in his Chronology Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies two speciall Bookes also in English not long agoe especially published about that matter the Three 〈◊〉 of England and the Answer to Syr Edward Cookes Reports where it is shewed that from age to age after the Apostles the selfe same Church of theirs was continued throughout the world with acknowledgment of the preheminence and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the same Church which course of proofe was held also with the Ancient Fathers S. Augustine Tertullian Irenaeus and others that brought downe the descent of the true Catholike Church by the succession of the Roman Bishops as Heads of the same Mâ— Barlow demaundeth of me in what sense I take the word Catholike when I suppose the Roman Church to be the Catholicke Church For if I take it sayth he for Vniuersall then Rome being but a particuler Citty and the true iurisdiction therof confined within a limited Diocesse or Prouince the Roman Church cannot be the Catholicke or Vniuersall Church for that it is but a particular Prouince But if sayth he I take Catholike for the profession of the true fayth as S. Cyprian doth calling that Church of Africa the Catholike Church then cannot the Romish Church neyther in this sense be the Catholik Church for that which the Prophet Esay said of the Iewes Church Her gould is mixed with drosse and she whose fayth was plighted in Christ is become an Adultresse may be sayd also of the Roman Church of this day and so cannot be the Catholike Church c. Which are two such mighty arguments as well declare the poore mans misery in the defence of his cause For to the first I would aske M. Barlow whether one man may not haue two Iurisdictions or rather one Iurisdiction extended differently to two things one more particuler the other more generall As for example the Mayor of London hath his particuler gouerment first and immediatly ouer his owne howse family and peculiar lands and yet besides that he hath iurisdiction also ouer all the Citty And to make the case more cleare let vs suppose that he hath both the one the other from the kingâ— shall it be a good argument to say that he is Gouernor of his owne particuler landes house and family which is knowne to be confined and limited to such a part of the Citty therfore he vsurpeth by stiling himself lord Gouernour of the whole Citty And the like demaund may be made of the Kings authority first and imediatly ouer his Crowne lands which is peculiar vnto him and limited with confines but yet it impeacheth not his generall authority ouer the whole Realme Euen so the Bishop of Rome hath two relations or references the one as a seuerall Bishop ouer that people and so had S. Peter who was Bishop of the same place euen as S. Iames had of Ierusalem S. Iohn of Ephesus and the like and besids this he hath an vniuersall Superintendency and iurisdiction giuen him ouer all as Head of the rest So as Catholikes doe not deny but that the Church of Rome as it maketh a particuler Prouince or Diocesse is a member only of the Catholicke Church not the whole though a principall chiefe member by the reason of the emineÌ„cy of her Pastour that the sayd Pastour therof is but a member also of the Catholik Church but yet the chiefest meÌ„ber wherunto all the rest are subordinate that is to say the head guid therof So as this is poore argument as you see But the second is more pittifull if you consider it well for if we take Catholike sayth he for the profession of the true faith as S. Cyprian did when he called the Church of Africa the Catholike Church then cannot the Romish Church be the Catholike Church And why for that her gould is mixed with drosse as the Prophet Isay sayd of the Iewish Church in his tyme. But here are two propositions an antecedent and consequent and both of them false The antecedent is that as the Church of the Iewes in the Prophet Isay his dayes being in her corrupt state was not the true teaching Church in respect of the naughty life vsed therein so neyther the Church of Rome in our dayes being full of the same sinnes bad life can be the true Catholicke Church this antecedent I say is most â—uidently false and impertinent for that Isay the Prophet in the place cited doth not repâ—â—hend the Religion of the Iewes but their life and â—â—â—ners nor doth he so much as name their Church or Synagoge or taxe their false teaching For albeit the wicked King Manasses that afterward slew him did perforce set vp false Gods among the Iewes yet did not only he and other Prophets then liuing to wit Oseas Amos Micheas Iâ—â—â— Ioel Nahum Habacuc with the whole Church and Synagog not admit the same but resisted also what they might which is a signe that their faith was pure and good Wherfore Isay in this place alleadged nameth not their Church or Religion as hath bene sayd but expresly nameth the Cittie of Hierusalem wicked liuers therin saying Qâ—â—modo facta es meretrix Ciuitas fidelis plena iudicy Iâ—stâ—ia habitauit in ea nunc autem homicidae Argentum tuum versum 〈◊〉 in scoriam vinum tuum mixtum aqua Hovv art thou made an harlot thou faithfull Citty that wert once full of iudgement and iustice dwelled therin but now murtherers Thy siluer is turned into drosse thy wine is mixed with water Doth here the Prophet speake of factes think yow or else of faiâ—h Of wicked life or of false doctrine and if it be euident that he speaketh of manners as he doth indeed then how false is the dealing of M. Barlow in bringing it iâ— for proofe of false teaching and to conuince that as the Church of the Iewes could not be the true Catholicke Church of that time in respect of the corrupt maÌ„ners vsed in her so cannot the Church of Rome at this day for the selfe same cause be the true Church But I would demande of M. Barlow what other knowne Church had God in those dayes wherin a man might find true doctrine besides that of the Iewes which he sayeth was not the true Church Will he say perhaps of the Gentills But they liued all in Idolatry And if a GeÌ„tile would in those daies haue left his Idolatry in the time of Isay the Prophet and haue desired to haue bene madâ— one of the people of God by true instruction whither could he haue gone for the same but only to the Iewish Church And whither would Isay haue sent him but to the Gouernours thereof Both false and impious then is this antecedent about the Iewes Church but much more the consequent that would draw in the Roman Christian Church by this example which hath no similitude or connection at all For neither can he proue that it hath such
any thing against vs or for the Apologer euen as they are here nakedly cyted without declaration of the circumstances for that in temporall affaires the King or Emperour is Supreme next vnder God And when the Emperour will vse secular forces against the Priests of his dominion they being no souldiars must fall to prayers and teares which are Priestly weapons But what Did S Ambrose by this acknowledge that the Emperour had higher Authority then he in Church-matters Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion or Conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed or acknowledged his Superiority No truly For in three seuerall occasions that fell out he flatly denyed the same which this Apologer craâ—tily dissembleth and saith not a word therof The first was when he was cited by Dalmatius the Tribune bringing with him a publicke Notarie to testifie the same in the name of the Emperour Valentinian the yonger to come conferre or dispute with the hereticall Bishop Auxenâ—ius in the presence of his Maiesty other of his Nobility CouÌ„sell which poynt S. Ambrose refused vtterly to do telling the Emperour playnly by a letter written vnto him That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops And dyuers other doctrines by this occasion he taught him to that effect as is to be seene in the same Epistle The second occasion fell out the very next yeare after in Millane when the said Emperour by suite of the Arians and fauour of Iustina the Empresse on their behalfe made a Decree that a certayne Church of that Citty should be deliuered to the said Arians which Decree S. Ambrose the Bishop refused to obey And when the Emperours Officers comming with armes vrged greatly to giue possession of the Church he fled to his former weapons of weeping and praying Ego Missam facere coepi c. I began to say Masseâ— and when the temporall Magistrate vrged still that the Emperour vsed but his owne right in appoynting that Church to be deliuered S. Ambrose answered Quae diuina sunt Imperatoriae potestati non esse subiecta That such things as belonge to God are not subiect to the Imperiall power And thus answered S. Ambrose about the giuing vp of a materiall Church What would he haue said in greater matters The third accasion was when the Emperour sent his Tribunes and other Officers to require certayne Vessells belonging to the Church to be deliuered which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do saying That in this he could not obey And further adding That if the Emperour did loue him selfe he should abstayne from offering such iniury vnto Christ. And in another place handlâ—ng the same more at large he saith That he gaue to Cesar that which was Cesars and to God that which belonged to God but that the Temâ—ple of God could not be the right of Cesar which we speak saith he to the Emperours honour For what is more honourable vnto him then that he being an Emperour be called a Child of the Church for that a good Emperour is within the Church but not aboue the Church So S. Ambrose What would he haue done or said if he had bene pressed with an Oath against his Conscience or any least poynt of his Religion Thus far I answered in my letter he that shall read M Barlows reply now will seâ— that he hath nothing at all in substaÌ„ce to say against it for to that excellent speach of S. Augustine coÌ„cerning the Emperour Iulian he triâ—â—eth exceedingly first bidding vs to shew that poynt in the Oath which is different from true religion which is a cauill as you see for it is inough if it be contrary to the swearers Religion And wheras we offer vpon that speach as the subiects of Iulian did VVe will serue our Soueraigne we will go to war with him and we will fight for him the like he sayth it is but an hypocriticall florish of words To the speach and facts of S. Ambrose he is forced eyther to say nothing or to speake against himselfe For wheras I do make this demaund Did S. Ambrose by saying that he could not resist the Emperour and that his weapons were teares acknowledge by this that the Emperour had higher authority in Church-matters then he Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion and conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed and acknowledged his authority To the first he sayth that it is only extra oleâ—s not to the cause in hand and that he will handle it in another place though euery man of discretion will see that the demaund is full to the purpose and ought to haue beene answered here To the secoÌ„d he hath but a ridiculous shift Suppose saith he that S. Ambrose would refuse such an Oath vrged vpon him would he withall forbid others to take it Surely no. But I say surely yea for if we graunt S. Ambrose to haue bene a good Prelate Pastour Father to his people we must also graunt that what Oath he thought pernicious for himselfe to take he would haue forbidden the same to haue bene taken by his people if they had demaunded his opinion as English Catholickes did the Popes or els he had not bene a faythfull Pastour But what doth M. Barlow answere to the three instances alleadged out of S. Ambrose in all which he contradicted the Emperour that was his temporall Lord and denied to obey in matters Ecclesiasticall the first when he refused to go with the Tribune and Notary sent for him by the sayd Emperour to dispute in the Consistory with Auxentiâ—â— the Arian Bishop yielding for his reason That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops Which answere of S. Ambrose M. Barlow doth allow and coÌ„mendeth it much albeit we haue said somewhat before about the same yet shall we presently add a word or two more thereof The second refusall of the said Father was as now you haue heard to deliuer vp a certaine Church in Millanâ— to the Arians at the commandement of the Emperour alleadging for his reason Quae diuina sunt Imperatoriae potestatium esse subiecta that such things as are diuine are not subiect to Imperiall power Which answere in like manner M. Barlow alloweth albeit I thinke I may assure my selfe that if his Matie of England should coÌ„maund one of his Parish Churches of Lincolne Diocesse to be deliuered vp to the PuritaÌ„s or Brownists or other like Sectaries and that his Maiesty should be so earnest resolute therin as the Emperour was sending his officers souldiars to put them into possession M. Barlow would not be so resolute in his deniall as S. Ambrose was neither would he be so bold to alleage that reasoÌ„ which S. Ambrose did that diuine things are not subiect to King Iames his power including in
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
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
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
and security as here is insinuated it must needes be for that the Diuell indeed hath made some change in other men matters by altering of opinions and apprehensions For the Catholickes are the same that they were wont to be do thinke the same belieue the same teach the same and practice the same that all their Predecesâ—ours haue done before them This was my declaration discourse What substantiall answer or argument can M. Barlow bring against thisâ— You shall see how he will gnibble at the matter as a mouse at the cheese-vate and cannot enter He saith first that I am in my element when I am in this argument of recourse to Rome vsed to be made from age to age by our ancient Christian English people Prelates and Princes that there is scarce any Epistle Preface Pamphlet Booke or Petition of myne but that this is therein the Cypres-tree to make Rome the loadstone for drawing thither the tryall of our gould in both senses and the like That I borrowed all from Cardinall Allen in his Apology that we haue receyued full satisfactory answers in this behalfe to wit that when the Bishops of Rome in purer times did beare theÌ„selues as religious members not as presumptuous heads of the Church and lyued as ghostly Fathers to counsaile not as Superiors to controle our realme being then also rude and learning scant Religion new sprong vp and no where setled I say then and in those dayes M. Barlow graunteth that the recourse was made to Rome but yet vpon deuotion and mere necessity and not then neither without leaue of the Prince This is his tale And doe you not see what gnibling this is Doe you not behould the poore man in what straites he is to say somewhat What more euident or more strong demonstration could or can be made if he would ioyne really to see and confesse the truth to proue the right and continuance of the Bishop of Rome his supreme spirituall authoriâ—y ouer England and recourse made vnto him therein then that which was made against Syr Edward Câ—â—ke in the answer of the fifth part of Reportes that from King Ethelbert our first ChristiaÌ„ King vntil the defection of King Henry the eight vpon the poynt of a thousand yeares and almost a hundred Christian Kinges it was inuiolably obserued in England to make such recourse in matters of doubt concerning Ecclesiasticall and spirituall affaires vnto the Sea Apostolike and the vniuersall Pastour thereof as lawfull iudge not for counsaile only but for sentence determination and decision both beâ—ore after the Conquest So as except M. Barlow do see more then all they did and haue more learning and piety then any of them who â—ollowed also therein not their owne sense and iudgement only but that of the whole Christian world besides all these spruse and princocke exceptions of â—urer tymes rudenesse of the land lacke of learning theyr being of new Christians and the like are but ridiculous inuentions of an idle busy-head and so not worth the standing vpon to answer them for that they are euidently false in the eyes of al the world And like vnto these are the other â—oyes that do ensue pag. 25. 26.27 As for example that there was no need to make recourse to Rome for deciding the doubts about the Oath which he proueth forsooth and that very â—oberly out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. Is there not a wise man among you among al the Priests secular â—esuited in EnglaÌ„d that can determine a controuersy about the Oath of Allegiance Might not your Arch-Priest Blackwell so authorized by the Pope so commended and countenanced by two Cardinals Caiâ—tan and Burghesius be sufficient But al this is simple geere as you see and hangeth not togeather but rather maketh for his aduersary For if the Arch-Priest that then was had his authority from the Pope then reason was it that in so great a doubt concerning the soules of so many the matter should be consulted with the Superiour as we see it vsuall in England that lower Iudges in difficult cases doe consult with them from whom they had their authority Neyther doth S. Paul here alleaged meane that the Corinthians should choose some contemptible man to be their iudge in Spirituall or Eccleâ—aâ—ticall matters for in all those he biddetâ— all Christians to be subiect to their Bishops spirituâ—ll Pastours that haue to render accouÌ„t for their soules but hâ— meaneth in temporall matters and particuler sutes and ciuill controuersies betweene man man which he houldeth to be contemptible thinges in respect of the spirituall and especially to contend for the same before Infidell Iudges as they did And so doth M. Barlâ—â— wholy peruert S. Paul as his fashion is commonly in most Scriptures and authorityes that he alleageth But now we come to another argument of his against our recourse made to Rome for decision of this great doubt concerning the taking or not taking the Oath And albeit you haue heard how many impertinent and childish arguments he hath vsed before about the same yet none of them can be compared with this for absurdity and impertinency and it consisteth in taking exceptions against the very person of the Pope Paulus Quintus that now sitteth in the Sea who being so eminent for his good partes rare vertues as laying aside his supreme dignity of Vniuersall Father of Christs Catholick Church the same doth grieue exceedingly the hartes of all Heretickes that hate the Apostoâ—â—cke Sea and him only for that he sitteth and gouerneth so worthily therein which they cannot abydeâ— But let vs see what they obiect against him in this behalfe VVhat is there saith he in this Pope for his iudgment in Diuinity that his determination should be expected about this Oath of Allegâ—â—â—ce to his Maiestie more then in his predecessour Clemens whose opinion was not inquired of about the Oath for conspiracy against the whole Realme Wherunto I answer that for so much as the other Oath of conspiracy if any such were was but betweene certaine particuler men who did vpon discontentmeÌ„t coÌ„spyre togeather and bynd one the other by Oath to secresy did presume that both Pope Clement this Pope if they had bene made priuy therof would haue letted their bad intentions therfore the conspirators neuer proposed the mâ—â—ter vnto them but concealed it from their knowledge whome they asâ—urâ—d to find opposite to their designements in such like attempts But this other Oath called of Allegiâ—â—ce for that it was a publike matter and vrged publikly to be taken by all Catholicks with most grieuous penalties of loâ—se of goods landes liberty proposed for the refusers and for that the sayd Catholikes had a great doubt whether they might receiue the same with a safe conscience in respect of diuers clauses therein contayned tending to the deniall or calling into question the Popes supreme authority ouer Christian soules therefore they thought it
