in his Chronology Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies two speciall Bookes also in English not long agoe especially published about that matter the Three ãâã 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 emineÌcy of her Pastour that the sayd Pastour therof is but a member also of the Catholik Church but yet the chiefest meÌber 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 âuidently false and impertinent for that Isay the Prophet in the place cited doth not repââhend the Religion of the Iewes but their life and âââners 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 Iâââ 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 Qââmodo facta es meretrix Ciuitas fidelis plena iudicy Iâstâia habitauit in ea nunc autem homicidae Argentum tuum versum ãâã 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 faiâh 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 maÌners 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 GeÌtile 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
oâ the Egâptians to hate his people not that God did either physice oâ moraliâer properly moue their wills or command or counsaile the Egyptians to hate his people but only occasionaliâer that is to say as S. Augustine expoundeth the matter God by doing good and bâeâsing his said people which was a good action in him gâue the Egyptians occasion to enuy and hate them they abusing that to euill which he did for good And for that this occasionall concurrence may be tearmed also morall in a certaine large sense therforâ God may be said also to coÌcurre morally in this meaning but for âo much as these two meanings of moral concurrence are far different the first which is proper may be denied and this which is vnproper may be granted without âll contradiction for so much as a contradiction is not but when the selfe same thing is affirmed and denied in the selâe same subiect and in the same reâpect which here is not no more then if a man should say these two propositions are contradictory God commandeth expresly all men in generall Non ocâides thou shalt not kill and yet to diuers in particuler for seuerall causes he permitteth to kil and yet here is no contradiction for that killing is taken in different senses And this is so plaine that M. Barlow though he striue to talke som what for that he is obliged for his credit hired therunto as you know yet findeth hâ nothing to fasten vpon by any probability and therefore in the end hauing intertained himselfe for a while in repeating what Bellarmine saith in the place from whence this supposed contradiction about the different sorts of Gods concurrence is taken in repetition wherof he sheweth plainly not to vnderstaÌd him he finally breaketh out in his malice to end with the odious example of Iames Clemânt the Monke in killing the late King of France demânding how God concurred with that action either in generall or in particuler But to this now the answere is already made and so many wayes of Gods concurrence or not concurrence as concerne this cause haue bene explained as to stand longâr vpon it were losâe of time let M. Barlow meditatâ by himselfe how God can concurre with so many âurthering actions of his by slandering and deâaming his neighbour as heere againe he chargeth Iesuits witâ poisoning of Popes which being not only apparantly fââââ but without all âhew or colour of probabilitâ yet most violently malicious sure I am that God concurreth not therwith either physicè or moraliter by mouing his hart or tongue to speake so wickedly and much lesâe by commanding or approuing the same But whether he âo it occasionalitâr or no to his greater sinne damnation ââat I know not but certaine I am that the contumely being âo intolerably false and ridiculous as it is and yet vtterâd and repeated againe so often by him in this his booke most certainely I say I do perswade my selfe that the Dâuel hath coÌcurred with him in al these three waies both phâsice moraliter and occasionaliter Almighty God forgiue him and make him to see and feele out of what spirit he speaketh And so much for this second proposition The third contradiction is vrged out of Bellarmine in two books of his the first de Clericis where he sayth that all the Fathers do constantly teach that Bishops do succeed the Apostles and Priests tâe seâuenty disciples and then in his book de Pontifice he hath the contrary that Bishops do not properly succeâd the Apostles Vnto which my answere was at that time vpon viewing the places themselues in Bellarmin that this was no contradiction at all for that it was spoken in diuârs senses to wit that Biâhops do succeed the Apostles iâ power of Episcopal order not in power of extraorâinary Apostolical iurisdiction and so both were true and might well stand togeather for that all Bishops haue tâe same sacred Episcopal order which the Apostles had but not their extraordinary iurisdiction ouer the whole world as each one of them had which answere oâ mine since that time hath bene confirmed by Cardinall Bellarmâne himselfe in his owne defence though in different words saying Episcopos succedere Aposâolis c. that Bishops do succeed the Apostles as they were the first Bishops of particuler Churches as Iames of IerusaleÌ Iohn of Ephesus the like is graÌted in the book de Clericis but yet that Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles as they were Apoâtleâ that is to say as they were sent into all the world with most âull power is denyed in the booke de Ponâiâice So as in different senses both are true Neque sunt contraria vel conââaâictoria sayth Beâlârmine nisi apudeos qui I ogiâam ignoranâ vâl sensu communi carent neither are they contrary or contradictory but with them that want Logicke or common sense So he All which being so plaine yet notwithstanding M. Barlow will needes say somwhat to the contrary not âor that he doth not see that the thing which he is to say is nothing at all to the purpose but perchance that hâ thinketh himselfe bouâd to say somwhat for fashions âake and so rusheth himselfe into absurditieâ as now âou âhal ãâã Thus then he relateth the case tâat Bellârmine ãâ¦ã place that Bisâops do succeed the Apostles and in another thaââisâopâ do not properly succeed the Apostles and least any should thiâkâ tâât this is no Antilogy because in the last proposition âhe ãâã âpââpââly qualifieth it tâe Cardinall himsâlfe haâh in the vâry next pre ãâã ãâã Chapter preuented that whâre he saith that Bishops do prââââây succeed the Apoââles then which what more strong counâeâ-ââocke caâ there be bââââene any two So he And what âe meâneth by this strong counter-shocke I know not but sure I am that he giueth a âtrong counter-buffe to his owne credit by bringing in this reply for that Bellarmine in the very selâeâame place and words of the precedent Chapter whâre he sayth that Bishops do properly succeâd the Apoââles sheweth him selfe to meane in succâssion of âpiscopall ordâr and power of preaching thereto bâlonging in which power of preaching he sâyth Episâopi proprie Apostoliâ ãâã ut Bishops do properly succeed the Apoââlâs and proueth it out of the sixt of the Acts but where he sayth in the other place that they do not properly succeed the Apostlâs he meanâth and so expoundeth his meaning to be tâat tâey do not succeed them in their extraordinary vniueâsall iurisdiction ouer all the world And could M. Barlow choose but see this when he wrote his Reply If he did not yet will I not retuâne the vnciuill word here vsed to me out of the Poet for thâre lyeth his learning nauiget Amiâyras âor that my braine wants purging c. but I will answeâe âim moâe modestly to wit that if he saw not this error of his then it was at
was this I find no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholike affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith and what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true Mother therby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother but only the declaration Wherfore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth is a meere calumniation amongst the rest So in my former writing now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points In the first whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obedience he is very briefe for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation that the Popes Breue forbids not temporall Obedience No saith he it forbids the Oath wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance But this we deny and haue often denied and still must deny and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands who though he hath often affirmed the same yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue For that being once proued all controuersie about this Oath were ended And it is a strange kind of demeanour so often and euery where to affirme it and neuer to proue it He addeth for his reason in this place He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne and sayth neuer a word more But what doth this proue Or in what forme is this argument For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor that we do so or that the Popes Breue doth so we vtterly deny it as manifestly false For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour Wherfore this proofe is nothing at allâ But he hath another within a leafe after which is much more strange