they expected came not to consecrate them they dealt with Sâ—ory of Hâ—râ—ford to doe it who when they were all on their knees caused him who kneeled downe Iohn Iewell to rise vp Byshop of Salisbury he that was Robert Horne before to rise vp Byshop of Winchester and so forthwith all the restâ— which Horse-head Ordering was after confirmed Synodically by Parlament wherin they were acknowledged for true Byshops and it was further enacted that none should make any doubt or call in question that ordination 137. This was the first ordering of M. Iewell the rest as I haue bene enformed by one that heard it from M. Neale Reader of the Hebrw lecture in Oxford who was there present an eye witnes of what was done and passed Perhaps for a further complemeÌ„t to supply all defects in the matter or forme of this ordering Q. Elizabeth as Head of the Church did as a noble Woman is said to haue done neere Vienna of whom Schererius the Lutheran writeth Ante paucos annos non procul hinc mulier quaedam nobilis per impositionem muliebrium suarum manuum lintei quo praecingebatur loco stolae filiorum suorum preceptorum ad praedicanticum officium vocauit ordinauit consecrauit A few yeares since not farr from hence a certayne Noble woman did call the Maister of her children to the office of a Preacher or Minister and did order and consecrate him by the imposition of her hands and of her apron which she did vse in steed of a stole Whether any such imposition of hands aprons or kyrtles were vsed to these first Prelates by Q. Elizabeth afterwards I know not but I haue bene credibly enformed that Maister Whitgift would not be Byshop of Canterbury vntill he had kneeled downe the Queene had laid her hands on his head by which I suppose ex opere operato he receaued no grace 138. To conclude seeing that against M. Doctor Harding M. Iewell could neuer proue himself a Bishopâ— as the Reader may see at large in the place here by 〈◊〉 cyted I will not put M. Barlow to proue the same fâ—â— I see the length of his foote quid valeant humeri qâ—â—â— ferre recusâ—nt where M. Iewell failed to seeke M. Barlowes supply were ridiculous it shall suffice him to answere for al his owne ouersights in this booke to learne to be modest to take heed how he dealeth with Schoole men to write truely to study to vnderstand well the controuersie wherof he writeth and finally to write as a Scholler as a Deuine at least as an honest man of all which the very easiest is too hard in my opinion for him to performe theÌ„ I dare promise him that with all candor sincerity and modesty by one or other he shall be answered And if in some things I might seeme to haue bene too sharp yet in respect of his base and bitter veyne whatsoeuer I haue said will seeme I doubt not to be both myld and temperate Faultes escaped in the Preface Quateâ—n c pag. 1. nu 10. in margine versus finem adde Nubrig l. 5. cap. 21. Eodem quatern pag. 3. lin 26. nu 12. species producatur lege species praedicatur Quatern d pag. 3. lin 24. nu 22. Iudge not â—ege I iudge not Quatern f pag. 7. lin 30. num 45. dele the affirmatiue or negatiue Quatern k pag. 1. l. 6. nu 73. F. Persons lege Fathers person OF POINTS CONCERNING THE NEVV OATH OF ALLEGIANCE Handled in the Kings Apology before the Popes Breues AND Discussed in my former Letter CHAP. I. FOR as much as good order and method in writing giueth alwaies great light and ease to the Reader my meaning is in this ensuing Worke to insist speciâ—lly vpon the three parts toucâ—ed rather then treatâ—d at large in my Letter against the Apology which Letter M. Barlow hath in his booke pretended to answerâ— and that also in three parts according to the former diuision of the Epistle wherof the first part doth conteine such points as the Apology did handle by way of preface as it were before the Popes two Breues especially concerning the substance and circumstances of the new Oath The second such other matters as by occasion of the sayd two Breues were brought into dispute by way eyther of impugnation or defence The third doth comprehend Cardinall Bellarmiâ—â— his letter to M. Blackwell togeather with the view and examination of what had beene written in the Apology against the same And albeit it doth grieue me not a little to be forced to leese so much good tyme froÌ„ other more profitable exercises as to goe ouer these matters againe especially with so idle an aduersary as you will find in effâ—ct M. Barlow euery where to be yet shall I endeuour to recoÌ„pence somewhat to the Reader this losse of time by choosing out the principall matters only by drawing to light my said Aduersaries voluntaâ—y and affected obscurity vsing also the greatest breuity that I may without ouermuch preiudice to perspicuity which I greatly loue as the lanterne or rather looking glasse wherby to find out the truth and for that cause so carefully fled by my aduersary as in the progresse of this our contention will be discouered For that as diuinely our Sauiour sayd Qui male agit odit lucem non venit ad lucem ne arguantur opâ—ra eius He that doth euill hateth the light and will not come at it least his workes be discouered therby But we must draw him hereunto and for better method we shall reduce the most chiefe and principall heades of ech part vnto certayne Sections or Paragraphes which may help the memory of the Reader ABOVT THE TRVE Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance §. I. FIRST then for that it hath byn sufficiently obserued before and the reader hath byn aduertised also therof that in all my aduersaries allegatioÌ„s of my words when they are in any number he commonly falsifieth them or offereth some other abuse to the same by altering them to his purpose or inserting his owne among mine and yet setting downe all in a different letter as if meerly they were myne I shal be inforced as occasion is offered to repeat my owne lynes as they ly in my owne Booke that therby I may be vnderstood and his answere to me conceaued which hardly can be as he hudleth vp both the one and the other desiring to walke in a mist of darknes the euent shall shew whether I speake this vpon good grounds or no. Now to the narration it selfe And so first hauing receaued from my friend in England the aforesayd Apology of triplex Cuneus concerning the new Oath of Allegiance now called the Kings and perused the same with some attention I wrote backe againe to my sayd friend as followeth being the very first lines I cannot but yeild you harty thankes my louing friend for the new booke you sent me
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—
CARDINALL what dignity title it is pag. 8. Cardinall Bellarmine abused by M. Barlow pag. 80. his Letter to the Archpriest discussed pag. 345. deincâ—ps his opinion of the Oath of Allegiance p. 346. 347. deinceps cleered from false imputation pag. 386. 387. defended from ContradictioÌ„s pag. 432. 442. 443. 448. 449. Charles the Great Emperour his zeale in reformation of manners in the Clergy pag. 313. Châ—lsey erection for wryters pag. 248. Clement 8. his Breues sent into England pag. 342. Clergymen freed from secular burtheÌ„s whence it first proceeded pag. 371. L. Cooke Chiefe Iustice of the CoÌ„mon Pleas his booke of Arraignments pag. 188. his definition of Misery by Copia â—nopia ibid. his poore Deuinity pag. 190. Conscience erroneous how and when it bindeth p. 33. 277. Contentions betweene Popes and Emperours pag. 480. deinceps Controuersie betweene S. Gregory and Mauritius the Emperour pag. 304. Councell of Aâ—les how it submitted it selfe to the Emperour pag. 313. Councells Generall alwayes assembled by the B. of Rome p. 320. Councell of Millaine corrupted by M. Barlow pag. 33â— Councell 4. of Toledo in Spaine of the Oath prescribed to Subiects therin pag. 365. dâ—inceps Difference betweene that the Oath of Allegiance pag. 381. 384. falsified by M. Barlow pag. 369. Whether it agreed with the Protestant Church of England 377. S. Cyprians iudgment of such as dy out of the Catholik Church pag. 222. D DESCENDING of Christ into hell pag. 377. Difference Essentiall betweene Protestants Puritans praef n. 32. Differenâ—e between the writing of F. Persons M. Barlow praef n. 132. Diuells concurrence with M. Barlow pag. 450. Diuinity of M. Barlow carnall p. 133. fit for the Court pag. 177. Diuision of the worke pag. 2. Doctâ—ine of the Church not preiudicated by euill life p. 147. E EARLE of Eâ—sex his Confession reuealed by M. Barlow p. 22. Preached against by him 212. Edward vide Cooke Eleazar his glorious death for not eating of swines flesh pag. 541. Q. Elizabeth her life discussed paâ—t 2. cap. 1. 2. per totum Her manes pag. 161. 166. Canonized for a Saint by M. Barlow pâ—g 164. praef n. 114. her Mortifications pag. 168. § 2. per totum No cloistred Nunne â— 170. her Felicities Infelicities part 2. cap. 2. per totum her birth pag. 201. her sicknes and death pag. 209. § 3. her Purgation about the Q. of Scotlands death pag. 215. her disastrous end pag. 216. 217. held for an Heretike pag. 226. How she was a ioy Iewell to the Christian world pag. 422. her Illegitimation p. 424. declared by her owne Father in Parlament pag. 426. nec Virgo nec Martyr praef n. 115. Equiuocation not lawfull in matters of Religion pag. 30. confounded with lying by M. Barlow pag. 384. 