was this I find no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholike affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith and what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true Mother therby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother but only the declaration Wherfore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth is a meere calumniation amongst the rest So in my former writing now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points In the first whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obedience he is very briefe for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation that the Popes Breue forbids not temporall Obedience No saith he it forbids the Oath wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance But this we deny and haue often denied and still must deny and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands who though he hath often affirmed the same yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue For that being once proued all controuersie about this Oath were ended And it is a strange kind of demeanour so often and euery where to affirme it and neuer to proue it He addeth for his reason in this place He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne and sayth neuer a word more But what doth this proue Or in what forme is this argument For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor that we do so or that the Popes Breue doth so we vtterly deny it as manifestly false For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour Wherfore this proofe is nothing at allâ— But he hath another within a leafe after which is much more strange for he bringeth me for a witnes against my selfe in these words VVhat hitherto sayth he he â—aâ— laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue â—â—insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grâ—â—teth If this be so that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduantage and some cause to vaunt but if no word of this be true and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen that is forced to inuent these silly shifts Let vs lay forth then the mystery or rather misery of this matter as himselfe relateth it The Pope saith he being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause or reason of the vnlwâ—ulnes of the Oath the Epistler saith there are as many reasons that it is vnlawfull as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion against which they must sweare And is not this a good reason say I Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the coÌ„science of a Catholike man from swearing But how doth be proue by this that I confesse the Breue to forbid temporall Obedience Do you marke I pray you his inference and consider his acumen But there is no one poynt sayth he in the Oath that doth not so to wit that doth not concerne Religion euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience I do sweare before God that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme c. Ergo I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles and consequently leaueth no Obedience ciuill or temporall But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion euen the very first Article that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience â—hen doth it not touch religioÌ„ in our sense For that we do distinguish these two deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts the one conteyning points of temporall obedience for acknowledging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes the other concerning points of Catholike Religion belonging to the Popes Authority To the first wherof we refuse not to sweare but only against the second And now M. Barlow sayth that all concerne religion and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedience but denieth all And is not this a worthy dispute But let vs passe to the second question whether the Pope or Church hath authority to make new Articles of faith as the Apologer obiected And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part that the Catholicke Church preâ—endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith that were not of themselues true and of faith before he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Hermes and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall Whereto I answere that Doctor Stapleton sayth only that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not admitted before as for example the Epistles of S. Iames the two bookes of Machabees the Epistle of Iude and diuers others as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and suâ—scribed so hath the same Church at this day and shall haue vnto the worlds end authority to do the same Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret sayth Doctour Stapleton that is if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto herâ— librum aliquem alâ—â—m nâ—ndum in Canâ—nem recepâ—um Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes
and Clâ—ments Constituâ—ions before mentioned So teacheth Doctor Stapleton and the reason of his saying is for that the authority of the Church is the same now shal be vnto the worlds end as it was in the first ages to iudge of Scriptures when occasion is offered And if the Church should admit any such booke now into the Canon of holy Scriptures which was not held for Scripture before which yet is a case not like to fall out then should noâ— this booke be made Scripture by the Church but only declared to be such which was so from the beginning though not so knowne declared So as the Church in this case should not giue infallibility of truth vnto the booke but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost that this booke was such from the beginning though not so accepted So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in cyting Doctour Stapletons words first to conceale his first condition Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret if the holy Ghost should suggest the same vnto the Church and then these other two conditions if it were written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose to make M. Doctour Stapletons speach to appeare more naked and improbable but indeed it was to keep his old custome which is neuer commonly to relate things truly in all respects in any citation whatsoeuer His second obiection is out of Bishop Fisher VVho sayth quoth he that whatsoeuer the Pope with a Councell deliuereth vs to be belieued that is to be receiued as an Article of fayth which we graunting to be true do ad only this that it is to be vnderstood according to our former declaration and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it against â—uther out of Scotus saying Non quòd â—unc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but â—or that it did declare it to be true and to haue bene deliuered by God and this by direction of the holy Ghost promised by our Sauiour to the Church So sayth Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neyther the Church nor the Pope Head therof do pretend to make any new Article of fayth that was not in it selfe an article of fayth before yea and so belieued also fide implicita by implyed fayth in the faith of the Church but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to haue byn such from the beginning though not so knowne or declared and therfore men were not bound to belieue it fide explicita by expresse fayth as now they are after the Churches definition and declaration therof And that this is the common sense of all Catholicke Deuines according to my former wordes that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much adoe as though it were false is proued among other learned men of our dayes by Gregorius de Valentia whose wordes are that it is Sententia communis Theologorum the common opinion of Deuines for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors principall Schoolemen And his whole discourse founded vpon Scriptures Fathers Councells and other arguments consisteth in this that as whatsoeuer is now belieued by the Church for matter of fayth was in substance belieued before in all other precedent ages vnto Christes time actu fidei implicito by an implyed act of fayth that is to say the belieuing in generall whatsoeuer the Church belieued so many thinges are now belieued by the Church actu fidei explicito by expresse fayth which were not so belieued before for that the Church froÌ„ time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clearly and expresly which before were belieued by an implied faith only As for example the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the pâ—oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne as was afterward declared vnto vs by the Church but that it belieued the same yet may we not deny but that it belieued the same not fide expliciâ—a but implicita only And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications therof made by the subsequent Councels about the vnity of the Person differeÌ„t Natures in Christ that his Mother should be called the Mother of God were belieued implicitè by those of the Councel of Nyce and consequently were then also Articles of faith though they were not belieued by them explicitè as we are bound to do after the explication made by the Church Let vs conclude therfore with Bishop Fiâ—â—ers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tameâ—si nequeat Sumâ—â—â— Pontisex c. That albeit the Pope with a Councel that is to say the Catholick Church cannot make any thing true or false that is not true or false of it selfe and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith yet whatsoeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs as an Article of faith that al true Christians ought to belieue as an Article of faith which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth Thus Bishop Fisher whome you see how impertinently M. Barlow alleadgeth against my assertion saith the very same that I do Let vs go forward Thirdly then he obiecteth S. Thomas of Aquine who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith some more large and some more briefe demandeth to whome appertayneth noua Editio Symboli the new Edition of a Creed when the necessity of new heresies doth require And he sayth it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church And what is this against me Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed though he were not Pope with addition of many Articles for explanations sake which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed though in substaÌ„ce of truth they were nothing different Did not diuers Councells set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before All which standeth vpon this ground so much pondered by â— Irenaeus that the Apostles had all truth reuealed vnto them by Christ and they left the same in the Church so as whatsoeuer is or hath or shal be added afterward by the said Church are only explications of that first reueiled truth and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the coÌ„trary is to no purpose at al for he citeth diuers authors for that which we deny not but yet alwaies commonly with addition of some vntruth of his owne as heere he alleadgeth out of the Iesuit Azor that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei Doctrines of faith which we deny not but when he addeth that this belongeth vnto the Pope only and not to a Councel this is his owne inuention for Azor ioyneth them