of ouersight or of purpose For I do not make that argument which he frameth iâ— my name that the Pope hath to do in England because some Catholickes suppose he hath Nor is the word supposing vsed by me applied to some Catholikes as though they supposed but to my selfe that I supposed and so this change of the person as you see is a foule ouersight in repeating his aduersaries argument There followeth the like change of the subiect for my supposall was not that the Pope had to do in England but that we treated and spake in that place of Catholike people according to Catholike Doctrine and of Catholike consciences not of Protestants consciences or iudgements for that the question was not whether Protestanâ—s with a good conscience might take the Oath or not but Catholikes with the integrity of their Religion Out of which supposall is inferred that forsomuch as Catholike doctrine in all Schools of the world as well of Spaine France Italy and others do teach and define that all Catholike people whether they be farre or neere without exception are equally subiect to the supreme Pastour of the Church wherof they are members it followeth I say that dwell they neuer so farre of they cannot be called nor accounted Messis aliena to their said vniuersall Pastour But let vs heare M. Barlow further vttering other ignorances intolerable in the eares of learned men But before this supposall saith he be brought into a positiue and resolute conclusion will require more tyme c. What M. Barlow this supposall that we treated of Catholike people only and according to Catholike Doctrine and not of Protestants My wordes are playne do you read them ouer againe supposing as we doe quoth I that we treat of Catholike people only and according to Catholik doctrine You see my words this was my supposall what difficulty is there now to reduce them to a positiue and resolute conclusion saying and affirming resolutely that which then I supposed to wiâ— that I treated in that place of Catholikes only and their consciences according to Catholike doctrine and not of Protestants Do you see how hard a matter this is to bring a supposall into a conclusion And doth not your Reader see to what straites of absurdityes your folly hath brought you But yet the Reader must further know that there is included in your wordes greater ignorance perhaps theÌ„ any of the former for you imagine as by your sequent wordes appeareth that a supposall is of much lesse certainty then is a positiue and resâ—lute conclusion which is quite contrary for that a positiue conclusion how resolute soeuer it be on the behalfe of the defender yet may it be controuerted and called into question or disputed of but a supposall cannot for that it is supposed and graunted by both partes Let vs see then M. Barlow his acumen in this matter Thus he writeth of me and my supposall It argued say you some ingenuity in the man that he made it but a supposall and aâ—terward againe talking of a proposition or conclusion of Cardinall Bellarmine about the Mother-Church of Rome you say the best writing Iesuits do indeed make it a supposall and the most â—auorable of them that it is bâ— likely Whereby it is plaine that the silly man houldeth that a supposal in Diuinity or Philosophy is more vncertaine then a resolute proposition or conclusion and in effect he takes it for only a Likelihood or probability which onely to heare is â—idiculous amongsâ— learned men for that alwaies the thinges supposed in any silence are taken for most â—ue and vndoubted as graunted by both partes yea they are the very groundes and principles of all sciences wheron the certainty of all conclusions throughout those sciences doth depend And so we see for examples sake the â—uclide in the beginning of his bookes of Geâ—â—â—â— doth suppose certaine principles and groundes of that science as that 〈◊〉 est main sua parte euery whole is greater then the part therof Si ab aequalibus aequalia domas â—â—liqua eâ—â—nt aequalia iâ— from equall thinges you take equally away the rest which remaine shall be equall and many such other like suppositions which are to be seene in tâ—e â—â—st â—ooke of these 15. which â—uclide calleth de Elementâ—s â—â— tâ—e â—lâ—ments or principles of Geâ—metry And now to say that these supposalls are of lesâ—e certainty then positiue oâ— râ—solâ—tâ— conclusions deduced from them and grounded vpon them as M. Barlow imagineth is so absurd as nothing can be more â—or that the conclusions may be denyed or disâ—uted 〈◊〉 but the supposals may not Aâ—isâ—otle aâ—so when he treateth of the Principles of 〈…〉 whâ—câ— as Pâ—â—lus testifâ—eth he calleth supposâ—ioâ—â— a 〈…〉 or supposalls quia supponenda sunt for that 〈◊〉 are to be â—â—pposâ—d and not to be proued sheweth that 〈…〉 supposals is infallible for that they 〈…〉 partes for which let this one example 〈…〉 Câ—risâ—iâ—n should contend with a lâ—w about 〈…〉 Death or Resurrection of our Sauiour 〈…〉 fiâ—st as a thing euident acknowledged 〈◊〉 both that whatsoeuer is contained in the old Testament is oâ— infallible truth authority and therevpon should frame many positiue and resolute Conclusions from the predictions of the ancient Prophets about these mysteries of Christ should these conclusions be of more certainty then the foresayd supposals vpon which they stand Or shall it be but likely only and probable that the old Testament is true for that it was only supposed and not proued at the beginning What can be more ignorantly spoken then this concerning the comparison of conclusions and suppositions Nor can he run out by saying that he agreed not to my supposall at the beginning for that there are certaine supposalls so euideÌ„t of themselues as they require no consent of the aduersary as were those of Euclide before mentioned and so was this of mine in the passage of my Letter already cited where I supposed that I treated of Catholike people only and acording to Catholike Doctrine and in matters belonging to Catholicke mens soules and consciences and not of Protestants which supposall no man can contradict for that it is most cleare and euident by my owne wordes and therefore consequently M. Barlow hath shewed himselfe but a very poore Philosopher and a worse Deuine in this place But the two notorious vntruthes which he vttereth presently in the next ensuing lynes though I be weary now of such stuffe may not be pretermitted The first is against Cardinall Bellarmine the second is against the Pope concerning his prohibition of the Oath His wordes for the first are these If all the rest of the Apostles were not ordered Bishops by S. Peter saith Bellarmine then cannot the Church of Rome be Mother of all other Churches much lesse the Bishop and whether it were so or no the best writing Iesuites doe indeed make it but a supposall But now for the chastisemeÌ„t of his
folly for saying but a supposal as though it were a speach of vncertainty I haue said sufficieÌ„t before There remaineth his vntruth in saying that Bellar. doth suppose that if the rest of the Apostles were not made Bishops by S Peter then cannot the Church of Rome be the Mother-Church of other Churches nor the Bishop vniuersal Bishop For first as coÌ„cerning the latter part about the Vniuersall Bishop Bellarmine hath no one word thereof but teacheth the quite contrary founding the power and authority of S. Peter ouer all other Churches vpon other groundes and namely vpon the commission of Christ Matth. 16. â—oan 20. not vpon his ordayning or not ordayning Bishops of the other Apostles about which question he doth but set downe the opinion of Ioannes de Tuâ—reâ—remata lib. 2. Summae de Ecclesia Cap. 32. with his reasons â—or the same and consequently doth not â—et it downe as a supposall certaine ground or principle but as a probable and disputable opinion though himself hould the opinion of Turrecremata to be more probable But on the other side Franciscus de Victoria heere cited by M. Barlow himselâ—e though he be of a contrary opinion to Turrecremata and to Bellarmine about the Ordination of all the Apostles by S. Peter yet doth he in the very same place professe that S. Peter was Vniuersall Bishop ouer all the Church of God Primus Princeps cum summa supertotam Ecclesiam potâ—state That among the Apostles he was the first and principall with supreme power ouer all the Church So as the denial of this particulâ—r priuiledge in S. Peter that he ordained all other Apostles Bishops doth not inâ—eâ—e that he was not vniuersall Bishop of the whole Church as here we see M. Barlow most falsely to inferre And whereas he noteth in the margent with great diligence diuers Catholicke writers that dâ—â— hold the question to be probable on both sids as Salmeron Victoria Suarez and Gregorius de Valâ—ntia that is but an old trick to shuâ—â—le and make a noice where there is no need for Bellarmine doth not hold the thing to be de fide or infallible supposall and consequently it little importeth to bring in this diuersity of opinions of the aâ—oresayd Authors about the matter Now then to come to the second vntruth that the Pope by decreeing the Oath as it lay was vnlawfull did also forbid euen that very point of sâ—earing ciuill obedience which is so notoriously vntrue as whosoeuer doth but read the Popes Breue it selfe or Cardinall Bellarmine his explication therof or my Letter wherin the contrary is euery where protested wil maruaile to see such impudent proceeding But of this more afterward Now wee shall passe to discusse whether there be any pointes in the sayd Oath concerning the religion and consciences of Catholicks whereby the taking thereof was made vnlawfull vnto them For this doth Maister Barlow vtterly deny as now you shall heare WHETHER THE OATH BE ONLY OF CIVILL OBEDIENCE Or whether there be any clauses in it against Catholicke Religion CHAP. II. THIS point being one of the most chief of al my Treatise about the Oath is haÌ„dled by me somewhat largely pag. 13. of my Letter where vpon the deniâ—ll of the Apologer that any thing is there required but Ciuill obedience my wordes are these And how shall we cleare tâ—is important matter to wit VVhether there be any poyntes in thâ— Oath belonging to religion besides ciuill obedience and I do answer that it is vâ—ry easy to cleare the same by fower seuerall and distinct waâ—es First by the expresse wordes sense and drift of the Oath it selfe that besides the acknowledgemenâ— of temporall respects to wit that our Soueraigne is tâ—â—â— Kâ—ng rightâ—ull Lord ouer all his dominions and â—hat the swearer is his true loyall subiect to obey him in all temporall affayres and other like clauses whereat no man sticketh or maketh difficulty there be other clauses also against the authority of the Supreme Pastour which doe iustly breed scruple of conscience to a Catholicke to â—dmit or take the same Secondly I shewed the same by the Popes wordes in his Breues wherin he doth conioyne the taking of this Oath with the going to the Churches and Seruice of a different Religion pronouncing the one and the other to be vnlawfull Thirdly I declared the same out of the iudgment of Cardinall Bellarmine other learned men who hauing considered well the nature of this Oath and different clauses therin coÌ„tayned do hold it for so cautelously compounded by artificially ioyning togeather Temporal and Spirituall thinges to wit Ciuill Obedience forswearing the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority as no man can thereby profâ—sse his temporall subiection and detest treason and conspiracy which all Catholikes are most willing to doe but he must be forced also to renouÌ„ce the Primacy of the Sea Apostolicke from which all good Cathoâ—ick consciences do iustly abhorre Fourthly for a more full and finall clearing of this matter that I could thinke of no better nor more forcible meane then to make this reall offer on the behalfe of euery English Catholicke for better satisfaction of his Maiestie in this poynt so much vrged of their ciuill and temporall obedience First that he will sweare and acknowledge most willingly all those partes and clauses of the Oath that do any way appertayne to the Ciuil and Temporall obedience due to his Maiesty whom he acknowledgeth for his true and lawfull King and Soueraigne ouer all his dominions and that he will sweare vnto him as much loyalty as euer any Catholicke Subiect of England did vnto their lawfull Kinges in former tymes and ages before the change of King Henry the eight or that aâ—y forrayne subiect oweth or ought to sweare to any Catholicke Prince whatsoeuer at this day These were the â—oure wayes which then occurred 〈◊〉 my mind wherunto it shall be good to examine brieâ—â—y what M. Barlow hath bene able to say in this his answâ—â—â— He beginneth resoluâ—ely as though he had intention 〈◊〉 ioynâ— really indeed Now then saith he this must be cleâ—â—â—â— whether the Oath doth onely concerne ciuill obedience yea or no 〈◊〉 that it doth not the Censurer taketh vpon him to satisfy in eight â—â—â—bers â—rom the 20. to the 28. and that foure seuerall waies So â—e And what doth he alleage against these foure waie◠〈◊〉 eâ—fect no word at all though he babble not a little of diuers matters impertinent to the purpose VVe laying this 〈◊〉 our ground saith he that first both swearing and performing 〈◊〉 obedience is aswell negative against any intruder challenger or vsâ—â—per as affirmatiue â—or the lawfull gouernours and Soueraignes Secondly that this challeng of the Pope in dethroning and deposing of Priâ—ces is a temporall intrusion and no spirituall iurisdiâ—tion do câ—â—clâ—â—â— with a strong and apparant euidence that the whole bulke of the Oâ—â—â— both in the submissiue and exclusiue part doth
hartily sincerely I do desire it without any worse affectioÌ„ towards her then harty coÌ„passion notwithstanding all the outcryes raging exclamations made by this intemperate Minister against me for the contrary to wit â—or malice and hatâ—ed against her and for iudging her before the tyme against the prescription of the Apostle S. Paul which I haue not done For Gods iudgements are secret cannot absolutly be known in particuler before the last day when according to the Scripture all shal be made maniâ—est so far as it shal be conuenient for men to know But yet in this lyfe men also may giue a ghesse and take notice according to our present state of many things how they are to fal out afterwards as S. Paul doth often repeate and affirme most resolutly that such as shall commit such and such delicts as he there recounteth shall neuer attayne to the Kingdome of heauen but be damned eternally according to their workes as loose life murthers fornications adulteryes sectes schismes heresies and the like And if one should see or know some persons to commit all these sinnes togeather or the most of them so dye without contrition or peÌ„nance for the same to his knowledg might not he by good warrant of S. Paul affirme that in his opinion they are daÌ„ned Nay doth not S. Paul giue this expresse liberty of iudging to his Scholler Timothy by him to vs when he saith as before also hath bene noted Quorumdam hominum peccata maniâ—â—sta sunt praecedentia ad iudicium quosdam autem subsequentur The sinns of some men are manifest going before them vnto iudgmeÌ„t and others haue their sinnes following them So as iâ— eyther before their death or after their death wheÌ„ the particuler iudgment of euery soule is to be made any mans griâ—uous sinnes be made manifest there is no doubt but that men may iudge also in a certaine sort or at least make to theÌ„selues a very probable and likely coniecture of the miserable state of that party yea more theÌ„ a coÌ„iecture if the Church should censure him for any great sin coÌ„mittedâ— dâ—ing aâ—terwards in the same without due repeÌ„taÌ„ce which is wont to be declared by denying vnto him Christian burial as when they murther themselues the like But aboue all when the said Church doth cut of any body by ExcoÌ„munication from being any more a member thereof for schisme heresy or other offence of this quality a man may make iudgement of his daÌ„nation yea must also for then is he in the case whome S. Paul affirmeth to be sâ—buersum subuerted by heresy that is as much to say turned vpside downe or pluckt vp by the rootes proprio iudicio condemnatum condemned not only by the iudgment of the Church but also by his owne iudgmeÌ„t in like manner when he coÌ„meth to answere the matter for that being bound to follow the direction of the Church he became Haeretiâ—us homo as the Apostles words are that is to say an Hereticaâ—l man one that out of choice or election would neâ—des follow his owne iudgment This point then that a man or woman dying in the excoÌ„munication of the known Catholicke Church may be pronounced to be damned and cannot possibly be saued albeit their liues were otherwise neuer so good and apparent holy is a thing so generally earnestly and resolutely affirmed and incultated by the ancient Fathers of the primitiue Church that no man can doubt of it without pertinacity or impiety For S. Cyprian that holy Bishop and Martyr doth treat the same largely in diuers places saying first that an hereticke or schismatike that is out of the Church cannot be saued though he should shed his bloud for Christ inexpiabilis culpa quae nec passione purgatur it is an inexpiable synne to be an Hereticke or Schismaticke that is to say not euer to be forgiuen nor can it be purged by suâ—fering for Christ himselfe And againe he sayth that such a man can neuer be a martyr though he should dye for Christ nor yet receiue any Crowne for confession of Christian fayth euen vnto death which death saith he non erit â—idâ—i corona sed poena 〈◊〉 it shall not be a Crowne of fayth but a punishment oâ— perâ—idiousnes And many other like places and sâ—yings he hath which for breuity I omit wherin also do coacurre with him the other ancient Fathers that ensued after and namely S. Augustine in many parts of his workeâ— in particuler where he saith against the Donatists That neither baptisme nor Martyrdome profiteth an heretike any thing at all which he repeateth oâ—ten times and in another place he saith If thou be out oâ— the Church thou shalt be punished â—ith eternall paines although thou shouldest be burned quicke for the name of Châ—ist And yet againe the same Father Hereâ—ikes dâ— sometimes brag that they do giue much almes to the poore and do suâ—â—er much for truth but this is not for Châ—ist buâ—â—or their Sect. â—â—oke for whom thou sufferest quia for as miâ—â—us es ideo miser es â—or that thou art cast sorth of the communion of the Church therfore art thou miserable whatsoeuer thou doest or sufferest otherwise For harken to the Apostle saying to himselfe Iâ— I should giue all that I haue to the poore and deliuer my body to the â—ire without â—harity I am nothing he that is out of the Church liueth out of chariâ—y And let the Reader see more of this in S. Aâ—gusâ—ine Serm. Domini in mome cap. 9. lib. 2. contra Petilianum Donatist cap. 98. lib. 1. contra Gaudâ—ntium cap. 33. in Conc. de gâ—stis cum Emeâ—â—â—o where he hath these words Iâ— vnto an heretike that is out oâ— tâ—â— Church it should be said by an enemie of Christ Offâ—r vp sacrifice to my idols and adore my Gods and he in refusing to adore should be put to death by the sayd enemy of Christ for this fact yet shall â—â—le damnâ—d and not crowned I pretermit in this matter S. Chrysostome hom 11. in â—â—ist ad Eâ—â—es S. Pacianus Bishop of Barcelona that liued sâ—mâ—what beâ—ore him Epist. 