the power and authority of the Pope and Sea Apostolicke c. be any point belonging to religion among Catholicks then is there not only some one word but many sentences concerning Religion in the Oath What answereth M. Barlow This Epistler saith he doth impudently impugne the Oath as vtterly vnlawfull and agaynst religion which yet dependeth vpon an If and is not yet determined for a point of religion that the Pope hath any such authority ouer Kings as in the Oath is mentioned No Syr not among Catholiks for of them only I speake though you leaue it out and doe many wayes corrupt my words Will not they grant the Popes authority in such cases to be a point belonging to their Religion Doth the word If put the matter in doubt that when you say If there be a God this or that is true or false you may be said to doubt whether there be a God or no And when you say If I be a true man this is so you may be thought to doubt whether your selfe be a true man or no Do not you see that this is playne cauelling indeed and not disputing But what more You say that when I do affirme the Popes power I do not distinguish whether in Ecclesiasticall or ciuill causes but you know well inough that I haue often distinguished and so do other Catholicke Deuines that the Popes authority is directly only Ecclesiasticall and spirituall for gouerning and directing of soules to euerlasting life though indirectly for conseruation of this Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall end there is annexed also Temporall in such cases as before hath bene specified concerning temporall Princes And so this is but a shift to say that I doe not distinguish As that is also another about my answere to the second demaund of the Apologer where he demandeth whether any man that taketh the Oath doth promise to belieue or not to belieue any one article of religion contayned in the said Oath For answere wherunto I did set downe sundry clauses of the said Oath wherby it seemeth plaine that the swearer doth make such promise Now you reply with this new shift saying that I doe still beg the question in controuersy So you talke to seem to say somwhat But what is the question in controuersy Is it not whether the swearer doth make promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of religion in taking the Oath Yes And I haue proued that he doth so by diuers examples How then doe I beg the question when I do euince it by proofe You reply that these articles abiured or allowed by him that takes the Oath concerning the Popes authority are not points of â—aith but rather Machiauelismes of the Conclaue But this now is rayling and not reasoning for that a Catholike conscience houldeth the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and all poynts belonging therunto for matters appertayning to fayth Catholicisme and not to Machiauelisme which Machiauelisme agreeth much more fitly to M. Barlows assertions that depend on the pleasures of Prince State alteration of times and temporall vtilities wherof Machiauel was a great Doctour then to the simple positions of Catholikes who without these worldly respects do playnly and sincerely imbrace and belieue all such points of doctrine as the knowne Catholike Church doth deliuer vnto them as any way appertayning to the integrity of Catholike Religion Heere then M. Barlow being driuen from his refuge of my begging the question layeth hand vpon another much more ridiculous in my opinion for it is somewhat like the Sermon of the Parish Priest to his Parishioners which he deuided into three parts the one that he vnderstood and not they the other that they vnderstood and not he the third that neither of them both vnderstood and the third part seemeth to be our case now for as I confesse that I do not conceaue well what M. Barlow would say so I haue reason to suspect that himselfe also can hardly explane his owne meaning or at least wise he doth it not so here as the Reader may easily vnderstand the same His words are these This censurer is an absurd dispuâ—â—nt still to beg the Question as if these articles abiured or allowed were points of â—aith c. This you haue heard answered now there followeth the other member Or as if saith he beliefe were vsed euery where â—heologically and that a Christians beliefe should alwayes be taken for his Christian beliefe â—or there is a naturall beliefe the Obiects wherof are naturall and ciuill things such as in this Oath c. So he And did not I tell you that you should haue mysteries A Christians beliefe is not alwayes a Christian beliefe but a naturall beliefe the good man would haue holpen himself with the School-mens distinction of fides diuina fides â—umana diuine humane fayth if he could haue hit vpoÌ„ it but yet wholy from the purpose if he had found it out nay quite contrary to himselfe For I would aske what fayth or beliefe diuine or humane Christian or naturallâ— did the Apologer meane in his demaund Whether he that taketh the oath do promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of Religion Did not he meane diuine fayth or Theologicall beliefe It cannot be denied for that the obiect being articles of Religion as heere is sayd which are not belieued but by diuine fayth as they are such it followeth that in this question the Apologer maâ—e his demaund of Christian beliefe and not only of a Christians beliefe yea of Theologicall beliefe and not of naturall beliefe that is to say of humane beliefe so conforme to this his quâ—stion were the clauses of my answere I do truly and sâ—â—cerely acknowledge professe testify and declare in my conscience c. And againe I do further sweare that I do from my hart abhorre deteâ—t and abiure as impious doctrine c. And yet further I do belieue and am in conscience resolued c. And is not all this beliefe in Conscience out of Conscience and for Conscience and of things belonging to Catholike Religion to be vnderstood of Christian and Theologicall beliefe but naturall only Who would write so absurdly but M. Barlow who seemeth not to vnderstand what he writeth And that this may be better vnderstood I am mynded to say a word or two more of this matter He maketh a distinction heere as you see betweene naturall and Theologicall beliefe adding for his reason that the Obiects of naturall fayth are naturall and ciuill things and that such are the articles contained in the Oath ayming as before hath bene said at the distinction of diuine and humane faith But he is grosly deceaued in that he distinguisheth these two faiths or beliefes by their materyall obiects and things belieued contrary to the generall consent of all Philosophers and Deuines who do hould that oâ—â—es actus specificantur ab obiectis formalibus that all acts are
coat for you preach also if I be not deceaued though with shame inough somtims as you did against your Maister the Earle of Essex after that you had heard his Confession and consâ—quently in this your sense you may be counted in like manneâ— Ordinis Praedicatorum of the order of Preachers and so a Iesuite But this is ridiculous Let vs come to that which is more malicious You write that the Iesuite Victoria doth iarre with Doctor Sanders about this temporall power of the Pope for that wheras Doctor Sanders sayth that the Pope receiued both powers spirituall and ciuill together with the keyes you make Victoria to contradict him saying No not so for that this power of the keyes is another power different from the ciuill But what iarre is this both speaches are true in both Authors senses and meanings For as it is true that S. Peter with the keyes receyued both powers spirituall and teÌ„porall the one directly and the other indirectly as Doctour Sanders teacheth so yt is also true which Victoria writeth that these two powers are different one from the other in their owne natures especially when they are in different subiectes as the one in the Pope and the other in the King in which sense Victoria spake yea also and when they are found in one and the selfe same man as namely the Pope for that he hath them by different manners the one immediatly and directly which is the spirituall the other secondarily and indirectly which is the temporall so as here is no iarre or contradiction but a cosenage rather of M. Barlow in misalleadging the playne meaning of this new made-Iesuite Franciscus de Victoria And no lesse abuse doth he offer to Cardinall Bâ—llarmine in alleadging him quite against his owne meaning in the very last vpshot of his