike Church not Catholikes out of theÌ„ Barl. p. 62â— Mattâ— 13â— Antiquity prescriptioÌ„ good argumeÌ„ts in case of Religion Matth. 13. Tertul. aduers Marc. lib. 4. The Fathers do vrge prescription Hilar. lib. 6. De Trinitate ante medium Hier. Episâ—â— ad Paâ—nachium Pag. â—2 Concil Caâ—thag apuâ— CyprianuÌ„ Bad dealing of M. Barlow How posseâ—sioÌ„ with prescriptioÌ„ are euincing arguments in mâ—tters of fayth Sober Rec. cap. 3. §. 101. c. M. Barlow hardly vrged Matth. vlt. Matth. 16. No such Oath euer exaâ—ted by oâ—her Princes Barl. pag. 62. About Q. Elizabeths raigne life death Lett. p. 27. Queene Elizabeth her Manes M. Barlowes flattering loquence Barl. 64. M. Barl. turnes with the wynd like a weather-cocke Quene Elizabeth otherwise blazoned by forrain writers then M. Barlow reporteth Barlow p. 66. 67. Q. Elizabeth Canonized for a Saint by M. Barlow Q. Elizabeth in M. Barl. his iudgment neuer coÌ„mittâ—d anâ— mortal sinne Q. Elizabeth would neuer haue chosen M. Barlow for her ghostly Father About Q. Elizabeths Manes sacrificing vnto theÌ„ Barl. p. 74. Hierom. Eâ—ist ad Rom. Oratâ—â—em August de Dâ—â—tr Chrisâ—ian M. Barl. his trifling Act. 28. v. 11. 2. Pet. 2. 4. Act. 17. 28. Rom. 14.4 In what cases a maÌ„ may iudg of another 1. Tim. 5. 24. Barl. p. 75. Matth. 6. About externall mortifications 3. Reg. 2â— 27. Achab truly mortified Prophane impietie in M. Barlow Q. Elizabeth no cloystered Nunâ—e A place of S. Paul expounded coÌ„cerning bodily exercise Châ—ysost in comment ad c. 4. in 1. Tim. 3. Reg. 17. M. Barlow no friend to mortifications A strange kind of mortificaâ—â—on Mortification Rom. 8. 13â— Aug. l. 1. confeâ—s c. 5. Bern serm 52. in Cant. Ser. 13 de verbâ—â— Apost Strange kind of answering Gregor 5. moral c. â— Two parts of mortification internall externall Externall mortification in Princes M. Barlow a Deuine for the Court. Apol. pag. 16. M. Barl. foolish shift in answering his Aduersaries obiection about the PersecutioÌ„ vnder Q. Elizabeth Lett. paâ— 18. Let. p. 29. L. Cooke in the book of the late arraignmeÌ„t fâ—l 53. Psal. 143. Barl. p. 78. M. Barlow very forgetfull Temporall felicity no argument of spirituall happines Psal. 72. Hier. 12. Abacuâ— 10. Psalm 77. Bâ—llarm de notis Eccl. cap. 15. A place of Bâ—llarmâ— answered concerning temporall felicity S. August discourse S. Hierome Arnobius S. Basil. S. Chrysostome Theodoret Euthymius Psal. 2. 4. Psa. â— 36.23 Sapien. 4. Prouerb 1. 26. M. Barlâ— moues habens L. Câ—â—â—â— in tâ—e last boâ—ke â—f Arrâ—ignmeÌ„ts pag. 64. A bad definition of Misery by coâ—â—a inoâ—ia Psal. 68. 2. Cor. 1. Syr Edw. Cooke a poore Deuine None soe bold as blind bayard Lett. pag. 29. M. Barlowes weake Philosophy Barlow p. 82. 1. â—eg 31. Eccles. 4. 5. M. Barlow hardly vrged M. Barlowes waÌ„t of Diuinity Strange cases of conscience proposed by M. Barlow Nabuchodonosor more happy then Q. Elizabetâ— Q. Elizabeth her infelicities M. Barlow eueâ— by his owne censure and sentence contemptible M. Barlow followeth not his owne rules â—arlow pag. 96. The vices of wicked Kings recounted after their death in Scripture Letter pag. 35. A monstrous head of the English Protestant Church Barlow pag. 99. Nero and Domitian heads of the Church in M. Barlowes opinion Touching the birth of Queene Elizabeth M. Barl. Babylon Philâ—ra loue-druggs M. Barl. neuer like to be prisoner for religion S. Augusâ—â—â—â—â—o Protâ—staÌ„t Calumnious citations For what cause a maÌ„ may be a Martyr Matth. 5. The Prieâ—â—s that dâ—e â—â—n Q. 〈◊〉 time true Martyâ—s M. Barlows two foolish cases â—arl p. 92. Quodlib pag. 269. 277. M. Barlows trifling M. Barl silence and the cause therof A charitable Bishop Barl. p. 94. Barl. Preface to his sâ—â—mon the fiâ—st sonday in Lent 16â—0 About the making a way his Maiesties Mother Tacitus lâ— 1. Histor. M. Barlow turns his sailes with the wind serues the tyme. Barl. p. 59. Q. Elizabeths purgation about the Q of Scotlands death Hier. 2. 22. About the disastrous death of Q. Elizabeth â—â—5 â—5 The narration of the manner of Q. Elizabeths death In what case we may iudg of other meÌ„s soules after their death 1. Tim. 5. No sin to iudge of men deceased in herâ—sie Cyprian l. 〈…〉 S.
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
his Maiesty begâ—â— first to raiâ—ne But concerning the generall Question to deny simply and absolutely That the Pope is supreme Pastour of the Catholiâ—â— Church hath any authority leâ—t him by Christ eyther directly or â—â—â—â—â—â—ctly with cause or without cause in neuer so great a necessity or for â—euer so great and publicke an vâ—ility of the Câ—ristian Religion to proceed against any Prince whatsoeuer temporally â—or his restraint or aâ—endmeâ—â— or to perâ—it other Princes to do the sâ—me this I suppose was neuer tâ—eir meaning that tooke the Oath for that they should therby contradict the generall conseâ—t of all Catholicke Deuines and conâ—â—sse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruation of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous for that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great and excessiue an euill as that way might fall outâ— Wherefore for so much as some such moderate meaning must needs be presumed to haue bene in those that tooke the Oath for safeguard of their Consciences if it might please his Maiesty to like well and allow of this moderation and fauourable interpretation as all forraine Catholicke Kings and Monarchs doe without any preiudice at all of their safety dignity or Imperiall prehemiâ—ence I doubt not but he should find most ready conformity in all his said English Catholicke Subiects to take the said Oath who now haue great scruple and repugnance of Conscience therin both for that the chiefeâ—t learned men of their Church doe hold the same for vtterly vnlawfull being mixed and compounded as it is and the voyce of their chiefe Pastour to whome by the rules of their Religion they thinke themselues bound to harken in like cases hath vtterly condemned the same and the very tenour of the Oath it selfe and last lines therof are That euery â—â—e shall sweare without any Equiuocation or mentall reseruation at â—â—l that is to say hartily willingly and truely vpon the true fayth of a Christian. Which being so they see not how they may take the said Oath in truth of conscience for so much as they find no such willingnes in their harts nor can they induce themselues in a matter so neerely concerning the Confession of their faithâ— to Equiuocate or sweare in any other sense then from his Maiesty is proposed and therfore do thinke it lesse hurt to deny plainly aâ—d sincerely to sweare then by swearing neyther to giue satisfaction to God nor to his Maiesty nor to themselâ—â—â—â— nor to their neighbours And so much for this point Hitherto haue I thought good to relate my forâ—â—â— words somewhat at large to the end the Reader may seâ— my reasonable and dutiâ—ull speach in this behalfe aâ—â— vpon what ground M. Barlow hath fallen into such a raâ—e against me as now shall appeare by his reply First of aâ—â— he condeÌ„neth me of hâ—pocrisy saying Let the Reader câ—â—â—â—der â—â—at an â—ypocrite he is for it is an inseparable marke of â—n hypâ—câ—â—â—â— to iudge oâ— otheâ— mâ—ns conâ—â—iences the hart of man is Gods peculiâ—â— â—oâ— anâ— man to place his consâ—sâ—ory there is high presumpâ—ion so be â—â—nneth out in that comon place which maketh nothing at all to ouâ— purpose as you see For I did not iudgâ—t or conâ—â—mne then conâ—ciâ—nces that tooke the Oath but excâ—sâ—â— the same yea interpreted their â—act in good sense giuing my â—eaâ—ons for itâ— that they being good Catholike could not be presuâ—â—d to meane otherwise then the inâ—â—gritie of Catholicke doctrine did permit them for that otherwise they should be no good Catâ—olickes if they should haue done any thing contrary to that whicâ— theâ— selues held to appertaine to the same in which I did not excuse their fact which my whole booke proueth to be vnlawâ—ull but only their intention and meaning touching the integrity of Catholick doctrine And this is far difâ—erent from the nature of hypocrisy which forbiddeth not all iudging but only euill and rash iudging of other mâ—ns actions or intentioÌ„s thereby to seeme better more iâ—st then they For if two for example sake should see M. Barlow to sup largely with flesh and other good meate vpon a vigill or fasting-day and the one should iudge it in the worst part saying that he did it for the loue of hâ—s belly and sensuality the other should interpret the same spiritually as done for glorifying God in his creatures by his thanks-giuing for the same for liberty also of the ghospell and for to make him the more strong able to â—peake preach his Seruice and Sermon the next day I doubt noâ— but that this second iudgement would not be censured by him for hypocriticall And this is ouâ— very case with those that tooke the Oath For that I hearing what they had done and that they were Catholicks did interprete their meaning to the best sense And was not this rather charity then hypocrisy But let vs see a little if you please how M. Barlow can defend this generall proposition of his that it is an inseparable mâ—rke of an hypocrite to iudge of other mens consciences You haue heard before how wisely he defended a certain definition which he gaue of an Oath now you shall see him as wisely learnedly defend an inseparable propriety or marke of an hypocrite And first you see that here is no distinction or limitation at all whether he iudg well or ill with cause or without cause rashly or maturely how then if wee should heare a man or woman speake ordinarily lewd wordes can no iudgement be made of the speakers consciences without hypocrisie If a man should see another frequeÌ„t bad howses or exercise wicked actions may no man iudge him to haue an ill conscience from whence these things doe proceed but he must be â—n hypocrite Moreouer if this bee an inseparable marke or propriety as he saith then according to Aristotle Porphyriâ—â— it must conuenire omni soli semper agree to all only and euer For if it do not agree to all and euer it is not inseparable and if it agree to others besides hypocrites it is not alwaies the marke of an hypocrite and therefore albeit that I had iudged their consciences as M. Barlow imposeth vpon me he could not by good consequeÌ„ce haue inferred that I was an hypocrite But this is ridiculous that all hypocrites and only hypocrites iudge of mens consciences for first the hypoâ—rite that soundeth a trumpet before his almes whose conscience doth he iudge The other also that kneeleth and prayeth in the corners of streetes whose conscience doth he iudge or condemne Those also that came to tempt Christ about the woman taken in â—dultery and about Tribute to be payd to Cesar I reade not whose consciences they iudged and therefore would be loath to doe them iniury except M. â—arlow can bring any iust accusation against them and yet were they called hypocrites by our Sauiour whereby iâ— inferred that all hypocrisy is not subiect to
