during the time of the three King Henries 4. 5. and 6. and afterward when those that were called Lâ—llards and Wickelissians who as M. Fox saith were indeed good Protestants being pressed some what about their Religion did continually beate vpon this argument of libertie of Conscience and when they obteyned it not they set vâ— publicke schedles vpon the Church dores of London anâ— made â—hose famous conspiracyes of killing K. Henry the 5 d and all his family which are recounted by VVatsingham Stow Fox and other English Historiographers In this our age also the first opposition of Protestant Princes in Germanie against their Emperour Charles the 5. both at Smalcald Austburgh and other meetings as afterwards also the fierce and perilous warrs by the Duke of Saxony Marques of Brandeburge and other Protestant Princes and their people against the same Emperour begunne in the very same yeare that our K. Henry dyed were they not all for liberty of Conscience so pretended so printed so published so diuulged to the world The first Supplications Memorials and Declarations in like manner which the Protestants of France set forth in printâ— as also they of Holland Zeland in tyme of the gouernments as well of the Duchesse of Parma Duke of Alua Commendaâ—or Major and other Gouernours did they not all expresly professe that their principall griefes were about liberty of Conscience restrayned And did not they cyte many places of Scriptures to proue the equity necessity therof And do not all Protestants the like at this day in all places where they are both in Polonia Austria Bohemia Styria and els where And how then is Iordanis conuersus retrâ—rsâ—m with this Minister How is his voyce contrary to the voyce sense of all the rest How with what reason may he call it the height of pryde in English Catholicks to haue but hope therof which is so ordinary a doctrine practice of all his brethren in forraine nations to wit for vs to expect liberty of Conscience at the first entrance of our new King of so noble and royall a mynd before that tyme as he was neuer knowne to be giuen to cruelty or persecution in his former raigne The Sonne of such a Mother as held her selfe much beholden to English Catholicks And himselfe in his litle Golden Booke to his Sonne the Prince had confessed that he had euer found the Catholicke party most trusty vnto him and therupon had done sundry â—auours to diuers of them and giuen no small hope of greater vnto others From this King I say whom they so much loued and honoured receyued so gladly and with vniuersall ioy meant to serue faithfully trusted that as he had vnited the two Kingdomes in one Obedience by his Succession so would he by his liberality vnite and conioyne the harts of all his Subiects in bearing a sweet and equall hand towards them all From such a King I say for vs to expect liberty of Conscience and equality with other Subiects in this poynt at least of freedome of soule what height of pryde may it be called May it not rather seeme height of pryde in this Minister his fellowes that hauing byn old enemyes and alwayes borne a hard hatefull hand and tongue against his Maiestiâ— both in their Sermons Bookes Speaches all the tyme of the late Queenes raigne now vpon the suddayne sine vllis meritis praecedentibus will needs be so priuiledged assume vnto themselues such a confident presumption of his Maiesties speciall fauour as to suffer no man to stand by them but to hold it for height of pryde in vs to hope for any freedome and liberty of our Conscience at all What is height of pryde and folly if this be not These are my words in my former booke and now let vs behould what M. Barlow layeth forth agaynst the same First he beginneth with a pull at the Purytans though I neither named nor designed them but only sayd as now your haue heard that generally all sorts of Protestants neuer so humble or far of from height of pryde in theyr owne conceipt doe allow and desyre yea the more humble and vnderlinges they are the more earnest they insist both by bookes speach and preaching to proue that liberty of conscience is most conforme to Gods law c. Wherupon M. Barlow maketh this comment that by vnderlinge Protestantes I do meane them that doe seuer themselues from him and hiâ— in matter of ceremony and Church-gouerment who are not vnderlings sayth he because they are humble for that pryde only keepeth them aloofe It is not the inferiour place sayth he or the deiected vysage or the soft voyce or dislike of Prelacy that doth denominate humility And these are the notes belike that doe distinguish Puritans from the Protestants to wit the inâ—eriour place the deiected â—isage the soft speach dislike of Prelacy But yet I cannot but wonder to see him twice in this place to repeate that the difference betweene these brethren and themâ—eluesâ— is only in matters of Ceremony differing sayth he only in matters ceremoniall though before he added also Church-gouernment Whereby is euydent that he houldeth theyr Church-gouernment and Prelacy matter of ceremony only and consequently also his owne Prelacy and his being a Bishop is but a meere Ceremony and no substantiall matter in their Religion Now then let vs see what ensueth vpon this and what honour and seruice M. Barlow doth to his whole Cleargy and namely to his old Maister and Lord of Caâ—terbury by this his new doctrine Is all the dignity and preheminence which his sayd Lord hath aboue all the Ministers in England his superiority ouer the Cleargy his being Archbishop Primate his spirituall Iurisdiction his Courtes of the Arches his power of dispensations his making Ministers and giuing them power to preach â—each administer SacrameÌ„ts Is all this but a ceremony Or do the Puritans in denying and impugning this impugne but a ceremony and no poynt of Religion it selfe Truely then must I say that their cause against you is far better then I euer hitherto esteemed it to be For if all these thinges be but ceremonies and contayne no substaÌ„tiall poynt of religion why do you that in other things professe your selues enemies to Ceremonies stand so much vpon them to the disturbance of the whole Realme But of this I shall haue occasion to speake againe a little after and to lay open your absurdities in this euaâ—ion Now only will I say a word to your argumeÌ„t which heere you make against vs for toleration or liberty of coÌ„scienceâ— If tâ—ese humble vnderlings say you dwelling amongst 〈◊〉 â—â—â—d differing only from vs in matters ceremoniall are not heard in their suite of liberty of conscience how much lesse those who in poyntes essentiall and fundamentall are seuered from vs may not be tolerated Wherunto I answere that if we respect reason and iustice in
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.