for he bringeth me for a witnes against my selfe in these words VVhat hitherto sayth he he âaâ laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue ââinsayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grââteth If this be so that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduantage and some cause to vaunt but if no word of this be true and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen that is forced to inuent these silly shifts Let vs lay forth then the mystery or rather misery of this matter as himselfe relateth it The Pope saith he being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause or reason of the vnlwâulnes of the Oath the Epistler saith there are as many reasons that it is vnlawfull as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion against which they must sweare And is not this a good reason say I Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the coÌscience of a Catholike man from swearing But how doth be proue by this that I confesse the Breue to forbid temporall Obedience Do you marke I pray you his inference and consider his acumen But there is no one poynt sayth he in the Oath that doth not so to wit that doth not concerne Religion euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience I do sweare before God that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme c. Ergo I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles and consequently leaueth no Obedience ciuill or temporall But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion euen the very first Article that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience âhen doth it not touch religioÌ in our sense For that we do distinguish these two deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts the one conteyning points of temporall obedience for acknowledging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes the other concerning points of Catholike Religion belonging to the Popes Authority To the first wherof we refuse not to sweare but only against the second And now M. Barlow sayth that all concerne religion and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedience but denieth all And is not this a worthy dispute But let vs passe to the second question whether the Pope or Church hath authority to make new Articles of faith as the Apologer obiected And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part that the Catholicke Church preâendeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith that were not of themselues true and of faith before he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Hermes and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall Whereto I answere that Doctor Stapleton sayth only that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not admitted before as for example the Epistles of S. Iames the two bookes of Machabees the Epistle of Iude and diuers others as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and suâscribed so hath the same Church at this day and shall haue vnto the worlds end authority to do the same Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret sayth Doctour Stapleton that is if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto herâ librum aliquem alââm nândum in Canânem recepâum Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes
least a great ouersight in him to look so negligently to what he writeth but if he did see it yet wouâd so falsely alledg it then were a puâgation rather to be wished for his conscience then for his braines But he ceaseth not heere we must see two or three false tricâs of his more First he taketh vpon him to proue that Bellaâmine in the place before cited de Clericis doth indââd proue thaâ Bishops do succeed the Apostle not only in power of holy Order but also of Iurisdiction For that Bâllarmine being to proue sayth he according to the title of his Chapter that Bishops are greater then Priâsts he setcheth his sâcond reason from their differânt power of iurisdiction in the new Testament because they the Bishops haue the same that the Apostles had Nam âpiâcopos Apostolis succedere that Bishops do succâed the Apostles therin is not one mans testimony alone constanter docent omnes Patres sayâh he all the Fathers do hould it with one consent without varying in themselues or differing from others Hitherto M. Barlow And if he shew himself faithfull in this you may trust him if you will another time but if in this as in most other things he still vse shifting then you may trust him as you find him First then it is true that Cardâ Bellarmine his purpose in this 14. Chapter is to proue against Caluin and some other Protestants that Bishops and Priests are not equall in degree but that Priests are inferiour to Bishops and he promiseth to proue three points First that a Bishop is greater then a Priest quoad Ordinis poâestatem in the powâr of holy order Secondly quantùm ad iurisdictionem that he iâ greater also in iurisdiction for that a Priest hath iuriâdiction but ouer one Parish and a Bishop ouer his Diocâssâ thirdly that Bishops in the primitiue Church were not only as Caluin sayth like Consuls in a Senate but like Princâs ratâer in ãâã The firât anâ ãâã of which points appertaine not to our pââsânt pââpoâe âut ââly the ââcond about iuriâââction ââd this not much neiâher if you consider it weâl âor that Cardinaââ ãâã inâent is to shew that the iuriââiction of Bâsâops iâ greater theÌ that oâ Prieâts but not thât Bishops had aâl the iuriâdictioÌ which the Apostles had noâ doth âe once name it or say any such thing and it is a noâorioââ deceipt of M. Barâââ when he sayth ââere that ãâã âetcheth his sâcond reâson to proue the prehemineÌce of Bishops aboue Pâiests froÌ their power of iuridisâtion becauâe they haue the sâme that the Apostles had Bellarmines words are these Seâââââ probatur hâc idem ex aistinââiâue Aposâcloâum Disâipâlorâm sâptuaginta Secondly the same is proued to wit that Bishops are greater then Priests by the diâtinction of the Apostles and the seauenty Disciples and then do ensue immediatly those words Episâopos Apostolis sucâedere that Bishops do succeed the Apostles and Prieââs the seauenty disciples all Fathers do constantly teach So that here Bellarmine doth not found his argument of prouing Bishops to be greater and worthâer then Priestsâ vpon the succession of Bishops to the Apostles Apostlicall Iuâisdiction but in the dignity of holy Order which is sufficient to proue theÌ to be greater then Priâsts nor doth he fetch this his second reason from iurisdiction but from distinction as you see in his plaine words and therfore these other words of M. Barlow written in great letters that they haue the same to wit IurisdictioÌ which the Apostles had and did succeed the Apostles therin this I say is falsely put in and he did well to write the word therin in markable great letters for that it contayneth a markable fraude no such word bâing in Bellarmine to that sense nor did all Fathers nor any Father teach this that Bishops succeed the Apostles in Apostolicall Iurisdiction but rather the plaine contrary as is largely proued in the other places ciâed out of the fouâth book de Pontifice where the negatiue is put downe by Bellarmine as you haue heard concerning Apostolicall Iurisdiction to wit that Bishops do not therin succeed vnto the Apostles which though of it selfe it be euident for that euery Bishop hath not Iurisdiction ouer the whole world as the Apostles had nor may teach or preach or build Churcheâ throughout the world as they by their vniuersal iurisdiction might yet doth Bellarmine proue the same largely târoughout foure whole Chapters togeather shewing that alâeit Christ our Sauiour did giue immediatly vnto all the Apostles vniuersall iurisdiction ouer the world but yet differently to S. Peter from the rest for that he was appointed to be the ordinary high Pastour ouer the same and they extraordinary and consequently he to haue successours in his vniuersall iurisdiction and they not yet doth he not so giue it to all their successours but only mediatly by the chiefe ordinary Pastour of al which is Peters successour and that also with more limitation of place wherof ensueth that no Bishop besides the Bishop of Rome though he succâed the Apostles in dignity of Episcopall Order yet doth he noâ in iuriâdiction but receiueth that mediatly only from God by the sayd Bishop of Rome And this doth Bellarmin proue to wit that all Bishops take their iurisdiction from the Bishop of Rome by eight seuerall arguments out of Scriptures Fathers Councells and reasons in one chapter which is the 24. next following and answereth all the arguments obiected to the contrary to wit fix by name repeating often and prouing that in this power of iurisdiction Episcopi non succedunt proprie Apostâlis Biâhops do not succeed properly the Apostles expounding also what he meanâth by the word properlyâ Dicuntur Episcopi sayth he succedere Apostolis non proprie eo modo quo ânus Episcopus alteri vnus Rex alteri sed duplici alia ratione primò ratione Ordinis sacri Episcopalis secundò per quamdam similituâinem c. Bishops are sayd to succeed the Apostles not propeâly as one Bishop succeedeth another and one King aâother in all their power and iurisdiction but two other wayes the first by reason of sacred Episcopâll Ordâr which they haue which the Apostles had and secondly by a certaine similitude or proportion that as the Apostles were the âirst and immediate vnder Christ when he was vpon earth so are Bishops now vnder the chiefe Bishop c. Aâl which being set downe so clearely in Bellarmines owne words and writings heare I pray you what modest conclusion M. Baâlow maketh of all that is said If he stand saith he on the place where the negatiue is to wit in the fourth booke de Pontifice there indeed the Cardinall driuen to âis shifâs is forced to coyne this distinction but yet that salues not the contradictioÌ but maketh it greater For therin he sheweth that he maniâestly opposeth both himselfe and all the Fathers For in superiority of Iurisdiction Bishops by
