such repeale made concerning the said illegitimation of Queene Elizabeth And King Henry himselfe in that Parlament of the 35. cap. 1. doth professe that he had authority by Parlament to giue and dispose the said Imperiall Crowne by his Letter Patent at his wil pleasure which sheweth that he might if he would appoint her to succeed in default of other issue though she were neuer so much illegitimate seing all was referred to his owne appointment But for so much as M. Barlow doth make so light accompt of this sentence of Parlament as after you shall heare out of his owne conteÌ„ptible words against the same I haue thought it good briefely to repeate them heere and therby shew the weight and moment therof Thus then they ly in the Statute And albeit most dread soueraigne Lord saith the Parlament that the said acts were then made as it was then thought by your Maiesties Nobles and Commons vpon a â—â—re perfect and cleare foundation thinking the said mâ—rriage then had betwene your Highnes the said Lady Anne in their consciences to haue bene pure sincere pâ—râ—â—â—â— and good and so was reputed accepted and taken in the Realme till now of late that God of his infinite goodnes from whom no secret things can be hid hath caused to be brought to light euident and opeÌ„ knowledg as well certaine iust true and lawful impediments vnknown at the making of the sayd acts and fithence that tyme confessed by the sayd Lady Anne before the most Reâ—erâ—nd Father in God Thomas Archbishop of CaÌ„terbury Metropolitan and Primate of all England sitting iudicially for the same by the which plainely appeareth that the said marriage betwene your Grace and the said Lady Anne was neuer good nor correspondent to the lawes but vtterly void and of no effect by reason wherof your Highnes was and is lawfully diuorced and separated from the bands of the said marriage in the life of the sayd lady Anne And this notwithstanding most gracious and soueraigne Lord the Lady Elizabeth your Daughter being borne vnder the said vnlawfull marriage by vertue and authority of the act of your Succession aboue remembred for lack of Heirs-males of your Body should immediatly succeed as your lawfull heiâ—e in the most royall Estate of your Imperiall Crowne of this Realme against all honor equity reason and good conscience if remedy should not be prouided for the same This was the sentence which is graue and weighty as yow see for that the whole Parlament affirmeth that such impediments were discouered by Gods infinite goodnesse and conâ—essed by Queene Anne in publicke iudgment before the Archbishop Cranmer sitting vpon the same matter as by the same it was euideÌ„tly conuinced that she was neuer King Henries true wife indeed and consequently that the lady Elizabeth was neuer his true and lawfull daughter And did not this deserue that M. Barlow should haue brought forth authenticall testimony to the contrary For if this attestation of the Parlament King and Metropolitan were good and true that Queene Anne was neuer in her life lawfull wife to King Henry then could not any future Parlament though neuer so faine it would afterward make her legitimate or lawfully giue her the Crowne in preiudice of the next lawful heire after Queene Maries death which at that time was his Maiesties Mother Queene of France and Scotland But here now M. Barlow would seeme to make some answere to these last words of mine saying that being once true quoth he to wit the illegitimation no humaÌ„ power could make it vntrue to the preiudice of another then he answereth If the illegitimation had byn in her bloud it is true no law could make it good against the right Heire And do you grant thus much Syr That if the illegitimation had bin in her bloud no law could make it good Wherein then I pray you was this illegitimation Was it in her bones or in her flesh or skinne For in one of these foure it must needs be for asmuch as it descended by her birth from her Father Mother But saith M Barlow her bloud being sound seming allegations and plausible inferences might for a time dazell not alter her right but they being cleared and reuersed these second deliberations did not so much establish her right which was inherent in her blâ—ud as make it more apparent and sensibly incontrollable Here now is indeed that begging of the question which without cause it pleaseth M. Barlow sometimes for fashioÌ„s sake to obiect against me For here our questioÌ„ being whether Queene Elizabeth was sound in bloud or no he supposeth it for a principle that it being so then seeming allegatioâ—s or plausible inferences cannot hurt her right but the Parlament supposeth proueth the coÌ„trary that she was not souÌ„d in bloud but wholy vnsouÌ„d by her birth natiuity and the same do we suppose by the authority of this Parlament and by the testification both of her Father and Mother And how ridiculous then is it that M. Barlow should suppose the conâ—â—ary without proofe saying that supposing she was sound plausible inferences could not hurt her Secondly he calleth the resolute and seuere asseuerations of King Henry himselfe and of Archbishop Cranmer and of all the Lords both spirituall and temporall of the Parlament togeather with the iudiciall confession of Queene Anne her selfe beâ—ore her execution he termeth them I say but seeming allegations and plausible infereâ—ces which thing considering both the greatnes of the persons and grauityâ— of the matter both in the sight of God and man and the most weighty consequences which therof did depend is the grieuous iniury that in words could be offered to so great authority For it is to make them all wicked men and lyers they affirming the matter to be true and to hâ—ue beene reuealed by gods infinite goodnes so euidently as there is set down and M. Barlow saying to the contrary that they are nothing but seeming allegations plausible inferences Thirdly where he sayth that these plausible inferences being cleared and reuersed in the second deliberation to wit of the Parlament did not so much establish her right which was inherent in her bloud as make it more apparent he beggeth againe the question and supposeth that for his ground which we deny vntill he can proue it to wit that the former determination of Parlament was reuersed concerning her illegitimation For why should not this appeare in the Satute booke as well as the former And wheras he sayth that her right of successioÌ„ was but dazeled not altered by this Decree of Parlament for that it was inherent in her bloud we haue now shewed that it is a ridiculous tergiueâ—sation for that the Parlament condemning and disanulling vtterly the marryage of her mother with her father doth therby condemne her whole bloud for vnlawfull to succeed except M. Barlow will say she had other bloud which she tooke not from Father
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