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
Iesus that in euery kingdome that receaueth the Ghospell there should be one Archbishop ouer the whole kingdome one Bishop ouer many hundred Pastors in a kingdome and all they inuested with that authority and iurisdiction Apostolicall which they clayme iure diuino to be due `vnto them by the ordinance of Christ certainly that Church which should renounce and disclayme such an authority ordayned in the Church cannot be a true Church but the Synagogue of Sathan for they that should renounce and deny such must needs therin renounce and deny Christ himself Thus the assumption is cleared So the Author 34. To which argument as the Catholicks for true Bishops will willingly graunt the sequeleâ— that the Church of the Puritans is no Church but a Synagogue of Sathan for that it wanteth themâ— so I see not what Mâ— Barlow and his Protestants can reply thereuntoâ— for if Episcopall authority be diuinoâ— then cell of Rome condemned the same togeather with the Author therof So these Lutherans But with our beggarly English Protestants all is fish that coÌ„meth to the neâ—â— and of these outcast raggs they must patch vp a Church or els confesse that before Luther they haue none to whome they can accrew 39. And truly it is a pittifull thing to see what raggs some of them are not ashamed to gather vp what Hereticks I say they will professe to ioyne withall in opinions most brutish and blasphemous deuided amongst themselues and discarded by the more learned Protestants that the Reader may well with the Poâ—t demaund quid sequar aut quem For M. Symons draweth in Petrús Abilardus who though he died a repentant Catholicke and a religious Monk of the Abbey of Cluny in France which singuler grace I find only graunted by Almighty God to no other Sect. Maisters but Berengarius him yet whiles he liued in error he maintayned that Christ tooke not flesh to redeeme mankind that he had two persons that he was not God and the like Doth not this man stoope low for help thinke you Againe he togeather with M. Fox admitteth for brethren the beastly and barbarous Albigenses who had their beginning as Massonius writeth from one Henry Bruis of whom and whose filthy life S. Bernard maketh mention And these were so far of from being Ghospellers as they could not endure the Ghospell it self which hauing first most villainously abused at the siege of 〈◊〉 they cast it ouer the Walls towards the Catholike Army shooting many arrowes after it and crying aloud vnto the Souldiers ecce lex vestra miseri behould o miserable men your law or as Matthew Paris relateth it sitâ— behould your law we care not for it take it to your selues I omit their execrable blasphemies against our Bl. Sauiour himself S. Mary Magdalen not to offend Christian eares therwith for which our Sauiour seemed to take reuenge vpon them on the feast and in the Church of the same Saint where 7000. of them were slaine as saith Massaeus or many more as Heisterbachius who then liued Now what greater discredit can there be to the Protestants and their cause then then to rake Hell and make Saints of these damned soules enemies of all piety most seditious and rebellious spirits But to proceed 40. To these by M. Buckley Fox Abbotts others are adioyned the Waldenses whom they will haue to be but schollers or rather followers of the former but this following is only in tyme not in doctrine if we well consider what most authors write of them both and M. Fox is not ashamed to draw into his den fanatical Almericke making him for more credit of a Priest a Byshop But M. Iewell with one blast bloweth away all these clouted patches of this beggarly Church saying thus Of Abilard and Almerick and certaine other your strange names M. Harding meaneth Apostolicks Petrobusians Waldâ—nses Albigenses Image-breakers we haue no skill they are none of ours So he ouerthrowing in few words all M. Fox his laborious endeauours to make them Saints Martyrs true Ghospellers so well do these men agree among themselâ—es in buylding vp the babylonicall tower of their new deuised and confused Synagogue one denying what another graunteth yea one and the selfe same man fighting with himself saying vnsaying affirming and denying For in the very tenth page of that defence M. Iewell writeth As for Iohn Wickliff Iohn Husse Waldo and the rest they were godly men their greatest heresy was this that they complayned of the dissolute and vitious liues of the Clergy c. 41. Lo here Waldo is a godly man without error in doctrine yet of his followers M. Iewell hath no skil they are none of his Whereas notwithstanding you may be sure the schollers agreed in all things with their maisters Which of these two M. Iewell wil you beleeue Truely as for the godlines of Waldo I find no great record so neither will M. Iewell be able to shew wherin he disagreed from the Waldensians who as Guido the Carmelite writeth did hold amongest diuers other things which I pretermit that no man might iudge another for life and death because it is written nolite iudicare Iudge you not That Lay-men had authority giuen them from Almighty God to heare Confessions and absolue from sinnes That all carnall copulation when men are tempted therunto is lawfull They contemned the Apostles Creed and would haue Masse said but once in the yeare to wit on Maunday-Thursday by saying seauen Pater Nosters and blessing the bread and wine c. This and much more was the godly doctrine of M. Iewells Doctor Waldo whose learning was equall to his vertue for he could scant as most Authors affirme either write or read But I meane no further to prosecute this argument of which who listeth to read more may peruse what Coccius the Author of the Protestants Apology F. Persons in the last part of his three Conuersions haue written hereof and he will rest satisfied Now I come to examin M. Barlowes disputation what skill of Diuinity he sheweth in the same 42. He entreth into the list with great courage tells the Reader that F. Persons standeth ouer the Cardinall as if he were gasping for breath vnder the blow he hath receaued for his contradictions and makes the Father as a Chirurgion of the camp to cure three or foure of them which M. Barlow will needs lance againe and cut as he thinketh to the quick but vseth such dull instruments that so weakely as he doth neither cut nor bruze though much he labour to do his best and after some ten pages spent in idle babling lying and ignorant disputing like a victorious conquerour in the end excusing himself for the length of his discourse by reason that F. Persons did set vp saith he his crest and rest vpon it that if in this there be any contradiction he will yield that the Apologer hath not ouerlashed in
