he sayth that therin I do abuse the Reader for that they shewed their obedience sayth he to be due and performed the same in matters of spirituall seruice wherat I thinke no man can but laugh that M. Barlow is become so spirituall as that he can make those Infidell Kings to be spirituall Superiours also or at leastwise to haue spirituall power euen in spirituall thinges ouer Gods faithfull people Let vs see his proofes of so strange an assertion To offer sacrifice saith he vnto the Lord in the desert is an â—igh case of conscience and religion yet would not the Iewes in Egypt attempt it without asking and obtayning the Kings leaue And why was that Was it for that they held him for their supreme Gouernour in all causes Ecclesiastiacll and temporall Then they ought to haue obeyed him when he would haue had them offered sacrifice in Egypt which they refused to doe for that their spirituall gouernour Moyses though a naturall borne subiect of King Pharao â—ould them that Gods will was contrary and as for their asking and obtayning leaue before they went to sacrifice in the Desert who doth not see but that it was in respect of temporall danger which might ensue vnto them if so great a number of their vnarmed people should haue aduentured to depart without his licence But I would demaund of M. Barlow who sayth that the people of Israel shewed their obedience to be due vnto Pharao and performed it in matter of spirituall seruice what manner of obedience was that which came alwaies in the Imperatiue mood Thus saith our Lord Dimitte populum meum Let go my people And when he yeelded not therunto he was plagued and punished with so many afflictions as are set downe in Exodus for 9. or 10. Chapters togeather in the end what leaue obtayned they but against his will when he durst no longer deny them Which appeareth for that his feare being somewhat mitigated he pursued them afterward againe And will M. Barlow make this an example of spirituall obedience to temporall Princes that was thus extorted Or of spirituall iurisdiction in heathen Princes ouer faithfull people in causes Ecclesiasticall that was contradicted both in word and fact by Moyses himselfe But let vs heare his second instance for it is more ridiculous So saith he the commaundement of King Cyrus was in a cause meerly Ecclesiasticall viz. the building of the Lords house in IerusaleÌ„ and transporting thither the consecrated vessels But who doth not see that these things as they were ordayned by King Cyrus were meere temporall as is the building of a materiall Church for that otherwise the Masons Carpenters Architects that build the same should be Ecclesiastical officers albeit they were Gentiles If King Cyrus had had authority to appoint them out their sacrifices to dispose lawfully of their sacred actions therein as he had not nor could haue being a Pagan and not of their faith religion then might they haue sayd that he had beene a spirituall Superiour vnto them but for giuing them leaue only to go to Ierusalem to build their Temple and to carry their consecrated vessels with them that had been violeÌ„tly taken away from thence argueth no more spirituall iurisdiction in him then if a man hauing taken away a Church-dore key so as the people could not go in to pray except he opened the dore should be said to haue spirituall iurisdictioÌ„ ouer that people for opening the dore letting them in that they in praying him to open the said dore did acknowledg spiritual obedience vnto him And is not this meere childish trifllng worthy the wit of M. Barlow What definition trow you will M. Barlow giue of spirituall power and Iurisdiction therby to verifie these monstrous and absurd propositions which in this affaire he hath vttered partly by his assertions and partly by his examples Truly I know no other set downe by Deuines but that it is a power giuen by God to gouerne soules for their direction vnto euerlasting saluation euen as ciuill power is giuen for gouerning the coÌ„mon wealth to her prosperity and temporall â—elicity And will M. Barlow say that God gaue this spirituall power to Pharao and Cyrus that were Heathens and knew not God for gouerning directing the soules of the Iewes that liued vnder them whose religion or God they neyther knew nor cared for Or that Nero the Emperour or Claudius had this spirituall power and Iurisdiction vpon the soules of S. Peter and S. Paul that liued vnder them in Rome and were their temporall Lordes and Princes These thinges are so absurd that I am ashamed to exaggerate them any further and therfore let vs passe forward to the rest As for the other examples by me alleaged how Sydracâ—â— Mysach and Abdenago refused to obey Nabuchodâ—â—â—sor their King in adoring the Statua as also refuâ—ing the meates of the King of Babylon Toby of the Assyrians and the Macâ—abees for refusing to eat Swines-flesh at the commandment of their King Antiochus he sayth that all these had their warrants for defence of their consciences from the word or will of God as who should say Catholickes haue nothing for iustification of their