pretended proofes out of Scriptures a little before wherof he maketh his Conclusion in these wordes By law Diuine then sayth he it was excluded to wit this temporall authority giuen to S. Peter for no man can traÌ„sferre that to another which he hath not himselfe but this royall Soueraignty ouer Princes to depose them or dispose of their States Christ â—ad not as he was man and yet he sayd Omnis potestas data est mihi in caelo in terra yea such power had bene vnprofitable and superfluous sayth the Grand Cardinall therefore he could not traÌ„sferre it to S. Peter or the rest This is his Conclusion that this temporall poâ—â—r was excluded by Gods law which he promised to proue out of the old and new Testament and it is to be considered how substantially he hath performed it For out oâ— the old Testament he hath alleadged no one proofe senteÌ„ce or example but only brought in the Iesuite Salmerâ—â— to affirme the same who hath no such matter but proueth of purpose the playne contrary And out of the new Testament hath as little though he falsify and wrest both D. Sâ—ders Franciscus de Victoria to make some shew but especially the Grand Cardinall to vse his owne wordes whom moâ—â— notably he abuseth For albeit the Cardinall doth affirme that Christ as he was man and as he came to worke ouâ— redemption had not any temporall kingdome for that it was not needfull or profitable to the high spirituall end of our saluation which he had before his eyes yet had he by his supreme spirituall authority power also to disposâ— of all temporall affaires whatsoeuer so far forth as should be needfull to that spirituall end of his for so teacheth the Cardinall expressely in these words Finis adueâ—us Christi in mundum c. The end of Christ his comming into the world was the redemption of mankind and to this end temporall authority was not needfull but spirituall for so much as by this spirituall authority Christ had power to dispose of all temporall things also as he thought to be expedient to mans redemption So the Cardinall whereby is euident that albeit he holdeth with the commoÌ„ opinion of Deuines that Christ vpon earth had no meere teÌ„porall kingdome or ciuill power yet could he by his spirituall power dispose of all teÌ„porall matters in order to his spirituall end and that this power he gaue also to S. Peter to wit indirectly and in ordine ad finem spiritualem So as the Grand Cardinall denieth not this but proueth the same at large for diuers Chapters togeather both by Scriptures reasons and examples out of â—n my Histories both diuine Ecclesiasticall and it had bene good that M. Barlow had answered to some of them if he had thought him selfe able to meddle in this matter or at leastwise he ought not to haue so fraudulently cited Card. Bellarmine against his owne meaning as now you haue seene But now next after Scriptures M. Barlow commeth to Ecclesiastical law requiring to haue this power proued by Canons Councells Decrees and Practises for which I referre him to the Booke Chapters now cited in Bellarmine And for so much as this temporall power of S. Peter is founded vpon his spirituall commission as a thing necessarily following the same and needfull therunto for the perfect gouerment of the whole Church that this spirituall power is founded most euidently aboundantly in the new Testament and consent of all antiquity vpon the same as the sayd Cardinall doth proue and demonstrate throughout many Chapters of his first and second Bookes De Romano Pontifice I will weary the Reader no longer in this matter but remit him thither I meane to the foresaid Cardinall Bellarmine where he shall find store of proofes for both powers in the Pope I meane both spirituall and temporall though differently deriued vnto him the one immediatly and directly the other secondarily and indirectly And albeit this were sufficient for this point yet to the end that M. Barlow shall not say that I doe leaue out any thing of momeÌ„t which herein he setteth downâ— I shall repeat his owne wordes of conclusion in this maâ—ter with far more fidelity then he doth mine Thus then he writeth borrowing all in effect out of M. Morton in his late Preambulatory Reply For Ecclesiastical law no Canon Councel Decree Practice extaÌ„t reckon to 600. years after Christ by Bellarm. confession yea to 1000. ampliùs saith one of their own writers doth â—uow it in so much that a Friar of account writing in the year 1088. cals then the Doctrine therof a Nouelâ—y if not an â—eresie that act of Hildebrand that famously infamous Pope who first tooke vpon him to depriue an Emperour of his Regiment is by a Popish Deuine called nouellum Schisma a rent â— rent of nouelty The challeng of this authority vtterly vnknowne to the Fathers who haue proâ—ounced Kings to be no way liable to any violent Censure or penal law of man â—â—i Imperij potestate their Empire Soueraignty exempting priuileging them therfrom This is his discourse whereof he
he sayth that therin I do abuse the Reader for that they shewed their obedience sayth he to be due and performed the same in matters of spirituall seruice wherat I thinke no man can but laugh that M. Barlow is become so spirituall as that he can make those Infidell Kings to be spirituall Superiours also or at leastwise to haue spirituall power euen in spirituall thinges ouer Gods faithfull people Let vs see his proofes of so strange an assertion To offer sacrifice saith he vnto the Lord in the desert is an â—igh case of conscience and religion yet would not the Iewes in Egypt attempt it without asking and obtayning the Kings leaue And why was that Was it for that they held him for their supreme Gouernour in all causes Ecclesiastiacll and temporall Then they ought to haue obeyed him when he would haue had them offered sacrifice in Egypt which they refused to doe for that their spirituall gouernour Moyses though a naturall borne subiect of King Pharao â—ould them that Gods will was contrary and as for their asking and obtayning leaue before they went to sacrifice in the Desert who doth not see but that it was in respect of temporall danger which might ensue vnto them if so great a number of their vnarmed people should haue aduentured to depart without his licence But I would demaund of M. Barlow who sayth that the people of Israel shewed their obedience to be due vnto Pharao and performed it in matter of spirituall seruice what manner of obedience was that which came alwaies in the Imperatiue mood Thus saith our Lord Dimitte populum meum Let go my people And when he yeelded not therunto he was plagued and punished with so many afflictions as are set downe in Exodus for 9. or 10. Chapters togeather in the end what leaue obtayned they but against his will when he durst no longer deny them Which appeareth for that his feare being somewhat mitigated he pursued them afterward againe And will M. Barlow make this an example of spirituall obedience to temporall Princes that was thus extorted Or of spirituall iurisdiction in heathen Princes ouer faithfull people in causes Ecclesiasticall that was contradicted both in word and fact by Moyses himselfe But let vs heare his second instance for it is more ridiculous So saith he the commaundement of King Cyrus was in a cause meerly Ecclesiasticall viz. the building of the Lords house in IerusaleÌ„ and transporting thither the consecrated vessels But who doth not see that these things as they were ordayned by King Cyrus were meere temporall as is the building of a materiall Church for that otherwise the Masons Carpenters Architects that build the same should be Ecclesiastical officers albeit they were Gentiles If King Cyrus had had authority to appoint them out their sacrifices to dispose lawfully of their sacred actions therein as he had not nor could haue being a Pagan and not of their faith religion then might they haue sayd that he had beene a spirituall Superiour vnto them but for giuing them leaue only to go to Ierusalem to build their Temple and to carry their consecrated vessels with them that had been violeÌ„tly taken away from thence argueth no more spirituall iurisdiction in him then if a man hauing taken away a Church-dore key so as the people could not go in to pray except he opened the dore should be said to haue spirituall iurisdictioÌ„ ouer that people for opening the dore letting them in that they in praying him to open the said dore did acknowledg spiritual obedience vnto him And is not this meere childish trifllng worthy