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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the other he concludeth triumphantly saying Let the vnpartiall tryall be the seuere iudge either way Which I also desire and withall aduertise the Reader that in some things I am the shorter where much aduantage is giuen for that the same is afterwards by F. Persons himself handled in due place in the ensuing discussion 43. The controuersy then in hand is about the comfort which our meritorious actions do yield and what confidence is to be reposed in them which the Cardinall deliuereth in three Conclusions the last whereof M. Barlow will haue not only to contradict the two former but to be opposite to all the â—iue bookes which are written of that matter which because as F. Persons well noted it seemed strange that fiue bookes should be contradictory to one propositioÌ„ M. Barlow telleth him he should rather haue thought it to be a very strange conclusion which in so small a roomth should haue matter to crosse a discourse so large This then we shall now discusse and for better perspicuity I will lay downe togeather the three conclusions of the Cardinall which M. Barlow will haue to be so contradictory and then examine his proofes for the same The first is The confidence of holy men which they repose in God proceâ—dâ—th not from only faith but from then good merits and therfore we are to labour all we can fâ—â— merits that therby we may haue confidence in God The second Some confidence may be placed in good merits whicâ— are knowne to be such so that pride be auoyded The third For the vncertainty of our righteousnes and danger of vaine glory the surest way is to place all our confidence iâ— the only mercy and bounty of God So Bellarmineâ— prouing ech assertion out of the Scriptures auÌ„cient Fathers but before-hand giuing this caueat to the Reader which cleane dasheth a good part of M. Barlowes verball assault that it is not all one to say that confidence may arise or grow from merits and that confidence may be placed in merits for it may so fall out that a maâ— may repose almost no confidence in his merits for that he knoweth not certainly whether he haue any true merits or not and yet he may abound both with true great merits and out of these merits there may proceed in him a great confidence towards God by which distinction the whole câ—ntrouâ—rsy may be decided and diuers authorities of Scriptures and Fathers which othâ—rwisâ— may seeme repugnant be reconciled Thus the Cardinallâ— Now let vs see what Syr William doth bring to impugne this doctrine and to proue it contradictory 44. He beginneth with a diuision of vera and perâ—â—câ—a iustitia which he calleth the two principall hâ—ads to which all the chiefe questions of that conâ—rouersy in Bellarmine may by reduced By iusticeâ—e â—e vnderstandeth inherent and by perfect iustice that which is able to abide the triall of Gods iudgement But â—ere is much mistaking for that neyther doth Bellar. â—n this sense call our iustice perfect neyther can the perfectioÌ„ of a thing which must needes be intrinsecall â—o the essence be said properly to depend of an extrinsecall effect as is the triall of Gods iudgement or the reward which is giuen in respect of our righteousnes that proceedeth froÌ„ the inhereÌ„t grace within vs without any relatioÌ„ or depeÌ„daÌ„ce of the future iudgmeÌ„t at al. 45. From this diuision he coÌ„meth to a distinction of vncertainty which he saith is either rei or personae of righteousnes it self or of the party that hath it This is as wise as the former for I would faine know of M. Barlow how there can be incâ—rtiâ—udo rei vnles it be de futuris contingentibus for a thing as it is existent cannot be vncertaine but hath his being essence and therewith his truth vnity And in M. Barlowes example the hypocrite who hath no true righteousnes and consequently not inherent cannot be said to haue incertitudinem râ—i for that it is certaine as we do suppose that he hath no righteousnes at all and all the vncertainty depeÌ„ds on the person who thinketh him to haue righteousnes when he hath it not not of the thing it self which is determinatae Veritatis of determinate truth in the affirmatiue or negatiue and truth to vse M. Barlowes Martiall manner of speaking either of â—ssâ—nce or propriâ—ty cassiâ—res all vncertainty the affirmatiue or negatiue so aâ— still M. Barlow stumbleth and with his subtile distinctions ouerreacheth himself and confoundeth all learning 46. Well then this vncertainty being of the person what saith he thereunto In this he is somewhat briefe but very confident and concludeth thus If it be of the person then merit is cut of And why good Sir For merit saith he raiseth a confidence but where there is no comfort there can be no coÌ„fidence in vncertainty there is no comfort for relyance on that whereof a man doubts causeth rathâ—r a feare to be deceaued then a confidence to be releiued So he Which argument supposeth as graunted that our meritorious workes breed confidence which we deny not if he meane of that confidence towards God before mentioned then it ruÌ„neth in this forme Where there is no comfort there is no confidence but in vncertainty there is no comfort ergo no confidence and so consequently no merit That the force of this syllogisme may the better appeare I shall apply it to another matter thus Where there is no comfort there is no confidence but when our Sauiour prayed in the garden sayd tristis est anima mea vsque ad mortem and cryed ouâ— on the Crosse my God my God why hast thou forsaken me there was no comfort ergo no confidence and then Caluins blasphemous and desperate illation of our Sauiours despairing on the Crosse will soone be proued from which all learned Protestants no lesse then Catholicks do worthily disclaime But this is the diuinity of Syr William 47. Againe there is great equiuocation in the word vncertainty which M. Barlow taketh in the most generall and absolute signification as excluding all manner of certainty and knowledg whatsoeuer when as in Bellarmyne it is taken far otherwise for in the second Chapter of his third booke hauing distinguished two sorts of certaintyes the one euident the other obscure Of this later he maketh three degrees the first is of the certainty of faith cui nulla ratione potest subesse falsum the second of such things as are belieued for humane authority but so common as it excludeth all feare though not all falsity for that all men may be false and either deceaue or be in such things deceaued Of this sort he puteth for examples that Cicero and Virgil were famous men that Augustus Caesar was Emperour that Alexandria is in Egypt Constantinople in Thrace Hierusalem in Palestine Antioch in Asia and then declareth the last degree in this manner Tertium
which in his namâ— M. Barlow guieth vs these The Popes haue perswadeâ— themselues the warrs were iust and therefore as a Generall in the field pursued them as open enemyes or as a Iudgâ— vpon the bench commaunded execution to be done vpon theÌ„â— as MALEFACTORS And doe you not thinkâ— he hath played well his prize I will end this matter where M. Barlow doth begyn it to wit with his Epâ—â—stle Dedicatory which although it be written to 〈◊〉 Maiesty yet he blusheth not in the same to tell him that F. Persons hath through his whole booke discharged his rancor both against his person and Apology Againe that he careth not what he writes nor whome he reuiles nor how t' is taken And that he hath in the basest sort with his scorning ribaldry defiled and bâ—smeared two sacred Princes successiuely raigning And that he cannot hould but must needs regorge his spirit is so turbuleÌ„t and vnquiet and as Hierome speaketh of Heluidius maledicere omnibus bonae coÌ„scientiae signum arbitratur he thinks his conscience then best discharged when he hath reuiled most And againe if the obiection be that I haue not spared from reproaching him I deny it not How could I forbearâ— or who can blame me None that eyther hath loyall hart to your Maiestie being our gracious Soueraigne or Christian regard of her who late was that euer blessed Qâ—eene 82. And that you may know the taske which he hath taken by interposing himselfe in this answere between F. Persons and his Maiesty how great it is with what resolution against all aduentures he is bent to goe through with the same he sticketh not for courage to compare himselfe to the Roman Curtius who cast himselfe into the stinkng gulfe and for patience to the holy Martyr S. Sebastian for so out of S. Ambrose he sayth Against me let him empty his whole quiuer of reproaches all of them I hope will be like the Roman arrows shot against S. Sebastian drawne with bent force loos'â— with much ease but receaued with strong comfort So is thâ—s valiant Captaine fenced against all assaultes and prepared with armour of proofe for all encounters But yet euen in this very brauery of his he cannot forbeare his wonted forgery For S. Ambrose vpon the 118. psalme hath nor â—ny mentioÌ„ of S. SebastiaÌ„s arrows and therfore M. Barlow out of his good pollicy cyted not the Octonary but the whole volume least if he had made any direct reference the Reader had soone espied the deceipt But this is a small fault in M. Barlow we must be forced to ouerpasse pardon much greater 83. Hauing thus set forth himselfe as though he were a Spartan a Curtiâ—â— a S. Sebastian he so contemptibly speakeâ—h of his Aduersary as if in respect of him he were bâ—t like a littlâ— mouse in the paw of a LioÌ„ whom a man saith M. Barlow can neither auoid without calumny nor encounter but with blot of infamy nor coÌ„â—uer with hope of any maâ—stery and â—hereforâ— approueth â—is Maiâ—â—ties opinion who aâ— hâ— saiâ—â— â—â—â—â—dged a rope the fittest answere for him but in my booke in this very page here cited I find his Maiesty to say that an hangman is fittest to answere such an historian alluding worthily to M. Barlow who was to answere him for hiâ— answere better befitteth a man of that trade then eyther a Bishop or Deuine or one that would be taken for both to write and set forth and yet notwithstanding in the end of his Epistle he vauntingly promiseth to himself security from any reply thereunto from F. Persons for verbalize â—e saithâ— he can dispute he cannot in Stories he is a great florisher but a false relator of themâ— who so inioynes him a modest answere doth vndoe him Neither his age nor profession neither shame of the world nor feare of God nor grace of the spirit can mortifie his nature or restraine his tongue Thus to his Mâ—â—â—stie and after in his short Admonition to the Reader he addeth The stile in respect of my place and prâ—fession may peraduenture be adiudged too bitter but câ—â—pared with his person and reuiling veyne against two such ChristiaÌ„ Monarches no one Iote therof in exact Suruiâ—â—â— of better iudgment is eyther pared off or spared at all So M. Barlow 84. And do you not thinke that he hath herâ— described some