385. Excommunication of Princes practised in the Primitiue Church pag. 102. F FAITH diuine humane distinguished pag. 392. Feliâ—ities and Infelicites of Q. Elizabeth part 2. c. 2. per totum Felicity temporall no argument of spirituall p. 181. 182. 183. AncieÌ„t Fathers discourses therupon p. 184. 185. 186. Festiuities Masses of Saints p. 379. B. Fisher abused by M. Barlow p. 328. Flattery of his Maiesty by Mininisters partâ— 2. cap. 3. per totum of the nature of flattery p. 231. Fox his rabble of Martyrs p. 233. Fâ—edericke the first Emperour his submission to the Pope p 466. Fredericke the second his contention with Popes pag. 480. deinceps his voyage to the holy land 481. 48â— his counterfait sicknes ibid. his vices and bad life pag. 514. his barbarous cruelty 517. his blasphemy 519. Gods punishment laid vpoÌ„ him 520. G F. Garnets face in the straw p. 23. Gemen the Turke poysoned pag. 533. Gracchus abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. S. Gregory rayled at by M. Barlow praef n. 108. H HEAD of the Protestant Church monstrous p. 200. Henry vide Wotton Henry the 4. Emperour taken vp again out of his graue after buriall pag. 398. His deposition 411. Henry the 5. Emperour his insurrection against his father pag. 410. Henry the 3. of France his murder pag. 414. Henry the 8. of England iniured by M. Barlow pag. 428. Henry the 2. of England his absolution pag. 463. Henry the 6. Emperour his coronation pag. 466. S. Hieromes Discourse of felicity and infelicity pag. 185. Hope cannot stand without certainty of faith praef n. 48. Huldericus Mutius a Lutheran pag. 398. Hypocrisy what it is and what is the marke of an hypocrit p. 91. I IAMES vide King Idolatry suspition not cause of feare alwayes pag. 118. M. Iewell contrary to himselfe prâ—f n. 41. Immunity of the Clergy whence it first proceeded pag. 371. Inconstancy vide â—arlow Infelicity vide Felicity Infidels denyed Christian buriall 408. also Heretikes and excoÌ„municated persons ibid. Innocentius the 4. Pope abused by M. Barlow pag. 509. 510. 511. his death lamentation therof 513. 514. Ioâ—n vide Fox Syr Ioâ—n Cuâ—â— abused by M. Barlow in the pulpit praf n. 112. Iosâ—phsâ—â—lling â—â—lling into Egypt p. 421 K KING Iames said to be the Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance part 1. cap. 11 § 1. Why his Maiesty was not named in the booke pag. 5. that he neuer â—ead the booke â—ttentiâ—ely ibid. Iniured by M. Barlow pag. 12. flattered by Ministers egregiously part 2. cap. 3. per totum His mild disposition diuerted pag. 230. Kings their vices recounted in Scripture pag. 199. King Henry the 2. of England his absolution pag. 46â— King Henry the 4. of France his Embassador at Rome and the Ceremony of publike absolution pag. 465. L S. LEO rayled at by M. Barlow â—raf n. 108. 109. Liberty of Conscience demaunded by all forraine Protestants p. 256â— Liberty of Conscience vide toleration M MACHIAVELS principles agree with ProtestaÌ„t doctrine pag. 390. Maister what it signifieth how it is a title of honour pag. 9. Marriage of Priests and M. Barlows forgery therabout p. 373. Decree of the Councell of Toledo against the same pag. 374. 375. 376. Martyrs in Q. Elizabeths dayes pag. 206. Medina misunderstood by M. Barlow p. 43. explicated 44. 45. Mâ—riâ— of workes pag. 377. Misery defined by the L. Cooke pag. 188. Moone in the Asses belly p. 103. Monkes punished liuing disorderly pag. 380. M. Morton canuased pag 73. 74. his abuse of Salmeron 75. Mortification of M. Barlow pag. 126. of Q. Elizabeth pag. 163. externall Mortification and internall pag. 169. 171. 176. Mortification for Princes pag. 177. Mortification in time of Lent pa. g 376. N NABVchodonosors punishment pag. 195. more happy then Q. Elizabeth ibid. Neâ—o Domitiâ—n Heades of the Church in M. Barlowes opinion pag. 200. O OATH of Allegiance discussed partâ— 1. cap. 1. 2. per totum whether the taking of it be a blessing from God p. 37. part 1. c. 4. per totum what freedome the taking thereof bringeth to Catholikes p. 39. coufuted both at home and
neither Diuine nor Humane learning dotâ— warrâ—nt this humane folly which here you do vtter to wit that the Aduerbe doth make the action commendable as though no Aduerbe may not be repreheâ—sible which now I haue confuted It doth denominate also the action say you which I graunt but the denomination is good or bad as the quality requireth It seemed that you blundered at a certaine speach of some spirituall writers though not wel vnderstood by you who â—ay sometimes that God loueth rather the Aduerbe then the Verbe â—or that the Verbe implieth only the action it self but the Aduerbe the quality of the action as the good quality pleaseth good so the bad pleaseth the Diuel So as heere it seemeth to me that this Doctor remayneth much foyled about Aduerbes in generall now let vs see what he can say about swearing freely in particular WHAT FREEDOME MAY be sayd to be permitted to English Catholickes for swearing or not swearing the new Oath §. V. AS concerning this matter M. Barlow after his former discourse about Aduerbes commeth to handle the point it selfe of freedome permitted to Catholickes in taking the Oath beginning thus And is there then saith he such a disagreement betweene the payne of a Statute-law and the will of a suâ—iect that he which obeyeth the law so inioyning shall not be accoâ—â—â—d a free subiect for his obedience Then are all the people of the Christiâ—n â—oâ—ld slaues not freemen for what nation is there gouerned by lawesâ—â—ot inioyned by sharpe penalties c Yea the law of God it selfe is imposed with penalties and yet mans obedience yeelded therunto is not thraldome but freedome So he And do you see how he seeketh a hole to runne out at We do not say that penall Statutes are vnlawfull in a Common-wealth or that they do make the subiectes no free subiectes and much lesse that they doe make all thâ— people of the Christian world slaues and not free-men This must needes be spoken out of great ignorance not vnderstanding 〈◊〉 queâ—tion or ouâ— of mucâ— maâ—â—ce that would dazâ—e the Readers eyes with impâ—râ—â—nent speach The question is whether the choice be free wâ—en in any deliberation tâ—ere is a heauy predominant poyse of one side as whether a Mercâ—ant in a tempest should cast his goodes or no out of the ship for sauing his liâ—e or Catholickes in England should take the Oath for auoyding the penaltyes of the Statute whether this choice I say be absolutely free or no And I shewed before both out of Aristotle according to Philosophy and out of Schoole-Doctours according to Diuinity that this was not perfect freedome For albeit Aristotle saith the Merchant his act in casting out his goodes is simpliciter inuoluntarium voluntarium secundum quid absolute inuoluntary and voluntary but in part the ScholemeÌ„ on the other side that it is simply voluÌ„tary and in part inuoluntary yet in effect they say all the same in different respects for that Aristotle calleth it simply inuoluntary in respect of the obiect alone without consideration of the circumstances that do accompany the same in which sense no doubt the act of casting out his goods is simply inuoluÌ„tary in the MerchaÌ„t And the Schole Doctors doe call it simply voluntary in respect of the obiect accompanied and conioyned with the circumstances to wit present perill of life and the like which being considered the Merchant doth simply absolutely resolue that all thinges considered it is better to cast out his goodes then to dâ—taine them so in this sense of the Schole Deuines it is simpliciter voluntarium simply voluntary and in the other sense of Aristotle simply inuoluntary for that simply and absolutely he would not cast out his goodes if it were not for the perill and danger of his life which is a most ponderous circumstance and ouerweigheth the ballance oâ— the whole consultation And this is our present case also about taking the Oath by those very many Catholicks which the Apologer saith tooke it freely if they were so many For if they were Catholicks and were informed that there were diuers points therein contayned against their Religion which must necessarily retayne them â—rom taking the same and yet on the other syde there was losse of liberty and goodes in refusing the same then sayd I that neither according to Philosophy or Diuinity was this deliberation of theirs altogeather free And wheras M. Barlow would inferre therof that theÌ„ there were no free subiect for that all Common Wealths do propose lawes with penalties I answere that there are two sortes of men in a Common wealth good and bad the good do willingly submit themselues to the lawes penall made by the Prince and Common wealth and that for conscience sake as S. Paul prescribeth without respect of punishment where they see no iniustice offence to God coÌ„manded in which sense the sayd Apostle saith that the law is not giuen vnto the righteous man which is repeated here also by M. Barlow of which sort it is to be presupposed that a great part of euery CoÌ„mon wealth consisteth but to the wicked But now there are others which being euill men slaues to their owne passions do repyne at good lawes and for these it is necessary that punishments and penalties should be appoynted to inforce them