proceed from grace haue not the promise to God made vnto theÌ„ What then doth this make against me Nay harken I pray you what ensueth he bringeth the wordes of Bellarmine against me saying that if good workes should be considerâ—d in their owne nature without respect both of the promise made â—nto them and also of the dignity of Gods spirit the originall worker of them they could carry no merit which doctrine I willingly acknowledge as fully making with me and condemning M. Barlow of false dealing that he left out wilfully in my words before recited the clause of the promise of God made vnto them and so in this he fighteth against himselfe and discouereth his owne vntrue dealing But hath he any more to say thinke you against the first question or doth he answere one word to the plaine testimony of Scriptures alleadged out of Toby Iob and S. Paul for proofe therof all cyted by me No not so much as one word and much lesse to those other that stand in Bellarmines booke which are more in number as neyther to the ancient Fathers S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Augustine euidently confirming the same that good and meritorious workes do of themselues comfort the conscience of the doer by increasing hope and confidence in him in respect of the promised reward yea albeit he do not of himselfe place any confidence in them but respecteth onely and relyeth vpon God almightyes grace mercy for that so it may often fall out and it is to be noted and borne in mind that a man may haue confidence by good works and yet place no confidence in good works for that a vertuous life enriched with many meritorious actions may of it self giue a man much confidence for the life to come though he for his part do not place any confidence therin but only in Gods mercy so as now we see the first propositioÌ„ of Cardinall Bellarmine to be true that the confidence of holy mâ—n which they place in God doth not only spring out of â—ayth but also out of good meriâ—s and therefore that â—uery man must labour wiâ—h all study to procure good meriâ—s to the end that they may haue confidence with God which is the very same in substance that I set downe in my letter though somewhat by me abridged and accommodated to the capacity of the vulgar reader There followeth the second question proposed by me in these words VVhether this being so a man may place any confidence wittingly in his own merits or vertuous life and it is answered that he may so he aâ—oyd pride c. which containeth the very same in effect that dâ—th Cardinall Bellarmines second propositioÌ„ that some confidence may be placed in good meâ—its which are known to be such so as pride be auoyded vnto which second proposition M. Barlow not being able to say any thing agâ—inst the truth therof confirmed by many testimonies exaÌ„ples both out of the old new Testament and writings of holy Fathers that did both teach and practice the coÌ„fidence of a good conscience he runneth to seeke Cauills both against me and Cardinall Bellarmine and for me he hath deuised one of the most childish that euer perhaps you heard and such a one that doth euideÌ„tly declare the malice of his mind and misery of his cause that driueth him to such shifts for that neuer man of grauity or sincerity would vse the like knowing that it must needs be discouered by the first inspection of the booke by his aduersary thus then it is Where I do frame the second question thus VVhether a â—an may place any confidence in his owne merits and do answer yea he leaueth out of purpose the question it self and putteth downe the solution only without question aâ—â—iâ—ming me to say as it were by way of propositioÌ„ A man mâ—â— place any confidence in his owne merits and writeth the word ANY in great letters to make it more markable as though I haâ— said a man may place any confidence wâ—atsoeuer that is to say al confideÌ„ce in his own merits wheras if he had set down the queâ—tioÌ„ simply as I did whether a maÌ„ may place any coÌ„fidence in his merits answered only yea as I did without adding any further it would haue appeared plainly that the word any did signify as much as some conâ—idence answering to Bellarm. words aliqua fiducia wheras omitting the question putting down againe the word any he changeth the significatioÌ„ therof maketh it to signify as much as all or any whatsoeuer as though I had said a man may put all confidence or what confidence soeuer in our merits therby disagree froÌ„ Bellarmine whose wordâ— are as hath bene sayd aliqua fiducia in bonis meritis collocari potest some confidence may be placed in good merits this shifting fraud is so palpable as it may be discouered by infinite examples If one should aske another whether he had any bread in his house as Elias for example did aske the poore widdow of Sarepta euery man of sense seeth that the meaning is whether he haue any bread at all of any sort soeuer and not whether he haue all kind of bread so if the other do answer yea without adding further it is to be vnderstood that he answereth according to the meaning of the demaunder that he hath some bread in his house but if he should answer as M. Barlow maketh me to answer yea I haue any bread it would import that he had all sorts of bread And the like is if a man should aske M. Barlow whether he haue any vertue the meaning is whether he haue any at all and soe euery man I thinke will vnderstand it and himselfe also I belieue would take it and thinke himself iniured thereby if any man should answere no but if he should repeate againe the same word any in the aâ—swere saying yâ—a he hath any vertue heere the word ◠〈◊〉 changeth the foâ—mer signification and importâ—th as much as that he hath all vertueâ— which I suppose himself would be ashamed to answer in his owne cause as a thing contrary aswâ—ll to his owne conscience as to other mens knowledge And the lâ—ke iâ—â— if a man should demaund him whâ—â—heâ— hâ— hatâ— any sâ—â—ll in the Mathematickes he might anâ—â—â—â—e peâ—hâ—pps yâ—a if he added no â—urther vndersâ—â—nding therâ—by that hâ— hath some skill but if he should aâ—swere aâ— he maketh me to do yea I haue any skill it may sâ—â—ue to make paâ—time to his demaunder and yet vpon thâ—â— fâ—olâ—sh â—â—â—ging dâ—uise of the different taking of tâ—e word aâ—y he makâ—tâ— great a doe and foundeth mâ—ny â—râ—â—â—â—ntations writing it still with great letters aâ— presâ—nâ—ly you shall see seeking thereby to proue that Cardinal Bâ—llarmine I are at debate he saying that some conâ—â—dence may â—e placed in merits I saying that any confidence may be placed which is al he hath
rayse and reuiue the same agayne after his death and make it his owne by this sinfull vnchristian exprobration therof But what maketh this to the purpose we haue in hand surely nothing but to shew the malice and misery of the slaunderer For let Father Persons be a ranging voluntary runegate and Hispanized Camelion as here he is termed or any thing els which an intemperate loose or lewde tongue can deuise for his conâ—umely what is all this to the matter in hand that is to say to the writing of the former letter or who was the author thereof Doth not here malyce and folly striue which of them shall haue the vpper hand in M. Barlow But yet one point he hath more of singularity in folly which I suppose will goe neere to make the reader laugh if he be not in choler with him before for his malice For wheras I had professed my selfe to be perswaded vpon the reasons set downe that his Maiestie was not the penner of the Apologie though it was printed by Barker his Printer and set forth authoritate Regia by the Kings authority alleadging for example that first of the minister T. M. knowne afterwardes to be Thomas Morton who published some yeares gone his lying and slaunderous Discouery against Catholikes and gaue it this approbatioâ— that it was set forth by direction from Superiours though perhaps no Superiour euer read it and the like I sayd might be suspected that this other Apologie furnished with authoritate Regia might perhaps proue to be the worke of some other T. M. to wit Thomas Montague somewhat neere to his Maiestie by reason of his Ministeriall office which then he held all which declaration notwithstanding Maister Barlow is so set to haue men thinke that I knew and perswaded my selfe that it was the Kings booke indeed and that by those two letters T. M. I meant Tua or Tanta Maiestas By those ciphers saith he of T. M. if he will speake without equiuocation he meant Tua or Tanta Maiestas And haue you euer heard such a dreame or deliration in one that professeth wit Marke his sharpenes I doe say that this second T. M. doth signify Thomas Montague do sett it downe expresly in the margent I doe describe the person and office neere the king as being then Deane of his Chapell though I name it not I doe shew probabilities how he might presume to write and set forth that booke authoritate Regia by shewing it only to the king And how could I then by those two letters of T. M. meane Tua or Tanta Maiestas or what sense of grammer or coherence of phrase would those latyn wordes make for so much as I wrot in English what shall I say is not he worthy to pretend a Bishopricke that hath no more wit then this But let vs goe forward to examyne other poyntes He standeth much vpon the exception taken of calling Cardinall Bellarmine Maister Bellarmine and his defence consisteth in these poyntes distended impertinently throughout diuers pages That his Maiestie being so great a King might call such an vpstart officer that knoweth not where to rake for the beginning of his sublimity Maister That Christ our Sauiour was called Rabbi by Nicodemus Rabboni by Mary Magdalen and that Christ himselfe acknowleged the title to his disciples Iohn 13. You call me Lord Maister you do well for so I am That S. CypriaÌ„ called Tertullian his Maiâ—ter Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris was called Maister oâ— the Sentences in all which speaches sayth he the word Maister is taken for a name of credit and not of reproach These are his arguments Wherâ—unto I answer first that the greater the Prince is the more commonly they doe abound in courtesy of honorable speach and consequently his Maiesties greatnes made rather for my coniecture then otherwise that if he had beene the Writer of the booke he would not haue vsed that terme of contempt to such a man and secondly for so much as concerneth the dignity degree of a Cardinall in it self so much scorned by M. Barlow it shal be well that he do read ouer the fourth chapter of Carâ—inall Bellarmines last booke of answer to his Maiesâ—â—es â—reâ—ace De comparatione Regis Cardinalis where he shâ—â—l 〈◊〉 so much raked togeather to vse his owne phrase of conteâ—pt for the dignity and high estimation of that state in the Catholike Church as he wil be hardly â—bâ—e to diâ—perse the same in the sight of godly and wâ—sâ— men with all the contumelious speach he can vse therof espâ—câ—ally for so much as Cardinall Bellarmine his wordeâ— oâ—â—â—omise are these AdducaÌ„iudicium testimonis Paâ—â—â—m vâ—tâ—rum qui primis qâ—â—ngentis annis sloruerunt quos à sâ— â—ecipi Rex ipse supra testatus est I wilâ— bring forth the iudgment and teâ—timonies saith he of the ancient Fathers which florished in the first fiue hundred yeares after Christ whom the King before testified that he doth admit and receiue So he Thirdly where he alleageth that Christ was called Rabbi and Rabboni and acknowledged himselfe to be so to wit a Maister and Teacher helpeth nothing Maister Barlowes purpose at all For we graunt that the word Maister may signify two thinges first the authority of a teacher or doctor and so our Sauiour in respect of the high and most excellent doctrine that he was to â—each vnto the world for saluatioÌ„ of soules was called Maister by exâ—ellenâ—y yea the only Maister for so doth our Sauiour expressely affâ—â—me in S. Matthews ghospell Be you not called Maisters for that Christ is only your Maister In which sense he is also called Doctor by eminency in the Prophet Isay who promised amoÌ„g other things in the behalf of God to his people Non saciet aâ—olâ—re ad tevâ—â—â—â— Doctorem tuum He wil not take froÌ„ you agâ—ine your Doctor or Maister Iosue also in this sense writeth that he called togeather Principes Iudices Magistâ—os The Princes Iudges Maisters of the people So as in this sense of teaching gouerning directing the word Maister beareth a great dignity and our Sauiour ioyned the same with the word Lord when he sayd you call me Lord Maister you do well therin And so if the Apâ—logeâ— whosoeuer he were had this intentioÌ„ to honâ—ur Card. Bellarmine with the dignity of Doctor teacher wheÌ„ he called him M. Bellarmine I graunt that no discourtesy was offered vnto him by that title But now there is another sense in vsing this word Maâ—â—ter as it is a common title giuen to vulgar men and the leaâ—tâ— lowest of all other titles of courtesy accustomed to be giuen for that aboue this is the word Syr aboue that agayne Lord and then Excellency Grace Maiestâ— and the like And in this sense and common acceptance of the word Maister I sayd in my Letter that it might be taken in contempt
inferreth that 〈◊〉 temporall authority of the Pope by vs pretended beiâ—â— but humanum inuentum a humane inuention or ratâ—â—â— intrusion or vsurpation as he calleth it the matter of the Oath wherby the same is excluded must needâ—◠〈◊〉 meerly Ciuill no lesse then if it were against any oâ—â—â—â— meere temporall Prince that would vsurpe any part of our Soueraignes temporall right or Crowne Whereunâ—â— I answer that if this were so and that it could be proued that this temporall power of the Pope as we teach it were but a humane inuention indeed and not founded in any authority diuine or humane then M. Barlow had sayd somewhat to the matter and the comparison of an Oath taken against any other teÌ„poral Prince might haue place But for that we haue shewed now that this is not 〈◊〉 but that there is great difference betweene this temporall power of the Pope deriued from his supreme spirituall authority as vniuersall Pastour which no temporall Prince is and the pretension of any meere temporall Potentate therfore is the swearing against the one but a ciuil obedience and the other a point belonging to conscience and religion with those that belieue the sayd power to come from God But now for answering this his last collection of authors I say first that Bellarmine in the place by hiâ— cited hath no one word of any such matter his booke being de Concilys and his purpose is to shew both in the 13. Chapter here cited as also in the precedent Câ—iâ— sâ— congâ—egare Concilâ—a to whome it belongeth to gather Councels which he sheweth to appertaine to haue appertained alwaies to the Bishops of Rome and not to Kings and Emperoures albeit they being the Lordes of the world the sayd Councels could not well be gathered withoâ—â— their consent and power But of Excommunication or of deposition of Princes Bâ—llarmine hath no one word in this place and so M. Barlowes assertion and quotation iâ— both false and impertinent about the first six hundred yeares after Christ. But if he will looke vpon Bellarmine in other places where he handleth this argument of Excommunicationâ— and depositions of Princes as namely in his second and fiâ—th booke de Rom. Pontis he will find more ancient examples at least of ExcommunicatioÌ„ which is the ground of the other then the six hundred yeares assigned out of Bellarmine For that Bellarm. beginneth with the Excommunication of the Emperour Arcadiuâ— and Eudoxia his wife by Pope Innocentiâ—â— the first for the persecution of S. Iohn Chrysostome which was about two hundred yeares before this tyme assigned by M. Barlow and diuers other examples more ancient then the 1000. years allotted by Doctor Barkley the Scottishman here alleadged as the excommunication of Leo Isauricuâ— surnamed the Image-breaker by Pope Gregory the second the example also of King Chilperiâ—us of France by Zacharias the Pope the example also of Pope Leo the third that translated the Empyre from the East to the West And as for the Friar Sigebert brought in here for a witnesse he should haue sayd the Monke for that the religious orders of Fryars were not instituted a good while after this who is sayd to call the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes A Nouelty is not an Heresy it is a notable calumniation as may be seene in the wordes of Sigebert himselfe in the very place cyted by M. Barlow For though Sigebert following somewhat the faction of the Emperour Henry the third excommunicated by Pope Vrbanus the second did often speake partially concerning the actions that passed betweene them which many tymes seemed to proceed of passion more then of reason and iustice yet doth he neuer deny such power of Excommunicating deposing for iust causes to belawfull in the Pope but the playne contrary Neyther doth he call that doctrine Noâ—elty or Heresy that the Pope hath this authority as falsely M. Barlow doth here affirme but only that it seemed to him a new doctrine which he would not call Heresy to teach that vicious Princes were not to be obeyed for so are his wordes Nimirum vt pace omnium dixerim haec sola nouiâ—as non dicam hâ—resis necdum in mundo emerserat vt 〈◊〉 Dei doceant populum quâ—d maliâ— Regibus nullam debeâ—â—t 〈◊〉 To wit that I may speake without offence of all this only nouelty I will not say Heresy was not yet spâ—â—â—â— vp in the world that the Priestes of God should teach 〈◊〉 people that they ought no obedience at all to euill Priâ—ces c. In which wordes you see that Sigebert doth 〈◊〉 deny or reproue the authority of Excommunication 〈◊〉 deposition of Princes especially if they be for heresy bâ—â— only the Doctrine that no subiection or obedience is dâ—â— to vicious or cuill-liuing Princes which is false and scandalous doctrine indeed As for the fourth Author alleadged in this place 〈◊〉 wit Claudius Espencaeus that he should call the fact of Pope Gregory the seauenth his excommunicating Henry the thiâ—d Nouellum schisma a new rent or schisme which is borrowed out of M. Morton as the rest which in this poynt he alleageth I will referre him for his answer to the answer that is made of late to M. Morton himselfe which is called The quiet and sober Reckoning where this matter is returned vpon him with so â—uident a conuiction of wilful falsity as is impossible for him to cleare his credit therin For that these wordes are not spoken by Espencaeus himselfâ—â— but related only by him out of a certaine angry Epistle written by certaine schismaticall Priestes of Liege that were commaunded by Paschalis the second to be chastised by Robertâ—arle â—arle oâ— â—landers and his souldiers newly come from Ierusalem about the yeare 1102. for their rebellious behauyour Which passionate letter of theirs Espencaâ—â— doth only relate out of the second Tome of Councells expresly protesting that he wil not medle with that controuerâ—y of fighting betweene Popes and Emperours though he prâ—ue in that plâ—ce by sundry exâ—mples both of Scriptures Fathers and Councels that in some cases it is lawful for Priests to vse temporal armes also when need iustice requireth So as this falsification must now fall aswell vpon M. Barlow as vpon M. Morton before and we shall expect his answere for his dâ—fence in this behalfe As for the last authority of S. Ambrose that Kinges and Emperours be tuti Imperij potestate sate by power of their Empire from any violent censure though I find no such matter in any of the two Chapters quoted by M. Barlow out of his Apologia Dauid yet seeking â—urther into other bookes of his I find the wordes which is a token that our Doctor writeth out of note-bookes of some Brother and neuer seeth the places himselfe but though I find the wordes yet not the sense which he will inferre but wholy peruerted to another meaning For that if S. Ambrose had bene of opinioÌ„ that
Augustine vpon the former words of S. Paul is general to all men Hoc est opus vestrum in hac vita actiones carnis spiritu mortificare quotidie afflâ—gere minueâ—e fraenare interiâ—ere This is your worke in this life to mortify dayly the actions of the flesh by spirit and to afflict them diminish them to bridle them and to kill them Which sense and feeling of mortification if M. Barlow had and were of the same spirit with these holy men he would neuer seeke so many shifts to discredit the same and to make it contemptible as he doth first by scorning at fastings prayers and aâ—meâ—â—edâ— when by Hypocrites they are abused which is nothing to the true vse and consequently not to the purpose then to disgrace theÌ„ when they are well vsed by saying that they are bodily exercises of small vtility â—hen by â—eâ—ting at the sackcloath ashes and other penances and externall mortifications which God himselfe in King Achab approued and tooke in great good part then iâ—â—coâ—ting at the state of Nunnes professing the like retired liâ—e of mortification then telling vs further that the life of Queene Elizabeth had â—ore mortification by liuing in a Court whâ—re many temptations were then in a Monastery which he proueth out of Seneca saying Marcet enim â—â—ne aduersario virtus For vertue is sluggish where no aduersary is By which consequence it followeth that it is much better and more excellent mortificatioâ—s for yong Ladies and Gentlewomen to liue in great Courts where there be store of amourous yong Knights and Gentlâ—men to tempt them then to liue solitary or retired from such Courtes and companies where no such impugnation of the aduersary is And this is M. Barlowes good discipline for women which is farre different from that which S. Cyprian prescribeâ—h in his Booke De disciplina habitâ— Virginuâ— no lesse then their two spirits are different And lastly you see that he distracteth the word Mortification so farre as he draweth it to all dignity and honour and that it is mortification to be a King Queene or chiefe Gouernour which are things most agreeable to mans sensuall desires and opposite â—o mortification though I would easily grant that if a man did hate and fliâ— such dignities in him selfe that they were forced vpon him of which sort of men S. Gregory writeth Valâ—è destent quòd tardè ad patriam redeunt tolerare insuper honoris onera copellâ—â—ur they do greatly bewaile that they returne slowly to their Countrey which is heauen and besides are forced to beare the burthen of honours in the meane space Of these men I say who should so be forced against their wills to sustaine places of honour as S. Gregory himselfe was in taking the Popedome to such a man it is a mortification indeed to be a King Prince or Pope But this riseth not out of the dignity it selfe as M. Barlow fondly teacheth but out of the vertuous repugnance of the receiuers will so as if Queene Elizabeth to come to our proper case did vnwillingly and with repugnancy of mind take the crowne vpon her whâ—Ì„ Queene Mary diedâ— as S. Gregory did his Popedome then may it be said that it was some mortification vnto her otherwise it is ridiculous to make all high dignities and places of honour Mortification for so much as euery man doth ordinarily feele in himselfe an inclination of our corrupt nature to desire them which naturally notwithstanding loueth not mortification Moreouer wheras there are two parts and members of mortification the one internall the other externall the internall to mortifie the inward partes of our soule both intellectuall and sensuall as to deny a mans owne will represse selfe loue subdue our iudgemenâ— to the obedience of others represse the passions both of pride anger concupiscence the like another part externall that mortifieth the body and outward senses therof making them subiect to reason by externall punishments of the body as by fastings watchings and other chasticements of the same which S. Paul testifyeth both of himselfe and the rest of the Apostles that they praised the same which being so I would demaund of M. Barlow to which of these mortifications doth a Courtly Princely life lead vs more then the state of a poore life For as denying a mans owne will it is far from Princes to practice the same who indeauour rather to haue their wills done and that with reason renunciation also of the world and subduing of their owne iudgments seemeth not so properly to belong to that estate And as for mortifying of passions if they would attempt to do it their flatterers would not suffer them for that they would both say and sweare that euery passion of theirs is a sound and solide vertue and euery disordinate appetite a most iust desire And if you passe further to externall mortification as often fasting much prayer long watchings course apparell â—air-cloth diâ—cipline and the â—ike how vnfit are they for a Court or a Court for them Is not soft braue apparell delicate diet banqueting dancing masking Comedies loue-letters and such other more aggreable to that state and place Of the first our Sauiour himselfe testifieth Qui mollibus vestiuntur in domibus Regum sunt and for the rest that they were gratefull and familiar in Queene Elizabeth her Court and more frequented by her selfe then the other all men I thinke that were eye witnesses of the same will testify Only there wanted to the world a Deuine who by a new Theology should celebrate these Courtly exercises for good mortifications and now is sprong vp M. VVilliam Barlow that hath taken the matter vpon him published it in print making the very state and condition of life it selfe of being a Prince to be a state of mortification and consequently also of pennance for that mortifications be acts of pennance wherof it doth ensue that Queene Elizabeths life was a penitentiall life which is fâ—rre different from that store of felicity and aboundance of temporall consolation which the Lord Cooke describeth with his Copia Inopia which wee shall handle afterward And thus much of Queene Elizabeths Mortification There followeth in my Booke a word or two of her persecutions for that it was sayd in the Apology first in generall that her Maiestie neuer punished any Papist for Religion And againe that she was most free from all persecution And yet further that she neuer medled with the hard punishment of any Catholicke nor made any rigorous law against them before the Excomâ—â—nication of pope Pius Quintus which was vpon the yeare 1569. â—â—d the eleuenth of her Raigne Wherunto I answered that for punishments all the Catholick Cleargy of England were depriued long before this for their religion and many as well Laymen as Priestes put in prison for the same and multitude of others driuen into banishment of all sortes of people whose names Doctor Sanders setteth