the wit of M. Barlow What definition trow you will M. Barlow giue of spirituall power and Iurisdiction therby to verifie these monstrous and absurd propositions which in this affaire he hath vttered partly by his assertions and partly by his examples Truly I know no other set downe by Deuines but that it is a power giuen by God to gouerne soules for their direction vnto euerlasting saluation euen as ciuill power is giuen for gouerning the coÌ„mon wealth to her prosperity and temporall â—elicity And will M. Barlow say that God gaue this spirituall power to Pharao and Cyrus that were Heathens and knew not God for gouerning directing the soules of the Iewes that liued vnder them whose religion or God they neyther knew nor cared for Or that Nero the Emperour or Claudius had this spirituall power and Iurisdiction vpon the soules of S. Peter and S. Paul that liued vnder them in Rome and were their temporall Lordes and Princes These thinges are so absurd that I am ashamed to exaggerate them any further and therfore let vs passe forward to the rest As for the other examples by me alleaged how Sydracâ—â— Mysach and Abdenago refused to obey Nabuchodâ—â—â—sor their King in adoring the Statua as also refuâ—ing the meates of the King of Babylon Toby of the Assyrians and the Macâ—abees for refusing to eat Swines-flesh at the commandment of their King Antiochus he sayth that all these had their warrants for defence of their consciences from the word or will of God as who should say Catholickes haue nothing for iustification of their Conscience which is a meere cauill and as Logitians call Petitio principij and wholy from the question for that we affirme first that they haue sufficient groundes for iustification of their consciences in that behalfe as they will easily verify in euery point if they might be hard with any indifferency And secondly if they had not but their consciences were erroneous yet so long as that dictamen rationis or prescript of conscience standeth to the contrary and telleth them that they haue sufficient ground they may not doe against it without sin as now hath bene proued Let vs see what he saith of the other example of Tobies breach of King Senacherib his commaundement in Niniue which wee shall examine in the next ensuing Paragraph VVHETHER TOBY DID well or no in breaking the commaundement of the King of Niniâ—e concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authorities of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy §. II. AMong other examples and testimonies alleaged by me out oâ— Scripture of lawfull disobeying temporall Princes commaundements when they are vnlawfull the exaÌ„ple of Tobias that disobeyed the edict of King Senacheriâ—â— of Niniue about burying such as were slayne seemed to haue troubled most M. Barlow in this answere and so after some discussion of the matter vp and downe whether he did it openly or in secret by day or by night by stealth or contempt he maketh this conclusion Take it eyther way sayth he was his disobedience in such a cause iustifiable No. Grauely resolued as you see and Doctour-like but yet without any testimony except only his owne For first the context of the story it selfe hauing recounted the circumstances of the fact in the
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
euen against conscience but of this we will not dispute any more now but only I say that conforme to this his doctrine English Catholickes are admoniâ—hâ—d also to consider with what intention this new Oath â—gâ—inst the authority of the Bishop of Rome is exacted whether to preiudice Catholike Religion or no. For that â—â—is may increase their obligatioÌ„ of refusall or acceptance â—â—en according to M. Barlowes doctrine in this place But for the second point concerning the fact of Iulian the Apostata in demaunding Heathen wryters to be deliâ—ered vp of Philosophy and Poetry that in this case I say there should be the like obligation not to obey that Emperour but rather to deny to obey yea and to dy for the sayd deniall if need were as many did for the other I confesse that I cannot conceaue M. Barlowes mystery therin For who euer wrote this before Or who was euer accounted a Martyr in the Church of God for refusing to deliuer vp â— Heathen Poet or Philosophers booke Doth not now M. Barlow shorten againe and straiten greatly the lymits of temporall obedience to Princes when hâ— graunteth that ChristiaÌ„ Subiects may deny to obey them when they exact the deliuery vp of a Poeticall prophane booke to wit a Catullus or Tibullus or Ouids Metamorphosis or some such other fit for M. Bâ—rlowes reading Is not the man very constant to himsâ—lfe in his assertions that sometimes so ouerlasheth in extending temporall obedience and sometimes so excâ—ssiuely contracteth the same He sayth that Iulian herby did meane to bereaue Christians of all knowledge and therby to take from them the true meanes of their instruction and for this he noteth in the margeÌ„t the Ecclesiasticall History of Socrates lib. 3. cap. 12. But as in all other citations commonly he erreth more or lesse wherof I might allâ—adge some scores of examples if I would stand therupon and therby giueth iust suspition that he neuer read the Authors themselues but had them out of other mens noteâ—bookes as M. Mortoâ— confessed of himselfe when he was pressed therunto so here no such matter is found in the Chapter by him cyted but in two Chapters after Socrates hath these words Atque Iulianus Imperator c. And Iulian the Emperour applying his mind earâ—estly to this thing made a law that Christians should not be instructed in the doctrine of the Gentiles most certainly assuring himselfe that the fâ—bles that are read in Heathen writers would â—asily be turned by the said Christians to the reproofe of his Religion Which is anothâ—r thing you see then this which here is set downe by M. Barlow And much more likely that he was afraid that Christians reading the Pagan wryters would turne the folly and foulenes of Heathen fablâ—s against his religion and not that Christians should want true meanes of instructionâ— for want of those fables as M. Barlow here fableâ—h Albeit if he instruct his flocke with no better meanes of instructions I must needs graunt that they are in a miserable case But let vs go forward to examine a little further his very next lines as they ly in his booke about teÌ„porall obedience to Princes in which point he runneth so forth backe from extremes to extremes as it is strange to consider for hauing so diminished the same in hiâ— former example of the Emperour Iulian as now you haue heard that Christians might disobey him euen about the deliuery of a Poeticall Booke though he had neuer so earnestly required or coÌ„manded the same now he starteth to the other end againe saying as out of S. Thomas Aquinas that temporall Princes are to be obeyed euen in things vnlawfâ—â—â— His words are these From subiection to Princes there is no startling exception sayth Aquinas vnlesse he be either an vsurper or Iâ—truder which commaunds and this is not our case God be thanked or that he commaund things vnlawfull if he say this is their case we deny it but let vs suppose it yet their Angelicall Doctour will tell them that in those things they must notwiâ—hstanding obey propter viâ—andum scandalum aut periculum of this diuinity I iudge not it is their owne Is this our owne Syr Not so properly as it seemeth that lying cogging is your owne for we acknowledge not this doctrine but with due lymits far different from your allegation But you do absolutely abuse both S. Thomas and the Reader and cannot choose but know that here is falshood vsed by you except you will confesse extreme ignorance in not vnderstanding the sense of S. Thomas whom you alleadge though it be most cleare and plaine for children to conceaue that haue the latin tongue The title of S. Thomas hâ—s Article is VVâ—ether Christians b◠〈◊〉 to obey secular Powers or not And he proueth that they are by an euident argument deduced out of the 3. to the 〈◊〉 that the fayth of Christ hindreth not the order of Iâ—stice appoynted by the Law of Nature and consequently that no man is excused by being a Christian from performing due obedience to temporall Princes and for better strengthning of this his assertion he proposeth an obiection according to his custome and solueth the same The obiection is this S. Augustine in his fourth booke of the Citty of God teacheth that great Kingdomes when