Ely of whome whiles he was silent many had some opinion of learning but since all is resolued to lying immodest rayling and some few light Terentian Plautinian phrases which aswel bâseeme a Deuine writing in matters of such moment and in defence of so great a Monarch to dally withall as it doth a Bishop to lead a morrice-daunce in his hose and dublet This man I say answereth hereunto that perhaps so the case stood then when those Protestants did write but that is well neere 20. yeares agoe but now it is otherwise Which is asmuch as if he had said that this new beliefe in England is not like the old alwayes one but is refined altered with the tyme and therefore no argument can be drawne from a thing done 20. yeares past for that is to great antiquity for so new-fangled a fayth which is alwaies in motion and hath her waynes changes quarters and full like the Moone But yet I must aske him further how he will proue by any example of the Puritan writers this their change and submission to the Protestants conformity of doctrine with theÌ more now then 20. yeares past Are they not still in the same degree of difference and oppositioÌ as before Doe they not still deny our Sauiours descent into hell Do they not disclay me from the English Hierarchie Will they acknowledge the Kings Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall as King Henry did challenge it Or will they recall what they haue written of their discipline that it is an essentiall marke of the Church without which there were no Church no Faith no Ghospell and consequently the Protestants to be no Ghospellers to be out of the Church out of the number of the faithfull 29. But for further confutation of both these Superintendents and more cleere explication of the thing it selfe besides what is afterwards said in this booke touching this point it shall not be amisse here to set downe the words of a few Protestant and Puritan late and yet liuing writers what they iudge of ech other in this affayre that our very enemyes may be iudges of the most shamefull assertion of these two Prelates That the Protestants and Puritans differ in matters only cerimoniall and agree in essentiall And the reason that I produce no more in this kind is for want of their bookes which being not worth the sending so far seldome come to our hands I will begin with the Protestants 30. And to omit Thomas Rogers whose testimony is after to be produced in the Discussion it selfe what other thing doth Oliuer Ormerod in his discouery of Puritan-Papisme annexed to his Picture of a Puritan prooue but that the said Puritans are Hereticks and haue ioyned themselues with the Pharisies Apostolickes Arians Pebuzians Petrobusians Florinians CârinthiaÌs Nazarens Begardines Ebionites Catababdites Eâtheusiasts Donatists Iouinianists Catharists And least any should thinke that this coniunction is only in matters cerimonial he laieth to their charge these ensuing heresies that there is no diuersâây between a Priest and a Bishop that Bishops haue no iuâisdiction that all synnes be equall that the Minister is of the essence of baptisme with the like And in the second dialogue he maketh in plaine tearmes this obiection that there is no difference in matters fundamentall but accidentall and then answereth the same that they do differ from the Protestants in some things that are fundamentall and substantiall which he proueth by the article of Christs descending into hell And he might haue proued it further by the aboue rehearsed articles for which Iouinian Aerius and others were reputed by the auncient Fathers and condemned for Hereticks 31. VVith this Oliuer of Cambridge agreeth A. N. of Oxford in his Bible-bearer towards the midest for thus he writeth They refuse to subscribe to the Kings lawfull authority in causes Ecclesiasticall to the article of religion to the booke of Common prayer and the orders rites and cerimonies of our Church nay they dissent from vs in things accidentall and cerimoniall So he By which last antithesis of accidentall cerimoniall differences it is most euident that the former were essentiall fundamentall Neither doe I see how this can be denyed by any for if the Puritans refuse to subscribe to the articles of Protestant religion who seeth not that they approue it not and consequently differ in essentiall points and that M. Barlow ouerlashed very much when he wrote that their vnkind quarrell with Puritans was in another kind and not in matters of religion wherein forsooth out of his great kindnes he will haue them to agree 32. And not to stand more for proofe hereof from Protestants D. Couel cleereth the matter when he saith But least any man should thinke that our contentions were but in smaller points and the difference not great both sides haue charged the other with heresies if not infidelities nay euen such as quite ouerthrow the principall foundation of our Christian faith Thus he And this I thinke is another manner of matter then externall cerimonies or accidentall differences for if this be not a plaine iarre amongst Protestants and Puritans in Religion I would faine know what M. Barlow will more require thereunto but I see S. Gregories wordes verified in these men where he saith solent haeretici alia apertè dicere alia occultè cogitare the heretikes are wont to speake otherwise openly then inwardly they thinke for when they deale amongst themselues then are Protestants and Puritans heretikes and infidells to ech other but when they answere vs then all are friendes all good Christians all vnited in doctrine deuided only in cerimonies accidentall differences This is another manner of equiuocation then any of our schooles will allow and only fit for such as are his schollers qui in veritate non stetit sed mendax fuit ab initio 33. From Protestants I come to Puritans who in this case are no lesse eager playne and resolute then the Protestants but rather more for this in expresse tearmes the Author of the Twelue generall arguments concludeth against all the Superintendents of England togeather that they are Vsurpers and Tyrants and execute an vsurped power ouer the Church and one reason to proue the same is ex concessis for that their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction is deriued from the King else say they it is a flat deniall of his Supremacy as there they shew And in the next reason which is the 4. and last brought in for proofe of their assumption or minor thus they conclude There are no true and sober Christians but will say that the Churches of Scoâland France the Low Countryes and other places that renounce such Archbishops and Bishops as ours are as Anti-christian and vsurping Prelates are true Churches of God which they could not be if the authority prerogatiues they claime to themselues were of Christ and not vsurped for if it were the ordinance of Christ
rayse and reuiue the same agayne after his death and make it his owne by this sinfull vnchristian exprobration therof But what maketh this to the purpose we haue in hand surely nothing but to shew the malice and misery of the slaunderer For let Father Persons be a ranging voluntary runegate and Hispanized Camelion as here he is termed or any thing els which an intemperate loose or lewde tongue can deuise for his conâumely what is all this to the matter in hand that is to say to the writing of the former letter or who was the author thereof Doth not here malyce and folly striue which of them shall haue the vpper hand in M. Barlow But yet one point he hath more of singularity in folly which I suppose will goe neere to make the reader laugh if he be not in choler with him before for his malice For wheras I had professed my selfe to be perswaded vpon the reasons set downe that his Maiestie was not the penner of the Apologie though it was printed by Barker his Printer and set forth authoritate Regia by the Kings authority alleadging for example that first of the minister T. M. knowne afterwardes to be Thomas Morton who published some yeares gone his lying and slaunderous Discouery against Catholikes and gaue it this approbatioâ that it was set forth by direction from Superiours though perhaps no Superiour euer read it and the like I sayd might be suspected that this other Apologie furnished with authoritate Regia might perhaps proue to be the worke of some other T. M. to wit Thomas Montague somewhat neere to his Maiestie by reason of his Ministeriall office which then he held all which declaration notwithstanding Maister Barlow is so set to haue men thinke that I knew and perswaded my selfe that it was the Kings booke indeed and that by those two letters T. M. I meant Tua or Tanta Maiestas By those ciphers saith he of T. M. if