his Maiesty begââ first to raiâne But concerning the generall Question to deny simply and absolutely That the Pope is supreme Pastour of the Catholiââ Church hath any authority leât him by Christ eyther directly or ââââââctly with cause or without cause in neuer so great a necessity or for âeuer so great and publicke an vâility of the Câristian Religion to proceed against any Prince whatsoeuer temporally âor his restraint or aâendmeââ or to perâit other Princes to do the sâme this I suppose was neuer tâeir meaning that tooke the Oath for that they should therby contradict the generall conseât of all Catholicke Deuines and conââsse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruation of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous for that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great and excessiue an euill as that way might fall outâ Wherefore for so much as some such moderate meaning must needs be presumed to haue bene in those that tooke the Oath for safeguard of their Consciences if it might please his Maiesty to like well and allow of this moderation and fauourable interpretation as all forraine Catholicke Kings and Monarchs doe without any preiudice at all of their safety dignity or Imperiall prehemiâence I doubt not but he should find most ready conformity in all his said English Catholicke Subiects to take the said Oath who now haue great scruple and repugnance of Conscience therin both for that the chiefeât learned men of their Church doe hold the same for vtterly vnlawfull being mixed and compounded as it is and the voyce of their chiefe Pastour to whome by the rules of their Religion they thinke themselues bound to harken in like cases hath vtterly condemned the same and the very tenour of the Oath it selfe and last lines therof are That euery ââe shall sweare without any Equiuocation or mentall reseruation at ââl that is to say hartily willingly and truely vpon the true fayth of a Christian. Which being so they see not how they may take the said Oath in truth of conscience for so much as they find no such willingnes in their harts nor can they induce themselues in a matter so neerely concerning the Confession of their faithâ to Equiuocate or sweare in any other sense then from his Maiesty is proposed and therfore do thinke it lesse hurt to deny plainly aâd sincerely to sweare then by swearing neyther to giue satisfaction to God nor to his Maiesty nor to themselââââ nor to their neighbours And so much for this point Hitherto haue I thought good to relate my forâââ words somewhat at large to the end the Reader may seâ my reasonable and dutiâull speach in this behalfe aââ vpon what ground M. Barlow hath fallen into such a raâe against me as now shall appeare by his reply First of aââ he condeÌneth me of hâpocrisy saying Let the Reader cââââder ââat an âypocrite he is for it is an inseparable marke of ân hypâcââââ to iudge oâ otheâ mâns conââiences the hart of man is Gods peculiââ âoâ anâ man to place his consâsâory there is high presumpâion so be âânneth out in that comon place which maketh nothing at all to ouâ purpose as you see For I did not iudgât or conââmne then conâciânces that tooke the Oath but excâsââ the same yea interpreted their âact in good sense giuing my âeaâons for itâ that they being good Catholike could not be presuââd to meane otherwise then the inââgritie of Catholicke doctrine did permit them for that otherwise they should be no good Catâolickes if they should haue done any thing contrary to that whicâ theâ selues held to appertaine to the same in which I did not excuse their fact which my whole booke proueth to be vnlawâull but only their intention and meaning touching the integrity of Catholick doctrine And this is far difâerent from the nature of hypocrisy which forbiddeth not all iudging but only euill and rash iudging of other mâns actions or intentioÌs thereby to seeme better more iâst then they For if two for example sake should see M. Barlow to sup largely with flesh and other good meate vpon a vigill or fasting-day and the one should iudge it in the worst part saying that he did it for the loue of hâs belly and sensuality the other should interpret the same spiritually as done for glorifying God in his creatures by his thanks-giuing for the same for liberty also of the ghospell and for to make him the more strong able to âpeake preach his Seruice and Sermon the next day I doubt noâ but that this second iudgement would not be censured by him for hypocriticall And this is ouâ very case with those that tooke the Oath For that I hearing what they had done and that they were Catholicks did interprete their meaning to the best sense And was not this rather charity then hypocrisy But let vs see a little if you please how M. Barlow can defend this generall proposition of his that it is an inseparable mârke of an hypocrite to iudge of other mens consciences You haue heard before how wisely he defended a certain definition which he gaue of an Oath now you shall see him as wisely learnedly defend an inseparable propriety or marke of an hypocrite And first you see that here is no distinction or limitation at all whether he iudg well or ill with cause or without cause rashly or maturely how then if wee should heare a man or woman speake ordinarily lewd wordes can no iudgement be made of the speakers consciences without hypocrisie If a man should see another frequeÌt bad howses or exercise wicked actions may no man iudge him to haue an ill conscience from whence these things doe proceed but he must be ân hypocrite Moreouer if this bee an inseparable marke or propriety as he saith then according to Aristotle Porphyriââ it must conuenire omni soli semper agree to all only and euer For if it do not agree to all and euer it is not inseparable and if it agree to others besides hypocrites it is not alwaies the marke of an hypocrite and therefore albeit that I had iudged their consciences as M. Barlow imposeth vpon me he could not by good consequeÌce haue inferred that I was an hypocrite But this is ridiculous that all hypocrites and only hypocrites iudge of mens consciences for first the hypoârite that soundeth a trumpet before his almes whose conscience doth he iudge The other also that kneeleth and prayeth in the corners of streetes whose conscience doth he iudge or condemne Those also that came to tempt Christ about the woman taken in âdultery and about Tribute to be payd to Cesar I reade not whose consciences they iudged and therefore would be loath to doe them iniury except M. âarlow can bring any iust accusation against them and yet were they called hypocrites by our Sauiour whereby iâ inferred that all hypocrisy is not subiect to
Another thing may be to consider what strange Paradoxes he inserts here and there as positioÌs dogmaticall which who so listeth in practise to follow shall either haue no religion or faith at all or insteed of Christs Ghospell the Turks Alcoran For exaÌple what more grosse and wicked assertion can there be then to teach that Kings euen against our conscience are to be obeyed For thus he replyeth against F. Persons saying that Kings were to be obeyed propter coÌscientiaÌ sed non contra conscientiaÌ This saith M. Barlow is no sound doctrine in the negatiue part for euen against a mans Conscience the Prince is to be obeyed Againe There is nothing more easy for proofe or euident for dâmonstration then that obedience is to be enioyned âuân against conscience if it be erroneous and leaprous and against religion if forged and falsely so called And is not this a very learned Axiome For more euident refutation whereof let vs suppose that for which we powre forth our daily prayers to God that his Maiesty were as all his Noble Progenetors of both Realmes haue alwayes bene a Catholick Prince and as zealous for the truth therof as now he is for the Protestant cause if then he should propose vnto Syr WilliaÌ the Oath of Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome so cleerly out of Scriptures and all antiquity proued and euinced to be true but yet in the blind eyes and leaprouâ conscience of this Minister thought to be false what would he doe therin Will he sweare it to be true But in his conscience he thinketh it to be false and against the Scriptures Will he refuse it But Kings saith he euen against conscience are to be obeyed 25. Neyther doth he help the matter any thing at all by his distinction of leaprous and erroneous conscience for with men of his stamp conscience is like a cheuerell point which they may stretch loose at their pleasure For who knoweth not that in the tyme of Q. Mary they were held to haue erroneous leaprous consciences euen by the iudgement of the greatest deuines in Geneua who manteyned that women were to be obeyed albeit they were Queenes euen in ciuill and temporall affaires But within one yeare after this errour and leaprosy was so transposed that the quite contrary was taught and they were not only held to haue leaprous and erroneous consciences who denyed ciuill obedience but were condemned also as Traitours by Parlament if they did deny Q. Elizabeth to be the Supreme head or Gouernesse of the Church of England So that it was not only lawfull but necessary for her to haue all Temporall and Ecclesiasticall gouernmeÌt in her hands as she was Queen which yet in Q. Mary to haue ciuill only euen by reason of her sex was iudged monstrous vnnaturall and repugnaÌt to the Scriptures and law of God Many other examples might be produced in this kind to shew this new Gospell to be as constant as the weathercocke which neuer turneth but when the wynd doth change to wit as often as occasions fall out that may fit their purpose for then they will strayne all conscience and honesty also to conforme themselues become good subiects 26. Much like vnto this of obeying Kings against our conscience is his other prophane and barbarous assertion of the Supremacy of the heathen Emperours Nero Domitian and the rest ouer the Christian Church yea which is more strange that the auncient Fathers Iustinus Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian and others acknowledged the same But you must know that M. Barlow in cyting their words for proofe of this paradox is very silent howsoeuer with all coÌfideÌce as a maxime in his new Deuinity vncoÌtrollable he deliuereth the same saying That they acknowledged the Emperors Supremacy indepeÌdant vpon any but God And a litle after that Queene Elizabeth in her Supremacy was no vsurper by Nouell-claime but accepted what God himselfe had annexed to her crowne Out of which I first note that by this Doctrine the Great Turke is supreme Head of the Christian Church in Greece and that if M. Barlow were there for such he would acknowledge him Secondly the Pythagoricall manner of speaking which our Aduersaries vse in matters of greatest moment and controuersie For whereas before King Hânry the eight no Christian King euer tooke that title or vsurped any such authority ouer the Church yea for challenging much lesse Constantius was called Antichrist both by S. Athanasius and S. Hilary these men without all profe but not without singuler impupudency thinke it sufficient to sayâ that the King is head of the Church that he was so acknowledged by the ancient Fathers that not only a woman may haue the same authority of Supremacy in all causes Ecclesiasticall but that also the heathen Emperours had it as annexed to their Crowne and Imperiall Dignitie euen against the whole torrent of all writters the practise of the Christian world and euident text of Scripture it selfe no Fathers no history no monument no shew or shaddow of proofe or authority in former tymes being found for the same without many straines violent enforcements or ridiculous illations made there-upon as in the arguments of the Protestants who haue treated this controuersie is euery where to be seene 27. Lastly the Reader may note that M. Barlow is so poore a Deuine as eyther he knoweth not what belongeth to matters of faith or els is so wicked as against his owne knowledge he will auouch that for true which is checked euen by his owne brethren and conuinced by common sense and experieÌce to be most false to wit that the Protestants and the Puritanes in England differ only in maâters cerimoniall and agree in all âssântiall and substantiall points concerning religion in which this Prelate is very cathegoricall for ignorance as himself elswhere telleth vs out of Fathers and Philosophers though he cite no place or sentence is the mother of aâdacious assertions and vndertakings and writteth thus Faine they woulâ possesse the world that we are at iarre among our selues about our religion whereas the quarrell though it be indeed vnkind yet is it not in this kind sauâ only for cerimonyes externall no points substantiall c. So he Which though it be kindly spoken as you see yet he must giue me leaue to belieue him at leasure and in the meane tyme âo aske him one question to wit whether the ProtestaÌts and Puritans vnderstand their owâe differences that are between theÌ or not If notâ then we need not belieue M. Barlow as speaking of that which he doth not vnderstand If they doe how commeth it to passe that they condemne ech other of idolatry heresy and false religion as any may read in the Suruey and dangerous Positions set forth by Sââcliffe and the last Superintendent of Canterbury for the Protestants and Cartwright Gilby Mârtin Senior and others for the Puritans 28. To this answereth M. Barlowes Comicall companion of
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 cenâured 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 containâth but 7. Chapters in all and in the 4 is only this sentence talking of the pennance of King Dauid Qui âullis tenebatur legibus humanis indulgentiam petebat cùm qui tenentur legibuâ aeudent suum negare peccatâm King Dauid that was subiect to no humane lawes asked forgiuânes 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 vocaÌtur 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 powâr 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 leât some power by diuine law to râstraine them for the coÌseruation 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 Saâders 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 extaÌt 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 shaÌfull in him that pretendeth to haue conscience or care of his credit so is the crime of appareÌt 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 calumniatioÌs 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 âayeth hiâ owne fiction that I doe teach them perswade them ãâã Equiuocate in this very case For cleare confutatiââ wherof it shal be sufficieÌt 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 lawâest 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 Lâickes which he sayth haue freely takân 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 giâe his Maiesty satisfaction and deliuer themselues and otheââ so much as lay in them from that inference of disloyall meaning which vpon the denyall therof some do vse ãâã make so I cannot but in charity assure my selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as coâcerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in âome 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 againââ them Quia illud possumââ 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
this âaxatio âf iudging consciences and consequently this is no inseparâble marke that agreeth to all In like manner also it agrââââ not soli that is only to the sinne of hypocrisie to iudgeâ of other mens consciences for pride may do it anger may do it temerity may do it reuenge may do it this withoââ hypocrisy or iustifying of himselfe For if to a knowne vsârer for example you should obiect or exprobrate the finne of vsury he answere you againe that he suspected yoââ conscieÌce of like sinne here he iudgeth of your conscience perhaps falsly and yet not by hypocrisie for he iustifietâ not himselfe ergo this is not propriuÌ quarto modo any inseâarable marke or propriety of hypocrisie to iudge of other mens conâciences Lastly let vs consider if you please the definition of hypocrisy which should indeed haue bene the first iâ consideration for trying out of the true nature of this marke propriety for so much as according to Aristotles doctrine and the thing in it selfe is euident by Philosophy prâpriâ passiones flâunt ab essentijs rerum proprieties doe flow from the essence of things and therefore they are best vnderstood knowne by reâerence to the sayd natures and essences conteyned as Aristotle sayth in their definitions The definition theÌ of hypocrisie is according to S. Isidorus in his Etimologies simulatio alienae personae when a man pretendeth to be another maâ and better then he is and according to S. Augustine Qui se vult videâiquâd non est hypocrita est hâ that will seeme to be that which he is not is an hypocrite which the greeke word also whereof it is deriued to wit ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã doth confirme that it signifieth dissimulation this definition I say which must conuerâi cum deâiniâo clâareth vs that this iâseparable marke or propriety deuised by M. Barlâ to be in all hypocrisie is both ignorantly falsly âeygned by himselfe as not knowing the true nature of propriâ pasââ for that there be many wayes of dissimulation of âeygâing our selues to be better then we are without iudging otheâ mens consciences that is to say there be many sâeâiâ and kinâs oâ hypocrisie and hypocrites that haue not this marke propriety as before hath byn shewed consequently not inseparable that is no proper or inseparable propriety at all no more then it is to âay that it is an inseparable propriety to horses to be white for that some few are found white And so we see M. Barlow when he coÌmeth to speake of any matter of substance and learning sheweth himselâe a very feeble man scarce to vnderstand the very termes and first principles of the same But let vs passe on now to another more grieuous calumniation against me He is not content to make the former outcry against me for hypocrisie and iudging mens consciences but addeth also another assault âsaying that I doe teach Equiuocation to be vsed in thiâ Oath which is so far froÌ all truth as I do teach the playne contrary as now hath appeared by my owne words before alledged For I say there of them that tooke the Oath I cannot in charity but assure ãâã selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as concerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in sâme such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sinceâiây of true Christian doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath âot âuthority âithout iust cause nor directly but indirectly only in ââdine ad spiritualia So I wrote then and the cleare addition that these exceptions and clauses must be expressed by the swearers and accepted by the Magistrate doth clearly exclude Equiuocation which consisteth of mentall reseruation not expressed nor vnderstood or accepted of him to whom it is vsed and moreouer within very few lines after continuing my speach and desiring his Maiesty to accept of these clauses of moderation Catholike exposition I doe yield this reason that Catâolikes doâ not hold it lâwfull in a matter so neârely concerning the Conâession of their sayth to equiuocate or sweare in any other sense then from his Maiesty is proposed Can any thing be spoken more plainly With what face then can M. Barlow accuse me of the quite contrary and so reuile against me for the same Wherof some shal be here set downe Let the Reader bâhold sayth he a malicious trick of a notable Equiuocaââuâ that cannot be contented to be him selfe alone the Diuells schâller that ancient Equiâocatourâ but must be ãâã his Deuility Reader or Schoole-man to teach others âo distinguish themselues tâ hell fire sheweth him selfe to be verè spiritus mendaâ iâ ore Propââtarum framing two distinctions like the two ãâã of Sedecias the false Prophet such another as himselfe fuââ of thâ spirit putting them into their moâthes the first that the Pope ãâã not Authority withouâ iust cause to proceeâ against Princes the secâââ that the Pope hath not this authority directly but indirectly in ordine ad spiritualia c. So he Whereby wee see how much the man delighteth himselfe in comparing these two distinctions or explications of mine to the two iron-hornes of Sedecias though the Scripture hath not the particuler number of two but M. Barlow addeth that of âis owne to make theâ meet the more fitly with the number of my two distinctions for besides the parity of number which yet is false there is no other parity or likenes at all For what haue hornes to do with distinctions And yet after a large and lewd blast of rayling against me for the same he concludeth thus And now let the Christian Reader that maketh a conscience eyther of God or common honesty consider whether this be not the profunda Sathanae in the Reuelatió euen the very mist and mysterie of Iniquitie But what Syr to distinguish or vse distinctions in a matter that may haue diuers senses or intendmeÌts Is this the profundâtie of Sathan or is not this rather profound ignorance and absurdity in you to say so Doe not you know that to distinguish belongeth to the wise and learned according to Aristotle and not to distinguish est imperâââ mulâitudinis appertaineth saith he to the vnlearned vulgar sort Doth not reason and expeâience teach vs that to diâtinguish matters that be obscure perplexed into their cleere sânses or that be confused into their seuerall parts members or that may haue many senses into their different significations is a high worke of wit that giueth life to our vnderstanding to conceiue the truth and light to our will to make choice of the same How many foule heresies in the Church oâ Chrisâ since her beginning haue beene beaten downe principally by pious and prudent distinguishing which otherwise would neuer perhaps haue bene ouercome As namely the Arians when they alleaged
