Ely of whome whiles he was silent many had some opinion of learning but since all is resolued to lying immodest rayling and some few light Terentian Plautinian phrases which aswel bâ—seeme a Deuine writing in matters of such moment and in defence of so great a Monarch to dally withall as it doth a Bishop to lead a morrice-daunce in his hose and dublet This man I say answereth hereunto that perhaps so the case stood then when those Protestants did write but that is well neere 20. yeares agoe but now it is otherwise Which is asmuch as if he had said that this new beliefe in England is not like the old alwayes one but is refined altered with the tyme and therefore no argument can be drawne from a thing done 20. yeares past for that is to great antiquity for so new-fangled a fayth which is alwaies in motion and hath her waynes changes quarters and full like the Moone But yet I must aske him further how he will proue by any example of the Puritan writers this their change and submission to the Protestants conformity of doctrine with theÌ„ more now then 20. yeares past Are they not still in the same degree of difference and oppositioÌ„ as before Doe they not still deny our Sauiours descent into hell Do they not disclay me from the English Hierarchie Will they acknowledge the Kings Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall as King Henry did challenge it Or will they recall what they haue written of their discipline that it is an essentiall marke of the Church without which there were no Church no Faith no Ghospell and consequently the Protestants to be no Ghospellers to be out of the Church out of the number of the faithfull 29. But for further confutation of both these Superintendents and more cleere explication of the thing it selfe besides what is afterwards said in this booke touching this point it shall not be amisse here to set downe the words of a few Protestant and Puritan late and yet liuing writers what they iudge of ech other in this affayre that our very enemyes may be iudges of the most shamefull assertion of these two Prelates That the Protestants and Puritans differ in matters only cerimoniall and agree in essentiall And the reason that I produce no more in this kind is for want of their bookes which being not worth the sending so far seldome come to our hands I will begin with the Protestants 30. And to omit Thomas Rogers whose testimony is after to be produced in the Discussion it selfe what other thing doth Oliuer Ormerod in his discouery of Puritan-Papisme annexed to his Picture of a Puritan prooue but that the said Puritans are Hereticks and haue ioyned themselues with the Pharisies Apostolickes Arians Pebuzians Petrobusians Florinians Câ—rinthiaÌ„s Nazarens Begardines Ebionites Catababdites Eâ—theusiasts Donatists Iouinianists Catharists And least any should thinke that this coniunction is only in matters cerimonial he laieth to their charge these ensuing heresies that there is no diuersâ—â—y between a Priest and a Bishop that Bishops haue no iuâ—isdiction that all synnes be equall that the Minister is of the essence of baptisme with the like And in the second dialogue he maketh in plaine tearmes this obiection that there is no difference in matters fundamentall but accidentall and then answereth the same that they do differ from the Protestants in some things that are fundamentall and substantiall which he proueth by the article of Christs descending into hell And he might haue proued it further by the aboue rehearsed articles for which Iouinian Aerius and others were reputed by the auncient Fathers and condemned for Hereticks 31. VVith this Oliuer of Cambridge agreeth A. N. of Oxford in his Bible-bearer towards the midest for thus he writeth They refuse to subscribe to the Kings lawfull authority in causes Ecclesiasticall to the article of religion to the booke of Common prayer and the orders rites and cerimonies of our Church nay they dissent from vs in things accidentall and cerimoniall So he By which last antithesis of accidentall cerimoniall differences it is most euident that the former were essentiall fundamentall Neither doe I see how this can be denyed by any for if the Puritans refuse to subscribe to the articles of Protestant religion who seeth not that they approue it not and consequently differ in essentiall points and that M. Barlow ouerlashed very much when he wrote that their vnkind quarrell with Puritans was in another kind and not in matters of religion wherein forsooth out of his great kindnes he will haue them to agree 32. And not to stand more for proofe hereof from Protestants D. Couel cleereth the matter when he saith But least any man should thinke that our contentions were but in smaller points and the difference not great both sides haue charged the other with heresies if not infidelities nay euen such as quite ouerthrow the principall foundation of our Christian faith Thus he And this I thinke is another manner of matter then externall cerimonies or accidentall differences for if this be not a plaine iarre amongst Protestants and Puritans in Religion I would faine know what M. Barlow will more require thereunto but I see S. Gregories wordes verified in these men where he saith solent haeretici alia apertè dicere alia occultè cogitare the heretikes are wont to speake otherwise openly then inwardly they thinke for when they deale amongst themselues then are Protestants and Puritans heretikes and infidells to ech other but when they answere vs then all are friendes all good Christians all vnited in doctrine deuided only in cerimonies accidentall differences This is another manner of equiuocation then any of our schooles will allow and only fit for such as are his schollers qui in veritate non stetit sed mendax fuit ab initio 33. From Protestants I come to Puritans who in this case are no lesse eager playne and resolute then the Protestants but rather more for this in expresse tearmes the Author of the Twelue generall arguments concludeth against all the Superintendents of England togeather that they are Vsurpers and Tyrants and execute an vsurped power ouer the Church and one reason to proue the same is ex concessis for that their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction is deriued from the King else say they it is a flat deniall of his Supremacy as there they shew And in the next reason which is the 4. and last brought in for proofe of their assumption or minor thus they conclude There are no true and sober Christians but will say that the Churches of Scoâ—land France the Low Countryes and other places that renounce such Archbishops and Bishops as ours are as Anti-christian and vsurping Prelates are true Churches of God which they could not be if the authority prerogatiues they claime to themselues were of Christ and not vsurped for if it were the ordinance of Christ
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
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
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
put to the horne at Edenburrough 19. In another place going about to proue that the Right which the Church hath against heretikes eyther for their conuersion or chastisement is Ius innatum bred within it inseparable from it how thinke yow doth he proue the same against F. Pâ—rsons who sayd that is was Ius acquisitum Very pithily yow may imagine for thus he writeth No sooner was there a Church designed but this right was annexed Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis as the enmity for contradiction so the right for suppression is natiue Thus M. Barlow no more And is not this well proued thinke yow The seed of the woman shall bruze the serpents head that is Christ the Sonne of the Virgin shall ouercome the diueâ— ergo it is Ius innatum to punish heretikes Me thinkes this argument proues M. Barlow more to be a Naturall then any natiue right to be in the Church For what is there here to signify the Church to signify heretikes to signify this in-bred right Truly I see no more coherence betweene the Scripture and the foresaid argument then I see in this which followes Our Sauiour cured a man of the palsy ergo M. Barlow is troubled with the gout But let vs go on 20. Last of all for adding to the holy text what more euident example can be desired then that which he bringeth out of Deuteronomy to proue that bloudy artycle of the Kinges Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes Bloudy I say for that more effusion of bloud of Ecclesiasticall men hath bene made for that one point enacted by Parlament then by all the lawes of former tymes for the space of a thousand yeares togeather which yet is not only by all Catholikes denyed reiected by Caluin and the Puritans but vtterly condemned also by the Lutherans and all learned Protestants Against all which M. Barlow will needes proue by Scripture this vsurped authority saying God in his Word hath appointed Kinges to be Guardians of bâ—th the Tables to commaund prohibite not in ciuill affaires only but in matters also concerning religion saith S. Augustine and citeth Deuteron 17. 18 verse But in our bookes eyther Hebrew Greeke or Latin we fynd no such commission giuen to Kinges nor any one syllable of their being Guardians of both Tables or of any commaund in matters of Religion in this place as elsewhere by the Author of the Supplement he is more fully and roundly tould And so yow see to what desperate attempts this Minister is driuen to defend a falsity 21. Touching the last point which remayned to be treated of M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of diuinity for that it is his chief profession I shall more inlarge my self therein ioyne issue with him in one entire disputation and that not the meanest but rather the chiefest of his whole booke for in no other that I know doth he vse so many tearmes of art or make so great vauÌ„t or shew of learning courage coÌ„fidence as in the same to wit his discourse to proue a contradiction in Bellarmine concerning three Conclusions of his about Iustification and confidence to be reposed in our good workes But before I enter this combate it will not be amisse to let the Reader see some part of his skill in another matter or two that thereby he may take a scaÌ„tling of the rest 22. First then he must know that eyther M. Barlowes choice was so bad or iudgement so small that he neuer almost cyteth the Maister of Sentences S. Thomas of Aquine or other Schoolemen but that he doth commonly very ignorantly mistake them or maliciously bely them or some way or other peruert them For example he maketh S. Thomas to say That if an Vsurper or Intruder commaund thinges vnlawfull yet in those thinges the subiects must notwithstanding obey propter vitandum scandalum aut periculum and then addeth Of this Diuinity Iudge not ti 's their owne But I answere t' is M. Barlowes lye not S. Thomas his Diuinity who answering an argument that the power of many Kinges is vsurped and therefore they not to be obayed saith That a man is â—ound to obey so far forth as the order of Iustice doth require and therefore if they haue not lawfull principality but vsurped or commaund vniust thinges the subiects are not bound to obey them vnles perhaps per accidens for auoyding of scandall or daunger So S. Thomas and here is no mention of vnlawfull things commaunded but of vniust for a King may commaund things that are vniust as that his subiects giue him all the money or goodes they haue whereto for feare of daunger they may yield which they could not doe were the thing of it owne nature vnlawfull which is S. Thomas his expresse doctrine in the next precedent article neyther is there here must notwithstanding obey but the contrary that absolutely they are not bound to obey vnles perhaps it be for some other cause as of scaÌ„dall or daunger in which cases they may to saue their liues or for auoyding the hurt and offence of others doe those thinges which are vniustly commaunded theÌ„ so they be not of their owne nature vnlawfull but only in respect of the CoÌ„maunder who eyther coÌ„trary to iustice or by vsurped authority doth coÌ„maund theÌ„ 23. Of this nature is that graue resolution of his taken as he would haue it seeme from S. Thomas his scholler Medina That to full liberty is required an vnlimited scope for the iudgement to deliberate Of which he shall heare more afterwards for this vnlimited scope for the iudgmeÌ„t is no other thing theÌ„ the vnlimited ignorance of Syr William which passeth all bound measure Againe where he citeth S. Thomas touching actiue passiue scandall which is refuted in this worke at large and where he sayth very boldly but ignorantly that the said Doctour confineth al proud men within two sortes one of theÌ„ which aduance themselues aboue others the other of such which arrogate to themselues that which is aboue them and beyond their pitch which seemeth to be aboue the pitch of his skill for S. Thomas maketh 4. sortes of pride as any may see in the place cited in the margent though in the place which M. Barlow citeth I confesse there be not so many sorts specified for in his 33. question and 5. article he meÌ„tioneth none at all So as M. Barlow roues at randome and speaketh without booke and thinkes all to be well so he say somewhat true or false and make a fond florish with the citing of schoolmen Of this very stamp is his other of fatum and prouidence in denying fatum to be prouidence retorted vpon him by F. Persons in this Answere And truly if M. Barlow be wise he will if he write againe be more wary in dealing with Schoolmen and alleadging their authorities for that kind of learning far surpasseth the compasse of his shallow capacity 24.
