Ely of whome whiles he was silent many had some opinion of learning but since all is resolued to lying immodest rayling and some few light Terentian Plautinian phrases which aswel bâ—seeme a Deuine writing in matters of such moment and in defence of so great a Monarch to dally withall as it doth a Bishop to lead a morrice-daunce in his hose and dublet This man I say answereth hereunto that perhaps so the case stood then when those Protestants did write but that is well neere 20. yeares agoe but now it is otherwise Which is asmuch as if he had said that this new beliefe in England is not like the old alwayes one but is refined altered with the tyme and therefore no argument can be drawne from a thing done 20. yeares past for that is to great antiquity for so new-fangled a fayth which is alwaies in motion and hath her waynes changes quarters and full like the Moone But yet I must aske him further how he will proue by any example of the Puritan writers this their change and submission to the Protestants conformity of doctrine with theÌ„ more now then 20. yeares past Are they not still in the same degree of difference and oppositioÌ„ as before Doe they not still deny our Sauiours descent into hell Do they not disclay me from the English Hierarchie Will they acknowledge the Kings Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall as King Henry did challenge it Or will they recall what they haue written of their discipline that it is an essentiall marke of the Church without which there were no Church no Faith no Ghospell and consequently the Protestants to be no Ghospellers to be out of the Church out of the number of the faithfull 29. But for further confutation of both these Superintendents and more cleere explication of the thing it selfe besides what is afterwards said in this booke touching this point it shall not be amisse here to set downe the words of a few Protestant and Puritan late and yet liuing writers what they iudge of ech other in this affayre that our very enemyes may be iudges of the most shamefull assertion of these two Prelates That the Protestants and Puritans differ in matters only cerimoniall and agree in essentiall And the reason that I produce no more in this kind is for want of their bookes which being not worth the sending so far seldome come to our hands I will begin with the Protestants 30. And to omit Thomas Rogers whose testimony is after to be produced in the Discussion it selfe what other thing doth Oliuer Ormerod in his discouery of Puritan-Papisme annexed to his Picture of a Puritan prooue but that the said Puritans are Hereticks and haue ioyned themselues with the Pharisies Apostolickes Arians Pebuzians Petrobusians Florinians Câ—rinthiaÌ„s Nazarens Begardines Ebionites Catababdites Eâ—theusiasts Donatists Iouinianists Catharists And least any should thinke that this coniunction is only in matters cerimonial he laieth to their charge these ensuing heresies that there is no diuersâ—â—y between a Priest and a Bishop that Bishops haue no iuâ—isdiction that all synnes be equall that the Minister is of the essence of baptisme with the like And in the second dialogue he maketh in plaine tearmes this obiection that there is no difference in matters fundamentall but accidentall and then answereth the same that they do differ from the Protestants in some things that are fundamentall and substantiall which he proueth by the article of Christs descending into hell And he might haue proued it further by the aboue rehearsed articles for which Iouinian Aerius and others were reputed by the auncient Fathers and condemned for Hereticks 31. VVith this Oliuer of Cambridge agreeth A. N. of Oxford in his Bible-bearer towards the midest for thus he writeth They refuse to subscribe to the Kings lawfull authority in causes Ecclesiasticall to the article of religion to the booke of Common prayer and the orders rites and cerimonies of our Church nay they dissent from vs in things accidentall and cerimoniall So he By which last antithesis of accidentall cerimoniall differences it is most euident that the former were essentiall fundamentall Neither doe I see how this can be denyed by any for if the Puritans refuse to subscribe to the articles of Protestant religion who seeth not that they approue it not and consequently differ in essentiall points and that M. Barlow ouerlashed very much when he wrote that their vnkind quarrell with Puritans was in another kind and not in matters of religion wherein forsooth out of his great kindnes he will haue them to agree 32. And not to stand more for proofe hereof from Protestants D. Couel cleereth the matter when he saith But least any man should thinke that our contentions were but in smaller points and the difference not great both sides haue charged the other with heresies if not infidelities nay euen such as quite ouerthrow the principall foundation of our Christian faith Thus he And this I thinke is another manner of matter then externall cerimonies or accidentall differences for if this be not a plaine iarre amongst Protestants and Puritans in Religion I would faine know what M. Barlow will more require thereunto but I see S. Gregories wordes verified in these men where he saith solent haeretici alia apertè dicere alia occultè cogitare the heretikes are wont to speake otherwise openly then inwardly they thinke for when they deale amongst themselues then are Protestants and Puritans heretikes and infidells to ech other but when they answere vs then all are friendes all good Christians all vnited in doctrine deuided only in cerimonies accidentall differences This is another manner of equiuocation then any of our schooles will allow and only fit for such as are his schollers qui in veritate non stetit sed mendax fuit ab initio 33. From Protestants I come to Puritans who in this case are no lesse eager playne and resolute then the Protestants but rather more for this in expresse tearmes the Author of the Twelue generall arguments concludeth against all the Superintendents of England togeather that they are Vsurpers and Tyrants and execute an vsurped power ouer the Church and one reason to proue the same is ex concessis for that their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction is deriued from the King else say they it is a flat deniall of his Supremacy as there they shew And in the next reason which is the 4. and last brought in for proofe of their assumption or minor thus they conclude There are no true and sober Christians but will say that the Churches of Scoâ—land France the Low Countryes and other places that renounce such Archbishops and Bishops as ours are as Anti-christian and vsurping Prelates are true Churches of God which they could not be if the authority prerogatiues they claime to themselues were of Christ and not vsurped for if it were the ordinance of Christ
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 consâ—quently 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 teÌ„porall 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 Bâ—llarmine 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 traÌ„sferre that to another which he hath not himselfe but this royall Soueraignty ouer Princes to depose them or dispose of their States Christ â—ad 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 traÌ„sferre it to S. Peter or the rest This is his Conclusion that this temporall poâ—â—r 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 senteÌ„ce or example but only brought in the Iesuite Salmerâ—â— 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. Sâ—ders Franciscus de Victoria to make some shew but especially the Grand Cardinall to vse his owne wordes whom moâ—â— 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 adueâ—us 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 teÌ„porall kingdome or ciuill power yet could he by his spirituall power dispose of all teÌ„porall 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 â—n 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 momeÌ„t which herein he setteth downâ— I shall repeat his owne wordes of conclusion in this maâ—ter 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 extaÌ„t reckon to 600. years after Christ by Bellarm. confession yea to 1000. ampliùs saith one of their own writers doth â—uow it in so much that a Friar of account writing in the year 1088. cals then the Doctrine therof a Nouelâ—y if not an â—eresie 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 proâ—ounced Kings to be no way liable to any violent Censure or penal law of man â—â—i Imperij potestate their Empire Soueraignty exempting priuileging them therfrom This is his discourse whereof he
