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 bâ—tter maner of beliefe and liâ—e 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 â—or 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 atteÌ„ptes Omnes Principes qui dixerunt hereditate possideamus Sanctuarium Dei c. All thoâ—e 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 litteâ—ally 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 wolâ—e 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 chastismeÌ„t 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 Mutiâ—â— 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 imprisonmeÌ„t 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 Angâ—ow 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 aâ—d 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 remeÌ„ber amidst their greatnes no doubt but they would be more moderate in their power and actions and also feare him more qui auâ—ert 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 VViceliâ—â— a German in his Epitome of the Popes liues in this Innocentiâ—â— 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 coÌ„demne the Popes who then liued forgetting in boâ—h that seuere coÌ„mination 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
Ely of whome whiles he was silent many had some opinion of learning but since all is resolued to lying immodest rayling and some few light Terentian Plautinian phrases which aswel bâ—seeme a Deuine writing in matters of such moment and in defence of so great a Monarch to dally withall as it doth a Bishop to lead a morrice-daunce in his hose and dublet This man I say answereth hereunto that perhaps so the case stood then when those Protestants did write but that is well neere 20. yeares agoe but now it is otherwise Which is asmuch as if he had said that this new beliefe in England is not like the old alwayes one but is refined altered with the tyme and therefore no argument can be drawne from a thing done 20. yeares past for that is to great antiquity for so new-fangled a fayth which is alwaies in motion and hath her waynes changes quarters and full like the Moone But yet I must aske him further how he will proue by any example of the Puritan writers this their change and submission to the Protestants conformity of doctrine with theÌ„ more now then 20. yeares past Are they not still in the same degree of difference and oppositioÌ„ as before Doe they not still deny our Sauiours descent into hell Do they not disclay me from the English Hierarchie Will they acknowledge the Kings Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall as King Henry did challenge it Or will they recall what they haue written of their discipline that it is an essentiall marke of the Church without which there were no Church no Faith no Ghospell and consequently the Protestants to be no Ghospellers to be out of the Church out of the number of the faithfull 29. But for further confutation of both these Superintendents and more cleere explication of the thing it selfe besides what is afterwards said in this booke touching this point it shall not be amisse here to set downe the words of a few Protestant and Puritan late and yet liuing writers what they iudge of ech other in this affayre that our very enemyes may be iudges of the most shamefull assertion of these two Prelates That the Protestants and Puritans differ in matters only cerimoniall and agree in essentiall And the reason that I produce no more in this kind is for want of their bookes which being not worth the sending so far seldome come to our hands I will begin with the Protestants 30. And to omit Thomas Rogers whose testimony is after to be produced in the Discussion it selfe what other thing doth Oliuer Ormerod in his discouery of Puritan-Papisme annexed to his Picture of a Puritan prooue but that the said Puritans are Hereticks and haue ioyned themselues with the Pharisies Apostolickes Arians Pebuzians Petrobusians Florinians Câ—rinthiaÌ„s Nazarens Begardines Ebionites Catababdites Eâ—theusiasts Donatists Iouinianists Catharists And least any should thinke that this coniunction is only in matters cerimonial he laieth to their charge these ensuing heresies that there is no diuersâ—â—y between a Priest and a Bishop that Bishops haue no iuâ—isdiction that all synnes be equall that the Minister is of the essence of baptisme with the like And in the second dialogue he maketh in plaine tearmes this obiection that there is no difference in matters fundamentall but accidentall and then answereth the same that they do differ from the Protestants in some things that are fundamentall and substantiall which he proueth by the article of Christs descending into hell And he might haue proued it further by the aboue rehearsed articles for which Iouinian Aerius and others were reputed by the auncient Fathers and condemned for Hereticks 31. VVith this Oliuer of Cambridge agreeth A. N. of Oxford in his Bible-bearer towards the midest for thus he writeth They refuse to subscribe to the Kings lawfull authority in causes Ecclesiasticall to the article of religion to the booke of Common prayer and the orders rites and cerimonies of our Church nay they dissent from vs in things accidentall and cerimoniall So he By which last antithesis of accidentall cerimoniall differences it is most euident that the former were essentiall fundamentall Neither doe I see how this can be denyed by any for if the Puritans refuse to subscribe to the articles of Protestant religion who seeth not that they approue it not and consequently differ in essentiall points and that M. Barlow ouerlashed very much when he wrote that their vnkind quarrell with Puritans was in another kind and not in matters of religion wherein forsooth out of his great kindnes he will haue them to agree 32. And not to stand more for proofe hereof from Protestants D. Couel cleereth the matter when he saith But least any man should thinke that our contentions were but in smaller points and the difference not great both sides haue charged the other with heresies if not infidelities nay euen such as quite ouerthrow the principall foundation of our Christian faith Thus he And this I thinke is another manner of matter then externall cerimonies or accidentall differences for if this be not a plaine iarre amongst Protestants and Puritans in Religion I would faine know what M. Barlow will more require thereunto but I see S. Gregories wordes verified in these men where he saith solent haeretici alia apertè dicere alia occultè cogitare the heretikes are wont to speake otherwise openly then inwardly they thinke for when they deale amongst themselues then are Protestants and Puritans heretikes and infidells to ech other but when they answere vs then all are friendes all good Christians all vnited in doctrine deuided only in cerimonies accidentall differences This is another manner of equiuocation then any of our schooles will allow and only fit for such as are his schollers qui in veritate non stetit sed mendax fuit ab initio 33. From Protestants I come to Puritans who in this case are no lesse eager playne and resolute then the Protestants but rather more for this in expresse tearmes the Author of the Twelue generall arguments concludeth against all the Superintendents of England togeather that they are Vsurpers and Tyrants and execute an vsurped power ouer the Church and one reason to proue the same is ex concessis for that their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction is deriued from the King else say they it is a flat deniall of his Supremacy as there they shew And in the next reason which is the 4. and last brought in for proofe of their assumption or minor thus they conclude There are no true and sober Christians but will say that the Churches of Scoâ—land France the Low Countryes and other places that renounce such Archbishops and Bishops as ours are as Anti-christian and vsurping Prelates are true Churches of God which they could not be if the authority prerogatiues they claime to themselues were of Christ and not vsurped for if it were the ordinance of Christ