he will speake without equiuocation he meant Tua or Tanta Maiestas And haue you euer heard such a dreame or deliration in one that professeth wit Marke his sharpenes I doe say that this second T. M. doth signify Thomas Montague do sett it downe expresly in the margent I doe describe the person and office neere the king as being then Deane of his Chapell though I name it not I doe shew probabilities how he might presume to write and set forth that booke authoritate Regia by shewing it only to the king And how could I then by those two letters of T. M. meane Tua or Tanta Maiestas or what sense of grammer or coherence of phrase would those latyn wordes make for so much as I wrot in English what shall I say is not he worthy to pretend a Bishopricke that hath no more wit then this But let vs goe forward to examyne other poyntes He standeth much vpon the exception taken of calling Cardinall Bellarmine Maister Bellarmine and his defence consisteth in these poyntes distended impertinently throughout diuers pages That his Maiestie being so great a King might call such an vpstart officer that knoweth not where to rake for the beginning of his sublimity Maister That Christ our Sauiour was called Rabbi by Nicodemus Rabboni by Mary Magdalen and that Christ himselfe acknowleged the title to his disciples Iohn 13. You call me Lord Maister you do well for so I am That S. CypriaÌ called Tertullian his Maiâter Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris was called Maister oâ the Sentences in all which speaches sayth he the word Maister is taken for a name of credit and not of reproach These are his arguments Wherâunto I answer first that the greater the Prince is the more commonly they doe abound in courtesy of honorable speach and consequently his Maiesties greatnes made rather for my coniecture then otherwise that if he had beene the Writer of the booke he would not haue vsed that terme of contempt to such a man and secondly for so much as concerneth the dignity degree of a Cardinall in it self so much scorned by M. Barlow it shal be well that he do read ouer the fourth chapter of Carâinall Bellarmines last booke of answer to his Maiesââes âreâace De comparatione Regis Cardinalis where he shââl ãâã so much raked togeather to vse his owne phrase of conteâpt for the dignity and high estimation of that state in the Catholike Church as he wil be hardly âbâe to diâperse the same in the sight of godly and wâsâ men with all the contumelious speach he can vse therof espâcâally for so much as Cardinall Bellarmine his wordeâ oâââomise are these AdducaÌiudicium testimonis Paâââm vâtârum qui primis qâângentis annis sloruerunt quos à sâ âecipi Rex ipse supra testatus est I wilâ bring forth the iudgment and teâtimonies saith he of the ancient Fathers which florished in the first fiue hundred yeares after Christ whom the King before testified that he doth admit and receiue So he Thirdly where he alleageth that Christ was called Rabbi and Rabboni and acknowledged himselfe to be so to wit a Maister and Teacher helpeth nothing Maister Barlowes purpose at all For we graunt that the word Maister may signify two thinges first the authority of a teacher or doctor and so our Sauiour in respect of the high and most excellent doctrine that he was to âeach vnto the world for saluatioÌ of soules was called Maister by exâellenây yea the only Maister for so doth our Sauiour expressely affââme in S. Matthews ghospell Be you not called Maisters for that Christ is only your Maister In which sense he is also called Doctor by eminency in the Prophet Isay who promised amoÌg other things in the behalf of God to his people Non saciet aâolâre ad tevââââ Doctorem tuum He wil not take froÌ you agâine your Doctor or Maister Iosue also in this sense writeth that he called togeather Principes Iudices Magistâos The Princes Iudges Maisters of the people So as in this sense of teaching gouerning directing the word Maister beareth a great dignity and our Sauiour ioyned the same with the word Lord when he sayd you call me Lord Maister you do well therin And so if the Apâlogeâ whosoeuer he were had this intentioÌ to honâur Card. Bellarmine with the dignity of Doctor teacher wheÌ he called him M. Bellarmine I graunt that no discourtesy was offered vnto him by that title But now there is another sense in vsing this word Maââter as it is a common title giuen to vulgar men and the leaâtâ lowest of all other titles of courtesy accustomed to be giuen for that aboue this is the word Syr aboue that agayne Lord and then Excellency Grace Maiestâ and the like And in this sense and common acceptance of the word Maister I sayd in my Letter that it might be taken in contempt
coat for you preach also if I be not deceaued though with shame inough somtims as you did against your Maister the Earle of Essex after that you had heard his Confession and consâquently in this your sense you may be counted in like manneâ Ordinis Praedicatorum of the order of Preachers and so a Iesuite But this is ridiculous Let vs come to that which is more malicious You write that the Iesuite Victoria doth iarre with Doctor Sanders about this temporall power of the Pope for that wheras Doctor Sanders sayth that the Pope receiued both powers spirituall and ciuill together with the keyes you make Victoria to contradict him saying No not so for that this power of the keyes is another power different from the ciuill But what iarre is this both speaches are true in both Authors senses and meanings For as it is true that S. Peter with the keyes receyued both powers spirituall and teÌporall the one directly and the other indirectly as Doctour Sanders teacheth so yt is also true which Victoria writeth that these two powers are different one from the other in their owne natures especially when they are in different subiectes as the one in the Pope and the other in the King in which sense Victoria spake yea also and when they are found in one and the selfe same man as namely the Pope for that he hath them by different manners the one immediatly and directly which is the spirituall the other secondarily and indirectly which is the temporall so as here is no iarre or contradiction but a cosenage rather of M. Barlow in misalleadging the playne meaning of this new made-Iesuite Franciscus de Victoria And no lesse abuse doth he offer to Cardinall Bâllarmine in alleadging him quite against his owne meaning in the very last vpshot of his pretended proofes out of Scriptures a little before wherof he maketh his Conclusion in these wordes By law Diuine then sayth he it was excluded to wit this temporall authority giuen to S. Peter for no man can traÌsferre that to another which he hath not himselfe but this royall Soueraignty ouer Princes to depose them or dispose of their States Christ âad not as he was man and yet he sayd Omnis potestas data est mihi in caelo in terra yea such power had bene vnprofitable and superfluous sayth the Grand Cardinall therefore he could not traÌsferre it to S. Peter or the rest This is his Conclusion that this temporall poââr was excluded by Gods law which he promised to proue out of the old and new Testament and it is to be considered how substantially he hath performed it For out oâ the old Testament he hath alleadged no one proofe senteÌce or example but only brought in the Iesuite Salmerââ to affirme the same who hath no such matter but proueth of purpose the playne contrary And out of the new Testament hath as little though he falsify and wrest both D. Sâders Franciscus de Victoria to make some shew but especially the Grand Cardinall to vse his owne wordes whom moââ notably he abuseth For albeit the Cardinall doth affirme that Christ as he was man and as he came to worke ouâ redemption had not any temporall kingdome for that it was not needfull or profitable to the high spirituall end of our saluation which he had before his eyes yet had he by his supreme spirituall authority power also to disposâ of all temporall affaires whatsoeuer so far forth as should be needfull to that spirituall end of his for so teacheth the Cardinall expressely in these words Finis adueâus Christi in mundum c. The end of Christ his comming into the world was the redemption of mankind and to this end temporall authority was not needfull but spirituall for so much as by this spirituall authority Christ had power to dispose of all temporall things also as he thought to be expedient to mans redemption So the Cardinall whereby is euident that albeit he holdeth with the commoÌ opinion of Deuines that Christ vpon earth had no meere teÌporall kingdome or ciuill power yet could he by his spirituall power dispose of all teÌporall matters in order to his spirituall end and that this power he gaue also to S. Peter to wit indirectly and in ordine ad finem spiritualem So as the Grand Cardinall denieth not this but proueth the same at large for diuers Chapters togeather both by Scriptures reasons and examples out of ân my Histories both diuine Ecclesiasticall and it had bene good that M. Barlow had answered to some of them if he had thought him selfe able to meddle in this matter or at leastwise he ought not to haue so fraudulently cited Card. Bellarmine against his owne meaning as now you haue seene But now next after Scriptures M. Barlow commeth to Ecclesiastical law requiring to haue this power proued by Canons Councells Decrees and