lesse the true substance of things handled by him I do pretermitt as very fond and impertinent the next passage that ensueth and is the last in this matter in M. Barlow his booke where he maketh this demaund But what if there be none or few that make such conscience or take such offence at the admission of the Oath as he speaketh of To this question I say it is in vaine to answere for if there be so few or no Catholikes that make conscience or scruple to take the Oath the contention will be soone at an end But presently he contradicteth himselfe againe taking another medium and saying that there would be none if they were not threatned by vs to haue their howses ouerturned as some Donatists sayth he confessed of themselues by the witnesse of S. Augustine that they would haue bene Catholikes if they had not bene put in feare ne domus corum euâ—rtâ—râ—ntur by the Circumcellians perhaps which M. Barlow sayth may spiritually be applyed to our threatning that such as take the Oath shall be accompted Apostataes and to haue renounced their first fayth and to be no members of the Catholike Church and finally that we shall remayne branded in euerlasting record with Balaams infamy that taught Balaac to lay a scandall or occasion of fall to the people of Israell To all which I answere first that he that layeth forth the truth of Catholike doctrine vnto Catholike men may not iustly be sayd to threaten or terrify but to deale sincerely and charitably with them laying truth before their eyes what their obligation is to God before man and how they are bound as members of his true Catholike Church to hould and defend the vnity and integrity of â—ayth and doctrine deliuered by the same though it be with neuer so much temporall danger And as for laying a scandall wherby they may fall into the ruine of their soules it is easy to iudge whether wee do it rather that teach them to deale sincerely with God and their Prince wherby they shall preserue their peace and alacrity of conscience or you that indeauoâ—r to induce thâ—â—â—â— sweare and doe against the same wheâ—eby they shall be sure to leese both their peace in this life and their euerlasting inheritance in the next THE ANSVVER TO AN OBIECTION BY OCCASION VVHEROF IT IS SHEVVED THAT POSSESSION and Prescription are good proofes euer in matters of Doctrine AND The contrary is fondly affirmed by M. Barlow CHAP. V. THERE remaineth now for the finall end of this first Part to examine an obiection that might be made by the aduersary which I thought good by â—â—ticipation to satisfy in the very last number of the first parâ— of my Letter And it was that wheras we complaine of so great pressures layd vpon vs for our conscience especially by this enforced Oath some man may sayâ— that the liâ—â— course is held in the Catholicke States against themâ— whome we esteeme as heretickes I shall repeate my owne words and then see what M. Barlow answereth to the same Here if a man should obiect quoâ—h I that among vs also men are vrged to take Oathes and to abiure â—heir opinions in the Tribunalls of Inquisitions and the like and consequently in this Oath they may be forced vnder punishment to abiure the Popes temporall authority in dealing with Kings I answere first that if any hereticke or other should be forced to â—biure his opinions with repugnance of conscience it should be a sinne to the inforcers if they knew it or suspected it neyther is it practised orâ— permitted in any Catholicke Court that eueâ— I knew But you will reply that if he doe it not he shal be punished by dâ—ath or otherwise as the crime requireth and Canons appoint and consequently the like may be vsed towards Catholikes that will not renounce their old opinions of the Popes authority But heere is a great difference for that the Catholike Church hath ius acquisitum ancient right ouer heretickes as her true subiects â—or that by their baptisme they were made her subiectes and left her afterwardsâ— and went out of her and she vseth but her ancient manner of proceeding against them as against all other of their kind and quality from the beginning But the Protestant Church of England hath nullum iuâ— acquisitum vpon Catholickes that were in possession before them for many hundred yeares as is euident neither was there euer any such Oath exacted at their hands by any of their Kings in former Catholicke timesâ— neither is tâ—eâ—e by any Catholicke forraine Monarch now liuing vpon 〈◊〉 and consequently by no â—eâ—son or right at all can English Catholicke men be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience or be punished beâ—â—â—â— or destroyed if for their conscience they refuse to take tâ—e same humbly offering notwithstanding to their Soueraigne to giue him all other dutifull satisfaction for their temporall obedience and allegiance which of loyall Catholicke subiects may be exacted And this shall suffice for this first point concerning the contents and nature of this Oath This was my speach and conclusion then And now shal we take a vew how it is confuted by M. Barlow First be amplifyeth exaggerateth with great vehemeÌ„cy the torments and tortures of our Inquisitions which are vsed as he saith with the most extreme violence that flesh can indure or malice inuent wherin he sayth more I thinke then he knoweth and more perhaps then he belieueth and at leastwise much more then is true in my knowledg For of twenty that are imprisoned there not one lightly is touched with torture and when any is in the case by law appointed it is knowne to be more mildly then commonly in any other tribunall But let vs leaue this as of least moment and depending only vpon his asseueration and my denyall and let vs passe to that which is of more importance for iustifying the cause it selfe to wit by what right of power and authority the Roman Church proceedeth against heretickes and how different it is from that wherby Protestants pretend to be able iustly to proceed against vs for matters of Religion First of all he sayth that I do take as granted that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church which we deny sayth he and the chiefest learned of their side could as yet neuer conuict our denialls Wherto I answere that if themselues may be iudges that are most interessed in the controuersie I do not meruaile though they neuer yield themselues for conuicted But if any indifferent iudgment or triall might be admitted I do not doubt but that their euiction and coÌ„uiction would quickly appeare and many learned men of our dayes haue made most cleare demonstrations therof by deducing the Roman Church doctrine and fayth from the Apostles dayes vnto our times successiuely as namely Doctour Sanders his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Monarchy Cardinall Baronius in the continuation of his Annales Gâ—nebrarâ—
Athanasius himselfe in a long Epistle of this matter where he also recouÌ„teth the bold speach of bishop Osius the famous Confessor of Corduba who was one of the 318. Fathers that saâ—â— as Iudges in the first Councell of Niâ—e and vsed the saâ—â— liberty of speach to the forsayd Emperour at another time which the other Bishops had done before him saying to him Leaue of I beseech thee o Emperor these dealingâ— in Ecclesiasticall affayres remember thou art mortall feare the day of Iudgement keep thy selfe free from this kind of sin do not vse coÌ„mandements to vs in this kind but rather learne of vs for that God hath coÌ„mitted the Empire vnto thee to vs the things that appertaine to his Church c. All which speaches doth S. Athanasius allow highly coÌ„mend in the same place adding further of his owne That now the sayd Constantius had made his Pallace a tribunall of Ecclesiasticall causes in place of Ecclesiasticall Courtes and had made himselfe the cheife Prince and head of spirituall Pleas which he calleth the abhomination foretold by Daniel the Prophet c. Which speach if old Athanasius should haue vsed to his Maiestie in the presence of all the rest and seconded by others that sate theâ—e with him could not in all reason but much moue especially ifâ— So Gregory Nazianzen and S. Ambrose should haue recounted their admonitions about the same to their temporall Lord and Emperour Valentinian as when the former sayd vnto him as is extant yet in his Oration That he should vnderstand that he being a Bishop had greater authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperor and that he had a tribunall or seat of Iudgment higher then the Emperour who was one of his sheep and that more resolutly S. Ambrose to the same Emperour when he comaunded him to giue vp a Church to the handes of the Arians Trouble not yourselfe o Emperor sayth S. Ambrose in commanding me to delyuer the Church nor do you persuade your selfe that you haue any Imperiall right ouer these things that are spirituall and diuine exalt not your selfe but be subiect to God if you will raigne be content with those things that belonge to Cesar and leaue those which are of God vnto God Pallaces appertayne vnto the Emperor and Churches vnto the Preist And these three Fathers hauing thus briefly vttered their sentences for much more might be alleaged out of them in this kind let vs see how the fourth that is to say S. ChrysostoÌ„ Archbishop of Constantinople coÌ„curred with theÌ„ Stay o king saith he within thy bounds limits for different are the bounds of a kingdome the limits of Priesthood this Kingdome of Priesthood is greater then the other Bodies are committed to the King but the soules to the Priest And againe Therfore hath God subiected the Kings head to the Priests haÌ„d instructing vs therby that the Priest is a greater Prince then the king according to S. Paul to the Hebrews the lesser alwaies receaueth blessing from the greater These foure Fathers then hauing grauely set downe their opinions about this point of spirituall power not to be assumed by teÌ„porall Princes let vs imagine the other three to talk of some other mater as namely S. Hierome that he vnderstandeth diuers pointes of the heresie of Iouinian and Vigilantius against whome he had with great labour written seuerall Bookes to be held at this day in his Maiesties kingdomes of England Scotland which could not but grieue him they being coÌ„demned heresies by the Church S. Augustine also vpon occasion giuen him may be imagined to make his coÌ„plaint that he hauing written amongst many other books one de cura pro mortuis agenda for the care that is to be had for soules departed both in that booke and in sundry other partes of his workes said downe the doctrine and practice of the Church in offering prayers Sacrifice for the dead and deliuering soules from purgatory and that the sayd Catholicke Church of his time had condemned Aërius of heresy for the contrary doctrine yet he vnderstood