in his Chronology Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies two speciall Bookes also in English not long agoe especially published about that matter the Three 〈◊〉 of England and the Answer to Syr Edward Cookes Reports where it is shewed that from age to age after the Apostles the selfe same Church of theirs was continued throughout the world with acknowledgment of the preheminence and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the same Church which course of proofe was held also with the Ancient Fathers S. Augustine Tertullian Irenaeus and others that brought downe the descent of the true Catholike Church by the succession of the Roman Bishops as Heads of the same Mâ— Barlow demaundeth of me in what sense I take the word Catholike when I suppose the Roman Church to be the Catholicke Church For if I take it sayth he for Vniuersall then Rome being but a particuler Citty and the true iurisdiction therof confined within a limited Diocesse or Prouince the Roman Church cannot be the Catholicke or Vniuersall Church for that it is but a particular Prouince But if sayth he I take Catholike for the profession of the true fayth as S. Cyprian doth calling that Church of Africa the Catholike Church then cannot the Romish Church neyther in this sense be the Catholik Church for that which the Prophet Esay said of the Iewes Church Her gould is mixed with drosse and she whose fayth was plighted in Christ is become an Adultresse may be sayd also of the Roman Church of this day and so cannot be the Catholike Church c. Which are two such mighty arguments as well declare the poore mans misery in the defence of his cause For to the first I would aske M. Barlow whether one man may not haue two Iurisdictions or rather one Iurisdiction extended differently to two things one more particuler the other more generall As for example the Mayor of London hath his particuler gouerment first and immediatly ouer his owne howse family and peculiar lands and yet besides that he hath iurisdiction also ouer all the Citty And to make the case more cleare let vs suppose that he hath both the one the other from the kingâ— shall it be a good argument to say that he is Gouernor of his owne particuler landes house and family which is knowne to be confined and limited to such a part of the Citty therfore he vsurpeth by stiling himself lord Gouernour of the whole Citty And the like demaund may be made of the Kings authority first and imediatly ouer his Crowne lands which is peculiar vnto him and limited with confines but yet it impeacheth not his generall authority ouer the whole Realme Euen so the Bishop of Rome hath two relations or references the one as a seuerall Bishop ouer that people and so had S. Peter who was Bishop of the same place euen as S. Iames had of Ierusalem S. Iohn of Ephesus and the like and besids this he hath an vniuersall Superintendency and iurisdiction giuen him ouer all as Head of the rest So as Catholikes doe not deny but that the Church of Rome as it maketh a particuler Prouince or Diocesse is a member only of the Catholicke Church not the whole though a principall chiefe member by the reason of the emineÌ„cy of her Pastour that the sayd Pastour therof is but a member also of the Catholik Church but yet the chiefest meÌ„ber wherunto all the rest are subordinate that is to say the head guid therof So as this is poore argument as you see But the second is more pittifull if you consider it well for if we take Catholike sayth he for the profession of the true faith as S. Cyprian did when he called the Church of Africa the Catholike Church then cannot the Romish Church be the Catholike Church And why for that her gould is mixed with drosse as the Prophet Isay sayd of the Iewish Church in his tyme. But here are two propositions an antecedent and consequent and both of them false The antecedent is that as the Church of the Iewes in the Prophet Isay his dayes being in her corrupt state was not the true teaching Church in respect of the naughty life vsed therein so neyther the Church of Rome in our dayes being full of the same sinnes bad life can be the true Catholicke Church this antecedent I say is most â—uidently false and impertinent for that Isay the Prophet in the place cited doth not repâ—â—hend the Religion of the Iewes but their life and â—â—â—ners nor doth he so much as name their Church or Synagoge or taxe their false teaching For albeit the wicked King Manasses that afterward slew him did perforce set vp false Gods among the Iewes yet did not only he and other Prophets then liuing to wit Oseas Amos Micheas Iâ—â—â— Ioel Nahum Habacuc with the whole Church and Synagog not admit the same but resisted also what they might which is a signe that their faith was pure and good Wherfore Isay in this place alleadged nameth not their Church or Religion as hath bene sayd but expresly nameth the Cittie of Hierusalem wicked liuers therin saying Qâ—â—modo facta es meretrix Ciuitas fidelis plena iudicy Iâ—stâ—ia habitauit in ea nunc autem homicidae Argentum tuum versum 〈◊〉 in scoriam vinum tuum mixtum aqua Hovv art thou made an harlot thou faithfull Citty that wert once full of iudgement and iustice dwelled therin but now murtherers Thy siluer is turned into drosse thy wine is mixed with water Doth here the Prophet speake of factes think yow or else of faiâ—h Of wicked life or of false doctrine and if it be euident that he speaketh of manners as he doth indeed then how false is the dealing of M. Barlow in bringing it iâ— for proofe of false teaching and to conuince that as the Church of the Iewes could not be the true Catholicke Church of that time in respect of the corrupt maÌ„ners vsed in her so cannot the Church of Rome at this day for the selfe same cause be the true Church But I would demande of M. Barlow what other knowne Church had God in those dayes wherin a man might find true doctrine besides that of the Iewes which he sayeth was not the true Church Will he say perhaps of the Gentills But they liued all in Idolatry And if a GeÌ„tile would in those daies haue left his Idolatry in the time of Isay the Prophet and haue desired to haue bene madâ— one of the people of God by true instruction whither could he haue gone for the same but only to the Iewish Church And whither would Isay haue sent him but to the Gouernours thereof Both false and impious then is this antecedent about the Iewes Church but much more the consequent that would draw in the Roman Christian Church by this example which hath no similitude or connection at all For neither can he proue that it hath such
such aboundance of Scriptures to proue or infer that God the Father is greater then Christ Iesuâ— his Sonne what other way was there for Catholicks to say but that I distinguish as Christ Iesuâ— was man he was inâ—erior to his Father his Father greater then he but as Christ Iesuâ— is God as well as Man he is equall to his Father Will M. Barlow heere compare these two distinctions to Sedecias his two hornes Or will he call them proâ—unda Sathanae the profound mysteries of Sathan and iniquity And the like examples I might alleadg in great store of many other heresies discouered and disâ—olued by the help of distinctions as namely that of the Eutiâ—hians that denied two distinct natures in Christ that of the Nestorians that affirmed two persons to be in Christ that of the Monothelites that held one only Will to be in Christ by distinguishing on the Catholick party were vâ—â—erly ouerthrowne and confounded And now in these our dayes when the Anabaptists deny al Magistrates authority in iudging Christians especially in matters of life and death allâ—dging for their ground these words of our Sauiour â—olitâ— iudicare do not iudge we haue no refuge but a distinction that we are forbidden to iudge rashly and without iust cause and without due authority but with these circumstances we may iudge and Magistrates are lawfull And will here M. Barlow againe cry out of Proâ—â—nda Sathanae and of the hornes of Sedecias if he do I will send him to Scotland to be horned there For truely he is worthy of it to wit to be horned from the company of all lâ—arned sober men if he persist in these absurdities for that I dare auouch against him that there are many hundred places in the Bible that cannot rightly be vnderstood nor expounded without the vse of some distinction Well then distinctions in generall cannot be reproued without profunditie of folly Perhaps then my two distinctions here in particular are inueyghed against for 〈◊〉 they are false or not incident vnto the matter or of aâ—y moment or necessity for explicâ—tion of the thing aâ—d controuersy in hand or for direction of consciâ—nceâ— of Catholike men that are pressed to take the Oath Thâ—â— then let vs examine in a word or two and that as briefly and perspicuously as wee may The question is whether the Bishop of Rome as vniuersall Paâ—tour of Christendome by Catholike doctrineâ— may at his pleasure by that Pastorall power of his depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdomes at his pleasure for so is the coÌ„mon obiection framed against vs. Vnto which question the answer may be made eyther affirmatiue or negatiue according to the different senses and interpretations of the words which cannot be done but by distiâ—guishing to wit that if we vnderstand that the Pope may depose at his pleasure without iust cause it is denied but with iust cause Catholicke doctrine doth allow it And sâ— againe to vnderstand that the Pope may do it by his Pastorall power directly or immediately it is denied for that this power is spirituall and giuen to a spirituall end and to spirituall actions but if we vnderstand it indirectly as included in the other for defence and conseruation of the spirituall it is graunted And are not these distinctions needfull in this affaire Do they not cleare the doubt in controuersy Do they not remoue confusion Would M. Barlow haue Christian men to sweare swallow vp a bundle of wordâ— knit togeather without opening and looking into theâ— That is meete for his conscience that hath no eies perhaps to see nor will to receiue light but is ready to sweare any thing that may turne to his temporall commodity but Catholikes that feare God are not so taught but rather to looke before they leap and to examine well what they say or sweare for so much as they shall giue an accompt to Almighty God either to their saluation or damnation for the same By â—hâ—s then wee see the Iniquity of M. Barlow his proceeding in exclaming against me so exorbitantly for vsing the forme of two distinctioÌ„s or explanations about taking the Oath and aboue al the iniury offered me or rather to himselfe and his owne credit in saying that I doe teach Equiuocation here in this Oath num 30. contrary to that I taught a little before numb 14. His wordes are these No sort of Equiuocations is lawâ—ull saith Father Persons in matters of fayth and religion and yet sayth the same Father Persons Equiâ—â—cating in this matter of faith is lawâ—ull and may stand with the integâ—iâ—y and sincerity of true Catholik religion so then in matters of faith and religion it is not lawfull in any sort to equiuocate but yet in this matâ—â—r though it concerne â—ayth religion F. Persons sayth it is lawfull These are my contradictions according to M. Barlow And truly I confesâ—e I should blush acknowledge my ouersight if they were truly related but being falsely eyther of malice or ignorance collected by him he ought to blush and be sory for his sin For as I doe confesse the former part numb 14. that I allowed not any sort of Equiuocation in matters concerning faith and Religion so doe I vtterly deny the later clause num 30. that I doe allow Equiuocation in this particuler fact of taking the Oath Let the places be read in my booke thereby he will remayne conuinced For I do say expresly that these two clauses of explication added by me that the Popes power in deposing Princes is indirectly with iust cause must both be expressed by the swearer and accepted by the Magistrate and then are they no Equiuocations at all but direct assertions For that they are no mentall reseruations wherein consisteth the nature and force of Equiuocation Here then M. Barlow that accused me a litle before of making no conscience of God or common honesty must looke how he will defend his owne eyther conscience or honesty if he haue any in this foule calumniation wherein I doe not see what tergiuersation he can vse for his excuse And so I would leaue him in this matter if he did not continue on his rayling and raging beyond all measure as though by this my explication distinction vsed I had committed the greatest crime in the world I will demaund saith he of this Iesuit first whether â—his be not a Paganish delusion of God and men VVherto I answer that it is â—â— delusion at all but rather an instruction and a necessâ—â—y explication not Paganish but Christian for directiâ—â— mens consciences Nay saith M. Barlow it is the very 〈◊〉 oâ— Lisander that children are to be mocked with toyes and 〈…〉 Oathes Indeed Plutarke in his comparison of Lisâ—â—der and Silla recordeth that one said of Lisander Leuem esse apâ—d Liâ—â—â—drum iurisiurandi religionem Lisander made no scruple of aâ— Oath that he gaue couÌ„saile to deceiue men with Oathes as children with toyes and
necessity in some occurrents which we say he hath done by leauing sufficient authority in S. Peterâ— Successours to remedy the same not by their triple Croâ—â—es but by vertue of their Supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority including indirectly this temporall when great necessity vrgeth euen then when they were most poore and lay in caues and vawâ—es vnder ground though there occurred not then occasions to vse the same And thus now would I end this matter but that I must say a word or two concerning two Authours cited in the margent about the same The first is of Aluarus Pelagius an ancient Canonist saith he of their owne who talking of the Mathematicall donation of Constantine saith Palea est at Ecclesia pro granâ— habeâ— And then doâ—h English it that is chaffe indeed though the Church doth hold it for good corne which word though they be in Aluarus yet are they alledged by M. Barlow no lesse theÌ„ commonly are other Authours by him cyted with a guilty conscience for that he well knew that Aluarus doth not hold that Donation to be chaffe but doth approue the same to be true in diuers places of his workes as namely lib. 1. cap. 43. lib. 2. cap. 29. and elswhere which M. Barlow could not choose but know by Aluarus his owne words and whâ—le discourse as also for that otherwise he had coâ—fessed himselfe to hold against the Church who being a Catholike an ancient Canonist of our owne as M. Barlow sayth would neuer haue done nor can be presumed to haue done What then will you say was his meaning in those words quae palea est at Ecclesia pro grano habeâ— Surâ—ly his meaning is far differeÌ„t from that wherin M. Barlow cyteth him And this is that Gratian Compiler of the Canons hauâ—ng this word Palea set downe in his Dâ—cretall and prefixed before diuers Chapters not to signify therby Châ—ffe or contemptible matter to be conteyned therin◠〈◊〉 rather that it was eyther the collection or addition of one Protopalea that was a Cardinall as diuers graue Authors do write or some later collections of Gratiaâ— himselfe noted in the margent for memory and distinction sake with this word Palea deriued eyther from the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth ancient or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifieth rursum or againe as who would say they were additions to the former collections whereof the Reader may see more in the Preface to the first volume of Gratian his Decretalls But in what sense soeuer the word Palea is there takeÌ„ certayne it is that it doth not signify Chaffe in Alâ—arâ—â— his iudgement though he doth allude to the words Chaffe and corne for that the common signification of the latin word Palea importeth Chaffe but that he himselfe did not hold those things for Chaffe and contemptible which are conteyned in Gratian vnder the titles of Palea may appeare by the very first Chapter so intituled which conteyne the words and determination of S. Gregory the first written vnto S. Augustine our Apostle and recorded by Venerable Bede so that the meaning of Aluarus was that albeit this donation of Constantine was recorded by Gratian vnder the title of Palea yet the Church doth hold it for corne that is to say for a matter of truth about which I remit me to those Authors that did write of that affaire loÌ„g before Gratian as Petrus Damianus accompted for a most holy learned man before the Conquest Iuo CarnoteÌ„sis others So as here the vntruth of M. Barlow alledging of Aluarus against his owne meaning is euident that he intended therby to deceiue his Reader As for the second that is Bertrand in the addition vpon a glosse of the Common law whom M. Barlow alleadgeth to say that our Lord sauing his reuerence had failed in his discretion for gouernment of this Church if he had not left such a gouernement therein for deposing of incorrigible Princes there is no great matter to be stood vpon therin but only his manner of simple speach which M. Barlow out of his sincerity maketh alwayes worse by his relation for wheras Bertâ—and saith Videretur Dominus God should seeme to haue fayled this man maketh him say God had fayled and wherâ—s Bertrand saith vt cum reuerentia eiâ— lâ—quar that I may speake it with due reuerence or regard vnto him M. Barlow translateth sauing his reuerence which iâ— our English phrase seemeth contemptible And thus he helpeth himself out at euery tuâ—ne with sleights and shifts neuer vsing sincerity commonly in any thing that passeth from his pen against vs. VVHETHER THE DEVISING AND VRGING OF THIS NEVV OATH VVERE A BLESSING or no eyther to the Receauers or Vrgers AND first of the Receiuers Wherein is handled also of Conscience and of swearing against Conscience CHAP. IIII. AFTER humble supplication made in my Letter to his Maiesty as you haue heard that it would please him to admit the acceptance of this Oath by his Catholicke subiects in the forme and substance that should be allowable by Catholicke Doctrine by yielding all dutifull temporall obedience vnto his Maiesty his heires and successors with reseruation only of their consciences in points that concerne their Religion I was forced to â—â—swere some few lines about that which was sayd in the Apology that God did blesse this godly deuise and intent of making and vrging this Oath by â—he admittancâ— therof by so many Prieâ—â—es and Laickes I thinke it good to repeat my owne wordes againe to the end I may be the better vnderstood But before I do this it shall not be perhaps amisse to set downe the relation of my sayd wordes by M. Barlow wherby you may see how faithfully and sincerely he doth relate them as well here as in all other places for this is his fashion albeit he set them downe in a seâ—erall distinct letter to the end the Reader may imagine that they be mine indeed Is it be a blessing saith he it must bee so first to the takers which are of two sortes eyther in act which are sworne already or in desire which wish they might and dare not The fiâ—st haue no outwarâ— blessing of liberty for they are still imprisoned if inward blessing of comfort he knowes not But to the other it is the greatest pressure of conscience and angariation of minde that euer beâ—ell them for that opprâ—ssion exceedes all other eyther corporall for paines or worldly for losse This is my speach as he setteth it downe both ragged scarce coherent if you consider it well and this couâ—se he holdeth throughout the whole booke that he maketh me speake as pleaseth him to appoint me My owne speach is that which ensueth somewhat more cleare and perspicuous at least wise as you wil see About this matter sayd I where the Apology saith That God did blâ—sse this godly deuise and intent of making and vrging this Oath by the admittance