Practises for which I referre him to the Booke Chapters now cited in Bellarmine And for so much as this temporall power of S. Peter is founded vpon his spirituall commission as a thing necessarily following the same and needfull therunto for the perfect gouerment of the whole Church that this spirituall power is founded most euidently aboundantly in the new Testament and consent of all antiquity vpon the same as the sayd Cardinall doth proue and demonstrate throughout many Chapters of his first and second Bookes De Romano Pontifice I will weary the Reader no longer in this matter but remit him thither I meane to the foresaid Cardinall Bellarmine where he shall find store of proofes for both powers in the Pope I meane both spirituall and temporall though differently deriued vnto him the one immediatly and directly the other secondarily and indirectly And albeit this were sufficient for this point yet to the end that M. Barlow shall not say that I doe leaue out any thing of momeÌt which herein he setteth downâ I shall repeat his owne wordes of conclusion in this maâter with far more fidelity then he doth mine Thus then he writeth borrowing all in effect out of M. Morton in his late Preambulatory Reply For Ecclesiastical law no Canon Councel Decree Practice extaÌt reckon to 600. years after Christ by Bellarm. confession yea to 1000. ampliùs saith one of their own writers doth âuow it in so much that a Friar of account writing in the year 1088. cals then the Doctrine therof a Nouelây if not an âeresie that act of Hildebrand that famously infamous Pope who first tooke vpon him to depriue an Emperour of his Regiment is by a Popish Deuine called nouellum Schisma a rent â rent of nouelty The challeng of this authority vtterly vnknowne to the Fathers who haue proâounced Kings to be no way liable to any violent Censure or penal law of man ââi Imperij potestate their Empire Soueraignty exempting priuileging them therfrom This is his discourse whereof he
for the last which is heresie he hath brought in two such Authours and authorities against himselfe as in the whole ranke of antiquitie he could not find ãâã two more fit and forcible to conuince him and his of Heresie and consequently also as himselfe inferreth of more griâuous and damnable Idolatry And he would not haue brought them in to the purpose he doth if he had vel micam salu any the least part of prudeÌce For if I should by the occasion of these two Fathers here brought iâ frame a Syllogisme against M. Barlow his religion taking the maior proposition out of these wordes here set downe and adding the minor out of these two Fathers most manifest assertions he would neuer be able to auoyd the conclusion and if he can I doe prouoke him to the triall The maior proposition is this according to S. Aâguâââââ and Vincentius Lyrineâsis that liued not long the one after the other Heresy is Idolatry and heretickes are Idolatours yea the basest kinde of Idolatours that do woâship the fancies of their owne braynes This propositioâ is here brought in and grâunted by M. Barlow as trueâ and auouched by these two anâient Fathers the minorâ doe adde and doe offer to proue which is this But according to the iudgement and writing of these two Fathers concerning the nature and property of heresy and heretickes M. Barlowes religion if it be the Protestants is conuinced to be heresy and the professors thereof heretickes Ergo also they are Idolatours and of the basest kinde of Idolatours and damnably worship the fancies of their owne braynes This Syllogisme consisting of M. Barl. his maior my minor the conclusion following of them both I could wish he would coÌsider wel And for so much as I know he wil deny the minor I do offer to ioine issue with him vpon that point only if he please reducing all our combate begun betweene him and me to this important question much more profitable to the Reader then these wranglings wherin wee are now conuersant Whether according to the doctrine and iudgement of S. Augustine and Vincenâius Lyrinensis coÌcerning heresyâ Protestants or RomaÌ Catholickes be truly Hereticks Let vs lay all other quarrels I say aside and handle only this graue and weighty Controuersy if he hath so much confidence in his cause in the doctrine of these two Fathers But for so much as I do imagine that M. Barlow will pause a greate while and consult before he accept of this offer and perhaps expect vntill the designed new Colledge of Protestant VVriters be vp at Chelsey or els where I will in the meane space inuite the Reader to study and make familiar vnto himselfe the two aforenamed Authors about this point of heresie and hereticks And as for Vincentius Lyrinensis it wil be easie for that it is but a little booke though weighty in substance and it is printed both seuerally and togeather with Tertullian his excellent booke of Prescriptions against Hereticks both of his and these our dayes yea illustrated also with diuers short notes and Commentaries both of Ioannes Costerus and of Iâstus Baronius a learned man and Counsellour to the Arch-bishop Electour of Meâtz conuerted from Protestant Religion principally by reading and pondering that goulden Treatise of the sayd Vincentius The other Authour S. Augustine is far more large and difficult to be studied throughly in respect of the multitude of his workes but there is a collection made of them into foure bookes by a learned man of our time with the title of Confessio Augustiniana wherin is gathered the iudgement of S. Augustine about all the controuersies of our time which he hath handled in his workes so many hundred yeares agoe before the new names of Protestants or Papists were euer heard of and to the diligent reading of this Booke I would exhort all indifferent men that haue care of their soules and vnderstand the latin tongue For that S. Augustine being the man he was both in learning and sanctity and so speciall a Pillar of Christ his Church in his dayes which was about foure hundred yeares after Christ when yet the true Catholike Church is granted to haue flourished it followeth that what doctrine he held for true and Catholike in his time must also be now what held to be heresy we may also boldly hold the same and what rules he gaue to know and descry the one or the other may serue vs now to the same end I will not set downe any particuler places in this Epitome of S. Aâgusâiââ for the Reader to repaire vnto aboue others for they are clearly propounded in the beginning of the worke and reduced vnto seuerall heads and Chapters But if M. Baâlow or any of his shal be content to ioine with me vpon the issue before mentioned we shall haue occasion to examine the worke more exactly And this hath bene spoken by occasion of M. Barlowes answer once for all about Catholikes vexed consciences with feare as he termeth theÌ which full wisely he will haue to proceed of Idolatry superstition heresy as you haue heard but sayth nothing of inforcemeÌt of their consciences by penal lawes though that be the only matter in questioÌ But it may be he will say somewhat therof in his second resolution about this matter for this is but his first let vs heare him then further if you please Againe saith he where the mind hath no certayne stay for âeâ vltima resolutio in matters and cases of faith conscience there must necessarily follow a miserable vexaâion which is the case of thâse Catholickes whose dependance for resolution must rest vpon the supreme Pastours determination then which what is more vncertayne for what one Pope decrees the other disallowes Here againe you see he runneth from the whole purpose and talketh in the ayre for the Catholikes doe not demaund of him What is the cause of their vexed consciences but rather doe tell him what it is as you haue heard in my words before rehearsed to wit the pressing of them to sweare against the iudgement of their owne consciences or els to incurre displeasure and suspition of disloyalty with his Maiestie as also the penalty of the law And what then doth our Doctour tell vs a tale of vltima râsolutio in matters cases of fayth and conscience to be the cause of their trouble and affliction Truly it is as far from the purpose as the other before was and no lesse also against himselfe to make mention of this vltima resolâtio which more conuinceth him and his of heresy then any other demonstration that can be vsed to that effect For that they hauing abandoned the authority and iudgemeÌt of the knowne Catholike Church from which finall resolution in matters of controuersy is to be taken according to that rule of S. Augustine Si quis quaestionis difficultate âalli metiât Ecclesiaâ consulat if any man teare
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 euârtârântur 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 âayth 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 indeauoâr to induce thââââ sweare and doe against the same wheâeby 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 ââticipation 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 liââ 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 quoâh I that among vs also men are vrged to take Oathes and to abiure âheir 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 âbiure 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 dâath 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 âor 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 tâeâe by any Catholicke forraine Monarch now liuing vpon ãâã and consequently by no âeâson or right at all can English Catholicke men be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience or be punished beââââ or destroyed if for their conscience they refuse to take tâe 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 vehemeÌcy 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 coÌuiction 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 Gânebrarâ