to obey and albeit this choyce of theyrs is not altogeather free according to the nature of freedome before declared yet is the coactioÌ„ necessary and profitable to themselues nor haue they any iust reason but only their disorderly passion to refuse the same and consequently it is no reason that they should haue free choice and freedome of election permitted vnto them in a matter so preiudiciall to the common wealth and to themselues All which is different in the case of Catholickes in taking the oath repugnant to theyr consciences For as euill men doe not follow conscience and iudgement but passion as now hath bene said in not obeying penall lawes so may they be iustly forced thereunto and in that sense may yet truly be said to be all free that is to say free to do euill without punishment But Catholiks following the dictamen of their consciences concerning pointes of their faith receiued and continued in England since the beginning of christianity cannot with any equity be constrained or coacted to contradict the same noâ— can it be demed but that so griâ—â—uous a punishmenâ— proposed as the penalty of Premunire was and is a greaâ— coaction that taketh away freedome And consequently thoâ—e Catholickes Priestes and Laicks that are said to haue freely taken the Oath had not indeed freedome therein but that only freedome which before hath bene mentionâ—d of the Mâ—rchant casting out his goodes into the â—ea which according to the rules both of Philosophy and Diuinity is not tâ—ue freedome as now hath bene declared shal be more presently For now you must see a new shift of M. Barlow
and security as here is insinuated it must needes be for that the Diuell indeed hath made some change in other men matters by altering of opinions and apprehensions For the Catholickes are the same that they were wont to be do thinke the same belieue the same teach the same and practice the same that all their Predecesâ—ours haue done before them This was my declaration discourse What substantiall answer or argument can M. Barlow bring against thisâ— You shall see how he will gnibble at the matter as a mouse at the cheese-vate and cannot enter He saith first that I am in my element when I am in this argument of recourse to Rome vsed to be made from age to age by our ancient Christian English people Prelates and Princes that there is scarce any Epistle Preface Pamphlet Booke or Petition of myne but that this is therein the Cypres-tree to make Rome the loadstone for drawing thither the tryall of our gould in both senses and the like That I borrowed all from Cardinall Allen in his Apology that we haue receyued full satisfactory answers in this behalfe to wit that when the Bishops of Rome in purer times did beare theÌ„selues as religious members not as presumptuous heads of the Church and lyued as ghostly Fathers to counsaile not as Superiors to controle our realme being then also rude and learning scant Religion new sprong vp and no where setled I say then and in those dayes M. Barlow graunteth that the recourse was made to Rome but yet vpon deuotion and mere necessity and not then neither without leaue of the Prince This is his tale And doe you not see what gnibling this is Doe you not behould the poore man in what straites he is to say somewhat What more euident or more strong demonstration could or can be made if he would ioyne really to see and confesse the truth to proue the right and continuance of the Bishop of Rome his supreme spirituall authoriâ—y ouer England and recourse made vnto him therein then that which was made against Syr Edward Câ—â—ke in the answer of the fifth part of Reportes that from King Ethelbert our first ChristiaÌ„ King vntil the defection of King Henry the eight vpon the poynt of a thousand yeares and almost a hundred Christian Kinges it was inuiolably obserued in England to make such recourse in matters of doubt concerning Ecclesiasticall and spirituall affaires vnto the Sea Apostolike and the vniuersall Pastour thereof as lawfull iudge not for counsaile only but for sentence determination and decision both beâ—ore after the Conquest So as except M. Barlow do see more then all they did and haue more learning and piety then any of them who â—ollowed also therein not their owne sense and iudgement only but that of the whole Christian world besides all these spruse and princocke exceptions of â—urer tymes rudenesse of the land lacke of learning theyr being of new Christians and the like are but ridiculous inuentions of an idle busy-head and so not worth the standing vpon to answer them for that they are euidently false in the eyes of al the world And like vnto these are the other â—oyes that do ensue pag. 25. 26.27 As for example that there was no need to make recourse to Rome for deciding the doubts about the Oath which he proueth forsooth and that very â—oberly out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. Is there not a wise man among you among al the Priests secular â—esuited in EnglaÌ„d that can determine a controuersy about the Oath of Allegiance Might not your Arch-Priest Blackwell so authorized by the Pope so commended and countenanced by two Cardinals Caiâ—tan and Burghesius be sufficient But al this is simple geere as you see and hangeth not togeather but rather maketh for his aduersary For if the Arch-Priest that then was had his authority from the Pope then reason was it that in so great a doubt concerning the soules of so many the matter should be consulted with the Superiour as we see it vsuall in England that lower Iudges in difficult cases doe consult with them from whom they had their authority Neyther doth S. Paul here alleaged meane that the Corinthians should choose some contemptible man to be their iudge in Spirituall or Eccleâ—aâ—ticall matters for in all those he biddetâ— all Christians to be subiect to their Bishops spirituâ—ll Pastours that haue to render accouÌ„t for their soules but hâ— meaneth in temporall matters and particuler sutes and ciuill controuersies betweene man man which he houldeth to be contemptible thinges in respect of the spirituall and especially to contend for the same before Infidell Iudges as they did And so doth M. Barlâ—â— wholy peruert S. Paul as his fashion is commonly in most Scriptures and authorityes that he alleageth But now we come to another argument of his against our recourse made to Rome for decision of this great doubt concerning the taking or not taking the Oath And albeit you haue heard how many impertinent and childish arguments he hath vsed before about the same yet none of them can be compared with this for absurdity and impertinency and it consisteth in taking exceptions against the very person of the Pope Paulus Quintus that now sitteth in the Sea who being so eminent for his good partes rare vertues as laying aside his supreme dignity of Vniuersall Father of Christs Catholick Church the same doth grieue exceedingly the hartes of all Heretickes that hate the Apostoâ—â—cke Sea and him only for that he sitteth and gouerneth so worthily therein which they cannot abydeâ— But let vs see what they obiect against him in this behalfe VVhat is there saith he in this Pope for his iudgment in Diuinity that his determination should be expected about this Oath of Allegâ—â—â—ce to his Maiestie more then in his predecessour Clemens whose opinion was not inquired of about the Oath for conspiracy against the whole Realme Wherunto I answer that for so much as the other Oath of conspiracy if any such were was but betweene certaine particuler men who did vpon discontentmeÌ„t coÌ„spyre togeather and bynd one the other by Oath to secresy did presume that both Pope Clement this Pope if they had bene made priuy therof would haue letted their bad intentions therfore the conspirators neuer proposed the mâ—â—ter vnto them but concealed it from their knowledge whome they asâ—urâ—d to find opposite to their designements in such like attempts But this other Oath called of Allegiâ—â—ce for that it was a publike matter and vrged publikly to be taken by all Catholicks with most grieuous penalties of loâ—se of goods landes liberty proposed for the refusers and for that the sayd Catholikes had a great doubt whether they might receiue the same with a safe conscience in respect of diuers clauses therein contayned tending to the deniall or calling into question the Popes supreme authority ouer Christian soules therefore they thought it