to be deceiued with the difficulty of this question let him take counsaile of the Church meaning thereby the vniuersall knowne Catholike Church they hauing abandoned this way of Diâ— Ecclesiae tell the Church and of recourse thereunto as to the Columna firmamentum veritatis the pillar and stay of truth so called by S. Paul what remayneth then to theÌ„ for their vltima resolutio but their owne heads and priuate iudgments which are those fancyes oâ— their own braynes which M. Barlow recyted before our of S. Augustine And this shall I make manifest by the ensuing example Yf fiue or six learned men of different ReligioÌ„s should meet togeather in Germany or Transiluania to wit a Roman Catholike a Hussite an Arrian a Trinitarian a Lutheran a Zuinglian or a Caluinist for that all these different Religions are there publikely professed and both by speaches books and sermons preached and maintayned and that you should demauÌ„d of each one of these the reason of his fayth and his vltima resolutio or last rest about the same you should find their answers far diâ—fereÌ„t For if you should demand of the Catholicke for example why he belieueth the Reall Presence he would answere you because it is reuealed by God If you aske him further how he knoweth it is reuealed by God he will say it is conteined in his word eyther written or vnwritten or both Yf you aske him againe how he knoweth it is coÌ„teined in Gods word in that sense that he defends it he will answere for that the knowne Catholike Church doth tell him so by whose authority he is taught what is Gods word and how it is to be vnderstood And if you demand of him further how he knoweth the Church to haue such authority and the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church he will alledg for the former diuers Scriptures acknowledged also by the opposite Sectaries as that before mentioned wherin she is called The pillar and stay of truth and for the second he will alledge so many demonstrations of the beginning growth increase continuance succession and visible deâ—cent of that Church confirmed from time to time with so many miracles other manifest proofes and arguments of credibility as no man in reason can contradict the same so as his vltima resolutio or last stay is vpon the Church testifying vnto vs tâ—e word of God and testified by the same But now the other fiue though neuer so learned in their profession will not answere you thus but being demaunded euery one of them seuerally why they are of that peculiar sect more then of any other and why they are different from the Catholicke in the former article of Reall Presence they will all answere conformably for the first step that they doe build vpon the word of God yea the writteÌ„ word only But if you go a step further demand of them how they know that this written word is well vnderstood by them for so much as they are of fiue different Religions founded by them all vpon the same written word here now they cannot passe any further to the foresaid Catholike Church for finall resolutioÌ„ as the first did for that they all do impugne her but ech man must defend his different interpretation of that written word by his owne iudgement or els by the iudgement of his owne Congregation and Sect which in effect is the same So as these fiue learned men do remaine irreconciliable as you see for want of a ground from whence to take their vltima resolutio and do shew themselues according to the former speaches of Vincentius and S. Austine both Heretikes and Idolatours in that following the â—ule resolution of their owne heads they adore as many Gods as they haue selfe-conceipts for ground of their fayth And will you say that this poynt of vltima resolutio was wisely brought in by M. Barlow being a thing wherby himselfe and his are condemned to haue no last resolution or certayne ground at all for their beliefe but only their owne â—eads But oh sayth he you depend for resolution vpon the Pope which is so vncertaine as what one Pope decrees another disallowes But I haue now answered that we depend vpon the Catholicke Church as propounding vnto vs and expounding Gods word and we depend of the Supreme Pastour as head of that Church vnto whoÌ„ we rest assured by Gods owne word and promise that he will assist him with his spirit for all resolutions in matters of fayth which shal be necessary for his sayd Church nor can M. Barlow prooue that what one Pope decrees in these matters of fayth another disallowes One of them may well alter matters of policy gouernment Ceremonies or the like but for poynts of fayth we do allow M. Barlow sixteene hundred yeares to seeke them out And if in so long time he could haue produced but one true example I suppose we should haue had it I doe willingly pretermit a great deale more of idle impertinent speach which M. Barlow vseth about this matter of Catholiks Consciences â—hewing indeed to haue little himselfe nor yet to know well what it meaneth and much lesse speaketh he to the present purpose For he telleth vs first that if pressure of conscience may serue for good Plea of Recusancy to Princes lawes there is neyther malefactor for crime nor hereticke for schisme but that will make that his Apology Wherunto I answere that causes persons merits and demerits are to bee distinguished in this matter and not to be confounded For what hath the malefactour for crime or hereticke for schisme to doe in this affaire From the first I thinke the aduersaries themselues will deliuer them or at leastwise theyr neyghbors among whome they dwell and as for the second of heresy and schisme we haue spoken now already sufficiently to shew where those imputations may and must lye not vpon the Catholickes who are opposite to that charge Secondly then he telleth vs that we lacke the light within vs which should driue away the darkenesse of our consciences and purge the eye therof from mist dust lime And vpon this he maketh vs an exhortation that we take heed of Caligo tenebrarum in this life that dusketh the eies of our vnderstanding to perdition especially by worldly delightes desire of honour and wealth this being puluis pigmentarius sayth he the Merchants dust which tickleth the eies and blindeth the sight of the wisest as do also enuy by emulation preiudice of affection wilfulnes by opposition which like vnto lyme tormenteth the eye and peruerteth the iudgement c. And is not this a very graue and serious exhortation comming from such a man as he is knowne to be so clearely inlightned as neyther mist nor dust nor lyme of ambition can sticke vpon a man so hating worldly delights honour and wealth as no part of this merchants dust can tickle his eyes Are not his mortifications
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
antiquity against him But yet otherwise when he was out of that necessity of defending an errour himselfe sayth he did not only allow of custome but also did often vrge the custome and traditioÌ„ of the Church for very good arguments and proueth many Catholicke doctrines therby as the necessity of Chrisme or Vnction lib. 1. Epist. 12. the offering of wine togeather with water in the Sacrifice lib. 2. Epist. 3. saying that it is Dominica â—râ—diâ—io a tradition of our Lord and other like poynts of Christian religion which he proueth by the like force of Tradition Antiquity and Prescription wherof I haue treated more largely in my Booke against M. Morton shewing the same more aboundantly out of S. Augustine and that both S. Augustine and S. Cyprian are in this poynt and many others abused by him And so now to returne to our argument of Possession and Prescription and to end also with the same this first Part of our Answâ—re I say that Possession and Prâ—scription◠〈…〉 hath bene declared the cause of M. Barlow is vtterly oâ—erthrowne for that he wil be neuer able to prooue eyther IntrusioÌ„ in our Possession or Errour in our Antiquity which for a finall vpshot to the Reader in this behalfe I shall demonstrate by this ensuing reason If euer the Protestantâ— Church or Religion were receyued publikely in Christendome from Christs time downward vnto ours that is to say in any one or more ages and was that first visible Church that was founded by Christ into which M. Barlow sayth that we entred afterward by intrusion and fiâ—â—â—orce and so possessed Christendome in such sort as for many ages the said Protestant Church appeared not publikely vntill these our dayes I would demaund of M. Barlow Whether this his Church so put to flight from the eies of Christendome did perish or lay hidden only For if it perished then the true Church of Christ perished and the promises made by him were not performed That he woâ—ld be with the same vnto the end of the world That the gates of hell should not preuaile against it for that in this case the sayd hell should haue preuailed Moreouer I would demaund if she once perished how could she be raised to life againe In which case S. Augustine writing against the Donatists saith thus Si periâ—t Ecclesia vnde ergo Donatus apparuit Dic de qua terra germinauit De quo mari emersit De quo caelo cecidit If the true Church did perish from whence is Donatus come vnto vs Out of what grouÌ„d is he sprong Out of what sea hath he peept From what heauen is he fallen which S. Augustinâ— saith for that if the true Church were perished before Donatus was borne in what Church was he borne and how came he into the true Church that now he braggeth of and how did that Church rise from death to life againe But if M. Barlow will say that the Protestant Church which flourished in and after the Apostles times did not perish but fled only into the wildernes and lay hidden being spread visibly before ouer all the whole world for so he must say if she were the Catholike Church then would I demaund him whether this Church being thus in exile and couert but yet liuing did make profession of her fayth or not and if she made profession therof as she was bound for that as S. Paul sayth to the Romans Ore 〈…〉 aâ— salutem Confession of our faith is necessary to our saluation then by this confession she must needs make her selfe knowne as Martyrs and Confessours did in time of persecution and then she cannot be sayd to haue layen hidden and couert from the sight of the world no more then the Christian Church lay hidden in the time of persecution in Rome and other places when men and women lay in caues vnder ground but yet the confession of their fayth appeared vnto the whole world and no more then the Catholike religion may be sayd to ly hidden now at this day in England when all Christendome can be witnes of their Confession of the Catholike fayth which point I thinke M. Barlow doth not take vpon him to proue of the Protestants Confession in ancient ages Yf then he will say that the sayd Church lay altogeather hidden indeed without any publicke confession of their fayth then must he confesse that the state and condition of this Church which was the only true Church which Christ had vpoÌ„ earth of whose exceeding glory the Prophets did foretell so many wonderfull things was more miserable then any least Sect of heretickes that euer was yeâ— then the Church of the Iewes themselues in any of theyr Captiuities for that still they confessed their religion and euery Sect did the like in their times and had some meeting or Congregation exercises of their Religion registred by some Authors which the Protestant Church of this our age caÌ„not proue to haue had visibly in the world and dstinct from other people in any age before ours And this demonstration is sufficient to conuince the vanity of M. Barlow his assertion that Possessioâ— and Prescription for time are no good arguments in case of Religion The last point which he toucheth as he passeth it ouer very sleigtly so shall I as briefly answer the same I sayd in my Letter that among other considerations this was one very considerable that there was neuer any such Oath as this is exacted at the hands of Catholicke subiects either by any of their owne Kings or Princes at home in former Catâ—olick times â—or yet by any â—orraine King or Monarch now liuing vpon earth Whereunto I may also adde if I be not deceiued all Protestant Princes in other Countries of whome I neuer heard or read thaâ— they odered such Oathes to their subiects that were of different opinion in religion all which M. Barlow in effect confessing or not contradicting sayth If other Princes 〈◊〉 not the like we iudge them not perhaps it is in some of them an infused persuasion that it is not lawfull in others peraduenture it is a violent restraint yea gladly they would but cannot be suffered Where you see that all his answers goeth by iâ—s and ands perhaps and peraduentures and yet is the matter of moment and sequele if it be well pondered to take a course of extraordinary rigour different from all other Christian Princes besides It is not the Parasiticall flattery of a few Ministers at home respecting their owne trenchers will worke the State so much honour security as the generall mislikes and murmurations abroad may worke the contrary in time He sayth that his Maiesty wanted not a motiue to take this course for that the Pope was not so insolently busy with any nation as of late with his Maiesty and his Kingdome He addeth further that if it had not bene for him our gracious King might haue enioyed a peace more continuall and happy then