antiquity against him But yet otherwise when he was out of that necessity of defending an errour himselfe sayth he did not only allow of custome but also did often vrge the custome and traditioÌ„ of the Church for very good arguments and proueth many Catholicke doctrines therby as the necessity of Chrisme or Vnction lib. 1. Epist. 12. the offering of wine togeather with water in the Sacrifice lib. 2. Epist. 3. saying that it is Dominica â—râ—diâ—io a tradition of our Lord and other like poynts of Christian religion which he proueth by the like force of Tradition Antiquity and Prescription wherof I haue treated more largely in my Booke against M. Morton shewing the same more aboundantly out of S. Augustine and that both S. Augustine and S. Cyprian are in this poynt and many others abused by him And so now to returne to our argument of Possession and Prescription and to end also with the same this first Part of our Answâ—re I say that Possession and Prâ—scription◠〈…〉 hath bene declared the cause of M. Barlow is vtterly oâ—erthrowne for that he wil be neuer able to prooue eyther IntrusioÌ„ in our Possession or Errour in our Antiquity which for a finall vpshot to the Reader in this behalfe I shall demonstrate by this ensuing reason If euer the Protestantâ— Church or Religion were receyued publikely in Christendome from Christs time downward vnto ours that is to say in any one or more ages and was that first visible Church that was founded by Christ into which M. Barlow sayth that we entred afterward by intrusion and fiâ—â—â—orce and so possessed Christendome in such sort as for many ages the said Protestant Church appeared not publikely vntill these our dayes I would demaund of M. Barlow Whether this his Church so put to flight from the eies of Christendome did perish or lay hidden only For if it perished then the true Church of Christ perished and the promises made by him were not performed That he woâ—ld be with the same vnto the end of the world That the gates of hell should not preuaile against it for that in this case the sayd hell should haue preuailed Moreouer I would demaund if she once perished how could she be raised to life againe In which case S. Augustine writing against the Donatists saith thus Si periâ—t Ecclesia vnde ergo Donatus apparuit Dic de qua terra germinauit De quo mari emersit De quo caelo cecidit If the true Church did perish from whence is Donatus come vnto vs Out of what grouÌ„d is he sprong Out of what sea hath he peept From what heauen is he fallen which S. Augustinâ— saith for that if the true Church were perished before Donatus was borne in what Church was he borne and how came he into the true Church that now he braggeth of and how did that Church rise from death to life againe But if M. Barlow will say that the Protestant Church which flourished in and after the Apostles times did not perish but fled only into the wildernes and lay hidden being spread visibly before ouer all the whole world for so he must say if she were the Catholike Church then would I demaund him whether this Church being thus in exile and couert but yet liuing did make profession of her fayth or not and if she made profession therof as she was bound for that as S. Paul sayth to the Romans Ore 〈…〉 aâ— salutem Confession of our faith is necessary to our saluation then by this confession she must needs make her selfe knowne as Martyrs and Confessours did in time of persecution and then she cannot be sayd to haue layen hidden and couert from the sight of the world no more then the Christian Church lay hidden in the time of persecution in Rome and other places when men and women lay in caues vnder ground but yet the confession of their fayth appeared vnto the whole world and no more then the Catholike religion may be sayd to ly hidden now at this day in England when all Christendome can be witnes of their Confession of the Catholike fayth which point I thinke M. Barlow doth not take vpon him to proue of the Protestants Confession in ancient ages Yf then he will say that the sayd Church lay altogeather hidden indeed without any publicke confession of their fayth then must he confesse that the state and condition of this Church which was the only true Church which Christ had vpoÌ„ earth of whose exceeding glory the Prophets did foretell so many wonderfull things was more miserable then any least Sect of heretickes that euer was yeâ— then the Church of the Iewes themselues in any of theyr Captiuities for that still they confessed their religion and euery Sect did the like in their times and had some meeting or Congregation exercises of their Religion registred by some Authors which the Protestant Church of this our age caÌ„not proue to haue had visibly in the world and dstinct from other people in any age before ours And this demonstration is sufficient to conuince the vanity of M. Barlow his assertion that Possessioâ— and Prescription for time are no good arguments in case of Religion The last point which he toucheth as he passeth it ouer very sleigtly so shall I as briefly answer the same I sayd in my Letter that among other considerations this was one very considerable that there was neuer any such Oath as this is exacted at the hands of Catholicke subiects either by any of their owne Kings or Princes at home in former Catâ—olick times â—or yet by any â—orraine King or Monarch now liuing vpon earth Whereunto I may also adde if I be not deceiued all Protestant Princes in other Countries of whome I neuer heard or read thaâ— they odered such Oathes to their subiects that were of different opinion in religion all which M. Barlow in effect confessing or not contradicting sayth If other Princes 〈◊〉 not the like we iudge them not perhaps it is in some of them an infused persuasion that it is not lawfull in others peraduenture it is a violent restraint yea gladly they would but cannot be suffered Where you see that all his answers goeth by iâ—s and ands perhaps and peraduentures and yet is the matter of moment and sequele if it be well pondered to take a course of extraordinary rigour different from all other Christian Princes besides It is not the Parasiticall flattery of a few Ministers at home respecting their owne trenchers will worke the State so much honour security as the generall mislikes and murmurations abroad may worke the contrary in time He sayth that his Maiesty wanted not a motiue to take this course for that the Pope was not so insolently busy with any nation as of late with his Maiesty and his Kingdome He addeth further that if it had not bene for him our gracious King might haue enioyed a peace more continuall and happy then
said that this definition of misery was miserable indeed nor euer as I suppose heard of before as ridiculous in Philosophy and fit to be applied to any thing that hath eyther store or want as a wise man in this sort may be defined to be him that hath store of wit and penury of folly and a foole to be him that hath store of folly penury of wit and so in all other things wherunto I add now that it wanteth the chiefe points of a good definition or description to wit genus differentia or at leastwise genus accidentia propria that may distinguish the thing defined from all other things neque coâ—uertitur cum definito as Logicke prescribeth â—or that a man may haue store of aâ—â—licâ—ions and penury of consolations as Iob had and yet not be miserable but happy contrariwise one may haue store of temporall consolations and penury of afflictions as had the rich glutton and yet not be happy And againe wheras a definition should speake clearly and simply without doubtfulnes or equiuocation this doth not but quite contrariwise speaketh equiuocately being apt to be vnderstood eyther of temporall or spirituall misery which is a great defect in the law of a definition or good description for that by this fault here it commeth to passe that wheras Pope Clement called Queene Elizabeth miseram FeminaÌ„ a miserable woman in respect of the misery of her soule as being cut of from the Catholike Church Syr Edward Cooke argueth that she had no temporall misery which supposing it were true yet doth it prooue nothing against spirituall misery wherof only Pope Clement