of ouersight or of purpose For I do not make that argument which he frameth iâ— my name that the Pope hath to do in England because some Catholickes suppose he hath Nor is the word supposing vsed by me applied to some Catholikes as though they supposed but to my selfe that I supposed and so this change of the person as you see is a foule ouersight in repeating his aduersaries argument There followeth the like change of the subiect for my supposall was not that the Pope had to do in England but that we treated and spake in that place of Catholike people according to Catholike Doctrine and of Catholike consciences not of Protestants consciences or iudgements for that the question was not whether Protestanâ—s with a good conscience might take the Oath or not but Catholikes with the integrity of their Religion Out of which supposall is inferred that forsomuch as Catholike doctrine in all Schools of the world as well of Spaine France Italy and others do teach and define that all Catholike people whether they be farre or neere without exception are equally subiect to the supreme Pastour of the Church wherof they are members it followeth I say that dwell they neuer so farre of they cannot be called nor accounted Messis aliena to their said vniuersall Pastour But let vs heare M. Barlow further vttering other ignorances intolerable in the eares of learned men But before this supposall saith he be brought into a positiue and resolute conclusion will require more tyme c. What M. Barlow this supposall that we treated of Catholike people only and according to Catholike Doctrine and not of Protestants My wordes are playne do you read them ouer againe supposing as we doe quoth I that we treat of Catholike people only and according to Catholik doctrine You see my words this was my supposall what difficulty is there now to reduce them to a positiue and resolute conclusion saying and affirming resolutely that which then I supposed to wiâ— that I treated in that place of Catholikes only and their consciences according to Catholike doctrine and not of Protestants Do you see how hard a matter this is to bring a supposall into a conclusion And doth not your Reader see to what straites of absurdityes your folly hath brought you But yet the Reader must further know that there is included in your wordes greater ignorance perhaps theÌ„ any of the former for you imagine as by your sequent wordes appeareth that a supposall is of much lesse certainty then is a positiue and resâ—lute conclusion which is quite contrary for that a positiue conclusion how resolute soeuer it be on the behalfe of the defender yet may it be controuerted and called into question or disputed of but a supposall cannot for that it is supposed and graunted by both partes Let vs see then M. Barlow his acumen in this matter Thus he writeth of me and my supposall It argued say you some ingenuity in the man that he made it but a supposall and aâ—terward againe talking of a proposition or conclusion of Cardinall Bellarmine about the Mother-Church of Rome you say the best writing Iesuits do indeed make it a supposall and the most â—auorable of them that it is bâ— likely Whereby it is plaine that the silly man houldeth that a supposal in Diuinity or Philosophy is more vncertaine then a resolute proposition or conclusion and in effect he takes it for only a Likelihood or probability which onely to heare is â—idiculous amongsâ— learned men for that alwaies the thinges supposed in any silence are taken for most â—ue and vndoubted as graunted by both partes yea they are the very groundes and principles of all sciences wheron the certainty of all conclusions throughout those sciences doth depend And so we see for examples sake the â—uclide in the beginning of his bookes of Geâ—â—â—â— doth suppose certaine principles and groundes of that science as that 〈◊〉 est main sua parte euery whole is greater then the part therof Si ab aequalibus aequalia domas â—â—liqua eâ—â—nt aequalia iâ— from equall thinges you take equally away the rest which remaine shall be equall and many such other like suppositions which are to be seene in tâ—e â—â—st â—ooke of these 15. which â—uclide calleth de Elementâ—s â—â— tâ—e â—lâ—ments or principles of Geâ—metry And now to say that these supposalls are of lesâ—e certainty then positiue oâ— râ—solâ—tâ— conclusions deduced from them and grounded vpon them as M. Barlow imagineth is so absurd as nothing can be more â—or that the conclusions may be denyed or disâ—uted 〈◊〉 but the supposals may not Aâ—isâ—otle aâ—so when he treateth of the Principles of 〈…〉 whâ—câ— as Pâ—â—lus testifâ—eth he calleth supposâ—ioâ—â— a 〈…〉 or supposalls quia supponenda sunt for that 〈◊〉 are to be â—â—pposâ—d and not to be proued sheweth that 〈…〉 supposals is infallible for that they 〈…〉 partes for which let this one example 〈…〉 Câ—risâ—iâ—n should contend with a lâ—w about 〈…〉 Death or Resurrection of our Sauiour 〈…〉 fiâ—st as a thing euident acknowledged 〈◊〉 both that whatsoeuer is contained in the old Testament is oâ— infallible truth authority and therevpon should frame many positiue and resolute Conclusions from the predictions of the ancient Prophets about these mysteries of Christ should these conclusions be of more certainty then the foresayd supposals vpon which they stand Or shall it be but likely only and probable that the old Testament is true for that it was only supposed and not proued at the beginning What can be more ignorantly spoken then this concerning the comparison of conclusions and suppositions Nor can he run out by saying that he agreed not to my supposall at the beginning for that there are certaine supposalls so euideÌ„t of themselues as they require no consent of the aduersary as were those of Euclide before mentioned and so was this of mine in the passage of my Letter already cited where I supposed that I treated of Catholike people only and acording to Catholike Doctrine and in matters belonging to Catholicke mens soules and consciences and not of Protestants which supposall no man can contradict for that it is most cleare and euident by my owne wordes and therefore consequently M. Barlow hath shewed himselfe but a very poore Philosopher and a worse Deuine in this place But the two notorious vntruthes which he vttereth presently in the next ensuing lynes though I be weary now of such stuffe may not be pretermitted The first is against Cardinall Bellarmine the second is against the Pope concerning his prohibition of the Oath His wordes for the first are these If all the rest of the Apostles were not ordered Bishops by S. Peter saith Bellarmine then cannot the Church of Rome be Mother of all other Churches much lesse the Bishop and whether it were so or no the best writing Iesuites doe indeed make it but a supposall But now for the chastisemeÌ„t of his
bables This was the fact of a Pagan Atheist What doth the matter appertayne to vsâ— do we esteeme so litle a false Oath Why then doe Catholickes stand so much in England against the receiuing of this Oath Why doe they put themselues in danger of leesing the Princes fauour their goods theyr lands their Countrie their liues rather then to take the same againâ—â— their consciences It seemeth rather that M. Barlâ—â— concurreth with Lisanders opinion who will haue theâ— take it although it be against their consciences for thiâ— is to haue leuem iurisiurandi religionem little conscience of an Oath But yet he goeth further in this matter and cannot get out of it for he will needs proue this my distinctioâ— and as he calleth it Equiuocation not only to be Pagaâ—iâ—â— but more then Heatheniâ—h that euen by Aristotles testimony in his Booke of Rhetoricke to King Alexander his wordes are these Nay this delusion is more then Heathenish â—or Aristotle was of opinion that he which doubteth in his Oath for thâ—â— i◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sweare with a mentall addiâ—ion hath neither â—ear oâ— Goâ—â— vâ—ngeance or shâ—me oâ— mens reproof But truely I hauing conâ—idered the place of Aristotle how far his meaning is from that which here is alledged in his name me thinkes that M. Barlow should feare these two last pointes of Gods vengeaÌ„ce mans reprofe For Aristotle hath not a word of dâ—â—bâ—ing in his Oath or of mentall addition or reseruatioÌ„ in an Oath bâ—t only of plaine forswearing For his argument is hauing treated in that booke to Alexander how by the preceptes of Rhetoricke an Orator may proue or improue any fact or crime that shall come in question as by signes by arguments by coniectures by probability by witnesse and by torture he coÌ„meth at leÌ„gth to shew how it may be proued or improued by an Oath His words are these Iufiuranduâ— est cum diuina veneratione dictio probationis expeâ—s c. An Oath is a speach without proofes with diuine veneration wherefâ—re if we will confirme our Oath and the credit thereof we must say thâ—â— no man truly will forsweare himselfe both in respect of the â—eare of punishment from the Gods as also of disgrace among men and we may add that men may be deceyued but the Gods cannot But now if the aduersary will flie also to an Oath and we would extenuate or discredit the same then we must shew that the man that will not sticke to dâ—e euill will not sticke also to forsweare himself for that he which thinketh he may ly hidden from the Gods after he hath committed an eâ—ill â—act will thinke that he may also escape punishment after he hath â—orsworne himselfe This is Aristotles discourse which maketh no mention at all as you see of doubting in an Oath and much lesse of mentall addition or reseruation And albeit M. Barlow do bouldly and ignorantly say that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by all Interpreters doth signifie peierare to periure or forsweare doth import also to sweare with mental addition yet is this only a fiction of his nor can he bring forth one example out of Aristotle or any Greeke writer which doth vse it in that sense nor could Aristotle vse it so in this place where he vseth the sayd wordes thrice in these lines by me alleaged alwaies for