inferreth that 〈◊〉 temporall authority of the Pope by vs pretended beiâ—â— but humanum inuentum a humane inuention or ratâ—â—â— intrusion or vsurpation as he calleth it the matter of the Oath wherby the same is excluded must needâ—◠〈◊〉 meerly Ciuill no lesse then if it were against any oâ—â—â—â— meere temporall Prince that would vsurpe any part of our Soueraignes temporall right or Crowne Whereunâ—â— I answer that if this were so and that it could be proued that this temporall power of the Pope as we teach it were but a humane inuention indeed and not founded in any authority diuine or humane then M. Barlow had sayd somewhat to the matter and the comparison of an Oath taken against any other teÌ„poral Prince might haue place But for that we haue shewed now that this is not 〈◊〉 but that there is great difference betweene this temporall power of the Pope deriued from his supreme spirituall authority as vniuersall Pastour which no temporall Prince is and the pretension of any meere temporall Potentate therfore is the swearing against the one but a ciuil obedience and the other a point belonging to conscience and religion with those that belieue the sayd power to come from God But now for answering this his last collection of authors I say first that Bellarmine in the place by hiâ— cited hath no one word of any such matter his booke being de Concilys and his purpose is to shew both in the 13. Chapter here cited as also in the precedent Câ—iâ— sâ— congâ—egare Concilâ—a to whome it belongeth to gather Councels which he sheweth to appertaine to haue appertained alwaies to the Bishops of Rome and not to Kings and Emperoures albeit they being the Lordes of the world the sayd Councels could not well be gathered withoâ—â— their consent and power But of Excommunication or of deposition of Princes Bâ—llarmine hath no one word in this place and so M. Barlowes assertion and quotation iâ— both false and impertinent about the first six hundred yeares after Christ. But if he will looke vpon Bellarmine in other places where he handleth this argument of Excommunicationâ— and depositions of Princes as namely in his second and fiâ—th booke de Rom. Pontis he will find more ancient examples at least of ExcommunicatioÌ„ which is the ground of the other then the six hundred yeares assigned out of Bellarmine For that Bellarm. beginneth with the Excommunication of the Emperour Arcadiuâ— and Eudoxia his wife by Pope Innocentiâ—â— the first for the persecution of S. Iohn Chrysostome which was about two hundred yeares before this tyme assigned by M. Barlow and diuers other examples more ancient then the 1000. years allotted by Doctor Barkley the Scottishman here alleadged as the excommunication of Leo Isauricuâ— surnamed the Image-breaker by Pope Gregory the second the example also of King Chilperiâ—us of France by Zacharias the Pope the example also of Pope Leo the third that translated the Empyre from the East to the West And as for the Friar Sigebert brought in here for a witnesse he should haue sayd the Monke for that the religious orders of Fryars were not instituted a good while after this who is sayd to call the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes A Nouelty is not an Heresy it is a notable calumniation as may be seene in the wordes of Sigebert himselfe in the very place cyted by M. Barlow For though Sigebert following somewhat the faction of the Emperour Henry the third excommunicated by Pope Vrbanus the second did often speake partially concerning the actions that passed betweene them which many tymes seemed to proceed of passion more then of reason and iustice yet doth he neuer deny such power of Excommunicating deposing for iust causes to belawfull in the Pope but the playne contrary Neyther doth he call that doctrine Noâ—elty or Heresy that the Pope hath this authority as falsely M. Barlow doth here affirme but only that it seemed to him a new doctrine which he would not call Heresy to teach that vicious Princes were not to be obeyed for so are his wordes Nimirum vt pace omnium dixerim haec sola nouiâ—as non dicam hâ—resis necdum in mundo emerserat vt 〈◊〉 Dei doceant populum quâ—d maliâ— Regibus nullam debeâ—â—t 〈◊〉 To wit that I may speake without offence of all this only nouelty I will not say Heresy was not yet spâ—â—â—â— vp in the world that the Priestes of God should teach 〈◊〉 people that they ought no obedience at all to euill Priâ—ces c. In which wordes you see that Sigebert doth 〈◊〉 deny or reproue the authority of Excommunication 〈◊〉 deposition of Princes especially if they be for heresy bâ—â— only the Doctrine that no subiection or obedience is dâ—â— to vicious or cuill-liuing Princes which is false and scandalous doctrine indeed As for the fourth Author alleadged in this place 〈◊〉 wit Claudius Espencaeus that he should call the fact of Pope Gregory the seauenth his excommunicating Henry the thiâ—d Nouellum schisma a new rent or schisme which is borrowed out of M. Morton as the rest which in this poynt he alleageth I will referre him for his answer to the answer that is made of late to M. Morton himselfe which is called The quiet and sober Reckoning where this matter is returned vpon him with so â—uident a conuiction of wilful falsity as is impossible for him to cleare his credit therin For that these wordes are not spoken by Espencaeus himselfâ—â— but related only by him out of a certaine angry Epistle written by certaine schismaticall Priestes of Liege that were commaunded by Paschalis the second to be chastised by Robertâ—arle â—arle oâ— â—landers and his souldiers newly come from Ierusalem about the yeare 1102. for their rebellious behauyour Which passionate letter of theirs Espencaâ—â— doth only relate out of the second Tome of Councells expresly protesting that he wil not medle with that controuerâ—y of fighting betweene Popes and Emperours though he prâ—ue in that plâ—ce by sundry exâ—mples both of Scriptures Fathers and Councels that in some cases it is lawful for Priests to vse temporal armes also when need iustice requireth So as this falsification must now fall aswell vpon M. Barlow as vpon M. Morton before and we shall expect his answere for his dâ—fence in this behalfe As for the last authority of S. Ambrose that Kinges and Emperours be tuti Imperij potestate sate by power of their Empire from any violent censure though I find no such matter in any of the two Chapters quoted by M. Barlow out of his Apologia Dauid yet seeking â—urther into other bookes of his I find the wordes which is a token that our Doctor writeth out of note-bookes of some Brother and neuer seeth the places himselfe but though I find the wordes yet not the sense which he will inferre but wholy peruerted to another meaning For that if S. Ambrose had bene of opinioÌ„ that
Kinges and Emperours had bene so priuiledged by the power of their Empire aâ— they might not be censured by the high Pastours and Prelates himselfe would neuer haue cenâ—ured and excomunicated his Emperour Theodosius as he did The wordes then are found not in S. Ambrose his Booke de Apologia Dauid cap. 4 10. as here is cited for there are two Apolygies prior and posterior which M. Barlow by his citation seemeth not to haue vnderstood and the first containâ—th but 7. Chapters in all and in the 4 is only this sentence talking of the pennance of King Dauid Qui â—ullis tenebatur legibus humanis indulgentiam petebat cùm qui tenentur legibuâ— aeudent suum negare peccatâ—m King Dauid that was subiect to no humane lawes asked forgiuâ—nes when they that are bound by lawes presume to deny their sinnes But in his enarration vpon the 50. psalme of Dauid he hath the thing more plainely for thus he saith Rex vtique erat nullis ipse legibuâ— tenebatur quia liberi sunt Reges à vinculis delictorum neque enim illi ad poenam vocaÌ„tur legibus tuti Imperij potestate Dauid was a King and thereby was not vnder lawes for that Kinges are free from the bandes of their offences for that they are not called to punishment by lawes being safe by the power of their Empire So S. Ambrose Wereby is seene that he vnderstandeth that Princes commonly are not subiect to humane lawes for that they will not nor may be called to accompt for their offences as priuate meÌ„ are being free by their powâ—r or that no man is able to compell them And this priuiledge perhaps is tolerable in their priuate and personall sinnes but if the same should breake out in publicke and against the vniuersall good of Christians then may we learne by the foresaid act oâ— S. Ambrose in Excommunicating the Emperour Teodosius that God hath leâ—t some power by diuine law to râ—straine them for the coÌ„seruation of his Church and Kingdome And so we may see that al that which M. Barlow hath chirped here to the contrary is not worth a rush but to shew his penury and misery hauing bene forced of eight Authors heere alleadged by him to wit Salmeron Saâ—ders Victoria Bellarmine Barkley Sigebert Espencaeus S. Ambrose to misalledge and falsify seauen as you haue heard that is to say all of them sauing Barkley who in this matter is of lesse accompt then any of the rest if the booke be his which is extaÌ„t vnder his name For that he being no Deuine hath taken vpon him to defend a Paradoxe out of his owne head only different from all other writers of our dayes both Catholiks Heretiks graunting against the later all spiritual authority vnto the Pope ouer Princes Christian People throughout the world but denying against the former all temporall authority eyther directly or indirectly annexed vnto the spirituall wherin as he is singular from all so he is like to be impugned by all and is by M. Barlow in this place for the Protestants calling him our owne Writer And for the Catholikes Cardinall Bellarmine hath lately written a most learned booke against him by name confuting his priuat fancy by the publique authority weight and testimonies of all Catholike Deuines And so much for this OF CERTAINE NOTORIOVS Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his aduersary which no wayes can be excused from malice witting errour §. II. AS the former fraud discouered and conuinced against M. Barlow of abusing authors against their owne wordes and meaning is a foule fault and very shaÌ„full in him that pretendeth to haue conscience or care of his credit so is the crime of appareÌ„t and willfull Calumniation bearing no shew of truth or reason at all much more foolish wicked Foolish for that it doth wholy discredit the Calumniator with his Readers wicked for that it sheweth plaine malice and will to hurt although with his owne greater losse So then it falleth out in this place that M. Barlow finding himselfe much pressed and strained with the reasonable and moderate speach which I vsed in my Epistle throughout three numbers togeather concerning the Oath freely taken as was said by many Catholikes both Priests and Laicks expounding their taking of the Oath in a good sense he doth so malignantly peruert the same by open calumniatioÌ„s as euery child may discouer not only the falshood but the fury also of his passion against me nothing being in his answere but exorbitant rayling apparent lying For whereas I in reason deserued rather approbation and commendation from him for expounding plainly and sincerely that meaning which those Catholikes if they were Catholikes had or could haue in their taking of the Oath without all Equiuocation or mentall reseruation which I condemned in an Oath as altogeather vnlawfull concerning any point of religion that ought to be confessed he not being able to abide the light of this truth and plaine dealing falleth into a certaine frenzy of rayling against me for the ground of his accusation â—ayeth hiâ— owne fiction that I doe teach them perswade them 〈◊〉 Equiuocate in this very case For cleare confutatiâ—â— wherof it shal be sufficieÌ„t first to set down my own wordâ— as they ly in my epistle and then to consider and ponder the collections and inferences that he maketh vpon theâ— And if by this you doe not finde him to be one of the loosest conscience and lawâ—est tongue and least respectiuâ— of his owne credit honesty that euer yow saw I am much deceiued My words then were these that follow As for that multitude of Priestes and Lâ—ickes which he sayth haue freely takâ—n the Oath as their freedome was that which now I haue mentioned and a principall motiue as may be presumed the desire they had to giâ—e his Maiesty satisfaction and deliuer themselues and otheâ—â— so much as lay in them from that inference of disloyall meaning which vpon the denyall therof some do vse 〈◊〉 make so I cannot but in charity assure my selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as coâ—cerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in â—ome such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sincerity of true Catholike doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath not authority without iust cause to proceed againâ—â— them Quia illud possumâ—â— quod iure possumus saith the law ouâ— authority is limited by Iustice. Directly also the Pope may be denyed to haue such authority against Princes but indirectly only in ordine ad spiritualia when certayne great important and vrgent cases concerning Christian religion fall out which we hope will neuer be betweene ouâ— Soueraigne and the Sea Apostolicke for so much as they haue past already many yeares though in different Relions in peace and quietnes euen since
his Maiesty begâ—â— first to raiâ—ne But concerning the generall Question to deny simply and absolutely That the Pope is supreme Pastour of the Catholiâ—â— Church hath any authority leâ—t him by Christ eyther directly or â—â—â—â—â—â—ctly with cause or without cause in neuer so great a necessity or for â—euer so great and publicke an vâ—ility of the Câ—ristian Religion to proceed against any Prince whatsoeuer temporally â—or his restraint or aâ—endmeâ—â— or to perâ—it other Princes to do the sâ—me this I suppose was neuer tâ—eir meaning that tooke the Oath for that they should therby contradict the generall conseâ—t of all Catholicke Deuines and conâ—â—sse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruation of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous for that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great and excessiue an euill as that way might fall outâ— Wherefore for so much as some such moderate meaning must needs be presumed to haue bene in those that tooke the Oath for safeguard of their Consciences if it might please his Maiesty to like well and allow of this moderation and fauourable interpretation as all forraine Catholicke Kings and Monarchs doe without any preiudice at all of their safety dignity or Imperiall prehemiâ—ence I doubt not but he should find most ready conformity in all his said English Catholicke Subiects to take the said Oath who now haue great scruple and repugnance of Conscience therin both for that the chiefeâ—t learned men of their Church doe hold the same for vtterly vnlawfull being mixed and compounded as it is and the voyce of their chiefe Pastour to whome by the rules of their Religion they thinke themselues bound to harken in like cases hath vtterly condemned the same and the very tenour of the Oath it selfe and last lines therof are That euery â—â—e shall sweare without any Equiuocation or mentall reseruation at â—â—l that is to say hartily willingly and truely vpon the true fayth of a Christian. Which being so they see not how they may take the said Oath in truth of conscience for so much as they find no such willingnes in their harts nor can they induce themselues in a matter so neerely concerning the Confession of their faithâ— to Equiuocate or sweare in any other sense then from his Maiesty is proposed and therfore do thinke it lesse hurt to deny plainly aâ—d sincerely to sweare then by swearing neyther to giue satisfaction to God nor to his Maiesty nor to themselâ—â—â—â— nor to their neighbours And so much for this point Hitherto haue I thought good to relate my forâ—â—â— words somewhat at large to the end the Reader may seâ— my reasonable and dutiâ—ull speach in this behalfe aâ—â— vpon what ground M. Barlow hath fallen into such a raâ—e against me as now shall appeare by his reply First of aâ—â— he condeÌ„neth me of hâ—pocrisy saying Let the Reader câ—â—â—â—der â—â—at an â—ypocrite he is for it is an inseparable marke of â—n hypâ—câ—â—â—â— to iudge oâ— otheâ— mâ—ns conâ—â—iences the hart of man is Gods peculiâ—â— â—oâ— anâ— man to place his consâ—sâ—ory there is high presumpâ—ion so be â—â—nneth out in that comon place which maketh nothing at all to ouâ— purpose as you see For I did not iudgâ—t or conâ—â—mne then conâ—ciâ—nces that tooke the Oath but excâ—sâ—â— the same yea interpreted their â—act in good sense giuing my â—eaâ—ons for itâ— that they being good Catholike could not be presuâ—â—d to meane otherwise then the inâ—â—gritie of Catholicke doctrine did permit them for that otherwise they should be no good Catâ—olickes if they should haue done any thing contrary to that whicâ— theâ— selues held to appertaine to the same in which I did not excuse their fact which my whole booke proueth to be vnlawâ—ull but only their intention and meaning touching the integrity of Catholick doctrine And this is far difâ—erent from the nature of hypocrisy which forbiddeth not all iudging but only euill and rash iudging of other mâ—ns actions or intentioÌ„s thereby to seeme better more iâ—st then they For if two for example sake should see M. Barlow to sup largely with flesh and other good meate vpon a vigill or fasting-day and the one should iudge it in the worst part saying that he did it for the loue of hâ—s belly and sensuality the other should interpret the same spiritually as done for glorifying God in his creatures by his thanks-giuing for the same for liberty also of the ghospell and for to make him the more strong able to â—peake preach his Seruice and Sermon the next day I doubt noâ— but that this second iudgement would not be censured by him for hypocriticall And this is ouâ— very case with those that tooke the Oath For that I hearing what they had done and that they were Catholicks did interprete their meaning to the best sense And was not this rather charity then hypocrisy But let vs see a little if you please how M. Barlow can defend this generall proposition of his that it is an inseparable mâ—rke of an hypocrite to iudge of other mens consciences You haue heard before how wisely he defended a certain definition which he gaue of an Oath now you shall see him as wisely learnedly defend an inseparable propriety or marke of an hypocrite And first you see that here is no distinction or limitation at all whether he iudg well or ill with cause or without cause rashly or maturely how then if wee should heare a man or woman speake ordinarily lewd wordes can no iudgement be made of the speakers consciences without hypocrisie If a man should see another frequeÌ„t bad howses or exercise wicked actions may no man iudge him to haue an ill conscience from whence these things doe proceed but he must be â—n hypocrite Moreouer if this bee an inseparable marke or propriety as he saith then according to Aristotle Porphyriâ—â— it must conuenire omni soli semper agree to all only and euer For if it do not agree to all and euer it is not inseparable and if it agree to others besides hypocrites it is not alwaies the marke of an hypocrite and therefore albeit that I had iudged their consciences as M. Barlow imposeth vpon me he could not by good consequeÌ„ce haue inferred that I was an hypocrite But this is ridiculous that all hypocrites and only hypocrites iudge of mens consciences for first the hypoâ—rite that soundeth a trumpet before his almes whose conscience doth he iudge The other also that kneeleth and prayeth in the corners of streetes whose conscience doth he iudge or condemne Those also that came to tempt Christ about the woman taken in â—dultery and about Tribute to be payd to Cesar I reade not whose consciences they iudged and therefore would be loath to doe them iniury except M. â—arlow can bring any iust accusation against them and yet were they called hypocrites by our Sauiour whereby iâ— inferred that all hypocrisy is not subiect to