Athanasius himselfe in a long Epistle of this matter where he also recouÌteth the bold speach of bishop Osius the famous Confessor of Corduba who was one of the 318. Fathers that saââ as Iudges in the first Councell of Niâe and vsed the saââ liberty of speach to the forsayd Emperour at another time which the other Bishops had done before him saying to him Leaue of I beseech thee o Emperor these dealingâ in Ecclesiasticall affayres remember thou art mortall feare the day of Iudgement keep thy selfe free from this kind of sin do not vse coÌmandements to vs in this kind but rather learne of vs for that God hath coÌmitted the Empire vnto thee to vs the things that appertaine to his Church c. All which speaches doth S. Athanasius allow highly coÌmend in the same place adding further of his owne That now the sayd Constantius had made his Pallace a tribunall of Ecclesiasticall causes in place of Ecclesiasticall Courtes and had made himselfe the cheife Prince and head of spirituall Pleas which he calleth the abhomination foretold by Daniel the Prophet c. Which speach if old Athanasius should haue vsed to his Maiestie in the presence of all the rest and seconded by others that sate theâe with him could not in all reason but much moue especially ifâ So Gregory Nazianzen and S. Ambrose should haue recounted their admonitions about the same to their temporall Lord and Emperour Valentinian as when the former sayd vnto him as is extant yet in his Oration That he should vnderstand that he being a Bishop had greater authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperor and that he had a tribunall or seat of Iudgment higher then the Emperour who was one of his sheep and that more resolutly S. Ambrose to the same Emperour when he comaunded him to giue vp a Church to the handes of the Arians Trouble not yourselfe o Emperor sayth S. Ambrose in commanding me to delyuer the Church nor do you persuade your selfe that you haue any Imperiall right ouer these things that are spirituall and diuine exalt not your selfe but be subiect to God if you will raigne be content with those things that belonge to Cesar and leaue those which are of God vnto God Pallaces appertayne vnto the Emperor and Churches vnto the Preist And these three Fathers hauing thus briefly vttered their sentences for much more might be alleaged out of them in this kind let vs see how the fourth that is to say S. ChrysostoÌ Archbishop of Constantinople coÌcurred with theÌ Stay o king saith he within thy bounds limits for different are the bounds of a kingdome the limits of Priesthood this Kingdome of Priesthood is greater then the other Bodies are committed to the King but the soules to the Priest And againe Therfore hath God subiected the Kings head to the Priests haÌd instructing vs therby that the Priest is a greater Prince then the king according to S. Paul to the Hebrews the lesser alwaies receaueth blessing from the greater These foure Fathers then hauing grauely set downe their opinions about this point of spirituall power not to be assumed by teÌporall Princes let vs imagine the other three to talk of some other mater as namely S. Hierome that he vnderstandeth diuers pointes of the heresie of Iouinian and Vigilantius against whome he had with great labour written seuerall Bookes to be held at this day in his Maiesties kingdomes of England Scotland which could not but grieue him they being coÌdemned heresies by the Church S. Augustine also vpon occasion giuen him may be imagined to make his coÌplaint that he hauing written amongst many other books one de cura pro mortuis agenda for the care that is to be had for soules departed both in that booke and in sundry other partes of his workes said downe the doctrine and practice of the Church in offering prayers Sacrifice for the dead and deliuering soules from purgatory and that the sayd Catholicke Church of his time had condemned Aërius of heresy for the contrary doctrine yet he vnderstood that the matter was laughed at now in Eâgland and Aërius in this point held for a better Christian then himselfe yea and wheras he S. Augustine had according to the doctrine and practice of the true Catholicke Church in his dayes prayed for the soule of his Mother besought all others to doe the like his Maiestie was taught by these new-sprong doctors to condemn the same neither to pray for the soule departed of his mother dying in the same Catholicke fayth nor to permit others to do the same All which Saint Gregory hearing âet vs suppose him out of that great loue and charity wherwith he was inflamed towardes England and the English Nation to vse a most sweet and fatherly speach vnto his Maiestie exhorting him to remember that he sent into England by the first preachers that came from him the same Catholicke Christian Religion which was then spread ouer the whole world and that which he had receiued by succession of Bishops and former ages from the said Fathers there present and they from the Apostles and that the said ancient true and Catholicke Religion was sincerely deliuered vnto his Maiesties first Christian predecessor in England King Ethelbert and so continued from age to age vntill King Henry the eight If I say this graue assembly of ancient holy Fathers should be made about his Maiesty he fitting in the middest and should heare what they say and ponder with what great learning grauity and sanctitie they speake and how differently they talke from these new maisters that make vp M. Barlowes little Vniuersitie I thinke verily that his Maiestie out of his great iudgment would easily contemne the one in respect of the other But alas he hath neyther time nor leysure permitted to him to consider of these thinges nor of the true differences being so possessed or at least wise so obsessed with these other mens preoccupations euen from his tender youth and cradle as the Catholicke cause which only is truth could neuer yet haue entrance or indifferent audience in his Maiesties âares but our prayers are continually that it may And now hauing insinuated how substantially this little Vniuersity of ancient learned Fathers would speake to his Maiesty if they might be admitted eyther at table or time of repast or otherwise Let vs consider a little how different matters euen by their owne confession these new Academicks do suggest for that M. Barlow going about to excuse his fellow T. M. the yonger from that crime of Sycophancy which was obiected for his calumniations against Catholikes in his table-talke trifling first about the word what it signifyeth in greeke according to the first institution therof to wit an accusation of carrying out of figges out of Athens as before hath bene shewed and then for him that vpon small matters accuseth another as
and defy this communion in fayth with them and haue set forth whole bookes to proue the same which were too long here to repeate Yea Caluinian and Zwinglian Ministers themselues are witnesses hereof in many of their Treatises as namely the Tigurine Deuines who confesse that theyr differences and contentions with the Lutherans are about Iustification Free-will the Ghospell the law the Person of Christ his descent into hell of Gods election of his children to life euerlasting de multis alijs non leuis momenti articulis of many more articles of no small importance which is euident for that Ioannes Sturmius another Zwinglian or Caluinist addeth other controuersies as of the Supper of our Lord and Reall Presence of Predestination of the Ascension of Christ to heauen his sitting at the right hand of his Father and the like adding also that the Lutherans do hould the Protestant Caluinian Churches of England France Flanders and Scotland for Hereticall and their Martyrs for Martyrs of the Diuell And conforme to these their writings are their doinges and proceedings with them where they haue dominion for that they admyt them not to cohabitation nor to the common vse of marriage betweene them nor to be buryed with them after theyr deaths as they well know who haue liued or do liue among them And thus much for the Lutherans of the one syde Now let vs see somewhat also of the Purytans of the other And first of all this matter hath beene handled dyuers times and demonstrated by Catholicke English wryters of our dayes agaynst this absurd assertion of M. Barlow that the differences at this day betweene Protestants and Purytans are not at all concerning religion nor of any substantiall and essentiall poyntes thereof but only Ceremoniall and in particuler the same is conuinced and made most manifest in the Preface of a late Booke intituled An answere to the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports where the different grounds of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power betweene Protestants Puritans and Catholickes being examined it is found that their differences are such as cannot possibly stand togeather