gradum habent illa quae tot signis coniecturis nituntur vt securum hominem reddant anxietatem excludant non tamen formidinem omnem expellant aâ—que haec dicitur certitudo coniecturalis opinionis est poâ—iùs 〈◊〉 fidei That is these things haue the last degree of certainty which are grounded on so many signes and coniectures that they make a man secure exclude all anxiety though they expell not all feare and this is called coniecturall certainty it is rather to be termed the certainty of opinion then the certainty of faith So Bâ—llarmyne And by this coniecturaâ—l certainty I assure my self that M. Barlow vnderstandeth not the thing wherof now he disputeth but shooâ—eth wyde of the marke in mistaking the very termes of the question and then fighting with his owne fiction as if it were indeed his aduersaries positiue assertion for Bellarmyne disputing against the hereticall opinion of these dayes which is that a man must be certayn certitudine fidei cui non potest subesse falsum that he is in the state of grace still taketh the word certainty or vncertainty in this sense for so he seteth downe the state of the Question in the end of his second chapter Status igitur quaestionis c. Wherfore the state of the question if it be set downe without deceipt ambâ—guity must be this whether a man without speciall râ—uelation ought or may be certaine with the certainty of faith which excludes all falsity that his sinnes are forgiuen him So heâ— Plainly declaring of what certainty he speaketh to wit of that which of all others is the greatest and most infallible 48. Which being supposed let vs examine how well to the purpose M. Barlow talketh of vncertainty when he sayth but in vncertainty there is no comfort Where if he take the word vncertainty as it excludeth all certainty it is true but then he abuseth the Reader for Bâ—llarmyne taketh it not so but supposeth proueth the contrary if he take it as it is a deniall only of the certainty of faith then it is most false for it may haue other certainty sufficient to yield comfort though it haue not this yea confidence as it is hope cannot possibly stand with that absolute certainty For who can be said to hope for that which he is certayn to haue Or were it not a ridiculous manner of speach to say that the soules of the Saints in heauen hope for the resurrectioÌ„ of their bodyes which infallibly they know shal be restored reunited againe vnto theÌ„ Or that we hope that God will iudge both the wicked iust punishing the first with endles torments and rewarding the other with euerlasting felicity Well may the Saints be sayd to expect their bodyes and we the iudgment but neyther the one nor the other by reason of their vndoubted certainty can be hoped for as is euident 49. And whereas M. Barlow saith that reliancâ— on that whereof a man â—oubts causeth rather a feare to be deceaued then a confidâ—nce to be relieued is far from the purpose a new changing of the terme For who saith that a man doubteth of his iustice or righteousnes Bellarmyme expresly denyeth it and saith that the morall certainty that a man hath of his merits or iustification is so great that although it take not away all feare yet doth it exclude all anxiety and wauering yea doubting also if he may be sayd to doubt who assenteth to neyther part So he Which may be made more cleere by the example of S. Paul debet in spe qui arat arare he that tilleth the ground must till it in hope that is hope that the ground tilled will bring forth fruit and he who thus hopeth is neyther certayn that he shall reape the fruite for then he would not hope the same it may so fall out as that he may reape none at all neyther yet is he doubtfull whether he shall or shall not for he hopeth that he shall and for that he hath many reasons and so assenteth to the affirmitiue part or els he would neuer haue sowen as likewise doth the sayler on the seas for if he were as doubtfull of drowning as ariuing vnto the port he sayleth to he would neuer I thinke aduenture to passe them ouer And whether this morall certainty which both sowers and saylers haue be not sufficient to yield them rather confidence to be relieued then a feare to be deceaued needeth no other proofe then the common practice custome which in the one and in the other we daily behold From this argument M. Barlow with like good fortune proceedeth to another thus 50. This also saith he crosseth the very next precedent proposition that some confidence may be reposed in our owne righteousnes and good workes if men be assured that they be good workes But by this proposition in hand it seemes none can be assured If they may why doth he â—al it incertitudineÌ„ iustitiae nostrae the vncertainty of oâ—â— righteousnes If they may not whâ—re then is their câ—nfidâ—nce or how mâ—y they settle it If some may and others not he should haue described and distinguished them or els that foregoing proposition might well haue bene sparedâ— which afâ—oards little vse and lesse comfort and in that regard is directly opposite to this last which is full of confidence and consolation Hitherto M. Barlow fighting like a blind man with his face turned from his aduersary and then florishing in the ayre where all his dry blowes do but beat against the wynd and touch not Bâ—llarmine at allâ— whose words had he seene and vnderstood he would neuer I thinke haue framed this idle conceipt For what contradiction is there I pray you betweene these two propositions some confidence may be reposed in our good workes so that by morall coniecturall certainty we know them to be such and this other for that if we speake of the certaynty of faith which can be subiect to no falsity we are vncertain whether our workes be meritorious or not and therefore in respect thereof as also to auoyd pride is is best to repose all our confidence in the mercy and bountifulnes of Almighty God Truly no more then is in this other They that thinke themselues morally assured of M. Barlows fidelity may repose some confidence in him but because this their assurance is not so great but that they may be deceaued as he deceaued his maister the Earle of Essâ—x who reposed so much confidence in him by proclayming out of the pulpit at Paules Crosse those things which the other before his death for the quieting of his conscience had disclosed vnto him in secret therefore it is best to let him alone and trust to Almighty God of whose fidelity no man can haue any cause to feare or doubt 51. By which is easily answered the foresaid argument the force whereof resteth vpon these contradictory
offered to the words and meaning of the Breue euery simple Reader will see without any explycation from me For that the Pope doth not prohibite naturall obedience in things lawfull nor doth say that such naturall or ciuill obedience is opposite to faith or saluation of soules nor that the oath is vnlawfull for exhibiting such naturall or ciuill obedience but for that besides this exaction of naturall obedience which is lawfull it conteyneth diuers other points also concerning matters of Catholicke religion c. Let the Reader compare them with those which in the Fathers name M. Barlow hath giuen vs he shal soone see how well wheÌ„ he is disposed to rayle he can forge a text to befit his argumeÌ„t what coÌ„science he maketh to abuse his Reader or slaunder his Aduersary 128. Another notorious forgery he vseth in cutting away of words when he is so conuinced by them as he cannot reply For proofe that Henry the fourth Emperour was taken out of his graue the day after his buriall by the Popes commaundment M. Barlâ—w will needs bring a clowd of witnesses which F. Persons hath so dispersed as that all the thunder and lightning will fall on M. Barlows owne head For the Emperour dying at Liege where he was besiâ—ged by the yong Emperour his sonne and being vnburied againe the next day after his buriall how could the Pope procure it to be done Belike they dispatched M. Barlows Cut-speed the poast who in one night went from Liege to Rome 800. myles and returned againe ere morning But least that this should be espied M. Barlow out of his Authors pareth away the word pridie the day