fayth This was the summe of my answer and the Cardinalls booke comming out afterwards hath the same in effect in these words Distinguish the tymes you shal agree the Scriptures Iudas belieued and was iust and good in the beginning of his election but afterward he yealded to the tempter and not only did not belieue but became a thief also and betrayed his Lord and lastly hanged himselfe So he And now what do you think that M. Barlow out of his ingeniosity will find to bring for maintenance that this was a true contradiction in Bellarmine Truly he will adventure far to find somewhat though it be to his owne shame and discredit Let vs heare his mad defence ioyningâ—sayth â—sayth he of the Aduerbe verè by Bellarmine that Iudas was truly righteous and certainlie good and yet did not belieue makes it a contradiction incurable And to the end that his fraud may be more notorious he writeth the wordes truly certainly and not belieue in great letters But now if you looke vpon Cardinal Bellarmines words you shall find first that he doth not ioyne the aduerbe vere that is truly righteous nor the others of certainly good at all his words are these Dominiâ—o â—o annis 17. Pater quos dedisti mihi custodiui nemo ex eis periji nisi filius perditionis Si Pater de dit illum Filio certe bonus erat That Iudas was sometimes iust S. Hierome doth proue out of the words of S. Iohn 17. Father I haue kept those that thou hast giuen me and none haue perished but the sonne of perdition If God the Father gaue him to his Sonne truly he was then good Heere then you see that there is no â—ere iustus truly righteous as M. Barlow hath thrust into Bellarmines words And albeit he sayth certe bonus erat yet certe is not referred to bonus as is euident These are then two willfull corruptions But the third is much more eminent that he maketh Bellarmine to say that notwithstanding that Iudas was truly righteous and certainely good yet did he not belieue Wheras Bellarmine sayth he did belieue and so is it set downe in the forme it selfe of the obiected contradiction saying that first he did belieue when he was chosen an Apostle and that then he was iust but afterward he lost his faith and did not belieue And now wil M. Barlow for making vp of some shew of contradiction against Bellarmine make him say that at the one and the selfe same tyme Iudas was truly righteous certaynely good and yet not belieued And to shew that this is an absurd proposition he maketh a long discourse out of Scriptures and Fathers to proue that without fayth a man cannot be truly righteous nor certainely good as though Cardinall Bellarmine had denied the same Is there any shame in these men But after this againe he goeth further in another place demanding whether supposing Iudas to haue belieued at the beginning his fayth were â—ormata or no that is informed by grace working by charity â—lleadâ—ging Aquinas in these words Surely in him that hath such a â—aith Aquinas sayth nihilinest damnationis there is no damnation For being once had it cannot totally and finally be lost nor is it more separable from him then the essentiall forme of any thing frome the subiect which it denominates Thus he And will not euery man that readeth these words thinke that Aquinas doth hould all this doctrine heere auerred that fides formata once had cannot be finally lost M. Barlow hath holpen the matter the best he can to deceaue his Reader in not citing any place of Aquinas where he houldeth this for that he could not do it but they that are acquinted with Aquinas his bookes and doctrine know him expresly to teach the coÌ„trary as the Reader may see if he liâ—t to peruse the places here quoted where he purposly proueth that charitas semel habita potest amiâ—â—i and for that charity is the forme of faith it followeth by necessary consequence that fides formata to wit a iustifying faith may in Aquinas his opinioÌ„ be lost and herof no Catholicke Deuine can doubt So as the impudency was strange in charging Aquinas with this which is the proper heresie of Iohn Caluin but much more that in the very place whence this pretended contradiction about Iudas is taken to wit out of Bellarmines third booke de Iustificatione Bellarmine doth proue by eight examples out of Scriptures the quite contrary to wit that fayth and iustice being once had may be lost againe What will M. Bâ—â—low answere to all this wil not his friends blush for him in this behalfe Or will not euery iudicious Reader make a pause here and say that it is a strange misery of a cause in religion which cannot be defended but with such grosse palpable falshoods Let vs leaue theÌ„ these obiected contradictions and passe to some other things The Cardinal hath answered al the rest him selfe nor did I think it good that wrot besore him to preuent him therin nor yet to â—asse any further hauing proued these first foure to be such as now you haue seene though M. Barlows defence hath made the matter far worse OF THE CONTENTIONS OF SVNDRY OTHER EMPEROVRS KINGS AND PRINCES with Popes of their times in temporall affaires obiected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Popes Superiority VVHERIN many fraudes and forgeries are discouered in M. Barlow particulerly concerning Fredericke the second and his contentions with Popes CHAP. V. THis argument of the temporall dangers imminent to Princes as is pretended by acknowledging the Popes supreme Authority and of so many hurts and dangers ensuing therof though we haue â—omwhat largely handled before by occasion of the examples obiected of the Emperours Henry the 4. and Henry the 5. yet here are we forced to reâ—teratâ— the same argument againe for that many more examples are obiected concerning the sayd Henry the fourth his doing pennance at the Caâ—tle of Canusium inforced therunto by Pope Gregory the 7. as also of the Emperour Fredericke the 1. forced by Pope Alexander the third to lye a grooâ—e on his belly and to suffer the other to tread on his neck of Philip the Emperour sayd to be slaine by Otho at the Popes motion of the Emperour Fredericke the second excommunicated and depriued by Pope Innocentius the 4. procured afterward to be poisoned that Pope Alexander the third wrote to the Souldan to poison the Emperour sent him his picture to that effect that Pope Alexander the sixt caused the brother of Baiazetes the Turkish Emperour named Gemen to be poisoned at his brothers request and had two hundred thousand crowns for the same That our King Henry the second besides his going barefoote on pilgrimage was whipped vp and downe the Chapterhouse like a schoole boy and glad to â—scape so too That the Father of the moderne King of France was
3. pag. 524. An examination of certaine Sentences and Authorities of ancient Fathers alleadged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Letter to M. Blackwell and impugned by M. Barlow CHAP. VI. pag. 536. THE PREFACE TO THE READER IN VVHICH are laid open some few examples of the singular Ignorance Lying and other bad dealings of M. Barlow in his Answere to the Censure of the Apology THREE thinges gentle Reader at the comming forth of this Booke may occur vnto thy mynd in which thou mayst perhaps desire some satisfaction First the cause why so idle a worke as M. Barlowes Answere is knowne and taken to be should be answered at all by so graue and learned a man as F. Persons was Secondly why this Answere is published so late after his death And last of all what opinion is to be had of M. Barlowes talents learninâ— methode in answering or what others heere do iudge of the same And albeit this latter may seeme to some to be of least moment for that one aduersary most commonly will hold an others writing in highest contempt and therfore from them so much interessed no sound iudgement may be expected yet do I thinke it very necessary to insist most thereon or rather am forced to the same for that M. Barlow is so desirous of honour as like the Ape he thinketh his owne whelp fayrest and himselfe will needs perswade his Maiesty that he hath so answered as that no sound Reply can euer be made thereunto Wherfore as well for thy instruction good Reader as also to rectify M. Barlowes iudgement which in this seemeth to be very erroneous and to teach him to examine his conâ—cience better before he presume againe so far as eyther to promise to a Prince or put forth in print I shall set downe my opinion worth of his Booke and that vpon no other grounds then I shall produce out of the Booke it selfe whereby thou shalt haue more light to discerne in this affaire betweene vs and M. Barlow lesse cause to complaine of any hard measure seeing that against M. Barlow nonâ— is brought to plead but M. Barlow himselfe 2. To the first point then this briefly I answere that F. Persons hauing seene the base manner method of writing which M. Barlow houldeth through his whole Booke esteemed the worke not worthy of any answere and so resolued with himselfe to be silent therein and in lieu of refuting this answere to set forth the other two parts of Resolution so long before promised by him and so much desired of the Catholiks in England which whiles he went about to doe a Copy of this answere of M. Barlow came to the Inquisitors hands and was by them sent to the said Father with order to refute the same perswading themselues that a booke of that bulke argument written by a preteÌ„ded Prelate dedicated to his Maiesty could not but beare some shew of learning and therfore was not to be left vnanswered And that good opinion got M. Barlow by writing in English for could these haue but vnderstood what was written with what modesty and learning he may be sure F. Persons should neuer haue bene troubled with the sight therof but a shorter course had byn taken by casting it into the fire the fittest element to purge such vnsauoury filth as euery where he belcheth forth in the same against all sortes of men wherof you shall hardly fynd any one page to be void 3. Now for the stay which hath bene made in the setting forth of this worke seeing that the said Father dispatched what he wrote in lesse then 4. moÌ„ths it being now more then 4. tymes as much since his decease hath especially proceeded vpon the manifold other incumbrances variable disposition of body wherwith that party hath bene troubled to whome the worke was committed to be finished as himselfe coÌ„fesseth in the very entrance of the first Chapter of his Supplement which he intended to haue set forth with this Booke but growing to so great a bulke by reason of the manifold aduantages giuen by the Aduersary it was thought better in the end that it should goe forth a part as making of it selfe a iust volume with some little enlargement or addition annexed thereunto in answere of some things obiected forged not well vnderstood or misalleadged by M. Doctour Andrews now of Ely concerning the matters by him handled in the Supplement whome togeather with M. Barlow he answereth with that grauity iudgement and learning as will content all yea euen his Aduersaryes themselues if by these meanes they were to be contented or if that the search of truth were the center of their motion and chiefe end of their endeauors and not contrarily with neglect contempt therof to speake placentia and write that which may pleasâ— their humors best by whome they hope to gaine most not regarding on which side equity and right doth stand so they withstand not them whose pleasure they make the square of their actions whose fauour they hold for their highest felicity 4. But touching the last point for that I meane to make it the subiect of this Preface I shall be more long not for any difficulty which I fynd in the thing it selfe for who but M. Barlow knoweth not what a weake writeâ— M. Barlow is and in all manner of learning insufficient but that the Reader by this example may see the weight and worth of Protestant writers how little regard is to be had to the bragging vauÌ„ting of their owne learning conquest ouer their Aduersaries for with such brauery of words as with figge-leaues they would couer their shame and nakednes whiles full well they see and feele the wound which euen pierceth pincheth them to the hart roote And commonly none brag more then those who performe least or vpon other occasion then when they are most vanquished and ouercome at least so it fareth often with M. Barlow who thus vauntingly telleth his Maiesty that he is one of a great number and a continuall succession which are ready for this cause and already câ—tred â—he combat and as the couragious Spartans were wâ—nt to sing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 try them when and wherein yow please And after speaking more particulerly of this Answere he saith In handling the mayne points I trust it will appeare that I haue neyther dallyed with him nor illuded the Reader so that for any sound Reply thereto I assure my selfe security from him And is not this very confidently spoken trow yow And is not this Minister well perswaded of himselfe and his owne learning that thus craketh Audiuimus superbiam Moab superbus est valde sed superbia eius arrogantia eius indignatio eius plus quà m fortitudo eius We haue heard the pride of Moab M. Barlow he is very proud but his pride and arrogancy and wrath is more then his strength 5. Neyther is this swelling
Ely of whome whiles he was silent many had some opinion of learning but since all is resolued to lying immodest rayling and some few light Terentian Plautinian phrases which aswel bâ—seeme a Deuine writing in matters of such moment and in defence of so great a Monarch to dally withall as it doth a Bishop to lead a morrice-daunce in his hose and dublet This man I say answereth hereunto that perhaps so the case stood then when those Protestants did write but that is well neere 20. yeares agoe but now it is otherwise Which is asmuch as if he had said that this new beliefe in England is not like the old alwayes one but is refined altered with the tyme and therefore no argument can be drawne from a thing done 20. yeares past for that is to great antiquity for so new-fangled a fayth which is alwaies in motion and hath her waynes changes quarters and full like the Moone But yet I must aske him further how he will proue by any example of the Puritan writers this their change and submission to the Protestants conformity of doctrine with theÌ„ more now then 20. yeares past Are they not still in the same degree of difference and oppositioÌ„ as before Doe they not still deny our Sauiours descent into hell Do they not disclay me from the English Hierarchie Will they acknowledge the Kings Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall as King Henry did challenge it Or will they recall what they haue written of their discipline that it is an essentiall marke of the Church without which there were no Church no Faith no Ghospell and consequently the Protestants to be no Ghospellers to be out of the Church out of the number of the faithfull 29. But for further confutation of both these Superintendents and more cleere explication of the thing it selfe besides what is afterwards said in this booke touching this point it shall not be amisse here to set downe the words of a few Protestant and Puritan late and yet liuing writers what they iudge of ech other in this affayre that our very enemyes may be iudges of the most shamefull assertion of these two Prelates That the Protestants and Puritans differ in matters only cerimoniall and agree in essentiall And the reason that I produce no more in this kind is for want of their bookes which being not worth the sending so far seldome come to our hands I will begin with the Protestants 30. And to omit Thomas Rogers whose testimony is after to be produced in the Discussion it selfe what other thing doth Oliuer Ormerod in his discouery of Puritan-Papisme annexed to his Picture of a Puritan prooue but that the said Puritans are Hereticks and haue ioyned themselues with the Pharisies Apostolickes Arians Pebuzians Petrobusians Florinians Câ—rinthiaÌ„s Nazarens Begardines Ebionites Catababdites Eâ—theusiasts Donatists Iouinianists Catharists And least any should thinke that this coniunction is only in matters cerimonial he laieth to their charge these ensuing heresies that there is no diuersâ—â—y between a Priest and a Bishop that Bishops haue no iuâ—isdiction that all synnes be equall that the Minister is of the essence of baptisme with the like And in the second dialogue he maketh in plaine tearmes this obiection that there is no difference in matters fundamentall but accidentall and then answereth the same that they do differ from the Protestants in some things that are fundamentall and substantiall which he proueth by the article of Christs descending into hell And he might haue proued it further by the aboue rehearsed articles for which Iouinian Aerius and others were reputed by the auncient Fathers and condemned for Hereticks 31. VVith this Oliuer of Cambridge agreeth A. N. of Oxford in his Bible-bearer towards the midest for thus he writeth They refuse to subscribe to the Kings lawfull authority in causes Ecclesiasticall to the article of religion to the booke of Common prayer and the orders rites and cerimonies of our Church nay they dissent from vs in things accidentall and cerimoniall So he By which last antithesis of accidentall cerimoniall differences it is most euident that the former were essentiall fundamentall Neither doe I see how this can be denyed by any for if the Puritans refuse to subscribe to the articles of Protestant religion who seeth not that they approue it not and consequently differ in essentiall points and that M. Barlow ouerlashed very much when he wrote that their vnkind quarrell with Puritans was in another kind and not in matters of religion wherein forsooth out of his great kindnes he will haue them to agree 32. And not to stand more for proofe hereof from Protestants D. Couel cleereth the matter when he saith But least any man should thinke that our contentions were but in smaller points and the difference not great both sides haue charged the other with heresies if not infidelities nay euen such as quite ouerthrow the principall foundation of our Christian faith Thus he And this I thinke is another manner of matter then externall cerimonies or accidentall differences for if this be not a plaine iarre amongst Protestants and Puritans in Religion I would faine know what M. Barlow will more require thereunto but I see S. Gregories wordes verified in these men where he saith solent haeretici alia apertè dicere alia occultè cogitare the heretikes are wont to speake otherwise openly then inwardly they thinke for when they deale amongst themselues then are Protestants and Puritans heretikes and infidells to ech other but when they answere vs then all are friendes all good Christians all vnited in doctrine deuided only in cerimonies accidentall differences This is another manner of equiuocation then any of our schooles will allow and only fit for such as are his schollers qui in veritate non stetit sed mendax fuit ab initio 33. From Protestants I come to Puritans who in this case are no lesse eager playne and resolute then the Protestants but rather more for this in expresse tearmes the Author of the Twelue generall arguments concludeth against all the Superintendents of England togeather that they are Vsurpers and Tyrants and execute an vsurped power ouer the Church and one reason to proue the same is ex concessis for that their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction is deriued from the King else say they it is a flat deniall of his Supremacy as there they shew And in the next reason which is the 4. and last brought in for proofe of their assumption or minor thus they conclude There are no true and sober Christians but will say that the Churches of Scoâ—land France the Low Countryes and other places that renounce such Archbishops and Bishops as ours are as Anti-christian and vsurping Prelates are true Churches of God which they could not be if the authority prerogatiues they claime to themselues were of Christ and not vsurped for if it were the ordinance of Christ
his Maiesty then he doth in these 77. But let vs see M. Barlowes Commentary by which alone will sufficiently appeare with what malignant spirit his mind is possessed For if hell it self wâ—re let loose it is hard to say whether all the Diuells togeather would make a moâ—e false more wâ—â—kedâ— or more iniurious Answere then he hath done For thus he writeth Hâ—re Iudas is turnâ—d into Caiphas spâ—akes a truth as Prâ—sident of the Counsâ—ll for the POWDER-PLOT the reuealing thereof by a letter vnexpected he cunningly calls a sinister information which indeed preuâ—nted his Maiesty from feeling the euent of that dreadfâ—ll â—esigne and them also of their grâ—ater hopes which here he câ—lls their DVE as if ALL but THEY were vsurpers for had not the preuâ—ntion hapned the greatest places of the land which THEY in hope had swallowed had â—ene now at their disposall and this preuention he calls sinister as vnlucky vnto them c So this lying Minister For that he doth here most loudly and lewdly lye needeth no other proofe then the comparing of F. Persons words with this answere of his which can no more stand togeather then fire and water truth with falshood or for that he playeth the beast so brutishly in this place to vse his owne example no more thâ—n Moyâ—es his oxe and asse in onâ— yoake 78. For were not his wit very little and honesty lesse he would neuer shew such fraudulent malignity in facing so heynous a matter without all ground proofe or semblable coniecture especially seeing in F. Persons the fauour mentioned to be meant only of that which his Maiesty shewed at his entrance For these are his words almost in the next ensuing lines If there had bâ—nâ— no pâ—rseâ—utioÌ„ before that treason this might haue bâ—nâ— assignâ—d for some probable cause of the subsâ—quent tribulationâ— but all England knoweth that this is not so but that his Maiâ—sties sweet and mild aspâ—ct towards Catholicks at his first entranâ—e was soone by art of their enâ—myes auâ—rted long bâ—fore the conspiracy fell out c. Which words fully declare what he meant by sinister informatiâ—n and perswasion of othâ—rs and M. Barlow willing to dazle the Readers eyes and imprint in his mind a suspition of F. Pâ—rsâ—ns his acknowledge of the powder-plot first by a histâ—ron proteron inuerteth his words cobling in some of his owne and then frameth a glosse which notwithstanding all his dealing agreeth not with the text so good a writer he is as he knoweth not of one thing how to inferre another for these words as hoping to haue receiued much grâ—ater cited by M Barlow in a different letter are not F. Pâ—rsâ—ns words neither doth F. Persons shut vp as due vnto them within a pareÌ„thesis as immediatly following the former sentence and the wordes if his Maiesty had not bene preuented by sinister information in F. Persons goe before the other as due vnto them and are there so plainly explicated as none but some malicious Minister could be ignorant of his meaning 79. Yet after all this cutting off transposition inuersion changing in so short a sentence to take it as it pleaseth M. Barlow to giue it how will the conclusion drawne therof agree with the premisses Catholicks had receaued at his Maiesties hands greater fauours as due vnto them if he had not bene preuented by sinister information How I say will it follow that by sinister informatioÌ„ F. Persons meant the reuealing of the powder-plot by a letter which saith he preuented his Maiesty from fâ—eling the euent of that dreadfull designe And againe and this preuention he calls sinister as vnlucky to them adding moreouer that the hopes which F. Persons meant to be due to the Catholiks were those which should haue ensued vnto them by that treason which saith M. Barlow here he calls their DVE as if ALL but THEY were vsurpers Are not these good inferences Is not this Christian and charitable proceeding What learning truth or modesty will allow this barbarous collection and thâ—â— in one who taketh vpon him to write in defence of a Prince and would be reputed in the Church for a Bishop But wo be to those sheep that are fed and led by so perfidious a Pastour 80. The like perfidiousnes he sheweth in cyting F. Persons words where he maketh him in a different letter to say speaking of the warrs which some Popes haue had with the Emperours that eyther they were not vnlawfully done or els the causes were iust or saith M. Barlow which is a pretty passage numb 28. the Popes haue perswaded themselues they were iust and therfore as a Generall in the field pursued them as open enemies or as a Iudge vpon the Bench commaunded execution to be done vpon them as MALEFACTORS And hauing set downe these wordes as if F. Persons had spoken them be beginneth to reply against them with this insulting entrance But first who girt the sword to the Popes side But I may better retort this interrogation vpon M. Barlow and aske him But first who taught him to ly so loud For in all the 28. nuÌ„ber which he calles a pretty passage where will he find these wordes And therefore as a Generall in the field pursued them as open enemies or as a Iudge vpon the bench coÌ„maunded execution to be done vpon them as MALEFACTORS And if these Wordes be neither there nor in any other place of F. Persons is not this a pretty passage or rather a paltry cosenage and lying liberty in this Minister to make his aduersary to speake what himselfe listeth and especially in such an odious manner and matter as here he doth printing the words MALEFACTORS in great capitall letters as though F. PersoÌ„s had said that Popes may coÌ„maund execution to be done vpon Princes as vpoÌ„ MALEFACTORS which is nothing els but the capital lying of M. Barlow 81. Perhaps the Reader heere will aske vpon what ground this charge is made for it is to be supposed that he had some foundation for the same in the discourse of F. Persons albeit he followed not precisely the wordes but their sense meaning from which it is to be thought that he hath no way swarued but hereunto I answere that neither the wordes or sense is to be found of this matter in the passage cyted and all that can be drawne to this purpose in the 28. number are these very wordes of the beginning And so if sâ—â—â— Popes haue had iust warrs with some Princes Kings 〈◊〉 Emperours or haue persuaded themselues that they weâ—â— iust in respect of some supposed disorders of the said Princeâ— as here is mentioned the war and other hostile proceedingâ— of Pope Gregory the seauenth against the Emperour Heâ—â—â— the fourth this is not contrary to the saying of Cardiâ—â—â— Bellarmine that no Pope euer commaunded any Prince 〈◊〉 be murthered or allowed thereof after it was done by 〈◊〉 other These are F. Persons words for