Cynicall Proteus or railing Zoylus 〈◊〉 raging Thiestes whose tongue is so intemperate and stile so contumelious as would moue euen one that can beare all iniuries of other mens tongues as pâ—tiently as S. Sebastian did his arrowes to inueigh against him and requite him in the same method and manâ—â—â— of speach And that none who beareth either loyall hart to his Maiesty or Christian regard to M. Barlows deare deceassed Mistresse can blame him for vsiâ—â— this sharp reiection in their defence Moreouer tâ—â—â— how biâ—â—â—rly soeuer he speake against his Aduersarâ—es yet compared with his person and reuiling veyne against two Princes no ioâ—e was to be pared and spared because forsooth a modest answere would vndoe him and therfore M. Barlow is forced to be immodest euen â—gainsâ— his mild disposition you may be sure and to answere him with such intemperate scurrilitie as he doth when as yet no modest man would euer be moued much lesse forced thereunto for that is the speciall praise of the vertuous neuer to be drawne to dâ—â— ill by the prouocation or bad example of the wicked 85. But let vs examine the charge it selâ— which how much the greater and more grieuous it is the more it requireth on his behalfe plaine and euident proofe for none can be free where it sufficeth only to accuse Wherefore seing that he is so copious in accusing with such variety of phrases and sentences let vs consider a litle how the thing it self is euicted what words what witnesses what probable coniectures inductions or presumptioÌ„s are brought for the same we handle not now a speculatiue question in which variety of iudgements may breed diuersity of opinions neyther talke we of China or Mexâ—co and what is done in them from whence the length of the way as it may weary the trauaylers so also weaken the credit of their reports our controuersie is about a matter of fact and that registred as he will haue it in a printed booke in which if either M. Barlow or any other for him can find any râ—uilingâ— such are the loathsome vnsauory phrases of this impure Minister against his Maiâ—sties person that now is as for Q. Elizabeth I remit him to the ensuing Discussion let Mâ—â—â—â—low be belieued and me discredited yea let all his raylying passe for modest reason his lying for â—ruth◠〈◊〉 for an honest maÌ„ But if no such thing be to be found as I acertayne the Reader that it cannot them let M. Barlow be knowne to haue made a notoriouâ—ly to his Maiestie in print and haue that credit hereafter which such
of him M. Barlow may seeme pardonable though yet he be well content to haue his Maiestyes Mother to lye in hell so that he may aduance his owne Mistresse to heauen 118. In flattering his Maiesty he is more diffuse taking all occasions to blaze out his praise and sometymes forcing occasions where none are offered and that also on false grounds in which albeit I will not say to vse Syr Thâ—mas Mores phrase that his Gloria Patri is a wayes without a Sicut erat for who knoweth not that there are many great and commendable parts in his Maiestie yet this I dare warrant that in this booke of his and the Relation of the Conference at Hampton-Court not big for bulke but rather small 〈◊〉 respect of many great volumes written by some of thâ— Iesuits Bellarmine Suarez Valentia Vasquez Salmâ—â—â— Tolet and others there shall be found more flattery to King Iames in this alone then in all the bookes 〈◊〉 theirs togeather hitherto â—et forth in print towards 〈◊〉 the Popes or Princes vnder whom they haue written or to whom they haue dedicated their learned labours so cunning so carefull and so copious is thâ—â— fawning Parasite to creep into credit and to prayâ—â— and please them by whom he may hope for prefermeÌ„tâ— Examples in this kind do not want were it as safe 〈◊〉 alleadge them as it is easie to find them But I seâ— what will be answered by him and others of the same seruile spirit that in reprehending their flattery 〈◊〉 shew our selues impatient of his Maiesties glory and enuy at his worthines which how far it is from our thoughts he who sees all secrets and searches alâ— hartes doth know and see And that I may not seemeâ— to suspect this without cause I will only produce oâ—â— passage of his which will make both the one and the other most cleer 119. After his 15. proofes and 16. lyes in the history of the second Frederick this without any coherence with the matter in hand by a needles digression he turneth his speach to speake of his Maiesty It was hiâ— Maiâ—styes exceeding humility that he would grace Bellarmine being but a Cardinall so much as to vouchsafe him an answere t' is his eminent commendation that he can readily vnderstand all Stories written in this kind or any other it argues his singular industry that after so many houres spâ—nt in the higher afâ—aires of the Realme he could take the paines to perusâ— thâ—se which he did it is his pregnant dexâ—erity that he contriued and abridged the discourse with that methode and sincerity but it was his admirable iudgâ—ent and wisdome in forbearing variety of other Authours which wrote but by heare-say deliuered what they wrote vpon the second hand in this example to pitch principally vpon him who liued in that tyme and saw wrote what passed betweene the Emperour the Pope in euery particuâ—er True Christians and well affected to God-ward would reioyce to see so grâ—at a Monarch so learned so expert considering what the ignorance of Kings hath bene heretofore but this is the Catholike enuy and vexation that not Eldad Medad but Monarchs also can prophesie and discouer their weaknesse so that whereas now they cannot as in former tymes enthrall them by superstition and insult vpon their ignorance they are enraged against their knowledge accounting their learning forgerie and their truth-â—elling malice So M. Barlow 120. In which passage drawne in without occasion besides that the whole ground thereof is vntrue that Petrus de Vineis for of him he speaketh liâ—ed at â—he tyme of Frederick his death and saw and wrote what passâ—d in euery particular for by a whole cloud of witnesses it is afterwards proued that he was dead a whole yeare before the Emperour whome they will haue to be poysoned the Reader doth see what insultation he makes ouer ignorant Kings of former tymes whome yet this ignorant Minister might well haue spared and ouer the Catholicks for their enâ—y of his Maiestyes knowledge of their enthralling men in superstition accounting their lâ—arning forgery and their truth-telling maliâ—e which empty froath of idle words and vntrue surmises we can well beare at his hands who must needs say somewhat and you see what he will say in case I should produce more examples of his flattery which 〈◊〉 as well to auoid all occasion of such obloquy as foâ— that I meane to draw to an end of this Preface do heare forbeare further to recount 121. There remayneth after his rayling and flattery that we speake a word or two of his leuity for a lewd tongue and light head are seldome separated in his manner of speach and stile which I the rather noâ—e for that it pleased M. Barlow to twyte F. Persons with the inkhorne tearmes of euacuating shifting and trifeling which words notwithstanding are very vsuall iâ— our vulgar tongue and he that should say that M. Barlow doth nothing else but shift tryft would I doubâ— not be well vnderstood albeit he should not speakâ— altogeather true for besides that he doth raile lye flatter forge authorityes corrupt histories and the like But the words which M. Barlow vseth are not only not vsuall but very straÌ„ge vncouth some of theÌ„ being taken from the Latin some from the Greek soâ—e from the French others I thinke from the Irish foâ— they are neyther Greek Latin Frâ—nch or English not haue as far as I see affinity with any other tongues Out of a great heape I will set downe a few 122. The word Only saith he doth not so much signifie an hypocoristicall alleuiation as a compendiary limitation Is not this fine And in the same page more eâ—pedit for euidenâ—e a very perâ—uâ—siue forcâ— After Catâ—â—â—guised on holy Thursday to vindicate his credit a mendâ—cious vanity and then togeather this reliance vnrepeâ—â—â—able is it not in them thus tyed a vassallage of slauery iâ— the Pope thus bynding them look to himself an oultrecâ—iâ—dance of tyrany and in respect of Kings a license for disloyalty in their subiects and their allumetts of treason to their â—ersons So he And do you not thinke that this GeÌ„tlemaÌ„ can speak FreÌ„ch doe not these words well beseem adorne an English stile In other places Porter of Hades this boutife aux is acquainted if he renege and deâ—y his profâ—ssion no enterparte for exchange a sarcastiâ—all â—corne pharmatized with â—uch druggs a coalition of distinct regimeÌ„ts some so wild that no disciplyne will cicure them many vse to robb with the valures this falâ—e atomite the profiâ—able mythologies of poetts fables insulting pseudo-Apostles â—ainted affections may marr good orisons the Apologer had â—hus metaphrased neyther was her aâ—thority any thing anoindred or made lesse treacherous and vnnaturall cheuiâ—ance from his didacticall we must follow him to his historicall skill the Popes ouer-awing surquedry of an oultrecuidant Pope a diametrall renouncing an iteritious
offered to the words and meaning of the Breue euery simple Reader will see without any explycation from me For that the Pope doth not prohibite naturall obedience in things lawfull nor doth say that such naturall or ciuill obedience is opposite to faith or saluation of soules nor that the oath is vnlawfull for exhibiting such naturall or ciuill obedience but for that besides this exaction of naturall obedience which is lawfull it conteyneth diuers other points also concerning matters of Catholicke religion c. Let the Reader compare them with those which in the Fathers name M. Barlow hath giuen vs he shal soone see how well wheÌ„ he is disposed to rayle he can forge a text to befit his argumeÌ„t what coÌ„science he maketh to abuse his Reader or slaunder his Aduersary 128. Another notorious forgery he vseth in cutting away of words when he is so conuinced by them as he cannot reply For proofe that Henry the fourth Emperour was taken out of his graue the day after his buriall by the Popes commaundment M. Barlâ—w will needs bring a clowd of witnesses which F. Persons hath so dispersed as that all the thunder and lightning will fall on M. Barlows owne head For the Emperour dying at Liege where he was besiâ—ged by the yong Emperour his sonne and being vnburied againe the next day after his buriall how could the Pope procure it to be done Belike they dispatched M. Barlows Cut-speed the poast who in one night went from Liege to Rome 800. myles and returned againe ere morning But least that this should be espied M. Barlow out of his Authors pareth away the word pridie the day before and then leaues the tyme indeterminate in them all as it may by his cyting theÌ„ as well seeme to haue byn done a yeare