Ely of whome whiles he was silent many had some opinion of learning but since all is resolued to lying immodest rayling and some few light Terentian Plautinian phrases which aswel bâ—seeme a Deuine writing in matters of such moment and in defence of so great a Monarch to dally withall as it doth a Bishop to lead a morrice-daunce in his hose and dublet This man I say answereth hereunto that perhaps so the case stood then when those Protestants did write but that is well neere 20. yeares agoe but now it is otherwise Which is asmuch as if he had said that this new beliefe in England is not like the old alwayes one but is refined altered with the tyme and therefore no argument can be drawne from a thing done 20. yeares past for that is to great antiquity for so new-fangled a fayth which is alwaies in motion and hath her waynes changes quarters and full like the Moone But yet I must aske him further how he will proue by any example of the Puritan writers this their change and submission to the Protestants conformity of doctrine with theÌ„ more now then 20. yeares past Are they not still in the same degree of difference and oppositioÌ„ as before Doe they not still deny our Sauiours descent into hell Do they not disclay me from the English Hierarchie Will they acknowledge the Kings Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall as King Henry did challenge it Or will they recall what they haue written of their discipline that it is an essentiall marke of the Church without which there were no Church no Faith no Ghospell and consequently the Protestants to be no Ghospellers to be out of the Church out of the number of the faithfull 29. But for further confutation of both these Superintendents and more cleere explication of the thing it selfe besides what is afterwards said in this booke touching this point it shall not be amisse here to set downe the words of a few Protestant and Puritan late and yet liuing writers what they iudge of ech other in this affayre that our very enemyes may be iudges of the most shamefull assertion of these two Prelates That the Protestants and Puritans differ in matters only cerimoniall and agree in essentiall And the reason that I produce no more in this kind is for want of their bookes which being not worth the sending so far seldome come to our hands I will begin with the Protestants 30. And to omit Thomas Rogers whose testimony is after to be produced in the Discussion it selfe what other thing doth Oliuer Ormerod in his discouery of Puritan-Papisme annexed to his Picture of a Puritan prooue but that the said Puritans are Hereticks and haue ioyned themselues with the Pharisies Apostolickes Arians Pebuzians Petrobusians Florinians Câ—rinthiaÌ„s Nazarens Begardines Ebionites Catababdites Eâ—theusiasts Donatists Iouinianists Catharists And least any should thinke that this coniunction is only in matters cerimonial he laieth to their charge these ensuing heresies that there is no diuersâ—â—y between a Priest and a Bishop that Bishops haue no iuâ—isdiction that all synnes be equall that the Minister is of the essence of baptisme with the like And in the second dialogue he maketh in plaine tearmes this obiection that there is no difference in matters fundamentall but accidentall and then answereth the same that they do differ from the Protestants in some things that are fundamentall and substantiall which he proueth by the article of Christs descending into hell And he might haue proued it further by the aboue rehearsed articles for which Iouinian Aerius and others were reputed by the auncient Fathers and condemned for Hereticks 31. VVith this Oliuer of Cambridge agreeth A. N. of Oxford in his Bible-bearer towards the midest for thus he writeth They refuse to subscribe to the Kings lawfull authority in causes Ecclesiasticall to the article of religion to the booke of Common prayer and the orders rites and cerimonies of our Church nay they dissent from vs in things accidentall and cerimoniall So he By which last antithesis of accidentall cerimoniall differences it is most euident that the former were essentiall fundamentall Neither doe I see how this can be denyed by any for if the Puritans refuse to subscribe to the articles of Protestant religion who seeth not that they approue it not and consequently differ in essentiall points and that M. Barlow ouerlashed very much when he wrote that their vnkind quarrell with Puritans was in another kind and not in matters of religion wherein forsooth out of his great kindnes he will haue them to agree 32. And not to stand more for proofe hereof from Protestants D. Couel cleereth the matter when he saith But least any man should thinke that our contentions were but in smaller points and the difference not great both sides haue charged the other with heresies if not infidelities nay euen such as quite ouerthrow the principall foundation of our Christian faith Thus he And this I thinke is another manner of matter then externall cerimonies or accidentall differences for if this be not a plaine iarre amongst Protestants and Puritans in Religion I would faine know what M. Barlow will more require thereunto but I see S. Gregories wordes verified in these men where he saith solent haeretici alia apertè dicere alia occultè cogitare the heretikes are wont to speake otherwise openly then inwardly they thinke for when they deale amongst themselues then are Protestants and Puritans heretikes and infidells to ech other but when they answere vs then all are friendes all good Christians