this â—axatio â—f iudging consciences and consequently this is no inseparâ—ble marke that agreeth to all In like manner also it agrâ—â—â—â— not soli that is only to the sinne of hypocrisie to iudgeâ— of other mens consciences for pride may do it anger may do it temerity may do it reuenge may do it this withoâ—â— hypocrisy or iustifying of himselfe For if to a knowne vsâ—rer for example you should obiect or exprobrate the finne of vsury he answere you againe that he suspected yoâ—â— conscieÌ„ce of like sinne here he iudgeth of your conscience perhaps falsly and yet not by hypocrisie for he iustifietâ— not himselfe ergo this is not propriuÌ„ quarto modo any inseâ—arable marke or propriety of hypocrisie to iudge of other mens conâ—ciences Lastly let vs consider if you please the definition of hypocrisy which should indeed haue bene the first iâ— consideration for trying out of the true nature of this marke propriety for so much as according to Aristotles doctrine and the thing in it selfe is euident by Philosophy prâ—priâ— passiones flâ—unt ab essentijs rerum proprieties doe flow from the essence of things and therefore they are best vnderstood knowne by reâ—erence to the sayd natures and essences conteyned as Aristotle sayth in their definitions The definition theÌ„ of hypocrisie is according to S. Isidorus in his Etimologies simulatio alienae personae when a man pretendeth to be another maâ— and better then he is and according to S. Augustine Qui se vult videâ—iquâ—d non est hypocrita est hâ— that will seeme to be that which he is not is an hypocrite which the greeke word also whereof it is deriued to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth confirme that it signifieth dissimulation this definition I say which must conuerâ—i cum deâ—iniâ—o clâ—areth vs that this iâ—separable marke or propriety deuised by M. Barlâ— to be in all hypocrisie is both ignorantly falsly â—eygned by himselfe as not knowing the true nature of propriâ— pasâ—â— for that there be many wayes of dissimulation of â—eygâ—ing our selues to be better then we are without iudging otheâ— mens consciences that is to say there be many sâ—eâ—iâ— and kinâ—s oâ— hypocrisie and hypocrites that haue not this marke propriety as before hath byn shewed consequently not inseparable that is no proper or inseparable propriety at all no more then it is to â—ay that it is an inseparable propriety to horses to be white for that some few are found white And so we see M. Barlow when he coÌ„meth to speake of any matter of substance and learning sheweth himselâ—e a very feeble man scarce to vnderstand the very termes and first principles of the same But let vs passe on now to another more grieuous calumniation against me He is not content to make the former outcry against me for hypocrisie and iudging mens consciences but addeth also another assault â—saying that I doe teach Equiuocation to be vsed in thiâ— Oath which is so far froÌ„ all truth as I do teach the playne contrary as now hath appeared by my owne words before alledged For I say there of them that tooke the Oath I cannot in charity but assure 〈◊〉 selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as concerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in sâ—me such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sinceâ—iâ—y of true Christian doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath â—ot â—uthority â—ithout iust cause nor directly but indirectly only in â—â—dine ad spiritualia So I wrote then and the cleare addition that these exceptions and clauses must be expressed by the swearers and accepted by the Magistrate doth clearly exclude Equiuocation which consisteth of mentall reseruation not expressed nor vnderstood or accepted of him to whom it is vsed and moreouer within very few lines after continuing my speach and desiring his Maiesty to accept of these clauses of moderation Catholike exposition I doe yield this reason that Catâ—olikes doâ— not hold it lâ—wfull in a matter so neâ—rely concerning the Conâ—ession of their sayth to equiuocate or sweare in any other sense then from his Maiesty is proposed Can any thing be spoken more plainly With what face then can M. Barlow accuse me of the quite contrary and so reuile against me for the same Wherof some shal be here set downe Let the Reader bâ—hold sayth he a malicious trick of a notable Equiuocaâ—â—uâ— that cannot be contented to be him selfe alone the Diuells schâ—ller that ancient Equiâ—ocatourâ— but must be 〈◊〉 his Deuility Reader or Schoole-man to teach others â—o distinguish themselues tâ— hell fire sheweth him selfe to be verè spiritus mendaâ— iâ— ore Propâ—â—tarum framing two distinctions like the two 〈◊〉 of Sedecias the false Prophet such another as himselfe fuâ—â— of thâ— spirit putting them into their moâ—thes the first that the Pope 〈◊〉 not Authority withouâ— iust cause to proceeâ— against Princes the secâ—â—â— that the Pope hath not this authority directly but indirectly in ordine ad spiritualia c. So he Whereby wee see how much the man delighteth himselfe in comparing these two distinctions or explications of mine to the two iron-hornes of Sedecias though the Scripture hath not the particuler number of two but M. Barlow addeth that of â—is owne to make theâ— meet the more fitly with the number of my two distinctions for besides the parity of number which yet is false there is no other parity or likenes at all For what haue hornes to do with distinctions And yet after a large and lewd blast of rayling against me for the same he concludeth thus And now let the Christian Reader that maketh a conscience eyther of God or common honesty consider whether this be not the profunda Sathanae in the Reuelatió euen the very mist and mysterie of Iniquitie But what Syr to distinguish or vse distinctions in a matter that may haue diuers senses or intendmeÌ„ts Is this the profundâ—tie of Sathan or is not this rather profound ignorance and absurdity in you to say so Doe not you know that to distinguish belongeth to the wise and learned according to Aristotle and not to distinguish est imperâ—â—â— mulâ—itudinis appertaineth saith he to the vnlearned vulgar sort Doth not reason and expeâ—ience teach vs that to diâ—tinguish matters that be obscure perplexed into their cleere sâ—nses or that be confused into their seuerall parts members or that may haue many senses into their different significations is a high worke of wit that giueth life to our vnderstanding to conceiue the truth and light to our will to make choice of the same How many foule heresies in the Church oâ— Chrisâ— since her beginning haue beene beaten downe principally by pious and prudent distinguishing which otherwise would neuer perhaps haue bene ouercome As namely the Arians when they alleaged
bables This was the fact of a Pagan Atheist What doth the matter appertayne to vsâ— do we esteeme so litle a false Oath Why then doe Catholickes stand so much in England against the receiuing of this Oath Why doe they put themselues in danger of leesing the Princes fauour their goods theyr lands their Countrie their liues rather then to take the same againâ—â— their consciences It seemeth rather that M. Barlâ—â— concurreth with Lisanders opinion who will haue theâ— take it although it be against their consciences for thiâ— is to haue leuem iurisiurandi religionem little conscience of an Oath But yet he goeth further in this matter and cannot get out of it for he will needs proue this my distinctioâ— and as he calleth it Equiuocation not only to be Pagaâ—iâ—â— but more then Heatheniâ—h that euen by Aristotles testimony in his Booke of Rhetoricke to King Alexander his wordes are these Nay this delusion is more then Heathenish â—or Aristotle was of opinion that he which doubteth in his Oath for thâ—â— i◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sweare with a mentall addiâ—ion hath neither â—ear oâ— Goâ—â— vâ—ngeance or shâ—me oâ— mens reproof But truely I hauing conâ—idered the place of Aristotle how far his meaning is from that which here is alledged in his name me thinkes that M. Barlow should feare these two last pointes of Gods vengeaÌ„ce mans reprofe For Aristotle hath not a word of dâ—â—bâ—ing in his Oath or of mentall addition or reseruatioÌ„ in an Oath bâ—t only of plaine forswearing For his argument is hauing treated in that booke to Alexander how by the preceptes of Rhetoricke an Orator may proue or improue any fact or crime that shall come in question as by signes by arguments by coniectures by probability by witnesse and by torture he coÌ„meth at leÌ„gth to shew how it may be proued or improued by an Oath His words are these Iufiuranduâ— est cum diuina veneratione dictio probationis expeâ—s c. An Oath is a speach without proofes with diuine veneration wherefâ—re if we will confirme our Oath and the credit thereof we must say thâ—â— no man truly will forsweare himselfe both in respect of the â—eare of punishment from the Gods as also of disgrace among men and we may add that men may be deceyued but the Gods cannot But now if the aduersary will flie also to an Oath and we would extenuate or discredit the same then we must shew that the man that will not sticke to dâ—e euill will not sticke also to forsweare himself for that he which thinketh he may ly hidden from the Gods after he hath committed an eâ—ill â—act will thinke that he may also escape punishment after he hath â—orsworne himselfe This is Aristotles discourse which maketh no mention at all as you see of doubting in an Oath and much lesse of mentall addition or reseruation And albeit M. Barlow do bouldly and ignorantly say that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by all Interpreters doth signifie peierare to periure or forsweare doth import also to sweare with mental addition yet is this only a fiction of his nor can he bring forth one example out of Aristotle or any Greeke writer which doth vse it in that sense nor could Aristotle vse it so in this place where he vseth the sayd wordes thrice in these lines by me alleaged alwaies for peierare to forsweare and neuer for doubting or mentall addition Nay it cannot stand with any sense of Aristotles discourse for if Aristotle should say that no man truly will doubt in his Oath or haue a meÌ„tall reseruation both for feare of Gods chastisement discredit amongst men it were a ridiculous speach for that men do not knowe when a mentall reseruation is made or when a man doubteth in his Oath but when he forsweareth himselfe it may come to be knowne And in like manner it is more ridiculous to say against the aduersary as Aristotle teacheth vs that he which sticketh not to doe wickedly will not sticke to doubt also in his Oath or to vse a mentall addition which no man I thinke would vnderstand or can read without laughing Wherfore seing that Aristotle speaketh only of forsweâ—ring and that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken by him and by all other Greeke Authors wherof we might heâ—â— alledge infinite examples M Barlow cannot alleadge one for his fiction it is euidently seene that he miserable man is sore pressed when to sustaine his bad cause he is forced to falsifie and corrupt Authours by peruerting and wresting them aside quite contrary to their meaning purpose But now we shall passe to some other poyntes THE REASON IS EXAMINED WHETHER GODS PROVIDENCE MIGHT SEEME DEFECTVOVS if no authority had bene left in the Christian hurch to restraine and punish euill Kings AND Whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. I SAID in my former Letter as in the precedent Chapter hath bene seene that I could not perswade my self that such Catholikes as were sayd to haue accepted the Oath did meane to abiure al authority of the Pope for depoâ—ing temporall Princes for any cause whatsoeuer for that therin they should contradict the gâ—nerall consent of all Catholike Deuines and confesse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruatiâ—â— of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous For that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great perilous an euill as that way might fall out by the exorbitant actions of some incorrigible Prince To this my speach M. Barlow answereth thus If by Catholike Deuines he meaneth Scriptures Councells Fathers Stories for a thousand yeares after Christ the Reader must take it for a mendacious vanity and let it passe for no better Wherto I reply that as I do meane it it is no mendacious vanity but a religioâ—â— verity for that I meane by Catholike Deuines in this place all such of that profession as haue handled the question particularly of this temporall Authority of the Pope in certaine vrgent occasions which are principally Scholasticall Deuines especially those of this age that haue written against all sorts of Heretikes that denied the same And albeit M. Barlow in his rayling vayne do challenge the Schoole-men as blasphemously detorting Scriptures yet he that shall read them with iudgment and attention without this furious passion of hatred against them and lacke of capacity to vnderstand them shall quickly perceiue that their skill in Scriptures Councels Fathers Stories is far superiour by infinite degrees to that of M. Barlow and his Mates that crake so much against them and their sincerity in expounding them according to their true meaning and is also without comparison more sound as may appeare by the many grosse and wilfull corruptions which I haue noted in him before in that kind And albeit in some hundreds of yeares after Christ there had
so much from this acknowledgment or testimony of the Councell of VVormes which did but set downe the sense of the Christian Church in these dayes but from other far more ancient proofes and testimonies as M. Barlow wel knoweth though here he dissembleth the same and chaâ—eth exceedingly saying That this fugitiue for such is his modesty of speach wil fâ—tch a 〈◊〉 sentence from this Councel to warrant no Councel to be good that iâ— celebrated without the Popes Authority and therby at one push ouerthrow the credit of al Councels both general and particuler for the better part of 900. yeares after Christ. Wherto I answer first that to be a fugitiue for the cause of Catholicke Religion is no reproach at al but a high commendation warranted by Christes owne words when he willed them that were persecuted in one Citty to fly into another and much more happy is it to be a fugitiue then a persecutour S. Athanasius in his booke de fugasua of his flight and persecution doth handle the matter at large to whom I remit the Reader Secondly as for the summoning gathering of CouÌ„cels general or particuler our controuersy is principally of General Councels for as for Diocesian Synods as they may be assembled by ech Bishop in his district and the Prouincial Councels by the Metropolitan which Protestants themselues wil not deny so by the due proportion of good order General Councels must be gathered by commandment or consent at least of the general Pastour though in States subiect to temporal Princes good reason requireth that the matter be done in like manner with the approbation of the said temporal Princes for the houlding of the said Councel in this or that place of their Dominions And this was obserued in the first 4. General Councels which were commanded to be gathered by Constantine Theodosius the elder Theodosius the yonger and Martian the Emperours by the assent and approbation of the Popes Syluester Damasus Celestinus and Leo which besides other proofes of seueral histories is made euident by the last of the said 4. Councels to wit that of Chalcedon where in the first action the heretical Archbishop Dioscorus was punished publikely and forbidden to sit amongst the Bishops for that he had presumed to call a Councell without the authority of the Apostolike Sea Quâ—d numquam licuiâ— say they numquam sactum est that neuer was lawfull nor euer was done And consequently this prooueth that all the first 4. Generall Councells were gathered by the consents and approbations of the Bishops of Rome though with the concurrence also of the Emperours without whose good liking the meeting of so many Bishops in their States could not be permitted as before hath bene said But now here before I passe any further I must make you acquainted with a solemne foolery and falshood of M Barlow concerning Cardinall Bellarmine for that hauing vttered the words before mentioned that CouÌ„cels were to be gathered by the Emperours and not by the Bishops of Rome though he citeth no one argument for the same yet saith he this is a thing so cleare and radiant that Bellarmine himselfe being dazeled with behoulding the euidence euen as S. Peter not wiâ—â—ing what he said though he laboured to build for the Pope yet labâ—â—reth be also to build for the Emperour and in that same place he â—â—eweth diuers reasons why it rather belongeth to Emperours then to Popes for â—o assemble Councells citing for the same in his margent Bellar. de Concil cap. 13. But truly when I went to the place of Bellarmine and read his words I was ashamed on M. Barlowes behalfe and his folly was so radiant in my eyes to vse his phrase that I could not read them without blushing for that in the Chapter by him cited and in the other going before Bellarmine doth proue most substantially by many arguments both out of Scriptures Fathers Councels reasons histories practice and examples that it appertayneth not to the Emperour only or principally but to the Bishop of Rome to call General CouÌ„cells or at leastwise that it may not be done without the said Bishops consent and approbation first had so as the very contradictory proposition to this which M. Barlow sets downe is found in these expresse words in Bellarmine â—sse reuerà Pontiâ—icis non Imperatoris congregare Synodum generalem that is belongeth truely to the Pope and not to the Emperour to gather a generall Councell Adding notwithstanding 4. particuler reasons and temporall respects why diuers generall Councells could not be gathered togeather vnder the Emperours who were temporal Lords of the world without their likings consents Not saith he for that a Councell gathered without the authority of the Emperour among Christians should not be of validity as our aduersaries doe dreame whereas S. Athanasiuâ— saith plainely in his epistle to them that lead a solitary life Quando vmquam iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritateÌ„ habuit when did euer the iudgment of the Church take authority from the Emperour but for that the temporall state of Christendome standing in the Emperours hands no such meeting could be made without their approbation And can this stand with that which M. Barlow here affirmeth in his name that he shewes diuers reasons why it rather belonged to Emperours then to the Pope to assemble Councells Will he not blush and be ashamed of this shameles calumniation or rather forgery As for that he obiected coÌ„cerning the Graunt giuen to Charles the Great by Adrian the Pope to haue authority to approue the Election of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops and Archbishops and to dispose of the Sea Apostolike c. I referre him to Cardinall Baronius for his answer in his Annales of the yeare 774. where he discusseth the matter at large and proueth it a meere fiction and plaine fraud inuented registred first by Sigebertus in fauour of the cause of Henry the fourth Emperour excommunicated by the Pope which he proueth by many playne euidences out of all the ancient writers for the space of 300. years after Charles his time who neuer made mention of any such Graunt as also the expresse testimony of Eginhardus that was Notary to Charles the Great and was alwayes about him and wrote his life and by diuers other proofes which were too long here to recite Therfore with this shall we end this Chapter VVHETHER THE POPE IN HIS BREVE DID FORBID TEMPORALL OBEDIENCE to his Maiesty of England AND Whether the said Pope hath Power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII WHERAS in the Apology a great coÌ„plaint was made against the Pope for that in his Breue he did forbid temporall Obedience to be performed to his Maiesty as a poynt against fayth and saluation of soules moreouer chargeth him with assuming vnto himselfe infallibility of spirit to make new Articles of sayth when euer it shall please him c. my answer therunto