as a day before for which matter I refer him to the discussion it self where this in due place is more largely handled 129. I will end with one place more wherewith the forgery is ioyned also incredible impudency as the Author of the Supplement doth more fully handle and cleerly euince against him Yow haue before heard M. Barlows bould assertion touching vnity of names about a place obiected out of S. Leo saying that S. Peter was assumpted in coÌ„sortium indiuiduae vnitatis which F. Persons sayd was answered long since by M. Harding to be meant of vnity of Name What saith M. Barlow hereunto Speake in sooth honest censurer saith he is vnity of names Hardings owne distinction in answere to Bishop Iewelâ— Himself denieth it for M. Harding saith that Leo meaÌ„t therby an vnitie in Quality an vnity in grace an vnity that is proper to Christ himself and mentionâ—th no vnity of NAME for though he were a corrupt Doctor yet was he a better Dâ—uine then to speake so absurdly as Persons would heer make him Is not this very confideÌ„tly spoken thinke you And yet the Reader must know that in this very place which M. Barlow himelf cyteth in the margent punctually setting downe the leaff in this very leasse I say after the words of M. Barlow of vnity of quallity vnity of grace he addeth againe and againe vnity of name neuer saith an vnity that is proper to Christ himself And what then will you say to the brazen forhead of this shameles man affirming that D. Harding mentioneth no vnity â—f Name yea that himself dâ—nyeth iâ— Againe that he saith an Vnity that is proper to Christ himsâ—lâ— Truly I cannot heere but thinke of a sentence of S. Augustine which he wrote against one vsing far lesse impudency then this that if M. Barlow proceed on in this manner puto quod ipsum libri sui atramâ—ntunm erubescendo conuertetur in minium I thinke the very inke of his booke with blushing will become vâ—rmilâ—ion I add no other examples of this perfidious dealing yet if M. Barlow list to see them he shall find good store in the last chapter of the Supplement to the which I remit him 130. By these euictions gentle Reader that I may heere conclude all this matter of M. Barlows ignorance Grammaticall Historicall Scripturall Theologicall of his lying sycophancy rayling fooleries and forgeries of his bad diâ—puting Thrasonicall vauÌ„ting and other impertinencyes and misdemeanour in writing thow maiest without further proofe be able of thy self to iudge how vnfit a Sparthan he was to enter this combat how true the Censure is which before I gaue of him and of his booke which the more I consider the more I admire eyther how he was chosen to vvrite being so vveake or his writing suffered to passe with so sleight suruiew and with the Apostle to say Sic non erat inter vos sapiens c. is your Ministery so bare and Deuinity so barren that no more learned man then this ignorant and shameles Superintendent could be found to defend his Maiesty or write in this controuersy Or is your cause become now so desperate as that the weaknes and wickednes therof enforceth you to these hard shifts and disgracefull attempts Yf it be the truth you seeke why vse you so many and so manifest lyes If the controuersy yâ—â— handle belong to fayth or good life what needeth so frauduleÌ„t so faithles persidious dealing If all Authors staÌ„d for you why do you corrupt their words peruert their meaning If the Aduersary you answer be so weake as you make him at least let him speake in his owne words and then will your refutation in that respect carry with it the more credit Say not that which you cannot proue meddle not with that which you doe not vnderstand forge not accusations and then take the aduantage of your owne fictions deale like ChristiaÌ„s deale like Deuines if you haue any Diuinity at all amongst you let things be handled as their nature require as it becomes the person of the writer as is best for the Readers direction for finding the truth in case the iniquity of your cause and weaknes of your ability can beare it and then we will not complaine but setting aside all personall reproaches to which this Minister aboue his fellowes is more subiect insist only vpon the cause in controuersy vt res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum ratione concertet 131. This course had M. Barlow or could he haue holden we should not haue had so many ouersights so grosse and childish ignorance such lewd railing such sycophancy so many words so little matter so much chaffe without all substance so huge a heape of vntruthes so great brags so weake proofes and is fine we should haue found some Diuinity besides Erasmus Chiliads Martialls Epigrams and other Poets for of such pedling and pelting stuff is his whole booke composed we should not haue seene such false citations such mistaking and corrupting of Authors such straÌ„ge and vnchristian assertions and other misdemeanours of which I haue laied forth some examples but haue left
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
the Lord sweare by his name But good Syr we doe not deny the lawfulnes of swearing either in abstract or â—onâ—ret but the sinne of false swearing when we take an Oath against our iudgement and conscience He goeth further Perhaps then the aggrieuance saith he is in the Epithete because it is a new Oath No syr But because it is a faile Oath when a man thinketh the thinges not true that he sweareth He goeth forward to proue that a new Oath may be lawfull when the occasion thereof is new But I denied not this and so M. Doctor beareth the ayre in vaine Yet will he not leaue of but taketh another medium to prove that this Oath is not new but old concerning the matter therof For that it is old saith he and hath byn vsuall in all nationâ— Christian and Heathen that subiectes should bind their allegiance by Oath â—or theiâ— Soueraigns security But who denieth this is it not a shame for a Doctor to wander vp down from the purpâ—sâ—e And yet will he pasâ—e further therin for lacke of better matter It is grounded saith he he meaneth of taking Oathes of fâ—delity to Princes vpon Scripture both in the examples of holy Kings and the Apostles definition of an Oath Hebr. 6. 16. nâ—melâ— That an Oath is the end of all contrâ—uersies Of which speach I graunt the former part concerning the examples of holy Kings that haue taken Oathes of their subiects though as I haue said it be little or nothing to ouâ— controuersyâ— Nor can I find Cardinall Bellarmines authority cited in the margent to this purpose in his 7. booke de Romano Ponâ—ifice he hauing written but fiue of that argument Nor doth it import to find it he saying nothing therein which we doe not confesse But as for the second part where M. Barlow bringeth in the Apostles definition of an Oath to be the end of all controuersies though I acknowledge it to be his sentence and most true yet not a definition Nor doe I see how M. Barlow wil be able handsomely to defend the same For if the common axiome of Logitians knowne to euery scholler that studieth that art be true that Definitio definiâ—uÌ„ conuertuntur so as whatsoeuer is comprehended vnder the one is comprehended also vnder the other and contrariwise whatsoeuer agreeth not to the one agreeth not to the other then cannot this proposition of the Apostle be a definition of an Oath and consequently M. Barlow doth erre grossely in calling it so Now then that this matter is so and that euery Oath cannot end all controuersies nor that euery controuersy is ended with an Oath is euident by experience For how many swearers haue you that will offer to sweare twenty Oathes in a controuersy betweene them and others if therby they might end and gaine the controuersy But the other party admitteth them not for that he hath not so much credit of sincerity in their Oath that they wll sweare truly as to belieue them And so also on the other side how many controuersies are there ended dayly without Oathes and many cannot with Oathes As for example if M. Barlow should owe a peece of money and being vrged to pay it should offer to forsweare it that were not like to end the controuersy but rather the laying downe of the money Ergo all Oathes are not able to end all coÌ„trouersies nor all controuersies are determinable by Oathes You will demaund then what is S. Paul his meaning when he saith as here M. Barlow relateth him that an Oath is the end of all controuersies Surely S. Paules meaning had bene cleare inough iâ— M. Barlow had let downe all the Apostles wordes as they lie in the text which are Homines enim per maiorem sur iurant omnis controuersiae eorum finis ad confirmaâ—â—â—â— est iuramenâ—um For men doe sweare by a greater then themselues and the end of all their controuersy for the confirmation is an oath The intention of the Apostle is to strengthen our hope in God for that he had confirmed his prâ—mises to vs by Oath which is the soundest confirmation that can be in the behalfe of the swearer for no man can adde of his part more to bind then an Oath And for this cause he saith That an Oath is the end of all controuersy for confirmatioÌ„ of truth in the behalf of the swearer â—or he can passe no further but not so in the behalfe of the other party that is interessed also in the coÌ„trouersy for if he should mistrust the swearers sincerity of conscience then would not his Oath be sufficient to end the controuersie as before we haue said consequently the speach of S. Paul in this place containeth no definitioÌ„ of an oath as fondly M. Barlow dreameth but expresseth rather the effect of an oath for confirmation of truth in the behalf of the swearer which word of confirmation M. Barlow craftily left out thrust in two greeke words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end of controuersie most impertineÌ„tly without aâ—y purpose in the world as otherwise often he doth to entaÌ„gle his vulgar Reader with osteÌ„tation oâ— greeke wheras these words haue no speciall propriety emphasis or different signification in the world so as he might as well put in a whole page of greeke out of S. Paules Epistles as those two words But these men as els where I haue aduertised doe seeke occasions of darkenes obscurity to hide the weakenes of their cause therin But lâ—t vâ— goe forward For hauing laboured all this while out of the list to proue the vse of Oathes to be lawfull and ancient which wee deny not in lawfull cases he commeth now to set downe the coÌ„â—rouersy more in particuler that is this very case saith he the Amilogiae or controuersie wherof is VVhether any Romish Catholike can beare any true Allegiance in his heart to â—he Kings Maiesty This Iesuit houldeth the â—ffiâ—matiue we by effect oâ— so many treasonable plots of â—riestâ— and Iesuites doe hould the contrary Yea the Priestes of the same religion are merely contradictory to him c. And therâ—ore his Maiestie hath taken this way of the Apostle to try the matter by both But good Syr are you not ashamed to trifle in this manner and to be taken euery foote in false consequences Where did you learne your Logicke Or where did you frame your consâ—ience If the question be Whether any Romish Catholicke can beare true Allegiance in his hart to the Kinges Maiestie how do you hould the negatiue vpon some effectes of treasonable plottes of Priesâ—es and Iesuites If it were true that such were sound doth the discouery of some such plotts in some Catholikes infer an impossibility that no Catholike can beare any true Allegiance How say you to the plots of France Flanders and Scotland and other parts do they conuince that no Protestaâ—t can be trusty Furthermore if it be impossible for
