A discussion of the ansvvere of M. VVilliam Barlovv, D. of Diuinity, to the booke intituled: The iudgment of a Catholike Englishman liuing in banishment for his religion &c. Concerning the apology of the new Oath of allegiance. VVritten by the R. Father, F. Robert Persons of the Society of Iesus. VVhervnto since the said Fathers death, is annexed a generall preface, laying open the insufficiency, rayling, lying, and other misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing.

ABOVT TOLERATION OR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE demaunded by humble petition at his Ma∣iesties handes by Catholikes, whether it were height of pryde or not: AS Also concerning the contention betweene Prote∣stants and Puritans. CHAP. IIII.

AS by that which hath bene set downe in the former Chapter, we haue seene and beheld, the good talent that M. Barlow, and his fellowes haue in fl••∣tering the memory of Queene Elizabeth now dead, and his Maiesty liuing: so now there ensueth another large Trea∣tise of his, that sheweth his iniquity and virulent humor

of most bitter calumniation against all sortes of Catho∣licks, for making humble supplication to his Maiesty, af∣ter his entrance to the Crowne for some liberty of con∣science, or toleration at least in matters concerning reli∣gion, which petition though proposed, as hath bene sayd, with neuer so much humility and prostrate subiecti∣on of the petitioners, and many most forcible and appa∣rent reasons alleaged for the same: yet will M. Barlow needs defend it for a supreme height of Pryde in them, to haue hoped for such a matter, or made supplication for the same.

* 1.1The clemency of his Maiesty (saith he) wrought in them that height of pride, that in confidence therof they directly did expect, and a∣ssuredly promise vnto themselues liberty of conscience, & equality in all things with vs, his Maiesties most best and faythfull subiects. And doe not you see how great and grieuous a charge this is, especially if you cut of the second part, as you must do, to wit,* 1.2 equality in all things with Protestants his Maiesties best subiects? For this was neuer demaunded in the petition of Catho∣licks: & much lesse either directly or indirectly expected, and least of all assuredly promised to themselues. For then should they haue demaunded also to share equally with Bi∣shops, and Ministers in their benefices, which we may as∣sure our selus they neuer so much as dreamed of, or of other preferments in the common wealth, with that equality which heer they are made to haue assured themselues of.

Their petition then was only for liberty of conscience as hath bene sayd, or if not that, yet at least wise some mo∣derate toleration of the vse of that religion, which they had receyued from their Ancestours, from the first begin∣ning of Christian religion planted in our English Nation, and continued in possession for more then nyne hundred yeares togeather, vntill the time of King Henry the eight, and his children, who made the first innouation, and by Regall power interrupted the sayd possession, wherunto the sayd possessors, and ancient tenants, though not pre∣suming to demand restitutionem i•• integrum, full restitution of that which by violence was taken from them; yet that

they might remayne with some kind of quiet and rest, for the vse of their said consciences in priuate,* 1.3 which they promised to vse with all humility and moderation, with∣out scandall, or publicke offence, whereof they offered ve∣ry good assurance, both for this, and for all other dutifull behauour in their ciuil obedience, as became true subiects: yea adding further also, that they would inforce thēselues to continue the payment of that mulct, or penalty of Sta∣tute layd vpon them for their Recusancy, at such a resona∣ble agreed sūme of money yearly to be paid, as his Maiesty should thinke conuenient: So as by this meanes, they might haue some externall peace, and quietnes from the continuall molestations, which now they suffered in re∣gard of their sayd consciences.

This was their supplication, & now why this should be called pride, yea the height of pride, & highest degree of pride, & further, the extreme height and celfitude of pride, & lastly, the sum∣mity and sublimity of pride, as M. Barlow calleth it, I vnderstand not. For if pride be defined to be an inordinate desire of excellency aboue others, I doe not see that here in this pe∣tition, either Catholikes doe prefer themselues disorderly before others, but are content with a far inferiour degree then Protestants: or that their desire in demaunding, is disordinate; whether we consider the same as it procee∣ded eyther from themselues to desire a thing so necessary to the health of their soules, or as it is directed to his Ma∣iesty, their Prince, and Soueraigne, who is the person that may relieue them: and consequently, the laying forth of such theyr desires, by ordinate meanes of humble sup∣plication, to theyr Lord, and Prince, cannot be called in∣ordinat••s appetitus excellentiae, ••a disordinate appetite of excel∣lencie aboue others, and consequently no pride, & much lesse celfitude of pride, as M. Barlow out of his celfitude of amplification, or rather height of hatred doth define it.

But yet let vs see briefly what reasons he frameth for this his consequence. For first, sayth he, it is impious a∣gainst God to graunt any such liberty of conscience, for that God sym∣bolically forbids such mixture in the linsy-wolsy garment, Deut. 22.

