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
for England and his that 〈◊〉 aâ—â—rte that he was at the sea-cost and shipt for England â—â—erto I answer first for the word almost left out Secondly 〈◊〉 the example The words of the Apologer about the likenes of our 〈◊〉 to the Toletane action are thrice repeated by me first in the beginning of the matter p. 76. n. 11. where repeating the Apologers words I said almost euery point of that action is 〈◊〉 to ours In the end also p. 81. n. 19. I related his words â—â—s that almost euery point of that action hath agreeance with that of 〈◊〉 c. So as twice the word almost is repeated though in the third place pag. 77. num 12. It is said euery point of that 〈◊〉 c. which might be as well the errour of the writer or printer as ouerslip of the Authour And how then can this be called fraudlent impudeÌ„cy Or rather was iâ— not more fraudulent in M. Barlow not to tell his reader that it was twice put downe though once left out As for the two meÌ„bers alleaged they are both known to be false that either Father Parsons was almost vpon the Sea-coast for England or vpon the Sea-coast and shipt for England to expect the â—â—â—der-â—lot for that hundreds of witnesses will testifie in 〈◊〉 that neither at that time nor in al that yeare was he out of that Citty so as this is somewhat more then almost two vntruthes And this is as much as in effect he answereth to this matter But I went forward in my Letter to shew out of the Councell and Histories of Spaine the occasions causes and circumstances of this Councell and how it was procured by the King of Spaine Sisâ—nanduâ— of the Gothish bloud who hauing ceposed his Lord and Maister King Suintila was somewhat iealous least the Oath of fâ—â—elity made vnto him by the Spaniards would not be obserued and therfore made recourse vnto the Bishops and Clergy for assisting him in that behalfe with their Ecclesiasticall authority as they did both confirming the one and excluding the other wherupon is set downe in the preface of the said Councell that he comming into the same accompanied with many Noble and honourable persons of his trayne coram Sacerdotibus Dei bumiprostratus cum lacbryâ—â—â— gemitibus pro se interueniendum postulauit he prostrate on the ground before the Priests of God besought them with teares and sobs to make intercession for him Wherupon the Councell commaunded vpon seuere Censures that no man should practise his death or deposition or breake his Oath of fidelity made vnto him but no particuler forme of oath do I find there to haue bene prescribed or decreed wherby this our new oath may be confirmed or authorized but rather another oath prescribed vnto the King and all his successours Iuramento poâ—liceanâ—ur hanc se Catholicam non permissuros eos violare sidem that they sweare that they will neuer suffer their subiects to violate this Catholike faith And marke said I that he saith 〈◊〉 which was the Catholike fayth then held in Spaine and explicated in these CouÌ„cels of Toledo the particulers wherof do easily shew that they were as oposite to the Protestants fayth as ours is now To all this what sayth M. Barlow He beginneth with a tale as he is wont when he hath little els to say Pericles sayth he as some do affirme had that skill in wrastling that though he receaued a fall yet he would perswade the wrastler that cast him and the spectatours that beheld him that he was the conquerour You will imagine how well this is â—pplyed by him he sayth that there is not one poynt of this which I haue sayd to the purpose or against the Apologer But how doth he proue it First he saith that this Conncell was gathered by the coÌ„mand of King Sisenandus And what maketh this to the purpose Did not we graunt also that Kings within their Kingdomes may cause Prouinciall Councels to be made by their Bishops Archbishops Metropolitans But how submissiuely this King did behaue himselfe in that CouÌ„cell appeareth by his former submission both in fact words And yeâ— by the way the Reader