spake and consequently was nothing to the purpose Yea â—urther if Syr Edward had distinguished as he should haue done betweeâ—e temporaâ—l and spirituall misery and had defined the same distinctly and seuerally yet had not this definition agreed punctually to eyther of them For if you talke of spirituall consolations or desolations of the mind then is it euident by all spiâ—ituall writers that aboundaÌ„ce of sensible consolations with want of desolatioÌ„ or affliction of mind which oftentimes euill men haue or at least wise such as are lesse perfect in vertue maketh not a man spiritually happy nor on the contrary part aboundance of inward and spirituall tribulations doth allwayes make the party miserable for then King Dauid should haue beene also spiritually miserable when so often he crieth out of the desolations oâ— mind afflictioÌ„s of spirit which he suffered as layd vpon him for his great triall merit and glory as when he sayd aquae intrauerunâ— vsque ad animam meam floudes of waâ—er haue entred euen into my very soule meaning thereby the waues and watâ—rs of spirituall tribulations And the like doth S. Paul himself when he vttered those words of compassion concerning his internall afflictions saying supra modum grauati sumus supra virtutem ita vt tederet nos etiam viuere wee were pressed aboue measure and aboue our power to beare it so as wee were weary of our life and it loathed vs to liue And all the Apostles generally Et nos ipsi primitiâ—â— spiritus habentes ipsi intra nos geminus c. wee that haue receiued the first fruites of God his spirit we doe mourne groane within our selues so as here Syr Edward did misse in his spirituall Theologie Nay nor yet doth this definition by copia and iâ—opia hold in temporall consolations themselues wherein he notwithstanding hath had more occasions of better skill by experience for that neyther in them is it true that a man may measure temporall felicity by temporall abouÌ„dance nor misery by their want for he that taketh no comfort by his abouÌ„dance or delighteth therein cannot be sayd to be happy temporally by the sayd aboundance and he that loueth mediocrity or voluntary pouerty and hath need of no more then he possesseth is temporally also rich by all which is sâ—ene that the Lord Cookes definition of misery by copia inopia was very defectuous Let vs see now how his Champion defendeth him First he entreth with a great flourish that he will defend the definition by Poetry Philosophy Diuinity cases of Conscience But as commonly it falleth out when M. Barlow would make any great oâ—tentation of his learning he then most betraveth his ignorance and rusheth vpon matters that he vnderstandeth not whereof he speaketh soe here both the poore man stumbleth at the very entrance and misseth as it were in the very termes themselues especially about Philosophy Diuinity and Cases of Conscience as presently shall appeare But fiâ—st wee must note what obligation he hath to proue and how far forth he performeth that obligation I sayd in my reprehension of the Lord Cookes definition by copia inopia that it was defectuous in Philosophy as fit to be applied to any thing that had store or want what is the defendant bound to proue no doubt but that it is a good definition according to the lawes of Philosophy both in forme and matter and if he proue this by any one of his foure wayes or by altogeather I shall confesse that he hath performed the office of a good aduocate but indeed he proueth it by neyther way but only sheweth that copia and inopia may be found in one subiect in respect of different things which no man euer denied for it were great folly to say that a man may not haue good apparell and an empty stomacke and another time to haue a full stomacke want of apparell and so in all other matters whereof M. Barlow giueth examples first out of Poetry as of Tantalus Narcissus others that had copiam inopiam and were miserable thereby which I deny not or is it the point that he should proue concerning a good definition quae conuertitur cum re definita and hath the other conditions before mentioned From Poetry then he passeth to Philosophy saying that if I had read Epictetus in his Euchiridion and those that doe comment vpon him I should find it a Philosophicall conclusion that those two contraries copia and inopia doe make the greatest misery when a man possesseth much yet desireth more Whereto I answere first that although it be a Philosophicall conclusion as well with Epictetus as other morall Philosophers that this is a misery yet doe not they make it the definition of misery for that there be many other miseries besides this And secondly though Epictetus doe call it a kind of misery to possesse much and desire more yet not the greatest misery as M. Barlow doth for it is a greater misery by his leaue to haue nothing at all to desire very much then to haue good store and to desire more As for example if M. Barlow himselfe should haue had an ardeÌ„t desire from his youth to be Archbishop of Canterbury euen while he was a scholler in Cambridge and had no preferment and
this matter there is more on the behalfe of Catholicks then of Puritans for obtayning this toleration notwithstanding their differences in poynts of Religion were or be greater for that the Puritans came out of the Protestants and therby the Protestant Church may pretend to haue Ius aliquod Ecclesiasticum some Ecclesiasticall right vpon them But the Catholicks of England came neuer out of the Protestants nor their Church out of the Protestant Church but were long before them in possession which is the markable poynt so much pondered by S. Iohn to discerne heresy heretickes thereby Prodierunt ex nobis they went out of vs. And consequently the Protestant Church can haue no spirituall iurisdiction vpon the sayd Catholickes and much lesse by right or reason can they barre them the vse of their Religion as they may do to Purytans that were members once of them though they differ in fewer poyntes of beliefe An ExaÌ„ple may be the Iewes in Rome who are tolerated in their religion which Protestants are not though they differ in more poyntes of beliefe but yet for that they were in possession of their Religion before Christians and went not out from them as Protestants did from Catholickes they are tolerated in that place and Protestants not And hereby is also answered M. Barlowes last reason against graunting of toleration which I pretermitted before to be answered in this place which is that if the cause were ours as God be thanked he sayth it is theirs we wil not graunt liberty to them for their religion But how doth he know that seeing soe many Catholike Princes both in France Low-Countryes and Germany doe permit the sayd toleration to diuers and different sectes And if he obiect that in Queene Maries daies it was not permited to Protestants in England nor yet by King Henry the eight much lesse by the foresayd 3. Henryes that went before him yet may the causes and reasons be different now For albeit for equity and iustice the matter do passe as before we haue sayd that no sect in England whatsoeuer as of Lâ—â—lords VVickcliffians Lutherans Zuinglians Caluiâ—ists or the like can haue any right in conscience to deny toleratioÌ„ of their religion vnto them out of which they themselues went and that the Catholike Church hath that right vpon them as going out of her yet may shee leaue to vse that right oftentimes and tolerate different sectaryes also when they are so multiplied as they cannot be restrayned without greater scandall tumult and perturbation according to the parable to our Sauiour concerning the cockle growne vp amongst the wheat which our sayd Sauiour willed rather to be let alone vntill the haruest day left by going about to weed out the one out of due time they might pluck vp the other So as these Catholicke Princes his Maiesties Ancestors that did deny toleration considering their kingdomes to be quietly setled in the Ancient religion of theyr fore fathers did iustly and lawfully resist the new attempts of innouators and iustly also may we affirme that if other forrayne Princes at this day of the same Catholick religion do permit vpon other reasons liberty or toleratioÌ„ of different religion much more may his Maiesty of England do the same to his Catholick subiects for the reasons that haue bene now alleadged And so much of this To the exaÌ„ples of the Lollardes VVickliffian Protestants that made such earnest suite for toleration and liberty of conscience in the dayes of three King Henries 4. 