2. ad Sâ—mpronium S. Fulgâ—ntius tâ—at liued the next age after lib. de fide ad Pâ—trum cap. 29. whose wordes are these spoken with a vehement spirit and some men ascribe them to S. Augustine Firnassime tene 〈◊〉 dubiâ—â—s c. Do thou hould â—or most firme and certayne and no wayes doubt but that whosoeuer is an hereticke or â—chismaticke and therby out of the Church tâ—ough he be baptized in the name of the Father the Sâ—nne and the holy Ghost do neuer so good workes giueâ— nâ—uâ—r so â—â—ch almes no though he should shed his bloud for thâ—nâ— mâ— oâ— Christ yet can he not be saued Well then this is the Maior proposition no Christian man or woman though of neuer so good life can be saued â—ut of the vnitie of the knowne
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
Athanasius himselfe in a long Epistle of this matter where he also recouÌ„teth the bold speach of bishop Osius the famous Confessor of Corduba who was one of the 318. Fathers that saâ—â— as Iudges in the first Councell of Niâ—e and vsed the saâ—â— liberty of speach to the forsayd Emperour at another time which the other Bishops had done before him saying to him Leaue of I beseech thee o Emperor these dealingâ— in Ecclesiasticall affayres remember thou art mortall feare the day of Iudgement keep thy selfe free from this kind of sin do not vse coÌ„mandements to vs in this kind but rather learne of vs for that God hath coÌ„mitted the Empire vnto thee to vs the things that appertaine to his Church c. All which speaches doth S. Athanasius allow highly coÌ„mend in the same place adding further of his owne That now the sayd Constantius had made his Pallace a tribunall of Ecclesiasticall causes in place of Ecclesiasticall Courtes and had made himselfe the cheife Prince and head of spirituall Pleas which he calleth the abhomination foretold by Daniel the Prophet c. Which speach if old Athanasius should haue vsed to his Maiestie in the presence of all the rest and seconded by others that sate theâ—e with him could not in all reason but much moue especially ifâ— So Gregory Nazianzen and S. Ambrose should haue recounted their admonitions about the same to their temporall Lord and Emperour Valentinian as when the former sayd vnto him as is extant yet in his Oration That he should vnderstand that he being a Bishop had greater authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperor and that he had a tribunall or seat of Iudgment higher then the Emperour who was one of his sheep and that more resolutly S. Ambrose to the same Emperour when he comaunded him to giue vp a Church to the handes of the Arians Trouble not yourselfe o Emperor sayth S. Ambrose in commanding me to delyuer the Church nor do you persuade your selfe that you haue any Imperiall right ouer these things that are spirituall and diuine exalt not your selfe but be subiect to God if you will raigne be content with those things that belonge to Cesar and leaue those which are of God vnto God Pallaces appertayne vnto the Emperor and Churches vnto the Preist And these three Fathers hauing thus briefly vttered their sentences for much more might be alleaged out of them in this kind let vs see how the fourth that is to say S. ChrysostoÌ„ Archbishop of Constantinople coÌ„curred with theÌ„ Stay o king saith he within thy bounds limits for different are the bounds of a kingdome the limits of Priesthood this Kingdome of Priesthood is greater then the other Bodies are committed to the King but the soules to the Priest And againe Therfore hath God subiected the Kings head to the Priests haÌ„d instructing vs therby that the Priest is a greater Prince then the king according to S. Paul to the Hebrews the lesser alwaies receaueth blessing from the greater These foure Fathers then hauing grauely set downe their opinions about this point of spirituall power not to be assumed by teÌ„porall Princes let vs imagine the other three to talk of some other mater as namely S. Hierome that he vnderstandeth diuers pointes of the heresie of Iouinian and Vigilantius against whome he had with great labour written seuerall Bookes to be held at this day in his Maiesties kingdomes of England Scotland which could not but grieue him they being coÌ„demned heresies by the Church S. Augustine also vpon occasion giuen him may be imagined to make his coÌ„plaint that he hauing written amongst many other books one de cura pro mortuis agenda for the care that is to be had for soules departed both in that booke and in sundry other partes of his workes said downe the doctrine and practice of the Church in offering prayers Sacrifice for the dead and deliuering soules from purgatory and that the sayd Catholicke Church of his time had condemned Aërius of heresy for the contrary doctrine yet he vnderstood that the matter was laughed at now in Eâ—gland and Aërius in this point held for a better Christian then himselfe yea and wheras he S. Augustine had according to the doctrine and practice of the true Catholicke Church in his dayes prayed for the soule of his Mother besought all others to doe the like his Maiestie was taught by these new-sprong doctors to condemn the same neither to pray for the soule departed of his mother dying in the same Catholicke fayth nor to permit others to do the same All which Saint Gregory hearing â—et vs suppose him out of that great loue and charity wherwith he was inflamed towardes England and the English Nation to vse a most sweet and fatherly speach vnto his Maiestie exhorting him to remember that he sent into England by the first preachers that came from him the same Catholicke Christian Religion which was then spread ouer the whole world and that which he had receiued by succession of Bishops and former ages from the said Fathers there present and they from the Apostles and that the said ancient true and Catholicke Religion was sincerely deliuered vnto his Maiesties first Christian predecessor in England King Ethelbert and so continued from age to age vntill King Henry the eight If I say this graue assembly of ancient holy Fathers should be made about his Maiesty he fitting in the middest and should heare what they say and ponder with what great learning grauity and sanctitie they speake and how differently they talke from these new maisters that make vp M. Barlowes little Vniuersitie I thinke verily that his Maiestie out of his great iudgment would easily contemne the one in respect of the other But alas he hath neyther time nor leysure permitted to him to consider of these thinges nor of the true differences being so possessed or at least wise so obsessed with these other mens preoccupations euen from his tender youth and cradle as the Catholicke cause which only is truth could neuer yet haue entrance or indifferent audience in his Maiesties â—ares but our prayers are continually that it may And now hauing insinuated how substantially this little Vniuersity of ancient learned Fathers would speake to his Maiesty if they might be admitted eyther at table or time of repast or otherwise Let vs consider a little how different matters euen by their owne confession these new Academicks do suggest for that M. Barlow going about to excuse his fellow T. M. the yonger from that crime of Sycophancy which was obiected for his calumniations against Catholikes in his table-talke trifling first about the word what it signifyeth in greeke according to the first institution therof to wit an accusation of carrying out of figges out of Athens as before hath bene shewed and then for him that vpon small matters accuseth another as
is of your owne thrusting in and put in place therof that the sayd Sonne may be the sooneâ— induced to graâ—t them that liberty in respect of their former dutifulnes and loyalty to his mother in her distresses and the consequence will not be euill To the third of his Maiesties confessed experience of the loyalty of Catholickes both towards himselfe and his Mother in their distresâ—es he sayth That his Maiesty nameth not Catholiâ—kes at all in his said Booke but only prosesseth that be found none so stedfastly to abide by him in his greatest straites as they which constantly kept their true Allegiance to his Mother Well Syr and who I pray you were they Catholickes or Protestants Let the acts of those times be seene the Authors noted the effectes considered Yet sayth M. Barlow noâ— iâ— is very probable that when his Maiesty hath cast vp his accompt of forâ—er disloyalties he shall â—ind the moderate â—nd dirâ—ct Protestantâ— that incliâ—es neither to right hand nor left to be the first and faithfâ—ll subiect Well Syr this may be pâ—rhaps fâ—â— the time to come for your selâ—e saith thaâ— it is but probable but for the time pâ—st his Maiestie hauing now cast vp his accompts hath found that reckonyng as he hâ—th set it downe And the common rule of wisdome is to beleeue as we haue found vntill different experience teach vs the contrary And by the way we mustâ— learne here M. Barlowes new deuised epithetons of a moderate and direct Protestant that as he sayth is neythâ—r Iesuâ—ted nor Geneuated that is neither Catholicke nor Puryâ—an but moderate and direct that is to say moderate in not belieuing to much on any sâ—de if it stand not with his profit and direct in following iump the Prince and State that may aduance him whatsoeuer they should determine in matters of religion This is the man by M. Barlowes direction vpon whome his Maiestie must buyld and not the Purytan or zealous Catholicke for that they are ouer scrupulous I could wish that M. Barlow had bene a litle more scrupulous in the very next ensuing number where without all blushing he casteth out two notorious lyes agaynst Father Pâ—rsons to make him odious thereby to his Maiestie saying first that he pronounceth his sayd Maiestie to be a desperate and â—orlorne hereticke but cyteth no place where it is to be found nor indeed is there any such place to be found where Father Personâ— vseth any such words as euer I could yet see Secondly he alleadgeth for Father Persons expresse words these That whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant is a most grieuous and damnable sinner and citeth for the same Dâ—lâ—man pag. 216. which quotation serueth only to condemne M. Barlow of a notorious wilfull calumniation for that these expresse wordes are not there found nor is there any mention of the Succession of a Protestant but in generall is sayd thus That for any man to giue his help towards the making of a King whome he iudgeth faulty in religion and consequently would aduance no religion or the wrong if â—e were in authority is a grieuous sinne of what syde soeuer the truth be c. So as neither Protestant nor Succession is named in this place but mâ—king of a King by such as my haue authority to doe the same and it may as well hould agaynst the entrance of a Catholicke Prince as of any other sect whatsoeuer And consequently both of these are sâ—landerous accusations the first being a meere inuented vntruth and the second a malicious peruerted calumniation so as in respect of both I may well say with the Prophet Dilexisti omnia verba praecipitationis lingua dolosa and I pray God the threat next insuing do not take place Propterea Deus destruct to in finem c. I desyre not his destruction but his amendment After this followeth in my foresaid Letter a narration of the Dutifull demeanour of Catholickes towardes his Maiestie euen from his first entrance and how by the vniust perswasions of their enemyes they began quickly to feele his hard hand borne ouer them euen before the powder-plot as by the confirmation of all Queen Elizabethâ— penal lawes in the first yeare of his Maiesties raigne with the execution therof afterward doth well appeare wherof many particuler examples are set downe and among other things it is touched as a matter of speciall disfauour that his Maiestie vouchsafing in his owne Royall Person to giue publicke audience both to Protestants and Purytâ—â— for 3. dayes togeather concerning the differences of their Religion no such grace at all was graunted vnto Catholickes Vpon which words M. Barlow stayeth himselfe and maketh this coÌ„mentary It is a strange humour sayth he that this Epistler hath iâ— he sayth truth he lyeth It is true there was a conference but about difference in Religion it is vtterly false sayâ—â— they would possesse the world that we are at iar among our selues abâ—â—â— our Religion whereas the quarrell though it be indeed vnkind yet it iâ— not in this kinde saue only for Ceremonyes externall no poynt substâ—â—tiall c. But now of this I haue spoken somewhat before shewing that if this vnkinde quarrell betweene Protestaâ—â—s Purytans as he calleth it be only about externall Ceremonies then is both his Prelacy and that of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop only an externall Ceremony And if his phrase of vnkind quarrell be of the same kind that he mentioned before to be in Queene Elizabeth towards Queene Mary of Scotland whose heâ—d she cut ofâ— then is the matter somewhat substantiall not only Ceremoniall and indeed he that shall consider what the Purytan in this vnkind quarrell pretendeth agaynst the Protestant and his Church shall see that he striketh at the head indeed or rather striketh of the head of the sayd Church whether we consyder either the externall and ministeryall head thereof to wit the Princes Ecclesiasticall power and of Bishops vnder him or the internall head metaphorically taken for the life spirit and essence of the sayd Church in denying it to be a true Christian Church but only a prophane Congregation without any spirituall power at all This appeareth by all the course and drift of Puritan wryters and bookes extant of the differences acknowledged also by Protestant writers in their Treatises against them so as to me it seemeth not only a shameles bouldnes to deny it as M. Barlow here doth but a shamâ—full basenes also and beggary so to runne after their enemyes intreating them to haue some association with them whereas the other do both contemne and detest them For this falleth out not only in this case but also with the Lutherans whom M. Barlow and his fellowes when they deale with vs will needes haue to be theyr brethren of one and the same Church fayth and beliefe for all substantiall poyntes of doctrine Whereas the Lutherans on the other syde do both deny