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
necessary to make recourse to the Sea Apostolicke and to demaund resolution thereof according to the custome that had bene obserued in the like cases in England during the raigne of all Catholike Christian Kinges from their beginning of Christianity vntill king Henry the eight as else where largely hath bene proued by a seuerall booke writteÌ„ lately of that argument And as the English Catholickes were desirous to exhibite vnto their King all dutiâ—ull obedience and subiection in temporall matters so were they desirous also not to doe any thing against their consciences in spirituall affaires towardes their supreme Pastour whome they acknowledge to gouerne them in place of Christ our Sauiour And this was the cause why the one Oath was not consulted with Pope Clement the Eight the other was with Pope Paulus the fifth not somuch for his particuler and personall iudgemeÌ„t in Diuinity though it be great as in respect of his place and the most certaine assistancâ— which almighty God giueth him and all other in that place for gouerning of his people as also for the particuleâ— obligation that all Catholick Christians haue to obey their supreme Pastour whose authority receaued from our Sauiour is more to be respected then the gift of humane learning which I suppose M. Barlow in the Kinges Royall Authoritâ— and Person will not dare to deny or thinke it good dealing or lawâ—ull proceeding if when he setteth our a Proclamation his Subiectes should demaÌ„d what skill in Law or Diuinity he hath for auouching â—he same And much more if the question had bene made in the time of Q. Elizabeth who profeâ—â—ed not so much learning as this King and yet would be obeyed no lesse then he iâ— her dayes euen in matters Ecclesiastical although I think that the neuer studied Diuinity It followeth in M. Barlow Of Pius Quintus saith he who absolued the Queenes sâ—â—iects â—rom their obedience it was said by some of his owne that he was homo pius doctus sed nimis credulus religious and learned but too easy of beliefe But of this Paulus Quintus who hath interâ—â—cted the Subiects of our Soueraigne King to sweare their obedience eyther for his Diuinity or Piety we haue heard nothing Whereunto the answer is easy for if you haue not heard therof it is for that you are loath to heare so much good as you may of his Holines in both points His profession was not the faculty of Diuinity but rather of Ciuill and Canon law before God did choose him to the place dignity where now he is It is well knowne that his Holines hath great sufficiency also in the other for discharging of his obligation in that high Office and hath moreouer so many learned men about him in all sciences to consult withall wheÌ„ matters of weight do occurre as this poore exception of the Hereticke about learning in his Holines is a good witnes of his want of better matter what to speake to the purpose And as for his Piety which is the other point let his Holines life and actions be looked vpon as we know they are by all Heretikes in the world and curiously pried into not only at home in their owne Countreys but in Rome it selfe where many do go to certify theÌ„selues in this and sundry other like pointes and do depart much edified therby and sundry of them conuerted dayly by seeing the contrary to that which before they heard wherof my selfe among others can be a good witnes that haue seene the effect hereof in sundry of our Nation as others can say the like by theirs And this amongst other things is very notable and knowne spoken and confessed by all sortes of people in Rome to be in him to wit an Angelicall purity of life throughout the whole course therof in so much that he was neuer yet stained with the least blemish of suspicion to the contrary Which publike voice testimony how well it hath bene deserued of M. Barlow his Matesâ— I remit my selfe to the common fame of their next Neighbours or such as know them best As for that he saith of Pope Pius Quintus that he was accompted by Catholikes themselues nimis credulus notwithstanding he was homo pius doctâ—s as it is no great accusâ—tion so is it spoken and vttered without any testimony at all and therfore of small credit as comming from one that is found so full of vntruthes in most of his allegations wherof we haue giuen so many examples and shall do more in the residue of this our Answere as I doubt not but that he will scarsely seeme worthy to be belieued when he bringeth witnesses and much lesse without them But there remayneth a more large impertinency of M. Barlow coÌ„cerning this Pope his skill in Diuinity setdown in these wordes taken from the comparison of S. Peter S. Paul S. Peter saith he whose successour he is stiled and S. Paulâ— whose name he hath borrowed had their Diuinity indeed by inâ—â—sâ—â—n but their writings reuealed it to the world So that Peter we know and Paul we know to be singular Dâ—uines but who is this No men that seeketh to be â—amous doth any thing in secret say the bretheren of our Sauiour VVhere then are his labours his Sermons his Treatises his Commentaryes his Epistles Theologicall his doctrinall determinations his Iudiciall Decisâ—â—s all which are vsuall attractiues to draw an opinion vpon a man that he is a sound resoluer So he But Syr stay your Maister-ship these are no sound groundes to build the certainty of resolution vpon in a Magistrate especially such as the supreme Pastour is but rather the promised assistance that Christ our Sauiour made to S. Peter and his successours sitting in the Apostolike Chaire That Hell-gates should neuer preuaile against the same And how many haue written Sermons Treatises Commentaries Epistles Determinations and Decisions and do write dayly to whome notwithstanding we ascribe not this certainty albeit the last two for DeterminatioÌ„s and Decisions I doubt not but his Holines hath maâ—â— many in his dayes and those very profound and learned hauing bene a Iudge in diuers great affaires as the world knoweth before he came to this dignity whereto he ascended not by fortune or fauour or negotiation but by the merit of his great and rare vertue correspondent to the worthines of the noble and ancient family from the which he is descended And this wil be euident to any man that shall consider the eminent offices and dignityes wherwith he hath bene honoured euen from his youth as of Referendary in the high Court of Signatura de Gratia of Vice-Legate in Bologna of Nuntius Apostolicus into Spaine for most important matters and of Auditor de Camera in all which charges and imployments he gayned such reputation of learning wisedome and integrity that Pope Clement the eight of blessed memory held him to be most worthy of the dignity of a Cardinall wherto
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
of hellish crimes neuer committed is spoken without booke vpon no greater ground then that he listeth to say and write so of her And this shall serue for the first point concerning his excessiue prayses of Queene Elizabeth though we shall haue occasioÌ„ to handle somewhat therof againe in the fourth point about her mortifications Touching the second point then of impotent and exorbitant railing albeit much were to be sayd yet doe I not meane to loose time in the repeating thereof or iniurie the eares of graue and modest men with hearing such contemptible matter it is reuenge inough for me to vnderstand by diuers wayes as I doe that his owne friends doe condemne him and thinke contemptuously of him for entring into such an odious kind of writing And for other that are different from him in religion though they thinke him not worthy of any Answere that taketh such a course yet haue I thought good for this once to bestow so much paynes as to runne his Booke ouer and to returne him answere to other points though not to this but yet so as by those other points which I handle the mans spirit may be so well knowne as none will meruayle that he tooke so dishonest and impudent a course of viruleÌ„t rayling As for the third poynt of sacrificing to the Manes or Ghostes of the dead Queene Elizabeth true it is that supposing my selfe to haue to do with a Minister that vsed the phrase in the case he did I noted it as Heathenish and prophane in respect of both words to wit sacrificing to Ghost especially Infernall himselfe being enemie to all Christian Sacrifice or prayers for soules Christianly departed or intercession to be made for them to Saints in heauen that are Supernall Ghosts and not Infernall By which occasion M. Barlow taketh matter to dilate himselfe much as he doth willingly when he findeth any thing to talke of though neuer so impertinent to proue that this phrase of sacrificing to dead Ghosts though it were proper to the Gentiles and Pagans may also be vsed of Christians in a good sense Especially sayth he it being vsed by his Maiesty as a borrowed phrase and vttered with a deprecatory parenthesis as it were in modesty asking leaue for the passage therof secretly therby insinuating that otherwise it was that which among the Rhetoritians is called audax Metaphora a bould Metaphore Wherunto I answere that with all these circumstaÌ„ces I see no difficulty but that the phrase may be vsed especially by audax Metaphora and by so great a Prince whose licence in speach good reason alloweth to be larger then other men nor had I euer put difficulty in the phrase if I had knowne it to haue come from his Maiestie But for a Minister to be so bould in his audacious Metaphors seemed not so tollerable so as in the thing it selfe supposing the former qualifications I haue no further controuersie But yet I must note that the arguments scraped togeather by M. Barlow for allowance of the phrase are nothing worth at all For that first the testimonies here quoted by him though at randome of S. Hierome S. Augustine S. Basill affirming that we may vse the learning of the Gentiles to the aduancement of Christian Religion as the Israelites did the spoyles of the AEgyptians are to be vnderstood of such poynts of their learning as may piously be applyed to our vse to wit their morall doctrine Histories Philosophy Examples Sentences Comparisons and the like but yet do not allow that we should vse the peculiar phrases of their Idolatrous worship about the mysteries of our Christian Religion as certaine