5. and 6. and tooke armes for obtayning the same he sayth that if any such conspiracies were we deâ—end them not subiection to Princes we preach insurrâ—ctions we defy c. And with this he thinketh he hath well satisfyed the matterâ— To the forreyne examples of higher Germany in the time of Charles the fifth and of the low-Countryes in these our dayes he answereth That these are noe fit presidentes for our State the gouerment of the Emperour being limitedâ— and conditionall and we speake of subiects vnder an absolute Monarchy To those of Boâ—hemia Polonia and Hungarie he sayth that it is to be considered VVhether the enâ—rance into those kingdomes be Successiue or Electiue by descent without condiâ—iâ—â—all restraintes and if they were absolute Monarchies what is that to his Maiesty who in cases of religion taketh not mens examples but Gods lawes for his dyrects He knoweth what Princes ought to doe not regarding what they please to doe c. But al this while me thinkes the chiefe point is not answered by M. Barlow which is that those good Protestants were of opinion that toleration or liberty of conscience might be graunted according to the law of God and ought also to be graunted And why is Iordaniâ— now turned backward saith the letterâ— Why is this Ministers voice contrary to the voice sensâ— of all other Protestants The sayd Letter goeth forward laying downe diâ—erâ— considerations which engendred hope in the mindeâ— of Catholicks for obtayning this suite of toleration and namely these three to wit First the first entraÌ„ce of our new King knowne to be of so noble and royall a mind before that time as he neuer was noted to be giueÌ„ to cruelty or persecution for religion Secondly the sonne of such a Mother as held her selfe much behoulding to English Catholiâ—kes And thirdly that himselfe had confessed that he had euer found the Catholicke party most trusty vnto him in his troubles and many conspiraciâ—â— made against him To the first wherof M. Barlow in effect answereth nothing at all but only citeth certayne places of Scripture for punishing of Idolatry To the second he sayth That if his Maiesties Moâ—her had not relied too much vpon the Priested sort in England her end had not bene so suddaine or vnkind Belike he was priuy vnto it that he can tell those particulars And his Epithete of vnkind in cutting off her Maiesties head was very iudiciously deuised by him For indeed there can nothing be deuised more vnkind then for two Queenes so neere of kinred to cut off one the others head and that vpon the suddaine as here is graunted which increaseth the vnkindnes of so barbarous a fact perswaded and vrged principally as al men know by the continuall incitations of those of M. Barlows coate to the despite both of Mother and Sonne and ruine of them both if it had layeâ— iâ— their handeâ— Neyther is this to cast salt into his Maiesties eyes as M. Barlow heere sayth but rather to open the saâ—e that he may seeâ— what kind of people these are that do sâ— much flatter him now and impugned both him and his at that time But let vs heare how Ironically he dealeth with vsâ— in framing a fond argument on our behalfe as to him it seemeth The Mother sayth he loyaltyâ— Ergo the Sonne must giue them liberty of conscâ—â—câ— And iâ— this Syâ— so bad an argument Do you take away the word 〈◊〉 which
conscience at all in that place but only assigneth the same as a thing necessarily requyred to the end and perfection of the Law For the wordes of the Apostle are these Finis prâ—cepti est charitas de corde puro conscientia bona fide non ficta The end of the coÌ„mandement or law is charity out of a pure hart a good conscience faith not fayned Which is no description of a good conscience as you see but of the end perfection of thâ— law which is Charity according to that which in another place the same Apostle sayth Pleâ—itudo legis Charitas the fullnes or fulfilling of the Law is charity But here he describeth more at large what manner of charity it must be to wit proceding out of a pure hart as also out of a good conscience which â—â—geâ—â—â—â—â— hope and out of vnfayned fayth So as here trâ—e charity 〈◊〉 described and not a good conscience which iâ— named â—â—â—ly as a condition needfully required to the fulfilling of the Law and not described as M. Barlow falsely affâ—â—â—â—â—â— For if a thing be described that hath many parts of 〈◊〉 requiâ—ed to the complement thereof it were very◠〈◊〉 to say that euery one of the said parts or parcels it described therby or that the said description may be ascribed 〈◊〉 euery one of them As if a man should describe a Knight or a Captaine that is to go to the wars what â—â—â—â—iâ—ure iâ— required to wit a horse sâ—ddle speare armour and the like it cannot be said that a horse is here described or a saddle or a speare but only the Knight himself who hath need of all these thinges So as in this M. Barlow is found 〈◊〉 haue peruerted the whole text and meaniâ—g of S. Paul There remaineth then his conclusion that for so much as Hereticks and Schismatickes also doe plead conscience for their standing out and that there is no one article in the Oath offered that can be proued to be contrary to a good conscience and true Christian religion therefore standeth the Apologers conclusion incoÌ„trollable still That the Pope hath prohibited English Catholikes to performe euen ciuill obedience to their Soueraigne But all this hath beene now answered by that which hath beene treated before for that Shiâ—matikes and Heretikes though they be â—ound both to informe reforme their consciences that be erroneous yet so long as that repugnaÌ„cy indureth they should sinne in doing contrary to the dictamen therof And as for the articles in the Oath that are contrary to Englisâ— Catholikes consciences and to theyr religion they are so many as do any way impeach or preiudice their religion which are the most part in the Oath as is knowne Neyther must M. Barlow run to this ordinary shift and say as he is wont that their consciences are not well cleansedâ— and that their religion is not true Christian Religion therefore they ought not to haue scruple in sweatingâ— for that now it hath been shewed that it is sufficient for binding them from swearing that their conscyences doe tell them the contrary which conscience to them doth appear good and their religion true in which respect the Pope that is of the same conscience and Religion hath defined it to be vnlawfull vnto them to sweare against this their coÌ„science and religion so long as it standeth