Conscience which is a meere cauill and as Logitians call Petitio principij and wholy from the question for that we affirme first that they haue sufficient groundes for iustification of their consciences in that behalfe as they will easily verify in euery point if they might be hard with any indifferency And secondly if they had not but their consciences were erroneous yet so long as that dictamen rationis or prescript of conscience standeth to the contrary and telleth them that they haue sufficient ground they may not doe against it without sin as now hath bene proued Let vs see what he saith of the other example of Tobies breach of King Senacherib his commaundement in Niniue which wee shall examine in the next ensuing Paragraph VVHETHER TOBY DID well or no in breaking the commaundement of the King of Niniâ—e concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authorities of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy §. II. AMong other examples and testimonies alleaged by me out oâ— Scripture of lawfull disobeying temporall Princes commaundements when they are vnlawfull the exaÌ„ple of Tobias that disobeyed the edict of King Senacheriâ—â— of Niniue about burying such as were slayne seemed to haue troubled most M. Barlow in this answere and so after some discussion of the matter vp and downe whether he did it openly or in secret by day or by night by stealth or contempt he maketh this conclusion Take it eyther way sayth he was his disobedience in such a cause iustifiable No. Grauely resolued as you see and Doctour-like but yet without any testimony except only his owne For first the context of the story it selfe hauing recounted the circumstances of the fact in the
put to the horne at Edenburrough 19. In another place going about to proue that the Right which the Church hath against heretikes eyther for their conuersion or chastisement is Ius innatum bred within it inseparable from it how thinke yow doth he proue the same against F. Pâ—rsons who sayd that is was Ius acquisitum Very pithily yow may imagine for thus he writeth No sooner was there a Church designed but this right was annexed Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis as the enmity for contradiction so the right for suppression is natiue Thus M. Barlow no more And is not this well proued thinke yow The seed of the woman shall bruze the serpents head that is Christ the Sonne of the Virgin shall ouercome the diueâ— ergo it is Ius innatum to punish heretikes Me thinkes this argument proues M. Barlow more to be a Naturall then any natiue right to be in the Church For what is there here to signify the Church to signify heretikes to signify this in-bred right Truly I see no more coherence betweene the Scripture and the foresaid argument then I see in this which followes Our Sauiour cured a man of the palsy ergo M. Barlow is troubled with the gout But let vs go on 20. Last of all for adding to the holy text what more euident example can be desired then that which he bringeth out of Deuteronomy to proue that bloudy artycle of the Kinges Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes Bloudy I say for that more effusion of bloud of Ecclesiasticall men hath bene made for that one point enacted by Parlament then by all the lawes of former tymes for the space of a thousand yeares togeather which yet is not only by all Catholikes denyed reiected by Caluin and the Puritans but vtterly condemned also by the Lutherans and all learned Protestants Against all which M. Barlow will needes proue by Scripture this vsurped authority saying God in his Word hath appointed Kinges to be Guardians of bâ—th the Tables to commaund prohibite not in ciuill affaires only but in matters also concerning religion saith S. Augustine and citeth Deuteron 17. 18 verse But in our bookes eyther Hebrew Greeke or Latin we fynd no such commission giuen to Kinges nor any one syllable of their being Guardians of both Tables or of any commaund in matters of Religion in this place as elsewhere by the Author of the Supplement he is more fully and roundly tould And so yow see to what desperate attempts this Minister is driuen to defend a falsity 21. Touching the last point which remayned to be treated of M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of diuinity for that it is his chief profession I shall more inlarge my self therein ioyne issue with him in one entire disputation and that not the meanest but rather the chiefest of his whole booke for in no other that I know doth he vse so many tearmes of art or make so great vauÌ„t or shew of learning courage coÌ„fidence as in the same to wit his discourse to proue a contradiction in Bellarmine concerning three Conclusions of his about Iustification and confidence to be reposed in our good workes But before I enter this combate it will not be amisse to let the Reader see some part of his skill in another matter or two that thereby he may take a scaÌ„tling of the rest 22. First then he must know that eyther M. Barlowes choice was so bad or iudgement so small that he neuer almost