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
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
is in it selfe but neither to vnderstand what he saith nor wherof he affirmeth In the first point of Queene Elizabeths praises he straineth his eloqueÌ„ce or rather loquence to the vttermost as though neyther the earth whilst shee was here nor scarce heaueÌ„ where now he assureth vs she is were worthy of her Shee was a daughter of the bloud Royall sayth he borne to the Crowne in the Prophetes wordes from the birth from the wombe from the conception a Princesse aduanced to the Crowne in apparenâ— right and by vncontrolable succession c. Thus he sayth and yet doth the world know what store of controuersies was about that succession and lawfullnes thereof and they are extant in theyr owne Statutes yet in print so as this man talketh that which he thinketh to be most acceptable and fit for his preseÌ„t purpose of adulation more then what he findeth written or registred or belieueth himselfe for that matter and such as know the man and his constitution are of opinion that if his Maiestie that now is had come into England with that minde which his Noble Mother and her husband the King of France are knowne once to haue had to claime iustify her title presently after the death of Queene Mary for so doth Doctor Sanders tâ—stifie that they had that minde and began to put the armes of England vpon all the sayd Queenâ— plate but that by the peace made Calis released vnto theÌ„ for the same they were pacified for that time it is to be presumed that his Maiestie if he had preuayled in his pretence that he should haue found no one man more fit or readie in England or Scotland to haue gon vp to Paules Crosse or to any other place else to iustifie his Maiesties Mothers pretence against Queene Elizabeth or to disgrace her whome now he extolleth so much euen in this point of legitimation from the belly from the wombe from the conception by apparent right incontrolable succession and the like But now the wind bloweth another way and he followeth the blast and turneth his sayles according to the weather let vs then heare him out further She was sayth he an Imperiall Monarch a famous Empresse or rather the very Empresse of â—ame blazoned out not by home-bred fauourites but by forraine trauailers and writers before and since her death yea â—uen by her enemies both for Religion and warre to be in her time and for her Sexe the starre of Soueraignty the mirrour of Principality a terrour to her enemies the Loadstone of Maiesty drawing vnto her both Embassadours Christian and not Christian only for enterview and salutation but in truth for view and admiration for when they had satisfied themselues with her sight and hardly could they be satisfied what Saba's Queene once sayd of King Salomon they all concluded of her that which oâ—ten falls not out sayth the Orator their eyes had ouercome their eares and truth had out-stripâ— fame report was lesse then verity and her renowne was far short of her desert Thus far our Oratour And doth he not seeme to speake well for his fee But yet wheÌ„ he telleth vs how his famous Empresse or Empresse of fame is blazoned not only at home but abroad by forraine writers he will not forget I hope to remember that shee is blazoned by many of them in farre other colours then heere he painteth her out and this partly in respect of her hard measure towards Catholikes whose religion shee professed vnder Queene Mary and made many fayre promises of continuance therin for the breach wherof and contrary proceeding afterward when she came to the Crowne she susteyned so hard a conceipt and bad opinion of all forrayne Princes people Kingdomes Catholik as the memory perhapes of no one Christian Prince or Princesse that euer liued is more vngratefull and odious to them And this is the very truth notwithstanding all this parasiticall flattery of the Minister which I speake as God knoweth with great compassion towards her and our Countrey for her sake and not with any humor of reuenge insultation or exprobratioÌ„ against her The histories are extant their speaches and iudgements are knowne to such as doe trauaile forreine Countreys and with indifferency and attention doe marke what passeth among them But yet this man sitting at home in his warme chaÌ„ber goeth further in his exaltations of her and to pretermit many as ouerlong for this place he sayth That all her actions being Royally vertuous vertuously religious and religiously wise her wisedome seasoned her religion her religion sanctified her policyes her polices graced her descent all of them togeather wrought her immortality and her immortality is accompayned with renowne vpon earth and reward in heauen So he and much more which I pretermit as idle froath of a flattering tongue who taketh vpon him also to Canonize her with the terme of Eternized Saynt and affirmeth resolutely that shee neuer blemiâ—hed her sâ—lâ—e with vice criminall or continued for soe are his words And what he meaneth by continued I know not exept he meaneth as the word importeth that she continued not from vice to vice without interruption which had bene horrible to haue done if not impossible or had perseuered continually in one and the selfe same vice criminall which had bene as bad if not worse He auoucheth further of her that shee neuer in her life committed hellish crime wherby I suppose he meaneth mortall sinne for that the payne punishmeÌ„t therof is hell according to S. Paules doctrine and then I confesse that this were to be accompted an extraordinary sanctity indeed that a woman brought vp in such liberty for so many yeares togeather in so corrupt a time who as M. Barlow here telleth vs was no Cloystred-Nun but a Queene that liued in all prosperity in the midest of all temptations and allurements both of Sathan the flesh and the world should neuer commit so much as one mortall sinne But I would aske M. Barlow how he commeth to know this secret did he euer heare her Confession For if he did he might with far better conscience vtter her vertues knowne thereby to her prayse and to the edification of others then he did the Earle of Essex his vices to his infamy and other mens scandall But I for my part doe thinke that albeit Queene Elizabeth went often to confession in Queene Maries dayes yet from that time to her death which was more then forty yeares she neuer tooke the benefit of that Sacrament in which long time wee may wel imagine what store of dust a house much frequented would haue gathered that had neuer bene swepâ— in so long a space And albeit shee had had both grace wil and time to coÌ„fesse her sins yet do I belieue that she would neuer haue chosen M. Barlow for her Confessour and Ghostly Father and consequently all that he talketh here of her vices criminall and not continued and
hath the ChaÌ„pion M. Barlow any thing to reply for his Lord in this no truly but granting my proofe to be substantiall as taken from the Scripture it selfe he runneth to otheâ— impertinent matter of dissimilitude betweene Q. Elizabeth Nabuchodonosor as that he had no successour but the Queene hath c. which is not the question in hand nor was the comparison made in this and moreouer in it selfe is false For that Nabuchodonosoâ—s sonne called Euilmeroâ—â—th succeeded him and after him againe Baltazar which seemeth to haue bene fortold by the Prophet Ieremy c. 27. saying Seruient ci ones gentesâ— filio eius filio fâ—lâ— eius All nations shall serue Nabuchodonosor and his sonne and his sonnes sonne In which respect Nabuchodonosor was much more happy theÌ„ Q. Elizabeth who left no such issue to succeed her and therefore the place alleadged by M. Barlow oâ—t of Isay Ex quo dormisti c. since thou wert dead none came in thy place to cut vs vp by graue Authors is vnderstood of Baltazar the last King of that race for to the former it cannot wel be applyed whose sonne and nephew after his death kept them wellnigh forty yeares in captiuity and they were not deliuered till after the death of Baltazar by Cyrus who with Darius ouerthrew him and succeded him by which you may see how well M. Barlow pleadeth for Queene Elizabethsâ— happinesâ— And all this was spoken against the infeâ—ence of true felicity supposing that Queene Elizabeths dayes had beene so aboundant and affluent in all kinde of temporall prosperities as the flattery of these Orators would haue it seme that her selfe had such copia of consolations and inopia of tribulations as the Lord Cooke describeth But for proofe that this was not so theâ—e were many parâ—iculer poynts touched which did shew that her temporall consolations were mingled also with desolations her prosperity with aduersities her ioyes many tymes with griefe as for example the circumâ—tances of her natiuity the declaration made against her by her owne Father as well in the putting to death her Mother with note of incontinency togeather with so many adulterers punished with her as also aâ—terward the same declaratioÌ„ made more authentically in publike Parlament her disgraces passed aâ—terward againe in the time of King Edward her contemptible reiection by the setters vp of Queene Iane her peâ—ills in Queene Maries time by the cutting off of her best friendes whereby she was forced to a deepe dissimulation in religion that could not be but afflictiue vnto her her feares and doubâ—s in the beginning of her owne raigne what would follow by change of religion the pretence of the King of Frâ—â—â—â— known to be in hand for his wiues succession immediatly after Queene Mary her frights by the Duke of Norfolke Earles rising iâ— the North a great Counsell of the chiâ—fest Nobility held at London against her and in fauour of the Queene of Scotland which then â—he was not able to resist if it had gone forward her publike excommunication and depriuation by two or three Popes which could noâ— but bring sollicitude with it her doubtfuâ—nes about maâ—iing being preâ—sed on the one side by the sollicitatioÌ„ of her Kingdome for hope of succession and held backe on the other side by certayne desirs of designements of her owne her fauorites her intricate reckonings with her sayd fauorits from time to time as Pickering Dudley Hatton Packiâ—gton Rawley and Essex among whome the two Earles became in the end to be dredfull vnto her her ielousy and feares conceâ—ned not only of forraine Princes whome she had deepely offended with raising their subiects and maintayning them against them but of domesticall inhabitants likewise especially of Priestes Iesuits and Seâ—inâ—ryâ—men who were painted out to her to be such dangerous people togeather with the Catholickes that vsed their helpes in matters for their soules as she neuer ceased to add lawes vnto lawes against them all and against all vse of Catholicke religion wherunto her selfe had sworne and voluntarily protested in Queene Maries dayes And not only this but breaking also into bloud for these imagined terrors shee put to death publickly aboue an hundred and thirty anointed Priests only for hatred of their order and profession togeather with many other afflicted in priâ—ons others sent into banishment by forty fifty yea seauenty at a time She put to death also both the nearest in kinred and dearest in affection that she had on earth as was her Maiestie of Scotlnd and the Earle of Essex the guilt of which proceeding lying vpon her conscience did so trouble her for diuets yeares before her death as was pittifull but her death it selfe more pittifull in dying without sense feeling or mention of God as diuers do report that do pretend to know the same most certainly I should be glad with like or greater certainty to know thâ— contrary for I take compassion of her state with all my hart And this is in effect the summe and substance of that which was spoken before concerning the interruptions and interpellations of Queene Elizabeths temporall ioyes and comfort which Syr Edward Cooke M. Barlow do make to be so singular and absolute And what reply is now made thinke you to all this Truly nothing at all to the purpose in hand for that one of these two poynts should be shewed eyther that these things are not so or that they do nothing at all impeach Queene Elizabethâ— teÌ„porall felicity and store of conâ—olations but neither of these is proued what then You shall heare first he runneth againe into an extreme rage of rayling and reuiling and scolding as it were a tip-toe inforcing his whole answere with the most contumelioâ—s speach that he can deuise but to this is extant his own answere in print out of Seneca which he alleageth in the Preface of his Sermon at Paulâ— Crosse against his Maister the Earle of Essex Vt quisque est â—â—ntemptissimus ita solutiâ—â—ima lingua â—â—t As each man is more contemptible then others so is he more lewd loose in his tongue Then he chafeth intemperatly that any thing should be sayd or writteÌ„ against Queene Elizabeth after her death and herâ— he dilateth himselfe very largely for lacke of better matter vpon that common place that the rulers of the people are not to be spoken euill of specially after their death for which he citeth both Scriptures and prophane authors I follow not his order in this but the conâ—exion rather of the matter and will proue them to be both hoggs aud doggs out of Aristophanes Pliny Sophocles and other Authors that do reuile the dead But to this obiection also I will put his owne answere in his foresaid SermoÌ„ against the Eâ—rle of Essex where hauing made the same obiectioÌ„ againâ—t himselfe for speaking euill of the said Earle after his death as he doth now against me for calling to memory some of Queene