as it doth And therefore if M. Barlow will haue them sweare without sinne in this case he must first make them Protestants and so giue them a new conscience and new religion for in that they haue they cannot doe it albeit for temporall obedience they offer all that may be exacted at their hands by any law of Christian subiection to their temporall soueraigne And this much may be sufficient for discussing of this point Whether subiects may or must obey their Princes when they command things against their consciences which in my Letter I denyed And whereas the Apologer did alleadg dyuers authorities out of Scriptures Fathers and Councels to proue the obedience of Subiects to theyr Princes not only Christian but also Infidels as to king Nabuchodonosor of Babylon to king Pharao of Egypt King Cyrus of Persia my answer then was this He alledgeth for examples out of the Scriptures that the children of Israel obeyed the King of Babylon as also they exhibited temporall Obedience vnto King Pharao of Egypt as in like manner to Cyrus King of Persia All which examples we grant to be true and could add many more both of the Iewes and Christians that lyued peaceably vnder Infidell Princes in those dayes But let one example as I said be brought forth wherin they obeyed them in points contrarie to their Conscience or Religion and it shall be sufficient We read in the Prophesie of Danielâ— that those three famous Iewes Sidrach Misach and Abdenago were most trustie vnto King Nabuchodonosor in temporall affayres and so much esteemed by him as he made them his vniuersall Gouernors ouer all the workes of the Religion of Babylon saith the Scripture and yet when it came to the poynt that he would haue them for his honour and pleasure and vpon his commandement adore the golden Statua which he had set vp they forsooke him flatly and said to him in the presence of all his Nobility assembled togeather that they were not so much as to answere him in that Commandement not would they do as he had appoynted them The like in effect did the ancienter Iewes do with King Pharao of Egypt for that albeit in temporall affayres they obeyed him euen in that tyme when he oppressed and persecuted them most yet in that he would haue had them stay and sacrifice in Egypt and not follow Moyses their Spiritual Superiour into the desert notwithstaÌ„ding that the King had some cause perhaps to suspect their temporall Allegiance also by that departure they being a potent multitude of people yet would they not obey him nor do as he would haue them when they persuaded themselues that God would haue the contrary I let passe how Daniel and his fellowes would not eate the meates of the King of Babylon nor Tobie those of the Assyrians much lesse would he leaue of to bury the dead though it were forbidden by Proclamation vnder payne of death The Machabees in like manner obeyed King Antiochus so long as he commanded nothing against their Law and Conscience but when he went about to force them to sacrifice and to eate swynes-flesh and other things against their Law and Conscience they refused openly to performe that Obedience So as these places of Scriptures alledged by the Apologer do proue nothing for him at all but are rather flat against him and for vs as yow haue seene Thus I wrote then now let vs see how M. Barlow ouerthroweth it First as concerning the 3. Pagan Kings Pharao Cyrus and Nabuchodonosor wherof I sayd the Iewes obedience vnto them was in temporall matters only
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
that he in the day of iudgment to wit our Saâ—iour will giue reward for our good works almes is now also ready to shew himselâ—e a most benigne heater to him that shall come vnto him by prayer works and so did Cornelius the Centurion merit to be heard as doing many almes vpon the people sayth the Scripture And when about nyne of the clocke the sayd Centurion prayed an Angell stood by him and gaue testimony of his good works saying Cornelius thy prayers and almes haue ascended vp before God citò orationes ad Deum ascendunt quas ad Deum merita nostâ—i operis imponunt Our prayers do quickly asceÌ„d vnto God which the merits of our good works do lay before him c. And preseÌ„tly with this Scripture he ioyneth the other out of Toby Sic Raphel Angelus c. So the Angel Raphael did testify vnto Toby alwayes praying alwayes working wheÌ„ thou didst pray togeather with Sara I did offer the memory of thy prayer in the sight of God when thou didst bury the dead and leaue thy dinner for doing the same I was sent by God to tempt thee and afterward to cure thee I am Raphael one of the seaâ—en iust Angels who do assist conuerse in the sight of God c. Where we see that S. Cyprian maketh another manner of accompt of the holynes and meryt of this worke and of the truth of this Angell then M. Barlow doth And the very self same speach S. Cyprian vseth in his booke de Mâ—â—talitate alleadging this place of Toby and testimony of the Angell Raphael in the commendation of Tobies fact in burying the dead against the Kinges commandement So as white and black hoat and cold or the two poles are not more opposite one to the other then the spirit of S. Cyprian and that of M. Barlow in this point And truly it seemeth that a man may gather by good consequence that for so much as he condemneth that fact of Toby in burying the dead bodies of the Iewes in persecution he would also if he had bene there not only not haue buried these dead bodies against the Kings Edict but also neyther haue receaued the persecuted into his house agaynst the commaundement of the sayd King Nay he would haue rather deliuered them vp to the persecutors hands and the like if he had liued amongst Christians vnder Nero Domitius and Dioclesian And this is M. Barlows piety in respect of that of holy Toby and S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Augustine and other such sincere pious men who both approued and commended this fact Now let vs passe on to the rest After these examples of Scriptures there were alleadged by the Apologer sundry authorityes of ancient Fathers which shew the obligation that subiects haue to obey their temporall Princes which in my Letter I declared no way to preiudice our cause who both acknowledge and offer all dutifull obedience in temporall affaires which is so much as the sayd ancient Fathers doe teach and for that the sayd authorityes are cleare for vs in that behalfe I shall â—et downe here what I answered to the same As these places of Scripture said I alleaged against vs do make for vs so much more do the authorities produced out of the ancient Fathers for that they go about to proue the very same point that we here hold that in teÌ„porall cyuill affayres we must obey dutifully our temporall Princes though Infidels or Pagans but not in matters concerning God our Religion or Conscience And his very first example out of S. Augustine is such as I meruaile much that he would cyte the same but that somwhat for shew must be alleadged For it maketh so clearly directly against him as if it had beene written purposely to confute him in this our case But let vs heare what it is Agreable to the Scriptures saith he did the Fathers teach Augustine speaking of Iâ—dian saith thus Iulian was an vnbelieuing Emperour was he not an Apostata an oppressor and an Idolatour ChristiaÌ„ souldiars serued that vnbelieuing Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they would acknowledge no Lord but him that is in heauen when he would haue them worship Idolls sacrifice they