must note M. Barlows smal truth in relating for his purpose these words religiosissimi Sisenandi Regis iussu Imperijs conuenimus we are assembled by the commaund and authority of our most Religious King Sisenandus wheras the true words in the Councel are â—â—m studio amoris Christi ac diligenâ—ia religiosissâ—â—â— Sisenandi Regis apud Toletanam Vrbem in nomine Domini conuenissemus wheras for the loue of Christ and by the diligence of our most religious King we came togeather in the name of God in the Citty of Toledo And then those other words which ensue aâ—terwards to wit eius â—mperijs atque iussis are referred to another thing not to their meeting but what matters they should principally handle touching discipline c. Vt communis a nobis ageretur de quibusdam Ecclesiae disciplinis tractatus In which Treatise of discipline was contayned in like manner the Kings owne temporall cause concerning the assuring of his succession by Ecclesiasticall CeÌ„sures When or wherin then shall we find M. Barlow to deale puÌ„ctually and sincerely But let vs go forward In the next place he sayth that this Councell the Canons therof do make for the Protestants and giueth example in three or foure Canons and concludeth generally in these words The Church oâ— England both for substance in doctrine and ceremony in discipline doth hould the same which maâ—y of the sayd Canons do conclude Well then we shall see presently how many they be He citeth only foure of seauenty and foure and those so impertinently as by the citation he maketh himselfe miserable as now you will perceaue And first he cyteth the 43. CanoÌ„ saying that the marriage of Priests so it be with the consent of the Bishop is therin allowed and he beginneth with this for that it seemeth to him a knocker and to the purpose indeed for authorizing Priests marriages Wherfore we shall handle it in the last place of the foure alleadged by him In the second place then he leapeth back from the 43. Canon to the 24. saying that therin it was positiuely set downe that ignorance is the mother of all errours but not of deâ—â—tion A great obiection no doubt against vs as though we were great friends of ignorance Ignorance sayth the Canon the mother of all errours is most to be auoyded by Priests who haue the office of teaching the people Do we coÌ„tradict this What meane our Schooles Our Seminaries Our Colleges Our Vniueâ—sities for bringing vp and instructing Priests Are our Priests in England or on this side the seas more incumbred with ignorance then the Ministers Why then is this Canon brought in against vs For that perhaps it sayth not that Ignorance is the mother of deuotion nor we neither as
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
M. Barlow neere euen to the very quicke and I thinke his Church will hardly brooke this seuerity of the old Spanish discipline though you haue heard him promise that he will In the 12. and 13. Canons order is giuen for singing of hymnes in the time of Masse and namely that of the three Children in the fornace and certaine Priests are reprehended quòd in Missa Dominicorum dierum in solemnit atibus martyrum canere negligant that they do neglect to sing the said hymne at Masse on Sondayes and on the festiuall dayes of Martyrs Wherfore this holy Councell doth ordayne sayth the Canon that throughout all the Churches of Spayne and Galicia in omnium Missarum soleâ—â—itate idem in publico decantetur in the solemnity of aâ—l Masses the sâ—me hymne be publikely song vnder payne of loosing their Communion who shall do contrary to this ancient custome of singing this hymne and shall violate this oâ—â— definition So the Councell And will M. Barlows Church admit this doctrine of Masses and celebrating the Martyn feastes In the 51. Canon remedy is prouided for certaine disorderly monks who â—unning ouâ— of their Monasteries non solùm ad saeculâ—m reuertantur sed eâ—iam vxores acâ—ipiaâ—t do not only returne to the world but take wiues also and the remedy is that they must be brought backe to