before and then leaues the tyme indeterminate in them all as it may by his cyting theÌ„ as well seeme to haue byn done a yeare as a day before for which matter I refer him to the discussion it self where this in due place is more largely handled 129. I will end with one place more wherewith the forgery is ioyned also incredible impudency as the Author of the Supplement doth more fully handle and cleerly euince against him Yow haue before heard M. Barlows bould assertion touching vnity of names about a place obiected out of S. Leo saying that S. Peter was assumpted in coÌ„sortium indiuiduae vnitatis which F. Persons sayd was answered long since by M. Harding to be meant of vnity of Name What saith M. Barlow hereunto Speake in sooth honest censurer saith he is vnity of names Hardings owne distinction in answere to Bishop Iewelâ— Himself denieth it for M. Harding saith that Leo meaÌ„t therby an vnitie in Quality an vnity in grace an vnity that is proper to Christ himself and mentionâ—th no vnity of NAME for though he were a corrupt Doctor yet was he a better Dâ—uine then to speake so absurdly as Persons would heer make him Is not this very confideÌ„tly spoken thinke you And yet the Reader must know that in this very place which M. Barlow himelf cyteth in the margent punctually setting downe the leaff in this very leasse I say after the words of M. Barlow of vnity of quallity vnity of grace he addeth againe and againe vnity of name neuer saith an vnity that is proper to Christ himself And what then will you say to the brazen forhead of this shameles man affirming that D. Harding mentioneth no vnity â—f Name yea that himself dâ—nyeth iâ— Againe that he saith an Vnity that is proper to Christ himsâ—lâ— Truly I cannot heere but thinke of a sentence of S. Augustine which he wrote against one vsing far lesse impudency then this that if M. Barlow proceed on in this manner puto quod ipsum libri sui atramâ—ntunm erubescendo conuertetur in minium I thinke the very inke of his booke with blushing will become vâ—rmilâ—ion I add no other examples of this perfidious dealing yet if M. Barlow list to see them he shall find good store in the last chapter of the Supplement to the which I remit him 130. By these euictions gentle Reader that I may heere conclude all this matter of M. Barlows ignorance Grammaticall Historicall Scripturall Theologicall of his lying sycophancy rayling fooleries and forgeries of his bad diâ—puting Thrasonicall vauÌ„ting and other impertinencyes and misdemeanour in writing thow maiest without further proofe be able of thy self to iudge how vnfit a Sparthan he was to enter this combat how true the Censure is which before I gaue of him and of his booke which the more I consider the more I admire eyther how he was chosen to vvrite being so vveake or his writing suffered to passe with so sleight suruiew and with the Apostle to say Sic non erat inter vos sapiens c. is your Ministery so bare and Deuinity so barren that no more learned man then this ignorant and shameles Superintendent could be found to defend his Maiesty or write in this controuersy Or is your cause become now so desperate as that the weaknes and wickednes therof enforceth you to these hard shifts and disgracefull attempts Yf it be the truth you seeke why vse you so many and so manifest lyes If the controuersy yâ—â— handle belong to fayth or good life what needeth so frauduleÌ„t so faithles persidious dealing If all Authors staÌ„d for you why do you corrupt their words peruert their meaning If the Aduersary you answer be so weake as you make him at least let him speake in his owne words and then will your refutation in that respect carry with it the more credit Say not that which you cannot proue meddle not with that which you doe not vnderstand forge not accusations and then take the aduantage of your owne fictions deale like ChristiaÌ„s deale like Deuines if you haue any Diuinity at all amongst you let things be handled as their nature require as it becomes the person of the writer as is best for the Readers direction for finding the truth in case the iniquity of your cause and weaknes of your ability can beare it and then we will not complaine but setting aside all personall reproaches to which this Minister aboue his fellowes is more subiect insist only vpon the cause in controuersy vt res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum ratione concertet 131. This course had M. Barlow or could he haue holden we should not haue had so many ouersights so grosse and childish ignorance such lewd railing such sycophancy so many words so little matter so much chaffe without all substance so huge a heape of vntruthes so great brags so weake proofes and is fine we should haue found some Diuinity besides Erasmus Chiliads Martialls Epigrams and other Poets for of such pedling and pelting stuff is his whole booke composed we should not haue seene such false citations such mistaking and corrupting of Authors such straÌ„ge and vnchristian assertions and other misdemeanours of which I haue laied forth some examples but haue left
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
for the last which is heresie he hath brought in two such Authours and authorities against himselfe as in the whole ranke of antiquitie he could not find 〈◊〉 two more fit and forcible to conuince him and his of Heresie and consequently also as himselfe inferreth of more griâ—uous and damnable Idolatry And he would not haue brought them in to the purpose he doth if he had vel micam salu any the least part of prudeÌ„ce For if I should by the occasion of these two Fathers here brought iâ— frame a Syllogisme against M. Barlow his religion taking the maior proposition out of these wordes here set downe and adding the minor out of these two Fathers most manifest assertions he would neuer be able to auoyd the conclusion and if he can I doe prouoke him to the triall The maior proposition is this according to S. Aâ—guâ—â—â—â—â— and Vincentius Lyrineâ—sis that liued not long the one after the other Heresy is Idolatry and heretickes are Idolatours yea the basest kinde of Idolatours that do woâ—ship the fancies of their owne braynes This propositioâ— is here brought in and grâ—unted by M. Barlow as trueâ— and auouched by these two anâ—ient Fathers the minorâ— doe adde and doe offer to proue which is this But according to the iudgement and writing of these two Fathers concerning the nature and property of heresy and heretickes M. Barlowes religion if it be the Protestants is conuinced to be heresy and the professors thereof heretickes Ergo also they are Idolatours and of the basest kinde of Idolatours and damnably worship the fancies of their owne braynes This Syllogisme consisting of M. Barl. his maior my minor the conclusion following of them both I could wish he would coÌ„sider wel And for so much as I know he wil deny the minor I do offer to ioine issue with him vpon that point only if he please reducing all our combate begun betweene him and me to this important question much more profitable to the Reader then these wranglings wherin wee are now conuersant Whether according to the doctrine and iudgement of S. Augustine and Vincenâ—ius Lyrinensis coÌ„cerning heresyâ— Protestants or RomaÌ„ Catholickes be truly Hereticks Let vs lay all other quarrels I say aside and handle only this graue and weighty Controuersy if he hath so much confidence in his cause in the doctrine of these two