such aboundance of Scriptures to proue or infer that God the Father is greater then Christ Iesuâ his Sonne what other way was there for Catholicks to say but that I distinguish as Christ Iesuâ was man he was inâerior to his Father his Father greater then he but as Christ Iesuâ is God as well as Man he is equall to his Father Will M. Barlow heere compare these two distinctions to Sedecias his two hornes Or will he call them proâunda Sathanae the profound mysteries of Sathan and iniquity And the like examples I might alleadg in great store of many other heresies discouered and disâolued by the help of distinctions as namely that of the Eutiâhians that denied two distinct natures in Christ that of the Nestorians that affirmed two persons to be in Christ that of the Monothelites that held one only Will to be in Christ by distinguishing on the Catholick party were vââerly ouerthrowne and confounded And now in these our dayes when the Anabaptists deny al Magistrates authority in iudging Christians especially in matters of life and death allâdging for their ground these words of our Sauiour âolitâ iudicare do not iudge we haue no refuge but a distinction that we are forbidden to iudge rashly and without iust cause and without due authority but with these circumstances we may iudge and Magistrates are lawfull And will here M. Barlow againe cry out of Proâânda Sathanae and of the hornes of Sedecias if he do I will send him to Scotland to be horned there For truely he is worthy of it to wit to be horned from the company of all lâarned sober men if he persist in these absurdities for that I dare auouch against him that there are many hundred places in the Bible that cannot rightly be vnderstood nor expounded without the vse of some distinction Well then distinctions in generall cannot be reproued without profunditie of folly Perhaps then my two distinctions here in particular are inueyghed against for ãâã they are false or not incident vnto the matter or of aây moment or necessity for explicâtion of the thing aâd controuersy in hand or for direction of consciânceâ of Catholike men that are pressed to take the Oath Thââ then let vs examine in a word or two and that as briefly and perspicuously as wee may The question is whether the Bishop of Rome as vniuersall Paâtour of Christendome by Catholike doctrineâ may at his pleasure by that Pastorall power of his depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdomes at his pleasure for so is the coÌmon obiection framed against vs. Vnto which question the answer may be made eyther affirmatiue or negatiue according to the different senses and interpretations of the words which cannot be done but by distiâguishing to wit that if we vnderstand that the Pope may depose at his pleasure without iust cause it is denied but with iust cause Catholicke doctrine doth allow it And sâ againe to vnderstand that the Pope may do it by his Pastorall power directly or immediately it is denied for that this power is spirituall and giuen to a spirituall end and to spirituall actions but if we vnderstand it indirectly as included in the other for defence and conseruation of the spirituall it is graunted And are not these distinctions needfull in this affaire Do they not cleare the doubt in controuersy Do they not remoue confusion Would M. Barlow haue Christian men to sweare swallow vp a bundle of wordâ knit togeather without opening and looking into theâ That is meete for his conscience that hath no eies perhaps to see nor will to receiue light but is ready to sweare any thing that may turne to his temporall commodity but Catholikes that feare God are not so taught but rather to looke before they leap and to examine well what they say or sweare for so much as they shall giue an accompt to Almighty God either to their saluation or damnation for the same By âhâs then wee see the Iniquity of M. Barlow his proceeding in exclaming against me so exorbitantly for vsing the forme of two distinctioÌs or explanations about taking the Oath and aboue al the iniury offered me or rather to himselfe and his owne credit in saying that I doe teach Equiuocation here in this Oath num 30. contrary to that I taught a little before numb 14. His wordes are these No sort of Equiuocations is lawâull saith Father Persons in matters of fayth and religion and yet sayth the same Father Persons Equiââcating in this matter of faith is lawâull and may stand with the integâiây and sincerity of true Catholik religion so then in matters of faith and religion it is not lawfull in any sort to equiuocate but yet in this matââr though it concerne âayth religion F. Persons sayth it is lawfull These are my contradictions according to M. Barlow And truly I confesâe I should blush acknowledge my ouersight if they were truly related but being falsely eyther of malice or ignorance collected by him he ought to blush and be sory for his sin For as I doe confesse the former part numb 14. that I allowed not any sort of Equiuocation in matters concerning faith and Religion so doe I vtterly deny the later clause num 30. that I doe allow Equiuocation in this particuler fact of taking the Oath Let the places be read in my booke thereby he will remayne conuinced For I do say expresly that these two clauses of explication added by me that the Popes power in deposing Princes is indirectly with iust cause must both be expressed by the swearer and accepted by the Magistrate and then are they no Equiuocations at all but direct assertions For that they are no mentall reseruations wherein consisteth the nature and force of Equiuocation Here then M. Barlow that accused me a litle before of making no conscience of God or common honesty must looke how he will defend his owne eyther conscience or honesty if he haue any in this foule calumniation wherein I doe not see what tergiuersation he can vse for his excuse And so I would leaue him in this matter if he did not continue on his rayling and raging beyond all measure as though by this my explication distinction vsed I had committed the greatest crime in the world I will demaund saith he of this Iesuit first whether âhis be not a Paganish delusion of God and men VVherto I answer that it is ââ delusion at all but rather an instruction and a necessâây explication not Paganish but Christian for directiââ mens consciences Nay saith M. Barlow it is the very ãâã oâ Lisander that children are to be mocked with toyes and ãâ¦ã Oathes Indeed Plutarke in his comparison of Lisââder and Silla recordeth that one said of Lisander Leuem esse apâd Liâââdrum iurisiurandi religionem Lisander made no scruple of aâ Oath that he gaue couÌsaile to deceiue men with Oathes as children with toyes and
so much from this acknowledgment or testimony of the Councell of VVormes which did but set downe the sense of the Christian Church in these dayes but from other far more ancient proofes and testimonies as M. Barlow wel knoweth though here he dissembleth the same and chaâeth exceedingly saying That this fugitiue for such is his modesty of speach wil fâtch a ãâã sentence from this Councel to warrant no Councel to be good that iâ celebrated without the Popes Authority and therby at one push ouerthrow the credit of al Councels both general and particuler for the better part of 900. yeares after Christ. Wherto I answer first that to be a fugitiue for the cause of Catholicke Religion is no reproach at al but a high commendation warranted by Christes owne words when he willed them that were persecuted in one Citty to fly into another and much more happy is it to be a fugitiue then a persecutour S. Athanasius in his booke de fugasua of his flight and persecution doth handle the matter at large to whom I remit the Reader Secondly as for the summoning gathering of CouÌcels general or particuler our controuersy is principally of General Councels for as for Diocesian Synods as they may be assembled by ech Bishop in his district and the Prouincial Councels by the Metropolitan which Protestants themselues wil not deny so by the due proportion of good order General Councels must be gathered by commandment or consent at least of the general Pastour though in States subiect to temporal Princes good reason requireth that the matter be done in like manner with the approbation of the said temporal Princes for the houlding of the said Councel in this or that place of their Dominions And this was obserued in the first 4. General Councels which were commanded to be gathered by Constantine Theodosius the elder Theodosius the yonger and Martian the Emperours by the assent and approbation of the Popes Syluester Damasus Celestinus and Leo which besides other proofes of seueral histories is made euident by the last of the said 4. Councels to wit that of Chalcedon where in the first action the heretical Archbishop Dioscorus was punished publikely and forbidden to sit amongst the Bishops for that he had presumed to call a Councell without the authority of the Apostolike Sea Quâd numquam licuiâ say they numquam sactum est that neuer was lawfull nor euer was done And consequently this prooueth that all the first 4. Generall Councells were gathered by the consents and approbations of the Bishops of Rome though with the concurrence also of the Emperours without whose good liking the meeting of so many Bishops in their States could not be permitted as before hath bene said But now here before I passe any further I must make you acquainted with a solemne foolery and falshood of M Barlow concerning Cardinall Bellarmine for that hauing vttered the words before mentioned that CouÌcels were to be gathered by the Emperours and not by the Bishops of Rome though he citeth no one argument for the same yet saith he this is a thing so cleare and radiant that Bellarmine himselfe being dazeled with behoulding the euidence euen as S. Peter not wiââing what he said though he laboured to build for the Pope yet labââreth be also to build for the Emperour and in that same place he ââeweth diuers reasons why it rather belongeth to Emperours then to Popes for âo assemble Councells citing for the same in his margent Bellar. de Concil cap. 13. But truly when I went to the place of Bellarmine and read his words I was ashamed on M. Barlowes behalfe and his folly was so radiant in my eyes to vse his phrase that I could not read them without blushing for that in the Chapter by him cited and in the other going before Bellarmine doth proue most substantially by many arguments both out of Scriptures Fathers Councels reasons histories practice and examples that it appertayneth not to the Emperour only or principally but to the Bishop of Rome to call General CouÌcells or at leastwise that it may not be done without the said Bishops consent and approbation first had so as the very contradictory proposition to this which M. Barlow sets downe is found in these expresse words in Bellarmine âsse reuerà Pontiâicis non Imperatoris congregare Synodum generalem that is belongeth truely to the Pope and not to the Emperour to gather a generall Councell Adding notwithstanding 4. particuler reasons and temporall respects why diuers generall Councells could not be gathered togeather vnder the Emperours who were temporal Lords of the world without their likings consents Not saith he for that a Councell gathered without the authority of the Emperour among Christians should not be of validity as our aduersaries doe dreame whereas S. Athanasiuâ saith plainely in his epistle to them that lead a solitary life Quando vmquam iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritateÌ habuit when did euer the iudgment of the Church take authority from the Emperour but for that the temporall state of Christendome standing in the Emperours hands no such meeting could be made without their approbation And can this stand with that which M. Barlow here affirmeth in his name that he shewes diuers reasons why it rather belonged to Emperours then to the Pope to assemble Councells Will he not blush and be ashamed of this shameles calumniation or rather forgery As for that he obiected coÌcerning the Graunt giuen to Charles the Great by Adrian the Pope to haue authority to approue the Election of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops and Archbishops and to dispose of the Sea Apostolike c. I referre him to Cardinall Baronius for his answer in his Annales of the yeare 774. where he discusseth the matter at large and proueth it a meere fiction and plaine fraud inuented registred first by Sigebertus in fauour of the cause of Henry the fourth Emperour excommunicated by the Pope which he proueth by many playne euidences out of all the ancient writers for the space of 300. years after Charles his time who neuer made mention of any such Graunt as also the expresse testimony of Eginhardus that was Notary to Charles the Great and was alwayes about him and wrote his life and by diuers other proofes which were too long here to recite Therfore with this shall we end this Chapter VVHETHER THE POPE IN HIS BREVE DID FORBID TEMPORALL OBEDIENCE to his Maiesty of England AND Whether the said Pope hath Power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII WHERAS in the Apology a great coÌplaint was made against the Pope for that in his Breue he did forbid temporall Obedience to be performed to his Maiesty as a poynt against fayth and saluation of soules moreouer chargeth him with assuming vnto himselfe infallibility of spirit to make new Articles of sayth when euer it shall please him c. my answer therunto