specified by their formall obiects and not by their materyall which may be the same in acts of different nature and consequently cannot distinguish them and so in our present purpose these two faiths or beliefes are not distinguished for that the one hath naturall and ciuill things for her obiects and the other supernaturall For that as well humane and naturall faith may both haue naturall and supernaturall thinges for her obiects as also dyuine and Theologicall faith may haue the same As for example when a man belieueth that there is a Citty called Constantinople for that many men do report it and when a Pagan belieueth that there is a God for that some learned Philosopher hath tould him so to whom he giueth credit heere both naturall and supernaturall things are obiects of humane and naturall fayth And so on the contrary side if a man should belieue naturall and ciuill things as reuealed by God in his Scriptures or otherwise as that Cayn killed his brother Matthâ—salem lyued so long and the like these things should be obiects of Thologicall and diuine fayth as well as if they were in themselues supernaturall Wherfore these two faithes and beliefes are not distinguished by their materiall obiects be they either naturall or supernaturall but by their formal obiects or motiues non per res creditas sed per rationes credendi as Scholemen say not by the things that are beleiued but by the motiues and causes for which they are belieued so as whatsoeuer is belieued vpon any humane motiue or authority though in it self it be supernaturall appertayneth to humane fayth and not dyuine so likwise on the contrary side whatsoeuer is beleiued vpon diuine motiues and authoritie and as reuealed from God though in it self it be naturall and cyuill as M. Barlow calleth it yet doth it appertaine to Theologicall and diuine fayth as an obiect thereof But these things it is like M. Barlow hath no commodity to study and therefore I would easily pardon him these rude and grosse escapes if he did not shew himself so insolent in vaunting as he doth and so conâ—umelious against others that know more then himself VVHETHER PRINCES HAVE IVST CAVSE TO FEARE MVRTHERING by the commandement of Popes And in discussing of the particuler example produced by the Apologer concerning the fame great fraud and malice is discouered in M. Barlowes falsifying of Authors c. CHAP. III. IN the page 86. of my Letter I do handle a certaine speach of Cardinal Bellarmine in his letter to the Archpriest wherin he saith that neither his maiestie of England nor any Prince else hath cause to feare violence from the Pope for that it was neuer heard oâ— from the Churches infancy vnâ—il this day that any Pope did command that any Prince though an hereticke though an Ethnicke though a persecutor should be murthered or did allow of the murther when it was done by another Thus the Cardinall Against which was obiected that Popes had depriued diuers Princes and had raysed great warres against others and that in warre was contayned the casualty of killing in like manner But this was answered that the question was of murthering Now what reply thinke you maketh M. Barlow First he bringeth in a long idle discourse to shew that according to Homer and other Poets politicke Historians Princes ought to go alwayes armed and vigilant for their safety and then he maketh this demaund What difference is there betweene personal murthering of Princes raysing war against them the lot wherof is common and vnpartiall Thirdly he bringeth in my answer as saying that though the Pope hath waged warre against Princes yet he neuer caused any to be vnlawâ—ully murthered Wherin saith he the Aduerbe is worth the obseruing secretly implying that the Pope hath commanded or may command Princes to be murthered but not vnlawfully Wherin he sheweth himselfe to be a meere calumniator for that I speaking diuers times of this matter did neuer ioyne the Aduerbe vnlawfully with the word murthered but in one place only I sayd thus that albeit Popes vpon iust causes haue waged warrs against diuers Princes yet they neuer caused any to be vnlawfully made away murthered or allowed of their murthers committed by others Where you see the Aduerbe vnlawfully is not ioyned with the word murthered but with the wordes made away And the like corruption of my wordes and peruerting my sense he vseth afterward in the same page with intolerable iniquity making me to say that which was farre from my meaning concerning the warres betwene popes and Princes and it is his generall fashion neuer commonly to recite my wordes with sincerity But he goeth forward to proue that Popes do command murthers of Princes saying VVere there no example of fact extant against the Popes in this kind yet they may command Princes to be killed is Bellarmines owne doctrine both Symbolical as the spirit may command the flesh to â—asting and chastisement yea euen 〈◊〉 death it selfe iâ— the spirit sâ—e it necessary and Positiue also for that Christians may not suffer an Infidell or hereticall King to raigne ouer them So he And out of these two arguments doth proue that Popes do or may command Princes to be murthered But who doth not see the folly of these arguments which can moue nothing but laughter or stomacke For albeit Bâ—llarmine do teach that the spirit in a man may punish the flesh by fasting and chastisement where it is necessary for the souls health and I could wiâ—h that M. Barlow had some of this spirit yet may he not kil him selfe or punish his body vnto death as M. Barlow falsifyeth him but cum detrimento aliquo debilitatione ipsius corporis though it be with some losse and weaknes of the said body True it is that in another case of Martyrdome Bellarmine teacheth that the spirit may command the flesh to yield it selfe vp to the persecutour for defence of Christian fayth but this is not our questioÌ„ So as in this first point M. Barlow is fouÌ„d to falsify in the second to make a foolish consequeÌ„ce that for so much as Christian men may not tolerate in some cases an Infidell Prince c. therfore they must murther him as though there were no other remedy but murther these are odious inferences fit for such a spirit as M. Barlowes who notwithstanding meaneth not to murther himselfe by the seuerity of Bellarmines doctrine whom he falsely affirmeth to teach that the spirit may subdue the flesh by fasting and other chastisements yea euen vnto death nor yet to debilitate his body therby according to Cardinall Bellarmines true doctrine Another argument of the Popes murthers is made to be for that he is said to haue coÌ„manded the body of Henry the 4. Emperour of that name that died excoÌ„municated in Liege vpon the yeare 1106. to be taken out againe of his sepulcher and thereof he inferreth that if the Pope would vse
Another thing may be to consider what strange Paradoxes he inserts here and there as positioÌ„s dogmaticall which who so listeth in practise to follow shall either haue no religion or faith at all or insteed of Christs Ghospell the Turks Alcoran For exaÌ„ple what more grosse and wicked assertion can there be then to teach that Kings euen against our conscience are to be obeyed For thus he replyeth against F. Persons saying that Kings were to be obeyed propter coÌ„scientiaÌ„ sed non contra conscientiaÌ„ This saith M. Barlow is no sound doctrine in the negatiue part for euen against a mans Conscience the Prince is to be obeyed Againe There is nothing more easy for proofe or euident for dâ—monstration then that obedience is to be enioyned â—uâ—n against conscience if it be erroneous and leaprous and against religion if forged and falsely so called And is not this a very learned Axiome For more euident refutation whereof let vs suppose that for which we powre forth our daily prayers to God that his Maiesty were as all his Noble Progenetors of both Realmes haue alwayes bene a Catholick Prince and as zealous for the truth therof as now he is for the Protestant cause if then he should propose vnto Syr WilliaÌ„ the Oath of Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome so cleerly out of Scriptures and all antiquity proued and euinced to be true but yet in the blind eyes and leaprouâ— conscience of this Minister thought to be false what would he doe therin Will he sweare it to be true But in his conscience he thinketh it to be false and against the Scriptures Will he refuse it But Kings saith he euen against conscience are to be obeyed 25. Neyther doth he help the matter any thing at all by his distinction of leaprous and erroneous conscience for with men of his stamp conscience is like a cheuerell point which they may stretch loose at their pleasure For who knoweth not that in the tyme of Q. Mary they were held to haue erroneous leaprous consciences euen by the iudgement of the greatest deuines in Geneua who manteyned that women were to be obeyed albeit they were Queenes euen in ciuill and temporall affaires But within one yeare after this errour and leaprosy was so transposed that the quite contrary was taught and they were not only held to haue leaprous and erroneous consciences who denyed ciuill obedience but were condemned also as Traitours by Parlament if they did deny Q. Elizabeth to be the Supreme head or Gouernesse of the Church of England So that it was not only lawfull but necessary for her to haue all Temporall and Ecclesiasticall gouernmeÌ„t in her hands as she was Queen which yet in Q. Mary to haue ciuill only euen by reason of her sex was iudged monstrous vnnaturall and repugnaÌ„t to the Scriptures and law of God Many other examples might be produced in this kind to shew this new Gospell to be as constant as the weathercocke which neuer turneth but when the wynd doth change to wit as often as occasions fall out that may fit their purpose for then they will strayne all conscience and honesty also to conforme themselues become good subiects 26. Much like vnto this of obeying Kings against our conscience is his other prophane and barbarous assertion of the Supremacy of the heathen Emperours Nero Domitian and the rest ouer the Christian Church yea which is more strange that the auncient Fathers Iustinus Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian and others acknowledged the same But you must know that M. Barlow in cyting their words for proofe of this paradox is very silent howsoeuer with all coÌ„fideÌ„ce as a maxime in his new Deuinity vncoÌ„trollable he deliuereth the same saying That they acknowledged the Emperors Supremacy indepeÌ„dant vpon any but God And a litle after that Queene Elizabeth in her Supremacy was no vsurper by Nouell-claime but accepted what God himselfe had annexed to her crowne Out of which I first note that by this Doctrine the Great Turke is supreme Head of the Christian Church in Greece and that if M. Barlow were there for such he would acknowledge him Secondly the Pythagoricall manner of speaking which our Aduersaries vse in matters of greatest moment and controuersie For whereas before King Hâ—nry the eight no Christian King euer tooke that title or vsurped any such authority ouer the Church yea for challenging much lesse Constantius was called Antichrist both by S. Athanasius and S. Hilary these men without all profe but not without singuler impupudency thinke it sufficient to sayâ— that the King is head of the Church that he was so acknowledged by the ancient Fathers that not only a woman may haue the same authority of Supremacy in all causes Ecclesiasticall but that also the heathen Emperours had it as annexed to their Crowne and Imperiall Dignitie euen against the whole torrent of all writters the practise of the Christian world and euident text of Scripture it selfe no Fathers no history no monument no shew or shaddow of proofe or authority in former tymes being found for the same without many straines violent enforcements or ridiculous illations made there-upon as in the arguments of the Protestants who haue treated this controuersie is euery where to be seene 27. Lastly the Reader may note that M. Barlow is so poore a Deuine as eyther he knoweth not what belongeth to matters of faith or els is so wicked as against his owne knowledge he will auouch that for true which is checked euen by his owne brethren and conuinced by common sense and experieÌ„ce to be most false to wit that the Protestants and the Puritanes in England differ only in maâ—ters cerimoniall and agree in all â—ssâ—ntiall and substantiall points concerning religion in which this Prelate is very cathegoricall for ignorance as himself elswhere telleth vs out of Fathers and Philosophers though he cite no place or sentence is the mother of aâ—dacious assertions and vndertakings and writteth thus Faine they woulâ— possesse the world that we are at iarre among our selues about our religion whereas the quarrell though it be indeed vnkind yet is it not in this kind sauâ— only for cerimonyes externall no points substantiall c. So he Which though it be kindly spoken as you see yet he must giue me leaue to belieue him at leasure and in the meane tyme â—o aske him one question to wit whether the ProtestaÌ„ts and Puritans vnderstand their owâ—e differences that are between theÌ„ or not If notâ— then we need not belieue M. Barlow as speaking of that which he doth not vnderstand If they doe how commeth it to passe that they condemne ech other of idolatry heresy and false religion as any may read in the Suruey and dangerous Positions set forth by Sâ—â—cliffe and the last Superintendent of Canterbury for the Protestants and Cartwright Gilby Mâ—rtin Senior and others for the Puritans 28. To this answereth M. Barlowes Comicall companion of
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
out of Plato Aristophanes and other Greeke Authors may be proued And albeit I will not stand to defend that in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Barlow doth wrong Plutarke and Gracchus in translating headdy vndertaker rather then magnanimous yet doth he offer them open iniury in translating the other epithete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a rash speaker whereas indeed it signifyeth to Graccâ—us his praise a prompt and ready man in speaking eloquent copious and the like But as for the other exprobrations of a most violent spirit impatient of contradiction and the rest he abuseth â—gregiously both Gracchus Plutarke for not only are those reproaches not found there as applyable to Gracchus but the very contrary is sayd of him and therin is he preferred before his brother Caius in these words of Plutarke Vulâ—u obtutu motu blaâ—dâ— erat compositus Tyberius acer Caius vehemeÌ„s Deinde or atiâ— sulnâ—nans Caij dulcior Tyberij pari modo in victu mensa frugalis sâ—â—rplex Tyberius c. lenis etiam placidus confragosus alter seruidus Tyberius both in countenance and motion was aâ—â—â—ble and composed Caius sharpe and vehement and consequently to this the Orations of Caius were thundering but those of Tyberius more sweete and in like manner Tyberiâ—â— was more frugall and simple in his dyet and table then his brother Caius he was also very gentle and pleasing in his behauiour and speach but the other was rough and feruent c. Now then let the prudent reader see and consider how all this doth agree to the description of Tyberiâ—â— set downe by M. Barlow and how true a man he is in all his assertions And how false soeuer he was in the allegation certaine it is that he dealt most wickedly in the application of all to the person of his Holines that now liueth And this much shall suffice about this matter It followeth pag 27. 