peierare to forsweare and neuer for doubting or mentall addition Nay it cannot stand with any sense of Aristotles discourse for if Aristotle should say that no man truly will doubt in his Oath or haue a meÌ„tall reseruation both for feare of Gods chastisement discredit amongst men it were a ridiculous speach for that men do not knowe when a mentall reseruation is made or when a man doubteth in his Oath but when he forsweareth himselfe it may come to be knowne And in like manner it is more ridiculous to say against the aduersary as Aristotle teacheth vs that he which sticketh not to doe wickedly will not sticke to doubt also in his Oath or to vse a mentall addition which no man I thinke would vnderstand or can read without laughing Wherfore seing that Aristotle speaketh only of forsweâ—ring and that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken by him and by all other Greeke Authors wherof we might heâ—â— alledge infinite examples M Barlow cannot alleadge one for his fiction it is euidently seene that he miserable man is sore pressed when to sustaine his bad cause he is forced to falsifie and corrupt Authours by peruerting and wresting them aside quite contrary to their meaning purpose But now we shall passe to some other poyntes THE REASON IS EXAMINED WHETHER GODS PROVIDENCE MIGHT SEEME DEFECTVOVS if no authority had bene left in the Christian hurch to restraine and punish euill Kings AND Whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. I SAID in my former Letter as in the precedent Chapter hath bene seene that I could not perswade my self that such Catholikes as were sayd to haue accepted the Oath did meane to abiure al authority of the Pope for depoâ—ing temporall Princes for any cause whatsoeuer for that therin they should contradict the gâ—nerall consent of all Catholike Deuines and confesse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruatiâ—â— of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous For that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great perilous an euill as that way might fall out by the exorbitant actions of some incorrigible Prince To this my speach M. Barlow answereth thus If by Catholike Deuines he meaneth Scriptures Councells Fathers Stories for a thousand yeares after Christ the Reader must take it for a mendacious vanity and let it passe for no better Wherto I reply that as I do meane it it is no mendacious vanity but a religioâ—â— verity for that I meane by Catholike Deuines in this place all such of that profession as haue handled the question particularly of this temporall Authority of the Pope in certaine vrgent occasions which are principally Scholasticall Deuines especially those of this age that haue written against all sorts of Heretikes that denied the same And albeit M. Barlow in his rayling vayne do challenge the Schoole-men as blasphemously detorting Scriptures yet he that shall read them with iudgment and attention without this furious passion of hatred against them and lacke of capacity to vnderstand them shall quickly perceiue that their skill in Scriptures Councels Fathers Stories is far superiour by infinite degrees to that of M. Barlow and his Mates that crake so much against them and their sincerity in expounding them according to their true meaning and is also without comparison more sound as may appeare by the many grosse and wilfull corruptions which I haue noted in him before in that kind And albeit in some hundreds of yeares after Christ there had
you keep your selfe to your text for I remember not to haue mentioned that word in my speach before rehearsed wherunto you pretend to answere True it is that of the passion of anger and reuenge for supposed iniuries or oppressions receyued I haue made mention But you haue turned all your shâ—w of answere against desperation telling vs much of the furious fancy of the Donatists in Africa that were desperatly inraged You aske also whether the Catholiks be no better instructed in Deuinity by their Priests You tell vs that S. Peters Deuinity was better whoâ— heâ—â—horteth Seruants to be bucksome and obedient in all feâ—â—â— to tâ—eir Maisters You say further that true Catholicâ—e Deuinity teacheth men to endure lawes with all â—â—â—dy â—â—bedience and if through weakenesse they cannot or by repugnancy of conscience they dare not be perswaded that they may lawfully sweare vnto them then to endure the penalty with an humble patience alleaging for the same the words of S. Peter that This is thanks-worthy if a man fâ—â— conscience sake towards God endâ—â—e griefe wrongfully becaâ—se oâ—r â—â—â—ster did so c. which we take for very good doctrine indeed and so do teach and preach the same diligently exhorting all good Catholicks to follow that rule But yet on the other side we cannot forget also the saying of the Apostle non in omniâ—us est scieÌ„tia al men haue not true knowledg 〈◊〉 they ought to do and much lesse patience in what they ought to suffer and therfore is the giâ—t of wisdome prouidence and discretion graunted vnto Gouernours to moderate matters according to mens infirmities in some caâ—â—â— this is all that is sayd or insinuated in this passage though M. Barlow out of his great prudence in Deâ—iâ—â—ty Policy noteth that the example of Count Iulian of Spaiâ—e that ouerthrew his Countrey vpon the passion of reuenge ought to be a caueat to the State of England that I do threaten But it is a childish quarrell pickt for I do but call 〈◊〉 memory the history in confirmation of that which in my Speach is set downe But there followeth a second reason concerning them that presse the Oath vpon others to wit the consideration of actiue scandall which I set downe before in these words But besides all this said I is the grieuous sinne that they commit who force or presse other men to sweare against their conscience then which nothing can be imaginâ—d more heinous for it is to thrust men headlong especially such as are fearefull into the very precipitation downefall of hell it selfe For it is the highest degree of scâ—ndall â—ctiue so much condemned and detested in the Scripture and so dredfully threatned by our Sauiour to be seuerely punished in the life to come For that scandalizing properly is nothing els but laying a stuÌ„bling blocke for other men to fall and breake their neckes and such a one is this formall Oath which containeth diuers things lawfull for a Catholick to sweare other things vnlawful and he is forced by terrour to passe ouer and swallow downe one with another without distinction with manifest repugnance of his conscience which repugnance to him is alwaies a sinne and damnable in such a publike and waighty action though the matter were lawfull in it selfe and consequently also vnto them that forced him to the same either knowing or suspecting his said repugnance of conscience For he that should force a Iew or a Turke to sweare that there were a blessed Trinity either knowing or suspecting that they would do it against their coÌ„science should sinne grieuously by forcing them to commit that sinne This is Catholick Doctrine which I also think the learned Protestants themselues will not deny Vnto this speach of mine M. Barlow answereth first granting that a man should rather endure any losse of life or goods then sweare against his conscience which doctrine I am glad that in this present case the force of truth hath drawne from him But he goeth further treating of this poynt of scandall after such a fashion out of our Schoole-Doctours as he marreth all againe And truly he hath so euill lucke in dealing with them not vnderstanding as it seemeth what they meane as I meruaile that he would euer name them For though in this place he alleadg only S. Thomas by the name of Aquinas in the margent without quoting where in what part or place of his Workes it is to be found yet doth he peruert his meaning egregiously going forward and backward and taking one thing for another that it is both pittifull ridiculous to consider But I shall cyte his owne words as they lye and thereby shall we see how able a Schoole-man he is But in this point of scandall sayth he will this great Deuine vouchsafe to learne a lesson from their owne Schoole-man Is the exacting of this Oath a scandall actiue in our Magistrates then is it passiue in their Catholikes For it is no scandall giuen if is 〈…〉 Iâ— their consciences be offended aâ— it they are sayth Aquinâ—◠〈◊〉 simply ignorant or wickedly malicious and the last â—â—â—â—er 〈…〉 well instructed or truly sanctified can take no offence though 〈◊〉 â—uer so openly which he confirmeth by that place of Dauid Gâ—â—â—â— is thâ—â—â— peace that loue thy law non est illi scandalum he which 〈◊〉 loueth God neyther doth scandalize by sinning nor is scandalized by â—â—â—ning quicquid ei fiat In which discourse of M. Barlow is to be noted first that after his scorne vttered against me he taketh vpoÌ„ him as a great Schoole Deuine to determine this consequence Is the exacting of the Oath scandall actiue in our Magistrates Theâ— iâ— it passiue in their Catholikes which I grant to be true in such Catholikes as by force of that exaction haue bene induced to sweare against their consciences and so finned It is not true in them that refuse the same and they are those whom the Prophet commendeth in the place here mentioned Great is their peace who loue thy law and they are not scâ—â—dalized nor do fall into sinne by the sinne or inducement of others So as in this sense it is true that such Catholikes as take the Oath with a repugnant conscience suffered Scandalum pâ—ssiuum but not these that refused But M. Barlowes reason for that there is no scandall giuen if it be not taken is most manifestly false and the more intollerably foolish for that he setteth it downe as the reason of S. Thomas Aquinas wheras the sayd Doctoâ—â— doth expresly contradict the same in sundry places saying in one Quandoque est scandalum actiuâ—m sine passiuâ— puiâ—â—â—â—â—â—quis inducit alium ad peccandâ—m ille nâ—n consentit Sometimes â—â—ere may be a scandall actiue without a passiue to wit when any man doth induce by word or fact another man to sinne and he do not consent vnto him And againe in another place Potest tamen esse scandalum