specified by their formall obiects and not by their materyall which may be the same in acts of different nature and consequently cannot distinguish them and so in our present purpose these two faiths or beliefes are not distinguished for that the one hath naturall and ciuill things for her obiects and the other supernaturall For that as well humane and naturall faith may both haue naturall and supernaturall thinges for her obiects as also dyuine and Theologicall faith may haue the same As for example when a man belieueth that there is a Citty called Constantinople for that many men do report it and when a Pagan belieueth that there is a God for that some learned Philosopher hath tould him so to whom he giueth credit heere both naturall and supernaturall things are obiects of humane and naturall fayth And so on the contrary side if a man should belieue naturall and ciuill things as reuealed by God in his Scriptures or otherwise as that Cayn killed his brother Matthâsalem lyued so long and the like these things should be obiects of Thologicall and diuine fayth as well as if they were in themselues supernaturall Wherfore these two faithes and beliefes are not distinguished by their materiall obiects be they either naturall or supernaturall but by their formal obiects or motiues non per res creditas sed per rationes credendi as Scholemen say not by the things that are beleiued but by the motiues and causes for which they are belieued so as whatsoeuer is belieued vpon any humane motiue or authority though in it self it be supernaturall appertayneth to humane fayth and not dyuine so likwise on the contrary side whatsoeuer is beleiued vpon diuine motiues and authoritie and as reuealed from God though in it self it be naturall and cyuill as M. Barlow calleth it yet doth it appertaine to Theologicall and diuine fayth as an obiect thereof But these things it is like M. Barlow hath no commodity to study and therefore I would easily pardon him these rude and grosse escapes if he did not shew himself so insolent in vaunting as he doth and so conâumelious against others that know more then himself VVHETHER PRINCES HAVE IVST CAVSE TO FEARE MVRTHERING by the commandement of Popes And in discussing of the particuler example produced by the Apologer concerning the fame great fraud and malice is discouered in M. Barlowes falsifying of Authors c. CHAP. III. IN the page 86. of my Letter I do handle a certaine speach of Cardinal Bellarmine in his letter to the Archpriest wherin he saith that neither his maiestie of England nor any Prince else hath cause to feare violence from the Pope for that it was neuer heard oâ from the Churches infancy vnâil this day that any Pope did command that any Prince though an hereticke though an Ethnicke though a persecutor should be murthered or did allow of the murther when it was done by another Thus the Cardinall Against which was obiected that Popes had depriued diuers Princes and had raysed great warres against others and that in warre was contayned the casualty of killing in like manner But this was answered that the question was of murthering Now what reply thinke you maketh M. Barlow First he bringeth in a long idle discourse to shew that according to Homer and other Poets politicke Historians Princes ought to go alwayes armed and vigilant for their safety and then he maketh this demaund What difference is there betweene personal murthering of Princes raysing war against them the lot wherof is common and vnpartiall Thirdly he bringeth in my answer as saying that though the Pope hath waged warre against Princes yet he neuer caused any to be vnlawâully murthered Wherin saith he the Aduerbe is worth the obseruing secretly implying that the Pope hath commanded or may command Princes to be murthered but not vnlawfully Wherin he sheweth himselfe to be a meere calumniator for that I speaking diuers times of this matter did neuer ioyne the Aduerbe vnlawfully with the word murthered but in one place only I sayd thus that albeit Popes vpon iust causes haue waged warrs against diuers Princes yet they neuer caused any to be vnlawfully made away murthered or allowed of their murthers committed by others Where you see the Aduerbe vnlawfully is not ioyned with the word murthered but with the wordes made away And the like corruption of my wordes and peruerting my sense he vseth afterward in the same page with intolerable iniquity making me to say that which was farre from my meaning concerning the warres betwene popes and Princes and it is his generall fashion neuer commonly to recite my wordes with sincerity But he goeth forward to proue that Popes do command murthers of Princes saying VVere there no example of fact extant against the Popes in this kind yet they may command Princes to be killed is Bellarmines owne doctrine both Symbolical as the spirit may command the flesh to âasting and chastisement yea euen ãâã death it selfe iâ the spirit sâe it necessary and Positiue also for that Christians may not suffer an Infidell or hereticall King to raigne ouer them So he And out of these two arguments doth proue that Popes do or may command Princes to be murthered But who doth not see the folly of these arguments which can moue nothing but laughter or stomacke For albeit Bâllarmine do teach that the spirit in a man may punish the flesh by fasting and chastisement where it is necessary for the souls health and I could wiâh that M. Barlow had some of this spirit yet may he not kil him selfe or punish his body vnto death as M. Barlow falsifyeth him but cum detrimento aliquo debilitatione ipsius corporis though it be with some losse and weaknes of the said body True it is that in another case of Martyrdome Bellarmine teacheth that the spirit may command the flesh to yield it selfe vp to the persecutour for defence of Christian fayth but this is not our questioÌ So as in this first point M. Barlow is fouÌd to falsify in the second to make a foolish consequeÌce that for so much as Christian men may not tolerate in some cases an Infidell Prince c. therfore they must murther him as though there were no other remedy but murther these are odious inferences fit for such a spirit as M. Barlowes who notwithstanding meaneth not to murther himselfe by the seuerity of Bellarmines doctrine whom he falsely affirmeth to teach that the spirit may subdue the flesh by fasting and other chastisements yea euen vnto death nor yet to debilitate his body therby according to Cardinall Bellarmines true doctrine Another argument of the Popes murthers is made to be for that he is said to haue coÌmanded the body of Henry the 4. Emperour of that name that died excoÌmunicated in Liege vpon the yeare 1106. to be taken out againe of his sepulcher and thereof he inferreth that if the Pope would vse
liued in Africk he not only suffered but procured throughout all Sicily and his kingdome of Italy the fairest women and maidens which the Turkes lusted after to be taken from their parents bosome and married wiues euen out of their husbands armes to be giuen vnto them So he And was not this a vertuous man trow you who to pleasure the Turkes sworn enemies of Christ would thus deale with Christians And doth not this man deserue to be credited speaking in his owne behalfe before Pope all writers and whatsoeuer other testimony But indeed this dealing was conforme to his deuotion for he who so vilely esteemed of our Sauiour himself no meruaile if in his other behauiour he were so irreligious base and wicked for as we haue before out of Fazelius shewed he held our Sauiour and Moyses to be no better theÌ Mahomet calling them all three Seducers as with Fazelius the Chronicles of Augusta and Compilatio Chronologica both German histories do auouch and moreouer affirme that he speake the same in the hearing of Henry the Lantgraue saying withal If the Princes of the Empire would but follow me I would ordaine a bâtter maner of beliefe and liâe for all Nations And verily it seemeth that he aymed at this when as you haue seene before out of his owne epistle set downe and censured by both the Matthews he went about to abase all the Clergie by taking all liuings from them and to depriue them of all their dignity âor that being once effected he might with more ease afterwardes haue made a new Clergy a new faith a new Christ but he forgot in this his foolish feruor what the Kingly Prophet Dauid said and praied against such atteÌptes Omnes Principes qui dixerunt hereditate possideamus Sanctuarium Dei c. All thoâe Princes who haue sayed let vs possesse as our inheritance the Sanctuary of God let them be O my God as a wheele and as straw before the face of the wind as a fier that burnes the wood and as a flame that consumes the mountaines So shalt thou persecute them c. Which seemes in some sort to be verified litteâally in this man who after his excommunication being in extreme calamitie as well by the election of another Emperour defection of a great part of the Empire from him as also for that one of his sonnes to wit Entius King of Sardinia was taken prisoner by the people of Bolognia and another was dead in Apulia Likewise himself percussus est saith Matthew Paris morbo qui dicitur lupus vel sacer ignis was stroken with the disease which is called the wolâe or holy fier whereby he was so humbled as the same Author witnesseth that he offered vnto the Pope good conditions of peace according saith Matthew to that saying of the Psalmist which followeth immediatly in the same Psalme by me now alleadged Imple facies eorum ignominia quaerent nomen tuum Domine fill their face with confusion and they will seeke thy name O lord And this chastismeÌt of almighty God as it began in his owne person so it continued in his issue partly whiles he liued partly after his death vntill they were all extirpated In his life tyme his Sonne Henry was made away by his owne procurement being cast into pryson where he was eyther poysoned by his command as some thinke or else died naturally as others report Entius was taken by the Bolognians and there after twenty yeares restrainst and more being kept in an iron cage he pined away and died miserablie Bononiam ductus saith Mutiââ mittitur in ferreamâ caueam in qua sordidissimo victu nutritus miserimam vitam post aliquot annos finiuit Entiuâ being brought to Bolognia is cast into an iron cage in which being intertained with most filthy diet after some yeares imprisonmeÌt ended a most miserable life So he His other bastard-sonne Fredericke died in Apulia And after the said Emperour his death his sonne Conrade King of Sicily was poysoned by Manfred his bastard-brother and Manfred was slaine in battaile by Charles of Angâow and Conradinus Sonne or Nephew to Conradus for in this Authors differ was beheaded at Naples and so ended the race of this wicked and vnfortunate Emperour of whome that may iustly be said which Iob speaketh of the like men Haec est pars impij apud Deum c. This is the portion of the wicked man with God aâd the inheritance of the violent oppressors which they shall receaue from the omnipotent If his sonnes shal be multiplied they shall die by the sworde and his nephews shall not be filled with bread All whome he shall leaue behind him shal be buried in destruction Which if all Princes could remeÌber amidst their greatnes no doubt but they would be more moderate in their power and actions and also feare him more qui auâert spiritum Principum terribilis apud omnes Reges terrâ who taketh away the life of Princes and is dreadfull to all the Kinges of the earth Before we haue set downe out of the Councell it self then which there can be no more graue or greater authority all the causes of his condemnation as his sacriledges his periuries vpon periuries his perfidiousnes to the Christians his treacherous treaty with the Soldan his spoiling of Churches and monasteries his expelling of the Christians out of Nuceria and giuing it to the Turkes his reuiuing the foule faction of the Guelphes and Gibbelines all which and many more as they may be seene in the sentence of Innocentius and Seuerinus Binnius so also many other Authors might be alleadged for the same And he who listeth to read more herof may peruse VVilliam of Nangis the Frenchman in the life of S. Lewis and with him all the Authors whom before we haue cited where some of these things haue bene more particulerly touched which no doubt was the cause why VViceliââ a German in his Epitome of the Popes liues in this Innocentiââ the 4. spake so contemptibly of the Emperours death as he said sub hoc perijt bestia Fredericus In the time of this Pope died that beast Fredericke And the Monke of Padua registring the same death saith Vitam amisit in Apulia c. On S. Lucies day Fredericke died in Apulia and descended into hell carrying nothing with him but a sack of sinnes So he far different from that which before we haue heard others to write of the death of Innocentiuâ And this may suffice to shew what smal reason M. Barl. had so much to iustify this Emperor for his sake to coÌdemne the Popes who then liued forgetting in boâh that seuere coÌmination of the Holy Ghost Qui iustificat impiuÌ qui condemnat iustum abominabilis est vterque apud Deum He that iustifies the wicked and he that condemnes the iust both are abominable before God Which makes M. Barlowes case the more pittifull for that he
A DISCVSSION OF THE ANSVVERE OF M. VVILLIAM BARLOVV D. of Diuinity to the Booke intituled The Iudgment of a Catholike Englishman liuing in banishment for his Religion c. CONCERNING The Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance VVRITTEN By the R. Father F. Robert Persons of the Society of IESVS VVHERVNTO since the said Fathers death is annexed a generall Preface laying open the Insufficiency Rayling Lying and other Misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing IOHN MORRIS Ex fructibus ãâ¦ã Matth. 7. You shall know them by their fruites Permissu Superiorum M. DC XII A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS AND PARAGRAPHES CONTEYNED IN THIS BOOKE THE FIRST PART THE Preface to the Reader In which are laid open some few examples of the singular Ignorance Lying and other bad dealings of M. Barlow in his Answere to the Censure of the Apology Of Points concerning the new Oath of Allegiance handled in the Kings Apology before the Popes Breues and discussed in my former Letter CHAP. I. pag. 1. About the true Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance § 1. pag. 3. Of the pretended Cause of the new Oath which is said to be the Powder-Treason § 2. pag. 13. How great a pressure the vrging of the new Oath is to Catholickes that haue a contrary Conscience in Religion § 3. pag. 25. The same argument about the pressure of the Oath is further discussed § 4. pag. 31. What freedome may be said to be permitted to English Catholickes for swearing or not swearing the new Oath § 5. pag. 39. About recourse made to the Bishop of Rome for decisioÌ whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English Catholicks or no Wherin also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations § 6. pag. 49. Whether the Oâth be only of ciuill obedience Oâ whether thâre be any clauses in it against Catholicke Religion CHAP. II. pag. 70. Of certaine notorious Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his Aduersary which no waies can be excused froÌ malice and witting errour § 2. pag. 87. The reasoÌ is examined whether Gods prouideÌce might seeme defectuous if no authority had beene left in the Christian Church to restraine punish euill Kings And whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. pag. 101. Whether the deuising vrging of this new Oath were a blessing or no eyther to the Receauers or Vrgers And first of the Recâauers wherin is handled also of Conscience of swearing against Conscience CHAP. IIII. pag. 115. Touching the exhibitours of the Oath and of Scandall actiue and passiue Wherin M. Barlowes grosse Ignorance is disââââred § 2. pag. 128. The answere to an obiection by occasion whereof it is shewed that Pâssâsâion and Presâription are good proofâs âuer in matters of Dâctrine And the contrary is fondly affââmed by M. Barlow CHAP. V. pag. 141. THE SECOND PART About the Brâââs of Pope Paulus Quintus CONCERNING M. Barlow his âxorbitant flattery in exaggerating Queene Elizabeths Vertues and Sanctity CHAP. I. pag. 159. About Queene Elizabeth her Mortifications And of the nature of that Vertue § 2. pag. 168. Of Queene Elizabeth her Felicities and Infelicities CHAP. II. pag. 179. Other Points concerning Queene Elizabeths Felicities or Infelicities § 2. pag. 194. Of Queene Elizabeths Sicknes and Death and other things belonging therunto § 3. pag. 209. Of the Flattery and Sycophancy vsed by diuers Ministers to his Maiestie of England to the hurt and preiudice of Caâholicke men and their cause CHAP. III. pag. 229. About Toleration or Liberty of Conscience demaunded by humble petition at his Maiesties handes by Catholickes whether it were height of pride or not As also concerning the contention betweene Protestants and Puritans CHAP. IIII. pag. 251. Concerning Errours Absurdities Ignorances and Falsities vttered by M. Barlow in the rest of his Answere CHAP. V. pag. 273. Whether Toby did well or no in breaking the commandement of the King of Niniue concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authority of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy § 2. pag. 285. Of another example or instance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall § 3. pag. 303. Whether Councells haue submitted themselues vnto Christian Emperors in Spirituall affayres and namely that of Arles to Charles the great CHAP. VI. pag. 311. Whether the Pope in his Breue did forbid temporall Obedience to his Maiesty of England And whether the sayd Pope hath power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII pag. 323. Of certaine other fraudulent and vntrue dealings of M. Barlow vnto the end of this Paragraph with a notorious abuse in alleaging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority § 2. pag. 334. THE THIRD PART Concerning Cardinall Bellarmine his Letter OF the occasion of the Letter written by Cardinall Bellarmine vnto M. George Blackâwell Archpriest And whether he mistooke the state of the question Also of the change of Supreme Head into Supreme Gouernour CHAP. I. pag. 245. Whether the denying of taking this New Oath do include the deniall of all the particulâr clauses contayned therin § 2. pag. 356. Whether the fourth Councell of Toledo did prescribe any such set forme of Oath to be exhibited to the Subiects as is affirmed in the Apology CHAP. II. pag. 365. Cardinall Bellarmine is cleared from a false imputation and a controuersy about certaine words and clauses in the Oath is discussed § 2. pag. 386. Whether Princes haue iust cause to feare murthering by the commaundement of Popes And in disâussing of the particuler example produced by the Apologer concerning the same great fraud and malice is discouered in M. Barlowes falsifying of Authors c. CHAP. III. pag. 394. About the death of Henry the third King of France whether it may be an example of allowance of such murthers As also about the late Queene of England § 2. pag. 414. Of certaine contradictions obiected to Card. Bellarmine and what confidence may be placed in a mans owne good workes CHAP. IIII. pag. 431. Of three other contradictions imputed vnto Card. Bellar. but proued to be no contradictioÌs at all § 2. pag. 448. Of the contentions of sundry other Emperours Kings and Princes with Popes of their times in temporall affaires obiected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Popes Superiority Wherin many fraudes aâd forgeries are discouered in M. Barlow particulerly concerning Fredericke the second and his contentions with Popes CHAP. V. pag. 461. M. Barlows more sure and stronger proofes are discouered to be lyes with other things concerning Frederick the second and Innocentius the fourth § 2. pag. 495. Of the Emperour Fredericke the first whose picture was said to haue beene 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. Barlowes innocent Turke §
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 bâseeme 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 CârinthiaÌs Nazarens Begardines Ebionites Catababdites Eâtheusiasts 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 diuersâây between a Priest and a Bishop that Bishops haue no iuâisdiction 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 Scoâland 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