cyteth the Maister of Sentences S. Thomas of Aquine or other Schoolemen but that he doth commonly very ignorantly mistake them or maliciously bely them or some way or other peruert them For example he maketh S. Thomas to say That if an Vsurper or Intruder commaund thinges vnlawfull yet in those thinges the subiects must notwithstanding obey propter vitandum scandalum aut periculum and then addeth Of this Diuinity Iudge not ti 's their owne But I answere t' is M. Barlowes lye not S. Thomas his Diuinity who answering an argument that the power of many Kinges is vsurped and therefore they not to be obayed saith That a man is â—ound to obey so far forth as the order of Iustice doth require and therefore if they haue not lawfull principality but vsurped or commaund vniust thinges the subiects are not bound to obey them vnles perhaps per accidens for auoyding of scandall or daunger So S. Thomas and here is no mention of vnlawfull things commaunded but of vniust for a King may commaund things that are vniust as that his subiects giue him all the money or goodes they haue whereto for feare of daunger they may yield which they could not doe were the thing of it owne nature vnlawfull which is S. Thomas his expresse doctrine in the next precedent article neyther is there here must notwithstanding obey but the contrary that absolutely they are not bound to obey vnles perhaps it be for some other cause as of scaÌ„dall or daunger in which cases they may to saue their liues or for auoyding the hurt and offence of others doe those thinges which are vniustly commaunded theÌ„ so they be not of their owne nature vnlawfull but only in respect of the CoÌ„maunder who eyther coÌ„trary to iustice or by vsurped authority doth coÌ„maund theÌ„ 23. Of this nature is that graue resolution of his taken as he would haue it seeme from S. Thomas his scholler Medina That to full liberty is required an vnlimited scope for the iudgement to deliberate Of which he shall heare more afterwards for this vnlimited scope for the iudgmeÌ„t is no other thing theÌ„ the vnlimited ignorance of Syr William which passeth all bound measure Againe where he citeth S. Thomas touching actiue passiue scandall which is refuted in this worke at large and where he sayth very boldly but ignorantly that the said Doctour confineth al proud men within two sortes one of theÌ„ which aduance themselues aboue others the other of such which arrogate to themselues that which is aboue them and beyond their pitch which seemeth to be aboue the pitch of his skill for S. Thomas maketh 4. sortes of pride as any may see in the place cited in the margent though in the place which M. Barlow citeth I confesse there be not so many sorts specified for in his 33. question and 5. article he meÌ„tioneth none at all So as M. Barlow roues at randome and speaketh without booke and thinkes all to be well so he say somewhat true or false and make a fond florish with the citing of schoolmen Of this very stamp is his other of fatum and prouidence in denying fatum to be prouidence retorted vpon him by F. Persons in this Answere And truly if M. Barlow be wise he will if he write againe be more wary in dealing with Schoolmen and alleadging their authorities for that kind of learning far surpasseth the compasse of his shallow capacity 24.
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
appertaineth to the ancient Oath and not to this wherin nothing is demanded but Ciuil Obedience only which the Cardinal denyeth and in the very first leafe of his answere vnder the name of Torâ—â—â— ioyneth issue principally vpon that point saying Primùm â—stendâ—mus Iuramentum hoc Catholicis propositum non solum ciuilem obedientiam sed etiam Catholicae fidei abnegationem requirere We shal first proue that this later oath proposed vnto Catholicks doth not only require ciuil Obedience but abnegatioÌ„ also of Catholick faith And he proueth it by fiue or six arguments First by the words of the English Statute the title wherof is for the detecting and repressing of Papists which word of Papists importing such as stick to the Pope or defend his Supremacy maketh it euident that the Statute was not intended only against them that deny ciuill Obedience but rather the Kings Supremacy in spiritual affaires Secondly by the words of the Oath themselues that the Pope cannot by himselfe or any other or by any authority of the Church depose c. Which is some denyal of the Pope his authority and consequently not meerely only of temporal Obedience and so out of foure or fiue points more by him obserued and there set downe which as I had not seene when I wrote my Epistle before the publicatioÌ„ of the said Cardinals booke so I vsed not those arguments nor any of them but contented my selfe with one only taken out of the Cardinals words in the beginning of his Letter to M. Blackwel as sufficiently prouing the same that in it selâ—e was most cleare I said as followeth This exception against the Cardinal for mistaking the state of the cause seemeth to be most clerely refuted by the very first lynes almost of the