Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	canonical_a	holy_a	scripture_n	5,721	5	6.0092	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09103	A discussion of the ansvvere of M. VVilliam Barlovv, D. of Diuinity, to the booke intituled: The iudgment of a Catholike Englishman liuing in banishment for his religion &c. Concerning the apology of the new Oath of allegiance. VVritten by the R. Father, F. Robert Persons of the Society of Iesus. VVhervnto since the said Fathers death, is annexed a generall preface, laying open the insufficiency, rayling, lying, and other misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.; Coffin, Edward, 1571-1626.	1612 (1612)	STC 19409; ESTC S114157	504,337	690

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 him● 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 quàm 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 cra●as cum lachrymis sepeliebas mortous derelinquebas prandium tuum c. ego obtuli ●●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 King● 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 bo●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. Isiodo●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 contēpt calleth a ciuil co●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 ●●im misericordiae praemium 〈◊〉 p●na for that the punishment of death was the prince of mercy S. Cyprian also that holy Bishop and Martyr long before S. Amb●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 in●●r●it dicens bona est oratio cum ieiunio ●leemosyna therfore the dyuine Scripture in●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 Cyprian● which is full contrary to M. Barlowes Diuinity But let vs heare our S. Cypriā in the same place Nam qui in die Iudicij praemium pro operibus c. For

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 all● 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 ●a● laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue ●●insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and gr●●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 vnlw●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 cōscience 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 ●hen doth it not touch religiō 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 pre●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 su●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 her● librum aliquem al●●m n●ndum in Can●nem recep●um Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes

and Cl●ments Constitu●ions before mentioned So teacheth Doctor Stapleton and the reason of his saying is for that the authority of the Church is the same now shal be vnto the worlds end as it was in the first ages to iudge of Scriptures when occasion is offered And if the Church should admit any such booke now into the Canon of holy Scriptures which was not held for Scripture before which yet is a case not like to fall out then should no● this booke be made Scripture by the Church but only declared to be such which was so from the beginning though not so knowne declared So as the Church in this case should not giue infallibility of truth vnto the booke but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost that this booke was such from the beginning though not so accepted So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in cyting Doctour Stapletons words first to conceale his first condition Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret if the holy Ghost should suggest the same vnto the Church and then these other two conditions if it were written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose to make M. Doctour Stapletons speach to appeare more naked and improbable but indeed it was to keep his old custome which is neuer commonly to relate things truly in all respects in any citation whatsoeuer His second obiection is out of Bishop Fisher VVho sayth quoth he that whatsoeuer the Pope with a Councell deliuereth vs to be belieued that is to be receiued as an Article of fayth which we graunting to be true do ad only this that it is to be vnderstood according to our former declaration and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it against ●uther out of Scotus saying Non quòd ●unc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but ●or that it did declare it to be true and to haue bene deliuered by God and this by direction of the holy Ghost promised by our Sauiour to the Church So sayth Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neyther the Church nor the Pope Head therof do pretend to make any new Article of fayth that was not in it selfe an article of fayth before yea and so belieued also fide implicita by implyed fayth in the faith of the Church but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to haue byn such from the beginning though not so knowne or declared and therfore men were not bound to belieue it fide explicita by expresse fayth as now they are after the Churches definition and declaration therof And that this is the common sense of all Catholicke Deuines according to my former wordes that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much adoe as though it were false is proued among other learned men of our dayes by Gregorius de Valentia whose wordes are that it is Sententia communis Theologorum the common opinion of Deuines for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors principall Schoolemen And his whole discourse founded vpon Scriptures Fathers Councells and other arguments consisteth in this that as whatsoeuer is now