that the matter was laughed at now in Eâ—gland and Aërius in this point held for a better Christian then himselfe yea and wheras he S. Augustine had according to the doctrine and practice of the true Catholicke Church in his dayes prayed for the soule of his Mother besought all others to doe the like his Maiestie was taught by these new-sprong doctors to condemn the same neither to pray for the soule departed of his mother dying in the same Catholicke fayth nor to permit others to do the same All which Saint Gregory hearing â—et vs suppose him out of that great loue and charity wherwith he was inflamed towardes England and the English Nation to vse a most sweet and fatherly speach vnto his Maiestie exhorting him to remember that he sent into England by the first preachers that came from him the same Catholicke Christian Religion which was then spread ouer the whole world and that which he had receiued by succession of Bishops and former ages from the said Fathers there present and they from the Apostles and that the said ancient true and Catholicke Religion was sincerely deliuered vnto his Maiesties first Christian predecessor in England King Ethelbert and so continued from age to age vntill King Henry the eight If I say this graue assembly of ancient holy Fathers should be made about his Maiesty he fitting in the middest and should heare what they say and ponder with what great learning grauity and sanctitie they speake and how differently they talke from these new maisters that make vp M. Barlowes little Vniuersitie I thinke verily that his Maiestie out of his great iudgment would easily contemne the one in respect of the other But alas he hath neyther time nor leysure permitted to him to consider of these thinges nor of the true differences being so possessed or at least wise so obsessed with these other mens preoccupations euen from his tender youth and cradle as the Catholicke cause which only is truth could neuer yet haue entrance or indifferent audience in his Maiesties â—ares but our prayers are continually that it may And now hauing insinuated how substantially this little Vniuersity of ancient learned Fathers would speake to his Maiesty if they might be admitted eyther at table or time of repast or otherwise Let vs consider a little how different matters euen by their owne confession these new Academicks do suggest for that M. Barlow going about to excuse his fellow T. M. the yonger from that crime of Sycophancy which was obiected for his calumniations against Catholikes in his table-talke trifling first about the word what it signifyeth in greeke according to the first institution therof to wit an accusation of carrying out of figges out of Athens as before hath bene shewed and then for him that vpon small matters accuseth another as
is of your owne thrusting in and put in place therof that the sayd Sonne may be the sooneâ— induced to graâ—t them that liberty in respect of their former dutifulnes and loyalty to his mother in her distresses and the consequence will not be euill To the third of his Maiesties confessed experience of the loyalty of Catholickes both towards himselfe and his Mother in their distresâ—es he sayth That his Maiesty nameth not Catholiâ—kes at all in his said Booke but only prosesseth that be found none so stedfastly to abide by him in his greatest straites as they which constantly kept their true Allegiance to his Mother Well Syr and who I pray you were they Catholickes or Protestants Let the acts of those times be seene the Authors noted the effectes considered Yet sayth M. Barlow noâ— iâ— is very probable that when his Maiesty hath cast vp his accompt of forâ—er disloyalties he shall â—ind the moderate â—nd dirâ—ct Protestantâ— that incliâ—es neither to right hand nor left to be the first and faithfâ—ll subiect Well Syr this may be pâ—rhaps fâ—â— the time to come for your selâ—e saith thaâ— it is but probable but for the time pâ—st his Maiestie hauing now cast vp his accompts hath found that reckonyng as he hâ—th set it downe And the common rule of wisdome is to beleeue as we haue found vntill different experience teach vs the contrary And by the way we mustâ— learne here M. Barlowes new deuised epithetons of a moderate and direct Protestant that as he sayth is neythâ—r Iesuâ—ted nor Geneuated that is neither Catholicke nor Puryâ—an but moderate and direct that is to say moderate in not belieuing to much on any sâ—de if it stand not with his profit and direct in following iump the Prince and State that may aduance him whatsoeuer they should determine in matters of religion This is the man by M. Barlowes direction vpon whome his Maiestie must buyld and not the Purytan or zealous Catholicke for that they are ouer scrupulous I could wish that M. Barlow had bene a litle more scrupulous in the very next ensuing number where without all blushing he casteth out two notorious lyes agaynst Father Pâ—rsons to make him odious thereby to his Maiestie saying first that he pronounceth his sayd Maiestie to be a desperate and â—orlorne hereticke but cyteth no place where it is to be found nor indeed is there any such place to be found where Father Personâ— vseth any such words as euer I could yet see Secondly he alleadgeth for Father Persons expresse words these That whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant is a most grieuous and damnable sinner and citeth for the same Dâ—lâ—man pag. 216. which quotation serueth only to condemne M. Barlow of a notorious wilfull calumniation for that these expresse wordes are not there found nor is there any mention of the Succession of a Protestant but in generall is sayd thus That for any man to giue his help towards the making of a King whome he iudgeth faulty in religion and consequently would aduance no religion or the wrong if â—e were in authority is a grieuous sinne of what syde soeuer the truth be c. So as neither Protestant nor Succession is named in this place but mâ—king of a King by such as my haue authority to doe the same and it may as well hould agaynst the entrance of a Catholicke Prince as of any other sect whatsoeuer And consequently both of these are sâ—landerous accusations the first being a meere inuented vntruth and the second a malicious peruerted calumniation so as in respect of both I may well say with the Prophet Dilexisti omnia verba praecipitationis lingua dolosa and I pray God the threat next insuing do not take place Propterea Deus destruct to in finem c. I desyre not his destruction but his amendment After this followeth in my foresaid Letter a narration of the Dutifull demeanour of Catholickes towardes his Maiestie euen from his first entrance and how by the vniust perswasions of their enemyes they began quickly to feele his hard hand borne ouer them euen before the powder-plot as by the confirmation of all Queen Elizabethâ— penal lawes in the first yeare of his Maiesties raigne with the execution therof afterward doth well appeare wherof many particuler examples are set downe and among other things it is touched as a matter of speciall disfauour that his Maiestie vouchsafing in his owne Royall Person to giue publicke audience both to Protestants and Purytâ—â— for 3. dayes togeather concerning the differences of their Religion no such grace at all was graunted vnto Catholickes Vpon which words M. Barlow stayeth himselfe and maketh this coÌ„mentary It is a strange humour sayth he that this Epistler hath iâ— he sayth truth he lyeth It is true there was a conference but about difference in Religion it is vtterly false sayâ—â— they would possesse the world that we are at iar among our selues abâ—â—â— our Religion whereas the quarrell though it be indeed vnkind yet it iâ— not in this kinde saue only for Ceremonyes externall no poynt substâ—â—tiall c. But now of this I haue spoken somewhat before shewing that if this vnkinde quarrell betweene Protestaâ—â—s Purytans as he calleth it be only about externall Ceremonies then is both his Prelacy and that of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop only an externall Ceremony And if his phrase of vnkind quarrell be of the same kind that he mentioned before to be in Queene Elizabeth towards Queene Mary of Scotland whose heâ—d she cut ofâ— then is the matter somewhat substantiall not only Ceremoniall and indeed he that shall consider what the Purytan in this vnkind quarrell pretendeth agaynst the Protestant and his Church shall see that he striketh at the head indeed or rather striketh of the head of the sayd Church whether we consyder either the externall and ministeryall head thereof to wit the Princes Ecclesiasticall power and of Bishops vnder him or the internall head metaphorically taken for the life spirit and essence of the sayd Church in denying it to be a true Christian Church but only a prophane Congregation without any spirituall power at all This appeareth by all the course and drift of Puritan wryters and bookes extant of the differences acknowledged also by Protestant writers in their Treatises against them so as to me it seemeth not only a shameles bouldnes to deny it as M. Barlow here doth but a shamâ—full basenes also and beggary so to runne after their enemyes intreating them to haue some association with them whereas the other do both contemne and detest them For this falleth out not only in this case but also with the Lutherans whom M. Barlow and his fellowes when they deale with vs will needes haue to be theyr brethren of one and the same Church fayth and beliefe for all substantiall poyntes of doctrine Whereas the Lutherans on the other syde do both deny