sola meritum is nothing els but meere foolery as shal be afterwards shewed 59. From Diuinity he comes to Logick making his entrance with a vaunting insultation of his Aduersaries ignorance and want of skill about the true nature of a contradiction In deliuering of which the poore man is so embroyled as he knoweth not what he saith but cleane mistaketh euery thinge which he speaketh of For first he supposeth that a conâradiction must be where some generall proposition âither expresly or implicatiuely is crossed by a particuâer but this is no equall and perfect diuision for that â contradiction requireth not alwaies a generall proâosition but may be between two particuler so that âhe subiect remaine indiuisible to wit vnder one and âhe selfsame respect vnder them both For if I should âay that M. Barlow hath skill in Logicke though it be âery little and M. Barlow hath not skill in Logick âgaine M. Barlow is Bishop of Barlowâs âs not Bishop of Lincolne c. I do not doubt but that âe would thinke these propositions though both parâiculer to be truly contradictory and consequently his âwne supposition to be false as that also is very fond âhich for explication of his expresse and implyed conâradiction he ioyneth saying contradictionân ân negato the other in opposito or adiecto of the first âort are these examples wherin the negatiue note is expresâed as omnis homo est aliquis non est of the second âort are such wherin the note negatiue is omitted and yet âne member ouerthrowes another So M. Barlow out of Logick And this as I said is very fond for that it is not âf the nature of a contradiction in adiecto to be impliâd but rather the contrary to be expressed in termes ât being all one with that which is called implicantia ân terminis an implicancy or contradiction in the âery termes themselues For example If I should say M. Barlow is a brute beast the adiectum or terminus ârute beast destroyeth the subiect to wit M. Barlow whose behauiour though it be often tymes very bruâish and beastly yet is he by nature a man and that also a very naturall one 60. But the greatest mistaking and ignorance of all the rest is in the example which he maketh of this his implyed contradiction for hauing made this proposition Euery Bishop of Rome is vnder Christ the immeatate and sole chief Pastour of the whole Church in the Christian world this saith our Philosopher may be contradicted two wayes first expresly Some Bishop oâ Rome is not the immediate and sole chief pastour c. Thiâ is a contradictory with the negatiue Secondly it may be crossed by implicatioÌ as thus The patriarch of Constantinople is vnder Christ the immediate and sole chief pâstour of the Eastârne Church This though it be a contradiction in opposito yet doth it as mainly oppose thâ former generall proposition as if it had a negatiue noâ c. Thus far M. Barlow as good a Philosopher aâ M. Morton who though he professe to haue bene â Reader of Logick yet shaped vs out a syllogisme oâ six termes to proue Equiuocation in an oath to bâ vnlawfull such great Deuynes are these menâ as they know not the first elements of this faculty For haâ not M. Barlow bene exceeding ignorant of the first rule and necessary condition of a contradiction â which is that both parts cânnot togeather be eytheâ true of false he would neuer haue giuen this for aâ example seeing himself neyther belieueth the Bishop of Râmâ to be head of the whole or Patriarke of Constantinople of the Easterne Church And where theâ is the contradiction And is not M. Barlow well seenâ in Philosophâ who chooseth out an example to proue a contradiction in which euen in his owne opinion there is no contradiction at all Truly I may well suspect that he neuer came to be Bishop âf Lincolne for his learning which euery where he âheweth to be lesse then meane and therfore ouerlaâheth without measure but for some other inferiour quality little perhaps befitting that calling Let vs to make him conceaue his errour the better exemplifie in some more familiar examples The L. of Canterbuây is Primate of all and euery part of England and âhe L. of Yorke is Primate of all the North part is with me no contradiction for that I hold both propositions to be false and neyther of them both to haue any Primacy at all in that Church and as the later will not claime it so M. Abbots may be sure I will not assigne it vnto him whome I doe as much hold to be Abbot of Wâstminster as Bishop of Cantârâury And the like must M. Barlow needs say of his two propositions for that neyther of them in his iudgmeÌt âs true and therefore are more contrary then contradictory as are also these omnis homo currit nullus homo currit and the like 61. Wherefore if it be as M. Barlow will needs haue it our very case in hand euen by the verdict of all skilfull Philosophers in the world the Cardinall will be quit at least from a contradiction and it is but childish babling yet very frequent in M. Barlow to make the oppositioÌs of the termes theÌselues saying that hâre is a double contradictioÌ both subiecti praedicaâi the Patriarke of Constantinople crosseth the Bishop of Rome the Eastârnâ Church and the whole world contradict ech othâr implicitely This I say is but babling for there is as great opposition between the former two propositions before set downe as in this Cantârbury crâssâth Yorke all England the north parts And againe omnis cannot stand with nullus currit with non currit and yet he will sooner bring Constantinople to Romeâ and Yorke to Canterbury then proue any contradictioÌ to be in the same But let vs draw to an end of M. Barlows dispute 62. I passe ouer the rest he addeth concerning this matter although his chiefest fraud and cosenage be conteyned in the same For of an exhortatiue proposition in the Cardinall he maketh an absolute and necessary by cogging in the words is must thus mans confidence is to be reposed in the alone mercy of God and some confidence of man must be placed in his owne merits which are his owne forgeryes and not the Cardinalls assertions and then further in falsly charging F. Persons as though he said that good workes increase confidence in their owne nature and therfore will needs haue his doctrine to be condemned by Pius V. amongst other like assertions of a Louain Doctor but all is forgery for the Father speaketh not of our workes as alone they proceed from vs but as they proceed also from Gods grace within vs and for that cause calleth them the good workes of a ChristiaÌ it is vnchristian dealing in this Prelate to say that this proposition was euer condemned by Pius V. or any other Pope or Councell who only
his Maiesty then he doth in these 77. But let vs see M. Barlowes Commentary by which alone will sufficiently appeare with what malignant spirit his mind is possessed For if hell it self wâre let loose it is hard to say whether all the Diuells togeather would make a moâe false more wââkedâ or more iniurious Answere then he hath done For thus he writeth Hâre Iudas is turnâd into Caiphas spâakes a truth as Prâsident of the Counsâll for the POWDER-PLOT the reuealing thereof by a letter vnexpected he cunningly calls a sinister information which indeed preuânted his Maiesty from feeling the euent of that dreadfâll âesigne and them also of their grâater hopes which here he câlls their DVE as if ALL but THEY were vsurpers for had not the preuântion hapned the greatest places of the land which THEY in hope had swallowed had âene now at their disposall and this preuention he calls sinister as vnlucky vnto them c So this lying Minister For that he doth here most loudly and lewdly lye needeth no other proofe then the comparing of F. Persons words with this answere of his which can no more stand togeather then fire and water truth with falshood or for that he playeth the beast so brutishly in this place to vse his owne example no more thân Moyâes his oxe and asse in onâ yoake 78. For were not his wit very little and honesty lesse he would neuer shew such fraudulent malignity in facing so heynous a matter without all ground proofe or semblable coniecture especially seeing in F. Persons the fauour mentioned to be meant only of that which his Maiesty shewed at his entrance For these are his words almost in the next ensuing lines If there had bânâ no pârseâutioÌ before that treason this might haue bânâ assignâd for some probable cause of the subsâquent tribulationâ but all England knoweth that this is not so but that his Maiâsties sweet and mild aspâct towards Catholicks at his first entranâe was soone by art of their enâmyes auârted long bâfore the conspiracy fell out c. Which words fully declare what he meant by sinister informatiân and perswasion of othârs and M. Barlow willing to dazle the Readers eyes and imprint in his mind a suspition of F. Pârsâns his acknowledge of the powder-plot first by a histâron proteron inuerteth his words cobling in some of his owne and then frameth a glosse which notwithstanding all his dealing agreeth not with the text so good a writer he is as he knoweth not of one thing how to inferre another for these words as hoping to haue receiued much grâater cited by M Barlow in a different letter are not F. Pârsâns words neither doth F. Persons shut vp as due vnto them within a pareÌthesis as immediatly following the former sentence and the wordes if his Maiesty had not bene preuented by sinister information in F. Persons goe before the other as due vnto them and are there so plainly explicated as none but some malicious Minister could be ignorant of his meaning 79. Yet after all this cutting off transposition inuersion changing in so short a sentence to take it as it pleaseth M. Barlow to giue it how will the conclusion drawne therof agree with the premisses Catholicks had receaued at his Maiesties hands greater fauours as due vnto them if he had not bene preuented by sinister information How I say will it follow that by sinister informatioÌ F. Persons meant the reuealing of the powder-plot by a letter which saith he preuented his Maiesty from fâeling the euent of that dreadfull designe And againe and this preuention he calls sinister as vnlucky to them adding moreouer that the hopes which F. Persons meant to be due to the Catholiks were those which should haue ensued vnto them by that treason which saith M. Barlow here he calls their DVE as if ALL but THEY were vsurpers Are not these good inferences Is not this Christian and charitable proceeding What learning truth or modesty will allow this barbarous collection and thââ in one who taketh vpon him to write in defence of a Prince and would be reputed in the Church for a Bishop But wo be to those sheep that are fed and led by so perfidious a Pastour 80. The like perfidiousnes he sheweth in cyting F. Persons words where he maketh him in a different letter to say speaking of the warrs which some Popes haue had with the Emperours that eyther they were not vnlawfully done or els the causes were iust or saith M. Barlow which is a pretty passage numb 28. the Popes haue perswaded themselues they were iust and therfore as a Generall in the field pursued them as open enemies or as a Iudge vpon the Bench commaunded execution to be done vpon them as MALEFACTORS And hauing set downe these wordes as if F. Persons had spoken them be beginneth to reply against them with this insulting entrance But first who girt the sword to the Popes side But I may better retort this interrogation vpon M. Barlow and aske him But first who taught him to ly so loud For in all the 28. nuÌber which he calles a pretty passage where will he find these wordes And therefore as a Generall in the field pursued them as open enemies or as a Iudge vpon the bench coÌmaunded execution to be done vpon them as MALEFACTORS And if these Wordes be neither there nor in any other place of F. Persons is not this a pretty passage or rather a paltry cosenage and lying liberty in this Minister to make his aduersary to speake what himselfe listeth and especially in such an odious manner and matter as here he doth printing the words MALEFACTORS in great capitall letters as though F. PersoÌs had said that Popes may coÌmaund execution to be done vpon Princes as vpoÌ MALEFACTORS which is nothing els but the capital lying of M. Barlow 81. Perhaps the Reader heere will aske vpon what ground this charge is made for it is to be supposed that he had some foundation for the same in the discourse of F. Persons albeit he followed not precisely the wordes but their sense meaning from which it is to be thought that he hath no way swarued but hereunto I answere that neither the wordes or sense is to be found of this matter in the passage cyted and all that can be drawne to this purpose in the 28. number are these very wordes of the beginning And so if sâââ Popes haue had iust warrs with some Princes Kings ãâã Emperours or haue persuaded themselues that they weââ iust in respect of some supposed disorders of the said Princeâ as here is mentioned the war and other hostile proceedingâ of Pope Gregory the seauenth against the Emperour Heâââ the fourth this is not contrary to the saying of Cardiâââ Bellarmine that no Pope euer commaunded any Prince ãâã be murthered or allowed thereof after it was done by ãâã other These are F. Persons words for
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 dutiâull 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 iudgemeÌt 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 lawâull proceeding if when he setteth our a Proclamation his Subiectes should demaÌd what skill in Law or Diuinity he hath for auouching âhe same And much more if the question had bene made in the time of Q. Elizabeth who profeââed 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 sââiects ârom 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 interââcted 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 theÌselues 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 doctâs as it is no great accusâtion 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 coÌcerning 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 inââsâân but their writings reuealed it to the world So that Peter we know and Paul we know to be singular Dâuines but who is this No men that seeketh to be âamous 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 Decisââs 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 DeterminatioÌs and Decisions I doubt not but his Holines hath maââ 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
malicious and intolerable in him for that he had seene me to haue obiected the same falsehood and vntrue dealing vnto M. Morton in my booke of Mitigation that the sayd M. Morton was so farre of from being able to answer the same as in his last Reply he left it quite out now lately I haue obiected the âame to him again in my last Reckoning with him cap. 6. 7. whervnto I refer M. Barl. to help him out And so much of this point It followeth in M. Barlowes speach that iâ S. Peter had receiued of Christ with the keyes Math. 16. this IurisdictioÌ ouer Princes which we pretend then had it bene directly vniuersally ouer the whole world But this is not necessary for he might receiââ the same indirectly as included and comprehended in the spirituall to be vsed for the preseruation of the Church when spirituall necessity should require as before haââ bene said And as for Vniuersall ouer the world it is sufficient that it be ouer Christian Princes and people only wââ are properly the sheep and lambes that are commended ãâã the chiefe Pastours feeding or gouernement Ioan. 21â though vpon Infidell Princes also he may haue some power in certaine cases as when they will go about to let the preaching of the Ghospell authorized by these wordes Praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae But this appertayneth not to our question But wheras he sayth that Cardinall Bellarmiâe I do affirme that the Pope hath only authority ouer Princes indirectly obliquely in ordine ad DeuÌ we graunt the word indirectly but as for obliquely in ordine ad Deum he will not I thinke find the phrase in any writing of ours but only ââ ordine ad spiritualia which is to say that the Pope hath such authority vpon Princes when the preseruation of the spirituall affaires doth so require to wit the saluation of souls he that shall read the place of Bellarmin here by M. Barlow quoted for of myne he citteth nothing to wit lib. 5. de Pontif. cap. 4. 6. shall find this sentence in ordine ad spiritualia but neuer I suppose in ordine ad Deum for that all power of the Pope is in ordine ad Deum propter Deum whether it be spirituall or temporall but in ordine ad spiritualia hath an other meaning as now hath bene shewed to wit that the Pope hatH directly only spirituall authority to execute spirituall functions but when this cannot be coÌsââuâd or executed without the help of temporall he may vse that also for defence of the other So as it seemeth that this our great Doctour doth not vnderstaÌd the very terms of Deuinity in this matter wherof he disputeth and this his ignorance sheweth it selfe no lesse here then before about indeterminatio iudicy in free choice Nor doth he onlâ relate falsely ignorantly this point as out oâ Cardinall Bellarmine and me but much more doth he abuse the name of D. Sanders in the very next words that do ensue as though he should say that neither directly nor indirectly hath the Pope this temporall authority from Christ but rather power to suffer as now you haue heard him say he citing for it de claue Dauid lib. 2. cap. 13. wheras D. Sanders doth hold the quite contrary in that booke throughout sundry Chapters to wit that the Pope hath receaued from Christ vtrumque gladium temporalem spiritualem both swords that is both temporall and spirituall authority and proueth it by many arguments and demonstrations only in the 13. Chapter he demandeth why theÌ had not the Apostoles depriued Nero and Domitius of their Empires Whereto he answereth among other causes that these were Pagan Tyrants and not vnder the charge and power that was giuen to the Church ouer sheepe lambes And then in the 14. Chapter he demandeth further why the Apostles first Christians had not elected some new King Christan for the good of the Church at the beginning Whereto he answereth alleaging sundry reasons why it was not conuenient that the Christian Church should be planted with violence but that for the space and time appointed by Gods prouidence Christians should exercise the other part of ChristiaÌ fortitude which coÌsisteth in suffering as is before touchedâ but yet he neuer denyeth notwithstanding that the sayd temporall power ouer Christian Princes was in the Church Head therof though that season admitted not the vse but rather proueth it expressely and consequently is egregiously abused and falsifyed by M. Barlow when he sayth Doctor Sanders to affirme that the Pope had neyther directly or indirectly any such power from Christ. But will you see this our doughty Doctour ouerthrown confouÌded both in him selfe and by himselfe then harken to his words in the very next page It is so sayth Sanders S. Peter with the Keyes receyued both powers temporall and ciuill Is it so Syr and why then did you euen now deny it Are you so mutable within the compasse of two pages What misery is this of your cause to be driuân to these shiftes But let vs see another deuise which is ââ oppose Franciscus de Victoria to this saying of Sanders ãâã thus you bring him in No not so sayth a Iesuit for this power oâ the Keyes est alia à ciuili potestate is another power diffeâââ from the ciuill thus they iarre say you But whether we iarre or no one Catholike writer with another sure I am ââat you iarre with your selfe and seeme not to haââ your witts at home For euen now you cited Doctoââ Sanders as denying the Popes temporall power to coââ neyther directly nor indirectly from Christ and now you say him to affirme that S. Peter receyued both powers with the Keyes Are not these playne contradictions How can this iarre be excused by you But I haue further to say to you yet in this matter foâ that in the very next wordes where you would make a contradiction betweene Doctor Sanders Franciscus de Victoria you shew much more folly if not a worse quality For wheras you write that a Iesuite sayth No not so for ãâã the power of the keyes is different from ciuill power and do quoâ the place of Victoria in the margent first in calling him Iesuite who was a Dominican fryar you shew much ignorance if you erre not of purpose For who knoweth not that Iesuites and Dominicans are two different Religious Orders the very first page of the booke and words of the title which are Reuerendi Patris Francisci de Victoria Ordinis Praedicatorum Relectiones c. might haue taught you that Victoria was no Iesuite but it may be that you seeing the words Ordinis Praedicatorum and vnderstanding that Iesuits did vse to preach also you did full wisely imagine Victoria to be a Iesuite and by the same reason you might ââwell haue imagined him to be a Minister of your