to be deceiued with the difficulty of this question let him take counsaile of the Church meaning thereby the vniuersall knowne Catholike Church they hauing abandoned this way of Diâ— Ecclesiae tell the Church and of recourse thereunto as to the Columna firmamentum veritatis the pillar and stay of truth so called by S. Paul what remayneth then to theÌ„ for their vltima resolutio but their owne heads and priuate iudgments which are those fancyes oâ— their own braynes which M. Barlow recyted before our of S. Augustine And this shall I make manifest by the ensuing example Yf fiue or six learned men of different ReligioÌ„s should meet togeather in Germany or Transiluania to wit a Roman Catholike a Hussite an Arrian a Trinitarian a Lutheran a Zuinglian or a Caluinist for that all these different Religions are there publikely professed and both by speaches books and sermons preached and maintayned and that you should demauÌ„d of each one of these the reason of his fayth and his vltima resolutio or last rest about the same you should find their answers far diâ—fereÌ„t For if you should demand of the Catholicke for example why he belieueth the Reall Presence he would answere you because it is reuealed by God If you aske him further how he knoweth it is reuealed by God he will say it is conteined in his word eyther written or vnwritten or both Yf you aske him againe how he knoweth it is coÌ„teined in Gods word in that sense that he defends it he will answere for that the knowne Catholike Church doth tell him so by whose authority he is taught what is Gods word and how it is to be vnderstood And if you demand of him further how he knoweth the Church to haue such authority and the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church he will alledg for the former diuers Scriptures acknowledged also by the opposite Sectaries as that before mentioned wherin she is called The pillar and stay of truth and for the second he will alledge so many demonstrations of the beginning growth increase continuance succession and visible deâ—cent of that Church confirmed from time to time with so many miracles other manifest proofes and arguments of credibility as no man in reason can contradict the same so as his vltima resolutio or last stay is vpon the Church testifying vnto vs tâ—e word of God and testified by the same But now the other fiue though neuer so learned in their profession will not answere you thus but being demaunded euery one of them seuerally why they are of that peculiar sect more then of any other and why they are different from the Catholicke in the former article of Reall Presence they will all answere conformably for the first step that they doe build vpon the word of God yea the writteÌ„ word only But if you go a step further demand of them how they know that this written word is well vnderstood by them for so much as they are of fiue different Religions founded by them all vpon the same written word here now they cannot passe any further to the foresaid Catholike Church for finall resolutioÌ„ as the first did for that they all do impugne her but ech man must defend his different interpretation of that written word by his owne iudgement or els by the iudgement of his owne Congregation and Sect which in effect is the same So as these fiue learned men do remaine irreconciliable as you see for want of a ground from whence to take their vltima resolutio and do shew themselues according to the former speaches of Vincentius and S. Austine both Heretikes and Idolatours in that following the â—ule resolution of their owne heads they adore as many Gods as they haue selfe-conceipts for ground of their fayth And will you say that this poynt of vltima resolutio was wisely brought in by M. Barlow being a thing wherby himselfe and his are condemned to haue no last resolution or certayne ground at all for their beliefe but only their owne â—eads But oh sayth he you depend for resolution vpon the Pope which is so vncertaine as what one Pope decrees another disallowes But I haue now answered that we depend vpon the Catholicke Church as propounding vnto vs and expounding Gods word and we depend of the Supreme Pastour as head of that Church vnto whoÌ„ we rest assured by Gods owne word and promise that he will assist him with his spirit for all resolutions in matters of fayth which shal be necessary for his sayd Church nor can M. Barlow prooue that what one Pope decrees in these matters of fayth another disallowes One of them may well alter matters of policy gouernment Ceremonies or the like but for poynts of fayth we do allow M. Barlow sixteene hundred yeares to seeke them out And if in so long time he could haue produced but one true example I suppose we should haue had it I doe willingly pretermit a great deale more of idle impertinent speach which M. Barlow vseth about this matter of Catholiks Consciences â—hewing indeed to haue little himselfe nor yet to know well what it meaneth and much lesse speaketh he to the present purpose For he telleth vs first that if pressure of conscience may serue for good Plea of Recusancy to Princes lawes there is neyther malefactor for crime nor hereticke for schisme but that will make that his Apology Wherunto I answere that causes persons merits and demerits are to bee distinguished in this matter and not to be confounded For what hath the malefactour for crime or hereticke for schisme to doe in this affaire From the first I thinke the aduersaries themselues will deliuer them or at leastwise theyr neyghbors among whome they dwell and as for the second of heresy and schisme we haue spoken now already sufficiently to shew where those imputations may and must lye not vpon the Catholickes who are opposite to that charge Secondly then he telleth vs that we lacke the light within vs which should driue away the darkenesse of our consciences and purge the eye therof from mist dust lime And vpon this he maketh vs an exhortation that we take heed of Caligo tenebrarum in this life that dusketh the eies of our vnderstanding to perdition especially by worldly delightes desire of honour and wealth this being puluis pigmentarius sayth he the Merchants dust which tickleth the eies and blindeth the sight of the wisest as do also enuy by emulation preiudice of affection wilfulnes by opposition which like vnto lyme tormenteth the eye and peruerteth the iudgement c. And is not this a very graue and serious exhortation comming from such a man as he is knowne to be so clearely inlightned as neyther mist nor dust nor lyme of ambition can sticke vpon a man so hating worldly delights honour and wealth as no part of this merchants dust can tickle his eyes Are not his mortifications
corruption in it either in life or doctrine as he pretendeth nor if it had in life doth it preiudice the truth of Doctrine as by the testimony of our Sauiours owne wordes wee remaine assured These two obiections then that the Roman Church for that she hath a determinate Prouince as also for that shee hath sundry euill liuers in her are shewed to bee of no force at all Not the later for that euill manners may stand with true doctrine not the first for that wee doe not say the Roman Church is the whole Catholick Church but a chiefe member thereof as hath bene sayd whereby also will appeare what wee meane by the name of the Catholicke Church to wit that visible vniuersall Church which being erected and founded by Christ our Sauiour when he was vpon earth hath continued euer since and descended visibly from age to age by succession of Bishops throughout all Christendome vnto our times and shall so continue vnto the worldes end by which description may appeare also how vaine another obiection is of M. Barlow in these wordes If Vincentius rule be true that that only is to be accounted Catholicke Doctrine quod semper vbique ab omnibus creditum est neyther shall Rome be proued Catholicke nor England hereticke when any of these is soundly determined then let him plead her Ius acquisitum VVhereto I answere that the rule of Vincentius is verified by that which I haue sayd before of the nature of the Catholicke Church to wit that it began vnder Christ and hath descended from age to age and so shee teacheth quod semper creditum est And for that she hath imbraced all nations she teacheth quod vbique in respect of place and for that shee hath vnion of Doctrine shee teacheth quod ab omnibus creditum est For albeit there hâ—â—â— not wanted hereticks from time to time that haue deâ—ised particuler doctrines and erected particuler congregations yet were they nothing in respect of the vniuersall consent of those of the Catholike Church whose Iâ—â— acquisitum or ancient right and power vpon all Heretickes for theyr correction and punishment I sayd was manifest for that by baptisme they were made her subiectes Vnto which point M. Barlow would seeme now to say somewhat though neuer so impertinent therefore he telleth vs a tale of an indument and a stripping to be considered in Baptisme vnder the wordes Credo and Abreâ—â—â—â—iâ— and that neyther the spirituall mystery nor the prescribed forme nor intended effect of Baptisme doe make him and his liable to Rome Whereunto I answere that the whole action in that Sacrament without so many diuisions and subdiuisions as here he maketh to obscure the matter doth make him and all other Christians liable to the Catholike Church For that euery man that is baptized as he is made a member and seruant of Christ therby and entreth into his Church as by the first dore soe is he made a subiect to the sayd Church and is liable to her correction if he should renounce change or peruert that fayth which there he professeth as a child of the sayd Church And all this I thinke M. Barlow will not deny but onely his question may be of such as are baptized out of the Catholike Church by some Hereticall Congregation yet notwithstanding the matter is cleare for that such baptisme houlding only so far forth as they haue intention to doe that in their baptisme which the true Catholicke Church doth and vse the forme of wordes which the sayd Church prescribeth to wit I baptize thee in the name of the Father◠〈◊〉 the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost for that otherwise if either of these conditions to wit eyther the forme or the intention of the Catholike Church doe faile the baptisme is not auaylable it is euident I say that such as are so baptized out of the Church are liable notwithstanding to the same for any offence that they shall commit against the fayth of the sayd Catholike Church for so much as their baptisme had relation to this Church as is now declared And albeit they be departed from the same eyther by their own wilfulnes or other menâ— inducemeÌ„ts yet remaineth stil that obligation of subiectioÌ„ Which superiority oâ— the Catholik Church practized froÌ„ time to time vpon Heretiks and Schismatikes that haue gone forth from her which the Aduersary will also graunt for sundry ages after Christ caÌ„not be pretended by the Protestant Church vpoÌ„ Catholiks for that we went not out of them but they out of vs which in England is most perspicuous For that since our first Conuersion by S. Augustine the Monke to Christian Religion it cannot be sayd with any shew of probability that euer there was a Protestant Church extaÌ„tâ— and visible or publickly receyued in our Country as the Roman hath bene and consequently wee English Catholikes cannot be said to haue gone out of them but they out of vs and soe by their baptisme and admission to Christianity they are liable to the Roman Catholike Church in matters of Religion not the Roman Church to them But now besids this reason of obligation by baptisme I do alledge another of former possession and prescription whereby the English Catholike Church hath had exercised this power of punishing Sectaries froÌ„ time to time wherunto M. Barlow answereth in a strange manner Possession saith he for hould and Prescription for time may be Pleas in ciuill Courtes but not sound arguments in case of Religion Which is so absurd an answere as nothing could more shew declare that he had nothing to say then this For if wee suppose that to be true which Christ our Sauiour affirmeth in the Ghospell that the good corne was first soone that the Darnell was ouer sprinckled afterwardes and that truth of Christian religion was first planted by our Saâ—iour heresies afterward sprong vp then are the Antiquity of possession and the Plea of Prescription very excellent good argumeÌ„ts to conuince all Hereticks for that the former must needâ— be true and the later must needs be false For which cause old Tertullian writing in the second age after Christ against hereticks thought good to intitle his book de Praescriptiâ—â—â—buâ— of PrescriptioÌ„s shewing therby that heretiks are by no way so euidently conuinced as by Prescription Priority of time And first of all he giueth this generall rule by allusion to our Sauiours words before repeated of good corne and darnell Ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse Dominicum rerum quod est prius traditum id autem extraneum â—alsum quod est posteriâ—s immissâ—m By the order it selfe of sowing the corn darnellâ— it is made manifest that to be true and pertayning to our Lord which was first deliuered and that to be false and forreyne which is thrust in afterward And then passing to examine particuler heresies and beginning with them that pretended to be
nutriret cum autem id maceret extenuet macieque conficiat corporâ—lis dici omnino non potest Some men as M. Barlow do say that the Apostle speaking of vnprofitable bodily exercise meaneth of fasting but truely they do erre for that fasting is no bodily exercise but spirituall For if it were bodily it would no doubt nourish the body but whereas it doth chastise the body extenuateth and maketh it leane it cannot any way be called corporall So he And if wee will haue the testimony of another as ancient as S. Chrysostome most skillâ—ull in the Greeke tongue wherin S. Paul writeth these wordes though no Grecian borne wee may heare S. Hierome who vpon those wordes of Exerce te ipsum ad pietatem exercise thy selfe to piety setteth downe first what piety is saying Pietas est eâ—iam 〈◊〉 tua tribulatione alijs subuenire Sicut Sareptana vidua seciâ— Piety is to help other men euen with thy owne tribulation as the poore widdow of Sarepta did feed the Prophet Elias with the bread that she had reserued for her sonne and her selfe And then as for corporall exercise named by the Apostle he sayth it was meant of things belonging to the bodily health as Sanctarum balnearum venationum huiusmodi quae ad breue tempus carnali proficiunt sanitati holy bathes such as holy men did vse for help of their health hunting and other such bodily exercises for the same end which do profit to the health of the flesh but for a short time which admonition is thought to haue bene giuen by S. Paul to Timothy as to a young man that was somewhat delighted with these bodily exercises or counsailed therunto by PhisitioÌ„s for help of his said health To which end also the said Apostle in the same Epistle exhorteth him not to drinke water still but to vse a little wine for help of his stomacke and in regard of his other frequent infirmities but yet would haue him to exercise himselfe in the workes of piety as now hath bene sayd So as this place also of S. Paul hath bene abused by M. Barlow his prophane interpretation against externall mortifications But now lastly he commeth neere vs indeed and will shew that Queene Elizabeth her mortification was of another kind perhaps not heard of before Let vs heare his words Fourthly sayth he to be a King and to gouerne as a King should do is mortification of it selfe This is the largest way I suppose of mortification that he can lay before vs for of this kind he will find no doubt many mortified people both of men and women that would be content to accept of this mortification to be Kings Queenes and to gouerne well in their owne conceipts For what Prince thiâ—keth not that he gouerneth well and not only Kings Princes are to be comprehended vnder this mortification but proportionally also all other Magistrates and Gouernours vnder them who haue one poynt more of mortification lying vpon them then their Supreme Princes for that they are lyable to giue account to them which the others are not and consequently they are more subiect to mortification in their offices and dignities and yet most men do seeke after them both in England and els where which doth shew that there is great store of mortified men in the world or at leastwise of men that loue this mortification and desire to be so mortified And if to be a Bishop also be a mortification then hath M. Barlow in like manner proued himselfe a mortified man then those words of S. Paul to the Collossians Mortificate membra vestra quae sunt super terram Mortify your members which are vpon earth may haue this sense also among other do you mortify your self with some good Bishopricke or other dignity that in it selfe is a mortification And do we not see what prophane trifling this is And that by this drawing Christian vertues out of their compasse true natures and spheres they do eneruate and euacuate all their force and bring their practice to a meere sound of words The Catholike doctrine is that mortification is a most excellent Christian vertue commended highly in the Scriptures and exercised by all Saints and especially by our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles and by the greatest Saints Seruants of his that haue ensued in his Church as may appeare as well by those words of S. Paul now recited as also these other to the Romans Si spiritu sacta carnis mortificaueritis viuetis If you shall mortify the works of the flesh by spirit you shall liue And then followeth the contrary set downe in the same place If you shall not mortify your sayd members deeds of the flesh therof ensuing but shall liue Secundum carnem by obeying the lust therof you shall dy euerlastingly Wherby is also vnderstood the nature of this excellent vertue whose name of mortification is deriued from the word Mors that signifieth Death for that as when death entreth vpon a body and driueth out the soule the sayd body remayneth without sense â—eling or other motion so when this vertue of mortification is well exercised of a Christian man it doth take a way the sensuall life of our lusts and passions and doth mortify them in their vnlawfull appetites so as they remaine as it were feeble cold and dead in resisting or rebelling against the superiour parts of the soule directed by reaâ—on and religion And this is that most happy and excellent death so much desired by S. Augustine when he sayd to God moriar ne moriar let me dy that I may not dy and good S. Bernard Vtiâ—am hac morte ego frequenter cadam vt euadam lâ—queos mortis vt non sentiam vitae luxurianâ—is mortisera blandimenta Would to God I may often dy this death that therby I may escape the snares of the other death that I may not feele the deadly flatterings and allurements of this present dissolute life And then he goeth further to many particularities saying Vt obstupescam ad sensum libidinis ad aestum auaritiae ad iracundiae impatientiae stimulos ad angoris solicitudinem ad molestias cuâ—â—rum moriatur anima mea morte iâ—sâ—â—rum boâ—a mors quae non aufert sed transfert in meltus Let me dy by this death of mortification that I may become sensles to the feeling of carnall lusts to the heate of couetousnes to the pricks of anger and impatience to the afflictions of solicitude to the troubles of to many cares let my soule dy with the death of iust men this is a good death and doth not take life from me but doth change it to a better Thus that holy and deuout Father of the workes and effects of mortification and of his ardent loue that he had therunto And the like I might most aboundantly shew out of other Fathers but it were ouerlong for this place The saying of S.