their Monasteries againe poenitentiae deputentur ibique â—â—fleâ—â—t crimina sua and be appointed to do penance and there let them weepe and bewayle their sinnes And what will M. Barlow say to this point of discipline Or at least what would his chiefe doctours and Grandfathers â—â—ther Oâ—colampadius Peter Martyr Ochinus or to come neerer home what would Scory of Hereford Bartlet of Bath and VVells Fryar Bale and others haue sayd therunto Might not Beares as soone be brought to the stake as these men againe to their Monasteries to do penance And yet if they had bene in Spayne at that time this Spanish discipline would haue brought them backe which M. Barlow in generall saith that his Church houldeth also but when iâ— commeth to the particuler I doubt not but he will go from his word againe and therfore I will stand no longer vpon this point though many other examples might be alleaged There remayneth only then now for the conclusion of this Chapter to see and weigh the comparisons that may be made betweene this Oath of fidelity of the Spanish subiects vnto their King Sisenandus the keeping wherof is so earnestly recommended by this Councell and this other English Oath of Allegiance required by his Maieâ—â—ie wherin I sayd I found no more parity or semblance but as that was an Oath of ciuill Obedience to their temporall Prince so is this also in some clauses and therfore as the Councel did well allow yea much recommend and incharge the keeping of that Oath to King Sisenandâ—â— so do all good Catholickes desire the obseruation of the foresaid clauses contayned in this Oath so far forth as they concerne the said temporall obedience But this doth not proue that any such forme of Oath as this new Oath is was there prescribed or decreed either quoad forâ—â—â— or quoad materiam For as for the forme I find no particuler forme set downe or decreed in the Councell as hath bene said but only an admonition to keepe the Oath before taken with an earnest dehortation commination against all perfidious conspiring or rebelling against their King which we most willingly also agree vnto And as for the matter and subiect of the Oath it is cleere that that was of temporall obedience only and had no such clauses against the authority of the Bishop of Rome as this hath nor can it be imagined with any probability that if any such thing had bene proposed by K. â—isenandus to that Councel that they would haue harkened vnto it and much lesse agreed and subiected themselues to â—ake it or allowed it to others to be either proposed or taken Well then what saith M. Barlow to this conclusion Certes he seeketh so say many things but so far from the purpose that he truly may be sayd to say nothing He setteth downe clauses of my speach with his answers thus First quoth I there is noe partyculer forme of an oath put downe in the Councell and consequently this new forme could not be taken from that He answereth Can an oath be kept which was not first taken But what is this to the purpose for the question is not whether the Spaniards did take an Oath to their King or not for that is graunted but whether the forme of the oath were like to this of ours And yet as though he had answered to the purpose he goeth forward to proue that an Oath was taken It appears sayth he in the Canon iâ— self that all of them had taken an 〈◊〉 the State decreed it the subiects of all sorts tooke is the 〈◊〉 inioyned the inuiolable performance thereof So then an oath there wasâ— that is without question and a forme it â—ad iâ— not set downe i◠〈◊〉 Councell what is that to the point Truly Syr nothing at all as is neither this your prouing of that which is not denied but it had bene much to the point to proue that that forme and this forme had bene a like and soe the one confirmed by the other which you attempt not at all to do And yet I pray thee good Reader see heere how he braggeth immediatly Sufficiently sayth he hath the Apologâ—â— euicted what he would to proue that the oath of Allegiance amongst 〈◊〉 is no such