inferreth that ãâã temporall authority of the Pope by vs pretended beiââ but humanum inuentum a humane inuention or ratâââ intrusion or vsurpation as he calleth it the matter of the Oath wherby the same is excluded must needââ ãâã meerly Ciuill no lesse then if it were against any oââââ meere temporall Prince that would vsurpe any part of our Soueraignes temporall right or Crowne Whereunââ 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 teÌporal Prince might haue place But for that we haue shewed now that this is not ãâã 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 Câiâ sâ congâegare Concilâa 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 withoââ their consent and power But of Excommunication or of deposition of Princes Bâllarmine 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 fiâth 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 Innocentiââ 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 Chilperiâus 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 Noâelty 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 nouiâas non dicam hâresis necdum in mundo emerserat vt ãâã Dei doceant populum quâd maliâ Regibus nullam debeâât ãâã To wit that I may speake without offence of all this only nouelty I will not say Heresy was not yet spââââ vp in the world that the Priestes of God should teach ãâã people that they ought no obedience at all to euill Priâces c. In which wordes you see that Sigebert doth ãâã deny or reproue the authority of Excommunication ãâã deposition of Princes especially if they be for heresy bââ only the Doctrine that no subiection or obedience is dââ to vicious or cuill-liuing Princes which is false and scandalous doctrine indeed As for the fourth Author alleadged in this place ãâã wit Claudius Espencaeus that he should call the fact of Pope Gregory the seauenth his excommunicating Henry the thiâd 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 âuident a conuiction of wilful falsity as is impossible for him to cleare his credit therin For that these wordes are not spoken by Espencaeus himselfââ 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 Robertâarle âarle oâ âlanders and his souldiers newly come from Ierusalem about the yeare 1102. for their rebellious behauyour Which passionate letter of theirs Espencaââ doth only relate out of the second Tome of Councells expresly protesting that he wil not medle with that controuerây of fighting betweene Popes and Emperours though he prâue in that plâce by sundry exâmples 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 dâfence 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 âurther 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
bables This was the fact of a Pagan Atheist What doth the matter appertayne to vsâ do we esteeme so litle a false Oath Why then doe Catholickes stand so much in England against the receiuing of this Oath Why doe they put themselues in danger of leesing the Princes fauour their goods theyr lands their Countrie their liues rather then to take the same againââ their consciences It seemeth rather that M. Barlââ concurreth with Lisanders opinion who will haue theâ take it although it be against their consciences for thiâ is to haue leuem iurisiurandi religionem little conscience of an Oath But yet he goeth further in this matter and cannot get out of it for he will needs proue this my distinctioâ and as he calleth it Equiuocation not only to be Pagaâiââ but more then Heatheniâh that euen by Aristotles testimony in his Booke of Rhetoricke to King Alexander his wordes are these Nay this delusion is more then Heathenish âor Aristotle was of opinion that he which doubteth in his Oath for thââ iâ ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to sweare with a mentall addiâion hath neither âear oâ Goââ vângeance or shâme oâ mens reproof But truely I hauing conâidered the place of Aristotle how far his meaning is from that which here is alledged in his name me thinkes that M. Barlow should feare these two last pointes of Gods vengeaÌce mans reprofe For Aristotle hath not a word of dââbâing in his Oath or of mentall addition or reseruatioÌ in an Oath bât only of plaine forswearing For his argument is hauing treated in that booke to Alexander how by the preceptes of Rhetoricke an Orator may proue or improue any fact or crime that shall come in question as by signes by arguments by coniectures by probability by witnesse and by torture he coÌmeth at leÌgth to shew how it may be proued or improued by an Oath His words are these Iufiuranduâ est cum diuina veneratione dictio probationis expeâs c. An Oath is a speach without proofes with diuine veneration wherefâre if we will confirme our Oath and the credit thereof we must say thââ no man truly will forsweare himselfe both in respect of the âeare of punishment from the Gods as also of disgrace among men and we may add that men may be deceyued but the Gods cannot But now if the aduersary will flie also to an Oath and we would extenuate or discredit the same then we must shew that the man that will not sticke to dâe euill will not sticke also to forsweare himself for that he which thinketh he may ly hidden from the Gods after he hath committed an eâill âact will thinke that he may also escape punishment after he hath âorsworne himselfe This is Aristotles discourse which maketh no mention at all as you see of doubting in an Oath and much lesse of mentall addition or reseruation And albeit M. Barlow do bouldly and ignorantly say that the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which by all Interpreters doth signifie peierare to periure or forsweare doth import also to sweare with mental addition yet is this only a fiction of his nor can he bring forth one example out of Aristotle or any Greeke writer which doth vse it in that sense nor could Aristotle vse it so in this place where he vseth the sayd wordes thrice in these lines by me alleaged alwaies for peierare to forsweare and neuer for doubting or mentall addition Nay it cannot stand with any sense of Aristotles discourse for if Aristotle should say that no man truly will doubt in his Oath or haue a meÌtall reseruation both for feare of Gods chastisement discredit amongst men it were a ridiculous speach for that men do not knowe when a mentall reseruation is made or when a man doubteth in his Oath but when he forsweareth himselfe it may come to be knowne And in like manner it is more ridiculous to say against the aduersary as Aristotle teacheth vs that he which sticketh not to doe wickedly will not sticke to doubt also in his Oath or to vse a mentall addition which no man I thinke would vnderstand or can read without laughing Wherfore seing that Aristotle speaketh only of forsweâring and that the Greeke word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is so taken by him and by all other Greeke Authors wherof we might heââ alledge infinite examples M Barlow cannot alleadge one for his fiction it is euidently seene that he miserable man is sore pressed when to sustaine his bad cause he is forced to falsifie and corrupt Authours by peruerting and wresting them aside quite contrary to their meaning purpose But now we shall passe to some other poyntes THE REASON IS EXAMINED WHETHER GODS PROVIDENCE MIGHT SEEME DEFECTVOVS if no authority had bene left in the Christian hurch to restraine and punish euill Kings AND Whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. I SAID in my former Letter as in the precedent Chapter hath bene seene that I could not perswade my self that such Catholikes as were sayd to haue accepted the Oath did meane to abiure al authority of the Pope for depoâing temporall Princes for any cause whatsoeuer for that therin they should contradict the gânerall consent of all Catholike Deuines and confesse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruatiââ of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous For that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great perilous an euill as that way might fall out by the exorbitant actions of some incorrigible Prince To this my speach M. Barlow answereth thus If by Catholike Deuines he meaneth Scriptures Councells Fathers Stories for a thousand yeares after Christ the Reader must take it for a mendacious vanity and let it passe for no better Wherto I reply that as I do meane it it is no mendacious vanity but a religioââ verity for that I meane by Catholike Deuines in this place all such of that profession as haue handled the question particularly of this temporall Authority of the Pope in certaine vrgent occasions which are principally Scholasticall Deuines especially those of this age that haue written against all sorts of Heretikes that denied the same And albeit M. Barlow in his rayling vayne do challenge the Schoole-men as blasphemously detorting Scriptures yet he that shall read them with iudgment and attention without this furious passion of hatred against them and lacke of capacity to vnderstand them shall quickly perceiue that their skill in Scriptures Councels Fathers Stories is far superiour by infinite degrees to that of M. Barlow and his Mates that crake so much against them and their sincerity in expounding them according to their true meaning and is also without comparison more sound as may appeare by the many grosse and wilfull corruptions which I haue noted in him before in that kind And albeit in some hundreds of yeares after Christ there had
Salomon or Augustus But I would aske him out of passion if euer he be voyd therof as by report he is very seldome what insolencie hath this Pope shewed in being busy as he calleth it with his Maiesties Person State or Realme For as for his Person he hath alwayes honoured the same both before he was Pope and after wherof many euident testimonies might be alleadged and for his State and Kingdome while he was in Scotland neyther he nor his Predecessours did go about to trouble the same in almost fourty yeares while he reygned there all troubles came from Protestants and their Ministers And when his Maiesty was called into England the Pope that then was by this mans counsaile principally as it may be presumed for that he was Protectour of Scotland wrote to the Catholickes to further their Obedience towards him He neuer medled in any thing vntill this Oath so preiudiciall vnto his Authority and vnto the Consciences of Catholikes was proposed and vrged And as for the peace here named more continuall happy then that of Salomon or Augustus which M. Barlow sayth might be enioyed by his Maiestie with his Subiects if the Pope were not it is well that he will so much as name peace who seemeth in all his speaches to sow the seeds of warres hatred and contention But if his mind were to peace indeed he cannot be so simple but to see that the rigorous and afflictiue courses vsed and this as all men take it by the instigation of those of his coate and order cannot be meanes to peace of mindes howsoeuer otherwise they liue in externall quietnes and deuoyd of tumults And this is all that for the present I haue to write in this matter The end of the first Part. THE SECOND PART About the Breues of Paulus Quintus CONCERNING M. BARLOVVE His exorbitant flattery in exaggerating Queene Elizabeths Vertues and Sanctity CHAP. I. OVR purpose then being as now we haue declared to touch some principal points only handled by M. Barlow in this second and third Part of his answere we shall begin with the point he most standeth vpon dilating himself for twenty leaues togeather coÌcerning Queene Elizabeth her raigne life and death as an argument very plausible in his opinion and capable not only of his rayling eloquence and odious amplifications but of all grosse and abiect flattery in like manner togeather with some hopes of other gaines also that way wherunto it seemeth that the poore man hath his tongue and pen most ready to the sale at all turnes and occasions offered But it may be before we end this conference his market may be more then halfe marred in the iudgment at least of disappassionate men especially with his most ExcelleÌt Maiesty whome aboue all other he seeketh to gull in this matter turning all vpon him which I both spake and meant to a Minister of M. Barlowes owne ranke so I disclaime from the calumnious imputation that it concerneth any way his Highnesse and shall answere all in the same sense which I then wrote and meant the same reseruing all dutyfull and respectiue reference to his Maiesties Person and Iudgment as bounden duty obligeth me First then occasion being offered or rather necessity imposed to speake of Queene Elizabeth for that albeit the Pope had not so much as named her in any of his two Breues yet had the Apologer brought in her mentioÌ with many high praises for disgrasing of Catholickes and their cause and for scorne to the Pope as though he had without cause pittyed and mourned their afflictions vnder her which he saith was none at all for that to his own knowledge she neuer punished any Papist for Religion For these causes I say I was forced in my Letter to say somewhat to this assertiue proposition wherunto the tribulations afflictions calamities spoiles exiles and bloud of so many shed by her did manifestly in the eyes and eares of al men and women that haue liued in our dayes contradict and reclaime And yet did I resolue to do the same as mildly and sparingly as I might answering only the wordes of the Apologie and abstayning purposely from al bitternesse of speach so far as the iust defence of the cause permitted and so shall continue ãâ¦ã Barlowes most intemperate prouocation to the contrary VVhereas then in reciting the wordes of the Apologer I mentioned these Hauing sayth he sacrificed as I may say to the Manes of my defunct Soueraigne as well for the discharge of my particuler dutie as loue of veritie I must now performe my dâty also to his Maiestie present c. Vpon which wordes I noted that the phrase of sacrificing to the Queenes Manes or Ghostes seemed to me very profane as proper to the Pagan Sacrifices vsed to those infernall spirits which they called Gods hurtful Gods therfore endeauored to please them with sacrifices My words discourse were these But as for his heathen profane sacrificing to the Manes or Hob-goblins of his late Lady I confesse it is an office fitter for a Protestant-Minister that thinketh it vnlawfull to pray for her soule to deale with her Manes or infernall spirites then with Celestiall by praying for her to Saints But would God these Manes might now haue liceÌce to appeare and talke which him and relate what passeth with her after all this ioylity and ruffe in this world I doubt not but they would coole his excessiue vaine of flattering vanity For if all the old platforme of Saints liues prescribed in Scriptures and practised by the seruants of God were not erroneous and vaine as much fasting continual prayer daily mortification frequent recollection diligent chastisement of theyr bodies humble feruent deuotion labouring and working theyr saluation in feare and trembling aboundant almes-deedes haire-cloth and ashes contrition sorrow and sobbing for their sinnes yf these things I say were the ancient wayes to life and euerlasting saluation then must the pathes of Queene Elizabeth which are knowne by most men to haue bene eyther wholy different or most opposite to these led to another opposite end quia vnusquisque recipiet secundum opera sââ Euery one shall receiue according to his or her works and the sentence of the Apostle is cleare resolute Si secundum carnem vixeritis moriemini si facta carnis spiritu mortificaueritis viâetis if you liue according to the flesh you shall die but if you shall mortify by spirit the workes of the flesh you shall liue that is to life euerlasting About these words of mine M. Barlow taketh occasion to make very large discourses and to dilate himselfe in three or foure points âxceedingly First in the excessiue prayses of the Queene then in superlatiue raylinges against me thirdly in iustifying the phrase of sacrificing to the dead Queens ghost fourthly in setting out her frequent mortifications that she vsed but yet in such sort as he well sheweth not only not to feele what mortification