belieued by the Church for matter of fayth was in substance belieued before in all other precedent ages vnto Christes time actu fidei implicito by an implyed act of fayth that is to say the belieuing in generall whatsoeuer the Church belieued so many thinges are now belieued by the Church actu fidei explicito by expresse fayth which were not so belieued before for that the Church frō time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clearly and expresly which before were belieued by an implied faith only As for example the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the p●oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne as was afterward declared vnto vs by the Church but that it belieued the same yet may we not deny but that it belieued the same not fide explici●a but implicita only And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications therof made by the subsequent Councels about the vnity of the Person differēt Natures in Christ that his Mother should be called the Mother of God were belieued implicitè by those of the Councel of Nyce and consequently were then also Articles of faith though they were not belieued by them explicitè as we are bound to do after the explication made by the Church Let vs conclude therfore with Bishop Fi●●ers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tame●si nequeat Sum●●● Pontisex c. That albeit the Pope with a Councel that is to say the Catholick Church cannot make any thing true or false that is not true or false of it selfe and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith yet whatsoeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs as an Article of faith that al true Christians ought to belieue as an Article of faith which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth Thus Bishop Fisher whome you see how impertinently M. Barlow alleadgeth against my assertion saith the very same that I do Let vs go forward Thirdly then he obiecteth S. Thomas of Aquine who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith some more large and some more briefe demandeth to whome appertayneth noua Editio Symboli the new Edition of a Creed when the necessity of new heresies doth require And he sayth it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church And what is this against me Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed though he were not Pope with addition of many Articles for explanations sake which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed though in substāce of truth they were nothing different Did not diuers Councells set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before All which standeth vpon this ground so much pondered by ● Irenaeus that the Apostles had all truth reuealed vnto them by Christ and they left the same in the Church so as whatsoeuer is or hath or shal be added afterward by the said Church are only explications of that first reueiled truth and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the cōtrary is to no purpose at al for he citeth diuers authors for that which we deny not but yet alwaies commonly with addition of some vntruth of his owne as heere he alleadgeth out of the Iesuit Azor that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei Doctrines of faith which we deny not but when he addeth that this belongeth vnto the Pope only and not to a Councel this is his owne inuention for Azor ioyneth them

fayth This was the summe of my answer and the Cardinalls booke comming out afterwards hath the same in effect in these words Distinguish the tymes you shal agree the Scriptures Iudas belieued and was iust and good in the beginning of his election but afterward he yealded to the tempter and not only did not belieue but became a thief also and betrayed his Lord and lastly hanged himselfe So he And now what do you think that M. Barlow out of his ingeniosity will find to bring for maintenance that this was a true contradiction in Bellarmine Truly he will adventure far to find somewhat though it be to his owne shame and discredit Let vs heare his mad defence ioyning●sayth ●sayth he of the Aduerbe verè by Bellarmine that Iudas was truly righteous and certainlie good and yet did not belieue makes it a contradiction incurable And to the end that his fraud may be more notorious he writeth the wordes truly certainly and not belieue in great letters But now if you looke vpon Cardinal Bellarmines words you shall find first that he doth not ioyne the aduerbe vere that is truly righteous nor the others of certainly good at all his words are these Domini●o ●o annis 17. Pater quos dedisti mihi custodiui nemo ex eis periji nisi filius perditionis Si Pater de dit illum Filio certe bonus erat That Iudas was sometimes iust S. Hierome doth proue out of the words of S. Iohn 17. Father I haue kept those that thou hast giuen me and none haue perished but the sonne of perdition If God the Father gaue him to his Sonne truly he was then good Heere then you see that there is no ●ere iustus truly righteous as M. Barlow hath thrust into Bellarmines words And albeit he sayth certe bonus erat yet certe is not referred to bonus as is euident These are then two willfull corruptions But the third is much more eminent that he maketh Bellarmine to say that notwithstanding that Iudas was truly righteous and certainely good yet did he not belieue Wheras Bellarmine sayth he did belieue and so is it set downe in the forme it selfe of the obiected contradiction saying that first he did belieue when he was chosen an Apostle and that then he was iust but afterward he lost