malicious and intolerable in him for that he had seene me to haue obiected the same falsehood and vntrue dealing vnto M. Morton in my booke of Mitigation that the sayd M. Morton was so farre of from being able to answer the same as in his last Reply he left it quite out now lately I haue obiected the â—ame to him again in my last Reckoning with him cap. 6. 7. whervnto I refer M. Barl. to help him out And so much of this point It followeth in M. Barlowes speach that iâ— S. Peter had receiued of Christ with the keyes Math. 16. this IurisdictioÌ„ ouer Princes which we pretend then had it bene directly vniuersally ouer the whole world But this is not necessary for he might receiâ—â— the same indirectly as included and comprehended in the spirituall to be vsed for the preseruation of the Church when spirituall necessity should require as before haâ—â— bene said And as for Vniuersall ouer the world it is sufficient that it be ouer Christian Princes and people only wâ—â— are properly the sheep and lambes that are commended 〈◊〉 the chiefe Pastours feeding or gouernement Ioan. 21â— though vpon Infidell Princes also he may haue some power in certaine cases as when they will go about to let the preaching of the Ghospell authorized by these wordes Praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae But this appertayneth not to our question But wheras he sayth that Cardinall Bellarmiâ—e I do affirme that the Pope hath only authority ouer Princes indirectly obliquely in ordine ad DeuÌ„ we graunt the word indirectly but as for obliquely in ordine ad Deum he will not I thinke find the phrase in any writing of ours but only â—â— ordine ad spiritualia which is to say that the Pope hath such authority vpon Princes when the preseruation of the spirituall affaires doth so require to wit the saluation of souls he that shall read the place of Bellarmin here by M. Barlow quoted for of myne he citteth nothing to wit lib. 5. de Pontif. cap. 4. 6. shall find this sentence in ordine ad spiritualia but neuer I suppose in ordine ad Deum for that all power of the Pope is in ordine ad Deum propter Deum whether it be spirituall or temporall but in ordine ad spiritualia hath an other meaning as now hath bene shewed to wit that the Pope hatH directly only spirituall authority to execute spirituall functions but when this cannot be coÌ„sâ—â—uâ—d or executed without the help of temporall he may vse that also for defence of the other So as it seemeth that this our great Doctour doth not vnderstaÌ„d the very terms of Deuinity in this matter wherof he disputeth and this his ignorance sheweth it selfe no lesse here then before about indeterminatio iudicy in free choice Nor doth he onlâ— relate falsely ignorantly this point as out oâ— Cardinall Bellarmine and me but much more doth he abuse the name of D. Sanders in the very next words that do ensue as though he should say that neither directly nor indirectly hath the Pope this temporall authority from Christ but rather power to suffer as now you haue heard him say he citing for it de claue Dauid lib. 2. cap. 13. wheras D. Sanders doth hold the quite contrary in that booke throughout sundry Chapters to wit that the Pope hath receaued from Christ vtrumque gladium temporalem spiritualem both swords that is both temporall and spirituall authority and proueth it by many arguments and demonstrations only in the 13. Chapter he demandeth why theÌ„ had not the Apostoles depriued Nero and Domitius of their Empires Whereto he answereth among other causes that these were Pagan Tyrants and not vnder the charge and power that was giuen to the Church ouer sheepe lambes And then in the 14. Chapter he demandeth further why the Apostles first Christians had not elected some new King Christan for the good of the Church at the beginning Whereto he answereth alleaging sundry reasons why it was not conuenient that the Christian Church should be planted with violence but that for the space and time appointed by Gods prouidence Christians should exercise the other part of ChristiaÌ„ fortitude which coÌ„sisteth in suffering as is before touchedâ— but yet he neuer denyeth notwithstanding that the sayd temporall power ouer Christian Princes was in the Church Head therof though that season admitted not the vse but rather proueth it expressely and consequently is egregiously abused and falsifyed by M. Barlow when he sayth Doctor Sanders to affirme that the Pope had neyther directly or indirectly any such power from Christ. But will you see this our doughty Doctour ouerthrown confouÌ„ded both in him selfe and by himselfe then harken to his words in the very next page It is so sayth Sanders S. Peter with the Keyes receyued both powers temporall and ciuill Is it so Syr and why then did you euen now deny it Are you so mutable within the compasse of two pages What misery is this of your cause to be driuâ—n to these shiftes But let vs see another deuise which is â—â— oppose Franciscus de Victoria to this saying of Sanders 〈◊〉 thus you bring him in No not so sayth a Iesuit for this power oâ— the Keyes est alia à ciuili potestate is another power diffeâ—â—â— from the ciuill thus they iarre say you But whether we iarre or no one Catholike writer with another sure I am â—â—at you iarre with your selfe and seeme not to haâ—â— your witts at home For euen now you cited Doctoâ—â— Sanders as denying the Popes temporall power to coâ—â— neyther directly nor indirectly from Christ and now you say him to affirme that S. Peter receyued both powers with the Keyes Are not these playne contradictions How can this iarre be excused by you But I haue further to say to you yet in this matter foâ— that in the very next wordes where you would make a contradiction betweene Doctor Sanders Franciscus de Victoria you shew much more folly if not a worse quality For wheras you write that a Iesuite sayth No not so for 〈◊〉 the power of the keyes is different from ciuill power and do quoâ— the place of Victoria in the margent first in calling him Iesuite who was a Dominican fryar you shew much ignorance if you erre not of purpose For who knoweth not that Iesuites and Dominicans are two different Religious Orders the very first page of the booke and words of the title which are Reuerendi Patris Francisci de Victoria Ordinis Praedicatorum Relectiones c. might haue taught you that Victoria was no Iesuite but it may be that you seeing the words Ordinis Praedicatorum and vnderstanding that Iesuits did vse to preach also you did full wisely imagine Victoria to be a Iesuite and by the same reason you might â—â—well haue imagined him to be a Minister of your
Another thing may be to consider what strange Paradoxes he inserts here and there as positioÌ„s 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 exaÌ„ple 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 coÌ„scientiaÌ„ 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 dâ—monstration then that obedience is to be enioyned â—uâ—n 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 gouernmeÌ„t 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 repugnaÌ„t 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 coÌ„fideÌ„ce as a maxime in his new Deuinity vncoÌ„trollable he deliuereth the same saying That they acknowledged the Emperors Supremacy indepeÌ„dant 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 Hâ—nry 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 experieÌ„ce to be most false to wit that the Protestants and the Puritanes in England differ only in maâ—ters cerimoniall and agree in all â—ssâ—ntiall 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 aâ—dacious 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 â—o aske him one question to wit whether the ProtestaÌ„ts and Puritans vnderstand their owâ—e 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 Sâ—â—cliffe and the last Superintendent of Canterbury for the Protestants and Cartwright Gilby Mâ—rtin 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 cenâ—ured and excomunicated his Emperour Theodosius as he did The wordes then are found not in S. Ambrose his Booke de Apologia Dauid cap. 4 10. as here is cited for there are two Apolygies prior and posterior which M. Barlow by his citation seemeth not to haue vnderstood and the first containâ—th but 7. Chapters in all and in the 4 is only this sentence talking of the pennance of King Dauid Qui â—ullis tenebatur legibus humanis indulgentiam petebat cùm qui tenentur legibuâ— aeudent suum negare peccatâ—m King Dauid that was subiect to no humane lawes asked forgiuâ—nes when they that are bound by lawes presume to deny