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
nay â—ous a wickâ—dnesse practised against hiâ— Matiâ—s Fathâ—r by Ghospellers of M. Barlowes religioÌ„ companions in conscience who is not ashamed heere to say that it is a good inserence and proueth well that I was sory that 〈◊〉 Maiâ—stie escaped the like perill â—or that I durst cast vp such a disasterous example in his Maiesties teeth But who seeth not the malicious â—â—cophancy oâ— this consequence I did not cast it vp to vse his absurde phrase into his Maiesties teeth but only represented it to his eares and memory with griefe detestation of the â—act My casting it vp if any were was in M. Barlow his teeth oâ— whom I doubt not but if he had byn then a Preacher he would haue bene as ready to haue allowed and praised the fact as generally most of his â—ellow Ministers both English and Scottish did at that time not only in regard that the parricide was committed by them as it was against a yong Prince suspected by them in râ—lâ—gioÌ„ therfore feared but also for that his Noble Person growing fortunes were in such deep iealousy with the Queene of England then regnant as nothing more But to leaue this to his Matiâ—s prudent consideratioÌ„ the obscurity of his speach to the Readers due obseruation I say that this â—uagation and digrâ—ssion of VVilliam of Lincolne doth proue nothing the poynt it should to witt that this Powder-treason of â—dâ—nborough was not of the same essence nature and species with the other of London though lesse haynous as not being directed perchance to the personall murders of so many particuler men but yet to the publike ruvne of the State of the Common-weale as the euent well declared For that the ruyne of the Father brought also consequently the ruyne of his Maiesties Mothâ—r wherin that VVilliam Barlow himselfe had not only a wish but also a push so farre forth as his wretched forces of tongue and pen at that time could do her any hurt I suppose he would thinke it a disgrace to deny it But to returne to our controuersy in hand whether thiâ— Powder-treason of Edenborough against his Maiesties fathâ—r were not of the same kind and species that was the other dâ—signed in London against himselfe which I affirme and the Minister denyeth let vs see one shifâ— of his more as idle and impertinent as the rest to auoyd the force of truth See saith he how malice blindeth iudgement in this his resemblaÌ„â—e the truth is that his Maiesties Father was not blowne vp with Gun-powder but after the murtherers had strangled him in his bed sleeping he was carried out to the garden and then was the house blowne vp to make the world belieue that it was but a casuall accident oâ— fire and so what semblance oâ— comparison is there betwene the Powder-treason of London and this VVhereto I answer that the semblaÌ„ce is very essential that both were Powder-treasons both of them traiterously directed by subiectes to the ouerthrow of their Princes and if that of Edenborough was not put in execution as M. Barlow saith but after the King was murthered no more was that of London God be thanked but was discâ—uered and defeated his Maiestie remayning in health and saâ—ety And how will M. Barlow now defend this position that they were not like in specie nor in indiâ—iduo VVill he not be ashamed to brag of Logike hearafter or to exprobrate the want thereof vnto me But we shall haue occasion to handle againe this matter in other passages that are to ensue But yet before we passe from this matter of the powder-treason let vs heare how he insisteth therein and triumpheth as to himselfe he seemth with all the most odious exaggerations that his venemous and virulent tongue accustomed to Satanicall maledictions can vtter in spite of Catholikes especially of Iesuites whom though neuer so innocent in that behalfe he will needes haue to be authors and actors in that foule crime And first of all he beginneth his railing with three or foure notorious lies at a clap as namely that Hall alià s Ouldcorne the Iesuite said of this plot when it was discouered that such actions are not commended â—ut wâ—en they are finished A thing most earnestly denied by hâ—m both at his death and other times And here M. Barlow is bare of alleadging any testimony at al for the same Secondly he saith that the Iesuits if the ParlameÌ„t house had burned would haue song with Nero the destructioÌ„ of Troy of this saith he doubteth not other proofs he alleageth none Thirdly he saith that they would haue graced it with no lesse Epithetes theÌ„ Sixtus the Pope did the murther of King Henry the third of France in his Panegyricke calling it A rare memorable fact this also hath no other proofe but his malicious coniecture togeather with the knowne lye of Pope Sixtus Panegyricke which was neuer yet heard of in Rome as Cardinall Bellarmine testifieth in his Booke who made diligent search to informe himselfe thereof Fourthly he saith that Garnet was the Coryphaeus of that complot principall priuy Counsellour and the like Whereas notwithstanding the very actes and examinatioÌ„s set forth by his Aduersaries doe checke this ministeriall malignity in that behalfe no more being proued therein but that full against his will and vnto his â—xceeding gâ—eat griefe he heard therof only in Confession not long before the matter brake forth And albeit Syr VVilliam oâ— â—inâ—olne for so the man would gladly be called do iest here at the obligation of concealing thinges heard in Confession calling it An enammeling of hideous treasons with the glorious pretence of Sacramentall Confession yet al true Bishops of Lincolne for more then fiue hundred years before himself that went in at the doore and stole not in at the window were of another opinion touching the sacred seale of that Sacrament all which must be daÌ„ned a most pitifull case if this Syr VVilliam can be saued that so contemneth the said seale of Secresy and betraied his Maister and Penitent that is said to haue made his Confession vnto him which though it were not Sacramentall being made to a meere Lay-man as I take Syr VVilliam to be yet was he bound by the law of natural secresy not to haue published the same without his licence and consent thereunto But as this Minister got his Bishoprick without Priest hood so no meruaile though he proceed not Priestly but prophanely therin And finally whereas he scoffeth so malignantly and inâ—emâ—erately at that innocent man Maister Garnet that loued peace no lesse then M. Barlow doth broiles and gaue his life for defence of the integrity of his Priestly function obligation being of as quyet a spirit as the other is turbulent whereas I say the Minister scoâ—â—eth and scorneth saying that his head and flesh was rotting vpon the bridge of London while his face did shyne in a straw for his goaly purity I can
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
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
Kinges and Emperours had bene so priuiledged by the power of their Empire aâ— they might not be censured by the high Pastours and Prelates himselfe would neuer haue cenâ—ured and excomunicated his Emperour Theodosius as he did The wordes then are found not in S. Ambrose his Booke de Apologia Dauid cap. 4 10. as here is cited for there are two Apolygies prior and posterior which M. Barlow by his citation seemeth not to haue vnderstood and the first containâ—th but 7. Chapters in all and in the 4 is only this sentence talking of the pennance of King Dauid Qui â—ullis tenebatur legibus humanis indulgentiam petebat cùm qui tenentur legibuâ— aeudent suum negare peccatâ—m King Dauid that was subiect to no humane lawes asked forgiuâ—nes when they that are bound by lawes presume to deny their sinnes But in his enarration vpon the 50. psalme of Dauid he hath the thing more plainely for thus he saith Rex vtique erat nullis ipse legibuâ— tenebatur quia liberi sunt Reges à vinculis delictorum neque enim illi ad poenam vocaÌ„tur legibus tuti Imperij potestate Dauid was a King and thereby was not vnder lawes for that Kinges are free from the bandes of their offences for that they are not called to punishment by lawes being safe by the power of their Empire So S. Ambrose Wereby is seene that he vnderstandeth that Princes commonly are not subiect to humane lawes for that they will not nor may be called to accompt for their offences as priuate meÌ„ are being free by their powâ—r or that no man is able to compell them And this priuiledge perhaps is tolerable in their priuate and personall sinnes but if the same should breake out in publicke and against the vniuersall good of Christians then may we learne by the foresaid act oâ— S. Ambrose in Excommunicating the Emperour Teodosius that God hath leâ—t some power by diuine law to râ—straine them for the coÌ„seruation of his Church and Kingdome And so we may see that al that which M. Barlow hath chirped here to the contrary is not worth a rush but to shew his penury and misery hauing bene forced of eight Authors heere alleadged by him to wit Salmeron Saâ—ders Victoria Bellarmine Barkley Sigebert Espencaeus S. Ambrose to misalledge and falsify seauen as you haue heard that is to say all of them sauing Barkley who in this matter is of lesse accompt then any of the rest if the booke be his which is extaÌ„t vnder his name For that he being no Deuine hath taken vpon him to defend a Paradoxe out of his owne head only different from all other writers of our dayes both Catholiks Heretiks graunting against the later all spiritual authority vnto the Pope ouer Princes Christian People throughout the world but denying against the former all temporall authority eyther directly or indirectly annexed vnto the spirituall wherin as he is singular from all so he is like to be impugned by all and is by M. Barlow in this place for the Protestants calling him our owne Writer And for the Catholikes Cardinall Bellarmine hath lately written a most learned booke against him by name confuting his priuat fancy by the publique authority weight and testimonies of all Catholike Deuines And so much for this OF CERTAINE NOTORIOVS Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his aduersary which no wayes can be excused from malice witting errour §. II. AS the former fraud discouered and conuinced against M. Barlow of abusing authors against their owne wordes and meaning is a foule fault and very shaÌ„full in him that pretendeth to haue conscience or care of his credit so is the crime of appareÌ„t and willfull Calumniation bearing no shew of truth or reason at all much more foolish wicked Foolish for that it doth wholy discredit the Calumniator with his Readers wicked for that it sheweth plaine malice and will to hurt although with his owne greater losse So then it falleth out in this place that M. Barlow finding himselfe much pressed and strained with the reasonable and moderate speach which I vsed in my Epistle throughout three numbers togeather concerning the Oath freely taken as was said by many Catholikes both Priests and Laicks expounding their taking of the Oath in a good sense he doth so malignantly peruert the same by open calumniatioÌ„s as euery child may discouer not only the falshood but the fury also of his passion against me nothing being in his answere but exorbitant rayling apparent lying For whereas I in reason deserued rather approbation and commendation from him for expounding plainly and sincerely that meaning which those Catholikes if they were Catholikes had or could haue in their taking of the Oath without all Equiuocation or mentall reseruation which I condemned in an Oath as altogeather vnlawfull concerning any point of religion that ought to be confessed he not being able to abide the light of this truth and plaine dealing falleth into a certaine frenzy of rayling against me for the ground of his accusation â—ayeth hiâ— owne fiction that I doe teach them perswade them 〈◊〉 Equiuocate in this very case For cleare confutatiâ—â— wherof it shal be sufficieÌ„t first to set down my own wordâ— as they ly in my epistle and then to consider and ponder the collections and inferences that he maketh vpon theâ— And if by this you doe not finde him to be one of the loosest conscience and lawâ—est tongue and least respectiuâ— of his owne credit honesty that euer yow saw I am much deceiued My words then were these that follow As for that multitude of Priestes and Lâ—ickes which he sayth haue freely takâ—n the Oath as their freedome was that which now I haue mentioned and a principall motiue as may be presumed the desire they had to giâ—e his Maiesty satisfaction and deliuer themselues and otheâ—â— so much as lay in them from that inference of disloyall meaning which vpon the denyall therof some do vse 〈◊〉 make so I cannot but in charity assure my selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as coâ—cerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in â—ome such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sincerity of true Catholike doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath not authority without iust cause to proceed againâ—â— them Quia illud possumâ—â— quod iure possumus saith the law ouâ— authority is limited by Iustice. Directly also the Pope may be denyed to haue such authority against Princes but indirectly only in ordine ad spiritualia when certayne great important and vrgent cases concerning Christian religion fall out which we hope will neuer be betweene ouâ— Soueraigne and the Sea Apostolicke for so much as they haue past already many yeares though in different Relions in peace and quietnes euen since