conscience at all in that place but only assigneth the same as a thing necessarily requyred to the end and perfection of the Law For the wordes of the Apostle are these Finis prâ—cepti est charitas de corde puro conscientia bona fide non ficta The end of the coÌ„mandement or law is charity out of a pure hart a good conscience faith not fayned Which is no description of a good conscience as you see but of the end perfection of thâ— law which is Charity according to that which in another place the same Apostle sayth Pleâ—itudo legis Charitas the fullnes or fulfilling of the Law is charity But here he describeth more at large what manner of charity it must be to wit proceding out of a pure hart as also out of a good conscience which â—â—geâ—â—â—â—â— hope and out of vnfayned fayth So as here trâ—e charity 〈◊〉 described and not a good conscience which iâ— named â—â—â—ly as a condition needfully required to the fulfilling of the Law and not described as M. Barlow falsely affâ—â—â—â—â—â— For if a thing be described that hath many parts of 〈◊〉 requiâ—ed to the complement thereof it were very◠〈◊〉 to say that euery one of the said parts or parcels it described therby or that the said description may be ascribed 〈◊〉 euery one of them As if a man should describe a Knight or a Captaine that is to go to the wars what â—â—â—â—iâ—ure iâ— required to wit a horse sâ—ddle speare armour and the like it cannot be said that a horse is here described or a saddle or a speare but only the Knight himself who hath need of all these thinges So as in this M. Barlow is found 〈◊〉 haue peruerted the whole text and meaniâ—g of S. Paul There remaineth then his conclusion that for so much as Hereticks and Schismatickes also doe plead conscience for their standing out and that there is no one article in the Oath offered that can be proued to be contrary to a good conscience and true Christian religion therefore standeth the Apologers conclusion incoÌ„trollable still That the Pope hath prohibited English Catholikes to performe euen ciuill obedience to their Soueraigne But all this hath beene now answered by that which hath beene treated before for that Shiâ—matikes and Heretikes though they be â—ound both to informe reforme their consciences that be erroneous yet so long as that repugnaÌ„cy indureth they should sinne in doing contrary to the dictamen therof And as for the articles in the Oath that are contrary to Englisâ— Catholikes consciences and to theyr religion they are so many as do any way impeach or preiudice their religion which are the most part in the Oath as is knowne Neyther must M. Barlow run to this ordinary shift and say as he is wont that their consciences are not well cleansedâ— and that their religion is not true Christian Religion therefore they ought not to haue scruple in sweatingâ— for that now it hath been shewed that it is sufficient for binding them from swearing that their conscyences doe tell them the contrary which conscience to them doth appear good and their religion true in which respect the Pope that is of the same conscience and Religion hath defined it to be vnlawfull vnto them to sweare against this their coÌ„science and religion so long as it standeth as it doth And therefore if M. Barlow will haue them sweare without sinne in this case he must first make them Protestants and so giue them a new conscience and new religion for in that they haue they cannot doe it albeit for temporall obedience they offer all that may be exacted at their hands by any law of Christian subiection to their temporall soueraigne And this much may be sufficient for discussing of this point Whether subiects may or must obey their Princes when they command things against their consciences which in my Letter I denyed And whereas the Apologer did alleadg dyuers authorities out of Scriptures Fathers and Councels to proue the obedience of Subiects to theyr Princes not only Christian but also Infidels as to king Nabuchodonosor of Babylon to king Pharao of Egypt King Cyrus of Persia my answer then was this He alledgeth for examples out of the Scriptures that the children of Israel obeyed the King of Babylon as also they exhibited temporall Obedience vnto King Pharao of Egypt as in like manner to Cyrus King of Persia All which examples we grant to be true and could add many more both of the Iewes and Christians that lyued peaceably vnder Infidell Princes in those dayes But let one example as I said be brought forth wherin they obeyed them in points contrarie to their Conscience or Religion and it shall be sufficient We read in the Prophesie of Danielâ— that those three famous Iewes Sidrach Misach and Abdenago were most trustie vnto King Nabuchodonosor in temporall affayres and so much esteemed by him as he made them his vniuersall Gouernors ouer all the workes of the Religion of Babylon saith the Scripture and yet when it came to the poynt that he would haue them for his honour and pleasure and vpon his commandement adore the golden Statua which he had set vp they forsooke him flatly and said to him in the presence of all his Nobility assembled togeather that they were not so much as to answere him in that Commandement not would they do as he had appoynted them The like in effect did the ancienter Iewes do with King Pharao of Egypt for that albeit in temporall affayres they obeyed him euen in that tyme when he oppressed and persecuted them most yet in that he would haue had them stay and sacrifice in Egypt and not follow Moyses their Spiritual Superiour into the desert notwithstaÌ„ding that the King had some cause perhaps to suspect their temporall Allegiance also by that departure they being a potent multitude of people yet would they not obey him nor do as he would haue them when they persuaded themselues that God would haue the contrary I let passe how Daniel and his fellowes would not eate the meates of the King of Babylon nor Tobie those of the Assyrians much lesse would he leaue of to bury the dead though it were forbidden by Proclamation vnder payne of death The Machabees in like manner obeyed King Antiochus so long as he commanded nothing against their Law and Conscience but when he went about to force them to sacrifice and to eate swynes-flesh and other things against their Law and Conscience they refused openly to performe that Obedience So as these places of Scriptures alledged by the Apologer do proue nothing for him at all but are rather flat against him and for vs as yow haue seene Thus I wrote then now let vs see how M. Barlow ouerthroweth it First as concerning the 3. Pagan Kings Pharao Cyrus and Nabuchodonosor wherof I sayd the Iewes obedience vnto them was in temporall matters only
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
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
put to the horne at Edenburrough 19. In another place going about to proue that the Right which the Church hath against heretikes eyther for their conuersion or chastisement is Ius innatum bred within it inseparable from it how thinke yow doth he proue the same against F. Pâ—rsons who sayd that is was Ius acquisitum Very pithily yow may imagine for thus he writeth No sooner was there a Church designed but this right was annexed Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis as the enmity for contradiction so the right for suppression is natiue Thus M. Barlow no more And is not this well proued thinke yow The seed of the woman shall bruze the serpents head that is Christ the Sonne of the Virgin shall ouercome the diueâ— ergo it is Ius innatum to punish heretikes Me thinkes this argument proues M. Barlow more to be a Naturall then any natiue right to be in the Church For what is there here to signify the Church to signify heretikes to signify this in-bred right Truly I see no more coherence betweene the Scripture and the foresaid argument then I see in this which followes Our Sauiour cured a man of the palsy ergo M. Barlow is troubled with the gout But let vs go on 20. Last of all for adding to the holy text what more euident example can be desired then that which he bringeth out of Deuteronomy to proue that bloudy artycle of the Kinges Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes Bloudy I say for that more effusion of bloud of Ecclesiasticall men hath bene made for that one point enacted by Parlament then by all the lawes of former tymes for the space of a thousand yeares togeather which yet is not only by all Catholikes denyed reiected by Caluin and the Puritans but vtterly condemned also by the Lutherans and all learned Protestants Against all which M. Barlow will needes proue by Scripture this vsurped authority saying God in his Word hath appointed Kinges to be Guardians of bâ—th the Tables to commaund prohibite not in ciuill affaires only but in matters also concerning religion saith S. Augustine and citeth Deuteron 17. 18 verse But in our bookes eyther Hebrew Greeke or Latin we fynd no such commission giuen to Kinges nor any one syllable of their being Guardians of both Tables or of any commaund in matters of Religion in this place as elsewhere by the Author of the Supplement he is more fully and roundly tould And so yow see to what desperate attempts this Minister is driuen to defend a falsity 21. Touching the last point which remayned to be treated of M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of diuinity for that it is his chief profession I shall more inlarge my self therein ioyne issue with him in one entire disputation and that not the meanest but rather the chiefest of his whole booke for in no other that I know doth he vse so many tearmes of art or make so great vauÌ„t or shew of learning courage coÌ„fidence as in the same to wit his discourse to proue a contradiction in Bellarmine concerning three Conclusions of his about Iustification and confidence to be reposed in our good workes But before I enter this combate it will not be amisse to let the Reader see some part of his skill in another matter or two that thereby he may take a scaÌ„tling of the rest 22. First then he must know that eyther M. Barlowes choice was so bad or iudgement so small that he neuer almost cyteth the Maister of Sentences S. Thomas of Aquine or other Schoolemen but that he doth commonly very ignorantly mistake them or maliciously bely them or some way or other peruert them For example he maketh S. Thomas to say That if an Vsurper or Intruder commaund thinges vnlawfull yet in those thinges the subiects must notwithstanding obey propter vitandum scandalum aut periculum and then addeth Of this Diuinity Iudge not ti 's their owne But I answere t' is M. Barlowes lye not S. Thomas his Diuinity who answering an argument that the power of many Kinges is vsurped and therefore they not to be obayed saith That a man is â—ound to obey so far forth as the order of Iustice doth require and therefore if they haue not lawfull principality but vsurped or commaund vniust thinges the subiects are not bound to obey them vnles perhaps per accidens for auoyding of scandall or daunger So S. Thomas and here is no mention of vnlawfull things commaunded but of vniust for a King may commaund things that are vniust as that his subiects giue him all the money or goodes they haue whereto for feare of daunger they may yield which they could not doe were the thing of it owne nature vnlawfull which is S. Thomas his expresse doctrine in the next precedent article neyther is there here must notwithstanding obey but the contrary that absolutely they are not bound to obey vnles perhaps it be for some other cause as of scaÌ„dall or daunger in which cases they may to saue their liues or for auoyding the hurt and offence of others doe those thinges which are vniustly commaunded theÌ„ so they be not of their owne nature vnlawfull but only in respect of the CoÌ„maunder who eyther coÌ„trary to iustice or by vsurped authority doth coÌ„maund theÌ„ 23. Of this nature is that graue resolution of his taken as he would haue it seeme from S. Thomas his scholler Medina That to full liberty is required an vnlimited scope for the iudgement to deliberate Of which he shall heare more afterwards for this vnlimited scope for the iudgmeÌ„t is no other thing theÌ„ the vnlimited ignorance of Syr William which passeth all bound measure Againe where he citeth S. Thomas touching actiue passiue scandall which is refuted in this worke at large and where he sayth very boldly but ignorantly that the said Doctour confineth al proud men within two sortes one of theÌ„ which aduance themselues aboue others the other of such which arrogate to themselues that which is aboue them and beyond their pitch which seemeth to be aboue the pitch of his skill for S. Thomas maketh 4. sortes of pride as any may see in the place cited in the margent though in the place which M. Barlow citeth I confesse there be not so many sorts specified for in his 33. question and 5. article he meÌ„tioneth none at all So as M. Barlow roues at randome and speaketh without booke and thinkes all to be well so he say somewhat true or false and make a fond florish with the citing of schoolmen Of this very stamp is his other of fatum and prouidence in denying fatum to be prouidence retorted vpon him by F. Persons in this Answere And truly if M. Barlow be wise he will if he write againe be more wary in dealing with Schoolmen and alleadging their authorities for that kind of learning far surpasseth the compasse of his shallow capacity 24.
Ely of whome whiles he was silent many had some opinion of learning but since all is resolued to lying immodest rayling and some few light Terentian Plautinian phrases which aswel bâ—seeme a Deuine writing in matters of such moment and in defence of so great a Monarch to dally withall as it doth a Bishop to lead a morrice-daunce in his hose and dublet This man I say answereth hereunto that perhaps so the case stood then when those Protestants did write but that is well neere 20. yeares agoe but now it is otherwise Which is asmuch as if he had said that this new beliefe in England is not like the old alwayes one but is refined altered with the tyme and therefore no argument can be drawne from a thing done 20. yeares past for that is to great antiquity for so new-fangled a fayth which is alwaies in motion and hath her waynes changes quarters and full like the Moone But yet I must aske him further how he will proue by any example of the Puritan writers this their change and submission to the Protestants conformity of doctrine with theÌ„ more now then 20. yeares past Are they not still in the same degree of difference and oppositioÌ„ as before Doe they not still deny our Sauiours descent into hell Do they not disclay me from the English Hierarchie Will they acknowledge the Kings Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall as King Henry did challenge it Or will they recall what they haue written of their discipline that it is an essentiall marke of the Church without which there were no Church no Faith no Ghospell and consequently the Protestants to be no Ghospellers to be out of the Church out of the number of the faithfull 29. But for further confutation of both these Superintendents and more cleere explication of the thing it selfe besides what is afterwards said in this booke touching this point it shall not be amisse here to set downe the words of a few Protestant and Puritan late and yet liuing writers what they iudge of ech other in this affayre that our very enemyes may be iudges of the most shamefull assertion of these two Prelates That the Protestants and Puritans differ in matters only cerimoniall and agree in essentiall And the reason that I produce no more in this kind is for want of their bookes which being not worth the sending so far seldome come to our hands I will begin with the Protestants 30. And to omit Thomas Rogers whose testimony is after to be produced in the Discussion it selfe what other thing doth Oliuer Ormerod in his discouery of Puritan-Papisme annexed to his Picture of a Puritan prooue but that the said Puritans are Hereticks and haue ioyned themselues with the Pharisies Apostolickes Arians Pebuzians Petrobusians Florinians Câ—rinthiaÌ„s Nazarens Begardines Ebionites Catababdites Eâ—theusiasts Donatists Iouinianists Catharists And least any should thinke that this coniunction is only in matters cerimonial he laieth to their charge these ensuing heresies that there is no diuersâ—â—y between a Priest and a Bishop that Bishops haue no iuâ—isdiction that all synnes be equall that the Minister is of the essence of baptisme with the like And in the second dialogue he maketh in plaine tearmes this obiection that there is no difference in matters fundamentall but accidentall and then answereth the same that they do differ from the Protestants in some things that are fundamentall and substantiall which he proueth by the article of Christs descending into hell And he might haue proued it further by the aboue rehearsed articles for which Iouinian Aerius and others were reputed by the auncient Fathers and condemned for Hereticks 31. VVith this Oliuer of Cambridge agreeth A. N. of Oxford in his Bible-bearer towards the midest for thus he writeth They refuse to subscribe to the Kings lawfull authority in causes Ecclesiasticall to the article of religion to the booke of Common prayer and the orders rites and cerimonies of our Church nay they dissent from vs in things accidentall and cerimoniall So he By which last antithesis of accidentall cerimoniall differences it is most euident that the former were essentiall fundamentall Neither doe I see how this can be denyed by any for if the Puritans refuse to subscribe to the articles of Protestant religion who seeth not that they approue it not and consequently differ in essentiall points and that M. Barlow ouerlashed very much when he wrote that their vnkind quarrell with Puritans was in another kind and not in matters of religion wherein forsooth out of his great kindnes he will haue them to agree 32. And not to stand more for proofe hereof from Protestants D. Couel cleereth the matter when he saith But least any man should thinke that our contentions were but in smaller points and the difference not great both sides haue charged the other with heresies if not infidelities nay euen such as quite ouerthrow the principall foundation of our Christian faith Thus he And this I thinke is another manner of matter then externall cerimonies or accidentall differences for if this be not a plaine iarre amongst Protestants and Puritans in Religion I would faine know what M. Barlow will more require thereunto but I see S. Gregories wordes verified in these men where he saith solent haeretici alia apertè dicere alia occultè cogitare the heretikes are wont to speake otherwise openly then inwardly they thinke for when they deale amongst themselues then are Protestants and Puritans heretikes and infidells to ech other but when they answere vs then all are friendes all good Christians all vnited in doctrine deuided only in cerimonies accidentall differences This is another manner of equiuocation then any of our schooles will allow and only fit for such as are his schollers qui in veritate non stetit sed mendax fuit ab initio 33. From Protestants I come to Puritans who in this case are no lesse eager playne and resolute then the Protestants but rather more for this in expresse tearmes the Author of the Twelue generall arguments concludeth against all the Superintendents of England togeather that they are Vsurpers and Tyrants and execute an vsurped power ouer the Church and one reason to proue the same is ex concessis for that their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction is deriued from the King else say they it is a flat deniall of his Supremacy as there they shew And in the next reason which is the 4. and last brought in for proofe of their assumption or minor thus they conclude There are no true and sober Christians but will say that the Churches of Scoâ—land France the Low Countryes and other places that renounce such Archbishops and Bishops as ours are as Anti-christian and vsurping Prelates are true Churches of God which they could not be if the authority prerogatiues they claime to themselues were of Christ and not vsurped for if it were the ordinance of Christ