and defy this communion in fayth with them and haue set forth whole bookes to proue the same which were too long here to repeate Yea Caluinian and Zwinglian Ministers themselues are witnesses hereof in many of their Treatises as namely the Tigurine Deuines who confesse that theyr differences and contentions with the Lutherans are about Iustification Free-will the Ghospell the law the Person of Christ his descent into hell of Gods election of his children to life euerlasting de multis alijs non leuis momenti articulis of many more articles of no small importance which is euident for that Ioannes Sturmius another Zwinglian or Caluinist addeth other controuersies as of the Supper of our Lord and Reall Presence of Predestination of the Ascension of Christ to heauen his sitting at the right hand of his Father and the like adding also that the Lutherans do hould the Protestant Caluinian Churches of England France Flanders and Scotland for Hereticall and their Martyrs for Martyrs of the Diuell And conforme to these their writings are their doinges and proceedings with them where they haue dominion for that they admyt them not to cohabitation nor to the common vse of marriage betweene them nor to be buryed with them after theyr deaths as they well know who haue liued or do liue among them And thus much for the Lutherans of the one syde Now let vs see somewhat also of the Purytans of the other And first of all this matter hath beene handled dyuers times and demonstrated by Catholicke English wryters of our dayes agaynst this absurd assertion of M. Barlow that the differences at this day betweene Protestants and Purytans are not at all concerning religion nor of any substantiall and essentiall poyntes thereof but only Ceremoniall and in particuler the same is conuinced and made most manifest in the Preface of a late Booke intituled An answere to the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports where the different grounds of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power betweene Protestants Puritans and Catholickes being examined it is found that their differences are such as cannot possibly stand togeather to make one Church and house of saluation but that if one hath the truth the other must necessarily remayne in damnable error which is euident also by the writings of Protestants themselues especially by the bookes intituled Dangerous positions set forth and imprinted at London 1593. and the Suruey ofpretended holy discipline made as they say by him that is now Lord of Canterbury and Doctor Sutcliffe as also the Booke intituled the Picture of a Purytan writen by O. O. of Emanuel printed 1603. and other like bookes But especially at this time will I vse for proofe of this poynt the testimony of Thomas Rogers Minister and Chaplin as he styleth himselfe to his Lord of Canterbury who of late hauing set forth by publike authority the fayth doctrine and religion of England expressed in 39. articles vpon the yeare 1607. doth in his Preface to his said Lord haÌ„dle this matter of the differences betweene the Puritans and Protestantes though partially agaynst the discontented brethren he being theyr aduersary but yet setteth downe out of their owne words what their iudgment is of the importance and moment of the controuersyes betwene them to wit that they are not only about Ceremonies and circumâ—tances as M. Barlow pretendeth but about poyntes contayned in scripture in the very Ghospell it selfe They are compryzed say they in the booke oâ— God and also be a part of the Ghospell yea the very Ghospell it selfe so true are they and oâ— such importance that if euery hayre of our head were a life we ought to affâ—ard them all in defence of these matters and that the articles of religion penned and agreed vpon by the Bishops are but childish toyes in respect of the other So they And will any man thinke or say now that these men doe not hould that theyr differences with the Protestants are differences in religion as M. Barlow sayth or that they are only matters of ceremonyes and not of any one substantiall poynt concerning religion Let vs heare them yet further telling theyr owne tale and related by M. Rogers The controuersy betwene them and vs say they of the Protestants is not as the Bishops and their welwillers beare the world in hand for a cap or tippet or a Surplisse but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry and regiment of the Church according to the word of God The first wherof which is a true Ministry they Protestants shall neuer haue till Bishops and Archbishops be put downe and all Ministers be made equall The other also will neuer be brought to passe vntill Kings and Queenes doe subiect themselues vnto the Church and doe submit their Scepters and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and licke vp the dust of the feete of the Church and willingly abyde the Censures of the Church c. This they write and much more in that placeâ— which I trow is more then M. Barlow ascribeth vnto the matter For if it be contayned in Gods booke yea a part oâ— the Ghospell the very Ghospell it selfe about which they contend what proterâ—ity is it on the other part to call it a matter only of Ceremony But yet further within two pages after agayne they doe explayne themselues and theyr cause more in particuler saying Our controuersy with the Protestants is whether Iesus Christ shal be King or no and the end of all our trauell is to bâ—yld vp the walls of Ierusalem and to set vp the throne of Iesus Christ 〈◊〉 heauenly king in the myddest thereof And are these poyntes also not substantiall nor any wayes touching religion but Ceremonies Harken then yet further what they do inferre vpon the Protestantes Church for dissenting from them in these pointes Neyther is there among them say they a Church or 〈◊〉 least wise no true Church neither are they but titular Christians no true Christians indeed And yet will M. Barlow continue to say that there is no difference at all in Religion and that I lyed when I sayd that his Maiesty yeelded to a Conference between Protestants Puritans concerning their differences of Religion VVhat will he answere to the two precedent members touched by the Puritans to witâ— that their strife is for a true Ministry a lawfull gouermeÌ„t therof expounding their meaning to be that for obtaining the first all Bishops and Archbishops must be put downe for the second all temporall Princes Kings Queenes must leaue their superiority ouer the Church submit themselues and their Crownes vnto the same Church to wit their Presbyteries as M. Rogers expoÌ„deth their words And is there no substantiall point neyther in all this but only matter of Ceremony And doth not the very life soule of the Church depend of these two things a true Ministry and lawful Head Is not the power of preaching teaching administration of
the name of diuine things the possession of this or that materiall Church Or if he would be so bold now I assure my self he would not haue bene so in Queene Elizabeths dayes whose spirituall Supremacy though femininae seemed much more to be esteemed of him then this now of his Maiesty as preseÌ„tly will appeare The third refusall of S. Ambrose to the Emperour was when the said Emperour sent his Tribunes and other officers to require certaine Vessels belonging to the Church to be deliuered which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do answering as before hath bene set downe That iâ— thâ—◠〈◊〉 could not obey him and that if he loued himselfe he should abstâ—â—â—e to offer such iniurie vnto Christ c. which answer also M. Barlâ—â— well alloweth signifying therby that he would aâ—â—werâ— in the same sort to the magistrates officers of King Iamâ—â— if he should send them vpon any occasion to require at his hands the CoÌ„munion cup or any other such vessels belonging to any Church in Lincolne Diocesse And will any man belieue this that he will be so stout But it is a pastime to see how he chatteth about this matter as though he would say somewhat indeed but yet saith nothing at least to the purpose Let vs heare what he bringeth Things separated saith he to holy vse are not to be alienated to 〈◊〉 vsage Here now euery man will laugh that remembreth how the Vessels Vestments and other such things dedicated vnto God and consecrated to Ecclesiasticall vses in the Catholike Church haue bene handled by Protestants taken away defaced and conuerted to prophane vses which this man I presume dareth not to condemne Let vs heare him further God hath in them saith he a 〈◊〉 right as King Dauid confesseth first as his gift to man secondly as mans gift agayne to him which twofold cord tyeth them so strong as it is an Anathema or curse for any man not consecrated to chalenge them yea for them which are consecrated if they do not only pâ—â— them to that vse alone for which they were dedicated And do you see now heerâ— how zealous M. Barlow is become vpon the suddayne for defence of consecrated vessels in the Church What Vessels haue they consecrated thinke you Or what kind of consecration do they vse therein He sayth it is an anathema for any person not consecrated to chalenge them the sacred Emperour and King do demand them in this our case if their persons be sacred then in M. Barlows sense they are also consecrated and they may demaund these Vessels which as I said are very few in the Protestant Church and if they had beene as few in the Church meant by S. Ambrose it is not likely that the Emperour would haue troubled himselfe so much in sending Tribunes and other officers for the same But suppose the vessels were of like number price and value in the one and the other Church Yet I thinke M. Barlow will not deny but that the manner of consecrating them was far different which may be seene in the â—â—gâ—â—churgians themselues in the fourth Century and by S. Ambrose in his second booke of Office cap. 29. where he putteth downe two sorts of Church-Vessels dedicated to diuine vses the one initiata hallowed or consecrated and the other not yet hallowed and that in the time of necessity to redeeme Captiues or to relieue the poore the second sort are first to be broken and applied to these holy vses but the former with much more difficulty for that they were now hallowed Which difference I thinke the Protestants do not greatly obserue in their hallowed Vessels S. Gregory Nazianzen in like manner talking of such consecrated Vessels as were vsed in the Church in his time sayth that it was such as it made it vnlawfall for lay men to touch them which I thinke M. Barlow will not lay of his Communion-Cup which all men take in their hands But now to the question it selfe Do you thinke that M. Barlow would deny vnto King Iames that Communion-Cup or any other Vessels of a Church if he should as earnestly demand them as Valentiniaâ— the Emperour did when he sent his Tribunes and other chiefe officers to require them of S. Ambrose If he would what kind of Supremacy doth he allow his Maiesty in spirituall matters if he may be denyed and disobeyed in these also that are in a certaine sort mixt and in some part conioyned with temporall respects And truly when I do consider with my selfe with what degrees M. Barlow doth descend and go downeward in defending of the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of his Maiesty bringing it as it were to nothing from that high pitch wherin King Henry the eight both placed it and left it his children King Edward and Queene Elizabeth continued the same I cannot but wonder and admire the prouideÌ„ce of Almighty God that hath wrought the ouerthrow in effect of that new Protestant Idoll of spirituall Authority in temporall Princes euen by Protestants themselues Iohn â—aluin beginning the battery as all men know calling it Antichristian the Puritans following him in that doctrine and now M. Barlow though vnder-hand and dissemblingly confirming all that they haue sayd or doâ—â— therin The first pitch wherin King Henry did place the same was as appeareth by the Statute it selfe in the twentith six yeare of his raigne That he and his herres should be taken â—ccepted and reputed the only Supreme head on earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia and should haue and enioy â—â—nexed â—nd vnited to his Imperiall Crowne asiâ—eli the title style therof as also all honours dignities preheminences iurisdictions priâ—iledges to the said Dignity of supreme Head belonging c. Wherby is euident that the Parlament gaue vnto him as great authority ouer the Church of EnglaÌ„d as the Pope had before And this very fame authority was translated after him to his Sonne King Edward though a child yea all Preachers were commanded to teach the people that his Minority of age wâ—â— no impediment to his supreme spiritual gouernment for that a King is as truly a King at one yeares age as at â—wenty so as the exception made by M. Barlow that Valentinianâ—he â—he Emperour was yong when he commanded S. Amâ—roâ—e to dispute before him maketh nothing according to this Doctrine against his spirituall authority if he were Head of the Church as King Edward was And further the Parliament in the first yeare of King Edward explaining this authority hath these words That all authority of Iurisdictions spirituall and reÌ„porall is deriued and deducted froÌ„ the Kings Maiesty as supreme head of the Churches and Realmes of England and Ireland vnto the Bishops and Archbishops c. And the like was passed ouer also to Queene Elizabeth by a Statute in the first yeare of her raigne wherin it is said That all such iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall as by any spirituall
or Ecclesiasticall power hath hitherto bene or may be lawfully exercisedâ— for the reâ—ormation and correction of all maÌ„ner of errors heresies schismes 〈◊〉 c. all and all manner of Iurisdiction priuâ—ledges and preheâ—â—â—â—â—ces in any wise touching any sprituall or Ecclesiasticall iurisdâ—ctiâ—â—â— with in the Realme was giuen vnto her and vnited vnto the Crâ—â—â—e This was the high doctrine in those daies of the Priâ—ces supreme Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power oâ—er the Church of England no lesse theÌ„ of the Pope himselfe ouer his Church of Rome But now of later dayes and by later writers the case seemeth wonderfully altered for not only haue they taken away the name title of Head of the Church which was treason by King Henries Statutes to deny and many were put to death for not yielding therunto but haue taken away the authority also it selfe if we respect the substance and shifting in words to seeme still to retaine somewhat Wherin among others M. Barlow seemeth eminent and vnder a shew of defending the Kings supremacy to take it quite away For let vs heare first how he handleth the question about the Princes authority for iudging in cases of religion which is the principall of all the rest He both proposeth and solueth the question thus May not then saith he a Prince iudge in cases of Religion and Faith No not iudicio definitiuo to determine what is sound Diuinity or not and so impose that vpon the consciences of men for faith which he alone defines to be so but iudicio executiuo or iurisdictionis he may and ought when the Church hath determined matters of saith command the prosessing therof within his Kingdomeâ— as the soundest and worthyest to be receaued This is his determination whereby it is euident that he permitteth only vnto the King to execute that which his Church in England to wit the Bishops and Clergy therof shall determine about matters of religion which is no one iote more of power in Ecclesiasticall matters then that which Catholicks do ascribe vnto their â—emporall Princes to execute what the Church determineth but yet with this difference of much more dignity that they are bound to the execuâ—ion only of that which the Vniuersall Church shall determine not of their owne subiects alone as it falleth out on the behalfe of his Maiesty of England in this case In which point also I do not see how he can wind himselfe out of this maze that must necessarily follow of his owne doctrine to wit that one should receiue from another that the other receiued from him As for example if the Bishops being his Maiesties subiects as well in spirituall as temporal affaires haue no spirituall iurisdiction but froÌ„ him as the Statute of King Edward doth determine and on the other side his Maiesty to haue no authority to define of any matter belonging to religion at all but only to execute that which the Bishops do define it seemeth that they receiue from his Maiesty that authority which they deny to be in him and so that he giueth them the thing which he hath not in himselfe but is to receaue from them Moreouer it is euident by this doctrine of theirs that the Bishops do make their Courtes Tribunalls for matters of Religion to be absolutly greater then the Kings for that they do allow him no other power for Iudging in spirituall matters but only to execute that which they shall define and determine And albeit for dazeling the simple readers eyes M. Barlow doth in this place fumble vp a certaine distinction not wel vnderstood by himselfe takeÌ„ out of some Schoolmen as he saith noting Occam in the margent that there be three parts of this executiue iudgmeÌ„t the one discretiue to discerne the other directiue to teach others the third decretiue which third he saith is in the Prince both affirmatiuely to bind to the obseruing of that which is so tryed and adiudged and negatiuely to suppresse the contrary and that this last is to Iudge for the truth and the former of defining is to iudge of the truth Yet doth all this reach no further but to the power of execution of that which others haue determined which may be called a power of impotency in that behalfe for that therin he is subiect and not Superiour especially if it lye not in his power either to execute or not to execute as he shall think best which M. Barlow here denveth saying That he may and ought to execute when the Church hath determined But on the other side if he haue power and liberty to execute or not to execute then is the other power of defining in the Bishops to small purpose For that they may define and he not execute his iudgment being that they haue defined eâ—ill and by that way becommeth he their Iudge againe to define whether they haue defined well or no. And this is another circle or labyrinth which I see not how M. Barlâ—â— will easily auoid I doe pretermit diuers other childish thinges that be in this speach of his as where he propoundeth thus the question as first VVhether a Prince may iudge in cases of Religion â—â—d saith as though these two were Sinonyma and all one Whereas religion contayneth many cases as well of life manners and cerimonyes as of faith in all which cases it may be demanded how far the King may be iudge Secondly he saith that the King cannot define and determine what is sound Diuinity or not which is far from the purpose For the question is not whether the King may iudge and determine what is sound Diuinity or Theologie but what is matter of faith and what is to be belieued or not be belieued by a true Christian within his realme Thirdly in like manner when he saith that the King hath only iudicium executiuum or iurisdictionis as though they were all one whereas executio and iurisdictio are two different things iurisdiction is more properly in that party that defineth then in the other that executeth for that the former commaundeth and the second obayeth Fourthly his terme also of discretiuum ascribed by him vnto all Christians to haue power to try spirits whether they be of God or no besides that it seemeth contrary to that of S. Paul to the Corinthians who reckoneth vp discretion of spirits to be a peculiar and seuerall gift vnto some alone saying Alij discretio spirituum c. is nothing well applyed by him to iudicium execuâ—iuum for that it appertayneth rather to iudicium definitiuum for somuch as those that haue power to define to determine of matters are principally to iudge of spirits not their subiects to iudge of theirs for that other wise there must needes ensue an inextricable confusion of trying iudging of one the others spirits As if for example the Bishops oâ— England should try condemne the spirits of the Purytans and they agayne the spirits of the Bishops by