for the last which is heresie he hath brought in two such Authours and authorities against himselfe as in the whole ranke of antiquitie he could not find 〈◊〉 two more fit and forcible to conuince him and his of Heresie and consequently also as himselfe inferreth of more griâ—uous and damnable Idolatry And he would not haue brought them in to the purpose he doth if he had vel micam salu any the least part of prudeÌ„ce For if I should by the occasion of these two Fathers here brought iâ— frame a Syllogisme against M. Barlow his religion taking the maior proposition out of these wordes here set downe and adding the minor out of these two Fathers most manifest assertions he would neuer be able to auoyd the conclusion and if he can I doe prouoke him to the triall The maior proposition is this according to S. Aâ—guâ—â—â—â—â— and Vincentius Lyrineâ—sis that liued not long the one after the other Heresy is Idolatry and heretickes are Idolatours yea the basest kinde of Idolatours that do woâ—ship the fancies of their owne braynes This propositioâ— is here brought in and grâ—unted by M. Barlow as trueâ— and auouched by these two anâ—ient Fathers the minorâ— doe adde and doe offer to proue which is this But according to the iudgement and writing of these two Fathers concerning the nature and property of heresy and heretickes M. Barlowes religion if it be the Protestants is conuinced to be heresy and the professors thereof heretickes Ergo also they are Idolatours and of the basest kinde of Idolatours and damnably worship the fancies of their owne braynes This Syllogisme consisting of M. Barl. his maior my minor the conclusion following of them both I could wish he would coÌ„sider wel And for so much as I know he wil deny the minor I do offer to ioine issue with him vpon that point only if he please reducing all our combate begun betweene him and me to this important question much more profitable to the Reader then these wranglings wherin wee are now conuersant Whether according to the doctrine and iudgement of S. Augustine and Vincenâ—ius Lyrinensis coÌ„cerning heresyâ— Protestants or RomaÌ„ Catholickes be truly Hereticks Let vs lay all other quarrels I say aside and handle only this graue and weighty Controuersy if he hath so much confidence in his cause in the doctrine of these two Fathers But for so much as I do imagine that M. Barlow will pause a greate while and consult before he accept of this offer and perhaps expect vntill the designed new Colledge of Protestant VVriters be vp at Chelsey or els where I will in the meane space inuite the Reader to study and make familiar vnto himselfe the two aforenamed Authors about this point of heresie and hereticks And as for Vincentius Lyrinensis it wil be easie for that it is but a little booke though weighty in substance and it is printed both seuerally and togeather with Tertullian his excellent booke of Prescriptions against Hereticks both of his and these our dayes yea illustrated also with diuers short notes and Commentaries both of Ioannes Costerus and of Iâ—stus Baronius a learned man and Counsellour to the Arch-bishop Electour of Meâ—tz conuerted from Protestant Religion principally by reading and pondering that goulden Treatise of the sayd Vincentius The other Authour S. Augustine is far more large and difficult to be studied throughly in respect of the multitude of his workes but there is a collection made of them into foure bookes by a learned man of our time with the title of Confessio Augustiniana wherin is gathered the iudgement of S. Augustine about all the controuersies of our time which he hath handled in his workes so many hundred yeares agoe before the new names of Protestants or Papists were euer heard of and to the diligent reading of this Booke I would exhort all indifferent men that haue care of their soules and vnderstand the latin tongue For that S. Augustine being the man he was both in learning and sanctity and so speciall a Pillar of Christ his Church in his dayes which was about foure hundred yeares after Christ when yet the true Catholike Church is granted to haue flourished it followeth that what doctrine he held for true and Catholike in his time must also be now what held to be heresy we may also boldly hold the same and what rules he gaue to know and descry the one or the other may serue vs now to the same end I will not set downe any particuler places in this Epitome of S. Aâ—gusâ—iâ—â— for the Reader to repaire vnto aboue others for they are clearly propounded in the beginning of the worke and reduced vnto seuerall heads and Chapters But if M. Baâ—low or any of his shal be content to ioine with me vpon the issue before mentioned we shall haue occasion to examine the worke more exactly And this hath bene spoken by occasion of M. Barlowes answer once for all about Catholikes vexed consciences with feare as he termeth theÌ„ which full wisely he will haue to proceed of Idolatry superstition heresy as you haue heard but sayth nothing of inforcemeÌ„t of their consciences by penal lawes though that be the only matter in questioÌ„ But it may be he will say somewhat therof in his second resolution about this matter for this is but his first let vs heare him then further if you please Againe saith he where the mind hath no certayne stay for â—eâ— vltima resolutio in matters and cases of faith conscience there must necessarily follow a miserable vexaâ—ion which is the case of thâ—se Catholickes whose dependance for resolution must rest vpon the supreme Pastours determination then which what is more vncertayne for what one Pope decrees the other disallowes Here againe you see he runneth from the whole purpose and talketh in the ayre for the Catholikes doe not demaund of him What is the cause of their vexed consciences but rather doe tell him what it is as you haue heard in my words before rehearsed to wit the pressing of them to sweare against the iudgement of their owne consciences or els to incurre displeasure and suspition of disloyalty with his Maiestie as also the penalty of the law And what then doth our Doctour tell vs a tale of vltima râ—solutio in matters cases of fayth and conscience to be the cause of their trouble and affliction Truly it is as far from the purpose as the other before was and no lesse also against himselfe to make mention of this vltima resolâ—tio which more conuinceth him and his of heresy then any other demonstration that can be vsed to that effect For that they hauing abandoned the authority and iudgemeÌ„t of the knowne Catholike Church from which finall resolution in matters of controuersy is to be taken according to that rule of S. Augustine Si quis quaestionis difficultate â—alli metiâ—t Ecclesiaâ— consulat if any man teare
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
during the time of the three King Henries 4. 5. and 6. and afterward when those that were called Lâ—llards and Wickelissians who as M. Fox saith were indeed good Protestants being pressed some what about their Religion did continually beate vpon this argument of libertie of Conscience and when they obteyned it not they set vâ— publicke schedles vpon the Church dores of London anâ— made â—hose famous conspiracyes of killing K. Henry the 5 d and all his family which are recounted by VVatsingham Stow Fox and other English Historiographers In this our age also the first opposition of Protestant Princes in Germanie against their Emperour Charles the 5. both at Smalcald Austburgh and other meetings as afterwards also the fierce and perilous warrs by the Duke of Saxony Marques of Brandeburge and other Protestant Princes and their people against the same Emperour begunne in the very same yeare that our K. Henry dyed were they not all for liberty of Conscience so pretended so printed so published so diuulged to the world The first Supplications Memorials and Declarations in like manner which the Protestants of France set forth in printâ— as also they of Holland Zeland in tyme of the gouernments as well of the Duchesse of Parma Duke of Alua Commendaâ—or Major and other Gouernours did they not all expresly professe that their principall griefes were about liberty of Conscience restrayned And did not they cyte many places of Scriptures to proue the equity necessity therof And do not all Protestants the like at this day in all places where they are both in Polonia Austria Bohemia Styria and els where And how then is Iordanis conuersus retrâ—rsâ—m with this Minister How is his voyce contrary to the voyce sense of all the rest How with what reason may he call it the height of pryde in English Catholicks to haue but hope therof which is so ordinary a doctrine practice of all his brethren in forraine nations to wit for vs to expect liberty of Conscience at the first entrance of our new King of so noble and royall a mynd before that tyme as he was neuer knowne to be giuen to cruelty or persecution in his former raigne The Sonne of such a Mother as held her selfe much beholden to English Catholicks And himselfe in his litle Golden Booke to his Sonne the Prince had confessed that he had euer found the Catholicke party most trusty vnto him and therupon had done sundry â—auours to diuers of them and giuen no small hope of greater vnto others From this King I say whom they so much loued and honoured receyued so gladly and with vniuersall ioy meant to serue faithfully trusted that as he had vnited the two Kingdomes in one Obedience by his Succession so would he by his liberality vnite and conioyne the harts of all his Subiects in bearing a sweet and equall hand towards them all From such a King I say for vs to expect liberty of Conscience and equality with other Subiects in this poynt at least of freedome of soule what height of pryde may it be called May it not rather seeme height of pryde in this Minister his fellowes that hauing byn old enemyes and alwayes borne a hard hatefull hand and tongue against his Maiestiâ— both in their Sermons Bookes Speaches all the tyme of the late Queenes raigne now vpon the suddayne sine vllis meritis praecedentibus will needs be so priuiledged assume vnto themselues such a confident presumption of his Maiesties speciall fauour as to suffer no man to stand by them but to hold it for height of pryde in vs to hope for any freedome and liberty of our