in extolling or rather belying Q. Elizabeth farr beyond all truth or desert calling white black and black white making light darknes darknes light after he hath made her of all liuing creatures the most admirable on earth with many boÌ„basting phâ—ases setting forth her praise who yet in her life tyme did nothing or very little God wot that was praise worthy leauing after 44. yeares raigne no other monument in the land of her liuing in it but that she had pulled downe many Churches 〈◊〉 howses and not so much as buylt or let vp oneâ— or â—rected any thing for posterity to remayne after 〈◊〉 But as Xenophon in Cyrus did not so much write 〈◊〉 life as in him describe what a good King should beâ— so M. Barlow in his transformed Queen Elizabeth â—â—â—leth vs not so much what she was indeed as what 〈◊〉 should haue bene or as now they would for the crâ—dit of their Ghospell wish that she had bene After aâ—â— these Encomions giuen of her life I say thus he adâ—uaunceth her after her death to heauen and withoâ—â— authority will needs canonize her before her tyme to vse his owne phrase make her an eternized Saintâ— His words be theseâ— For her reward in heauen if restraints of liberty and pursuites of malice for Gods truthâ— inflicted through Iealousie and indured with singular patâ—â—ence if a release from them vnexpected followed with hâ—â—nours and blessings neyther interrupted by others wheâ—ther treasons or inuasions nor blemished by herselfe with vice criminall or continued if life shut vp after length 〈◊〉 dayes and a full age with a courage defying death withâ— prayâ—rs imploring mercy with faith assuring the prayers with testimoâ—ies witnessing her assurance can be preceding coniectures or rather euidences of vnspeakable happinesseâ— we may safely conclude that she which passed through 〈◊〉 Crowne of thornes borne so constantly to a Crowâ—e of Gold worne so tryumphantly hath nâ—w gotten the thirâ— of Glory to enioy for euerlasting 115. So M. Barlow with more to the same effectâ— telling how she was an example of vâ—rtue for her owne to follow and a loadst irre for other Nations to admire coÌ„cluding with this Apostrophe Now this renowned Queen this eternized Saint c. And not to enter into disputâ— of the truth of his words nor yet to aske him by what â—ertainty he knowes that she passed from one of these â—hree Crownes to another especially from the gold â—o glory which requireth other proofe then this verâ—all florish of a few Rhetoricall figures bare imagiâ—ary coniectures of that courage prayers faith and testimonies witnessing assurance which this man sitting in his chamber doth faigne but she at her death if we belieue eye witnesses of much better credit then himselfe did little feele to omit this I say as an idle fancy or fiction rather of this foolish Parasite two things I would demauÌ„d of him the first that seeing he will needs draw his glorious Queen into the Calendar of Saints what title or place she shall haue amongst them in the same for that in ours there is no Saint of that sex but is either Virgin or Martyr or both or else nec Virgo nec Martyr as are Wiues Widdowes and repentaÌ„t sinners M. Barlow shall do well in his next to tell vs in which of these degrees this his new Sainted Queen Elizabeth is to be placed perhaps when he hath thought better on the matter he may find some perplexity be content to let her passe for one that was nec Virgo nec Martyr and thrice happy had it bene for her if she had bene indeed a true repentant sinner 116. The other thing is to know what he thinketh of the renowned Mother of his Maiesty whom by this canonizing of Q. Elizabeth he must needs condemne to hell-fire for it is impossible that one heauen should hold both these Queenes in life and beliefe so quite opposite the one with great commendation of vertue remayning in the vnity of the Catholick faith in which and for which she dyed to the great admiration and amazement of the whole world to 〈◊〉 a Queene Mother of a King indeed for religion 〈◊〉 vnder the colour of â—reason to which foule spot as 〈◊〉 Orator well noteth Royall dignity was neuer lyablâ— against all law with all disgrace â—o lâ—ose her heâ—d 〈◊〉 an ordinary malefactor by way of publick and coÌ„ 〈◊〉 iustice whiles the other liued in all ruffe pride and pleasure followed the fancyes of new vpstart Ghospellers hated and persecuted that faith wherin notwithstanding vntill the fall of her vnhappy Father 〈◊〉 whole Iland froÌ„ the first CoÌ„uersion had remayned 〈◊〉 in the end shut vp a wicked lyfe with a miserable pâ—tiful death if that may be sayd to be pitifull miserable which was without all remorse of conscience for fâ—â—mer sinnes all remonstrance of piety in and before her agony all remembrance of her future weale oâ— woe in the life to come all naming God as of her selfe or enduring others that did name him for her or put her in mind of him whatsoeuer this lying Minister who is true in nothing with a few fine phrases chatteth and forgeth to the contrary 117. And if it would but please his most Excellent Maiesty out of his Royall respect to his most Noble Mother to see who in her person haue alwaies most honoured or dishonoured his he should soone find that as in her life tyme the Catholiks had her in highest esteeme so since her death haue registred her in the raÌ„ke of Martyrs of whome the glory of this age Cardinal Bâ—ronius to name one for all the rest writeth thus Porrò eamdâ—m Ecclâ—siam nobilissâ—mam c. Moreouer God in this our age hath permitted that most noble Church of Scotland to be tempted that it might yield a most noble example of Christian coÌ„stancy when as a moÌ„gst â—ther Martyrs which no other Country hath hitherto â—ad it hath deserued to haue their owne Queene the â—â—nguler glory and ornament of the Catholick faith â—efore tryed by a long imprisonment for to be honouâ—ed with the Crowne of Martyrdome So he As conâ—rariwise in M. Barlows brethrens bookes both at home â—nd abroad he shall find the most iniurious slanders â—â—ying reports and reproachfull villanies powred forth â—gainst that innocent Princesse as will make any mans â—ares to glow and hart to rue to see so little respect of â—rincely Maiestie or such insufferable liberty in Proâ—estant writers conioyned with singular impudency â—nd fraudulent malignity in imputing the outragious â—ttempts of the trayterous subiects to the Queen herâ—elf as though she had bene the Author of that misâ—hiefe which in hart she detested with many bitter â—eares the true tokens of vnfaygned griefe most pittiâ—ully bewailed let one Reusnâ—rus in his Genealâ—gyes be â—eene whose words I abhore to set downe and the Reader will not thinke me too sharp and I must conâ—esse that in respect
nay â—ous a wickâ—dnesse practised against hiâ— Matiâ—s Fathâ—r by Ghospellers of M. Barlowes religioÌ„ companions in conscience who is not ashamed heere to say that it is a good inserence and proueth well that I was sory that 〈◊〉 Maiâ—stie escaped the like perill â—or that I durst cast vp such a disasterous example in his Maiesties teeth But who seeth not the malicious â—â—cophancy oâ— this consequence I did not cast it vp to vse his absurde phrase into his Maiesties teeth but only represented it to his eares and memory with griefe detestation of the â—act My casting it vp if any were was in M. Barlow his teeth oâ— whom I doubt not but if he had byn then a Preacher he would haue bene as ready to haue allowed and praised the fact as generally most of his â—ellow Ministers both English and Scottish did at that time not only in regard that the parricide was committed by them as it was against a yong Prince suspected by them in râ—lâ—gioÌ„ therfore feared but also for that his Noble Person growing fortunes were in such deep iealousy with the Queene of England then regnant as nothing more But to leaue this to his Matiâ—s prudent consideratioÌ„ the obscurity of his speach to the Readers due obseruation I say that this â—uagation and digrâ—ssion of VVilliam of Lincolne doth proue nothing the poynt it should to witt that this Powder-treason of â—dâ—nborough was not of the same essence nature and species with the other of London though lesse haynous as not being directed perchance to the personall murders of so many particuler men but yet to the publike ruvne of the State of the Common-weale as the euent well declared For that the ruyne of the Father brought also consequently the ruyne of his Maiesties Mothâ—r wherin that VVilliam Barlow himselfe had not only a wish but also a push so farre forth as his wretched forces of tongue and pen at that time could do her any hurt I suppose he would thinke it a disgrace to deny it But to returne to our controuersy in hand whether thiâ— Powder-treason of Edenborough against his Maiesties fathâ—r were not of the same kind and species that was the other dâ—signed in London against himselfe which I affirme and the Minister denyeth let vs see one shifâ— of his more as idle and impertinent as the rest to auoyd the force of truth See saith he how malice blindeth iudgement in this his resemblaÌ„â—e the truth is that his Maiesties Father was not blowne vp with Gun-powder but after the murtherers had strangled him in his bed sleeping he was carried out to the garden and then was the house blowne vp to make the world belieue that it was but a casuall accident oâ— fire and so what semblance oâ— comparison is there betwene the Powder-treason of London and this VVhereto I answer that the semblaÌ„ce is very essential that both were Powder-treasons both of them traiterously directed by subiectes to the ouerthrow of their Princes and if that of Edenborough was not put in execution as M. Barlow saith but after the King was murthered no more was that of London God be thanked but was discâ—uered and defeated his Maiestie remayning in health and saâ—ety And how will M. Barlow now defend this position that they were not like in specie nor in indiâ—iduo VVill he not be ashamed to brag of Logike hearafter or to exprobrate the want thereof vnto me But we shall haue occasion to handle againe this matter in other passages that are to ensue But yet before we passe from this matter of the powder-treason let vs heare how he insisteth therein and triumpheth as to himselfe he seemth with all the most odious exaggerations that his venemous and virulent tongue accustomed to Satanicall maledictions can vtter in spite of Catholikes especially of Iesuites whom though neuer so innocent in that behalfe he will needes haue to be authors and actors in that foule crime And first of all he beginneth his railing with three or foure notorious lies at a clap as namely that Hall alià s Ouldcorne the Iesuite said of this plot when it was discouered that such actions are not commended â—ut wâ—en they are finished A thing most earnestly denied by hâ—m both at his death and other times And here M. Barlow is bare of alleadging any testimony at al for the same Secondly he saith that the Iesuits if the ParlameÌ„t house had burned would haue song with Nero the destructioÌ„ of Troy of this saith he doubteth not other proofs he alleageth none Thirdly he saith that they would haue graced it with no lesse Epithetes theÌ„ Sixtus the Pope did the murther of King Henry the third of France in his Panegyricke calling it A rare memorable fact this also hath no other proofe but his malicious coniecture togeather with the knowne lye of Pope Sixtus Panegyricke which was neuer yet heard of in Rome as Cardinall Bellarmine testifieth in his Booke who made diligent search to informe himselfe thereof Fourthly he saith that Garnet was the Coryphaeus of that complot principall priuy Counsellour and the like Whereas notwithstanding the very actes and examinatioÌ„s set forth by his Aduersaries doe checke this ministeriall malignity in that behalfe no more being proued therein but that full against his will and vnto his â—xceeding gâ—eat griefe he heard therof only in Confession not long before the matter brake forth And albeit Syr VVilliam oâ— â—inâ—olne for so the man would gladly be called do iest here at the obligation of concealing thinges heard in Confession calling it An enammeling of hideous treasons with the glorious pretence of Sacramentall Confession yet al true Bishops of Lincolne for more then fiue hundred years before himself that went in at the doore and stole not in at the window were of another opinion touching the sacred seale of that Sacrament all which must be daÌ„ned a most pitifull case if this Syr VVilliam can be saued that so contemneth the said seale of Secresy and betraied his Maister and Penitent that is said to haue made his Confession vnto him which though it were not Sacramentall being made to a meere Lay-man as I take Syr VVilliam to be yet was he bound by the law of natural secresy not to haue published the same without his licence and consent thereunto But as this Minister got his Bishoprick without Priest hood so no meruaile though he proceed not Priestly but prophanely therin And finally whereas he scoffeth so malignantly and inâ—emâ—erately at that innocent man Maister Garnet that loued peace no lesse then M. Barlow doth broiles and gaue his life for defence of the integrity of his Priestly function obligation being of as quyet a spirit as the other is turbulent whereas I say the Minister scoâ—â—eth and scorneth saying that his head and flesh was rotting vpon the bridge of London while his face did shyne in a straw for his goaly purity I can