28. after he had discharged such a storme against the Popes owne person as now you haue heard for his medling in this Oath and giuing his decisioÌ„ therof he sayth that this was to be Iudg in his owne cause alleaging a Poet for his proofe about sur latro one pleading at the barre the other sitting at the bench But doth not the malicious man see that this his cauillation toucheth the interest of all Princes as though they might not be Iudges or giue sentence in cases wherein themselues haue a part if law stand with theÌ„ For to cause other men to do it in their name by their authority is as much as to do it themselues And what did the Pope more in this case theÌ„ this making a decision by counsaile of his learned men according to Christian law that this case of England touched points of Religion concerning the Sea Apostolick which authority no Pope can infringe or diminish without sinne if he would for that it was giueÌ„ not only to him but to his antâ—cessors and successors in like maÌ„ner to indure for the good of the whole Church to the worlds end But saith M. Barlow it had bene plaine dealing in the Pope if before he had sent his Breues of Interdiction he had acquainted his Maiâ—stie with encounters of doubt that bred the quarrell and the ouer-swaying reason that carried him to the negatiue Very wisely spoken and worth the wit of M. Barlow And would his Maiesty haue admitted the messenger or message who seeth not that there is nothing heere but trifling and caueling But I may adde also scoulding for he breaketh presently into a most desperate blast of rayling against F. Persoâ—s calling him trayterous Absolom that careth not to set his â—â—â—e friendes land yea to see his natiue soile on a light fire so he may purchase the Popes fauour All which is spoken with much passion little reason for that the probability is much more that Maister Barlow flattereth the Kinges Maiesty for hope of preferment whereof he is capable and hath gotten possession of a good part already then â—a Persons the Pope whose state and condition of life hath no need of such preferment nor can it be proued that euer Father Persons spake for a fee forward and backward as M. Barlow hath done in his best Patrones cause As for the authority of the sixt Councell of Carthage about appellations to Rome noted in the margent it is not worth the answering both for that the words nor sense alleadged by him are there found and the controuersie about Appeales to Rome from Africa is so handled by me at large in my last Reckoning with M. Morton and he found so faulty and defectuous in that accomptâ— as if M. Barlow will take vpon him to pay that debt and to answer that only Paragraph for him I shall say that he is his friend indeed Wherefore I expect the euent In the very next lines following M. Barlow doth so brokenly recite my wordes about Mâ—â—â—is aliena another mans haruest for so did the Apologer write that English Catholikes are to the Pope that he maketh neyther me nor himselfe to be vnderstood Read I pray you his relation of my wordes pag. 29. numb 5. and see whether you can vnderstand him about Mâ—ssâ—â—aliena My words were plaine inough for thus I wrote page 12. numb 20. by him cited For first about putting the Popes hooke in anoâ—â—er mans haruest supposing as we do that we â—â—â—aâ—e of Catâ—olike people onely and according to Catholike doctrine and in matters belonging to Catholike mâ—ns soules and consciences it cannot be called Messisaliâ—na another mans haruest that the Pope dealeth in England with such kind of people in such cases as well as in Spaine France Flaunders Italy Germany Polonia and other States and kingdomes for that they are no lesse appertayning to his â—â—ock care charge and haruest then the rest Neyther doth the materiall separation of our Iland separate vs from the vnion of one body nor of one obedience to one and the selfe same generall head and Pastour no more then it doth froÌ„ the vnion of one beliefe and of one number and forme of Sacraments of one manner of seruice and other like pointes belonging to the internall and externall vnity of Catholike Religion And is not this plaine inough How doth he reply You shall heare it in his owne wordes and he will so imbroyle himselfe therin as he will let fall neere halfe a dozen of absurdities ignorances and open falsities by the way Do you stand attent then â— thus he bringeth his answere to my former discourse of Messis aliena This is a 〈◊〉 argument no doubt quoth he the Pope hath to do in England saitâ— the Censurer because some Catholikes suppose he hath but before this supposall be brought into a positiue resolute conclusion it will aske a longer time then such a Pamphlet c. Where you see first that he quite mistaketh me eyther
malicious and intolerable in him for that he had seene me to haue obiected the same falsehood and vntrue dealing vnto M. Morton in my booke of Mitigation that the sayd M. Morton was so farre of from being able to answer the same as in his last Reply he left it quite out now lately I haue obiected the â—ame to him again in my last Reckoning with him cap. 6. 7. whervnto I refer M. Barl. to help him out And so much of this point It followeth in M. Barlowes speach that iâ— S. Peter had receiued of Christ with the keyes Math. 16. this IurisdictioÌ„ ouer Princes which we pretend then had it bene directly vniuersally ouer the whole world But this is not necessary for he might receiâ—â— the same indirectly as included and comprehended in the spirituall to be vsed for the preseruation of the Church when spirituall necessity should require as before haâ—â— bene said And as for Vniuersall ouer the world it is sufficient that it be ouer Christian Princes and people only wâ—â— are properly the sheep and lambes that are commended 〈◊〉 the chiefe Pastours feeding or gouernement Ioan. 21â— though vpon Infidell Princes also he may haue some power in certaine cases as when they will go about to let the preaching of the Ghospell authorized by these wordes Praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae But this appertayneth not to our question But wheras he sayth that Cardinall Bellarmiâ—e I do affirme that the Pope hath only authority ouer Princes indirectly obliquely in ordine ad DeuÌ„ we graunt the word indirectly but as for obliquely in ordine ad Deum he will not I thinke find the phrase in any writing of ours but only â—â— ordine ad spiritualia which is to say that the Pope hath such authority vpon Princes when the preseruation of the spirituall affaires doth so require to wit the saluation of souls he that shall read the place of Bellarmin here by M. Barlow quoted for of myne he citteth nothing to wit lib. 5. de Pontif. cap. 4. 6. shall find this sentence in ordine ad spiritualia but neuer I suppose in ordine ad Deum for that all power of the Pope is in ordine ad Deum propter Deum whether it be spirituall or temporall but in ordine ad spiritualia hath an other meaning as now hath bene shewed to wit that the Pope hatH directly only spirituall authority to execute spirituall functions but when this cannot be coÌ„sâ—â—uâ—d or executed without the help of temporall he may vse that also for defence of the other So as it seemeth that this our great Doctour doth not vnderstaÌ„d the very terms of Deuinity in this matter wherof he disputeth and this his ignorance sheweth it selfe no lesse here then before about indeterminatio iudicy in free choice Nor doth he onlâ— relate falsely ignorantly this point as out oâ— Cardinall Bellarmine and me but much more doth he abuse the name of D. Sanders in the very next words that do ensue as though he should say that neither directly nor indirectly hath the Pope this temporall authority from Christ but rather power to suffer as now you haue heard him say he citing for it de claue Dauid lib. 2. cap. 13. wheras D. Sanders doth hold the quite contrary in that booke throughout sundry Chapters to wit that the Pope hath receaued from Christ vtrumque gladium temporalem spiritualem both swords that is both temporall and spirituall authority and proueth it by many arguments and demonstrations only in the 13. Chapter he demandeth why theÌ„ had not the Apostoles depriued Nero and Domitius of their Empires Whereto he answereth among other causes that these were Pagan Tyrants and not vnder the charge and power that was giuen to the Church ouer sheepe lambes And then in the 14. Chapter he demandeth further why the Apostles first Christians had not elected some new King Christan for the good of the Church at the beginning Whereto he answereth alleaging sundry reasons why it was not conuenient that the Christian Church should be planted with violence but that for the space and time appointed by Gods prouidence Christians should exercise the other part of ChristiaÌ„ fortitude which coÌ„sisteth in suffering as is before touchedâ— but yet he neuer denyeth notwithstanding that the sayd temporall power ouer Christian Princes was in the Church Head therof though that season admitted not the vse but rather proueth it expressely and consequently is egregiously abused and falsifyed by M. Barlow when he sayth Doctor Sanders to affirme that the Pope had neyther directly or indirectly any such power from Christ. But will you see this our doughty Doctour ouerthrown confouÌ„ded both in him selfe and by himselfe then harken to his words in the very next page It is so sayth Sanders S. Peter with the Keyes receyued both powers temporall and ciuill Is it so Syr and why then did you euen now deny it Are you so mutable within the compasse of two pages What misery is this of your cause to be driuâ—n to these shiftes But let vs see another deuise which is â—â— oppose Franciscus de Victoria to this saying of Sanders 〈◊〉 thus you bring him in No not so sayth a Iesuit for this power oâ— the Keyes est alia à ciuili potestate is another power diffeâ—â—â— from the ciuill thus they iarre say you But whether we iarre or no one Catholike writer with another sure I am â—â—at you iarre with your selfe and seeme not to haâ—â— your witts at home For euen now you cited Doctoâ—â— Sanders as denying the Popes temporall power to coâ—â— neyther directly nor indirectly from Christ and now you say him to affirme that S. Peter receyued both powers with the Keyes Are not these playne contradictions How can this iarre be excused by you But I haue further to say to you yet in this matter foâ— that in the very next wordes where you would make a contradiction betweene Doctor Sanders Franciscus de Victoria you shew much more folly if not a worse quality For wheras you write that a Iesuite sayth No not so for 〈◊〉 the power of the keyes is different from ciuill power and do quoâ— the place of Victoria in the margent first in calling him Iesuite who was a Dominican fryar you shew much ignorance if you erre not of purpose For who knoweth not that Iesuites and Dominicans are two different Religious Orders the very first page of the booke and words of the title which are Reuerendi Patris Francisci de Victoria Ordinis Praedicatorum Relectiones c. might haue taught you that Victoria was no Iesuite but it may be that you seeing the words Ordinis Praedicatorum and vnderstanding that Iesuits did vse to preach also you did full wisely imagine Victoria to be a Iesuite and by the same reason you might â—â—well haue imagined him to be a Minister of your
such aboundance of Scriptures to proue or infer that God the Father is greater then Christ Iesuâ— his Sonne what other way was there for Catholicks to say but that I distinguish as Christ Iesuâ— was man he was inâ—erior to his Father his Father greater then he but as Christ Iesuâ— is God as well as Man he is equall to his Father Will M. Barlow heere compare these two distinctions to Sedecias his two hornes Or will he call them proâ—unda Sathanae the profound mysteries of Sathan and iniquity And the like examples I might alleadg in great store of many other heresies discouered and disâ—olued by the help of distinctions as namely that of the Eutiâ—hians that denied two distinct natures in Christ that of the Nestorians that affirmed two persons to be in Christ that of the Monothelites that held one only Will to be in Christ by distinguishing on the Catholick party were vâ—â—erly ouerthrowne and confounded And now in these our dayes when the Anabaptists deny al Magistrates authority in iudging Christians especially in matters of life and death allâ—dging for their ground these words of our Sauiour â—olitâ— iudicare do not iudge we haue no refuge but a distinction that we are forbidden to iudge rashly and without iust cause and without due authority but with these circumstances we may iudge and Magistrates are lawfull And will here M. Barlow againe cry out of Proâ—â—nda Sathanae and of the hornes of Sedecias if he do I will send him to Scotland to be horned there For truely he is worthy of it to wit to be horned from the company of all lâ—arned sober men if he persist in these absurdities for that I dare auouch against him that there are many hundred places in the Bible that cannot rightly be vnderstood nor expounded without the vse of some distinction Well then distinctions in generall cannot be reproued without profunditie of folly Perhaps then my two distinctions here in particular are inueyghed against for 〈◊〉 they are false or not incident vnto the matter or of aâ—y moment or necessity for explicâ—tion of the thing aâ—d controuersy in hand or for direction of consciâ—nceâ— of Catholike men that are pressed to take the Oath Thâ—â— then let vs examine in a word or two and that as briefly and perspicuously as wee may The question is whether the Bishop of Rome as vniuersall Paâ—tour of Christendome by Catholike doctrineâ— may at his pleasure by that Pastorall power of his depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdomes at his pleasure for so is the coÌ„mon obiection framed against vs. Vnto which question the answer may be made eyther affirmatiue or negatiue according to the different senses and interpretations of the words which cannot be done but by distiâ—guishing to wit that if we vnderstand that the Pope may depose at his pleasure without iust cause it is denied but with iust cause Catholicke doctrine doth allow it And sâ— againe to vnderstand that the Pope may do it by his Pastorall power directly or immediately it is denied for that this power is spirituall and giuen to a spirituall end and to spirituall actions but if we vnderstand it indirectly as included in the other for defence and conseruation of the spirituall it is graunted And are not these distinctions needfull in this affaire Do they not cleare the doubt in controuersy Do they not remoue confusion Would M. Barlow haue Christian men to sweare swallow vp a bundle of wordâ— knit togeather without opening and looking into theâ— That is meete for his conscience that hath no eies perhaps to see nor will to receiue light but is ready to sweare any thing that may turne to his temporall commodity but Catholikes that feare God are not so taught but rather to looke before they leap and to examine well what they say or sweare for so much as they shall giue an accompt to Almighty God either to their saluation or damnation for the same By â—hâ—s then wee see the Iniquity of M. Barlow his proceeding in exclaming against me so exorbitantly for vsing the forme of two distinctioÌ„s or explanations about taking the Oath and aboue al the iniury offered me or rather to himselfe and his owne credit in saying that I doe teach Equiuocation here in this Oath num 30. contrary to that I taught a little before numb 14. His wordes are these No sort of Equiuocations is lawâ—ull saith Father Persons in matters of fayth and religion and yet sayth the same Father Persons Equiâ—â—cating in this matter of faith is lawâ—ull and may stand with the integâ—iâ—y and sincerity of true Catholik religion so then in matters of faith and religion it is not lawfull in any sort to equiuocate but yet in this matâ—â—r though it concerne â—ayth religion F. Persons sayth it is lawfull These are my contradictions according to M. Barlow And truly I confesâ—e I should blush acknowledge my ouersight if they were truly related but being falsely eyther of malice or ignorance collected by him he ought to blush and be sory for his sin For as I doe confesse the former part numb 14. that I allowed not any sort of Equiuocation in matters concerning faith and Religion so doe I vtterly deny the later clause num 30. that I doe allow Equiuocation in this particuler fact of taking the Oath Let the places be read in my booke thereby he will remayne conuinced For I do say expresly that these two clauses of explication added by me that the Popes power in deposing Princes is indirectly with iust cause must both be expressed by the swearer and accepted by the Magistrate and then are they no Equiuocations at all but direct assertions For that they are no mentall reseruations wherein consisteth the nature and force of Equiuocation Here then M. Barlow that accused me a litle before of making no conscience of God or common honesty must looke how he will defend his owne eyther conscience or honesty if he haue any in this foule calumniation wherein I doe not see what tergiuersation he can vse for his excuse And so I would leaue him in this matter if he did not continue on his rayling and raging beyond all measure as though by this my explication distinction vsed I had committed the greatest crime in the world I will demaund saith he of this Iesuit first whether â—his be not a Paganish delusion of God and men VVherto I answer that it is â—â— delusion at all but rather an instruction and a necessâ—â—y explication not Paganish but Christian for directiâ—â— mens consciences Nay saith M. Barlow it is the very 〈◊〉 oâ— Lisander that children are to be mocked with toyes and 〈…〉 Oathes Indeed Plutarke in his comparison of Lisâ—â—der and Silla recordeth that one said of Lisander Leuem esse apâ—d Liâ—â—â—drum iurisiurandi religionem Lisander made no scruple of aâ— Oath that he gaue couÌ„saile to deceiue men with Oathes as children with toyes and
downe in his seauenth booke of his Visible Monarchy The seuere lawes also against them that refused to take the Oath of supremacy and should say or heare masse were made long befoâ—e this and put in practice so as this narration could not stand What replyeth M. Barlow to this Niâ—il ad Rhâ—â—â—â— sayth he the speach is here of lawes whose payne is death Yea Syr. And is it so I refer me to the wordes euen now recited out of the Apology that her Maiestie neuer punished any Papiâ—â—â—â—â— Religion that she was most free from all persecution doth not all any include other punishments besides death Moreouer when it is sayd that she neuer made any rigâ—â—ous lawes against Catholickes doth this only compreheÌ„d the lawes whose punishment is death To what straites is M. Barlow driuen here And yet if he doe remember well the oath of Supremâ—cie he cannot but know that the third refusall therof is also death So as euery way the poore man is taken OF QVEENE ELIZABETH HER FELICITIES and infelicities CHAP. II. AFTER this followeth another question betweene M. Barlow and me about the felicities or infelicities of Queene Elizabeth or rather betweene the Lord Iustice Cooke and me who hauing vpon diuers occasions to the exprobration of Catholicke men and religion whome she pursued in her life time enlarged himselfe extraordinarily in her exaltation calling her The happie Queene The blessed Queene and the like I was forced for defence of the truth to examine somewhat the grounds of this felicitie My words then were That the said Lord Cooke vpon the occasion of certaine words in Pope Clements Breue where Queene Elizabeth is named misera semina a miserable woman in respect no doubt of the miseries of her soule litle respected by her vpon which wordes the Oratour triumpheth thus What miserable it is sayd that miseria coÌ„stâ—s ex duobus contrarys copia inopia copia tribulationis inopia consolationis miâ—erie consisteth of two contraries of aboundance and penury aboundance of tribulation penury of consolatioÌ„ And then he sheweth in what abouÌ„dance of coÌ„solations Q. Elizabeth liued in al her life without waÌ„t of all tribulation which if it were true yet is it but the argument which the worldlinges vsed in the Psalme to proue their felicitie that their Cellars are full their sheep fertile their kine fat they suffer no losse and then Beatâ—â— dixeri nâ— populim cuiâ—ac sâ—nt happie did they call the people that had these things But the holy Ghost scorneth them and so may all men do our Oratour that vseth and vrgeth so base an argument in so high a matter And as for his definition of misery by copia and inopia store want it is a miserable one in deed neuer heard of before I thinke to come from any mans mouth but his owne it being ridiculous in Philosophy and fit to be applyed to any thing that hath eyther store or want As a wise man in this sort may be defined to be him that hath store of witt and want of folly and a foole to be him that hath store of follyâ— and want of wit and so a rich man is he that hath store of riches