of which discourse what trow yoâ— doth M. Barlow infer He secretly saith he girds a his Maiesty for being both a Philosopher which is hâ—â— Maiestâ—es great glory our Realmes happinesâ— for true Philosophy ioyned to goâ—ernment regulates the scepter to the subiects comfort and the Kingdomes renowne and an heretick also a perfect slaunder in them both for by that religion which they call heresie he doth truly glorifie the God of heauen So he and who can denyâ— but that here is also besmearing as M. Barlow hath framed his CoÌ„meÌ„tary but I verily thinke that God is little glorified by such bad glosses so little coherent yea so cleane repugnanâ— to the text Let vs come to the last for hasten to aâ— end of this Preface meane not to make any longer demurr vpon this kind of sycophancy 95. The most potent proofe of all the rest to euince that F. Persons wrote against his Maiesty and not T. M. which M. Barlow will haue to be demonstratiue and therfore setteth it out with his Ministeriall eloquence and Episcopall grauity is taken from these words of the said Father where hauing aÌ„swered the obiectioÌ„s made against the liues of some Popeâ— he concludeth thus If a man would goe about to discredit Kingly authority by all the misdeeds of particuler Kings that haue byn registred by Historiographers since the tyme that Popes began he should finde no doubt aboundaÌ„t maâ—â—er and such as could not be defended by any probability And yet doth this preiudicate nothing to Princely power or dignity and much lesse in our case where the facts themselues obiected are eyther exaggerated increased wrested orâ— altogeater falsified 96. To this what replyeth M. Barlow Here first saith he is verified that speach of Seneca nemo personam diu ferre potest Art cannot long estrange nature But as the Apologue dâ—scribâ—s Venus transformed waiting-mayde who beeing trickt vp like a GentlewomaÌ„ mink'st it a while till she spied a Mouse but then made it knowne she was a Cat So this Censurer who all this while would make the Reader belieue that he confuted onely one T. M. the yonger and would seeme to take no knowledge that our Graâ—ious Soueraigue had to doe in the Apology now being exaspâ—rate with this round canuasinâ— of the Pope and knowing that it will be descried for the stile and veine of more thâ—n an ordinary man he forgets his dissembled aduersaryâ— likâ— a perfit Iesuit retorts vpon the King Thus he But how is this proued Heare I pray and admire the wisdome of Syr William For if T. M. saith he were the truâ— Apologâ—r the recrimination had bene more fit both in respâ—ct of these precedeÌ„t instances of Popes and that suppâ—sâ—d Author to haue made the comparison between Bishops Ministâ—rs But if I answere him againe that it was more fitly made betweene Kingâ— Popes in respect of their supreme authority which is not lost by the demerit of their liues he hath nothing to reply therunto but that all they who weare the habit or are inuested into holy orders amongst Protestants I vse his â—wne words are not free from notorious vices and scandalous to the world which I confesse and none I thinke can with any reason or truth gaine-say the same 97. By these then and such like reasons he would proue F. Persons to haue written against hiâ— Maiesty whatsoeuer he said against Thomas Mountague and consequently to haue railed against him which although they be very childish ridiculous and impertinent as you haue seene prouing nothing but his owne sicophancy yet as though they were cleerer mathematicall demonsâ—rations then any in Euclide he buildeth all his accusation vpon them and sayth as you haue heard that he could not without touch of disloyaltie forbeare from reproach and that in respect of F. Persons reuiling veyne nothing at all was to be pared or spared telling his Maiesty that neyther the shame of the world nor feare of God nor grace of the spirit can mortify his nature or restraine his tongue but citeth no senteÌ„ce word or syllable for the same but such as you haue heard With M Barlow whose rayling I meane heere to examine I will deale more really and out of his owne words shew what feare of God he hath what shame of the world what grace of the spirit what mortified nature what modâ—st tongue and then leaue it to Readers iudgment to determine whether in such brutish reuiling no sparing or paring were to be vsed or not 98. In his Epistle Dedicatory which is not very long besides the reproaches mentioned of rancour scorning ribaldry defiling besmearing regorging and the like he calleth F. Persons a debosâ—ed abiect and vnreformed Hypocrite belike M. Barlow is a reformed one a Rakeshame Rabshekah of a prostituted conscience impudency whose very name is the epitome of all contumely being as currant in a proâ—erb as was once the name of Daedalus In omni fabula Daedali execratio for no libell can come from Rome but Persons is presently supposed and noysed to be Author and the more vile the more Persons like a creature that doth rage snarle c. Thus much to his Maiesty himselfe And is not this thinke you fit for a Prince to read or preâ—eÌ„ded Prelate to write Is the grauity learning modesty and vertue of the English Clergy for which our Country before this reuolt was most famous so lost as insteed of answering like Deuines to see one bearing himselfe for a Bishop to renew the old Comedy in an epistle to his Soueraigne a Booke written in his defeÌ„ce which eueÌ„ on the heathen stage was so much misliked condemned by all 99. To this begining is sutable the whole worke which followes or rather much worse For in the very entrance after he hath set down what order he will obserue and repeated some of F. Persons words but falsly after his accustomed manner he calleth him a ranging voluntary runnagate an Hispanized Camelion the brat of an Incubus filius terrae no true Englishman eyther in hart or by birth This is his first assault rude Ruffianlike as you see and then afterwardes he telleth of the disgorging the gall of his bitternes and the venemous rancour of his cancred hart by his Rabshakeis pen that he is the abstract quintessence of all coynes coggeries forgeries that lyes dissembles equiuocates at euery word this fugitiue tenebrio Persons Robin Cowbucke parasite and trayterous clawbacke a knowne incendiary this serpens Epidaurius the Diuells schollar his Deuillity reader Spiritus mendax in ore omnium Prophetarum this boutefeaux he disgorgeth out of his filthy throat by his diuelish pen c. And is there heer no paring nor sparing to be vsed in the iudgment of M. Barlows exact Surueyers Truely eyther their Suruâ—y was not very exact or their iudgmeÌ„t small or els they were not his frieÌ„ds that would permit such scurrility
sets forth S. Peters authority especially that blasphemous speach of his that our Lord did take S. Peter into the fellowship of the indiuisible Vnity such an impious prophanely proud assertion as a Christian hart would tremble to imagine it and his hand abhor to write it So he And I thinke that alâ— Christian harts will more tremble abhor the impious and prophane proud audacity and blasphemoâ—â— villany of this wicked miscreant for his base reuiling so glorious a Saint then any words vsed by S. Leo which by the author of the Supplement are defended proued to contayne nothing but true and Catholicke doctrine consonant to the Scriptures Counsell all antiquity S. Martyn he calleth a sullen surly Prelate taxing his vnciuill vsing of the Emperour and proud thoughts from which he was so free as he is by all writers specially commended for the contrary made a rare example and mirrour of humility But M Barlow hath leaue as it should seeme of his exact Suruâ—yours as once the Clazemonians had of the Sparthiansâ— indecorè facere to spare none but to rayle lye anâ— blaspheme the highest and lowest lyuing and dead Gods seruants on earth his Saints in heauen with whome vnlesse he repent he will neuer haue any part or portion Quia maledici regnum Dei non possidebunt 110. There would be no end if I should vnfold all that he hath in this kind which I forbeare to doâ— any further as hauing already layd forth so much as may cloy the Reader and cleerly shew the spirit of the man For if as Cassiodorus writeth speculum cordis hominum verba sunt the words of men are the looking glasse of their hart for from the aboundance of the hart the mouth doth speake we must needs see what a sinke of iniquity lyeth in the hart of this man from which so many lyes contumelies slaunders blasphemyes and wicked impure words haue proceeded what immodest malice that spareth none abuseth all what malicious immodesty that shameth not to a base â—t selfe to the most vile and beastly tearmes which beâ—ore haue bene set downe and are too filthy here to â—e againe repeated Truely whosoeuer will with vnâ—artiaâ—l affection iudge hereof will soone see and confesse that M. Barlow is more trayned and better practised in his schoole who is accusator Fratrum or his qui aperuit os suum in blaspâ—emias then our Sauiours whose wisdome as S. Iames saith is pudica pacifica c. peaceable and modest of which he shall find this Minister quite deuoid without seÌ„se or feeling at all 111. And by this also he may further ghesse where to find the Diuels scholler indeed and his Dâ—uillity Reader to vse M. Barlows words if he list to seek him for I report me to all modest men whether this manner of writing or rather railing haue not more Deuillity then Diuinity in it and whether it doe not better beseeme a Diuell thus to speake then a Deuine to write vnles perhaps such a Deuine as for his degree of Doctorship made his positioÌ„ of the possessioÌ„ of Diuels and in defending the negatiue a strange assertion was so much in the tearmes of obsession circumsession possession answering distinguishing so ridulously wheÌ„ the Maister of Queens Colledge pressed him as if he had bene some Coniurers boy that had bene to go forth Maister of the black art and not Mâ— Barlow to proceed Doctor of Diuinity and as none will deny but that the argument of possession of Diuels did very much fit his humour so must I needs say that Cambridge was a very vnfit place for such a Doctour when as both the dogmaticall position and disposition of the man deserued rather a Bâ—dlam or Bridewell then any Oxford or Cambridge to be stayned withall For there is neyther mad man in the one or bad woman in the other but that may yet learne to raue and raile of M. Barlow though he haue this speciall priuiledge more then they to set that out in print to the view of all which some of them perhaps would be ashamed to speake priuately in their chambers between themselues alone 112. I could here out of better proofe then the infamous Quodlibets or other such like Libells which are M. Barlows chiefest Authors and authorityes against F. Persons shew other examples of his proud insolent behauiour I meane by such witnesses as both saw and heard what passed at Lincolne for that he was not so honorably receaued as he did expect though yet he had much more honour done him then he did deserue For preaching in his parish at S. Edwards oâ— the feast of the Circumcision not so much vpon the Ghospell and present solemnitie as against Syr Iohâ— Cuts there present for cutting belike some benefice or part therof from him he was so enraged as neyther the place tyme Auditory or the matter he haÌ„dled could keep him from open reproach but that he must needs tell that out of the pulpit which sâ—anâ— be fitted an Alebench that now euery Iack would become a Cutter with other words to that effect which I forbeare in this place as myndfull of my promise not to bring witnesse or proofe against M. Barlow but M. Barlow himself These things with many other in a more ample processe may come forth hereafter if insteed of answering our bookes he prouoke vs againe as here he hath done with his intemperate scurrility From his rayling let vs come to his flattery 113. Witty was the answere of the Cynicke who being asked what beast had sharpest teeth to byte â—nswered that of wyld beasts the Detractor or rayler â—f tame the Flatterer And the Fathers well note â—hat commonly these two vices combyned togeaâ—her in the same subiect Parasitus saith S. Hierome â—n contumelijs gloriatur the Parasite delighteth in reproaâ—hes And S. Chrysostome Nihil muliebrius est quà m â—obor in lingua habere in conuicijs superbire sicut Paraâ—â—ti adulatores c. Porci magis sunt quà m homines â—uotquot in hoc gloriantur There is nothing more effeâ—inate then for a man to haue his strength in his tonâ—ue to take pride in rayling as Parasites flatterers vse â—o doe As many as doe glory in this are more to be â—steemed swyne then men So this Father in this short â—entence giuing a sharp censure of M. Barlowes booke â—o flattering so raylatiue as it passeth all modesty measure Of the later we haue already seene some exâ—mples now you shall see how he can fawne that did before so reproachfully byte but with all breuity as being loath for some respects to touch the most pregnant examples of this Parasite for feare of further reproofe and check 114. You haue heard him blaspheme three Saints of ours for none of them was a Protestant now you shall heare him make a new Saint of his owne For hauing spent almost three pages togeather
Pamphlet These are his forrain phrases fectht far from home and therefore fit for Ladyes let vs see some few of his that are more domesticall 123. In the very first page he telleth F. Persons that he might haue left the blunting or disloding of the tripled wedge two pretty metaphors to him that weares the triple Crowne A litle after An itching arme desires still to be scrubd to retriue an Author Aiax the whipper wreaking his teene vpon a ram as sowters stretch leather with their teeth he saith that Christ gaue his body to the smyâ—ers his cheekes to the nippers a burt in his throat the pudder of different opinions they should settle their conscience not startle it a frapting discourse fayned blandishmentsâ— to distinguish vpon any hint the Apostle aduised â—ot to draw in a countâ—r-ietting yoke with Infidells in that orbytie and age to embroider the Popes ingratitude in this iering scornâ— a Priest and his recepter let them garr their wiues more awkward and violent a pingle of trifles a counterscarfe of examples an Empericall Quack-saluer rebecke by opposâ—â— prouokes to wrath to start into circumstances a strong câ—â—Ì„tershocke to detort or defalke a scorning flur a bloud glâ—sâ—â— to besmâ—er with his glauering balme the rechaffment to disloyall attempts frampold dealing a decade of reasons to dâ—sâ— the Pope c. I leaue more then I take of these tearâ—eâ— and yet here are more then I well vnderstand he shall not doe amisse if he write againe for the ease of his Reader to seâ— out some dictionary to the end he may the better know the signification of these new words or elsse I verily suppose he will be mistaken in many 124. I will end all this matter with that which is most vsuall most grosse and palpable in M. Barlow to wit his forgery and corrupting of Authors by exchange addition or subtraction of their words inuerting wholy their sense and meaning as in others very often as well ancieÌ„t as moderne so for the most part alwayes when in a different character he setteth downe as he would haue it seeme the text of his aduersary then taketh occasion vpon his owne wordâ— foysted in to carpe rayle insult ouer himâ— the occasion of which foule fault in him I find to be eyther his owne praise of which he is very desirous the disgrace of his aduersary or the reliefe of his cauâ—e when by no other way he is else able to shift auoyd the force of the authorityes produced against him in ech kind but very briefly I will alleage an example without any choyce as they shall occur to my handes for who so listeth to read his booke examine what he readeth shall hardly in any place misse of examples 125. In the Epistle to his Maiesty he saith that against F. Persons rayling he will comfort himselfe with that conclusion of S. Hierom Caninam facundiam seruâ—s Dâ—mini pariter expâ—riatur vnctas accounting it my glory saith he that the same creature should rage and snâ—rle at ME the Lords vnworthy Minister which hath not spared TWO ROYALL MONARCHES the Lords annointed and amounted This text is fit as you see for M. Barlowes purpose for none can deny it to be a great glory to this vnworthy Minister to be ioyned with royall Monarches the Lords annointed and amounted But in the Author I meane S. Hierome himselfe there is no mention of any such Minister or Monarch there is no annointing no amounting for he only speaketh of the B. Virgin and Mother of our Sauiour saying or rather concluding his whole dispute with this sentence Caninam facundiam seruus Domini pariter experiatur mater I shall with coÌ„fort endure his rayling who togeather with me reuiles the Mother of our Lord. So he which full little concerneth this Minister who with his Mates rather ioine with Heluidius to dispraise her then with S. Hierom the Cath. Church to defend or commend her as all the world doth see 12â— Of abusing F. Persons words I haue spoken before in relating M. Barlowes vntruthes vpoÌ„ other occasioÌ„s one place more I will here adioyne in which witâ— the forgery he sheweth great malice other RuffiaÌ„like misdemeanour for thus he citeth F. Pâ—rsons words A third thing is an ABVSE offered by his Maiesty to the words meaning of the Breue namely that the King should charge the Pope with vndeuinelike Doctrine for saying that the Oath conteyned many things apertly contrary to faith and saluation as if therby the Pope should say or meane that naturall Allegiance to their Soueraigne and Kinâ— were directly opposite to fayth and saluation of soules So he printing and noting the wordes as taken out of F. Persons booke with different characters marginall comma's as in the beginning he promised the Reader to do saying The Iesuits speaches through this whole booke are printed in the smaller letter alwayes with this marke â— in the beginning of the line prefixed And who then that shall read these wordes will not thinke them all to be the wordes of F. Persons and that he had in expresse tearmes abused his Maiesty with the charge of offering â—buse to the Pope Especially seeing M. Barlow in his Reply against him to â—harpen his pen to dip it deep in gall with this Virulent answere The high Priest himselfe would not haue vsed such a sawcy tearme of ABVSE as this rightly malepart that is misbegotten Catachristicalâ— câ—mpanion hath done but if it appeare that the Popes words imply so much and that necessarily Quid dabitur viro what shal be done to him that knetcheth this opprobrious Curr for what is this vncircumcised Iesuite that he should in so base tearmes scurriâ—ize so great a King So he 127. And none can deny but that here he hath shewed himselfe both a feruent and furious defender of his Maiesty for his rage doth ouer-runn his witt his words all modesty But not to stand vpon his immodesty which is a quality inseparable from the subiect I would aske him in Christian charity why he hath put downe these as the words of F. Persons or where they are to be found in his booke Doth he euer sayâ— that his Maiesty offered ABVSE or doth he vse the tearmes of vndeuinelike doctrine what malice what forgery or rather what villany is this to make F. Persons directly to charge his Maiesty as in his own words with offering abuse who in his booke hath no one such word or sillable All that he hath is against him whom he tooke to be the author of the Apology whom for the reasons he alleaged in the very begining of his letter for other respects he could not perswad himself to be his Maiesty as all know who then liued and conuersed with him and heard him seriously giue his iudgment thereof The true words of F. Persons which M. Barlow should haue cyted are these Heare now what abuse is
many more then I haue taken and in some of the heads touched more aduantagions also for the cause it self then those which I haue alleadged as who so listeth with any diligence to confer M. Barlows booke with F. Persons Letter or examine the passages he cyteth of others or his owne discourse collections and inferences will soone perceaue 132. Wherefore I wish thee good Reader vpon that which hath bene said to weigh first the difference both in the spirit and method of these two men and that by no other ballance then their owne bookes for thereby thou shalt see where truth where vertue and learning is and contrariwise where falshood forgery and ignorance The letter is in many mens hands and so is M. Barlow his booke doe but confront them togeather and thou shalt in the one find grauity iudgment learning method in writing modesty truth what else should be in one that handleth a question of that nature and in the other neyther stile nor order nor modesty or any grauity learning or truth at all and for the manner of his writing it is so harsh patched togeather like a beggars cloake and like a sick mans dreame so ill coherent vnles it be when he flatters for then he striues of purpose to be eloquent as in reading the same I often thought of that censure of S. Hierome against Iouinian who was as fond in his latin phrases as M. Barlow is in his English Quâ—tieâ—cumque cum legero vbi me defecerit Spiritus ibi est distinctio totum incipit totum pendet ex altero nescias quid cui cohareat As often as I read him where my breath shall faile me there is a full point the whole begins the whole dependâ— of some what else that a man knowes not what coherence one thing hath with another 133. Withall thow mayest obserue what strange impudency it was in M. Barlow to tell his Maiesty that F. Persons railing was such as neither his age 〈◊〉 profession neither shame of the world nor feare of God nor grace of the spirit could mortifie his nature or restraine his tongue when as out of that Letter which he answereth there is no sentence or syllable that can sound of such insolency but his tongue hath so ouerlashed as neither age nor profession nor shame nor feare noâ— grace could restraine it And if that such intemperaâ—â— and vnsincere dealing be the grace of Protestants spirits there needeth no great tryall to be made for discerning them from what sourg or fountayne they proceed or whether they be gâ—od or bad And whereas he mentioneth profâ—ssion alluding as I take it to the religious profession of Father Pâ—rsons M. Barlow must know that in Catholicke doctrine the state of a Bishop is of more perfection in it selfe â— then is the state of a Religious man and so he taking himselfe for such a one should haue shewed more modesty then F. Persons in case he had bene immodest as he was not But men gather not grapes from thornes nor from such religion such Bishops such spirits expect any other flowers or fruite then are wont to grow in such gardens to wit in the barren soile of ignorance pride and hereticall peruersity 134. Againe consider I pray you what regard is to be had to the Censures of these men which they passe vpon Catholike bookes that are set out against them For not knowing which way to turne themselues to answere they thinke it no ill policy to make the Reader belieue that they are of no worth the authors contemptible their proofes none at all This M. Barlow doth often M. Andrews also maketh his first entrance with the same to his last booke So likewise before them did M. Whitaker against the Rhemes Testament and M. Iewell against Doctor Harding which shamefull shift they neuer vse so much as when they know least what else to reply For proofe whereof if there were no other argument let their owne writing against vs be seen especially this answer of M. Barlow in which his charges are fierce frequent but when tryall is to be made he falleth eyther to forging of texts or corrupting of Authors or idle ignorant babling or to worse dealing as hath bene shewed On the contrary side we for cleerer euidence and vpright dealing charge him with no more then we do proue nor take any other proofe then what is deduced from his owne words or else plainly expressed by them that without any mutation addition chopping or any maÌ„ner of wresting them to another sense meaning then they of their owne nature do beare M. Barlow himselfe when he wrote them did intend 135. Last of all if M. Barlow mislike that he is not stiled with a more honorable Tyâ—le as well in this Preface as in the Discussion Supplement besides that himself acknowledgeth it sufficieÌ„t honour to haue the name Maister which saith he put to the Surname of any man is an addition of worship so we must tell him that we giue it not for that we find no ground or fouÌ„dation for the same For which cause neyther Harding against Iewell or Stapleton against Horne or others against other of the Superintendents haue bestowed other tytle then Maister as not acknowledging them to be any Byshops at all And for mine owne part I take M. Barlowes wife whether she be his Lady or Mistriâ— for the feminine sex to vse his owne words must predominate which way soâ—uer inclyned to be as much Bishop of Lincolne as he And albeit M. Barlow say in one place that sure Maister Iewell was as lawfull a Byshop as M. Bellarmine is a Cardinall and deserues the tytle as well surely I must tell him that he is much mistaken for so much as of Cardinall Bellarmins being Cardinall there can be no doubt seeing he was made by the Pope who only can euer yet hath made Cardinalls such as now we speake of But of M. Iewells being Byshop we haue not so much certainty yea we haue no certainty at all For who I pray you made him Who gaue him his Iurisdiction Who imposed hands vpon him What orders had they What Byshops were they 136. True it is that both He Sands Scory Horâ—e Grindall and others if I mistake not their names in the beginning of the raigne of Q. Elizabeth mett at the Horse-head in Cheepside a fit signe for such a Sacrament and being disappointed of the Catholike Byshop of Landaffe who should there haue come to consecrate them they vsed the like art that the Lollards once did in another matter who being desirous to cate flesh on good friday and yet fearing the penalties of the lawes in such cases appointed tooke a pigge dâ—uing him vnder the water said downe pigge and vp piâ—â— and then after constantly auouched that they had eaten no flesh buâ— fiâ—h So I say these graue Prelates asseÌ„bled as aforesayd seeing the Byshop whom