strange thing hauing a president in like kind confirmed by diuers Councells about a thousand yeares sithence But I would demaund of M. Barlow what was the question betweene vs Was it whether there were euer any oath of Allegiance to temporall Princes allowed or taken in the Christian world before this of ours For if this were the question then hath he sufficiently euicted his purpose by shewing that so long ago an oath of AllegiaÌ„ce was allowed in the Councell of Toledo But if this was not the question but only whether there was a like Oath to this in forme or matter allowed in the Councell of Toledo then hath M. Barlow euicted nothing but his own disgrace for that he hath run quite from the purpose And yet to seeme to say somewhat he returneth agayne afterward to speake of the forme and matter of this oath recommended in the Councell of Toledo And first he sheweth that albeit the forme be not expressed in the Councel yet must it be persumed to haue bene made in the name of God as is commaunded in Deuteronomy the 6. But this is very general Then he setteth downe a certayne Protestation made by the Bishops and Archbishops in the sixt Councell of Toledo for the temporall safety of their Prince in these words Ideo testamur 〈◊〉 Deo omni ordine Angelorum c. Therefore
Barlow Barlow pag. 184. The silly shifting of M. Barlow M. Barlowes acumen M. Barlowes coÌ„tradictioÌ„ Câ—â— 47. â—taâ—leton lib 9. câ—â—troâ— 5. de Câ—◠〈…〉 M. Barlowes fidelity Art 27. câ—ntâ—a Luthâ—rum B Fisher abused ValeÌ„tia in 2.2 disâ— 1. punâ—â—o 6. D. Thomâ— 2. 2. q. 1. art 10. Azor. Inâ—stitut par 2 l. 5. c. 12. Azor abused Suarez abused Suarez â—oÌ„ â— in 3. 〈◊〉 â— 27 3. aâ—t sect 6. â—aâ—l pag. 18â— ToÌ„ 5. CoÌ„c concil 4. Mediolan cap. 1. About the ProfessioÌ„ of faith in the fourth Councâ—l of Millâ—ne fraudulâ—Ì„tly allâ—adged by M. Barlow Azor. par 1. l. 11. c. 4. §. 2. Quaeritur Strange impudency of M. Barlow Azor. par 1. l. 1. c. 11. §. 1â— Quaeritur M. Barlows transcendent impudency Letter pag. 64. See S. Cypr. exhor ad Martyres See Eusebâ— l. 8. c. 4. Aug. de Bapt. l. 7. c. 2. l. 7. coÌ„tra Crescon c. 27. Aâ—nob coÌ„tra Gentes l. 4. in fine M. Barlows slander without end Barl. pag. 187. M Barlowes strange mystery Socrat. lib. â— hist. cap. 14. Socrates peruerted D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 104. articâ— 6. ad 3. Lying cogging is proper to M. Barlow S. Thomas his opinioÌ„ coÌ„cerning ObedieÌ„ce due vnto Princes Aug. 4. de Ciuit. c. 4. An obiection answered by S. Thom. M. Barlowes ignorance or malice more declared Strange dealing of our Aduersaries Letter pag. 65. About the Breues of Clemens Octauus M. Barlowes mind impious M. Barlows cobling and clowting on of his Maiesties prayses M. Barlow more fit to be a Sexton then B. of Lincolne Lett. p. 69. Apologia 56.37 The state of the coÌ„trouersy with Cardinal Belâ—larmine Card Bellarmins opinion of taking the Oath Pag. 44. A cauil Barl. p 201. Iosue 6. 15. Rammes horne Barl. pag. 202. A great vntruth to begin wiâ—h all A foolish fiction of M. Barlow without application M. Barlows triflâ—ng ignorance Barl. pag. 203. M. Barlow answereth argumeÌ„ts by telling of tales those little to the purpose Card. Bellarmine wrongfully charged by M. Barlow for mistaking the question Pag. 164. edit Rom. Lett. p. 71. All is one with M. Barlow for a thing to be moderated or to be modified Barl. pag. 205. Stat. 26. Henr. 8. cap. 1. The first Oath of Supremacy Stat. 28. Henr. 8. cap. 10. Stat. 1. Edw. 6. cap. 2. Barl. pag. 205. M Barlow vexed in defeÌ„ding the Supremacy pag. 209. 1. Reg. 15. 