letter it selfe For that telling M. Blackwel how sory he was vpon the report that he had taken illicitum Iuramentum an vnlawfull Oath he expoundeth presently what Oath he meaneth saying Not therâ—ore deare Brother is that Oath lawfull for that it is offeâ—â—â— sâ—â—ewhat tempered and modified c. Which is euidently meant of the new Oath of Allegiance not only tempered with diuers lawfull clauses of Ciuill Obedience as hath bene shewed but interlaced also with other members that â—each to Religion wheras the old Oath of Supremacy hath no such mixture but is plainly and simply set downe for absolute excluding the Popes Supremacy in causâ—s Ecclesiasticall for making the King supreme Head of the Church in the same causes all which is most euident by the Statutes made about the same from the 25. yeare of King Henry the 8. vnto the end of the raigne of King Edward the sixt To this declaration of myne M. Barlow is in effect as mute as a Macedonian frogge if to say nothing at al to the purpose be to be mute though words and wynd be not wanting But first to the Cardinalls six argumentes he sâ—yth neuer a word albeit he had both seene and read them as may be be presumed To my reason of the difference between the Oath of Supremacy and this of Allegiance for that this is modified and tempered with different clauses of thinges partly touching ciuil ObedieÌ„ce and partly Religion wheras the other is simply of Religion against the Popes Supremacy to this I say he answereth with this interrogation If this Oath be so modified iâ— comparison of the other why is it accounted by â—he Censurer the greatest affliction and pressure that euer befel the Catholickes Do you see what a question he maketh and how farre from the purpose My intention was and is to proue that for so much as Cardinall Bellarmine did particulerly impugne this mixt and tempered Oath therfore he did not mistake the question by impugning only the other Oath of Supremacy as was obiected there being between them this difference amongst others that the one to wit of AllegiaÌ„ce is compounded of different clauses as hath bene said partly touching ciuill Obedience and partly Religion wheras this other of Supremacy is simply of Religion This was my demonstration And to what purpose then for answere of this was brought in that other demâ—und of M. Barlow asking vs very seriously why this second Oath should be afflictiue vnto vs if it be modifyed and tempered Is there any sense in this We say for so much as it is compounded and tempered as the other is not therfore it was meant by the Cardinal and not the other M. Barlow saith if it be so tempered why doth it afflict yow We say first that this is nothing to the purpose noe more then VVhich is the way to London A poke â—ull of plummes Secondly to M. Barlowes impertinent demand we say that albeit we grant that this second Oath is modifyed and tempered yet we say not that it is moderate and temperate for a law that in substance is mild may be by some clauses or circumstances so modified that is to say framed in such manner as it may be seuere and rigorous and a thing may be tempered aswell with exasperating ingredientes as mollifying and as well with afflictiue as lenitiâ—e compounds and so is this Oath more sharpe perhaps then the other and so doth M. Barlow him selfe confesse within a few lynes after saying that this last Oath of Allegiance is more pressâ—ng pitthy and peremptorie and in all circumstâ—nces a more exact and searching touch-stone then the â—ormer of the Supremacy And yet as though we did not see nor feele this he will needs haue vs to acknowledge in the same place that this Oath is allaied tempered corrected and moderated for all these are his wordes by the variety of clauses therein contayned theron foundeth his subsequent discourse of our ingratitude in not accepting the same wheras both he and we do hold the contrary that it is more stinging as now you haue heard and that euen by his owne confession what then shall we say of this manner of M. Baâ—lowes disputing Is he fit to be a Kings ChaÌ„pion in writing But heere now by the way I must tell the Reader that in my Letter I interposed a few lines in this place for noting the different style vsed by King Henry King Edward in their Statutes concerning the Oâ—â—h of Supremacy and this othâ—r now related in the Aâ—â—logy in thesâ— wordes I. â— do vtterly tâ—stify and declare 〈…〉 that the Kingâ— Hâ—ghnes is the only Suprâ—me Gouerâ—â—◠〈◊〉 in all causes Ecclâ—siaâ—tâ—call as tempâ—rall wheras in tâ—e Sâ—tute of twenty sixt of king Henry the Eight where the Tytle of Supremacy is â—nactâ—d the wordes are these 〈…〉 â—â—â—cted by this present Parliament that the King his Heires 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cessors â—â—albe taken â—â—â—epted and repâ—tâ—d the â—nly Supâ—eme 〈…〉 earth of the Church of England and shâ—ll 〈◊〉 aâ—d â—niâ—y 〈◊〉 and vnited vnto the Imperiall Crowâ—e of this Realme asâ—â—â— the tytle and style therof as all honours dignitieâ— authorities 〈◊〉 profites and commâ—ditiâ—s 〈◊〉 the said dignityes