Fathers But for so much as I do imagine that M. Barlow will pause a greate while and consult before he accept of this offer and perhaps expect vntill the designed new Colledge of Protestant VVriters be vp at Chelsey or els where I will in the meane space inuite the Reader to study and make familiar vnto himselfe the two aforenamed Authors about this point of heresie and hereticks And as for Vincentius Lyrinensis it wil be easie for that it is but a little booke though weighty in substance and it is printed both seuerally and togeather with Tertullian his excellent booke of Prescriptions against Hereticks both of his and these our dayes yea illustrated also with diuers short notes and Commentaries both of Ioannes Costerus and of Iâ—stus Baronius a learned man and Counsellour to the Arch-bishop Electour of Meâ—tz conuerted from Protestant Religion principally by reading and pondering that goulden Treatise of the sayd Vincentius The other Authour S. Augustine is far more large and difficult to be studied throughly in respect of the multitude of his workes but there is a collection made of them into foure bookes by a learned man of our time with the title of Confessio Augustiniana wherin is gathered the iudgement of S. Augustine about all the controuersies of our time which he hath handled in his workes so many hundred yeares agoe before the new names of Protestants or Papists were euer heard of and to the diligent reading of this Booke I would exhort all indifferent men that haue care of their soules and vnderstand the latin tongue For that S. Augustine being the man he was both in learning and sanctity and so speciall a Pillar of Christ his Church in his dayes which was about foure hundred yeares after Christ when yet the true Catholike Church is granted to haue flourished it followeth that what doctrine he held for true and Catholike in his time must also be now what held to be heresy we may also boldly hold the same and what rules he gaue to know and descry the one or the other may serue vs now to the same end I will not set downe any particuler places in this Epitome of S. Aâ—gusâ—iâ—â— for the Reader to repaire vnto aboue others for they are clearly propounded in the beginning of the worke and reduced vnto seuerall heads and Chapters But if M. Baâ—low or any of his shal be content to ioine with me vpon the issue before mentioned we shall haue occasion to examine the worke more exactly And this hath bene spoken by occasion of M. Barlowes answer once for all about Catholikes vexed consciences with feare as he termeth theÌ„ which full wisely he will haue to proceed of Idolatry superstition heresy as you haue heard but sayth nothing of inforcemeÌ„t of their consciences by penal lawes though that be the only matter in questioÌ„ But it may be he will say somewhat therof in his second resolution about this matter for this is but his first let vs heare him then further if you please Againe saith he where the mind hath no certayne stay for â—eâ— vltima resolutio in matters and cases of faith conscience there must necessarily follow a miserable vexaâ—ion which is the case of thâ—se Catholickes whose dependance for resolution must rest vpon the supreme Pastours determination then which what is more vncertayne for what one Pope decrees the other disallowes Here againe you see he runneth from the whole purpose and talketh in the ayre for the Catholikes doe not demaund of him What is the cause of their vexed consciences but rather doe tell him what it is as you haue heard in my words before rehearsed to wit the pressing of them to sweare against the iudgement of their owne consciences or els to incurre displeasure and suspition of disloyalty with his Maiestie as also the penalty of the law And what then doth our Doctour tell vs a tale of vltima râ—solutio in matters cases of fayth and conscience to be the cause of their trouble and affliction Truly it is as far from the purpose as the other before was and no lesse also against himselfe to make mention of this vltima resolâ—tio which more conuinceth him and his of heresy then any other demonstration that can be vsed to that effect For that they hauing abandoned the authority and iudgemeÌ„t of the knowne Catholike Church from which finall resolution in matters of controuersy is to be taken according to that rule of S. Augustine Si quis quaestionis difficultate â—alli metiâ—t Ecclesiaâ— consulat if any man teare
lesse the true substance of things handled by him I do pretermitt as very fond and impertinent the next passage that ensueth and is the last in this matter in M. Barlow his booke where he maketh this demaund But what if there be none or few that make such conscience or take such offence at the admission of the Oath as he speaketh of To this question I say it is in vaine to answere for if there be so few or no Catholikes that make conscience or scruple to take the Oath the contention will be soone at an end But presently he contradicteth himselfe againe taking another medium and saying that there would be none if they were not threatned by vs to haue their howses ouerturned as some Donatists sayth he confessed of themselues by the witnesse of S. Augustine that they would haue bene Catholikes if they had not bene put in feare ne domus corum euâ—rtâ—râ—ntur by the Circumcellians perhaps which M. Barlow sayth may spiritually be applyed to our threatning that such as take the Oath shall be accompted Apostataes and to haue renounced their first fayth and to be no members of the Catholike Church and finally that we shall remayne branded in euerlasting record with Balaams infamy that taught Balaac to lay a scandall or occasion of fall to the people of Israell To all which I answere first that he that layeth forth the truth of Catholike doctrine vnto Catholike men may not iustly be sayd to threaten or terrify but to deale sincerely and charitably with them laying truth before their eyes what their obligation is to God before man and how they are bound as members of his true Catholike Church to hould and defend the vnity and integrity of â—ayth and doctrine deliuered by the same though it be with neuer so much temporall danger And as for laying a scandall wherby they may fall into the ruine of their soules it is easy to iudge whether wee do it rather that teach them to deale sincerely with God and their Prince wherby they shall preserue their peace and alacrity of conscience or you that indeauoâ—r to induce thâ—â—â—â— sweare and doe against the same wheâ—eby they shall be sure to leese both their peace in this life and their euerlasting inheritance in the next THE ANSVVER TO AN OBIECTION BY OCCASION VVHEROF IT IS SHEVVED THAT POSSESSION and Prescription are good proofes euer in matters of Doctrine AND The contrary is fondly affirmed by M. Barlow CHAP. V. THERE remaineth now for the finall end of this first Part to examine an obiection that might be made by the aduersary which I thought good by â—â—ticipation to satisfy in the very last number of the first parâ— of my Letter And it was that wheras we complaine of so great pressures layd vpon vs for our conscience especially by this enforced Oath some man may sayâ— that the liâ—â— course is held in the Catholicke States against themâ— whome we esteeme as heretickes I shall repeate my owne words and then see what M. Barlow answereth to the same Here if a man should obiect quoâ—h I that among vs also men are vrged to take Oathes