all vnited in doctrine deuided only in cerimonies accidentall differences This is another manner of equiuocation then any of our schooles will allow and only fit for such as are his schollers qui in veritate non stetit sed mendax fuit ab initio 33. From Protestants I come to Puritans who in this case are no lesse eager playne and resolute then the Protestants but rather more for this in expresse tearmes the Author of the Twelue generall arguments concludeth against all the Superintendents of England togeather that they are Vsurpers and Tyrants and execute an vsurped power ouer the Church and one reason to proue the same is ex concessis for that their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction is deriued from the King else say they it is a flat deniall of his Supremacy as there they shew And in the next reason which is the 4. and last brought in for proofe of their assumption or minor thus they conclude There are no true and sober Christians but will say that the Churches of Scoâ—land France the Low Countryes and other places that renounce such Archbishops and Bishops as ours are as Anti-christian and vsurping Prelates are true Churches of God which they could not be if the authority prerogatiues they claime to themselues were of Christ and not vsurped for if it were the ordinance of Christ
sola meritum is nothing els but meere foolery as shal be afterwards shewed 59. From Diuinity he comes to Logick making his entrance with a vaunting insultation of his Aduersaries ignorance and want of skill about the true nature of a contradiction In deliuering of which the poore man is so embroyled as he knoweth not what he saith but cleane mistaketh euery thinge which he speaketh of For first he supposeth that a conâ—radiction must be where some generall proposition â—ither expresly or implicatiuely is crossed by a particuâ—er but this is no equall and perfect diuision for that â— contradiction requireth not alwaies a generall proâ—osition but may be between two particuler so that â—he subiect remaine indiuisible to wit vnder one and â—he selfsame respect vnder them both For if I should â—ay that M. Barlow hath skill in Logicke though it be â—ery little and M. Barlow hath not skill in Logick â—gaine M. Barlow is Bishop of Barlowâ—s â—s not Bishop of Lincolne c. I do not doubt but that â—e would thinke these propositions though both parâ—iculer to be truly contradictory and consequently his â—wne supposition to be false as that also is very fond â—hich for explication of his expresse and implyed conâ—radiction he ioyneth saying contradictionâ—n â—n negato the other in opposito or adiecto of the first â—ort are these examples wherin the negatiue note is expresâ—ed as omnis homo est aliquis non est of the second â—ort are such wherin the note negatiue is omitted and yet â—ne member ouerthrowes another So M. Barlow out of Logick And this as I said is very fond for that it is not â—f the nature of a contradiction in adiecto to be impliâ—d but rather the contrary to be expressed in termes â—t being all one with that which is called implicantia â—n terminis an implicancy or contradiction in the â—ery termes themselues For example If I should say M. Barlow is a brute beast the adiectum or terminus â—rute beast destroyeth the subiect to wit M. Barlow whose behauiour though it be often tymes very bruâ—ish and beastly yet is he by nature a man and that also a very naturall one 60. But the greatest mistaking and ignorance of all the rest is in the example which he maketh of this his implyed contradiction for hauing made this proposition Euery Bishop of Rome is vnder Christ the immeatate and sole chief Pastour of the whole Church in the Christian world this saith our Philosopher may be contradicted two wayes first expresly Some Bishop oâ— Rome is not the immediate and sole chief pastour c. Thiâ— is a contradictory with the negatiue Secondly it may be crossed by implicatioÌ„ as thus The patriarch of Constantinople is vnder Christ the immediate and sole chief pâ—stour of the Eastâ—rne Church This though it be a contradiction in opposito yet doth it as mainly oppose thâ— former generall proposition as if it had a negatiue noâ— c. Thus far M. Barlow as good a Philosopher aâ— M. Morton who though he professe to haue bene â— Reader of Logick yet shaped vs out a syllogisme oâ— six termes to proue Equiuocation in an oath to bâ— vnlawfull such great Deuynes are these menâ— as they know not the first elements of this faculty For haâ— not M. Barlow bene exceeding ignorant of the first rule and necessary condition of a contradiction â— which is that both parts câ—nnot togeather be eytheâ— true of false he would neuer haue giuen this for aâ— example seeing himself neyther belieueth the Bishop of Râ—mâ— to be head of the whole or Patriarke of Constantinople of the Easterne Church And where theâ— is the contradiction And is not M. Barlow well seenâ— in Philosophâ— who chooseth out an example to proue a contradiction in which euen in his owne opinion there is no contradiction at all Truly I may well suspect that he neuer came to be Bishop â—f Lincolne for his learning which euery where he â—heweth to be lesse then meane and therfore ouerlaâ—heth without measure but for some other inferiour quality little perhaps befitting that calling Let vs to make him conceaue his errour the better exemplifie in some more familiar examples The L. of Canterbuâ—y is Primate of all and euery part of England and â—he L. of Yorke is Primate of all the North part is with me no contradiction for that I hold both propositions to be false and neyther of them both to haue any Primacy at all in that Church and as the later will not claime