new prophane companions of our age haue done I meane Castalio and others calling God Iupiter and our B. Lady Diana and the like Nor doe the other examples alleadged by M. Barlow for proofe and allowance of any such prophane vse makâ— anything to the matter in hand and consequently they are brought in by him to no purpose at all but to spend time and paper without vtility For what maketh it to our purpose if S. Luke in the narration of S. Paules nauigation to Rome doe say that the ship of Alexandria wherin he went had for his badge the signe of â—astor and Pollux the children of Iupiter according to the fables of Gentilitie Or what if S. Peter in his secoÌ„d Epistle speaking of the damnatioÌ„ of the wicked Angels do name these chaines of darknes wherwith they are bound in hel which words of chaines hell are to be found in Poets Is this a sufficient proofe that Pagan phrases concerning matters of religion may be vsed also in our Diuinity I pretermit his idle bringing in of S. Paul that vsed halfe a verse of Aratus a heathen Poet when he spake in the Councell house of the Areopagus in Athens as also Nazianzen Origen for vsing the two prouerbs Orci galea Plutonis cassis for that these things are lawfull as before we haue sayd nor haue they any similitude at all with the phrase in controuersie of sacrificing to Queene Elizabeths Manes for that this being heathenish in the sense of both words to wit of sacrificing and of Inâ—ernall spirits and applied by the Authour of the Apologie to the Christian duty to be performed to a Christian soule deceased conteyneth much more in it then those other Poeticall words vsed to no such end by the Christian Authours Nor is that worth the answering which is brought in out of the Epistle of Iustus Baronius not long since conuerted from Caluins Sect to the Catholike Church where recounting his iourney through Millaynâ— he sayth that amoÌ„gst other Reliques they were brought to see the shrine where the Manes Ambrosij iunioris Borrhâ—maei were conteyned that is to say the memory and reliques of the yonger Ambrose to wit Cardinall Borrhâ—maeus which M. Barlow thinketh to be a great testimony against me but indeed is none at all For nowsoeuer this man newly conuerted from being a Protestant did vse also some part of M. Barlâ—â—â—s audax Metaphora which he very well approueth and that this word Manes being vsed alone may metaphorically haue some such sense as the Reliques or memory of men departed yet did he not vse the whole phrase of parent are Manâ—aâ— to sacrifice vnto the Manes of any body departed whicâ— is not vsed or permitted in Catholike Religion to sacrifice vnto the reliques or memory of any man dead but only to offer sacrifice to God for them if they stand iâ— need therof And thus much for this ABOVT QVEENE Elizabeth her Mortifications And of the nature of that Vertue §. II. THere remaineth the fourth point coÌ„cerning Queene Elizabeths Mortifications and Peâ—nances voluntarily â—aken here in this life wherof I said by iust occasion giuen That if the old platforme of Saints liues prescribed in Scriptures and practised by the seruants of God were not erroneous and vayne as much fasting continuall prayer dayly
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
Athanasius himselfe in a long Epistle of this matter where he also recouÌ„teth the bold speach of bishop Osius the famous Confessor of Corduba who was one of the 318. Fathers that saâ—â— as Iudges in the first Councell of Niâ—e and vsed the saâ—â— liberty of speach to the forsayd Emperour at another time which the other Bishops had done before him saying to him Leaue of I beseech thee o Emperor these dealingâ— in Ecclesiasticall affayres remember thou art mortall feare the day of Iudgement keep thy selfe free from this kind of sin do not vse coÌ„mandements to vs in this kind but rather learne of vs for that God hath coÌ„mitted the Empire vnto thee to vs the things that appertaine to his Church c. All which speaches doth S. Athanasius allow highly coÌ„mend in the same place adding further of his owne That now the sayd Constantius had made his Pallace a tribunall of Ecclesiasticall causes in place of Ecclesiasticall Courtes and had made himselfe the cheife Prince and head of spirituall Pleas which he calleth the abhomination foretold by Daniel the Prophet c. Which speach if old Athanasius should haue vsed to his Maiestie in the presence of all the rest and seconded by others that sate theâ—e with him could not in all reason but much moue especially ifâ— So Gregory Nazianzen and S. Ambrose should haue recounted their admonitions about the same to their temporall Lord and Emperour Valentinian as when the former sayd vnto him as is extant yet in his Oration That he should vnderstand that he being a Bishop had greater authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperor and that he had a tribunall or seat of Iudgment higher then the Emperour who was one of his sheep and that more resolutly S. Ambrose to the same Emperour when he comaunded him to giue vp a Church to the handes of the Arians Trouble not yourselfe o Emperor sayth S. Ambrose in commanding me to delyuer the Church nor do you persuade your selfe that you haue any Imperiall right ouer these things that are spirituall and diuine exalt not your selfe but be subiect to God if you will raigne be content with those things that belonge to Cesar and leaue those which are of God vnto God Pallaces appertayne vnto the Emperor and Churches vnto the Preist And these three Fathers hauing thus briefly vttered their sentences for much more might be alleaged out of them in this kind let vs see how the fourth that is to say S. ChrysostoÌ„ Archbishop of Constantinople coÌ„curred with theÌ„ Stay o king saith he within thy bounds limits for different are the bounds of a kingdome the limits of Priesthood this Kingdome of Priesthood is greater then the other Bodies are committed to the King but the soules to the Priest And againe Therfore hath God subiected the Kings head to the Priests haÌ„d instructing vs therby that the Priest is a greater Prince then the king according to S. Paul to the Hebrews the lesser alwaies receaueth blessing from the greater These foure Fathers then hauing grauely set downe their opinions about this point of spirituall power not to be assumed by teÌ„porall Princes let vs imagine the other three to talk of some other mater as namely S. Hierome that he vnderstandeth diuers pointes of the heresie of Iouinian and Vigilantius against whome he had with great labour written seuerall Bookes to be held at this day in his Maiesties kingdomes of England Scotland which could not but grieue him they being coÌ„demned heresies by the Church S. Augustine also vpon occasion giuen him may be imagined to make his coÌ„plaint that he hauing written amongst many other books one de cura pro mortuis agenda for the care that is to be had for soules departed both in that booke and in sundry other partes of his workes said downe the doctrine and practice of the Church in offering prayers Sacrifice for the dead and deliuering soules from purgatory and that the sayd Catholicke Church of his time had condemned Aërius of heresy for the contrary doctrine yet he vnderstood that the matter was laughed at now in Eâ—gland and Aërius in this point held for a better Christian then himselfe yea and wheras he S. Augustine had according to the doctrine and practice of the true Catholicke Church in his dayes prayed for the soule of his Mother besought all others to doe the like his Maiestie was taught by these new-sprong doctors to condemn the same neither to pray for the soule departed of his mother dying in the same Catholicke fayth nor to permit others to do the same All which Saint Gregory hearing â—et vs suppose him out of that great loue and charity wherwith he was inflamed towardes England and the English Nation to vse a most sweet and fatherly speach vnto his Maiestie exhorting him to remember that he sent into England by the first preachers that came from him the same Catholicke Christian Religion which was then spread ouer the whole world and that which he had receiued by succession of Bishops and former ages from the said Fathers there present and they from the Apostles and that the said ancient true and Catholicke Religion was sincerely deliuered vnto his Maiesties first Christian predecessor in England King Ethelbert and so continued from age to age vntill King Henry the eight If I say this graue assembly of ancient holy Fathers should be made about his Maiesty he fitting in the middest and should heare what they say and ponder with what great learning grauity and sanctitie they speake and how differently they talke from these new maisters that make vp M. Barlowes little Vniuersitie I thinke verily that his Maiestie out of his great iudgment would easily contemne the one in respect of the other But alas he hath neyther time nor leysure permitted to him to consider of these thinges nor of the true differences being so possessed or at least wise so obsessed with these other mens preoccupations euen from his tender youth and cradle as the Catholicke cause which only is truth could neuer yet haue entrance or indifferent audience in his Maiesties â—ares but our prayers are continually that it may And now hauing insinuated how substantially this little Vniuersity of ancient learned Fathers would speake to his Maiesty if they might be admitted eyther at table or time of repast or otherwise Let vs consider a little how different matters euen by their owne confession these new Academicks do suggest for that M. Barlow going about to excuse his fellow T. M. the yonger from that crime of Sycophancy which was obiected for his calumniations against Catholikes in his table-talke trifling first about the word what it signifyeth in greeke according to the first institution therof to wit an accusation of carrying out of figges out of Athens as before hath bene shewed and then for him that vpon small matters accuseth another as