Salomon or Augustus But I would aske him out of passion if euer he be voyd therof as by report he is very seldome what insolencie hath this Pope shewed in being busy as he calleth it with his Maiesties Person State or Realme For as for his Person he hath alwayes honoured the same both before he was Pope and after wherof many euident testimonies might be alleadged and for his State and Kingdome while he was in Scotland neyther he nor his Predecessours did go about to trouble the same in almost fourty yeares while he reygned there all troubles came from Protestants and their Ministers And when his Maiesty was called into England the Pope that then was by this mans counsaile principally as it may be presumed for that he was Protectour of Scotland wrote to the Catholickes to further their Obedience towards him He neuer medled in any thing vntill this Oath so preiudiciall vnto his Authority and vnto the Consciences of Catholikes was proposed and vrged And as for the peace here named more continuall happy then that of Salomon or Augustus which M. Barlow sayth might be enioyed by his Maiestie with his Subiects if the Pope were not it is well that he will so much as name peace who seemeth in all his speaches to sow the seeds of warres hatred and contention But if his mind were to peace indeed he cannot be so simple but to see that the rigorous and afflictiue courses vsed and this as all men take it by the instigation of those of his coate and order cannot be meanes to peace of mindes howsoeuer otherwise they liue in externall quietnes and deuoyd of tumults And this is all that for the present I haue to write in this matter The end of the first Part. THE SECOND PART About the Breues of Paulus Quintus CONCERNING M. BARLOVVE His exorbitant flattery in exaggerating Queene Elizabeths Vertues and Sanctity CHAP. I. OVR purpose then being as now we haue declared to touch some principal points only handled by M. Barlow in this second and third Part of his answere we shall begin with the point he most standeth vpon dilating himself for twenty leaues togeather coÌ„cerning Queene Elizabeth her raigne life and death as an argument very plausible in his opinion and capable not only of his rayling eloquence and odious amplifications but of all grosse and abiect flattery in like manner togeather with some hopes of other gaines also that way wherunto it seemeth that the poore man hath his tongue and pen most ready to the sale at all turnes and occasions offered But it may be before we end this conference his market may be more then halfe marred in the iudgment at least of disappassionate men especially with his most ExcelleÌ„t Maiesty whome aboue all other he seeketh to gull in this matter turning all vpon him which I both spake and meant to a Minister of M. Barlowes owne ranke so I disclaime from the calumnious imputation that it concerneth any way his Highnesse and shall answere all in the same sense which I then wrote and meant the same reseruing all dutyfull and respectiue reference to his Maiesties Person and Iudgment as bounden duty obligeth me First then occasion being offered or rather necessity imposed to speake of Queene Elizabeth for that albeit the Pope had not so much as named her in any of his two Breues yet had the Apologer brought in her mentioÌ„ with many high praises for disgrasing of Catholickes and their cause and for scorne to the Pope as though he had without cause pittyed and mourned their afflictions vnder her which he saith was none at all for that to his own knowledge she neuer punished any Papist for Religion For these causes I say I was forced in my Letter to say somewhat to this assertiue proposition wherunto the tribulations afflictions calamities spoiles exiles and bloud of so many shed by her did manifestly in the eyes and eares of al men and women that haue liued in our dayes contradict and reclaime And yet did I resolue to do the same as mildly and sparingly as I might answering only the wordes of the Apologie and abstayning purposely from al bitternesse of speach so far as the iust defence of the cause permitted and so shall continue 〈…〉 Barlowes most intemperate prouocation to the contrary VVhereas then in reciting the wordes of the Apologer I mentioned these Hauing sayth he sacrificed as I may say to the Manes of my defunct Soueraigne as well for the discharge of my particuler dutie as loue of veritie I must now performe my dâ—ty also to his Maiestie present c. Vpon which wordes I noted that the phrase of sacrificing to the Queenes Manes or Ghostes seemed to me very profane as proper to the Pagan Sacrifices vsed to those infernall spirits which they called Gods hurtful Gods therfore endeauored to please them with sacrifices My words discourse were these But as for his heathen profane sacrificing to the Manes or Hob-goblins of his late Lady I confesse it is an office fitter for a Protestant-Minister that thinketh it vnlawfull to pray for her soule to deale with her Manes or infernall spirites then with Celestiall by praying for her to Saints But would God these Manes might now haue liceÌ„ce to appeare and talke which him and relate what passeth with her after all this ioylity and ruffe in this world I doubt not but they would coole his excessiue vaine of flattering vanity For if all the old platforme of Saints liues prescribed in Scriptures and practised by the seruants of God were not erroneous and vaine as much fasting continual prayer daily mortification frequent recollection diligent chastisement of theyr bodies humble feruent deuotion labouring and working theyr saluation in feare and trembling aboundant almes-deedes haire-cloth and ashes contrition sorrow and sobbing for their sinnes yf these things I say were the ancient wayes to life and euerlasting saluation then must the pathes of Queene Elizabeth which are knowne by most men to haue bene eyther wholy different or most opposite to these led to another opposite end quia vnusquisque recipiet secundum opera sâ—â— Euery one shall receiue according to his or her works and the sentence of the Apostle is cleare resolute Si secundum carnem vixeritis moriemini si facta carnis spiritu mortificaueritis viâ—etis if you liue according to the flesh you shall die but if you shall mortify by spirit the workes of the flesh you shall liue that is to life euerlasting About these words of mine M. Barlow taketh occasion to make very large discourses and to dilate himselfe in three or foure points â—xceedingly First in the excessiue prayses of the Queene then in superlatiue raylinges against me thirdly in iustifying the phrase of sacrificing to the dead Queens ghost fourthly in setting out her frequent mortifications that she vsed but yet in such sort as he well sheweth not only not to feele what mortification
〈◊〉 draw â—neâ—s affections to him and occasionate most honorable â—â—â—â—es of his qualityes and deportementes yet that Pope Clement 〈◊〉 be so kindly respectiue vnto him is much no be doubted And is it so Syr Yet spirituall writers do admonish 〈◊〉 that in dubiis pars pâ—a magis sâ—queÌ„da in doubtfull things the more pious part is to be followed by a pious mind And why had not you done this also if your mind had not 〈◊〉 impious You know who sayth Mala mens malus animus And this is that which before I called parasiticall in this answer not so much for your grosse flattery annointing his Maiestie with oleum peccatoris which holy King 〈◊〉 so much detested and his Maiesty in time I doubt not will discerne but for your malignity in misconstruing the knowne good affections of Pope Clement towards his Maiesties Person for that both these parts belong properly to a parasite as you know not only laudare in â—s praâ—â—â—â—â— ambitiously to prayse him that is present whether the thinges vttered be true or false but malignantly also 〈◊〉 absenti to detract from him that is absent of which two partes the latter is the worse for that the former may proceed sometimes of lightnes or intemperate desire to please but the other alwayes goeth accompanied with enuy and malice And as for his Maiesties due prayses albeit they cannot be but most pleasing and comfortable to all his louing subiects yet when they are so rudely clowted on and so importunely thrust in and that by such a one as M. Barlow is held to be that alwayes speaketh