their sinnes But in his enarration vpon the 50. psalme of Dauid he hath the thing more plainely for thus he saith Rex vtique erat nullis ipse legibuâ— tenebatur quia liberi sunt Reges à vinculis delictorum neque enim illi ad poenam vocaÌ„tur legibus tuti Imperij potestate Dauid was a King and thereby was not vnder lawes for that Kinges are free from the bandes of their offences for that they are not called to punishment by lawes being safe by the power of their Empire So S. Ambrose Wereby is seene that he vnderstandeth that Princes commonly are not subiect to humane lawes for that they will not nor may be called to accompt for their offences as priuate meÌ„ are being free by their powâ—r or that no man is able to compell them And this priuiledge perhaps is tolerable in their priuate and personall sinnes but if the same should breake out in publicke and against the vniuersall good of Christians then may we learne by the foresaid act oâ— S. Ambrose in Excommunicating the Emperour Teodosius that God hath leâ—t some power by diuine law to râ—straine them for the coÌ„seruation of his Church and Kingdome And so we may see that al that which M. Barlow hath chirped here to the contrary is not worth a rush but to shew his penury and misery hauing bene forced of eight Authors heere alleadged by him to wit Salmeron Saâ—ders Victoria Bellarmine Barkley Sigebert Espencaeus S. Ambrose to misalledge and falsify seauen as you haue heard that is to say all of them sauing Barkley who in this matter is of lesse accompt then any of the rest if the booke be his which is extaÌ„t vnder his name For that he being no Deuine hath taken vpon him to defend a Paradoxe out of his owne head only different from all other writers of our dayes both Catholiks Heretiks graunting against the later all spiritual authority vnto the Pope ouer Princes Christian People throughout the world but denying against the former all temporall authority eyther directly or indirectly annexed vnto the spirituall wherin as he is singular from all so he is like to be impugned by all and is by M. Barlow in this place for the Protestants calling him our owne Writer And for the Catholikes Cardinall Bellarmine hath lately written a most learned booke against him by name confuting his priuat fancy by the publique authority weight and testimonies of all Catholike Deuines And so much for this OF CERTAINE NOTORIOVS Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his aduersary which no wayes can be excused from malice witting errour §. II. AS the former fraud discouered and conuinced against M. Barlow of abusing authors against their owne wordes and meaning is a foule fault and very shaÌ„full in him that pretendeth to haue conscience or care of his credit so is the crime of appareÌ„t and willfull Calumniation bearing no shew of truth or reason at all much more foolish wicked Foolish for that it doth wholy discredit the Calumniator with his Readers wicked for that it sheweth plaine malice and will to hurt although with his owne greater losse So then it falleth out in this place that M. Barlow finding himselfe much pressed and strained with the reasonable and moderate speach which I vsed in my Epistle throughout three numbers togeather concerning the Oath freely taken as was said by many Catholikes both Priests and Laicks expounding their taking of the Oath in a good sense he doth so malignantly peruert the same by open calumniatioÌ„s as euery child may discouer not only the falshood but the fury also of his passion against me nothing being in his answere but exorbitant rayling apparent lying For whereas I in reason deserued rather approbation and commendation from him for expounding plainly and sincerely that meaning which those Catholikes if they were Catholikes had or could haue in their taking of the Oath without all Equiuocation or mentall reseruation which I condemned in an Oath as altogeather vnlawfull concerning any point of religion that ought to be confessed he not being able to abide the light of this truth and plaine dealing falleth into a certaine frenzy of rayling against me for the ground of his accusation â—ayeth hiâ— owne fiction that I doe teach them perswade them 〈◊〉 Equiuocate in this very case For cleare confutatiâ—â— wherof it shal be sufficieÌ„t first to set down my own wordâ— as they ly in my epistle and then to consider and ponder the collections and inferences that he maketh vpon theâ— And if by this you doe not finde him to be one of the loosest conscience and lawâ—est tongue and least respectiuâ— of his owne credit honesty that euer yow saw I am much deceiued My words then were these that follow As for that multitude of Priestes and Lâ—ickes which he sayth haue freely takâ—n the Oath as their freedome was that which now I haue mentioned and a principall motiue as may be presumed the desire they had to giâ—e his Maiesty satisfaction and deliuer themselues and otheâ—â— so much as lay in them from that inference of disloyall meaning which vpon the denyall therof some do vse 〈◊〉 make so I cannot but in charity assure my selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as coâ—cerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in â—ome such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sincerity of true Catholike doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath not authority without iust cause to proceed againâ—â— them Quia illud possumâ—â— quod iure possumus saith the law ouâ— authority is limited by Iustice. Directly also the Pope may be denyed to haue such authority against Princes but indirectly only in ordine ad spiritualia when certayne great important and vrgent cases concerning Christian religion fall out which we hope will neuer be betweene ouâ— Soueraigne and the Sea Apostolicke for so much as they haue past already many yeares though in different Relions in peace and quietnes euen since
his Maiesty begâ—â— first to raiâ—ne But concerning the generall Question to deny simply and absolutely That the Pope is supreme Pastour of the Catholiâ—â— Church hath any authority leâ—t him by Christ eyther directly or â—â—â—â—â—â—ctly with cause or without cause in neuer so great a necessity or for â—euer so great and publicke an vâ—ility of the Câ—ristian Religion to proceed against any Prince whatsoeuer temporally â—or his restraint or aâ—endmeâ—â— or to perâ—it other Princes to do the sâ—me this I suppose was neuer tâ—eir meaning that tooke the Oath for that they should therby contradict the generall conseâ—t of all Catholicke Deuines and conâ—â—sse 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 prehemiâ—ence 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 chiefeâ—t 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 â—â—e shall sweare without any Equiuocation or mentall reseruation at â—â—l 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 aâ—d sincerely to sweare then by swearing neyther to giue satisfaction to God nor to his Maiesty nor to themselâ—â—â—â— nor to their neighbours And so much for this point Hitherto haue I thought good to relate my forâ—â—â— words somewhat at large to the end the Reader may seâ— my reasonable and dutiâ—ull speach in this behalfe aâ—â— vpon what ground M. Barlow hath fallen into such a raâ—e against me as now shall appeare by his reply First of aâ—â— he condeÌ„neth me of hâ—pocrisy saying Let the Reader câ—â—â—â—der â—â—at an â—ypocrite he is for it is an inseparable marke of â—n hypâ—câ—â—â—â— to iudge oâ— otheâ— mâ—ns conâ—â—iences the hart of man is Gods peculiâ—â— â—oâ— anâ— man to place his consâ—sâ—ory there is high presumpâ—ion so be â—â—nneth out in that comon place which maketh nothing at all to ouâ— purpose as you see For I did not iudgâ—t or conâ—â—mne then conâ—ciâ—nces that tooke the Oath but excâ—sâ—â— the same yea interpreted their â—act in good sense giuing my â—eaâ—ons for itâ— that they being good Catholike could not be presuâ—â—d to meane otherwise then the inâ—â—gritie of Catholicke doctrine did permit them for that otherwise they should be no good Catâ—olickes 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 vnlawâ—ull but only their intention and meaning touching the integrity of Catholick doctrine And this is far difâ—erent from the nature of hypocrisy which forbiddeth not all iudging but only euill and rash iudging of other mâ—ns actions or intentioÌ„s thereby to seeme better more iâ—st 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 hâ—s 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 â—peake 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 mâ—rke 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 frequeÌ„t 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 â—n hypocrite Moreouer if this bee an inseparable marke or propriety as he saith then according to Aristotle Porphyriâ—â— 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 consequeÌ„ce haue inferred that I was an hypocrite But this is ridiculous that all hypocrites and only hypocrites iudge of mens consciences for first the hypoâ—rite 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 â—dultery 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. â—arlow 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