preferred God before him but when he said Go forth to fight inuade such a nation they presently obeyed they distinguished their eternall Lord from their temporall and yet were they subiect euen vnto their temporall Lord for his sake that was their eternall Lord and Maister Thus he And can any thing be spoken more cleerly for vs and for our cause then this For euen this do we offer to our King Soueraigne we will serue him we wil obey him we will go to warre with him we will fight for him and we will do all other offices belonging to temporall duty but when the cause of Christ commeth in hand who is Lord of our Consciences or any matter concerning the same or our Religion there we do as S. Augustine heere appoynteth vs preferre our eternall King before our Temporall And like to these are all the other places of Fathers cyted by him who distinguish expresly betweene the Temporall honour and Allegiance due to the Emperour and the other of our Religion Conscience belonging only to God And to that playne sense are Tertullians words cyted by the Apologer VVe honour the Emperour in such sort as is lawfull for vs and â—xpedient for him as a man second after God and as hauing receyued from God whatsoeuer he is and only lâ—sse thâ—n God And will not the Catholicks of England vse this speacâ— also vnto their King Or will the Apologer himselfe deny that Tertullian heere meant nothing els but in temporall affayres for somuch as the Emperors at that tyme were Heathens Gentils and consequently were noâ— to be obeyed in any point against Christian faith or Religion The like playne sense haue the words of Iustinâ—â— Martyr to the Emperour himselfe cited here in the third place to wit VVe only adore God and in all things we cheerfully performe seruice to you prosessing you to be Emperours and Princes of men And do not all English Catholickes say the same at this day in all other things that concerne not God his Obedience by rule of Catholicke Religion they offer cheerfully to serue his Maiesty acknowledging him to be their liege Lord and King inferiour only to God in his Temporall Gouernment And how then are these and such other places brought in for witnesse as though they had somewhat to say against vs The other two sentences in like manner cited out of Optatus and S. Ambrose the first saying That ouer the Emperour there is none but only God that made the Emperour And the other That teares were his weapons against the armes and souldiars of the Emperour That he neither ought nor could resist neyther of theÌ„ do make
appertaineth to the ancient Oath and not to this wherin nothing is demanded but Ciuil Obedience only which the Cardinal denyeth and in the very first leafe of his answere vnder the name of Torâ—â—â— ioyneth issue principally vpon that point saying Primùm â—stendâ—mus Iuramentum hoc Catholicis propositum non solum ciuilem obedientiam sed etiam Catholicae fidei abnegationem requirere We shal first proue that this later oath proposed vnto Catholicks doth not only require ciuil Obedience but abnegatioÌ„ also of Catholick faith And he proueth it by fiue or six arguments First by the words of the English Statute the title wherof is for the detecting and repressing of Papists which word of Papists importing such as stick to the Pope or defend his Supremacy maketh it euident that the Statute was not intended only against them that deny ciuill Obedience but rather the Kings Supremacy in spiritual affaires Secondly by the words of the Oath themselues that the Pope cannot by himselfe or any other or by any authority of the Church depose c. Which is some denyal of the Pope his authority and consequently not meerely only of temporal Obedience and so out of foure or fiue points more by him obserued and there set downe which as I had not seene when I wrote my Epistle before the publicatioÌ„ of the said Cardinals booke so I vsed not those arguments nor any of them but contented my selfe with one only taken out of the Cardinals words in the beginning of his Letter to M. Blackwel as sufficiently prouing the same that in it selâ—e was most cleare I said as followeth This exception against the Cardinal for mistaking the state of the cause seemeth to be most clerely refuted by the very first lynes almost of the letter it selfe For that telling M. Blackwel how sory he was vpon the report that he had taken illicitum Iuramentum an vnlawfull Oath he expoundeth presently what Oath he meaneth saying Not therâ—ore deare Brother is that Oath lawfull for that it is offeâ—â—â— sâ—â—ewhat tempered and modified c. Which is euidently meant of the new Oath of Allegiance not only tempered with diuers lawfull clauses of Ciuill Obedience as hath bene shewed but interlaced also with other members that â—each to Religion wheras the old Oath of Supremacy hath no such mixture but is plainly and simply set downe for absolute excluding the Popes Supremacy in causâ—s Ecclesiasticall for making the King supreme Head of the Church in the same causes all which is most euident by the Statutes made about the same from the 25. yeare of King Henry the 8. vnto the end of the raigne of King Edward the sixt To this declaration of myne M. Barlow is in effect as mute as a Macedonian frogge if to say nothing at al to the purpose be to be mute though words and wynd be not wanting But first to the Cardinalls six argumentes he sâ—yth neuer a word albeit he had both seene and read them as may be be presumed To my reason of the difference between the Oath of Supremacy and this of Allegiance for that this is modified and tempered with different clauses of thinges partly touching ciuil ObedieÌ„ce and partly Religion wheras the other is simply of Religion against the Popes Supremacy to this I say he answereth with this interrogation If this Oath be so modified iâ— comparison of the other why is it accounted by â—he Censurer the greatest affliction and pressure that euer befel the Catholickes Do you see what a question he maketh and how farre from the purpose My intention was and is to proue that for so much as Cardinall Bellarmine did particulerly impugne this mixt and tempered Oath therfore he did not mistake the question by impugning only the other Oath of Supremacy as was obiected there being between them this difference amongst others that the one to wit of AllegiaÌ„ce is compounded of different clauses as hath bene said partly touching ciuill Obedience and partly Religion wheras this other of Supremacy is simply of Religion This was my demonstration And to what purpose then for answere of this was brought in that other demâ—und of M. Barlow asking vs very seriously why this second Oath should be afflictiue vnto vs if it be modifyed and tempered Is there any sense in this We say for so much as it is compounded and tempered as the other is not therfore it was meant by the Cardinal and not the other M. Barlow saith if it be so tempered why doth it afflict yow We say first that this is nothing to the purpose noe more then VVhich is the way to London A poke â—ull of plummes Secondly to M. Barlowes impertinent demand we say that albeit we grant that this second Oath is modifyed and tempered yet we say not that it is moderate and temperate for a law that in substance is mild may be by some clauses or circumstances so modified that is to say framed in such manner as it may be seuere and rigorous and a thing may be tempered aswell with exasperating ingredientes as mollifying and as well with afflictiue as lenitiâ—e compounds and so is this Oath more sharpe perhaps then the other and so