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
and Clâ—ments Constituâ—ions before mentioned So teacheth Doctor Stapleton and the reason of his saying is for that the authority of the Church is the same now shal be vnto the worlds end as it was in the first ages to iudge of Scriptures when occasion is offered And if the Church should admit any such booke now into the Canon of holy Scriptures which was not held for Scripture before which yet is a case not like to fall out then should noâ— this booke be made Scripture by the Church but only declared to be such which was so from the beginning though not so knowne declared So as the Church in this case should not giue infallibility of truth vnto the booke but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost that this booke was such from the beginning though not so accepted So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in cyting Doctour Stapletons words first to conceale his first condition Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret if the holy Ghost should suggest the same vnto the Church and then these other two conditions if it were written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose to make M. Doctour Stapletons speach to appeare more naked and improbable but indeed it was to keep his old custome which is neuer commonly to relate things truly in all respects in any citation whatsoeuer His second obiection is out of Bishop Fisher VVho sayth quoth he that whatsoeuer the Pope with a Councell deliuereth vs to be belieued that is to be receiued as an Article of fayth which we graunting to be true do ad only this that it is to be vnderstood according to our former declaration and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it against â—uther out of Scotus saying Non quòd â—unc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but â—or that it did declare it to be true and to haue bene deliuered by God and this by direction of the holy Ghost promised by our Sauiour to the Church So sayth Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neyther the Church nor the Pope Head therof do pretend to make any new Article of fayth that was not in it selfe an article of fayth before yea and so belieued also fide implicita by implyed fayth in the faith of the Church but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to haue byn such from the beginning though not so knowne or declared and therfore men were not bound to belieue it fide explicita by expresse fayth as now they are after the Churches definition and declaration therof And that this is the common sense of all Catholicke Deuines according to my former wordes that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much adoe as though it were false is proued among other learned men of our dayes by Gregorius de Valentia whose wordes are that it is Sententia communis Theologorum the common opinion of Deuines for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors principall Schoolemen And his whole discourse founded vpon Scriptures Fathers Councells and other arguments consisteth in this that as whatsoeuer is now belieued by the Church for matter of fayth was in substance belieued before in all other precedent ages vnto Christes time actu fidei implicito by an implyed act of fayth that is to say the belieuing in generall whatsoeuer the Church belieued so many thinges are now belieued by the Church actu fidei explicito by expresse fayth which were not so belieued before for that the Church froÌ„ time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clearly and expresly which before were belieued by an implied faith only As for example the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the pâ—oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne as was afterward declared vnto vs by the Church but that it belieued the same yet may we not deny but that it belieued the same not fide expliciâ—a but implicita only And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications therof made by the subsequent Councels about the vnity of the Person differeÌ„t Natures in Christ that his Mother should be called the Mother of God were belieued implicitè by those of the Councel of Nyce and consequently were then also Articles of faith though they were not belieued by them explicitè as we are bound to do after the explication made by the Church Let vs conclude therfore with Bishop Fiâ—â—ers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tameâ—si nequeat Sumâ—â—â— Pontisex c. That albeit the Pope with a Councel that is to say the Catholick Church cannot make any thing true or false that is not true or false of it selfe and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith yet whatsoeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs as an Article of faith that al true Christians ought to belieue as an Article of faith which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth Thus Bishop Fisher whome you see how impertinently M. Barlow alleadgeth against my assertion saith the very same that I do Let vs go forward Thirdly then he obiecteth S. Thomas of Aquine who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith some more large and some more briefe demandeth to whome appertayneth noua Editio Symboli the new Edition of a Creed when the necessity of new heresies doth require And he sayth it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church And what is this against me Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed though he were not Pope with addition of many Articles for explanations sake which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed though in substaÌ„ce of truth they were nothing different Did not diuers Councells set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before All which standeth vpon this ground so much pondered by â— Irenaeus that the Apostles had all truth reuealed vnto them by Christ and they left the same in the Church so as whatsoeuer is or hath or shal be added afterward by the said Church are only explications of that first reueiled truth and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the coÌ„trary is to no purpose at al for he citeth diuers authors for that which we deny not but yet alwaies commonly with addition of some vntruth of his owne as heere he alleadgeth out of the Iesuit Azor that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei Doctrines of faith which we deny not but when he addeth that this belongeth vnto the Pope only and not to a Councel this is his owne inuention for Azor ioyneth them
great confidence and hope to the doers therof in the sight of God And Iob sayth that he which liâ—eth iustly shall haue great confidence hope and shall sleepe securely And S. Paul to Timothy saith That whosoeuer shall minister well shall haue great confidence c. I omit diuers other plaine places of Scriptures and Fathers there alleadged by him which the Reader may there peruse to his coÌ„fort shewing euidently that the conscience of a vertuous life and good workes doth giue great confidence to a Christian man both while he liueth especially whe he coÌ„meth to dye The sâ—cond Question is whether thiâ— being so a man may place anâ—â—oâ—â—idence wittingly in his ownâ—â—â—rits or veâ—â—uous liâ—e And it is answered I hat he may 〈◊〉 be with due circumstances of humâ—lity auoydinâ—â—â—â—â—e prâ—sumption For that a man feeling the effect of â—ods gâ—ace in himselâ—e wherby he hath beene direcâ—ed to liue well may also hope that God will crowne â—is gifts in him as S. Augustines words are And many examples of Scriptures are alleadged there by Card. Bellarmine of sundry holy Saints Prophets and Apostles that vpon iuâ—t occasions mentioned their owne merits as gifts â—rom God that gaue them hope and conâ—idence oâ— his mercifull reward and namely that saying of S. Paul I haue sought a good fight I haue consummated my course I haue kept my faith c. and then addeth that in regard hereof Râ—positaâ—â—st mihi corona Iustitiae a crowne of Iustice is â—ayd vp for me which â—od the iust Iudge shall restore vnto me The third Question is supposing the foresaid determinations what counsaile were to be giuen Whether it be good to put confidence in a mans owne merits oâ— no Wherunto Card. Bellarmine answerâ—th in the words set downe by the Apologer That for the vncerâ—ainâ—y of our oâ—ne proper Iustice and for auoyding the perill of vayne glory the suâ—â—st way is to repose all our coÌ„fidence in the only meâ—cy benignity oâ— God from whome and from whose grace our merits proceed So as albeit Cardinall Bellarmine doth confesâ—â— that good life and vertuous acts do giue hope and confidence of themselues and that it is lawfull also by the examples of ancient Saints for good men to comfort themselues with that hope and confidence yet the surest way is to repose all in the benignity and mercy of almighty God who giueth all and is the Authour aswell of the grace as of the merits and fruits of good workes that ensue therof And thus hath Cardinall Bellarmine fully explicated his mind in this one Chapter about Confidence in good workes by soluing the foresaid three different Questions wherof the one is not contrary to the other but may all three stand togeaâ—â—er And how then is it likely that the foresaid proposition of reposing our confidence in the mercy of God should be contradictory as this man saith to the wholâ— discourse and current of all his fiue Bookes of Iustification Let one only sentence be brought forth out of all his fiue Bookes that is truly contradictory and I shall say he hath reason in all the rest of his ouerlashing This was may declaration and explication of Card. Bellarmines doctrine in this point whether any confidence might be placed in good workes and what his counsaile is therin Wherunto though M. Barlow finding himself vnable to make any substantial reply do multiply words from the matter without answering directly to any one of these points now set downe and much lesse to the authorityes of Scriptures and other proofes alleadged for the same yet shall we take an accompt of him what he saith reducing him back againe to these heades as they lye in my letter now recited and see whether they make any iust satisfaction for an answere or no. First then whereas I required as you haue heard that for prouing this first contradiction obiected to Bellarmine that one only sentence might be brought forth out of all his fiue bookes of Iustification that is truly contradictory to the foresaid proposition counsailing to put our whole confidence in Gods onely mercy this hitherto is not done which notwithstanding had beene easy to do if the whole current of these fiue bookes as there was said had beene contradictory to this proposition But now let vs see M. Barlowes proofs out of those bookes in generall All the chiese questions saith he in that bulke oâ— controuersies about Iustification may be reduced to these two principall heades eyther to the quality of our Iustice that is inherent not imputatiue or of the merit whether it be rewarded â—or the value of the worke or of meere grace And both these by the first word of this proposition to wit vncertainty are directly cut off Thus he And this we deny for that the vncertainty of a particuler man concerning the perfection of his owne merits doth not cut off any of those thinges which M. Barlow fondly dreameth Let vs heare his proofe For the vncertainty there mentioned saith he is eyther rei or personae of the righteousnes it selâ—e or of him which hath it Wherto I answere that it may be of both in regard of a particular person for that he may haue some vncertainty both whether the Iustice that is in him be perfect or that himselfe haue performed all circumstances requisite to true merit though notwithstanding he doth not doubt but that the doctrine of the Catholike Church is true most certaine about the merit of good workes and that in the said Church and many of her children there be true merits wherin iustly some confidence may be placed as the Scriptures themselues and the plaine words and example of S. Paul before alledged do euidently conuince For which cause S. Bernard alleadged by Card. Bellarmine doth worthily cry out Felix Ecclesia cui nec merita sine praesumptione nec praesumptio absque meritis de est Habet merita sed ad promerendum non ad praesumendum Happy is the Church vnto whom neither merits are wanting without presuming thereon nor presumption without merits The Church hath merits not to presume vpon them but to deserue Gods fauour by theÌ„ And why had not this bene answered Let vs heare his further speculation If the vncertainty sayth he be of the thing it self then is it no true righteousnâ—s This now is one folly For a man may haue true righteousnes yet not be sure therof himself according as the Scripture sayth no man knoweth whether he be worthy of loue or hate at Gods hands but let vs heare him further For truth saith he whether of essence or of propriety cassiers all vncertainâ—y This is another folly For how many thinges be there truly and really in particuler men which they themselues know not as would appeare if they should see their owne anatomy And in M. Barlow may there not be true ignorance pride or presumption in many thinges though himselfe eyther do not
any Catholicke to beare true allegiance in his hart what is his Maiestie like to gaine by vrging them to sweare For that either they must leaue to be Catholickes or els swearing helpeth the matter nothing For while they are Romish Catholickes you hould they cannot beare true Allegiance And as for the Priestes of the same Religion which you say do hould the same with you and do quote in the margent the Quodlibets if any such thing be for I haue not the booke nor do meane to seeke for your allegations it was not the writing of Priests but either of some one Priest in his passion or rather of your High-Prieâ—t whome some of your Puritans haue called the Taile of the Beast which was the cheefe Author of that scandalous Booke published by another And as for all other Priestes their concord and vnity in true and Catholicke Religion against you is sufficiently knowne There foloweth yet an impertinency or two more as first that the forme of the Oath to be giuen tactis Euangeliâ—s laying the hands of the swearer vpon the ghospell is no new or moderne inuention but prescribed long since by Iustinian the Emperour as though we had sayd the contrary or that it made any thing to our controuersy The second imperâ—â—nency is that wâ— are mucâ— grieued with thâ—â— clause oâ— the Oath that men muâ—t sweare in the truâ—â— fayth of a Christian without Equiuocation for this he sayth is my greatest groane and complaint tâ—at the Oath excludes Catholicks from all Eqâ—iuocating the tryall oâ— which complaint we reâ—erre saith he isâ—saith â—saith he â—â—â—us Maâ—tix in that point Fâ—ther Persons Vnto both which points I answere To the first that it is most false that I did euer groane or coÌ„plaine of the exclusion of EquiuocatioÌ„ in this Oath but haue alwayes held the quite contrary in my books againâ—t M. Morton to wit that no Equiuocation was or is to be admitted in any Oath concerning Religion or our profession therof Let M. Barlow read in my booke of Miâ—igâ—tion page 277. and be ashamed of his wilfull slaunder in this poynt To the second whether Maister Thomas Morton in the point of Equiuocation is a Mastix or scourge to Father Persons or the other to him there needetâ— no other tryall but only the last two books published against M. Morton the one tearmed The Mitigation the other The quiet and sober â—eckoning where there be so many lashes laid vpon him and his credit as there be vnanswerable lyes proued and conuinced against him And if M. Barlâ—â— could help out his brother-Minister in answering some of those lyes for him he should do him no lesse ease then if he had powred both wine and oyle vpon a man that hath beene well whipped indeed There followeth immediately after in the same place an authority of S. Augustine quoted Epist. 214. ad Alipiâ—â—â— where S. Augustine is sayd to allow that the vse of an Oath is old and ancient and that the swearer ought to sweare to the Iudges mind when he knoweth the same But good Reader shall we intreat M. Barlow once throughout all his booke to make a good consequence When did we euer deny that the vse of an Oath in generall is not ancient but that this Parlament-Oath in England lately deuised is new both for time for that M. Barlow doth expresly in this very page graunt that it was procured from his Maiesties prudent cogitation and for the forme and contentes including matter both of ciuill Obedience vnto the Temporall Prince and spirituall Disobedience to the Ecclesiasticall Prelate And as for the second poynt of swearing to the intention of the iudge when he is lawfull and proceedeth lawfully whosoeuer hath or will read any of the last two Books in Answere and Reply to M. Morton will see it often and often repeated that no Equiuocation at all is admitted in that case or when the examination is about religion and conâ—equently he will wonder at M. Barlow his running from the matter so manifestly to seeme to say somewhat THE SAME ARGVMENT About the Pressure of the Oath is further discussed §. IIII. BVT now after long gadding abroad to shew that an Oath in generall is not vnlawfull nor the matter of an Oath new and the like as you haue heard he returneth home for a while saying And now will we follow him to examine the weight of this pressure And then as if I had spoken to his Maiestie when I spake to the Apologer T. M. â—or this iniury he offereth me at euery turne to thrust in his Maiesty to vndergo my speache meant to a Minister he saith that I picke a quarrel about the word Only vsed by the Apologer as a diminitiue phrase of the pressure laid vpon Catholikes by this Oath and he maketh me speake after an ironicall scoffing manner saying that the King â—seth the word Only when he talketh of the imposition of this Oath vpon Catholikes as a matter of small or no pressure saying That only an Oath was deuised to try their fidelity and then he maketh me to add these wordes of Ironicall Sarcasmus or bitter iest as he calleth it and setteth it downe in a different letter as my proper wordes to wit that I should say as If the taking of this Oath were so lightly to be esteemed as to be thurst vpon Catholickes with an only wheras I haue no such manner of speach as the Reader may see in my owne wordes set downe at large in the XII number of the first Paragraph And therfore this perpetuall custome of falsifying in euery place lightly where he pretendeth to cite my wordes would weary a man to deale with him But that I haue resolued to haue patience with him yet somewhat further My speach then about this word Only was as you haue heard that wheras the Apologer had sayd that his Maiesties will was that none of the Catholike profession should be the worse vsed for the powder-plot he presently adioyned That Only at the next sitting of Parlament a forme of an Oath was framed to be taken by all c. By which word Only I sayd that the Apologer seemed to make small accompt of taking or not taking this Oath for so much as he supposed the Catholicke people to haue no agrieuance or pressure therby for that otherwise it had not bene true that they should not fare the worse for the sayd powder-treason And what will M. Barlow say to this You shall heare his owne wordes Who knoweth not sayth he that this word Only doth not so much signify an hypocoristicall alleuiation as a compendiary limitation This is very high and profound stuffe as you see and most of his Readers I suppose must goe to the greeke Lexicon before they passe any further if they will vnderstand him But let vs see how he doth explicate himselfe by an example He that sayd to our Sauiour sayth he Only speake the word did not