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
Monasteries of Virgins eyther to say Masse or otherwise but such as be of approâ—ed vertue How peace is to be held betweene Bishops Earles and other Great men especially in execution of Iustice That weightes and measures be iust and equall and that none worke vpon holy dayes That all Tythes be payd al ancient possession mantayned to the Churches That no secular courtes be held in Churches or Church porches That no Earles or other Great men do fraudulently buy poore mens goods c. These then were the pointes of Reformation decreed in that Councel of Arles at the instance of Charles the Great who was so zealous a Prince in this behalfâ— as he caused fiue seueral Councels to be celebrated in diuers Partes of his Dominions within one yeare to wit this of Aâ—les another at Towers a third at Chaloâ—s a fourth at Mentz the fifth at Rhemes and another the yeare before which was the â—ixt ad Theodonis villam which is a towne in Luxemburge Al which Prouincial Synodes are extant iâ— the third Tome of Councels togeather with the Canons and Decrees which are such as could not be put in execution but by the temporall fauour authoritie and approbation of the Emperour in such matters as concerned his temporall Kingdome and iurisdiction Wherfore iâ— for these respects the Councell did present vnto the Emperour these Canons to be coÌ„sidered of by his wisedome whether any thing were to be added altered or taken away for the publike good of the Common Wealth no Controuersy of faith being treated therin what is this to proue eyther that the Emperour in spirituall matters was superiour to the said Bishops or that if he had proposed vnto them any such Oath as this is wherin by proâ—essing their temporall Allegiance they must also haue impugned some poynt of their faith that they would haue obeyed him And so much of this Councell This was then my speach yielding furthermore a reason why I did not stand vpon the places of some particuler Councels alleadged for that the discussion of this one made manifest all the rest that they tended only to this end that they proued temporal obedience in subiects towards their Princes in temporal affaires which Catholicks deny not and so in effect they proue nothing to the purpose in hand But yet it shall be good to ponder a little what M. Barlow bringeth in against that which heere I haue written First he saith that not only these Prouinciall Councels of Arles in France and diuers others submitted themselues wholy to the Emperour Charles the Great in most humble termes but the foure Generall Councels also sâ—mmoned at the beck and command of the Emperour submitted themselues for the validity and establishing of their Decrees to his most Royal assent And within three lines after againe VVhole Councels saith he submitted themselues in all dutifull reuerence to their Soueraignes not only in matters of temporall affaires but in faith and religion And yet further in the very next page The Emperour saith he that hath the sole authority to summon a Councel hath the sole power to make good or voyd what it concludes And we must note that he putteth downe the words to make good or voyd in a different markable letter therby to signify that this is an Axiome of great solidity And yet I suppose that he could not be so forgetfull or negligent as not to see that all this is quite contrary to that which he wrote within three leauesâ— before to wit that in cases of religion and faith Princes could not iudge any thing iudicio definitiuo to define or determine but only executiuo to put in execution that which the Church determineth But now if not only the Councell of Arles and other Prouincial Councels but the first foure General Councels submitted themselues also for the validity and establishment of their Decrees which are knowne to haue bene concerning points of religion and faith vnto the Emperours Royal assent so as whatsoeuer was decreed there by the Church this not a Prouincial or National Church only of England but the whole Vniuersall Church gathered in those first foure Councâ—ls should haue no validity except the Emperour approued the same this is more then iudicium executiuum to execute that which the other had determined For here the Emperour doth iudge of al yea euen of the iudges themselues and of their Iudgments and decrees and consequently hath the last and supreme iudgment deâ—initiue to define and determine what Decrees are truly and rightly made and to ratify or make void what he shall think good which is as much as we do or can ascribe vnto the Pope And this is confirmed in like manner by M. Barlows second assâ—ueration That Councels must submit themselues in all dutifull reuerence not only in matters of temporall affaires but of faith and religion alsoâ— What can be â—poken more plainly in contradiction of his former assertion And what more absurdly then that which followeth in the third place That the temporall Prince hath sole power to make good or voydâ— what the Councell concludes For that hereby all the Conciliabula or vnlawfull false Councels that met togeather often in the primitiue Church as that of Aâ—iminum for the Arians against the Catholickes that of Carthage against Cecilianus that of Constanâ—inople against Marcellus that of Antioch against Athanasius that of Burges in France against S. Hilary diuers other hauing the assent and approbation of hereticall Emperours then bearing rule shal be good and lawfull Councels and all other Councels gathered for the Catholicks against these to be voyd of no validity Do you see heere M. Barlows manner of writing and how he plungeth himself aboue the eares in contradictions without marking or respecting what he said before so he may say somewhat for the present But do you thinke that he wil stand to this now No. For that in the very next ensuing leafe he being pressed by me to answere what submission that was which the Councel of Arles made to Charls the Great for his approbation and whether it were of matters concerning faith he runneth quite backe againe denying that Emperours haue any such authority To iudge saith he definitiuely which are matters of faith or no is not for the Emperour but to ratify by hiâ— assent and command by his authority what the Church or Councell so assembled hath defined to be matter of faith is proper to Emperâ—â—rs and Kings Which words if you consider them well do coÌ„taine most euidently the contradictory of that he sayd before That Councels were to submit themselues for the validity of their Decrees to the Emperours Royall assent and that not only in temporall affaires but in faith and â—eligion and that they only haue power to make good or voyde all conclusions of Councels which contayneth manifestly power also to define it is but a shift to say heere that it is not for the
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
it hath bene sufficiently proued against Syr Francis Hâ—stingâ— that ignorant Knight who following M. Iewell obiected it as spoken once by Doctour Cole meaning if he spake it that some simple people are more deuout then greater learned but that ignorance should be a mother or necessary bringer forth of deuotion was neuer affirmed by any position of Catholikes and was proued to be very false in Syr Francis owne person who shewed himselfe to be very ignorant and yet nothing deuout And the same in due measure and proportion may be verified in M. Barlow if he deny it let vs part our proofes I haue shewed his ignorance in alleaging this Canon that maketh nothing for him let him proue his deuotion From the 24. Canon he steppeth forward againe to the 46. Wherin he saith is decreed that the Clergies immâ—nitie from ciuill molestations and troubles is from the King and by his CoÌ„maund and authority And what maketh this against vs or for the Protestants Why is not this practised at this time in EnglaÌ„d that all Clergie men be free ab omnipublica indictione atque labore â—t lilâ—ri sâ—ruiant Deo sayth the same Canon from all publike taxes labour to the end they may attend to seâ—ue God more freely Is the vse of this Canon more amongst Catholikes or Protestants and if more amongst Catholikes and nothing at all amongst Protestants especially in England what wisdome was this of M. Barlow to bâ—ing it in as a point decreed by the Councel conforme to their doctrine and practice But saith he this immunity came from King Sisenandus his order and commandement True it is that he as a good Catholike Prince was very forward therin yet the Decree was the Councels and therfore it is sayd in the Canon id decreuit Sanctum Concilium the holy Councell decreed it Neither do we teach that this immunity or freedome of the Clergy from secular burthens is without the consent concurrence of Christian Princes proceeding out of their piety and deuotion towards the Church to fauour further that which was esteemed by the Church needfull to Gods seruice conforme to Gods diuine Law both written impressed by nature So as this immunity of Clergy men was brought in both by Diuine and Humane Law as largly learnedly doth proue Cardinall Bellarmine in two seuerall Chapters of his Booke de Clericis to whom as to his Maister I send M. Barlow to Schoole though much against his will where also he will learne that long before this fact of King Sisenandus other Christian Emperours and Kings had consented to these immunities of Clergy men and confirmed the same by their temporall lawes decrees which piety King Sisenandus did follow and imitate in Spaine And would God he would inspire his Maiesty to do the same in England But what helpeth this M. Barlowes cause Truly euen as much as the rest Let vs see if you please what is his fourth Canon which he cyteth for his proof of the CouÌ„cels agreement with Protestants He leapeth then lastly to the 75. Canon which is one more then is in the booke for there be but 74. but this is a small fault in respect of that which presently ensueth His words are these Lastly that all the decrees and Canons of that Councell were confirmed by the Clergy annuente religiosissimo Principe after the Kings royll assent had vnto them and that set downe Can. 75. But first of all if the thing did stand in the Councell as heere it is set downe that the Princes consent and confirmation had bene demaunded to all the Decrees and Canons as M. Barlow sayth yet the words being but annuente Principâ— the Prince consenting therunto I do not see how it can be truly translated as it is by M. Barlow after the Kings Royall assent had vnto them which are the vsuall words whereby Parlament Statutes are confirmed wherein the King as truly supreme head hath chiefe authority to allow or reiect which I doubt not but that King SisenaÌ„duâ— toke not vpon him in this Councell of Toledo nay if the place be rightly examined which is in the very last lynes of the sayd Councell it wil be found that the said consent of the Prince was not about the decrees of the Councell but about the subscribing of all the Bishops names vnto the sayd Councell For they hauing ended all and made a large prayer for the prosperity of the said King and all said Amen it is added lastly Definitis itaque â—is qua superiùs comprehensa sunt annuente religiosissâ—mo Pâ—incipâ— â—lacâ—it dâ—inde c. Et quia prosâ—ctilus Ecclesiae anima nostra conâ—â—niâ—nt iam propria subscriptione vt permaneant roboramus Wherâ—fore hauing defined these things that before are comprehended it seemed good also by the consent of our most Religious Prince that forsomuch as these things that are decreed are profitable for the Church and for our soules we do strengthen them also by our owne subscriptions to the end they may remayne I Isidorus in the name of Christ Metropolitan Bishop of the Church of Siuill hauing decreed these things do subscribe c. And so did all the other Bishops by name Heere then I see not what M. Barlow can gayne by alleaging this Canon For if this allowance of King Sisenaâ—dus be referred to the Bishops subscriptions as it seemeth by that it coÌ„meth after the mention of the made decrees or if it were in generall allowance of the whole Councâ—ll by way of yielding to the execution therof as M. Barlows doctrine â—lse where is it maketh nothing against vs at all For we grant this consent to all Princes whithin their owne Kingdomes therby to haue their assistance for execution especially for such points as interesse or touch the politicall state or CoÌ„mon-Wealth There remaineth then to examine a little the first allegation out of the 43. Canon where he sayth that Priests marriage is allowed in this Canon so it be with the coÌ„sâ—nt of the Bishops Wherin two egregious frauds are discouered so manifestly as he could not but know when he wrote them that they were such The first is for that he translateth Presbyteri for Clerici peruersly thereby turning Clarks into Priests knowing well inough what he did for that he must needs see the difference in the very Canon as presently we shall shew The second fraud is that he knowing that this CouÌ„cell did vtterly disallow the marriage of Priests yet he shamed not to affirme the quite contrary We shall say a word of the one and the other For the first he alleageth as you haue heard the 43. CanoÌ„ whose words are Clerici qui sine consultu Episcopi sui duâ—â—int c. Clarks that without the consultation of their Bishop shall marry wiues c. must be separated from the Clergie by their proper Bishop Which word Cleriâ—i M. Barlow translateth Priests notwithstanding he knoweth iâ— iâ— not
so taken there by the Councell but for inferiour Orders â—nder Subdeacon which is the first of the three that excludeth marriage This is seene by many Canons as namely by the 40. which beginneth thus Omnes Clerici vel Lectores siue Leuitae Sacerdotes detonso superiùs capite toto inserius solam circuli coronam relinquant All Clarks and Readers as also Deacons and Priests cutting of all the hayre of the vpper part of their head let them leaue in the lower part only the crowne of a circle Here you see that Clerici Sacerdotes are distinct Degrees you see also this Ceremony of discipline in that Church of Spaine Will M. Barlow confesse that his Church agreeth in this The tytle also of the 67. Canon is de cupiditate Episcopi Presbyteri vâ—l Diacomi siuâ— Clericorum Of the couetousnes of a Bishop of a Priest or Deacon or Clarks Wherby is euident that in the Councels sense Priests Deacons and Clarkes are distinct Orders in the Church and consequently though the Councell doth say that Clarks may not take wiues without the consent of their Bishops yet their meaning is not that may take wiues with the said consent so as in this M. Barlow was false and knew that he deceaued when he translated Clerici for Priests But now for the second point that he must needes know also that the meaning of this Councell could not be that Priests myght marry by allowance of the Bishop I proue it thus for that this Councell did make profession to follow their Auncestors and forefathers decrees and we find registred in an ancient Spanish Councell held three hundred yeares before this called Elibertinum this Canon which is the 33. of the said Councell Placuit in totum prohibere Episcopis Praebyteris Diaconibus Subdiaconibus positis in Ministâ—rio abstinere se coniugibus suis nâ—n gâ—nerare filios quod quicumque â—ecerit ab honore Clericatus extermiâ—etur It seemeth good to the Councell wholy to forbid all Bishops Priests DeacoÌ„s Subdeacons placed in Ministrie that they abstayne themselues from their wiues and beget no children and whosoeuer shall do the contrary let him be cast out of the Clergie After this agayne in another CouÌ„cell of Toledo which was the second held some hundred yeares before this fourth the mater is determined in the very first Canon thus speaking of yong men that pretended to take holy Orders to be Priests Vbi octauum decimum aetatis suae compleuerint annum c. When they shal be full eighteen yeares of age let the Bishop in the presence of the Clergie and people search their wils about desire of marriage then if by the inspiration of God the grace of chastity shall please them and they shall answer that they will keep their promise made of chastity without coniugall necessity then let these men as desirous of a most strait way be admitted vnder the most sweet and easie yoake of our Sauiour And first let them take the Ministry of Subdeacon at 20. â—eares of age after the probation had of their constancy and at 25. yeares let them take the office of Deacon cauendum tamenest his ne quando suae sponsionis immemores ad terrenas nuptias vltrà recurrant yet must these men take heed least being at any time forgetfull of their promise or band they do run backe to earthly marryage By these two more ancient Councells then of Spayne not to speake of others we may see what could be the sense of this fourth of Toledo coÌ„cerning marriage of Priests as also what is meant by that direction giuen in the 26. Canon vt quando Presbyteri aut Diaconi per parochias constituunâ—â— â—pâ—rtet eos primùm professioneÌ„ Episcopo suo facere vt castè purè â—iâ—ant when Priests or Deacons are appoynted throughout Parishes they must first make profession vnto their Bishop that they will lyue chastly and purely The Councell doth not say heere that they may take wiues with the Bishops consent as was said of Clerici before Wherfore in both these points I meane as well in this translation as in the maine assertion that then it was lawfull for Priests to haue wiues M. Barlow dealt fraudulently I will not cite other Councells held both before and after this both in Spaine elswhere concerning this matter as before that of Toledo the third about the yeare 589. that of Lyons 5â—6 that of Tâ—uâ—rs 570. that of Orleaâ—ce 587. as also after let the Reader view the 8. and 9. of Toledo about the yeare 656. and 657. that of Shalons in France the very next yeare after Yet can I not pretermyt one Canon of the forsaid third Councel of Toledo held vpon the point of fifty yeares before this fourth wherof we now talke which third Councell of Toledo in the fifth Canon hath these words Câ—mpertum â—st à sancto Concilio c. It is vnderstood by this holy Councell that certayne Bishops Priests and Deacons comming from Heresie do contynue to haue carnall desires and copulation with their wiues and to the end this may not be done hereafter it is coÌ„manded by the Councell as also it hath bene determyned in former Canons that it is not lawfull for them to lyue togeather in carnall society but that so long as coniugall faith doth â—â—mayne betwene them they may haue care one of the others coÌ„mon vtility but yet not dwell togeather in one â—oome or if their vertue be such as may seeme to haue noâ— perill yet let them place their wiues in another house that their chastitie may haue testimony both before God and man And if any man after this ordinatioÌ„ will choose rather to liue scandalously with his wife let him be deposed from Priestly function and beheld only as a Lector or a Reader c. By which ordination of the CouÌ„cell we may see the seueritie of that time not only in keeping Priests from marriage after they were Priests but euen in forbiding the vse of their wiues that were married before if any such were admitted And it is to be noted that the CouÌ„cell saith here that this custome of Priests liuing with wiues came from the heroticks of those dayes and was practized by them principally that were turned from heresy to Catholike Religion And finally I cannot pretermit for the vpshot of this matter to note one sentence of Isidorus Archbishop of Siâ—â—ll that was President and first subscribed to the foresayd Councel of Toledo who in his second booke de Ecclesiasticâ—â— officys talking of this very same Councel as it may seeme sayd Placuit sanctis Patribus vt qui sâ—cra mysterâ—â— contâ—â—ctaâ— â—asti sint continentes ab vxoribus It seemed good vnto the holy Father to determine that such as do handle the holy mysteries should be chast continent from wiues And thus much for the first point auerred by M. Barlow that foure Canons of the fourth Councel of Toledo do