his faith and did not belieue And now wil M. Barlow for making vp of some shew of contradiction against Bellarmine make him say that at the one and the selfe same tyme Iudas was truly righteous certaynely good and yet not belieued And to shew that this is an absurd proposition he maketh a long discourse out of Scriptures and Fathers to proue that without fayth a man cannot be truly righteous nor certainely good as though Cardinall Bellarmine had denied the same Is there any shame in these men But after this againe he goeth further in another place demanding whether supposing Iudas to haue belieued at the beginning his fayth were ●ormata or no that is informed by grace working by charity ●llead●ging Aquinas in these words Surely in him that hath such a ●aith Aquinas sayth nihilinest damnationis there is no damnation For being once had it cannot totally and finally be lost nor is it more separable from him then the essentiall forme of any thing frome the subiect which it denominates Thus he And will not euery man that readeth these words thinke that Aquinas doth hould all this doctrine heere auerred that fides formata once had cannot be finally lost M. Barlow hath holpen the matter the best he can to deceaue his Reader in not citing any place of Aquinas where he houldeth this for that he could not do it but they that are acquinted with Aquinas his bookes and doctrine know him expresly to teach the cōtrary as the Reader may see if he li●t to peruse the places here quoted where he purposly proueth that charitas semel habita potest ami●●i and for that charity is the forme of faith it followeth by necessary consequence that fides formata to wit a iustifying faith may in Aquinas his opiniō be lost and herof no Catholicke Deuine can doubt So as the impudency was strange in charging Aquinas with this which is the proper heresie of Iohn Caluin but much more that in the very place whence this pretended contradiction about Iudas is taken to wit out of Bellarmines third booke de Iustificatione Bellarmine doth proue by eight examples out of Scriptures the quite contrary to wit that fayth and iustice being once had may be lost againe What will M. B●●low answere to all this wil not his friends blush for him in this behalfe Or will not euery iudicious Reader make a pause here and say that it is a strange misery of a cause in religion which cannot be defended but with such grosse palpable falshoods Let vs leaue thē these obiected contradictions and passe to some other things The Cardinal hath answered al the rest him selfe nor did I think it good that wrot besore him to preuent him therin nor yet to ●asse any further hauing proued these first foure to be such as now you haue seene though M. Barlows defence hath made the matter far worse OF THE CONTENTIONS OF SVNDRY OTHER EMPEROVRS KINGS AND PRINCES with Popes of their times in temporall affaires obiected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Popes Superiority VVHERIN many fraudes and forgeries are discouered in M. Barlow particulerly concerning Fredericke the second and his contentions with Popes CHAP. V. THis argument of the temporall dangers imminent to Princes as is pretended by acknowledging the Popes supreme Authority and of so many hurts and dangers ensuing therof though we haue ●omwhat largely handled before by occasion of the examples obiected of the Emperours Henry the 4. and Henry the 5. yet here are we forced to re●terat● the same argument againe for that many more examples are obiected concerning the sayd Henry the fourth his doing pennance at the Ca●tle of Canusium inforced therunto by Pope Gregory the 7. as also of the Emperour Fredericke the 1. forced by Pope Alexander the third to lye a groo●e on his belly and to suffer the other to tread on his neck of Philip the Emperour sayd to be slaine by Otho at the Popes motion of the Emperour Fredericke the second excommunicated and depriued by Pope Innocentius the 4. procured afterward to be poisoned that Pope Alexander the third wrote to the Souldan to poison the Emperour sent him his picture to that effect that Pope Alexander the sixt caused the brother of Baiazetes the Turkish Emperour named Gemen to be poisoned at his brothers request and had two hundred thousand crowns for the same That our King Henry the second besides his going barefoote on pilgrimage was whipped vp and downe the Chapterhouse like a schoole boy and glad to ●scape so too That the Father of the moderne King of France was

CARDINALL what dignity title it is pag. 8. Cardinall Bellarmine abused by M. Barlow pag. 80. his Letter to the Archpriest discussed pag. 345. deinc●ps his opinion of the Oath of Allegiance p. 346. 347. deinceps cleered from false imputation pag. 386. 387. defended from Contradictiōs pag. 432. 442. 443. 448. 449. Charles the Great Emperour his zeale in reformation of manners in the Clergy pag. 313. Ch●lsey erection for wryters pag. 248. Clement 8. his Breues sent into England pag. 342. Clergymen freed from secular burthēs whence it first proceeded pag. 371. L. Cooke Chiefe Iustice of the Cōmon Pleas his booke of Arraignments pag. 188. his definition of Misery by Copia ●nopia ibid. his poore Deuinity pag. 190. Conscience erroneous how and when it bindeth p. 33. 277. Contentions betweene Popes and Emperours pag. 480. deinceps Controuersie betweene S. Gregory and Mauritius the Emperour pag. 304. Councell of A●les how it submitted it selfe to the Emperour pag. 313. Councells Generall alwayes assembled by the B. of Rome p. 320. Councell of Millaine corrupted by M. Barlow pag. 33● Councell 4. of Toledo in Spaine of the Oath prescribed to Subiects therin pag. 365. d●inceps Difference betweene that the Oath of Allegiance pag. 381. 