thereby extenuate the power of Christ as is healing in absence by a speach had bene a more easy miracle then by aproach to touch the party but thereby wished a course more easefull to the body not lesse powerfull to shew the deity of our Sauiour But to what end is all this Doe not wee say the very same that the word Only is a diminitiue phrase in this place signifying that wheras our Sauiour offered to goe with the Centurion for the curing of the sickeman he answered that his Only word was sufficient excluding the other of bodily going as not being necessary Wherefore the other Commentary annexed â—y M. Barlow that the Centurion did not extenuate the power of Christ is therefore impertinent for that the coâ—parison was Only in his bodily going or curing Only by word in absence as he himselfe also confesseth If a Noble man should say to his Tenantes Certayne kynred or friende of yours haue done me such such displeasure bâ—t none of you that are innocent shall fare the worse for that Only you shall make me a certaine acknowledgement for my better satisfaction who will deny but that this word Only conteyneth a diminution and importeth as much that this acknowledgement is no grieuous matter for otherwise it should not agree well with his promise that they should not fare the worse for it And so fareth it in our case But if that Noble man should demaund at their hands a thing that importeth their liues much more their soules and life euerlasting then would they iustly cry out and complaine of this word Only as guâ—lefully vsed vnto them And so much of this About vrging Catholickes to sweare against their consciences this our Doctour determineth peremptorily as it were out of his Chayre in this sort You must know that a conscience may be misled by errour or stiâ—ned with pertinacy and then the Greeke Deuynes will tell you that vnsoundenes in the iudgement and obstinacy in the wil maketh but a nicknamed conscience which is rather to be censuredâ— then tendered And theÌ„ he citeth in the margeÌ„t Chrysostome and Oecumenius without specifiyng any worke or place of theirs who haue written diuers Volumes this he obserueth ordinarily when he meaneth to follow the wild-goose chase to vse his one phrase and not to be fouÌ„d by his answerer And not only he practiseth the same in his quotation here but also in his determination of the doubt for he flyeth the proper question that most importeth the Reader to know which is whether a man be bound vnder sin to follow an erroneous conscience or not which Deuynes do hould that he is to wit eyther bound to follow it or at least not to go against it for in case the errour come of inuincible ignorance then is he bound to follow 〈…〉 that he can haue no 〈…〉 it away but iâ— the ignorance be vincible as 〈…〉 indeed he is bound to dâ—pose such a conscieÌ„c◠〈◊〉 yet he can do nothing agaâ—â—t it as loÌ„g as such an 〈◊〉 câ—â—sâ—ience râ—maynâ—th for that our will is alwaâ—â—â—â—ound to â—oâ—â—ow or not to go against the direction of our reâ—son whether the said reason do erre or not â—or that it cannot be but sin for our wil to imbrace that which our reason 〈◊〉 to be naught And will M. Barlow deny thiâ— Or did he vnderstand it Why then had he not decided the question as became a learned man and a Prelate indeed And yet it seemeth by those wordes of his repeated saying that such a conscience is rather to be censured then tendâ—râ—d that an erroneous conscience byndeth not that it is not sinne to do against a mans owne iudgement wherin he hath not only all schoole Deuynes against him that proue the same out of Scripture but the ancient Fathers in like manner especially in their Commentaries vpon Saint Paulesâ—pistles â—pistles to the Romanes where the said Apostle haÌ„dleth the matter largely and concludeth Qui antem discernit 〈…〉 damnatuâ— est He that discâ—rneth that he should not â—ate and yet eateth against his iudgement and conscience is damned Vpon which wordes S. Ambrose saith which 〈◊〉 serue for all Verum est quia qui iudicat non edendum edit damnatus est S. Paul sayth truly for that he that iudgeth tâ—at he should not eate and yet eateth is damned And with Saint Ambrose doth agree S. Chrysostome Origen Theophilact Theodoret Ansâ—lmus and others vpon the same place And the sâ—me proueth S. Bernard And as for Schoolemen after Saint Thomas and Alexander de Hales all other Deuynes do agree vpon the same commonly and I would gladly know how Maister Barlow will answere them In the very same page hauing set downe his Maiesties wordes promising that â—eâ—ther the Oath nor penalty thereof was 〈…〉 any for their opinion or conscience but only for an ac 〈…〉 of their 〈◊〉 obediâ—nce he setteth downe my Answâ—â—e â—f it be so 〈◊〉 I the matter is ended for no â—atholicke 〈…〉 obedience that he oweth to his Maiestie And there he cutting or my wordes maketh a great scanning of the last to wit that he oweth to his Maiestie calumniating my meaning therein as though I meant to lymit this temporal obedience also But if the malicious man had set down the wordes that do immediately ensue my meaning had bene playne in my Booke for I sayd this I presume no Catholicke in England will deny to sweare all ciuill obedience that he oweth to his Maiestie or that any subiect hath euer in former Catholicke tymes sworne to their leige Lords and Princes or do in other Countryes at this day Is not this playne inough And why then did M. Barlow cut them of What playne dealing is there in this Let vs heare how he prosecuteth his â—alumniation against me Treason hatched in the hart cannot conceale it selfe saith he from vttering though in hidden termes For obserue those words al obedience that he oweth to his Maiestie what is that or how farre extends it S. Peter stretcheth it without limitation Submit your selues to all manner of ordinance for the Lords sake So he What all manner of ordinance and without limitation at all and that in a time of Infidell Princes as was that of S. Peter who might and did ordaine many thinges against the Lord How then could the Apostles warrant their answere to the Magistrates of the Iewes that they were to obey God rather then men that is to say to Christ rather then to them that were Magistrates But I would aske here Maister Barlow that is such a Grecian and bringeth in Greeke phrases to no purpose at all why he had not set downe the senteÌ„ce of S. Peter in Greeke which is most different from his English and why he doth translate here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 al maÌ„ner of ordinance wheras the words do import omni humanae creaturae which all the ancient Fathers do vnderstand to be meant of
out of Plato Aristophanes and other Greeke Authors may be proued And albeit I will not stand to defend that in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Barlow doth wrong Plutarke and Gracchus in translating headdy vndertaker rather then magnanimous yet doth he offer them open iniury in translating the other epithete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a rash speaker whereas indeed it signifyeth to Graccâ—us his praise a prompt and ready man in speaking eloquent copious and the like But as for the other exprobrations of a most violent spirit impatient of contradiction and the rest he abuseth â—gregiously both Gracchus Plutarke for not only are those reproaches not found there as applyable to Gracchus but the very contrary is sayd of him and therin is he preferred before his brother Caius in these words of Plutarke Vulâ—u obtutu motu blaâ—dâ— erat compositus Tyberius acer Caius vehemeÌ„s Deinde or atiâ— sulnâ—nans Caij dulcior Tyberij pari modo in victu mensa frugalis sâ—â—rplex Tyberius c. lenis etiam placidus confragosus alter seruidus Tyberius both in countenance and motion was aâ—â—â—ble and composed Caius sharpe and vehement and consequently to this the Orations of Caius were thundering but those of Tyberius more sweete and in like manner Tyberiâ—â— was more frugall and simple in his dyet and table then his brother Caius he was also very gentle and pleasing in his behauiour and speach but the other was rough and feruent c. Now then let the prudent reader see and consider how all this doth agree to the description of Tyberiâ—â— set downe by M. Barlow and how true a man he is in all his assertions And how false soeuer he was in the allegation certaine it is that he dealt most wickedly in the application of all to the person of his Holines that now liueth And this much shall suffice about this matter It followeth pag 27. 28. after he had discharged such a storme against the Popes owne person as now you haue heard for his medling in this Oath and giuing his decisioÌ„ therof he sayth that this was to be Iudg in his owne cause alleaging a Poet for his proofe about sur latro one pleading at the barre the other sitting at the bench But doth not the malicious man see that this his cauillation toucheth the interest of all Princes as though they might not be Iudges or giue sentence in cases wherein themselues haue a part if law stand with theÌ„ For to cause other men to do it in their name by their authority is as much as to do it themselues And what did the Pope more in this case theÌ„ this making a decision by counsaile of his learned men according to Christian law that this case of England touched points of Religion concerning the Sea Apostolick which authority no Pope can infringe or diminish without sinne if he would for that it was giueÌ„ not only to him but to his antâ—cessors and successors in like maÌ„ner to indure for the good of the whole Church to the worlds end But saith M. Barlow it had bene plaine dealing in the Pope if before he had sent his Breues of Interdiction he had acquainted his Maiâ—stie with encounters of doubt that bred the quarrell and the ouer-swaying reason that carried him to the negatiue Very wisely spoken and worth the wit of M. Barlow And would his Maiesty haue admitted the messenger or message who seeth not that there is nothing heere but trifling and caueling But I may adde also scoulding for he breaketh presently into a most desperate blast of rayling against F. Persoâ—s calling him trayterous Absolom that careth not to set his â—â—â—e friendes land yea to see his natiue soile on a light fire so he may purchase the Popes fauour All which is spoken with much passion little reason for that the probability is much more that Maister Barlow flattereth the Kinges Maiesty for hope of preferment whereof he is capable and hath gotten possession of a good part already then â—a Persons the Pope whose state and condition of life hath no need of such preferment nor can it be proued that euer Father Persons spake for a fee forward and backward as M. Barlow hath done in his best Patrones cause As for the authority of the sixt Councell of Carthage about appellations to Rome noted in the margent it is not worth the answering both for that the words nor sense alleadged by him are there found and the controuersie about Appeales to Rome from Africa is so handled by me at large in my last Reckoning with M. Morton and he found so faulty and defectuous in that accomptâ— as if M. Barlow will take vpon him to pay that debt and to answer that only Paragraph for him I shall say that he is his friend indeed Wherefore I expect the euent In the very next lines following M. Barlow doth so brokenly recite my wordes about Mâ—â—â—is aliena another mans haruest for so did the Apologer write that English Catholikes are to the Pope that he maketh neyther me nor himselfe to be vnderstood Read I pray you his relation of my wordes pag. 29. numb 5. and see whether you can vnderstand him about Mâ—ssâ—â—aliena My words were plaine inough for thus I wrote page 12. numb 20. by him cited For first about putting the Popes hooke in anoâ—â—er mans haruest supposing as we do that we â—â—â—aâ—e of Catâ—olike people onely and according to Catholike doctrine and in matters belonging to Catholike mâ—ns soules and consciences it cannot be called Messisaliâ—na another mans haruest that the Pope dealeth in England with such kind of people in such cases as well as in Spaine France Flaunders Italy Germany Polonia and other States and kingdomes for that they are no lesse appertayning to his â—â—ock care charge and haruest then the rest Neyther doth the materiall separation of our Iland separate vs from the vnion of one body nor of one obedience to one and the selfe same generall head and Pastour no more then it doth froÌ„ the vnion of one beliefe and of one number and forme of Sacraments of one manner of seruice and other like pointes belonging to the internall and externall vnity of Catholike Religion And is not this plaine inough How doth he reply You shall heare it in his owne wordes and he will so imbroyle himselfe therin as he will let fall neere halfe a dozen of absurdities ignorances and open falsities by the way Do you stand attent then â— thus he bringeth his answere to my former discourse of Messis aliena This is a 〈◊〉 argument no doubt quoth he the Pope hath to do in England saitâ— the Censurer because some Catholikes suppose he hath but before this supposall be brought into a positiue resolute conclusion it will aske a longer time then such a Pamphlet c. Where you see first that he quite mistaketh me eyther