also for him that seeketh to recreate Princes great men by pleasant speaches and finally also him that iesteth with a deprauing vayne he telleth how that Maister T. M. may with credit be called a Sycophant in the three first senses but not in the last sayth he for that Sycophancy must be clanculum and without witnesses but T.M. vseth this Sycophancy openly euen by the Censurers confession when his Maiesty taketh his repast that is in the hearing of many so that the party being knowne and the tale openly tould he caÌ„not be called a Sycophant saith M. Barlow But I would first demaud of him where he findeth that the word ClanculuÌ„ or Secretly must be conteined in the definition of a Sychophant for that the first prime signification and deriuation of the word doth openly repugne for as M. Barlow sayth in this place such delatores ficuum or Sycophants in Athens were honorable Magistrates that did accuse publikely and secondly in applicatioÌ„ of the word to a false accuser malicious forged crime there is no such restraint that it must be secret by any Author set downe as may be seene in Henriâ—â—s Stâ—phanus his Thesaurus where there is no restraint of the nature of a Sycâ—ophant or Sychophancy to such secrecy â—â— here M. Barlow assigneth but it is sufficient that it be a false forged malicious crime albeit if we consider the priuate place and auditory while his Maiesty taketh his repast eithâ—r by day or night in comparison of the whole body of Catholickes there calumniated in their absence there will not want also this circumstance of clanculary calumniation if M. Barlow will needs haue it necessary But now let vs passe to another point touched by M. Barlow wherin he pretendeth to be somwhat pleasant to recreate his reader with certaine iestes though with little grace as you will see The occasions of his iestes are these that for so much as this word Sycophanâ—ie is deriued of figges as now you haue vnderstood he will tell vs diuers stories of figgs some sweet some sower some pleasant some vngrateful some poysoned and the like and vnder this mâ—eaphor he will shew vs what figges T. M. and his fellowes do pâ—rhappes represent vnto his Maiestie at his table for his better recâ—eation and pastyme as namely first diuers stories of Popish feigned myracles as that sayth M. Barlow of S. Denis in France who being Byshop of Paris and beheaded carried his owne head in his hand after it was stroken of and of Clement the first who when he was cast into the sea with a milstone about his necke the sea fled three myles froÌ„ the shore and there was found a lytle Chappell ready built in the sea where his bodie was bestowed and that of S. Gregorie of Neâ—caesarea whose staâ—â—e being stuck downe by him at the banke side kept the riuer froÌ„ ouerflowing the banks and presently sprong vp and spred it sâ—lf into a nâ—ighty tree Thus he Condemning as you see our credulity in belieuing these miracles But first I would demaÌ„d of this little learned Vniuersitie anâ— their Procter M. Barlow what more religion there is in not belieuing these and other like recounted myracles then in belieuing them for so much as Infideâ—ity is an easie matter to be found euery where in the worst kind of men as Turkes Iewes and Gentiles and the worst Christians but to belieue is more hard and to be found in fewer men be it humane or diuine fayth that is required Secondly these and many other such like myracles not recounted in Scripture are not proposed as articles of fayth necessary for euery man to belieue though they being related by good and probable Authors euery pious mind will rather incline to giue them credit then scoffe â—t them as Heretickes do For that the scoffing at these things which they haue no ground of any moment to impugne sheweth but a prophane audacious and Lucianicall spirit And in this case I would demand of M. Barlow what ground he hath to scoffe so at these three miracles here set down as he doth to wit of S. Denisâ— S. Clement S. Gregory of Neocaesarea surnamed by ancient writers Thaumaturgus for the multitude and greaâ—nes of the miracles done by him Is it perhaps for that they are strange and not according to mans reason or vse of things that fall out ordinarily in the world If this were not so they were no myracles What then Do they passe perhaps Gods power to doe them This he wil be ashamed to say What then Hath he any testimonies of authors that auow the contrary and affirme that they were not true This I presume he cannot say whereas wee on the other side haue diuers Authors that affirme the same And if M. Barlow and his fellowes doe belieue many thinges of fact by humane faith for that some one probable Historiographer either Christian or prophane doth recount the same with what reason can they scoffe at vs for giuing credit to these things that are testifed by many Authors As for example the myracle of S. Denis the Areopagite of carrying his head in his hands is testified by Nicephorus Calixtus a Grecian in his second booke of Histories and twentith Chapter and by Symon Metaphrastes another Grecian before him againe in the life of S. Denis and before him againe by Hildewinus Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Denis by Paris vpon the point of eight hundred yeares agone who allâ—adgeth also an other Author elder then himself named Lysbius that had set forth the same in his writings and some other Authors in like manner all which the sayd Hildewinus gathered togeather boâ—h out of Greeke and Latin writers at the request of Ludouicus Pius King of France The other miracle also of Saynt Clement the first who was cast into the sea with an anchor about his necke but not with a milstone as M. Barlow hath deuised and that the sea went three myles backe c. and the rest heere obiected by M. Barlow is mentioned not onlie by the foresaid two Greeke Authors Nicephorus lib. 3. Histor. Cap. 18. and Metaphrastes in vita Clementis but by S. Gregorie of Towers also that liued a thousand yeares agoe in his booke de gloria Martyrum Cap. 35. 36. And no lesse the third of S. Gregory Neocaesarea surnamed Thaumaturgus that he piched his staffe vpon a banke side and kept the riuer from ouerflowing is writtâ—n and testified at large not only by the sayd Necephorus lib. 6. Cap. 17. but by a farre more ancient Father as namely by S. Gregoâ—y Nyssen brother to S. Basil which said holie man hath written the admirable life at large of the aforesaid S. Gregory Thaumaturgus well neere 1300. yeares agone which is extant in his works from the page 918. to 949. and S. Basil himself lib. de Spiritu Sancto Cap. 29. hath touched the same and after repetition of many of his miracles
he endeth thus Sed omnino peâ—longum fuerit Viri percensere miracula qui c. But it should be ouerlong to recyte all his myracles who for the excellency of gyftes bestowed vpon him in that kind wrought by the holy Ghost in all power signes and myracles he is called a second Moyses euen by the very enemies of truth themselues c. Heere then you see what ground iust cause M. Barlow had to scoffe at these myracles as he doth with like ground and spirit at the myracles of the new mynt as he calleth them of the Lady of Hales of the conformities of S. Francis the life of â—â—â—â—rius of M. Garnets countenance in a straw with all which he maketh himselfe sport vpon no other ground then lust of speaking euill And vpon the same might any Infidell or Atheist scoffe at the myracles recorded in the old and new Testament which to humane sense and reason are as impossible as these here alleaged and scorned at by this Minister as the multiplying of loaues walking on the sea a hatchet to rise from the bottome of the water and ioyne it selfe to a handle with the like which in another place I haue handled more at large against M. Sutcliffe and Syr Francis Hastings Next after this he bringeth in other figgs and commeth to scoffe at diuers Indulgences that do pardon sayth he enormous sinnes for innumerable yeares vpon sweet conditions as for kissing two Iron crosses at Saint Peters Church dore 500. yeares of pardon for looking vpon one of the Pence that our Sauiour was sould for 1400. yeares of pardon for behoulding the Crosse vpon the top of S. Iohn Laterans steeple 14000. yeares of pardon and other like â—oyes of his owne inuention which those that liue at Rome are neuer acquaynted with and himself cyteth noe other profe but only noteth in the margent Indulg Rom. liber but where that booke is to be had whether printed or written where it was set forth or with what authority he telleth nothing at all In these partes I am sure it is not to be had or heard of What these good fellowes to make themselues merry and deceaue other men may haue deuised to themselues in England or els where I know not but I suspect the rather for that I do vnderstand that the Hugonots of France deuised a booke not long agoe whose title was Catechismus Iesuitarum set it forth as in their name full fraught with all manner of errors and ignorances which being brought to Rochell by them that had deuised it they could not get it there printed the argument was so absurd and the fraud so manifest and yet now do I see it often alleaged by ProtestaÌ„t writers against them and namely by Thomas Rogers in his late edition of 39. Protestant Articles so as one way or other these people will euer make themselues matter for exclayming against vs be it true or false or neuer so maliciously inuented or peruerted And here I would aske M. Barlow in good earnest whether he do thinke indeed these particulers to be true which here so confidently he hath set downe about the yeares of pardon which he numbreth For that I cannot easily perswade my selfe that in truth of conscience if he haue any he can be of that iudgment and mucâ— lesse in the other clause of slander which immediatly foloweth to wit that Pope Sixtus Quartuâ— graunted forty thousand yeares of pardon to him that would say a praier of his making consisting of about fourty fiue wordes but he bringeth no other proof at all for thesame but his owne bare word And the reason by himselfe alleadged why it was granted conuinceth â—he same of a manifest lye fictioÌ„ which reason is â—or because his Catholicks qâ—â—â—h he might not complaine that the Protestants satisfaction was easier then theirs yet was there noe name of Protestant knowne in the world in Pope Sixtus Quartus tyme nor a good while after for that there passed foure Popes betwene him and Leo decimus vnder whome Luther began vnder him the name of Protestants soe as Sixtus Quartus could not haue that consideration of ProtestaÌ„ts in his Indulgence which M. Barlow hath deuised And would any learned man fal into such absurdyties and so shew his ignorance both in things times Againe in his very first entrance to this Calumniation he vttereth two or three grosse vntruthes which are inexcusable when he affirmeth that Popes doe pardon enormous sinnes for innumerable yeares vpon sweet conditioÌ„s For first they pardon no sinnes at all by Indulgences and much lesse enormous sinnes for that Indulgences of the Church in Catholike doctrine as euery man knoweth that hath the least degree of learning therin doe reach only to the remission of temporall punishments due after the guilt of sinne remitted and not of sinne it selfe which câ—nnot be remitted but by the Sacrament of Pennance or vertue therof And it is strange that one profesâ—ing learning as M. Barlow would faine â—eeme to do would eyther erre â—oe grosly or wilfully as here it cannot be denied that he doth But if he be desirous to know better our doctrin herein he may read Cardinall Bellarmine Gregory of Valentia and Francis Suarez in their learned bookes of this argument by them if he vnderstand them he may learne to see his own error acknowledg it also if he haue so much grace Now then seeing that all which hath bene sayd by M. Barlâ—w of Indulgences hath bene only spoken eyther vpon heresy and false relation or of error ignorance or malicious fiction the iudicious Reader may consider how vnworthy an argument this was for M. Barlâ— his little Vniuersity to treat by scoffs before his Maiesty at his repâ—st much more to the purpose had it bene to haue treated substantially and grauely out of the holy Scriptures and Fathers the principall question about this affaire to wit what ample authority Christian Priesthood hath to remit siâ—â—â— in this world wherof S. Chrysostomes bookes de Sacerdotis prouing that Christs Tribunalâ— in heauen hath submitted it selfe in a certaine sort vnâ—o the Priests tribunall vpon earth would haue yealded them ample and graue matter as also many other ancient Fathers Treatises and discourses to the same purpose The other question also that followeth after this whether after the guilt of synne forgiuen there remayneth some temporall punishment to be satisfied eyther in this life or in the next eyther by satisfactory workes here or by fyre there had bene a matter of moment to be discussed and well pondered for that it belongeth to all and â—one can auoid their part therin And to this purpose they might haue considered of diuers Trâ—atises as of Origen Saint Augustine and other Fathers that handle the question at large This then had benâ— to some purpose to be treated before his Maiesty but those other trifling â—oyeâ— here mentioned by M. Barlow of looking vpon the top of a