this â—axatio â—f iudging consciences and consequently this is no inseparâ—ble marke that agreeth to all In like manner also it agrâ—â—â—â— 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 withoâ—â— hypocrisy or iustifying of himselfe For if to a knowne vsâ—rer for example you should obiect or exprobrate the finne of vsury he answere you againe that he suspected yoâ—â— conscieÌ„ce 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 inseâ—arable marke or propriety of hypocrisie to iudge of other mens conâ—ciences 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 prâ—priâ— passiones flâ—unt ab essentijs rerum proprieties doe flow from the essence of things and therefore they are best vnderstood knowne by reâ—erence 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 videâ—iquâ—d 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth confirme that it signifieth dissimulation this definition I say which must conuerâ—i cum deâ—iniâ—o clâ—areth vs that this iâ—separable marke or propriety deuised by M. Barlâ— to be in all hypocrisie is both ignorantly falsly â—eygned by himselfe as not knowing the true nature of propriâ— pasâ—â— for that there be many wayes of dissimulation of â—eygâ—ing our selues to be better then we are without iudging otheâ— mens consciences that is to say there be many sâ—eâ—iâ— and kinâ—s 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 â—ay 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 coÌ„meth to speake of any matter of substance and learning sheweth himselâ—e 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 â—saying 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 〈◊〉 selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as concerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in sâ—me such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sinceâ—iâ—y of true Christian doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath â—ot â—uthority â—ithout iust cause nor directly but indirectly only in â—â—dine 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 Catâ—olikes doâ— not hold it lâ—wfull in a matter so neâ—rely concerning the Conâ—ession 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 bâ—hold sayth he a malicious trick of a notable Equiuocaâ—â—uâ— that cannot be contented to be him selfe alone the Diuells schâ—ller that ancient Equiâ—ocatourâ— but must be 〈◊〉 his Deuility Reader or Schoole-man to teach others â—o distinguish themselues tâ— hell fire sheweth him selfe to be verè spiritus mendaâ— iâ— ore Propâ—â—tarum framing two distinctions like the two 〈◊〉 of Sedecias the false Prophet such another as himselfe fuâ—â— of thâ— spirit putting them into their moâ—thes the first that the Pope 〈◊〉 not Authority withouâ— iust cause to proceeâ— against Princes the secâ—â—â— 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 â—is 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 intendmeÌ„ts Is this the profundâ—tie 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 imperâ—â—â— mulâ—itudinis appertaineth saith he to the vnlearned vulgar sort Doth not reason and expeâ—ience teach vs that to diâ—tinguish matters that be obscure perplexed into their cleere sâ—nses 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 inâ—erior 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 proâ—unda Sathanae the profound mysteries of Sathan and iniquity And the like examples I might alleadg in great store of many other heresies discouered and disâ—olued by the help of distinctions as namely that of the Eutiâ—hians 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 vâ—â—erly 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 allâ—dging for their ground these words of our Sauiour â—olitâ— 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 Proâ—â—nda 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 lâ—arned 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 〈◊〉 they are false or not incident vnto the matter or of aâ—y moment or necessity for explicâ—tion of the thing aâ—d controuersy in hand or for direction of consciâ—nceâ— of Catholike men that are pressed to take the Oath Thâ—â— 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 Paâ—tour 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 coÌ„mon 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 distiâ—guishing 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 â—hâ—s then wee see the Iniquity of M. Barlow his proceeding in exclaming against me so exorbitantly for vsing the forme of two distinctioÌ„s 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 lawâ—ull saith Father Persons in matters of fayth and religion and yet sayth the same Father Persons Equiâ—â—cating in this matter of faith is lawâ—ull and may stand with the integâ—iâ—y 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 matâ—â—r though it concerne â—ayth religion F. Persons sayth it is lawfull These are my contradictions according to M. Barlow And truly I confesâ—e 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 â—his be not a Paganish delusion of God and men VVherto I answer that it is â—â— delusion at all but rather an instruction and a necessâ—â—y explication not Paganish but Christian for directiâ—â— mens consciences Nay saith M. Barlow it is the very 〈◊〉 oâ— Lisander that children are to be mocked with toyes and 〈…〉 Oathes Indeed Plutarke in his comparison of Lisâ—â—der and Silla recordeth that one said of Lisander Leuem esse apâ—d Liâ—â—â—drum iurisiurandi religionem Lisander made no scruple of aâ— Oath that he gaue couÌ„saile to deceiue men with Oathes as children with toyes and
bables This was the fact of a Pagan Atheist What doth the matter appertayne to vsâ— do we esteeme so litle a false Oath Why then doe Catholickes stand so much in England against the receiuing of this Oath Why doe they put themselues in danger of leesing the Princes fauour their goods theyr lands their Countrie their liues rather then to take the same againâ—â— their consciences It seemeth rather that M. Barlâ—â— concurreth with Lisanders opinion who will haue theâ— take it although it be against their consciences for thiâ— is to haue leuem iurisiurandi religionem little conscience of an Oath But yet he goeth further in this matter and cannot get out of it for he will needs proue this my distinctioâ— and as he calleth it Equiuocation not only to be Pagaâ—iâ—â— but more then Heatheniâ—h that euen by Aristotles testimony in his Booke of Rhetoricke to King Alexander his wordes are these Nay this delusion is more then Heathenish â—or Aristotle was of opinion that he which doubteth in his Oath for thâ—â— i◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sweare with a mentall addiâ—ion hath neither â—ear oâ— Goâ—â— vâ—ngeance or shâ—me oâ— mens reproof But truely I hauing conâ—idered the place of Aristotle how far his meaning is from that which here is alledged in his name me thinkes that M. Barlow should feare these two last pointes of Gods vengeaÌ„ce mans reprofe For Aristotle hath not a word of dâ—â—bâ—ing in his Oath or of mentall addition or reseruatioÌ„ in an Oath bâ—t only of plaine forswearing For his argument is hauing treated in that booke to Alexander how by the preceptes of Rhetoricke an Orator may proue or improue any fact or crime that shall come in question as by signes by arguments by coniectures by probability by witnesse and by torture he coÌ„meth at leÌ„gth to shew how it may be proued or improued by an Oath His words are these