Eliâ—abeths affaires his answere in his owne words is this But dearely beloued there is a difference in faults of men as in diseases some onely are hurtfull to the parties themselues some loathsome and infectious to others the first are to be buried with their bodies forgotten but the other will annoy and therfore must be remembred after death In Scripture some Kinges that were vicious had their faultes touched euer after their buriall but no more yet some are neuer named in Scripture but their sinne is branded vpon their name as often you may see of â—eroboam neuer mentioned but presently addeth the sonne of Nebat which made Israell to sinne This was the mans answer at that time for that it serued for his purpose the same may serue me now against him for if the case of Ieroboam that made Israell to sinne might be applied to the Earle of â—ssex that was of their owne religion and changed nothing therein so far as is knowne and was but a priuate person how much more may the same be applyed to Queene Elizabeth that indeed brought in that fatall diuision and new worship of Ieroboam into her Kingdome which she found quiet vnited with the rest of Christendome in the knowne Catholicke fayth of Christs Church But saith M. Barlow reproaches are vttered eyther for reprâ—ose to amend or for vexation to grieue the parties calumniated both which endes doe cease in death Whereunto I answere that if they be reproches and contumelyes indeed without truth wherof M. Barlowes tongue and pen are fulâ— they serue to neyther of these ends but principally to shew the wiked mind of the vtterer but if they be true as those things are which I haue touched concerning Q. Elizabeth her infelicities â—heÌ„ albeit they be vttered to none of these two foolish ends mentioned by M. Barlow eyther to amend or vex the dead yet are they recorded to warne instruct them that are aliue by shewing Gods iustice vpon sinne his prouidence his power and his care to feare men by terror of euerlasting inâ—amy from the like offences many other such holy ends for the which in Scripture it is a most common ordinary thing to heare the sinnes of wicked Princes repeated and reiterated after death M. Barlow himselfe cannot deny it I did further add also in my former Letter the example of diuers ancient Fathers as Iustinus Martyrâ— Irenaeus Tertullian and others who to comfort the afflicted Christians in theyr dayes and to honour more the cause for which they suffered did put them in mind what manner of pâ—ople and Princes their first persecutors were as namely Nero and Domitian what life they led what end they made and that indeed they were â—it instruments to be the first actors in such a worke which I applying to Queene Elizabeth sayd that the like obseruation and comparison might be made she being the strangest woman that euer perhaps liued for diuers admirable circumstances before touched and the very first absolutely of that sex eyther Christened or created that tooke vpon her Supreme Power in Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters c. Wherunto M. Barlow comming to answere and hauing nothing at all to say to the purpose doth so childishly trifle as is most ridiculous telling vs first that if the Papists may comfort themselues for that they haue bene beaten by a woman then may the diuell comfort himselfe also that a woman is prophesied in Genesis according to our interpretation to breake his head Sysera also the Captaine may glory that he was ouerthrowne by a woman But this is triflingâ— for I doe not say simply by a woman but by such a woman as neuer was the like in diuers points of enormity against Câ—thâ—licâ—â— religion and therin was the Fathers obseruations of enormous manners of Nero and Domitian and not in the sex as they were men Secondly he sayth that diuers Popes were more like to Nero and Domitian then Queene Elizabeth but this is also trifling For neyther is the matter proued if it could be yet doth it not improue my comparison as it was some comfort to the ancient afflicted Catholickes to consider what manner of Princes they were that first began most sharpe persecution against them so might English Catholickes doe by consideration of the person of Queene Elizabeth that first of all women persecuted them in England and with inspeakable monstrosity made her selfe Head of the Church Thirdly he sayth about this matter that heauen and hell arâ— not more different then those Christian martyrs of the Primitiue Church from these later of English Papists for they sayth he acknowledged the Emperors supremacy independant vpon any but God prayed for them seriously both lyuing and dying c. But this now is more then trifling for it seemeth to me meere madnes to say that ancient Christian martyrs vnder Nero and Domiâ—ian did acknowledge those Emperours Supremacy independant vpon any but God which inferreth to my vnderstanding that they acknowledged them for Supreme Headeâ— of the Catholicke Church in those dayes for so signifieth the worde Supremacy in the controuersy betweene vs and the wordes immediatly following independant vpon any bâ—â— God doe seeme playnely to confirme the same as doth also the comparison and contrariety it selfe which hee putteth betweene those old Martyrs and ours For if he had meant of temporall Supremacy there had not bene any difference or contrariety betweene them For â—hat our Martyrs also doe acknowledge temporall Supremacy to Kings and Princes though not spirituall which inferreth that M. Barlow ascribing more to the ancient Martyrs vnder Nero and Domitian must needes meane that they held them â—or Heades of their Church euen in spirituall Ecclesiaâ—ticall aâ—fayres although they were Pagans and â—oe consequently might and ought to repayre to them in matters of controuersy about Christian Religion and were â—ound to follow their direction therein And if this be not more then trifling especially for a Prelate to vtterâ— I leaue to the discreet Reader to consider But now let vs see briesely some of his answers to the points before rehearsed of Queene Elizabeths life and death First he sayth to the note about her birth and disgrace by her Father and Parlament that the Scriptures are not soe Censorious for God himselfe mislikes the Prouerb that it should be sayd the fathers did eat sower grapes and the childrens â—eeth were sett on edge but this is folly for I alleadged it not as a sinne of hers for the sinne was her fathers and mothers but as some disgrace in temporall felicity Then he telleth vs that in some places the ciuill Lawes doe permit some bastards to succeed Item that she shewed well by her courage and other Princely qualities that she was King Henries daughter Item that her selfe did so far coÌ„temne those slaunders published in print as shee would neuer consent to haue them cleared but rather scorned them Item that
Queene Mary also was disinabled by Parlament in her fathers dayes c. And are not these strong argumentes to proue his purpose to wit that this proceeding of the Parlament and declaration made against her was no temporall disgrace Albeit for so much as belongeth to Queene Mary all men doe know that her case was far different for that Queene Marâ—es mother was neuer noted for incontinency and much lesse so many adulterers put to death with her as might be doubted whose daughter she was To the difficulties she had in King Edwards daies both in respect of the Admirall Seymer put to death for loue-matters towards her and the like he sayth in effect nothing but breaketh forth into a fiâ—t of rage about the whore of Babylon her Philira and loue-drugs whereof this fellow can frame a common place to intertaynâ— him selfe for lacke of other matter Of the time also of Queene 〈◊〉 he speaketh nothing About her lawes and cruell proceedings towardes Catholickes he intertayneth himselfe some what longer but no more to the purpose then in the rest For first he sayth that the sorest punishment for the first twelue yeares wâ—s commitment to Bishops and Deanes houses and some of them to prisons where they lay as warme and waxed as fatt as in theyr owne houses And this now hath no need of answer but that if M. Barlow be not yet faâ— this were a good way to feed him by lying in prison as they did for some yeares which is thought will neuer be for Religion come what Religion there will Secondly he sayth that â—or the subsequent yeares he yeeldeth that there was more rigour vsed death being deseruedly drawne on to vse his words by the merit of treason whervnto Religion was made but a stawking-horse and then citeth S. Augustine in defence of the Christian Emperours lawes against heretickes But first he doth not proue or euer shall be able any such demerit of treason to haue drawne on this rigour but only by calumniation which indeed is and hath beene the persecutors stawking-horse to deceiue the simple pretending one thing for another thereby to oppresse the innocent and secondly S. Augustine alloweth indeed and commendeth the Lawes of Catholike Emperours made for the temporall punishment of Heretickes aâ—ter they were condemned by the Church But what Church was that And what Catholicke Religion for defence wherof those Catholicke Princes in S. Augustines dayes did make those lawes so commended by him Was it the Protestant Church And was the Religion thereof the Protestant religion or ours Will M. Barlow ioyne with me in this which of our two Churches and Religions haue descended visibly from S. Augustins Church and religioÌ„ vnto our dayes Can he deny that S. Augustins Church taught Purgatory Prayer to Sayntes Prayer for the dead Masâ—e and Sacrifice for the liâ—ing dead and many other articles now in controuersy betweene vs Dare he stand to this triall out of S. Augustines workes themselues And if he dare not as I know he dareth not nor will euer accept thereof why doth he here prattle out of S. Augustine as though if he were now aliue agayne he would allow the lawes of Protestant Princes made against that religion and Church which himselfe defended while he was lyuing