& 11. Ergo, it is height of pryde so sue for it. But whose∣eth not heere that neither the antecedent nor consequent haue any force? God did forbid in Deuteronomy 〈…〉〈…〉 garments, Ergo, it is sublimity of pride for Catholicks in England, to sue to his Maiesty for some toleration of con∣science. Will their brethren the Protestants of France al∣low of this argument? Let vs see the second. Secondly (sayth he) it being a matter dishonourable to the King,* 1.4 is extremity of pryde to demaund it, for that honest men (euen of their equalls) will expect nothing, but that which shall stand with the credit, and reputation of the granter: but this without stayne of the Kings honour cannot be gr••••••∣ted, Ergo, it is height of pryde in the Catholicks to sue for it: which second or minor proposition, for that he imagined we would deny, that it would be a staine to his Maiesties 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to grant it, he goeth about to confirme the same, by diuers weake, and fond reasons, not vnfit for his inuention, as, that his Maiestie should be contrary to himselfe, and shew too much weaknes and slipperines, hauing apprehended the religion, which he now professeth, from the cradle of his infancy, resolued in his conscience, mantayned it by disputation, enacted it by lawes, established it by Oath, & the like: which are reasons quite from the matter. For the graunting of toleration vnto Catholickes, requireth not change of Religion in his Maiesty, no more then it doth in the moderne King of France, in granting the sayd toleration to his Protestants, or then it did in the Emperor Charles the fifth, when he permitted the same in Germany: so as M. Barlow here rather roueth then reasoneth.

And further he is to be put in mind, that if it be a good argument, which here he vseth, that his Maiesty may not change his religion, for that he hath professed it from the cradle of his infancy &c. which yet hath not the antiquity of fifty years by a good deale, what may we say of the continuance of the Catholike religion in our countrey? How many fifty yeares are passed since that cradle was rockt? And why may not we make the same argument for any other sor•• of men whatsoeuer, that haue liued in any other Religion for so many yeares, as his Maiesty hath done in this? so lit∣tle

weight, or substaunce is in this Ministers words, who, so he may seeme to say somewhat, careth not greatly what it be, or how litle to the purpose.

I leaue his other reasons as triuiall, and not worth the answering, as that Queene Elizabeth would not graunt this toleration of conscience, that our doctrinall positions are dangerous, that if his Maiesty should graunt toleration, he should loose the loue of all his Subiects, & the like: wher∣of some are false in the antecedent, as the second and third, for that our doctrinall positions truly vnderstood, are not daungerous to any common wealth but salutiferous: nor should his Maiesty leese the loue of his people, by vsing such ••lemency to so principall a part of his people, not a little pittied by the rest, of most wisdome, and best natures. As for the first, though it be true in the antecedent, that shee graunted no such toleration, yet is it most fa••se in the con∣sequent, that therfore it is height of pride, to demaund it of his Maiesty: no reason requiring that her actions should be a necessary rule to his Maiesty for his, they being no better then they were.

But now we must see briefly what M. Barlow answe∣reth to all my reasons before alleadged for defending Ca∣tholickes from the imputation of height of pride, in making this demaund, and humble petition to his maiesty, which I shall set downe, in the very same words, which before I vsed.

And surely, I cannot but wonder,* 1.5 that this Minister was not ashamed to call this the height of pride, which is generally found in all Protestants neuer so humble: yea the more humble, and vnderlings they are, the more earnest are they both in bookes, speaches, and preachings, to proue, that liberty of Conscience is most conforme to Gods law, and that wresting, or forcing of Consciences, is the highest Tyranny that can be exercised vpon man. And this we may see first, in all M. Fox his History, espe∣cially during the time of the three King Henries. 4. 5. and 6. and afterward, when those that were called L••llards, and Wickelissians, who as M. Fox saith, were indeed good

Protestants, being pressed some what about their Religion did continually beate vpon this argument of libertie of Conscience, and when they obteyned it not, they set v•• publicke schedles vpon the Church dores of London, an•• made ••hose famous conspiracyes of killing K. Henry the 5 d and all his family,* 1.6 which are recounted by VVatsingham. Stow, Fox, and other English Historiographers.

In this our age also, the first opposition of Protestant Princes in Germanie, against their Emperour Charles the 5. both at Smalcald, Austburgh, and other meetings; as after∣wards also the fierce and perilous warrs by the Duke of Saxony, Marques of Brandeburge, and other Protestant Princes, and their people, against the same Emperour, begunne in the very same yeare that our K. Henry dyed: * 1.7were they not all for liberty of Conscience? so pretended, so printed so published, so diuulged to the world? The first Suppli∣cations, Memorials, and Declarations in like manner, which the Protestants of France set forth in print•• as also they of Holland,* 1.8 & Zeland in tyme of the gouernments, as well of the Duchesse of Parma, Duke of Alua, Commenda••or Major, and other Gouernours: did they not all expresly professe, that their principall griefes were, about liberty of Conscience restrayned? And did not they cyte many places of Scriptures, to proue the equity & necessity therof? And do not all Protestants the like at this day, in all places where they are, both in Polonia, Austria, Bohemia, Styria, and els where?* 1.9And how then is Iordanis conuersus retr••rs••m, with this Minister? How is his voyce contrary to the voyce & sense of all the rest? How, & with what reason, may he call it the height of pryde in English Catholicks, to haue but hope therof, which is so ordinary a doctrine & practice of all his brethren in forraine nations, to wit, for vs to expect liberty of Conscience, at the first entrance of our new King, of so noble, and royall a mynd be∣fore that tyme, as he was neuer knowne to be giuen to cruelty, or persecution in his former raigne? The Sonne of such a Mother, as held her selfe much beholden to Eng∣lish Catholicks? And himselfe in his litle Golden * 1.10 Booke