make for him and his religion But now we haue seene his ill fortune in the choice for that no Canon maketh for him but rather all against him and especially this last Now let vs see somewhat about the second point that the Church of England at this day both for substance in doctrine and Cerimony in discipline doth hould the same which many of the said Canons do conclude which though as before I haue noted it may seeme to be a very dubious imperfect assertion for that they of England being Christians and so those of that Councel also it were very â—ard but that of 74. Canons wherof the first only compreheÌ„deth the summe and confession of all Articles of Christian fayth contayned in the common Creeds it were hard I say â—ha the Church of England should not hold in substaÌ„ce at least the same that many of those Canons do conclude But let vs touch the point indeed concerning the articles now in controuersy betweene vs and Protestants â—oth for doctrine and cerymonies whether in these the sayd Councel of Toledo did agree mâ—re with the Church of Englâ—â—â— as now is teacheth practizeth or with the Church of Rome And albeit this Councell was not gathered togeather purposely to handle and determine matters of faith and doctrine for the establishing of King Sisenandâ—â— his successiâ—â— and concerning â—he depâ—sition of King Suintila as hath bene touched â—nd by that occasion for reformation also of manners of the Clergy yet are there many things here handled which giue sufficient signes with what Church they more agreed either the Protestants or ours In the very fâ—â—st Canon where they make their profession of 〈◊〉 â—hey say Descendit ad inserâ—◠〈…〉 he descended into Hell to fetch from thence thoâ—â— Sainâ—â— which were there detained Do the Protestants agree to this interpretation And then talking of the last iudgment they say Alij pro iustitiae meriâ—â—â— vitam 〈◊〉 some shal receaue life euerlasting at Christs â—andâ— for their merrits of iustice Will Protestants acknowledg this in their Creed And it followeth immediâ—tely Haec est Ecclesiae Catholicae fides c. This is the â—â—ith of the Catholicke Church this Confession we 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 â—hich 〈◊〉 â—hâ—soeuer shal constantly keepe shal 〈◊〉 liâ—e euerlasting Sâ— theyâ— And for so much as there ocâ—â—â—red a doubt in the Church of Spaine about the vse of â—aptisme some allowing a triple dipping in the water some one only the Canon saithâ— that the recourse in former â—â—me was made to the Sea Apostolick for deciding of the same by S. Leander Archbishop of Siuill who wrote to S. Gregory the Great then Pope of Rome to haue his resolution And wil M. Barlow allow of this recourse But let vs heare the words of the Canon Proinde quid à nobis c. Wherfore what we are to do in Spaine saith the Councel in this diuersity of administring the Sacraments Apostolica Sediâ— in â—â—â—memâ—r praeceptiâ— non nostraÌ„ sed paternam instructionem sequentâ—â— Let us 〈◊〉 by the prâ—cepts of the Sea Apostolick not following our owne instruction out that oâ— our fore-â—atâ—â—rsâ— Wherfore Gregory of holy memory Bishop of Rome at the request of the most holy man Leander Bishop of Siâ—â—â—â— demaÌ„ding what was to be followed in this case answered him in these words Nothing can be more â—ruly ansâ—ered about the three dippings in Baptisme theÌ„ that which you your selfe haue set down that diuersities of some customs doth not preiudice the holy Church agreeing all in one faith So S. Gregory But yet discusseth the question more largely as may be seene in that Canon but much more in his owne booke lib. 1. Regist. Epist. 41. And is thiâ— conformable to the practice doctrine of M. Barlows Church Some men will say perhaps yea to the Church of Englâ—â—â— that then was for that about the very same tyme that S. Leander Metropolitan of Siâ—ill wrote to S. Gregory to haue his resoluâ—ion about this difficulty of diuers customeâ— in baptizing S. Augustine Archbishop and Metropoliâ—â—n of the English Nation wrote vnto the same S. Gregory about the like doubts as appeareth by Venerable Bede and had his answere to the same But this recourse also of the English Church at that time will not greatly please M. Barlow In the seauenth Canon some men are noted that vpoÌ„ good Friday after hâ—ra nona did vse to breake their Fast for which they are much condemned by the Councell adding this reason for the same for that the vniuersall Church did obserue the fast of that day wholy and strictly for the memory of the passion of our Sauiour therfore whosoeuer should breake that fast besides yonge children old men and sicke men before the Church haue ended her prayers of Indulgence he should not be admitted to the Festiuall ioy of Easter day And is this conforme to the present Church of England In the eight Canâ—n there is a reâ—son giuen by the Councel Cur lucerâ—a cereus in peruigilijs à nobis benedicantur why the candell the waxe taper are blessed by the Bishops And if any maÌ„ will contemne this Ceremony qui haec contempserit Patrâ—â— reguâ—is subiaâ—ebis sayth the Canon he shall vnder goe the punishments appointed by the rules of the Fathers This cogitation I thinke hath neuer much troubled M. Barâ—â—â— In the tenth Canon order is giuen about the discipline to be vsed in Lent both in respect of publike prayer and priuate chastisings of the bodie Touching the first it is ordained vt in omnibus quadragesimae diebus quia teâ—pus non est gundij sed mâ—roriâ— Alleluia non decantetur that Alleluia be not songe in all the daies of Lent for that is a time not of ioy but of sorrowâ— and then for the chaftysment of the flesh they say Opus est fletibus ieâ—uâ—ijs insistere corpus cilicio cinere induere 〈◊〉 moeroribus deijcere gaudium in trislitiam vertere quousque â—â—â—iat tempus Resurrectionis Christi It is necessary to insist in weeping and fasting to couer our body with haircloth â—nd â—sheâ— to deiect our mynd with sorrow to turne mirth into sadnes vntill the day of Christs Resurrection do come And doth this Ceremony of discipline please M. Barlow Or doth his Church admit the same And if he doe not thâ—Ì„ let him heare what followeth in the Councel hoc enim Ecclesiae Vniuersalis consensio in cunctis terrarum partiâ—us roborauit c. For this the consent of the vniuersall Church hath establyshed in all parts of the Christian world and consequently it is conuenient to be obserued throughout the Prouinces of Spayne and Galicia and therfore if any Bishop Priest or Deacon or any whatsoeuer of the order of Clarks shall be found to esteeme or perferre his own iudgment before this Constitution of ours let him be put from the office of his order and depriued of the CoÌ„munion at Easter This toucheth
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
but one day before his exhumation was commanded then could not that commandment come from the Pope but mâ—st needs come from the Emperour Bishops there present Heere then is found fraud in M. Barlow his allegation and to publish the same more he would needes vse the word BEFORE BVRIED in great letters as though they had well expressed pridie tumulatum buried the day before But heere perhaps some will demaund suppose this narration of Vâ—spergensis were graunted to be true as M. Barlow setteth it downe how doth it proue that the Pope commanded the exhumation Whereunto he answereth heere by a certayne demaund in a parenthesis VVho cast them out to wit those of Liege but the Pope Wherunto I answere that the Bishops and Archbishops that were with the new Emperour had excommunicated them long before and the Emperour himselfe had giuen out against them the Imperiall band which is a ciuill excommunication which besides that it is euident by the testifications of Histories is made cleere also by that they receaued them into communion presently vpon the death of the old Emperour without imparting the matter to the Pope which they would not haue done if the excoÌ„munication had not come from themselues For that no man can take away that which he could not impose And so here is nothing proued against the Pope but a great good will to calumniate him The like fraud is committed in the allegation of the other Authour Naucleâ—us who saith M. Barlow relateth verbatim both the fact and the reason of the fact as Vrspergensis doth VVherunto I answere that it is true that he relateth both but the one and the other are peruerted by M. Barlow for thus writeth Nauclerus Inopinata fama mortis Imâ—eratoris mox subsequitur c. The vnexpected fame of the death of the old Emperour did presently ensue which being diuulged all those that for gayne-sake had stuck vnto him and had sould their soules vnto him did subiect themselues sine mora without delay vnto the obedience of the yong Emperour and to the Catholicke communion But they of Liege were receaued into the said CoÌ„munion with this condition that the dead body of him that was excoÌ„municated and buried the day before in a monastery should be digged vp c. In relating which words we see that M. Barlow left out first the censure of the Author against them that had followed the part of the old excoÌ„municated Emperour And secondly he leaueth out that they were reconcyled to the new Emperour and to the Catholicke communion of the Bishops there present sine mora without any stay which inferreth that they could not send for the Popes consent to Rome Thirdly he leaueth out as he did in his former Author the words per se pridie tumulatum â—ffâ—derent that they of Leige should dig vp againe the body which the day before they had buryed Fourthly he leaneth out these words that ensued comprobaÌ„tibuâ— his qui aderant Archiepiscopis Episcopis the Archbishops and Bishops that were present approuing and giuing their consents To whome To the new Emperour that would needs haue it so which deliuereth the Pope from hauing any part therin And doth not M. Barlow trim vp Authors well that passe through his hands to make them serue his purpose But now you must heare the trymming of another which is Cuspinian the Historiographer whom I denied before to affirme that Pope Paschalis was enraged with the new Emperour Henry the fifth for burying his Father as was said in the Apologie but rather the contrary For that when King Henry the Father said I was dead and buryed in a Monastery at Leige Cuspinian writeth that his Sonne would not make peace with the Bishop of that place called Otbert except the dead corpes were pulled out of the graue againe which words he sayth that I alleadged as Cuspinian his owne words But I deny it but only I alledged his sense as may appeare in that I did not recite them in a different letter as is accustomed by them that deale playnly when the proper words of any Author are alleaged though M. Barlow doth not obserue this with me but alledgeth as my words euery where coÌ„monly in a different letter those which are not my words nor often times my sense but either framed of himself or so interlaced with speaches of his owne as that it is a quite different thing from that which I do say Let the Reader examine but some few places as they come coÌ„ferring his booke and my booke togeather and he shall see that I haue good reason to make this complaint of his perfidious dealing therein But now to the present case M. Barlow affirmeth that the latyn words of Cuspâ—â—â—â—â— are Filio procurante non potuit reconciliari Episcopus Leodiensis nisi exhumaretur cadauer by the Sonnes procurement the Bishop of Leige could not be reconciled except the dead body were taken out of the ground againe Out of which words I did inferre that the Bishop of Leige could not be reconciled to the other Bishops but vpon condition that the body should be taken vp and this at the procurement of the yong Emperour And for so much as his reconciliation with the said Bishops did imply also his reconciliation with the Emperour he that letted the one letted the other which was the yong Emperour himself who though himself would not for respectes the Bishop being a potent man vtterly deny to admyt his submission yet did he procure the stay therof by others to wit by the Archbishops and Bishops vntill he had yielded vnto the condition of taking vp the dead body consequeÌ„tly the thing is true which I alledged out of Cuspinian that the yong Emperour would not make peace with the Bishop of Leige except the body were taken vp for so much as himself was he that had letted that reconciliation as here appeareth and procured also as may be supposed the great reprehension which was giuen to the said Bishop and his coÌ„pany when they were admitted wherof Crantzius speaketh when he sayth ad fidem Regis confugieÌ„tes grauiter increpati recâ—piuntur they making their refuge to the protectioÌ„ of the Emperour they were admitted but with a grieuous reprehensioÌ„ this among other causes no doubt for hauing buryed the dead body of the ExcoÌ„municate Emperour This then being the playne meaning and sense of Cusâ—â—â—ian his alleaged speach let vs see how M. Barlow doth trym vp the same for his turne The â—ords of Cuspinian sayth he are playne Filio procurante non potuit reconciliari â—piscopus Leodiâ—â—sis nisi exhâ—maretur cadauâ—r That is By the SoÌ„nes procuremeÌ„t at whose hands but the Popes for what needed any procurement by himselfe to himselfe the Bishop could not be reconciled to whom but to the Pope who had accursed both Church and Churchmen at Liege for burying the Emperour except the dead body were taken vp againe So M. Barlow
Where you may see that in this only translation of two latyn lines he hath inserted twice two falsities of his owne against the Authors owne sense meaning The first is that the Emperour had procured the stay of the Bishops reconciliation at the Popes hands which could not be for the breuity of time and distance of places as before hath bene shewed nor doth it agree with the sense of Cuspinian and other Authors that haue the words mox fine mora pridie and the like The second is in his second interrogation what needed any procurement by himselfe to himself which is a fallacy for that a man being desirous to stay a sute yet not willing to take all the enuy vpon himselfe may procure that the stay may seeme to come from others The third fallacy is in his other demaund to whom could not the Bishop of Liege be reconciled but to the Pope Yes to the Archbishops Bishops and others out of whose communion he was cast forth before as now hath bene shewed The fourth vntruth is that the Pope had excoÌ„municated both the Church and all Church-men of Liege for burying of the Emperour which cannot be true as now hath bene declared for that in so short a space as 2. or 3. dayes newes could not be sent to Rome and answere be returned and much lesse such an Excommunication be sent And albeit M. Barlow for this last do cyte ViterbieÌ„sis saying that he liued in those very times yet he being an ItaliaÌ„ liuing neere â—n hundred yeares after the fact might be misinformed And howsoeuer it be the credit of his owne relation is not to be matched with that of so many other Authors and namely of Vâ—spergensis that liued at the very same time and with the said two Henryes the Father and the Sonne There remaine three other Authors cyted by M. Barlow who are Helmoldus in his History of Sclauonia Sigoniâ—â— in his ninth booke De regno Italia Binnius in his last edition of the Councels all which he cyteth to proue this poynt that Pope Paschalis did forbid the buriall of the dead body of Henry the fourth But in all this is voluntary fraud M. Barlow could not but know it going about to deceaue his Reader by Equiuocation in the time For albeit Pope Paschalis did not nor had time to forbid the first buriall after the Emperour was dâ—ad nor yet commaunded the taking vp therof againe as now by many witnesses and other arguments hath bene proued yet the said body being once taken vp and carried to Spire and there placed in the Chappell of S. Asra in sarcophago lapideo saith Cuspinian in a tombe of stone where it remayned fiue yeares before it was buryed solemnely in the Church of our Lady In this time I say the Pope informed perhaps of more of his enormityes of life not to seeme to condemne the fact of so many Archbishops and Bishops who had excommunicated him as among others Dodechinus Abbas that liued presently after the fact doth testify and to the terrour of others that should liue and dye out of the Church in excommunication for these and other reasons I say Pope Paschalis seing the body placed already in a sacred Chappel was not easily moued for some time to haue the same solemnly and publikely buryed though at length his Sonne in respect of his honour desired and demaunded the same But what is this to proue our chiefe question whether the said Pope did forbid the first buriall or commanded him to be digged vp againe when he was buryed Where is the Cloud of VVitnesses that should proue