they expected came not to consecrate them they dealt with Sâ—ory of Hâ—râ—ford to doe it who when they were all on their knees caused him who kneeled downe Iohn Iewell to rise vp Byshop of Salisbury he that was Robert Horne before to rise vp Byshop of Winchester and so forthwith all the restâ— which Horse-head Ordering was after confirmed Synodically by Parlament wherin they were acknowledged for true Byshops and it was further enacted that none should make any doubt or call in question that ordination 137. This was the first ordering of M. Iewell the rest as I haue bene enformed by one that heard it from M. Neale Reader of the Hebrw lecture in Oxford who was there present an eye witnes of what was done and passed Perhaps for a further complemeÌ„t to supply all defects in the matter or forme of this ordering Q. Elizabeth as Head of the Church did as a noble Woman is said to haue done neere Vienna of whom Schererius the Lutheran writeth Ante paucos annos non procul hinc mulier quaedam nobilis per impositionem muliebrium suarum manuum lintei quo praecingebatur loco stolae filiorum suorum preceptorum ad praedicanticum officium vocauit ordinauit consecrauit A few yeares since not farr from hence a certayne Noble woman did call the Maister of her children to the office of a Preacher or Minister and did order and consecrate him by the imposition of her hands and of her apron which she did vse in steed of a stole Whether any such imposition of hands aprons or kyrtles were vsed to these first Prelates by Q. Elizabeth afterwards I know not but I haue bene credibly enformed that Maister Whitgift would not be Byshop of Canterbury vntill he had kneeled downe the Queene had laid her hands on his head by which I suppose ex opere operato he receaued no grace 138. To conclude seeing that against M. Doctor Harding M. Iewell could neuer proue himself a Bishopâ— as the Reader may see at large in the place here by 〈◊〉 cyted I will not put M. Barlow to proue the same fâ—â— I see the length of his foote quid valeant humeri qâ—â—â— ferre recusâ—nt where M. Iewell failed to seeke M. Barlowes supply were ridiculous it shall suffice him to answere for al his owne ouersights in this booke to learne to be modest to take heed how he dealeth with Schoole men to write truely to study to vnderstand well the controuersie wherof he writeth and finally to write as a Scholler as a Deuine at least as an honest man of all which the very easiest is too hard in my opinion for him to performe theÌ„ I dare promise him that with all candor sincerity and modesty by one or other he shall be answered And if in some things I might seeme to haue bene too sharp yet in respect of his base and bitter veyne whatsoeuer I haue said will seeme I doubt not to be both myld and temperate Faultes escaped in the Preface Quateâ—n c pag. 1. nu 10. in margine versus finem adde Nubrig l. 5. cap. 21. Eodem quatern pag. 3. lin 26. nu 12. species producatur lege species praedicatur Quatern d pag. 3. lin 24. nu 22. Iudge not â—ege I iudge not Quatern f pag. 7. lin 30. num 45. dele the affirmatiue or negatiue Quatern k pag. 1. l. 6. nu 73. F. Persons lege Fathers person OF POINTS CONCERNING THE NEVV OATH OF ALLEGIANCE Handled in the Kings Apology before the Popes Breues AND Discussed in my former Letter CHAP. I. FOR as much as good order and method in writing giueth alwaies great light and ease to the Reader my meaning is in this ensuing Worke to insist speciâ—lly vpon the three parts toucâ—ed rather then treatâ—d at large in my Letter against the Apology which Letter M. Barlow hath in his booke pretended to answerâ— and that also in three parts according to the former diuision of the Epistle wherof the first part doth conteine such points as the Apology did handle by way of preface as it were before the Popes two Breues especially concerning the substance and circumstances of the new Oath The second such other matters as by occasion of the sayd two Breues were brought into dispute by way eyther of impugnation or defence The third doth comprehend Cardinall Bellarmiâ—â— his letter to M. Blackwell togeather with the view and examination of what had beene written in the Apology against the same And albeit it doth grieue me not a little to be forced to leese so much good tyme froÌ„ other more profitable exercises as to goe ouer these matters againe especially with so idle an aduersary as you will find in effâ—ct M. Barlow euery where to be yet shall I endeuour to recoÌ„pence somewhat to the Reader this losse of time by choosing out the principall matters only by drawing to light my said Aduersaries voluntaâ—y and affected obscurity vsing also the greatest breuity that I may without ouermuch preiudice to perspicuity which I greatly loue as the lanterne or rather looking glasse wherby to find out the truth and for that cause so carefully fled by my aduersary as in the progresse of this our contention will be discouered For that as diuinely our Sauiour sayd Qui male agit odit lucem non venit ad lucem ne arguantur opâ—ra eius He that doth euill hateth the light and will not come at it least his workes be discouered therby But we must draw him hereunto and for better method we shall reduce the most chiefe and principall heades of ech part vnto certayne Sections or Paragraphes which may help the memory of the Reader ABOVT THE TRVE Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance §. I. FIRST then for that it hath byn sufficiently obserued before and the reader hath byn aduertised also therof that in all my aduersaries allegatioÌ„s of my words when they are in any number he commonly falsifieth them or offereth some other abuse to the same by altering them to his purpose or inserting his owne among mine and yet setting downe all in a different letter as if meerly they were myne I shal be inforced as occasion is offered to repeat my owne lynes as they ly in my owne Booke that therby I may be vnderstood and his answere to me conceaued which hardly can be as he hudleth vp both the one and the other desiring to walke in a mist of darknes the euent shall shew whether I speake this vpon good grounds or no. Now to the narration it selfe And so first hauing receaued from my friend in England the aforesayd Apology of triplex Cuneus concerning the new Oath of Allegiance now called the Kings and perused the same with some attention I wrote backe againe to my sayd friend as followeth being the very first lines I cannot but yeild you harty thankes my louing friend for the new booke you sent me
ouer by Guntar at his last passage for albeit I haue determined with my selfe in this my banisâ—ment to spend my tyme in other studies more profitable then in contention about controuersies Yet must I needs accâ—pt kindly of your good will in making me partaker of your newes there And more glad should I haue byn if you had aduertised me what your and other mens opinion was of the Booke in your partes then that you request me to write our mens iudgment from hence And yet for so much as you require it so earnestly at my hands and that the party is to returne presently I shall say somewhat with the greatest breuity that I can albeit I do not doubt but that the parties that are principally interessed thereâ—â—â—ill answere the same much more largely First then for the Author for so much as he setteth 〈◊〉 downe his name it seemeth not so easy to ghesse yet the more generall opinion in these partes is that as that odious Discouery of Roman doâ—trine and practises which of late you haue seene answered was cast forth against the Catholickes vnder the cyphred name of T. M. with direction as he said from Superiours the Authoâ—â— being in deede but an inferiour Minister so diuers thinke it to be probable that this other booke also coÌ„meth from some other T. M. of like condition tâ—ough in respect of his office somewhat neerer to his Maiâ—sty to whom perhaps he might shew the same as the other dedicated his and thereupon might presume to set it forth Authoritate Regia as in the first front of the booke is set downe somewhat difâ—â—rent from other bookes and cause it to be printed by Barker his Maiâ—sties Printer and adorned in the second page with the Kings Armes and other like deuises wherin our English Ministers do grâ—â— now to be very bold and do hope to haue in tyme the hand which Scottish Ministers once had But I most certainly do perswade my selfe that his Maiestie neuer read aduisedly all that in this Booke is contayned For that I take him to be of such iudgement honour as â—e would neuer haue let passe sundry thinges that here are published contrary to them both Thus I wrote at that tyme of my coniecture about the Author of the said Apology alleaging also certayne reasons in both the foresayd kindes which albeit they be ouerlong to be repeated heere yet one or two of ech kind especially such as Master Barlow pretendeth to answere may not be pretermitted As for example sayd I his Highnes great iudgmeÌ„t would presently haue discouered that the state oâ— the qâ—â—stion is twice or thrice changed in this Apology and that thinâ— proued by allegations of Scripturesâ— Fathersâ— Councels which tâ—e aâ—uerse part dâ—nyâ—th not as after in due place I shall shew And againe â—e â—ould â—â—uâ—r haue let passe so maniâ—est an ouersight as is 〈…〉 oâ— Cardiâ—all Bellâ—â—mine with â—leuen seuerall plaâ—es oâ—â—â—nâ—â—adâ—â—â—â—â—n to himâ—elâ—e in his workes wheras in the true natuâ—e o◠〈…〉 or contrariety no one of them can be proued or mantayned as euery man that vnderstandeth the latinâ—onâ—ue will but looke vpon Bellarmine himselfe will presenâ—ly find This was one of my reasons besides diuers other that I alleaged in that place all which for so much as it pleaseth Maister Barlow to deferre the answere thereof to another place afterwards and now to satisfy a reason only of certaine contemptuous speach vsed against the Pope and Cardinall Bellarmine I shall here also make repetition of my wordes therein Thus then I wrote In like manner wheras his Maiestie is knowne to be a Prince of most honorable respects in treaty and vsage of others especially men of honour dignity it is to be thought that he would neuer haue consented if he had but seene the Booke with any attention that those phrases of contempt not only against the Pope at least as a temporall Prince but neyther against the Cardinall calling him by the name of Maister Bellarmine should haue passed For so much as both the Emperour and greatest Kings of ChristeÌ„dome do name that dignity with honour And it seemeth no lesse dissonant to cal a Cardinal Maister then if a man should call the chiefest dignities of our Crowne by that name as M. Chancellour M. Treasurer M. Duke M. Earie M. Archbishop M. Bancroft which I asure my selfe his Maiestie would in law of Honour condemne if any externe Subiect or Prince should vse to men of that Sate in our countrey though he were of different religion Wherfore I rest most assured that this proceeded either out of the Ministers lacke of modesty or charity that if his Maiestie had had the perusall of the Booke before it came forth he would presently haue giuen a dash of his pen ouer it with effectuall order to remedy such ouersights of inciuility So I then And if I were deceiued in iudgement as now it seemeth I was for that it pleaâ—eth his Maiesty to take the matter vpon himselfe to auouch that Booke to be his yet in reason can it not be taken euill at my handes that followed those coniectures and sought rather to deryue vpon others the pointes which in that booke I misliked then to touch so great a personage as was and is my Prince Yea in all duty and good manners I had obligation to conceale his Maiesties name for so much as himselfe concealed the same and when any Prince will not be knowne to be a doer in action as in this it seemeth he would not at that tyme I know not with what dutifull respect any subiect might publish the same though he did suspect that he had part therin For that subiects must seeme to know no more in Princes affaires then themselues are willing to haue known And consequently when I saw that his Maiesty concealed his name I thought it rather duty to seeke reasons to confirme couer the same then by presuÌ„ption to enter into Princes secrets and to reueale them And hauing thus rendred a reason of my doings in this behalfe it remaineth that wee see what Maister Barlow hath to say against it for somewhat he must say wheresoeuer he find it though neuer so impertinent to the purpose hauing taken vpon him to contradict and plead against me in all pointes and reaceaued his â—ee before hand as may appeare by the possession he hath gotten of a rich benefice and hopeth for more First then he runneth to a ridiculous imitation of my former reasons whereby to seeke out whether Persons the Iesuite were the true author of my Lettter or no from passage to passage doth furnish his style with some railing offals out of M. VVatsons Quodlibets against him which though the author recalled and sore repented at his death as is publikely knowne and testified by them that stood by and heard him yet this charitable Prelate wil not suffer his synne to dye with him but will needs
any Catholicke to beare true allegiance in his hart what is his Maiestie like to gaine by vrging them to sweare For that either they must leaue to be Catholickes or els swearing helpeth the matter nothing For while they are Romish Catholickes you hould they cannot beare true Allegiance And as for the Priestes of the same Religion which you say do hould the same with you and do quote in the margent the Quodlibets if any such thing be for I haue not the booke nor do meane to seeke for your allegations it was not the writing of Priests but either of some one Priest in his passion or rather of your High-Prieâ—t whome some of your Puritans haue called the Taile of the Beast which was the cheefe Author of that scandalous Booke published by another And as for all other Priestes their concord and vnity in true and Catholicke Religion against you is sufficiently knowne There foloweth yet an impertinency or two more as first that the forme of the Oath to be giuen tactis Euangeliâ—s laying the hands of the swearer vpon the ghospell is no new or moderne inuention but prescribed long since by Iustinian the Emperour as though we had sayd the contrary or that it made any thing to our controuersy The second imperâ—â—nency is that wâ— are mucâ— grieued with thâ—â— clause oâ— the Oath that men muâ—t sweare in the truâ—â— fayth of a Christian without Equiuocation for this he sayth is my greatest groane and complaint tâ—at the Oath excludes Catholicks from all Eqâ—iuocating the tryall oâ— which complaint we reâ—erre saith he isâ—saith â—saith he â—â—â—us Maâ—tix in that point Fâ—ther Persons Vnto both which points I answere To the first that it is most false that I did euer groane or coÌ„plaine of the exclusion of EquiuocatioÌ„ in this Oath but haue alwayes held the quite contrary in my books againâ—t M. Morton to wit that no Equiuocation was or is to be admitted in any Oath concerning Religion or our profession therof Let M. Barlow read in my booke of Miâ—igâ—tion page 277. and be ashamed of his wilfull slaunder in this poynt To the second whether Maister Thomas Morton in the point of Equiuocation is a Mastix or scourge to Father Persons or the other to him there needetâ— no other tryall but only the last two books published against M. Morton the one tearmed The Mitigation the other The quiet and sober â—eckoning where there be so many lashes laid vpon him and his credit as there be vnanswerable lyes proued and conuinced against him And if M. Barlâ—â— could help out his brother-Minister in answering some of those lyes for him he should do him no lesse ease then if he had powred both wine and oyle vpon a man that hath beene well whipped indeed There followeth immediately after in the same place an authority of S. Augustine quoted Epist. 214. ad Alipiâ—â—â— where S. Augustine is sayd to allow that the vse of an Oath is old and ancient and that the swearer ought to sweare to the Iudges mind when he knoweth the same But good Reader shall we intreat M. Barlow once throughout all his booke to make a good consequence When did we euer deny that the vse of an Oath in generall is not ancient but that this Parlament-Oath in England lately deuised is new both for time for that M. Barlow doth expresly in this very page graunt that it was procured from his Maiesties prudent cogitation and for the forme and contentes including matter both of ciuill Obedience vnto the Temporall Prince and spirituall Disobedience to the Ecclesiasticall Prelate And as for the second poynt of swearing to the intention of the iudge when he is lawfull and proceedeth lawfully whosoeuer hath or will read any of the last two Books in Answere and Reply to M. Morton will see it often and often repeated that no Equiuocation at all is admitted in that case or when the examination is about religion and conâ—equently he will wonder at M. Barlow his running from the matter so manifestly to seeme to say somewhat THE SAME ARGVMENT About the Pressure of the Oath is further discussed §. IIII. BVT now after long gadding abroad to shew that an Oath in generall is not vnlawfull nor the matter of an Oath new and the like as you haue heard he returneth home for a while saying And now will we follow him to examine the weight of this pressure And then as if I had spoken to his Maiestie when I spake to the Apologer T. M. â—or this iniury he offereth me at euery turne to thrust in his Maiesty to vndergo my speache meant to a Minister he saith that I picke a quarrel about the word Only vsed by the Apologer as a diminitiue phrase of the pressure laid vpon Catholikes by this Oath and he maketh me speake after an ironicall scoffing manner saying that the King â—seth the word Only when he talketh of the imposition of this Oath vpon Catholikes as a matter of small or no pressure saying That only an Oath was deuised to try their fidelity and then he maketh me to add these wordes of Ironicall Sarcasmus or bitter iest as he calleth it and setteth it downe in a different letter as my proper wordes to wit that I should say as If the taking of this Oath were so lightly to be esteemed as to be thurst vpon Catholickes with an only wheras I haue no such manner of speach as the Reader may see in my owne wordes set downe at large in the XII number of the first Paragraph And therfore this perpetuall custome of falsifying in euery place lightly where he pretendeth to cite my wordes would weary a man to deale with him But that I haue resolued to haue patience with him yet somewhat further My speach then about this word Only was as you haue heard that wheras the Apologer had sayd that his Maiesties will was that none of the Catholike profession should be the worse vsed for the powder-plot he presently adioyned That Only at the next sitting of Parlament a forme of an Oath was framed to be taken by all c. By which word Only I sayd that the Apologer seemed to make small accompt of taking or not taking this Oath for so much as he supposed the Catholicke people to haue no agrieuance or pressure therby for that otherwise it had not bene true that they should not fare the worse for the sayd powder-treason And what will M. Barlow say to this You shall heare his owne wordes Who knoweth not sayth he that this word Only doth not so much signify an hypocoristicall alleuiation as a compendiary limitation This is very high and profound stuffe as you see and most of his Readers I suppose must goe to the greeke Lexicon before they passe any further if they will vnderstand him But let vs see how he doth explicate himselfe by an example He that sayd to our Sauiour sayth he Only speake the word did not
being in the iudiciall part then is there required power in the will or appetite to choose or refuse freely without ballancing on eyther part eyther by feare hurt preferment hatred interest or other potent and forcible impositions By which doctrine if you ponder well you shall find that Catholikes had not free choice to sweare the Oâ—th when losse of goods and lands do ballance on one side nor you perhaps M. Barlow may be said to haue free power or liberty to refuse it for so much as the current of the time the Princes fauour the weight of so fat a benefice as the Bishoprick of Lincolne is and other crummes that you haue gathered togeather and hope to increase do so powerâ—ully preponderate on the one side that you haue your iudgment so fast fixed to that obiect as the sheepe by nature hath hers And if you haue not this tye or indetermination in your iudgement yet in your will and affection which is sufficient to make you no free-man from which thraldome Almighty God deliuer you who onely can do it and breake your bandes For as our Sauiour saith If the sonne of God deliuer you then shall you be truly free indeed And so much of this matter concerning our freedome to sweare or not to sweare wherin I haue detayned my self some what longer then I had purposed for that it is the most principall question of this our controâ—â—â—sy whether there be free election giuen in taking the Oath or nâ— ABOVT RECOVRSE MADE to the Bishop of Rome for decision whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English Catholiks or no wherin also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations §. VI. AND now hauing followed M. Barlow thus farre in this controuersy we must turne back againe some pages to take the whole argument with vs which he had ouerrunne to handle the question of freedome before meÌ„tioned And first he telleth vs that when the Oath came forth and was vrged the Garnettistes did differ from the Blackâ—eâ—iâ—tes some aâ—â—owing Equiuocation saith he in matters of â—aith and others noâ— which is a notorious vntruth For the question was not whether the Oath might be taken with Equiuocation but whether it might lawfully be takeÌ„ as it lay with a good exposition wherin some difference being found of opinionâ— it seemed a iust cause to referre the decision to the vniuersall Pastour about which point M. Barlow dealeth not vprightly as commonly neuer he doth in alleaging my words but with notorious corruptions I shal be forced to repeat againe briefly what I then said My wordes were these What should Catholikes do they first consulted the case with learned a men at home then also abroad And albeit at home some were moued in respect of the compassion they had of the present perill if it were refused 〈◊〉 thinke that in some sense the Oath might be taken yet none abroad were of that mind For that they allowed 〈◊〉 of any sort of Equiuocation in matters touching faith and religion And in these I hearesay that the Iesuites were among the chiefe and most forward as heere also is confessed who notwithstanding before were most accused bayted and exagitated both in bookes pulpits and tribunalls for allowing in some points the lawfull vse of Equiuocation About which doubt Catholikes according to their rule of subordination and spirituall obedience in such affaires referring the matter to the iudgement and consultation of their supreme Pastour whome by the principles of their religion they belieue that our Sauiour giueth assistance for the direction of mens soules they receyued from him after due deliberation this answere That the whole Oath as it lay could not be admitted with the integrity of Catholike faith For that albeit diuers parts therof were lawfull to wit all such clauses as appertayned to the promise of ciuil and temporall obedience yet other things being interlaced and mixt therwith which doe detract from the spirituall authority of their said highest Pastour at least wise indirectly the whole Oath as it lyeth was made thereby vnlawfull And this I vnderstand to be the substance of the Popes resolution and answer though all these particularities be not set downe in his Breues but only the Oath declared to be vnlawfull in conscience to Catholike men as it lieth without distinction And what malicious tricke of the Diuel then this may be thought where sheepe do make recourse to their spirituall Pastour in so great and important occasions of their soules as these are I see not Doe English Catholicks any other thing in this then that which all English subiects both great small learned vnlearned haue done and practised from our first Christian Kinges â—ntill the tiâ—e of King Henry the eight vpon the point of a 〈◊〉 and yeares Let tâ—e answere to Syr Edward Cooks Book oâ— Reportes lately set forth be examined wether it doth not shâ—w that in all those ages recourse was euer made to the Sea Apostolicke in like occasions without preiudice of subâ—ects temporall duties to their temporall Princes No one English Christian King though they were many did euer aâ—solutely deny recourse to Rome in spirituall thinges notwithstanding in some other ciuill or mixt matters vpon different occasions some restraints were sometimes made froÌ„ our first King Ethelbert to King Henry the Eight as by the said discourse and answere is euidently proued and much more throughout the whole â—anke of the Christian Kings of Scotland his Maiesties Progenitours vntill his most Renowned Progenitrix by whome and from whom he hath his Royall Right of both Crownes who is knowne and reputed throughout Christendome to haue died for defence of this Catholike Doctrine For so much as if she would haue abandoned that there had bene little doubt of making her away And the like may be said of all other great Christian Catholicke Princes of our daies as the Emperour himselfe the Potent Kinges and Monarches of Spaine France Polonia and other States Common-wealthes and Poâ—entates doe not thinke it any disgrace diminution of honour perill or iniury vnto them that their subiects for matters of conscience doe make recourse to the Sea Apostolicke or that which is consequent thereof the said Sea or generall Pastour doe interpose his iudgement declaration or decision in such affaires This is the Catholike doctrine practice this hath bene in vse throughout Christendome from all antiquity and no where more then in our Realmes of England Scotland as hath bene said In this beliefe and practice liued and died all our forefathers and our Noble Kinges that were our Soueraignes all our Bishops and Prelates that were our Pastours all our great Counsellours and Lawiers that by their wisdome learning gouerned the Land all our Nobility Gentry Priests Laity So as if now this be houlden for a malicious tricke oâ— the Diuel dishâ—â—â—â—â—ble and preiudiciall to his Maiesty his Soueraignty Crowne Dignity