the Lord sweare by his name But good Syr we doe not deny the lawfulnes of swearing either in abstract or â—onâ—ret but the sinne of false swearing when we take an Oath against our iudgement and conscience He goeth further Perhaps then the aggrieuance saith he is in the Epithete because it is a new Oath No syr But because it is a faile Oath when a man thinketh the thinges not true that he sweareth He goeth forward to proue that a new Oath may be lawfull when the occasion thereof is new But I denied not this and so M. Doctor beareth the ayre in vaine Yet will he not leaue of but taketh another medium to prove that this Oath is not new but old concerning the matter therof For that it is old saith he and hath byn vsuall in all nationâ— Christian and Heathen that subiectes should bind their allegiance by Oath â—or theiâ— Soueraigns security But who denieth this is it not a shame for a Doctor to wander vp down from the purpâ—sâ—e And yet will he pasâ—e further therin for lacke of better matter It is grounded saith he he meaneth of taking Oathes of fâ—delity to Princes vpon Scripture both in the examples of holy Kings and the Apostles definition of an Oath Hebr. 6. 16. nâ—melâ— That an Oath is the end of all contrâ—uersies Of which speach I graunt the former part concerning the examples of holy Kings that haue taken Oathes of their subiects though as I haue said it be little or nothing to ouâ— controuersyâ— Nor can I find Cardinall Bellarmines authority cited in the margent to this purpose in his 7. booke de Romano Ponâ—ifice he hauing written but fiue of that argument Nor doth it import to find it he saying nothing therein which we doe not confesse But as for the second part where M. Barlow bringeth in the Apostles definition of an Oath to be the end of all controuersies though I acknowledge it to be his sentence and most true yet not a definition Nor doe I see how M. Barlow wil be able handsomely to defend the same For if the common axiome of Logitians knowne to euery scholler that studieth that art be true that Definitio definiâ—uÌ„ conuertuntur so as whatsoeuer is comprehended vnder the one is comprehended also vnder the other and contrariwise whatsoeuer agreeth not to the one agreeth not to the other then cannot this proposition of the Apostle be a definition of an Oath and consequently M. Barlow doth erre grossely in calling it so Now then that this matter is so and that euery Oath cannot end all controuersies nor that euery controuersy is ended with an Oath is euident by experience For how many swearers haue you that will offer to sweare twenty Oathes in a controuersy betweene them and others if therby they might end and gaine the controuersy But the other party admitteth them not for that he hath not so much credit of sincerity in their Oath that they wll sweare truly as to belieue them And so also on the other side how many controuersies are there ended dayly without Oathes and many cannot with Oathes As for example if M. Barlow should owe a peece of money and being vrged to pay it should offer to forsweare it that were not like to end the controuersy but rather the laying downe of the money Ergo all Oathes are not able to end all coÌ„trouersies nor all controuersies are determinable by Oathes You will demaund then what is S. Paul his meaning when he saith as here M. Barlow relateth him that an Oath is the end of all controuersies Surely S. Paules meaning had bene cleare inough iâ— M. Barlow had let downe all the Apostles wordes as they lie in the text which are Homines enim per maiorem sur iurant omnis controuersiae eorum finis ad confirmaâ—â—â—â— est iuramenâ—um For men doe sweare by a greater then themselues and the end of all their controuersy for the confirmation is an oath The intention of the Apostle is to strengthen our hope in God for that he had confirmed his prâ—mises to vs by Oath which is the soundest confirmation that can be in the behalfe of the swearer for no man can adde of his part more to bind then an Oath And for this cause he saith That an Oath is the end of all controuersy for confirmatioÌ„ of truth in the behalf of the swearer â—or he can passe no further but not so in the behalfe of the other party that is interessed also in the coÌ„trouersy for if he should mistrust the swearers sincerity of conscience then would not his Oath be sufficient to end the controuersie as before we haue said consequently the speach of S. Paul in this place containeth no definitioÌ„ of an oath as fondly M. Barlow dreameth but expresseth rather the effect of an oath for confirmation of truth in the behalf of the swearer which word of confirmation M. Barlow craftily left out thrust in two greeke words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end of controuersie most impertineÌ„tly without aâ—y purpose in the world as otherwise often he doth to entaÌ„gle his vulgar Reader with osteÌ„tation oâ— greeke wheras these words haue no speciall propriety emphasis or different signification in the world so as he might as well put in a whole page of greeke out of S. Paules Epistles as those two words But these men as els where I haue aduertised doe seeke occasions of darkenes obscurity to hide the weakenes of their cause therin But lâ—t vâ— goe forward For hauing laboured all this while out of the list to proue the vse of Oathes to be lawfull and ancient which wee deny not in lawfull cases he commeth now to set downe the coÌ„â—rouersy more in particuler that is this very case saith he the Amilogiae or controuersie wherof is VVhether any Romish Catholike can beare any true Allegiance in his heart to â—he Kings Maiesty This Iesuit houldeth the â—ffiâ—matiue we by effect oâ— so many treasonable plots of â—riestâ— and Iesuites doe hould the contrary Yea the Priestes of the same religion are merely contradictory to him c. And therâ—ore his Maiestie hath taken this way of the Apostle to try the matter by both But good Syr are you not ashamed to trifle in this manner and to be taken euery foote in false consequences Where did you learne your Logicke Or where did you frame your consâ—ience If the question be Whether any Romish Catholicke can beare true Allegiance in his hart to the Kinges Maiestie how do you hould the negatiue vpon some effectes of treasonable plottes of Priesâ—es and Iesuites If it were true that such were sound doth the discouery of some such plotts in some Catholikes infer an impossibility that no Catholike can beare any true Allegiance How say you to the plots of France Flanders and Scotland and other parts do they conuince that no Protestaâ—t can be trusty Furthermore if it be impossible for
of hellish crimes neuer committed is spoken without booke vpon no greater ground then that he listeth to say and write so of her And this shall serue for the first point concerning his excessiue prayses of Queene Elizabeth though we shall haue occasioÌ„ to handle somewhat therof againe in the fourth point about her mortifications Touching the second point then of impotent and exorbitant railing albeit much were to be sayd yet doe I not meane to loose time in the repeating thereof or iniurie the eares of graue and modest men with hearing such contemptible matter it is reuenge inough for me to vnderstand by diuers wayes as I doe that his owne friends doe condemne him and thinke contemptuously of him for entring into such an odious kind of writing And for other that are different from him in religion though they thinke him not worthy of any Answere that taketh such a course yet haue I thought good for this once to bestow so much paynes as to runne his Booke ouer and to returne him answere to other points though not to this but yet so as by those other points which I handle the mans spirit may be so well knowne as none will meruayle that he tooke so dishonest and impudent a course of viruleÌ„t rayling As for the third poynt of sacrificing to the Manes or Ghostes of the dead Queene Elizabeth true it is that supposing my selfe to haue to do with a Minister that vsed the phrase in the case he did I noted it as Heathenish and prophane in respect of both words to wit sacrificing to Ghost especially Infernall himselfe being enemie to all Christian Sacrifice or prayers for soules Christianly departed or intercession to be made for them to Saints in heauen that are Supernall Ghosts and not Infernall By which occasion M. Barlow taketh matter to dilate himselfe much as he doth willingly when he findeth any thing to talke of though neuer so impertinent to proue that this phrase of sacrificing to dead Ghosts though it were proper to the Gentiles and Pagans may also be vsed of Christians in a good sense Especially sayth he it being vsed by his Maiesty as a borrowed phrase and vttered with a deprecatory parenthesis as it were in modesty asking leaue for the passage therof secretly therby insinuating that otherwise it was that which among the Rhetoritians is called audax Metaphora a bould Metaphore Wherunto I answere that with all these circumstaÌ„ces I see no difficulty but that the phrase may be vsed especially by audax Metaphora and by so great a Prince whose licence in speach good reason alloweth to be larger then other men nor had I euer put difficulty in the phrase if I had knowne it to haue come from his Maiestie But for a Minister to be so bould in his audacious Metaphors seemed not so tollerable so as in the thing it selfe supposing the former qualifications I haue no further controuersie But yet I must note that the arguments scraped togeather by M. Barlow for allowance of the phrase are nothing worth at all For that first the testimonies here quoted by him though at randome of S. Hierome S. Augustine S. Basill affirming that we may vse the learning of the Gentiles to the aduancement of Christian Religion as the Israelites did the spoyles of the AEgyptians are to be vnderstood of such poynts of their learning as may piously be applyed to our vse to wit their morall doctrine Histories Philosophy Examples Sentences Comparisons and the like but yet do not allow that we should vse the peculiar phrases of their Idolatrous worship about the mysteries of our Christian Religion as certaine new prophane companions of our age haue done I meane Castalio and others calling God Iupiter and our B. Lady Diana and the like Nor doe the other examples alleadged by M. Barlow for proofe and allowance of any such prophane vse makâ— anything to the matter in hand and consequently they are brought in by him to no purpose at all but to spend time and paper without vtility For what maketh it to our purpose if S. Luke in the narration of S. Paules nauigation to Rome doe say that the ship of Alexandria wherin he went had for his badge the signe of â—astor and Pollux the children of Iupiter according to the fables of Gentilitie Or what if S. Peter in his secoÌ„d Epistle speaking of the damnatioÌ„ of the wicked Angels do name these chaines of darknes wherwith they are bound in hel which words of chaines hell are to be found in Poets Is this a sufficient proofe that Pagan phrases concerning matters of religion may be vsed also in our Diuinity I pretermit his idle bringing in of S. Paul that vsed halfe a verse of Aratus a heathen Poet when he spake in the Councell house of the Areopagus in Athens as also Nazianzen Origen for vsing the two prouerbs Orci galea Plutonis cassis for that these things are lawfull as before we haue sayd nor haue they any similitude at all with the phrase in controuersie of sacrificing to Queene Elizabeths Manes for that this being heathenish in the sense of both words to wit of sacrificing and of Inâ—ernall spirits and applied by the Authour of the Apologie to the Christian duty to be performed to a Christian soule deceased conteyneth much more in it then those other Poeticall words vsed to no such end by the Christian Authours Nor is that worth the answering which is brought in out of the Epistle of Iustus Baronius not long since conuerted from Caluins Sect to the Catholike Church where recounting his iourney through Millaynâ— he sayth that amoÌ„gst other Reliques they were brought to see the shrine where the Manes Ambrosij iunioris Borrhâ—maei were conteyned that is to say the memory and reliques of the yonger Ambrose to wit Cardinall Borrhâ—maeus which M. Barlow thinketh to be a great testimony against me but indeed is none at all For nowsoeuer this man newly conuerted from being a Protestant did vse also some part of M. Barlâ—â—â—s audax Metaphora which he very well approueth and that this word Manes being vsed alone may metaphorically haue some such sense as the Reliques or memory of men departed yet did he not vse the whole phrase of parent are Manâ—aâ— to sacrifice vnto the Manes of any body departed whicâ— is not vsed or permitted in Catholike Religion to sacrifice vnto the reliques or memory of any man dead but only to offer sacrifice to God for them if they stand iâ— need therof And thus much for this ABOVT QVEENE Elizabeth her Mortifications And of the nature of that Vertue §. II. THere remaineth the fourth point coÌ„cerning Queene Elizabeths Mortifications and Peâ—nances voluntarily â—aken here in this life wherof I said by iust occasion giuen That if the old platforme of Saints liues prescribed in Scriptures and practised by the seruants of God were not erroneous and vayne as much fasting continuall prayer dayly
downe in his seauenth booke of his Visible Monarchy The seuere lawes also against them that refused to take the Oath of supremacy and should say or heare masse were made long befoâ—e this and put in practice so as this narration could not stand What replyeth M. Barlow to this Niâ—il ad Rhâ—â—â—â— sayth he the speach is here of lawes whose payne is death Yea Syr. And is it so I refer me to the wordes euen now recited out of the Apology that her Maiestie neuer punished any Papiâ—â—â—â—â— Religion that she was most free from all persecution doth not all any include other punishments besides death Moreouer when it is sayd that she neuer made any rigâ—â—ous lawes against Catholickes doth this only compreheÌ„d the lawes whose punishment is death To what straites is M. Barlow driuen here And yet if he doe remember well the oath of Supremâ—cie he cannot but know that the third refusall therof is also death So as euery way the poore man is taken OF QVEENE ELIZABETH HER FELICITIES and infelicities CHAP. II. AFTER this followeth another question betweene M. Barlow and me about the felicities or infelicities of Queene Elizabeth or rather betweene the Lord Iustice Cooke and me who hauing vpon diuers occasions to the exprobration of Catholicke men and religion whome she pursued in her life time enlarged himselfe extraordinarily in her exaltation calling her The happie Queene The blessed Queene and the like I was forced for defence of the truth to examine somewhat the grounds of this felicitie My words then were That the said Lord Cooke vpon the occasion of certaine words in Pope Clements Breue where Queene Elizabeth is named misera semina a miserable woman in respect no doubt of the miseries of her soule litle respected by her vpon which wordes the Oratour triumpheth thus What miserable it is sayd that miseria coÌ„stâ—s ex duobus contrarys copia inopia copia tribulationis inopia consolationis miâ—erie consisteth of two contraries of aboundance and penury aboundance of tribulation penury of consolatioÌ„ And then he sheweth in what abouÌ„dance of coÌ„solations Q. Elizabeth liued in al her life without waÌ„t of all tribulation which if it were true yet is it but the argument which the worldlinges vsed in the Psalme to proue their felicitie that their Cellars are full their sheep fertile their kine fat they suffer no losse and then Beatâ—â— dixeri nâ— populim cuiâ—ac sâ—nt happie did they call the people that had these things But the holy Ghost scorneth them and so may all men do our Oratour that vseth and vrgeth so base an argument in so high a matter And as for his definition of misery by copia and inopia store want it is a miserable one in deed neuer heard of before I thinke to come from any mans mouth but his owne it being ridiculous in Philosophy and fit to be applyed to any thing that hath eyther store or want As a wise man in this sort may be defined to be him that hath store of witt and want of folly and a foole to be him that hath store of follyâ— and want of wit and so a rich man is he that hath store of riches want of beggarie a poore man is he that hath store of beggarie penury of riches And are not these goodly definitions thinke you for so great