for his profit men can haue commonly no other sense therof then is wont to be when they see a faire garment marred in the cutting or a delicate peece of meat spoyled in the dressing And as for the honorable speaches occasionated abroad as he saith of his Maiesties qualities deportments true it is that as his Maiesties rare qualities are had in due consideration with externall Princes people so is it not doubted but that his deportmeÌ„t towards his Catholike subiects also 〈◊〉 be correspondent were not the sycophancy of this aâ—â— other like flatterers continually occupied in egging vâ—ging him to the contrary And among other speaches iâ— these partes none are more ordinary then in lamentinâ— that so good a nature as that of his Maiesty is should be 〈◊〉 strangeâ—y abused as also in pittying the same that for wâ—â— of fit men he should be forced to bestow the Prelacies and Bishopricks of his Realme vpon such as M. Barlow is 〈◊〉 who in other CouÌ„treyes would scarse be thought worthy for his manners to be a Seruant or Sexton in so honourâ—ble a Church as Lincolne is The last point remayning of this Paragraph is of thâ— later two Breues of Paulus Quintus concerning the Oath 〈◊〉 Allegiance and his misliking thereof in respect of thâ— poynts conteyned therin in preiudice of the integrity oâ— Catholicke religion which M. Barlow doth so much debase as here he taketh vpon him to defend that they arâ— deuoyd especially the first which is the principalâ— the other being but a confirmation or ratification thereoâ— not only of all diuinity but of policy and coÌ„mon sense also which is a long dispute and a large enterprize to bâ— taken vpon his shoulders that any man that doth but read the Breue and is acquaynted with the grauity learning wisdome and modesty of the Author thereof will rather laugh at M. Barlow for taking such an enterprize in hand then perswade himselfe that he can haue good successe therin but he that shall turne from reading the said Breue to read the pittifull proofes which here M. Barlow goeth about to set downe to shew that the said Breue hath neither diuinity policy or common sense in it will pitty him indeed and thinke that he lacketh coÌ„mon sense in setting downe such senselesse reasons as he doth against so sensible a declaration as there the Pope maketh in that his Breue The end of the second Part. THE THIRD PART concerning Card. Bellarmine his Letter OF THE OCCASION OF THE LETTER written by Cardinall Bellarmine vnto M. George Blackewell Archpriest AND VVhether he mistooke the state of the question ALSO Of the change of Supreme Head into Supreme Gouernour CHAP. I. FIRST of al then for the better vnderstanding of the whole matter and to make the Reader acquainted with the occasion of this present contentioÌ„ I do not thinke it amisse to repeate in this place what I wrote in my Letter concerning the same My words then were â—hese The last Part of this Apology concerneth a letter written by Cardinall Bellarmine in Rome vnto George Blackweâ—â— Arch-priest in England which letter as appeareth by the argument therof was written out of this occasion Thaâ— wheras vpon the comming forth of the forenamed new Oath intituled Of Allegiance there were found diuers points combined togeather some appertaining manifestly to Ciuill Allegiance wherat no man made scruple some other seeming to include other matters contrary to some part of the Catholicke faith at least in the commom sense as they by there arose a doubt whether the said Oath might be taken simply and wholy by a Catholicke man as it is there proposed without any further distinction or explication therof Wherupon some learned men at home being different in opinions the case was consulted abroad where all agreed as before hath byn shewed that it could not be taken wholy with safety of conscience and so also the Pope declared the case by two seuerall Breues In the meane space it happened that M. Blackwell being taken was committed to prison and soone after as he had byn of opinion before that the said Oath might be taken as it lay in a certayne sense so it being offered vnto him he tooke it himselfe Which thing being noysed abroad and the fact generally misliked by all sortes of Catholicke people in other Realmes as offensiue and scandalous in regard of his place and person so much respected by them Cardinall Bellarmine as hauing had some old acquaintance with him in former yeares as it may seeme resolued out of his particuler loue zeale to the Common cause of Religion and especial affection to his person to write a letter vnto him therby to let him know what reportes and iudgments there were made of his fact throughout those partes of Christendome where he remayned togeather with his owne opinion also which consisted in two poynts the one that the Oath as it stood compounded of different clauses some lawfull some vnlawfull could not be taken with safety of Conscience the other that he being in the dignity he was of Prelacy and Pastorall Charge ought to stand firâ—e and constant for example of others rather to suffer any kynd of danger or domage then to yield to any vnlawfull thing such as the Cardinall held this Oath to be This Letter was written vpon the
of Supreme 〈◊〉 of the said Church belonging c. And in another Statute two yeares after that From hâ—â—cefâ—rth he shall accept râ—pute â—â—d take the Kings Maiestie to be the â—â—ly Supreme Head oâ— earth of 〈◊〉 Church of England c. And that the refusers of this Oath 〈◊〉 reputed traytours and suffer the pâ—yâ—es of â—â—ath c. And in other Statutes it is decrâ—â—d that it â—halbe â—reasâ—â— tâ—â—eny thâ—â— tytle 〈◊〉 Headship and that this was held of such importance vnder King Edward who succeeded his Father that it is decreed by Statute that all authority of iurisdiction spirituall and temporall in the Biâ—â—ops and Miâ—istry 〈◊〉 deduâ—ed and deriued frâ—◠〈◊〉 Kings Maiestie as Supreme 〈◊〉 c. Vpon this important doubt I was so bold as to stay my selfe a little as now â—lso I must intreating M. Barlow to giue the solution therofâ— to wit that forsomuch as this matter of the Headship of 〈◊〉 Chuâ—ch was held of so great weight by thâ—ir prime aâ—d principall Protestantâ— and especially by their Paâ—riarkes Cranmer â—idley Hâ—â—per and others then holding the places of Bishops in Parlament when the sayd Title was not only confirmed in the Child King but declared alsâ— to be the fountayne of all spirituall â—uthority and iâ—risdiction in the Clergie and that it was treason to deny this Tytle of spirituall influxe in the Clergie how this matter came about that it should be so little esteemed as to be left of and changed now yea to be denyed expressely by their principall wryâ—â—â—â— as namely by Doctour Iohn â—â—ynolds in his â—oÌ„ference with M. Hart where he flatly deâ—yeth that they doe call the Queene Supreme Head but only Supreâ—◠〈◊〉 which if they be Synoâ—â—ma and all one then what necâ—â—â—â—â—ie to hâ—ue denyed 〈◊〉 vnto herâ— But iâ— Goâ—ernour do signify any thing lesâ—e then Supreme Head then haue they changed their principall point oâ— doctrine wheron dependeth the lawâ—ulneâ— of their whole Clâ—rgie aâ— you seâ— and so the matter being of such weight I thought it worth the staying to haue some answere But M. Barlow falleth into a great chafe for this my stay The giddy fellow sayth he hath an other err and to do not 〈◊〉 of the way but by the way The Scripture setteth a more esseâ—â—iâ—â—◠〈◊〉 vpon such by-way takers saying That wicked men declinant 〈◊〉 oâ—â—iquationâ—s take all the by-wayes nâ—okes aâ—d lanes they câ—â— passe for feare to be descryed or apprehended This is one reprehension as you see insteed of answering the matter Yoâ— shall heare anoâ—hâ—r more châ—leriâ—ke It is a vexing tormeâ—◠〈◊〉 a man sayth he thâ—â— is inioyned a ioâ—rney vpon a speed◠〈◊〉 requiring a serious dispatch to traâ—aile with a triâ—ling companâ—â—â— that will make many erâ—ands by thâ— way or hath many acquaintances to stop him in the way or is forced to make often returnes vpâ—â— forgeâ—fullnes of dâ—â—ers â—hingâ— c. And I expected that he would haue sayd also that he must needâ— dâ—inke at eueâ—y Ale-house as he passeth by But this perhaps he thought would haue caused more reflection then he esteemed conuenient and those other triflings are inough for so much as they yield such a veâ—ing tâ—rmeâ—â— to M. Barlow in his iâ—ioyned 〈…〉 â—pon so speedy a busines But why did he not giue me 〈◊〉 a speedy answere without tryfling and so dispatch both me and himselfe quickly Truly you haue heard somewhat largely bâ—forâ— what he can say to this matter â—nd therfore I meane noâ— to dwell theron long in this plâ—â—e especiâ—lly for so much as the man is in such hast and so impatient of stay You haue heard what hath bene treated before about this point of spirituall authority in the temporall Prince and to â—ow â—ow a pitch he bringeth the same euen in effect to agree with vs granting â—nto the Prince the power â—â—ly oâ— execution of such things as are determâ—â—ed by the Church But now in a woâ—â— let vs see how he shifteth of the change of the name of Supreme Head First he sayth that 〈◊〉 Maiesty did not leaue it out oâ— his Title vpon â—uer-awed 〈◊〉 to take it forasmuch as God gaue the said Tyâ—le to a far worse King I