Iufiuranduâ— est cum diuina veneratione dictio probationis expeâ—s c. An Oath is a speach without proofes with diuine veneration wherefâ—re if we will confirme our Oath and the credit thereof we must say thâ—â— no man truly will forsweare himselfe both in respect of the â—eare of punishment from the Gods as also of disgrace among men and we may add that men may be deceyued but the Gods cannot But now if the aduersary will flie also to an Oath and we would extenuate or discredit the same then we must shew that the man that will not sticke to dâ—e euill will not sticke also to forsweare himself for that he which thinketh he may ly hidden from the Gods after he hath committed an eâ—ill â—act will thinke that he may also escape punishment after he hath â—orsworne himselfe This is Aristotles discourse which maketh no mention at all as you see of doubting in an Oath and much lesse of mentall addition or reseruation And albeit M. Barlow do bouldly and ignorantly say that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by all Interpreters doth signifie peierare to periure or forsweare doth import also to sweare with mental addition yet is this only a fiction of his nor can he bring forth one example out of Aristotle or any Greeke writer which doth vse it in that sense nor could Aristotle vse it so in this place where he vseth the sayd wordes thrice in these lines by me alleaged alwaies for peierare to forsweare and neuer for doubting or mentall addition Nay it cannot stand with any sense of Aristotles discourse for if Aristotle should say that no man truly will doubt in his Oath or haue a meÌ„tall reseruation both for feare of Gods chastisement discredit amongst men it were a ridiculous speach for that men do not knowe when a mentall reseruation is made or when a man doubteth in his Oath but when he forsweareth himselfe it may come to be knowne And in like manner it is more ridiculous to say against the aduersary as Aristotle teacheth vs that he which sticketh not to doe wickedly will not sticke to doubt also in his Oath or to vse a mentall addition which no man I thinke would vnderstand or can read without laughing Wherfore seing that Aristotle speaketh only of forsweâ—ring and that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken by him and by all other Greeke Authors wherof we might heâ—â— alledge infinite examples M Barlow cannot alleadge one for his fiction it is euidently seene that he miserable man is sore pressed when to sustaine his bad cause he is forced to falsifie and corrupt Authours by peruerting and wresting them aside quite contrary to their meaning purpose But now we shall passe to some other poyntes THE REASON IS EXAMINED WHETHER GODS PROVIDENCE MIGHT SEEME DEFECTVOVS if no authority had bene left in the Christian hurch to restraine and punish euill Kings AND Whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. I SAID in my former Letter as in the precedent Chapter hath bene seene that I could not perswade my self that such Catholikes as were sayd to haue accepted the Oath did meane to abiure al authority of the Pope for depoâ—ing temporall Princes for any cause whatsoeuer for that therin they should contradict the gâ—nerall consent of all Catholike Deuines and confesse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruatiâ—â— of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous For that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great perilous an euill as that way might fall out by the exorbitant actions of some incorrigible Prince To this my speach M. Barlow answereth thus If by Catholike Deuines he meaneth Scriptures Councells Fathers Stories for a thousand yeares after Christ the Reader must take it for a mendacious vanity and let it passe for no better Wherto I reply that as I do meane it it is no mendacious vanity but a religioâ—â— verity for that I meane by Catholike Deuines in this place all such of that profession as haue handled the question particularly of this temporall Authority of the Pope in certaine vrgent occasions which are principally Scholasticall Deuines especially those of this age that haue written against all sorts of Heretikes that denied the same And albeit M. Barlow in his rayling vayne do challenge the Schoole-men as blasphemously detorting Scriptures yet he that shall read them with iudgment and attention without this furious passion of hatred against them and lacke of capacity to vnderstand them shall quickly perceiue that their skill in Scriptures Councels Fathers Stories is far superiour by infinite degrees to that of M. Barlow and his Mates that crake so much against them and their sincerity in expounding them according to their true meaning and is also without comparison more sound as may appeare by the many grosse and wilfull corruptions which I haue noted in him before in that kind And albeit in some hundreds of yeares after Christ there had
consent Did she make so notable a demonstration of her owne griefes which she had therof What demonstration was this Wherin did it consist Did she shed teares Did she vest her selfe with sâ—ckloth for the same Did she put any man to death any of the doers or counsellours therof And if not what sufficient proofes notable expressing of her griefes doth this Minister meane What mourning garmentes were there seene throughout the whole Court for this fact What signe of sorrow and publick afflâ—ction Of her Mother it is written that when she heard oâ— Queen Dowagers death she mourned in yellow sattin with gould lâ—ce what apparell Queene Elizabeth did mourne in for Queene Maryes death by her selfe commanded I read not but that then as the cause waâ— somewhat like of both theyr ioyes both of Queene Anne and Queene Elizabeth mother and daughter by the faâ—l of their aduersaries it is probable also that their mourning habits were not vnlike But in truth when I doe consider the circumstances of that lamentable and vnheard of bloudy action that a Queene of that Nobility so honourably borne brought vp a Queene of two so great Kingdomes and Heyre apparent to the third comming into the Realme vpon assuraÌ„ce giuen hauing no obligation of subiection nor being lyable to any corporall punishment by the lawes eyther of nature or nations beeing equall and no wayes subiect and if she were guilty in any thing yet can it not be preâ—umed to haue bene more then the seeking of her owne liberty being vniustly deteyned which is permitted both by Diuine and humane lawes yet notwithstanding after soe many yeares of afflictions in restraint and prâ—son to be brought to a blocke and to be forced to lay dâ—wne her necke at her commandement whome shee allwaâ—â—s esteemed vnequall to her selfe and to haue her heâ—d cut of as the poorest woman that liued by the common hangman seemeth to mee to be one of the most pittifull spectacles that hath happened in Chriâ—â—endome since that Christianity beganne especially she hauing so potent and able a Prince regnant at that time in so warlike a Nation and so neere as his Maiestie was But let vs see what M. Barlow sayth to this for it foloweth immediatly vpon his former words And since that â—ime sayth hee our now Soueraigne that had the nerest interest in that errand was long agoe satisfied by her Maiesties owne purgation But I would demand of M. Baâ—low what ingredients there were in that purgation he talketh of Colloquintida a little before but I will not stand with him about Apothecary-druggs but this I say that exept the purgation of Queene Elizabeth concerning his Maiesties Mothers death had for ingredients these three things first Confession of her iniustice in that act then sorrow and contrition for the same and thirdly offer of satisfaction I must needes say as God by the Proâ—het â—eremy sayd to Ierusalem Silaueris te niâ—ro mulâ—iplicaueâ—is tiâ—i herâ—am Borith macuâ—ata es in iniquitate tua coram me dicit Domiâ—us If thou shâ—lt wâ—sh thy selfe with â—alt-peeter and multiply neuer soe much the herbe Borith thou art defiled with thine iniquity before me sayth the Lord God But his Maiestie sayth M. Barlow was long agoe satisfied with that purgation That may bee out of prudence â—oâ— the causes that euery wise man will ghâ—sse the times standing as they did Yt may be also that his Maiestie meaneth to follow the wisedome of King Dauid who left somthing in this kind to be done by his