and defy this communion in fayth with them and haue set forth whole bookes to proue the same which were too long here to repeate Yea Caluinian and Zwinglian Ministers themselues are witnesses hereof in many of their Treatises as namely the Tigurine Deuines who confesse that theyr differences and contentions with the Lutherans are about Iustification Free-will the Ghospell the law the Person of Christ his descent into hell of Gods election of his children to life euerlasting de multis alijs non leuis momenti articulis of many more articles of no small importance which is euident for that Ioannes Sturmius another Zwinglian or Caluinist addeth other controuersies as of the Supper of our Lord and Reall Presence of Predestination of the Ascension of Christ to heauen his sitting at the right hand of his Father and the like adding also that the Lutherans do hould the Protestant Caluinian Churches of England France Flanders and Scotland for Hereticall and their Martyrs for Martyrs of the Diuell And conforme to these their writings are their doinges and proceedings with them where they haue dominion for that they admyt them not to cohabitation nor to the common vse of marriage betweene them nor to be buryed with them after theyr deaths as they well know who haue liued or do liue among them And thus much for the Lutherans of the one syde Now let vs see somewhat also of the Purytans of the other And first of all this matter hath beene handled dyuers times and demonstrated by Catholicke English wryters of our dayes agaynst this absurd assertion of M. Barlow that the differences at this day betweene Protestants and Purytans are not at all concerning religion nor of any substantiall and essentiall poyntes thereof but only Ceremoniall and in particuler the same is conuinced and made most manifest in the Preface of a late Booke intituled An answere to the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports where the different grounds of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power betweene Protestants Puritans and Catholickes being examined it is found that their differences are such as cannot possibly stand togeather to make one Church and house of saluation but that if one hath the truth the other must necessarily remayne in damnable error which is euident also by the writings of Protestants themselues especially by the bookes intituled Dangerous positions set forth and imprinted at London 1593. and the Suruey ofpretended holy discipline made as they say by him that is now Lord of Canterbury and Doctor Sutcliffe as also the Booke intituled the Picture of a Purytan writen by O. O. of Emanuel printed 1603. and other like bookes But especially at this time will I vse for proofe of this poynt the testimony of Thomas Rogers Minister and Chaplin as he styleth himselfe to his Lord of Canterbury who of late hauing set forth by publike authority the fayth doctrine and religion of England expressed in 39. articles vpon the yeare 1607. doth in his Preface to his said Lord haÌ„dle this matter of the differences betweene the Puritans and Protestantes though partially agaynst the discontented brethren he being theyr aduersary but yet setteth downe out of their owne words what their iudgment is of the importance and moment of the controuersyes betwene them to wit that they are not only about Ceremonies and circumâ—tances as M. Barlow pretendeth but about poyntes contayned in scripture in the very Ghospell it selfe They are compryzed say they in the booke oâ— God and also be a part of the Ghospell yea the very Ghospell it selfe so true are they and oâ— such importance that if euery hayre of our head were a life we ought to affâ—ard them all in defence of these matters and that the articles of religion penned and agreed vpon by the Bishops are but childish toyes in respect of the other So they And will any man thinke or say now that these men doe not hould that theyr differences with the Protestants are differences in religion as M. Barlow sayth or that they are only matters of ceremonyes and not of any one substantiall poynt concerning religion Let vs heare them yet further telling theyr owne tale and related by M. Rogers The controuersy betwene them and vs say they of the Protestants is not as the Bishops and their welwillers beare the world in hand for a cap or tippet or a Surplisse but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry and regiment of the Church according to the word of God The first wherof which is a true Ministry they Protestants shall neuer haue till Bishops and Archbishops be put downe and all Ministers be made equall The other also will neuer be brought to passe vntill Kings and Queenes doe subiect themselues vnto the Church and doe submit their Scepters and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and licke vp the dust of the feete of the Church and willingly abyde the Censures of the Church c. This they write and much more in that placeâ— which I trow is more then M. Barlow ascribeth vnto the matter For if it be contayned in Gods booke yea a part oâ— the Ghospell the very Ghospell it selfe about which they contend what proterâ—ity is it on the other part to call it a matter only of Ceremony But yet further within two pages after agayne they doe explayne themselues and theyr cause more in particuler saying Our controuersy with the Protestants is whether Iesus Christ shal be King or no and the end of all our trauell is to bâ—yld vp the walls of Ierusalem and to set vp the throne of Iesus Christ 〈◊〉 heauenly king in the myddest thereof And are these poyntes also not substantiall nor any wayes touching religion but Ceremonies Harken then yet further what they do inferre vpon the Protestantes Church for dissenting from them in these pointes Neyther is there among them say they a Church or 〈◊〉 least wise no true Church neither are they but titular Christians no true Christians indeed And yet will M. Barlow continue to say that there is no difference at all in Religion and that I lyed when I sayd that his Maiesty yeelded to a Conference between Protestants Puritans concerning their differences of Religion VVhat will he answere to the two precedent members touched by the Puritans to witâ— that their strife is for a true Ministry a lawfull gouermeÌ„t therof expounding their meaning to be that for obtaining the first all Bishops and Archbishops must be put downe for the second all temporall Princes Kings Queenes must leaue their superiority ouer the Church submit themselues and their Crownes vnto the same Church to wit their Presbyteries as M. Rogers expoÌ„deth their words And is there no substantiall point neyther in all this but only matter of Ceremony And doth not the very life soule of the Church depend of these two things a true Ministry and lawful Head Is not the power of preaching teaching administration of
the name of diuine things the possession of this or that materiall Church Or if he would be so bold now I assure my self he would not haue bene so in Queene Elizabeths dayes whose spirituall Supremacy though femininae seemed much more to be esteemed of him then this now of his Maiesty as preseÌ„tly will appeare The third refusall of S. Ambrose to the Emperour was when the said Emperour sent his Tribunes and other officers to require certaine Vessels belonging to the Church to be deliuered which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do answering as before hath bene set downe That iâ— thâ—◠〈◊〉 could not obey him and that if he loued himselfe he should abstâ—â—â—e to offer such iniurie vnto Christ c. which answer also M. Barlâ—â— well alloweth signifying therby that he would aâ—â—werâ— in the same sort to the magistrates officers of King Iamâ—â— if he should send them vpon any occasion to require at his hands the CoÌ„munion cup or any other such vessels belonging to any Church in Lincolne Diocesse And will any man belieue this that he will be so stout But it is a pastime to see how he chatteth about this matter as though he would say somewhat indeed but yet saith nothing at least to the purpose Let vs heare what he bringeth Things separated saith he to holy vse are not to be alienated to 〈◊〉 vsage Here now euery man will laugh that remembreth how the Vessels Vestments and other such things dedicated vnto God and consecrated to Ecclesiasticall vses in the Catholike Church haue bene handled by Protestants taken away defaced and conuerted to prophane vses which this man I presume dareth not to condemne Let vs heare him further God hath in them saith he a 〈◊〉 right as King Dauid confesseth first as his gift to man secondly as mans gift agayne to him which twofold cord tyeth them so strong as it is an Anathema or curse for any man not consecrated to chalenge them yea for them which are consecrated if they do not only pâ—â— them to that vse alone for which they were dedicated And do you see now heerâ— how zealous M. Barlow is become vpon the suddayne for defence of consecrated vessels in the Church What Vessels haue they consecrated thinke you Or what kind of consecration do they vse therein He sayth it is an anathema for any person not consecrated to chalenge them the sacred Emperour and King do demand them in this our case if their persons be sacred then in M. Barlows sense they are also consecrated and they may demaund these Vessels which as I said are very few in the Protestant Church and if they had beene as few in the Church meant by S. Ambrose it is not likely that the Emperour would haue troubled himselfe so much in sending Tribunes and other officers for the same But suppose the vessels were of like number price and value in the one and the other Church Yet I thinke M. Barlow will not deny but that the manner of consecrating them was far different which may be seene in the â—â—gâ—â—churgians themselues in the fourth Century and by S. Ambrose in his second booke of Office