pray you note the phrase which is strang from a sâ—biects pen to wit to Saul when he said he was Caput in Triâ—â—busâ— Head among the Tribeâ—â—f Israel And S. Paul nameth the â—â—sband head of the wife But what is this to our purposâ— that do talke of the spirituall Head of the Church Nay it seemeth rather to make against M. Barlowes prouing that the Tytle oâ— Head was lawfull and so it was in the true sense of ciuill Head ship and consequently it should haue bene conâ—inued wheras we demand why it was left of chanâ—ed So as this first answere is nothing to the purpose His second is that it is but identity of commaund expressed 〈◊〉 â—iuersitie of termes But why then was it changed And why doth M. Doctour Reynolds by M. Barlowes owne â—â—â—â—iâ—ony giue the Title not of Headâ— but of Supreme Gouernour What need that expresse negatiue if they were all one If you should deny to the Kings Highnes the Tytle of King and of Supreme Head of the Common-Wealth and call him only supreme Gouernour would it be taken well or excused by identity No man can be ignorant but that in euery state neuer so popular there is a supreme Gouernour â—hough no King Thirdly he sayth that the change of supreme Head into supreme Gouernour was made by Parlament the first yeare of Queene Elizabeths raigne at the request of the Nobles and Deuines of the Land But the question is why and vpon what ground forsomuch as it may be presumed there were as great Deuines in King Henry the Eight hâ—â— time in the Parlament And if not yet at least in King Edwards Parlament that did approue and establish this Tytle of supreme Head It was saith M. Barlow not in regard of Queene Elizabeth her sexe for she being descended as she was she had as absolute authority in the fruition of the Crowne for both powers spirâ—tuall and temporall as any Male-Monarch whatsoeuer And a little after agaiâ—e he saith that this change was made least a weaker 〈…〉 thinke that they gaue vnâ—o Kings tâ—â—t Tiâ—le secundum interioreâ— influâ—um according to â—he inâ—â—riour influence which 〈◊〉 the prâ—pâ—â— office of the head as being the fountayne of moisture and is â—he â—â—st 〈◊〉 attribute of Christ alone But not to speake in this place of this internall influxe of grace that commeth originally from Christ alone although instrumentally also froÌ„ men as in the administration of Sacraments according to Câ—tholike doctrine what will he say of the externall influâ—â— of power iurisdiction ouer soules of preaching teâ—ching administring Sacraments ordayning Ministers and the like Could this power come aswell from a Feminine as a Masculine Monâ—rch If it couldâ— I do
and exact a crafâ—seman M. 〈◊〉 is in the art of adulation in somuch that if the sciâ—ncâ— of parasitisme were lost he could restore it agayne of himselfe And I say he is vigilant in this place for that he hath taken occasion to flatter his Maiesty where none at all was giuen For I did not so much as name his Maiesty but only said as now you haue seene that if any â—an would describe Plato affirming him to be a man born in Greece c. of an excellent wit and â—â—ally aâ—â—ing that he was the most eminent of all other Philosopher◠〈◊〉 last point only might be sufficient to make 〈…〉 Peâ—â—pateâ—icke deny to sweare the Oath although they did not dâ—ny all the other particulers therin contayned â—o wit that he was borne â—n Greece of an excellent wit skilfull in the Grâ—â—ke Language and the rest and so thâ—t albeit a Catholicke man doe refuse to sweare to aâ—e Oatâ— of Allegiance in respect of diuers clauses theâ—â—in coâ—tained in prâ—iudice of his religion yet doth not he deny all the other clauses as both absurdly and iniâ—riously M. Barlow doth affirme The second example in like manner of an Ariâ—â— Prince proposing vnto his subiects an Oath contayning diâ—â—â—â— clauses of true Catholicke Religion and some one of Aâ—ianismâ— for which the whole is refused Barlowâ—â—ndeth â—â—ndeth to be as vnanswerable as the former though for a â—â—â—rish he taketh vpon him to set it downe againe in a better frame as he pretendeth but in very deed the very same in effect and wholy against himselfe to wit thaâ— an Arian Prince conâ—â—yueth an Oath for his subiects to sweare thâ—t there are three persons in Trinity that the sâ—cond Person is the Sâ—â—â— of God c. adding notwithstanding that he is not â—quall with his Father which is Arianisme some Christiaâ—â— saith M. Barlow fearing an error therein haue recourse to sâ—â—e great Doctour he descrying the Arianisme sorbids them to take it and not shewing them the erroneous articâ—e assureth them that the 〈◊〉 Oath as it lyeth is vnlawfull And doth not that doctour condeâ—â—e all the articles theâ—in and willeth them inclusiuely to deny the Trinity This is M. Barlowes demaund vpon this case And euery man of common sense I trow will answer No that he doth not eyther inclusiuely or exclusiuely deny the Blessed Trinity And it is strange that a man of sense will argue so or make so senselesse a demand For why or how doth this doctour deny heere the other two articles of true Catholick doctrine For that he did not tell them distinctly which of the clauses contayned Arianisâ—â— First this maketh not to our case of the Oath of Allegiance for that we set downe clerly the clausâ—s that we mislyke therin which are all those that touch either the Popes authoritie or any other part of the Roman Catholicke Religion Secondly it was not necessary to tell the clause in particuler that contayned the Arianisme for that some of the people perhaps that demaunded him the question could not well vnderstand it and therefore it was sufficient to say that the oath was as it lay naught that there was some heresie therin as if a Phisitian should say of a dish of mynâ—ed meate brought to the table that the eaters should beware for that in some part there were poison it were sufficieÌ„t though he shewed not the particuler part Or if a Cooke should say that among other hearbes in the pot there was one very noysome it were sufficient for aduise to refuse the whole pot of pottage and yet by this he doth not condemne all the other good hearbes that might be in the pot Or was it perhaps for that the Doctour said that the whole Oath as it lay was vnlawâ—ull First I do not find the word whole to be vsed by Cardinal Bellarmine but only the word Iur amentum indefinitly And secondly if he had said that the whole Oath as it lyeth were to be refused he had not thereby condemned â—uery clause or part therof which he proueth in these words saying Nam ex 〈◊〉 sententia bonum ex integra a causa constituitur malum autem ex singulis deâ—ectibuâ— quare vt Iur amentum prohibeatur vel recusetur 〈◊〉 est necessarium omnes singulae partes eius sint malae satis autem est si vel vna sit mala c. For according to the common sentence of Philosophers that which is good must consist of the whole cause that is to say of all parts requisite but to make a thing euill it is sufficient that it hath but some one defect wherefore for prohibiting or refusing this Oath as euill it is not necessary that all and euery part thereof be euill but it is inough if any one part therof be naught And soe on the contrary part to the end that this oath may be admitted as good and lawfull it is necessary that no part thereof be euill This is Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine wherein we see first that he doth not vse the word VVhole totum Iâ—ramentum which word notwithstandinge M. Barlow doth often vse and repeate in this place making it the foundation of all his idle dispute And secondly we see that he doth not condemne al the parts of this oath for that some be vnlawfull but rather proueth the contrary out of the common sentence of Philosophers that if any one part be euil it is sufficieÌ„t to make the Oath euil vnlawful In which kind M. Barlow himselfe in the very nexâ— ensuing page giueth an example of an IndeÌ„ture that hath many clauses wherof the breach of any one Prouisâ— sayth he doth forfeit the whole whereby is euident that one deâ—ect is sufficient to make the thing euil but to make it good al that is requisite must be obserued And so in this Oath to make it vnlawful it is inough that any one clause therof be naught or against a Catholick mans conscience but to make it good and lawfull al the clauses therof must be good and lawfull And so you see how substantially M. Barlow hath answered this point ouer throwing himselfe with his owne argument I wil not stand to confute that other mad assertion of his more franticke then fantastical wherby he affirmeth and wil needes defend that whosoeuer refuseth to sweare to any one of the articles of this Oath acknowledgeth not the first that King Iames is lawful King of England And what is his reason trow you No other but that of the Indenture before mentioned for the whole Oath sayth he is like an Indenture al the clauses tying and tending to one condition oâ— Allegiance the breach of oue Prouiso in the Indenture â—orâ—eits the whole the denying of one article in the Oath is the dental of the whole euen of the very first that King Iames is not lawful King So he But he that shall examine the matter wel wil find that this pretended parity betweene the
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