of ouersight or of purpose For I do not make that argument which he frameth iâ— my name that the Pope hath to do in England because some Catholickes suppose he hath Nor is the word supposing vsed by me applied to some Catholikes as though they supposed but to my selfe that I supposed and so this change of the person as you see is a foule ouersight in repeating his aduersaries argument There followeth the like change of the subiect for my supposall was not that the Pope had to do in England but that we treated and spake in that place of Catholike people according to Catholike Doctrine and of Catholike consciences not of Protestants consciences or iudgements for that the question was not whether Protestanâ—s with a good conscience might take the Oath or not but Catholikes with the integrity of their Religion Out of which supposall is inferred that forsomuch as Catholike doctrine in all Schools of the world as well of Spaine France Italy and others do teach and define that all Catholike people whether they be farre or neere without exception are equally subiect to the supreme Pastour of the Church wherof they are members it followeth I say that dwell they neuer so farre of they cannot be called nor accounted Messis aliena to their said vniuersall Pastour But let vs heare M. Barlow further vttering other ignorances intolerable in the eares of learned men But before this supposall saith he be brought into a positiue and resolute conclusion will require more tyme c. What M. Barlow this supposall that we treated of Catholike people only and according to Catholike Doctrine and not of Protestants My wordes are playne do you read them ouer againe supposing as we doe quoth I that we treat of Catholike people only and according to Catholik doctrine You see my words this was my supposall what difficulty is there now to reduce them to a positiue and resolute conclusion saying and affirming resolutely that which then I supposed to wiâ— that I treated in that place of Catholikes only and their consciences according to Catholike doctrine and not of Protestants Do you see how hard a matter this is to bring a supposall into a conclusion And doth not your Reader see to what straites of absurdityes your folly hath brought you But yet the Reader must further know that there is included in your wordes greater ignorance perhaps theÌ„ any of the former for you imagine as by your sequent wordes appeareth that a supposall is of much lesse certainty then is a positiue and resâ—lute conclusion which is quite contrary for that a positiue conclusion how resolute soeuer it be on the behalfe of the defender yet may it be controuerted and called into question or disputed of but a supposall cannot for that it is supposed and graunted by both partes Let vs see then M. Barlow his acumen in this matter Thus he writeth of me and my supposall It argued say you some ingenuity in the man that he made it but a supposall and aâ—terward againe talking of a proposition or conclusion of Cardinall Bellarmine about the Mother-Church of Rome you say the best writing Iesuits do indeed make it a supposall and the most â—auorable of them that it is bâ— likely Whereby it is plaine that the silly man houldeth that a supposal in Diuinity or Philosophy is more vncertaine then a resolute proposition or conclusion and in effect he takes it for only a Likelihood or probability which onely to heare is â—idiculous amongsâ— learned men for that alwaies the thinges supposed in any silence are taken for most â—ue and vndoubted as graunted by both partes yea they are the very groundes and principles of all sciences wheron the certainty of all conclusions throughout those sciences doth depend And so we see for examples sake the â—uclide in the beginning of his bookes of Geâ—â—â—â— doth suppose certaine principles and groundes of that science as that 〈◊〉 est main sua parte euery whole is greater then the part therof Si ab aequalibus aequalia domas â—â—liqua eâ—â—nt aequalia iâ— from equall thinges you take equally away the rest which remaine shall be equall and many such other like suppositions which are to be seene in tâ—e â—â—st â—ooke of these 15. which â—uclide calleth de Elementâ—s â—â— tâ—e â—lâ—ments or principles of Geâ—metry And now to say that these supposalls are of lesâ—e certainty then positiue oâ— râ—solâ—tâ— conclusions deduced from them and grounded vpon them as M. Barlow imagineth is so absurd as nothing can be more â—or that the conclusions may be denyed or disâ—uted 〈◊〉 but the supposals may not Aâ—isâ—otle aâ—so when he treateth of the Principles of 〈…〉 whâ—câ— as Pâ—â—lus testifâ—eth he calleth supposâ—ioâ—â— a 〈…〉 or supposalls quia supponenda sunt for that 〈◊〉 are to be â—â—pposâ—d and not to be proued sheweth that 〈…〉 supposals is infallible for that they 〈…〉 partes for which let this one example 〈…〉 Câ—risâ—iâ—n should contend with a lâ—w about 〈…〉 Death or Resurrection of our Sauiour 〈…〉 fiâ—st as a thing euident acknowledged 〈◊〉 both that whatsoeuer is contained in the old Testament is oâ— infallible truth authority and therevpon should frame many positiue and resolute Conclusions from the predictions of the ancient Prophets about these mysteries of Christ should these conclusions be of more certainty then the foresayd supposals vpon which they stand Or shall it be but likely only and probable that the old Testament is true for that it was only supposed and not proued at the beginning What can be more ignorantly spoken then this concerning the comparison of conclusions and suppositions Nor can he run out by saying that he agreed not to my supposall at the beginning for that there are certaine supposalls so euideÌ„t of themselues as they require no consent of the aduersary as were those of Euclide before mentioned and so was this of mine in the passage of my Letter already cited where I supposed that I treated of Catholike people only and acording to Catholike Doctrine and in matters belonging to Catholicke mens soules and consciences and not of Protestants which supposall no man can contradict for that it is most cleare and euident by my owne wordes and therefore consequently M. Barlow hath shewed himselfe but a very poore Philosopher and a worse Deuine in this place But the two notorious vntruthes which he vttereth presently in the next ensuing lynes though I be weary now of such stuffe may not be pretermitted The first is against Cardinall Bellarmine the second is against the Pope concerning his prohibition of the Oath His wordes for the first are these If all the rest of the Apostles were not ordered Bishops by S. Peter saith Bellarmine then cannot the Church of Rome be Mother of all other Churches much lesse the Bishop and whether it were so or no the best writing Iesuites doe indeed make it but a supposall But now for the chastisemeÌ„t of his
folly for saying but a supposal as though it were a speach of vncertainty I haue said sufficieÌ„t before There remaineth his vntruth in saying that Bellar. doth suppose that if the rest of the Apostles were not made Bishops by S Peter then cannot the Church of Rome be the Mother-Church of other Churches nor the Bishop vniuersal Bishop For first as coÌ„cerning the latter part about the Vniuersall Bishop Bellarmine hath no one word thereof but teacheth the quite contrary founding the power and authority of S. Peter ouer all other Churches vpon other groundes and namely vpon the commission of Christ Matth. 16. â—oan 20. not vpon his ordayning or not ordayning Bishops of the other Apostles about which question he doth but set downe the opinion of Ioannes de Tuâ—reâ—remata lib. 2. Summae de Ecclesia Cap. 32. with his reasons â—or the same and consequently doth not â—et it downe as a supposall certaine ground or principle but as a probable and disputable opinion though himself hould the opinion of Turrecremata to be more probable But on the other side Franciscus de Victoria heere cited by M. Barlow himselâ—e though he be of a contrary opinion to Turrecremata and to Bellarmine about the Ordination of all the Apostles by S. Peter yet doth he in the very same place professe that S. Peter was Vniuersall Bishop ouer all the Church of God Primus Princeps cum summa supertotam Ecclesiam potâ—state That among the Apostles he was the first and principall with supreme power ouer all the Church So as the denial of this particulâ—r priuiledge in S. Peter that he ordained all other Apostles Bishops doth not inâ—eâ—e that he was not vniuersall Bishop of the whole Church as here we see M. Barlow most falsely to inferre And whereas he noteth in the margent with great diligence diuers Catholicke writers that dâ—â— hold the question to be probable on both sids as Salmeron Victoria Suarez and Gregorius de Valâ—ntia that is but an old trick to shuâ—â—le and make a noice where there is no need for Bellarmine doth not hold the thing to be de fide or infallible supposall and consequently it little importeth to bring in this diuersity of opinions of the aâ—oresayd Authors about the matter Now then to come to the second vntruth that the Pope by decreeing the Oath as it lay was vnlawfull did also forbid euen that very point of sâ—earing ciuill obedience which is so notoriously vntrue as whosoeuer doth but read the Popes Breue it selfe or Cardinall Bellarmine his explication therof or my Letter wherin the contrary is euery where protested wil maruaile to see such impudent proceeding But of this more afterward Now wee shall passe to discusse whether there be any pointes in the sayd Oath concerning the religion and consciences of Catholicks whereby the taking thereof was made vnlawfull vnto them For this doth Maister Barlow vtterly deny as now you shall heare WHETHER THE OATH BE ONLY OF CIVILL OBEDIENCE Or whether there be any clauses in it against Catholicke Religion CHAP. II. THIS point being one of the most chief of al my Treatise about the Oath is haÌ„dled by me somewhat largely pag. 13. of my Letter where vpon the deniâ—ll of the Apologer that any thing is there required but Ciuill obedience my wordes are these And how shall we cleare tâ—is important matter to wit VVhether there be any poyntes in thâ— Oath belonging to religion besides ciuill obedience and I do answer that it is vâ—ry easy to cleare the same by fower seuerall and distinct waâ—es First by the expresse wordes sense and drift of the Oath it selfe that besides the acknowledgemenâ— of temporall respects to wit that our Soueraigne is tâ—â—â— Kâ—ng rightâ—ull Lord ouer all his dominions and â—hat the swearer is his true loyall subiect to obey him in all temporall affayres and other like clauses whereat no man sticketh or maketh difficulty there be other clauses also against the authority of the Supreme Pastour which doe iustly breed scruple of conscience to a Catholicke to â—dmit or take the same Secondly I shewed the same by the Popes wordes in his Breues wherin he doth conioyne the taking of this Oath with the going to the Churches and Seruice of a different Religion pronouncing the one and the other to be vnlawfull Thirdly I declared the same out of the iudgment of Cardinall Bellarmine other learned men who hauing considered well the nature of this Oath and different clauses therin coÌ„tayned do hold it for so cautelously compounded by artificially ioyning togeather Temporal and Spirituall thinges to wit Ciuill Obedience forswearing the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority as no man can thereby profâ—sse his temporall subiection and detest treason and conspiracy which all Catholikes are most willing to doe but he must be forced also to renouÌ„ce the Primacy of the Sea Apostolicke from which all good Cathoâ—ick consciences do iustly abhorre Fourthly for a more full and finall clearing of this matter that I could thinke of no better nor more forcible meane then to make this reall offer on the behalfe of euery English Catholicke for better satisfaction of his Maiestie in this poynt so much vrged of their ciuill and temporall obedience First that he will sweare and acknowledge most willingly all those partes and clauses of the Oath that do any way appertayne to the Ciuil and Temporall obedience due to his Maiesty whom he acknowledgeth for his true and lawfull King and Soueraigne ouer all his dominions and that he will sweare vnto him as much loyalty as euer any Catholicke Subiect of England did vnto their lawfull Kinges in former tymes and ages before the change of King Henry the eight or that aâ—y forrayne subiect oweth or ought to sweare to any Catholicke Prince whatsoeuer at this day These were the â—oure wayes which then occurred 〈◊〉 my mind wherunto it shall be good to examine brieâ—â—y what M. Barlow hath bene able to say in this his answâ—â—â— He beginneth resoluâ—ely as though he had intention 〈◊〉 ioynâ— really indeed Now then saith he this must be cleâ—â—â—â— whether the Oath doth onely concerne ciuill obedience yea or no 〈◊〉 that it doth not the Censurer taketh vpon him to satisfy in eight â—â—â—bers â—rom the 20. to the 28. and that foure seuerall waies So â—e And what doth he alleage against these foure waie◠〈◊〉 eâ—fect no word at all though he babble not a little of diuers matters impertinent to the purpose VVe laying this 〈◊〉 our ground saith he that first both swearing and performing 〈◊〉 obedience is aswell negative against any intruder challenger or vsâ—â—per as affirmatiue â—or the lawfull gouernours and Soueraignes Secondly that this challeng of the Pope in dethroning and deposing of Priâ—ces is a temporall intrusion and no spirituall iurisdiâ—tion do câ—â—clâ—â—â— with a strong and apparant euidence that the whole bulke of the Oâ—â—â— both in the submissiue and exclusiue part doth
Kinges and Emperours had bene so priuiledged by the power of their Empire aâ— they might not be censured by the high Pastours and Prelates himselfe would neuer haue cenâ—ured and excomunicated his Emperour Theodosius as he did The wordes then are found not in S. Ambrose his Booke de Apologia Dauid cap. 4 10. as here is cited for there are two Apolygies prior and posterior which M. Barlow by his citation seemeth not to haue vnderstood and the first containâ—th but 7. Chapters in all and in the 4 is only this sentence talking of the pennance of King Dauid Qui â—ullis tenebatur legibus humanis indulgentiam petebat cùm qui tenentur legibuâ— aeudent suum negare peccatâ—m King Dauid that was subiect to no humane lawes asked forgiuâ—nes when they that are bound by lawes presume to deny their sinnes But in his enarration vpon the 50. psalme of Dauid he hath the thing more plainely for thus he saith Rex vtique erat nullis ipse legibuâ— tenebatur quia liberi sunt Reges à vinculis delictorum neque enim illi ad poenam vocaÌ„tur legibus tuti Imperij potestate Dauid was a King and thereby was not vnder lawes for that Kinges are free from the bandes of their offences for that they are not called to punishment by lawes being safe by the power of their Empire So S. Ambrose Wereby is seene that he vnderstandeth that Princes commonly are not subiect to humane lawes for that they will not nor may be called to accompt for their offences as priuate meÌ„ are being free by their powâ—r or that no man is able to compell them And this priuiledge perhaps is tolerable in their priuate and personall sinnes but if the same should breake out in publicke and against the vniuersall good of Christians then may we learne by the foresaid act oâ— S. Ambrose in Excommunicating the Emperour Teodosius that God hath leâ—t some power by diuine law to râ—straine them for the coÌ„seruation of his Church and Kingdome And so we may see that al that which M. Barlow hath chirped here to the contrary is not worth a rush but to shew his penury and misery hauing bene forced of eight Authors heere alleadged by him to wit Salmeron Saâ—ders Victoria Bellarmine Barkley Sigebert Espencaeus S. Ambrose to misalledge and falsify seauen as you haue heard that is to say all of them sauing Barkley who in this matter is of lesse accompt then any of the rest if the booke be his which is extaÌ„t vnder his name For that he being no Deuine hath taken vpon him to defend a Paradoxe out of his owne head only different from all other writers of our dayes both Catholiks Heretiks graunting against the later all spiritual authority vnto the Pope ouer Princes Christian People throughout the world but denying against the former all temporall authority eyther directly or indirectly annexed vnto the spirituall wherin as he is singular from all so he is like to be impugned by all and is by M. Barlow in this place for the Protestants calling him our owne Writer And for the Catholikes Cardinall Bellarmine hath lately written a most learned booke against him by name confuting his priuat fancy by the publique authority weight and testimonies of all Catholike Deuines And so much for this OF CERTAINE NOTORIOVS Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his aduersary which no wayes can be excused from malice witting errour §. II. AS the former fraud discouered and conuinced against M. Barlow of abusing authors against their owne wordes and meaning is a foule fault and very shaÌ„full in him that pretendeth to haue conscience or care of his credit so is the crime of appareÌ„t and willfull Calumniation bearing no shew of truth or reason at all much more foolish wicked Foolish for that it doth wholy discredit the Calumniator with his Readers wicked for that it sheweth plaine malice and will to hurt although with his owne greater losse So then it falleth out in this place that M. Barlow finding himselfe much pressed and strained with the reasonable and moderate speach which I vsed in my Epistle throughout three numbers togeather concerning the Oath freely taken as was said by many Catholikes both Priests and Laicks expounding their taking of the Oath in a good sense he doth so malignantly peruert the same by open calumniatioÌ„s as euery child may discouer not only the falshood but the fury also of his passion against me nothing being in his answere but exorbitant rayling apparent lying For whereas I in reason deserued rather approbation and commendation from him for expounding plainly and sincerely that meaning which those Catholikes if they were Catholikes had or could haue in their taking of the Oath without all Equiuocation or mentall reseruation which I condemned in an Oath as altogeather vnlawfull concerning any point of religion that ought to be confessed he not being able to abide the light of this truth and plaine dealing falleth into a certaine frenzy of rayling against me for the ground of his accusation â—ayeth hiâ— owne fiction that I doe teach them perswade them 〈◊〉 Equiuocate in this very case For cleare confutatiâ—â— wherof it shal be sufficieÌ„t first to set down my own wordâ— as they ly in my epistle and then to consider and ponder the collections and inferences that he maketh vpon theâ— And if by this you doe not finde him to be one of the loosest conscience and lawâ—est tongue and least respectiuâ— of his owne credit honesty that euer yow saw I am much deceiued My words then were these that follow As for that multitude of Priestes and Lâ—ickes which he sayth haue freely takâ—n the Oath as their freedome was that which now I haue mentioned and a principall motiue as may be presumed the desire they had to giâ—e his Maiesty satisfaction and deliuer themselues and otheâ—â— so much as lay in them from that inference of disloyall meaning which vpon the denyall therof some do vse 〈◊〉 make so I cannot but in charity assure my selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as coâ—cerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in â—ome such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sincerity of true Catholike doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath not authority without iust cause to proceed againâ—â— them Quia illud possumâ—â— quod iure possumus saith the law ouâ— authority is limited by Iustice. Directly also the Pope may be denyed to haue such authority against Princes but indirectly only in ordine ad spiritualia when certayne great important and vrgent cases concerning Christian religion fall out which we hope will neuer be betweene ouâ— Soueraigne and the Sea Apostolicke for so much as they haue past already many yeares though in different Relions in peace and quietnes euen since