onely concerne ciâ—ill obedience All which speach of his if I should grant as by hiâ— it is vttered yet doth it not so much as impugne any of the former foure waies wherby it was shewed that diuers points of Catholike religion are touched in the said Oath and impugned therby so as a Catholike man cannot admit the same without preiudice of his conscience which these groundes do nothing impugne But now let vs see how well grounded are these his two groundes impertinently brought in for some shew of answere The first is that ciuill obedience to a lawfull Prince requireth the subiect to sweare not onely affirmatiuely that he is his lawful Soueraigne but also negatiuely against any intruder challenger or vsurper which we deny not but do deny that the Pope as supreme Pastour ouer alâ— Christendome is to be called an Intruder Challenger or Vsurper when for preseruation of Christian Religion he doth interpose his authority for the restraint of any Christian Prince that is or ought to be vnder his iurisdâ—ction And as for his second ground that this authority of the Pope is a temporall intrusion and no spirituall iurisdiction we deny it in like sort for though it be temporall in some respects yet is it no intrusion but giuen by Christ himselfe as contained in the most ample spirituall charge and commission deliuered to S. Peter for gouerning of all soules belonging to the sayd charge which cannot be sufficiently gouerned and prouided for if there had not beene such power left also whereby euill Princes might be restayned from peruerting their Kingdomes especially by infection of heresy And whereas for proofe of this temporall intrusion as he calleth it he saith that for to doe me a fauour he will remit me to T. M. the elder to wit to Thomas Morton â—is full SatisfactioÌ„ part 3. whom he saith I doe feare as the racke who among many others haue canuased saith he this point in a Confutation to the Popes confusion I will to quit his fauouâ— send him backe to the sayd M. Morton againe recanuased by me vpon this point in two seuerall Bookes of answere wherein so many notorious lyes are charged and convinced vpon him as may serue not only for his Confutation but also for the Confusion of all his friendes wherof this Copes-mate M. Barlow may well be one and so much the more iustly be shamed therein for that he may be presumed to haue seene one at least of my sayd bookes and the lies therein so openly layd forth and pressed as he cannot but with impudency speake here as he doth in remitting me to M. Mortons canuase and that I â—eared it as the racke c. But now let vs come to looke a little into M. Barlowes impugnation of the Popes authority ouer kinges This authority of the Pope saith he if it be a spirituall Iurisdiction it must be either from heauen or of men grounded vpon law either Diuine or Ecclesiasticall Nam quod ampliâ—u est à malo est sayth a deuout Father to a great Pope all execution therof not deriued from eyther of these implyes a Tyranny importes no right If vpon diuine law then eyther the Old or the New Testament not the Old the Priestes among the Iewes had no such authority ouer theiâ— Kinges eyther vnited to their Priesthood by God or assumed by themselues confessed so by a Iesuite that the Staâ—e of the Iewes was rather earthly then heauenly therfore the carnall part was more eminent that is Kinges had the soueraigntie ouer the Priestes Not in the new for then S. Peter should haue had it eyther when the Keyes were giuen him Matt. 16. or wheÌ„ that trebled Pasce was inioyned him Ioan. 21. If it be so then had he this Iurisdiction directly from Christ and â—â—â—uersally ouer the world but that is not so saith Robert the Cardinall this Robert his Eccho but only ouer Christian Princes and that indirectly and obliquely in ordine ad Deâ—â—â— nay neither directly nor indirectly saith Sanders for there being a dubble power of ChristiaÌ„ fortitude constant suffering couragious attempting that power of suffering as the more excellent Christ chose as the fittest sibi suis for himselfe and those that belong to him or if you will for himselâ—e and his Apostles So then to suffer oppression vnder kinges not to inferre vpon them Rebellion and disloalty was the power Apostolicall in respect of Princes This is M. Barl. his assault which I haue thought good to set downe at large both faithfully and punctually in his owne very words as my custome is not contractedly and perfidiously peruerted as he euery where vseth to set downe myne and that in a different letter as often I am forced to complain as though they were my wordes indeed And now to this passage of his I say that there is much impertinent stuffe many falsities sundry great abuses misapplications and wrong senses from the Authors owne meaning whom he citeth For first it was impertinent to cite that sentence of S. Bernard Nam quod amplius est à malo est for that he vseth the same to a far different purpose as euery man may see that will read the place in his second booke de Consideratione which particular quotation Maister Barlow did pretermitt citing only Bern. ad Eugen. therby to make the finding thereof more hard S. Bernard hauing written fiue bookes to Eugenius Secondly that which he alleageth out of Salmeron that the State of the Iewes was rather earthly then heauenly and therefore the carnall part was more eminent that is Kings had the soueraignty ouer Priestes is notably both peruerted and falsifyed For first Salmerons wordes speaking of the Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Iewes in comparison of that which was giuen to the Christian Churches are Synagoga Iudaeorum dicebatur terrenum potiùs quà m caeleste regnum The Synagogue of the Iewes was called rather an earthly then a heauenly kingdome meaning that their Power was but earthly their Sacrifices earthly their promises and blessinges earthly in respect of the heauenly and spirituall power Sacramentes Sacrifice and Promises of the new Testament Nor doth he make comparison betweene the Kings power and the power of Priestes calling the former earthly and carnall the other heauenly as most falsely seditiously M. Barlow here after M. Morton doth auer but only the Ecclesiasticall authority of the Iewes Synagogue with the excellent spirituall power of the Christian Church And as for the comparison betweene kingly Priestly eminency amongst the Iewes the said Salmeron in the same place doth not only affirme but proueth also by sundry arguments and one by the worthines of the Sacrifice offered in the first place for the Priest before the King that Priestly dignity was aboue Princely in that people and much more amongst the Christians So as here is notorious falshood on M. Barlowes behalfe which is much the more
malicious and intolerable in him for that he had seene me to haue obiected the same falsehood and vntrue dealing vnto M. Morton in my booke of Mitigation that the sayd M. Morton was so farre of from being able to answer the same as in his last Reply he left it quite out now lately I haue obiected the â—ame to him again in my last Reckoning with him cap. 6. 7. whervnto I refer M. Barl. to help him out And so much of this point It followeth in M. Barlowes speach that iâ— S. Peter had receiued of Christ with the keyes Math. 16. this IurisdictioÌ„ ouer Princes which we pretend then had it bene directly vniuersally ouer the whole world But this is not necessary for he might receiâ—â— the same indirectly as included and comprehended in the spirituall to be vsed for the preseruation of the Church when spirituall necessity should require as before haâ—â— bene said And as for Vniuersall ouer the world it is sufficient that it be ouer Christian Princes and people only wâ—â— are properly the sheep and lambes that are commended 〈◊〉 the chiefe Pastours feeding or gouernement Ioan. 21â— though vpon Infidell Princes also he may haue some power in certaine cases as when they will go about to let the preaching of the Ghospell authorized by these wordes Praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae But this appertayneth not to our question But wheras he sayth that Cardinall Bellarmiâ—e I do affirme that the Pope hath only authority ouer Princes indirectly obliquely in ordine ad DeuÌ„ we graunt the word indirectly but as for obliquely in ordine ad Deum he will not I thinke find the phrase in any writing of ours but only â—â— ordine ad spiritualia which is to say that the Pope hath such authority vpon Princes when the preseruation of the spirituall affaires doth so require to wit the saluation of souls he that shall read the place of Bellarmin here by M. Barlow quoted for of myne he citteth nothing to wit lib. 5. de Pontif. cap. 4. 6. shall find this sentence in ordine ad spiritualia but neuer I suppose in ordine ad Deum for that all power of the Pope is in ordine ad Deum propter Deum whether it be spirituall or temporall but in ordine ad spiritualia hath an other meaning as now hath bene shewed to wit that the Pope hatH directly only spirituall authority to execute spirituall functions but when this cannot be coÌ„sâ—â—uâ—d or executed without the help of temporall he may vse that also for defence of the other So as it seemeth that this our great Doctour doth not vnderstaÌ„d the very terms of Deuinity in this matter wherof he disputeth and this his ignorance sheweth it selfe no lesse here then before about indeterminatio iudicy in free choice Nor doth he onlâ— relate falsely ignorantly this point as out oâ— Cardinall Bellarmine and me but much more doth he abuse the name of D. Sanders in the very next words that do ensue as though he should say that neither directly nor indirectly hath the Pope this temporall authority from Christ but rather power to suffer as now you haue heard him say he citing for it de claue Dauid lib. 2. cap. 13. wheras D. Sanders doth hold the quite contrary in that booke throughout sundry Chapters to wit that the Pope hath receaued from Christ vtrumque gladium temporalem spiritualem both swords that is both temporall and spirituall authority and proueth it by many arguments and demonstrations only in the 13. Chapter he demandeth why theÌ„ had not the Apostoles depriued Nero and Domitius of their Empires Whereto he answereth among other causes that these were Pagan Tyrants and not vnder the charge and power that was giuen to the Church ouer sheepe lambes And then in the 14. Chapter he demandeth further why the Apostles first Christians had not elected some new King Christan for the good of the Church at the beginning Whereto he answereth alleaging sundry reasons why it was not conuenient that the Christian Church should be planted with violence but that for the space and time appointed by Gods prouidence Christians should exercise the other part of ChristiaÌ„ fortitude which coÌ„sisteth in suffering as is before touchedâ— but yet he neuer denyeth notwithstanding that the sayd temporall power ouer Christian Princes was in the Church Head therof though that season admitted not the vse but rather proueth it expressely and consequently is egregiously abused and falsifyed by M. Barlow when he sayth Doctor Sanders to affirme that the Pope had neyther directly or indirectly any such power from Christ. But will you see this our doughty Doctour ouerthrown confouÌ„ded both in him selfe and by himselfe then harken to his words in the very next page It is so sayth Sanders S. Peter with the Keyes receyued both powers temporall and ciuill Is it so Syr and why then did you euen now deny it Are you so mutable within the compasse of two pages What misery is this of your cause to be driuâ—n to these shiftes But let vs see another deuise which is â—â— oppose Franciscus de Victoria to this saying of Sanders 〈◊〉 thus you bring him in No not so sayth a Iesuit for this power oâ— the Keyes est alia à ciuili potestate is another power diffeâ—â—â— from the ciuill thus they iarre say you But whether we iarre or no one Catholike writer with another sure I am â—â—at you iarre with your selfe and seeme not to haâ—â— your witts at home For euen now you cited Doctoâ—â— Sanders as denying the Popes temporall power to coâ—â— neyther directly nor indirectly from Christ and now you say him to affirme that S. Peter receyued both powers with the Keyes Are not these playne contradictions How can this iarre be excused by you But I haue further to say to you yet in this matter foâ— that in the very next wordes where you would make a contradiction betweene Doctor Sanders Franciscus de Victoria you shew much more folly if not a worse quality For wheras you write that a Iesuite sayth No not so for 〈◊〉 the power of the keyes is different from ciuill power and do quoâ— the place of Victoria in the margent first in calling him Iesuite who was a Dominican fryar you shew much ignorance if you erre not of purpose For who knoweth not that Iesuites and Dominicans are two different Religious Orders the very first page of the booke and words of the title which are Reuerendi Patris Francisci de Victoria Ordinis Praedicatorum Relectiones c. might haue taught you that Victoria was no Iesuite but it may be that you seeing the words Ordinis Praedicatorum and vnderstanding that Iesuits did vse to preach also you did full wisely imagine Victoria to be a Iesuite and by the same reason you might â—â—well haue imagined him to be a Minister of your
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
corruption in it either in life or doctrine as he pretendeth nor if it had in life doth it preiudice the truth of Doctrine as by the testimony of our Sauiours owne wordes wee remaine assured These two obiections then that the Roman Church for that she hath a determinate Prouince as also for that shee hath sundry euill liuers in her are shewed to bee of no force at all Not the later for that euill manners may stand with true doctrine not the first for that wee doe not say the Roman Church is the whole Catholick Church but a chiefe member thereof as hath bene sayd whereby also will appeare what wee meane by the name of the Catholicke Church to wit that visible vniuersall Church which being erected and founded by Christ our Sauiour when he was vpon earth hath continued euer since and descended visibly from age to age by succession of Bishops throughout all Christendome vnto our times and shall so continue vnto the worldes end by which description may appeare also how vaine another obiection is of M. Barlow in these wordes If Vincentius rule be true that that only is to be accounted Catholicke Doctrine quod semper vbique ab omnibus creditum est neyther shall Rome be proued Catholicke nor England hereticke when any of these is soundly determined then let him plead her Ius acquisitum VVhereto I answere that the rule of Vincentius is verified by that which I haue sayd before of the nature of the Catholicke Church to wit that it began vnder Christ and hath descended from age to age and so shee teacheth quod semper creditum est And for that she hath imbraced all nations she teacheth quod vbique in respect of place and for that shee hath vnion of Doctrine shee teacheth quod ab omnibus creditum est For albeit there hâ—â—â— not wanted hereticks from time to time that haue deâ—ised particuler doctrines and erected particuler congregations yet were they nothing in respect of the vniuersall consent of those of the Catholike Church whose Iâ—â— acquisitum or ancient right and power vpon all Heretickes for theyr correction and punishment I sayd was manifest for that by baptisme they were made her subiectes Vnto which point M. Barlow would seeme now to say somewhat though neuer so impertinent therefore he telleth vs a tale of an indument and a stripping to be considered in Baptisme vnder the wordes Credo and Abreâ—â—â—â—iâ— and that neyther the spirituall mystery nor the prescribed forme nor intended effect of Baptisme doe make him and his liable to Rome Whereunto I answere that the whole action in that Sacrament without so many diuisions and subdiuisions as here he maketh to obscure the matter doth make him and all other Christians liable to the Catholike Church For that euery man that is baptized as he is made a member and seruant of Christ therby and entreth into his Church as by the first dore soe is he made a subiect to the sayd Church and is liable to her correction if he should renounce change or peruert that fayth which there he professeth as a child of the sayd Church And all this I thinke M. Barlow will not deny but onely his question may be of such as are baptized out of the Catholike Church by some Hereticall Congregation yet notwithstanding the matter is cleare for that such baptisme houlding only so far forth as they haue intention to doe that in their baptisme which the true Catholicke Church doth and vse the forme of wordes which the sayd Church prescribeth to wit I baptize thee in the name of the Father◠〈◊〉 the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost for that otherwise if either of these conditions to wit eyther the forme or the intention of the Catholike Church doe faile the baptisme is not auaylable it is euident I say that such as are so baptized out of the Church are liable notwithstanding to the same for any offence that they shall commit against the fayth of the sayd Catholike Church for so much as their baptisme had relation to this Church as is now declared And albeit they be departed from the same eyther by their own wilfulnes or other menâ— inducemeÌ„ts yet remaineth stil that obligation of subiectioÌ„ Which superiority oâ— the Catholik Church practized froÌ„ time to time vpon Heretiks and Schismatikes that haue gone forth from her which the Aduersary will also graunt for sundry ages after Christ caÌ„not be pretended by the Protestant Church vpoÌ„ Catholiks for that we went not out of them but they out of vs which in England is most perspicuous For that since our first Conuersion by S. Augustine the Monke to Christian Religion it cannot be sayd with any shew of probability that euer there was a Protestant Church extaÌ„tâ— and visible or publickly receyued in our Country as the Roman hath bene and consequently wee English Catholikes cannot be said to haue gone out of them but they out of vs and soe by their baptisme and admission to Christianity they are liable to the Roman Catholike Church in matters of Religion not the Roman Church to them But now besids this reason of obligation by baptisme I do alledge another of former possession and prescription whereby the English Catholike Church hath had exercised this power of punishing Sectaries froÌ„ time to time wherunto M. Barlow answereth in a strange manner Possession saith he for hould and Prescription for time may be Pleas in ciuill Courtes but not sound arguments in case of Religion Which is so absurd an answere as nothing could more shew declare that he had nothing to say then this For if wee suppose that to be true which Christ our Sauiour affirmeth in the Ghospell that the good corne was first soone that the Darnell was ouer sprinckled afterwardes and that truth of Christian religion was first planted by our Saâ—iour heresies afterward sprong vp then are the Antiquity of possession and the Plea of Prescription very excellent good argumeÌ„ts to conuince all Hereticks for that the former must needâ— be true and the later must needs be false For which cause old Tertullian writing in the second age after Christ against hereticks thought good to intitle his book de Praescriptiâ—â—â—buâ— of PrescriptioÌ„s shewing therby that heretiks are by no way so euidently conuinced as by Prescription Priority of time And first of all he giueth this generall rule by allusion to our Sauiours words before repeated of good corne and darnell Ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse Dominicum rerum quod est prius traditum id autem extraneum â—alsum quod est posteriâ—s immissâ—m By the order it selfe of sowing the corn darnellâ— it is made manifest that to be true and pertayning to our Lord which was first deliuered and that to be false and forreyne which is thrust in afterward And then passing to examine particuler heresies and beginning with them that pretended to be
death-bed and therupon he discoursed how the sayd old woman by vertue of the same liued to the age of an hundred and od yeares and in that age hauing all her body withered and consumed and wanting nature to nourish she died commaunding the sayd peece of goâ—ld to be carefully sent her Maiesty allâ—aging further that as long as the sayd old woman wore it vpon her body she could not dye The Queene vpon the confidence she had thereof tooke the sayd gouldâ— and wore it vpon her ruâ—fe Now though she fell not suddainly sicke yet daily decreased her rest and feeding and within few dayes fell sick indeed and the cause being wondred at by a Lady with whom she was very priuate and confident her Maiesty tould her commaunding her to conceale the same that she saw one night in her bed her body exceeding leane and fearfull in a light of fire This sight was at VVhite-hall a little before she departed from thence to Richmond and may be testifyed by another Lady who was one of the neerest about her Person of whom the Queene demaunded whether she was not wont to see sightes in the night telling her of the bright flame she had seene Afterward in the melancholy of her sicknes she desired to see a true looking glasse which in twenty yeares before she had not seene but only such a one as was made of purpose to deceaue her sight which glasse being brought her she fell presently into exclayming againsâ— them whicâ— had so much commended her and tooke it so offensiuely that some which before had flattered her duâ—st not come into her sight Now falling into extremity she â—ate two dayes and three nightes vpon her stoole ready dreslâ—d and could neuer be brought by any of her Counsell to go to bed or to eat or drinke only my Lord Admirall one time perswaded her to drinke some broath â—or that any of the rest she would not answere them to any question but sayd softly to my Lord Admiralls earnest perswasions that if he knew what she had seene in her bed he would not perswade her as hee did And comaunding the rest of the Lords to depart her chamber willed my Lord Admirall to stay to whome she shooâ—â— her head and with a pittifull voice said vnto him My Lord I am tied with a chaine of iron about my nâ—eke he alleadging her wonted courage she replied I am tied and the case is altered with mee About the same time two Ladies waiting on her in her Câ—aÌ„ber discouered in the bottom of her Chaire the Queenâ— oâ— hartes with a nayle of iron knockt through the forehead of it the which the Ladies durst not then pull out remembring that the like thing was reported to be vsed to other for witch-craft Another Lady waiting in these times on the Queene leauing her asleep in her priuy chamber at Richmond at the very first distemper of her sicknes met her at she tâ—ought three or foure chambers of fearing that she would haue byn displeased that she leâ—t her alone came towards her to excuse her selfe but shee vanished away and when the Lady retourned into the same chamber where she left the Queene she found her asleepe as before So in time growing past recouery hauing kept her bed some daies the Counsell sent vnto her the Bishop of Canterburie other of the Prelates vpon sight of whom she was much offended cholerikly rating them bidding them be packing afterwardes exclaymed to my L. Admirall that â—he had the greatest indignity offered her by the Archbiâ—hop that a Prince could haue to pronouÌ„ce senteÌ„ce of death against her as if she had liued an Atheist And some Lords mentioning to haue other Prelates to come vnto her she answered that she would haue none of those hedge-priests so none of them came to her till after she was past sense at the last gasp at which tyme some praiers were said not farre from her The Queene being departed this life the Lords of the Counsell went to London to proclaime his Maiesty leauing her body with charge not to be opened such being her desire but some for some reasons hauing giuen a secret warrant to the Surgeons they opened her which the rest of the Counsell did not contradict Now her body being seared vp was brought to VVhite-hall where it was watched euery night by six seuerall Ladies who being all about the same which was fast nayled vp within a board-coffin with leaues of lead couered with veluet it happened that her body brake the coffin with such a cracke that it spleated the wood lead and cerecloth to the terror and astonishmeÌ„t of all that were present wherupon the next day she was fayne to be new trimmed vp in so much as all were of opinioÌ„ that if she had not byn opened the breach of her body would haue byn much worse Diuers other particularities â—or that they coÌ„cerne speciall Peâ—â—onageâ— I haue thought good for some causes to conceale And this narration I haue byn forced to set forth to auoid the calumniation of M. Barlow who saith vpon my first words in the Letter to my friend This is another Iesâ—â—â—icall tricke as well in matters histoâ—icall as oâ— doctrine to â—raâ—e it out with an impudâ—nt tale but aske theÌ„ for their Author who saith it then ansuâ—â—er is like the Câ—clops câ—y in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nobody nobody But we say coÌ„trary to the Cyclops somebody somebody or rather many Lodies togeather for that in this point I haue the original by me haue shewed it to many men of grauity iudgmeÌ„t though it be not coÌ„uenient to declare the name of the Relator for this present to M. Barlow for more causes then one And as for his general slauÌ„der conâ—umelies which he though good heâ—â— to cast in that it is a Iesuitical trick as well in matters Historicall as of doctrine to braue it out with an impudeÌ„t tale the assertioÌ„ therof must needs â—hew his impudency if he doth not proue it with some examples as he neyther doth nor can but how often I haue don it against him in this book the Reader hath partly seene and will more before wee end And the two late bookes published to omit all other the one The sober Reckoning with M. Morton the other The Search of M. Francis VValsingham one of their owne Religion do so put them to the wall in this matter of lying and falsifying as if M. Barlow be able well to answer those two bookes and satisfy substantially for the mayne and huge number of falsities therin obiected and demonstrated it shall not be needfull for him to trouble himselfe any more to answer this my booke for I will take my selfe satisfied by the satisfaction giuen to them And thus now hauing buried Q. Elizabeth brought her body to rest for a time would to God we might hope the like both for body and soule eternally Christ Iesus our Sauiour knoweth how