to make one Church and house of saluation but that if one hath the truth the other must necessarily remayne in damnable error which is euident also by the writings of Protestants themselues especially by the bookes intituled Dangerous positions set forth and imprinted at London 1593. and the Suruey ofpretended holy discipline made as they say by him that is now Lord of Canterbury and Doctor Sutcliffe as also the Booke intituled the Picture of a Purytan writen by O. O. of Emanuel printed 1603. and other like bookes But especially at this time will I vse for proofe of this poynt the testimony of Thomas Rogers Minister and Chaplin as he styleth himselfe to his Lord of Canterbury who of late hauing set forth by publike authority the fayth doctrine and religion of England expressed in 39. articles vpon the yeare 1607. doth in his Preface to his said Lord haÌdle this matter of the differences betweene the Puritans and Protestantes though partially agaynst the discontented brethren he being theyr aduersary but yet setteth downe out of their owne words what their iudgment is of the importance and moment of the controuersyes betwene them to wit that they are not only about Ceremonies and circumâtances as M. Barlow pretendeth but about poyntes contayned in scripture in the very Ghospell it selfe They are compryzed say they in the booke oâ God and also be a part of the Ghospell yea the very Ghospell it selfe so true are they and oâ such importance that if euery hayre of our head were a life we ought to affâard them all in defence of these matters and that the articles of religion penned and agreed vpon by the Bishops are but childish toyes in respect of the other So they And will any man thinke or say now that these men doe not hould that theyr differences with the Protestants are differences in religion as M. Barlow sayth or that they are only matters of ceremonyes and not of any one substantiall poynt concerning religion Let vs heare them yet further telling theyr owne tale and related by M. Rogers The controuersy betwene them and vs say they of the Protestants is not as the Bishops and their welwillers beare the world in hand for a cap or tippet or a Surplisse but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry and regiment of the Church according to the word of God The first wherof which is a true Ministry they Protestants shall neuer haue till Bishops and Archbishops be put downe and all Ministers be made equall The other also will neuer be brought to passe vntill Kings and Queenes doe subiect themselues vnto the Church and doe submit their Scepters and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and licke vp the dust of the feete of the Church and willingly abyde the Censures of the Church c. This they write and much more in that placeâ which I trow is more then M. Barlow ascribeth vnto the matter For if it be contayned in Gods booke yea a part oâ the Ghospell the very Ghospell it selfe about which they contend what proterâity is it on the other part to call it a matter only of Ceremony But yet further within two pages after agayne they doe explayne themselues and theyr cause more in particuler saying Our controuersy with the Protestants is whether Iesus Christ shal be King or no and the end of all our trauell is to bâyld vp the walls of Ierusalem and to set vp the throne of Iesus Christ ãâã heauenly king in the myddest thereof And are these poyntes also not substantiall nor any wayes touching religion but Ceremonies Harken then yet further what they do inferre vpon the Protestantes Church for dissenting from them in these pointes Neyther is there among them say they a Church or ãâã least wise no true Church neither are they but titular Christians no true Christians indeed And yet will M. Barlow continue to say that there is no difference at all in Religion and that I lyed when I sayd that his Maiesty yeelded to a Conference between Protestants Puritans concerning their differences of Religion VVhat will he answere to the two precedent members touched by the Puritans to witâ that their strife is for a true Ministry a lawfull gouermeÌt therof expounding their meaning to be that for obtaining the first all Bishops and Archbishops must be put downe for the second all temporall Princes Kings Queenes must leaue their superiority ouer the Church submit themselues and their Crownes vnto the same Church to wit their Presbyteries as M. Rogers expoÌdeth their words And is there no substantiall point neyther in all this but only matter of Ceremony And doth not the very life soule of the Church depend of these two things a true Ministry and lawful Head Is not the power of preaching teaching administration of
and Clâments Constituâions 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 âuther out of Scotus saying Non quòd âunc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but âor 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 pâoceeding 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 expliciâa 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 differeÌt 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 Fiââers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tameâsi nequeat Sumâââ 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 substaÌce 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 coÌtrary 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
by Oath without intention to perâorme the same be notwâthstanding bound in conscience to perâorme it Wherein hauing hid downe the two different opinions of âundry learned âen togeather with their reasons arguments and proofs the one affirming that he is bound as Caietan Sotus and Cââârruuias the other that he is not bound by force of that Oath as Syluester Nauar and others Azorius sheweth that both parts haue their probability of reason but he inclineth more to the first opinion saying that if the swearer had an intention to sweare thinking nothing of the obligation then was he bound and that in this sense the opinion Caietan is most true And further determineth not the question and therefore this notorious vntruth of M. Bââlow that Azorius holdeth this to be no Oath vnto him that sweareth at al but that he is as free as if he had neuer sworne I cannot tell in âhat Predicament of impudency to place it and therfore we will let it passe for a Tranâcendent OF CERTAINE OTHER Fraudulent and vntrue dealings of M. Barlow vnto the end of this Paragraph with a notorious abuse in alleadging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority §. II. VVHereas often and eager inuectiues are made by M. Barlow against the Pope and Cardinall Bellarmine and all others that do seeme in any sort to exhort the Catholickes of England to stand for their consciences and to suffer rather whatsoeuer losses hurtes or dangers may happen to their liues liberty goods or other temporall affaires then to preiudice any point of their religion M. Barlow terming these exhortations not only needlesse and vayne there being no persecution at al against the Catholickes but that they do tend in like manner to open disobedience against their temporall Princes and so may iustly be cause of their ruyne indeed my answere was I did not see but that the very same might be obiected vnto S. Cyprian and other Fathers of the Primitiue Church that they were guilty of so many Martyrs bloud wilfully cast a way and of the ruyne of their familyes and other inconueniences by exhorting them not to do against their Consciences nor to yield to their temporall Princeâ Commandements against God and their religion no not for any tormeÌts that might be laid vpon them nor for any losse that might fall vnto them of goodes life honor fame friends wyfe children or the like which were ordinary exhortations in those dayes of persecution as by their bookes yet âxtant doth appeare Neyther is iâ sufficient to say that those times ours are different for that the thingâs then demanded were apparenâly vnlawfull but these not for that to vs that are Catholickes these thinges are as vnlawfull now as âhose other were then to them for that they are no lesse against our consciences in matters of Religion For why should it be more damnable then and indispensable to deliuer vp a Bible or new Testament for example sake when the Emperour commanded it then now to sweare an Oath against our conscience and Religion when our Temporall Prince exacteth it For that this perhaps is called the Oath of Allegiance who knoweth not that the fayrest title is put vpon the fowlest matter when it is âo be perswaded or âxacted And he that shal read the Histories of that time and of those ancient afflictions shall sâe that Act also to haue bene required as of Obedience Allegiance and not of Religion being only the deliueây vp of material books and yet did the whole Church of God condemne them for it that deliuered the same and âeld for true Martyrs all those that died for denying therof for that they would not do an Act against their consciences Against this my speach M. Barlow first doth trifle affirmimg me to say that in the consciences of Catholicks it is as vnlawfull to sweare Allegiance vnto his Maiestie their naturall and rightfull Soueraigne as to sacrifice to Idols Which is a meer cauill indeed for first I do not say that it is vnlawfull at all to sweare Allegiance to their naturall Soueraigne as often hath bene told him