want of beggarie a poore man is he that hath store of beggarie penury of riches And are not these goodly definitions thinke you for so great and graue a man to produce Thus passed the matter then But now M. Barlow doth constitute himselfe Aduocate for the Iustice and if he plead his cause well he will deserue a good â—ee for the cause it selfe is but weake as preseÌ„tly you will behould The Lord Cooke sayth he who at the Arraignement of Garnet indignantly scorning that the high Priest of Rome should in a Breue of his call so great a Prince as Quene Elizabeth was Miseram Fâ—minam a miserable woman by a description of miserie consisting of two contraries want of comâ—ort and plenty of tribulation shewes by many reasons euident and demonstratiue that she hauing aboundance of ioy and no touch of affliction but blessed with all kind of felicities could not be called Miserable c. In which words I would haue you note first that wheras here he sayth that the Iustice shewed this by many reasons euident and demonstratiue within a dozen lines after he saith of these reasons But if they be not concluding demonstrations yet as least let them be probable perswasions which is quite contrary to that which he sayd before that they were euident and demonstratiue so soone the man forgetteth himselfe But to the matter it selfe that albeit all these temporall felicities ascribed to Queene Elizabeth had bene so many and so great as Syr Edward affirmeth them yet had it beene but the argument of worldlings who in the 143. Psalme did measure their felicity by their full Cellars were checked for the same by the holy Ghost by teaching them that not Beatus populus cui haec sunt but beatus populus cuius Dominus Deus eius consequeÌ„tly that Queene Elizabeth might haue these temporall felicities and yet be truly miserable in that sense wherin Pope Clement so called her to wit concerning the affaires of her soule and euerlasting saluation To this I say he answereth first by demanding why temporall prosperitie may not be made an argument of Gods loue to Queene Elizabeth and of her felicitie for so much as it is scored vp for one of the Notes of the true Church by Cardinall Bellarmine de Notâ—â— Ecclesiae Nota 15 Whereunto I answer that this temporall felicitie is not to our purpose for that Pope Clement spake of her spirituall infelicitie as hath bene shewed and that temporall felicitie doth not infer or argue spirituall felicitie euery man will confesse that hath spirit to discerne it for that the whole Scripture is ful of testimonies that wicked men and consequently miserable in soule haue bene temporally blessed by Almighty God made rich powerfull prosperous euen to the very affliction scandalizing as it were of the iust and vertuous but yet were they not happy for this but most miserable euen as those Israelites were that hauing their fill of quailes in the desert sent theÌ„ from God they had no sooner eaten them as the Scripture sayth adhuc escae eorum eraÌ„t in ore ipsorum ira Dei ascendiâ— super 〈◊〉 the meat was yet in their mouthes and the wrath of God did fall vpon them And he that shall read ouer the 72. Psalme shall see that it is altogeather of this matter to wit of Dauids admiration of the wealth and prosperitie of the wicked whose end notwithstanding he sayth to be most miserable aestimabam vt cognoscerem hoc labor est ante me donec intelligam in nouissimis eorum deiecisti eos dum alleuarentur I did thinke I could haue vnderstood this matter but it is harder then I imagined vntil I coÌ„sidered their ends thou
Eliâ—abeths affaires his answere in his owne words is this But dearely beloued there is a difference in faults of men as in diseases some onely are hurtfull to the parties themselues some loathsome and infectious to others the first are to be buried with their bodies forgotten but the other will annoy and therfore must be remembred after death In Scripture some Kinges that were vicious had their faultes touched euer after their buriall but no more yet some are neuer named in Scripture but their sinne is branded vpon their name as often you may see of â—eroboam neuer mentioned but presently addeth the sonne of Nebat which made Israell to sinne This was the mans answer at that time for that it serued for his purpose the same may serue me now against him for if the case of Ieroboam that made Israell to sinne might be applied to the Earle of â—ssex that was of their owne religion and changed nothing therein so far as is knowne and was but a priuate person how much more may the same be applyed to Queene Elizabeth that indeed brought in that fatall diuision and new worship of Ieroboam into her Kingdome which she found quiet vnited with the rest of Christendome in the knowne Catholicke fayth of Christs Church But saith M. Barlow reproaches are vttered eyther for reprâ—ose to amend or for vexation to grieue the parties calumniated both which endes doe cease in death Whereunto I answere that if they be reproches and contumelyes indeed without truth wherof M. Barlowes tongue and pen are fulâ— they serue to neyther of these ends but principally to shew the wiked mind of the vtterer but if they be true as those things are which I haue touched concerning Q. Elizabeth her infelicities â—heÌ„ albeit they be vttered to none of these two foolish ends mentioned by M. Barlow eyther to amend or vex the dead yet are they recorded to warne instruct them that are aliue by shewing Gods iustice vpon sinne his prouidence his power and his care to feare men by terror of euerlasting inâ—amy from the like offences many other such holy ends for the which in Scripture it is a most common ordinary thing to heare the sinnes of wicked Princes repeated and reiterated after death M. Barlow himselfe cannot deny it I did further add also in my former Letter the example of diuers ancient Fathers as Iustinus Martyrâ— Irenaeus Tertullian and others who to comfort the afflicted Christians in theyr dayes and to honour more the cause for which they suffered did put them in mind what manner of pâ—ople and Princes their first persecutors were as namely Nero and Domitian what life they led what end they made and that indeed they were â—it instruments to be the first actors in such a worke which I applying to Queene Elizabeth sayd that the like obseruation and comparison might be made she being the strangest woman that euer perhaps liued for diuers admirable circumstances before touched and the very first absolutely of that sex eyther Christened or created that tooke vpon her Supreme Power in Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters c. Wherunto M. Barlow comming to answere and hauing nothing at all to say to the purpose doth so childishly trifle as is most ridiculous telling vs first that if the Papists may comfort themselues for that they haue bene beaten by a woman then may the diuell comfort himselfe also that a woman is prophesied in Genesis according to our interpretation to breake his head Sysera also the Captaine may glory that he was ouerthrowne by a woman But this is triflingâ— for I doe not say simply by a woman but by such a woman as neuer was the like in diuers points of enormity against Câ—thâ—licâ—â— religion and therin was the Fathers obseruations of enormous manners of Nero and Domitian and not in the sex as they were men Secondly he sayth that diuers Popes were more like to Nero and Domitian then Queene Elizabeth but this is also trifling For neyther is the matter proued if it could be yet doth it not improue my comparison as it was some comfort to the ancient afflicted Catholickes to consider what manner of Princes they were that first began most sharpe persecution against them so might English Catholickes doe by consideration of the person of Queene Elizabeth that first of all women persecuted them in England and with inspeakable monstrosity made her selfe Head of the Church Thirdly he sayth about this matter that heauen and hell arâ— not more different then those Christian martyrs of the Primitiue Church from these later of English Papists for they sayth he acknowledged the Emperors supremacy independant vpon any but God prayed for them seriously both lyuing and dying c. But this now is more then trifling for it seemeth to me meere madnes to say that ancient Christian martyrs vnder Nero and Domiâ—ian did acknowledge those Emperours Supremacy independant vpon any but God which inferreth to my vnderstanding that they acknowledged them for Supreme Headeâ— of the Catholicke Church in those dayes for so signifieth the worde Supremacy in the controuersy betweene vs and the wordes immediatly following independant vpon any bâ—â— God doe seeme playnely to confirme the same as doth also the comparison and contrariety it selfe which hee putteth betweene those old Martyrs and ours For if he had meant of temporall Supremacy there had not bene any difference or contrariety betweene them For â—hat our Martyrs also doe acknowledge temporall Supremacy to Kings and Princes though not spirituall which inferreth that M. Barlow ascribing more to the ancient Martyrs vnder Nero and Domitian must needes meane that they held them â—or Heades of their Church euen in spirituall Ecclesiaâ—ticall aâ—fayres although they were Pagans and â—oe consequently might and ought to repayre to them in matters of controuersy about Christian Religion and were â—ound to follow their direction therein And if this be not more then trifling especially for a Prelate to vtterâ— I leaue to the discreet Reader to consider But now let vs see briesely some of his answers to the points before rehearsed of Queene Elizabeths life and death First he sayth to the note about her birth and disgrace by her Father and Parlament that the Scriptures are not soe Censorious for God himselfe mislikes the Prouerb that it should be sayd the fathers did eat sower grapes and the childrens â—eeth were sett on edge but this is folly for I alleadged it not as a sinne of hers for the sinne was her fathers and mothers but as some disgrace in temporall felicity Then he telleth vs that in some places the ciuill Lawes doe permit some bastards to succeed Item that she shewed well by her courage and other Princely qualities that she was King Henries daughter Item that her selfe did so far coÌ„temne those slaunders published in print as shee would neuer consent to haue them cleared but rather scorned them Item that
the consequeÌ„ce of this argument Wherunto I answere that I alleadged diuers reasons why our Catholick Priests dyed for religion not for treason First for that no such treason could be proued against them in the sense and iudgement of any indifferent man that was present at their arraignments to wit of the one hundred and thirty that before I mentioned Secondly for that the publike Registers themselues and Histories as Iohn Stâ—w and others in their Chronicles doâ— obiect no other treason to the most of them but only being Priests their taking of holy Orders beyond the seas which in no sense can be treason no more then the confessing of the blessed Trinitie can be made treason by the Trinitarians in Transiluania Thirdly for that they themselues dying did protest vpon their consciences as they should be saued they neuer meant treason in thought word or deed against Queene Elizabeth And then â—ourthly for confirmation of this I alleaged this other reason so much scorned by M. Barlow they hauing life offered them if they would renounce the Pope conforme themselues to the State they refused the same which he saith is a false and faulty inference and I say it is very good and true and that if M. Barlow had any moderate skill of the case according to the rules â—yther of Philosophy or Diuinity he would be ashamed to say as he doth in Philosophy it being a common axiome that omnis actus specificatur ab obiecto fiâ—e euery action is specified that is to say taketh his nature and essence from his obiect and end As if a man should kill one to gayne his goods this act hath both the nature of man-slaughter theft the first from the obiect the second from the end or intention of the doer which Philosophicall principle being applyed to our case doth euidently proue that the choice of death in him that hath life offered vpon conditioÌ„ he will doe some act against his faith as going to the Protestants Church is esteemed by Catholickes though otherwise he were nâ—uer so great a delinquent before is an act of Martyrdome for that it hath both the obiect and the end therof the obiect to wit death the end which is the profession of his faith And so if we passe to consider the same by Theologyâ— which more properly treateth of this vertue of Martyrdome the controuersy will be made much more cleare for that the word Martyrdome being a Greeke wordâ— and signifying a Testimony or bearing of witnesse as the word Martyr signifyeth him that yealdeth testimony or beâ—reth witnesse euery testmony or bearing of witnesse is not meant by the word Martyrdome but only such a testimony as is giuen by dying for God in the defeÌ„ce of some truth belonging to our faith either expressely impugned or implyed in the impugnation of some other vertue that containeth the sayd truth of our faith therin which last clause is added for that a man may be a true Martyr though he dye not for any expresse article of faith or part therof but it is sufficient that he dy for the defence of any one vertue as Chastity Obedience Iustice and the like according to the saying of our Sauiour Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam Blessed are they that suffer persecutioÌ„ for righteousnes And S. Iohn Baptist is acknowledged by all Deuines for a true Martyr although he died for no article of faith but for reprehending the incestuous marriage of King Herod with more libertie of speach and spirit then any such Prince-flatterer base mind as M. Barlow would euer haue done in the like case if we may ghesse at his vertue by his writing But to apply the former ground and vncontrollable principle to our present purpose in hand whether these Priests died for refuâ—ing the Oath of the Feminine Supremacy or for that they were made Priests beyoÌ„d the seas or â—or that they refused to come to your heretical seruiceâ— certaine it is according to the rules of Catholicke Diuinity that they died for deâ—ence of their faith or maintenance of vertue which is sufficieÌ„t to iustify their Martyrdomes hauing so great warrant and store of all manner of witnesses â—or the truth and doctrine they suffered for as might well in conscience assure them of the righteousnesse of their cause and that they died for that Religion in which all the Princes and people of Christendome for so many yeares ages both liued and died And wheras M. Barlow impugneth this by two cases or examples they are but so many arguments of his owne ignorance Let vs speake a word or two of them both The first is of Absolom putting the case that he was an Idolator as well as a traitor and that King Dauid after sentence passed against him â—or his treasons would acquite him froÌ„ death conditionally that he should renounce his Idolatry and that vpon reâ—usall he should be executed Shall we say sayth M. Barlow that he died â—or Religion or for treason We will say good M. Barlow that he died rather for false religion that is to say Idolatry then for treason and was the Diuels Martyr and none I thinke can deny the same vnles he be as ignorant as your selfe as shall further appeare by the answere to the next example which in effect is all one with this to wit that a yonger sonne should aspire his fathers death with hope to haue his riches and that being condemned his father should offer to saue him if he would go to Church and leaue his euil life of following queaneâ— c. Shall â—e say quoth M. Barlow that he is executed for his whore-domes or for this parâ—icide against his father But here I would aske M. Barlow why he leaueth out going to Church which was the first part of the condition and nameth only whore-domes no doubt but the honest man would haue the staying from the Church in Catholicks and whore-domes seeme to be companions But now I answere to his question that if he meane by refusing to go to Church such as is practised by Catholikes for Conscience sake and not to deny thereby the truth of the Catholicke faith which forbiddeth to go to hereticall Churches then dyeth he for the truth of his faith and consequently he is a Martyr But if he choose to dye for loue of wicked life and whoredome it is no cause of Martyrdome and consequently he is the Diuells Martyr as we said before of the Idolator But as for Parâ—icide cleere it is that he cannot be sayd to haue died for it properly as the immediate cause of his death for that it was remitted vnâ—o him and their passed another election on his mind to wit that he would leaue his old life so as â—or this he died propriè proximè properly and immediately and for the parricide only remotè occasiâ—naliter a far of and as from that which gaue the first occasion of his death What
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