This then is another absurd shift of M. Barlow to delude his Reader But there followeth another if not more absurd yet at least lesse shamefast for that the malice is more apparent Father Persons sayth he who in the Preface of one of his Legends commendeth Queene Elizabeth for her moderate gouerment that was in the last yeare of herraigne and yet by the way for the mans singular honesty it is worth the nothing that in one and the same leafe hauing so commended her in one page marry then she was aliue in the very next page for then he heard she was dead in a Preface to his Maiesty he compares her to no other but Diâ—clesian for cruelty Thus he and for that he citeth a booke that is in euery mans hand to wit the first part of the Three Conuersions of England and thereby his allegation is easy to be examined I did magine that I should finde him very exact and punctuall in his assertion Wherefore I went to looke vpon the two pages of the selfe same leafe the one written before the Queenes death the other after but I could see no such matter so neere togeather then comming back some foure or fiue pages I found that which I suppose to haue giuen him the occasion of this fond cauill for that the Author hauing dedicated that booke to the Catholiks of England in the Epistle Dedicatory layd forth at large the great afâ—lictions and tribulations which they had long suffered for that Religion he commendeth them for their patience and loyall behauiour towardes theyr Prince in all worldly affayres VVhich course sayth he though it hath not escaped the calumnious tongues and pens of some carping aduersaries making all treason yet is it iustifiable and glorious both before God and man where reason ruleth and not passion And I doubt not but that tâ—e wisâ—domâ— and moderation both of her Maiestie and â—er Sâ—â— Counsell iâ—â—ll rather in this point pâ—nder yâ—ur owne facts then your aâ—uersaries wordes So there Where by is euident that the Authour doth not commend Queene Elizabeth for her moderate gouerment towards Catholickes as this man sayth for that within fiue lines after he sayth they haue passed so many yeares vnder the rod of sharpe afflictions but only persuadeth himselfe that the wisedome and moderation both of her Maiestie and the Counsell will stay them from condemning Catholickes for treason vpon other mens words rather then vpon theyr owne facts which being but a particuler case inferreth not that Father Persons commendeth her for her moderate gouerment Nor is the other point true that in a Preface to his Maiestie he compareth her to no other theÌ„ to Dioclesian for cruelty For that my wordes were these Here generally the applause is no otherwise then it was in old time among the Christians vpon the entraÌ„ce oâ— Constantine into the Empyre after Dioclesian and of Iouinian aâ—ter Iulian. Nor is there any mention or comparison of cruelty in that place so as here neyther the leafe or page doâ— agree to his citation nor the commendation of her moderate gouerment is found neyther the comparison of cruelty with Dioclesian is extant nor is he only mentioned but Iulian also Doe you note how many defects of truth are discouered in so smal an allegation But after this again he commeth in with a great scorn against me for saying that our Catholicke Priests put to death by Q. Elizabeth dyed for religion and were true Martyrs for that hauing life offered theÌ„ if they would renouÌ„ce the Pope and conâ—orme themselues to the present state of of England they resused the same And with this he maketh himselfe merry with diuers iesâ—es about
any thing against vs or for the Apologer euen as they are here nakedly cyted without declaration of the circumstances for that in temporall affaires the King or Emperour is Supreme next vnder God And when the Emperour will vse secular forces against the Priests of his dominion they being no souldiars must fall to prayers and teares which are Priestly weapons But what Did S Ambrose by this acknowledge that the Emperour had higher Authority then he in Church-matters Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion or Conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed or acknowledged his Superiority No truly For in three seuerall occasions that fell out he flatly denyed the same which this Apologer craâ—tily dissembleth and saith not a word therof The first was when he was cited by Dalmatius the Tribune bringing with him a publicke Notarie to testifie the same in the name of the Emperour Valentinian the yonger to come conferre or dispute with the hereticall Bishop Auxenâ—ius in the presence of his Maiesty other of his Nobility CouÌ„sell which poynt S. Ambrose refused vtterly to do telling the Emperour playnly by a letter written vnto him That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops And dyuers other doctrines by this occasion he taught him to that effect as is to be seene in the same Epistle The second occasion fell out the very next yeare after in Millane when the said Emperour by suite of the Arians and fauour of Iustina the Empresse on their behalfe made a Decree that a certayne Church of that Citty should be deliuered to the said Arians which Decree S. Ambrose the Bishop refused to obey And when the Emperours Officers comming with armes vrged greatly to giue possession of the Church he fled to his former weapons of weeping and praying Ego Missam facere coepi c. I began to say Masseâ— and when the temporall Magistrate vrged still that the Emperour vsed but his owne right in appoynting that Church to be deliuered S. Ambrose answered Quae diuina sunt Imperatoriae potestati non esse subiecta That such things as belonge to God are not subiect to the Imperiall power And thus answered S. Ambrose about the giuing vp of a materiall Church What would he haue said in greater matters The third accasion was when the Emperour sent his Tribunes and other Officers to require certayne Vessells belonging to the Church to be deliuered which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do saying That in this he could not obey And further adding That if the Emperour did loue him selfe he should abstayne from offering such iniury vnto Christ. And in another place handlâ—ng the same more at large he saith That he gaue to Cesar that which was Cesars and to God that which belonged to God but that the Temâ—ple of God could not be the right of Cesar which we speak saith he to the Emperours honour For what is more honourable vnto him then that he being an Emperour be called a Child of the Church for that a good Emperour is within the Church but not aboue the Church So S. Ambrose What would he haue done or said if he had bene pressed with an Oath against his Conscience or any least poynt of his Religion Thus far I answered in my letter he that shall read M Barlows reply now will seâ— that he hath nothing at all in substaÌ„ce to say against it for to that excellent speach of S. Augustine coÌ„cerning the Emperour Iulian he triâ—â—eth exceedingly first bidding vs to shew that poynt in the Oath which is different from true religion which is a cauill as you see for it is inough if it be contrary to the swearers Religion And wheras we offer vpon that speach as the subiects of Iulian did VVe will serue our Soueraigne we will go to war with him and we will fight for him the like he sayth it is but an hypocriticall florish of words To the speach and facts of S. Ambrose he is forced eyther to say nothing or to speake against himselfe For wheras I do make this demaund Did S. Ambrose by saying that he could not resist the Emperour and that his weapons were teares acknowledge by this that the Emperour had higher authority in Church-matters then he Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion and conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed and acknowledged his authority To the first he sayth that it is only extra oleâ—s not to the cause in hand and that he will handle it in another place though euery man of discretion will see that the demaund is full to the purpose and ought to haue beene answered here To the secoÌ„d he hath but a ridiculous shift Suppose saith he that S. Ambrose would refuse such an Oath vrged vpon him would he withall forbid others to take it Surely no. But I say surely yea for if we graunt S. Ambrose to haue bene a good Prelate Pastour Father to his people we must also graunt that what Oath he thought pernicious for himselfe to take he would haue forbidden the same to haue bene taken by his people if they had demaunded his opinion as English Catholickes did the Popes or els he had not bene a faythfull Pastour But what doth M. Barlow answere to the three instances alleadged out of S. Ambrose in all which he contradicted the Emperour that was his temporall Lord and denied to obey in matters Ecclesiasticall the first when he refused to go with the Tribune and Notary sent for him by the sayd Emperour to dispute in the Consistory with Auxentiâ—â— the Arian Bishop yielding for his reason That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops Which answere of S. Ambrose M. Barlow doth allow and coÌ„mendeth it much albeit we haue said somewhat before about the same yet shall we presently add a word or two more thereof The second refusall of the said Father was as now you haue heard to deliuer vp a certaine Church in Millanâ— to the Arians at the commandement of the Emperour alleadging for his reason Quae diuina sunt Imperatoriae potestatium esse subiecta that such things as are diuine are not subiect to Imperiall power Which answere in like manner M. Barlow alloweth albeit I thinke I may assure my selfe that if his Matie of England should coÌ„maund one of his Parish Churches of Lincolne Diocesse to be deliuered vp to the PuritaÌ„s or Brownists or other like Sectaries and that his Maiesty should be so earnest resolute therin as the Emperour was sending his officers souldiars to put them into possession M. Barlow would not be so resolute in his deniall as S. Ambrose was neither would he be so bold to alleage that reasoÌ„ which S. Ambrose did that diuine things are not subiect to King Iames his power including in
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