to his Sonne the Prince, had confessed that he had euer found the Catholicke party most trusty vnto him, and therupon had done sundry ••auours to diuers of them, and giuen no small hope of greater vnto others. From this King (I say) whom they so much loued, and honoured, receyued so gladly, and with vniuersall ioy, meant to serue faithfully; & trusted that as he had vnited the two Kingdomes in one Obedience by his Suc∣cession: so would he by his liberality, vnite and con∣ioyne the harts of all his Subiects, in bearing a sweet and equall hand towards them all: From such a King (I say) for vs to expect liberty of Conscience, and equality with other Subiects (in this poynt at least of freedome of soule) what height of pryde may it be called?* 1.11 May it not rather seeme height of pryde in this Minister, & his fellowes, that hauing byn old enemyes, and alwayes borne a hard, & hatefull hand, and tongue against his Maiesti•• both in their Sermons, Bookes, Speaches, all the tyme of the late Queenes raigne; now vpon the suddayne sine vllis meritis praecedentibus, will needs be so priuiledged, & assume vnto themselues such a confident presumption of his Maiesties speciall fauour, as to suffer no man to stand by them, but to hold it for height of pryde in vs to hope for any freedome and liberty of our Conscience at all? What is height of pryde and folly, if this be not?

These are my words in my former booke: and now let vs behould what M. Barlow layeth forth agaynst the same. First he beginneth with a pull at the Purytans, though I neither named, nor designed them, but only sayd as now your haue heard, that generally all sorts of Protestants neuer so humble (or far of from height of pryde in theyr owne conceipt) doe allow, and desyre, yea the more humble and vnderlinges they are, the more earnest they insist, both by bookes, speach, and preaching, to proue, that liberty of conscience is most conforme to Gods law &c. Wherupon M. Barlow maketh this comment, that by vnderlinge Protestantes,* 1.12 I do meane them, that doe seuer themselues from him, and hi••, in matter of ceremony,

and Church-gouerment, who are not vnderlings, sayth he, because they are humble, for that pryde only keepeth them aloofe. It is not the inferiour place, sayth he, or the deiected vysage, or the soft voyce, or dislike of Prelacy, that doth denominate humility.* 1.13 And these are the notes belike, that doe distinguish Puritans from the Protestants, to wit, the in••eriour place, the deiected ••isage, the soft speach, dislike of Prelacy. But yet I cannot but wonder to see him twice in this place to repeate, that the difference betweene these brethren and them••elues•• is only in matters of Ceremony, differing (sayth he) only in matters ceremoniall, though before he added also Church-gouernment. Whereby is euydent that he houldeth theyr Church-gouernment, and Prelacy, matter of ceremony only, and consequently also his owne Prelacy and his being a Bi∣shop, is but a meere Ceremony, and no substantiall matter in their Religion.

Now then let vs see, what ensueth vpon this, and what honour and seruice M. Barlow doth to his whole Cleargy, and namely to his old Maister and Lord of Ca••∣terbury, by this his new doctrine.* 1.14 Is all the dignity, and preheminence, which his sayd Lord hath aboue all the Ministers in England, his superiority ouer the Cleargy, his being Archbishop & Primate, his spirituall Iurisdiction, his Courtes of the Arches, his power of dispensations, his making Ministers, and giuing them power to preach, ••each, & administer Sacramēts: Is all this but a ceremony? Or do the Puritans in denying and impugning this, im∣pugne but a ceremony, and no poynt of Religion it selfe? Truely then must I say that their cause against you, is far better then I euer hitherto esteemed it to be. For if all these thinges be but ceremonies, and contayne no substā∣tiall poynt of religion: why do you, that in other things professe your selues enemies to Ceremonies, stand so much vpon them to the disturbance of the whole Realme? But of this I shall haue occasion to speake againe a little after, and to lay open your absurdities in this eua••ion.

Now only, will I say a word to your argumēt which heere you make against vs, for toleration or liberty of cō∣science••