and to abiure â—heir opinions in the Tribunalls of Inquisitions and the like and consequently in this Oath they may be forced vnder punishment to abiure the Popes temporall authority in dealing with Kings I answere first that if any hereticke or other should be forced to â—biure his opinions with repugnance of conscience it should be a sinne to the inforcers if they knew it or suspected it neyther is it practised orâ— permitted in any Catholicke Court that eueâ— I knew But you will reply that if he doe it not he shal be punished by dâ—ath or otherwise as the crime requireth and Canons appoint and consequently the like may be vsed towards Catholikes that will not renounce their old opinions of the Popes authority But heere is a great difference for that the Catholike Church hath ius acquisitum ancient right ouer heretickes as her true subiects â—or that by their baptisme they were made her subiectes and left her afterwardsâ— and went out of her and she vseth but her ancient manner of proceeding against them as against all other of their kind and quality from the beginning But the Protestant Church of England hath nullum iuâ— acquisitum vpon Catholickes that were in possession before them for many hundred yeares as is euident neither was there euer any such Oath exacted at their hands by any of their Kings in former Catholicke timesâ— neither is tâ—eâ—e by any Catholicke forraine Monarch now liuing vpon 〈◊〉 and consequently by no â—eâ—son or right at all can English Catholicke men be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience or be punished beâ—â—â—â— or destroyed if for their conscience they refuse to take tâ—e same humbly offering notwithstanding to their Soueraigne to giue him all other dutifull satisfaction for their temporall obedience and allegiance which of loyall Catholicke subiects may be exacted And this shall suffice for this first point concerning the contents and nature of this Oath This was my speach and conclusion then And now shal we take a vew how it is confuted by M. Barlow First be amplifyeth exaggerateth with great vehemeÌ„cy the torments and tortures of our Inquisitions which are vsed as he saith with the most extreme violence that flesh can indure or malice inuent wherin he sayth more I thinke then he knoweth and more perhaps then he belieueth and at leastwise much more then is true in my knowledg For of twenty that are imprisoned there not one lightly is touched with torture and when any is in the case by law appointed it is knowne to be more mildly then commonly in any other tribunall But let vs leaue this as of least moment and depending only vpon his asseueration and my denyall and let vs passe to that which is of more importance for iustifying the cause it selfe to wit by what right of power and authority the Roman Church proceedeth against heretickes and how different it is from that wherby Protestants pretend to be able iustly to proceed against vs for matters of Religion First of all he sayth that I do take as granted that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church which we deny sayth he and the chiefest learned of their side could as yet neuer conuict our denialls Wherto I answere that if themselues may be iudges that are most interessed in the controuersie I do not meruaile though they neuer yield themselues for conuicted But if any indifferent iudgment or triall might be admitted I do not doubt but that their euiction and coÌ„uiction would quickly appeare and many learned men of our dayes haue made most cleare demonstrations therof by deducing the Roman Church doctrine and fayth from the Apostles dayes vnto our times successiuely as namely Doctour Sanders his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Monarchy Cardinall Baronius in the continuation of his Annales Gâ—nebrarâ—
mortification frequent recollection diligent chasticement of their bodies aboundant almes-deeds haire-cloath and ashes and the like if these things I say were anciently accounted Viae vitae wayes to life as often and highly commended in the Scriptures by the Holy Ghost and practised from time to time in the liues of the holiest men in the Christian Church then sayd I must the wayes and paths of Queene Elizabeths life which are knowne to be far different from these be very dangerous and the end and successe thereof not so assured of glory as her flatterers both promised her in her life and now will needs after her death beare men downe that it is performed To this M. Barlow answereth in diuers sorts first out of the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans VVhat art thou that iudgest another mans seruant for somuch as to his Lord he standeth or fâ—lleth But this place is manifestly abused by M. Barlow as are commonly all other Scriptures alleadged by him For S. Paul speaketh in this place of indifferent things as of eating and drinking in which a man may not condemne rashly another Qui nâ—n manducat manducantem non iudicet he that eateth not let him not iudge him that eateth But touching our cause in hand let him read the sentence of the fame Apostle to Timothy both clearly and resolutely set downe Querundam hominum peccata manisesta sunt praecedentia ad iudicium quosdam antem subsequuntur Similiter bona facta manisesta sunt quae aliter se habent abscondi non pâ—ssunt The â—innes of some men are manifest going before theÌ„ to iudgment but in some other they follow And so in like manner good workes are manifest and those that be otherwise cannot be hidden Wherby it is manifest in some cases that a man may iudge or at least wise haue a probable coniecture for Almighty God may alter in secret what to his diuine wisedome and mercy shall seeme good what end a Christian is like to ariue vnto by the wayes wherin he walketh And S. Paul himselfe doth set downe sundry particulars in diuers places of his Epistles in which he sayth that Christians shall not be saued So as this kind of iudgement is not wholy forbidden but rash iudgment only Secondly then M. Barlowe commeth to lay hand on another answere saying That fasting with a sower countenance prayer in open places dole of almes with proclamations are ensignes of hypocrites in our Sauiours iudgment Wherto I reply that these are but the abuses of good things which abuse the Seruants of God flying do retayne the good vse Thirdly sayth hee for he deuideth his proofes into sundry heads and all not worth a rush such outward habits of mortification as Iesuits terme of wearing of heare-cloth and the like might argue Achab. who went barefoote in hayre-cloth and aâ—â—es to be a mortified creature as well as the seuerest selâ—e chastising Iesuite of you all So he And this only example is sufficient to shew both the mans spirit and wit His spirit in conteÌ„ning and â—esting at that which God himselfe did so highly esteeme his wit that he seeth not what maketh for him or agâ—inst him As for the Iesuits their Doctrine is that all these externall mortifications are only so far forth graâ—eful and acceptable to God as they do proceed from the internall mortification of the mind and sorrow for their sins and not otherwise And that this externall mortification of Achab did so proceed is euident by the very wordes of Scripture alleadged by M. Barlow which are these VVhen Achab had heard the speaches of the Prophet Elias he rent his garmeÌ„ts couered his flesh with haire-cloth and â—asted slâ—pt in sakcloth and walked with his head