cap. 29. where he putteth downe two sorts of Church-Vessels dedicated to diuine vses the one initiata hallowed or consecrated and the other not yet hallowed and that in the time of necessity to redeeme Captiues or to relieue the poore the second sort are first to be broken and applied to these holy vses but the former with much more difficulty for that they were now hallowed Which difference I thinke the Protestants do not greatly obserue in their hallowed Vessels S. Gregory Nazianzen in like manner talking of such consecrated Vessels as were vsed in the Church in his time sayth that it was such as it made it vnlawfall for lay men to touch them which I thinke M. Barlow will not lay of his Communion-Cup which all men take in their hands But now to the question it selfe Do you thinke that M. Barlow would deny vnto King Iames that Communion-Cup or any other Vessels of a Church if he should as earnestly demand them as Valentiniaâ— the Emperour did when he sent his Tribunes and other chiefe officers to require them of S. Ambrose If he would what kind of Supremacy doth he allow his Maiesty in spirituall matters if he may be denyed and disobeyed in these also that are in a certaine sort mixt and in some part conioyned with temporall respects And truly when I do consider with my selfe with what degrees M. Barlow doth descend and go downeward in defending of the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of his Maiesty bringing it as it were to nothing from that high pitch wherin King Henry the eight both placed it and left it his children King Edward and Queene Elizabeth continued the same I cannot but wonder and admire the prouideÌ„ce of Almighty God that hath wrought the ouerthrow in effect of that new Protestant Idoll of spirituall Authority in temporall Princes euen by Protestants themselues Iohn â—aluin beginning the battery as all men know calling it Antichristian the Puritans following him in that doctrine and now M. Barlow though vnder-hand and dissemblingly confirming all that they haue sayd or doâ—â— therin The first pitch wherin King Henry did place the same was as appeareth by the Statute it selfe in the twentith six yeare of his raigne That he and his herres should be taken â—ccepted and reputed the only Supreme head on earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia and should haue and enioy â—â—nexed â—nd vnited to his Imperiall Crowne asiâ—eli the title style therof as also all honours dignities preheminences iurisdictions priâ—iledges to the said Dignity of supreme Head belonging c. Wherby is euident that the Parlament gaue vnto him as great authority ouer the Church of EnglaÌ„d as the Pope had before And this very fame authority was translated after him to his Sonne King Edward though a child yea all Preachers were commanded to teach the people that his Minority of age wâ—â— no impediment to his supreme spiritual gouernment for that a King is as truly a King at one yeares age as at â—wenty so as the exception made by M. Barlow that Valentinianâ—he â—he Emperour was yong when he commanded S. Amâ—roâ—e to dispute before him maketh nothing according to this Doctrine against his spirituall authority if he were Head of the Church as King Edward was And further the Parliament in the first yeare of King Edward explaining this authority hath these words That all authority of Iurisdictions spirituall and reÌ„porall is deriued and deducted froÌ„ the Kings Maiesty as supreme head of the Churches and Realmes of England and Ireland vnto the Bishops and Archbishops c. And the like was passed ouer also to Queene Elizabeth by a Statute in the first yeare of her raigne wherin it is said That all such iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall as by any spirituall
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 â—aâ— laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue â—â—insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grâ—â—teth 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 vnlwâ—ulnes 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 coÌ„science 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 â—hen 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 preâ—endeth 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 suâ—scribed 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 alâ—â—m nâ—ndum in Canâ—nem recepâ—um 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
and Clâ—ments Constituâ—ions before mentioned So teacheth Doctor Stapleton and the reason of his saying is for that the authority of the Church is the same now shal be vnto the worlds end as it was in the first ages to iudge of Scriptures when occasion is offered And if the Church should admit any such booke now into the Canon of holy Scriptures which was not held for Scripture before which yet is a case not like to fall out then should noâ— this booke be made Scripture by the Church but only declared to be such which was so from the beginning though not so knowne declared So as the Church in this case should not giue infallibility of truth vnto the booke but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost that this booke was such from the beginning though not so accepted So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in cyting Doctour Stapletons words first to conceale his first condition Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret if the holy Ghost should suggest the same vnto the Church and then these other two conditions if it were written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose to make M. Doctour Stapletons speach to appeare more naked and improbable but indeed it was to keep his old custome which is neuer commonly to relate things truly in all respects in any citation whatsoeuer His second obiection is out of Bishop Fisher VVho sayth quoth he that whatsoeuer the Pope with a Councell deliuereth vs to be belieued that is to be receiued as an Article of fayth which we graunting to be true do ad only this that it is to be vnderstood according to our former declaration and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it against â—uther out of Scotus saying Non quòd â—unc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but â—or that it did declare it to be true and to haue bene deliuered by God and this by direction of the holy Ghost promised by our Sauiour to the Church So sayth Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neyther the Church nor the Pope Head therof do pretend to make any new Article of fayth that was not in it selfe an article of fayth before yea and so belieued also fide implicita by implyed fayth in the faith of the Church but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to haue byn such from the beginning though not so knowne or declared and therfore men were not bound to belieue it fide explicita by expresse fayth as now they are after the Churches definition and declaration therof And that this is the common sense of all Catholicke Deuines according to my former wordes that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much adoe as though it were false is proued among other learned men of our dayes by Gregorius de Valentia whose wordes are that it is Sententia communis Theologorum the common opinion of Deuines for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors principall Schoolemen And his whole discourse founded vpon Scriptures Fathers Councells and other arguments consisteth in this that as whatsoeuer is now belieued by the Church for matter of fayth was in substance belieued before in all other precedent ages vnto Christes time actu fidei implicito by an implyed act of fayth that is to say the belieuing in generall whatsoeuer the Church belieued so many thinges are now belieued by the Church actu fidei explicito by expresse fayth which were not so belieued before for that the Church froÌ„ time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clearly and expresly which before were belieued by an implied faith only As for example the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the pâ—oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne as was afterward declared vnto vs by the Church but that it belieued the same yet may we not deny but that it belieued the same not fide expliciâ—a but implicita only And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications therof made by the subsequent Councels about the vnity of the Person differeÌ„t Natures in Christ that his Mother should be called the Mother of God were belieued implicitè by those of the Councel of Nyce and consequently were then also Articles of faith though they were not belieued by them explicitè as we are bound to do after the explication made by the Church Let vs conclude therfore with Bishop Fiâ—â—ers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tameâ—si nequeat Sumâ—â—â— Pontisex c. That albeit the Pope with a Councel that is to say the Catholick Church cannot make any thing true or false that is not true or false of it selfe and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith yet whatsoeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs as an Article of faith that al true Christians ought to belieue as an Article of faith which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth Thus Bishop Fisher whome you see how impertinently M. Barlow alleadgeth against my assertion saith the very same that I do Let vs go forward Thirdly then he obiecteth S. Thomas of Aquine who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith some more large and some more briefe demandeth to whome appertayneth noua Editio Symboli the new Edition of a Creed when the necessity of new heresies doth require And he sayth it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church And what is this against me Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed though he were not Pope with addition of many Articles for explanations sake which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed though in substaÌ„ce of truth they were nothing different Did not diuers Councells set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before All which standeth vpon this ground so much pondered by â— Irenaeus that the Apostles had all truth reuealed vnto them by Christ and they left the same in the Church so as whatsoeuer is or hath or shal be added afterward by the said Church are only explications of that first reueiled truth and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the coÌ„trary is to no purpose at al for he citeth diuers authors for that which we deny not but yet alwaies commonly with addition of some vntruth of his owne as heere he alleadgeth out of the Iesuit Azor that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei Doctrines of faith which we deny not but when he addeth that this belongeth vnto the Pope only and not to a Councel this is his owne inuention for Azor ioyneth them