you keep your selfe to your text for I remember not to haue mentioned that word in my speach before rehearsed wherunto you pretend to answere True it is that of the passion of anger and reuenge for supposed iniuries or oppressions receyued I haue made mention But you haue turned all your shâ—w of answere against desperation telling vs much of the furious fancy of the Donatists in Africa that were desperatly inraged You aske also whether the Catholiks be no better instructed in Deuinity by their Priests You tell vs that S. Peters Deuinity was better whoâ— heâ—â—horteth Seruants to be bucksome and obedient in all feâ—â—â— to tâ—eir Maisters You say further that true Catholicâ—e Deuinity teacheth men to endure lawes with all â—â—â—dy â—â—bedience and if through weakenesse they cannot or by repugnancy of conscience they dare not be perswaded that they may lawfully sweare vnto them then to endure the penalty with an humble patience alleaging for the same the words of S. Peter that This is thanks-worthy if a man fâ—â— conscience sake towards God endâ—â—e griefe wrongfully becaâ—se oâ—r â—â—â—ster did so c. which we take for very good doctrine indeed and so do teach and preach the same diligently exhorting all good Catholicks to follow that rule But yet on the other side we cannot forget also the saying of the Apostle non in omniâ—us est scieÌ„tia al men haue not true knowledg 〈◊〉 they ought to do and much lesse patience in what they ought to suffer and therfore is the giâ—t of wisdome prouidence and discretion graunted vnto Gouernours to moderate matters according to mens infirmities in some caâ—â—â— this is all that is sayd or insinuated in this passage though M. Barlow out of his great prudence in Deâ—iâ—â—ty Policy noteth that the example of Count Iulian of Spaiâ—e that ouerthrew his Countrey vpon the passion of reuenge ought to be a caueat to the State of England that I do threaten But it is a childish quarrell pickt for I do but call 〈◊〉 memory the history in confirmation of that which in my Speach is set downe But there followeth a second reason concerning them that presse the Oath vpon others to wit the consideration of actiue scandall which I set downe before in these words But besides all this said I is the grieuous sinne that they commit who force or presse other men to sweare against their conscience then which nothing can be imaginâ—d more heinous for it is to thrust men headlong especially such as are fearefull into the very precipitation downefall of hell it selfe For it is the highest degree of scâ—ndall â—ctiue so much condemned and detested in the Scripture and so dredfully threatned by our Sauiour to be seuerely punished in the life to come For that scandalizing properly is nothing els but laying a stuÌ„bling blocke for other men to fall and breake their neckes and such a one is this formall Oath which containeth diuers things lawfull for a Catholick to sweare other things vnlawful and he is forced by terrour to passe ouer and swallow downe one with another without distinction with manifest repugnance of his conscience which repugnance to him is alwaies a sinne and damnable in such a publike and waighty action though the matter were lawfull in it selfe and consequently also vnto them that forced him to the same either knowing or suspecting his said repugnance of conscience For he that should force a Iew or a Turke to sweare that there were a blessed Trinity either knowing or suspecting that they would do it against their coÌ„science should sinne grieuously by forcing them to commit that sinne This is Catholick Doctrine which I also think the learned Protestants themselues will not deny Vnto this speach of mine M. Barlow answereth first granting that a man should rather endure any losse of life or goods then sweare against his conscience which doctrine I am glad that in this present case the force of truth hath drawne from him But he goeth further treating of this poynt of scandall after such a fashion out of our Schoole-Doctours as he marreth all againe And truly he hath so euill lucke in dealing with them not vnderstanding as it seemeth what they meane as I meruaile that he would euer name them For though in this place he alleadg only S. Thomas by the name of Aquinas in the margent without quoting where in what part or place of his Workes it is to be found yet doth he peruert his meaning egregiously going forward and backward and taking one thing for another that it is both pittifull ridiculous to consider But I shall cyte his owne words as they lye and thereby shall we see how able a Schoole-man he is But in this point of scandall sayth he will this great Deuine vouchsafe to learne a lesson from their owne Schoole-man Is the exacting of this Oath a scandall actiue in our Magistrates then is it passiue in their Catholikes For it is no scandall giuen if is 〈…〉 Iâ— their consciences be offended aâ— it they are sayth Aquinâ—◠〈◊〉 simply ignorant or wickedly malicious and the last â—â—â—â—er 〈…〉 well instructed or truly sanctified can take no offence though 〈◊〉 â—uer so openly which he confirmeth by that place of Dauid Gâ—â—â—â— is thâ—â—â— peace that loue thy law non est illi scandalum he which 〈◊〉 loueth God neyther doth scandalize by sinning nor is scandalized by â—â—â—ning quicquid ei fiat In which discourse of M. Barlow is to be noted first that after his scorne vttered against me he taketh vpoÌ„ him as a great Schoole Deuine to determine this consequence Is the exacting of the Oath scandall actiue in our Magistrates Theâ— iâ— it passiue in their Catholikes which I grant to be true in such Catholikes as by force of that exaction haue bene induced to sweare against their consciences and so finned It is not true in them that refuse the same and they are those whom the Prophet commendeth in the place here mentioned Great is their peace who loue thy law and they are not scâ—â—dalized nor do fall into sinne by the sinne or inducement of others So as in this sense it is true that such Catholikes as take the Oath with a repugnant conscience suffered Scandalum pâ—ssiuum but not these that refused But M. Barlowes reason for that there is no scandall giuen if it be not taken is most manifestly false and the more intollerably foolish for that he setteth it downe as the reason of S. Thomas Aquinas wheras the sayd Doctoâ—â— doth expresly contradict the same in sundry places saying in one Quandoque est scandalum actiuâ—m sine passiuâ— puiâ—â—â—â—â—â—quis inducit alium ad peccandâ—m ille nâ—n consentit Sometimes â—â—ere may be a scandall actiue without a passiue to wit when any man doth induce by word or fact another man to sinne and he do not consent vnto him And againe in another place Potest tamen esse scandalum
lesse the true substance of things handled by him I do pretermitt as very fond and impertinent the next passage that ensueth and is the last in this matter in M. Barlow his booke where he maketh this demaund But what if there be none or few that make such conscience or take such offence at the admission of the Oath as he speaketh of To this question I say it is in vaine to answere for if there be so few or no Catholikes that make conscience or scruple to take the Oath the contention will be soone at an end But presently he contradicteth himselfe againe taking another medium and saying that there would be none if they were not threatned by vs to haue their howses ouerturned as some Donatists sayth he confessed of themselues by the witnesse of S. Augustine that they would haue bene Catholikes if they had not bene put in feare ne domus corum euâ—rtâ—râ—ntur by the Circumcellians perhaps which M. Barlow sayth may spiritually be applyed to our threatning that such as take the Oath shall be accompted Apostataes and to haue renounced their first fayth and to be no members of the Catholike Church and finally that we shall remayne branded in euerlasting record with Balaams infamy that taught Balaac to lay a scandall or occasion of fall to the people of Israell To all which I answere first that he that layeth forth the truth of Catholike doctrine vnto Catholike men may not iustly be sayd to threaten or terrify but to deale sincerely and charitably with them laying truth before their eyes what their obligation is to God before man and how they are bound as members of his true Catholike Church to hould and defend the vnity and integrity of â—ayth and doctrine deliuered by the same though it be with neuer so much temporall danger And as for laying a scandall wherby they may fall into the ruine of their soules it is easy to iudge whether wee do it rather that teach them to deale sincerely with God and their Prince wherby they shall preserue their peace and alacrity of conscience or you that indeauoâ—r to induce thâ—â—â—â— sweare and doe against the same wheâ—eby they shall be sure to leese both their peace in this life and their euerlasting inheritance in the next THE ANSVVER TO AN OBIECTION BY OCCASION VVHEROF IT IS SHEVVED THAT POSSESSION and Prescription are good proofes euer in matters of Doctrine AND The contrary is fondly affirmed by M. Barlow CHAP. V. THERE remaineth now for the finall end of this first Part to examine an obiection that might be made by the aduersary which I thought good by â—â—ticipation to satisfy in the very last number of the first parâ— of my Letter And it was that wheras we complaine of so great pressures layd vpon vs for our conscience especially by this enforced Oath some man may sayâ— that the liâ—â— course is held in the Catholicke States against themâ— whome we esteeme as heretickes I shall repeate my owne words and then see what M. Barlow answereth to the same Here if a man should obiect quoâ—h I that among vs also men are vrged to take Oathes and to abiure â—heir opinions in the Tribunalls of Inquisitions and the like and consequently in this Oath they may be forced vnder punishment to abiure the Popes temporall authority in dealing with Kings I answere first that if any hereticke or other should be forced to â—biure his opinions with repugnance of conscience it should be a sinne to the inforcers if they knew it or suspected it neyther is it practised orâ— permitted in any Catholicke Court that eueâ— I knew But you will reply that if he doe it not he shal be punished by dâ—ath or otherwise as the crime requireth and Canons appoint and consequently the like may be vsed towards Catholikes that will not renounce their old opinions of the Popes authority But heere is a great difference for that the Catholike Church hath ius acquisitum ancient right ouer heretickes as her true subiects â—or that by their baptisme they were made her subiectes and left her afterwardsâ— and went out of her and she vseth but her ancient manner of proceeding against them as against all other of their kind and quality from the beginning But the Protestant Church of England hath nullum iuâ— acquisitum vpon Catholickes that were in possession before them for many hundred yeares as is euident neither was there euer any such Oath exacted at their hands by any of their Kings in former Catholicke timesâ— neither is tâ—eâ—e by any Catholicke forraine Monarch now liuing vpon 〈◊〉 and consequently by no â—eâ—son or right at all can English Catholicke men be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience or be punished beâ—â—â—â— or destroyed if for their conscience they refuse to take tâ—e same humbly offering notwithstanding to their Soueraigne to giue him all other dutifull satisfaction for their temporall obedience and allegiance which of loyall Catholicke subiects may be exacted And this shall suffice for this first point concerning the contents and nature of this Oath This was my speach and conclusion then And now shal we take a vew how it is confuted by M. Barlow First be amplifyeth exaggerateth with great vehemeÌ„cy the torments and tortures of our Inquisitions which are vsed as he saith with the most extreme violence that flesh can indure or malice inuent wherin he sayth more I thinke then he knoweth and more perhaps then he belieueth and at leastwise much more then is true in my knowledg For of twenty that are imprisoned there not one lightly is touched with torture and when any is in the case by law appointed it is knowne to be more mildly then commonly in any other tribunall But let vs leaue this as of least moment and depending only vpon his asseueration and my denyall and let vs passe to that which is of more importance for iustifying the cause it selfe to wit by what right of power and authority the Roman Church proceedeth against heretickes and how different it is from that wherby Protestants pretend to be able iustly to proceed against vs for matters of Religion First of all he sayth that I do take as granted that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church which we deny sayth he and the chiefest learned of their side could as yet neuer conuict our denialls Wherto I answere that if themselues may be iudges that are most interessed in the controuersie I do not meruaile though they neuer yield themselues for conuicted But if any indifferent iudgment or triall might be admitted I do not doubt but that their euiction and coÌ„uiction would quickly appeare and many learned men of our dayes haue made most cleare demonstrations therof by deducing the Roman Church doctrine and fayth from the Apostles dayes vnto our times successiuely as namely Doctour Sanders his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Monarchy Cardinall Baronius in the continuation of his Annales Gâ—nebrarâ—
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
so much from this acknowledgment or testimony of the Councell of VVormes which did but set downe the sense of the Christian Church in these dayes but from other far more ancient proofes and testimonies as M. Barlow wel knoweth though here he dissembleth the same and chaâ—eth exceedingly saying That this fugitiue for such is his modesty of speach wil fâ—tch a 〈◊〉 sentence from this Councel to warrant no Councel to be good that iâ— celebrated without the Popes Authority and therby at one push ouerthrow the credit of al Councels both general and particuler for the better part of 900. yeares after Christ. Wherto I answer first that to be a fugitiue for the cause of Catholicke Religion is no reproach at al but a high commendation warranted by Christes owne words when he willed them that were persecuted in one Citty to fly into another and much more happy is it to be a fugitiue then a persecutour S. Athanasius in his booke de fugasua of his flight and persecution doth handle the matter at large to whom I remit the Reader Secondly as for the summoning gathering of CouÌ„cels general or particuler our controuersy is principally of General Councels for as for Diocesian Synods as they may be assembled by ech Bishop in his district and the Prouincial Councels by the Metropolitan which Protestants themselues wil not deny so by the due proportion of good order General Councels must be gathered by commandment or consent at least of the general Pastour though in States subiect to temporal Princes good reason requireth that the matter be done in like manner with the approbation of the said temporal Princes for the houlding of the said Councel in this or that place of their Dominions And this was obserued in the first 4. General Councels which were commanded to be gathered by Constantine Theodosius the elder Theodosius the yonger and Martian the Emperours by the assent and approbation of the Popes Syluester Damasus Celestinus and Leo which besides other proofes of seueral histories is made euident by the last of the said 4. Councels to wit that of Chalcedon where in the first action the heretical Archbishop Dioscorus was punished publikely and forbidden to sit amongst the Bishops for that he had presumed to call a Councell without the authority of the Apostolike Sea Quâ—d numquam licuiâ— say they numquam sactum est that neuer was lawfull nor euer was done And consequently this prooueth that all the first 4. Generall Councells were gathered by the consents and approbations of the Bishops of Rome though with the concurrence also of the Emperours without whose good liking the meeting of so many Bishops in their States could not be permitted as before hath bene said But now here before I passe any further I must make you acquainted with a solemne foolery and falshood of M Barlow concerning Cardinall Bellarmine for that hauing vttered the words before mentioned that CouÌ„cels were to be gathered by the Emperours and not by the Bishops of Rome though he citeth no one argument for the same yet saith he this is a thing so cleare and radiant that Bellarmine himselfe being dazeled with behoulding the euidence euen as S. Peter not wiâ—â—ing what he said though he laboured to build for the Pope yet labâ—â—reth be also to build for the Emperour and in that same place he â—â—eweth diuers reasons why it rather belongeth to Emperours then to Popes for â—o assemble Councells citing for the same in his margent Bellar. de Concil cap. 13. But truly when I went to the place of Bellarmine and read his words I was ashamed on M. Barlowes behalfe and his folly was so radiant in my eyes to vse his phrase that I could not read them without blushing for that in the Chapter by him cited and in the other going before Bellarmine doth proue most substantially by many arguments both out of Scriptures Fathers Councels reasons histories practice and examples that it appertayneth not to the Emperour only or principally but to the Bishop of Rome to call General CouÌ„cells or at leastwise that it may not be done without the said Bishops consent and approbation first had so as the very contradictory proposition to this which M. Barlow sets downe is found in these expresse words in Bellarmine â—sse reuerà Pontiâ—icis non Imperatoris congregare Synodum generalem that is belongeth truely to the Pope and not to the Emperour to gather a generall Councell Adding notwithstanding 4. particuler reasons and temporall respects why diuers generall Councells could not be gathered togeather vnder the Emperours who were temporal Lords of the world without their likings consents Not saith he for that a Councell gathered without the authority of the Emperour among Christians should not be of validity as our aduersaries doe dreame whereas S. Athanasiuâ— saith plainely in his epistle to them that lead a solitary life Quando vmquam iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritateÌ„ habuit when did euer the iudgment of the Church take authority from the Emperour but for that the temporall state of Christendome standing in the Emperours hands no such meeting could be made without their approbation And can this stand with that which M. Barlow here affirmeth in his name that he shewes diuers reasons why it rather belonged to Emperours then to the Pope to assemble Councells Will he not blush and be ashamed of this shameles calumniation or rather forgery As for that he obiected coÌ„cerning the Graunt giuen to Charles the Great by Adrian the Pope to haue authority to approue the Election of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops and Archbishops and to dispose of the Sea Apostolike c. I referre him to Cardinall Baronius for his answer in his Annales of the yeare 774. where he discusseth the matter at large and proueth it a meere fiction and plaine fraud inuented registred first by Sigebertus in fauour of the cause of Henry the fourth Emperour excommunicated by the Pope which he proueth by many playne euidences out of all the ancient writers for the space of 300. years after Charles his time who neuer made mention of any such Graunt as also the expresse testimony of Eginhardus that was Notary to Charles the Great and was alwayes about him and wrote his life and by diuers other proofes which were too long here to recite Therfore with this shall we end this Chapter VVHETHER THE POPE IN HIS BREVE DID FORBID TEMPORALL OBEDIENCE to his Maiesty of England AND Whether the said Pope hath Power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII WHERAS in the Apology a great coÌ„plaint was made against the Pope for that in his Breue he did forbid temporall Obedience to be performed to his Maiesty as a poynt against fayth and saluation of soules moreouer chargeth him with assuming vnto himselfe infallibility of spirit to make new Articles of sayth when euer it shall please him c. my answer therunto