it so M. Abbots may be sure I will not assigne it vnto him whome I doe as much hold to be Abbot of Wâ—stminster as Bishop of Cantâ—râ—ury And the like must M. Barlow needs say of his two propositions for that neyther of them in his iudgmeÌ„t â—s true and therefore are more contrary then contradictory as are also these omnis homo currit nullus homo currit and the like 61. Wherefore if it be as M. Barlow will needs haue it our very case in hand euen by the verdict of all skilfull Philosophers in the world the Cardinall will be quit at least from a contradiction and it is but childish babling yet very frequent in M. Barlow to make the oppositioÌ„s of the termes theÌ„selues saying that hâ—re is a double contradictioÌ„ both subiecti praedicaâ—i the Patriarke of Constantinople crosseth the Bishop of Rome the Eastâ—rnâ— Church and the whole world contradict ech othâ—r implicitely This I say is but babling for there is as great opposition between the former two propositions before set downe as in this Cantâ—rbury crâ—ssâ—th Yorke all England the north parts And againe omnis cannot stand with nullus currit with non currit and yet he will sooner bring Constantinople to Romeâ— and Yorke to Canterbury then proue any contradictioÌ„ to be in the same But let vs draw to an end of M. Barlows dispute 62. I passe ouer the rest he addeth concerning this matter although his chiefest fraud and cosenage be conteyned in the same For of an exhortatiue proposition in the Cardinall he maketh an absolute and necessary by cogging in the words is must thus mans confidence is to be reposed in the alone mercy of God and some confidence of man must be placed in his owne merits which are his owne forgeryes and not the Cardinalls assertions and then further in falsly charging F. Persons as though he said that good workes increase confidence in their owne nature and therfore will needs haue his doctrine to be condemned by Pius V. amongst other like assertions of a Louain Doctor but all is forgery for the Father speaketh not of our workes as alone they proceed from vs but as they proceed also from Gods grace within vs and for that cause calleth them the good workes of a ChristiaÌ„ it is vnchristian dealing in this Prelate to say that this proposition was euer condemned by Pius V. or any other Pope or Councell who only
common Catholicke Church nor in that vnitie without good life especially if he should die in any of these sinns mentioned before by S. Paul that goe bâ—fore or follow him to Iudgement The minor proposition is that Q. Elizabeth is noted most grieuously in both these kinds Ergo there may be a iust feare of her euerlasting damnation Neyther doth this preiudice Almightie God his extraordinarie mercies to whome he listeth we speake here of the ordinarie way of saluation reuealed vnto the Church and in that sense onely shal be sayd somewhat to the Minor proposition wherin standeth the cheife moment of this our question That Queene Elizabeth was excommunicated by name by two or three Bishops of Rome whome we hould for supreme heades on earth of the knowne Catholike Church no man can deny that she was likewise excommunicated by conâ—equence though not by name by the General Councel of Trent in all tâ—ose Canons anathematizations which were made against Protestants for their doctrine which she also held no maÌ„ can doubt of as neither but that she was coÌ„prehended in all the cases that touched her faith or actions in Bulla Coenae euery yeare repeated and pronouÌ„ced against Heretikes Schismatikes Vsurpers of Ecclesiasticall power and authority whereof she auouched herselfe to be Head in her owne kingdomes And now that this externall visible Church called Catholike and knowne by that name throughout the world aswell by friends as enemies which S. Augustine sayth is an argument that it is the true Church indeed is the selfe same visible Church that was in the foresaid Fathers times and visibly deduced by succâ—ssion from their dayes to ours is so manifestly to be proued as no man can with reason deny the same and consequently if it were so certaine a damnation to be excommunicated or put out of that Church as now you haue heard the said Fathers to affirme then is it soe now aâ—â—o and then goâ—th hard the case of Queene Elizabeth as you see for that it is not knowne that she was euer reconciled or taken into the sayd Church againe And as for the other point concerning other sinnes meant or mentioned by the Apostle as on the one side I will not take vpon me to determine what or how many or how great she committed so on the other considering the frailty of mankind the temptations of the triple enemie the world the flesh and the diuell the many occasions she had in her free state of life to fall into sinne and that in the space of foure and fourty yeares at least after the entrance to her Crowne she neuer vsed the ordinary help of ancient ChristiaÌ„s for purging her soule which the foresaid Fathers doe teach vs to be not onely contrition but also Sacramental Confession absolution of the Church her state I say being this it must needs follow that so many as belieue and acknowledg this Sacrament of the Church to be necessary to saluation when it may be had yea is câ—mmaunded by the sayd Church vnder paine of Censures to be reiterated euery yeare once at least if not oftener that this woman neuer making the same and dying in that state cannot be saued according to the iudgment of all those that belieue follow that Church that condemneth her which Church being spread throughout the whole world as it was in S. Augustines time and hauing obtayned the same priuiledge which he tooke to be sufficient to demonstrate the true Church