sonne which sure I am that if his Maiestie were but three moneths abroad in the world to heare what is talked in other Princes Courtes and Countreys he would exact perhaps a larger satisfactioÌ„ about this matter Now theÌ„ to speake briefly of Queene Elizabeths death which of purpose for some pages I haue ouerslipt to treat of these premises now handled that went before it I sayd in my letter that after so long a life in such worldly prosperityâ—s pleasures and iollityes as hers had bene it was a pittifull death to depart from this world to eternity with so little preparation or mention of God as she is reported to haue vsed wherof I sayd that I had seene a relation of a person of worth that was present at all her sicknes and death and had written the same not long after her buriall which I sayd then I would passe ouer for breuities sake But now for that I am so much vrged thereunto by M. Barlow I meane to impart with the Reader the greatest part of the sayd narration though not all for sundry respects but without any addition of matter from my selfe as most sincerely I doe protest But first let vs heare what M. Barlow sayth to that which already I haue written before First he sayth That if Queene Elizabeth at the first assault of her sicknes were silent and solitary phisicke will ascribe it vnto the nature of melancholy diseases c. Then â— hat reason would interprete that as â—he in refusing peremptorily her bed did shew her Princely resolution stantem mori to dye standing so Christian charity would inferre her retired silence to be a with-drawing of her mynd from her senses for a more serious meditation or her by-past lyfe and future state Behould heere M. Barlowes spirituall Rhetoricke or Rhetoricall spirituality that can make madnes meditation and silence or rather dumbnes vpon melancholy to be a voluntary withdrawing of the mind from her senses Indeed her by-past life and future state were matters that required deep meditation yea contrition also and teares if wee will belieue Saint Augustine who both wept hartily and repeated often ouer the penitentiall psalmes when he lay on his death-bed and further said as Possidius relateth in his life that no man ought to goe out of this life without pennance if he hath time to procure it but alas it seemeth that Queene Elizabeth was not in that state of mynd or sense to procure it or to accept of it if any man had offered the same vnto her As for the other particulers what she answered to her Doctor of Phisicke that she did meditate that she did lay her hands vpon the head of Doctor VVhitguist Archbishop of Canterburie kneeling by her and saying Amen to his prayers and sayd vnto one of her Ladyes wayting vpon her that her mind was little of from God and so gaue vp the Ghost c. all this I say for that it is much different from the faithfull relation of the aforesayd worthy person which was present and wrote the Story as an eye-witnes which M. Barlow doth not I shall remit my selfe and the Reader to the sayd relation which is this that ensueth Her Maiestie being in good health one day a priuy Counsellour presented her with a peece of gould of the bignes of an Angell dimly marked with some small characters which he sayd an old woman in VVales bequeathed her on her
and defy this communion in fayth with them and haue set forth whole bookes to proue the same which were too long here to repeate Yea Caluinian and Zwinglian Ministers themselues are witnesses hereof in many of their Treatises as namely the Tigurine Deuines who confesse that theyr differences and contentions with the Lutherans are about Iustification Free-will the Ghospell the law the Person of Christ his descent into hell of Gods election of his children to life euerlasting de multis alijs non leuis momenti articulis of many more articles of no small importance which is euident for that Ioannes Sturmius another Zwinglian or Caluinist addeth other controuersies as of the Supper of our Lord and Reall Presence of Predestination of the Ascension of Christ to heauen his sitting at the right hand of his Father and the like adding also that the Lutherans do hould the Protestant Caluinian Churches of England France Flanders and Scotland for Hereticall and their Martyrs for Martyrs of the Diuell And conforme to these their writings are their doinges and proceedings with them where they haue dominion for that they admyt them not to cohabitation nor to the common vse of marriage betweene them nor to be buryed with them after theyr deaths as they well know who haue liued or do liue among them And thus much for the Lutherans of the one syde Now let vs see somewhat also of the Purytans of the other And first of all this matter hath beene handled dyuers times and demonstrated by Catholicke English wryters of our dayes agaynst this absurd assertion of M. Barlow that the differences at this day betweene Protestants and Purytans are not at all concerning religion nor of any substantiall and essentiall poyntes thereof but only Ceremoniall and in particuler the same is conuinced and made most manifest in the Preface of a late Booke intituled An answere to the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports where the different grounds of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power betweene Protestants Puritans and Catholickes being examined it is found that their differences are such as cannot possibly stand togeather to make one Church and house of saluation but that if one hath the truth the other must necessarily remayne in damnable error which is euident also by the writings of Protestants themselues especially by the bookes intituled Dangerous positions set forth and imprinted at London 1593. and the Suruey ofpretended holy discipline made as they say by him that is now Lord of Canterbury and Doctor Sutcliffe as also the Booke intituled the Picture of a Purytan writen by O. O. of Emanuel printed 1603. and other like bookes But especially at this time will I vse for proofe of this poynt the testimony of Thomas Rogers Minister and Chaplin as he styleth himselfe to his Lord of Canterbury who of late hauing set forth by publike authority the fayth doctrine and religion of England expressed in 39. articles vpon the yeare 1607. doth in his Preface to his said Lord haÌ„dle this matter of the differences betweene the Puritans and Protestantes though partially agaynst the discontented brethren he being theyr aduersary but yet setteth downe out of their owne words what their iudgment is of the importance and moment of the controuersyes betwene them to wit that they are not only about Ceremonies and circumâ—tances as M. Barlow pretendeth but about poyntes contayned in scripture in the very Ghospell it selfe They are compryzed say they in the booke oâ— God and also be a part of the Ghospell yea the very Ghospell it selfe so true are they and oâ— such importance that if euery hayre of our head were a life we ought to affâ—ard them all in defence of these matters and that the articles of religion penned and agreed vpon by the Bishops are but childish toyes in respect of the other So they And will any man thinke or say now that these men doe not hould that theyr differences with the Protestants are differences in religion as M. Barlow sayth or that they are only matters of ceremonyes and not of any one substantiall poynt concerning religion Let vs heare them yet further telling theyr owne tale and related by M. Rogers The controuersy betwene them and vs say they of the Protestants is not as the Bishops and their welwillers beare the world in hand for a cap or tippet or a Surplisse but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry and regiment of the Church according to the word of God The first wherof which is a true Ministry they Protestants shall neuer haue till Bishops and Archbishops be put downe and all Ministers be made equall The other also will neuer be brought to passe vntill Kings and Queenes doe subiect themselues vnto the Church and doe submit their Scepters and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and licke vp the dust of the feete of the Church and willingly abyde the Censures of the Church c. This they write and much more in that placeâ— which I trow is more then M. Barlow ascribeth vnto the matter For if it be contayned in Gods booke yea a part oâ— the Ghospell the very