If t••ese humble vnderlings, say you, dwelling amongst 〈◊〉〈◊〉•• ••••d differing only from vs in matters ceremoniall, are not heard in their suite of liberty of conscience:* 1.15 how much lesse those who in poyntes essentiall, and fundamentall are seuered from vs, may not be tolerated? Wherunto I answere, that if we respect reason and iustice in this matter, there is more on the behalfe of Catholicks, then of Puritans,* 1.16 for obtayning this toleration, notwith∣standing their differences in poynts of Religion were, or be greater: for that the Puritans came out of the Prote∣stants, and therby the Protestant Church may pretend to haue Ius aliquod Ecclesiasticum, some Ecclesiasticall right vp∣on them. But the Catholicks of England came neuer out of the Protestants, nor their Church out of the Prote∣stant Church, but were long before them in possession, which is the markable poynt so much pondered by S. Iohn to discerne heresy,* 1.17 & 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 Exāple 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 a∣gainst graunting of toleration, which I pretermitted be∣fore 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 al∣beit for equity and iustice the matter do passe, as before we haue sayd, that no sect in England whatsoeuer, as of L••••∣lords, VVickcliffians, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calui••ists, or the like can haue any right in conscience to deny toleratiō of their religion vnto them,* 1.18 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 of∣tentimes, 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 ra∣ther to be let alone, vntill the haruest day, left by going a∣bout to weed out the one out of due time,* 1.19 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 at∣tempts 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 toleratiō 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 exāples 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 de••end them not: subiection to Princes we preach, insurr••ctions we defy &c. And with this he thinketh he hath well satisfyed the matter•• To the forreyne exam∣ples 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 limited•• and conditionall, and we speake of subiects vnder an ab∣solute Monarchy. To those of Bo••hemia, Polonia, and Hungarie

he sayth, that it is to be considered, VVhether the en••rance in∣to those kingdomes be Successiue, or Electiue by descent, without condi∣••i••••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,* 1.20 which is that those good Protestants were of opinion, that toleration, or liberty of conscience might be graunted ac∣cording to the law of God, and ought also to be graunted. And why is Iordani•• now turned backward, saith the letter•• Why is this Ministers voice contrary to the voice & sens•• of all other Protestants?

The sayd Letter goeth forward, laying downe di••er•• considerations, which engendred hope in the minde•• of Catholicks, for obtayning this suite of toleration, and namely these three, to wit: First, the first entrāce of our new King, knowne to be of so noble and royall a mind before that time, as he neuer was noted to be giuē to cruelty or per∣secution for religion. Secondly the sonne of such a Mother, as held her selfe much behoulding to English Catholi••kes. And thirdly that himselfe had confessed, that he had euer found the Catholicke party most trusty vnto him in his troubles, and many conspiraci•••• made against him. To the first wherof M. Barlow in effect answereth nothing at all, but only citeth certayne places of Scripture, for pu∣nishing of Idolatry. To the second he sayth, That if his Maiesties Mo••her had not relied too much vpon the Priested sort in Eng∣land, 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,* 1.21 in cutting off her Maiesties head, was very iudiciously deuised by him. For indeed there can no∣thing 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 laye•• i•• their hande••. Neyther is this to cast salt into his Maiesties eyes, as M. Barlow heere sayth, but rather to open the sa••e, that he may see•• what kind of people these are, that do s•• much flatter him now, and impugned both him and his at that time.

But let vs heare how Ironically he dealeth with vs•• in framing a fond argument on our behalfe, as to him it seemeth. The Mother, sayth he, loued Catholikes for their duti∣fulnes and loyalty•• Ergo, the Sonne must giue them liberty of consc••••c••. And i•• this Sy•• so bad an argument?* 1.22 Do you take away the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which is of your owne thrusting in, and put in place therof, that the sayd Sonne may be the soone•• induced to gra••t them that liberty, in respect of their for∣mer dutifulnes, and loyalty to his mother in her distres∣ses, and the consequence will not be euill.

To the third of his Maiesties confessed experience of the loyalty of Catholickes both towards himselfe and his Mother, in their distres••es, he sayth: That his Maiesty nameth not Catholi••kes at all, in his said Booke, but only prosesseth that be found none so stedfastly to abide by him in his greatest straites, as they which constantly kept their true Allegiance to his Mother. Well Syr, and who I pray you were they? Catholickes or Prote∣stants? Let the acts of those times be seene, the Authors noted, the effectes considered.* 1.23 Yet, sayth M. Barlow, no•• i•• is very probable that when his Maiesty, hath cast vp his accompt of for••er disloyalties, he shall ••ind the moderate ••nd dir••ct Protestant•• that incli••es neither to right hand nor left, to be the first and faithf••ll subiect.

Well Syr, this may be p••rhaps f•••• the time to come, for your sel••e saith, tha•• it is but probable: but for the time p••st his Maiestie hauing now cast vp his accompts, hath found that reckonyng, as he h••th set it downe. And the common rule of wisdome is to beleeue as we haue found, vntill different experience teach vs the contrary. And by the way we must•• learne here M. Barlowes new deuised epithetons, of a moderate and direct Protestant, that as, he sayth, is neyth••r Iesu••ted, nor Geneuated, that is neither

Catholicke nor Pury••an, but moderate, and direct: that is to say, moderate in not belieuing to much on any s••de, if it stand not with his profit, and direct in following iump the Prince and State that may aduance him, whatsoeuer they should determine in matters of religion. This is the man by M. Barlowes direction, vpon whome his Maiestie must buyld, and not the Purytan or zealous Catholicke, for that they are ouer scrupulous.