to wit that she is knowne by the name of Catholicke both to friends enemies true Christians and Heretickes according to the common sense of men for he proueth that neuer heretical Congregation could obtayne to be so much as called Catholike throughout Christendome or to be knowne by that name this thing I say being soe we see what a dreadful preiudice this may appeare to be against the euerlasting saluation of Queene Elizabeth For if there were so great mayne a difference betwene bodily Phisitianâ—â— both for number skil experience antiquity and authority about the temporall death of any Prince as there is here in all these qualities betweene the spirituall Phisitians of Christendome Catholike and English Protestants concerning the eternall death of Queene Elizabeths soule to wit that so many more temporall Phisitians in number without comparison so much more learned so much more experienced in corporall Phisicke as the other exceed them in spirituall yea further and that they had so many deadly Symtomes Chryâ—es and Prognosticons conâ—â—med out of the authority of Hipocrates Galâ—â— and other ancienâ— Phisitians all tending to mortality as the other haue out of the doctrine iudgment and perpetuall practice both of the said Church and holy Ghostly Fathers of the same foâ— Queene Elizabeths euerlasting death I doubt nothing but that the sayd Princes temporall life would be held for very dangerous or rather his death were very probable Neither did I say any more of the spirituall death of Queene Elizabeth most likely to accompany her corporall I beseech the mercie of Almighty God that it be not soe And here I might adde also another plaine familiar proofe out of the said ancient Fathers and namely out of S. Augustine to the end we may see how his Church did agree with ours or rather the vniuersall known Catholicke Church in his dayes with that Church that hath the same name notes in ours For besides that number of authorities which I cited out of him before as agreeing with other Fathers that it is impossible for an Heretick Schismatick or an ExcoÌ„municated person dying in that state to be saued he goeth further in an other place into more particulers for being required by his freind Quod-Vult-Deus to set downe vnto him a briefe Catalogue or enumeration of all the particuler heresies that the Catholicke Church had condemned from the beginning of Christianitie vnto their time or did hould for heresies in those dayes he set downe aboue fourescore and added in the end that if any man should professe or belieue any of those heresies or any other that had or sâ—ould spring vp he could not be a Christian Catholicke and consequently neyther be saued but euerlastingly damned Now in this Catalogue or booke of heresies which was also gathered vnto their dayes by Philastrius and S. Epiphanius before him S. Augustine setteth downe for damned heresies some that Queene Elizabeth did manifestly â—ould and so was thought to hould and for any thing that we know died in the same as namely those heresies of the Hereticke Aërius that solemne fasts appoynted by the Church were not to be obserued but euery man or woman to fast when they would least they should seeme to be vnder the law So sayth that hereticke And then which maketh most to our present purpose that prayer and sacrifice were not to be offered vp for the dead nor did profiâ— them any thing at all vpon which later poynt I am induced to make
colour of this power to discerne spirits giuen theÌ„ by M. Bâ—â—loâ— out of the words of S. Iohn there would neuer be an end And lastly it appeareth by all this that his lâ—st distinction wherin he sayth that the King may iudge for the truth and not of the truth is a meere delusion giuing somewhat in wordes but nothing in deed for that if the iudging for the truth be nothing els but to execute allow and approue that which others haue defined determined and appointed out vnto him to be belieued and defended as the truth then hath he no more free choice or superiority in iudgment in this case then euery subiect or common man who is likewise bound to belieue and defend the same according to his ability and power Now then to conclude the matter and to reduce all to a briefe summe for so much as M. Barlow taketh away from his Maiesty of England not only the title and style Of Head of the Church which was giuen to King Henry and confirmed to King Edward but the Papall authority in like manner for decision of matters which was ascribed vnto them both by Parlament and confirmed to Queene Elizabeth and here saith that he cannot iudge in cases of religion and fayth iudicio definitiâ—o to define and determine any thing but only execuâ—iuo to execute what the Church of England to wit what the Bishops shall define and ordayne and for somuch as he addeth yet further now in that which before we haue discussed three other particuler cases out of S. Ambrose wherin he conâ—esâ—eth that his Maiesty hath no authority but may be resisted to wit if he should call before him a Bishop to dispute with another of a different religion as Valenâ—inian did S. Ambrose and he denyed him If he should commaund a Bishop to deliuer ouer a Church to a people of a different religion and if he should command a Bishop to deliuer vp the Veâ—els of his Church as the said Empeâ—ouâ— did and the â—ther refused to obey all these things I say laid â—ogeâ—tâ—er â—ut of M. Barlows doctrine do so much diminish the greatnes of his Maiesties Supreme power in causes Ecclesiasticall as in effect it commeth to be no more thâ—n Catholike doctrine doth ordinarily allow to euery Catholicke Temporall Prince for the obseruance and execution of that which the Church determineth And this is M. Barlâ—â—â—â— heroycall exployt to marre the matter he takes in hand for his Clyent Let euery man iudge how well he hath deserued the good fee which already he hath recâ—aâ—ed for his plea and hopeth to receaue more hereafter if he may speed according to his expectation OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE Or Iâ—stance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall §. III. THERE followeth another controuersy betweene M. Barlow me about a certayne fact of S. Gregory the Great concerning the Law of Mauritius the Emperour prohibiting souldiars and such as were accomptable to the Emperours Courtes for offices borne by them to enter into monasteries and professe a religious life without his licence whereof I wrote thus in my letter Neyther doth the last place cited out of S. Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauritius make any thing moâ—e for our Apologers purpose of taking Oathes against Conscience For albeit the same Father do greatly complaâ—ne in diuers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius whome though otherwise a Catholike Emperour he compareth in that poynt to Nero and Dioclâ—siâ—n saying Quid Nero quid Dioclesiâ—â—â—s qâ—id deâ—ique isteâ— qui â—oc tempore â—â—â—lesiam persequitur Nâ—mqâ—â—◠〈◊〉 omnes porta Inferi Whâ—t was Nero What was Dioclesâ—â—â— what is he who at this time doth persecute the Church Are they not all gates of Hell Yet in this place alleaged by the Apologer he yealded to publish and send abroâ—d into diuers Countreys and Prouinces a certayne vniust law of the sayd Emperours that prohibited Sâ—uldiars and such as had bene imployed in matters of publike accompts of the CoÌ„mon-Wealth to make theÌ„selues Monks Wâ—ich law though S. Gregory did greatly mislike and wrote sharply agaynst it to the Emperour himselfe yet to shew his due respect in temporall thinges vnto him and for that indeed the law was not absolutly so euill but that in some good sense it might be tolerated to wit that Souldiars sworn to the Emperours wars might not during the said Oath obligation be receaued into Monasteries but with the Princes liceÌ„ce yet for that it tended to the abridgmeÌ„t of Ecclesiastical freedome in taking that course or state of life which ech man chooseth for the good of his soule S. Gregoâ—y misliked the same and dealt earnestly with the Emperour to relinquish it or to suffer it to be so moderated as it might stand without preiudice of Christian liberty wherunto the Emperour at length yeelded and so S. Gregory sent the same abroad vnto diuers Primates and Archbishops of sundry Kingdomes mentioned by him but corrected first and reduced by himselfe as supreme Pastour to a reasonable lawfulnes and temperate moderation to wit that those who had borne offices of charge in the Common-wealth and after desired to be admitted to religious life in Monasteries should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their full accompts and had obtayned publicke discharge for the same And that Souldiars which demanded the like admittaÌ„ce should be exactly tryed and not admitted vnto Monasticall habite but after they had liued three yeares in their lay apparell vnder probation This determineth S. Gregory in his Epistle beginning Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi Vrbicio Dyrachitano c. adding further in the same Epistle as hath bene said De qua re Serâ—issâ—mus Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur about which matter our most Clement and Christian Emperour is wholy pleased and content So as in this S. Gregory shewed his pastorall care and power in limiting and moderating the Emperours law according to the law of God though in temporall respectes he shewed him the Obedience that was due vnto him But what is this vnto our Oath May we thinke that S. Gregory that would not passe a temporall law of the Emperour without reprehension of the vnlawfulnes thereof to the Emperour himselfe and correction therof in the publication for that indirectly it did infringe the liberty of Religious life when men were called therunto that he would not haue much more resisted the admission of an Oath about such affaires if it had bene proposed No man I thinke in reason can imagin the contrary To this declaration of mine M. Barlow beginneth his reply thus But that of Gregory saith he toucheth the very quicke who as he thought his duty discharged to God in shewing the reasons why he disliked the Law so did he performe it very readily to the Emperour in promulging
the thing it selfe vttered to wit that it be really true in the sense and meaning of the vtterer and then in the quality of the hearer whether he be a lawfull iudge and therby may oblige the speaker to speake to his intention and other such circumstances which are largely haÌ„dled in my foresaid booke and not vnderstood as it seemeth or not read by M. Barlow which me thinkes he ought to haue done meaning to treate of this matter here And so I shall passe no further therin but referre him the Reader to the larger Treatise of that subiect already extant CARDINALL BELLARMINE is cleered from a false imputation and a controuersie about certaine words clauses in the Oath is discussed § II. AFTER this M. Barlow passeth to a poynt concerning Cardinall Bellarmine set downe in the Apology in these words Some of such Priests and Iesuites as were the greatest traytors fomentours of the greatest conspiracies against her late Maiestyâ— gaue vp F. Robert Bellarmine for one of their greatest authorities and oracles So sayth the Apologer noteth in the margeÌ„t Campian Hart in their conference in the Tower This was noted by me in my Letter as an