and graue a man to produce Thus passed the matter then But now M. Barlow doth constitute himselfe Aduocate for the Iustice and if he plead his cause well he will deserue a good â—ee for the cause it selfe is but weake as preseÌ„tly you will behould The Lord Cooke sayth he who at the Arraignement of Garnet indignantly scorning that the high Priest of Rome should in a Breue of his call so great a Prince as Quene Elizabeth was Miseram Fâ—minam a miserable woman by a description of miserie consisting of two contraries want of comâ—ort and plenty of tribulation shewes by many reasons euident and demonstratiue that she hauing aboundance of ioy and no touch of affliction but blessed with all kind of felicities could not be called Miserable c. In which words I would haue you note first that wheras here he sayth that the Iustice shewed this by many reasons euident and demonstratiue within a dozen lines after he saith of these reasons But if they be not concluding demonstrations yet as least let them be probable perswasions which is quite contrary to that which he sayd before that they were euident and demonstratiue so soone the man forgetteth himselfe But to the matter it selfe that albeit all these temporall felicities ascribed to Queene Elizabeth had bene so many and so great as Syr Edward affirmeth them yet had it beene but the argument of worldlings who in the 143. Psalme did measure their felicity by their full Cellars were checked for the same by the holy Ghost by teaching them that not Beatus populus cui haec sunt but beatus populus cuius Dominus Deus eius consequeÌ„tly that Queene Elizabeth might haue these temporall felicities and yet be truly miserable in that sense wherin Pope Clement so called her to wit concerning the affaires of her soule and euerlasting saluation To this I say he answereth first by demanding why temporall prosperitie may not be made an argument of Gods loue to Queene Elizabeth and of her felicitie for so much as it is scored vp for one of the Notes of the true Church by Cardinall Bellarmine de Notâ—â— Ecclesiae Nota 15 Whereunto I answer that this temporall felicitie is not to our purpose for that Pope Clement spake of her spirituall infelicitie as hath bene shewed and that temporall felicitie doth not infer or argue spirituall felicitie euery man will confesse that hath spirit to discerne it for that the whole Scripture is ful of testimonies that wicked men and consequently miserable in soule haue bene temporally blessed by Almighty God made rich powerfull prosperous euen to the very affliction scandalizing as it were of the iust and vertuous but yet were they not happy for this but most miserable euen as those Israelites were that hauing their fill of quailes in the desert sent theÌ„ from God they had no sooner eaten them as the Scripture sayth adhuc escae eorum eraÌ„t in ore ipsorum ira Dei ascendiâ— super 〈◊〉 the meat was yet in their mouthes and the wrath of God did fall vpon them And he that shall read ouer the 72. Psalme shall see that it is altogeather of this matter to wit of Dauids admiration of the wealth and prosperitie of the wicked whose end notwithstanding he sayth to be most miserable aestimabam vt cognoscerem hoc labor est ante me donec intelligam in nouissimis eorum deiecisti eos dum alleuarentur I did thinke I could haue vnderstood this matter but it is harder then I imagined vntil I coÌ„sidered their ends thou
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
the consequeÌ„ce of this argument Wherunto I answere that I alleadged diuers reasons why our Catholick Priests dyed for religion not for treason First for that no such treason could be proued against them in the sense and iudgement of any indifferent man that was present at their arraignments to wit of the one hundred and thirty that before I mentioned Secondly for that the publike Registers themselues and Histories as Iohn Stâ—w and others in their Chronicles doâ— obiect no other treason to the most of them but only being Priests their taking of holy Orders beyond the seas which in no sense can be treason no more then the confessing of the blessed Trinitie can be made treason by the Trinitarians in Transiluania Thirdly for that they themselues dying did protest vpon their consciences as they should be saued they neuer meant treason in thought word or deed against Queene Elizabeth And then â—ourthly for confirmation of this I alleaged this other reason so much scorned by M. Barlow they hauing life offered them if they would renounce the Pope conforme themselues to the State they refused the same which he saith is a false and faulty inference and I say it is very good and true and that if M. Barlow had any moderate skill of the case according to the rules â—yther of Philosophy or Diuinity he would be ashamed to say as he doth in Philosophy it being a common axiome that omnis actus specificatur ab obiecto fiâ—e euery action is specified that is to say taketh his nature and essence from his obiect and end As if a man should kill one to gayne his goods this act hath both the nature of man-slaughter theft the first from the obiect the second from the end or intention of the doer which Philosophicall principle being applyed to our case doth euidently proue that the choice of death in him that hath life offered vpon conditioÌ„ he will doe some act against his faith as going to the Protestants Church is esteemed by Catholickes though otherwise he were nâ—uer so great a delinquent before is an act of Martyrdome for that it hath both the obiect and the end therof the obiect to wit death the end which is the profession of his faith And so if we passe to consider the same by Theologyâ— which more properly treateth of this vertue of Martyrdome the controuersy will be made much more cleare for that the word Martyrdome being a Greeke wordâ— and signifying a Testimony or bearing of witnesse as the word Martyr signifyeth him that yealdeth testimony or beâ—reth witnesse euery testmony or bearing of witnesse is not meant by the word Martyrdome but only such a testimony as is giuen by dying for God in the defeÌ„ce of some truth belonging to our faith either expressely impugned or implyed in the impugnation of some other vertue that containeth the sayd truth of our faith therin which last clause is added for that a man may be a true Martyr though he dye not for any expresse article of faith or part therof but it is sufficient that he dy for the defence of any one vertue as Chastity Obedience Iustice and the like according to the saying of our Sauiour Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam Blessed are they that suffer persecutioÌ„ for righteousnes And S. Iohn Baptist is acknowledged by all Deuines for a true Martyr although he died for no article of faith but for reprehending the incestuous marriage of King Herod with more libertie of speach and spirit then any such Prince-flatterer base mind as M. Barlow would euer haue done in the like case if we may ghesse at his vertue by his writing But to apply the former ground and vncontrollable principle to our present purpose in hand whether these Priests died for refuâ—ing the Oath of the Feminine Supremacy or for that they were made Priests beyoÌ„d the seas or â—or that they refused to come to your heretical seruiceâ— certaine it is according to the rules of Catholicke Diuinity that they died for deâ—ence of their faith or maintenance of vertue which is sufficieÌ„t to iustify their Martyrdomes hauing so great warrant and store of all manner of witnesses â—or the truth and doctrine they suffered for as might well in conscience assure them of the righteousnesse of their cause and that they died for that Religion in which all the Princes and people of Christendome for so many yeares ages both liued and died And wheras M. Barlow impugneth this by two cases or examples they are but so many arguments of his owne ignorance Let vs speake a word or two of them both The first is of Absolom putting the case that he was an Idolator as well as a traitor and that King Dauid after sentence passed against him â—or his treasons would acquite him froÌ„ death conditionally that he should renounce his Idolatry and that vpon reâ—usall he should be executed Shall we say sayth M. Barlow that he died â—or Religion or for treason We will say good M. Barlow that he died rather for false religion that is to say Idolatry then for treason and was the Diuels Martyr and none I thinke can deny the same vnles he be as ignorant as your selfe as shall further appeare by the answere to the next example which in effect is all one with this to wit that a yonger sonne should aspire his fathers death with hope to haue his riches and that being condemned his father should offer to saue him if he would go to Church and leaue his euil life of following queaneâ— c. Shall â—e say quoth M. Barlow that he is executed for his whore-domes or for this parâ—icide against his father But here I would aske M. Barlow why he leaueth out going to Church which was the first part of the condition and nameth only whore-domes no doubt but the honest man would haue the staying from the Church in Catholicks and whore-domes seeme to be companions But now I answere to his question that if he meane by refusing to go to Church such as is practised by Catholikes for Conscience sake and not to deny thereby the truth of the Catholicke faith which forbiddeth to go to hereticall Churches then dyeth he for the truth of his faith and consequently he is a Martyr But if he choose to dye for loue of wicked life and whoredome it is no cause of Martyrdome and consequently he is the Diuells Martyr as we said before of the Idolator But as for Parâ—icide cleere it is that he cannot be sayd to haue died for it properly as the immediate cause of his death for that it was remitted vnâ—o him and their passed another election on his mind to wit that he would leaue his old life so as â—or this he died propriè proximè properly and immediately and for the parricide only remotè occasiâ—naliter a far of and as from that which gaue the first occasion of his death What
during the time of the three King Henries 4. 5. and 6. and afterward when those that were called Lâ—llards and Wickelissians who as M. Fox saith were indeed good Protestants being pressed some what about their Religion did continually beate vpon this argument of libertie of Conscience and when they obteyned it not they set vâ— publicke schedles vpon the Church dores of London anâ— made â—hose famous conspiracyes of killing K. Henry the 5 d and all his family which are recounted by VVatsingham Stow Fox and other English Historiographers In this our age also the first opposition of Protestant Princes in Germanie against their Emperour Charles the 5. both at Smalcald Austburgh and other meetings as afterwards also the fierce and perilous warrs by the Duke of Saxony Marques of Brandeburge and other Protestant Princes and their people against the same Emperour begunne in the very same yeare that our K. Henry dyed were they not all for liberty of Conscience so pretended so printed so published so diuulged to the world The first Supplications Memorials and Declarations in like manner which the Protestants of France set forth in printâ— as also they of Holland Zeland in tyme of the gouernments as well of the Duchesse of Parma Duke of Alua Commendaâ—or Major and other Gouernours did they not all expresly professe that their principall griefes were about liberty of Conscience restrayned And did not they cyte many places of Scriptures to proue the equity necessity therof And do not all Protestants the like at this day in all places where they are both in Polonia Austria Bohemia Styria and els where And how then is Iordanis conuersus retrâ—rsâ—m with this Minister How is his voyce contrary to the voyce sense of all the rest How with what reason may he call it the height of pryde in English Catholicks to haue but hope therof which is so ordinary a doctrine practice of all his brethren in forraine nations to wit for vs to expect liberty of Conscience at the first entrance of our new King of so noble and royall a mynd before that tyme as he was neuer knowne to be giuen to cruelty or persecution in his former raigne The Sonne of such a Mother as held her selfe much beholden to English Catholicks And himselfe in his litle Golden Booke to his Sonne the Prince had confessed that he had euer found the Catholicke party most trusty vnto him and therupon had done sundry â—auours to diuers of them and giuen no small hope of greater vnto others From this King I say whom they so much loued and honoured receyued so gladly and with vniuersall ioy meant to serue faithfully trusted that as he had vnited the two Kingdomes in one Obedience by his Succession so would he by his liberality vnite and conioyne the harts of all his Subiects in bearing a sweet and equall hand towards them all From such a King I say for vs to expect liberty of Conscience and equality with other Subiects in this poynt at least of freedome of soule what height of pryde may it be called May it not rather seeme height of pryde in this Minister his fellowes that hauing byn old enemyes and alwayes borne a hard hatefull hand and tongue against his Maiestiâ— both in their Sermons Bookes Speaches all the tyme of the late Queenes raigne now vpon the suddayne sine vllis meritis praecedentibus will needs be so priuiledged assume vnto themselues such a confident presumption of his Maiesties speciall fauour as to suffer no man to stand by them but to hold it for height of pryde in vs to hope for any freedome and liberty of our Conscience at all What is height of pryde and folly if this be not These are my words in my former booke and now let vs behould what M. Barlow layeth forth agaynst the same First he beginneth with a pull at the Purytans though I neither named nor designed them but only sayd as now your haue heard that generally all sorts of Protestants neuer so humble or far of from height of pryde in theyr owne conceipt doe allow and desyre yea the more humble and vnderlinges they are the more earnest they insist both by bookes speach and preaching to proue that liberty of conscience is most conforme to Gods law c. Wherupon M. Barlow maketh this comment that by vnderlinge Protestantes I do meane them that doe seuer themselues from him and hiâ— in matter of ceremony and Church-gouerment who are not vnderlings sayth he because they are humble for that pryde only keepeth them aloofe It is not the inferiour place sayth he or the deiected vysage or the soft voyce or dislike of Prelacy that doth denominate humility And these are the notes belike that doe distinguish Puritans from the Protestants to wit the inâ—eriour place the deiected â—isage the soft speach dislike of Prelacy But yet I cannot but wonder to see him twice in this place to repeate that the difference betweene these brethren and themâ—eluesâ— is only in matters of Ceremony differing sayth he only in matters ceremoniall though before he added also Church-gouernment Whereby is euydent that he houldeth theyr Church-gouernment and Prelacy matter of ceremony only and consequently also his owne Prelacy and his being a Bishop is but a meere Ceremony and no substantiall matter in their Religion Now then let vs see what ensueth vpon this and what honour and seruice M. Barlow doth to his whole Cleargy and namely to his old Maister and Lord of Caâ—terbury by this his new doctrine Is all the dignity and preheminence which his sayd Lord hath aboue all the Ministers in England his superiority ouer the Cleargy his being Archbishop Primate his spirituall Iurisdiction his Courtes of the Arches his power of dispensations his making Ministers and giuing them power to preach â—each administer SacrameÌ„ts Is all this but a ceremony Or do the Puritans in denying and impugning this impugne but a ceremony and no poynt of Religion it selfe Truely then must I say that their cause against you is far better then I euer hitherto esteemed it to be For if all these thinges be but ceremonies and contayne no substaÌ„tiall poynt of religion why do you that in other things professe your selues enemies to Ceremonies stand so much vpon them to the disturbance of the whole Realme But of this I shall haue occasion to speake againe a little after and to lay open your absurdities in this euaâ—ion Now only will I say a word to your argumeÌ„t which heere you make against vs for toleration or liberty of coÌ„scienceâ— If tâ—ese humble vnderlings say you dwelling amongst 〈◊〉 â—â—â—d differing only from vs in matters ceremoniall are not heard in their suite of liberty of conscience how much lesse those who in poyntes essentiall and fundamentall are seuered from vs may not be tolerated Wherunto I answere that if we respect reason and iustice in