I could wish that M. Barlow had bene a litle more scru∣pulous in the very next ensuing number, where without all blushing, he casteth out two notorious lyes, agaynst Father P••rsons,* 1.24 to make him odious thereby to his Maiestie, saying first, that he pronounceth his sayd Maiestie to be a desperate and ••orlorne hereticke, but cyteth no place where it is to be found; nor indeed is there any such place to be found where Father Person•• vseth any such words, as euer I could yet see.

Secondly he alleadgeth for Father Persons expresse words, these: That whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant, is a most grieuous, and damnable sinner, and citeth for the same D••l••man pag. 216. which quotation serueth only to condemne M. Barlow of a notorious wilfull ca∣lumniation, for that these expresse wordes are not there found, nor is there any mention of the Succession of a Pro∣testant, but in generall is sayd thus, That for any man to giue his help towards the making of a King whome he iudgeth faulty in reli∣gion, and consequently would aduance no religion, or the wrong, if ••e were in authority, is a grieuous sinne of what syde soeuer the truth be &c. So as neither Protestant nor Succession is named in this place, but m••king of a King, by such as my haue authority to doe the same; and it may as well hould a∣gaynst the entrance of a Catholicke Prince, as of any other sect whatsoeuer. And consequently both of these are s••landerous accusations, the first being a meere inuented vntruth, and the second a malicious peruerted calum∣niation: so as in respect of both, I may well say with the Prophet,* 1.25 Dilexisti omnia verba praecipitationis lingua dolosa, and I pray God the threat next insuing do not take place,

Propterea Deus destruct to in finem &c. I desyre not his destru∣ction, but his amendment.

After this followeth in my foresaid Letter a narra∣tion of the Dutifull demeanour of Catholickes towardes his Maiestie, euen from his first entrance, and how by the vniust perswasions of their enemyes, they began quickly to feele his hard hand borne ouer them, euen before the powder-plot, as by the confirmation of all Queen Elizabeth•• penal lawes, in the first yeare of his Maiesties raigne, with the execution therof afterward, doth well appeare: wher∣of many particuler examples are set downe; and among other things it is touched, as a matter of speciall disfauour, that his Maiestie vouchsafing in his owne Royall Person to giue publicke audience both to Protestants and Puryt•••• for 3. dayes togeather concerning the differences of their Religion, no such grace at all was graunted vnto Catho∣lickes. Vpon which words M. Barlow stayeth himselfe, and maketh this cōmentary. It is a strange humour, sayth he,* 1.26 that this Epistler hath, i•• he sayth truth, he lyeth: It is true there was a conference, but about difference in Religion, it is vtterly false; say•••• they would possesse the world that we are at iar among our selues ab•••••• our Religion, whereas the quarrell, though it be indeed vnkind, yet it i•• not in this kinde, saue only for Ceremonyes externall, no poynt subst••••∣tiall &c.

But now of this I haue spoken somewhat before, shewing, that if this vnkinde quarrell betweene Protesta••••s & Purytans,* 1.27 as he calleth it, be only about externall Ceremonies, then is both his Prelacy, and that of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop only an externall Ceremony. And if his phrase of vnkind quarrell be of the same kind that he men∣tioned before to be in Queene Elizabeth towards Queene Mary of Scotland, whose he••d she cut of•• then is the matter somewhat substantiall, & not only Ceremoniall: and indeed he that shall consider what the Purytan in this vnkind quarrell pretendeth agaynst the Protestant and his Church, shall see, that he striketh at the head indeed, or rather striketh of the head of the sayd Church, whether we con∣syder either the externall and ministeryall head thereof, to

wit, the Princes Ecclesiasticall power, and of Bishops vnder him; or the internall head metaphorically taken for the life, spirit, and essence of the sayd Church in deny∣ing it to be a true Christian Church, but only a prophane Congregation, without any spirituall power at all.

This appeareth by all the course and drift of Puritan wryters, and bookes extant, of the differences acknow∣ledged also by Protestant writers in their Treatises against them: so as to me it seemeth, not only a shameles bould∣nes to deny it, as M. Barlow here doth, but a sham••full basenes also, and beggary so to runne after their enemyes,* 1.28 intreating them to haue some association with them; whereas the other do both contemne, and detest them. For this falleth out not only in this case, but also with the Lutherans, whom M. Barlow and his fellowes, when they deale with vs, will needes haue to be theyr brethren of one and the same Church, fayth, and beliefe, for all substantiall poyntes of doctrine: Whereas the Lutherans on the other syde do both deny and defy this communion in fayth with them, and haue set forth whole bookes to proue the same, which were too long here to repeate. Yea Caluinian, and Zwinglian Ministers themselues are witnesses hereof, in many of their Treatises, as namely, the Tigu∣rine Deuines,* 1.29 who confesse, that theyr differences, and con∣tentions with the Lutherans are about Iustification, Free-will, the Ghospell, the law, the Person of Christ, his des∣cent into hell, of Gods election, of his children to life e∣uerlasting, & de multis alijs non leuis momenti articulis, & of ma∣ny more articles of no small importance: which is eui∣dent,* 1.30 for that Ioannes Sturmius another Zwinglian or Calui∣nist addeth other controuersies, as of the Supper of our Lord, and Reall Presence, of Predestination, of the As∣cension of Christ to heauen, his sitting at the right hand of his Father, and the like: adding also that the Lutherans do hould the Protestant Caluinian Churches of England, France, Flanders, and Scotland for Hereticall, and their Mar∣tyrs, for Martyrs of the Diuell.