conscience iustice to giue it him yet if I should doubt that by my deniall he would take away the other halfe also or perhaps my life or that some scandall would follow as that other men by my example would shew disobedience in greater thinges I should be bound in prudence and pâ—ety for auoyding of these greater euilâ— both to my selfe and others to obey and giue him the halfe of my goodes which he demaundeth but this is not directly by force of iustice and conscience as you see but per accidens that is to say â—accidentally for auoyding of those greater euills of scandall and perill if I obey noâ— But now let vs see the truth of M. Barlow in relating this resolution of S. Thomas First he cutteth of the words nisi forè per accidens which do alter the whole case and â—ayth that their Angelicall Doctour telleth them that in vnlawfâ—ll things commaunded they must obey â—or auoyding scandall and perill wheras S. Thomas sayth non teâ—tentur obedire si iniusta praecipiâ—â—â— that they are not bound to obey their Princes if they commaund vniust things Secondly M. Barlow distinguisheth not when vnlawfull things are commaunded whether they be vnlawfull only vnto the Prince that coÌ„maundeth or to the subiect in like manner to whom they are commaunded And it may be that the Ministers head conceaued not the distinction or if he did he concealed it by guile and fraud for the thing importeth much to the resolution of the case for when the thing commaunded is vnlawfull only to the commaunder as in the former example when he commaundeth me to giue halfe of my goods wrongfully then may I out of prudence as hath bene sayd for auoyding of greater euils obey that vniust commaundment but if the thing commaunded should be vnlawfull not only to the Prince to coÌ„maund but to me also to performe as to do another man iniury or to endanger my owne soule or to offend God by any sin whatsoeuer then may not I according to S. Thomas his doctrine for auoyding any scandall or perill whatsoeuer perâ—orme the same This was craftily here concealed by M. Barlow for I will not hold him so grossely ignorant as that he did not consider it and the câ—â—se oâ— this concealment was for that it maketh wholy agâ—â—st him in our mayne controuersy of temporall Obedience For that the swearing to the new Oath coÌ„maunded vnto Catholikes in preiudice of their conscience Religion is of the number of those vnlawfull things that are vnlawfull not only to the commaunder but also to â—â—e performer and consequently neither for the auoyding scandall or perill may be obeyed And therby is cut of all M. Barlowes idle discourse which he maketh in this place of â—â—e danger and perill that by taking this Oath he sayth may be auoyded vrgeth vs with the doctrine of S. Thoâ—â—â— therin that euen in things vnlawfull we must obey our temporall Princes But in this you haue seene both the depth and fidelity of the man Now let vs see a poynt or two more and so end this Parapraph Pag. 190. he hath these words against me The Epistler saith he makes the way to end this Paragraph for as coÌ„cerning Rome beiâ—g Babylon he speakes not a word as by silence granting that to be true which Cardinall Matthew playnly also acknowledgeth and â—â—sesseth to be that Babylon of the Apocalyps So hâ— And truly it is strange and ridiculous to see men of reason to proceed in this manner so without reason for it Cardinall Bellâ—rmine and other Catholikes do graunt that Rome was called Babylon by S. Iohn in the Apocalyps and by S. Peter also that wrote his Epistle from thence vnder the name of â—abylon and if S. Hierome and other Fathers do expound 〈◊〉 of Râ—me as it was Heathen persecuted the Martyrs in â—hose dayes and not of Christian Rome or the Christian people of Rome who were holy and Saynts in those dayes if this I say be so and that the Protestants be told therof aboue an hundred times and yet still their writers do comeâ— forth with this doughty Argument that Rome was Babylon what shall a modest man do but passe it ouâ—r with silence and contempt There followeth a certayne contentioÌ„ about the two â—reues of Clemens Octauus written into England at two different timesâ— about the point of succession to the Crowne â—fteâ— the Queenes death the first exhorting the Catholickeâ— to doe their best indeâ—uours â—or procuring a Cathâ—â—licke Prince the other altogether in fauour and recomâ—mendation of the aduancement of his Maiestie that 〈◊〉 is of which two Breues I wrote in my Epistle that hauiâ—â— procured some knowledg about that point I found thâ—â— they were sent into England not both togeather nor iâ—â—mediatly before the late Queenes death as was obiected but the one diuers yeâ—res before she died to wit vpon thâ— yeare 1600. and the other 3. yeares after to wit vpon thâ— yeare 1603. immediatly after the sayd Queenes death contrary to which M. Barlow sayth that Tortâ—â— affirmâ—â—â— that hauing the Copyes of 2. Breues in his hand 〈◊〉 findeth that they were sent in togeather vpon the yearâ— 1600. But the reconciliation of this is easy For thaâ— those two Breues named by Tortus are accounted by me bâ— one Breue for that they were all of one matter but dâ—plicated in effect the one to the Archpriest and Clergie thâ— other to the Laity so that there is no contradiction at alâ— For that besides that first double Breue there was anotheâ— sent in of another Argument wholy in fauour of hiâ— Maiestie in particuler as now hath bin said vpon thâ— yeare 1603. And so there iâ— no contradictioÌ„ at all in this but that both the assertions are true Only that is falsâ— which is here in parciculer affirmed by M. Barlow that iâ— the first Breue was set downe that no man might be admitted except he would first sweare not only to tolerate but also to promote the Romish Catholicke Religion which wordes are not there neither is swearing once mentioned in either of these duplicated Breues And as this is vntrue so that which ensueth is parasiticall when vnto my speach of Pope Clements particuler good opinion and affection towards his Maiesties Person when he was King of Scotland to wit that he loued him most hartily and alwayes spake honorably of him treated kindly all those of his Nationâ— that said they came froÌ„ him or any wayes belonged vnto him and oftentimes vsed more liberality that way vpon diuers occasions theÌ„ is conuenient for me perhaps to vtter here caused specialâ— prayer to be made â—or his Maiestie c. To all which M. 〈◊〉 answereth in these words That albeys there is nothing 〈◊〉 Mâ—â—â—stie but that which is amyable and admirable his parts of 〈◊〉 art grace all so singular that by the eminency of his place 〈◊〉 descryed far and neere they must needes excite great loue to his
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
but one day before his exhumation was commanded then could not that commandment come from the Pope but mâ—st needs come from the Emperour Bishops there present Heere then is found fraud in M. Barlow his allegation and to publish the same more he would needes vse the word BEFORE BVRIED in great letters as though they had well expressed pridie tumulatum buried the day before But heere perhaps some will demaund suppose this narration of Vâ—spergensis were graunted to be true as M. Barlow setteth it downe how doth it proue that the Pope commanded the exhumation Whereunto he answereth heere by a certayne demaund in a parenthesis VVho cast them out to wit those of Liege but the Pope Wherunto I answere that the Bishops and Archbishops that were with the new Emperour had excommunicated them long before and the Emperour himselfe had giuen out against them the Imperiall band which is a ciuill excommunication which besides that it is euident by the testifications of Histories is made cleere also by that they receaued them into communion presently vpon the death of the old Emperour without imparting the matter to the Pope which they would not haue done if the excoÌ„munication had not come from themselues For that no man can take away that which he could not impose And so here is nothing proued against the Pope but a great good will to calumniate him The like fraud is committed in the allegation of the other Authour Naucleâ—us who saith M. Barlow relateth verbatim both the fact and the reason of the fact as Vrspergensis doth VVherunto I answere that it is true that he relateth both but the one and the other are peruerted by M. Barlow for thus writeth Nauclerus Inopinata fama mortis Imâ—eratoris mox subsequitur c. The vnexpected fame of the death of the old Emperour did presently ensue which being diuulged all those that for gayne-sake had stuck vnto him and had sould their soules vnto him did subiect themselues sine mora without delay vnto the obedience of the yong Emperour and to the Catholicke communion But they of Liege were receaued into the said CoÌ„munion with this condition that the dead body of him that was excoÌ„municated and buried the day before in a monastery should be digged vp c. In relating which words we see that M. Barlow left out first the censure of the Author against them that had followed the part of the old excoÌ„municated Emperour And secondly he leaueth out that they were reconcyled to the new Emperour and to the Catholicke communion of the Bishops there present sine mora without any stay which inferreth that they could not send for the Popes consent to Rome Thirdly he leaueth out as he did in his former Author the words per se pridie tumulatum â—ffâ—derent that they of Leige should dig vp againe the body which the day before they had buryed Fourthly he leaneth out these words that ensued comprobaÌ„tibuâ— his qui aderant Archiepiscopis Episcopis the Archbishops and Bishops that were present approuing and giuing their consents To whome To the new Emperour that would needs haue it so which deliuereth the Pope from hauing any part therin And doth not M. Barlow trim vp Authors well that passe through his hands to make them serue his purpose But now you must heare the trymming of another which is Cuspinian the Historiographer whom I denied before to affirme that Pope Paschalis was enraged with the new Emperour Henry the fifth for burying his Father as was said in the Apologie but rather the contrary For that when King Henry the Father said I was dead and buryed in a Monastery at Leige Cuspinian writeth that his Sonne would not make peace with the Bishop of that place called Otbert except the dead corpes were pulled out of the graue againe which words he sayth that I alleadged as Cuspinian his owne words But I deny it but only I alledged his sense as may appeare in that I did not recite them in a different letter as is accustomed by them that deale playnly when the proper words of any Author are alleaged though M. Barlow doth not obserue this with me but alledgeth as my words euery where coÌ„monly in a different letter those which are not my words nor often times my sense but either framed of himself or so interlaced with speaches of his owne as that it is a quite different thing from that which I do say Let the Reader examine but some few places as they come coÌ„ferring his booke and my booke togeather and he shall see that I haue good reason to make this complaint of his perfidious dealing therein But now to the present case M. Barlow affirmeth that the latyn words of Cuspâ—â—â—â—â— are Filio procurante non potuit reconciliari Episcopus Leodiensis nisi exhumaretur cadauer by the Sonnes procurement the Bishop of Leige could not be reconciled except the dead body were taken out of the ground againe Out of which words I did inferre that the Bishop of Leige could not be reconciled to the other Bishops but vpon condition that the body should be taken vp and this at the procurement of the yong Emperour And for so much as his reconciliation with the said Bishops did imply also his reconciliation with the Emperour he that letted the one letted the other which was the yong Emperour himself who though himself would not for respectes the Bishop being a potent man vtterly deny to admyt his submission yet did he procure the stay therof by others to wit by the Archbishops and Bishops vntill he had yielded vnto the condition of taking vp the dead body consequeÌ„tly the thing is true which I alledged out of Cuspinian that the yong Emperour would not make peace with the Bishop of Leige except the body were taken vp for so much as himself was he that had letted that reconciliation as here appeareth and procured also as may be supposed the great reprehension which was giuen to the said Bishop and his coÌ„pany when they were admitted wherof Crantzius speaketh when he sayth ad fidem Regis confugieÌ„tes grauiter increpati recâ—piuntur they making their refuge to the protectioÌ„ of the Emperour they were admitted but with a grieuous reprehensioÌ„ this among other causes no doubt for hauing buryed the dead body of the ExcoÌ„municate Emperour This then being the playne meaning and sense of Cusâ—â—â—ian his alleaged speach let vs see how M. Barlow doth trym vp the same for his turne The â—ords of Cuspinian sayth he are playne Filio procurante non potuit reconciliari â—piscopus Leodiâ—â—sis nisi exhâ—maretur cadauâ—r That is By the SoÌ„nes procuremeÌ„t at whose hands but the Popes for what needed any procurement by himselfe to himselfe the Bishop could not be reconciled to whom but to the Pope who had accursed both Church and Churchmen at Liege for burying the Emperour except the dead body were taken vp againe So M. Barlow