is of your owne thrusting in and put in place therof that the sayd Sonne may be the sooneâ— induced to graâ—t them that liberty in respect of their former dutifulnes and loyalty to his mother in her distresses and the consequence will not be euill To the third of his Maiesties confessed experience of the loyalty of Catholickes both towards himselfe and his Mother in their distresâ—es he sayth That his Maiesty nameth not Catholiâ—kes at all in his said Booke but only prosesseth that be found none so stedfastly to abide by him in his greatest straites as they which constantly kept their true Allegiance to his Mother Well Syr and who I pray you were they Catholickes or Protestants Let the acts of those times be seene the Authors noted the effectes considered Yet sayth M. Barlow noâ— iâ— is very probable that when his Maiesty hath cast vp his accompt of forâ—er disloyalties he shall â—ind the moderate â—nd dirâ—ct Protestantâ— that incliâ—es neither to right hand nor left to be the first and faithfâ—ll subiect Well Syr this may be pâ—rhaps fâ—â— the time to come for your selâ—e saith thaâ— it is but probable but for the time pâ—st his Maiestie hauing now cast vp his accompts hath found that reckonyng as he hâ—th set it downe And the common rule of wisdome is to beleeue as we haue found vntill different experience teach vs the contrary And by the way we mustâ— learne here M. Barlowes new deuised epithetons of a moderate and direct Protestant that as he sayth is neythâ—r Iesuâ—ted nor Geneuated that is neither Catholicke nor Puryâ—an but moderate and direct that is to say moderate in not belieuing to much on any sâ—de if it stand not with his profit and direct in following iump the Prince and State that may aduance him whatsoeuer they should determine in matters of religion This is the man by M. Barlowes direction vpon whome his Maiestie must buyld and not the Purytan or zealous Catholicke for that they are ouer scrupulous I could wish that M. Barlow had bene a litle more scrupulous in the very next ensuing number where without all blushing he casteth out two notorious lyes agaynst Father Pâ—rsons to make him odious thereby to his Maiestie saying first that he pronounceth his sayd Maiestie to be a desperate and â—orlorne hereticke but cyteth no place where it is to be found nor indeed is there any such place to be found where Father Personâ— vseth any such words as euer I could yet see Secondly he alleadgeth for Father Persons expresse words these That whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant is a most grieuous and damnable sinner and citeth for the same Dâ—lâ—man pag. 216. which quotation serueth only to condemne M. Barlow of a notorious wilfull calumniation for that these expresse wordes are not there found nor is there any mention of the Succession of a Protestant but in generall is sayd thus That for any man to giue his help towards the making of a King whome he iudgeth faulty in religion and consequently would aduance no religion or the wrong if â—e were in authority is a grieuous sinne of what syde soeuer the truth be c. So as neither Protestant nor Succession is named in this place but mâ—king of a King by such as my haue authority to doe the same and it may as well hould agaynst the entrance of a Catholicke Prince as of any other sect whatsoeuer And consequently both of these are sâ—landerous accusations the first being a meere inuented vntruth and the second a malicious peruerted calumniation so as in respect of both I may well say with the Prophet Dilexisti omnia verba praecipitationis lingua dolosa and I pray God the threat next insuing do not take place Propterea Deus destruct to in finem c. I desyre not his destruction but his amendment After this followeth in my foresaid Letter a narration of the Dutifull demeanour of Catholickes towardes his Maiestie euen from his first entrance and how by the vniust perswasions of their enemyes they began quickly to feele his hard hand borne ouer them euen before the powder-plot as by the confirmation of all Queen Elizabethâ— penal lawes in the first yeare of his Maiesties raigne with the execution therof afterward doth well appeare wherof many particuler examples are set downe and among other things it is touched as a matter of speciall disfauour that his Maiestie vouchsafing in his owne Royall Person to giue publicke audience both to Protestants and Purytâ—â— for 3. dayes togeather concerning the differences of their Religion no such grace at all was graunted vnto Catholickes Vpon which words M. Barlow stayeth himselfe and maketh this coÌ„mentary It is a strange humour sayth he that this Epistler hath iâ— he sayth truth he lyeth It is true there was a conference but about difference in Religion it is vtterly false sayâ—â— they would possesse the world that we are at iar among our selues abâ—â—â— our Religion whereas the quarrell though it be indeed vnkind yet it iâ— not in this kinde saue only for Ceremonyes externall no poynt substâ—â—tiall c. But now of this I haue spoken somewhat before shewing that if this vnkinde quarrell betweene Protestaâ—â—s Purytans as he calleth it be only about externall Ceremonies then is both his Prelacy and that of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop only an externall Ceremony And if his phrase of vnkind quarrell be of the same kind that he mentioned before to be in Queene Elizabeth towards Queene Mary of Scotland whose heâ—d she cut ofâ— then is the matter somewhat substantiall not only Ceremoniall and indeed he that shall consider what the Purytan in this vnkind quarrell pretendeth agaynst the Protestant and his Church shall see that he striketh at the head indeed or rather striketh of the head of the sayd Church whether we consyder either the externall and ministeryall head thereof to wit the Princes Ecclesiasticall power and of Bishops vnder him or the internall head metaphorically taken for the life spirit and essence of the sayd Church in denying it to be a true Christian Church but only a prophane Congregation without any spirituall power at all This appeareth by all the course and drift of Puritan wryters and bookes extant of the differences acknowledged also by Protestant writers in their Treatises against them so as to me it seemeth not only a shameles bouldnes to deny it as M. Barlow here doth but a shamâ—full basenes also and beggary so to runne after their enemyes intreating them to haue some association with them whereas the other do both contemne and detest them For this falleth out not only in this case but also with the Lutherans whom M. Barlow and his fellowes when they deale with vs will needes haue to be theyr brethren of one and the same Church fayth and beliefe for all substantiall poyntes of doctrine Whereas the Lutherans on the other syde do both deny
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
Sacraments care of soules possessing Cures and Benefices absoluing from sinnes spirituall iurisdiction and all Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy deryued from hence And are all these thinges only Ceremoniall without substance or essence of religion Doth M. Barlow discharge his duty of a Champion eyther towardes his king or his old Lord from both which it seemeth alâ—eady he hath receaued large fees in bringing both their authorities in Ecclesiastical matters to be meere Ceremonies No man I thinke will sue to be his Clyent hereafter iâ— he can plead no better But let vs yet see a little further how he hath aduanced his Maiestyes spirituall authority Thus he writeth of his being Moderator in the Conference betwene the Puritans and Protestants This difference sayth he about thinges indifferent his Maiesty desirous to reconcile vouchsafed his Princely paynes to moderate mediate In which wordes first doe you note againe his often repetition that they were thinges indiffereÌ„t to wit whether his Maiesty should haue Supreme Primacy in Church causes or renounce the same and cast it downe togeather with his Scepter before the Presbytery of the Puritans and whether the Lord of Canterbury should leaue of his Lordship and Graceship and become a simple Minister equall with the rest And so likewise M. Barlow himselfe to leaue the Sea of Lincolne and title of Lordship which none that knowes the humor of the man will imagine that he holdeth for a thing indifferent or a meere Ceremony This I say is the first Notandum for if these things be indifferent what need so much a doe about them And the second Notandum is that he saith that his Maiesty did moderate and mediate in this Conference which is a very moderate and meane word indeed to expresse so high and eminent Authority Ecclesiasticall as sometimes they wil seem to ascribe vnto his Maiesty For who cannot moderate or mediate in a Conference if he haue sufficient learning and knowledge of the cause though he haue no eminent authority at all to decide the same But who shall determine or define the Controuersy Here no doubt M. Barlow wil be in the brakes For that a little after being pressed with the free speach and deniall of S. Ambrose vnto Valentinian the Emperour when he medled in Ecclesiasticall affairs and in particuler when he sent for him by Dalmatius a Tribâ—ne with a Notary to come and dispute in the Consistory before him his Counsell and Nobility with the Hereticall Bishop Auxenâ—ius S. Ambrose refused vtterly to goe yeelding for his reason that in matters of faith and religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops which deniall M. Barlow well alloweth saying that Ambrose did well in it and sayd well for it his fact and reason were both Christianlike But suppose that his Maiesty had sent for the Bishops to dispute and confer with the doctors of the Puritan party in his presence as the Emperour Valentinian did S. Ambrose that they had refused to come with the same reasoÌ„ that S. Ambrose did would M. Barlow that wrote the Conference haue defended the same as good and lawful Or would his Maiesty haue taken the same in as good part as ValentiniaÌ„ did I doubt it very much as also I doubt whether S. Ambrose if he had disputed would haue suffered ValentiniaÌ„ suppose he had bin learned to haue moderated mediated in that disputatioÌ„ as M. Baâ—low saith his Maiesty did in this But if without effect that he could not conclude who should giue iudgment of the matter The Bishops They were party and theyr whole interest lay therein The Puritan Doctors They were also a party and therby partiall His Maiesty could not doe it according to M. Barlowes doctrin in this place if any point of religion were handled therein Who then should iudge or giue sentence The Church saith M. Barlow in another place But who maketh that Church Or who giueth authority of iudgement to that Church if the supreme Head and gouernour haue it not in himself Do you not see how intricate this matter is hard to resolue And according to this as it seemeth was the effect and consequence of this meeting if we belieue M. Barlow himselfe who maketh this question Did thâ—se great and Princely paynes which his Maiesty tooke with the Puritâ—ns worke a generall conformity And then he answereth VVith the iudicious and discreet it did wherof M. Barlow was one but the rest grew more aukward and violent So he But all this while if you marke it there is nothing said to the point for which all this was brought in to wit why the like fauour had not beene shewed to Catholikes for a Conference also with them about their Religion M. Barlow doth touch some number of reasons as that our opinions doe touch the very head and foundation of religion That his Maiesty was perfect in all the arguments that could be â—rought for the aduerse part and that he throughly vnderstanding the weaknes of them held it both vnsafe and vnnecessary to haue them examined That the Protestant religion being throughly well placed and hauing so long continued is not now to be disputed c. Which reasons being either in themselues fond or against himselfe I will not stand to refute One only contradiction wil I note that our argumeÌ„ts being so weake yet that it should be vnsafe to haue them examined and that the long continuance of Protestant religion in England should make it indisputable whereas more then ten times so long prescription of Catholike religion could not defend it by shew of a conference or dispute hâ—ld at VVestminster at the beginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne when the same was changed and put out And finally I will end this with a notable calumniation insteed of a reason vttered by M. Barlow why this Conference ought not to be granted to Catholikes for sooth For that euen in their common petition for toleration they â—isâ—hed his Maiesty to be as great a Saint in heaueÌ„ as he is a King vpon earth shewing thereby saith he that gladly they would be rid oâ— him but wâ—ich way they care not so he were not here And may not this Prelate now beare the prize for calumniation and Sycophancy that out of so pious an antecedent can inferre so malicious a consequent The Catholickes doe wish vnto his Maiesty both life present and euerlasting to come here a great King and there a great Saint M. Barlow seemeth not to care much for his eternity so he may enioy his temporality by the which he himselfe gayneth for the present and hopeth euery day to do more more it importâ—th him litle how great a Saint his Maiestie be in heauen so vpon earth he liue longe to fauour him and to furnish him with fat benefices And thus he inforceth me to answere him contrary to my owne inclination for repressing somewhat his insolent malignant speach which is the most