colour of this power to discerne spirits giuen theÌ„ by M. Bâ—â—loâ— out of the words of S. Iohn there would neuer be an end And lastly it appeareth by all this that his lâ—st distinction wherin he sayth that the King may iudge for the truth and not of the truth is a meere delusion giuing somewhat in wordes but nothing in deed for that if the iudging for the truth be nothing els but to execute allow and approue that which others haue defined determined and appointed out vnto him to be belieued and defended as the truth then hath he no more free choice or superiority in iudgment in this case then euery subiect or common man who is likewise bound to belieue and defend the same according to his ability and power Now then to conclude the matter and to reduce all to a briefe summe for so much as M. Barlow taketh away from his Maiesty of England not only the title and style Of Head of the Church which was giuen to King Henry and confirmed to King Edward but the Papall authority in like manner for decision of matters which was ascribed vnto them both by Parlament and confirmed to Queene Elizabeth and here saith that he cannot iudge in cases of religion and fayth iudicio definitiâ—o to define and determine any thing but only execuâ—iuo to execute what the Church of England to wit what the Bishops shall define and ordayne and for somuch as he addeth yet further now in that which before we haue discussed three other particuler cases out of S. Ambrose wherin he conâ—esâ—eth that his Maiesty hath no authority but may be resisted to wit if he should call before him a Bishop to dispute with another of a different religion as Valenâ—inian did S. Ambrose and he denyed him If he should commaund a Bishop to deliuer ouer a Church to a people of a different religion and if he should command a Bishop to deliuer vp the Veâ—els of his Church as the said Empeâ—ouâ— did and the â—ther refused to obey all these things I say laid â—ogeâ—tâ—er â—ut of M. Barlows doctrine do so much diminish the greatnes of his Maiesties Supreme power in causes Ecclesiasticall as in effect it commeth to be no more thâ—n Catholike doctrine doth ordinarily allow to euery Catholicke Temporall Prince for the obseruance and execution of that which the Church determineth And this is M. Barlâ—â—â—â— heroycall exployt to marre the matter he takes in hand for his Clyent Let euery man iudge how well he hath deserued the good fee which already he hath recâ—aâ—ed for his plea and hopeth to receaue more hereafter if he may speed according to his expectation OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE Or Iâ—stance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall §. III. THERE followeth another controuersy betweene M. Barlow me about a certayne fact of S. Gregory the Great concerning the Law of Mauritius the Emperour prohibiting souldiars and such as were accomptable to the Emperours Courtes for offices borne by them to enter into monasteries and professe a religious life without his licence whereof I wrote thus in my letter Neyther doth the last place cited out of S. Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauritius make any thing moâ—e for our Apologers purpose of taking Oathes against Conscience For albeit the same Father do greatly complaâ—ne in diuers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius whome though otherwise a Catholike Emperour he compareth in that poynt to Nero and Dioclâ—siâ—n saying Quid Nero quid Dioclesiâ—â—â—s qâ—id deâ—ique isteâ— qui â—oc tempore â—â—â—lesiam persequitur Nâ—mqâ—â—◠〈◊〉 omnes porta Inferi Whâ—t was Nero What was Dioclesâ—â—â— what is he who at this time doth persecute the Church Are they not all gates of Hell Yet in this place alleaged by the Apologer he yealded to publish and send abroâ—d into diuers Countreys and Prouinces a certayne vniust law of the sayd Emperours that prohibited Sâ—uldiars and such as had bene imployed in matters of publike accompts of the CoÌ„mon-Wealth to make theÌ„selues Monks Wâ—ich law though S. Gregory did greatly mislike and wrote sharply agaynst it to the Emperour himselfe yet to shew his due respect in temporall thinges vnto him and for that indeed the law was not absolutly so euill but that in some good sense it might be tolerated to wit that Souldiars sworn to the Emperours wars might not during the said Oath obligation be receaued into Monasteries but with the Princes liceÌ„ce yet for that it tended to the abridgmeÌ„t of Ecclesiastical freedome in taking that course or state of life which ech man chooseth for the good of his soule S. Gregoâ—y misliked the same and dealt earnestly with the Emperour to relinquish it or to suffer it to be so moderated as it might stand without preiudice of Christian liberty wherunto the Emperour at length yeelded and so S. Gregory sent the same abroad vnto diuers Primates and Archbishops of sundry Kingdomes mentioned by him but corrected first and reduced by himselfe as supreme Pastour to a reasonable lawfulnes and temperate moderation to wit that those who had borne offices of charge in the Common-wealth and after desired to be admitted to religious life in Monasteries should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their full accompts and had obtayned publicke discharge for the same And that Souldiars which demanded the like admittaÌ„ce should be exactly tryed and not admitted vnto Monasticall habite but after they had liued three yeares in their lay apparell vnder probation This determineth S. Gregory in his Epistle beginning Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi Vrbicio Dyrachitano c. adding further in the same Epistle as hath bene said De qua re Serâ—issâ—mus Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur about which matter our most Clement and Christian Emperour is wholy pleased and content So as in this S. Gregory shewed his pastorall care and power in limiting and moderating the Emperours law according to the law of God though in temporall respectes he shewed him the Obedience that was due vnto him But what is this vnto our Oath May we thinke that S. Gregory that would not passe a temporall law of the Emperour without reprehension of the vnlawfulnes thereof to the Emperour himselfe and correction therof in the publication for that indirectly it did infringe the liberty of Religious life when men were called therunto that he would not haue much more resisted the admission of an Oath about such affaires if it had bene proposed No man I thinke in reason can imagin the contrary To this declaration of mine M. Barlow beginneth his reply thus But that of Gregory saith he toucheth the very quicke who as he thought his duty discharged to God in shewing the reasons why he disliked the Law so did he performe it very readily to the Emperour in promulging
Monasteries of Virgins eyther to say Masse or otherwise but such as be of approâ—ed vertue How peace is to be held betweene Bishops Earles and other Great men especially in execution of Iustice That weightes and measures be iust and equall and that none worke vpon holy dayes That all Tythes be payd al ancient possession mantayned to the Churches That no secular courtes be held in Churches or Church porches That no Earles or other Great men do fraudulently buy poore mens goods c. These then were the pointes of Reformation decreed in that Councel of Arles at the instance of Charles the Great who was so zealous a Prince in this behalfâ— as he caused fiue seueral Councels to be celebrated in diuers Partes of his Dominions within one yeare to wit this of Aâ—les another at Towers a third at Chaloâ—s a fourth at Mentz the fifth at Rhemes and another the yeare before which was the â—ixt ad Theodonis villam which is a towne in Luxemburge Al which Prouincial Synodes are extant iâ— the third Tome of Councels togeather with the Canons and Decrees which are such as could not be put in execution but by the temporall fauour authoritie and approbation of the Emperour in such matters as concerned his temporall Kingdome and iurisdiction Wherfore iâ— for these respects the Councell did present vnto the Emperour these Canons to be coÌ„sidered of by his wisedome whether any thing were to be added altered or taken away for the publike good of the Common Wealth no Controuersy of faith being treated therin what is this to proue eyther that the Emperour in spirituall matters was superiour to the said Bishops or that if he had proposed vnto them any such Oath as this is wherin by proâ—essing their temporall Allegiance they must also haue impugned some poynt of their faith that they would haue obeyed him And so much of this Councell This was then my speach yielding furthermore a reason why I did not stand vpon the places of some particuler Councels alleadged for that the discussion of this one made manifest all the rest that they tended only to this end that they proued temporal obedience in subiects towards their Princes in temporal affaires which Catholicks deny not and so in effect they proue nothing to the purpose in hand But yet it shall be good to ponder a little what M. Barlow bringeth in against that which heere I haue written First he saith that not only these Prouinciall Councels of Arles in France and diuers others submitted themselues wholy to the Emperour Charles the Great in most humble termes but the foure Generall Councels also sâ—mmoned at the beck and command of the Emperour submitted themselues for the validity and establishing of their Decrees to his most Royal assent And within three lines after againe VVhole Councels saith he submitted themselues in all dutifull reuerence to their Soueraignes not only in matters of temporall affaires but in faith and religion And yet further in the very next page The Emperour saith he that hath the sole authority to summon a Councel hath the sole power to make good or voyd what it concludes And we must note that he putteth downe the words to make good or voyd in a different markable letter therby to signify that this is an Axiome of great solidity And yet I suppose that he could not be so forgetfull or negligent as not to see that all this is quite contrary to that which he wrote within three leauesâ— before to wit that in cases of religion and faith Princes could not iudge any thing iudicio definitiuo to define or determine but only executiuo to put in execution that which the Church determineth But now if not only the Councell of Arles and other Prouincial Councels but the first foure General Councels submitted themselues also for the validity and establishment of their Decrees which are knowne to haue bene concerning points of religion and faith vnto the Emperours Royal assent so as whatsoeuer was decreed there by the Church this not a Prouincial or National Church only of England but the whole Vniuersall Church gathered in those first foure Councâ—ls should haue no validity except the Emperour approued the same this is more then iudicium executiuum to execute that which the other had determined For here the Emperour doth iudge of al yea euen of the iudges themselues and of their Iudgments and decrees and consequently hath the last and supreme iudgment deâ—initiue to define and determine what Decrees are truly and rightly made and to ratify or make void what he shall think good which is as much as we do or can ascribe vnto the Pope And this is confirmed in like manner by M. Barlows second assâ—ueration That Councels must submit themselues in all dutifull reuerence not only in matters of temporall affaires but of faith and religion alsoâ— What can be â—poken more plainly in contradiction of his former assertion And what more absurdly then that which followeth in the third place That the temporall Prince hath sole power to make good or voydâ— what the Councell concludes For that hereby all the Conciliabula or vnlawfull false Councels that met togeather often in the primitiue Church as that of Aâ—iminum for the Arians against the Catholickes that of Carthage against Cecilianus that of Constanâ—inople against Marcellus that of Antioch against Athanasius that of Burges in France against S. Hilary diuers other hauing the assent and approbation of hereticall Emperours then bearing rule shal be good and lawfull Councels and all other Councels gathered for the Catholicks against these to be voyd of no validity Do you see heere M. Barlows manner of writing and how he plungeth himself aboue the eares in contradictions without marking or respecting what he said before so he may say somewhat for the present But do you thinke that he wil stand to this now No. For that in the very next ensuing leafe he being pressed by me to answere what submission that was which the Councel of Arles made to Charls the Great for his approbation and whether it were of matters concerning faith he runneth quite backe againe denying that Emperours haue any such authority To iudge saith he definitiuely which are matters of faith or no is not for the Emperour but to ratify by hiâ— assent and command by his authority what the Church or Councell so assembled hath defined to be matter of faith is proper to Emperâ—â—rs and Kings Which words if you consider them well do coÌ„taine most euidently the contradictory of that he sayd before That Councels were to submit themselues for the validity of their Decrees to the Emperours Royall assent and that not only in temporall affaires but in faith and â—eligion and that they only haue power to make good or voyde all conclusions of Councels which contayneth manifestly power also to define it is but a shift to say heere that it is not for the