euen against conscience but of this we will not dispute any more now but only I say that conforme to this his doctrine English Catholickes are admoniâ—hâ—d also to consider with what intention this new Oath â—gâ—inst the authority of the Bishop of Rome is exacted whether to preiudice Catholike Religion or no. For that â—â—is may increase their obligatioÌ„ of refusall or acceptance â—â—en according to M. Barlowes doctrine in this place But for the second point concerning the fact of Iulian the Apostata in demaunding Heathen wryters to be deliâ—ered vp of Philosophy and Poetry that in this case I say there should be the like obligation not to obey that Emperour but rather to deny to obey yea and to dy for the sayd deniall if need were as many did for the other I confesse that I cannot conceaue M. Barlowes mystery therin For who euer wrote this before Or who was euer accounted a Martyr in the Church of God for refusing to deliuer vp â— Heathen Poet or Philosophers booke Doth not now M. Barlow shorten againe and straiten greatly the lymits of temporall obedience to Princes when hâ— graunteth that ChristiaÌ„ Subiects may deny to obey them when they exact the deliuery vp of a Poeticall prophane booke to wit a Catullus or Tibullus or Ouids Metamorphosis or some such other fit for M. Bâ—rlowes reading Is not the man very constant to himsâ—lfe in his assertions that sometimes so ouerlasheth in extending temporall obedience and sometimes so excâ—ssiuely contracteth the same He sayth that Iulian herby did meane to bereaue Christians of all knowledge and therby to take from them the true meanes of their instruction and for this he noteth in the margeÌ„t the Ecclesiasticall History of Socrates lib. 3. cap. 12. But as in all other citations commonly he erreth more or lesse wherof I might allâ—adge some scores of examples if I would stand therupon and therby giueth iust suspition that he neuer read the Authors themselues but had them out of other mens noteâ—bookes as M. Mortoâ— confessed of himselfe when he was pressed therunto so here no such matter is found in the Chapter by him cyted but in two Chapters after Socrates hath these words Atque Iulianus Imperator c. And Iulian the Emperour applying his mind earâ—estly to this thing made a law that Christians should not be instructed in the doctrine of the Gentiles most certainly assuring himselfe that the fâ—bles that are read in Heathen writers would â—asily be turned by the said Christians to the reproofe of his Religion Which is anothâ—r thing you see then this which here is set downe by M. Barlow And much more likely that he was afraid that Christians reading the Pagan wryters would turne the folly and foulenes of Heathen fablâ—s against his religion and not that Christians should want true meanes of instructionâ— for want of those fables as M. Barlow here fableâ—h Albeit if he instruct his flocke with no better meanes of instructions I must needs graunt that they are in a miserable case But let vs go forward to examine a little further his very next lines as they ly in his booke about teÌ„porall obedience to Princes in which point he runneth so forth backe from extremes to extremes as it is strange to consider for hauing so diminished the same in hiâ— former example of the Emperour Iulian as now you haue heard that Christians might disobey him euen about the deliuery of a Poeticall Booke though he had neuer so earnestly required or coÌ„manded the same now he starteth to the other end againe saying as out of S. Thomas Aquinas that temporall Princes are to be obeyed euen in things vnlawfâ—â—â— His words are these From subiection to Princes there is no startling exception sayth Aquinas vnlesse he be either an vsurper or Iâ—truder which commaunds and this is not our case God be thanked or that he commaund things vnlawfull if he say this is their case we deny it but let vs suppose it yet their Angelicall Doctour will tell them that in those things they must notwiâ—hstanding obey propter viâ—andum scandalum aut periculum of this diuinity I iudge not it is their owne Is this our owne Syr Not so properly as it seemeth that lying cogging is your owne for we acknowledge not this doctrine but with due lymits far different from your allegation But you do absolutely abuse both S. Thomas and the Reader and cannot choose but know that here is falshood vsed by you except you will confesse extreme ignorance in not vnderstanding the sense of S. Thomas whom you alleadge though it be most cleare and plaine for children to conceaue that haue the latin tongue The title of S. Thomas hâ—s Article is VVâ—ether Christians b◠〈◊〉 to obey secular Powers or not And he proueth that they are by an euident argument deduced out of the 3. to the 〈◊〉 that the fayth of Christ hindreth not the order of Iâ—stice appoynted by the Law of Nature and consequently that no man is excused by being a Christian from performing due obedience to temporall Princes and for better strengthning of this his assertion he proposeth an obiection according to his custome and solueth the same The obiection is this S. Augustine in his fourth booke of the Citty of God teacheth that great Kingdomes when they cast of iustice become great robberies and theâ—uedomes but Christ his lâ—w doth not bind Christians to obey such vniust Princes Magistrates and therfore in all cases Christians are not bound to temporall obedience Wherunto he answereth thus that forsomuch as the order of Iustice is the ground of all Obedience therfore a Christian man is bound so far forth to obey secular Princesâ— as order of iustice requireth and therfore if such Princes haue not iust principality but vsurped or that they should command vniust â—hinges his subiects are not bound to obey him â—iâ—i fortè per accidens ad vitandum scâ—ndalum vel periculum except perhaps accidentally for auoyding of scandall or perill And this is the Diuinity that M. Barlow scoffeth at saith he will not iudge of it for it is our owne And I say that the Diuiâ—ity is very good and so would haue appeared if M. Bâ—rlow had eyther vnderstood it rightly or truly alleaged it for that the doctrine of S. Thomas is very cleare and incontrollable that Christian subiects are bound to obey their lawfull temporall Princes so long as they commaÌ„d lawfull thinges but if they be vsurpers in which â—ase I say also with M. Barlow God be thanked we are not or command vnlawfull thinges then are not subiects bound to obey them at leastwise by obligation of iustice and conscience which is the true foundation of obedience though perhaps saith S. Thomas accidentally they may be somtimes bouÌ„d therunto for auoyding scâ—ndal perill As for example if a Prince sâ—ould demaund of me the one halâ—e of my goodes vniustly I were not boâ—nd in
it hath bene sufficiently proued against Syr Francis Hâ—stingâ— that ignorant Knight who following M. Iewell obiected it as spoken once by Doctour Cole meaning if he spake it that some simple people are more deuout then greater learned but that ignorance should be a mother or necessary bringer forth of deuotion was neuer affirmed by any position of Catholikes and was proued to be very false in Syr Francis owne person who shewed himselfe to be very ignorant and yet nothing deuout And the same in due measure and proportion may be verified in M. Barlow if he deny it let vs part our proofes I haue shewed his ignorance in alleaging this Canon that maketh nothing for him let him proue his deuotion From the 24. Canon he steppeth forward againe to the 46. Wherin he saith is decreed that the Clergies immâ—nitie from ciuill molestations and troubles is from the King and by his CoÌ„maund and authority And what maketh this against vs or for the Protestants Why is not this practised at this time in EnglaÌ„d that all Clergie men be free ab omnipublica indictione atque labore â—t lilâ—ri sâ—ruiant Deo sayth the same Canon from all publike taxes labour to the end they may attend to seâ—ue God more freely Is the vse of this Canon more amongst Catholikes or Protestants and if more amongst Catholikes and nothing at all amongst Protestants especially in England what wisdome was this of M. Barlow to bâ—ing it in as a point decreed by the Councel conforme to their doctrine and practice But saith he this immunity came from King Sisenandus his order and commandement True it is that he as a good Catholike Prince was very forward therin yet the Decree was the Councels and therfore it is sayd in the Canon id decreuit Sanctum Concilium the holy Councell decreed it Neither do we teach that this immunity or