384. falsified by M. Barlow pag. 369. Whether it agreed with the Protestant Church of England 377. S. Cyprians iudgment of such as dy out of the Catholik Church pag. 222. D DESCENDING of Christ into hell pag. 377. Difference Essentiall betweene Protestants Puritans praef n. 32. Differen●e between the writing of F. Persons M. Barlow praef n. 132. Diuells concurrence with M. Barlow pag. 450. Diuinity of M. Barlow carnall p. 133. fit for the Court pag. 177. Diuision of the worke pag. 2. Doct●ine of the Church not preiudicated by euill life p. 147. E EARLE of E●sex his Confession reuealed by M. Barlow p. 22. Preached against by him 212. Edward vide Cooke Eleazar his glorious death for not eating of swines flesh pag. 541. Q. Elizabeth her life discussed pa●t 2. cap. 1. 2. per totum Her manes pag. 161. 166. Canonized for a Saint by M. Barlow p●g 164. praef n. 114. her Mortifications pag. 168. § 2. per totum No cloistred Nunne ● 170. her Felicities Infelicities part 2. cap. 2. per totum her birth pag. 201. her sicknes and death pag. 209. § 3. her Purgation about the Q. of Scotlands death pag. 215. her disastrous end pag. 216. 217. held for an Heretike pag. 226. How she was a ioy Iewell to the Christian world pag. 422. her Illegitimation p. 424. declared by her owne Father in Parlament pag. 426. nec Virgo nec Martyr praef n. 115. Equiuocation not lawfull in matters of Religion pag. 30. confounded with lying by M. Barlow pag. 384. 385. Excommunication of Princes practised in the Primitiue Church pag. 102. F FAITH diuine humane distinguished pag. 392. Feli●ities and Infelicites of Q. Elizabeth part 2. c. 2. per totum Felicity temporall no argument of spirituall p. 181. 182. 183. Anciēt Fathers discourses therupon p. 184. 185. 186. Festiuities Masses of Saints p. 379. B. Fisher abused by M. Barlow p. 328. Flattery of his Maiesty by Mininisters part● 2. cap. 3. per totum of the nature of flattery p. 231. Fox his rabble of Martyrs p. 233. F●edericke the first Emperour his submission to the Pope p 466. Fredericke the second his contention with Popes pag. 480. deinceps his voyage to the holy land 481. 48● his counterfait sicknes ibid. his vices and bad life pag. 514. his barbarous cruelty 517. his blasphemy 519. Gods punishment laid vpō him 520. G F. Garnets face in the straw p. 23. Gemen the Turke poysoned pag. 533. Gracchus abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. S. Gregory rayled at by M. Barlow praef n. 108. H HEAD of the Protestant Church monstrous p. 200. Henry vide Wotton Henry the 4. Emperour taken vp again out of his graue after buriall pag. 398. His deposition 411. Henry the 5. Emperour his insurrection against his father pag. 410. Henry the 3. of France his murder pag. 414. Henry the 8. of England iniured by M. Barlow pag. 428. Henry the 2. of England his absolution pag. 463. Henry the 6. Emperour his coronation pag. 466. S. Hieromes Discourse of felicity and infelicity pag. 185. Hope cannot stand without certainty of faith praef n. 48. Huldericus Mutius a Lutheran pag. 398. Hypocrisy what it is and what is the marke of an hypocrit p. 91. I IAMES vide King Idolatry suspition not cause of feare alwayes pag. 118. M. Iewell contrary to himselfe pr●f n. 41. Immunity of the Clergy whence it first proceeded pag. 371. Inconstancy vide ●arlow Infelicity vide Felicity Infidels denyed Christian buriall 408. also Heretikes and excōmunicated persons ibid. Innocentius the 4. Pope abused by M. Barlow pag. 509. 510. 511. his death lamentation therof 513. 514. Io●n vide Fox Syr Io●n Cu●● abused by M. Barlow in the pulpit praf n. 112. Ios●phs●●lling ●●lling into Egypt p. 421 K KING Iames said to be the Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance part 1. cap. 11 § 1. Why his Maiesty was not named in the booke pag. 5. that he neuer ●ead the booke ●ttenti●ely ibid. Iniured by M. Barlow pag. 12. flattered by Ministers egregiously part 2. cap. 3. per totum His mild disposition diuerted pag. 230. Kings their vices recounted in Scripture pag. 199. King Henry the 2. of England his absolution pag. 46● King Henry the 4. of France his Embassador at Rome and the Ceremony of publike absolution pag. 465. L S. LEO rayled at by M. Barlow ●raf n. 108. 109. Liberty of Conscience demaunded by all forraine Protestants p. 256● Liberty of Conscience vide toleration M MACHIAVELS principles agree with Protestāt doctrine pag. 390. Maister what it signifieth how it is a title of honour pag. 9. Marriage of Priests and M. Barlows forgery therabout p. 373. Decree of the Councell of Toledo against the same pag. 374. 375. 376. Martyrs in Q. Elizabeths dayes pag. 206. Medina misunderstood by M. Barlow p. 43. explicated 44. 45. M●ri● of workes pag. 377. Misery defined by the L. Cooke pag. 188. Moone in the Asses belly p. 103. Monkes punished liuing disorderly pag. 380. M. Morton canuased pag 73. 74. his abuse of Salmeron 75. Mortification of M. Barlow pag. 126. of Q. Elizabeth pag. 163. externall Mortification and internall pag. 169. 171. 176. Mortification for Princes pag. 177. Mortification in time of Lent pa. g 376. N NABVchodonosors punishment pag. 195. more happy then Q. Elizabeth ibid. Ne●o Domiti●n Heades of the Church in M. Barlowes opinion pag. 200. O OATH of Allegiance discussed part● 1. cap. 1. 2. per totum whether the taking of it be a blessing from God p. 37. part 1. c. 4. per totum what freedome the taking thereof bringeth to Catholikes p. 39. coufuted both at home and