this ensuing consideration S. Augustine in his nynth booke of Conseffions recounting the story of his iourney from Millan to Rome and from thence to Africa his Countrey in the compaine of his Mother a holy widdow named Moniâ—a sheweth how they comming to the Port of Ostia where they were to imbarke his sayd Mother fell grieuously sicke and after some dayes of sicknes departed this present liâ—e and for testification of her great sanctitie the sayd Doctor recouÌ„counteth many of her godly speaches vttered before her death and amongst other shâ— earnestly recommended vnto him and other there present that shee might be prayed for at the altar in time of Sacrifice which S. Augustine not only performed himselfe but in the same place most huÌ„bly desireth all those that shall read his wordes to pray both for the soule of his sayd Mother and likwise for the soule of his Father dead long before named Patricius Now then haue we the testimony of S. Augustine by him also of all the Catholike Church in his time for that he was neuer noted of errour eyther for thus writing or thus doing first that Aërius was an Heretick and consequently damned for holding that Prayers Sacrifice were not to be offered vp for the dead SecoÌ„dly we see by the fact of the holy widdow that that was the coÌ„mon sense of the vniuersall Church in her dayes for that she hauing liued first in the Catholick Church in Afria then vnder S. Ambrose in Millan and sometime also in Rome she would neuer haue demaunded this office to haue byn done for her soule after her death if it had not byn the common known practice of the vniuersall Church in her daies neither would her learned godly Sonne hâ—ue permitted it much lesse performed the same himself and intreated others to do the like wherof it seemeth I may well inferre that if 〈◊〉 were damned for teaching the contrary doctrine then is M. Barlow in great danger of damnation if he repent not for defending the same doctrine And if S. Monica S. Augustine her Sonne may be thought to be saued that both belieued practised prayers and sacrifices for the dead then hardly can be saued Queene Elizabeth with her Chaplin M. Barlow except he change his opinion that neither practice or belieue that doctrine I remit me to the carefull Reader what force there is in this Argument OF THE FLATTERY AND SYCOPHANCY VSED BY DIVERS MINISTERS TO HIS MAIESTY OF ENGLAND To the hurt and preiudice of Catholicke men and their cause CHAP. III. AS during the life of Queen Elizabeth one great Witch-craft of Ministers was for bringing her asleep in the bed of careles security to intoxicate her braine with excessiue praises and immoderate adulations So sayd I they attempted to do the like with his Maiesty that now is indeauoring to incite him dayly more more against Catholiks their religioÌ„ by pretence of zeale towards his State PersoÌ„ which no waies would they haue him belieue that Catholicks did loue or fauour And in this poinâ— I did mention in particuler T.M. the yonger of whome I was credibly informed that his custome was by reason of his place neere his Maiesty at the time of repast to iniure Catholicks that were absent either by false relating their doctrine or miscoÌ„struing their actioÌ„s or alleaging shewing forth some places out of their books that may seeme preiudiciall againsâ— theÌ„ being taken at the worst without due interpretation My words at that time were these VVe doe verily perswade ourselues that if his Highnes had bene left to himselfe and to his owne Royall nature Noble disposition in this point as Queene Elizabeth was wont to say of her disposition in religion we had tasted indeed much of this his great humanity and so we began for somtime but being preuented and diuerted by the subtile working of this and other such Ministers as desired to draw bloud and to incite his Maiesty against vs we hauing no place to speake for our selues no admittance to be heard no effectual intercessour to interpose his mediation for vs no meruaile though we were cast of and do indure the smart And I doe name this Minister T. M. the yonger in the first place among the rest for that it is commonly sayd that his whole exercise is Sycophancy and calumniation against men of our profession be they strangers or domesticall and that among other deuises he hath this that euery time his Maiesty is to take his repast he is ready either with some tale iest scoffe or other bitter lance to wound vs absent and that he hath euer lightly some book page therof ready to read to his Highnes somewhat framed by his art to incense or auert his Maiesty more eyther in iudgement or affection or both and therby to draw from him some hard speaches which being published afterward by himselfe and others do serue to no other end but to gall and alienate minâ—es and to afflict them that are not suffered to giue reason for themselues that is the seruice he doth his Maiesty in this exercise And now vnto this let vs see how M. Barlow beginneth to frame his answere Is not this â—ellow truly can is in praesepe saith he that can neither speake well himselâ—e nor indure that vertue should haue her due commendation by others He mâ—anâ—th concerâ—ing the praises of his Maiesty which he would sâ—y that I can neither vtter them of my selfe nor suffer others to do the same yet within a few lines after finding me to haue yelded vnto his Maiesty suÌ„dry worthy due praises he is forced to run to the quite contrary extreme of reprehending me for it saying VVheras this Iudas coÌ„mendeth his Maiesties great humanity Royall nature and Noble disposition so did the Diueth conâ—esse Christ to be the Sonne of God but their conclusion was withall Quid tibi nobis what haue we to doe with thee So he And is not this humor of malicious contradicting verie fit for the Diuell indeed who therof hath his name of Sathan In the former lines he sayd that I would neyther prayse his Maiesty nor suffer him to be praysed and here he compareth me to the diuell for praysing him and yet goeth further sayingâ— That his Maiestie may demaund what euill haue I done this day that so bad a fellow as this is should speake so well of me So as whether we speake well or hould our peace still we must be blame-worthie And this also is a principal point belonging to the profâ—ssion of Parasites if you marke it well to admit noe concurrence of their aduersaries in honouring that Prince though neuer soe sincerely meant whome themselues alone by their exorbitant adulation do meane to possesse Let vs see what generall ground our Antagonist here M. Barlow that seemeth indeed to be an egregious Craftsman in this occupation doth lay vs down to
first and second Chapters of the booke of Toby to wit how the foresayd King Senacherib sonne to Salmanasar being returned much exasperated from Iury agaynst the Iewes for the euill successe which there he had did promulgate an Edict that such as he caused to be slayne should not be buryed the Story sayth that Toby notwithstanding this Edict and Commaundement did bury them by night yea and left also on day his dinner and the ghests which he had with him at the same for to fetch in the dead body of a Iew slayne in the streetes and when some of his neighbous seeing the peril thereof did reprehend him for aduenturing vpon so great daunger saying to himâ— that himselfe had bene commaunded to be slayne for burying men before the Story doth not only defend him but also commendeth him for the same saying Sed Tobias plùs timens Deum quà m Regem rapiebat corpora occisorum c. But Toby feating God more then the King did take away the dead bodies that he found in the streetes hyding them in his house and burying them at mydnight Secondly the Angell Raphael in the twelth Chapter discouering himselfe vnto Toby togeather with the mystery of all his actions with him doth manifestly shew that these his deeds of charity of giuing of almes and burying the dead bodyes of such as were slayne were gratfull vnto Almighty God Quando craâ—as cum lachrymis sepeliebas mortous derelinquebas prandium tuum c. ego obtuli â—â—ationem tuam Domino quia acceptus eras Deo necesse suit vt tentatio probaret te When thou didst pray with teares and didst bury the dead and didst leaue thy dinner for doing this worke of Charity I did offer to God thy prayer and because thou wert acceptable vnto God it was necessary that temptation should try thee Here then we haue the testimony of an Angell agaynst M. Barlow that is no Angell and if he be yet must we account him for a very wicked and false Angell if the other be a good and true Angell Now then let vs examine a little whether of these Angels deserueth most to be belieued or whether for a mans saluation it be more secure to follow the one or the other for that they speake contraryes The one that this fact of Toby was not iustifyable the other that it was not only iustifiable but acceptable also and pleasing to Almighty God and that in a very high degree as by the text appeareth The one determineth as you haue heard that Toby was reprehensible in that he obeyed not the Kingâ— the other saith he did very well in obeying God more then the king How shall we know which of these two Angels is the good and which the bad M. Barlow will on his part perhaps say that this booke of Toby is not held by him for Canonicall Scripture but only Hagiographum a holy ancient writing as the Iewes themselues do allow it to be though not in their Canon of Scriptures yet doth not this take away the credit of the Story which hath indured and hath beene belieued and taken for true so many ages boâ—h before and after Christian Religion was planted And M. Barlow cannot alleadg one authenticall Author or holy man before these our tymes that euer sayd this Story was false or not to be credited though he receiued it not for Canonicall Scripture Secondly we see it acknowledged for Canonicall Scripture and of infallible truth not only by a generall Councell of our dayes wherin the flower of the learnedst men in Christendome were present I meane that of Trent but by another Councell also aboue 1000. yeares before that to wit the third of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and subscribed thereunto and in diuers other places of his workes giueth the same testimony to this booke as do sundry other Fathers ancienter then he as S. Ambrose that wrote a whole booke of the Story of Toby containing twenty foure whole Chapters S. Basil in his Oration of Auarice yea the holy Martyr S. Cyprian also himselfe more ancienter then them all and this in sundry places of his works and after S. Augustine S. Gregory S. Isiodoâ—us Cassiodorus and others wherby is euident that in S. Augustins time and before this booke was held for diuine and Canonicall And therfore for a man now to venture his soule vpon this bare deniall of M. Barlow and his Consorts for there goeth no lesse in the matter his assertion being blasphemy if this be true Scripture let his poore sheepe of Lincolne thinke well of it for other men will beware how they venture so much with him But now setting aside this consideration whether it be Canonicall Scripture or no let vs consider a little further what holy men in ancient times did thinke of this fact of Toby whether it were iustifiable or no. S. Augustine in his booke De cura pro mortuis habenda hath these words Tobias sepeliendo mortuos Deum promeruisse teste Angelo commendatur Tobias is commended by the testimony of the Angell in that by burying the dead he merited the fauour of Almighty God And the same Father repeateth the very same words and sentence againe in his first booke of the Citty of God Whereby we see what his sense was in this matter both in belieuing the good Angell and esteming that good worke of burying the dead which M. Barlow by conteÌ„pt calleth a ciuil coâ—rtesy to haue merited with God And of the same sense was S. Ambrose who speaking of this Edict of the King that no man should bury any dead man of the Iewes in that captiuity commendeth highly holy Toby for neglecting the same in respect of that charitable worke Ille interdicto non reuocabatur sed magis incitabatur c. he was not stayd by that Edict or Proclamation from burying the dead but rather was therby incyted the more to doe the same Erat â—â—im misericordiae praemium 〈◊〉 pâ—na for that the punishment of death was the prince of mercy S. Cyprian also that holy Bishop and Martyr long before S. Ambâ—ose in his booke Of our Lords prayer extolling much the meryt of good workes and exhorting men vnto the same amongst many other authoryties of the Scriptures cyteth this of Toby saying Et ideo diuina Scriptura inâ—â—râ—it dicens bona est oratio cum ieiunio â—leemosyna therfore the dyuine Scripture inâ—tructeth vs saying That Prayer is good accompanied with fasting and almes In which wordes first we see this booke of Toby affirmed to be diuine Scripture and secondly this speach doctrine of the Angell Raphael vnto Toby concerning the prayse and merit of good works to be allowed by Cyprianâ— which is full contrary to M. Barlowes Diuinity But let vs heare our S. CypriaÌ„ in the same place Nam qui in die Iudicij praemium pro operibus c. For
the same immediately according to coÌ„mandment Wherto I answere first that howsoeuer it be the quicke of our question is little touched hereby for that we treat whether an Oath offered against the conscience of the swearer may be taken or not especially when the points therof concerne matters of Religion and here the question betweene S. Gregory Mauritius is about the publishing of a law partly temporall for as much as it concerned the Emperours Army Officers and publike accompts and partly also including some touch against Ecclesiasticall liberty intaking that holy profession of Monasticall life for help of their soules for which laâ—er respect S. Gregory was most earnest with the said Emperour to be content to haue the said Law mitigated tempered as he had proposed the same and so in the end obtained his purpose as by his words now recited doth appeare Secondly then the chiefest point oâ— difference betweene M. Barlow me in this matter seemeth to be whether S. Gregory did yield to the publishing oâ— this Law before the mitigation correction therof or not He sayth he did But Cardinall Baronius who seemeth more practised in the writings of S. Gregory then M. Barlow in his CoÌ„munion booke holdeth the contrary and proueth it out of S. Gregories owne words and writings vnto the foresaid Archbishops MetropolitaÌ„s Eusebius of Thessalonica Vrbiâ—iâ—â— of Dyrachium ConstaÌ„tius of Millane Iohn oâ— Corynth Iohn of Creet others mentioned in his said lâ—tter which letter he sent togeather with the said Law vnto those chiefe Biâ—hops Metropolitans to be diuulged but first moderated and corrected saith Baronius in the two points before by me mentioned Adding fuâ—ther that this Epistle oâ— S. Gregory concerning this coâ—recâ—ion is found in his Register not in his due place ranke but remoued from thence as many other of his â—piâ—tles also are which haue giuen some occasion to M. Barlow for to wrangle about the matter for that in two other Epistles of his that go before this to wit the 62. to the Emperour himselfe and 65. to Theodorus his Phisitian he intreateth earnestly for the Emperours consent to this mitigation wherof no man can meruaile considering the humility and sweetnes of S. Gregories nature that the Law it selâ—e seemed to be made vpon great reason for the Common-Wealth for some abuses perhaps that had passâ—d might passe and consequently was no such Ecclesiastical Law as M. Barlow would haue it to be taken for And so much the more reason had S. Gregory to deale humbly by way of petition with the sayd Mauritiusâ— for allowing of his modification for that the Law did not directly repugne any Ecclesiasticall matter but by a consequence only the subiect of the Law being grounded vpon temporall respects which consequence notwithstanding S. Gregory as a careâ—ull supreme Pâ—stour would not suffer to passe witâ—out due reflection made theron with endeauour to haue it amended But whâ—ther this were before or after his first sending oâ— the law into diuers Prouinces aâ— he sayth Epist. 62. lib. 2. or after as he writeth to the foresayd Metropolitans Epist. 11. lib. 7. or whether he sent it two times â—iâ—t to the Prouinces with some aduertisements to be considered of vntill he should haue obtained the Emperours consent and then againe vnto the sayd Metropâ—litans with more full resolution and â—ssurance that the Emperour was content and satisfyed I shall leaue the matter to be disputed betweene Cardinall Baronius and M. Barlow albeyt the matter it selfe be of smâ—ll moment to our purpose as I haue sayd for that as S. Gregory did on the one side shew himselfe subiect vnto Mauritius at that time in teâ—porall â—ffaires so did he not neglect his Pastorall office supreme care in dealing with those Arcâ—bishops Metropolitans of diuers Nations to whom he sent the Emperours Law to practise the samâ— according to the temperament and declaration sent them And if his spirituall authority had bene acknowledged to haue bene no more at that time then ouer the Roman Diocesse only as now our Protestants will acknowledge no more to our present Popes he would neuer haue taken vpon him to write and send the Law with his exposition to so many great Archbishops of diuers other Realmes and Nations And if Mauritius the Emperour had held himselfe for Head of the Church in those dayes and to haue power aswell in Ecclesiasticall affaires as temporall and that S. Gregory had not bene Head he would neuer haue sent the law to haue bene published by him to the Metropolitans both of the East and West Greeke and Latin Church himselâ—e liuing in Constantinople being neerer vnto diuers of the said Metropâ—litans then was Rome but would haue sent the same immediately vnto them as from himselfe And this might be suâ—ficient for this matter but that I may not let passe without the note of another egregious ignorance and malice or rather malicious ignorance of M. Barlow conioyned togeather in this placeâ— The malice standeth in this that he accuseth me of falsifying for leauing out wittingly certayne wordes of S. Gregory in his forâ—said Epiâ—tle to the Metropolitans whereby he assureth them that the Emperour was pacifyed and contented with his mitigation of the law sent vnto them This â—alsiâ—ying Iesuit saith he mentioneth the Epistle but leaueth out the wordes very cunningly mihi credite Belieue me our Gratiâ—â—s Emperour is so contented Whereas if you looke backe vpon my wordes you shall find them set downe by me thus as they stand in S. Gregory De qua re Serenissimus Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur About which matter our most Clement Christian Emperour is wholy pleased contended if mihi credite were pretermitted it importeth little to the matter This then was malicious let vs see the ignorance coupled with more then with a single malice when he speaketh of S. Gregories wordes written vnto Theodoruâ— the Emperours Phisitian as before hath beene mentioned sending a letter to him to be deliuered to the said Emperour at his good commodity M. Barlow relateth the matter thus He writes to Theodore the Emperours Phisitian saith he and intreats him to deale with his Lord and Soueraigne about it The reasons wherof he had not yea he would not he saith à RespoÌ„sali suo publicè dare publikely yeald as froÌ„ his Chaire and Oracle much lesse by his Breue interdict but hauing suggested it priuatly he left it to God and the Emperours leasure and wisdome In which words besides the grosâ—e ignorance in taking Responsali for the Popes Chayre or Oracle wherin he defineth matters for direction of Christendome whereas the word signifieth only his MesseÌ„ger Nuntius or Legat there are diuers euident fraudes discouered as first that he doth interprete the Popes priuate letter or suggestion as S. Gregory calleth it which he sent to Theodore to be giuen to the Emperour by the words yealding of reasons publikly
was this I find no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholike affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith and what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true Mother therby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother but only the declaration Wherfore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth is a meere calumniation amongst the rest So in my former writing now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points In the first whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obedience he is very briefe for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation that the Popes Breue forbids not temporall Obedience No saith he it forbids the Oath wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance But this we deny and haue often denied and still must deny and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands who though he hath often affirmed the same yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue For that being once proued all controuersie about this Oath were ended And it is a strange kind of demeanour so often and euery where to affirme it and neuer to proue it He addeth for his reason in this place He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne and sayth neuer a word more But what doth this proue Or in what forme is this argument For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor that we do so or that the Popes Breue doth so we vtterly deny it as manifestly false For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour Wherfore this proofe is nothing at allâ— But he hath another within a leafe after which is much more strange for he bringeth me for a witnes against my selfe in these words VVhat hitherto sayth he he â—aâ— laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue â—â—insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grâ—â—teth If this be so that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduantage and some cause to vaunt but if no word of this be true and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen that is forced to inuent these silly shifts Let vs lay forth then the mystery or rather misery of this matter as himselfe relateth it The Pope saith he being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause or reason of the vnlwâ—ulnes of the Oath the Epistler saith there are as many reasons that it is vnlawfull as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion against which they must sweare And is not this a good reason say I Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the coÌ„science of a Catholike man from swearing But how doth be proue by this that I confesse the Breue to forbid temporall Obedience Do you marke I pray you his inference and consider his acumen But there is no one poynt sayth he in the Oath that doth not so to wit that doth not concerne Religion euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience I do sweare before God that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme c. Ergo I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles and consequently leaueth no Obedience ciuill or temporall But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion euen the very first Article that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience â—hen doth it not touch religioÌ„ in our sense For that we do distinguish these two deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts the one conteyning points of temporall obedience for acknowledging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes the other concerning points of Catholike Religion belonging to the Popes Authority To the first wherof we refuse not to sweare but only against the second And now M. Barlow sayth that all concerne religion and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedience but denieth all And is not this a worthy dispute But let vs passe to the second question whether the Pope or Church hath authority to make new Articles of faith as the Apologer obiected And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part that the Catholicke Church preâ—endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith that were not of themselues true and of faith before he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Hermes and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall Whereto I answere that Doctor Stapleton sayth only that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not admitted before as for example the Epistles of S. Iames the two bookes of Machabees the Epistle of Iude and diuers others as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and suâ—scribed so hath the same Church at this day and shall haue vnto the worlds end authority to do the same Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret sayth Doctour Stapleton that is if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto herâ— librum aliquem alâ—â—m nâ—ndum in Canâ—nem recepâ—um Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes
and Clâ—ments Constituâ—ions before mentioned So teacheth Doctor Stapleton and the reason of his saying is for that the authority of the Church is the same now shal be vnto the worlds end as it was in the first ages to iudge of Scriptures when occasion is offered And if the Church should admit any such booke now into the Canon of holy Scriptures which was not held for Scripture before which yet is a case not like to fall out then should noâ— this booke be made Scripture by the Church but only declared to be such which was so from the beginning though not so knowne declared So as the Church in this case should not giue infallibility of truth vnto the booke but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost that this booke was such from the beginning though not so accepted So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in cyting Doctour Stapletons words first to conceale his first condition Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret if the holy Ghost should suggest the same vnto the Church and then these other two conditions if it were written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose to make M. Doctour Stapletons speach to appeare more naked and improbable but indeed it was to keep his old custome which is neuer commonly to relate things truly in all respects in any citation whatsoeuer His second obiection is out of Bishop Fisher VVho sayth quoth he that whatsoeuer the Pope with a Councell deliuereth vs to be belieued that is to be receiued as an Article of fayth which we graunting to be true do ad only this that it is to be vnderstood according to our former declaration and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it against â—uther out of Scotus saying Non quòd â—unc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but â—or that it did declare it to be true and to haue bene deliuered by God and this by direction of the holy Ghost promised by our Sauiour to the Church So sayth Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neyther the Church nor the Pope Head therof do pretend to make any new Article of fayth that was not in it selfe an article of fayth before yea and so belieued also fide implicita by implyed fayth in the faith of the Church but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to haue byn such from the beginning though not so knowne or declared and therfore men were not bound to belieue it fide explicita by expresse fayth as now they are after the Churches definition and declaration therof And that this is the common sense of all Catholicke Deuines according to my former wordes that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much adoe as though it were false is proued among other learned men of our dayes by Gregorius de Valentia whose wordes are that it is Sententia communis Theologorum the common opinion of Deuines for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors principall Schoolemen And his whole discourse founded vpon Scriptures Fathers Councells and other arguments consisteth in this that as whatsoeuer is now belieued by the Church for matter of fayth was in substance belieued before in all other precedent ages vnto Christes time actu fidei implicito by an implyed act of fayth that is to say the belieuing in generall whatsoeuer the Church belieued so many thinges are now belieued by the Church actu fidei explicito by expresse fayth which were not so belieued before for that the Church froÌ„ time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clearly and expresly which before were belieued by an implied faith only As for example the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the pâ—oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne as was afterward declared vnto vs by the Church but that it belieued the same yet may we not deny but that it belieued the same not fide expliciâ—a but implicita only And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications therof made by the subsequent Councels about the vnity of the Person differeÌ„t Natures in Christ that his Mother should be called the Mother of God were belieued implicitè by those of the Councel of Nyce and consequently were then also Articles of faith though they were not belieued by them explicitè as we are bound to do after the explication made by the Church Let vs conclude therfore with Bishop Fiâ—â—ers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tameâ—si nequeat Sumâ—â—â— Pontisex c. That albeit the Pope with a Councel that is to say the Catholick Church cannot make any thing true or false that is not true or false of it selfe and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith yet whatsoeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs as an Article of faith that al true Christians ought to belieue as an Article of faith which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth Thus Bishop Fisher whome you see how impertinently M. Barlow alleadgeth against my assertion saith the very same that I do Let vs go forward Thirdly then he obiecteth S. Thomas of Aquine who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith some more large and some more briefe demandeth to whome appertayneth noua Editio Symboli the new Edition of a Creed when the necessity of new heresies doth require And he sayth it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church And what is this against me Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed though he were not Pope with addition of many Articles for explanations sake which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed though in substaÌ„ce of truth they were nothing different Did not diuers Councells set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before All which standeth vpon this ground so much pondered by â— Irenaeus that the Apostles had all truth reuealed vnto them by Christ and they left the same in the Church so as whatsoeuer is or hath or shal be added afterward by the said Church are only explications of that first reueiled truth and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the coÌ„trary is to no purpose at al for he citeth diuers authors for that which we deny not but yet alwaies commonly with addition of some vntruth of his owne as heere he alleadgeth out of the Iesuit Azor that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei Doctrines of faith which we deny not but when he addeth that this belongeth vnto the Pope only and not to a Councel this is his owne inuention for Azor ioyneth them