by Oath without intention to perâ—orme the same be notwâ—thstanding bound in conscience to perâ—orme it Wherein hauing hid downe the two different opinions of â—undry learned â—en togeather with their reasons arguments and proofs the one affirming that he is bound as Caietan Sotus and Câ—â—â—rruuias the other that he is not bound by force of that Oath as Syluester Nauar and others Azorius sheweth that both parts haue their probability of reason but he inclineth more to the first opinion saying that if the swearer had an intention to sweare thinking nothing of the obligation then was he bound and that in this sense the opinion Caietan is most true And further determineth not the question and therefore this notorious vntruth of M. Bâ—â—low that Azorius holdeth this to be no Oath vnto him that sweareth at al but that he is as free as if he had neuer sworne I cannot tell in â—hat Predicament of impudency to place it and therfore we will let it passe for a Tranâ—cendent OF CERTAINE OTHER Fraudulent and vntrue dealings of M. Barlow vnto the end of this Paragraph with a notorious abuse in alleadging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority §. II. VVHereas often and eager inuectiues are made by M. Barlow against the Pope and Cardinall Bellarmine and all others that do seeme in any sort to exhort the Catholickes of England to stand for their consciences and to suffer rather whatsoeuer losses hurtes or dangers may happen to their liues liberty goods or other temporall affaires then to preiudice any point of their religion M. Barlow terming these exhortations not only needlesse and vayne there being no persecution at al against the Catholickes but that they do tend in like manner to open disobedience against their temporall Princes and so may iustly be cause of their ruyne indeed my answere was I did not see but that the very same might be obiected vnto S. Cyprian and other Fathers of the Primitiue Church that they were guilty of so many Martyrs bloud wilfully cast a way and of the ruyne of their familyes and other inconueniences by exhorting them not to do against their Consciences nor to yield to their temporall Princeâ— Commandements against God and their religion no not for any tormeÌ„ts that might be laid vpon them nor for any losse that might fall vnto them of goodes life honor fame friends wyfe children or the like which were ordinary exhortations in those dayes of persecution as by their bookes yet â—xtant doth appeare Neyther is iâ— sufficient to say that those times ours are different for that the thingâ—s then demanded were apparenâ—ly vnlawfull but these not for that to vs that are Catholickes these thinges are as vnlawfull now as â—hose other were then to them for that they are no lesse against our consciences in matters of Religion For why should it be more damnable then and indispensable to deliuer vp a Bible or new Testament for example sake when the Emperour commanded it then now to sweare an Oath against our conscience and Religion when our Temporall Prince exacteth it For that this perhaps is called the Oath of Allegiance who knoweth not that the fayrest title is put vpon the fowlest matter when it is â—o be perswaded or â—xacted And he that shal read the Histories of that time and of those ancient afflictions shall sâ—e that Act also to haue bene required as of Obedience Allegiance and not of Religion being only the deliueâ—y vp of material books and yet did the whole Church of God condemne them for it that deliuered the same and â—eld for true Martyrs all those that died for denying therof for that they would not do an Act against their consciences Against this my speach M. Barlow first doth trifle affirmimg me to say that in the consciences of Catholicks it is as vnlawfull to sweare Allegiance vnto his Maiestie their naturall and rightfull Soueraigne as to sacrifice to Idols Which is a meer cauill indeed for first I do not say that it is vnlawfull at all to sweare Allegiance to their naturall Soueraigne as often hath bene told him but he â—â—uer stayeth his tongue from repeating the contrary againe without end The vnlawfulnes consisteth in swearing that for Allegiance which appertaineth not to humaine and temporal Allegiance but diuine Allegiance also in keeping our consciences vnspotted before Almighty God Secondly my comparison was not so much in the thinges themselues to wit swearing and sacrificing or to determine which of these is the greatest sinne in it seâ—fe as of the similitude in obligation both in those times and ours to stâ—nd for defence of the integrity of our conscience both in them and vs whatsoâ—uer inequality of the sinne may be in the sight either of man or God It is inough that both of them be forbydden to sacrifice against Christian Religion to sweare against Câ—tholick Religion And further to shew that the external small apparence of that which is forbydden cannot alwaies be a â—ule of taking away or diminishing the obligation of conscience in obeying the prohibition I did alleadg the other example of giuing vp diuine bookes vnto the persecutors when they demaunded them and might haue alleadged many other examples to the like purpose as namely the â—ating of flesh offered to Idols in the beginning of Christianity with offence of others whereof S. Paul maketh so great accompt as albeyt he maketh light of the thing it selâ—e and sayth that the Idol is nothing yet doth he account the transgression for damnable if he doe it against his owne conscience But what sayth M. Barlow to this you shall heare his distinction and determination Simply sayth he to deliâ—â—r vp a Bible to his Superiour requiring it is no sinne yea to deny iâ— iâ— a contempt About this proposition we will not much contend but only aduertise him that it is not to the purpose that we doe talke here of Superiours lawfully requiring it but of a Persecutor vniustly exacting the same Let vs see then what he sayth further But if the Emperour sayth he requireth them to wit the books to burne and deâ—acâ— in conteâ—pâ— and despight or â—ury and passion or as Iulian the Apostata whâ— called in all the heathen writers both of Philosophy and Poetry out oâ— the Christians hands vnder a fayre pretence of abandoning Paganisme to bereaue them oâ— all knowledge therby to take â—rom Christians the true meanes oâ— their instructions the cause is far different for so to oâ—ey were wilâ—ully to betray the truth of God This is his determination consisting of two members as you see the first of the vnlawfulnes of giuing vp the Bible other such diuine bookes of Christian Religion consisted in the ill intention of the persecutor to bereaue men of so importaÌ„t meanes for their instruction and saluation and therefore not to be obeâ—ed which seemeth to be far different from that which before he held so resolutely that Princes were to be obeied
〈◊〉 draw â—neâ—s affections to him and occasionate most honorable â—â—â—â—es of his qualityes and deportementes yet that Pope Clement 〈◊〉 be so kindly respectiue vnto him is much no be doubted And is it so Syr Yet spirituall writers do admonish 〈◊〉 that in dubiis pars pâ—a magis sâ—queÌ„da in doubtfull things the more pious part is to be followed by a pious mind And why had not you done this also if your mind had not 〈◊〉 impious You know who sayth Mala mens malus animus And this is that which before I called parasiticall in this answer not so much for your grosse flattery annointing his Maiestie with oleum peccatoris which holy King 〈◊〉 so much detested and his Maiesty in time I doubt not will discerne but for your malignity in misconstruing the knowne good affections of Pope Clement towards his Maiesties Person for that both these parts belong properly to a parasite as you know not only laudare in â—s praâ—â—â—â—â— ambitiously to prayse him that is present whether the thinges vttered be true or false but malignantly also 〈◊〉 absenti to detract from him that is absent of which two partes the latter is the worse for that the former may proceed sometimes of lightnes or intemperate desire to please but the other alwayes goeth accompanied with enuy and malice And as for his Maiesties due prayses albeit they cannot be but most pleasing and comfortable to all his louing subiects yet when they are so rudely clowted on and so importunely thrust in and that by such a one as M. Barlow is held to be that alwayes speaketh for his profit men can haue commonly no other sense therof then is wont to be when they see a faire garment marred in the cutting or a delicate peece of meat spoyled in the dressing And as for the honorable speaches occasionated abroad as he saith of his Maiesties qualities deportments true it is that as his Maiesties rare qualities are had in due consideration with externall Princes people so is it not doubted but that his deportmeÌ„t towards his Catholike subiects also 〈◊〉 be correspondent were not the sycophancy of this aâ—â— other like flatterers continually occupied in egging vâ—ging him to the contrary And among other speaches iâ— these partes none are more ordinary then in lamentinâ— that so good a nature as that of his Maiesty is should be 〈◊〉 strangeâ—y abused as also in pittying the same that for wâ—â— of fit men he should be forced to bestow the Prelacies and Bishopricks of his Realme vpon such as M. Barlow is 〈◊〉 who in other CouÌ„treyes would scarse be thought worthy for his manners to be a Seruant or Sexton in so honourâ—ble a Church as Lincolne is The last point remayning of this Paragraph is of thâ— later two Breues of Paulus Quintus concerning the Oath 〈◊〉 Allegiance and his misliking thereof in respect of thâ— poynts conteyned therin in preiudice of the integrity oâ— Catholicke religion which M. Barlow doth so much debase as here he taketh vpon him to defend that they arâ— deuoyd especially the first which is the principalâ— the other being but a confirmation or ratification thereoâ— not only of all diuinity but of policy and coÌ„mon sense also which is a long dispute and a large enterprize to bâ— taken vpon his shoulders that any man that doth but read the Breue and is acquaynted with the grauity learning wisdome and modesty of the Author thereof will rather laugh at M. Barlow for taking such an enterprize in hand then perswade himselfe that he can haue good successe therin but he that shall turne from reading the said Breue to read the pittifull proofes which here M. Barlow goeth about to set downe to shew that the said Breue hath neither diuinity policy or common sense in it will pitty him indeed and thinke that he lacketh coÌ„mon sense in setting downe such senselesse reasons as he doth against so sensible a declaration as there the Pope maketh in that his Breue The end of the