they cast of iustice become great robberies and theâ—uedomes but Christ his lâ—w doth not bind Christians to obey such vniust Princes Magistrates and therfore in all cases Christians are not bound to temporall obedience Wherunto he answereth thus that forsomuch as the order of Iustice is the ground of all Obedience therfore a Christian man is bound so far forth to obey secular Princesâ— as order of iustice requireth and therfore if such Princes haue not iust principality but vsurped or that they should command vniust â—hinges his subiects are not bound to obey him â—iâ—i fortè per accidens ad vitandum scâ—ndalum vel periculum except perhaps accidentally for auoyding of scandall or perill And this is the Diuinity that M. Barlow scoffeth at saith he will not iudge of it for it is our owne And I say that the Diuiâ—ity is very good and so would haue appeared if M. Bâ—rlow had eyther vnderstood it rightly or truly alleaged it for that the doctrine of S. Thomas is very cleare and incontrollable that Christian subiects are bound to obey their lawfull temporall Princes so long as they commaÌ„d lawfull thinges but if they be vsurpers in which â—ase I say also with M. Barlow God be thanked we are not or command vnlawfull thinges then are not subiects bound to obey them at leastwise by obligation of iustice and conscience which is the true foundation of obedience though perhaps saith S. Thomas accidentally they may be somtimes bouÌ„d therunto for auoyding scâ—ndal perill As for example if a Prince sâ—ould demaund of me the one halâ—e of my goodes vniustly I were not boâ—nd in
A DISCVSSION OF THE ANSVVERE OF M. VVILLIAM BARLOVV D. of Diuinity to the Booke intituled The Iudgment of a Catholike Englishman liuing in banishment for his Religion c. CONCERNING The Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance VVRITTEN By the R. Father F. Robert Persons of the Society of IESVS VVHERVNTO since the said Fathers death is annexed a generall Preface laying open the Insufficiency Rayling Lying and other Misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing IOHN MORRIS Ex fructibus 〈…〉 Matth. 7. You shall know them by their fruites Permissu Superiorum M. DC XII A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS AND PARAGRAPHES CONTEYNED IN THIS BOOKE THE FIRST PART THE Preface to the Reader In which are laid open some few examples of the singular Ignorance Lying and other bad dealings of M. Barlow in his Answere to the Censure of the Apology Of Points concerning the new Oath of Allegiance handled in the Kings Apology before the Popes Breues and discussed in my former Letter CHAP. I. pag. 1. About the true Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance § 1. pag. 3. Of the pretended Cause of the new Oath which is said to be the Powder-Treason § 2. pag. 13. How great a pressure the vrging of the new Oath is to Catholickes that haue a contrary Conscience in Religion § 3. pag. 25. The same argument about the pressure of the Oath is further discussed § 4. pag. 31. What freedome may be said to be permitted to English Catholickes for swearing or not swearing the new Oath § 5. pag. 39. About recourse made to the Bishop of Rome for decisioÌ„ whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English Catholicks or no Wherin also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations § 6. pag. 49. Whether the Oâ—th be only of ciuill obedience Oâ— whether thâ—re be any clauses in it against Catholicke Religion CHAP. II. pag. 70. Of certaine notorious Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his Aduersary which no waies can be excused froÌ„ malice and witting errour § 2. pag. 87. The reasoÌ„ is examined whether Gods prouideÌ„ce might seeme defectuous if no authority had beene left in the Christian Church to restraine punish euill Kings And whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. pag. 101. Whether the deuising vrging of this new Oath were a blessing or no eyther to the Receauers or Vrgers And first of the Recâ—auers wherin is handled also of Conscience of swearing against Conscience CHAP. IIII. pag. 115. Touching the exhibitours of the Oath and of Scandall actiue and passiue Wherin M. Barlowes grosse Ignorance is disâ—â—â—â—red § 2. pag. 128. The answere to an obiection by occasion whereof it is shewed that Pâ—ssâ—sâ—ion and Presâ—ription are good proofâ—s â—uer in matters of Dâ—ctrine And the contrary is fondly affâ—â—med by M. Barlow CHAP. V. pag. 141. THE SECOND PART About the Brâ—â—â—s of Pope Paulus Quintus CONCERNING M. Barlow his â—xorbitant flattery in exaggerating Queene Elizabeths Vertues and Sanctity CHAP. I. pag. 159. About Queene Elizabeth her Mortifications And of the nature of that Vertue § 2. pag. 168. Of Queene Elizabeth her Felicities and Infelicities CHAP. II. pag. 179. Other Points concerning Queene Elizabeths Felicities or Infelicities § 2. pag. 194. Of Queene Elizabeths Sicknes and Death and other things belonging therunto § 3. pag. 209. Of the Flattery and Sycophancy vsed by diuers Ministers to his Maiestie of England to the hurt and preiudice of Caâ—holicke men and their cause CHAP. III. pag. 229. About Toleration or Liberty of Conscience demaunded by humble petition at his Maiesties handes by Catholickes whether it were height of pride or not As also concerning the contention betweene Protestants and Puritans CHAP. IIII. pag. 251. Concerning Errours Absurdities Ignorances and Falsities vttered by M. Barlow in the rest of his Answere CHAP. V. pag. 273. Whether Toby did well or no in breaking the commandement of the King of Niniue concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authority of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy § 2. pag. 285. Of another example or instance 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 § 3. pag. 303. Whether Councells haue submitted themselues vnto Christian Emperors in Spirituall affayres and namely that of Arles to Charles the great CHAP. VI. pag. 311. Whether the Pope in his Breue did forbid temporall Obedience to his Maiesty of England And whether the sayd Pope hath power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII pag. 323. Of certaine other fraudulent and vntrue dealings of M. Barlow vnto the end of this Paragraph with a notorious abuse in alleaging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority § 2. pag. 334. THE THIRD PART Concerning Cardinall Bellarmine his Letter OF the occasion of the Letter written by Cardinall Bellarmine vnto M. George Blackâ—well Archpriest And whether he mistooke the state of the question Also of the change of Supreme Head into Supreme Gouernour CHAP. I. pag. 245. Whether the denying of taking this New Oath do include the deniall of all the particulâ—r clauses contayned therin § 2. pag. 356. Whether the fourth Councell of Toledo did prescribe any such set forme of Oath to be exhibited to the Subiects as is affirmed in the Apology CHAP. II. pag. 365. Cardinall Bellarmine is cleared from a false imputation and a controuersy about certaine words and clauses in the Oath is discussed § 2. pag. 386. Whether Princes haue iust cause to feare murthering by the commaundement of Popes And in disâ—ussing of the particuler example produced by the Apologer concerning the same great fraud and malice is discouered in M. Barlowes falsifying of Authors c. CHAP. III. pag. 394. About the death of Henry the third King of France whether it may be an example of allowance of such murthers As also about the late Queene of England § 2. pag. 414. Of certaine contradictions obiected to Card. Bellarmine and what confidence may be placed in a mans owne good workes CHAP. IIII. pag. 431. Of three other contradictions imputed vnto Card. Bellar. but proued to be no contradictioÌ„s at all § 2. pag. 448. Of the contentions of sundry other Emperours Kings and Princes with Popes of their times in temporall affaires obiected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Popes Superiority Wherin many fraudes aâ—d forgeries are discouered in M. Barlow particulerly concerning Fredericke the second and his contentions with Popes CHAP. V. pag. 461. M. Barlows more sure and stronger proofes are discouered to be lyes with other things concerning Frederick the second and Innocentius the fourth § 2. pag. 495. Of the Emperour Fredericke the first whose picture was said to haue beene sent to the Soldan by Pope Alexander the third And of the charge of Alexander the sixt touching the death of Zizimus or Gemen M. Barlowes innocent Turke §