the power and authority of the Pope and Sea Apostolicke c. be any point belonging to religion among Catholicks then is there not only some one word but many sentences concerning Religion in the Oath What answereth M. Barlow This Epistler saith he doth impudently impugne the Oath as vtterly vnlawfull and agaynst religion which yet dependeth vpon an If and is not yet determined for a point of religion that the Pope hath any such authority ouer Kings as in the Oath is mentioned No Syr not among Catholiks for of them only I speake though you leaue it out and doe many wayes corrupt my words Will not they grant the Popes authority in such cases to be a point belonging to their Religion Doth the word If put the matter in doubt that when you say If there be a God this or that is true or false you may be said to doubt whether there be a God or no And when you say If I be a true man this is so you may be thought to doubt whether your selfe be a true man or no Do not you see that this is playne cauelling indeed and not disputing But what more You say that when I do affirme the Popes power I do not distinguish whether in Ecclesiasticall or ciuill causes but you know well inough that I haue often distinguished and so do other Catholicke Deuines that the Popes authority is directly only Ecclesiasticall and spirituall for gouerning and directing of soules to euerlasting life though indirectly for conseruation of this Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall end there is annexed also Temporall in such cases as before hath bene specified concerning temporall Princes And so this is but a shift to say that I doe not distinguish As that is also another about my answere to the second demaund of the Apologer where he demandeth whether any man that taketh the Oath doth promise to belieue or not to belieue any one article of religion contayned in the said Oath For answere wherunto I did set downe sundry clauses of the said Oath wherby it seemeth plaine that the swearer doth make such promise Now you reply with this new shift saying that I doe still beg the question in controuersy So you talke to seem to say somwhat But what is the question in controuersy Is it not whether the swearer doth make promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of religion in taking the Oath Yes And I haue proued that he doth so by diuers examples How then doe I beg the question when I do euince it by proofe You reply that these articles abiured or allowed by him that takes the Oath concerning the Popes authority are not points of â—aith but rather Machiauelismes of the Conclaue But this now is rayling and not reasoning for that a Catholike conscience houldeth the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and all poynts belonging therunto for matters appertayning to fayth Catholicisme and not to Machiauelisme which Machiauelisme agreeth much more fitly to M. Barlows assertions that depend on the pleasures of Prince State alteration of times and temporall vtilities wherof Machiauel was a great Doctour then to the simple positions of Catholikes who without these worldly respects do playnly and sincerely imbrace and belieue all such points of doctrine as the knowne Catholike Church doth deliuer vnto them as any way appertayning to the integrity of Catholike Religion Heere then M. Barlow being driuen from his refuge of my begging the question layeth hand vpon another much more ridiculous in my opinion for it is somewhat like the Sermon of the Parish Priest to his Parishioners which he deuided into three parts the one that he vnderstood and not they the other that they vnderstood and not he the third that neither of them both vnderstood and the third part seemeth to be our case now for as I confesse that I do not conceaue well what M. Barlow would say so I haue reason to suspect that himselfe also can hardly explane his owne meaning or at least wise he doth it not so here as the Reader may easily vnderstand the same His words are these This censurer is an absurd dispuâ—â—nt still to beg the Question as if these articles abiured or allowed were points of â—aith c. This you haue heard answered now there followeth the other member Or as if saith he beliefe were vsed euery where â—heologically and that a Christians beliefe should alwayes be taken for his Christian beliefe â—or there is a naturall beliefe the Obiects wherof are naturall and ciuill things such as in this Oath c. So he And did not I tell you that you should haue mysteries A Christians beliefe is not alwayes a Christian beliefe but a naturall beliefe the good man would haue holpen himself with the School-mens distinction of fides diuina fides â—umana diuine humane fayth if he could haue hit vpoÌ„ it but yet wholy from the purpose if he had found it out nay quite contrary to himselfe For I would aske what fayth or beliefe diuine or humane Christian or naturallâ— did the Apologer meane in his demaund Whether he that taketh the oath do promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of Religion Did not he meane diuine fayth or Theologicall