second Part. THE THIRD PART concerning Card. Bellarmine his Letter OF THE OCCASION OF THE LETTER written by Cardinall Bellarmine vnto M. George Blackewell Archpriest AND VVhether he mistooke the state of the question ALSO Of the change of Supreme Head into Supreme Gouernour CHAP. I. FIRST of al then for the better vnderstanding of the whole matter and to make the Reader acquainted with the occasion of this present contentioÌ„ I do not thinke it amisse to repeate in this place what I wrote in my Letter concerning the same My words then were â—hese The last Part of this Apology concerneth a letter written by Cardinall Bellarmine in Rome vnto George Blackweâ—â— Arch-priest in England which letter as appeareth by the argument therof was written out of this occasion Thaâ— wheras vpon the comming forth of the forenamed new Oath intituled Of Allegiance there were found diuers points combined togeather some appertaining manifestly to Ciuill Allegiance wherat no man made scruple some other seeming to include other matters contrary to some part of the Catholicke faith at least in the commom sense as they by there arose a doubt whether the said Oath might be taken simply and wholy by a Catholicke man as it is there proposed without any further distinction or explication therof Wherupon some learned men at home being different in opinions the case was consulted abroad where all agreed as before hath byn shewed that it could not be taken wholy with safety of conscience and so also the Pope declared the case by two seuerall Breues In the meane space it happened that M. Blackwell being taken was committed to prison and soone after as he had byn of opinion before that the said Oath might be taken as it lay in a certayne sense so it being offered vnto him he tooke it himselfe Which thing being noysed abroad and the fact generally misliked by all sortes of Catholicke people in other Realmes as offensiue and scandalous in regard of his place and person so much respected by them Cardinall Bellarmine as hauing had some old acquaintance with him in former yeares as it may seeme resolued out of his particuler loue zeale to the Common cause of Religion and especial affection to his person to write a letter vnto him therby to let him know what reportes and iudgments there were made of his fact throughout those partes of Christendome where he remayned togeather with his owne opinion also which consisted in two poynts the one that the Oath as it stood compounded of different clauses some lawfull some vnlawfull could not be taken with safety of Conscience the other that he being in the dignity he was of Prelacy and Pastorall Charge ought to stand firâ—e and constant for example of others rather to suffer any kynd of danger or domage then to yield to any vnlawfull thing such as the Cardinall held this Oath to be This Letter was written vpon the
the thing it selfe vttered to wit that it be really true in the sense and meaning of the vtterer and then in the quality of the hearer whether he be a lawfull iudge and therby may oblige the speaker to speake to his intention and other such circumstances which are largely haÌ„dled in my foresaid booke and not vnderstood as it seemeth or not read by M. Barlow which me thinkes he ought to haue done meaning to treate of this matter here And so I shall passe no further therin but referre him the Reader to the larger Treatise of that subiect already extant CARDINALL BELLARMINE is cleered from a false imputation and a controuersie about certaine words clauses in the Oath is discussed § II. AFTER this M. Barlow passeth to a poynt concerning Cardinall Bellarmine set downe in the Apology in these words Some of such Priests and Iesuites as were the greatest traytors fomentours of the greatest conspiracies against her late Maiestyâ— gaue vp F. Robert Bellarmine for one of their greatest authorities and oracles So sayth the Apologer noteth in the margeÌ„t Campian Hart in their conference in the Tower This was noted by me in my Letter as an vniust charge both in respect of the two men meÌ„tioned in the margent who were most free from being traytours and much more the greatest Traytours excepting only their Priestly functioÌ„s most iniuriously made TreasoÌ„s against all truth equity as aboundantly else where hath bene proued but much more in respect of Cardinall Bellarmine who was not so mâ—ch as named by any of them in any matter tending to Treason or conspiracy towards the late Queene and therfore if he were by any of them named or mentioned it was in matter only of learning not of Treasons and conspiracies which M. Barlow is also forced here to confesse and sayth that it was meant in matters of the Conference in the Tower but euery man of iudgment will se what the words of the former charge do import and how farre they reach which M. Barlow considering he dareth not stand to his first refuge but addeth that Bellarmine in his Booke which English Priests do study doth teach such doctrine as is the ground of rebellions he blowes sayth he the bellowes of seditious doctrine which flames out by his Schollers conspiracy to the disturbaÌ„ce of the chiefest States of Christendome But this now men will see how passionate and vntrue it is that the chiefest States of Christendome are disturbed by Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine I do not meane to stand vpon the confutation of so childish imputations There followeth a certaine small controuersie about the words temperate and tempered whether they signify the same or no wherof we haue handled somewhat before so shall dispatch it here in a word Cardinall Bellarmine had said in his Letter to M. Blackwell that this Oath is not therfore lawfull because it is offered as tempered and modified with diuers clauses of ciuill Obedience giuing an example out of S. Gregory Nazianzen of the Ensignes of the Emperour Iulian wherin the Images of the Heathen Gods were mingled and conbyned togeather with the Emperors Picture and therby so tempered modified as a man could not adore the one without the other Which speach of the Cardinall was much reprehended by the Apologer as though Bellarmine had misliked the temperate speach vttered in the forme of this oath But that was no part of Bellarmines meaning but that the said Oath was tempered mixt and compounded of different clauses some lawfull and some vnlawfull as a man would say morter is tempered with water sand lyme and this appeareth by his example of the Ensignes before mentioned tempered that is mixt with the images of the Emperours and their false Gods And if M. Barâ—â—â— will needs haue this temperament to haue also with it some temperature which is his only reply now in this place we will not greatly striue with him Let it be esteemed to be some temperature that here are mingled some clauses of ciuill obedience with other concerning Religion it helpeth the mixture but not the scruple of conscience to him that must take it I pretermit all the rest of M. Barlows superfluous and idle speach about this matter as striuing to say somewhat but yet in substance sayth nothing It followeth in my Letter concerning the answering of two questions proposed by the Apologer wherin I shall repeate againe my owne words then vttered thus then I wrote That the Apologer hauing said with great vehemency of asseueratioÌ„ That heauen and earth are no further a sunder then the profession of a Temporall Obedience to a Temporall King is different from any thing belonging to the Catholike fayth or Supremacy of S. Peter which we graunt also if it be meere Temporall Obedience without mixture of other clauses he proposeth presently two questions for application of this to his purpose First this As for the Catholike Religion sayth he can there be one word found in all this Oath tending to matter of Religion The second thus Doth he that taketh it promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of Religion Wherunto I answere first to the first and then to the second To the first that if it be graunted that power authority of the Pope and Sea Apostolike left by Christ for gouerning his Church in all occasions and necessities be any poynt belonging to Religion among Catholikes then is there not only some owne word but many sentences yea ten or twelue articles or branches therin tending and sounding that way as before hath bene shewed To the secoÌ„d question may make answer euery clause in effect of the Oath it selfe As for example the very first I A. B. do truly sincerely acknowledge professe testify declare in my conscience that the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authority of the Sea or Church of Rome hath any power authority c. doth not this include eyther beliefe or vnbeliefe Againe I do further sweare that I do from my hart abhorre detest abiure as impious hereticall that damnable doctrine position That Princes which be excommunicated and depriued by the Pope may be deposed c. Doth not here the swearer promise not to belieue that doctrine which he so much detesteth How then doth the Apologer so grossely forget and contradict himselfe euen then when he goeth about to proue contradictions in his Aduersary It followeth consequently in the Oath And I do belieue and in conscience am resolued that neyther the Pope nor any person whatsoeuer hath power to absolue me from this Oath or any part therof These words are plaine as you see And what will the Apologer say heere Is nothing promised in those words to be belieued or not belieued This was my speach And now see what quarrell M. Barlow seeketh agaynst it First wheras in my answer to the first question I say if it be granted that
the power and authority of the Pope and Sea Apostolicke c. be any point belonging to religion among Catholicks then is there not only some one word but many sentences concerning Religion in the Oath What answereth M. Barlow This Epistler saith he doth impudently impugne the Oath as vtterly vnlawfull and agaynst religion which yet dependeth vpon an If and is not yet determined for a point of religion that the Pope hath any such authority ouer Kings as in the Oath is mentioned No Syr not among Catholiks for of them only I speake though you leaue it out and doe many wayes corrupt my words Will not they grant the Popes authority in such cases to be a point belonging to their Religion Doth the word If put the matter in doubt that when you say If there be a God this or that is true or false you may be said to doubt whether there be a God or no And when you say If I be a true man this is so you may be thought to doubt whether your selfe be a true man or no Do not you see that this is playne cauelling indeed and not disputing But what more You say that when I do affirme the Popes power I do not distinguish whether in Ecclesiasticall or ciuill causes but you know well inough that I haue often distinguished and so do other Catholicke Deuines that the Popes authority is directly only Ecclesiasticall and spirituall for gouerning and directing of soules to euerlasting life though indirectly for conseruation of this Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall end there is annexed also Temporall in such cases as before hath bene specified concerning temporall Princes And so this is but a shift to say that I doe not distinguish As that is also another about my answere to the second demaund of the Apologer where he demandeth whether any man that taketh the Oath doth promise to belieue or not to belieue any one article of religion contayned