steeple and the like are vnfit both for his Maiesties â—ares and presence But now he doth insinuate further that some other figgs also are exhibited now then in that assembly 〈◊〉 bitter then these as namely about the Powder-traitours and absoluing them by the Iesuites Those dreadfull cruel positions also saith he of Popes deposing Kings exposing them to murther incyting their subiects to rebellion and determining such parricide be to meritorious c. And furthermore what an excellent vaine both Popes hâ—â—e in figging ech other away by poison and Iesuits too as the Priests relate in dispatching with such pleasant pilles any that stand in their light c. Which be meere caluÌ„niations and malicious maledictions vnworthy eyther to be heard by his Maiesty or to be refuted by me as also that insulse insolency of the Minister where he maketh his Maiesty to vse those odious words against all of the Catholike religioÌ„ O Romanistae seruum pecus O Romanists slauish beastsâ— as though there were no Princes and Monarches of that religion that might take in euill part this insolencie of the malepart Minister as if it had some allowance from his Maiesty for that in his name he speaketh it doth dedicate his booke vnto him And thus much about this point of adulation wherunto also I must add one thing more tending to the same effect and much talked of at this present both at home and abroad which is That these new Maisters of the little Vniuersity and other their friendes haue perswaded his Maiestie that they are valiant men in writing against their Aduersaries and would performe great exploytes therin if besides their Vniuersities Cathedrall Churches they had some speciall Colledge of writers erected for that purpose which men say is appointed to be at Chelsey and that the matter is very forward and that his Maiesty hath assigned therunto both situation of a house and other great helpes which if it be so I doubt not but that it proceedeth from him out of a most honourable respect for aduancing learning but I assure my selfe this will not serue though there were twenty Colledges more applyed to this end except his Maiestie should giue them a new cause to write oâ— â—or oâ— this betweene Catholikes and Protestants albeyt they multiply books neuer so fast they will neuer be able to write with credit either of them selues or of their founders for that falsity cannot be defended but by â—alshood nor one vntruth but by another and consequently their cause being such as it is their multuplying of writers and increasing the number of bookes is but to multiply their owne disgrace whereof some scantling may be taken in the last two bookes not to speake of any others that haue gone â—orth on the Catholicke side to wit the Reckoning with M. Morton and the Search of Francis VValsingham wherein the proper argument now in hand is treated about true or false writing And yet on the other side if the said designement shall go forward I thinke our English Catholickes will be glad thereof First for that it will honour not a litle their cause it appearing by this that the learneder sort of Protestants do feele the weight of their weapons for the besides the forsaid Vniuersities Scholes Churches they are forced to seeke yet further furniture for their defence Secondly it may be hoped that forraine Catholick Princes hearing of this matter will thinke themselues bound in zeale and honour of their owne Religion to assist in like manner for erection of some House or Colledge for English Catholike writers to defend the same Thirdly it may in reason be expected that this little Vniuersity of Protestant Writers will for their honour and credits sake deale effectually with his Maiestie that the passage of Catholike bookes written in answere vnto theirs may be more free and not so subiect to losse danger and vexation 〈◊〉 â—â—therto they haue bene especially if they be written modestly and to the purpose only for that otherwise it would seeme a very vniust matterâ— to open as it were a Schoole of fence and yet to forbid the entrance of any that would offer to try their manhood and skill with them or as if proposing a goale for runners they would bynd the leggs of such as should runne with them But fourthly and lastly our greateâ—â—â— help of all would be in this case that his Excellent Maiestie as before in part hath bene touched beeing inuited by this occasion to read some bookes of both sides would by the sharpnes of his Great Capacity enlightened with Gods grace discouer in tyme where truth and where falsity remayneth where substance or fraud is stood vpon which would be the greatest benefit that we can possibly desire or wish for at Gods hands for the common benefit of our cause ABOVT TOLERATION OR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE demaunded by humble petition at his Maiesties handes by Catholikes whether it were height of pryde or not AS Also concerning the contention betweene Protestants and Puritans CHAP. IIII. AS by that which hath bene set downe in the former Chapter we haue seene and beheld the good talent that M. Barlow and his fellowes haue in flâ—tering the memory of Queene Elizabeth now dead and his Maiesty liuing so now there ensueth another large Treatise of his that sheweth his iniquity and virulent humor of most bitter calumniation against all sortes of Catholicks for making humble supplication to his Maiesty after his entrance to the Crowne for some liberty of conscience or toleration at least in matters concerning religion which petition though proposed as hath bene sayd with neuer so much humility and prostrate subiection of the petitioners and many most forcible and apparent reasons alleaged for the same yet will M. Barlow needs defend it for a supreme height of Pryde in them to haue hoped for such a matter or made supplication for the same The clemency of his Maiesty saith he wrought in them that height of pride that in confidence therof they directly did expect and assuredly promise vnto themselues liberty of conscience equality in all things with vs his Maiesties most best and faythfull subiects And doe not you see how great and grieuous a charge this is especially if you cut of the second part as you must do to wit equality in all things with Protestants his Maiesties best subiects For this was neuer demaunded in the petition of Catholicks much lesse either directly or indirectly expected and least of all assuredly promised to themselues For then should they haue demaunded also to share equally with Bishops and Ministers in their benefices which we may assure our selus they neuer so much as dreamed of or of other preferments in the common wealth with that equality which heer they are made to haue assured themselues of Their petition then was only for liberty of conscience as hath bene sayd or if not that yet at least wise some moderate toleration of
this matter there is more on the behalfe of Catholicks then of Puritans for obtayning this toleration notwithstanding their differences in poynts of Religion were or be greater for that the Puritans came out of the Protestants and therby the Protestant Church may pretend to haue Ius aliquod Ecclesiasticum some Ecclesiasticall right vpon them But the Catholicks of England came neuer out of the Protestants nor their Church out of the Protestant Church but were long before them in possession which is the markable poynt so much pondered by S. Iohn to discerne heresy heretickes thereby Prodierunt ex nobis they went out of vs. And consequently the Protestant Church can haue no spirituall iurisdiction vpon the sayd Catholickes and much lesse by right or reason can they barre them the vse of their Religion as they may do to Purytans that were members once of them though they differ in fewer poyntes of beliefe An ExaÌ„ple may be the Iewes in Rome who are tolerated in their religion which Protestants are not though they differ in more poyntes of beliefe but yet for that they were in possession of their Religion before Christians and went not out from them as Protestants did from Catholickes they are tolerated in that place and Protestants not And hereby is also answered M. Barlowes last reason against graunting of toleration which I pretermitted before to be answered in this place which is that if the cause were ours as God be thanked he sayth it is theirs we wil not graunt liberty to them for their religion But how doth he know that seeing soe many Catholike Princes both in France Low-Countryes and Germany doe permit the sayd toleration to diuers and different sectes And if he obiect that in Queene Maries daies it was not permited to Protestants in England nor yet by King Henry the eight much lesse by the foresayd 3. Henryes that went before him yet may the causes and reasons be different now For albeit for equity and iustice the matter do passe as before we haue sayd that no sect in England whatsoeuer as of Lâ—â—lords VVickcliffians Lutherans Zuinglians Caluiâ—ists or the like can haue any right in conscience to deny toleratioÌ„ of their religion vnto them out of which they themselues went and that the Catholike Church hath that right vpon them as going out of her yet may shee leaue to vse that right oftentimes and tolerate different sectaryes also when they are so multiplied as they cannot be restrayned without greater scandall tumult and perturbation according to the parable to our Sauiour concerning the cockle growne vp amongst the wheat which our sayd Sauiour willed rather to be let alone vntill the haruest day left by going about to weed out the one out of due time they might pluck vp the other So as these Catholicke Princes his Maiesties Ancestors that did deny toleration considering their kingdomes to be quietly setled in the Ancient religion of theyr fore fathers did iustly and lawfully resist the new attempts of innouators and iustly also may we affirme that if other forrayne Princes at this day of the same Catholick religion do permit vpon other reasons liberty or toleratioÌ„ of different religion much more may his Maiesty of England do the same to his Catholick subiects for the reasons that haue bene now alleadged And so much of this To the exaÌ„ples of the Lollardes VVickliffian Protestants that made such earnest suite for toleration and liberty of conscience in the dayes of three King Henries 4. 5. and 6. and tooke armes for obtayning the same he sayth that if any such conspiracies were we deâ—end them not subiection to Princes we preach insurrâ—ctions we defy c. And with this he thinketh he hath well satisfyed the matterâ— To the forreyne examples of higher Germany in the time of Charles the fifth and of the low-Countryes in these our dayes he answereth That these are noe fit presidentes for our State the gouerment of the Emperour being limitedâ— and conditionall and we speake of subiects vnder an absolute Monarchy To those of Boâ—hemia Polonia and Hungarie he sayth that it is to be considered VVhether the enâ—rance into those kingdomes be Successiue or Electiue by descent without condiâ—iâ—â—all restraintes and if they were absolute Monarchies what is that to his Maiesty who in cases of religion taketh not mens examples but Gods lawes for his dyrects He knoweth what Princes ought to doe not regarding what they please to doe c. But al this while me thinkes the chiefe point is not answered by M. Barlow which is that those good Protestants were of opinion that toleration or liberty of conscience might be graunted according to the law of God and ought also to be graunted And why is Iordaniâ— now turned backward saith the letterâ— Why is this Ministers voice contrary to the voice sensâ— of all other Protestants The sayd Letter goeth forward laying downe diâ—erâ— considerations which engendred hope in the mindeâ— of Catholicks for obtayning this suite of toleration and namely these three to wit First the first entraÌ„ce of our new King knowne to be of so noble and royall a mind before that time as he neuer was noted to be giueÌ„ to cruelty or persecution for religion Secondly the sonne of such a Mother as held her selfe much behoulding to English Catholiâ—kes And thirdly that himselfe had confessed that he had euer found the Catholicke party most trusty vnto him in his troubles and many conspiraciâ—â— made against him To the first wherof M. Barlow in effect answereth nothing at all but only citeth certayne places of Scripture for punishing of Idolatry To the second he sayth That if his Maiesties Moâ—her had not relied too much vpon the Priested sort in England her end had not bene so suddaine or vnkind Belike he was priuy vnto it that he can tell those particulars And his Epithete of vnkind in cutting off her Maiesties head was very iudiciously deuised by him For indeed there can nothing be deuised more vnkind then for two Queenes so neere of kinred to cut off one the others head and that vpon the suddaine as here is graunted which increaseth the vnkindnes of so barbarous a fact perswaded and vrged principally as al men know by the continuall incitations of those of M. Barlows coate to the despite both of Mother and Sonne and ruine of them both if it had layeâ— iâ— their handeâ— Neyther is this to cast salt into his Maiesties eyes as M. Barlow heere sayth but rather to open the saâ—e that he may seeâ— what kind of people these are that do sâ— much flatter him now and impugned both him and his at that time But let vs heare how Ironically he dealeth with vsâ— in framing a fond argument on our behalfe as to him it seemeth The Mother sayth he loyaltyâ— Ergo the Sonne must giue them liberty of conscâ—â—câ— And iâ— this Syâ— so bad an argument Do you take away the word 〈◊〉 which
Sacraments care of soules possessing Cures and Benefices absoluing from sinnes spirituall iurisdiction and all Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy deryued from hence And are all these thinges only Ceremoniall without substance or essence of religion Doth M. Barlow discharge his duty of a Champion eyther towardes his king or his old Lord from both which it seemeth alâ—eady he hath receaued large fees in bringing both their authorities in Ecclesiastical matters to be meere Ceremonies No man I thinke will sue to be his Clyent hereafter iâ— he can plead no better But let vs yet see a little further how he hath aduanced his Maiestyes spirituall authority Thus he writeth of his being Moderator in the Conference betwene the Puritans and Protestants This difference sayth he about thinges indifferent his Maiesty desirous to reconcile vouchsafed his Princely paynes to moderate mediate In which wordes first doe you note againe his often repetition that they were thinges indiffereÌ„t to wit whether his Maiesty should haue Supreme Primacy in Church causes or renounce the same and cast it downe togeather with his Scepter before the Presbytery of the Puritans and whether the Lord of Canterbury should leaue of his Lordship and Graceship and become a simple Minister equall with the rest And so likewise M. Barlow himselfe to leaue the Sea of Lincolne and title of Lordship which none that knowes the humor of the man will imagine that he holdeth for a thing indifferent or a meere Ceremony This I say is the first Notandum for if these things be indifferent what need so much a doe about them And the second Notandum is that he saith that his Maiesty did moderate and mediate in this Conference which is a very moderate and meane word indeed to expresse so high and eminent Authority Ecclesiasticall as sometimes they wil seem to ascribe vnto his Maiesty For who cannot moderate or mediate in a Conference if he haue sufficient learning and knowledge of the cause though he haue no eminent authority at all to decide the same But who shall determine or define the Controuersy Here no doubt M. Barlow wil be in the brakes For that a little after being pressed with the free speach and deniall of S. Ambrose vnto Valentinian the Emperour when he medled in Ecclesiasticall affairs and in particuler when he sent for him by Dalmatius a Tribâ—ne with a Notary to come and dispute in the Consistory before him his Counsell and Nobility with the Hereticall Bishop Auxenâ—ius S. Ambrose refused vtterly to goe yeelding for his reason that in matters of faith and religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops which deniall M. Barlow well alloweth saying that Ambrose did well in it and sayd well for it his fact and reason were both Christianlike But suppose that his Maiesty had sent for the Bishops to dispute and confer with the doctors of the Puritan party in his presence as the Emperour Valentinian did S. Ambrose that they had refused to come with the same reasoÌ„ that S. Ambrose did would M. Barlow that wrote the Conference haue defended the same as good and lawful Or would his Maiesty haue taken the same in as good part as ValentiniaÌ„ did I doubt it very much as also I doubt whether S. Ambrose if he had disputed would haue suffered ValentiniaÌ„ suppose he had bin learned to haue moderated mediated in that disputatioÌ„ as M. Baâ—low saith his Maiesty did in this But if without effect that he could not conclude who should giue iudgment of the matter The Bishops They were party and theyr whole interest lay therein The Puritan Doctors They were also a party and therby partiall His Maiesty could not doe it according to M. Barlowes doctrin in this place if any point of religion were handled therein Who then should iudge or giue sentence The Church saith M. Barlow in another place But who maketh that Church Or who giueth authority of iudgement to that Church if the supreme Head and gouernour haue it not in himself Do you not see how intricate this matter is hard to resolue And according to this as it seemeth was the effect and consequence of this meeting if we belieue M. Barlow himselfe who maketh this question Did thâ—se great and Princely paynes which his Maiesty tooke with the Puritâ—ns worke a generall conformity And then he answereth VVith the iudicious and discreet it did wherof M. Barlow was one but the rest grew more aukward and violent So he But all this while if you marke it there is nothing said to the point for which all this was brought in to wit why the like fauour had not beene shewed to Catholikes for a Conference also with them about their Religion M. Barlow doth touch some number of reasons as that our opinions doe touch the very head and foundation of religion That his Maiesty was perfect in all the arguments that could be â—rought for the aduerse part and that he throughly vnderstanding the weaknes of them held it both vnsafe and vnnecessary to haue them examined That the Protestant religion being throughly well placed and hauing so long continued is not now to be disputed c. Which reasons being either in themselues fond or against himselfe I will not stand to refute One only contradiction wil I note that our argumeÌ„ts being so weake yet that it should be vnsafe to haue them examined and that the long continuance of Protestant religion in England should make it indisputable whereas more then ten times so long prescription of Catholike religion could not defend it by shew of a conference or dispute hâ—ld at VVestminster at the beginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne when the same was changed and put out And finally I will end this with a notable calumniation insteed of a reason vttered by M. Barlow why this Conference ought not to be granted to Catholikes for sooth For that euen in their common petition for toleration they â—isâ—hed his Maiesty to be as great a Saint in heaueÌ„ as he is a King vpon earth shewing thereby saith he that gladly they would be rid oâ— him but wâ—ich way they care not so he were not here And may not this Prelate now beare the prize for calumniation and Sycophancy that out of so pious an antecedent can inferre so malicious a consequent The Catholickes doe wish vnto his Maiesty both life present and euerlasting to come here a great King and there a great Saint M. Barlow seemeth not to care much for his eternity so he may enioy his temporality by the which he himselfe gayneth for the present and hopeth euery day to do more more it importâ—th him litle how great a Saint his Maiestie be in heauen so vpon earth he liue longe to fauour him and to furnish him with fat benefices And thus he inforceth me to answere him contrary to my owne inclination for repressing somewhat his insolent malignant speach which is the most