euen against conscience but of this we will not dispute any more now but only I say that conforme to this his doctrine English Catholickes are admoniâ—hâ—d also to consider with what intention this new Oath â—gâ—inst the authority of the Bishop of Rome is exacted whether to preiudice Catholike Religion or no. For that â—â—is may increase their obligatioÌ„ of refusall or acceptance â—â—en according to M. Barlowes doctrine in this place But for the second point concerning the fact of Iulian the Apostata in demaunding Heathen wryters to be deliâ—ered vp of Philosophy and Poetry that in this case I say there should be the like obligation not to obey that Emperour but rather to deny to obey yea and to dy for the sayd deniall if need were as many did for the other I confesse that I cannot conceaue M. Barlowes mystery therin For who euer wrote this before Or who was euer accounted a Martyr in the Church of God for refusing to deliuer vp â— Heathen Poet or Philosophers booke Doth not now M. Barlow shorten againe and straiten greatly the lymits of temporall obedience to Princes when hâ— graunteth that ChristiaÌ„ Subiects may deny to obey them when they exact the deliuery vp of a Poeticall prophane booke to wit a Catullus or Tibullus or Ouids Metamorphosis or some such other fit for M. Bâ—rlowes reading Is not the man very constant to himsâ—lfe in his assertions that sometimes so ouerlasheth in extending temporall obedience and sometimes so excâ—ssiuely contracteth the same He sayth that Iulian herby did meane to bereaue Christians of all knowledge and therby to take from them the true meanes of their instruction and for this he noteth in the margeÌ„t the Ecclesiasticall History of Socrates lib. 3. cap. 12. But as in all other citations commonly he erreth more or lesse wherof I might allâ—adge some scores of examples if I would stand therupon and therby giueth iust suspition that he neuer read the Authors themselues but had them out of other mens noteâ—bookes as M. Mortoâ— confessed of himselfe when he was pressed therunto so here no such matter is found in the Chapter by him cyted but in two Chapters after Socrates hath these words Atque Iulianus Imperator c. And Iulian the Emperour applying his mind earâ—estly to this thing made a law that Christians should not be instructed in the doctrine of the Gentiles most certainly assuring himselfe that the fâ—bles that are read in Heathen writers would â—asily be turned by the said Christians to the reproofe of his Religion Which is anothâ—r thing you see then this which here is set downe by M. Barlow And much more likely that he was afraid that Christians reading the Pagan wryters would turne the folly and foulenes of Heathen fablâ—s against his religion and not that Christians should want true meanes of instructionâ— for want of those fables as M. Barlow here fableâ—h Albeit if he instruct his flocke with no better meanes of instructions I must needs graunt that they are in a miserable case But let vs go forward to examine a little further his very next lines as they ly in his booke about teÌ„porall obedience to Princes in which point he runneth so forth backe from extremes to extremes as it is strange to consider for hauing so diminished the same in hiâ— former example of the Emperour Iulian as now you haue heard that Christians might disobey him euen about the deliuery of a Poeticall Booke though he had neuer so earnestly required or coÌ„manded the same now he starteth to the other end againe saying as out of S. Thomas Aquinas that temporall Princes are to be obeyed euen in things vnlawfâ—â—â— His words are these From subiection to Princes there is no startling exception sayth Aquinas vnlesse he be either an vsurper or Iâ—truder which commaunds and this is not our case God be thanked or that he commaund things vnlawfull if he say this is their case we deny it but let vs suppose it yet their Angelicall Doctour will tell them that in those things they must notwiâ—hstanding obey propter viâ—andum scandalum aut periculum of this diuinity I iudge not it is their owne Is this our owne Syr Not so properly as it seemeth that lying cogging is your owne for we acknowledge not this doctrine but with due lymits far different from your allegation But you do absolutely abuse both S. Thomas and the Reader and cannot choose but know that here is falshood vsed by you except you will confesse extreme ignorance in not vnderstanding the sense of S. Thomas whom you alleadge though it be most cleare and plaine for children to conceaue that haue the latin tongue The title of S. Thomas hâ—s Article is VVâ—ether Christians b◠〈◊〉 to obey secular Powers or not And he proueth that they are by an euident argument deduced out of the 3. to the 〈◊〉 that the fayth of Christ hindreth not the order of Iâ—stice appoynted by the Law of Nature and consequently that no man is excused by being a Christian from performing due obedience to temporall Princes and for better strengthning of this his assertion he proposeth an obiection according to his custome and solueth the same The obiection is this S. Augustine in his fourth booke of the Citty of God teacheth that great Kingdomes when they cast of iustice become great robberies and theâ—uedomes but Christ his lâ—w doth not bind Christians to obey such vniust Princes Magistrates and therfore in all cases Christians are not bound to temporall obedience Wherunto he answereth thus that forsomuch as the order of Iustice is the ground of all Obedience therfore a Christian man is bound so far forth to obey secular Princesâ— as order of iustice requireth and therfore if such Princes haue not iust principality but vsurped or that they should command vniust â—hinges his subiects are not bound to obey him â—iâ—i fortè per accidens ad vitandum scâ—ndalum vel periculum except perhaps accidentally for auoyding of scandall or perill And this is the Diuinity that M. Barlow scoffeth at saith he will not iudge of it for it is our owne And I say that the Diuiâ—ity is very good and so would haue appeared if M. Bâ—rlow had eyther vnderstood it rightly or truly alleaged it for that the doctrine of S. Thomas is very cleare and incontrollable that Christian subiects are bound to obey their lawfull temporall Princes so long as they commaÌ„d lawfull thinges but if they be vsurpers in which â—ase I say also with M. Barlow God be thanked we are not or command vnlawfull thinges then are not subiects bound to obey them at leastwise by obligation of iustice and conscience which is the true foundation of obedience though perhaps saith S. Thomas accidentally they may be somtimes bouÌ„d therunto for auoyding scâ—ndal perill As for example if a Prince sâ—ould demaund of me the one halâ—e of my goodes vniustly I were not boâ—nd in
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
it hath bene sufficiently proued against Syr Francis Hâ—stingâ— that ignorant Knight who following M. Iewell obiected it as spoken once by Doctour Cole meaning if he spake it that some simple people are more deuout then greater learned but that ignorance should be a mother or necessary bringer forth of deuotion was neuer affirmed by any position of Catholikes and was proued to be very false in Syr Francis owne person who shewed himselfe to be very ignorant and yet nothing deuout And the same in due measure and proportion may be verified in M. Barlow if he deny it let vs part our proofes I haue shewed his ignorance in alleaging this Canon that maketh nothing for him let him proue his deuotion From the 24. Canon he steppeth forward againe to the 46. Wherin he saith is decreed that the Clergies immâ—nitie from ciuill molestations and troubles is from the King and by his CoÌ„maund and authority And what maketh this against vs or for the Protestants Why is not this practised at this time in EnglaÌ„d that all Clergie men be free ab omnipublica indictione atque labore â—t lilâ—ri sâ—ruiant Deo sayth the same Canon from all publike taxes labour to the end they may attend to seâ—ue God more freely Is the vse of this Canon more amongst Catholikes or Protestants and if more amongst Catholikes and nothing at all amongst Protestants especially in England what wisdome was this of M. Barlow to bâ—ing it in as a point decreed by the Councel conforme to their doctrine and practice But saith he this immunity came from King Sisenandus his order and commandement True it is that he as a good Catholike Prince was very forward therin yet the Decree was the Councels and therfore it is sayd in the Canon id decreuit Sanctum Concilium the holy Councell decreed it Neither do we teach that this immunity or freedome of the Clergy from secular burthens is without the consent concurrence of Christian Princes proceeding out of their piety and deuotion towards the Church to fauour further that which was esteemed by the Church needfull to Gods seruice conforme to Gods diuine Law both written impressed by nature So as this immunity of Clergy men was brought in both by Diuine and Humane Law as largly learnedly doth proue Cardinall Bellarmine in two seuerall Chapters of his Booke de Clericis to whom as to his Maister I send M. Barlow to Schoole though much against his will where also he will learne that long before this fact of King Sisenandus other Christian Emperours and Kings had consented to these immunities of Clergy men and confirmed the same by their temporall lawes decrees which piety King Sisenandus did follow and imitate in Spaine And would God he would inspire his Maiesty to do the same in England But what helpeth this M. Barlowes cause Truly euen as much as the rest Let vs see if you please what is his fourth Canon which he cyteth for his proof of the CouÌ„cels agreement with Protestants He leapeth then lastly to the 75. Canon which is one more then is in the booke for there be but 74. but this is a small fault in respect of that which presently ensueth His words are these Lastly that all the decrees and Canons of that Councell were confirmed by the Clergy annuente religiosissimo Principe after the Kings royll assent had vnto them and that set downe Can. 75. But first of all if the thing did stand in the Councell as heere it is set downe that the Princes consent and confirmation had bene demaunded to all the Decrees and Canons as M. Barlow sayth yet the words being but annuente Principâ— the Prince consenting therunto I do not see how it can be truly translated as it is by M. Barlow after the Kings Royall assent had vnto them which are the vsuall words whereby Parlament Statutes are confirmed wherein the King as truly supreme head hath chiefe authority to allow or reiect which I doubt not but that King SisenaÌ„duâ— toke not vpon him in this Councell of Toledo nay if the place be rightly examined which is in the very last lynes of the sayd Councell it wil be found that the said consent of the Prince was not about the decrees of the Councell but about the subscribing of all the Bishops names vnto the sayd Councell For they hauing ended all and made a large prayer for the prosperity of the said King and all said Amen it is added lastly Definitis itaque â—is qua superiùs comprehensa sunt annuente religiosissâ—mo Pâ—incipâ— â—lacâ—it dâ—inde c. Et quia prosâ—ctilus Ecclesiae anima nostra conâ—â—niâ—nt iam propria subscriptione vt permaneant roboramus Wherâ—fore hauing defined these things that before are comprehended it seemed good also by the consent of our most Religious Prince that forsomuch as these things that are decreed are profitable for the Church and for our soules we do strengthen them also by our owne subscriptions to the end they may remayne I Isidorus in the name of Christ Metropolitan Bishop of the Church of Siuill hauing decreed these things do subscribe c. And so did all the other Bishops by name Heere then I see not what M. Barlow can gayne by alleaging this Canon For if this allowance of King Sisenaâ—dus be referred to the Bishops subscriptions as it seemeth by that it coÌ„meth after the mention of the made decrees or if it were in generall allowance of the whole Councâ—ll by way of yielding to the execution therof as M. Barlows doctrine â—lse where is it maketh nothing against vs at all For we grant this consent to all Princes whithin their owne Kingdomes therby to haue their assistance for execution especially for such points as interesse or touch the politicall state or CoÌ„mon-Wealth There remaineth then to examine a little the first allegation out of the 43. Canon where he sayth that Priests marriage is allowed in this Canon so it be with the coÌ„sâ—nt of the Bishops Wherin two egregious frauds are discouered so manifestly as he could not but know when he wrote them that they were such The first is for that he translateth Presbyteri for Clerici peruersly thereby turning Clarks into Priests knowing well inough what he did for that he must needs see the difference in the very Canon as presently we shall shew The second fraud is that he knowing that this CouÌ„cell did vtterly disallow the marriage of Priests yet he shamed not to affirme the quite contrary We shall say a word of the one and the other For the first he alleageth as you haue heard the 43. CanoÌ„ whose words are Clerici qui sine consultu Episcopi sui duâ—â—int c. Clarks that without the consultation of their Bishop shall marry wiues c. must be separated from the Clergie by their proper Bishop Which word Cleriâ—i M. Barlow translateth Priests notwithstanding he knoweth iâ— iâ— not
but one day before his exhumation was commanded then could not that commandment come from the Pope but mâ—st needs come from the Emperour Bishops there present Heere then is found fraud in M. Barlow his allegation and to publish the same more he would needes vse the word BEFORE BVRIED in great letters as though they had well expressed pridie tumulatum buried the day before But heere perhaps some will demaund suppose this narration of Vâ—spergensis were graunted to be true as M. Barlow setteth it downe how doth it proue that the Pope commanded the exhumation Whereunto he answereth heere by a certayne demaund in a parenthesis VVho cast them out to wit those of Liege but the Pope Wherunto I answere that the Bishops and Archbishops that were with the new Emperour had excommunicated them long before and the Emperour himselfe had giuen out against them the Imperiall band which is a ciuill excommunication which besides that it is euident by the testifications of Histories is made cleere also by that they receaued them into communion presently vpon the death of the old Emperour without imparting the matter to the Pope which they would not haue done if the excoÌ„munication had not come from themselues For that no man can take away that which he could not impose And so here is nothing proued against the Pope but a great good will to calumniate him The like fraud is committed in the allegation of the other Authour Naucleâ—us who saith M. Barlow relateth verbatim both the fact and the reason of the fact as Vrspergensis doth VVherunto I answere that it is true that he relateth both but the one and the other are peruerted by M. Barlow for thus writeth Nauclerus Inopinata fama mortis Imâ—eratoris mox subsequitur c. The vnexpected fame of the death of the old Emperour did presently ensue which being diuulged all those that for gayne-sake had stuck vnto him and had sould their soules vnto him did subiect themselues sine mora without delay vnto the obedience of the yong Emperour and to the Catholicke communion But they of Liege were receaued into the said CoÌ„munion with this condition that the dead body of him that was excoÌ„municated and buried the day before in a monastery should be digged vp c. In relating which words we see that M. Barlow left out first the censure of the Author against them that had followed the part of the old excoÌ„municated Emperour And secondly he leaueth out that they were reconcyled to the new Emperour and to the Catholicke communion of the Bishops there present sine mora without any stay which inferreth that they could not send for the Popes consent to Rome Thirdly he leaueth out as he did in his former Author the words per se pridie tumulatum â—ffâ—derent that they of Leige should dig vp againe the body which the day before they had buryed Fourthly he leaneth out these words that ensued comprobaÌ„tibuâ— his qui aderant Archiepiscopis Episcopis the Archbishops and Bishops that were present approuing and giuing their consents To whome To the new Emperour that would needs haue it so which deliuereth the Pope from hauing any part therin And doth not M. Barlow trim vp Authors well that passe through his hands to make them serue his purpose But now you must heare the trymming of another which is Cuspinian the Historiographer whom I denied before to affirme that Pope Paschalis was enraged with the new Emperour Henry the fifth for burying his Father as was said in the Apologie but rather the contrary For that when King Henry the Father said I was dead and buryed in a Monastery at Leige Cuspinian writeth that his Sonne would not make peace with the Bishop of that place called Otbert except the dead corpes were pulled out of the graue againe which words he sayth that I alleadged as Cuspinian his owne words But I deny it but only I alledged his sense as may appeare in that I did not recite them in a different letter as is accustomed by them that deale playnly when the proper words of any Author are alleaged though M. Barlow doth not obserue this with me but alledgeth as my words euery where coÌ„monly in a different letter those which are not my words nor often times my sense but either framed of himself or so interlaced with speaches of his owne as that it is a quite different thing from that which I do say Let the Reader examine but some few places as they come coÌ„ferring his booke and my booke togeather and he shall see that I haue good reason to make this complaint of his perfidious dealing therein But now to the present case M. Barlow affirmeth that the latyn words of Cuspâ—â—â—â—â— are Filio procurante non potuit reconciliari Episcopus Leodiensis nisi exhumaretur cadauer by the Sonnes procurement the Bishop of Leige could not be reconciled except the dead body were taken out of the ground againe Out of which words I did inferre that the Bishop of Leige could not be reconciled to the other Bishops but vpon condition that the body should be taken vp and this at the procurement of the yong Emperour And for so much as his reconciliation with the said Bishops did imply also his reconciliation with the Emperour he that letted the one letted the other which was the yong Emperour himself who though himself would not for respectes the Bishop being a potent man vtterly deny to admyt his submission yet did he procure the stay therof by others to wit by the Archbishops and Bishops vntill he had yielded vnto the condition of taking vp the dead body consequeÌ„tly the thing is true which I alledged out of Cuspinian that the yong Emperour would not make peace with the Bishop of Leige except the body were taken vp for so much as himself was he that had letted that reconciliation as here appeareth and procured also as may be supposed the great reprehension which was giuen to the said Bishop and his coÌ„pany when they were admitted wherof Crantzius speaketh when he sayth ad fidem Regis confugieÌ„tes grauiter increpati recâ—piuntur they making their refuge to the protectioÌ„ of the Emperour they were admitted but with a grieuous reprehensioÌ„ this among other causes no doubt for hauing buryed the dead body of the ExcoÌ„municate Emperour This then being the playne meaning and sense of Cusâ—â—â—ian his alleaged speach let vs see how M. Barlow doth trym vp the same for his turne The â—ords of Cuspinian sayth he are playne Filio procurante non potuit reconciliari â—piscopus Leodiâ—â—sis nisi exhâ—maretur cadauâ—r That is By the SoÌ„nes procuremeÌ„t at whose hands but the Popes for what needed any procurement by himselfe to himselfe the Bishop could not be reconciled to whom but to the Pope who had accursed both Church and Churchmen at Liege for burying the Emperour except the dead body were taken vp againe So M. Barlow
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
alone hath done both the one and other in this example God send him grace to see repent amend his errour And so much for Fredericke the second I will now end this matter with this aduertisement to the Reader that whereas M. Barlow others of his profession vse to serue themselues much out of the writinges of Matthew Paris Cuspinian Peter de Vineiâ— the truth is that no one of them deserueth so much credit as our Aduersaries would faine force vpon them For the first hath many fables contradictions railinges and dogmaticall assertions which little beseeme a religious spirit or true Catholike which at least he was knowen to be and therfore as well this Matthew as the other being set out by Heretikes and printed at London by order as I haue bene informed from the SuperintendeÌ„t of Canterbury that then was and no other ancient copie being extant that I can heare of that might be conferred with this in print it is very likely that many thinges which are now vrged against vs are not the wordes of Matthew Paris the Monke but of Matthew Parker of Canterbury and he who shal but reade Harpsfields History examine the places which he bringeth or things which on their authority he auoucheth shall soone see that his Matthewes spake otherwayes then these who in many thinges are made to write like good Protestants although hitherto nothing hath bene alleadged out of them by M. Barlow in this matter which I haue not fully answered Iohn Cuspinian as he is a late writer so is he of little credit especially for his bookes of History of the Emperours which himselfe neuer set forth but as Gerbelius writeth morte praeuentus inemendatos ob scriptoris inscitiam soedissimis erâ—oribus deprauatos reliquit being preuented by death he left his bookes of history vncorrected and through ignorance of the writer corrupted with most filthy errors So he By profession Cuspinian was a Phisitian knew perhaps how to frame his potions according to the complexion of the receauers and therfore this Frederick being desceÌ„ded as some thinke or at least by marirage neerly allied to the House of Austria he thought by making the most of him to gratify both Maximilian his maister and yong Charles the fifth of the same family yet seeing he neuer set forth this booke but left it imperfect vncorrected full of errors c. that afterwards it was first published by Nicolas Gerbelius a ProtestaÌ„t-brother of Strasburge as may be presumed who printed it in the yeare 1540. we may well thinke that it was sauced by the setter forth according to the new Ghospell and good appetite of them of his owne profession And as for Petrus de Vineis besides the iust exception of partialitie which I tooke against him in my Letter and that which I haue already answered vnto M. Barlowes Reply therunto I shall not need to adioyne any more Wherfore I will only content my self with two censures which I find in two Authors of him to wit in S. Antoninus an Italian and Tritemius a German The first noteth him in these words Iusto Dei iudicio factum videtur c. The death of Petrus de Vineis seemeth to haue byn procured by the iust iudgment of God that because he had done many things to please the Emperour against the Church in fauour and excuse of him by him he was condemned for whome he had offended both God and the Church So he And Tritemius thus writeth of him Petrus de Vineis c. Peter de Vineis by nation a German Secretary Counsellour of the Emperour Fredericke the second was a learned and eloquent man but in this very faulty that adhering to Frederick he did in fauour of him barke like a foole stolidus latrauit against the Roman Church by whome he was worthily rewarded for hauing in some things offended him he had his eyes pulled out c. So he And in his Catalogue of Worthy men to the like câ—nsure he addeth this clause Hoc praemium eorum c. This is the reward of theÌ„ who do serue the humors of Princes against the obedience of the Roman Sea and Vicar of Christ and like wretches fall headlong into hell except they repent c. Which aduertisment being giuen by so graue an Author before these controuersies were raised by Luther I wish M. Barlow and all other in authority and credit with Princes as Petrus de Vineis was seriously to ponder OF THE EMPEROVR Fredericke the first whose picture was said to haue bene sent to the Soldan by Pope Alexander the third And of the charge of Alexander the sixt touching the death of Zizimus or Gemen M. Barlows innocent Turke §. III. METHOD and rules of learning require that euery thing be put downe in his due place and order and therfore me thinks that Fredericke the first should by all reason haue bene mentioned before the second Fredericke his successour especially seeing that there is another obiection made a litle before out of this very Emperour and Pope wherunto this might well haue bene annexed had it not bene that the margent of the Apology was to be filled with citations and the text with variety of examples to make Popes more odious But the transposition weâ—e pardonable if the thing auouched were true and the Reader not abused by these forged calumniations who through the heat and heape of many words is made to conceaue that M. Barlow sayth much to the purpose and with great sincerity wheras all he hath is nothing else but vaine Thrasonicall ostentation impudent lying that which alwaies accoÌ„panieth the loose liberty of a licentious tongue exorbitant rayling against all sorts and degrees of men whatsoeuer And this as it hath bene euery where already shewed so shall it be more in this and the other ensuing Chapters though with much more breuity then the former least both this Chapter and the whole booke be drawne forth to greater prolixity and length then I haue purposed with myselfe that it should be which only reason hath made me in other places to leaue more aduantages then I might haue taken against M. Barlow albeit I haue taken more then I thinke will stand with his credit or honesty if yet he haue any part or parcell of the one or the other left him But let vs heare him speake if he can without lying which here I assure you he will not but begin with a round one at the very first entrance For thus he sayth Another instance saith he obiected â—y his Maiesty which pincheth their holy Father to the quicke is of that Pope who when Emperour Fredericke was in the Holy-Land â—ighting in Christs quarrell â—earing that his returne would be some annoyance to the Romish Sea betraied him to the Soldan to whome he directs his priuate letters and with them also sent the Emperours picture in case the Soldan should mistake his