in the said Oath For answere wherunto I did set downe sundry clauses of the said Oath wherby it seemeth plaine that the swearer doth make such promise Now you reply with this new shift saying that I doe still beg the question in controuersy So you talke to seem to say somwhat But what is the question in controuersy Is it not whether the swearer doth make promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of religion in taking the Oath Yes And I haue proued that he doth so by diuers examples How then doe I beg the question when I do euince it by proofe You reply that these articles abiured or allowed by him that takes the Oath concerning the Popes authority are not points of â—aith but rather Machiauelismes of the Conclaue But this now is rayling and not reasoning for that a Catholike conscience houldeth the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and all poynts belonging therunto for matters appertayning to fayth Catholicisme and not to Machiauelisme which Machiauelisme agreeth much more fitly to M. Barlows assertions that depend on the pleasures of Prince State alteration of times and temporall vtilities wherof Machiauel was a great Doctour then to the simple positions of Catholikes who without these worldly respects do playnly and sincerely imbrace and belieue all such points of doctrine as the knowne Catholike Church doth deliuer vnto them as any way appertayning to the integrity of Catholike Religion Heere then M. Barlow being driuen from his refuge of my begging the question layeth hand vpon another much more ridiculous in my opinion for it is somewhat like the Sermon of the Parish Priest to his Parishioners which he deuided into three parts the one that he vnderstood and not they the other that they vnderstood and not he the third that neither of them both vnderstood and the third part seemeth to be our case now for as I confesse that I do not conceaue well what M. Barlow would say so I haue reason to suspect that himselfe also can hardly explane his owne meaning or at least wise he doth it not so here as the Reader may easily vnderstand the same His words are these This censurer is an absurd dispuâ—â—nt still to beg the Question as if these articles abiured or allowed were points of â—aith c. This you haue heard answered now there followeth the other member Or as if saith he beliefe were vsed euery where â—heologically and that a Christians beliefe should alwayes be taken for his Christian beliefe â—or there is a naturall beliefe the Obiects wherof are naturall and ciuill things such as in this Oath c. So he And did not I tell you that you should haue mysteries A Christians beliefe is not alwayes a Christian beliefe but a naturall beliefe the good man would haue holpen himself with the School-mens distinction of fides diuina fides â—umana diuine humane fayth if he could haue hit vpoÌ„ it but yet wholy from the purpose if he had found it out nay quite contrary to himselfe For I would aske what fayth or beliefe diuine or humane Christian or naturallâ— did the Apologer meane in his demaund Whether he that taketh the oath do promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of Religion Did not he meane diuine fayth or Theologicall beliefe It cannot be denied for that the obiect being articles of Religion as heere is sayd which are not belieued but by diuine fayth as they are such it followeth that in this question the Apologer maâ—e his demaund of Christian beliefe and not only of a Christians beliefe yea of Theologicall beliefe and not of naturall beliefe that is to say of humane beliefe so conforme to this his quâ—stion were the clauses of my answere I do truly and sâ—â—cerely acknowledge professe testify and declare in my conscience c. And againe I do further sweare that I do from my hart abhorre deteâ—t and abiure as impious doctrine c. And yet further I do belieue and am in conscience resolued c. And is not all this beliefe in Conscience out of Conscience and for Conscience and of things belonging to Catholike Religion to be vnderstood of Christian and Theologicall beliefe but naturall only Who would write so absurdly but M. Barlow who seemeth not to vnderstand what he writeth And that this may be better vnderstood I am mynded to say a word or two more of this matter He maketh a distinction heere as you see betweene naturall and Theologicall beliefe adding for his reason that the Obiects of naturall fayth are naturall and ciuill things and that such are the articles contained in the Oath ayming as before hath bene said at the distinction of diuine and humane faith But he is grosly deceaued in that he distinguisheth these two faiths or beliefes by their materyall obiects and things belieued contrary to the generall consent of all Philosophers and Deuines who do hould that oâ—â—es actus specificantur ab obiectis formalibus that all acts are
here pretermitt the residue of the trifles which M. Barlow for lengthening his booke bringeth in spicing the same euery where with most virulent raylings as the examples of Squire and Parry which so often haue beene answered by vs the former as a meere fiction for so much as concerned his sending from Spaine into England by F. VValpole the Iesuite for poisoning the Queenes chaire and the Earle of Essex his saddle the other a deuise of his owne to wit of Parry himself to gaine the Queenes goodwill and therby some preferment by telling her that he was sent to kill her by some Catholikes out of the Land whereas indeed he was neuer trusted by them in farre lesse matters then in such an enterprize But he returneth yet once agâ—ine excessiuely to praise the said Queene That Lady Queene Elizabeth saith he the diamond amongst Princes the glory of royall Maiestie the ioy of the Christian world for her sex whilst she liued And what will the discreet reader hould M. Barlow for his sex Truly I thinke for one of the most grosse and palpable flatterers that mankind doth containe and as for her being the ioy of the Christian world I meruaile what Christian world he can pretend to meane For if he will confine the Christian world within the Protestant world it is God wote but a very small part therof and yet in this Protestant world neyther was she held to be so rare a diamond or glory of royall Maiestie nor was she such a ioy vnto them as there is sayd which is euident by their writings extant especially of the Lutherans that misliked her religion maÌ„ner of proceeding and especially her taking vpon her to be head of the Church whereat they do laugh euen vntill this day And the same or greater dislike was euen in the purer sort of Caluinists both at Geneua the Mother-Church of that profession as also throughout all France Holland Zeland Scotland and England so as this little Protestant world held her not for such a ioy nor yet Iewell of theirs as here by M. Barlow she is described But as for the Catholike Christian world for what diamond they held her and what Ioy they tooke of her and in her appeareth well by their bookes which are extant and will indure till the worlds end so as the chiefe ground of all these excessiue and exorbitant prayses and flatteries is no other as far as I can see but the volubility of this Ministers tongue for the present what it may be hereafter vpon the blast of other windes I know not but it is like that the Weather cock will turne Some examples haue we seene before of his constancy about the Earle of Essex and may do also hereafter concerning Queene Elizabeth if his Maiestie that now reigneth shall neuer so little turne the fauour of his eyes from her actions which of all other Princes by the iudgement of most men he hath most cause to do as somwhat I touched in my â—ormer letter and now shal be inforced to repeat somwhat againe for defending my selfe against M. Barlows calumniations but it shal be only the conclusion of that my discourse To conclude then said I about Queen Elizabeth albeit Pius Quintus some other Popes did excoÌ„municate her and cut her of from the body of the Catholike Church by Ecclesiasticall Censures in regard of her persecuting Catholicke Religion yet did I neuer know it hitherto proued that any Pope procured or consented to any priuate violence against her person albeit if the forealleadged Statute of the 28. yeare of King Henry the 8. be true wherin it is determined both by the King himself his Counsel and whole Parliament and by the Archbishop Cranmer with his Doctors in his Iudiciall Seat of the Arches that Lady Elizabeth was not legitimate nor that her mother was euer King Henryes true wife which once being true could neuer afterward by any humane power be made vntrue or amended to the preiudice of a third rightly by due succession interessed therin if as the whole Parlament testifyed it should be against all honour equity reason and good conscience that the said La. Elizabeth should at any tyme possesse the said Crowne then the said Popes respecting in their said sentence as it is certayne they did the actuall right of the Queene oâ— France and Scotland and of her noble issue his Maiestie that now is they might proceed as they did against the other for her remouall whom they held for an vsurper in fauour of the true inheritours oppressed by her not only by spirituall but temporall armes also as agâ—inst a publicke malefactor and intruder contrary to right and conscience And I cannot see how this fawning Apologer can eyther without open vntruth or manifest iniury to his Maiesty auerre the contrary Which being true doth greatly iustify the endeauours and desires of all good Câ—tholicke people both at home and abroad against her their principall meaning being euer knowne to haue bene the deliuerance preferment of the true Heire most wrongfully kept out vniustly persecuted for right â—ousnes sake To this discourse of mine M. Barlow with many bitter wordes taketh vpon him to reply this that followeth First that there are many more euidences to proue that the Pope is Antichrist then that Queene Elizabeth was illegitimate this you see what force it hath how fit it is vnto this purpose and therfore he taketh haÌ„dfast of another hould thus If King Henry her Father B. Cranmer with his Court of Arches and body of the Parlament did sentence her for such yet the same Father Arches and Parlament vpon better ground within few yeares renounced the same sentence and repealed that act This now is somewhat if M. Barlow had cited the Act or Parlament or Decree of Bishop Cranmer or his Arches or some other particularity how or where it was repealed as I did cite for the contrary of her condemnation Rastals Abridgments I do find indeed in the booke of Statutes that seauen yeares afterwards to wit anno 35. of Henry the eight cap. pâ—â—â—o when King Henry had determined in person to go ouer and make warre in France as in the said Statute is affirmed and after the death of so many other wyues had married the Lady Katherine Parre widdow hauing small hope of more issue he made a certaine declaration of the succession if in case himselfe and the Prince Edward and Lady Mary should dye without lawfull issue to wit that for lacke of such issue the said Lady Elizabeth should succeed in her turne but there is no word of her legitimation nor of the repeale of the foresaid Statute declaratory of the inualidity of her Fathers and Mothers marriage And albeit I find diuers other clauses of that Statute 28. Henry 8. cap. 7. repealed by 1. Edward 6. cap. 12. and primo secundo Philip. Mariae cap. 1. 8. yet do I not find any