doth M. Barlow him selfe confesse within a few lynes after saying that this last Oath of Allegiance is more pressâ—ng pitthy and peremptorie and in all circumstâ—nces a more exact and searching touch-stone then the â—ormer of the Supremacy And yet as though we did not see nor feele this he will needs haue vs to acknowledge in the same place that this Oath is allaied tempered corrected and moderated for all these are his wordes by the variety of clauses therein contayned theron foundeth his subsequent discourse of our ingratitude in not accepting the same wheras both he and we do hold the contrary that it is more stinging as now you haue heard and that euen by his owne confession what then shall we say of this manner of M. Baâ—lowes disputing Is he fit to be a Kings ChaÌ„pion in writing But heere now by the way I must tell the Reader that in my Letter I interposed a few lines in this place for noting the different style vsed by King Henry King Edward in their Statutes concerning the Oâ—â—h of Supremacy and this othâ—r now related in the Aâ—â—logy in thesâ— wordes I. â— do vtterly tâ—stify and declare 〈…〉 that the Kingâ— Hâ—ghnes is the only Suprâ—me Gouerâ—â—◠〈◊〉 in all causes Ecclâ—siaâ—tâ—call as tempâ—rall wheras in tâ—e Sâ—tute of twenty sixt of king Henry the Eight where the Tytle of Supremacy is â—nactâ—d the wordes are these 〈…〉 â—â—â—cted by this present Parliament that the King his Heires 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cessors â—â—albe taken â—â—â—epted and repâ—tâ—d the â—nly Supâ—eme 〈…〉 earth of the Church of England and shâ—ll 〈◊〉 aâ—d â—niâ—y 〈◊〉 and vnited vnto the Imperiall Crowâ—e of this Realme asâ—â—â— the tytle and style therof as all honours dignitieâ— authorities 〈◊〉 profites and commâ—ditiâ—s 〈◊〉 the said dignityes
here pretermitt the residue of the trifles which M. Barlow for lengthening his booke bringeth in spicing the same euery where with most virulent raylings as the examples of Squire and Parry which so often haue beene answered by vs the former as a meere fiction for so much as concerned his sending from Spaine into England by F. VValpole the Iesuite for poisoning the Queenes chaire and the Earle of Essex his saddle the other a deuise of his owne to wit of Parry himself to gaine the Queenes goodwill and therby some preferment by telling her that he was sent to kill her by some Catholikes out of the Land whereas indeed he was neuer trusted by them in farre lesse matters then in such an enterprize But he returneth yet once agâ—ine excessiuely to praise the said Queene That Lady Queene Elizabeth saith he the diamond amongst Princes the glory of royall Maiestie the ioy of the Christian world for her sex whilst she liued And what will the discreet reader hould M. Barlow for his sex Truly I thinke for one of the most grosse and palpable flatterers that mankind doth containe and as for her being the ioy of the Christian world I meruaile what Christian world he can pretend to meane For if he will confine the Christian world within the Protestant world it is God wote but a very small part therof and yet in this Protestant world neyther was she held to be so rare a diamond or glory of royall Maiestie nor was she such a ioy vnto them as there is sayd which is euident by their writings extant especially of the Lutherans that misliked her religion maÌ„ner of proceeding and especially her taking vpon her to be head of the Church whereat they do laugh euen vntill this day And the same or greater dislike was euen in the purer sort of Caluinists both at Geneua the Mother-Church of that profession as also throughout all France Holland Zeland Scotland and England so as this little Protestant world held her not for such a ioy nor yet Iewell of theirs as here by M. Barlow she is described But as for the Catholike Christian world for what diamond they held her and what Ioy they tooke of her and in her appeareth well by their bookes which are extant and will indure till the worlds end so as the chiefe ground of all these excessiue and exorbitant prayses and flatteries is no other as far as I can see but the volubility of this Ministers tongue for the present what it may be hereafter vpon the blast of other windes I know not but it is like that the Weather cock will turne Some examples haue we seene before of his constancy about the Earle of Essex and may do also hereafter concerning Queene Elizabeth if his Maiestie that now reigneth shall neuer so little turne the fauour of his eyes from her actions which of all other Princes by the iudgement of most men he hath most cause to do as somwhat I touched in my â—ormer letter and now shal be inforced to repeat somwhat againe for defending my selfe against M. Barlows calumniations but it shal be only the conclusion of that my discourse To conclude then said I about Queen Elizabeth albeit Pius Quintus some other Popes did excoÌ„municate her and cut her of from the body of the Catholike Church by Ecclesiasticall Censures in regard of her persecuting Catholicke Religion yet did I neuer know it hitherto proued that any Pope procured or consented to any priuate violence against her person albeit if the forealleadged Statute of the 28. yeare of King Henry the 8. be true wherin it is determined both by the King himself his Counsel and whole Parliament and by the Archbishop Cranmer with his Doctors in his Iudiciall Seat of the Arches that Lady Elizabeth was not legitimate nor that her mother was euer King Henryes true wife which once being true could neuer afterward by any humane power be made vntrue or amended to the preiudice of a third rightly by due succession interessed therin if as the whole Parlament testifyed it should be against all honour equity reason and good conscience that the said La. Elizabeth should at any tyme possesse the said Crowne then the said Popes respecting in their said sentence as it is certayne they did the actuall right of the Queene oâ— France and Scotland and of her noble issue his Maiestie that now is they might proceed as they did against the other for her remouall whom they held for an vsurper in fauour of the true inheritours oppressed by her not only by spirituall but temporall armes also as agâ—inst a publicke malefactor and intruder contrary to right and conscience And I cannot see how this fawning Apologer can eyther without open vntruth or manifest iniury to his Maiesty auerre the contrary Which being true doth greatly iustify the endeauours and desires of all good Câ—tholicke people both at home and abroad against her their principall meaning being euer knowne to haue bene the deliuerance preferment of the true Heire most wrongfully kept out vniustly persecuted for right â—ousnes sake To this discourse of mine M. Barlow with many bitter wordes taketh vpon him to reply this that followeth First that there are many more euidences to proue that the Pope is Antichrist then that Queene Elizabeth was illegitimate this you see what force it hath how fit it is vnto this purpose and therfore he taketh haÌ„dfast of another hould thus If King Henry her Father B. Cranmer with his Court of Arches and body of the Parlament did sentence her for such yet the same Father Arches and Parlament vpon better ground within few yeares renounced the same sentence and repealed that act This now is somewhat if M. Barlow had cited the Act or Parlament or Decree of Bishop Cranmer or his Arches or some other particularity how or where it was repealed as I did cite for the contrary of her condemnation Rastals Abridgments I do find indeed in the booke of Statutes that seauen yeares afterwards to wit anno 35. of Henry the eight cap. pâ—â—â—o when King Henry had determined in person to go ouer and make warre in France as in the said Statute is affirmed and after the death of so many other wyues had married the Lady Katherine Parre widdow hauing small hope of more issue he made a certaine declaration of the succession if in case himselfe and the Prince Edward and Lady Mary should dye without lawfull issue to wit that for lacke of such issue the said Lady Elizabeth should succeed in her turne but there is no word of her legitimation nor of the repeale of the foresaid Statute declaratory of the inualidity of her Fathers and Mothers marriage And albeit I find diuers other clauses of that Statute 28. Henry 8. cap. 7. repealed by 1. Edward 6. cap. 12. and primo secundo Philip. Mariae cap. 1. 8. yet do I not find any