thereby extenuate the power of Christ as is healing in absence by a speach had bene a more easy miracle then by aproach to touch the party but thereby wished a course more easefull to the body not lesse powerfull to shew the deity of our Sauiour But to what end is all this Doe not wee say the very same that the word Only is a diminitiue phrase in this place signifying that wheras our Sauiour offered to goe with the Centurion for the curing of the sickeman he answered that his Only word was sufficient excluding the other of bodily going as not being necessary Wherefore the other Commentary annexed â—y M. Barlow that the Centurion did not extenuate the power of Christ is therefore impertinent for that the coâ—parison was Only in his bodily going or curing Only by word in absence as he himselfe also confesseth If a Noble man should say to his Tenantes Certayne kynred or friende of yours haue done me such such displeasure bâ—t none of you that are innocent shall fare the worse for that Only you shall make me a certaine acknowledgement for my better satisfaction who will deny but that this word Only conteyneth a diminution and importeth as much that this acknowledgement is no grieuous matter for otherwise it should not agree well with his promise that they should not fare the worse for it And so fareth it in our case But if that Noble man should demaund at their hands a thing that importeth their liues much more their soules and life euerlasting then would they iustly cry out and complaine of this word Only as guâ—lefully vsed vnto them And so much of this About vrging Catholickes to sweare against their consciences this our Doctour determineth peremptorily as it were out of his Chayre in this sort You must know that a conscience may be misled by errour or stiâ—ned with pertinacy and then the Greeke Deuynes will tell you that vnsoundenes in the iudgement and obstinacy in the wil maketh but a nicknamed conscience which is rather to be censuredâ— then tendered And theÌ„ he citeth in the margeÌ„t Chrysostome and Oecumenius without specifiyng any worke or place of theirs who haue written diuers Volumes this he obserueth ordinarily when he meaneth to follow the wild-goose chase to vse his one phrase and not to be fouÌ„d by his answerer And not only he practiseth the same in his quotation here but also in his determination of the doubt for he flyeth the proper question that most importeth the Reader to know which is whether a man be bound vnder sin to follow an erroneous conscience or not which Deuynes do hould that he is to wit eyther bound to follow it or at least not to go against it for in case the errour come of inuincible ignorance then is he bound to follow 〈…〉 that he can haue no 〈…〉 it away but iâ— the ignorance be vincible as 〈…〉 indeed he is bound to dâ—pose such a conscieÌ„c◠〈◊〉 yet he can do nothing agaâ—â—t it as loÌ„g as such an 〈◊〉 câ—â—sâ—ience râ—maynâ—th for that our will is alwaâ—â—â—â—ound to â—oâ—â—ow or not to go against the direction of our reâ—son whether the said reason do erre or not â—or that it cannot be but sin for our wil to imbrace that which our reason 〈◊〉 to be naught And will M. Barlow deny thiâ— Or did he vnderstand it Why then had he not decided the question as became a learned man and a Prelate indeed And yet it seemeth by those wordes of his repeated saying that such a conscience is rather to be censured then tendâ—râ—d that an erroneous conscience byndeth not that it is not sinne to do against a mans owne iudgement wherin he hath not only all schoole Deuynes against him that proue the same out of Scripture but the ancient Fathers in like manner especially in their Commentaries vpon Saint Paulesâ—pistles â—pistles to the Romanes where the said Apostle haÌ„dleth the matter largely and concludeth Qui antem discernit 〈…〉 damnatuâ— est He that discâ—rneth that he should not â—ate and yet eateth against his iudgement and conscience is damned Vpon which wordes S. Ambrose saith which 〈◊〉 serue for all Verum est quia qui iudicat non edendum edit damnatus est S. Paul sayth truly for that he that iudgeth tâ—at he should not eate and yet eateth is damned And with Saint Ambrose doth agree S. Chrysostome Origen Theophilact Theodoret Ansâ—lmus and others vpon the same place And the sâ—me proueth S. Bernard And as for Schoolemen after Saint Thomas and Alexander de Hales all other Deuynes do agree vpon the same commonly and I would gladly know how Maister Barlow will answere them In the very same page hauing set downe his Maiesties wordes promising that â—eâ—ther the Oath nor penalty thereof was 〈…〉 any for their opinion or conscience but only for an ac 〈…〉 of their 〈◊〉 obediâ—nce he setteth downe my Answâ—â—e â—f it be so 〈◊〉 I the matter is ended for no â—atholicke 〈…〉 obedience that he oweth to his Maiestie And there he cutting or my wordes maketh a great scanning of the last to wit that he oweth to his Maiestie calumniating my meaning therein as though I meant to lymit this temporal obedience also But if the malicious man had set down the wordes that do immediately ensue my meaning had bene playne in my Booke for I sayd this I presume no Catholicke in England will deny to sweare all ciuill obedience that he oweth to his Maiestie or that any subiect hath euer in former Catholicke tymes sworne to their leige Lords and Princes or do in other Countryes at this day Is not this playne inough And why then did M. Barlow cut them of What playne dealing is there in this Let vs heare how he prosecuteth his â—alumniation against me Treason hatched in the hart cannot conceale it selfe saith he from vttering though in hidden termes For obserue those words al obedience that he oweth to his Maiestie what is that or how farre extends it S. Peter stretcheth it without limitation Submit your selues to all manner of ordinance for the Lords sake So he What all manner of ordinance and without limitation at all and that in a time of Infidell Princes as was that of S. Peter who might and did ordaine many thinges against the Lord How then could the Apostles warrant their answere to the Magistrates of the Iewes that they were to obey God rather then men that is to say to Christ rather then to them that were Magistrates But I would aske here Maister Barlow that is such a Grecian and bringeth in Greeke phrases to no purpose at all why he had not set downe the senteÌ„ce of S. Peter in Greeke which is most different from his English and why he doth translate here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 al maÌ„ner of ordinance wheras the words do import omni humanae creaturae which all the ancient Fathers do vnderstand to be meant of
such aboundance of Scriptures to proue or infer that God the Father is greater then Christ Iesuâ— his Sonne what other way was there for Catholicks to say but that I distinguish as Christ Iesuâ— was man he was inâ—erior to his Father his Father greater then he but as Christ Iesuâ— is God as well as Man he is equall to his Father Will M. Barlow heere compare these two distinctions to Sedecias his two hornes Or will he call them proâ—unda Sathanae the profound mysteries of Sathan and iniquity And the like examples I might alleadg in great store of many other heresies discouered and disâ—olued by the help of distinctions as namely that of the Eutiâ—hians that denied two distinct natures in Christ that of the Nestorians that affirmed two persons to be in Christ that of the Monothelites that held one only Will to be in Christ by distinguishing on the Catholick party were vâ—â—erly ouerthrowne and confounded And now in these our dayes when the Anabaptists deny al Magistrates authority in iudging Christians especially in matters of life and death allâ—dging for their ground these words of our Sauiour â—olitâ— iudicare do not iudge we haue no refuge but a distinction that we are forbidden to iudge rashly and without iust cause and without due authority but with these circumstances we may iudge and Magistrates are lawfull And will here M. Barlow againe cry out of Proâ—â—nda Sathanae and of the hornes of Sedecias if he do I will send him to Scotland to be horned there For truely he is worthy of it to wit to be horned from the company of all lâ—arned sober men if he persist in these absurdities for that I dare auouch against him that there are many hundred places in the Bible that cannot rightly be vnderstood nor expounded without the vse of some distinction Well then distinctions