1. Cor. 11. M Barlowes impertinent answeres Reyn. Confer cap. 1. disp 2. p. 55. Q. Elizabeth in M. Barlowes opinion as absolute for Spiriâ—tuâ—ll authority as any Male-Monarch Barl. pag. 207. Letter 74. The Oath deuided into 14. parts Apol. p. 49. Bad kind of arguing Barl. pag. 2â—â— M. Barlow without all occasion plaieth the parasite Barlow pag. 214. M. Barlowes senselesse demand M. Barlow foysteth into his text the word whole and therupon grouÌ„deth al his idle dispute Bellarm. pag. 22. edit Rom. More required to a good action then to an euil Barl. pag. â—15 The difference betweene this Oath and an Indenture Barl. pag. 215. Barl. p. 215. Strange parasitical paradoxes Lett. p. 76. Apologia 52. The Oath of Allegiance confirmed by the authority of Councels The difference betwene the ancient Councels and the Popes counsellâ—ng of the Catholiks Conâ— Tole 4. can 74. A lye in print Barl. pag. 217. About the leauing out the word almost K. â—â—senaÌ„dus his submissiue behauiour to the Bishops in the Councel of Toledo The Catholick Faith confirmed by the Councell of Toledo M. Barlâ—w when he cannot answere filâ— to tellâ—â—g of tales M. Barlows falshood in relating the words of the CouÌ„cell of Toledo M. Barlowes shameles assertion About ignorance deuotion M. Barlow very ignorant but not very deuout Immunitâ— of Clergy men from whence it first proceeded Lib. de Cler. cap. 2â— 29. Vidâ— in câ—dâ—e Theodâ—s lib. 16. tiâ— 2 leg 16 26. â—t in Cod. â—â—stinâ— lâ—ge â—anâ—imus de Saâ—rosan Eccl. M Barlow for a Canon leapeth out of the booke Can. 75. Two notorious frauds of M. Barâ—low M. Barlowes forgery discouered about the Marriage of Priests Conâ— To. lâ—t â— tom 2. Conc. an Dom. 542. The Decree of the CouÌ„cel of Tolâ—dâ— about the chastity of Subdeacons Deacons Priests Let Sâ—r VVilliam B. and his fellowes examine their consciences how they keep this Canon Priests liuing with their wiues noted by the Councell to come from heretikes Whether the 4 CouÌ„cel of Toledo agree more with the ProtestaÌ„t church of EnglaÌ„d or Catholik church of Rome Christs desâ—eÌ„ding into hel to deliuer the Saints Merits of workes Recourse to Rome Beda lib. 1. hist. c. 27. Wax tapers Allâ—lâ—ya Mortification in the time of Lentâ— Masses festiuities of Saints Disorderly Monks punished The difference betwene the Oath of the Councel of Toledo the English oath of pretended AllegiaÌ„ce Barl. pag. 220. Very wisly spoken Concil â— Tolet. A fond triumph of M. Barlow before the victory The CouÌ„cel of Toledo would neuer haue allowed of the new Oath About Equiuocation very ignorantly by M. Barlow confounded with lying * An immodest example vsed by M. Barlow The difference beâ—weene Equiuocation lying A grosse lye of M. Barlow Barl. pag. 226. M. Barlowes principall ignoraÌ„ce M. Barlowes childish imputations against Cardinall Bellarmine Barl. pag. 230. Lett pag. 43 num 24. Two questioÌ„s proposed solued Clauses of beliefe or not belief in the Oath Pag. 12. Barl. pag. â—33 M. Barlowes caueling Barl. pag. 234. Machiauels principles agree better to ProtestaÌ„ts doctrine theÌ„ to the Catholike M. Barlow vnderstandeth not himselfe Barl. pag. 234. M. Barlow his seely distinction M. Barlowes grosse errour in Philosophy Diuine humane faith wherin they are distinguished The Popâ— neuer coÌ„manded any Prince to be murthered Barâ— pag. 217. Barl. pag. 239. Bell. de RoÌ„ Pont. l. 5. c. 6. §. ex quo M. Barlow falsifyeth Bellarmine M. Barlows foolish consequence Lett. p. 87. Naâ—e part 2. geÌ„ â—7 in anno 11â—6 CraÌ„â—â— l. 5. histor Saxon c. 24. M. Barlow i◠〈◊〉 where he 〈◊〉 â—â—â—were Henry the 4. not vnburied by Pope Pascalis Naucl. l. 2. gen 37. 〈◊〉 a Lutheran M. Barlows clouted frauds in his black cloud of witnâ—sses M. Barlow pareth and minceth Authors to his purpose M. Barlow sheweth himselfe a falsificator in capitall Letâ—ers M. Barlow trimmeth Authours to make theÌ„ against their wil 's coÌ„trary to that they write to speake for him Lett. p. 87. M. Barlowes perfidious dealing in alleaging F. Persons words CraÌ„tz l. 5. Hist. cap. 24. Barl. pag. 240. M Barlowes notorious lyes M. Barlowes cloud of witnâ—sses 〈◊〉 Helmod 〈◊〉 l. 1. c. 33. Binnius misconstrued Binnius tom 3. pag. 13 c 4. The ayre cleered of M. Barlowes cloud of witnesses A commoÌ„ false trick of M. Barlow to set down his owne words in a different letter as if they were the words of the Authour by him cited Aug. de Ciuit. l. 1. cap. 13. lib. de cura mort agenda Cypr. Ep.