that he in the day of iudgment to wit our Saâ—iour will giue reward for our good works almes is now also ready to shew himselâ—e a most benigne heater to him that shall come vnto him by prayer works and so did Cornelius the Centurion merit to be heard as doing many almes vpon the people sayth the Scripture And when about nyne of the clocke the sayd Centurion prayed an Angell stood by him and gaue testimony of his good works saying Cornelius thy prayers and almes haue ascended vp before God citò orationes ad Deum ascendunt quas ad Deum merita nostâ—i operis imponunt Our prayers do quickly asceÌ„d vnto God which the merits of our good works do lay before him c. And preseÌ„tly with this Scripture he ioyneth the other out of Toby Sic Raphel Angelus c. So the Angel Raphael did testify vnto Toby alwayes praying alwayes working wheÌ„ thou didst pray togeather with Sara I did offer the memory of thy prayer in the sight of God when thou didst bury the dead and leaue thy dinner for doing the same I was sent by God to tempt thee and afterward to cure thee I am Raphael one of the seaâ—en iust Angels who do assist conuerse in the sight of God c. Where we see that S. Cyprian maketh another manner of accompt of the holynes and meryt of this worke and of the truth of this Angell then M. Barlow doth And the very self same speach S. Cyprian vseth in his booke de Mâ—â—talitate alleadging this place of Toby and testimony of the Angell Raphael in the commendation of Tobies fact in burying the dead against the Kinges commandement So as white and black hoat and cold or the two poles are not more opposite one to the other then the spirit of S. Cyprian and that of M. Barlow in this point And truly it seemeth that a man may gather by good consequence that for so much as he condemneth that fact of Toby in burying the dead bodies of the Iewes in persecution he would also if he had bene there not only not haue buried these dead bodies against the Kings Edict but also neyther haue receaued the persecuted into his house agaynst the commaundement of the sayd King Nay he would haue rather deliuered them vp to the persecutors hands and the like if he had liued amongst Christians vnder Nero Domitius and Dioclesian And this is M. Barlows piety in respect of that of holy Toby and S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Augustine and other such sincere pious men who both approued and commended this fact Now let vs passe on to the rest After these examples of Scriptures there were alleadged by the Apologer sundry authorityes of ancient Fathers which shew the obligation that subiects haue to obey their temporall Princes which in my Letter I declared no way to preiudice our cause who both acknowledge and offer all dutifull obedience in temporall affaires which is so much as the sayd ancient Fathers doe teach and for that the sayd authorityes are cleare for vs in that behalfe I shall â—et downe here what I answered to the same As these places of Scripture said I alleaged against vs do make for vs so much more do the authorities produced out of the ancient Fathers for that they go about to proue the very same point that we here hold that in teÌ„porall cyuill affayres we must obey dutifully our temporall Princes though Infidels or Pagans but not in matters concerning God our Religion or Conscience And his very first example out of S. Augustine is such as I meruaile much that he would cyte the same but that somwhat for shew must be alleadged For it maketh so clearly directly against him as if it had beene written purposely to confute him in this our case But let vs heare what it is Agreable to the Scriptures saith he did the Fathers teach Augustine speaking of Iâ—dian saith thus Iulian was an vnbelieuing Emperour was he not an Apostata an oppressor and an Idolatour ChristiaÌ„ souldiars serued that vnbelieuing Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they would acknowledge no Lord but him that is in heauen when he would haue them worship Idolls sacrifice they preferred God before him but when he said Go forth to fight inuade such a nation they presently obeyed they distinguished their eternall Lord from their temporall and yet were they subiect euen vnto their temporall Lord for his sake that was their eternall Lord and Maister Thus he And can any thing be spoken more cleerly for vs and for our cause then this For euen this do we offer to our King Soueraigne we will serue him we wil obey him we will go to warre with him we will fight for him and we will do all other offices belonging to temporall duty but when the cause of Christ commeth in hand who is Lord of our Consciences or any matter concerning the same or our Religion there we do as S. Augustine heere appoynteth vs preferre our eternall King before our Temporall And like to these are all the other places of Fathers cyted by him who distinguish expresly betweene the Temporall honour and Allegiance due to the Emperour and the other of our Religion Conscience belonging only to God And to that playne sense are Tertullians words cyted by the Apologer VVe honour the Emperour in such sort as is lawfull for vs and â—xpedient for him as a man second after God and as hauing receyued from God whatsoeuer he is and only lâ—sse thâ—n God And will not the Catholicks of England vse this speacâ— also vnto their King Or will the Apologer himselfe deny that Tertullian heere meant nothing els but in temporall affayres for somuch as the Emperors at that tyme were Heathens Gentils and consequently were noâ— to be obeyed in any point against Christian faith or Religion The like playne sense haue the words of Iustinâ—â— Martyr to the Emperour himselfe cited here in the third place to wit VVe only adore God and in all things we cheerfully performe seruice to you prosessing you to be Emperours and Princes of men And do not all English Catholickes say the same at this day in all other things that concerne not God his Obedience by rule of Catholicke Religion they offer cheerfully to serue his Maiesty acknowledging him to be their liege Lord and King inferiour only to God in his Temporall Gouernment And how then are these and such other places brought in for witnesse as though they had somewhat to say against vs The other two sentences in like manner cited out of Optatus and S. Ambrose the first saying That ouer the Emperour there is none but only God that made the Emperour And the other That teares were his weapons against the armes and souldiars of the Emperour That he neither ought nor could resist neyther of theÌ„ do make
any thing against vs or for the Apologer euen as they are here nakedly cyted without declaration of the circumstances for that in temporall affaires the King or Emperour is Supreme next vnder God And when the Emperour will vse secular forces against the Priests of his dominion they being no souldiars must fall to prayers and teares which are Priestly weapons But what Did S Ambrose by this acknowledge that the Emperour had higher Authority then he in Church-matters Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion or Conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed or acknowledged his Superiority No truly For in three seuerall occasions that fell out he flatly denyed the same which this Apologer craâ—tily dissembleth and saith not a word therof The first was when he was cited by Dalmatius the Tribune bringing with him a publicke Notarie to testifie the same in the name of the Emperour Valentinian the yonger to come conferre or dispute with the hereticall Bishop Auxenâ—ius in the presence of his Maiesty other of his Nobility CouÌ„sell which poynt S. Ambrose refused vtterly to do telling the Emperour playnly by a letter written vnto him That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops And dyuers other doctrines by this occasion he taught him to that effect as is to be seene in the same Epistle The second occasion fell out the very next yeare after in Millane when the said Emperour by suite of the Arians and fauour of Iustina the Empresse on their behalfe made a Decree that a certayne Church of that Citty should be deliuered to the said Arians which Decree S. Ambrose the Bishop refused to obey And when the Emperours Officers comming with armes vrged greatly to giue possession of the Church he fled to his former weapons of weeping and praying Ego Missam facere coepi c. I began to say Masseâ— and when the temporall Magistrate vrged still that the Emperour vsed but his owne right in appoynting that Church to be deliuered S. Ambrose answered Quae diuina sunt Imperatoriae potestati non esse subiecta That such things as belonge to God are not subiect to the Imperiall power And thus answered S. Ambrose about the giuing vp of a materiall Church What would he haue said in greater matters The third accasion was when the Emperour sent his Tribunes and other Officers to require certayne Vessells belonging to the Church to be deliuered which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do saying That in this he could not obey And further adding That if the Emperour did loue him selfe he should abstayne from offering such iniury vnto Christ. And in another place handlâ—ng the same more at large he saith That he gaue to Cesar that which was Cesars and to God that which belonged to God but that the Temâ—ple of God could not be the right of Cesar which we speak saith he to the Emperours honour For what is more honourable vnto him then that he being an Emperour be called a Child of the Church for that a good Emperour is within the Church but not aboue the Church So S. Ambrose What would he haue done or said if he had bene pressed with an Oath against his Conscience or any least poynt of his Religion Thus far I answered in my letter he that shall read M Barlows reply now will seâ— that he hath nothing at all in substaÌ„ce to say against it for to that excellent speach of S. Augustine coÌ„cerning the Emperour Iulian he triâ—â—eth exceedingly first bidding vs to shew that poynt in the Oath which is different from true religion which is a cauill as you see for it is inough if it be contrary to the swearers Religion And wheras we offer vpon that speach as the subiects of Iulian did VVe will serue our Soueraigne we will go to war with him and we will fight for him the like he sayth it is but an hypocriticall florish of words To the speach and facts of S. Ambrose he is forced eyther to say nothing or to speake against himselfe For wheras I do make this demaund Did S. Ambrose by saying that he could not resist the Emperour and that his weapons were teares acknowledge by this that the Emperour had higher authority in Church-matters then he Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion and conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed and acknowledged his authority To the first he sayth that it is only extra oleâ—s not to the cause in hand and that he will handle it in another place though euery man of discretion will see that the demaund is full to the purpose and ought to haue beene answered here To the secoÌ„d he hath but a ridiculous shift Suppose saith he that S. Ambrose would refuse such an Oath vrged vpon him would he withall forbid others to take it Surely no. But I say surely yea for if we graunt S. Ambrose to haue bene a good Prelate Pastour Father to his people we must also graunt that what Oath he thought pernicious for himselfe to take he would haue forbidden the same to haue bene taken by his people if they had demaunded his opinion as English Catholickes did the Popes or els he had not bene a faythfull Pastour But what doth M. Barlow answere to the three instances alleadged out of S. Ambrose in all which he contradicted the Emperour that was his temporall Lord and denied to obey in matters Ecclesiasticall the first when he refused to go with the Tribune and Notary sent for him by the sayd Emperour to dispute in the Consistory with Auxentiâ—â— the Arian Bishop yielding for his reason That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops Which answere of S. Ambrose M. Barlow doth allow and coÌ„mendeth it much albeit we haue said somewhat before about the same yet shall we presently add a word or two more thereof The second refusall of the said Father was as now you haue heard to deliuer vp a certaine Church in Millanâ— to the Arians at the commandement of the Emperour alleadging for his reason Quae diuina sunt Imperatoriae potestatium esse subiecta that such things as are diuine are not subiect to Imperiall power Which answere in like manner M. Barlow alloweth albeit I thinke I may assure my selfe that if his Matie of England should coÌ„maund one of his Parish Churches of Lincolne Diocesse to be deliuered vp to the PuritaÌ„s or Brownists or other like Sectaries and that his Maiesty should be so earnest resolute therin as the Emperour was sending his officers souldiars to put them into possession M. Barlow would not be so resolute in his deniall as S. Ambrose was neither would he be so bold to alleage that reasoÌ„ which S. Ambrose did that diuine things are not subiect to King Iames his power including in
colour of this power to discerne spirits giuen theÌ„ by M. Bâ—â—loâ— out of the words of S. Iohn there would neuer be an end And lastly it appeareth by all this that his lâ—st distinction wherin he sayth that the King may iudge for the truth and not of the truth is a meere delusion giuing somewhat in wordes but nothing in deed for that if the iudging for the truth be nothing els but to execute allow and approue that which others haue defined determined and appointed out vnto him to be belieued and defended as the truth then hath he no more free choice or superiority in iudgment in this case then euery subiect or common man who is likewise bound to belieue and defend the same according to his ability and power Now then to conclude the matter and to reduce all to a briefe summe for so much as M. Barlow taketh away from his Maiesty of England not only the title and style Of Head of the Church which was giuen to King Henry and confirmed to King Edward but the Papall authority in like manner for decision of matters which was ascribed vnto them both by Parlament and confirmed to Queene Elizabeth and here saith that he cannot iudge in cases of religion and fayth iudicio definitiâ—o to define and determine any thing but only execuâ—iuo to execute what the Church of England to wit what the Bishops shall define and ordayne and for somuch as he addeth yet further now in that which before we haue discussed three other particuler cases out of S. Ambrose wherin he conâ—esâ—eth that his Maiesty hath no authority but may be resisted to wit if he should call before him a Bishop to dispute with another of a different religion as Valenâ—inian did S. Ambrose and he denyed him If he should commaund a Bishop to deliuer ouer a Church to a people of a different religion and if he should command a Bishop to deliuer vp the Veâ—els of his Church as the said Empeâ—ouâ— did and the â—ther refused to obey all these things I say laid â—ogeâ—tâ—er â—ut of M. Barlows doctrine do so much diminish the greatnes of his Maiesties Supreme power in causes Ecclesiasticall as in effect it commeth to be no more thâ—n Catholike doctrine doth ordinarily allow to euery Catholicke Temporall Prince for the obseruance and execution of that which the Church determineth And this is M. Barlâ—â—â—â— heroycall exployt to marre the matter he takes in hand for his Clyent Let euery man iudge how well he hath deserued the good fee which already he hath recâ—aâ—ed for his plea and hopeth to receaue more hereafter if he may speed according to his expectation OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE Or Iâ—stance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall §. III. THERE followeth another controuersy betweene M. Barlow me about a certayne fact of S. Gregory the Great concerning the Law of Mauritius the Emperour prohibiting souldiars and such as were accomptable to the Emperours Courtes for offices borne by them to enter into monasteries and professe a religious life without his licence whereof I wrote thus in my letter Neyther doth the last place cited out of S. Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauritius make any thing moâ—e for our Apologers purpose of taking Oathes against Conscience For albeit the same Father do greatly complaâ—ne in diuers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius whome though otherwise a Catholike Emperour he compareth in that poynt to Nero and Dioclâ—siâ—n saying Quid Nero quid Dioclesiâ—â—â—s qâ—id deâ—ique isteâ— qui â—oc tempore â—â—â—lesiam persequitur Nâ—mqâ—â—◠〈◊〉 omnes porta Inferi Whâ—t was Nero What was Dioclesâ—â—â— what is he who at this time doth persecute the Church Are they not all gates of Hell Yet in this place alleaged by the Apologer he yealded to publish and send abroâ—d into diuers Countreys and Prouinces a certayne vniust law of the sayd Emperours that prohibited Sâ—uldiars and such as had bene imployed in matters of publike accompts of the CoÌ„mon-Wealth to make theÌ„selues Monks Wâ—ich law though S. Gregory did greatly mislike and wrote sharply agaynst it to the Emperour himselfe yet to shew his due respect in temporall thinges vnto him and for that indeed the law was not absolutly so euill but that in some good sense it might be tolerated to wit that Souldiars sworn to the Emperours wars might not during the said Oath obligation be receaued into Monasteries but with the Princes liceÌ„ce yet for that it tended to the abridgmeÌ„t of Ecclesiastical freedome in taking that course or state of life which ech man chooseth for the good of his soule S. Gregoâ—y misliked the same and dealt earnestly with the Emperour to relinquish it or to suffer it to be so moderated as it might stand without preiudice of Christian liberty wherunto the Emperour at length yeelded and so S. Gregory sent the same abroad vnto diuers Primates and Archbishops of sundry Kingdomes mentioned by him but corrected first and reduced by himselfe as supreme Pastour to a reasonable lawfulnes and temperate moderation to wit that those who had borne offices of charge in the Common-wealth and after desired to be admitted to religious life in Monasteries should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their full accompts and had obtayned publicke discharge for the same And that Souldiars which demanded the like admittaÌ„ce should be exactly tryed and not admitted vnto Monasticall habite but after they had liued three yeares in their lay apparell vnder probation This determineth S. Gregory in his Epistle beginning Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi Vrbicio Dyrachitano c. adding further in the same Epistle as hath bene said De qua re Serâ—issâ—mus Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur about which matter our most Clement and Christian Emperour is wholy pleased and content So as in this S. Gregory shewed his pastorall care and power in limiting and moderating the Emperours law according to the law of God though in temporall respectes he shewed him the Obedience that was due vnto him But what is this vnto our Oath May we thinke that S. Gregory that would not passe a temporall law of the Emperour without reprehension of the vnlawfulnes thereof to the Emperour himselfe and correction therof in the publication for that indirectly it did infringe the liberty of Religious life when men were called therunto that he would not haue much more resisted the admission of an Oath about such affaires if it had bene proposed No man I thinke in reason can imagin the contrary To this declaration of mine M. Barlow beginneth his reply thus But that of Gregory saith he toucheth the very quicke who as he thought his duty discharged to God in shewing the reasons why he disliked the Law so did he performe it very readily to the Emperour in promulging