beliefe It cannot be denied for that the obiect being articles of Religion as heere is sayd which are not belieued but by diuine fayth as they are such it followeth that in this question the Apologer maâ—e his demaund of Christian beliefe and not only of a Christians beliefe yea of Theologicall beliefe and not of naturall beliefe that is to say of humane beliefe so conforme to this his quâ—stion were the clauses of my answere I do truly and sâ—â—cerely acknowledge professe testify and declare in my conscience c. And againe I do further sweare that I do from my hart abhorre deteâ—t and abiure as impious doctrine c. And yet further I do belieue and am in conscience resolued c. And is not all this beliefe in Conscience out of Conscience and for Conscience and of things belonging to Catholike Religion to be vnderstood of Christian and Theologicall beliefe but naturall only Who would write so absurdly but M. Barlow who seemeth not to vnderstand what he writeth And that this may be better vnderstood I am mynded to say a word or two more of this matter He maketh a distinction heere as you see betweene naturall and Theologicall beliefe adding for his reason that the Obiects of naturall fayth are naturall and ciuill things and that such are the articles contained in the Oath ayming as before hath bene said at the distinction of diuine and humane faith But he is grosly deceaued in that he distinguisheth these two faiths or beliefes by their materyall obiects and things belieued contrary to the generall consent of all Philosophers and Deuines who do hould that oâ—â—es actus specificantur ab obiectis formalibus that all acts are
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
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
conscience at all in that place but only assigneth the same as a thing necessarily requyred to the end and perfection of the Law For the wordes of the Apostle are these Finis prâ—cepti est charitas de corde puro conscientia bona fide non ficta The end of the coÌ„mandement or law is charity out of a pure hart a good conscience faith not fayned Which is no description of a good conscience as you see but of the end perfection of thâ— law which is Charity according to that which in another place the same Apostle sayth Pleâ—itudo legis Charitas the fullnes or fulfilling of the Law is charity But here he describeth more at large what manner of charity it must be to wit proceding out of a pure hart as also out of a good conscience which â—â—geâ—â—â—â—â— hope and out of vnfayned fayth So as here trâ—e charity 〈◊〉 described and not a good conscience which iâ— named â—â—â—ly as a condition needfully required to the fulfilling of the Law and not described as M. Barlow falsely affâ—â—â—â—â—â— For if a thing be described that hath many parts of 〈◊〉 requiâ—ed to the complement thereof it were very◠〈◊〉 to say that euery one of the said parts or parcels it described therby or that the said description may be ascribed 〈◊〉 euery one of them As if a man should describe a Knight or a Captaine that is to go to the wars what â—â—â—â—iâ—ure iâ— required to wit a horse sâ—ddle speare armour and the like it cannot be said that a horse is here described or a saddle or a speare but only the Knight himself who hath need of all these thinges So as in this M. Barlow is found 〈◊〉 haue peruerted the whole text and meaniâ—g of S. Paul There remaineth then his conclusion that for so much as Hereticks and Schismatickes also doe plead conscience for their standing out and that there is no one article in the Oath offered that can be proued to be contrary to a good conscience and true Christian religion therefore standeth the Apologers conclusion incoÌ„trollable still That the Pope hath prohibited English Catholikes to performe euen ciuill obedience to their Soueraigne But all this hath beene now answered by that which hath beene treated before for that Shiâ—matikes and Heretikes though they be â—ound both to informe reforme their consciences that be erroneous yet so long as that repugnaÌ„cy indureth they should sinne in doing contrary to the dictamen therof And as for the articles in the Oath that are contrary to Englisâ— Catholikes consciences and to theyr religion they are so many as do any way impeach or preiudice their religion which are the most part in the Oath as is knowne Neyther must M. Barlow run to this ordinary shift and say as he is wont that their consciences are not well cleansedâ— and that their religion is not true Christian Religion therefore they ought not to haue scruple in sweatingâ— for that now it hath been shewed that it is sufficient for binding them from swearing that their conscyences doe tell them the contrary which conscience to them doth appear good and their religion true in which respect the Pope that is of the same conscience and Religion hath defined it to be vnlawfull vnto them to sweare against this their coÌ„science and religion so long as it standeth as it doth And therefore if M. Barlow will haue them sweare without sinne in this case he must first make them