Conscience at all What is height of pryde and folly if this be not These are my words in my former booke and now let vs behould what M. Barlow layeth forth agaynst the same First he beginneth with a pull at the Purytans though I neither named nor designed them but only sayd as now your haue heard that generally all sorts of Protestants neuer so humble or far of from height of pryde in theyr owne conceipt doe allow and desyre yea the more humble and vnderlinges they are the more earnest they insist both by bookes speach and preaching to proue that liberty of conscience is most conforme to Gods law c. Wherupon M. Barlow maketh this comment that by vnderlinge Protestantes I do meane them that doe seuer themselues from him and hiâ— in matter of ceremony and Church-gouerment who are not vnderlings sayth he because they are humble for that pryde only keepeth them aloofe It is not the inferiour place sayth he or the deiected vysage or the soft voyce or dislike of Prelacy that doth denominate humility And these are the notes belike that doe distinguish Puritans from the Protestants to wit the inâ—eriour place the deiected â—isage the soft speach dislike of Prelacy But yet I cannot but wonder to see him twice in this place to repeate that the difference betweene these brethren and themâ—eluesâ— is only in matters of Ceremony differing sayth he only in matters ceremoniall though before he added also Church-gouernment Whereby is euydent that he houldeth theyr Church-gouernment and Prelacy matter of ceremony only and consequently also his owne Prelacy and his being a Bishop is but a meere Ceremony and no substantiall matter in their Religion Now then let vs see what ensueth vpon this and what honour and seruice M. Barlow doth to his whole Cleargy and namely to his old Maister and Lord of Caâ—terbury by this his new doctrine Is all the dignity and preheminence which his sayd Lord hath aboue all the Ministers in England his superiority ouer the Cleargy his being Archbishop Primate his spirituall Iurisdiction his Courtes of the Arches his power of dispensations his making Ministers and giuing them power to preach â—each administer SacrameÌ„ts Is all this but a ceremony Or do the Puritans in denying and impugning this impugne but a ceremony and no poynt of Religion it selfe Truely then must I say that their cause against you is far better then I euer hitherto esteemed it to be For if all these thinges be but ceremonies and contayne no substaÌ„tiall poynt of religion why do you that in other things professe your selues enemies to Ceremonies stand so much vpon them to the disturbance of the whole Realme But of this I shall haue occasion to speake againe a little after and to lay open your absurdities in this euaâ—ion Now only will I say a word to your argumeÌ„t which heere you make against vs for toleration or liberty of coÌ„scienceâ— If tâ—ese humble vnderlings say you dwelling amongst 〈◊〉 â—â—â—d differing only from vs in matters ceremoniall are not heard in their suite of liberty of conscience how much lesse those who in poyntes essentiall and fundamentall are seuered from vs may not be tolerated Wherunto I answere that if we respect reason and iustice in
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
Emperour to iudge definitiuely which are matters of faith or not For it is not the chiefe question which matters belong to faith and which not for that is easily discerned in general but which opinions in these matters be true or false doubtfull dangerous Catholicke or Hereticall in particuler Wherin forasmuch as the Decrees that are or shal be made by the Councels assembled must take their validity from the Emperours assent yea euen as they are matters of fayth and religion and that without this assent they are vtterly voâ—de it is a ridiculous thing to see M. Barlow play fast and loose as he doth in this matter taking away with one hand that which he giueth with the other then yielding againe that which before he had taken away which proceedeth of the miserable labyrinth wheriâ— he seeth himselfe to be in this question about the Kings spirituall authority which he would seeme to defend â—â—t in effect ouerthroweth the same when he commeth to the point as before hath byn noted And this necessity driueth him to such contradictory speaches not knowing well where to rest himselfe as euen heere in these his last wordes there is a notorious intanglement if they be wel considered For first he sayth that it belongeth not to the Emperour definitiuely to iudge which are matters of faith but to ratify by his assent what the Councel had defined to be matter of faith Suppose that some Councel had decreed that Christ was the Sonne of God and equal in Godâ—ead to his Father as diuers did vnder Constantius the AriaÌ„ Emperour and he would not ratify the â—ayd decrees by his assent were they all voyd for this and had they no validity Or was this Councel bound to submit it selfe in these points of faith and religion vnto that Emperour as M. Barlows former doctrine inferreth though heere he would seeme to moderate the matter but indeed he knoweth not where to consist For if no Decrees of Councels in any matters of faith or religion haue any validity without the Emperours ratification and assent as heere also he doth insinuate then must we needs allow also vnto him power to iudge definitiuely and not only to execute as before hath beene proued And as for the instance which he alleageâ—h out of the Synod of Aquileia held vnder the raigne of Gratian Valentiâ—â—an and Theodosius ioynt Emperours wherin was S. Ambrose that wrote with the rest of the Bishops vnto the foresaiâ— Emperours humbly and earnestly desiring them saith M. Barlow that they would vouchsafe to make good what the Bishops â—ad in thâ—s Assemâ—ly concluded it is meerely false For first no such speach is found in the place by him cited secondly though the sayd Bishops doe complayne much in that letter of certaâ—ne disorderly hereticks that troubled their peace namely Valence and Attalâ—â— and did request the protection oâ— tâ—e â—ayd Emperours for their quiet yeâ— doe they not as M. Barlow falsely affirmeth desire thâ— Emperours to ratify their Decrees set downe in matterâ— oâ— faith or to make good what they had concluded foâ— that had byn to haue made them Iudges of their said Decrees against which thing as attempted by the heretiks Sâ— Ambrose excepteth in that very place saying That Priesâ— must iudge of lay men and not lay men oâ— priests in matters beloâ—gâ—â—â— to religion but they did demaund their temporall help anâ— protection only for defence of that which they had decreed and for peaceable obseruing thereof putting thâ— said Emperours in mind to haue first respect vnto thâ— reuerence of the Catholick Church and then vnto thâ— obseruation of their owne laws therby Reuerentiam priâ—â—â— Ecclesiae Catholicae deinde etiam legibus vestris Pietas Vestra deferâ—â—â—ubeat â—hat your Piety doe first commaund reuerence tâ— be exhibited to the Catholicke Church and afterward tâ— your owne laws So S. Ambrose with that Synod Whereâ—by may appeare what reuerence and respect they requyred at these three Christian Emperours hands vnto theiâ— Ecclesiastical decrees they representing the Church before their owne Imperiall lawes Vnto the sentence which I doe cite in my Letter onâ— of the Councell of VVormes that Councels may not bâ— held without allowance oâ— the Bishop of Romeâ— M. Barlâ—â— anâ—wereth with more choller then reason That it is a manifest vntruth made good by an obscure author out of a Councel â—euer assembled or neuer recorded But if it be so manifest why had not he alleadged so much as one author old or new since that time which is aboue 800. yeares agone thaâ— denied the same vntill this our age Whereas we alleadgâ— for the affirmatiue that there was such a Councell held at VVormes vpon that yeare of 770. both out of the life oâ— Charles the Great written by a very ancient Author aâ— alâ—o out of the 6. and 7. Bookes de Capitularibuâ— Franc. and out of mâ—ny Histoâ—ies after them as namely Rhegine thaâ— liued full 700. yeares agone and mentioneth that Councell of VVormes vpon the same yeare yea the Authorâ— themselues mentioned by M. Barlow namely Genebraâ—d Bynâ—â—â— and Caranza being confessed by him to mention such â— Councel do proue also that it was recorded And as foâ— his negatiue argument out of Canisius in his short table of Chronography prefixed before his Catechisme who â—â—ming some Councels doth not name that Councel of VVormes hath no substance at al. For that Canisius his purpose was not to name all Councels especially such as were Prouinciall as this of VVormes was but some only 〈◊〉 example sake for in that very Age of 800. wherein Châ—â—les did florish as Emperour I find 5. or 6. at least preâ—â—rmitted by Canisius as Ratisponense Altinense Constantinopâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 Actinacense Lugdunense and some others And in the precedent age when Charles was King of France I fâ—nd aboue a dozen Prouincial Councels left out of Caâ—â—â—â—â—s his Chronology and so might this also be of VVorâ—es albeit there is a Councel of VVormes registred by him about the middle of the age of 800 which also may be this that we talke of though placed by the Printer somewhat lower in the Columne then it should be But why do we stand spending of time in these triâ—â—ing obiections brought in by M. Barlow against himselfe If the Councâ—ll be confessed by so many as himselfe mentioneth here in this place to wit Genebrard Byâ—nius and Caranza and the sentence before cited for the necessity of the Popes consent in gathering of the Councels cannot be denied but that it is registred in the history before mentioned de Capitularibus Franc. as Bynnius also expresly affirmeth though concealed by Mâ— Barlow who doth not see but that one or two ancient Authors affirming any thing are to be preferred before many that hould their peace and say nothing to the contrary But as for the mayne question it selfe whether it appertayne vnto the Popes authority to call Councels and approue the same the profe is not taken
here pretermitt the residue of the trifles which M. Barlow for lengthening his booke bringeth in spicing the same euery where with most virulent raylings as the examples of Squire and Parry which so often haue beene answered by vs the former as a meere fiction for so much as concerned his sending from Spaine into England by F. VValpole the Iesuite for poisoning the Queenes chaire and the Earle of Essex his saddle the other a deuise of his owne to wit of Parry himself to gaine the Queenes goodwill and therby some preferment by telling her that he was sent to kill her by some Catholikes out of the Land whereas indeed he was neuer trusted by them in farre lesse matters then in such an enterprize But he returneth yet once agâ—ine excessiuely to praise the said Queene That Lady Queene Elizabeth saith he the diamond amongst Princes the glory of royall Maiestie the ioy of the Christian world for her sex whilst she liued And what will the discreet reader hould M. Barlow for his sex Truly I thinke for one of the most grosse and palpable flatterers that mankind doth containe and as for her being the ioy of the Christian world I meruaile what Christian world he can pretend to meane For if he will confine the Christian world within the Protestant world it is God wote but a very small part therof and yet in this Protestant world neyther was she held to be so rare a diamond or glory of royall Maiestie nor was she such a ioy vnto them as there is sayd which is euident by their writings extant especially of the Lutherans that misliked her religion maÌ„ner of proceeding and especially her taking vpon her to be head of the Church whereat they do laugh euen vntill this day And the same or greater dislike was euen in the purer sort of Caluinists both at Geneua the Mother-Church of that profession