Sacraments care of soules possessing Cures and Benefices absoluing from sinnes spirituall iurisdiction and all Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy deryued from hence And are all these thinges only Ceremoniall without substance or essence of religion Doth M. Barlow discharge his duty of a Champion eyther towardes his king or his old Lord from both which it seemeth alâeady he hath receaued large fees in bringing both their authorities in Ecclesiastical matters to be meere Ceremonies No man I thinke will sue to be his Clyent hereafter iâ he can plead no better But let vs yet see a little further how he hath aduanced his Maiestyes spirituall authority Thus he writeth of his being Moderator in the Conference betwene the Puritans and Protestants This difference sayth he about thinges indifferent his Maiesty desirous to reconcile vouchsafed his Princely paynes to moderate mediate In which wordes first doe you note againe his often repetition that they were thinges indiffereÌt to wit whether his Maiesty should haue Supreme Primacy in Church causes or renounce the same and cast it downe togeather with his Scepter before the Presbytery of the Puritans and whether the Lord of Canterbury should leaue of his Lordship and Graceship and become a simple Minister equall with the rest And so likewise M. Barlow himselfe to leaue the Sea of Lincolne and title of Lordship which none that knowes the humor of the man will imagine that he holdeth for a thing indifferent or a meere Ceremony This I say is the first Notandum for if these things be indifferent what need so much a doe about them And the second Notandum is that he saith that his Maiesty did moderate and mediate in this Conference which is a very moderate and meane word indeed to expresse so high and eminent Authority Ecclesiasticall as sometimes they wil seem to ascribe vnto his Maiesty For who cannot moderate or mediate in a Conference if he haue sufficient learning and knowledge of the cause though he haue no eminent authority at all to decide the same But who shall determine or define the Controuersy Here no doubt M. Barlow wil be in the brakes For that a little after being pressed with the free speach and deniall of S. Ambrose vnto Valentinian the Emperour when he medled in Ecclesiasticall affairs and in particuler when he sent for him by Dalmatius a Tribâne with a Notary to come and dispute in the Consistory before him his Counsell and Nobility with the Hereticall Bishop Auxenâius S. Ambrose refused vtterly to goe yeelding for his reason that in matters of faith and religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops which deniall M. Barlow well alloweth saying that Ambrose did well in it and sayd well for it his fact and reason were both Christianlike But suppose that his Maiesty had sent for the Bishops to dispute and confer with the doctors of the Puritan party in his presence as the Emperour Valentinian did S. Ambrose that they had refused to come with the same reasoÌ that S. Ambrose did would M. Barlow that wrote the Conference haue defended the same as good and lawful Or would his Maiesty haue taken the same in as good part as ValentiniaÌ did I doubt it very much as also I doubt whether S. Ambrose if he had disputed would haue suffered ValentiniaÌ suppose he had bin learned to haue moderated mediated in that disputatioÌ as M. Baâlow saith his Maiesty did in this But if without effect that he could not conclude who should giue iudgment of the matter The Bishops They were party and theyr whole interest lay therein The Puritan Doctors They were also a party and therby partiall His Maiesty could not doe it according to M. Barlowes doctrin in this place if any point of religion were handled therein Who then should iudge or giue sentence The Church saith M. Barlow in another place But who maketh that Church Or who giueth authority of iudgement to that Church if the supreme Head and gouernour haue it not in himself Do you not see how intricate this matter is hard to resolue And according to this as it seemeth was the effect and consequence of this meeting if we belieue M. Barlow himselfe who maketh this question Did thâse great and Princely paynes which his Maiesty tooke with the Puritâns worke a generall conformity And then he answereth VVith the iudicious and discreet it did wherof M. Barlow was one but the rest grew more aukward and violent So he But all this while if you marke it there is nothing said to the point for which all this was brought in to wit why the like fauour had not beene shewed to Catholikes for a Conference also with them about their Religion M. Barlow doth touch some number of reasons as that our opinions doe touch the very head and foundation of religion That his Maiesty was perfect in all the arguments that could be ârought for the aduerse part and that he throughly vnderstanding the weaknes of them held it both vnsafe and vnnecessary to haue them examined That the Protestant religion being throughly well placed and hauing so long continued is not now to be disputed c. Which reasons being either in themselues fond or against himselfe I will not stand to refute One only contradiction wil I note that our argumeÌts being so weake yet that it should be vnsafe to haue them examined and that the long continuance of Protestant religion in England should make it indisputable whereas more then ten times so long prescription of Catholike religion could not defend it by shew of a conference or dispute hâld at VVestminster at the beginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne when the same was changed and put out And finally I will end this with a notable calumniation insteed of a reason vttered by M. Barlow why this Conference ought not to be granted to Catholikes for sooth For that euen in their common petition for toleration they âisâhed his Maiesty to be as great a Saint in heaueÌ as he is a King vpon earth shewing thereby saith he that gladly they would be rid oâ him but wâich way they care not so he were not here And may not this Prelate now beare the prize for calumniation and Sycophancy that out of so pious an antecedent can inferre so malicious a consequent The Catholickes doe wish vnto his Maiesty both life present and euerlasting to come here a great King and there a great Saint M. Barlow seemeth not to care much for his eternity so he may enioy his temporality by the which he himselfe gayneth for the present and hopeth euery day to do more more it importâth him litle how great a Saint his Maiestie be in heauen so vpon earth he liue longe to fauour him and to furnish him with fat benefices And thus he inforceth me to answere him contrary to my owne inclination for repressing somewhat his insolent malignant speach which is the most
any thing against vs or for the Apologer euen as they are here nakedly cyted without declaration of the circumstances for that in temporall affaires the King or Emperour is Supreme next vnder God And when the Emperour will vse secular forces against the Priests of his dominion they being no souldiars must fall to prayers and teares which are Priestly weapons But what Did S Ambrose by this acknowledge that the Emperour had higher Authority then he in Church-matters Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion or Conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed or acknowledged his Superiority No truly For in three seuerall occasions that fell out he flatly denyed the same which this Apologer craâtily dissembleth and saith not a word therof The first was when he was cited by Dalmatius the Tribune bringing with him a publicke Notarie to testifie the same in the name of the Emperour Valentinian the yonger to come conferre or dispute with the hereticall Bishop Auxenâius in the presence of his Maiesty other of his Nobility CouÌsell which poynt S. Ambrose refused vtterly to do telling the Emperour playnly by a letter written vnto him That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops And dyuers other doctrines by this occasion he taught him to that effect as is to be seene in the same Epistle The second occasion fell out the very next yeare after in Millane when the said Emperour by suite of the Arians and fauour of Iustina the Empresse on their behalfe made a Decree that a certayne Church of that Citty should be deliuered to the said Arians which Decree S. Ambrose the Bishop refused to obey And when the Emperours Officers comming with armes vrged greatly to giue possession of the Church he fled to his former weapons of weeping and praying Ego Missam facere coepi c. I began to say Masseâ and when the temporall Magistrate vrged still that the Emperour vsed but his owne right in appoynting that Church to be deliuered S. Ambrose answered Quae diuina sunt Imperatoriae potestati non esse subiecta That such things as belonge to God are not subiect to the Imperiall power And thus answered S. Ambrose about the giuing vp of a materiall Church What would he haue said in greater matters The third accasion was when the Emperour sent his Tribunes and other Officers to require certayne Vessells belonging to the Church to be deliuered which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do saying That in this he could not obey And further adding That if the Emperour did loue him selfe he should abstayne from offering such iniury vnto Christ. And in another place handlâng the same more at large he saith That he gaue to Cesar that which was Cesars and to God that which belonged to God but that the Temâple of God could not be the right of Cesar which we speak saith he to the Emperours honour For what is more honourable vnto him then that he being an Emperour be called a Child of the Church for that a good Emperour is within the Church but not aboue the Church So S. Ambrose What would he haue done or said if he had bene pressed with an Oath against his Conscience or any least poynt of his Religion Thus far I answered in my letter he that shall read M Barlows reply now will seâ that he hath nothing at all in substaÌce to say against it for to that excellent speach of S. Augustine coÌcerning the Emperour Iulian he triââeth exceedingly first bidding vs to shew that poynt in the Oath which is different from true religion which is a cauill as you see for it is inough if it be contrary to the swearers Religion And wheras we offer vpon that speach as the subiects of Iulian did VVe will serue our Soueraigne we will go to war with him and we will fight for him the like he sayth it is but an hypocriticall florish of words To the speach and facts of S. Ambrose he is forced eyther to say nothing or to speake against himselfe For wheras I do make this demaund Did S. Ambrose by saying that he could not resist the Emperour and that his weapons were teares acknowledge by this that the Emperour had higher authority in Church-matters then he Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion and conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed and acknowledged his authority To the first he sayth that it is only extra oleâs not to the cause in hand and that he will handle it in another place though euery man of discretion will see that the demaund is full to the purpose and ought to haue beene answered here To the secoÌd he hath but a ridiculous shift Suppose saith he that S. Ambrose would refuse such an Oath vrged vpon him would he withall forbid others to take it Surely no. But I say surely yea for if we graunt S. Ambrose to haue bene a good Prelate Pastour Father to his people we must also graunt that what Oath he thought pernicious for himselfe to take he would haue forbidden the same to haue bene taken by his people if they had demaunded his opinion as English Catholickes did the Popes or els he had not bene a faythfull Pastour But what doth M. Barlow answere to the three instances alleadged out of S. Ambrose in all which he contradicted the Emperour that was his temporall Lord and denied to obey in matters Ecclesiasticall the first when he refused to go with the Tribune and Notary sent for him by the sayd Emperour to dispute in the Consistory with Auxentiââ the Arian Bishop yielding for his reason That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops Which answere of S. Ambrose M. Barlow doth allow and coÌmendeth it much albeit we haue said somewhat before about the same yet shall we presently add a word or two more thereof The second refusall of the said Father was as now you haue heard to deliuer vp a certaine Church in Millanâ to the Arians at the commandement of the Emperour alleadging for his reason Quae diuina sunt Imperatoriae potestatium esse subiecta that such things as are diuine are not subiect to Imperiall power Which answere in like manner M. Barlow alloweth albeit I thinke I may assure my selfe that if his Matie of England should coÌmaund one of his Parish Churches of Lincolne Diocesse to be deliuered vp to the PuritaÌs or Brownists or other like Sectaries and that his Maiesty should be so earnest resolute therin as the Emperour was sending his officers souldiars to put them into possession M. Barlow would not be so resolute in his deniall as S. Ambrose was neither would he be so bold to alleage that reasoÌ which S. Ambrose did that diuine things are not subiect to King Iames his power including in
the power and authority of the Pope and Sea Apostolicke c. be any point belonging to religion among Catholicks then is there not only some one word but many sentences concerning Religion in the Oath What answereth M. Barlow This Epistler saith he doth impudently impugne the Oath as vtterly vnlawfull and agaynst religion which yet dependeth vpon an If and is not yet determined for a point of religion that the Pope hath any such authority ouer Kings as in the Oath is mentioned No Syr not among Catholiks for of them only I speake though you leaue it out and doe many wayes corrupt my words Will not they grant the Popes authority in such cases to be a point belonging to their Religion Doth the word If put the matter in doubt that when you say If there be a God this or that is true or false you may be said to doubt whether there be a God or no And when you say If I be a true man this is so you may be thought to doubt whether your selfe be a true man or no Do not you see that this is playne cauelling indeed and not disputing But what more You say that when I do affirme the Popes power I do not distinguish whether in Ecclesiasticall or ciuill causes but you know well inough that I haue often distinguished and so do other Catholicke Deuines that the Popes authority is directly only Ecclesiasticall and spirituall for gouerning and directing of soules to euerlasting life though indirectly for conseruation of this Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall end there is annexed also Temporall in such cases as before hath bene specified concerning temporall Princes And so this is but a shift to say that I doe not distinguish As that is also another about my answere to the second demaund of the Apologer where he demandeth whether any man that taketh the Oath doth promise to belieue or not to belieue any one article of religion contayned in the said Oath For answere wherunto I did set downe sundry clauses of the said Oath wherby it seemeth plaine that the swearer doth make such promise Now you reply with this new shift saying that I doe still beg the question in controuersy So you talke to seem to say somwhat But what is the question in controuersy Is it not whether the swearer doth make promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of religion in taking the Oath Yes And I haue proued that he doth so by diuers examples How then doe I beg the question when I do euince it by proofe You reply that these articles abiured or allowed by him that takes the Oath concerning the Popes authority are not points of âaith but rather Machiauelismes of the Conclaue But this now is rayling and not reasoning for that a Catholike conscience houldeth the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and all poynts belonging therunto for matters appertayning to fayth Catholicisme and not to Machiauelisme which Machiauelisme agreeth much more fitly to M. Barlows assertions that depend on the pleasures of Prince State alteration of times and temporall vtilities wherof Machiauel was a great Doctour then to the simple positions of Catholikes who without these worldly respects do playnly and sincerely imbrace and belieue all such points of doctrine as the knowne Catholike Church doth deliuer vnto them as any way appertayning to the integrity of Catholike Religion Heere then M. Barlow being driuen from his refuge of my begging the question layeth hand vpon another much more ridiculous in my opinion for it is somewhat like the Sermon of the Parish Priest to his Parishioners which he deuided into three parts the one that he vnderstood and not they the other that they vnderstood and not he the third that neither of them both vnderstood and the third part seemeth to be our case now for as I confesse that I do not conceaue well what M. Barlow would say so I haue reason to suspect that himselfe also can hardly explane his owne meaning or at least wise he doth it not so here as the Reader may easily vnderstand the same His words are these This censurer is an absurd dispuâânt still to beg the Question as if these articles abiured or allowed were points of âaith c. This you haue heard answered now there followeth the other member Or as if saith he beliefe were vsed euery where âheologically and that a Christians beliefe should alwayes be taken for his Christian beliefe âor there is a naturall beliefe the Obiects wherof are naturall and ciuill things such as in this Oath c. So he And did not I tell you that you should haue mysteries A Christians beliefe is not alwayes a Christian beliefe but a naturall beliefe the good man would haue holpen himself with the School-mens distinction of fides diuina fides âumana diuine humane fayth if he could haue hit vpoÌ it but yet wholy from the purpose if he had found it out nay quite contrary to himselfe For I would aske what fayth or beliefe diuine or humane Christian or naturallâ did the Apologer meane in his demaund Whether he that taketh the oath do promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of Religion Did not he meane diuine fayth or Theologicall beliefe It cannot be denied for that the obiect being articles of Religion as heere is sayd which are not belieued but by diuine fayth as they are such it followeth that in this question the Apologer maâe his demaund of Christian beliefe and not only of a Christians beliefe yea of Theologicall beliefe and not of naturall beliefe that is to say of humane beliefe so conforme to this his quâstion were the clauses of my answere I do truly and sââcerely acknowledge professe testify and declare in my conscience c. And againe I do further sweare that I do from my hart abhorre deteât and abiure as impious doctrine c. And yet further I do belieue and am in conscience resolued c. And is not all this beliefe in Conscience out of Conscience and for Conscience and of things belonging to Catholike Religion to be vnderstood of Christian and Theologicall beliefe but naturall only Who would write so absurdly but M. Barlow who seemeth not to vnderstand what he writeth And that this may be better vnderstood I am mynded to say a word or two more of this matter He maketh a distinction heere as you see betweene naturall and Theologicall beliefe adding for his reason that the Obiects of naturall fayth are naturall and ciuill things and that such are the articles contained in the Oath ayming as before hath bene said at the distinction of diuine and humane faith But he is grosly deceaued in that he distinguisheth these two faiths or beliefes by their materyall obiects and things belieued contrary to the generall consent of all Philosophers and Deuines who do hould that oââes actus specificantur ab obiectis formalibus that all acts are