bowed douneward And the word of God was made vnto Elias saying hast thou not seene Achab humiliaâ—ed before me For so much then as he hath humbled himselfe â—or my cause I will not bring the euill vpoÌ„ him which I haue threatned in hâ—â— dayes but in the days oâ— his Sonne And let it be marked that he sayd humilitatus est mei causa he hath humbled him selfe for my cause which signifyed that it came from the hart and from the sorrow that he conceyued to haue offended God which is true internall mortification and made Achab a true mortified or mortifying creature in that act for which wee haue God himselfe for a witnes And it can be no lesse then prophane impiety and sinfull secularity so prophanely to rest at it But let vs passe to another parte of his Answere in this matter Indeed sayeth he she was no cloystered Nunne to wit Queene Elizabeth And so I thinke to and that the difference of their liues did shew it A Queene she was sayeth M. Barlow and a State She had to manage a people to gouerneâ— much busines to attend bodily exercise sayth the Apostle profiteth nothing bâ—t godlines that is a sound sayth with a good conscience avaylâ—s â—ith God and argueth a minde truely regenerate This is M. Barlowes way of mortification not to meddle with Achabs contrition humiliation or hayrecloth nor with the liues of â—loystered Nunnes that serue God in the austerity of Christian discipline as fasting praying and other mortification but only he commendeth a sound â—aith with a good conscience which euery man will easily perswade himselfe to haue especially if he belieue him in citing S. Paul to Timothy as though the Apostle had called such externall mortifications as fasting and the like vnprofitable â—odily exercises and that only a sound fayth were piety But this is as fraudulent dealing as before for that the Apostle his very manner of speach Exerce â—e ipsum ad pietatem exercise thy selfe to piety doth shew that he speaketh of good workes and piety of life and that he maketh here a difference betweene bodily exercise that hath for his end only the good of the body and the exercise of piety which whether they be bodily or spirituall are alwaies directed to a spirituall end And so do the ancient Fathers vnderstand the words of exercise and piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially such as best vnderâ—â—ood the force and propriety of the Greeke words as namely S. Chrysostome who in his speciall Commentary vpon this place of S. Paul defineth piety thus pietas rectissima vitae norma est conuersationis optimae disciplina Piety is a most straight rule of life containing the discipline of a most excellent conuersatioÌ„ wherby only faith you see is excluded And then â—urther reiecting M. Barlows false interpretation of S. Pauls words as though he had meant fasting and other externall mortifications by corporall exercises which he calleth lesse profitable he saith Quidam hoc Apostolum de â—eiunio aiunt dixâ—sse sed prosectò errant neque enim est corporalis exâ—ercitatio iâ—iunium sed spiritualis Nam si corporalis esset corpus profectò
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
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
was this I find no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholike affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith and what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true Mother therby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother but only the declaration Wherfore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth is a meere calumniation amongst the rest So in my former writing now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points In the first whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obedience he is very briefe for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation that the Popes Breue forbids not temporall Obedience No saith he it forbids the Oath wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance But this we deny and haue often denied and still must deny and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands who though he hath often affirmed the same yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue For that being once proued all controuersie about this Oath were ended And it is a strange kind of demeanour so often and euery where to affirme it and neuer to proue it He addeth for his reason in this place He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne and sayth neuer a word more But what doth this proue Or in what forme is this argument For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor that we do so or that the Popes Breue doth so we vtterly deny it as manifestly false For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour Wherfore this proofe is nothing at allâ— But he hath another within a leafe after which is much more strange for he bringeth me for a witnes against my selfe in these words VVhat hitherto sayth he he â—aâ— laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue â—â—insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grâ—â—teth If this be so that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduantage and some cause to vaunt but if no word of this be true and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen that is forced to inuent these silly shifts Let vs lay forth then the mystery or rather misery of this matter as himselfe relateth it The Pope saith he being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause or reason of the vnlwâ—ulnes of the Oath the Epistler saith there are as many reasons that it is vnlawfull as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion against which they must sweare And is not this a good reason say I Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the coÌ„science of a Catholike man from swearing But how doth be proue by this that I confesse the Breue to forbid temporall Obedience Do you marke I pray you his inference and consider his acumen But there is no one poynt sayth he in the Oath that doth not so to wit that doth not concerne Religion euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience I do sweare before God that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme c. Ergo I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles and consequently leaueth no Obedience ciuill or temporall But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion euen the very first Article that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience â—hen doth it not touch religioÌ„ in our sense For that we do distinguish these two deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts the one conteyning points of temporall obedience for acknowledging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes the other concerning points of Catholike Religion belonging to the Popes Authority To the first wherof we refuse not to sweare but only against the second And now M. Barlow sayth that all concerne religion and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedience but denieth all And is not this a worthy dispute But let vs passe to the second question whether the Pope or Church hath authority to make new Articles of faith as the Apologer obiected And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part that the Catholicke Church preâ—endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith that were not of themselues true and of faith before he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Hermes and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall Whereto I answere that Doctor Stapleton sayth only that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not admitted before as for example the Epistles of S. Iames the two bookes of Machabees the Epistle of Iude and diuers others as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and suâ—scribed so hath the same Church at this day and shall haue vnto the worlds end authority to do the same Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret sayth Doctour Stapleton that is if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto herâ— librum aliquem alâ—â—m nâ—ndum in Canâ—nem recepâ—um Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes
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
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
such rage against a dead body much more against alyue But this argumeÌ„t houldeth no more though the matter were true as heere it is alledged then the former for that many things are done against Princes bodies when they are dead which would not be attempted in their life tyme. Who will not confesse this to be true But let vs leaue the consequent consider the antecedeÌ„t two things are auouched by the Apologer pag. 65. first that the Pope which was then Paschal is the second was enraged at the yong Emperour Henry the fiâ—th for giuing buryall to his fathers body when it was dead in the Citty of Leodium or Leige The second was that the Pope had stirred vp the said sonne Emperour against his Father and for both these points were cited in the margent as wittnesses Platina and Cuspinian in their Histories To which I answered in my Letter that Platina had no such matter that Cuspinian had the contrary to wit that when Henry the Father was dead and buried in a monastery at Leige his sonne would not make peace with the Bishop of that place called Otbert except the dead body were pulled out of the graue againe as it was and so remayned for fiue yeares This I answered to the first point about the exhumation of the body by the enraged sonne against his father for taking armes against him againe after that with common consent he had resigned the Empire vnto him and for more proofe of this I cited two authors more to wit Nauclerus and Crantzius in their histories that affirme the same To this now M. Barlow in his replie sayth first neuer a word vnto the silence of Platina nor to the testimonies of Nauclerus Crantzius but passeth slyly to proue another matter that we deny not to wit that the bodie of the elder Henry was taken out of the graue againe at Leige after it was buryed but by whome or whose commaundemeÌ„t eyther of the Pope Paschalis then liuing or of his Sonne Henry that lay neere by with an army that he proueth not which is the only point he should haue proued to wit that by order of the Pope the dead corps had bin takâ—n out of the graue I haue for the coÌ„trary besides the Authors before alledged the manyfest authority of Vrspergensis who liued and wrote in that tyme and might be present perhaps at tâ—e fact relating the matter how after that the death of Henry the 4. was knowne to his sonne to all the Bishops and Archbishops that were there with him and that notwithstanding he dyed excommunicate his body was buryed by the B. of Leige that had followed also his part the said yong Emperour and Bishops would not admit the said Bishop of Leige vnto their communion though he most earnestly offered himself but with condition that he should both doe pennance and besides that take out of the sepulcher agayne the buried bodie of the said Emperour which contrary to the Canons of the Church he had buryed the day before his words are these Leodâ—ensis autem Episcopus c. But the B. of Leige and other Bishops who had followed the part of Henry the 4. were receiued into communion to doe pennance with this condition that they should take forth of the graue the dead corpes of the said excommunicate Henry which they had buryed in a Monastery the day before So he And the same word pridie the day before hath not only Vrspergensis but also Nauclerus which doth euidently conuince that this exhumation could not be commaunded by the Pope Paschalis that liued at Rome and could not be aduertised of the death of the Emperour Henry and of his buriall so soone and much lesse giue order for his taking vp againe within the compasse of 3. or 4. dayes if there were so many betweene his death and his buriall To this I do add the manifest and perspicuous testimony of Huldericus Mutius in the 16. booke of his Germane Chronicle who speaking of the admitting to fauour of the foresaid Bishop of Leige and his people sayth Leodienses noluit recipere nisi eâ—â—ossum Genitoris sui cadauer abijcerent in locum quempiam vbi solent mortua pecora locaâ—i Henry the yonger would not receaue into grace those of Leige except they would cast out the dead body of his Father into some place where dead beasts are wont to be cast and this not so much for religion sayth the same Author as for deepe â—atred that he had conceaued against his said Father By all which is seene that not the Pope but the yong Emperour and the Bishops Archbishops that were with him hauing stood against the old Emperour and his followers and excommunicated the same were the cause why the body was taken vp agayne But now let vs see how M. Barlow doth seeke to establish the contrary to wit that he was digged out of his graue by commandment of the Pope for in this he laboureth much and alleageth for shew therof some 5. or 6. authorities of different Authors calling them a cloud of witnesses For digging vp saith he the dead body out of his graue that is compassed with a whole cloud of witnesses But if in all this cloud we find nothing in manner but clouted fraudâ—s and that no one of them hath passed his hands without corruption then may you cal it a blacke cloud indeed First then let vs examine the two Authors already alleadged for our cause to wit Vrspergensis and Nauclerus cyted here in his margent for that he will haue theÌ„ to proue the quite coÌ„trary of that for which I produced theÌ„ before And as for Vrspergensis he citeth his words thus The Bishop of Leige with other of his sort were receiued into the communion of the Church who cast them out but the Pope vpon condition they would dig out of the graue the corps of the Emperour which he had before buried in the Monastery So he relateth the words of Vrâ—ergensis in a different letter as though they were punctually his which indeed they are not but accommodated by M. Barlow with some paring and mincing to his purpose For wheras Vrspergensis saith that the Bishop of Leige and his fellow Bishops inter caetera recipiuntur in commuâ—â—nem poenitentiae were receaued among other conditions to the communion of pennance M. Barlow thought good to leaue out the word pennance as also where he sayth cadauer iâ—siuâ— excommunicati the dead corps of the excommunicate Emperour which did yield the reason of their digging vp M. Barlow left out also the word excommunicate But of much more moment was his leauing out the word pridie when he saith the body of the excommunicate Emperour buried by him the day before in the Monastery should be digged vp for by that he striketh of the head of the strongest argument that is against him as beâ—ore we haue shewed For if the Emperour were buried