freedome of the Clergy from secular burthens is without the consent concurrence of Christian Princes proceeding out of their piety and deuotion towards the Church to fauour further that which was esteemed by the Church needfull to Gods seruice conforme to Gods diuine Law both written impressed by nature So as this immunity of Clergy men was brought in both by Diuine and Humane Law as largly learnedly doth proue Cardinall Bellarmine in two seuerall Chapters of his Booke de Clericis to whom as to his Maister I send M. Barlow to Schoole though much against his will where also he will learne that long before this fact of King Sisenandus other Christian Emperours and Kings had consented to these immunities of Clergy men and confirmed the same by their temporall lawes decrees which piety King Sisenandus did follow and imitate in Spaine And would God he would inspire his Maiesty to do the same in England But what helpeth this M. Barlowes cause Truly euen as much as the rest Let vs see if you please what is his fourth Canon which he cyteth for his proof of the CouÌ„cels agreement with Protestants He leapeth then lastly to the 75. Canon which is one more then is in the booke for there be but 74. but this is a small fault in respect of that which presently ensueth His words are these Lastly that all the decrees and Canons of that Councell were confirmed by the Clergy annuente religiosissimo Principe after the Kings royll assent had vnto them and that set downe Can. 75. But first of all if the thing did stand in the Councell as heere it is set downe that the Princes consent and confirmation had bene demaunded to all the Decrees and Canons as M. Barlow sayth yet the words being but annuente Principâ— the Prince consenting therunto I do not see how it can be truly translated as it is by M. Barlow after the Kings Royall assent had vnto them which are the vsuall words whereby Parlament Statutes are confirmed wherein the King as truly supreme head hath chiefe authority to allow or reiect which I doubt not but that King SisenaÌ„duâ— toke not vpon him in this Councell of Toledo nay if the place be rightly examined which is in the very last lynes of the sayd Councell it wil be found that the said consent of the Prince was not about the decrees of the Councell but about the subscribing of all the Bishops names vnto the sayd Councell For they hauing ended all and made a large prayer for the prosperity of the said King and all said Amen it is added lastly Definitis itaque â—is qua superiùs comprehensa sunt annuente religiosissâ—mo Pâ—incipâ— â—lacâ—it dâ—inde c. Et quia prosâ—ctilus Ecclesiae anima nostra conâ—â—niâ—nt iam propria subscriptione vt permaneant roboramus Wherâ—fore hauing defined these things that before are comprehended it seemed good also by the consent of our most Religious Prince that forsomuch as these things that are decreed are profitable for the Church and for our soules we do strengthen them also by our owne subscriptions to the end they may remayne I Isidorus in the name of Christ Metropolitan Bishop of the Church of Siuill hauing decreed these things do subscribe c. And so did all the other Bishops by name Heere then I see not what M. Barlow can gayne by alleaging this Canon For if this allowance of King Sisenaâ—dus be referred to the Bishops subscriptions as it seemeth by that it coÌ„meth after the mention of the made decrees or if it were in generall allowance of the whole Councâ—ll by way of yielding to the execution therof as M. Barlows doctrine â—lse where is it maketh nothing against vs at all For we grant this consent to all Princes whithin their owne Kingdomes therby to haue their assistance for execution especially for such points as interesse or touch the politicall state or CoÌ„mon-Wealth There remaineth then to examine a little the first allegation out of the 43. Canon where he sayth that Priests marriage is allowed in this Canon so it be with the coÌ„sâ—nt of the Bishops Wherin two egregious frauds are discouered so manifestly as he could not but know when he wrote them that they were such The first is for that he translateth Presbyteri for Clerici peruersly thereby turning Clarks into Priests knowing well inough what he did for that he must needs see the difference in the very Canon as presently we shall shew The second fraud is that he knowing that this CouÌ„cell did vtterly disallow the marriage of Priests yet he shamed not to affirme the quite contrary We shall say a word of the one and the other For the first he alleageth as you haue heard the 43. CanoÌ„ whose words are Clerici qui sine consultu Episcopi sui duâ—â—int c. Clarks that without the consultation of their Bishop shall marry wiues c. must be separated from the Clergie by their proper Bishop Which word Cleriâ—i M. Barlow translateth Priests notwithstanding he knoweth iâ— iâ— not
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 â—ard but that of 74. Canons wherof the first only compreheÌ„deth the summe and confession of all Articles of Christian fayth contayned in the common Creeds it were hard I say â—ha the Church of England should not hold in substaÌ„ce 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 â—oth for doctrine and cerymonies whether in these the sayd Councel of Toledo did agree mâ—re with the Church of Englâ—â—â— 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 Sisenandâ—â— his successiâ—â— and concerning â—he depâ—sition of King Suintila as hath bene touched â—nd 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 fâ—â—st Canon where they make their profession of 〈◊〉 â—hey say Descendit ad inserâ—◠〈…〉 he descended into Hell to fetch from thence thoâ—â— Sainâ—â— which were there detained Do the Protestants agree to this interpretation And then talking of the last iudgment they say Alij pro iustitiae meriâ—â—â— vitam 〈◊〉 some shal receaue life euerlasting at Christs â—andâ— for their merrits of iustice Will Protestants acknowledg this in their Creed And it followeth immediâ—tely Haec est Ecclesiae Catholicae fides c. This is the â—â—ith of the Catholicke Church this Confession we 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 â—hich 〈◊〉 â—hâ—soeuer shal constantly keepe shal 〈◊〉 liâ—e euerlasting Sâ— theyâ— And for so much as there ocâ—â—â—red a doubt in the Church of Spaine about the vse of â—aptisme some allowing a triple dipping in the water some one only the Canon saithâ— that the recourse in former â—â—me 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 â—â—â—memâ—r praeceptiâ— non nostraÌ„ sed paternam instructionem sequentâ—â— Let us 〈◊〉 by the prâ—cepts of the Sea Apostolick not following our owne instruction out that oâ— our fore-â—atâ—â—rsâ— Wherfore Gregory of holy memory Bishop of Rome at the request of the most holy man Leander Bishop of Siâ—â—â—â— demaÌ„ding what was to be followed in this case answered him in these words Nothing can be more â—ruly ansâ—ered 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 Englâ—â—â— that then was for that about the very same tyme that S. Leander Metropolitan of Siâ—ill wrote to S. Gregory to haue his resoluâ—ion about this difficulty of diuers customeâ— in baptizing S. Augustine Archbishop and Metropoliâ—â—n 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 hâ—ra 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 Canâ—n there is a reâ—son giuen by the Councel Cur lucerâ—a 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 Patrâ—â— reguâ—is subiaâ—ebis 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. Barâ—â—â— 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 teâ—pus non est gundij sed mâ—roriâ— 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 ieâ—uâ—ijs insistere corpus cilicio cinere induere 〈◊〉 moeroribus deijcere gaudium in trislitiam vertere quousque â—â—â—iat tempus Resurrectionis Christi It is necessary to insist in weeping and fasting to couer our body with haircloth â—nd â—sheâ— 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 thâ—Ì„ let him heare what followeth in the Councel hoc enim Ecclesiae Vniuersalis consensio in cunctis terrarum partiâ—us 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 CoÌ„munion at Easter This toucheth
oâ— the Egâ—ptians to hate his people not that God did either physice oâ— moraliâ—er properly moue their wills or command or counsaile the Egyptians to hate his people but only occasionaliâ—er that is to say as S. Augustine expoundeth the matter God by doing good and bâ—eâ—sing his said people which was a good action in him gâ—ue 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 coÌ„curre morally in this meaning but for â—o 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 â—ll contradiction for so much as a contradiction is not but when the selfe same thing is affirmed and denied in the selâ—e same subiect and in the same reâ—pect 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 ocâ—ides 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 vnderstaÌ„d him he finally breaketh out in his malice to end with the odious example of Iames Clemâ—nt the Monke in killing the late King of France demâ—nding 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 longâ—r vpon it were losâ—e of time let M. Barlow meditatâ— by himselfe how God can concurre with so many â—urthering actions of his by slandering and deâ—aming his neighbour as heere againe he chargeth Iesuits witâ— poisoning of Popes which being not only apparantly fâ—â—â—â— but without all â—hew 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 lesâ—e by commanding or approuing the same But whether he â—o it occasionalitâ—r or no to his greater sinne damnation â—â—at I know not but certaine I am that the contumely being â—o intolerably false and ridiculous as it is