such rage against a dead body much more against alyue But this argumeÌt houldeth no more though the matter were true as heere it is alledged then the former for that many things are done against Princes bodies when they are dead which would not be attempted in their life tyme. Who will not confesse this to be true But let vs leaue the consequent consider the antecedeÌt two things are auouched by the Apologer pag. 65. first that the Pope which was then Paschal is the second was enraged at the yong Emperour Henry the fiâth for giuing buryall to his fathers body when it was dead in the Citty of Leodium or Leige The second was that the Pope had stirred vp the said sonne Emperour against his Father and for both these points were cited in the margent as wittnesses Platina and Cuspinian in their Histories To which I answered in my Letter that Platina had no such matter that Cuspinian had the contrary to wit that when Henry the Father was dead and buried in a monastery at Leige his sonne would not make peace with the Bishop of that place called Otbert except the dead body were pulled out of the graue againe as it was and so remayned for fiue yeares This I answered to the first point about the exhumation of the body by the enraged sonne against his father for taking armes against him againe after that with common consent he had resigned the Empire vnto him and for more proofe of this I cited two authors more to wit Nauclerus and Crantzius in their histories that affirme the same To this now M. Barlow in his replie sayth first neuer a word vnto the silence of Platina nor to the testimonies of Nauclerus Crantzius but passeth slyly to proue another matter that we deny not to wit that the bodie of the elder Henry was taken out of the graue againe at Leige after it was buryed but by whome or whose commaundemeÌt eyther of the Pope Paschalis then liuing or of his Sonne Henry that lay neere by with an army that he proueth not which is the only point he should haue proued to wit that by order of the Pope the dead corps had bin takân out of the graue I haue for the coÌtrary besides the Authors before alledged the manyfest authority of Vrspergensis who liued and wrote in that tyme and might be present perhaps at tâe fact relating the matter how after that the death of Henry the 4. was knowne to his sonne to all the Bishops and Archbishops that were there with him and that notwithstanding he dyed excommunicate his body was buryed by the B. of Leige that had followed also his part the said yong Emperour and Bishops would not admit the said Bishop of Leige vnto their communion though he most earnestly offered himself but with condition that he should both doe pennance and besides that take out of the sepulcher agayne the buried bodie of the said Emperour which contrary to the Canons of the Church he had buryed the day before his words are these Leodâensis autem Episcopus c. But the B. of Leige and other Bishops who had followed the part of Henry the 4. were receiued into communion to doe pennance with this condition that they should take forth of the graue the dead corpes of the said excommunicate Henry which they had buryed in a Monastery the day before So he And the same word pridie the day before hath not only Vrspergensis but also Nauclerus which doth euidently conuince that this exhumation could not be commaunded by the Pope Paschalis that liued at Rome and could not be aduertised of the death of the Emperour Henry and of his buriall so soone and much lesse giue order for his taking vp againe within the compasse of 3. or 4. dayes if there were so many betweene his death and his buriall To this I do add the manifest and perspicuous testimony of Huldericus Mutius in the 16. booke of his Germane Chronicle who speaking of the admitting to fauour of the foresaid Bishop of Leige and his people sayth Leodienses noluit recipere nisi eââossum Genitoris sui cadauer abijcerent in locum quempiam vbi solent mortua pecora locaâi Henry the yonger would not receaue into grace those of Leige except they would cast out the dead body of his Father into some place where dead beasts are wont to be cast and this not so much for religion sayth the same Author as for deepe âatred that he had conceaued against his said Father By all which is seene that not the Pope but the yong Emperour and the Bishops Archbishops that were with him hauing stood against the old Emperour and his followers and excommunicated the same were the cause why the body was taken vp agayne But now let vs see how M. Barlow doth seeke to establish the contrary to wit that he was digged out of his graue by commandment of the Pope for in this he laboureth much and alleageth for shew therof some 5. or 6. authorities of different Authors calling them a cloud of witnesses For digging vp saith he the dead body out of his graue that is compassed with a whole cloud of witnesses But if in all this cloud we find nothing in manner but clouted fraudâs and that no one of them hath passed his hands without corruption then may you cal it a blacke cloud indeed First then let vs examine the two Authors already alleadged for our cause to wit Vrspergensis and Nauclerus cyted here in his margent for that he will haue theÌ to proue the quite coÌtrary of that for which I produced theÌ before And as for Vrspergensis he citeth his words thus The Bishop of Leige with other of his sort were receiued into the communion of the Church who cast them out but the Pope vpon condition they would dig out of the graue the corps of the Emperour which he had before buried in the Monastery So he relateth the words of Vrâergensis in a different letter as though they were punctually his which indeed they are not but accommodated by M. Barlow with some paring and mincing to his purpose For wheras Vrspergensis saith that the Bishop of Leige and his fellow Bishops inter caetera recipiuntur in commuâânem poenitentiae were receaued among other conditions to the communion of pennance M. Barlow thought good to leaue out the word pennance as also where he sayth cadauer iâsiuâ excommunicati the dead corps of the excommunicate Emperour which did yield the reason of their digging vp M. Barlow left out also the word excommunicate But of much more moment was his leauing out the word pridie when he saith the body of the excommunicate Emperour buried by him the day before in the Monastery should be digged vp for by that he striketh of the head of the strongest argument that is against him as beâore we haue shewed For if the Emperour were buried
disposition the second causes doe worke infallibly though in producing their effects some worke necessarily some casually some freely Hereby then we see first that M. Barlow vnderstood not his Authors in saying that Gods Prouidence is so farre forth called Gods Prouidence only as it remayneth in Gods secret counsaile for as Saint Thomas in the booke by him alleadged saith Gods Prouidence hath two partes the one is ordinatio or âispositio rerum the other is ordinââ executio per causas secundas which second is called fatum or destiny but yet is a part of Prouidence as yow see and therby doth M. Barlow erre grossely in contraposing it to Prouidence saying it is called fatum and not prouidence wheras fatum is a part of prouidence as appeareth by that which hath beene said but yet more grosly doth he erre when he sayth that when Gods Prouidence doth shew it selfe in sensible effects it is destiny not prouidence for that this Fatum or destiny consisteth as it hath beene said in the order connexion of the second causes before they worke their effect not in the sensible effects themselues when they are now produced and extra causas And so by this we see in part M. Barlowes profundity in Schoole-diuinity But we haue not yet done for that he goeth forward against the Pope saying If after the murther of the King of France the Pope had seene that some really true not partially supposed good had bene effectuated by the Parricyde that should he truly and only haue ascribed to Gods Prouidence as Ioseph applyed his being in Egypt for the reliefe of his kinred vnto Gods permission but not vnto his brethrens sale c. And heere now we see another profundity not so much of Diuinity as eyther of ignorance or impiety ascribing only vnto Gods Prouidence things that in our eyes seeme good and profitable wherin he impiously abridgeth Gods Prouidence which is ouer all things without exception eyther dispositiuè or permissiuè by ordayning or by permitting as he might haue seene in the Author by him alleadged I meane S. Thomas in his question de Prouidentia not that God is the Author of sinne or of the obliquity therof as Caluin his followers wickedly affirme but that God doth vse euen naughty and sinfull actions oftentimes to his glory and to the vniuersall good of his gouernment and so he vsed the wicked action of Herod Pylate and others to the furthering of Christ his sacred passion for so it is sayd expressly in the Acts of the Apostles vnto God himself that Herod Pilate togeather with the Gentils and Iewes conspired against our Sauiour facere quae manus tua consilium tuum decreuerunt fieri to do those things which thy hand counsaile haue determined to be done To which effect many other places of Scripture might be alleadged wherby it is euident that the admiring of Gods Prouidence in such actions is not an allowaÌce of the thing it selfe as lawfull in the doer for that no man will say that the Apostles did allow the actions of Herod Pilate in putting Christ to death though they do acknowledge it as we haue now seene to haue come by the particuler prouidence of almighty God consequently all that idle speach which is here vsed by M. Barlow against Pope Sixtus Qâintus that he did not as King Dauid did in detesting Ioab for his trayterous slaughter of Abner but would haue canonized the Fryar if some Cardinals had not resisted this speach I say is very idle indeed For neuer was there any such cogitation knowne to haue bene in the Pope for canonizing that man nor did the Pope euer prayse or allow the fact as often hath bene sayd nor doth M. Barlow know how he would haue dealt with the sayd Fryar for the same if he had escaped death and had bene in his power to punish him so that all heere is spoken out of passion and will to calumniate much also out of errour and ignorance as hath bene sayd as namely that nothing is to be ascribed to Gods Prouidence but that which to vs seemeth really true good and not partially so supposed So as heere a man is made iudge what is to be ascribed to Gods Prouidence and what not In which case I doe not see how the actions of Herod Pilate could well be ascribed to Gods prouidence as the Apostles did ascribe them I do not see also how M. Barlow can mantaine his assertion here set downe that the selling of Ioseph into Egypt by his brethren was not by Gods Prouidence but only as he sayth for the reliefe of his kinred which the Patriarch Ioseph doth seeme plainly to contradict when discouering himselfe vnto his brethren he said I am your Brother Ioseph whom you sold into Egypt be not afrayd nor let it seeme vnto you a hard thing that you sold me into these Regions for that God sent me before you into Egypt for your safety And more plainly in the last of Genesis where the Patriarch speaking to his Brethren sayth Vos cogitasâis de me malum c. you thought to do me hurt but God turned it to good to exalt me as at this present you see and to saue many people And are not these words playne that the whole action of Ioseph his selling into Egypt was by Gods permissiue prouidence Or will M. Barlowes profound diuinity teach vs that in the selfe same mysterious actions one part is subiect to Gods Prouidence and the other not The last example brought forth to proue the Pops accustomed attempts for murthering Princes is that of Queene âlizabeth late Queene of England against whose life was obiected many attemptes to haue beene made by priuity and incitation of diuers Popes but I desired some proofes therof whereto was answered in thâse words for veryfication of this there needeth no more proofe then that neuer Pope eyther then or since called any Church-man in question for medling in those treasonable conspiracyes To which my words of answer were And needeth there noe more Syr but this quoth I to condemne both Confessors and Popes for that no Pope hath called into question or punished any Clergy-man for such like attempts what if he neuer knew of any such attempt nor beleiued that there were any such really designed What if he neuer heard of any Clergie man accused except such as were put to death by the Queene herselfe and so were sufficiently punished whether they were culpable or innocent To all which demands of myne M. Barlow answereth with great impatience For where I demand And needeth there no more Syr for proofe but this His answere is There needeth no more CVRR but that But this I ascribe to his choller And for that he bringeth no other thing of any moment about this matter that I haue spoken largely els where of Queene Elizabeth her affaires I shall
oâ the Egâptians to hate his people not that God did either physice oâ moraliâer properly moue their wills or command or counsaile the Egyptians to hate his people but only occasionaliâer that is to say as S. Augustine expoundeth the matter God by doing good and bâeâsing his said people which was a good action in him gâue the Egyptians occasion to enuy and hate them they abusing that to euill which he did for good And for that this occasionall concurrence may be tearmed also morall in a certaine large sense therforâ God may be said also to coÌcurre morally in this meaning but for âo much as these two meanings of moral concurrence are far different the first which is proper may be denied and this which is vnproper may be granted without âll contradiction for so much as a contradiction is not but when the selfe same thing is affirmed and denied in the selâe same subiect and in the same reâpect which here is not no more then if a man should say these two propositions are contradictory God commandeth expresly all men in generall Non ocâides thou shalt not kill and yet to diuers in particuler for seuerall causes he permitteth to kil and yet here is no contradiction for that killing is taken in different senses And this is so plaine that M. Barlow though he striue to talke som what for that he is obliged for his credit hired therunto as you know yet findeth hâ nothing to fasten vpon by any probability and therefore in the end hauing intertained himselfe for a while in repeating what Bellarmine saith in the place from whence this supposed contradiction about the different sorts of Gods concurrence is taken in repetition wherof he sheweth plainly not to vnderstaÌd him he finally breaketh out in his malice to end with the odious example of Iames Clemânt the Monke in killing the late King of France demânding how God concurred with that action either in generall or in particuler But to this now the answere is already made and so many wayes of Gods concurrence or not concurrence as concerne this cause haue bene explained as to stand longâr vpon it were losâe of time let M. Barlow meditatâ by himselfe how God can concurre with so many âurthering actions of his by slandering and deâaming his neighbour as heere againe he chargeth Iesuits witâ poisoning of Popes which being not only apparantly fââââ but without all âhew or colour of probabilitâ yet most violently malicious sure I am that God concurreth not therwith either physicè or moraliter by mouing his hart or tongue to speake so wickedly and much lesâe by commanding or approuing the same But whether he âo it occasionalitâr or no to his greater sinne damnation ââat I know not but certaine I am that the contumely being âo intolerably false and ridiculous as it is and yet vtterâd and repeated againe so often by him in this his booke most certainely I say I do perswade my selfe that the Dâuel hath coÌcurred with him in al these three waies both phâsice moraliter and occasionaliter Almighty God forgiue him and make him to see and feele out of what spirit he speaketh And so much for this second proposition The third contradiction is vrged out of Bellarmine in two books of his the first de Clericis where he sayth that all the Fathers do constantly teach that Bishops do succeed the Apostles and Priests tâe seâuenty disciples and then in his book de Pontifice he hath the contrary that Bishops do not properly succeâd the Apostles Vnto which my answere was at that time vpon viewing the places themselues in Bellarmin that this was no contradiction at all for that it was spoken in diuârs senses to wit that Biâhops do succeed the Apostles iâ power of Episcopal order not in power of extraorâinary Apostolical iurisdiction and so both were true and might well stand togeather for that all Bishops haue tâe same sacred Episcopal order which the Apostles had but not their extraordinary iurisdiction ouer the whole world as each one of them had which answere oâ mine since that time hath bene confirmed by Cardinall Bellarmâne himselfe in his owne defence though in different words saying Episcopos succedere Aposâolis c. that Bishops do succeed the Apostles as they were the first Bishops of particuler Churches as Iames of IerusaleÌ Iohn of Ephesus the like is graÌted in the book de Clericis but yet that Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles as they were Apoâtleâ that is to say as they were sent into all the world with most âull power is denyed in the booke de Ponâiâice So as in different senses both are true Neque sunt contraria vel conââaâictoria sayth Beâlârmine nisi apudeos qui I ogiâam ignoranâ vâl sensu communi carent neither are they contrary or contradictory but with them that want Logicke or common sense So he All which being so plaine yet notwithstanding M. Barlow will needes say somwhat to the contrary not âor that he doth not see that the thing which he is to say is nothing at all to the purpose but perchance that hâ thinketh himselfe bouâd to say somwhat for fashions âake and so rusheth himselfe into absurditieâ as now âou âhal ãâã Thus then he relateth the case tâat Bellârmine ãâ¦ã place that Bisâops do succeed the Apostles and in another thaââisâopâ do not properly succeed the Apostles and least any should thiâkâ tâât this is no Antilogy because in the last proposition âhe ãâã âpââpââly qualifieth it tâe Cardinall himsâlfe haâh in the vâry next pre ãâã ãâã Chapter preuented that whâre he saith that Bishops do prââââây succeed the Apoââles then which what more strong counâeâ-ââocke caâ there be bââââene any two So he And what âe meâneth by this strong counter-shocke I know not but sure I am that he giueth a âtrong counter-buffe to his owne credit by bringing in this reply for that Bellarmine in the very selâeâame place and words of the precedent Chapter whâre he sayth that Bishops do properly succeâd the Apoââles sheweth him selfe to meane in succâssion of âpiscopall ordâr and power of preaching thereto bâlonging in which power of preaching he sâyth Episâopi proprie Apostoliâ ãâã ut Bishops do properly succeed the Apoââlâs and proueth it out of the sixt of the Acts but where he sayth in the other place that they do not properly succeed the Apostlâs he meanâth and so expoundeth his meaning to be tâat tâey do not succeed them in their extraordinary vniueâsall iurisdiction ouer all the world And could M. Barlow choose but see this when he wrote his Reply If he did not yet will I not retuâne the vnciuill word here vsed to me out of the Poet for thâre lyeth his learning nauiget Amiâyras âor that my braine wants purging c. but I will answeâe âim moâe modestly to wit that if he saw not this error of his then it was at