depriued by the Pope of the kingdome of Nauarre and himselfe I meane this King of France forced to begge so submissiuely the relaxation of his excommunication as he was content to suffer his Embassadour to be whipped at Rome for pennance All these examples sayd I in my Letter were heaped togeather to make a muster of witnâ—sses for profe of the dangers that Princes persons are or may be in by acknowledging the Popes supreme Authority adding this for answere But first quoth I in perusing of these I find such a heape indeed oâ— exaggerations additions wrestings and other vnsincere deâ—lings as would require a particuler Booke to refute them at large And the very last here mentioned of the present King of France mâ—y shew what credit is to be giuen to all the rest to wit Romeâ— the latin Interpreter turneth it Vt Legatum suum Romae virgis caesum passus sit as though he had byn scourged with rodds vpon the bare flesh or whipped vp and downe Rome wheras so many hundreds being yet aliue that saw the Cerimony which was no more but the laying on or touching of the sayd Embassadours shoulder with a long white wand vpon his apparell in token of submitting himselfe to Ecclesiaâ—tical discipline it maketh them both to wonder and laugh at such monstrous assertions comming out in print and with the same estimatioÌ„ of punctual fidelity do they measure other things here auouched As â—or example that our King Henry the second was whipped vp and downe the Chapter-house and glad that he could escape so too â—or which he citeth Houeden and this he insinuateth to be by order of the Pope in respect wherof he saith the King had iust cause to be afraid But the Author doth plainely shew the contrary first setting downe the Charter of the Kings absolution where no such pennance is appointed and secondly after that againe in relating the voluntary pennance which the King did at the Sepulcher of S. Thomas for being some occasion of his death doth refute therby this narration as fraudulent and vnsincere that the King was whipped like a school boy by order of tâ—e Pope as though it had not come from his owne free choice and deuotion Thus sayd I in my Letter To these two last examples of whipping both in the King of France his â—mbassadour our King Henry the second of England M. Barlows reply is only in certaine scoffs for intertaining of tâ—â—e A wand saith he was laid soâ—tly on the Embassadour of France his shoulders c. Is the rod of Ecclesiasticall discipline in Rome turnâ—d now inâ—o a white wand soâ—tly laid on Againe after Herby a man may coniecture what the selâ—e-whipping of Iesuits and Romanâ—sts is VVill they not sâ—y when they haue the â—â—ip in their hands as S. Peter said to his Maister Parce tibi be good to your selâ—e Syr For no man yet euer hated his owne flesh but nourished it which is a better place of Scripture against selfe-whipping then tâ—e Popâ— hath any for turning the rod of correction into a wand of Cerimony So he And whether it be a better place of Scripture or no I wilâ— not decide but sure I am that the practice is more â—asy and sweet to nourish a mans owne flesh then to disciplin the same and more allowed I doubt not by M. Barlow such as follow his spirituall directions But yet about this better place of Scripture auouched by M. Barlow against whipping it shall not be amisse to consider somewhat how rightly it is aleadged and therby see what becoÌ„meth of Scriptures when it is once brought into these mens possessions The place is cited togeather as you see all in a different letter as if S. Peter had spoken the whole yet in the margent he quoteth Matth. 16. and Ephes. 5. wherby those that are learned vnderstand that the former words only of Parce tibi spare your selfe Syr are of S. Peter and the later of nourishing our flesh against disciplining is of S Paul And not to stand vpon the former clause albeit that it differ from the vulgar translation surely the place of S. Paul beareth not M. Barlows sense and application against disciplining of our flesh which is so farre of from the Apostles true drift and meaning as nothing can be more His words are these Husbands ought to loue their wiues as their owne bodies and he that loueth his wife loueth himselfe for no man euer hated his owne flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth the same euen as Christ the Church And is this so good a place of Scripture now as M. Barlow saith against selfe-whipping for so much as here the Apostle speaketh of husbands nourishing and cherishing their wiues as Christ doth his Church Which though he loued as his owne flesh yet doth he often whip and chasten as all men do both see and feele that liue in her This then is impertinent and nothing to S. Pauls meaning But what were it not a better place to the contrary for whipping and chastening a mans owne flesh voluntarily when the same apostle saith Casâ—igo corpus meum in â—â—râ—itutem â—eâ—igo It do chasten my owne body and doe bring it into seruitude the Greeke word also being more forcible to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to make blacke or â—lew as also where he talketh of Vigiliae ieiunia multa of manie Vigills and fastings practized by him and other Apostles Doth not this proue that a selfe-chastizing of a mans bodie is pleasing to God What will M. Barlow say to that other precept of â—erramâ— do you mortifie your members vpon earth Doth not voluntary mortification of the members of our body include voluntary chaâ—tisment of the flesh and consequently allso whipping sometimes if need require What will he say of that crucifying our members wherof the same Apostle speaketh Doth not crucifying imply as much as self whipping But it semeth that these things are strange paradoxes to M. Barl. that was neuer acquainted with the same but being accustomed rather with the other paâ—t of the sentence of nourishing cherishing his flesh by good cheere soft apparell and other delicacies of life so far â—orth as he hath bene able to procure it laughing at them that taâ—ke oâ— whipping quia aniâ—alis homo non percipiâ—â—a qu◠〈◊〉 spâ—â—itus Dâ—â— because the fleshly man doth not vnderstand those thingâ— that appertaine to the spirit of God And this shal be a sufficient answer to M. Barlowes trifâ—ing about whipping both in the King of France his Embassadour at Rome and King Henry the second at Canterburie in England But yet one thing is to be noted for conclusion about whipping King Henry the second of whom it was sayd before that he was whipped vp and downe the Chapter-â—ouse like a schoole boy and glad to escape so too now being prâ—ssed by my answer thereunto out of Houeden and other