in generall cannot be reproued without profunditie of folly Perhaps then my two distinctions here in particular are inueyghed against for 〈◊〉 they are false or not incident vnto the matter or of aâ—y moment or necessity for explicâ—tion of the thing aâ—d controuersy in hand or for direction of consciâ—nceâ— of Catholike men that are pressed to take the Oath Thâ—â— then let vs examine in a word or two and that as briefly and perspicuously as wee may The question is whether the Bishop of Rome as vniuersall Paâ—tour of Christendome by Catholike doctrineâ— may at his pleasure by that Pastorall power of his depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdomes at his pleasure for so is the coÌ„mon obiection framed against vs. Vnto which question the answer may be made eyther affirmatiue or negatiue according to the different senses and interpretations of the words which cannot be done but by distiâ—guishing to wit that if we vnderstand that the Pope may depose at his pleasure without iust cause it is denied but with iust cause Catholicke doctrine doth allow it And sâ— againe to vnderstand that the Pope may do it by his Pastorall power directly or immediately it is denied for that this power is spirituall and giuen to a spirituall end and to spirituall actions but if we vnderstand it indirectly as included in the other for defence and conseruation of the spirituall it is graunted And are not these distinctions needfull in this affaire Do they not cleare the doubt in controuersy Do they not remoue confusion Would M. Barlow haue Christian men to sweare swallow vp a bundle of wordâ— knit togeather without opening and looking into theâ— That is meete for his conscience that hath no eies perhaps to see nor will to receiue light but is ready to sweare any thing that may turne to his temporall commodity but Catholikes that feare God are not so taught but rather to looke before they leap and to examine well what they say or sweare for so much as they shall giue an accompt to Almighty God either to their saluation or damnation for the same By â—hâ—s then wee see the Iniquity of M. Barlow his proceeding in exclaming against me so exorbitantly for vsing the forme of two distinctioÌ„s or explanations about taking the Oath and aboue al the iniury offered me or rather to himselfe and his owne credit in saying that I doe teach Equiuocation here in this Oath num 30. contrary to that I taught a little before numb 14. His wordes are these No sort of Equiuocations is lawâ—ull saith Father Persons in matters of fayth and religion and yet sayth the same Father Persons Equiâ—â—cating in this matter of faith is lawâ—ull and may stand with the integâ—iâ—y and sincerity of true Catholik religion so then in matters of faith and religion it is not lawfull in any sort to equiuocate but yet in this matâ—â—r though it concerne â—ayth religion F. Persons sayth it is lawfull These are my contradictions according to M. Barlow And truly I confesâ—e I should blush acknowledge my ouersight if they were truly related but being falsely eyther of malice or ignorance collected by him he ought to blush and be sory for his sin For as I doe confesse the former part numb 14. that I allowed not any sort of Equiuocation in matters concerning faith and Religion so doe I vtterly deny the later clause num 30. that I doe allow Equiuocation in this particuler fact of taking the Oath Let the places be read in my booke thereby he will remayne conuinced For I do say expresly that these two clauses of explication added by me that the Popes power in deposing Princes is indirectly with iust cause must both be expressed by the swearer and accepted by the Magistrate and then are they no Equiuocations at all but direct assertions For that they are no mentall reseruations wherein consisteth the nature and force of Equiuocation Here then M. Barlow that accused me a litle before of making no conscience of God or common honesty must looke how he will defend his owne eyther conscience or honesty if he haue any in this foule calumniation wherein I doe not see what tergiuersation he can vse for his excuse And so I would leaue him in this matter if he did not continue on his rayling and raging beyond all measure as though by this my explication distinction vsed I had committed the greatest crime in the world I will demaund saith he of this Iesuit first whether â—his be not a Paganish delusion of God and men VVherto I answer that it is â—â— delusion at all but rather an instruction and a necessâ—â—y explication not Paganish but Christian for directiâ—â— mens consciences Nay saith M. Barlow it is the very 〈◊〉 oâ— Lisander that children are to be mocked with toyes and 〈…〉 Oathes Indeed Plutarke in his comparison of Lisâ—â—der and Silla recordeth that one said of Lisander Leuem esse apâ—d Liâ—â—â—drum iurisiurandi religionem Lisander made no scruple of aâ— Oath that he gaue couÌ„saile to deceiue men with Oathes as children with toyes and
Eliâ—abeths affaires his answere in his owne words is this But dearely beloued there is a difference in faults of men as in diseases some onely are hurtfull to the parties themselues some loathsome and infectious to others the first are to be buried with their bodies forgotten but the other will annoy and therfore must be remembred after death In Scripture some Kinges that were vicious had their faultes touched euer after their buriall but no more yet some are neuer named in Scripture but their sinne is branded vpon their name as often you may see of â—eroboam neuer mentioned but presently addeth the sonne of Nebat which made Israell to sinne This was the mans answer at that time for that it serued for his purpose the same may serue me now against him for if the case of Ieroboam that made Israell to sinne might be applied to the Earle of â—ssex that was of their owne religion and changed nothing therein so far as is knowne and was but a priuate person how much more may the same be applyed to Queene Elizabeth that indeed brought in that fatall diuision and new worship of Ieroboam into her Kingdome which she found quiet vnited with the rest of Christendome in the knowne Catholicke fayth of Christs Church But saith M. Barlow reproaches are vttered eyther for reprâ—ose to amend or for vexation to grieue the parties calumniated both which endes doe cease in death Whereunto I answere that if they be reproches and contumelyes indeed without truth wherof M. Barlowes tongue and pen are fulâ— they serue to neyther of these ends but principally to shew the wiked mind of the vtterer but if they be true as those things are which I haue touched concerning Q. Elizabeth her infelicities â—heÌ„ albeit they be vttered to none of these two foolish ends mentioned by M. Barlow eyther to amend or vex the dead yet are they recorded to warne instruct them that are aliue by shewing Gods iustice vpon sinne his prouidence his power and his care to feare men by terror of euerlasting inâ—amy from the like offences many other such holy ends for the which in Scripture it is a most common ordinary thing to heare the sinnes of wicked Princes repeated and reiterated after death M. Barlow himselfe cannot deny it I did further add also in my former Letter the example of diuers ancient Fathers as Iustinus Martyrâ— Irenaeus Tertullian and others who to comfort the afflicted Christians in theyr dayes and to honour more the cause for which they suffered did put them in mind what manner of pâ—ople and Princes their first persecutors were as namely Nero and Domitian what life they led what end they made and that indeed they were â—it instruments to be the first actors in such a worke which I applying to Queene Elizabeth sayd that the like obseruation and comparison might be made she being the strangest woman that euer perhaps liued for diuers admirable circumstances before touched and the very first absolutely of that sex eyther Christened or created that tooke vpon her Supreme Power in Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters c. Wherunto M. Barlow comming to answere and hauing nothing at all to say to the purpose doth so childishly trifle as is most ridiculous telling vs first that if the Papists may comfort themselues for that they haue bene beaten by a woman then may the diuell comfort himselfe also that a woman is prophesied in Genesis according to our interpretation to breake his head Sysera also the Captaine may glory that he was ouerthrowne by a woman But this is triflingâ— for