be deceauâd The most that that Schismaticall Abbot saith is that the Emperoârs enemies taking occasion of his absânce inuaded his Terâitoâiâs And if M. Barlow will âay that this is all one although any blynd man will say that there is great diuersity then lât him also combine these two togeather as one When M. Barlow was in LondoÌ the Earle oâ âssex was beheadedâ and M. Barlow was in London that the Earle of âssex might be beheaded And if he cry out against this laââr I will âlso cry shame on the former for they are both of one stamp The true causes then why the Pope cauâed some of his States as namely Apulia to be inuaded are diuers âirst the certaine aduertisement he had receaued of a fraudulent peace made by him secretly with the Soldan before he dâparted out of Italy and in confirmation therof vpon his arriuall at Acra in Syria his Marâhall depaâting from him with part of his army attended not saith S. Anâoniâus to fight against the Saracens but against the ChristiaÌs whom he spoyled as they returned victorious with great booty gotten of their enemies killing many of them taking many prisoners in accoÌplishment as it is thought of his âecret agreement before made âoââoueâ being aâ Aââa hâ would haue destroyed the Church of the Ten plans indââd he tooke many âorârestes from them and âinally Iâââsalem being yelded vnto him by the Solâân accordâng to their coÌposition he permitted the âoly Temple of our Sauiouâs Sepulâher to be still in the Saracens hands that Maâomet might be serued and inuocaâed thâââiâ In so much that neither the Popâs âegate nor the Patriarch of Hiârusalem nor the ââmâplars nor the Knights of S. Iohnâ nor other Barons and Noble men in Syria nor the Captaines of the sârangers would consent to this peace Quia omnibus vâsa est pax fraudulenta c. saith S. Aâtoninus bâcause it seemed to them all a fraudulent peace to the hurt shame of the Christians hinderance of the conquâst of the Holy-Land And a little after he addeth Gregorius audita nequitia Imperatoris c. Gregory hearing of the wickednes of the Empeâour and his treacherous peace made with the Souldan ordayned that besides the senteÌce of excommunication pronounced against him before that King Iohn of Hiârusalâm who was then in Lomâardy with the army of the Church should with his souldiers enter Apulia and stirre vp the people of that Kingdome to reuolt against âredericke So he And besides this two other causes are assigned of this inuasion by Sigonius to wit that the Emperour departed before he was reconciled to the Church and moreouer because he went with so small forces leauing the most part of his aâmie behind him to rifle and spoile the Churches oâ Sicily And as for his other most peââidââus dealings before related out of S. Antoninus they are all recorded in like manner not only by Ioannes Villanus who liued soone after Frâdeâicke and by diuers others but also by the Pratriarch oâ Hierusalâm himself who was an eie witnes of what passed in Syâia in his âpistle to the Christians of the west who setteth downe so many particulers of his foule and vnchristian dealings as maketh the matter most âuâdânt A fourth cause by all liklyhood one of tâe chiefest was that at his departure to the Holy âand he leât order with Râynald his Deputie in Sicily to hould the Pope ând aââ Clergie men for enemies who accordingly vpon Fredericks departure entred into the state of the Church and tâere tooke certaine townes in the Marchia of Ancona asâ so Conradus Guiscard another Captaine of his entred into the vale of Spoleto tooke Fulâgnio So as we see that the first beginning of this warre came from the Emperor and not from the Pope which M. Baâlow might haue seene in Nauâlârus himself whom diuers tymes he cyteth but that he will haue all men see that he seeketh not the truth but to intertaine talke by telling of vntruthes for Nauâlââus telleth expressely that wheras the Emperour complayned after his returne that the Pope had inuaded his territories wâilât he was in the Holy Land the Pope answered that he did that because Râynaldus Fredericks Deputy did first âet vpon the state of the Church And as for the cause of Fredericks voyage which M. Barlow blusheth not to affirme to be procured by the Pope that he might riâle his estate at home al Authors agree that it was specially proâured by Ioân King of Hierusalem who seeing the present daunger of his owne Countrey to be ouerruÌne by the Saracens came in person into Euâope most earnestly sollicited both Pope Emperor Kings oâ France and England other Princes âor present succour wherevnto they all contributed as euery where is testified And thus much for thiâ point M. Barlow proceedeth and saith The Emperour by reason of his dangerous sicknes was forced to staâone yearâ the Pope âocâe it for a dâssâmbling and excommunicated âim for his delay and the Emperour sending his Embassadours to Râme with their âffiâauit to make saith for his sicknes the Pope would not admât ãâã to his presence So he In which words two things are auâuched first that the Emperours stay delay of âis voâage waâ truely sicânes and secondly that for the samâ hâ was âxcommuâicated But both these if we belieue tâe whoâe torrent of other Authors are manifestly false For most agree tâat the sicknes was counterfait and that the cause of hiâ eâcommunication was not for that delây but rather for his returnâ againe with his fârcâs gallâââs aâââr he had bene for some time at sea which M. Baâlow could not but haue seene and therefore might haue beene ashamed vpon the credit of one Schismaticke to checke all other writers and to set downe this fabulous report for true For that his sicknes was counterfait may manifestly be gathered by the very behauiour of the Emperour himself who in that very time when he was sicke forsooth hearing of the death of the Lantgraue of Thuring came in al hast from Sicily to Brundusium to rifle the said Lantgraues Palace where âe tooke away ââyth ârantzius diâssimi Pâincipis âquos arma aurum argenââm lauâissâmam supeâââââlem the âoâââs ar âouâ gould siluer and other most sumptuous furniture oâ tâat most wealthy Prince And this his dissimulatioÌ of sicknes in plaine termes is âuoâched fiââ by the Pope himself in hiâ letters who ãâã thât he knew the samâ euen froÌ the ãâã who then were with the Emperour and by the âaâd âaâzius Luthersânco ânco ââa âomâiâaâio âhronologica al Germans alâo by Platina Sabellicus Bloâdus Taâcagâoâa and others but these in so cleare a matter may suffice Now that his excommunication was not for his delay but for his returne after he was set forth from Brundusium is most euident by the testimony of most writers amongst whom
that he denyed passage by âea to the signed souldiers in Apulia and âombaâdy which commeth far short of kâeping back all supply vnlesse it may be proued that âe had no otâer souldiers but in those two places or that they could haue no passage but from thence both which are very false as this charge is both ridiculous vntrue Ridiculous for the warrs being so âoat on foote both in Lombardy and Apulia what need was there of any prohibition âor not sending away of souldiers out of these partes when as they were so needfull at home Vntrue for that M. Barlow cannot be ignorant that Fredericke in his letter to the Duke of Cornewall which he wrot after his returne from the Holy-land in which he laieth down all his agrieuances sustayned as he would haue the world to beleiue at the Popes handes hath not one syllable therof which silence could not come of any âorgetfulnes being written aâter his returne when things were fresh in his mind nor yet of any desire he had to spare the Pope seeing that lesser matters more vnlikely are there vrged with the most aduantage and by all meanes he did seeke by this accusation to discredit him with all Princes as the most potent meanes to couer his owne shame and dishonourable behauiour as well in the Holy-Land as in other partes of Europe Secondly it is false that the Emperour performed his promise which was to go to aide the Christians and recouer the Holy-Land wâeras he with his secret and treacherous treaty peace which of purpose he made to hinder the war intended against the Soldan sayth Antoninus Villanus betrayed them both the one to wit the Christians sustayning intolerable iniuries at his hands and Hierusalem with all the Countrey soone after his returne being vtterlâ lost And this cause all Authors alâeadge for the not absâluing of the Emperour by Pope Gregorie when by his Embassadours he did request it To whom saith Crantzius the Pope euen to their faces obiected the perâidious dealing of their Lord the Emperour as Fazâlius addeth euen the very Turkes themselues confessed that had Fredericke ioyned with the Christians and fought âgainst them he had gotten out of their hands by force both Citty and Kingdome And the euidence of this truth is so radiant to vse M. Barlows phrase that euen the aboue named Zwinglian Huldââicus Mutius writing of this request of the Emperâur the Pops denyall setteth down the matter in these words Mitâit autem in Europam Legatos c. The Emperour sendes his Embassadours to ââgniây to the Pope and Princes how he had forced the Soldan to yield him vp Hierusalem but that peace with the Soldan nothing pleased the Pope who forsaw that it would not endure because the chiefe strength of the Kingdome remained in the enemies hands in such sort that as soone as the Christian army should be diââolued the enemie would easily recouer all againe Neither was Fredericke himselfe so simple that he saw not this but that his mind was wholy set on Germanie and Italy and thought it inough for him to haue satisââed his vow by going thither sic fit cùm venatur aliqâis inâiâis âaâilus So it falles out saith he when men doe hunt with doggs that haue no list to runne And Naucleruâ sheweth the issue of this affaire after the âmperours returne into Europe vpon the yeare 1247. where he writeth that this very Soldan of Babylon with whom the Emperour had dealt caused the Araâians to rise in armes against the Christians which Arabians setting first vpon the Knights of the TeÌple quite vanquished theÌ and easily tooke the Citty of HierusaleÌ which had no wall to defend it slew the Christians that were in the same And the Sepulcher of our Sauiour which vntill that tyme had bene kept vntouched was now with great shame defiled Thus he And this may suffice to shew how well Fredericke performed his promise and what good ofâices he did to the Christian cause by his going to the Hâlâ-Land The third which followes is so eminânt an vntruth that alone it may carry away the siluer whetstone froÌ all the lyars of Lincolne for who euer heard or read before M. Barlow set it out in print that the Pope âoÌmaundâd the Christian souldiers in Asia to leaue the Emperour to the Turkes malice What malice is this in M. Barlow to report so shamâull an vntruth What Author besides himselfe doth auerre it in this manner as he doth For the Pope knew full wâll that Fredericke was in no danger of the Turke with whom before his departure from Europe he had made peace and by whom vpon his arriuall into Syria he was still either feaââed or presented with rich giftes in recompence of his perfidious league by which he betrayed the Christian army and cause as hath bene declared And all that which Nauclârus sayth whom M. Barlow citeth to auer the same is in these words Pontisex Hospitalarijs TeÌplarijsque in Asia miliâaÌâibus vt ârederico taÌquam hosti publico sauores detraherânt iniunxit The Pope commaunded the Knightes of the Hospitall and Templares to withdraw their help from Frederick as from a publicke enemy or as other Authors Platina Fazelius Paulus Aâmilius others expresâe it Vt ab Imperaâorââaueâânt that they should beware of the Emperour And the last named is more particuler saying Vt cauââët nomini Christiano insidias à perditissima simulatione Fâederiâi that they should beware of the treachery intended against the Christian cause by the most wicked dissimulation of Frâdâriâke Sâ he Aâd theÌ addeth Neâ vana suspitio visa Arabibus Aââypâyâque aequioâ inuâniâatuâ Caesar quam nostris Neither was this a vaine âuâpitioÌ âor the Emperour was found to be a greater friend to the Arabians Aegiptians theÌ to the Christians And this alone sheweth how free Frederiâke was froÌ any danger at the Soldans hands which the Pope well knowing could not intend to leaue him to his malice as M. Barlow hath most confidently affirmed but contrary wise in respect of the great league and loue that was betwene him and the Soldan he feared more that the Emperour would betray the Christians and leaue them to the Soldans malice as in the end it fell out as now you haue heard then that they should leaue him of whom there was no feare by reasoÌ of the ten yeares truce already made betwene theÌ by which Fredâricke was secure from all danger and might stay in the Holy-Land and returne at his pleasure Which being so and the Emperour excommunicated at this time there was great reason why the Pope should giue order to the Christians for the one and the other to wit as well to take heed of him as of a perfidious Traytouâ to the cause as also to withdraw their fauours from him as from an excommunicated person and publicke enemy of the Church but both of these come farre short of
is this will he say to tâe Popes consent for his poysoning Surely they are violent inducementes that he thirsted after the Emperours death which way so euer âor he which would arme the Emperours owne souldiers against him cause a treacherous reuolt from him whilest he was fighting the Lords battaâls betray him into the mouth of Christes sworne enemies inuade his possessions in his absence disperse false rumors of his death coÌtrary to truth and his owne knowledg and by contemptes and Anathema's doe his best or worst to breake his hart would make litle acompt or conscience to Drench him out this lifâ yf opportunitie and secrecy would concurre So he Wel pleaded M. Barlow But soft Syr I pray you take me with you What is that which by these violent inducementes as you terme them you go now about to proue Is it not to shew that Innocentius the 4. hired one to poyson Fredericke And are these particulers or any one of theÌ which you haue so much vrged for this purpose to be verified of Innocentius Did not all these thinges passe in the tyme of Gregorie the ninth of whose going about to poyson tâe Emperour no man hitherto euer so much as dreamed neyther do yow your selfe charge him therewith diuers yeares before Innocentius was Pope How then may these thinges violently induce any man to beleiue that Poâe Innocentius did conspire the poysoning of Fredericke Aâd to the end that your inducementes may be the more strong we shall reduce the whole force of them into a Logicall argument thus Pope Gregory the ninth armed the Emperours soulddiers against him caused a treacherous reuolt from him whilest he was fighting the Lords battails betrayed him into the mouth of Christs sworne enemies c. Ergo twenty yeares and more after this Pope Innocentius the 4. hired one to poyson him This is M. Barlowes violent inducement set downe in forme to prooue Pope Innocentius the 4. to be guilty of poysoning the Emperour And what force it hath I shall not need to declare For the argument is so ridiculous and transparent as there is no child so simple that doth not see through it And truly M. Barlow cannot here excuse himselfe in my iudgment from willfull malice that alleaging all this out of Vrspergensis who ended his historie with the yeare 1228. or the beginning of the next at what time Pope Gregory liued as he did for 12. yeares after would notwithstanding lay it all vpon Innocentius the 4. for which cause as it may be thought he dissembled Pope Gregories name throughout al his relation which he could not but see expressed in his Author And what will you say to such malicious follie or foolish malice M. BARLOVVS MORE sure and stronger proofes are discouered to be lyes with other things concerning Fredericke the second and Innocentius the fourth §. II. BVT M. Barlow yow may thinke hath some better proof besides these violent inducements to proue the Pope accessory to the poyson and death of Fredericke by which he will make all so cleare as there shal rest no more difficulty in the matter In those perhaps he will vse more sinceritie I say perhaps for that the custome of lying is so habituated and rooted in him as it is difficise mobilis a subiecto hardly to be separated from him as the Philosopher speaketh of all other habits which are not easily separated from their subiectes Let vs see then what demonstratiue proofs and irrefutable arguments he will bring to proue what he intendeth His words are these And yet that presumptions sayth he may not only carry it Cuspinian hauing Authors for both reports relateth the procurers therof doubtfully but the instrument certainly that Mansredus POYSONED him witâout controuersie siue ab hostibus siue a Pontiâice corruptus but whether corrupted by enemyes of the Emperour or by the Pope he will not say but so he diedâ So he What still nothing but lying M. Barlow Did you not promise vs surer argumentes then presumptions And why then doe you beginne with so notorious vntruthes Doth Cuspinian say that Manfred poysoned him Then truly hath M. Barlow belied Cuspinian before for that he saied And Cuspinian agreeth with them to wit Petrus de Vineis and Nauclerus that the Emperour recouering by the help of Phisuians from the poison Manfred tooke a shorter course with him and as Hazael serued Benhadad with a cloth stopped his breath with a pillow So he And yf this be true M. Barlow how then do you here set it out in Capitall letters by the Authority of Cuspinian that Manâred POISONED him and that so died for these are your words heere So as if M. Barlow be true in one place he must needes be false in the other For in the one he sayth that he recouered of the poyson in the other that he died of the same which is so playne a contradiction as M. Barlow will neuer be able to make doth partes to agree Besides it is a grosse vntruth to affirme that Cuspinian should say that the Emperour was poysoned by Manâred whereof he speaketh nothing at all and therfore where you say that he reported the instrumeÌt certainly that Mansredus poysoned him without coÌtrouersy certainly without conârouersie it is a lie of yours and not the assertion of Cuspinian whose words you might haue seene set downe in my letter alleadged thus Non potâit cauere c. The Emperour could not auoide but when he returned into Apulia he perished with poyson the 37 âeare of his raigne and 57. of his age and the very same day that he was made Emperor for wheras at the towne of Florenzola in Apulia he was daungerously sicke and at length by diligence of Phisitians had ouer come the same he was stifled by Manfredus his bastard-sonne begotten of a noble woman his concubine with a pillow thrust into his mouth whether it were that Manfredus did it as corrupted by his enemies or by the Pope or for that he did aspire to the kingdome of Siâilia So he where you see no mention made of Manâred for the poysoning but only for the stiâeling And how then doth he relate the procurers of the poyson doubtfully and the instrument certainely I thinke M. Barlow vseth to write sometimes in his sleepe for had he bene waking he would not as I suppose euer haue bene so shameles or ignorant as so to corrupt or mistake the Authors which he citeth in so base a manner And truly Cuspinian himself seemeth to haue dreamed in these few lines here cited as before I haue noted for hauing said veneno peryt he perished or died with poyson yet presently after as you see he saith that by diligence of Phisitians he ouercame the same and afterwards was stifeled And with such sleepers and dreamers are we troubled with all who not seeking to finde out or deliuer the truth in the matters they handle do contradict themselues and runne into
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 âhe 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 CERTAâNE âENTENCES AND AVTHORâTIES 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 temâerament 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 clâuses 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 coÌmonly of our Sauiour wherin if we go from the point it self that is compared we may find âor the most part more dissimilitudes then simâlitudes As for example Be yee âise 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 shoâld 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 âuill 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 mây 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