lesse the true substance of things handled by him I do pretermitt as very fond and impertinent the next passage that ensueth and is the last in this matter in M. Barlow his booke where he maketh this demaund But what if there be none or few that make such conscience or take such offence at the admission of the Oath as he speaketh of To this question I say it is in vaine to answere for if there be so few or no Catholikes that make conscience or scruple to take the Oath the contention will be soone at an end But presently he contradicteth himselfe againe taking another medium and saying that there would be none if they were not threatned by vs to haue their howses ouerturned as some Donatists sayth he confessed of themselues by the witnesse of S. Augustine that they would haue bene Catholikes if they had not bene put in feare ne domus corum euâ—rtâ—râ—ntur by the Circumcellians perhaps which M. Barlow sayth may spiritually be applyed to our threatning that such as take the Oath shall be accompted Apostataes and to haue renounced their first fayth and to be no members of the Catholike Church and finally that we shall remayne branded in euerlasting record with Balaams infamy that taught Balaac to lay a scandall or occasion of fall to the people of Israell To all which I answere first that he that layeth forth the truth of Catholike doctrine vnto Catholike men may not iustly be sayd to threaten or terrify but to deale sincerely and charitably with them laying truth before their eyes what their obligation is to God before man and how they are bound as members of his true Catholike Church to hould and defend the vnity and integrity of â—ayth and doctrine deliuered by the same though it be with neuer so much temporall danger And as for laying a scandall wherby they may fall into the ruine of their soules it is easy to iudge whether wee do it rather that teach them to deale sincerely with God and their Prince wherby they shall preserue their peace and alacrity of conscience or you that indeauoâ—r to induce thâ—â—â—â— sweare and doe against the same wheâ—eby they shall be sure to leese both their peace in this life and their euerlasting inheritance in the next THE ANSVVER TO AN OBIECTION BY OCCASION VVHEROF IT IS SHEVVED THAT POSSESSION and Prescription are good proofes euer in matters of Doctrine AND The contrary is fondly affirmed by M. Barlow CHAP. V. THERE remaineth now for the finall end of this first Part to examine an obiection that might be made by the aduersary which I thought good by â—â—ticipation to satisfy in the very last number of the first parâ— of my Letter And it was that wheras we complaine of so great pressures layd vpon vs for our conscience especially by this enforced Oath some man may sayâ— that the liâ—â— course is held in the Catholicke States against themâ— whome we esteeme as heretickes I shall repeate my owne words and then see what M. Barlow answereth to the same Here if a man should obiect quoâ—h I that among vs also men are vrged to take Oathes and to abiure â—heir opinions in the Tribunalls of Inquisitions and the like and consequently in this Oath they may be forced vnder punishment to abiure the Popes temporall authority in dealing with Kings I answere first that if any hereticke or other should be forced to â—biure his opinions with repugnance of conscience it should be a sinne to the inforcers if they knew it or suspected it neyther is it practised orâ— permitted in any Catholicke Court that eueâ— I knew But you will reply that if he doe it not he shal be punished by dâ—ath or otherwise as the crime requireth and Canons appoint and consequently the like may be vsed towards Catholikes that will not renounce their old opinions of the Popes authority But heere is a great difference for that the Catholike Church hath ius acquisitum ancient right ouer heretickes as her true subiects â—or that by their baptisme they were made her subiectes and left her afterwardsâ— and went out of her and she vseth but her ancient manner of proceeding against them as against all other of their kind and quality from the beginning But the Protestant Church of England hath nullum iuâ— acquisitum vpon Catholickes that were in possession before them for many hundred yeares as is euident neither was there euer any such Oath exacted at their hands by any of their Kings in former Catholicke timesâ— neither is tâ—eâ—e by any Catholicke forraine Monarch now liuing vpon 〈◊〉 and consequently by no â—eâ—son or right at all can English Catholicke men be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience or be punished beâ—â—â—â— or destroyed if for their conscience they refuse to take tâ—e same humbly offering notwithstanding to their Soueraigne to giue him all other dutifull satisfaction for their temporall obedience and allegiance which of loyall Catholicke subiects may be exacted And this shall suffice for this first point concerning the contents and nature of this Oath This was my speach and conclusion then And now shal we take a vew how it is confuted by M. Barlow First be amplifyeth exaggerateth with great vehemeÌ„cy the torments and tortures of our Inquisitions which are vsed as he saith with the most extreme violence that flesh can indure or malice inuent wherin he sayth more I thinke then he knoweth and more perhaps then he belieueth and at leastwise much more then is true in my knowledg For of twenty that are imprisoned there not one lightly is touched with torture and when any is in the case by law appointed it is knowne to be more mildly then commonly in any other tribunall But let vs leaue this as of least moment and depending only vpon his asseueration and my denyall and let vs passe to that which is of more importance for iustifying the cause it selfe to wit by what right of power and authority the Roman Church proceedeth against heretickes and how different it is from that wherby Protestants pretend to be able iustly to proceed against vs for matters of Religion First of all he sayth that I do take as granted that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church which we deny sayth he and the chiefest learned of their side could as yet neuer conuict our denialls Wherto I answere that if themselues may be iudges that are most interessed in the controuersie I do not meruaile though they neuer yield themselues for conuicted But if any indifferent iudgment or triall might be admitted I do not doubt but that their euiction and coÌ„uiction would quickly appeare and many learned men of our dayes haue made most cleare demonstrations therof by deducing the Roman Church doctrine and fayth from the Apostles dayes vnto our times successiuely as namely Doctour Sanders his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Monarchy Cardinall Baronius in the continuation of his Annales Gâ—nebrarâ—