I doe not say simply by a woman but by such a woman as neuer was the like in diuers points of enormity against Câ—thâ—licâ—â— religion and therin was the Fathers obseruations of enormous manners of Nero and Domitian and not in the sex as they were men Secondly he sayth that diuers Popes were more like to Nero and Domitian then Queene Elizabeth but this is also trifling For neyther is the matter proued if it could be yet doth it not improue my comparison as it was some comfort to the ancient afflicted Catholickes to consider what manner of Princes they were that first began most sharpe persecution against them so might English Catholickes doe by consideration of the person of Queene Elizabeth that first of all women persecuted them in England and with inspeakable monstrosity made her selfe Head of the Church Thirdly he sayth about this matter that heauen and hell arâ— not more different then those Christian martyrs of the Primitiue Church from these later of English Papists for they sayth he acknowledged the Emperors supremacy independant vpon any but God prayed for them seriously both lyuing and dying c. But this now is more then trifling for it seemeth to me meere madnes to say that ancient Christian martyrs vnder Nero and Domiâ—ian did acknowledge those Emperours Supremacy independant vpon any but God which inferreth to my vnderstanding that they acknowledged them for Supreme Headeâ— of the Catholicke Church in those dayes for so signifieth the worde Supremacy in the controuersy betweene vs and the wordes immediatly following independant vpon any bâ—â— God doe seeme playnely to confirme the same as doth also the comparison and contrariety it selfe which hee putteth betweene those old Martyrs and ours For if he had meant of temporall Supremacy there had not bene any difference or contrariety betweene them For â—hat our Martyrs also doe acknowledge temporall Supremacy to Kings and Princes though not spirituall which inferreth that M. Barlow ascribing more to the ancient Martyrs vnder Nero and Domitian must needes meane that they held them â—or Heades of their Church euen in spirituall Ecclesiaâ—ticall aâ—fayres although they were Pagans and â—oe consequently might and ought to repayre to them in matters of controuersy about Christian Religion and were â—ound to follow their direction therein And if this be not more then trifling especially for a Prelate to vtterâ— I leaue to the discreet Reader to consider But now let vs see briesely some of his answers to the points before rehearsed of Queene Elizabeths life and death First he sayth to the note about her birth and disgrace by her Father and Parlament that the Scriptures are not soe Censorious for God himselfe mislikes the Prouerb that it should be sayd the fathers did eat sower grapes and the childrens â—eeth were sett on edge but this is folly for I alleadged it not as a sinne of hers for the sinne was her fathers and mothers but as some disgrace in temporall felicity Then he telleth vs that in some places the ciuill Lawes doe permit some bastards to succeed Item that she shewed well by her courage and other Princely qualities that she was King Henries daughter Item that her selfe did so far coÌ„temne those slaunders published in print as shee would neuer consent to haue them cleared but rather scorned them Item that
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
by Oath without intention to perâ—orme the same be notwâ—thstanding bound in conscience to perâ—orme it Wherein hauing hid downe the two different opinions of â—undry learned â—en togeather with their reasons arguments and proofs the one affirming that he is bound as Caietan Sotus and Câ—â—â—rruuias the other that he is not bound by force of that Oath as Syluester Nauar and others Azorius sheweth that both parts haue their probability of reason but he inclineth more to the first opinion saying that if the swearer had an intention to sweare thinking nothing of the obligation then was he bound and that in this sense the opinion Caietan is most true And further determineth not the question and therefore this notorious vntruth of M. Bâ—â—low that Azorius holdeth this to be no Oath vnto him that sweareth at al but that he is as free as if he had neuer sworne I cannot tell in â—hat Predicament of impudency to place it and therfore we will let it passe for a Tranâ—cendent OF CERTAINE OTHER Fraudulent and vntrue dealings of M. Barlow vnto the end of this Paragraph with a notorious abuse in alleadging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority §. II. VVHereas often and eager inuectiues are made by M. Barlow against the Pope and Cardinall Bellarmine and all others that do seeme in any sort to exhort the Catholickes of England to stand for their consciences and to suffer rather whatsoeuer losses hurtes or dangers may happen to their liues liberty goods or other temporall affaires then to preiudice any point of their religion M. Barlow terming these exhortations not only needlesse and vayne there being no persecution at al against the Catholickes but that they do tend in like manner to open disobedience against their temporall Princes and so may iustly be cause of their ruyne indeed my answere was I did not see but that the very same might be obiected vnto S. Cyprian and other Fathers of the Primitiue Church that they were guilty of so many Martyrs bloud wilfully cast a way and of the ruyne of their familyes and other inconueniences by exhorting them not to do against their Consciences nor to yield to their temporall Princeâ— Commandements against God and their religion no not for any tormeÌ„ts that might be laid vpon them nor for any losse that might fall vnto them of goodes life honor fame friends wyfe children or the like which were ordinary exhortations in those dayes of persecution as by their bookes yet â—xtant doth appeare Neyther is iâ— sufficient to say that those times ours are different for that the thingâ—s then demanded were apparenâ—ly vnlawfull but these not for that to vs that are Catholickes these thinges are as vnlawfull now as â—hose other were then to them for that they are no lesse against our consciences in matters of Religion For why should it be more damnable then and indispensable to deliuer vp a Bible or new Testament for example sake when the Emperour commanded it then now to sweare an Oath against our conscience and Religion when our Temporall Prince exacteth it For that this perhaps is called the Oath of Allegiance who knoweth not that the fayrest title is put vpon the fowlest matter when it is â—o be perswaded or â—xacted And he that shal read the Histories of that time and of those ancient afflictions shall sâ—e that Act also to haue bene required as of Obedience Allegiance and not of Religion being only the deliueâ—y vp of material books and yet did the whole Church of God condemne them for it that deliuered the same and â—eld for true Martyrs all those that died for denying therof for that they would not do an Act against their consciences Against this my speach M. Barlow first doth trifle affirmimg me to say that in the consciences of Catholicks it is as vnlawfull to sweare Allegiance vnto his Maiestie their naturall and rightfull Soueraigne as to sacrifice to Idols Which is a meer cauill indeed for first I do not say that it is vnlawfull at all to sweare Allegiance to their naturall Soueraigne as often hath bene told him but he â—â—uer stayeth his tongue from repeating the contrary againe without end The vnlawfulnes consisteth in swearing that for Allegiance which appertaineth not to humaine and temporal Allegiance but diuine Allegiance also in keeping our consciences vnspotted before Almighty God Secondly my comparison was not so much in the thinges themselues to wit swearing and sacrificing or to determine which of these is the greatest sinne in it seâ—fe as of the similitude in obligation both in those times and ours to stâ—nd for defence of the integrity of our conscience both in them and vs whatsoâ—uer inequality of the sinne may be in the sight either of man or God It is inough that both of them be forbydden to sacrifice against Christian Religion to sweare against Câ—tholick Religion And further to shew that the external small apparence of that which is forbydden cannot alwaies be a â—ule of taking away or diminishing the obligation of conscience in obeying the prohibition I did alleadg the other example of giuing vp diuine bookes vnto the persecutors when they