Ghospell it selfe about which they contend what proterâ—ity is it on the other part to call it a matter only of Ceremony But yet further within two pages after agayne they doe explayne themselues and theyr cause more in particuler saying Our controuersy with the Protestants is whether Iesus Christ shal be King or no and the end of all our trauell is to bâ—yld vp the walls of Ierusalem and to set vp the throne of Iesus Christ 〈◊〉 heauenly king in the myddest thereof And are these poyntes also not substantiall nor any wayes touching religion but Ceremonies Harken then yet further what they do inferre vpon the Protestantes Church for dissenting from them in these pointes Neyther is there among them say they a Church or 〈◊〉 least wise no true Church neither are they but titular Christians no true Christians indeed And yet will M. Barlow continue to say that there is no difference at all in Religion and that I lyed when I sayd that his Maiesty yeelded to a Conference between Protestants Puritans concerning their differences of Religion VVhat will he answere to the two precedent members touched by the Puritans to witâ— that their strife is for a true Ministry a lawfull gouermeÌ„t therof expounding their meaning to be that for obtaining the first all Bishops and Archbishops must be put downe for the second all temporall Princes Kings Queenes must leaue their superiority ouer the Church submit themselues and their Crownes vnto the same Church to wit their Presbyteries as M. Rogers expoÌ„deth their words And is there no substantiall point neyther in all this but only matter of Ceremony And doth not the very life soule of the Church depend of these two things a true Ministry and lawful Head Is not the power of preaching teaching administration of
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 alâ—eady 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 indiffereÌ„t 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 Tribâ—ne with a Notary to come and dispute in the Consistory before him his Counsell and Nobility with the Hereticall Bishop Auxenâ—ius 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. Baâ—low 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 thâ—se great and Princely paynes which his Maiesty tooke with the Puritâ—ns 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 â—rought 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 argumeÌ„ts 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 hâ—ld 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 â—isâ—hed 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 wâ—ich 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 importâ—th 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
he sayth that therin I do abuse the Reader for that they shewed their obedience sayth he to be due and performed the same in matters of spirituall seruice wherat I thinke no man can but laugh that M. Barlow is become so spirituall as that he can make those Infidell Kings to be spirituall Superiours also or at leastwise to haue spirituall power euen in spirituall thinges ouer Gods faithfull people Let vs see his proofes of so strange an assertion To offer sacrifice saith he vnto the Lord in the desert is an â—igh case of conscience and religion yet would not the Iewes in Egypt attempt it without asking and obtayning the Kings leaue And why was that Was it for that they held him for their supreme Gouernour in all causes Ecclesiastiacll and temporall Then they ought to haue obeyed him when he would haue had them offered sacrifice in Egypt which they refused to doe for that their spirituall gouernour Moyses though a naturall borne subiect of King Pharao â—ould them that Gods will was contrary and as for their asking and obtayning leaue before they went to sacrifice in the Desert who doth not see but that it was in respect of temporall danger which might ensue vnto them if so great a number of their vnarmed people should haue aduentured to depart without his licence But I would demaund of M. Barlow who sayth that the people of Israel shewed their obedience to be due vnto Pharao and performed it in matter of spirituall seruice what manner of obedience was that which came alwaies in the Imperatiue mood Thus saith our Lord Dimitte populum meum Let go my people And when he yeelded not therunto he was plagued and punished with so many afflictions as are set downe in Exodus for 9. or 10. Chapters togeather in the end what leaue obtayned they but against his will when he durst no longer deny them Which appeareth for that his feare being somewhat mitigated he pursued them afterward againe And will M. Barlow make this an example of spirituall obedience to temporall Princes that was thus extorted Or of spirituall iurisdiction in heathen Princes ouer faithfull people in causes Ecclesiasticall that was contradicted both in word and fact by Moyses himselfe But let vs heare his second instance for it is more ridiculous So saith he the commaundement of King Cyrus was in a cause meerly Ecclesiasticall viz. the building of the Lords house in IerusaleÌ„ and transporting thither the consecrated vessels But who doth not see that these things as they were ordayned by King Cyrus were meere temporall as is the building of a materiall Church for that otherwise the Masons Carpenters Architects that build the same should be Ecclesiastical officers albeit they were Gentiles If King Cyrus had had authority to appoint them out their sacrifices to dispose lawfully of their sacred actions therein as he had not nor could haue being a Pagan and not of their faith religion then might they haue sayd that he had beene a spirituall Superiour vnto them but for giuing them leaue only to go to Ierusalem to build their Temple and to carry their consecrated vessels with them that had been violeÌ„tly taken away from thence argueth no more spirituall iurisdiction in him then if a man hauing taken away a Church-dore key so as the people could not go in to pray except he opened the dore should be said to haue spirituall iurisdictioÌ„ ouer that people for opening the dore letting them in that they in praying him to open the said dore did acknowledg spiritual obedience vnto him And is not this meere childish trifllng worthy the wit of M. Barlow What definition trow you will M. Barlow giue of spirituall power and Iurisdiction therby to verifie these monstrous and absurd propositions which in this affaire he hath vttered partly by his assertions and partly by his examples Truly I know no other set downe by Deuines but that it is a power giuen by God to gouerne soules for their direction vnto euerlasting saluation euen as ciuill power is giuen for gouerning the coÌ„mon wealth to her prosperity and temporall â—elicity And will M. Barlow say that God gaue this spirituall power to Pharao and Cyrus that were Heathens and knew not God for gouerning directing the soules of the Iewes that liued vnder them whose religion or God they neyther knew nor cared for Or that Nero the Emperour or Claudius had this spirituall power and Iurisdiction vpon the soules of S. Peter and S. Paul that liued vnder them in Rome and were their temporall Lordes and Princes These thinges are so absurd that I am ashamed to exaggerate them any further and therfore let vs passe forward to the rest As for the other examples by me alleaged how Sydracâ—â— Mysach and Abdenago refused to obey Nabuchodâ—â—â—sor their King in adoring the Statua as also refuâ—ing the meates of the King of Babylon Toby of the Assyrians and the Macâ—abees for refusing to eat Swines-flesh at the commandment of their King Antiochus he sayth that all these had their warrants for defence of their consciences from the word or will of God as who should say Catholickes haue nothing for iustification of their Conscience which is a meere cauill and as Logitians call Petitio principij and wholy from the question for that we affirme first that they haue sufficient groundes for iustification of their consciences in that behalfe as they will easily verify in euery point if they might be hard with any indifferency And secondly if they had not but their consciences were erroneous yet so long as that dictamen rationis or prescript of conscience standeth to the contrary and telleth them that they haue sufficient ground they may not doe against it without sin as now hath bene proued Let vs see what he saith of the other example of Tobies breach of King Senacherib his commaundement in Niniue which wee shall examine in the next ensuing Paragraph VVHETHER TOBY DID well or no in breaking the commaundement of the King of Niniâ—e concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authorities of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy §. II. AMong other examples and testimonies alleaged by me out oâ— Scripture of lawfull disobeying temporall Princes commaundements when they are vnlawfull the exaÌ„ple of Tobias that disobeyed the edict of King Senacheriâ—â— of Niniue about burying such as were slayne seemed to haue troubled most M. Barlow in this answere and so after some discussion of the matter vp and downe whether he did it openly or in secret by day or by night by stealth or contempt he maketh this conclusion Take it eyther way sayth he was his disobedience in such a cause iustifiable No. Grauely resolued as you see and Doctour-like but yet without any testimony except only his owne For first the context of the story it selfe hauing recounted the circumstances of the fact in the