this No one of these three last alleaged doth auerre it no not as M. Barlow corruptly alleadgeth their words For out of Helmodus he cyteth them thus Tanta seueritate Dominus Papa in ipsum vlâ—us est vt humari non sineret the Pope did pursue him with such seuerity as being dead he suffered him not to be buryed which could not be at the first buriall and consequently must be vnderstood of the subsâ—quent time when he lay in the Chappell of S. Afra I pretermit the sleight of M. Barlow heere laying all vpon the Pope alone wheras the Author saith Papa 〈◊〉 adâ—ersary ciuâ— the Pope and other of his aduersaryes did pursue him speaketh still in the plurall nuÌ„ber Sigenius also speaketh to the very same effect that the Emperours body lay vnburyed for fiue yeares in a certaine deâ—art Cell of a Church Pontifice id sepeliri vetante the Pope prohibiting the same to be buryed which must needs be vnderstood in like maÌ„ner of the time ensuing after the first taking vp of the body And finally Binnius maketh no more to his purpose then the other but sayth the same thing though he haue taken more paines in corrupting him then the rest For thus â—e relateth him to say the Emperours body being put into the earth hortatu Papa by the Popes perswasion it â—aâ— digged out againe and remayned aloâ—e ground fiue yeares And heere you will find a notable patching to make vp a sense without a Verbe and therby seeme to say somewhat but flying the true words and contexture indeed as they lye in the Author which are these Câ—m hortatu Papae defuncti excommunicati cadauâ—r exhumatum quinque annis insepultum reliquisset anno Domini 1110. Romani petyâ— c. Wheras Henry the fifth by perswasion of the Pope had left the dead body of the ExcoÌ„municate Emperor taken out of the graue vnburied for fiue yeares he went vpoÌ„ the yeare 1110. to Rome c. By which words we see that the Popes perswasioÌ„ was not to haue the dead corps digged vp againe but forsomuch as his Father died in excoÌ„munication that his body was now taken vp he should leaue the same vnburyed according to the Canons for terrour of others and not that he perswaded it to be taken vp as it was in Leige or this was not possible as before hath bene shewed And why now had not M. Barlow recited the whole sentence as it lay in Binniuâ— Why should he vse such nipping paring in his allegations but that Iuglers must not be seene in all their knacks If his cause were good he would not need these shifts And by this also we may discouer the foundation of a great many of other impertinent discourses and assertions which M. Baâ—low maketh in this place both out of Viterbiensis and Baronius to proue that the Sonne Emperour was â—ory to haue his Father lye vnburyed and therfore he alleadgeth out of Viterbiensis Filius ossa Patris doluit fore câ—â— sceleratis It grieued the Sonne that his Father should lye amongst wicked men Baronius is also alleaged to affirme out of Petrus Diaconus not Paulus as M. Barlow erroneously or ignorantly doth name him for that Petrus Paulus Diaconus were different Authors and liued long one after another Baronius I say is affirmed
oâ— the Egâ—ptians to hate his people not that God did either physice oâ— moraliâ—er properly moue their wills or command or counsaile the Egyptians to hate his people but only occasionaliâ—er that is to say as S. Augustine expoundeth the matter God by doing good and bâ—eâ—sing his said people which was a good action in him gâ—ue the Egyptians occasion to enuy and hate them they abusing that to euill which he did for good And for that this occasionall concurrence may be tearmed also morall in a certaine large sense therforâ— God may be said also to coÌ„curre morally in this meaning but for â—o much as these two meanings of moral concurrence are far different the first which is proper may be denied and this which is vnproper may be granted without â—ll contradiction for so much as a contradiction is not but when the selfe same thing is affirmed and denied in the selâ—e same subiect and in the same reâ—pect which here is not no more then if a man should say these two propositions are contradictory God commandeth expresly all men in generall Non ocâ—ides thou shalt not kill and yet to diuers in particuler for seuerall causes he permitteth to kil and yet here is no contradiction for that killing is taken in different senses And this is so plaine that M. Barlow though he striue to talke som what for that he is obliged for his credit hired therunto as you know yet findeth hâ— nothing to fasten vpon by any probability and therefore in the end hauing intertained himselfe for a while in repeating what Bellarmine saith in the place from whence this supposed contradiction about the different sorts of Gods concurrence is taken in repetition wherof he sheweth plainly not to vnderstaÌ„d him he finally breaketh out in his malice to end with the odious example of Iames Clemâ—nt the Monke in killing the late King of France demâ—nding how God concurred with that action either in generall or in particuler But to this now the answere is already made and so many wayes of Gods concurrence or not concurrence as concerne this cause haue bene explained as to stand longâ—r vpon it were losâ—e of time let M. Barlow meditatâ— by himselfe how God can concurre with so many â—urthering actions of his by slandering and deâ—aming his neighbour as heere againe he chargeth Iesuits witâ— poisoning of Popes which being not only apparantly fâ—â—â—â— but without all â—hew or colour of probabilitâ— yet most violently malicious sure I am that God concurreth not therwith either physicè or moraliter by mouing his hart or tongue to speake so wickedly and much lesâ—e by commanding or approuing the same But whether he â—o it occasionalitâ—r or no to his greater sinne damnation â—â—at I know not but certaine I am that the contumely being â—o intolerably false and ridiculous as it is and yet vtterâ—d and repeated againe so often by him in this his booke most certainely I say I do perswade my selfe that the Dâ—uel hath coÌ„curred with him in al these three waies both phâ—sice moraliter and occasionaliter Almighty God forgiue him and make him to see and feele out of what spirit he speaketh And so much for this second proposition The third contradiction is vrged out of Bellarmine in two books of his the first de Clericis where he sayth that all the Fathers do constantly teach that Bishops do succeed the Apostles and Priests tâ—e seâ—uenty disciples and then in his book de Pontifice he hath the contrary that Bishops do not properly succeâ—d the Apostles Vnto which my answere was at that time vpon viewing the places themselues in Bellarmin that this was no contradiction at all for that it was spoken in diuâ—rs senses to wit that Biâ—hops do succeed the Apostles iâ— power of Episcopal order not in power of extraorâ—inary Apostolical iurisdiction and so both were true and might well stand togeather for that all Bishops haue tâ—e same sacred Episcopal order which the Apostles had but not their extraordinary iurisdiction ouer the whole world as each one of them had which answere oâ— mine since that time hath bene confirmed by Cardinall Bellarmâ—ne himselfe in his owne defence though in different words saying Episcopos succedere Aposâ—olis c. that Bishops do succeed the Apostles as they were the first Bishops of particuler Churches as Iames of IerusaleÌ„ Iohn of Ephesus the like is graÌ„ted in the book de Clericis but yet that Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles as they were Apoâ—tleâ— that is to say as they were sent into all the world with most â—ull power is denyed in the booke de Ponâ—iâ—ice So as in different senses both are true Neque sunt contraria vel conâ—â—aâ—ictoria sayth Beâ—lâ—rmine nisi apudeos qui I ogiâ—am ignoranâ— vâ—l sensu communi carent neither are they contrary or contradictory but with them that want Logicke or common sense So he All which being so plaine yet notwithstanding M. Barlow will needes say somwhat to the contrary not â—or that he doth not see that the thing which he is to say is nothing at all to the purpose but perchance that hâ— thinketh himselfe bouâ—d to say somwhat for fashions â—ake and so rusheth himselfe into absurditieâ— as now â—ou â—hal 〈◊〉 Thus then he relateth the case tâ—at Bellâ—rmine 〈…〉 place that Bisâ—ops do succeed the Apostles and in another thaâ—â—isâ—opâ— do not properly succeed the Apostles and least any should thiâ—kâ— tâ—â—t this is no Antilogy because in the last proposition â—he 〈◊〉 â—pâ—â—pâ—â—ly qualifieth it tâ—e Cardinall himsâ—lfe haâ—h in the vâ—ry next pre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter preuented that whâ—re he saith that Bishops do prâ—â—â—â—â—y succeed the Apoâ—â—les then which what more strong counâ—eâ—-â—â—ocke caâ— there be bâ—â—â—â—ene any two So he And what â—e meâ—neth by this strong counter-shocke I know not but sure I am that he giueth a â—trong counter-buffe to his owne credit by bringing in this reply for that Bellarmine in the very selâ—eâ—ame place and words of the precedent Chapter whâ—re he sayth that Bishops do properly succeâ—d the Apoâ—â—les sheweth him selfe to meane in succâ—ssion of â—piscopall ordâ—r and power of preaching thereto bâ—longing in which power of preaching he sâ—yth Episâ—opi proprie Apostoli◠〈◊〉 ut Bishops do properly succeed the Apoâ—â—lâ—s and proueth it out of the sixt of the Acts but where he sayth in the other place that they do not properly succeed the Apostlâ—s he meanâ—th and so expoundeth his meaning to be tâ—at tâ—ey do not succeed them in their extraordinary vniueâ—sall iurisdiction ouer all the world And could M. Barlow choose but see this when he wrote his Reply If he did not yet will I not retuâ—ne the vnciuill word here vsed to me out of the Poet for thâ—re lyeth his learning nauiget Amiâ—yras â—or that my braine wants purging c. but I will answeâ—e â—im moâ—e modestly to wit that if he saw not this error of his then it was at
least a great ouersight in him to look so negligently to what he writeth but if he did see it yet wouâ—d so falsely alledg it then were a puâ—gation rather to be wished for his conscience then for his braines But he ceaseth not heere we must see two or three false tricâ—s of his more First he taketh vpon him to proue that Bellaâ—mine in the place before cited de Clericis doth indâ—â—d proue thaâ— Bishops do succeed the Apostle not only in power of holy Order but also of Iurisdiction For that Bâ—llarmine being to proue sayth he according to the title of his Chapter that Bishops are greater then Priâ—sts he setcheth his sâ—cond reason from their differâ—nt power of iurisdiction in the new Testament because they the Bishops haue the same that the Apostles had Nam â—piâ—copos Apostolis succedere that Bishops do succâ—ed the Apostles therin is not one mans testimony alone constanter docent omnes Patres sayâ—h he all the Fathers do hould it with one consent without varying in themselues or differing from others Hitherto M. Barlow And if he shew himself faithfull in this you may trust him if you will another time but if in this as in most other things he still vse shifting then you may trust him as you find him First then it is true that Cardâ— Bellarmine his purpose in this 14. Chapter is to proue against Caluin and some other Protestants that Bishops and Priests are not equall in degree but that Priests are inferiour to Bishops and he promiseth to proue three points First that a Bishop is greater then a Priest quoad Ordinis poâ—estatem in the powâ—r of holy order Secondly quantùm ad iurisdictionem that he iâ— greater also in iurisdiction for that a Priest hath iuriâ—diction but ouer one Parish and a Bishop ouer his Diocâ—ssâ— thirdly that Bishops in the primitiue Church were not only as Caluin sayth like Consuls in a Senate but like Princâ—s ratâ—er in 〈◊〉 The firâ—t an◠〈◊〉 of which points appertaine not to our pâ—â—sâ—nt pâ—â—poâ—e â—ut â—â—ly the â—â—cond about iuriâ—â—â—ction â—â—d this not much neiâ—her if you consider it weâ—l â—or that Cardinaâ—◠〈◊〉 inâ—ent is to shew that the iuriâ—â—iction of Bâ—sâ—ops iâ— greater theÌ„ that oâ— Prieâ—ts but not thâ—t Bishops had aâ—l the iuriâ—dictioÌ„ which the Apostles had noâ— doth â—e once name it or say any such thing and it is a noâ—orioâ—â— deceipt of M. Barâ—â—â— when he sayth â—â—ere that 〈◊〉 â—etcheth his sâ—cond reâ—son to proue the prehemineÌ„ce of Bishops aboue Pâ—iests froÌ„ their power of iuridisâ—tion becauâ—e they haue the sâ—me that the Apostles had Bellarmines words are these Seâ—â—â—â—â— probatur hâ—c idem ex aistinâ—â—iâ—ue Aposâ—cloâ—um Disâ—ipâ—lorâ—m sâ—ptuaginta Secondly the same is proued to wit that Bishops are greater then Priests by the diâ—tinction of the Apostles and the seauenty Disciples and then do ensue immediatly those words Episâ—opos Apostolis sucâ—edere that Bishops do succeed the Apostles and Prieâ—â—s the seauenty disciples all Fathers do constantly teach So that here Bellarmine doth not found his argument of prouing Bishops to be greater and worthâ—er then Priestsâ— vpon the succession of Bishops to the Apostles Apostlicall Iuâ—isdiction but in the dignity of holy Order which is sufficient to proue theÌ„ to be greater then Priâ—sts nor doth he fetch this his second reason from iurisdiction but from distinction as you see in his plaine words and therfore these other words of M. Barlow written in great letters that they haue the same to wit IurisdictioÌ„ which the Apostles had and did succeed the Apostles therin this I say is falsely put in and he did well to write the word therin in markable great letters for that it contayneth a markable fraude no such word bâ—ing in Bellarmine to that sense nor did all Fathers nor any Father teach this that Bishops succeed the Apostles in Apostolicall Iurisdiction but rather the plaine contrary as is largely proued in the other places ciâ—ed out of the fouâ—th book de Pontifice where the negatiue is put downe by Bellarmine as you haue heard concerning Apostolicall Iurisdiction to wit that Bishops do not therin succeed vnto the Apostles which though of it selfe it be euident for that euery Bishop hath not Iurisdiction ouer the whole world as the Apostles had nor may teach or preach or build Churcheâ— throughout the world as they by their vniuersal iurisdiction might yet doth Bellarmine proue the same largely tâ—roughout foure whole Chapters togeather shewing that alâ—eit Christ our Sauiour did giue immediatly vnto all the Apostles vniuersall iurisdiction ouer the world but yet differently to S. Peter from the rest for that he was appointed to be the ordinary high Pastour ouer the same and they extraordinary and consequently he to haue successours in his vniuersall iurisdiction and they not yet doth he not so giue it to all their successours but only mediatly by the chiefe ordinary Pastour of al which is Peters successour and that also with more limitation of place wherof ensueth that no Bishop besides the Bishop of Rome though he succâ—ed the Apostles in dignity of Episcopall Order yet doth he noâ— in iuriâ—diction but receiueth that mediatly only from God by the sayd Bishop of Rome And this doth Bellarmin proue to wit that all Bishops take their iurisdiction from the Bishop of Rome by eight seuerall arguments out of Scriptures Fathers Councells and reasons in one chapter which is the 24. next following and answereth all the arguments obiected to the contrary to wit fix by name repeating often and prouing that in this power of iurisdiction Episcopi non succedunt proprie Apostâ—lis Biâ—hops do not succeed properly the Apostles expounding also what he meanâ—th by the word properlyâ— Dicuntur Episcopi sayth he succedere Apostolis non proprie eo modo quo â—nus Episcopus alteri vnus Rex alteri sed duplici alia ratione primò ratione Ordinis sacri Episcopalis secundò per quamdam similituâ—inem c. Bishops are sayd to succeed the Apostles not propeâ—ly as one Bishop succeedeth another and one King aâ—other in all their power and iurisdiction but two other wayes the first by reason of sacred Episcopâ—ll Ordâ—r which they haue which the Apostles had and secondly by a certaine similitude or proportion that as the Apostles were the â—irst and immediate vnder Christ when he was vpon earth so are Bishops now vnder the chiefe Bishop c. Aâ—l which being set downe so clearely in Bellarmines owne words and writings heare I pray you what modest conclusion M. Baâ—low maketh of all that is said If he stand saith he on the place where the negatiue is to wit in the fourth booke de Pontifice there indeed the Cardinall driuen to â—is shifâ—s is forced to coyne this distinction but yet that salues not the contradictioÌ„ but maketh it greater For therin he sheweth that he maniâ—estly opposeth both himselfe and all the Fathers For in superiority of Iurisdiction Bishops by