was this I find no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholike affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith and what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true Mother therby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother but only the declaration Wherfore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth is a meere calumniation amongst the rest So in my former writing now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points In the first whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obedience he is very briefe for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation that the Popes Breue forbids not temporall Obedience No saith he it forbids the Oath wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance But this we deny and haue often denied and still must deny and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands who though he hath often affirmed the same yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue For that being once proued all controuersie about this Oath were ended And it is a strange kind of demeanour so often and euery where to affirme it and neuer to proue it He addeth for his reason in this place He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne and sayth neuer a word more But what doth this proue Or in what forme is this argument For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor that we do so or that the Popes Breue doth so we vtterly deny it as manifestly false For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour Wherfore this proofe is nothing at allâ— But he hath another within a leafe after which is much more strange for he bringeth me for a witnes against my selfe in these words VVhat hitherto sayth he he â—aâ— laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue â—â—insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grâ—â—teth If this be so that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduantage and some cause to vaunt but if no word of this be true and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen that is forced to inuent these silly shifts Let vs lay forth then the mystery or rather misery of this matter as himselfe relateth it The Pope saith he being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause or reason of the vnlwâ—ulnes of the Oath the Epistler saith there are as many reasons that it is vnlawfull as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion against which they must sweare And is not this a good reason say I Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the coÌ„science of a Catholike man from swearing But how doth be proue by this that I confesse the Breue to forbid temporall Obedience Do you marke I pray you his inference and consider his acumen But there is no one poynt sayth he in the Oath that doth not so to wit that doth not concerne Religion euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience I do sweare before God that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme c. Ergo I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles and consequently leaueth no Obedience ciuill or temporall But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion euen the very first Article that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience â—hen doth it not touch religioÌ„ in our sense For that we do distinguish these two deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts the one conteyning points of temporall obedience for acknowledging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes the other concerning points of Catholike Religion belonging to the Popes Authority To the first wherof we refuse not to sweare but only against the second And now M. Barlow sayth that all concerne religion and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedience but denieth all And is not this a worthy dispute But let vs passe to the second question whether the Pope or Church hath authority to make new Articles of faith as the Apologer obiected And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part that the Catholicke Church preâ—endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith that were not of themselues true and of faith before he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Hermes and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall Whereto I answere that Doctor Stapleton sayth only that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not admitted before as for example the Epistles of S. Iames the two bookes of Machabees the Epistle of Iude and diuers others as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and suâ—scribed so hath the same Church at this day and shall haue vnto the worlds end authority to do the same Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret sayth Doctour Stapleton that is if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto herâ— librum aliquem alâ—â—m nâ—ndum in Canâ—nem recepâ—um Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes
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