And conforme to these their writings are their do∣inges

and proceedings with them, where they haue domi∣nion; for that they admyt them not to cohabitation, nor to the common vse of marriage betweene them, nor to be buryed with them, after theyr deaths, as they well know who haue liued, or do liue among them. And thus much for the Lutherans of the one syde. Now let vs see somewhat also of the Purytans of the other.

And first of all this matter hath beene handled dyuers times, and demonstrated by Catholicke English wryters of our dayes, agaynst this absurd assertion of M. Barlow that the differences at this day betweene Protestants and Purytans are not at all concerning religion, nor of any substantiall, and essentiall poyntes thereof; but only Ceremoniall: and in particuler the same is conuinced, and made most manifest in the Preface of a late Booke, intituled An answere to the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports, where the different grounds of Spirituall and Ecclesiasti∣call power,* 1.31 betweene Protestants, Puritans, and Catholickes being examined, it is found, that their differences are such as cannot possibly stand togeather, to make one Church and house of saluation, but that if one hath the truth, the other must necessarily remayne in damnable error; which is euident also by the writings of Protestants themselues, especially by the bookes intituled Dangerous positions, set forth and imprinted at London 1593. and the Suruey ofpreten∣ded holy discipline, made as they say, by him that is now Lord of Canterbury, and Doctor Sutcliffe, as also the Booke intitu∣led, the Picture of a Purytan, writen by O. O. of Emanuel, printed 1603. and other like bookes. But especially at this time will I vse for proofe of this poynt, the testimony of Thomas Rogers Minister, and Chaplin, as he styleth him∣selfe, to his Lord of Canterbury, who of late hauing set forth by publike authority, the fayth, doctrine, and reli∣gion of England expressed in 39. articles vpon the yeare 1607. doth in his Preface to his said Lord, hādle this matter of the differences betweene the Puritans and Protestantes, though partially agaynst the discontented brethren, he being theyr aduersary, but yet setteth downe out of their

owne words, what their iudgment is of the importance, and moment of the controuersyes betwene them,* 1.32 to wit, that they are not only about Ceremonies, and circum∣••tances, as M. Barlow pretendeth, but about poyntes con∣tayned in scripture, & in the very Ghospell it selfe. They are compryzed, say they,* 1.33 in the booke o•• God, and also be a part of the Ghospell, yea the very Ghospell it selfe: so true are they, and o•• such importance, that if euery hayre of our head were a life, we ought to aff••ard them all, in defence of these matters: and that the articles of religion penned, and agreed vpon by the Bishops, are but childish toyes in respect of the other. So they.

And will any man thinke or say now that these men doe not hould that theyr differences with the Protestants are differences in religion, as M. Barlow sayth, or that they are only matters of ceremonyes, and not of any one sub∣stantiall poynt concerning religion? Let vs heare them yet further telling theyr owne tale, and related by M. Rogers.

The controuersy betwene them and vs (say they, of the Pro∣testants) is not as the Bishops, and their welwillers beare the world in hand, for a cap, or tippet, or a Surplisse, but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry, and regi∣ment of the Church according to the word of God. The first wherof, which is a true Ministry, they (Protestants) shall neuer haue, till Bishops and Archbishops be put downe, and all Ministers be made equall. The other also will neuer be brought to passe, vntill Kings and Queenes doe subiect themselues vnto the Church, and doe submit their Scepters, and throw downe their Crownes before the Church, and licke vp the dust of the feete of the Church, and willingly abyde the Censures of the Church &c.

This they write, and much more in that place•• which I trow is more then M. Barlow ascribeth vnto the matter. For if it be contayned in Gods booke, yea a part o•• the Ghospell, the very Ghospell it selfe, about which they contend; what proter••ity is it on the other part, to call it a matter only of Ceremony.

But yet further within two pages after agayne, they doe explayne themselues, and theyr cause more in parti∣culer

saying: Our controuersy with the Protestants is, whether Iesus Christ shalbe King or no: and the end of all our trauell is, to b••yld vp the walls of Ierusalem, and to set vp the throne of Iesus Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 heauenly king in the myddest thereof. And are these poyntes also not substantiall, nor any wayes touching religion, but Ceremonies?