as also throughout all France Holland Zeland Scotland and England so as this little Protestant world held her not for such a ioy nor yet Iewell of theirs as here by M. Barlow she is described But as for the Catholike Christian world for what diamond they held her and what Ioy they tooke of her and in her appeareth well by their bookes which are extant and will indure till the worlds end so as the chiefe ground of all these excessiue and exorbitant prayses and flatteries is no other as far as I can see but the volubility of this Ministers tongue for the present what it may be hereafter vpon the blast of other windes I know not but it is like that the Weather cock will turne Some examples haue we seene before of his constancy about the Earle of Essex and may do also hereafter concerning Queene Elizabeth if his Maiestie that now reigneth shall neuer so little turne the fauour of his eyes from her actions which of all other Princes by the iudgement of most men he hath most cause to do as somwhat I touched in my â—ormer letter and now shal be inforced to repeat somwhat againe for defending my selfe against M. Barlows calumniations but it shal be only the conclusion of that my discourse To conclude then said I about Queen Elizabeth albeit Pius Quintus some other Popes did excoÌ„municate her and cut her of from the body of the Catholike Church by Ecclesiasticall Censures in regard of her persecuting Catholicke Religion yet did I neuer know it hitherto proued that any Pope procured or consented to any priuate violence against her person albeit if the forealleadged Statute of the 28. yeare of King Henry the 8. be true wherin it is determined both by the King himself his Counsel and whole Parliament and by the Archbishop Cranmer with his Doctors in his Iudiciall Seat of the Arches that Lady Elizabeth was not legitimate nor that her mother was euer King Henryes true wife which once being true could neuer afterward by any humane power be made vntrue or amended to the preiudice of a third rightly by due succession interessed therin if as the whole Parlament testifyed it should be against all honour equity reason and good conscience that the said La. Elizabeth should at any tyme possesse the said Crowne then the said Popes respecting in their said sentence as it is certayne they did the actuall right of the Queene oâ— France and Scotland and of her noble issue his Maiestie that now is they might proceed as they did against the other for her remouall whom they held for an vsurper in fauour of the true inheritours oppressed by her not only by spirituall but temporall armes also as agâ—inst a publicke malefactor and intruder contrary to right and conscience And I cannot see how this fawning Apologer can eyther without open vntruth or manifest iniury to his Maiesty auerre the contrary Which being true doth greatly iustify the endeauours and desires of all good Câ—tholicke people both at home and abroad against her their principall meaning being euer knowne to haue bene the deliuerance preferment of the true Heire most wrongfully kept out vniustly persecuted for right â—ousnes sake To this discourse of mine M. Barlow with many bitter wordes taketh vpon him to reply this that followeth First that there are many more euidences to proue that the Pope is Antichrist then that Queene Elizabeth was illegitimate this you see what force it hath how fit it is vnto this purpose and therfore he taketh haÌ„dfast of another hould thus If King Henry her Father B. Cranmer with his Court of Arches and body of the Parlament did sentence her for such yet the same Father Arches and Parlament vpon better ground within few yeares renounced the same sentence and repealed that act This now is somewhat if M. Barlow had cited the Act or Parlament or Decree of Bishop Cranmer or his Arches or some other particularity how or where it was repealed as I did cite for the contrary of her condemnation Rastals Abridgments I do find indeed in the booke of Statutes that seauen yeares afterwards to wit anno 35. of Henry the eight cap. pâ—â—â—o when King Henry had determined in person to go ouer and make warre in France as in the said Statute is affirmed and after the death of so many other wyues had married the Lady Katherine Parre widdow hauing small hope of more issue he made a certaine declaration of the succession if in case himselfe and the Prince Edward and Lady Mary should dye without lawfull issue to wit that for lacke of such issue the said Lady Elizabeth should succeed in her turne but there is no word of her legitimation nor of the repeale of the foresaid Statute declaratory of the inualidity of her Fathers and Mothers marriage And albeit I find diuers other clauses of that Statute 28. Henry 8. cap. 7. repealed by 1. Edward 6. cap. 12. and primo secundo Philip. Mariae cap. 1. 8. yet do I not find any
testimony of all the Fathers succeed the Apostles as himselfe conâ—esseth proueth and approueth in this place So he And what shall we say now to this Was there euer the like dealing or maÌ„ner of answering to out-face a man against his owne words proofs and protestations Doth Bellarmine confesse proue and approue in this place that Bishops do succeed the Apostles in their superiority of iurisdiction receaued immediately froÌ„ Christ which he hath impugned before by so many strong arguments In what law of modesty doth this lye to affirme such things But see I pray you how coÌ„tradictory he is to himselfe euen in these few lynes For if Bellarmine were driuen to coyne this distinâ—tion that Bishops did succeed the Apostles in dignity of Order not in power of iurisdiction then cannot he be sayd to confesse proue and approue that they do succeed in superiority of iurisdiction as here M. Barlow affirmeth him to auouch And can there be any thing more contradictory then this And is not passion a great infirmity that driueth a man to these absurdities I will let passe that childish though malicious scorne which he vseth against Cardinall Bellarmine in comparing him with D. VVhitaker whose name sayth heâ— though dead like Zisca his drume is a terrour to Bellarmine alluding vnto that famous roguing Rebell of Bohemia Zisca who enraged with the drunkennes of Iohn Husse his new heresie vpoÌ„ the point of some two hundreth yeares agoe tooke armes against his lawfull Soueraigne made an army of the common people that were put into madnes with the same heresy tooke Castels spoyled Townes buâ—ned Villages Monasteries murthered inâ—inite people especially oâ— the Clergy and finally died so miserably blind both in body and soule that as hauing not any one eye corporall left him so seemeth he though M. Iohn Fox do set him dâ—wne for a Saint and Confessour of his Church in his Eccâ—â—siasticall Kalender vpon the fifth day of February to haue had no leaâ—t part of any spirituall eye in his souâ—e for that men comming to him as he lay on his death-bed to know how he would be buried what sort of obsequies he would haue he answered most prophanely that they should caâ—t him out where they would that â—oules might deuoure his flesh but that first they should take of his skinne and make a drum therof assuring them that his enemies the Papiâ—â—s would fly vpon the only noise of the same This is the witty and modest comparison that M. Barlow thought good to vse betwene Cardinall Bellarmin and D. VVhitaker and of the terrour that M. VVhitakers name being now dead doth strike into Bellarmine as oâ—ten as he heareth it no lesse then the drum of Zisca But how like soeuer M. VVhitaker might be to Zisca for his sect and religion scarce setled peraduenture in any I will not dispute but for the terror of his drum to Bellarmine it is ridiculous to them that haue read or do read both their works And surely what miracles M. VVhitakers memory or skin may worke now after his death especially if it should be made into a drum as that of Zisca was I cannot tell but sure I am his tongue and pen wrought few miracles whilest he was aliue And that is euident both by his owne writings and of others against him as well in English as that of M. D. Stapleton M. Gregory Martyn and M. VVilliam Reynolds as also in latin of the said D. Stapleton in two bookes Duraeus and Gretzâ—rus haue euidently dâ—clared And to repeat only a note or two giuen by the said M. Reynolds whome all men know to haue byn a very modest man and for many yeares to haue byn a great Protestant his censure was very meane of M. Doctor VVhitakers learning as may appeare by his booke against him ascribing vnto him very shallow knowledg and inâ—olerable arrogancy in condemning all Doctors and Fathers as appeareth both in his Preface p. 44. 45. and in the ensuing book pag. 495. 496. And againe he sheweth pag. 109. that he vnderstandeth not the Protestant doctrine of only Faith which he taketh vpon him to defend Moreouer he sheweth pag. 23. 25. 114. 115. 123. 126. 319. how he contradicteth himselfe most maniâ—estly and that this is his custome which is no signe of exquisite learning as all men know And finally to enter into no more particularities I will cite only halfe a score of lines if they be so many of M. Reynolds words concerning M. VVhitakers ignorance discouâ—red in one only Paragraph In this Paragraph sayth M. Reynolds you commit as many errors as lightly you may For first you vnderstand not M. Martyn whome you go about to confute Secondly you vnderstand not S. Paul alleadged by him Thirdly you vnderstand not S. Paul alledged by your selfe Fourthly you vnderstand not the state of the question of which you talke And lastly you vnderstand not your selfe and the doctrine of your fellowes Thus he And presently proueth all these ignorances one by one in such sort as I see not how any of them may iustly be denyed And yet forsooth this is the man whose skin and drum M. Barlow will haue to be a terror to Bellarmine Let vs put this to his other follies and so an end But if this do not suffice let M. Barlow if his leasure serue him reade the two books of M.D. Stapleton against M. VVhitaker and he shall soone see the mans weight and worth and what drum might be made of his skin or rather what scar-crowes to feare fooles for learned men he can neuer feare that was himselfe so ignorant and so euer esteemed amongst them in his life-time wherto we may add this for an argument that his large latin Duplication against the said Doctor was held by all to be such poore stuffe as it lay on the printer Legats hands for want of sale in so much that he was forced to make sute to M. Chatterton your predecessor M. Barlow in the Sea of Lincolne in respect of the great multitude of Ministers in that diocesse that he would cause theÌ„ to buy the copies therby to ease his charge who otherwise was like to be much â—aÌ„nified if not vndon by the printing of such a worthlesse worke which of all the works of Bellarmine and Stapleton you shall neuer heare of to haue happened though they haue byn printed and reprinted diuers times There followeth the fourth Contradiction obiected to Cardinall Bellarmine about Iudas where he is accused to â—ay in one place of his works to wit lib. 1 de Pontifice cap. 12. That Iudas belieued not and yet in another place lib. 3. de Iust ficatione c. 14â— he sayth that Iudas was iust certainly good which I say was no contradiction at all if we respect the two seueral tymes wherof Card. Bellarmine did speake prouing out of S. Iohns Ghospell that Iudas in the beginning was good and did belieue but afterward he became euill and lost his