Protestants and so giue them a new conscience and new religion for in that they haue they cannot doe it albeit for temporall obedience they offer all that may be exacted at their hands by any law of Christian subiection to their temporall soueraigne And this much may be sufficient for discussing of this point Whether subiects may or must obey their Princes when they command things against their consciences which in my Letter I denyed And whereas the Apologer did alleadg dyuers authorities out of Scriptures Fathers and Councels to proue the obedience of Subiects to theyr Princes not only Christian but also Infidels as to king Nabuchodonosor of Babylon to king Pharao of Egypt King Cyrus of Persia my answer then was this He alledgeth for examples out of the Scriptures that the children of Israel obeyed the King of Babylon as also they exhibited temporall Obedience vnto King Pharao of Egypt as in like manner to Cyrus King of Persia All which examples we grant to be true and could add many more both of the Iewes and Christians that lyued peaceably vnder Infidell Princes in those dayes But let one example as I said be brought forth wherin they obeyed them in points contrarie to their Conscience or Religion and it shall be sufficient We read in the Prophesie of Danielâ— that those three famous Iewes Sidrach Misach and Abdenago were most trustie vnto King Nabuchodonosor in temporall affayres and so much esteemed by him as he made them his vniuersall Gouernors ouer all the workes of the Religion of Babylon saith the Scripture and yet when it came to the poynt that he would haue them for his honour and pleasure and vpon his commandement adore the golden Statua which he had set vp they forsooke him flatly and said to him in the presence of all his Nobility assembled togeather that they were not so much as to answere him in that Commandement not would they do as he had appoynted them The like in effect did the ancienter Iewes do with King Pharao of Egypt for that albeit in temporall affayres they obeyed him euen in that tyme when he oppressed and persecuted them most yet in that he would haue had them stay and sacrifice in Egypt and not follow Moyses their Spiritual Superiour into the desert notwithstaÌ„ding that the King had some cause perhaps to suspect their temporall Allegiance also by that departure they being a potent multitude of people yet would they not obey him nor do as he would haue them when they persuaded themselues that God would haue the contrary I let passe how Daniel and his fellowes would not eate the meates of the King of Babylon nor Tobie those of the Assyrians much lesse would he leaue of to bury the dead though it were forbidden by Proclamation vnder payne of death The Machabees in like manner obeyed King Antiochus so long as he commanded nothing against their Law and Conscience but when he went about to force them to sacrifice and to eate swynes-flesh and other things against their Law and Conscience they refused openly to performe that Obedience So as these places of Scriptures alledged by the Apologer do proue nothing for him at all but are rather flat against him and for vs as yow haue seene Thus I wrote then now let vs see how M. Barlow ouerthroweth it First as concerning the 3. Pagan Kings Pharao Cyrus and Nabuchodonosor wherof I sayd the Iewes obedience vnto them was in temporall matters only
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
But let vs heare some reason of his VVhat insolency sayth he is this to compare Popes with Kings subiectes with superiours for euen Preists as well as others are subiect to their soueraignes by Chrysostoms rule And so say we also Syr in temporall affaires belonging to the Comon wealth But how doth this inference of yours hould Priests are subiect vnto temporall Princes that are their Soueraignes therefore also Popes Is there no difference And for that you name S. Chrysostome in this matter and call it an insolency to compare Kings with Popes I would demaund of you whether you euer read S. Chrysostome de comparatione Regis Monachi of the comparyson of a King and a Monke as also his other Books de Sacerdotio And if you haue and vnderstood what you read then will you haue seene that S. Chrysostome preferred â—he dignity of both the one and the other Monke and Priest before the dignity of a King And Cardinall Bellarminâ— last booke and third Chapter doth alledge so much about this matter as maketh it sufficiently cleere without any derogation of Princely authority at all AN EXAMINATION OF CERTAâ—NE â—ENTENCES AND AVTHORâ—TIES of ancient Fathers alleadged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Letter to M. Blackwell and impugned by M. Barlow CHAP. VI. AMONG other points that were impugned out of Cardinall Bellarmines Letter were certaine sentences examples and authorities of ancient Fathers about the Oath And first of all was the comparison of the subtill art and deceipt said I vsed by Iulian the Emperour surnamed the Apostata and recounted by S. Gregorie Nazianzen in placing and inserting the Images of his false Gods into