Harken then yet further what they do inferre vpon the Protestantes Church, for dissenting from them in these pointes: Neyther is there among them, say they, a Church, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 least wise no true Church: neither are they but titular Christians, & no true Christians indeed. And yet will M. Barlow continue to say, that there is no difference at all in Religion; and that I lyed, when I sayd, that his Maiesty yeelded to a Confe∣rence between Protestants & Puritans, concerning their differences of Religion. VVhat will he answere to the two precedent members touched by the Puritans, to wit•• that their strife is for a true Ministry, & a lawfull gouermēt therof, expounding their meaning to be, that for obtaining the first, all Bishops and Archbishops must be put downe, & for the second, all temporall Princes, Kings, & Queenes must leaue their superiority ouer the Church, & submit themselues, and their Crownes vnto the same Church, to wit, their Presbyteries, as M. Rogers expōdeth their words? And is there no substantiall point neyther in all this, but only matter of Ceremony? And doth not the very life, & soule of the Church depend of these two things, a true Mi∣nistry, and lawful Head? Is not the power of preaching, tea∣ching, administration of Sacraments, care of soules, pos∣sessing Cures and Benefices, absoluing from sinnes, spi∣rituall iurisdiction, and all Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy deryued from hence? And are all these thinges only Cere∣moniall without substance, or essence of religion?* 1.34 Doth M. Barlow discharge his duty of a Champion, eyther to∣wardes his king, or his old Lord (from both which it seemeth al••eady he hath receaued large fees) in bringing both their authorities in Ecclesiastical matters to be meere Ceremonies? No man I thinke will sue to be his Clyent hereafter, i•• he can plead no better.

But let vs yet see a little further, how he hath aduanced his Maiestyes spirituall authority. Thus he writeth of his being Moderator in the Conference betwene the Puritans and Protestants. This difference (sayth he) about thinges indiffe∣rent, his Maiesty desirous to reconcile, vouchsafed his Princely paynes to moderate, & mediate. In which wordes, first doe you note againe his often repetition, that they were thinges indifferēt, to wit, whether his Maiesty should haue Supreme Pri∣macy in Church causes, or renounce the same, and cast it downe, togeather with his Scepter before the Presbytery of the Puritans; and whether the Lord of Canterbury should leaue of his Lordship, and Graceship, and become a simple Minister equall with the rest? And so likewise M. Barlow himselfe to leaue the Sea of Lincolne, and title of Lordship, which none that knowes the humor of the man will imagine that he holdeth for a thing indifferent, or a meere Ceremony.

This I say is the first Notandum: for if these things be indifferent, what need so much a doe about them? And the second Notandum is, that he saith, that his Maiesty did mo∣derate and mediate in this Conference: which is a very mo∣derate and meane word indeed to expresse so high and emi∣nent Authority Ecclesiasticall, as sometimes they wil seem to ascribe vnto his Maiesty. For who cannot moderate or mediate in a Conference, if he haue sufficient learning and knowledge of the cause, though he haue no eminent au∣thority at all to decide the same? But who shall deter∣mine or define the Controuersy?* 1.35 Here no doubt M. Barlow wilbe in the brakes. For that a little after being pressed with the free speach and deniall of S. Ambrose vnto Valentini∣an the Emperour,* 1.36 when he medled in Ecclesiasticall affairs, and in particuler when he sent for him by Dalmatius a Tri∣b••ne, with a Notary to come and dispute in the Consisto∣ry before him, his Counsell, and Nobility, with the He∣reticall Bishop Auxen••ius, S. Ambrose refused vtterly to goe, yeelding for his reason, that in matters of faith and religi∣on Bishops must iudge of Emperours, and not Emperours of Bishops: which deniall M. Barlow well alloweth, say∣ing,

that Ambrose did well in it,* 1.37 and sayd well for it, his fact and reason were both Christianlike.

But suppose, that his Maiesty, had sent for the Bishops to dispute and confer with the doctors of the Puritan par∣ty in his presence, as the Emperour Valentinian did S. Ambrose & that they had refused to come, with the same reasō, that S. Ambrose did, would M. Barlow that wrote the Conference haue defended the same as good, and lawful? Or would his Maiesty haue taken the same, in as good part, as Valentiniā did? I doubt it very much, as also I doubt, whether S. Am∣brose if he had disputed, would haue suffered Valentiniā (sup∣pose he had bin learned) to haue moderated & mediated in that disputatiō, as M. Ba••low saith his Maiesty did in this. But if without effect, & that he could not conclude; who should giue iudgment of the matter? The Bishops? They were party, and theyr whole interest lay therein. The Puritan Doctors? They were also a party, and therby partiall. His Maiesty could not doe it, according to M. Barlowes doctrin in this place,* 1.38 if any point of religion were handled there∣in. Who then should iudge, or giue sentence? The Church saith M. Barlow in another place. But who maketh that Church? Or who giueth authority of iudgement to that Church, if the supreme Head and gouernour haue it not in himself? Do you not see how intricate this matter is, & hard to resolue? And according to this, as it seemeth, was the effect and consequence of this meeting, if we belieue M. Barlow himselfe, who maketh this question: Did th••se great and Princely paynes which his Maiesty tooke with the Purit••ns, worke a generall conformity? And then he answereth: VVith the iudicious and discreet it did, (wherof M. Barlow was one) but the rest grew more aukward, and violent. So he.