steeple and the like are vnfit both for his Maiesties â—ares and presence But now he doth insinuate further that some other figgs also are exhibited now then in that assembly 〈◊〉 bitter then these as namely about the Powder-traitours and absoluing them by the Iesuites Those dreadfull cruel positions also saith he of Popes deposing Kings exposing them to murther incyting their subiects to rebellion and determining such parricide be to meritorious c. And furthermore what an excellent vaine both Popes hâ—â—e in figging ech other away by poison and Iesuits too as the Priests relate in dispatching with such pleasant pilles any that stand in their light c. Which be meere caluÌ„niations and malicious maledictions vnworthy eyther to be heard by his Maiesty or to be refuted by me as also that insulse insolency of the Minister where he maketh his Maiesty to vse those odious words against all of the Catholike religioÌ„ O Romanistae seruum pecus O Romanists slauish beastsâ— as though there were no Princes and Monarches of that religion that might take in euill part this insolencie of the malepart Minister as if it had some allowance from his Maiesty for that in his name he speaketh it doth dedicate his booke vnto him And thus much about this point of adulation wherunto also I must add one thing more tending to the same effect and much talked of at this present both at home and abroad which is That these new Maisters of the little Vniuersity and other their friendes haue perswaded his Maiestie that they are valiant men in writing against their Aduersaries and would performe great exploytes therin if besides their Vniuersities Cathedrall Churches they had some speciall Colledge of writers erected for that purpose which men say is appointed to be at Chelsey and that the matter is very forward and that his Maiesty hath assigned therunto both situation of a house and other great helpes which if it be so I doubt not but that it proceedeth from him out of a most honourable respect for aduancing learning but I assure my selfe this will not serue though there were twenty Colledges more applyed to this end except his Maiestie should giue them a new cause to write oâ— â—or oâ— this betweene Catholikes and Protestants albeyt they multiply books neuer so fast they will neuer be able to write with credit either of them selues or of their founders for that falsity cannot be defended but by â—alshood nor one vntruth but by another and consequently their cause being such as it is their multuplying of writers and increasing the number of bookes is but to multiply their owne disgrace whereof some scantling may be taken in the last two bookes not to speake of any others that haue gone â—orth on the Catholicke side to wit the Reckoning with M. Morton and the Search of Francis VValsingham wherein the proper argument now in hand is treated about true or false writing And yet on the other side if the said designement shall go forward I thinke our English Catholickes will be glad thereof First for that it will honour not a litle their cause it appearing by this that the learneder sort of Protestants do feele the weight of their weapons for the besides the forsaid Vniuersities Scholes Churches they are forced to seeke yet further furniture for their defence Secondly it may be hoped that forraine Catholick Princes hearing of this matter will thinke themselues bound in zeale and honour of their owne Religion to assist in like manner for erection of some House or Colledge for English Catholike writers to defend the same Thirdly it may in reason be expected that this little Vniuersity of Protestant Writers will for their honour and credits sake deale effectually with his Maiestie that the passage of Catholike bookes written in answere vnto theirs may be more free and not so subiect to losse danger and vexation 〈◊〉 â—â—therto they haue bene especially if they be written modestly and to the purpose only for that otherwise it would seeme a very vniust matterâ— to open as it were a Schoole of fence and yet to forbid the entrance of any that would offer to try their manhood and skill with them or as if proposing a goale for runners they would bynd the leggs of such as should runne with them But fourthly and lastly our greateâ—â—â— help of all would be in this case that his Excellent Maiestie as before in part hath bene touched beeing inuited by this occasion to read some bookes of both sides would by the sharpnes of his Great Capacity enlightened with Gods grace discouer in tyme where truth and where falsity remayneth where substance or fraud is stood vpon which would be the greatest benefit that we can possibly desire or wish for at Gods hands for the common benefit of our cause ABOVT TOLERATION OR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE demaunded by humble petition at his Maiesties handes by Catholikes whether it were height of pryde or not AS Also concerning the contention betweene Protestants and Puritans CHAP. IIII. AS by that which hath bene set downe in the former Chapter we haue seene and beheld the good talent that M. Barlow and his fellowes haue in flâ—tering the memory of Queene Elizabeth now dead and his Maiesty liuing so now there ensueth another large Treatise of his that sheweth his iniquity and virulent humor of most bitter calumniation against all sortes of Catholicks for making humble supplication to his Maiesty after his entrance to the Crowne for some liberty of conscience or toleration at least in matters concerning religion which petition though proposed as hath bene sayd with neuer so much humility and prostrate subiection of the petitioners and many most forcible and apparent reasons alleaged for the same yet will M. Barlow needs defend it for a supreme height of Pryde in them to haue hoped for such a matter or made supplication for the same The clemency of his Maiesty saith he wrought in them that height of pride that in confidence therof they directly did expect and assuredly promise vnto themselues liberty of conscience equality in all things with vs his Maiesties most best and faythfull subiects And doe not you see how great and grieuous a charge this is especially if you cut of the second part as you must do to wit equality in all things with Protestants his Maiesties best subiects For this was neuer demaunded in the petition of Catholicks much lesse either directly or indirectly expected and least of all assuredly promised to themselues For then should they haue demaunded also to share equally with Bishops and Ministers in their benefices which we may assure our selus they neuer so much as dreamed of or of other preferments in the common wealth with that equality which heer they are made to haue assured themselues of Their petition then was only for liberty of conscience as hath bene sayd or if not that yet at least wise some moderate toleration of
and defy this communion in fayth with them and haue set forth whole bookes to proue the same which were too long here to repeate Yea Caluinian and Zwinglian Ministers themselues are witnesses hereof in many of their Treatises as namely the Tigurine Deuines who confesse that theyr differences and contentions with the Lutherans are about Iustification Free-will the Ghospell the law the Person of Christ his descent into hell of Gods election of his children to life euerlasting de multis alijs non leuis momenti articulis of many more articles of no small importance which is euident for that Ioannes Sturmius another Zwinglian or Caluinist addeth other controuersies as of the Supper of our Lord and Reall Presence of Predestination of the Ascension of Christ to heauen his sitting at the right hand of his Father and the like adding also that the Lutherans do hould the Protestant Caluinian Churches of England France Flanders and Scotland for Hereticall and their Martyrs for Martyrs of the Diuell And conforme to these their writings are their doinges and proceedings with them where they haue dominion for that they admyt them not to cohabitation nor to the common vse of marriage betweene them nor to be buryed with them after theyr deaths as they well know who haue liued or do liue among them And thus much for the Lutherans of the one syde Now let vs see somewhat also of the Purytans of the other And first of all this matter hath beene handled dyuers times and demonstrated by Catholicke English wryters of our dayes agaynst this absurd assertion of M. Barlow that the differences at this day betweene Protestants and Purytans are not at all concerning religion nor of any substantiall and essentiall poyntes thereof but only Ceremoniall and in particuler the same is conuinced and made most manifest in the Preface of a late Booke intituled An answere to the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports where the different grounds of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power betweene Protestants Puritans and Catholickes being examined it is found that their differences are such as cannot possibly stand togeather to make one Church and house of saluation but that if one hath the truth the other must necessarily remayne in damnable error which is euident also by the writings of Protestants themselues especially by the bookes intituled Dangerous positions set forth and imprinted at London 1593. and the Suruey ofpretended holy discipline made as they say by him that is now Lord of Canterbury and Doctor Sutcliffe as also the Booke intituled the Picture of a Purytan writen by O. O. of Emanuel printed 1603. and other like bookes But especially at this time will I vse