that all the courses held against him both by Popes and Princes may in respect of his outragious demerits seeme to haue bene very myld moderate and gentle And so much for Sigonius The other wordes of Genebrard also are cited with diminution by saying that Genebrard commeth not short of Sigonius who saith that this was done to wit the deposition iussu Paschalis Pontifiâ—is by the commandement of Pasâ—halis the Pope leauing out the next words Principum qui ad generalia Comitia conuenerant and of the Princes of Germany that met in that vniuersall Diet or Parliament at Mentz so as euery thing is heere minced to the purpose scarce any thing set down sincerely simply throughout the whole booke And as for the principall point that M. Barlow would and should proue in this place that Pope Paschalâ—â— did set on the sonne against his Father now you haue seene that those his two authorities alleaged of Sigonius and Genebrard that he concurred with the generall Diet in Germany do proue it nothing at all for that the Election of the Emperour by seauen German Electors hauing bene appointed by the Sea Apostolike not much aboue an hundred yeares before that time to wit by Gregory the 5. that crowned Otho the 3. and annexed the Imperiall dignity to the Germane nation Pope Paschalis hauing by this meanes besides all other so great right to haue a hand in this matter for the good of Christendome cannot be said to haue stirred vp the sonne to rebellion when he concurred with the whole State of Germany for the translation of the Crowne from the Father to the Sonne Nor wheÌ„ the said Sonne took armes against him afterwardes doth any probable author ascribe it to the Pope but expresly vnto others and namely to the three noble men before mentioned out of Cuspinian Vnto which three noble men in like manner Vrspergensis that was present saw what passed doth ascribe the said rebellioÌ„ vpon the yeare 1105. without euer mentioning the Pope against whome notwithstanding the said Vrspergensis as one that followed the part of Henry the fourth vseth no fauour at all in his relations and consequently may be a witnes without exception as also may be Huldericus Mutius a Protestant German â—riter whose wordes are Henricus filius quorumdam consilijs seductus aduersus Patrem moliâ—ur res nouas Henry the Sonne being seduced by the counsailes of certaine men did attempt new thinges against his Father and in all his narration he toucheth not the Pope ascribing any part therin vnto him And this shall be sufficient for this matter And as for the other point that he toucheth out of Cuspinian and Sigebertus that Pope Gregory the 7. did acknowledge at his death that he had molested Henry the 4. vniustly and was sory for the same besides that it maketh nothing to our purpose for stirring vp the soÌ„ne against the father which hapned almost 20. yeares after Gregories death none of thâ— doth alledge it as a thing certaine but as a report which M. Barlow a little before proued out of the Orator to be vncertaine besides that they do not agree in the narration in diuers points finally for the most of them they are plainly contradicted by a multitude of witnesses which you may read layd togeather both by Doctor Sanders in his Monarchie and Cardinall Bellarmine in his 4. booke de Rom. Pontifice And so I shall need to say no more in this matter ABOVT THE DEATH OF HENRY the third King of France whether it may be an example of the Popes allowance of such murtâ—ers As also about the late Queene of England §. II. FOR another example and proofe that Popes are wont to allow murthers of Princes is brought in a certayne Oration which Pope Sixtus Quintus is sayd to haue made in the Consistory with admiration and praise of that fact and that the fryar which committed the murther should haue beene canonized for the fact if some Cardinalls out of their wisdome had not resisted the same whereunto was answered both by me first and afterward by Cardinall Bellarmine that no such oration was euer extant in Rome or els where but onely amongst the Protestants in forrain Countreys that wrote against it in their declamatory Inuectiue intituled Anti Sixtus who in this against the Pope deserues smal credit Onely it is acknowledged that Sixtus in a secret Consistory vpon the first news of the fact did vtter a certayn speach in admiration of the strange prouidence of almighty God said I in chastising by so vnexpected a way so â—oule and impious a murther as that King had committed vpon a Prince Cardinall Archbishop those two also of nearest bloud to his Maiesty of England without any forme of iudgment at all that a spectacle hereby of Gods iustice was proposed vnto Princes to be moderate in their power and passions for that in the midst of his great royal army and corporall guards he was strangely slaine by a simple vnarmed man when he nothing lesse expected or feared then such a disasterous death To this now M. Barlow replies with great excesse of railing against the Pope saying that the Oration was made that the Pope therin was like yong Elihu whose words boyled within him for ioy of the fact like new wine in a bottle with open mouth stretched sydes glorious tearmes he did hyperbolize both the author manner and fact and that this Oration was like to haue recâ—aued in that Consistory an Herods Plaudite in Deifying the Pope canonizing the fryar c. All which as it hath no other proofe but the assertion of M. Barlowes wild and vnruly tongue so is it easily contemned by any man of discretion especially since there be so many graue men Cardinalâ— and Bishops yet aliue that can testify of the matter and Gentlemen that were at Rome also at that tyme and neuer saw or heard that euer any such Oration of Pope Sixtus Quintus was extant or made by him in allowance or approbation of that horrible fact of the fryar though otherwise as I sayd he did highly admire the straÌ„ge prouidence of God in chastising by so vnexpected a way so foule and impiouâ— a murther as that King had committed against all order of law and iustice Secondly then hauing nothing in effect to say to this yet for that he is bound to say something for his fee allready receiued he thought best to carpe at those wordes of mâ—ne that Pope Sixtus did highly admire the strange prouidence of God in his vnexpected Iustice vpoÌ„ the sayd King and so iesting at my words of strange prouidence he saith A fit Epithete doubâ—les and fetched from profound 〈◊〉 for can Gods prouidence be strange which in the vniuersall gouerment of the world and guidance with protection of particuler creatures iâ— daily and continuall Well then here M. Barlow will needs shew the profundity of
here pretermitt the residue of the trifles which M. Barlow for lengthening his booke bringeth in spicing the same euery where with most virulent raylings as the examples of Squire and Parry which so often haue beene answered by vs the former as a meere fiction for so much as concerned his sending from Spaine into England by F. VValpole the Iesuite for poisoning the Queenes chaire and the Earle of Essex his saddle the other a deuise of his owne to wit of Parry himself to gaine the Queenes goodwill and therby some preferment by telling her that he was sent to kill her by some Catholikes out of the Land whereas indeed he was neuer trusted by them in farre lesse matters then in such an enterprize But he returneth yet once agâ—ine excessiuely to praise the said Queene That Lady Queene Elizabeth saith he the diamond amongst Princes the glory of royall Maiestie the ioy of the Christian world for her sex whilst she liued And what will the discreet reader hould M. Barlow for his sex Truly I thinke for one of the most grosse and palpable flatterers that mankind doth containe and as for her being the ioy of the Christian world I meruaile what Christian world he can pretend to meane For if he will confine the Christian world within the Protestant world it is God wote but a very small part therof and yet in this Protestant world neyther was she held to be so rare a diamond or glory of royall Maiestie nor was she such a ioy vnto them as there is sayd which is euident by their writings extant especially of the Lutherans that misliked her religion maÌ„ner of proceeding and especially her taking vpon her to be head of the Church whereat they do laugh euen vntill this day And the same or greater dislike was euen in the purer sort of Caluinists both at Geneua the Mother-Church of that profession as also throughout all France Holland Zeland Scotland and England so as this little Protestant world held her not for such a ioy nor yet Iewell of theirs as here by M. Barlow she is described But as for the Catholike Christian world for what diamond they held her and what Ioy they tooke of her and in her appeareth well by their bookes which are extant and will indure till the worlds end so as the chiefe ground of all these excessiue and exorbitant prayses and flatteries is no other as far as I can see but the volubility of this Ministers tongue for the present what it may be hereafter vpon the blast of other windes I know not but it is like that the Weather cock will turne Some examples haue we seene before of his constancy about the Earle of Essex and may do also hereafter concerning Queene Elizabeth if his Maiestie that now reigneth shall neuer so little turne the fauour of his eyes from her actions which of all other Princes by the iudgement of most men he hath most cause to do as somwhat I touched in my â—ormer letter and now shal be inforced to repeat somwhat againe for defending my selfe against M. Barlows calumniations but it shal be only the conclusion of that my discourse To conclude then said I about Queen Elizabeth albeit Pius Quintus some other Popes did excoÌ„municate her and cut her of from the body of the Catholike Church by Ecclesiasticall Censures in regard of her persecuting Catholicke Religion yet did I neuer know it hitherto proued that any Pope procured or consented to any priuate violence against her person albeit if the forealleadged Statute of the 28. yeare of King Henry the 8. be true wherin it is determined both by the King himself his Counsel and whole Parliament and by the Archbishop Cranmer with his Doctors in his Iudiciall Seat of the Arches that Lady Elizabeth was not legitimate nor that her mother was euer King Henryes true wife which once being true could neuer afterward by any humane power be made vntrue or amended to the preiudice of a third rightly by due succession interessed therin if as the whole Parlament testifyed it should be against all honour equity reason and good conscience that the said La. Elizabeth should at any tyme possesse the said Crowne then the said Popes respecting in their said sentence as it is certayne they did the actuall right of the Queene oâ— France and Scotland and of her noble issue his Maiestie that now is they might proceed as they did against the other for her remouall whom they held for an vsurper in fauour of the true inheritours oppressed by her not only by spirituall but temporall armes also as agâ—inst a publicke malefactor and intruder contrary to right and conscience And I cannot see how this fawning Apologer can eyther without open vntruth or manifest iniury to his Maiesty auerre the contrary Which being true doth greatly iustify the endeauours and desires of all good Câ—tholicke people both at home and abroad against her their principall meaning being euer knowne to haue bene the deliuerance preferment of the true Heire most wrongfully kept out vniustly persecuted for right â—ousnes sake To this discourse of mine M. Barlow with many bitter wordes taketh vpon him to reply this that followeth First that there are many more euidences to proue that the Pope is Antichrist then that Queene Elizabeth was illegitimate this you see what force it hath how fit it is vnto this purpose and therfore he taketh haÌ„dfast of another hould thus If King Henry her Father B. Cranmer with his Court of Arches and body of the Parlament did sentence her for such yet the same Father Arches and Parlament vpon better ground within few yeares renounced the same sentence and repealed that act This now is somewhat if M. Barlow had cited the Act or Parlament or Decree of Bishop Cranmer or his Arches or some other particularity how or where it was repealed as I did cite for the contrary of her condemnation Rastals Abridgments I do find indeed in the booke of Statutes that seauen yeares afterwards to wit anno 35. of Henry the eight cap. pâ—â—â—o when King Henry had determined in person to go ouer and make warre in France as in the said Statute is affirmed and after the death of so many other wyues had married the Lady Katherine Parre widdow hauing small hope of more issue he made a certaine declaration of the succession if in case himselfe and the Prince Edward and Lady Mary should dye without lawfull issue to wit that for lacke of such issue the said Lady Elizabeth should succeed in her turne but there is no word of her legitimation nor of the repeale of the foresaid Statute declaratory of the inualidity of her Fathers and Mothers marriage And albeit I find diuers other clauses of that Statute 28. Henry 8. cap. 7. repealed by 1. Edward 6. cap. 12. and primo secundo Philip. Mariae cap. 1. 8. yet do I not find any
thither For now we haue shewed that Pope Alexander the third died in the yeare 1181. which was sâ—aueÌ„ yeares before Fredericke resolued to weare the Crosse and wage that baâ—taile and more then 8. before his arriuall into Armenia where he was drowned And here to vrge M. Barlow with a Dilemma Eyther he knew this diuersity of time I meanne of the Popes death and Frederickes expedition for the holy-land when he wrot his booke or he knew it not If the first then is he very shameles and malicious who contrary to his owne knowledge and conscience would deceaue his Reader in a printed booke and that in so triumphant manner as you haue heard If he knew it not then truly he is very ignorant and vnworthy to write in defence of so great a Monarch as his Maiestie is and withall very negligent that would not so much as see search his Authors or els very foolish and simple if he would haue vs belieue him without any other authority or proofe then his bare word which I thinke of his next neighbours will not be taken for much And by this example the Reader may know how hereafter to trust him in other places when he vaunteth and braggeth of aduantages for these are but suddaine pangs wherunto the desperatenes of his cause doth driue him when no other answere can be made For what is true or vntrue â—e seemeth to care little or not to seeke much but only indeauoreth to intertaine talke and get his fee and yet this is the man who in his Epistle to his Maiestie thinketh me too weak to dispute with him and so braggeth of himselfe as that he hath neither dallied nor deluded his Reader yea so farre is he confident in this his answere that he sayth he assureth himself security â—rom any sound Reply thereto fâ—oÌ„ me But what eyther of vs haue done in this kind he for Answere or I for Reply not he nor I but the Reader must iudge And yet heere I dare bouldly interpose thus far also mine owne Iudgement that if M. Barlow be no more exact in other thinges then he hath bene in this let him brag as much as he list flatter himselfe with the conquest before euer he see his Aduersaries weapons let him â—ound out his owne triumphes in euery page of his booke and make himselfe as glorious as he can yet it wil be more easâ—e then prayse worthy for any aduersary to refute him seeing his proâ—es are euery where so weake his lies so frequent his citations so corrupt and the whole order method of his discourse so patched harsh and disioynted to speake nothing of his rayling flattery and slanderous detractions as like the apples of Gomorrha with a light touch all wil resolue to smoke and dust as any one who with indifferent attention shall reade ouer the same will soone confesse For what now I pray you is become of all this sharpe charge and virulent accuâ—ation of Pope Alexander Is it not euidently demonstrated vpon the diuersity of the time of Fredericks being in Asia and death of the said Pope to be counterfait to be false to be impossible I thinke M. Barlow will not affiâ—me that Pope Alexander by speciall priuiledge before the generall resurrection did rise againe from death to life to dispatch this busines of betraying the Emperour and yet I call back my word againe for I see by this charge that he is resolutelâ— bent to affirme any thing And this priuiledge the poore man must confesse or else cry guilty against himselfe of as many lyes as there be lines in his accusation to speake the least for here is no pinching instance but a forged fiction no betraying of the Emperour whiles he was in the Holy-Land no letters no pictures no Pope Alexander then liuing noe feare of annoyance to the Romish Sea with which at that time Frederick was vnited in all loue and freindship at Pope Clements request vndertoke that enterprize which M. Barlow truly calleth the fighting in Christes quarrell though it were not for the Protestant Ghospell but for the preseruation of the Catholicke faith in the Holy-Land which this Minister and his Mates in their Bedlam bookes and Sermons call Idolatryâ— the VVhore of Babylon Antichrist and the like But it was sufficient with M. Barlow in this place to make it Christes quarrell because he meant to force it against the Pope such is the wit conscience and sinceritie of the man And truly in this place seing the truth so cleere and testimonies of Authors so consonaÌ„t I was somwhat moued with curiosity to see if eyther in the Apology of the last editioÌ„ with the Monitory Epistle or the Torturers book there were any thing more said for this fable in supply of M. Barl. defect silence in the same In the former I only found meÌ„tioned the History of Fredericke written in dutch in the other many names as the dutch Historie our English Bale Scardius the German Caluinist and besides theÌ„ Barnus Ioannes Marius Cremonensis but all this noyse is but emptie wind all these witnesses but one and he scant worth the taking vp For this dutch Historie Scardius is all one and so is Scardius and Bale the one taking it out of the other the three Catholike names if they be Catholickes serue but for Cyphers to fill vp paper for no words of theirs are cited no workes extant of this matter that we can heare of vnles perhaps lately printed at Amaurâ—t in Vtopia anno magno Platonis and so conuayed into England amongst our Ministers And as for the narration of Bale in his Centuries of this Fredericks death it is so frought with lies those grosse palpable ill coherent and incredible as a learned writer of our age hauing refuted many of theÌ„ addeth in the end his censure or iudgemeÌ„t of the Author in these words Piget taedetque plura vanissima Balai meÌ„dacia percensere quae adeo sunt enormia vt posteros nostros vix puteÌ„ credituros fieri potuisse vt hoc saculum nostruÌ„ tam eâ—â—rontes criminatores caluÌ„niatores protulerit That is to say It doth loath and trouble me to recount more lyes of this most vaine Bale in this matter of Fredericke which are so grosse or enormous as I scarcely perswade my selfe that those who shall liue after vs wil euer be brought to think it credible that this age of ours hath brought forth such shameles accusers and slanderers So he And if any list to make tryall hereof let him turne to the place here by me cyted and he will desire no more satisfaction in this behalfe but for euer after loath from his hart so lying a Mate And here the Reader may with himselfe consider that if we against the knowne testimony written histories of former tymes should alleadge to the contrary our onely bare assertions as M. Barlow doth in this without further authority coniecture or proofe how would our