witnesses that the pennâ—nce which King Henry did there was voluntary and not enioyned by the Pope now I say M. Barlow answereth it thus VVhether the pennance were voluntary or enioâ—ned to the King who maketh the question the Apologer said no such thing c. But let the words themselues now recited be iudges in the matter which say that he was whipped vp downe the Chapter-house like a schole boy and glad to escape so too Doth this import voluntary or inuoluntary whipping And how then can M. Barlow say that the Apologer said no such thing For if he were glad to escape so too who will not inferre that he would haue escaped with lesse whipping if he could and that therefore the same was inâ—erred which is yâ—t contradicted by those Historiographers that recount the same And I think M. Barlow will find very few school-boâ—es that are voluntarily whipped There remaine now the other examples of the Emperours Frederick the first Henry the sixt and the rest before mentioned affirmed to haue bene iniuriouslie dealt withall by Popes of their time All which I might iustly pretermit as prouing nothing against our case of the Oath though all were graunted which hath bene obiected about them For suppose that some Popes had dealt hardly and rigorously with some Emperours Kings and Princes that should no more take away his authority then it should take away any Kings authority if he should offer iniury to one or more of his Nobilitie But besides this I sayd further in my Letter that in examining the particulers I found many exaggerations additions wrestings and vnsincere dealings in the alleaging of these examples And as for the first of Fredericke that he should ly a grooâ— on his belly and suffer Pope Alexander the third to tread on his necke and say super aspidem basilisâ—um c. is a great exaggeration and refuted as fabulous by many reasons authorities of Authors alleadged by Card. Baronius to whom I remitted the same for that the discourse therof was euer long to be repeated by me in that Letter The other exaÌ„ple also of Henry the 6. Emperour whose Crowne Câ—lâ—stinus the Pope is accused to haue stroken from his head with his foote after he had set it on I held in the same number of fabulous narrations for that it being sayd to be done in Rome it was only mentioned first by an â—nglish writer Roger Hâ—ueden that liued so many hundred miles from the place and thereby might easily be deceaued as Reynold of Châ—ster in like maÌ„ner was that took it of him Whâ—ras no other writer oâ— other nations eyther present 〈…〉 coronation when the thing is faygâ—ed to haue bene doneâ—â— Godâ— fridus 〈◊〉 Secrâ—tary to the said Emperor nâ—r other writers afterward relating the said Coronation 〈◊〉 Naâ—â—â—â—rus Sabâ—llâ—â—â—s Blondus Sigoniâ—s and 〈◊〉 do so much as oâ—â—â— make mentioÌ„ therof which â—s â—mâ—robâ—â—le that they would haue pretermitted being so 〈◊〉 a â—oint if it had fallen out To this last example and my answer about the same M. Barlow hath no reply to make but that Baronius seemeth to take it for a truth and graceth it saith he with a symbolical hieroglyphike expressing what the Pope should meane in doing so Whereto I answer that Baronius relating the matter out of Roger Houeden doth neither affirme it to be true or false but according to that narration of Houeden expounds what it might signify if it had bene true and as it was â—ould Houedâ—n in England But so many other authors that speake of that CoronatioÌ„ mention not this other fâ—ct as â—ow we haue alleadged do make the negatiue much more probable And as for the former about Fredericke the first Emperour and Pope Alexander the third I 〈◊〉 to stand to my former remissioÌ„ therof to the large diâ—cussion of Cardinall Baronius far ouer long to be brought in into this place but there all may be seene at large to wit the meeting of the said Pope and Emperour at Venice vpon the yeare 1177. the kynd and friendly reconcilement betweene them written by the second Archbishop of Salâ—rnum called Româ—aldus who was Legate or â—mbasâ—adâ—ur to the King of Sicily was present saw all that passâ—d whose Recordes are yet extant in an ancient Gotâ—icall character aswell in the Church of Salâ—rnum as in the Vaticam Library He proueth the same also by the epiâ—â—les actâ—s themselues of Pope Alexander yet extant and by the silence of all ancient writers that lyued then or soone after wâ—o mâ—ntioning all that passed very particulerly do not make mention of this act of the Popes putting his foot vpon the Emperours necke nor of any such speâ—ch as super aâ—pidem â—asilisâ—uÌ„ c. And finally he proueth the same to be a table by the disconueniency of diuers other thingâ— there done to make peace as that yt had beene the way to ouerthrow all and to exasperate the Emperour for euer whom the Pope sought by all meanes to pacific and gaine and yt was contrary to that Popes nature and condition who was sweet and curteous with sundry other arguments which I let paâ—â—e reâ—erring the Reader to that coâ—ious discouâ—sâ— and declaration of his about this matter Agaynst all which M. Barlow now alleageth nothing of any moment at all but inueighing â—irst against Baronius for alleaging a manuscript in the Popes Librarie one Romualdus sayth he not yet extant in view and for ought is knowne may aswell be â—orged as true And is not this good dealing when therâ— are so many authors oâ— credit in print to aâ—â—ow this sâ—orie One manuscript vnâ—oâ—h â—bâ—â—ure â—ritâ—r must encouâ—tâ—r the credit of them all So he And agâ—ine after he teaâ—meth the said Româ—aldus A Vatican Desk-creeper c. But the answere is easie that the printing oâ— a booke maketh it not of greater authority for then no worke had beene of authoritie some hundred yeares agoe when there was no print in the world but all were manuscripts And as for the truth of this sâ—orie Baronius toucheth so many particulers of the two Libraries where the worke is extant in Gothicall characters which euery man may see and read as no probable doubt can be that he hath deuised or faigned it as there may well be of VValthramus Naumburgâ—nsis so often alledged against vs of whom notwithstanding we haue no other certainety then the credit of Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran which with vs is very small wheras Baronius remitteth all men to these two auncient manuscripts stil extaÌ„t and to be seene by al that wil. And as for some later writers obiected by M. Barlow to haue affirmed the same of Fredericke Baronius his answere aâ—ter many other proofs is this Si quid huiusmodi per Alexandrum Papam c. If any such thing had byn done by Alexander the Pope how would these writers that were present and wrote euery least thing
out his owne braines which besides the testimony of Catholike Authors as S. Antoninus Villanus Tritemius Volateranus Sigonius Matthaeus Parisiensis Fazelius Pigna Caraffa Tarcagnota Dante 's the Poet who liued presently after in the same age with his two Commentatours Landinus and Velutellus and others is also testifyed by Scardius a Caluinist in the life of the sayd Petrus de Vineis set out with his epistles Martinus Crusius a Lutheran who also cyteth Poggius a Florentine writer And this M. Barlow did well foresee though he would sâ—eme to dissemble it or which is worse is forced to forge a new deuise as the man is full of his fictions to come vs out another Petrus de Vinea who also should be Secretary to the Emperour continually about him which is an inuention worthy of M. Barlow hauing no Author or shadow of reason for the same seing all writers to agree that the same Petrus de Vineu who knocked out his owne braines had bene Secretary to Fredericke and written tam ex persona sua quà m Imperatoris Epistolarum libros sex six bookes of Epistles as weâ—â— oâ— his owne as the Emperors sayth Triâ—emius besides that it is most improbable that he would take another Secretary of the same name within lesse then a yeare after so horrible a treason as was pretended against his owne person which alone might make that name hateâ—ull vnto him whiles he liued and therefore M. Barlows marginall note to wit Some thinke it was the same party but it is not probable is without all probabylitie And M. Barlow should haue alleadged some Author for the same but that he saw all Authors reason truth it selfe to stand against him in this point Wherefore seeing so many to stand for me in defence of this truth and no one man that I haue seene to deny the same I may with more reason challenge the priuiledg of Gods rule of two witnesses against M. Barlow then he doth against me For a litle after in handling the matter of Alexanders poysoning of Gemin related by Iouâ—us and Guicciardine which I said to haue most Apparence of truth of any of the former accusations and yet not to be altogeather certayneâ— for that other Authors do otherwise report the same M. Barlow thus replyeth The rule of Almighty God is that is the testimony of two witnesses speake with one mouth in ore duorum it shal be an establishment and that is more then an apparence of truth In the case of Frederick the second Vineis and Cuspinian were both produced to confirme one storie that would not serue the turne because they were but one the last borrowing what he said from the formost in this instant there are two different witnesses which concurre in the veriâ—â—ing of one and the self same â—act and this though thus seconded is sleightly turned of as making but an APPARENCE Thus far M. Barlow pleading a certainty vpon the credit of two witnesses which yet in the case of Susanna proued not so certaine much lesse in the matter we now talke of wherin is diuersitie of opinions and neither of the two Authors auoucheth it for certainly true as in the next Paragraph we shall shew In the meane time this rule will serue most APPARENTLY and CERTAINLY also to condemne M. Barlow seeing that here not only in ore duorum in the mouth of two but of seauen or eight times as many we haue proued M. Barlow a false forger of Petrus de Vineis wordes and that with such euidency as he caÌ„not produce one man to the contrary therfore is coÌ„pelled to defend one by making of another â—for by writing one and the self same name of de Vinea and de Vinâ—is in the singular and plurall number he will needes shew vs a plurality of persons and make one man to be two But let vs see what ground there is of this fond inuention Al that he hath for proof of his idle conceipt is a seely coniecture set downe in a few wordes and those also so obscure as they require some attention in the reader to vnderstand them if not Natatorem Delium to interpret them For thus he sayth A man shall oftentimes heare his own seruants cursing him sayth King Salomon and no fitter instance can be giuen them of this Emperour in that case for he differed not much from the Historians name whom the Pope hired once to poyson this Emperour if Parisiensis do not erre or deceaue his Reader for his name being of neere place trust about the Emperour euen for his soule was Petrus de Vinea that was so HIRED and plotted withall This is all and very intritate also as you see But his sense meaning is if I mistake him not to make a difference where there is no diuersity in separating one the self same man from himselfe to wit Petrus de Vineis from Petrus de Vinea which is all one But this is not the first error which M. Barlow hath committed in this manner of Metamorphosis by transforming one man into two for some three leaues before he doth the very same with Vrspergensis making him to differ froÌ„ CoÌ„radus of Lichtenaw wheras there is no greater difference betwene them theÌ„ that Conradus of Lichtenaw was Aâ—â—ot of Visperge writer of the History for so â—ay Tritemius Posseuinus and others notwithstanding M. Barlows metaphyâ—â—cal distinction who tells vs that Niâ—b. Cisuerus iustifieth â—hat â—e sayth by the testimony of an Abbot of Vrsperge â—â—ose name being for a long time not knoâ—ne â—is Annales were asâ—ribed vnto him whom we vsualy call Vrspergensis till the er or was espied amended So he And putteth in the margent Conradus or Lichtenaw But I pray you Syr whom we call vsually Vâ—spergensis is not this name Conradus of Lichtenaw Surely his owne printed booke with the abridgement of his life set before it Tritemius Posseuinus others say yes And how then was the error espied and amended Where I pray you was there any error at all And if no error wherin was the amendment I would to God M. Barlow your errors could be as well amended as they are espied and then might your friendes hope to see you once a true man ere you dye Now for Petrus de Vineis that he was the same with Petrus de Vinea is so euident as I much maruaile at your simplicitie for calling it into quesâ—ion It is a signe you read little or vnderstand not what others write for whom Parisiensis Paulus Aemilius Sigonius Philippus Bergomas Vbertus â—olieta Gâ—neâ—ard Ciaconius Posseuimus with others cal Petrum de Vinea or Petrum Vineam the same S. Antoninus Fazelius Tritemius Blondus Nauclerus Vincentius Paulus Langius Collenutius Scardius who wrote his life Iohn Fox and