for proofe of this poynt the testimony of Thomas Rogers Minister and Chaplin as he styleth himselfe to his Lord of Canterbury who of late hauing set forth by publike authority the fayth doctrine and religion of England expressed in 39. articles vpon the yeare 1607. doth in his Preface to his said Lord haÌ„dle this matter of the differences betweene the Puritans and Protestantes though partially agaynst the discontented brethren he being theyr aduersary but yet setteth downe out of their owne words what their iudgment is of the importance and moment of the controuersyes betwene them to wit that they are not only about Ceremonies and circumâ—tances as M. Barlow pretendeth but about poyntes contayned in scripture in the very Ghospell it selfe They are compryzed say they in the booke oâ— God and also be a part of the Ghospell yea the very Ghospell it selfe so true are they and oâ— such importance that if euery hayre of our head were a life we ought to affâ—ard them all in defence of these matters and that the articles of religion penned and agreed vpon by the Bishops are but childish toyes in respect of the other So they And will any man thinke or say now that these men doe not hould that theyr differences with the Protestants are differences in religion as M. Barlow sayth or that they are only matters of ceremonyes and not of any one substantiall poynt concerning religion Let vs heare them yet further telling theyr owne tale and related by M. Rogers The controuersy betwene them and vs say they of the Protestants is not as the Bishops and their welwillers beare the world in hand for a cap or tippet or a Surplisse but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry and regiment of the Church according to the word of God The first wherof which is a true Ministry they Protestants shall neuer haue till Bishops and Archbishops be put downe and all Ministers be made equall The other also will neuer be brought to passe vntill Kings and Queenes doe subiect themselues vnto the Church and doe submit their Scepters and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and licke vp the dust of the feete of the Church and willingly abyde the Censures of the Church c. This they write and much more in that placeâ— which I trow is more then M. Barlow ascribeth vnto the matter For if it be contayned in Gods booke yea a part oâ— the Ghospell the very Ghospell it selfe about which they contend what proterâ—ity is it on the other part to call it a matter only of Ceremony But yet further within two pages after agayne they doe explayne themselues and theyr cause more in particuler saying Our controuersy with the Protestants is whether Iesus Christ shal be King or no and the end of all our trauell is to bâ—yld vp the walls of Ierusalem and to set vp the throne of Iesus Christ 〈◊〉 heauenly king in the myddest thereof And are these poyntes also not substantiall nor any wayes touching religion but Ceremonies Harken then yet further what they do inferre vpon the Protestantes Church for dissenting from them in these pointes Neyther is there among them say they a Church or 〈◊〉 least wise no true Church neither are they but titular Christians no true Christians indeed And yet will M. Barlow continue to say that there is no difference at all in Religion and that I lyed when I sayd that his Maiesty yeelded to a Conference between Protestants Puritans concerning their differences of Religion VVhat will he answere to the two precedent members touched by the Puritans to witâ— that their strife is for a true Ministry a lawfull gouermeÌ„t therof expounding their meaning to be that for obtaining the first all Bishops and Archbishops must be put downe for the second all temporall Princes Kings Queenes must leaue their superiority ouer the Church submit themselues and their Crownes vnto the same Church to wit their Presbyteries as M. Rogers expoÌ„deth their words And is there no substantiall point neyther in all this but only matter of Ceremony And doth not the very life soule of the Church depend of these two things a true Ministry and lawful Head Is not the power of preaching teaching administration of
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
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
thither For now we haue shewed that Pope Alexander the third died in the yeare 1181. which was sâ—aueÌ„ yeares before Fredericke resolued to weare the Crosse and wage that baâ—taile and more then 8. before his arriuall into Armenia where he was drowned And here to vrge M. Barlow with a Dilemma Eyther he knew this diuersity of time I meanne of the Popes death and Frederickes expedition for the holy-land when he wrot his booke or he knew it not If the first then is he very shameles and malicious who contrary to his owne knowledge and conscience would deceaue his Reader in a printed booke and that in so triumphant manner as you haue heard If he knew it not then truly he is very ignorant and vnworthy to write in defence of so great a Monarch as his Maiestie is and withall very negligent that would not so much as see search his Authors or els very foolish and simple if he would haue vs belieue him without any other authority or proofe then his bare word which I thinke of his next neighbours will not be taken for much And by this example the Reader may know how hereafter to trust him in other places when he vaunteth and braggeth of aduantages for these are but suddaine pangs wherunto the desperatenes of his cause doth driue him when no other answere can be made For what is true or vntrue â—e seemeth to care little or not to seeke much but only indeauoreth to intertaine talke and get his fee and yet this is the man who in his Epistle to his Maiestie thinketh me too weak to dispute with him and so braggeth of himselfe as that he hath neither dallied nor deluded his Reader yea so farre is he confident in this his answere that he sayth he assureth himself security â—rom any sound Reply thereto fâ—oÌ„ me But what eyther of vs haue done in this kind he for Answere or I for Reply not he nor I but the Reader must iudge And yet heere I dare bouldly interpose thus far also mine owne Iudgement that if M. Barlow be no more exact in other thinges then he hath bene in this let him brag as much as he list flatter himselfe with the conquest before euer he see his Aduersaries weapons let him â—ound out his owne triumphes in euery page of his booke and make himselfe as glorious as he can yet it wil be more easâ—e then prayse worthy for any aduersary to refute him seeing his proâ—es are euery where so weake his lies so frequent his citations so corrupt and the whole order method of his discourse so patched harsh and disioynted to speake nothing of his rayling flattery and slanderous detractions as like the apples of Gomorrha with a light touch all wil resolue to smoke and dust as any one who with indifferent attention shall reade ouer the same will soone confesse For what now I pray you is become of all this sharpe charge and virulent accuâ—ation of Pope Alexander Is it not euidently demonstrated vpon the diuersity of the time of Fredericks being in Asia and death of the said Pope to be counterfait to be false to be impossible I thinke M. Barlow will not affiâ—me that Pope Alexander by speciall priuiledge before the generall resurrection did rise againe from death to life to dispatch this busines of betraying the Emperour and yet I call back my word againe for I see by this charge that he is resolutelâ— bent to affirme any thing And this priuiledge the poore man must confesse or else cry guilty against himselfe of as many lyes as there be lines in his accusation to speake the least for here is no pinching instance but a forged fiction no betraying of the Emperour whiles he was in the Holy-Land no letters no pictures no Pope Alexander then liuing noe feare of annoyance to the Romish Sea with which at that time Frederick was vnited in all loue and freindship at Pope Clements request vndertoke that enterprize which M. Barlow truly calleth the fighting in Christes quarrell though it were not for the Protestant Ghospell but for the preseruation of the Catholicke faith in the Holy-Land which this Minister and his Mates in their Bedlam bookes and Sermons call Idolatryâ— the VVhore of Babylon Antichrist and the like But it was sufficient with M. Barlow in this place to make it Christes quarrell because he meant to force it against the Pope such is the wit conscience and sinceritie of the man And truly in this place seing the truth so cleere and testimonies of Authors so consonaÌ„t I was somwhat moued with curiosity to see if eyther in the Apology of the last editioÌ„ with the Monitory Epistle or the Torturers book there were any thing more said for this fable in supply of M. Barl. defect silence in the same In the former I only found meÌ„tioned the History of Fredericke written in dutch in the other many names as the dutch Historie our English Bale Scardius the German Caluinist and besides theÌ„ Barnus Ioannes Marius Cremonensis but all this noyse is but emptie wind all these witnesses but one and he scant worth the taking vp For this dutch Historie Scardius is all one and so is Scardius and Bale the one taking it out of the other the three Catholike names if they be Catholickes serue but for Cyphers to fill vp paper for no words of theirs are cited no workes extant of this matter that we can heare of vnles perhaps lately printed at Amaurâ—t in Vtopia anno magno Platonis and so conuayed into England amongst our Ministers And as for the narration of Bale in his Centuries of this Fredericks death it is so frought with lies those grosse palpable ill coherent and incredible as a learned writer of our age hauing refuted many of theÌ„ addeth in the end his censure or iudgemeÌ„t of the Author in these words Piget taedetque plura vanissima Balai meÌ„dacia percensere quae adeo sunt enormia vt posteros nostros vix puteÌ„ credituros fieri potuisse vt hoc saculum nostruÌ„ tam eâ—â—rontes criminatores caluÌ„niatores protulerit That is to say It doth loath and trouble me to recount more lyes of this most vaine Bale in this matter of Fredericke which are so grosse or enormous as I scarcely perswade my selfe that those who shall liue after vs wil euer be brought to think it credible that this age of ours hath brought forth such shameles accusers and slanderers So he And if any list to make tryall hereof let him turne to the place here by me cyted and he will desire no more satisfaction in this behalfe but for euer after loath from his hart so lying a Mate And here the Reader may with himselfe consider that if we against the knowne testimony written histories of former tymes should alleadge to the contrary our onely bare assertions as M. Barlow doth in this without further authority coniecture or proofe how would our
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.
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
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