abroad p. 50. more contayned therin then ciuill obedience p. 70. 71. 280. humble petition to his Maiesty for the expositioÌ„ therof p. 89. Scandall in exhibiting therof p. 126. 127. c. No such Oath euer enacted before by former Princes p. 156. Card. Bellaâ—mins opinion therof pag. 346. 347. c. deuided into 14. parts p. 357. difference betweene the said Oath and an Indenture pag. 362. Oath of Supremacy p. 353. defeÌ„ded by M. Barlow 354. 355. Obedience against God mans conscience none pag. 282. Obedience of our temporall Prince how far when it bindeth p. 291. defined by S. Thomas 339. Ordination of Protestant Bishops first vnder Q. Elizabeth praf n. 136. P PAVLVS Quintus Pope defeÌ„ded 54. 55. 56. 57. his Breues discussed part 2. per totuÌ„ whether he forbad temporall odedience to his Maiesty therin p. 323. deinceps â— Persons calumniated by M. Barlow pag. 204. belyed p. 263. Petrus de Vâ—â—â—is extolled by M. Barlow p. 499. iustified pag. 509. censured 523â— Philip the Emperour his murder pag. 470. Plutarke abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. Popes power ouer Infidel Princes p. 76. how they are particuler Bishops of Rome Pastours of the whole Church pag. 145. whether they can make new articles of faith or no pag. 324. 325. deinceps whether they command Princes to be murdered pag. 394. 395. c. Powder-treason pag. 13. 14. 15. c. F. Persons accused therwith by M. Barlow p. 23. Powder-plot of Antwerp pag. 18. of Hage p. 19. of Edenborrow ibid. Prescription of the Church of Rome part 1. cap. 5. per totum good argument in case of Relion pag. 150. 152. vide Antiquityâ— the same vrged by the Fathers ib. belyed shamefully pag. 246. Protestants gone out of the Catholike Church pag. 149. their Ecclesiasticall power ouer Puritans pag. 259. their basenes beggary pag. 265. their conflicts with Puritans about matters of Religion pag. 270. their Church basest of all others praef n. 36. Prouidence of God discoursed of by S. Augustine pag. 416. Q QVEENE Mary of ScotlaÌ„d put to deâ—th for Religion pag. 51. preached against by M. Barlow pag. 212. Queene vide Elizabeth R RESOLVTION of Catholiks in maters of faith p. 123. of Protestants none at all ibid. 124. what resolution is taken from the Pope pag. 125. M. Reynolds writing against Whitaker pag. 457. Rome Recourse to Rome about the Oath of Allegiance p. 50. 51. 52. c. The same practised in all difficulties by our English Princes people pag. 53. 377. Church of Rome impugned p. 144. S SALMERON abused by M. Morton M. Barlow p. 75. Salomons fact of killing Adoniah condemned pag. 105. D. Sanders abused by M. Barlow pag. 77. Scandall in exhibiting the Oath of Allegiance p. 128. 129 130. c. of actiue and passiue scandall pag. 132. 134. 135. scandall of Balaaâ— pag. 139. Sigebert calumniated pag. â—3 K. Sisâ—nandus his submission to the Councell of Toledo p. 36â— Statute of Association pag. 429. Sâ—â—pition vide Idolâ—try foure kinds of suspition pag. 119. Supremacy mascuâ—â—ne feminine pag. 395. how it was giuen to K. Henry the 8. pag. 29â— to K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth â—bid to K. Iames. pag. 29â— M. Barlowes iudgment therupon ibid. pag. 300 Sycophancy vide Flattery M. Barlowes diuision of Sycophancy pag. 242. Sixtuâ— vide Pope T S. THOMAS his opinion coÌ„cerning obedience pag. â—â—â— about Totally praef n. 52. abused by M. Barlow pag. â—36 Threatnings of God vnto Kings pag. 108. Tâ—byes breach of the King of Niniue his comaâ—ndment about burying of the dead Iewes p. 289. § 2. the ancient Fathers iudgment therof pag. 288. the credit of the History of Toby pag. 287. Toleration of Religion humbly demanded of his Maiesty part 2. cap. 4. per totum Thomas vide Morton Treason vide Powder-treason V VESSELS consecrated to Church vses ancieÌ„t p. 237. Viâ—es of wicked Kings recounted after their deaths in Scripture pag. 199. Vniuersity of M. Barlow little p. 236. W M. VVHITAKER a terrour to Card. Bellarmine in M. Barlowes iudgment pag. 455. his booke refuted by M. Reynolds pag. 457. his ignorance ibid. VVilliam vide Barlow VVorkes-Good works may giue cause of confidence in God p. 440. Syr Henry VVotton a wodden Embassadour praef n. 70. his pranks at Ausburge Venice ibid. X XYSTVS 5. belyed about the murder of King Henry the 3. of France pag. 115. Z ZISCA the blind Rebell of Bohemia pag. 456. FINIS Three things declared in this preface for the Readers satisfaction Why M. Barlowes book was answered by F. Persons The cause of the stay of this edition What manner of writer M. Baâ—low is Isa. 1â— Tertull. dâ— praesâ—rip cap. 41. Aug. tract 45. in IoaÌ„nem Bernard serm 65. in Cantica M. Barlow in his epistlâ— Dedicatory to his Maiâ—sty M. Barlowes maÌ„ner of writing M. Barlowes ignorance in GraÌ„meâ— Humanity Barlow pag. 15â— pag. 295â— Gregor lib. 2. Ep. ep 65. Barl. pag. 174. A very grosâ—e Grammaticall errour Fragmentum historiâ—um in anno 1238. â—omo 1. hist. Germ. Casarum Bellarm. l. 1. de Cler. cap. 28. Barlow pag. 342. A strange construction of Orbis terrae Bellar. lâ—â— citato M. Barlowes ignorance in Philosophy Leo ep 89. D. Thâ— lec 12. in Periber lit F. M. Barlows ignorance in histories Barlow pag. 298. Barlow pag. 292. deinceps Barlow pag. 245. pag. 288. pag. 295. M. Barlowes ignorance in interpreting the Scriptures Barl. pag. 53. Cant. 3. Barlow pag. 43. Iosue 6. Pag. 201. Iosue 6. Pag. 60. Gen. 3. Matth. 9. Barlow pag. 334. M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of Diuinity Barlow pag. 188. D. Thom. 2.2 q. 104. ar 6. ad 3. 〈◊〉 pag. â—7 pag. 57 〈◊〉 pag. 114. D. Tho. 2.2 q. 162 â—â— 4. in 〈◊〉 pag. 246. M. Barlowes paradoxes Barlow pag. 160. The Protestantes coÌ„science like a cheuerall point A prophane and barbarous assertion of M. Barlow Barlow pag 99. Athan. ep ad solitarâ—aÌ„ vitâ—m ageÌ„tâ—s Hilarius lib. 1. in ConstaÌ„t AugustuÌ„ paulo post â—nitium Barlow pag 2â—2 Barlow paâ—â— 142. see supra pag. 120. D. Andr. Respons ad Apol. cap. â—5 pag. 343. §. Porrâ— negat part 2. cap. 4. Printed anno 160â— An. 1607. D. Couell in his iust and temperate defence ar 11. pag. 67. liâ— 8. in Iob. cap. 2. Puritans acknowledge an essentiall difference betweene them and the Protestants in matters of religion An. 160â— arg 10. circa medium Si nons Vpoâ— the Arâ—c pag. 142. sâ—e Baâ—on tom 12 in anno 1140. sâ—â—â—nnius tom 4. pag. 1223. and S. Bern. ep 187. 188. dem â—ps Pâ—pyâ—ius Maâ—souius l 3. Annal. in Phâ—â—ppo August pag. 268. Bern. ep 240. â—â—â—nar Luâ—â—en et 〈…〉 Aâ—bizen es 〈…〉 see Christianus Massaeus l. 17. Chron. ad an 1206. Caesaâ—ius Heiesterb l. 5. illust mirac cap. 21. see the Protestants Apology pag. 343. Iewel defence pag. 48 M. Iewell contrary to himself Guido Carmelita in suÌ„ma cap. 9. de
the moon in the Asseâ— belly M. Barlows flattery of Kinges Barl. p. 44 3. Reg. 2. Wisely Syr William Salomons fact of killing Adoniah condemned Lucae 2. Iob 36. Psal. 2. The secoÌ„d psalme ill chosen of M. Barlow for flattery of Princes Examples of Gods terrible threats vnto Kings Daniâ—l .4 3. Râ—g 21. Iob 36. Gods prouidence in gouerning his Church perfect no wayes defectuous Alu. Pelag lib. 1. De planctu Eccl. cap. 13. Aluarus Pelagius abused by M. Barl. Gratian Decret part 1. distinct 5. Greg. c. 10. ad interrogata Augustini Beda lib. 1. de hist. Angl. cap. 27. Bertrand in additione ad glos de maioritate obedientia c. â— Barl. p. 49. M. Barlows falfe dealing in alledging his aduersaries wordes â—et p. 20. Prou. â—4 vers 28. Vincen. aduers. hares August de vera rel cap. 38. Idolatry and superstition not alwaies causes of fâ—ar Foure kindâ—s of superstition 1. Tim. 1. M. Barl. prouoked to stand to his own Authors The Maior The Miâ—or An important controuersy to be haÌ„dled If M. Barlow list to accept this offer alâ—beit the author be dead he shall find those that will ioyne with him Barl. p. 52. There is no vltima resolutio with the ProtestaÌ„ts in matters of faith The Catholicks answere concerning his vâ—tima â—esolutio No resolution amongst heretâ—cks What resolution is taken froÌ„ the Pope Pag. 53. M. Barlows hate of ambition scilicet and his mortification M. Barlows stomake for digestion and concoction Barl. p. 54. Letter pag. â—â— Bar. p. 55. M. Barlows idle discourse 1. Pet. 2. 1. Cor. 8. Lett. p. 22. M. Barlowes ill fortune in dealing with Schol men Barl. p. 57. Of â—ctiue passiue scaâ—dall â— 2. q. 43. ar 1. ad 4. Scandal actiue without passiue Ibid. art 2. in coâ—porâ— Carnal Diuinity Bad dealing in M. Barlow The definition of scandal what is actiue and paâ—siue scandall ScaÌ„dalum Pharisaeorum ScaÌ„dalum Pusilloâ—uÌ„ S. Thomas expounded S. Thom. abused The errours of M. Barlow about the matter of scaÌ„dall M. Barlows want of patieÌ„ce M. Barlow vnderstaÌ„deth not the tearâ—es oâ— schoole Diuinity Epist. 50. Who lay the scandall of Balaam Catholicks or Protestants Letter pag. 22. M. Barlow speaketh morâ— then he can proue The successâ—oÌ„ of the Church of Rome Barl. pag. 59. 60. M. Barlows arguments against the Church of Rome The Pope both particuler Bishop of Rome and yet chiefe Pastour of the whole Church M. Barlowes bad argument which is false both in antecedent and consequent Euill life doth not preiudice truth of doctrine Barl. p. 60. M. Barlowes Ministeriall phrases of indument and stripping By Baptisme we are made members of the Church ProtestaÌ„ts gone out of the Catholike Church not Catholikes out of theÌ„ Barl. p. 62â— Mattâ— 13â— Antiquity prescriptioÌ„ good argumeÌ„ts in case of Religion Matth. 13. Tertul. aduers Marc. lib. 4. The Fathers do vrge prescription Hilar. lib. 6. De Trinitate ante medium Hier. Episâ—â— ad Paâ—nachium Pag. â—2 Concil Caâ—thag apuâ— CyprianuÌ„ Bad dealing of M. Barlow How posseâ—sioÌ„ with prescriptioÌ„ are euincing arguments in mâ—tters of fayth Sober Rec. cap. 3. §. 101. c. M. Barlow hardly vrged Matth. vlt. Matth. 16. No such Oath euer exaâ—ted by oâ—her Princes Barl. pag. 62. About Q. Elizabeths raigne life death Lett. p. 27. Queene Elizabeth her Manes M. Barlowes flattering loquence Barl. 64. M. Barl. turnes with the wynd like a weather-cocke Quene Elizabeth otherwise blazoned by forrain writers then M. Barlow reporteth Barlow p. 66. 67. Q. Elizabeth Canonized for a Saint by M. Barlow Q. Elizabeth in M. Barl. his iudgment neuer coÌ„mittâ—d anâ— mortal sinne Q. Elizabeth would neuer haue chosen M. Barlow for her ghostly Father About Q. Elizabeths Manes sacrificing vnto theÌ„ Barl. p. 74. Hierom. Eâ—ist ad Rom. Oratâ—â—em August de Dâ—â—tr Chrisâ—ian M. Barl. his trifling Act. 28. v. 11. 2. Pet. 2. 4. Act. 17. 28. Rom. 14.4 In what cases a maÌ„ may iudg of another 1. Tim. 5. 24. Barl. p. 75. Matth. 6. About externall mortifications 3. Reg. 2â— 27. Achab truly mortified Prophane impietie in M. Barlow Q. Elizabeth no cloystered Nunâ—e A place of S. Paul expounded coÌ„cerning bodily exercise Châ—ysost in comment ad c. 4. in 1. Tim. 3. Reg. 17. M. Barlow no friend to mortifications A strange kind of mortificaâ—â—on Mortification Rom. 8. 13â— Aug. l. 1. confeâ—s c. 5. Bern serm 52. in Cant. Ser. 13 de verbâ—â— Apost Strange kind of answering Gregor 5. moral c. â— Two parts of mortification internall externall Externall mortification in Princes M. Barlow a Deuine for the Court. Apol. pag. 16. M. Barl. foolish shift in answering his Aduersaries obiection about the PersecutioÌ„ vnder Q. Elizabeth Lett. paâ— 18. Let. p. 29. L. Cooke in the book of the late arraignmeÌ„t fâ—l 53. Psal. 143. Barl. p. 78. M. Barlow very forgetfull Temporall felicity no argument of spirituall happines Psal. 72. Hier. 12. Abacuâ— 10. Psalm 77. Bâ—llarm de notis Eccl. cap. 15. A place of Bâ—llarmâ— answered concerning temporall felicity S. August discourse S. Hierome Arnobius S. Basil. S. Chrysostome Theodoret Euthymius Psal. 2. 4. Psa. â— 36.23 Sapien. 4. Prouerb 1. 26. M. Barlâ— moues habens L. Câ—â—â—â— in tâ—e last boâ—ke â—f Arrâ—ignmeÌ„ts pag. 64. A bad definition of Misery by coâ—â—a inoâ—ia Psal. 68. 2. Cor. 1. Syr Edw. Cooke a poore Deuine None soe bold as blind bayard Lett. pag. 29. M. Barlowes weake Philosophy Barlow p. 82. 1. â—eg 31. Eccles. 4. 5. M. Barlow hardly vrged M. Barlowes waÌ„t of Diuinity Strange cases of conscience proposed by M. Barlow Nabuchodonosor more happy then Q. Elizabetâ— Q. Elizabeth her infelicities M. Barlow eueâ— by his owne censure and sentence contemptible M. Barlow followeth not his owne rules â—arlow pag. 96. The vices of wicked Kings recounted after their death in Scripture Letter pag. 35. A monstrous head of the English Protestant Church Barlow pag. 99. Nero and Domitian heads of the Church in M. Barlowes opinion Touching the birth of Queene Elizabeth M. Barl. Babylon Philâ—ra loue-druggs M. Barl. neuer like to be prisoner for religion S. Augusâ—â—â—â—â—o Protâ—staÌ„t Calumnious citations For what cause a maÌ„ may be a Martyr Matth. 5. The Prieâ—â—s that dâ—e â—â—n Q. 〈◊〉 time true Martyâ—s M. Barlows two foolish cases â—arl p. 92. Quodlib pag. 269. 277. M. Barlows trifling M. Barl silence and the cause therof A charitable Bishop Barl. p. 94. Barl. Preface to his sâ—â—mon the fiâ—st sonday in Lent 16â—0 About the making a way his Maiesties Mother Tacitus lâ— 1. Histor. M. Barlow turns his sailes with the wind serues the tyme. Barl. p. 59. Q. Elizabeths purgation about the Q of Scotlands death Hier. 2. 22. About the disastrous death of Q. Elizabeth â—â—5 â—5 The narration of the manner of Q. Elizabeths death In what case we may iudg of other meÌ„s soules after their death 1. Tim. 5. No sin to iudge of men deceased in herâ—sie Cyprian l. 〈…〉 S.
Câ—priaÌ„â— iudgment of suâ—h as dye out oâ— the Church 〈◊〉 l 4 〈…〉 17. Auâ—ust 〈◊〉 2â— 4. ad Donatâ— A notable sentence of S. Augustine A â—ard câ—sure against all the â—abble of Iâ—â—n Fox his Martyrs A coâ—uincing argument vpoÌ„ thâ— Premiâ—â—s The hard â—ase of Q. â—lizabeth A remarkable coÌ„parison Q. Elizabeth held condemned heresies Haeresi 53. Aug. l. 9. coÌ„fâ—â—â— c. 13. S. Monica desired to be prayed for at the altar after her death which Q. Elizabeth did not Lett. p. 36. See Answere to Syr Edw. Cook c. 15. His Maiesties mild dispositioÌ„ diuerted The exercise of the Minister T. Montague Barl. pag. 102. Maliciouâ— contradiction Barl. pag. 103. M. Barlow a true parasite Barl. pagâ— 102. About the nature of flattery how Syâ— William demeaneth himselfe therin Augu. in 〈◊〉 69. M. Barlow an egregious flatterer M. Barlows praiers without hope Luc. 10. 21. Flattering of his Maiesty Barl p. 105. Syr VVilliâ—m deserues his fee. About the little Vniuersity These were an other maÌ„ner of Vniuersity Act. â—â— S. Athanâ—sius Epist. ad solitariâ—m vitam ageÌ„tes S. Gregor Nazian S. Ambrose Nazian orat ad â—iues timore perculsos Ambros. epist. 33. ad sororem S. Chrysostome S. Hierome S. Augâ—stine S. Gregory M. Barlows diuision of SycophaÌ„cy Mâ—râ—cles â—â—â—dâ—d and câ—ntemned M. Barl. a good proctor for the Turkes Infidels The myracles of S. Denys The myracle of S. Clement M Barl. turnes an anchor into a milstone Of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus M. Barlows fooleries Sixtus Quartus bâ—lyed Barl. pag. â—08â— Base babling Chelsey erection for writers Barâ— pag. 112. M. Barlow addeth to the text A most resonable and modest request of the Cath. Simple impertinent reasoning of M. Barlow Let. p. 38. In vita 〈◊〉 â—unâ—i Anno 1â—46 Liberty of conscience demanded by al Protestants â— Psal. 113. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Height of pride and in whome it may be said to be Barl. pag. 110. Strange notes of hâ—mility set downe bâ— M. Barlâ—w M. Barlow betrayeth his owne cause Barl. ibideÌ„ The Protestant hath Ecclesiastical power ouer Puritans 1. Ioan. 2. In what case Catholicks may yeld and grant toleration to Protestants Matth. 13. M. Barlow at a Non-plus Vnkind dealing indeed Barl. pag. 124. M. Barlowâ— moderate dirâ—ct Protâ—â—tâ—nt M. Barlow belyeth F. Persons Psal. 5â— Barl. pag. 142. StraÌ„ge impudency Basenesse and beggery of ProtestaÌ„ts Theol. Tigurin in prafat Apol prafix orthodox Câ—n. anno 1578. Lib. 2. de rat ineundâ— Concordiae p. 2. 24. ProtestaÌ„ts and Puritans differ in substaÌ„tial points of religioÌ„ Rogers prâ—fâ—â—e pag. 9. Arrige aures Syr William M. Barlow a bad Aduocate M. Barlow in the brakes Amb. ep 33. Baâ—l pag. â—69 A hard argument for M. Barlow to solue Silly stuffe M. Barlows liâ—le care of his Maiestieâ— eternall life Good euill Princes to be obeyed for conscieÌ„ce but not against coscience Barlow pag. 160. M. Barlow hath the coÌ„science of an Asse a Wolfe A strange wicked assertioÌ„ of M. Barlow 1. 2. q. 19. art 5. The goodnes of the act of our will doth depeÌ„d vpon our reason and iudgment A sinne to doe coÌ„trary to an erroneous coÌ„science What iâ— to be â—one of him who haâ—h an erroneoâ—â— coÌ„science â— Tim. 1. M. Barlowes moÌ„strous doctrines more fitting the Turkes Alcoran then the Ghospell of Iesus Christ. S. Paul abused More coÌ„teâ—ned in the Oath then ciuill obedieÌ„ce Let. p. 51. Apol. pag. 22. Hiâ—r 27. 12. Exod. 5.1 Esdr. 1.3 Dan. 3.12 No obedience against God a mans conscieÌ„ce Deu. 1. 〈◊〉 1. â— Mach. 1. Barl. pag. 161. A strange assertion Weake proofes A simple Discourse Barl. pag. 168. The fact of Toby against the coÌ„mandement of K. Senacherib Tob. 2. v. 9. Tob. 12. M. Barlow a bad Angell The credit of the history of Toby Câ—c Triâ— sess 4. Carth. can 47. Aug. 2. de doc chrism cap. 8. Amb. de Tob. 2. Cyp. de orat Dominica l. de mortaliâ— S. Augustines and other Fathers iudgments of the fact of Toby Cap. 3. Cap. 13. S. Ambr. â—ib de Tob. c. 1. Tob. 12. Cyp. lib. dâ— oratione Dom. This is no ProtestaÌ„t doctrine A great presumptioÌ„ of M. Barlowes piety Letter pag. 52. Authorities of ancient Fathers Apol. p. 23. â— Aug. in Psal. 124. How far we are bound to obey our temporall Prince Apol. p. 23. Tertull. ad Scap. Iust. Apol. 2. ad Anton Imperaâ— Optat. contra ParmeÌ„ lib. 3. Ambros Orat. coÌ„tra Auxent de Basilicis noÌ„ trad lib. 5. Epist. Three occasions in which S. Ambrose resisted the Emperour his temporall Soueraigne Libellus Ambros. epist. 32. Amb. l. â— epist. 33. Amb. ibid. Ambros. Conâ— de Basiliâ—â—s noÌ„ tradenâ—â—â—s M. Barlowes shifting answere to the three places of S. Ambrose Feminine Supremacy more esteemed of M. Barlow then Masculine Barlow pag. 171. Magdeb. cent 4. c. 5. 6. 7. The ancient vse of hallowing Church Vessels Naz. orat de sâ—ipso coÌ„tra Arianos M. Barlows declining in the point of Supremacy Stat. H. 8. anno Domini 1535. The supremacy how it was giuen to Kâ— Henry in what high measure K. Edwarâ— An 1 E 6. cap. 2. Queene Elizabeth M. Barlows iudgment about the Kings supreme Ecclesiastical authority M. Barlows fumbling M. Barlows absurde distinctions diuisions M. Barlows delusion M. Barlow hath marred the market of the Kings supremacy Lett. p. 56. Apolog. pag. 24. How S. Gregory agreed to the publishing of the law of the Emperour â—auritius Greg. l. 2. Epist. 65. Indict 11. Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 1â— Indict 1. Barl. pag. 173. Mauritius his law noâ— altogeather Ecclesiasticall How the Emperors Law vvas Ecclesiasticall A good consideration A fond cauill Pag. 174. Barl. pag. 174. A ridiculous error in GraÌ„mar of M. Barlow Letter pag. â—8 CoÌ„c Arel sub Carol. Can. 26. Viâ—e in Capitularibus Franc. lib. 6. c. 285. de Concilio Wormaâ— Wherin the CouÌ„cell or Arles did submit it selfe to the Emperour a Can. 2. b Can. 3. c Can. 4. d Can. 7. 8. e Can. 13â— f Can. 15. 16. g Can. 20. 22. 23. The zeale of Charlâ— the Great to haue manners reformed by the authority of Bishops Barlow pag. 175. A grosse contradictiâ— in M. Barlow A very forcible argumeÌ„t M. Barlows memory very short M. Barlow plaieth fast loose about the Kings authority A hard question for M. Barlow to answere Barl. pag. 178. False dealing Amb. toÌ„ 5. edit Vatican epist. prâ—fix anâ—e Conâ—il Aquileâ—eÌ„ About the of CouÌ„cel Wormes â—â—oÌ„ ann 77â— 772. 〈◊〉 Fâ—aÌ„c â— 6. c. 28â— â—â— l 7. c. 2â—â— Better to be a fugitiue for the Catholick religion on abroad then to be a persecutour at home Generall Councels â—lwaies called by the Bishop of Rome Barl. pag. 178. The radiant folly of M. Barlow M Barâ—owes impudency Baâ—on tom 9. ann 774. Aâ—oâ— p. 26. â—7 Lett. p. 61. Neither the Pope or Church can make new Articles of Faith Barlow pag. 181. A foolish wrangling of M.