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
But let vs heare some reason of his VVhat insolency sayth he is this to compare Popes with Kings subiectes with superiours for euen Preists as well as others are subiect to their soueraignes by Chrysostoms rule And so say we also Syr in temporall affaires belonging to the Comon wealth But how doth this inference of yours hould Priests are subiect vnto temporall Princes that are their Soueraignes therefore also Popes Is there no difference And for that you name S. Chrysostome in this matter and call it an insolency to compare Kings with Popes I would demaund of you whether you euer read S. Chrysostome de comparatione Regis Monachi of the comparyson of a King and a Monke as also his other Books de Sacerdotio And if you haue and vnderstood what you read then will you haue seene that S. Chrysostome preferred â—he dignity of both the one and the other Monke and Priest before the dignity of a King And Cardinall Bellarminâ— last booke and third Chapter doth alledge so much about this matter as maketh it sufficiently cleere without any derogation of Princely authority at all AN EXAMINATION OF CERTAâ—NE â—ENTENCES AND AVTHORâ—TIES of ancient Fathers alleadged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Letter to M. Blackwell and impugned by M. Barlow CHAP. VI. AMONG other points that were impugned out of Cardinall Bellarmines Letter were certaine sentences examples and authorities of ancient Fathers about the Oath And first of all was the comparison of the subtill art and deceipt said I vsed by Iulian the Emperour surnamed the Apostata and recounted by S. Gregorie Nazianzen in placing and inserting the Images of his false Gods into the pictures of the Emperour in his Imperiall banner so as no man could bow downe and do reuerence to the Emperours picture as then was the custome but that he must adore also the Images of the false Gods which art of temâ—erament the Cardinall doth compare vnto this mixture and combination of clauses lawfull and vnlawfull ciuill and ecclesiasticall in the Oath proposed so as a man cannot sweare the one but he must sweare also the other for which cause I said in my Letter that the whole Oath with all the clauses as it lyeth in which sense it hath bin also forbidden by his Holynes cannot in any wise be taken although touching some one only clause not only cyuill but also ecclesiasticall as for example of the Popes authority of charity I might thinke as then I wrote that the Priests who tooke the Oath tooke it in some such sense as being explycated by them and accepted of the Magistrate might stand with the integrity of fayth And that the sense of the sayd clause might be agreed vpon betwene his Maiesty and his subiects in such sort as it should agree with the opinion and practise of all other Catholicke Princes But the whole Oath as it lyeth is no other then the picture of the Emperour togeather with the Images of false Gods Which similitude and comparison though it expresse most fitly as it seemeth the matter in hand yet was it impugned by seeking out dissimilitudes disparities in other pointes then wherein was made the sayd comparison As for example that first Iulian was an Apostata but our Soueraigne is a Christian Iulian changed the religion he once professed but our King not Iulian became an Ethnick or Atheist our King is not ashamed of his profession Iulian dealt against Christians his Maiesty dealeth only to make a distinction betweene true subiects and false harted traytors c. And so he goeth forward alleadging many sundry diuersityes betwene man and man thing and things state states which I said is nothing to our purpose For a similitude requireth not likenes or parity in all poyntes for then it should be idem and not simile but liknes only in the point wherin the comparison is made as here in the compounding and couching togeather of lawfull and vnlawfull clâ—uses in the oath as the other did Images in his banner for that other wise if we will stand vpon seeking out differences between the things that are compared other things wherein the comparison is not made and thereby condemne the similitude we shall ouerthrow all similitudes whatsoeuer and particulerly we shall eneruate make voide all the Parables coÌ„monly of our Sauiour wherin if we go from the point it self that is compared we may find â—or the most part more dissimilitudes then simâ—litudes As for example Be yee â—ise as serpentes and simple as doues what enemy of Christian religion might not cauill and calumniate this similitude by seeking out diuersities betwene a serpent and a man and betwene the malicious craft of the serpent and the true wisdome that ought to be in a prudent man and the like in the nature and simplicity of doues many dissimilitudes may be sought but it is sufficient that the similitude do hould in the poynt wherein the comparison was made which is that Christians shoâ—ld be both wise and simple as are serpents and doues and imitate both the wisdome of the one and simplicity of the other so far forth as is conuenient for a Christian life which S. Paul doth afterward expound how far it must reach when he sayth Volo vos sapientes esse in bono simplices in malo I would haue you to be wise in good and simple in â—uill This then being my declaration of that similitude out commeth M. Barlow as it were with his dagger drawne in great heate to incounter the same casting vpon me all kind of reproach and by his ordinary scurrility calling me Salomons loathsome creature to wit a spuing dog resuming the eiection which he had once auoyded such is the modestie and ciuilytie of this new Prelate But why doth he shew himself so enraged You must imagine he is in some straits to answer the former discourse but yet must needs set vpon it well or ill Let vs se how he performeth it All the Censurers speach sayth this Minister commeth to this profound conclusion that a similitude must only hould in that poynt wherein it is compared because that if the comparison should hould in all it were pentity and not resemblance Which doctrine of myne he seemeth to allow and replieth not but yet to seeme to say somewhat and not syt out he passeth to another discourse that in foure manners comparisons mâ—y be made eyther in the nature of the thing or in the disposition when some affection is resembled or when a passion or perturbation is assimilated or when the action only is compared without circumstances which are obscure things without ground at all and as well may foureteene poyntes of comparisons be found out as foure to wit so many as there may be differences betwene things that be compared and therefore we recall M. Barlow from these idle euagations to the point it self And for so much as he now graunteth that things compared
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
CARDINALL what dignity title it is pag. 8. Cardinall Bellarmine abused by M. Barlow pag. 80. his Letter to the Archpriest discussed pag. 345. deincâ—ps his opinion of the Oath of Allegiance p. 346. 347. deinceps cleered from false imputation pag. 386. 387. defended from ContradictioÌ„s pag. 432. 442. 443. 448. 449. Charles the Great Emperour his zeale in reformation of manners in the Clergy pag. 313. Châ—lsey erection for wryters pag. 248. Clement 8. his Breues sent into England pag. 342. Clergymen freed from secular burtheÌ„s whence it first proceeded pag. 371. L. Cooke Chiefe Iustice of the CoÌ„mon Pleas his booke of Arraignments pag. 188. his definition of Misery by Copia â—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 Aâ—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. 33â— Councell 4. of Toledo in Spaine of the Oath prescribed to Subiects therin pag. 365. dâ—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. Differenâ—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. Doctâ—ine of the Church not preiudicated by euill life p. 147. E EARLE of Eâ—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 paâ—t 2. cap. 1. 2. per totum Her manes pag. 161. 166. Canonized for a Saint by M. Barlow pâ—g 164. praef n. 114. her Mortifications pag. 168. § 2. per totum No cloistred Nunne â— 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. Feliâ—ities and Infelicites of Q. Elizabeth part 2. c. 2. per totum Felicity temporall no argument of spirituall p. 181. 182. 183. AncieÌ„t 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 partâ— 2. cap. 3. per totum of the nature of flattery p. 231. Fox his rabble of Martyrs p. 233. Fâ—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. 48â— his counterfait sicknes ibid. his vices and bad life pag. 514. his barbarous cruelty 517. his blasphemy 519. Gods punishment laid vpoÌ„ 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 prâ—f n. 41. Immunity of the Clergy whence it first proceeded pag. 371. Inconstancy vide â—arlow Infelicity vide Felicity Infidels denyed Christian buriall 408. also Heretikes and excoÌ„municated persons ibid. Innocentius the 4. Pope abused by M. Barlow pag. 509. 510. 511. his death lamentation therof 513. 514. Ioâ—n vide Fox Syr Ioâ—n Cuâ—â— abused by M. Barlow in the pulpit praf n. 112. Iosâ—phsâ—â—lling â—â—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 â—ead the booke â—ttentiâ—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. 46â— 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 â—raf n. 108. 109. Liberty of Conscience demaunded by all forraine Protestants p. 256â— Liberty of Conscience vide toleration M MACHIAVELS principles agree with ProtestaÌ„t 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. Mâ—riâ— 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. Neâ—o Domitiâ—n Heades of the Church in M. Barlowes opinion pag. 200. O OATH of Allegiance discussed partâ— 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