must not be like in all but only in the point wherein the comparison is made how will he ouerturne Cardinall Bellarmines comparison betwene the banner of Iulian and the Oath of England His point of comparison was this that as Iulian did set forth in his banner and combine togeather the images as well of the Emperour as of the false Gods seeking to temper and mollify the one by the other to wit by bowing to and honouring the Emperours image which then was held for lawfull to bow also or seeme to bow at leastwise to the other which was not lawfull so in the Oath are combined togeather different clauses some of temporall obedience which are lawfull some othâ—r detractory to the Popes authority which are held by Catholicks for vnlawfull Do you see M. Barlow wherein the comparison is made Then stand to me closely I pray you and let vs examine this maâ—ter without running from the purpose What say you to the former answer made to wit that Iuliâ—n was an Apostata but our Soueraigne is a Christian Iulian changed his religion but our King not he became an Ethnicke but our King is not ashamed of his profession and other such like differences Are these the poyntes wherein Cardinall Bellarmine made his comparison or noe If not then are you from the purpose But what say you now in this your last Reply after mature deliberation You will not I trust fall to the same absurdity of seeking dissimilitudes that are from the point of the comparison it self And yet you must needes do it for so much as you will needs say somewhat and haue nothing to say against the sayd poynt of comparison First then your reply is this that the resemblance betwene the banner and the Oath brought fortâ— by the Cardinall was produced by him for no other purpose but for the mixture of diuersities both in the one and the other VVherin say you the Cardinall hath manifested more malice then iudgement For euen in that very point this similitude as taken with the crampe halâ—s right downe because in the Imperiall pictures though there were different â—eatures yet they all concurred to one end and for the same intent that is for adoration though to the one more openly to the other more couertly c. But in the Oath it is taken cleane contrary which is so far from being a mixture of Allegiance that it separates all acknowledgment oâ— any temporall right or right of any temporall acknowledgment from Pope or any other else but to his Maiestie alone within his Realmes Thus far are the words of M. Barlow who being well as you haue seene towards the end intangleth himself and runneth quite from the purpose He acknowledgeth in the beginning that the comparison of Card. Bellarmine is only to shew the mixtures as of the Images in the banner the one lawfull the other vnlawfull so of the clauses in the Oath the one lawfull the other vnlawfull but presently he steppeth aside to put a difference betwixt the mixt adoration of the one and the mixture of Allegiance in the other wherin Card. Bellarmine made not his comparison no more then betwene the banner it selfe and the Oath or betweene the silke cloath wherein the pictures were painted or the booke or paper wherin the Oath was written or in any other such like differences as might be pickt out wherof this also is one very impertinent to the matter that the banner did tend to a mixt adoration but not the Oath to a mixt allegiance of which mixt allegiance Card. Bellarmine neuer spake word but only that as the mixture of these Images was deuised to deceaue the Christians at that tyme so the mixture of different clauses some conteyning ciuill obedience some ecclesiasticall disobedience the one lawâ—ull the other vnlawfull was deuised to intangle the consciences of the Catholikes And so we see that M. Barlow is forced to run to the same shift that before he condeÌ„ned which is to seek out diuersities in points wherin no comparisoÌ„ was made The second example which is reprehended in Cardinall Bellarmines letter is out of the second booke of Machabees of old Eleazar that venerable man who rather chose to die then to do a thing vnlawfull and against his owne conscience or to seeme to doe it by dissimulation Which example the Cardinall applieth said I to the taking of this vnlawful Oath by such as are Catholikes but especially by the Arch priest Head of the Clergy in England whose case he presumed to be more like to that of Eleazar for his age estimation and authority aboue the rest To which example the Apologer answereth thus That if the Archpriests ground of refusing this Oath were as good as Eleazars was for refusing to eate of the swines-flesh that was proposed vrged vnto him it might not vnfitly be applyed to his purpose But the ground fayling sayth he the buylding cannot stand But this is an escape much like the former that runneth quite from the matter for that the Cardinall supposeth a Catholike conscience in him to whom he writeth to which conscience it is as repugnant to sweare any thing sounding against any poynt of Catholike religion or doctrine as it was to Eleazar to eate swines fleshâ— against the law of Moyses Which supposition being made and that in the Cardinals iudgment this Oath contayneth diuers clauses preiudiciall to some pointes of the said Catholike beliefe and doctrine concerning the authority of the Sea Apostolicke and that the taking therof would not only be hurtfull to the taker but offensiue also and scandalous to many othâ—r of that religion both at home and abroad the application of this example of Eleazar was most fit effectuall This was answered at that tyme. Now M. Barlow commeth with new deuises First he calleth this example aprochryphall for that it is taken out of the second booke of Machabees but Catholicks do hould it for Canonicall and so do the ancient Fathers and so was it declared by a holy Councell aboue 1200. yeares agoe wherein S. Augustine himself sate as one of the Iudges But whether it were or no that maketh nothing to our present purpose but only whether the example be well applied or no. Secondly that eating of swines-flesh refused by Eleazar was forbidden by the law of God but this swearing saith he is warranted by Scripture Wherto I answere that swearing in it owne nature and with due circumstances of truth iudgment and iustice is warranted when true and iust things are sworne but euery Oath in particuler is not warranted by Scripture and namely if it containe any thing that eyther in it self or in the swearers iudgment and conscience is not true or lawfull And such is this Oath to Catholiks in both respectes and therefore not warranted but condemned by Scripture Thirdly he sayth when I am at a stand and can go no further I do wind my self out by ruÌ„ning to the common
â— Syr Tâ—â— More * The like also affirmeth Sacrobosco in the place cited Scherer posâ—illa de â—aÌ„ctis conc 1. de S. Stephano A strange ordinatioÌ„ of a Preacher Harding ConfutatioÌ„ of the Apology fol. 57. Detection fol. 230. deinceps Horace The diuision of the whole worke Letter p. 1. About the Authour of the Apology Thomas Morton Thomas Montague See Letter pag. 3. What his Mâ—â—esâ—iâ—s grâ—at iudgâ—ment wâ—â—ld haâ—e 〈…〉 See Letter pag. 4. What his Maiesty in honour would haue misliked Why the King was not â—amed in the booke Barlowe pag. 5. M. Barlowes sharp wit About Cardinall Bellarmines tytle Barlow p. 7. 8. Iohn 7. 20. The dignity â—f a Cardinall In what sense the word maister is a title of honour Matt. 23. Isay 30. 20. Iosue 24.1 Ioan. 13. Barl. p. 8. M. Barlâ—w hâ—â—dly preâ—ed Iâ—iury done 〈…〉 About the powder-treason Barlowâ— pag. 10. M. Barlow speaks like a foole The odious oft repetition of the Powder treason The powder treasoÌ„ not so much a cause as an effect of Catholiks tribulatioÌ„ In the tâ—â—atâ—â—e of Mâ—tigatâ—oÌ„ in the prefaâ—e M. Barlow ignorant in Logicke Philosophy Arist. praedicam c. 3. M. Barlow ridiculous Another folly of M. Barlow 〈◊〉 pâ—â— â—1 〈◊〉 21. The powder plott of Hage The powder-plott of Edenborough M. Barlowes shift Barl. p. 1â— M. Barlowes virulency against Iesuits Touching Father Garnet Barl. p. 11. M. Barlow a bâ—d Cofâ—â—â—â—ur to the â—aâ—le o◠〈◊〉 Touching Father Garnet his face in the straw Psal. 78.2 F. Persons falsely maliciously accused by M. Bâ—rlow to be priuâ— to the powder-plot Barl. p. 12. Barl. p. 13. Of Catholicks â—aâ—tyrâ—d vâ—der Queene Eâ—izabeth Touching the Oath of Allegiance Letter p. 8â— Barlowe pag. 17. Genes 26. Deut. 6. Pag. 18. Barl. p. 1â— Aristot. l. 2. priorum cap. 8. All controuersies are not to be ended by swearing Heb. 6. Barlow p. 18. 19. M. Barlow voyd of conscience and Logicke About the Quodlibets Barl. pag. â—9 No Equiuocation in mattâ—rs of religioÌ„ Barl. p. 1â— Barl. p. 19â— Iniury offered by M. Barlow to the Author of the Epistle Barl. p. 20. Matth. 8. 8. Barl. p. 21. How an erroneous coÌ„science bindeth or noâ— bindeth vs to follow it 〈…〉 Rom. cap. 14. 〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 Letter pag. 8. Pag 22. 1. Pet. 2.13 M. Barlow bold with the Scriptures Apol. p. 4. Page 23. What a good con 〈◊〉 M. Barlow hâ—th 〈◊〉 a Bishop Whether the taking of this Oath by Catholicks be a blessing froÌ„ God 1. Statut. 3. Iacobi Reg. c. 4. 2. Ethic. c. 2 D. Tho. 1. 2. q. 6. art 6. Vaâ—eÌ„tia vasquez c. in eum locum How freely the Oath is taken Baâ—l p. 36. The Diuel inâ—ureâ— by M. Barlow M. Barlow a great friend to Aduerbs Barlâ— p. 36. About freedome in taking the Oath The free acceptaÌ„ce of penall lawes 1. Tim. 1 9â— Barlow pag. â—7 M. Barloâ—s â—illy discourse Medina in pâ—â—mam 2. quasâ— 6. aâ—t 2. M. Barlow hardly vrged Medina misunderstood The true meaning of Meâ—ina Medina in 1. 2. q 6. a. 2. p. 72. M Barlows sheepish apprehension M. Barlows bad inference â—arlâ— p. 37. Ioaâ—â—â— Barâ— p. 23. A notorious vntruth of M. Barlow Letter p. â— The Oath consulted both at home abroad See the Breue to Kai Octob. 1606. See Answer c. 6. Recourse to Rome euer vsuall from our first Christianity Q. Mary of Scotland Catholicks doe hoâ—ld practice what all their ancestours haue don About reâ—ourse to Rome by our English Princes and people Idletrifling Barl. p. 25. Touching the person of this present Pope Paulus Quintus Barl. p. 26. See the answer to S. Edward Cooke now chiefâ— Iustice. Ibidem The purity of life in Paulus Quintus Ibidem Childish babling of M. Barlow Ioan. 7.4 Barlow pag. 27. M. Blues c. M. Barlowes waÌ„t of wit in accusing the Pope Anno Domini 1602. Plutar. in vitâ—s Tib. Caij Graccherum A shamefull mistaking in M. Barlow Very wisely spoken M. Barlowes scolding Sober Râ—c cap. 3. §. 2. Earl pag. 29. 30. English Catholiks not â—â—ssis aliena to the Sea Apostolik M. Barlowes imbroylements Barlow pag. 30. M. â—arlowes new Philosophy Letter pag. 12. num 20. M. Barlow a poore Philosopher and worse Deuine Barlow pag. 30. Bellar. l. 1. de â—ont Rom. cap. 2â— Victor â—eleâ—t 2. de potest Eccl conclu 3. More coÌ„teynâ—â— in the Oâ—â—h then â—â—â—â—ll obedieÌ„ce Letter pag. 16. num xxvâ— A loyall offer of Ciuill obedience made by Catholiks to â—is Maiâ—sty Barlow pag. 31. Impertinency Barlow pag. 32. The reasoÌ„ of the Popes power in teÌ„poralibuâ—â— Thomaâ— Morton canuased Barl. p. 33. nuÌ„ 66. 67. Bern. ad Eugen. Salmer in Epist Pauli disp â—2 Bellar. l. 5. de Pontif. Rom. c. 4. 6. De claue l. 2. cap. 13. â— de Consider longius ab inâ—â—io Salmeron abused by M. Mort. M. Barl. c. Salm. in Epist Paul disp 12. Malicious falshood in M. Barlow MitigatioÌ„ pag. 101. How the Pope may be sayd to haue power ouer Infidell Princes D. Sanders abused by M. Barlow De Clauâ— cap. 10. ContradictioÌ„ in M. Barlow Victoria relect 1. sect 2. Barl. p. 35. Victor â—â—lect 1. sect 2. M. Barlow a Preacher though not Ordinis Prâ—dicatorum M. Barlow vnderstandeth not his Authors Barlow pag. 34. num 6â— Cardinall Bellarmin abused Bell. l. 5. de Rom. Pon. c. 6. 7. 8. Barl. pag. 34. nu 69. De Concil lib. 1. cap. 13 Barâ—l lib. 6. cap. â—6 Sigebert in anno 1089. Clâ—â—d EspeÌ„caus in Tim. digress liâ— 2. cap. 6. Ambros. Apolog. Dauid c. 4 10. M Barlowes impertinent falshoodâ— Bellar. li. 2. cap. 19. lib. 5. cap. 7. 8. Sigebert calumniated Sober recâ—oning c. 1. num 104. M. Barl. and M. Morton â—oth falsifiers Ambros. in 1. Apolog Dauid cap. 4. A place of S. Ambrose explicated Ambros. in psalm 50. statim ab initio Of eight Authors seaueÌ„ misalledged Nu. 10. 3â— 32. The sense and meaning of Catholiks that took the Oath An huÌ„ble petition to his Maiesty for expositioÌ„ of the Oath M. â—arlâ—ws fond charge of hâ—pocâ—iâ—â— in his aduersary To iudge of other mens consciences no inseparable mark of an hypocrite Isidor l. 10. â— humilis à medio Aug. l. 2. de sâ—rm in moâ—â—e c. 3. â—iâ—ca prinâ—iâ—iâ—m M. Barlow a very feeble Philosopher and weake Scholler Letter pag. 18. Impudent dealing of M. Barlow Barlow pag. 39. 3. Reg. 22 To distinguiâ—h iâ— not profâ—nda Sathanae but to reiect distinctions is the profuâ—â—ity of M. Barlows ignorance Matt. 7. M. Barlow for his two hornes deserueth to be horned in Scotland Barl. p. 41. Notable falsity in M. Barl. M. Barlowes bad applicatioÌ„ Aristot. ad Alex. cap. 17. M. Barlowes egrâ—gious folly and falâ—â—ood Cap. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Aristotle abused by M. Barl. Barl. p. 41. The learning and sincerity of School-men ExcoÌ„municatioÌ„ of Princes practised in the Primitiue Church Pag. 42. M. Barlowes meriment of
the moon in the Asseâ— belly M. Barlows flattery of Kinges Barl. p. 44 3. Reg. 2. Wisely Syr William Salomons fact of killing Adoniah condemned Lucae 2. Iob 36. Psal. 2. The secoÌ„d psalme ill chosen of M. Barlow for flattery of Princes Examples of Gods terrible threats vnto Kings Daniâ—l .4 3. Râ—g 21. Iob 36. Gods prouidence in gouerning his Church perfect no wayes defectuous Alu. Pelag lib. 1. De planctu Eccl. cap. 13. Aluarus Pelagius abused by M. Barl. Gratian Decret part 1. distinct 5. Greg. c. 10. ad interrogata Augustini Beda lib. 1. de hist. Angl. cap. 27. Bertrand in additione ad glos de maioritate obedientia c. â— Barl. p. 49. M. Barlows falfe dealing in alledging his aduersaries wordes â—et p. 20. Prou. â—4 vers 28. Vincen. aduers. hares August de vera rel cap. 38. Idolatry and superstition not alwaies causes of fâ—ar Foure kindâ—s of superstition 1. Tim. 1. M. Barl. prouoked to stand to his own Authors The Maior The Miâ—or An important controuersy to be haÌ„dled If M. Barlow list to accept this offer alâ—beit the author be dead he shall find those that will ioyne with him Barl. p. 52. There is no vltima resolutio with the ProtestaÌ„ts in matters of faith The Catholicks answere concerning his vâ—tima â—esolutio No resolution amongst heretâ—cks What resolution is taken froÌ„ the Pope Pag. 53. M. Barlows hate of ambition scilicet and his mortification M. Barlows stomake for digestion and concoction Barl. p. 54. Letter pag. â—â— Bar. p. 55. M. Barlows idle discourse 1. Pet. 2. 1. Cor. 8. Lett. p. 22. M. Barlowes ill fortune in dealing with Schol men Barl. p. 57. Of â—ctiue passiue scaâ—dall â— 2. q. 43. ar 1. ad 4. Scandal actiue without passiue Ibid. art 2. in coâ—porâ— Carnal Diuinity Bad dealing in M. Barlow The definition of scandal what is actiue and paâ—siue scandall ScaÌ„dalum Pharisaeorum ScaÌ„dalum Pusilloâ—uÌ„ S. Thomas expounded S. Thom. abused The errours of M. Barlow about the matter of scaÌ„dall M. Barlows want of patieÌ„ce M. Barlow vnderstaÌ„deth not the tearâ—es oâ— schoole Diuinity Epist. 50. Who lay the scandall of Balaam Catholicks or Protestants Letter pag. 22. M. Barlow speaketh morâ— then he can proue The successâ—oÌ„ of the Church of Rome Barl. pag. 59. 60. M. Barlows arguments against the Church of Rome The Pope both particuler Bishop of Rome and yet chiefe Pastour of the whole Church M. Barlowes bad argument which is false both in antecedent and consequent Euill life doth not preiudice truth of doctrine Barl. p. 60. M. Barlowes Ministeriall phrases of indument and stripping By Baptisme we are made members of the Church ProtestaÌ„ts gone out of the Catholike Church not Catholikes out of theÌ„ Barl. p. 62â— Mattâ— 13â— Antiquity prescriptioÌ„ good argumeÌ„ts in case of Religion Matth. 13. Tertul. aduers Marc. lib. 4. The Fathers do vrge prescription Hilar. lib. 6. De Trinitate ante medium Hier. Episâ—â— ad Paâ—nachium Pag. â—2 Concil Caâ—thag apuâ— CyprianuÌ„ Bad dealing of M. Barlow How posseâ—sioÌ„ with prescriptioÌ„ are euincing arguments in mâ—tters of fayth Sober Rec. cap. 3. §. 101. c. M. Barlow hardly vrged Matth. vlt. Matth. 16. No such Oath euer exaâ—ted by oâ—her Princes Barl. pag. 62. About Q. Elizabeths raigne life death Lett. p. 27. Queene Elizabeth her Manes M. Barlowes flattering loquence Barl. 64. M. Barl. turnes with the wynd like a weather-cocke Quene Elizabeth otherwise blazoned by forrain writers then M. Barlow reporteth Barlow p. 66. 67. Q. Elizabeth Canonized for a Saint by M. Barlow Q. Elizabeth in M. Barl. his iudgment neuer coÌ„mittâ—d anâ— mortal sinne Q. Elizabeth would neuer haue chosen M. Barlow for her ghostly Father About Q. Elizabeths Manes sacrificing vnto theÌ„ Barl. p. 74. Hierom. Eâ—ist ad Rom. Oratâ—â—em August de Dâ—â—tr Chrisâ—ian M. Barl. his trifling Act. 28. v. 11. 2. Pet. 2. 4. Act. 17. 28. Rom. 14.4 In what cases a maÌ„ may iudg of another 1. Tim. 5. 24. Barl. p. 75. Matth. 6. About externall mortifications 3. Reg. 2â— 27. Achab truly mortified Prophane impietie in M. Barlow Q. Elizabeth no cloystered Nunâ—e A place of S. Paul expounded coÌ„cerning bodily exercise Châ—ysost in comment ad c. 4. in 1. Tim. 3. Reg. 17. M. Barlow no friend to mortifications A strange kind of mortificaâ—â—on Mortification Rom. 8. 13â— Aug. l. 1. confeâ—s c. 5. Bern serm 52. in Cant. Ser. 13 de verbâ—â— Apost Strange kind of answering Gregor 5. moral c. â— Two parts of mortification internall externall Externall mortification in Princes M. Barlow a Deuine for the Court. Apol. pag. 16. M. Barl. foolish shift in answering his Aduersaries obiection about the PersecutioÌ„ vnder Q. Elizabeth Lett. paâ— 18. Let. p. 29. L. Cooke in the book of the late arraignmeÌ„t fâ—l 53. Psal. 143. Barl. p. 78. M. Barlow very forgetfull Temporall felicity no argument of spirituall happines Psal. 72. Hier. 12. Abacuâ— 10. Psalm 77. Bâ—llarm de notis Eccl. cap. 15. A place of Bâ—llarmâ— answered concerning temporall felicity S. August discourse S. Hierome Arnobius S. Basil. S. Chrysostome Theodoret Euthymius Psal. 2. 4. Psa. â— 36.23 Sapien. 4. Prouerb 1. 26. M. Barlâ— moues habens L. Câ—â—â—â— in tâ—e last boâ—ke â—f Arrâ—ignmeÌ„ts pag. 64. A bad definition of Misery by coâ—â—a inoâ—ia Psal. 68. 2. Cor. 1. Syr Edw. Cooke a poore Deuine None soe bold as blind bayard Lett. pag. 29. M. Barlowes weake Philosophy Barlow p. 82. 1. â—eg 31. Eccles. 4. 5. M. Barlow hardly vrged M. Barlowes waÌ„t of Diuinity Strange cases of conscience proposed by M. Barlow Nabuchodonosor more happy then Q. Elizabetâ— Q. Elizabeth her infelicities M. Barlow eueâ— by his owne censure and sentence contemptible M. Barlow followeth not his owne rules â—arlow pag. 96. The vices of wicked Kings recounted after their death in Scripture Letter pag. 35. A monstrous head of the English Protestant Church Barlow pag. 99. Nero and Domitian heads of the Church in M. Barlowes opinion Touching the birth of Queene Elizabeth M. Barl. Babylon Philâ—ra loue-druggs M. Barl. neuer like to be prisoner for religion S. Augusâ—â—â—â—â—o Protâ—staÌ„t Calumnious citations For what cause a maÌ„ may be a Martyr Matth. 5. The Prieâ—â—s that dâ—e â—â—n Q. 〈◊〉 time true Martyâ—s M. Barlows two foolish cases â—arl p. 92. Quodlib pag. 269. 277. M. Barlows trifling M. Barl silence and the cause therof A charitable Bishop Barl. p. 94. Barl. Preface to his sâ—â—mon the fiâ—st sonday in Lent 16â—0 About the making a way his Maiesties Mother Tacitus lâ— 1. Histor. M. Barlow turns his sailes with the wind serues the tyme. Barl. p. 59. Q. Elizabeths purgation about the Q of Scotlands death Hier. 2. 22. About the disastrous death of Q. Elizabeth â—â—5 â—5 The narration of the manner of Q. Elizabeths death In what case we may iudg of other meÌ„s soules after their death 1. Tim. 5. No sin to iudge of men deceased in herâ—sie Cyprian l. 〈…〉 S.
downe in his seauenth booke of his Visible Monarchy The seuere lawes also against them that refused to take the Oath of supremacy and should say or heare masse were made long befoâ—e this and put in practice so as this narration could not stand What replyeth M. Barlow to this Niâ—il ad Rhâ—â—â—â— sayth he the speach is here of lawes whose payne is death Yea Syr. And is it so I refer me to the wordes euen now recited out of the Apology that her Maiestie neuer punished any Papiâ—â—â—â—â— Religion that she was most free from all persecution doth not all any include other punishments besides death Moreouer when it is sayd that she neuer made any rigâ—â—ous lawes against Catholickes doth this only compreheÌ„d the lawes whose punishment is death To what straites is M. Barlow driuen here And yet if he doe remember well the oath of Supremâ—cie he cannot but know that the third refusall therof is also death So as euery way the poore man is taken OF QVEENE ELIZABETH HER FELICITIES and infelicities CHAP. II. AFTER this followeth another question betweene M. Barlow and me about the felicities or infelicities of Queene Elizabeth or rather betweene the Lord Iustice Cooke and me who hauing vpon diuers occasions to the exprobration of Catholicke men and religion whome she pursued in her life time enlarged himselfe extraordinarily in her exaltation calling her The happie Queene The blessed Queene and the like I was forced for defence of the truth to examine somewhat the grounds of this felicitie My words then were That the said Lord Cooke vpon the occasion of certaine words in Pope Clements Breue where Queene Elizabeth is named misera semina a miserable woman in respect no doubt of the miseries of her soule litle respected by her vpon which wordes the Oratour triumpheth thus What miserable it is sayd that miseria coÌ„stâ—s ex duobus contrarys copia inopia copia tribulationis inopia consolationis miâ—erie consisteth of two contraries of aboundance and penury aboundance of tribulation penury of consolatioÌ„ And then he sheweth in what abouÌ„dance of coÌ„solations Q. Elizabeth liued in al her life without waÌ„t of all tribulation which if it were true yet is it but the argument which the worldlinges vsed in the Psalme to proue their felicitie that their Cellars are full their sheep fertile their kine fat they suffer no losse and then Beatâ—â— dixeri nâ— populim cuiâ—ac sâ—nt happie did they call the people that had these things But the holy Ghost scorneth them and so may all men do our Oratour that vseth and vrgeth so base an argument in so high a matter And as for his definition of misery by copia and inopia store want it is a miserable one in deed neuer heard of before I thinke to come from any mans mouth but his owne it being ridiculous in Philosophy and fit to be applyed 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 witt and want of folly and a foole to be him that hath store of follyâ— and want of wit and so a rich man is he that hath store of riches want of beggarie a poore man is he that hath store of beggarie penury of riches And are not these goodly definitions thinke you for so great and graue a man to produce Thus passed the matter then But now M. Barlow doth constitute himselfe Aduocate for the Iustice and if he plead his cause well he will deserue a good â—ee for the cause it selfe is but weake as preseÌ„tly you will behould The Lord Cooke sayth he who at the Arraignement of Garnet indignantly scorning that the high Priest of Rome should in a Breue of his call so great a Prince as Quene Elizabeth was Miseram Fâ—minam a miserable woman by a description of miserie consisting of two contraries want of comâ—ort and plenty of tribulation shewes by many reasons euident and demonstratiue that she hauing aboundance of ioy and no touch of affliction but blessed with all kind of felicities could not be called Miserable c. In which words I would haue you note first that wheras here he sayth that the Iustice shewed this by many reasons euident and demonstratiue within a dozen lines after he saith of these reasons But if they be not concluding demonstrations yet as least let them be probable perswasions which is quite contrary to that which he sayd before that they were euident and demonstratiue so soone the man forgetteth himselfe But to the matter it selfe that albeit all these temporall felicities ascribed to Queene Elizabeth had bene so many and so great as Syr Edward affirmeth them yet had it beene but the argument of worldlings who in the 143. Psalme did measure their felicity by their full Cellars were checked for the same by the holy Ghost by teaching them that not Beatus populus cui haec sunt but beatus populus cuius Dominus Deus eius consequeÌ„tly that Queene Elizabeth might haue these temporall felicities and yet be truly miserable in that sense wherin Pope Clement so called her to wit concerning the affaires of her soule and euerlasting saluation To this I say he answereth first by demanding why temporall prosperitie may not be made an argument of Gods loue to Queene Elizabeth and of her felicitie for so much as it is scored vp for one of the Notes of the true Church by Cardinall Bellarmine de Notâ—â— Ecclesiae Nota 15 Whereunto I answer that this temporall felicitie is not to our purpose for that Pope Clement spake of her spirituall infelicitie as hath bene shewed and that temporall felicitie doth not infer or argue spirituall felicitie euery man will confesse that hath spirit to discerne it for that the whole Scripture is ful of testimonies that wicked men and consequently miserable in soule haue bene temporally blessed by Almighty God made rich powerfull prosperous euen to the very affliction scandalizing as it were of the iust and vertuous but yet were they not happy for this but most miserable euen as those Israelites were that hauing their fill of quailes in the desert sent theÌ„ from God they had no sooner eaten them as the Scripture sayth adhuc escae eorum eraÌ„t in ore ipsorum ira Dei ascendiâ— super 〈◊〉 the meat was yet in their mouthes and the wrath of God did fall vpon them And he that shall read ouer the 72. Psalme shall see that it is altogeather of this matter to wit of Dauids admiration of the wealth and prosperitie of the wicked whose end notwithstanding he sayth to be most miserable aestimabam vt cognoscerem hoc labor est ante me donec intelligam in nouissimis eorum deiecisti eos dum alleuarentur I did thinke I could haue vnderstood this matter but it is harder then I imagined vntil I coÌ„sidered their ends thou