he sayth that therin I do abuse the Reader for that they shewed their obedience sayth he to be due and performed the same in matters of spirituall seruice wherat I thinke no man can but laugh that M. Barlow is become so spirituall as that he can make those Infidell Kings to be spirituall Superiours also or at leastwise to haue spirituall power euen in spirituall thinges ouer Gods faithfull people Let vs see his proofes of so strange an assertion To offer sacrifice saith he vnto the Lord in the desert is an â—igh case of conscience and religion yet would not the Iewes in Egypt attempt it without asking and obtayning the Kings leaue And why was that Was it for that they held him for their supreme Gouernour in all causes Ecclesiastiacll and temporall Then they ought to haue obeyed him when he would haue had them offered sacrifice in Egypt which they refused to doe for that their spirituall gouernour Moyses though a naturall borne subiect of King Pharao â—ould them that Gods will was contrary and as for their asking and obtayning leaue before they went to sacrifice in the Desert who doth not see but that it was in respect of temporall danger which might ensue vnto them if so great a number of their vnarmed people should haue aduentured to depart without his licence But I would demaund of M. Barlow who sayth that the people of Israel shewed their obedience to be due vnto Pharao and performed it in matter of spirituall seruice what manner of obedience was that which came alwaies in the Imperatiue mood Thus saith our Lord Dimitte populum meum Let go my people And when he yeelded not therunto he was plagued and punished with so many afflictions as are set downe in Exodus for 9. or 10. Chapters togeather in the end what leaue obtayned they but against his will when he durst no longer deny them Which appeareth for that his feare being somewhat mitigated he pursued them afterward againe And will M. Barlow make this an example of spirituall obedience to temporall Princes that was thus extorted Or of spirituall iurisdiction in heathen Princes ouer faithfull people in causes Ecclesiasticall that was contradicted both in word and fact by Moyses himselfe But let vs heare his second instance for it is more ridiculous So saith he the commaundement of King Cyrus was in a cause meerly Ecclesiasticall viz. the building of the Lords house in IerusaleÌ„ and transporting thither the consecrated vessels But who doth not see that these things as they were ordayned by King Cyrus were meere temporall as is the building of a materiall Church for that otherwise the Masons Carpenters Architects that build the same should be Ecclesiastical officers albeit they were Gentiles If King Cyrus had had authority to appoint them out their sacrifices to dispose lawfully of their sacred actions therein as he had not nor could haue being a Pagan and not of their faith religion then might they haue sayd that he had beene a spirituall Superiour vnto them but for giuing them leaue only to go to Ierusalem to build their Temple and to carry their consecrated vessels with them that had been violeÌ„tly taken away from thence argueth no more spirituall iurisdiction in him then if a man hauing taken away a Church-dore key so as the people could not go in to pray except he opened the dore should be said to haue spirituall iurisdictioÌ„ ouer that people for opening the dore letting them in that they in praying him to open the said dore did acknowledg spiritual obedience vnto him And is not this meere childish trifllng worthy the wit of M. Barlow What definition trow you will M. Barlow giue of spirituall power and Iurisdiction therby to verifie these monstrous and absurd propositions which in this affaire he hath vttered partly by his assertions and partly by his examples Truly I know no other set downe by Deuines but that it is a power giuen by God to gouerne soules for their direction vnto euerlasting saluation euen as ciuill power is giuen for gouerning the coÌ„mon wealth to her prosperity and temporall â—elicity And will M. Barlow say that God gaue this spirituall power to Pharao and Cyrus that were Heathens and knew not God for gouerning directing the soules of the Iewes that liued vnder them whose religion or God they neyther knew nor cared for Or that Nero the Emperour or Claudius had this spirituall power and Iurisdiction vpon the soules of S. Peter and S. Paul that liued vnder them in Rome and were their temporall Lordes and Princes These thinges are so absurd that I am ashamed to exaggerate them any further and therfore let vs passe forward to the rest As for the other examples by me alleaged how Sydracâ—â— Mysach and Abdenago refused to obey Nabuchodâ—â—â—sor their King in adoring the Statua as also refuâ—ing the meates of the King of Babylon Toby of the Assyrians and the Macâ—abees for refusing to eat Swines-flesh at the commandment of their King Antiochus he sayth that all these had their warrants for defence of their consciences from the word or will of God as who should say Catholickes haue nothing for iustification of their Conscience which is a meere cauill and as Logitians call Petitio principij and wholy from the question for that we affirme first that they haue sufficient groundes for iustification of their consciences in that behalfe as they will easily verify in euery point if they might be hard with any indifferency And secondly if they had not but their consciences were erroneous yet so long as that dictamen rationis or prescript of conscience standeth to the contrary and telleth them that they haue sufficient ground they may not doe against it without sin as now hath bene proued Let vs see what he saith of the other example of Tobies breach of King Senacherib his commaundement in Niniue which wee shall examine in the next ensuing Paragraph VVHETHER TOBY DID well or no in breaking the commaundement of the King of Niniâ—e concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authorities of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy §. II. AMong other examples and testimonies alleaged by me out oâ— Scripture of lawfull disobeying temporall Princes commaundements when they are vnlawfull the exaÌ„ple of Tobias that disobeyed the edict of King Senacheriâ—â— of Niniue about burying such as were slayne seemed to haue troubled most M. Barlow in this answere and so after some discussion of the matter vp and downe whether he did it openly or in secret by day or by night by stealth or contempt he maketh this conclusion Take it eyther way sayth he was his disobedience in such a cause iustifiable No. Grauely resolued as you see and Doctour-like but yet without any testimony except only his owne For first the context of the story it selfe hauing recounted the circumstances of the fact in the
that he in the day of iudgment to wit our Saâ—iour will giue reward for our good works almes is now also ready to shew himselâ—e a most benigne heater to him that shall come vnto him by prayer works and so did Cornelius the Centurion merit to be heard as doing many almes vpon the people sayth the Scripture And when about nyne of the clocke the sayd Centurion prayed an Angell stood by him and gaue testimony of his good works saying Cornelius thy prayers and almes haue ascended vp before God citò orationes ad Deum ascendunt quas ad Deum merita nostâ—i operis imponunt Our prayers do quickly asceÌ„d vnto God which the merits of our good works do lay before him c. And preseÌ„tly with this Scripture he ioyneth the other out of Toby Sic Raphel Angelus c. So the Angel Raphael did testify vnto Toby alwayes praying alwayes working wheÌ„ thou didst pray togeather with Sara I did offer the memory of thy prayer in the sight of God when thou didst bury the dead and leaue thy dinner for doing the same I was sent by God to tempt thee and afterward to cure thee I am Raphael one of the seaâ—en iust Angels who do assist conuerse in the sight of God c. Where we see that S. Cyprian maketh another manner of accompt of the holynes and meryt of this worke and of the truth of this Angell then M. Barlow doth And the very self same speach S. Cyprian vseth in his booke de Mâ—â—talitate alleadging this place of Toby and testimony of the Angell Raphael in the commendation of Tobies fact in burying the dead against the Kinges commandement So as white and black hoat and cold or the two poles are not more opposite one to the other then the spirit of S. Cyprian and that of M. Barlow in this point And truly it seemeth that a man may gather by good consequence that for so much as he condemneth that fact of Toby in burying the dead bodies of the Iewes in persecution he would also if he had bene there not only not haue buried these dead bodies against the Kings Edict but also neyther haue receaued the persecuted into his house agaynst the commaundement of the sayd King Nay he would haue rather deliuered them vp to the persecutors hands and the like if he had liued amongst Christians vnder Nero Domitius and Dioclesian And this is M. Barlows piety in respect of that of holy Toby and S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Augustine and other such sincere pious men who both approued and commended this fact Now let vs passe on to the rest After these examples of Scriptures there were alleadged by the Apologer sundry authorityes of ancient Fathers which shew the obligation that subiects haue to obey their temporall Princes which in my Letter I declared no way to preiudice our cause who both acknowledge and offer all dutifull obedience in temporall affaires which is so much as the sayd ancient Fathers doe teach and for that the sayd authorityes are cleare for vs in that behalfe I shall â—et downe here what I answered to the same As these places of Scripture said I alleaged against vs do make for vs so much more do the authorities produced out of the ancient Fathers for that they go about to proue the very same point that we here hold that in teÌ„porall cyuill affayres we must obey dutifully our temporall Princes though Infidels or Pagans but not in matters concerning God our Religion or Conscience And his very first example out of S. Augustine is such as I meruaile much that he would cyte the same but that somwhat for shew must be alleadged For it maketh so clearly directly against him as if it had beene written purposely to confute him in this our case But let vs heare what it is Agreable to the Scriptures saith he did the Fathers teach Augustine speaking of Iâ—dian saith thus Iulian was an vnbelieuing Emperour was he not an Apostata an oppressor and an Idolatour ChristiaÌ„ souldiars serued that vnbelieuing Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they would acknowledge no Lord but him that is in heauen when he would haue them worship Idolls sacrifice they preferred God before him but when he said Go forth to fight inuade such a nation they presently obeyed they distinguished their eternall Lord from their temporall and yet were they subiect euen vnto their temporall Lord for his sake that was their eternall Lord and Maister Thus he And can any thing be spoken more cleerly for vs and for our cause then this For euen this do we offer to our King Soueraigne we will serue him we wil obey him we will go to warre with him we will fight for him and we will do all other offices belonging to temporall duty but when the cause of Christ commeth in hand who is Lord of our Consciences or any matter concerning the same or our Religion there we do as S. Augustine heere appoynteth vs preferre our eternall King before our Temporall And like to these are all the other places of Fathers cyted by him who distinguish expresly betweene the Temporall honour and Allegiance due to the Emperour and the other of our Religion Conscience belonging only to God And to that playne sense are Tertullians words cyted by the Apologer VVe honour the Emperour in such sort as is lawfull for vs and â—xpedient for him as a man second after God and as hauing receyued from God whatsoeuer he is and only lâ—sse thâ—n God And will not the Catholicks of England vse this speacâ— also vnto their King Or will the Apologer himselfe deny that Tertullian heere meant nothing els but in temporall affayres for somuch as the Emperors at that tyme were Heathens Gentils and consequently were noâ— to be obeyed in any point against Christian faith or Religion The like playne sense haue the words of Iustinâ—â— Martyr to the Emperour himselfe cited here in the third place to wit VVe only adore God and in all things we cheerfully performe seruice to you prosessing you to be Emperours and Princes of men And do not all English Catholickes say the same at this day in all other things that concerne not God his Obedience by rule of Catholicke Religion they offer cheerfully to serue his Maiesty acknowledging him to be their liege Lord and King inferiour only to God in his Temporall Gouernment And how then are these and such other places brought in for witnesse as though they had somewhat to say against vs The other two sentences in like manner cited out of Optatus and S. Ambrose the first saying That ouer the Emperour there is none but only God that made the Emperour And the other That teares were his weapons against the armes and souldiars of the Emperour That he neither ought nor could resist neyther of theÌ„ do make
colour of this power to discerne spirits giuen theÌ„ by M. Bâ—â—loâ— out of the words of S. Iohn there would neuer be an end And lastly it appeareth by all this that his lâ—st distinction wherin he sayth that the King may iudge for the truth and not of the truth is a meere delusion giuing somewhat in wordes but nothing in deed for that if the iudging for the truth be nothing els but to execute allow and approue that which others haue defined determined and appointed out vnto him to be belieued and defended as the truth then hath he no more free choice or superiority in iudgment in this case then euery subiect or common man who is likewise bound to belieue and defend the same according to his ability and power Now then to conclude the matter and to reduce all to a briefe summe for so much as M. Barlow taketh away from his Maiesty of England not only the title and style Of Head of the Church which was giuen to King Henry and confirmed to King Edward but the Papall authority in like manner for decision of matters which was ascribed vnto them both by Parlament and confirmed to Queene Elizabeth and here saith that he cannot iudge in cases of religion and fayth iudicio definitiâ—o to define and determine any thing but only execuâ—iuo to execute what the Church of England to wit what the Bishops shall define and ordayne and for somuch as he addeth yet further now in that which before we haue discussed three other particuler cases out of S. Ambrose wherin he conâ—esâ—eth that his Maiesty hath no authority but may be resisted to wit if he should call before him a Bishop to dispute with another of a different religion as Valenâ—inian did S. Ambrose and he denyed him If he should commaund a Bishop to deliuer ouer a Church to a people of a different religion and if he should command a Bishop to deliuer vp the Veâ—els of his Church as the said Empeâ—ouâ— did and the â—ther refused to obey all these things I say laid â—ogeâ—tâ—er â—ut of M. Barlows doctrine do so much diminish the greatnes of his Maiesties Supreme power in causes Ecclesiasticall as in effect it commeth to be no more thâ—n Catholike doctrine doth ordinarily allow to euery Catholicke Temporall Prince for the obseruance and execution of that which the Church determineth And this is M. Barlâ—â—â—â— heroycall exployt to marre the matter he takes in hand for his Clyent Let euery man iudge how well he hath deserued the good fee which already he hath recâ—aâ—ed for his plea and hopeth to receaue more hereafter if he may speed according to his expectation OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE Or Iâ—stance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall §. III. THERE followeth another controuersy betweene M. Barlow me about a certayne fact of S. Gregory the Great concerning the Law of Mauritius the Emperour prohibiting souldiars and such as were accomptable to the Emperours Courtes for offices borne by them to enter into monasteries and professe a religious life without his licence whereof I wrote thus in my letter Neyther doth the last place cited out of S. Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauritius make any thing moâ—e for our Apologers purpose of taking Oathes against Conscience For albeit the same Father do greatly complaâ—ne in diuers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius whome though otherwise a Catholike Emperour he compareth in that poynt to Nero and Dioclâ—siâ—n saying Quid Nero quid Dioclesiâ—â—â—s qâ—id deâ—ique isteâ— qui â—oc tempore â—â—â—lesiam persequitur Nâ—mqâ—â—◠〈◊〉 omnes porta Inferi Whâ—t was Nero What was Dioclesâ—â—â— what is he who at this time doth persecute the Church Are they not all gates of Hell Yet in this place alleaged by the Apologer he yealded to publish and send abroâ—d into diuers Countreys and Prouinces a certayne vniust law of the sayd Emperours that prohibited Sâ—uldiars and such as had bene imployed in matters of publike accompts of the CoÌ„mon-Wealth to make theÌ„selues Monks Wâ—ich law though S. Gregory did greatly mislike and wrote sharply agaynst it to the Emperour himselfe yet to shew his due respect in temporall thinges vnto him and for that indeed the law was not absolutly so euill but that in some good sense it might be tolerated to wit that Souldiars sworn to the Emperours wars might not during the said Oath obligation be receaued into Monasteries but with the Princes liceÌ„ce yet for that it tended to the abridgmeÌ„t of Ecclesiastical freedome in taking that course or state of life which ech man chooseth for the good of his soule S. Gregoâ—y misliked the same and dealt earnestly with the Emperour to relinquish it or to suffer it to be so moderated as it might stand without preiudice of Christian liberty wherunto the Emperour at length yeelded and so S. Gregory sent the same abroad vnto diuers Primates and Archbishops of sundry Kingdomes mentioned by him but corrected first and reduced by himselfe as supreme Pastour to a reasonable lawfulnes and temperate moderation to wit that those who had borne offices of charge in the Common-wealth and after desired to be admitted to religious life in Monasteries should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their full accompts and had obtayned publicke discharge for the same And that Souldiars which demanded the like admittaÌ„ce should be exactly tryed and not admitted vnto Monasticall habite but after they had liued three yeares in their lay apparell vnder probation This determineth S. Gregory in his Epistle beginning Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi Vrbicio Dyrachitano c. adding further in the same Epistle as hath bene said De qua re Serâ—issâ—mus Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur about which matter our most Clement and Christian Emperour is wholy pleased and content So as in this S. Gregory shewed his pastorall care and power in limiting and moderating the Emperours law according to the law of God though in temporall respectes he shewed him the Obedience that was due vnto him But what is this vnto our Oath May we thinke that S. Gregory that would not passe a temporall law of the Emperour without reprehension of the vnlawfulnes thereof to the Emperour himselfe and correction therof in the publication for that indirectly it did infringe the liberty of Religious life when men were called therunto that he would not haue much more resisted the admission of an Oath about such affaires if it had bene proposed No man I thinke in reason can imagin the contrary To this declaration of mine M. Barlow beginneth his reply thus But that of Gregory saith he toucheth the very quicke who as he thought his duty discharged to God in shewing the reasons why he disliked the Law so did he performe it very readily to the Emperour in promulging
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
Oath and Indenture articles and Prouiso's is only in sound of words and not in substance for that in making an Indenture and the Prouiso's therof both parts must agree that the breach of euery such Prouiso shal forfeit the whole for that otherwise euery such Prouiso doth not euacuate the whole Indenture or make it naught But herein framing this new Oath and the articles therof there is not the consent or agreement of al those that are required to take the Oath nor obligatioÌ„ of conscience to agree but rather to the contrary they are bound by the principles of their religion to disagree and disclaime against the same as preiudicial to their soules So as here those articles or different clauses are not as Prouiso's agreed vpon as in an Indenture but rather as points and conditions proposed and required by the Landlord wherof the Tenant may by right deliberate and consider whether they stand wel for him or noe And if not he may refuse them or at the least so many as he shal thinke to be hurtful or iniurious vnto him Neither is the denyal of any one or more the denial of al as M. Barlows bad Diuinity and worse Philosophy presumeth to teach men that it is But yet before I end this matter on which he standeth so much I would demand him further whether this his assertion be not general concerning al Kings and he may not wel deny it for that his reason is general as presently ensueth saying The King being once in lawful possession whosoeuer shal say that he may be deposed for any cause denieth that he is lawfull King Wherupon it followeth that the Kings of France Spaine also are no lawful or true Kings in the opinion of their subiects for that they al with vniforme consent do hould this doctrine of the Church that Kings and Princes may in some cases â—e excommunicated and deposed Saul also was neuer lawful King for that he was deposed or els must we say that God did him iniury in deposing him It followeth also by this inference of M. Barlow that if a man should deny to sweare to the last clause only of al the Oath to wit that he sweareth al the former articles hartily willingly and truly vpon the faith of a Christian So help him God c. doth deny to acknowledg King Iames to be lawfull King which is another point of parasitisme more ancient perhaps then the former especially if you adde therunto his propositions vsed here to that effect as namely that if he were once lawful he â—â— ouer soâ—â—or thâ—◠〈…〉 neither intended nor remitted that vnlawâ—ulnes oâ— title 〈…〉 with it the casuality of deposing that no varying in religion 〈◊〉 altering of manners 〈◊〉 misordering a Common wealth 〈…〉 his title that only a King can say to God tibi soli pâ—â—â—ani that whosoeuer deâ—ieth not to the Pope a deposingâ— power deâ—ieth to 〈◊〉 King the lawâ—ulnes of hâ—â— Inuestitureâ— and doâ—â—â—ion that let a â—ing 〈◊〉 he will for his religion and gouernment if he hath right to the 〈◊〉 his subiects must indure c. And wil you not say now that M. Barlow is as good a Chaplaine for the King as he is a Champion that is to say as good a Ghostly Father of spirituall counsaile and resolution of caseâ— of Conâ—cience as he is a valiant defendour of whatsoeuer was set down before in the Apology But inough herof VVHETHER THE FOVRTH COVNCELL OF TOLEDO Did prescribe any such set forme of Oath to be exhibited to the Subiects as is affirmed in the Apology CHAP. II. BVT now we must passe to another contemplation about a certain Councel of Toledo in Spaine alledged by the Apologer for authorizing and iustifying of this new oath not only allowed but decreed also as he sayth in that ancient Councel to wit the fourth of Toledo I shall alleadg his words togeather with my answere therevnto at that time And that the world saith he may yet further se his Maiesties and whole States setting downe of this Oath did not procâ—ed from any new inuention of theirs but as it â—warraÌ„ted by the word of God So doth it take the example from an Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeares aâ— gone which a famous Councell then togeather with diâ—uers other Councels were so farre from condemning â—â— the Pope now hath done this Oath as I haue thoughâ— good to set downe their owne wordes heere in that purpose wherby it may appeare that his Maiestie craueâ—â— nothing now of his Subiects in this Oath which was noâ— expresly and carefully commanded them by the Counceâ— to be obeyed without exception of persons Nay not iâ— the very particuler poynt of Equiuocation which his Maiestie in this Oath is so carefull to haue eschewed but yoâ— shall heere see the said Councels in their Decrees as carefull to prouide for the eschewing of the saâ—e so as almosâ— euery poynt of that Action and this of ours shall be founâ— to haue relation and agreeance one with the other sauâ— only in thisâ— that those old Councels were carefull anâ— strait in commanding the taking of the same wheras by the contrary he that now vaunteth himselfe to be Heaâ— of all Councells is as carefull and strait in the prohibition of all men from the taking of this Oath of Allegiance Sâ— he And then I added And I haue alleadged his discourse at large to the enâ— yow may better see his fraudulent manner of proceedingâ— He saith That the example of this Oath is taken from aâ— Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeares agone in the Councells of Toledo but especially the fourth which prouided also for the particuler point of EquiuocatioÌ„ But leâ— any man read those Councells which are 13. in number and if he fynd eyther any forme of an Oath prescribed or any mention of Equiuocation but only of flat lying and perfidious dealing let him discredit all the rest that I doe write And if he fynd none at all as most certainly he shall notâ— then let him consider of the bad cause of this Apologer that driueth hiâ— to such manner of dealing as to auoucâ— Euery point oâ— that Action to haue agreeance with the offering of thâ—â— Oath Here now you see how M. Barlow is prouoked to shew his manhood in defence of this passage which he beginâ—eth very fiercely with many contumelious words with I â—eâ— passe as wind and only shall relate those that â—e of some moment to the cause VVhiles this Iesuite sayth â—e iâ—â—â—aching the Apologer of supposed fraudulency himself euen 〈…〉 be arested of a fraudulent impudenâ—y â—or that he charging 〈◊〉 Apologer to say that euery point of that Toletan action hath 〈◊〉 with ours â—e leaues out the principall word which the said â—â—â—â—â—ger vsed when he sayth that almost euery point agreeth as if 〈◊〉 were noâ— difference betwene his speach that should say that Father Persons was almost vpon the Sea-coast
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
or Mother or els that he will teach vs by his law or diuinity that albeit her Father and Mother were neuer truely man wife yet she borne by their coniuÌ„ction had true right in her bloud to succeed in the Crowne which yet the Parlament denyeth as yow haue seene And this shall suffice for this matter wherby may appeare what causes some Popes might haue in respect as well of this knowne illegitimation by her Father Mother as also of other many Peâ—â—â—nall demerits of her owne to fauour the right of her next lawfull successour persecuted iniuted finally destroyed by her But now as for the other cauill of recrimination that Dâ—â—â—man in his Booke sayth that it is a grieuous sinne for any man to giue consent to the making of a King that is of a contrary religion it hath beene answered sufficiently before against M. Morton who obiected the same but with fraud and falshood as this man doth leauing out the principall words that do ensue which are that is a sinne to him that doth it â—â—hat side souer the truth be or how good or bad soeuer the party 〈◊〉 that is preferred He doth leaue out also the reason of the speach taken out of the authority of S. Paul in these words For if S. Paul haue pronounced so absolutly and plainly in the place beâ—ore alleadged that euen in eating a peece of meat it is damnable for a man to discerâ—e and yet to eate what may we thinke will it be in so great and important a matter as the making of a King is for a man to â—ssemble or do against his owne conscience and iudgment Here you see is nothing but that a man should not do against his conscience in the choice of a King when that case shall fall out Can M. Barlow say any thing iustly against this if he will not calumniate I see not what But yet he leapeth to another thing in a farre different place where Doleman sayth that the Statute of Association was obiected by other Competitors against the succession of Scotland which Statute was made in the 27. yeare of Queene Elizabeths raigne and intended principally as it seemeth euident both by the Queene and by such as procured the making therof against the sayd succession of the Queene of Scotland and her issue in such forme of words as she being prisoner in England might easily be â—â—trâ—pped therin as afterward she was by the attempt of M. â—abingtâ—n his fellowes and lost her life for the same The Statute contained That if any Act should be atteÌ„pted tending to the hurt of Queene Elizabeths person by or for any person that shall or may pretend any Title to the Crowne of this Realme after her Maiesties discease by any person or with the priuity of any person that shall or may pretend Title to the Crowne c. then all such persoÌ„s shal be excluded and disabled for euer to haue or claime the sayd Crowne c. Hereto M. Barlow answereth now first that they only in this Act are excluded from Succession by whoâ—e meanes Queene Elizabeths life should be taken away not sought and that should not touch their issues except they had bene any wayes assenting or priuy to the same But to this may be replyed that the words now set down in the Statute are coÌ„trary which say that if any act be atteÌ„pted tending to the hurt of her Maiesties most Royall person though not achieued yet they shal be excluded And as for their heires and issues though in the second part of the Statute when Queene Elizabeths life should be taken away by such attempts there is mention of them that it must be by some assent or priuity of theirs yet in the former part now alleadged there is no mention wherby notwithstanding the sayd pretenders for whome or by whose priuityes such attempts only should be made are condemned of treason and made incapable of any pretence to the Crowne which being once effectuated the consequence doth easily ensue in like manner against their heires and issues So that this is but a meere trifling matter brought in for want of other better OF CERTAINE CONTRADICTIONS OBIECTED TO Cardinall Bellarmine AND what confidence may be placed in a mans owne good workes CHAP. IIII. WHERAS among other things there were obiected in the Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance certaine coÌ„tradictions against Cardinall Bellarmine out of his workes as impugning the one the other I thought good in my Letter to looke into some tâ—ree or foure of them leauing the rest for the Cardinall himselfe to answere as he did very sufficiently which answere might serue for vs both but that I hauing enlarged my selfe somewhat for the better explayning of the first obiected contradiction about the placing of confidence in good and meritorious workes M. Barlow hath bene so copious in his reply partly preaching partly pratling without substance or verity as I am inforced to insist more vpon the matter then I had purposed And for more plaine dealing and discouering of his fraud and impertinency I shall here repeat againe what in my Letter I set downe about this controuersy The Apologerâ—quoth â—quoth I doth thus begin his list of coÌ„tradictions against Cardinall Bellarmine First in his bookes of Iustification saith he Bellarmine affirmeth that for the vncertainty of our owne proper righteousnes and for auoiding of vaine glory it is most sure and saâ—e to repose our whole confidence in the alone mercy and goodnes of God which proposition of his is directly contrary to the discourse and current of all his â—iue bookes De Iustificatione wherin the same is conteyned c. Of this first contradiction we haue said somewhat before to wit that it is straÌ„ge that fiue whole bookes should be brought in as contradictory to one proposition For how shall the Reader try the truth oâ— this obiection Shall he be bound to read all Bellarmines fiue bookes to see whether it be true or no Had it not bene more plaine dealing to haue alleaged some one sentence or conclusion contradictory to the other But now shall we shew that there can be no such contradiction betwixt the sentenâ—â— of one part of his said Booke of Iustification the whole discourse or current of the rest for that Bellarmyne doth make all the matter câ—eâ—re by soyling three seuerall Questions in one Chapter which is the seauenth of the fifth Booke here cyted The three Questious are these about Fiducia quae in merit is coâ—â—ocaâ—i possit what hope and confidence may be placed by a Christian man in his good workes and merites The first Question is whether good workes in a Christian man doe increase hope confidence by their owne nature and the proâ—ise of reward made vnto them And Bellarmine answereth that they doe and proueth it by many places of Scriptures as that of Toby the 4. where it is said That almes-dedes shall giue