the pictures of the Emperour in his Imperiall banner so as no man could bow downe and do reuerence to the Emperours picture as then was the custome but that he must adore also the Images of the false Gods which art of temâ—erament the Cardinall doth compare vnto this mixture and combination of clauses lawfull and vnlawfull ciuill and ecclesiasticall in the Oath proposed so as a man cannot sweare the one but he must sweare also the other for which cause I said in my Letter that the whole Oath with all the clauses as it lyeth in which sense it hath bin also forbidden by his Holynes cannot in any wise be taken although touching some one only clause not only cyuill but also ecclesiasticall as for example of the Popes authority of charity I might thinke as then I wrote that the Priests who tooke the Oath tooke it in some such sense as being explycated by them and accepted of the Magistrate might stand with the integrity of fayth And that the sense of the sayd clause might be agreed vpon betwene his Maiesty and his subiects in such sort as it should agree with the opinion and practise of all other Catholicke Princes But the whole Oath as it lyeth is no other then the picture of the Emperour togeather with the Images of false Gods Which similitude and comparison though it expresse most fitly as it seemeth the matter in hand yet was it impugned by seeking out dissimilitudes disparities in other pointes then wherein was made the sayd comparison As for example that first Iulian was an Apostata but our Soueraigne is a Christian Iulian changed the religion he once professed but our King not Iulian became an Ethnick or Atheist our King is not ashamed of his profession Iulian dealt against Christians his Maiesty dealeth only to make a distinction betweene true subiects and false harted traytors c. And so he goeth forward alleadging many sundry diuersityes betwene man and man thing and things state states which I said is nothing to our purpose For a similitude requireth not likenes or parity in all poyntes for then it should be idem and not simile but liknes only in the point wherin the comparison is made as here in the compounding and couching togeather of lawfull and vnlawfull clâ—uses in the oath as the other did Images in his banner for that other wise if we will stand vpon seeking out differences between the things that are compared other things wherein the comparison is not made and thereby condemne the similitude we shall ouerthrow all similitudes whatsoeuer and particulerly we shall eneruate make voide all the Parables coÌ„monly of our Sauiour wherin if we go from the point it self that is compared we may find â—or the most part more dissimilitudes then simâ—litudes As for example Be yee â—ise as serpentes and simple as doues what enemy of Christian religion might not cauill and calumniate this similitude by seeking out diuersities betwene a serpent and a man and betwene the malicious craft of the serpent and the true wisdome that ought to be in a prudent man and the like in the nature and simplicity of doues many dissimilitudes may be sought but it is sufficient that the similitude do hould in the poynt wherein the comparison was made which is that Christians shoâ—ld be both wise and simple as are serpents and doues and imitate both the wisdome of the one and simplicity of the other so far forth as is conuenient for a Christian life which S. Paul doth afterward expound how far it must reach when he sayth Volo vos sapientes esse in bono simplices in malo I would haue you to be wise in good and simple in â—uill This then being my declaration of that similitude out commeth M. Barlow as it were with his dagger drawne in great heate to incounter the same casting vpon me all kind of reproach and by his ordinary scurrility calling me Salomons loathsome creature to wit a spuing dog resuming the eiection which he had once auoyded such is the modestie and ciuilytie of this new Prelate But why doth he shew himself so enraged You must imagine he is in some straits to answer the former discourse but yet must needs set vpon it well or ill Let vs se how he performeth it All the Censurers speach sayth this Minister commeth to this profound conclusion that a similitude must only hould in that poynt wherein it is compared because that if the comparison should hould in all it were pentity and not resemblance Which doctrine of myne he seemeth to allow and replieth not but yet to seeme to say somewhat and not syt out he passeth to another discourse that in foure manners comparisons mâ—y be made eyther in the nature of the thing or in the disposition when some affection is resembled or when a passion or perturbation is assimilated or when the action only is compared without circumstances which are obscure things without ground at all and as well may foureteene poyntes of comparisons be found out as foure to wit so many as there may be differences betwene things that be compared and therefore we recall M. Barlow from these idle euagations to the point it self And for so much as he now graunteth that things compared