abroad p. 50. more contayned therin then ciuill obedience p. 70. 71. 280. humble petition to his Maiesty for the expositioÌ„ therof p. 89. Scandall in exhibiting therof p. 126. 127. c. No such Oath euer enacted before by former Princes p. 156. Card. Bellaâ—mins opinion therof pag. 346. 347. c. deuided into 14. parts p. 357. difference betweene the said Oath and an Indenture pag. 362. Oath of Supremacy p. 353. defeÌ„ded by M. Barlow 354. 355. Obedience against God mans conscience none pag. 282. Obedience of our temporall Prince how far when it bindeth p. 291. defined by S. Thomas 339. Ordination of Protestant Bishops first vnder Q. Elizabeth praf n. 136. P PAVLVS Quintus Pope defeÌ„ded 54. 55. 56. 57. his Breues discussed part 2. per totuÌ„ whether he forbad temporall odedience to his Maiesty therin p. 323. deinceps â— Persons calumniated by M. Barlow pag. 204. belyed p. 263. Petrus de Vâ—â—â—is extolled by M. Barlow p. 499. iustified pag. 509. censured 523â— Philip the Emperour his murder pag. 470. Plutarke abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. Popes power ouer Infidel Princes p. 76. how they are particuler Bishops of Rome Pastours of the whole Church pag. 145. whether they can make new articles of faith or no pag. 324. 325. deinceps whether they command Princes to be murdered pag. 394. 395. c. Powder-treason pag. 13. 14. 15. c. F. Persons accused therwith by M. Barlow p. 23. Powder-plot of Antwerp pag. 18. of Hage p. 19. of Edenborrow ibid. Prescription of the Church of Rome part 1. cap. 5. per totum good argument in case of Relion pag. 150. 152. vide Antiquityâ— the same vrged by the Fathers ib. belyed shamefully pag. 246. Protestants gone out of the Catholike Church pag. 149. their Ecclesiasticall power ouer Puritans pag. 259. their basenes beggary pag. 265. their conflicts with Puritans about matters of Religion pag. 270. their Church basest of all others praef n. 36. Prouidence of God discoursed of by S. Augustine pag. 416. Q QVEENE Mary of ScotlaÌ„d put to deâ—th for Religion pag. 51. preached against by M. Barlow pag. 212. Queene vide Elizabeth R RESOLVTION of Catholiks in maters of faith p. 123. of Protestants none at all ibid. 124. what resolution is taken from the Pope pag. 125. M. Reynolds writing against Whitaker pag. 457. Rome Recourse to Rome about the Oath of Allegiance p. 50. 51. 52. c. The same practised in all difficulties by our English Princes people pag. 53. 377. Church of Rome impugned p. 144. S SALMERON abused by M. Morton M. Barlow p. 75. Salomons fact of killing Adoniah condemned pag. 105. D. Sanders abused by M. Barlow pag. 77. Scandall in exhibiting the Oath of Allegiance p. 128. 129 130. c. of actiue and passiue scandall pag. 132. 134. 135. scandall of Balaaâ— pag. 139. Sigebert calumniated pag. â—3 K. Sisâ—nandus his submission to the Councell of Toledo p. 36â— Statute of Association pag. 429. Sâ—â—pition vide Idolâ—try foure kinds of suspition pag. 119. Supremacy mascuâ—â—ne feminine pag. 395. how it was giuen to K. Henry the 8. pag. 29â— to K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth â—bid to K. Iames. pag. 29â— M. Barlowes iudgment therupon ibid. pag. 300 Sycophancy vide Flattery M. Barlowes diuision of Sycophancy pag. 242. Sixtuâ— vide Pope T S. THOMAS his opinion coÌ„cerning obedience pag. â—â—â— about Totally praef n. 52. abused by M. Barlow pag. â—36 Threatnings of God vnto Kings pag. 108. Tâ—byes breach of the King of Niniue his comaâ—ndment about burying of the dead Iewes p. 289. § 2. the ancient Fathers iudgment therof pag. 288. the credit of the History of Toby pag. 287. Toleration of Religion humbly demanded of his Maiesty part 2. cap. 4. per totum Thomas vide Morton Treason vide Powder-treason V VESSELS consecrated to Church vses ancieÌ„t p. 237. Viâ—es of wicked Kings recounted after their deaths in Scripture pag. 199. Vniuersity of M. Barlow little p. 236. W M. VVHITAKER a terrour to Card. Bellarmine in M. Barlowes iudgment pag. 455. his booke refuted by M. Reynolds pag. 457. his ignorance ibid. VVilliam vide Barlow VVorkes-Good works may giue cause of confidence in God p. 440. Syr Henry VVotton a wodden Embassadour praef n. 70. his pranks at Ausburge Venice ibid. X XYSTVS 5. belyed about the murder of King Henry the 3. of France pag. 115. Z ZISCA the blind Rebell of Bohemia pag. 456. FINIS Three things declared in this preface for the Readers satisfaction Why M. Barlowes book was answered by F. Persons The cause of the stay of this edition What manner of writer M. Baâ—low is Isa. 1â— Tertull. dâ— praesâ—rip cap. 41. Aug. tract 45. in IoaÌ„nem Bernard serm 65. in Cantica M. Barlow in his epistlâ— Dedicatory to his Maiâ—sty M. Barlowes maÌ„ner of writing M. Barlowes ignorance in GraÌ„meâ— Humanity Barlow pag. 15â— pag. 295â— Gregor lib. 2. Ep. ep 65. Barl. pag. 174. A very grosâ—e Grammaticall errour Fragmentum historiâ—um in anno 1238. â—omo 1. hist. Germ. Casarum Bellarm. l. 1. de Cler. cap. 28. Barlow pag. 342. A strange construction of Orbis terrae Bellar. lâ—â— citato M. Barlowes ignorance in Philosophy Leo ep 89. D. Thâ— lec 12. in Periber lit F. M. Barlows ignorance in histories Barlow pag. 298. Barlow pag. 292. deinceps Barlow pag. 245. pag. 288. pag. 295. M. Barlowes ignorance in interpreting the Scriptures Barl. pag. 53. Cant. 3. Barlow pag. 43. Iosue 6. Pag. 201. Iosue 6. Pag. 60. Gen. 3. Matth. 9. Barlow pag. 334. M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of Diuinity Barlow pag. 188. D. Thom. 2.2 q. 104. ar 6. ad 3. 〈◊〉 pag. â—7 pag. 57 〈◊〉 pag. 114. D. Tho. 2.2 q. 162 â—â— 4. in 〈◊〉 pag. 246. M. Barlowes paradoxes Barlow pag. 160. The Protestantes coÌ„science like a cheuerall point A prophane and barbarous assertion of M. Barlow Barlow pag 99. Athan. ep ad solitarâ—aÌ„ vitâ—m ageÌ„tâ—s Hilarius lib. 1. in ConstaÌ„t AugustuÌ„ paulo post â—nitium Barlow pag 2â—2 Barlow paâ—â— 142. see supra pag. 120. D. Andr. Respons ad Apol. cap. â—5 pag. 343. §. Porrâ— negat part 2. cap. 4. Printed anno 160â— An. 1607. D. Couell in his iust and temperate defence ar 11. pag. 67. liâ— 8. in Iob. cap. 2. Puritans acknowledge an essentiall difference betweene them and the Protestants in matters of religion An. 160â— arg 10. circa medium Si nons Vpoâ— the Arâ—c pag. 142. sâ—e Baâ—on tom 12 in anno 1140. sâ—â—â—nnius tom 4. pag. 1223. and S. Bern. ep 187. 188. dem â—ps Pâ—pyâ—ius Maâ—souius l 3. Annal. in Phâ—â—ppo August pag. 268. Bern. ep 240. â—â—â—nar Luâ—â—en et 〈…〉 Aâ—bizen es 〈…〉 see Christianus Massaeus l. 17. Chron. ad an 1206. Caesaâ—ius Heiesterb l. 5. illust mirac cap. 21. see the Protestants Apology pag. 343. Iewel defence pag. 48 M. Iewell contrary to himself Guido Carmelita in suÌ„ma cap. 9. de
â— Syr Tâ—â— More * The like also affirmeth Sacrobosco in the place cited Scherer posâ—illa de â—aÌ„ctis conc 1. de S. Stephano A strange ordinatioÌ„ of a Preacher Harding ConfutatioÌ„ of the Apology fol. 57. Detection fol. 230. deinceps Horace The diuision of the whole worke Letter p. 1. About the Authour of the Apology Thomas Morton Thomas Montague See Letter pag. 3. What his Mâ—â—esâ—iâ—s grâ—at iudgâ—ment wâ—â—ld haâ—e 〈…〉 See Letter pag. 4. What his Maiesty in honour would haue misliked Why the King was not â—amed in the booke Barlowe pag. 5. M. Barlowes sharp wit About Cardinall Bellarmines tytle Barlow p. 7. 8. Iohn 7. 20. The dignity â—f a Cardinall In what sense the word maister is a title of honour Matt. 23. Isay 30. 20. Iosue 24.1 Ioan. 13. Barl. p. 8. M. Barlâ—w hâ—â—dly preâ—ed Iâ—iury done 〈…〉 About the powder-treason Barlowâ— pag. 10. M. Barlow speaks like a foole The odious oft repetition of the Powder treason The powder treasoÌ„ not so much a cause as an effect of Catholiks tribulatioÌ„ In the tâ—â—atâ—â—e of Mâ—tigatâ—oÌ„ in the prefaâ—e M. Barlow ignorant in Logicke Philosophy Arist. praedicam c. 3. M. Barlow ridiculous Another folly of M. Barlow 〈◊〉 pâ—â— â—1 〈◊〉 21. The powder plott of Hage The powder-plott of Edenborough M. Barlowes shift Barl. p. 1â— M. Barlowes virulency against Iesuits Touching Father Garnet Barl. p. 11. M. Barlow a bâ—d Cofâ—â—â—â—ur to the â—aâ—le o◠〈◊〉 Touching Father Garnet his face in the straw Psal. 78.2 F. Persons falsely maliciously accused by M. Bâ—rlow to be priuâ— to the powder-plot Barl. p. 12. Barl. p. 13. Of Catholicks â—aâ—tyrâ—d vâ—der Queene Eâ—izabeth Touching the Oath of Allegiance Letter p. 8â— Barlowe pag. 17. Genes 26. Deut. 6. Pag. 18. Barl. p. 1â— Aristot. l. 2. priorum cap. 8. All controuersies are not to be ended by swearing Heb. 6. Barlow p. 18. 19. M. Barlow voyd of conscience and Logicke About the Quodlibets Barl. pag. â—9 No Equiuocation in mattâ—rs of religioÌ„ Barl. p. 1â— Barl. p. 19â— Iniury offered by M. Barlow to the Author of the Epistle Barl. p. 20. Matth. 8. 8. Barl. p. 21. How an erroneous coÌ„science bindeth or noâ— bindeth vs to follow it 〈…〉 Rom. cap. 14. 〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 Letter pag. 8. Pag 22. 1. Pet. 2.13 M. Barlow bold with the Scriptures Apol. p. 4. Page 23. What a good con 〈◊〉 M. Barlow hâ—th 〈◊〉 a Bishop Whether the taking of this Oath by Catholicks be a blessing froÌ„ God 1. Statut. 3. Iacobi Reg. c. 4. 2. Ethic. c. 2 D. Tho. 1. 2. q. 6. art 6. Vaâ—eÌ„tia vasquez c. in eum locum How freely the Oath is taken Baâ—l p. 36. The Diuel inâ—ureâ— by M. Barlow M. Barlow a great friend to Aduerbs Barlâ— p. 36. About freedome in taking the Oath The free acceptaÌ„ce of penall lawes 1. Tim. 1 9â— Barlow pag. â—7 M. Barloâ—s â—illy discourse Medina in pâ—â—mam 2. quasâ— 6. aâ—t 2. M. Barlow hardly vrged Medina misunderstood The true meaning of Meâ—ina Medina in 1. 2. q 6. a. 2. p. 72. M Barlows sheepish apprehension M. Barlows bad inference â—arlâ— p. 37. Ioaâ—â—â— Barâ— p. 23. A notorious vntruth of M. Barlow Letter p. â— The Oath consulted both at home abroad See the Breue to Kai Octob. 1606. See Answer c. 6. Recourse to Rome euer vsuall from our first Christianity Q. Mary of Scotland Catholicks doe hoâ—ld practice what all their ancestours haue don About reâ—ourse to Rome by our English Princes and people Idletrifling Barl. p. 25. Touching the person of this present Pope Paulus Quintus Barl. p. 26. See the answer to S. Edward Cooke now chiefâ— Iustice. Ibidem The purity of life in Paulus Quintus Ibidem Childish babling of M. Barlow Ioan. 7.4 Barlow pag. 27. M. Blues c. M. Barlowes waÌ„t of wit in accusing the Pope Anno Domini 1602. Plutar. in vitâ—s Tib. Caij Graccherum A shamefull mistaking in M. Barlow Very wisely spoken M. Barlowes scolding Sober Râ—c cap. 3. §. 2. Earl pag. 29. 30. English Catholiks not â—â—ssis aliena to the Sea Apostolik M. Barlowes imbroylements Barlow pag. 30. M. â—arlowes new Philosophy Letter pag. 12. num 20. M. Barlow a poore Philosopher and worse Deuine Barlow pag. 30. Bellar. l. 1. de â—ont Rom. cap. 2â— Victor â—eleâ—t 2. de potest Eccl conclu 3. More coÌ„teynâ—â— in the Oâ—â—h then â—â—â—â—ll obedieÌ„ce Letter pag. 16. num xxvâ— A loyall offer of Ciuill obedience made by Catholiks to â—is Maiâ—sty Barlow pag. 31. Impertinency Barlow pag. 32. The reasoÌ„ of the Popes power in teÌ„poralibuâ—â— Thomaâ— Morton canuased Barl. p. 33. nuÌ„ 66. 67. Bern. ad Eugen. Salmer in Epist Pauli disp â—2 Bellar. l. 5. de Pontif. Rom. c. 4. 6. De claue l. 2. cap. 13. â— de Consider longius ab inâ—â—io Salmeron abused by M. Mort. M. Barl. c. Salm. in Epist Paul disp 12. Malicious falshood in M. Barlow MitigatioÌ„ pag. 101. How the Pope may be sayd to haue power ouer Infidell Princes D. Sanders abused by M. Barlow De Clauâ— cap. 10. ContradictioÌ„ in M. Barlow Victoria relect 1. sect 2. Barl. p. 35. Victor â—â—lect 1. sect 2. M. Barlow a Preacher though not Ordinis Prâ—dicatorum M. Barlow vnderstandeth not his Authors Barlow pag. 34. num 6â— Cardinall Bellarmin abused Bell. l. 5. de Rom. Pon. c. 6. 7. 8. Barl. pag. 34. nu 69. De Concil lib. 1. cap. 13 Barâ—l lib. 6. cap. â—6 Sigebert in anno 1089. Clâ—â—d EspeÌ„caus in Tim. digress liâ— 2. cap. 6. Ambros. Apolog. Dauid c. 4 10. M Barlowes impertinent falshoodâ— Bellar. li. 2. cap. 19. lib. 5. cap. 7. 8. Sigebert calumniated Sober recâ—oning c. 1. num 104. M. Barl. and M. Morton â—oth falsifiers Ambros. in 1. Apolog Dauid cap. 4. A place of S. Ambrose explicated Ambros. in psalm 50. statim ab initio Of eight Authors seaueÌ„ misalledged Nu. 10. 3â— 32. The sense and meaning of Catholiks that took the Oath An huÌ„ble petition to his Maiesty for expositioÌ„ of the Oath M. â—arlâ—ws fond charge of hâ—pocâ—iâ—â— in his aduersary To iudge of other mens consciences no inseparable mark of an hypocrite Isidor l. 10. â— humilis à medio Aug. l. 2. de sâ—rm in moâ—â—e c. 3. â—iâ—ca prinâ—iâ—iâ—m M. Barlow a very feeble Philosopher and weake Scholler Letter pag. 18. Impudent dealing of M. Barlow Barlow pag. 39. 3. Reg. 22 To distinguiâ—h iâ— not profâ—nda Sathanae but to reiect distinctions is the profuâ—â—ity of M. Barlows ignorance Matt. 7. M. Barlow for his two hornes deserueth to be horned in Scotland Barl. p. 41. Notable falsity in M. Barl. M. Barlowes bad applicatioÌ„ Aristot. ad Alex. cap. 17. M. Barlowes egrâ—gious folly and falâ—â—ood Cap. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Aristotle abused by M. Barl. Barl. p. 41. The learning and sincerity of School-men ExcoÌ„municatioÌ„ of Princes practised in the Primitiue Church Pag. 42. M. Barlowes meriment of