and yet vtterâ—d and repeated againe so often by him in this his booke most certainely I say I do perswade my selfe that the Dâ—uel hath coÌ„curred with him in al these three waies both phâ—sice 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 tâ—e seâ—uenty disciples and then in his book de Pontifice he hath the contrary that Bishops do not properly succeâ—d 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 diuâ—rs senses to wit that Biâ—hops do succeed the Apostles iâ— power of Episcopal order not in power of extraorâ—inary Apostolical iurisdiction and so both were true and might well stand togeather for that all Bishops haue tâ—e 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 Bellarmâ—ne himselfe in his owne defence though in different words saying Episcopos succedere Aposâ—olis 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 graÌ„ted in the book de Clericis but yet that Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles as they were Apoâ—tleâ— that is to say as they were sent into all the world with most â—ull power is denyed in the booke de Ponâ—iâ—ice So as in different senses both are true Neque sunt contraria vel conâ—â—aâ—ictoria sayth Beâ—lâ—rmine nisi apudeos qui I ogiâ—am ignoranâ— vâ—l 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 â—or 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 bouâ—d to say somwhat for fashions â—ake and so rusheth himselfe into absurditieâ— as now â—ou â—hal 〈◊〉 Thus then he relateth the case tâ—at Bellâ—rmine 〈…〉 place that Bisâ—ops do succeed the Apostles and in another thaâ—â—isâ—opâ— do not properly succeed the Apostles and least any should thiâ—kâ— tâ—â—t this is no Antilogy because in the last proposition â—he 〈◊〉 â—pâ—â—pâ—â—ly qualifieth it tâ—e Cardinall himsâ—lfe haâ—h in the vâ—ry next pre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter preuented that whâ—re he saith that Bishops do prâ—â—â—â—â—y succeed the Apoâ—â—les then which what more strong counâ—eâ—-â—â—ocke caâ— there be bâ—â—â—â—ene any two So he And what â—e meâ—neth by this strong counter-shocke I know not but sure I am that he giueth a â—trong counter-buffe to his owne credit by bringing in this reply for that Bellarmine in the very selâ—eâ—ame place and words of the precedent Chapter whâ—re he sayth that Bishops do properly succeâ—d the Apoâ—â—les sheweth him selfe to meane in succâ—ssion of â—piscopall ordâ—r and power of preaching thereto bâ—longing in which power of preaching he sâ—yth Episâ—opi proprie Apostoli◠〈◊〉 ut Bishops do properly succeed the Apoâ—â—lâ—s 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 Apostlâ—s he meanâ—th and so expoundeth his meaning to be tâ—at tâ—ey do not succeed them in their extraordinary vniueâ—sall 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 retuâ—ne the vnciuill word here vsed to me out of the Poet for thâ—re lyeth his learning nauiget Amiâ—yras â—or that my braine wants purging c. but I will answeâ—e â—im moâ—e modestly to wit that if he saw not this error of his then it was at
abroad p. 50. more contayned therin then ciuill obedience p. 70. 71. 280. humble petition to his Maiesty for the expositioÌ„ therof p. 89. Scandall in exhibiting therof p. 126. 127. c. No such Oath euer enacted before by former Princes p. 156. Card. Bellaâ—mins opinion therof pag. 346. 347. c. deuided into 14. parts p. 357. difference betweene the said Oath and an Indenture pag. 362. Oath of Supremacy p. 353. defeÌ„ded by M. Barlow 354. 355. Obedience against God mans conscience none pag. 282. Obedience of our temporall Prince how far when it bindeth p. 291. defined by S. Thomas 339. Ordination of Protestant Bishops first vnder Q. Elizabeth praf n. 136. P PAVLVS Quintus Pope defeÌ„ded 54. 55. 56. 57. his Breues discussed part 2. per totuÌ„ whether he forbad temporall odedience to his Maiesty therin p. 323. deinceps â— Persons calumniated by M. Barlow pag. 204. belyed p. 263. Petrus de Vâ—â—â—is extolled by M. Barlow p. 499. iustified pag. 509. censured 523â— Philip the Emperour his murder pag. 470. Plutarke abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. Popes power ouer Infidel Princes p. 76. how they are particuler Bishops of Rome Pastours of the whole Church pag. 145. whether they can make new articles of faith or no pag. 324. 325. deinceps whether they command Princes to be murdered pag. 394. 395. c. Powder-treason pag. 13. 14. 15. c. F. Persons accused therwith by M. Barlow p. 23. Powder-plot of Antwerp pag. 18. of Hage p. 19. of Edenborrow ibid. Prescription of the Church of Rome part 1. cap. 5. per totum good argument in case of Relion pag. 150. 152. vide Antiquityâ— the same vrged by the Fathers ib. belyed shamefully pag. 246. Protestants gone out of the Catholike Church pag. 149. their Ecclesiasticall power ouer Puritans pag. 259. their basenes beggary pag. 265. their conflicts with Puritans about matters of Religion pag. 270. their Church basest of all others praef n. 36. Prouidence of God discoursed of by S. Augustine pag. 416. Q QVEENE Mary of ScotlaÌ„d put to deâ—th for Religion pag. 51. preached against by M. Barlow pag. 212. Queene vide Elizabeth R RESOLVTION of Catholiks in maters of faith p. 123. of Protestants none at all ibid. 124. what resolution is taken from the Pope pag. 125. M. Reynolds writing against Whitaker pag. 457. Rome Recourse to Rome about the Oath of Allegiance p. 50. 51. 52. c. The same practised in all difficulties by our English Princes people pag. 53. 377. Church of Rome impugned p. 144. S SALMERON abused by M. Morton M. Barlow p. 75. Salomons fact of killing Adoniah condemned pag. 105. D. Sanders abused by M. Barlow pag. 77. Scandall in exhibiting the Oath of Allegiance p. 128. 129 130. c. of actiue and passiue scandall pag. 132. 134. 135. scandall of Balaaâ— pag. 139. Sigebert calumniated pag. â—3 K. Sisâ—nandus his submission to the Councell of Toledo p. 36â— Statute of Association pag. 429. Sâ—â—pition vide Idolâ—try foure kinds of suspition pag. 119. Supremacy mascuâ—â—ne feminine pag. 395. how it was giuen to K. Henry the 8. pag. 29â— to K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth â—bid to K. Iames. pag. 29â— M. Barlowes iudgment therupon ibid. pag. 300 Sycophancy vide Flattery M. Barlowes diuision of Sycophancy pag. 242. Sixtuâ— vide Pope T S. THOMAS his opinion coÌ„cerning obedience pag. â—â—â— about Totally praef n. 52. abused by M. Barlow pag. â—36 Threatnings of God vnto Kings pag. 108. Tâ—byes breach of the King of Niniue his comaâ—ndment about burying of the dead Iewes p. 289. § 2. the ancient Fathers iudgment therof pag. 288. the credit of the History of Toby pag. 287. Toleration of Religion humbly demanded of his Maiesty part 2. cap. 4. per totum Thomas vide Morton Treason vide Powder-treason V VESSELS consecrated to Church vses ancieÌ„t p. 237. Viâ—es of wicked Kings recounted after their deaths in Scripture pag. 199. Vniuersity of M. Barlow little p. 236. W M. VVHITAKER a terrour to Card. Bellarmine in M. Barlowes iudgment pag. 455. his booke refuted by M. Reynolds pag. 457. his ignorance ibid. VVilliam vide Barlow VVorkes-Good works may giue cause of confidence in God p. 440. Syr Henry VVotton a wodden Embassadour praef n. 70. his pranks at Ausburge Venice ibid. X XYSTVS 5. belyed about the murder of King Henry the 3. of France pag. 115. Z ZISCA the blind Rebell of Bohemia pag. 456. FINIS Three things declared in this preface for the Readers satisfaction Why M. Barlowes book was answered by F. Persons The cause of the stay of this edition What manner of writer M. Baâ—low is Isa. 1â— Tertull. dâ— praesâ—rip cap. 41. Aug. tract 45. in IoaÌ„nem Bernard serm 65. in Cantica M. Barlow in his epistlâ— Dedicatory to his Maiâ—sty M. Barlowes maÌ„ner of writing M. Barlowes ignorance in GraÌ„meâ— Humanity Barlow pag. 15â— pag. 295â— Gregor lib. 2. Ep. ep 65. Barl. pag. 174. A very grosâ—e Grammaticall errour Fragmentum historiâ—um in anno 1238. â—omo 1. hist. Germ. Casarum Bellarm. l. 1. de Cler. cap. 28. Barlow pag. 342. A strange construction of Orbis terrae Bellar. lâ—â— citato M. Barlowes ignorance in Philosophy Leo ep 89. D. Thâ— lec 12. in Periber lit F. M. Barlows ignorance in histories Barlow pag. 298. Barlow pag. 292. deinceps Barlow pag. 245. pag. 288. pag. 295. M. Barlowes ignorance in interpreting the Scriptures Barl. pag. 53. Cant. 3. Barlow pag. 43. Iosue 6. Pag. 201. Iosue 6. Pag. 60. Gen. 3. Matth. 9. Barlow pag. 334. M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of Diuinity Barlow pag. 188. D. Thom. 2.2 q. 104. ar 6. ad 3. 〈◊〉 pag. â—7 pag. 57 〈◊〉 pag. 114. D. Tho. 2.2 q. 162 â—â— 4. in 〈◊〉 pag. 246. M. Barlowes paradoxes Barlow pag. 160. The Protestantes coÌ„science like a cheuerall point A prophane and barbarous assertion of M. Barlow Barlow pag 99. Athan. ep ad solitarâ—aÌ„ vitâ—m ageÌ„tâ—s Hilarius lib. 1. in ConstaÌ„t AugustuÌ„ paulo post â—nitium Barlow pag 2â—2 Barlow paâ—â— 142. see supra pag. 120. D. Andr. Respons ad Apol. cap. â—5 pag. 343. §. Porrâ— negat part 2. cap. 4. Printed anno 160â— An. 1607. D. Couell in his iust and temperate defence ar 11. pag. 67. liâ— 8. in Iob. cap. 2. Puritans acknowledge an essentiall difference betweene them and the Protestants in matters of religion An. 160â— arg 10. circa medium Si nons Vpoâ— the Arâ—c pag. 142. sâ—e Baâ—on tom 12 in anno 1140. sâ—â—â—nnius tom 4. pag. 1223. and S. Bern. ep 187. 188. dem â—ps Pâ—pyâ—ius Maâ—souius l 3. Annal. in Phâ—â—ppo August pag. 268. Bern. ep 240. â—â—â—nar Luâ—â—en et 〈…〉 Aâ—bizen es 〈…〉 see Christianus Massaeus l. 17. Chron. ad an 1206. Caesaâ—ius Heiesterb l. 5. illust mirac cap. 21. see the Protestants Apology pag. 343. Iewel defence pag. 48 M. Iewell contrary to himself Guido Carmelita in suÌ„ma cap. 9. de