vniust charge both in respect of the two men meÌ„tioned in the margent who were most free from being traytours and much more the greatest Traytours excepting only their Priestly functioÌ„s most iniuriously made TreasoÌ„s against all truth equity as aboundantly else where hath bene proued but much more in respect of Cardinall Bellarmine who was not so mâ—ch as named by any of them in any matter tending to Treason or conspiracy towards the late Queene and therfore if he were by any of them named or mentioned it was in matter only of learning not of Treasons and conspiracies which M. Barlow is also forced here to confesse and sayth that it was meant in matters of the Conference in the Tower but euery man of iudgment will se what the words of the former charge do import and how farre they reach which M. Barlow considering he dareth not stand to his first refuge but addeth that Bellarmine in his Booke which English Priests do study doth teach such doctrine as is the ground of rebellions he blowes sayth he the bellowes of seditious doctrine which flames out by his Schollers conspiracy to the disturbaÌ„ce of the chiefest States of Christendome But this now men will see how passionate and vntrue it is that the chiefest States of Christendome are disturbed by Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine I do not meane to stand vpon the confutation of so childish imputations There followeth a certaine small controuersie about the words temperate and tempered whether they signify the same or no wherof we haue handled somewhat before so shall dispatch it here in a word Cardinall Bellarmine had said in his Letter to M. Blackwell that this Oath is not therfore lawfull because it is offered as tempered and modified with diuers clauses of ciuill Obedience giuing an example out of S. Gregory Nazianzen of the Ensignes of the Emperour Iulian wherin the Images of the Heathen Gods were mingled and conbyned togeather with the Emperors Picture and therby so tempered modified as a man could not adore the one without the other Which speach of the Cardinall was much reprehended by the Apologer as though Bellarmine had misliked the temperate speach vttered in the forme of this oath But that was no part of Bellarmines meaning but that the said Oath was tempered mixt and compounded of different clauses some lawfull and some vnlawfull as a man would say morter is tempered with water sand lyme and this appeareth by his example of the Ensignes before mentioned tempered that is mixt with the images of the Emperours and their false Gods And if M. Barâ—â—â— will needs haue this temperament to haue also with it some temperature which is his only reply now in this place we will not greatly striue with him Let it be esteemed to be some temperature that here are mingled some clauses of ciuill obedience with other concerning Religion it helpeth the mixture but not the scruple of conscience to him that must take it I pretermit all the rest of M. Barlows superfluous and idle speach about this matter as striuing to say somewhat but yet in substance sayth nothing It followeth in my Letter concerning the answering of two questions proposed by the Apologer wherin I shall repeate againe my owne words then vttered thus then I wrote That the Apologer hauing said with great vehemency of asseueratioÌ„ That heauen and earth are no further a sunder then the profession of a Temporall Obedience to a Temporall King is different from any thing belonging to the Catholike fayth or Supremacy of S. Peter which we graunt also if it be meere Temporall Obedience without mixture of other clauses he proposeth presently two questions for application of this to his purpose First this As for the Catholike Religion sayth he can there be one word found in all this Oath tending to matter of Religion The second thus Doth he that taketh it promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of Religion Wherunto I answere first to the first and then to the second To the first that if it be graunted that power authority of the Pope and Sea Apostolike left by Christ for gouerning his Church in all occasions and necessities be any poynt belonging to Religion among Catholikes then is there not only some owne word but many sentences yea ten or twelue articles or branches therin tending and sounding that way as before hath bene shewed To the secoÌ„d question may make answer euery clause in effect of the Oath it selfe As for example the very first I A. B. do truly sincerely acknowledge professe testify declare in my conscience that the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authority of the Sea or Church of Rome hath any power authority c. doth not this include eyther beliefe or vnbeliefe Againe I do further sweare that I do from my hart abhorre detest abiure as impious hereticall that damnable doctrine position That Princes which be excommunicated and depriued by the Pope may be deposed c. Doth not here the swearer promise not to belieue that doctrine which he so much detesteth How then doth the Apologer so grossely forget and contradict himselfe euen then when he goeth about to proue contradictions in his Aduersary It followeth consequently in the Oath And I do belieue and in conscience am resolued that neyther the Pope nor any person whatsoeuer hath power to absolue me from this Oath or any part therof These words are plaine as you see And what will the Apologer say heere Is nothing promised in those words to be belieued or not belieued This was my speach And now see what quarrell M. Barlow seeketh agaynst it First wheras in my answer to the first question I say if it be granted that
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