but he ââuer stayeth his tongue from repeating the contrary againe without end The vnlawfulnes consisteth in swearing that for Allegiance which appertaineth not to humaine and temporal Allegiance but diuine Allegiance also in keeping our consciences vnspotted before Almighty God Secondly my comparison was not so much in the thinges themselues to wit swearing and sacrificing or to determine which of these is the greatest sinne in it seâfe as of the similitude in obligation both in those times and ours to stând for defence of the integrity of our conscience both in them and vs whatsoâuer inequality of the sinne may be in the sight either of man or God It is inough that both of them be forbydden to sacrifice against Christian Religion to sweare against Câtholick Religion And further to shew that the external small apparence of that which is forbydden cannot alwaies be a âule of taking away or diminishing the obligation of conscience in obeying the prohibition I did alleadg the other example of giuing vp diuine bookes vnto the persecutors when they demaunded them and might haue alleadged many other examples to the like purpose as namely the âating of flesh offered to Idols in the beginning of Christianity with offence of others whereof S. Paul maketh so great accompt as albeyt he maketh light of the thing it selâe and sayth that the Idol is nothing yet doth he account the transgression for damnable if he doe it against his owne conscience But what sayth M. Barlow to this you shall heare his distinction and determination Simply sayth he to deliââr vp a Bible to his Superiour requiring it is no sinne yea to deny iâ iâ a contempt About this proposition we will not much contend but only aduertise him that it is not to the purpose that we doe talke here of Superiours lawfully requiring it but of a Persecutor vniustly exacting the same Let vs see then what he sayth further But if the Emperour sayth he requireth them to wit the books to burne and deâacâ in conteâpâ and despight or âury and passion or as Iulian the Apostata whâ called in all the heathen writers both of Philosophy and Poetry out oâ the Christians hands vnder a fayre pretence of abandoning Paganisme to bereaue them oâ all knowledge therby to take ârom Christians the true meanes oâ their instructions the cause is far different for so to oâey were wilâully to betray the truth of God This is his determination consisting of two members as you see the first of the vnlawfulnes of giuing vp the Bible other such diuine bookes of Christian Religion consisted in the ill intention of the persecutor to bereaue men of so importaÌt meanes for their instruction and saluation and therefore not to be obeâed which seemeth to be far different from that which before he held so resolutely that Princes were to be obeied
make for him and his religion But now we haue seene his ill fortune in the choice for that no Canon maketh for him but rather all against him and especially this last Now let vs see somewhat about the second point that the Church of England at this day both for substance in doctrine and Cerimony in discipline doth hould the same which many of the said Canons do conclude which though as before I haue noted it may seeme to be a very dubious imperfect assertion for that they of England being Christians and so those of that Councel also it were very âard but that of 74. Canons wherof the first only compreheÌdeth the summe and confession of all Articles of Christian fayth contayned in the common Creeds it were hard I say âha the Church of England should not hold in substaÌce at least the same that many of those Canons do conclude But let vs touch the point indeed concerning the articles now in controuersy betweene vs and Protestants âoth for doctrine and cerymonies whether in these the sayd Councel of Toledo did agree mâre with the Church of Englâââ as now is teacheth practizeth or with the Church of Rome And albeit this Councell was not gathered togeather purposely to handle and determine matters of faith and doctrine for the establishing of King Sisenandââ his successiââ and concerning âhe depâsition of King Suintila as hath bene touched ând by that occasion for reformation also of manners of the Clergy yet are there many things here handled which giue sufficient signes with what Church they more agreed either the Protestants or ours In the very fââst Canon where they make their profession of ãâã âhey say Descendit ad inserââ ãâ¦ã he descended into Hell to fetch from thence thoââ Sainââ which were there detained Do the Protestants agree to this interpretation And then talking of the last iudgment they say Alij pro iustitiae meriâââ vitam ãâã some shal receaue life euerlasting at Christs âandâ for their merrits of iustice Will Protestants acknowledg this in their Creed And it followeth immediâtely Haec est Ecclesiae Catholicae fides c. This is the ââith of the Catholicke Church this Confession we ãâã and ãâã âhich ãâã âhâsoeuer shal constantly keepe shal ãâã liâe euerlasting Sâ theyâ And for so much as there ocâââred a doubt in the Church of Spaine about the vse of âaptisme some allowing a triple dipping in the water some one only the Canon saithâ that the recourse in former ââme was made to the Sea Apostolick for deciding of the same by S. Leander Archbishop of Siuill who wrote to S. Gregory the Great then Pope of Rome to haue his resolution And wil M. Barlow allow of this recourse But let vs heare the words of the Canon Proinde quid à nobis c. Wherfore what we are to do in Spaine saith the Councel in this diuersity of administring the Sacraments Apostolica Sediâ in âââmemâr praeceptiâ non nostraÌ sed paternam instructionem sequentââ Let us ãâã by the prâcepts of the Sea Apostolick not following our owne instruction out that oâ our fore-âatâârsâ Wherfore Gregory of holy memory Bishop of Rome at the request of the most holy man Leander Bishop of Siââââ demaÌding what was to be followed in this case answered him in these words Nothing can be more âruly ansâered about the three dippings in Baptisme theÌ that which you your selfe haue set down that diuersities of some customs doth not preiudice the holy Church agreeing all in one faith So S. Gregory But yet discusseth the question more largely as may be seene in that Canon but much more in his owne booke lib. 1. Regist. Epist. 41. And is thiâ conformable to the practice doctrine of M. Barlows Church Some men will say perhaps yea to the Church of Englâââ that then was for that about the very same tyme that S. Leander Metropolitan of Siâill wrote to S. Gregory to haue his resoluâion about this difficulty of diuers customeâ in baptizing S. Augustine Archbishop and Metropoliâân of the English Nation wrote vnto the same S. Gregory about the like doubts as appeareth by Venerable Bede and had his answere to the same But this recourse also of the English Church at that time will not greatly please M. Barlow In the seauenth Canon some men are noted that vpoÌ good Friday after hâra nona did vse to breake their Fast for which they are much condemned by the Councell adding this reason for the same for that the vniuersall Church did obserue the fast of that day wholy and strictly for the memory of the passion of our Sauiour therfore whosoeuer should breake that fast besides yonge children old men and sicke men before the Church haue ended her prayers of Indulgence he should not be admitted to the Festiuall ioy of Easter day And is this conforme to the present Church of England In the eight Canân there is a reâson giuen by the Councel Cur lucerâa cereus in peruigilijs à nobis benedicantur why the candell the waxe taper are blessed by the Bishops And if any maÌ will contemne this Ceremony qui haec contempserit Patrââ reguâis subiaâebis sayth the Canon he shall vnder goe the punishments appointed by the rules of the Fathers This cogitation I thinke hath neuer much troubled M. Barâââ In the tenth Canon order is giuen about the discipline to be vsed in Lent both in respect of publike prayer and priuate chastisings of the bodie Touching the first it is ordained vt in omnibus quadragesimae diebus quia teâpus non est gundij sed mâroriâ Alleluia non decantetur that Alleluia be not songe in all the daies of Lent for that is a time not of ioy but of sorrowâ and then for the chaftysment of the flesh they say Opus est fletibus ieâuâijs insistere corpus cilicio cinere induere ãâã moeroribus deijcere gaudium in trislitiam vertere quousque âââiat tempus Resurrectionis Christi It is necessary to insist in weeping and fasting to couer our body with haircloth ând âsheâ to deiect our mynd with sorrow to turne mirth into sadnes vntill the day of Christs Resurrection do come And doth this Ceremony of discipline please M. Barlow Or doth his Church admit the same And if he doe not thâÌ let him heare what followeth in the Councel hoc enim Ecclesiae Vniuersalis consensio in cunctis terrarum partiâus roborauit c. For this the consent of the vniuersall Church hath establyshed in all parts of the Christian world and consequently it is conuenient to be obserued throughout the Prouinces of Spayne and Galicia and therfore if any Bishop Priest or Deacon or any whatsoeuer of the order of Clarks shall be found to esteeme or perferre his own iudgment before this Constitution of ours let him be put from the office of his order and depriued of the CoÌmunion at Easter This toucheth