demaunded them and might haue alleadged many other examples to the like purpose as namely the â—ating of flesh offered to Idols in the beginning of Christianity with offence of others whereof S. Paul maketh so great accompt as albeyt he maketh light of the thing it selâ—e and sayth that the Idol is nothing yet doth he account the transgression for damnable if he doe it against his owne conscience But what sayth M. Barlow to this you shall heare his distinction and determination Simply sayth he to deliâ—â—r vp a Bible to his Superiour requiring it is no sinne yea to deny iâ— iâ— a contempt About this proposition we will not much contend but only aduertise him that it is not to the purpose that we doe talke here of Superiours lawfully requiring it but of a Persecutor vniustly exacting the same Let vs see then what he sayth further But if the Emperour sayth he requireth them to wit the books to burne and deâ—acâ— in conteâ—pâ— and despight or â—ury and passion or as Iulian the Apostata whâ— called in all the heathen writers both of Philosophy and Poetry out oâ— the Christians hands vnder a fayre pretence of abandoning Paganisme to bereaue them oâ— all knowledge therby to take â—rom Christians the true meanes oâ— their instructions the cause is far different for so to oâ—ey were wilâ—ully to betray the truth of God This is his determination consisting of two members as you see the first of the vnlawfulnes of giuing vp the Bible other such diuine bookes of Christian Religion consisted in the ill intention of the persecutor to bereaue men of so importaÌ„t meanes for their instruction and saluation and therefore not to be obeâ—ed which seemeth to be far different from that which before he held so resolutely that Princes were to be obeied
must not be like in all but only in the point wherein the comparison is made how will he ouerturne Cardinall Bellarmines comparison betwene the banner of Iulian and the Oath of England His point of comparison was this that as Iulian did set forth in his banner and combine togeather the images as well of the Emperour as of the false Gods seeking to temper and mollify the one by the other to wit by bowing to and honouring the Emperours image which then was held for lawfull to bow also or seeme to bow at leastwise to the other which was not lawfull so in the Oath are combined togeather different clauses some of temporall obedience which are lawfull some othâ—r detractory to the Popes authority which are held by Catholicks for vnlawfull Do you see M. Barlow wherein the comparison is made Then stand to me closely I pray you and let vs examine this maâ—ter without running from the purpose What say you to the former answer made to wit that Iuliâ—n was an Apostata but our Soueraigne is a Christian Iulian changed his religion but our King not he became an Ethnicke but our King is not ashamed of his profession and other such like differences Are these the poyntes wherein Cardinall Bellarmine made his comparison or noe If not then are you from the purpose But what say you now in this your last Reply after mature deliberation You will not I trust fall to the same absurdity of seeking dissimilitudes that are from the point of the comparison it self And yet you must needes do it for so much as you will needs say somewhat and haue nothing to say against the sayd poynt of comparison First then your reply is this that the resemblance betwene the banner and the Oath brought fortâ— by the Cardinall was produced by him for no other purpose but for the mixture of diuersities both in the one and the other VVherin say you the Cardinall hath manifested more malice then iudgement For euen in that very point this similitude as taken with the crampe halâ—s right downe because in the Imperiall pictures though there were different â—eatures yet they all concurred to one end and for the same intent that is for adoration though to the one more openly to the other more couertly c. But in the Oath it is taken cleane contrary which is so far from being a mixture of Allegiance that it separates all acknowledgment oâ— any temporall right or right of any temporall acknowledgment from Pope or any other else but to his Maiestie alone within his Realmes Thus far are the words of M. Barlow who being well as you haue seene towards the end intangleth himself and runneth quite from the purpose He acknowledgeth in the beginning that the comparison of Card. Bellarmine is only to shew the mixtures as of the Images in the banner the one lawfull the other vnlawfull so of the clauses in the Oath the one lawfull the other vnlawfull but presently he steppeth aside to put a difference betwixt the mixt adoration of the one and the mixture of Allegiance in the other wherin Card. Bellarmine made not his comparison no more then betwene the banner it selfe and the Oath or betweene the silke cloath wherein the pictures were painted or the booke or paper wherin the Oath was written or in any other such like differences as might be pickt out wherof this also is one very impertinent to the matter that the banner did tend to a mixt adoration but not the Oath to a mixt allegiance of which mixt allegiance Card. Bellarmine neuer spake word but only that as the mixture of these Images was deuised to deceaue the Christians at that tyme so the mixture of different clauses some conteyning ciuill obedience some ecclesiasticall disobedience the one lawâ—ull the other vnlawfull was deuised to intangle the consciences of the Catholikes And so we see that M. Barlow is forced to run to the same shift that before he condeÌ„ned which is to seek out diuersities in points wherin no comparisoÌ„ was made The second example which is reprehended in Cardinall Bellarmines letter is out of the second booke of Machabees of old Eleazar that venerable man who rather chose to die then to do a thing vnlawfull and against his owne conscience or to seeme to doe it by dissimulation Which example the Cardinall applieth said I to the taking of this vnlawful Oath by such as are Catholikes but especially by the Arch priest Head of the Clergy in England whose case he presumed to be more like to that of Eleazar for his age estimation and authority aboue the rest To which example the Apologer answereth thus That if the Archpriests ground of refusing this Oath were as good as Eleazars was for refusing to eate of the swines-flesh that was proposed vrged vnto him it might not vnfitly be applyed to his purpose But the ground fayling sayth he the buylding cannot stand But this is an escape much like the former that runneth quite from the matter for that the Cardinall supposeth a Catholike conscience in him to whom he writeth to which conscience it is as repugnant to sweare any thing sounding against any poynt of Catholike religion or doctrine as it was to Eleazar to eate swines fleshâ— against the law of Moyses Which supposition being made and that in the Cardinals iudgment this Oath contayneth diuers clauses preiudiciall to some pointes of the said Catholike beliefe and doctrine concerning the authority of the Sea Apostolicke and that the taking therof would not only be hurtfull to the taker but offensiue also and scandalous to many othâ—r of that religion both at home and abroad the application of this example of Eleazar was most fit effectuall This was answered at that tyme. Now M. Barlow commeth with new deuises First he calleth this example aprochryphall for that it is taken out of the second booke of Machabees but Catholicks do hould it for Canonicall and so do the ancient Fathers and so was it declared by a holy Councell aboue 1200. yeares agoe wherein S. Augustine himself sate as one of the Iudges But whether it were or no that maketh nothing to our present purpose but only whether the example be well applied or no. Secondly that eating of swines-flesh refused by Eleazar was forbidden by the law of God but this swearing saith he is warranted by Scripture Wherto I answere that swearing in it owne nature and with due circumstances of truth iudgment and iustice is warranted when true and iust things are sworne but euery Oath in particuler is not warranted by Scripture and namely if it containe any thing that eyther in it self or in the swearers iudgment and conscience is not true or lawfull And such is this Oath to Catholiks in both respectes and therefore not warranted but condemned by Scripture Thirdly he sayth when I am at a stand and can go no further I do wind my self out by ruÌ„ning to the common