Oath and Indenture articles and Prouiso's is only in sound of words and not in substance for that in making an Indenture and the Prouiso's therof both parts must agree that the breach of euery such Prouiso shal forfeit the whole for that otherwise euery such Prouiso doth not euacuate the whole Indenture or make it naught But herein framing this new Oath and the articles therof there is not the consent or agreement of al those that are required to take the Oath nor obligatioÌ„ of conscience to agree but rather to the contrary they are bound by the principles of their religion to disagree and disclaime against the same as preiudicial to their soules So as here those articles or different clauses are not as Prouiso's agreed vpon as in an Indenture but rather as points and conditions proposed and required by the Landlord wherof the Tenant may by right deliberate and consider whether they stand wel for him or noe And if not he may refuse them or at the least so many as he shal thinke to be hurtful or iniurious vnto him Neither is the denyal of any one or more the denial of al as M. Barlows bad Diuinity and worse Philosophy presumeth to teach men that it is But yet before I end this matter on which he standeth so much I would demand him further whether this his assertion be not general concerning al Kings and he may not wel deny it for that his reason is general as presently ensueth saying The King being once in lawful possession whosoeuer shal say that he may be deposed for any cause denieth that he is lawfull King Wherupon it followeth that the Kings of France Spaine also are no lawful or true Kings in the opinion of their subiects for that they al with vniforme consent do hould this doctrine of the Church that Kings and Princes may in some cases â—e excommunicated and deposed Saul also was neuer lawful King for that he was deposed or els must we say that God did him iniury in deposing him It followeth also by this inference of M. Barlow that if a man should deny to sweare to the last clause only of al the Oath to wit that he sweareth al the former articles hartily willingly and truly vpon the faith of a Christian So help him God c. doth deny to acknowledg King Iames to be lawfull King which is another point of parasitisme more ancient perhaps then the former especially if you adde therunto his propositions vsed here to that effect as namely that if he were once lawful he â—â— ouer soâ—â—or thâ—◠〈…〉 neither intended nor remitted that vnlawâ—ulnes oâ— title 〈…〉 with it the casuality of deposing that no varying in religion 〈◊〉 altering of manners 〈◊〉 misordering a Common wealth 〈…〉 his title that only a King can say to God tibi soli pâ—â—â—ani that whosoeuer deâ—ieth not to the Pope a deposingâ— power deâ—ieth to 〈◊〉 King the lawâ—ulnes of hâ—â— Inuestitureâ— and doâ—â—â—ion that let a â—ing 〈◊〉 he will for his religion and gouernment if he hath right to the 〈◊〉 his subiects must indure c. And wil you not say now that M. Barlow is as good a Chaplaine for the King as he is a Champion that is to say as good a Ghostly Father of spirituall counsaile and resolution of caseâ— of Conâ—cience as he is a valiant defendour of whatsoeuer was set down before in the Apology But inough herof VVHETHER THE FOVRTH COVNCELL OF TOLEDO Did prescribe any such set forme of Oath to be exhibited to the Subiects as is affirmed in the Apology CHAP. II. BVT now we must passe to another contemplation about a certain Councel of Toledo in Spaine alledged by the Apologer for authorizing and iustifying of this new oath not only allowed but decreed also as he sayth in that ancient Councel to wit the fourth of Toledo I shall alleadg his words togeather with my answere therevnto at that time And that the world saith he may yet further se his Maiesties and whole States setting downe of this Oath did not procâ—ed from any new inuention of theirs but as it â—warraÌ„ted by the word of God So doth it take the example from an Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeares aâ— gone which a famous Councell then togeather with diâ—uers other Councels were so farre from condemning â—â— the Pope now hath done this Oath as I haue thoughâ— good to set downe their owne wordes heere in that purpose wherby it may appeare that his Maiestie craueâ—â— nothing now of his Subiects in this Oath which was noâ— expresly and carefully commanded them by the Counceâ— to be obeyed without exception of persons Nay not iâ— the very particuler poynt of Equiuocation which his Maiestie in this Oath is so carefull to haue eschewed but yoâ— shall heere see the said Councels in their Decrees as carefull to prouide for the eschewing of the saâ—e so as almosâ— euery poynt of that Action and this of ours shall be founâ— to haue relation and agreeance one with the other sauâ— only in thisâ— that those old Councels were carefull anâ— strait in commanding the taking of the same wheras by the contrary he that now vaunteth himselfe to be Heaâ— of all Councells is as carefull and strait in the prohibition of all men from the taking of this Oath of Allegiance Sâ— he And then I added And I haue alleadged his discourse at large to the enâ— yow may better see his fraudulent manner of proceedingâ— He saith That the example of this Oath is taken from aâ— Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeares agone in the Councells of Toledo but especially the fourth which prouided also for the particuler point of EquiuocatioÌ„ But leâ— any man read those Councells which are 13. in number and if he fynd eyther any forme of an Oath prescribed or any mention of Equiuocation but only of flat lying and perfidious dealing let him discredit all the rest that I doe write And if he fynd none at all as most certainly he shall notâ— then let him consider of the bad cause of this Apologer that driueth hiâ— to such manner of dealing as to auoucâ— Euery point oâ— that Action to haue agreeance with the offering of thâ—â— Oath Here now you see how M. Barlow is prouoked to shew his manhood in defence of this passage which he beginâ—eth very fiercely with many contumelious words with I â—eâ— passe as wind and only shall relate those that â—e of some moment to the cause VVhiles this Iesuite sayth â—e iâ—â—â—aching the Apologer of supposed fraudulency himself euen 〈…〉 be arested of a fraudulent impudenâ—y â—or that he charging 〈◊〉 Apologer to say that euery point of that Toletan action hath 〈◊〉 with ours â—e leaues out the principall word which the said â—â—â—â—â—ger vsed when he sayth that almost euery point agreeth as if 〈◊〉 were noâ— difference betwene his speach that should say that Father Persons was almost vpon the Sea-coast
Hulderiâ—us Mutius a brother-German of M. Barlows I meane of the same Sacramentary faith although as it seemeth of a more sincere historicall faith or fidelity then he relateth the matter thus Mense Augusto venit Fredericus c. In the month of August came Fredericke to Brundusium and making no stay by reason of the insection with all his nauy set forth and went directly for Asia but being on his way he came backe againe with the fleete and returned not without shame for now all did openly cry out thâ—t he was a coward an effeminate and periured person that he neuer intended to go against the enemies of the Christian faith that he was a dishonour of the Empire The Pope when he was certified that Fredericke was returned back againe presently calling a Councell with common and ioynt consent of all assembled iudged the Emperour excommunicated by vertue of the sentence pronounced against him by his predecessor Honorius and againe he doth anathematize him vntill he performe his voyage to Hierusalem and this sentence be caused to be promulgated by his Legates in Germany France and Italy Frederike when he vnderstood this sentence of the Pope to be euery where esteemed himself to be accompted a â—oole and hated of many and that by contempt of the sentence there might arise danger that he might be deposed from the Empire the next spring he sayled with many troopes oâ— German and Italian souldiers into Asia c. So saith this Zuinghan And vâ—â—th him agreeth Nauclerus Crantzius Fazelius Villanus Blondus Saâ—â—llâ—us Taâ—â—agnota Platina Antoninus Sigonius â—o which aâ—so we maâ— adâ— Matthew Paris in whom may be seene both Pope Gregories testimony of the cause why he did excommuâ—icâ—â—â— him as also Frederiks letters to the christian Princes in purgatâ—on of himseâ—â— for his retuâ—ne affirming himselâ— to be vniuâ—tly excommunicated foâ— that as he tâ—â—re saith he was sicke and last of all the Authors iudgment of the fact it selâ—e though otherwise partiall inough to the Emperour For he writeth that vpon the newes of his returne aboue forty thousand souldiers were so discouraged that they returned home Qâ—od sactum Imperatoris sayth he domnosè nimis c. which fact of the â—mperour did redound to the great hurt shame and preiudice of all the whole busines of Christ crucified and for that cause according to the opinion of many the Sauiour oâ— the world as hath bene said shewed himselfe to the Christian people nayleâ— on the Crosse and besprinkled with bloud as it were making open comâ—laint vnto all and euery one of the iniury donâ— vnto him by the Emperour Thus Matthew Paris Whose testimony M Barlow vsing so often in other things I hopâ— he will not reiect in this But let vs go forward It followeth in M. Barlow The next yeare to satiâ—fy the Pope the Emperour determined his iourney but before hiâ— going he called a Councell at Rauâ—nna which he apointed also for the place of ReÌ„dre-vous â—oâ— some of his souldiers to atâ—nd him the Pope camed â—â—â—m â—o 〈◊〉 â—tayed from that meeting way-â—aying tâ—e coastes of Verona and Millaine and tooke order that the souldiers should be spoiled that were prepared for that expediâ—â—on against the Turâ—e itâ— Tâ—us he But by his leaue his Authour Vrspergensis hath it not in such sort as he setteth it downe and therefore it is a shamefull thing in M. Barlow to bely him For the Abbot saith no other tâ—en that when the Emperour had called a Diet to be held in Lent at Rauenna of the Princes of Germany he was hindered from the same by the messages and Embasâ—ages of the Pope Nam Veronenses MediolaneÌ„ses sayth he non permiserunt c. the people of Verona and Millaine would not suffer any to pasâ—e by their Territories spoiling and rifeling euen those that were signed with the Crosse vt asserebaÌ„t auâ—loritate Domini Papae c. as they sayd by the authority of the Pope which alas is a shamefull thing to speake And this is all which that Author hath hereof And here we may see the diâ—â—erence betwene Vrspergensis and M. Barlow in seting downe this thing The â—â—râ—t only relating what the souldiers pretended and â—aid for their excuse and the other most resolutly affirming it for true Vrsâ—ergensis sayth that those of Verona and Millâ—ine affirmed that they spoiled the Emperours souldiers by the Popes authority M. Barlow seteth it not downe as the words and excuse of the souldiers but with a resolute affirmation that the Pope tooke order that the waies should be laied the souldiers spoiled c. wherin also it is to be noted that this thing falling out in the yeare 1228. as is to be seene in Vrspergensis Frederikâ— being excoÌ„municated the yeare before remaining 〈◊〉 vnder ceâ—sures these souldiers hauing relation to the sentence past might well say that they did it by the Pope 〈…〉 to wit by vertue of the excoÌ„munication altâ—ough the Pope him self neuer knew thereof and so you see the obiecâ—ion to be friuolous albeit we should belieue Vrspergensis the Schismaticall Abbot deâ—ending the Emperour â—uen then when he was excommunâ—câ—câ— yet yt had bene weâ—l that M. Barlow for his credits â—ake had cited him as he is â—or he oâ— himself is had inough and litle needed M. Barlows furtherance to haue made him worse The next charge against the Pope is more tragicall then the â—ormer and is thus expressed by M. Baâ—lâ—w The â—mperour being in the Holy-Land and in battail against the Turkes the Pope in his absence enters Apâ—lia part of the Emperonrs dominions surpriseth and takes it to his owne vse and keepeth backe all supply of souldiers which should goe for ayde of the Emperour in that holy warâ—e and which is the height of all impiâ—ty the Emperour hauing performed his promise by that his iorney requeâ—ting absolution from the Pope he not only with contempt denied it but commanded the Christian souldiers in Asia to leaue the Emperour to the Turkes malice as being a publicke enemy of the Church and dispatched secret letters to the Patriaâ—ke of Iâ—rusalem and the souldiers there to rebell against the Emperour as Blâ—â—dus the Popes soothing flatterer is forced to confesse Thus far M. Barlowes pitiâ—ull complaint And as for the first point it is already sufficiently answered in â—hewing Frederick himself to haue bene the Author of the wars in Apulia by giuing order to Râ—â—nald sonne to the Duke of Spoleto and the Emperours Dâ—puty of Sicily to inuade the Popes state in his absence which he did aâ— already at large hath bene declared All the rest which is added contayneth nothing but meere malicious vntruthes and calumniations For vntrue it is that the Pope â—ept backe all supplie oâ— souldiers whilest the Emperour was in the holy-land which he laboured to gather from all parts of Christendome to send thither Neither doth Vâ—speâ—gâ—nsisâ—ay â—ay so much but only
liued in Africk he not only suffered but procured throughout all Sicily and his kingdome of Italy the fairest women and maidens which the Turkes lusted after to be taken from their parents bosome and married wiues euen out of their husbands armes to be giuen vnto them So he And was not this a vertuous man trow you who to pleasure the Turkes sworn enemies of Christ would thus deale with Christians And doth not this man deserue to be credited speaking in his owne behalfe before Pope all writers and whatsoeuer other testimony But indeed this dealing was conforme to his deuotion for he who so vilely esteemed of our Sauiour himself no meruaile if in his other behauiour he were so irreligious base and wicked for as we haue before out of Fazelius shewed he held our Sauiour and Moyses to be no better theÌ„ Mahomet calling them all three Seducers as with Fazelius the Chronicles of Augusta and Compilatio Chronologica both German histories do auouch and moreouer affirme that he speake the same in the hearing of Henry the Lantgraue saying withal If the Princes of the Empire would but follow me I would ordaine a bâ—tter maner of beliefe and liâ—e for all Nations And verily it seemeth that he aymed at this when as you haue seene before out of his owne epistle set downe and censured by both the Matthews he went about to abase all the Clergie by taking all liuings from them and to depriue them of all their dignity â—or that being once effected he might with more ease afterwardes haue made a new Clergy a new faith a new Christ but he forgot in this his foolish feruor what the Kingly Prophet Dauid said and praied against such atteÌ„ptes Omnes Principes qui dixerunt hereditate possideamus Sanctuarium Dei c. All thoâ—e Princes who haue sayed let vs possesse as our inheritance the Sanctuary of God let them be O my God as a wheele and as straw before the face of the wind as a fier that burnes the wood and as a flame that consumes the mountaines So shalt thou persecute them c. Which seemes in some sort to be verified litteâ—ally in this man who after his excommunication being in extreme calamitie as well by the election of another Emperour defection of a great part of the Empire from him as also for that one of his sonnes to wit Entius King of Sardinia was taken prisoner by the people of Bolognia and another was dead in Apulia Likewise himself percussus est saith Matthew Paris morbo qui dicitur lupus vel sacer ignis was stroken with the disease which is called the wolâ—e or holy fier whereby he was so humbled as the same Author witnesseth that he offered vnto the Pope good conditions of peace according saith Matthew to that saying of the Psalmist which followeth immediatly in the same Psalme by me now alleadged Imple facies eorum ignominia quaerent nomen tuum Domine fill their face with confusion and they will seeke thy name O lord And this chastismeÌ„t of almighty God as it began in his owne person so it continued in his issue partly whiles he liued partly after his death vntill they were all extirpated In his life tyme his Sonne Henry was made away by his owne procurement being cast into pryson where he was eyther poysoned by his command as some thinke or else died naturally as others report Entius was taken by the Bolognians and there after twenty yeares restrainst and more being kept in an iron cage he pined away and died miserablie Bononiam ductus saith Mutiâ—â— mittitur in ferreamâ— caueam in qua sordidissimo victu nutritus miserimam vitam post aliquot annos finiuit Entiuâ— being brought to Bolognia is cast into an iron cage in which being intertained with most filthy diet after some yeares imprisonmeÌ„t ended a most miserable life So he His other bastard-sonne Fredericke died in Apulia And after the said Emperour his death his sonne Conrade King of Sicily was poysoned by Manfred his bastard-brother and Manfred was slaine in battaile by Charles of Angâ—ow and Conradinus Sonne or Nephew to Conradus for in this Authors differ was beheaded at Naples and so ended the race of this wicked and vnfortunate Emperour of whome that may iustly be said which Iob speaketh of the like men Haec est pars impij apud Deum c. This is the portion of the wicked man with God aâ—d the inheritance of the violent oppressors which they shall receaue from the omnipotent If his sonnes shal be multiplied they shall die by the sworde and his nephews shall not be filled with bread All whome he shall leaue behind him shal be buried in destruction Which if all Princes could remeÌ„ber amidst their greatnes no doubt but they would be more moderate in their power and actions and also feare him more qui auâ—ert spiritum Principum terribilis apud omnes Reges terrâ— who taketh away the life of Princes and is dreadfull to all the Kinges of the earth Before we haue set downe out of the Councell it self then which there can be no more graue or greater authority all the causes of his condemnation as his sacriledges his periuries vpon periuries his perfidiousnes to the Christians his treacherous treaty with the Soldan his spoiling of Churches and monasteries his expelling of the Christians out of Nuceria and giuing it to the Turkes his reuiuing the foule faction of the Guelphes and Gibbelines all which and many more as they may be seene in the sentence of Innocentius and Seuerinus Binnius so also many other Authors might be alleadged for the same And he who listeth to read more herof may peruse VVilliam of Nangis the Frenchman in the life of S. Lewis and with him all the Authors whom before we haue cited where some of these things haue bene more particulerly touched which no doubt was the cause why VViceliâ—â— a German in his Epitome of the Popes liues in this Innocentiâ—â— the 4. spake so contemptibly of the Emperours death as he said sub hoc perijt bestia Fredericus In the time of this Pope died that beast Fredericke And the Monke of Padua registring the same death saith Vitam amisit in Apulia c. On S. Lucies day Fredericke died in Apulia and descended into hell carrying nothing with him but a sack of sinnes So he far different from that which before we haue heard others to write of the death of Innocentiuâ— And this may suffice to shew what smal reason M. Barl. had so much to iustify this Emperor for his sake to coÌ„demne the Popes who then liued forgetting in boâ—h that seuere coÌ„mination of the Holy Ghost Qui iustificat impiuÌ„ qui condemnat iustum abominabilis est vterque apud Deum He that iustifies the wicked and he that condemnes the iust both are abominable before God Which makes M. Barlowes case the more pittifull for that he