But all this while if you marke it, there is nothing said to the point, for which all this was brought in, to wit, why the like fauour had not beene shewed to Catholikes, for a Conference also with them about their Religion. M. Barlow doth touch some number of reasons, as that our o∣pinions doe touch the very head, and foundation of reli∣gion: That his Maiesty was perfect in all the arguments,

that could be ••rought for the aduerse part, and that he throughly vnderstanding the weaknes of them,* 1.39 held it both vnsafe and vnnecessary to haue them examined: That the Protestant religion being throughly well placed, and hauing so long continued, is not now to be disputed &c. Which reasons being either in themselues fond, or against himselfe, I will not stand to refute. One only contradicti∣on wil I note, that our argumēts being so weake, yet that it should be vnsafe to haue them examined; and that the long continuance of Protestant religion in England should make it indisputable: whereas more then ten times so long prescription of Catholike religion could not defend it, by shew of a conference or dispute h••ld at VVestminster at the beginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne, when the same was changed and put out.

And finally I will end this with a notable calumnia∣tion, insteed of a reason vttered by M. Barlow, why this Conference ought not to be granted to Catholikes, for sooth: For that, euen in their common petition for toleration, they ••is••hed his Maiesty to be as great a Saint in heauē, as he is a King vp∣on earth, shewing thereby, saith he, that gladly they would be rid o•• him, but w••ich way they care not, so he were not here. And may not this Prelate now beare the prize for calumniati∣on and Sycophancy, that out of so pious an antecedent can inferre so malicious a consequent? The Catholickes doe wish vnto his Maiesty both life present, and euerlasting to come; here a great King and there a great Saint:* 1.40 M. Barlow seemeth not to care much for his eternity, so he may en∣ioy his temporality, by the which he himselfe gayneth for the present, and hopeth euery day to do more & more: it import••th him litle how great a Saint his Maiestie be in heauen, so vpon earth he liue longe to fauour him and to furnish him with fat benefices.

And thus he inforceth me to answere him, contrary to my owne inclination, for repressing somewhat his inso∣lent malignant speach, which is the most exorbitant per∣chance, virulent, and impotently passionate, that euer ap∣peared in paper in our English tongue, for which I intend

not to follow him any further, step by step, and foote by foote, as hitherto I haue done: for it would require a huge volume, & weary both vs, and the reader with the imper∣tinency therof. Wherfore I shal in that which is to ensue, draw the rest of this his Answere to certaine particuler heads for more perspicuity and breuities sake, wherby shal appeare how worthy a writer he is, and well deseruing his fee, that runneth into such absurdities, errors, igno∣rances, corruptions, and falsityes, as wilbe layd against him: wherin I remit my selfe, not only to that which is already sayd, but particulerly also to that which is to ensue.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Bar••. pag. 112.
• * 1.2

  M. Bar∣low ad∣deth to the text.
• * 1.3

  A most resonable and mo∣dest re∣quest of the Cath.
• * 1.4

  Simple & imperti∣nent rea∣soning of M. Bar∣low.
• * 1.5

  Let. p. 38.
• * 1.6

  In vita 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••un••i.
• * 1.7

  Anno 1••46.
• * 1.8

  Liberty of consci∣ence de∣manded by al Pro∣testants.
• * 1.9

  •• Psal. 113.
• * 1.10

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.11

  Height of pride, and in whome it may be said to be.
• * 1.12

  Barl. pag. 110.
• * 1.13

  Strange notes of h••mility set downe b•• M. Bar∣l••w.
• * 1.14

  M. Bar∣low be∣trayeth his owne cause.
• * 1.15

  Barl. ibidē.
• * 1.16

  The Pro∣testant hath Ec∣clesiastical power o∣uer Puri∣tans.
• * 1.17

  1. Ioan. 2.
• * 1.18

  In what case Ca∣tholicks may yeld and grant toleration to Prote∣stants.
• * 1.19

  Matth. 13.
• * 1.20

  M. Bar∣low at a Non-plus.
• * 1.21

  Vnkind dealing indeed.
• * 1.22

  Barl. pag. 124.
• * 1.23

  M. Bar∣low•• mo∣derate & dir••ct Pro∣t••••t••nt.
• * 1.24

  M. Bar∣low bely∣eth F. Per∣sons.
• * 1.25

  Psal. 5••.
• * 1.26

  Barl. pag. 142.
• * 1.27

  Strāge im∣pudency.
• * 1.28

  Basenesse and beg∣gery of Protestāts
• * 1.29

  Theol. Ti∣gurin. in prafat. A∣pol. pra∣fix. ortho∣dox. C••n. anno 1578.
• * 1.30

  Lib. 2. de rat ine∣und•• Con∣cordiae p. 2. & 24.
• * 1.31

  Protestāts and Puri∣tans differ in substā∣tial points of religiō.
• * 1.32

  Rogers pr••f••••e pag. 9.
• * 1.33

  Arrige aures Syr William.
• * 1.34

  M. Bar∣low a bad Aduocate
• * 1.35

  M. Bar∣low in the brakes.
• * 1.36

  Amb. ep. 33.
• * 1.37

  Ba••l. pag. ••69.
• * 1.38

  A hard ar∣gument for M. Barlow to solue.
• * 1.39

  Silly stuffe
• * 1.40

  M. Bar∣lows li••le care of his Maiestie•• eternall life.