that he in the day of iudgment to wit our Saâ—iour will giue reward for our good works almes is now also ready to shew himselâ—e a most benigne heater to him that shall come vnto him by prayer works and so did Cornelius the Centurion merit to be heard as doing many almes vpon the people sayth the Scripture And when about nyne of the clocke the sayd Centurion prayed an Angell stood by him and gaue testimony of his good works saying Cornelius thy prayers and almes haue ascended vp before God citò orationes ad Deum ascendunt quas ad Deum merita nostâ—i operis imponunt Our prayers do quickly asceÌ„d vnto God which the merits of our good works do lay before him c. And preseÌ„tly with this Scripture he ioyneth the other out of Toby Sic Raphel Angelus c. So the Angel Raphael did testify vnto Toby alwayes praying alwayes working wheÌ„ thou didst pray togeather with Sara I did offer the memory of thy prayer in the sight of God when thou didst bury the dead and leaue thy dinner for doing the same I was sent by God to tempt thee and afterward to cure thee I am Raphael one of the seaâ—en iust Angels who do assist conuerse in the sight of God c. Where we see that S. Cyprian maketh another manner of accompt of the holynes and meryt of this worke and of the truth of this Angell then M. Barlow doth And the very self same speach S. Cyprian vseth in his booke de Mâ—â—talitate alleadging this place of Toby and testimony of the Angell Raphael in the commendation of Tobies fact in burying the dead against the Kinges commandement So as white and black hoat and cold or the two poles are not more opposite one to the other then the spirit of S. Cyprian and that of M. Barlow in this point And truly it seemeth that a man may gather by good consequence that for so much as he condemneth that fact of Toby in burying the dead bodies of the Iewes in persecution he would also if he had bene there not only not haue buried these dead bodies against the Kings Edict but also neyther haue receaued the persecuted into his house agaynst the commaundement of the sayd King Nay he would haue rather deliuered them vp to the persecutors hands and the like if he had liued amongst Christians vnder Nero Domitius and Dioclesian And this is M. Barlows piety in respect of that of holy Toby and S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Augustine and other such sincere pious men who both approued and commended this fact Now let vs passe on to the rest After these examples of Scriptures there were alleadged by the Apologer sundry authorityes of ancient Fathers which shew the obligation that subiects haue to obey their temporall Princes which in my Letter I declared no way to preiudice our cause who both acknowledge and offer all dutifull obedience in temporall affaires which is so much as the sayd ancient Fathers doe teach and for that the sayd authorityes are cleare for vs in that behalfe I shall â—et downe here what I answered to the same As these places of Scripture said I alleaged against vs do make for vs so much more do the authorities produced out of the ancient Fathers for that they go about to proue the very same point that we here hold that in teÌ„porall cyuill affayres we must obey dutifully our temporall Princes though Infidels or Pagans but not in matters concerning God our Religion or Conscience And his very first example out of S. Augustine is such as I meruaile much that he would cyte the same but that somwhat for shew must be alleadged For it maketh so clearly directly against him as if it had beene written purposely to confute him in this our case But let vs heare what it is Agreable to the Scriptures saith he did the Fathers teach Augustine speaking of Iâ—dian saith thus Iulian was an vnbelieuing Emperour was he not an Apostata an oppressor and an Idolatour ChristiaÌ„ souldiars serued that vnbelieuing Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they would acknowledge no Lord but him that is in heauen when he would haue them worship Idolls sacrifice they preferred God before him but when he said Go forth to fight inuade such a nation they presently obeyed they distinguished their eternall Lord from their temporall and yet were they subiect euen vnto their temporall Lord for his sake that was their eternall Lord and Maister Thus he And can any thing be spoken more cleerly for vs and for our cause then this For euen this do we offer to our King Soueraigne we will serue him we wil obey him we will go to warre with him we will fight for him and we will do all other offices belonging to temporall duty but when the cause of Christ commeth in hand who is Lord of our Consciences or any matter concerning the same or our Religion there we do as S. Augustine heere appoynteth vs preferre our eternall King before our Temporall And like to these are all the other places of Fathers cyted by him who distinguish expresly betweene the Temporall honour and Allegiance due to the Emperour and the other of our Religion Conscience belonging only to God And to that playne sense are Tertullians words cyted by the Apologer VVe honour the Emperour in such sort as is lawfull for vs and â—xpedient for him as a man second after God and as hauing receyued from God whatsoeuer he is and only lâ—sse thâ—n God And will not the Catholicks of England vse this speacâ— also vnto their King Or will the Apologer himselfe deny that Tertullian heere meant nothing els but in temporall affayres for somuch as the Emperors at that tyme were Heathens Gentils and consequently were noâ— to be obeyed in any point against Christian faith or Religion The like playne sense haue the words of Iustinâ—â— Martyr to the Emperour himselfe cited here in the third place to wit VVe only adore God and in all things we cheerfully performe seruice to you prosessing you to be Emperours and Princes of men And do not all English Catholickes say the same at this day in all other things that concerne not God his Obedience by rule of Catholicke Religion they offer cheerfully to serue his Maiesty acknowledging him to be their liege Lord and King inferiour only to God in his Temporall Gouernment And how then are these and such other places brought in for witnesse as though they had somewhat to say against vs The other two sentences in like manner cited out of Optatus and S. Ambrose the first saying That ouer the Emperour there is none but only God that made the Emperour And the other That teares were his weapons against the armes and souldiars of the Emperour That he neither ought nor could resist neyther of theÌ„ do make
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 craâ—tily 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 Auxenâ—ius in the presence of his Maiesty other of his Nobility CouÌ„sell 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 handlâ—ng 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 Temâ—ple 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 substaÌ„ce to say against it for to that excellent speach of S. Augustine coÌ„cerning the Emperour Iulian he triâ—â—eth 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 oleâ—s 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 secoÌ„d 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 Auxentiâ—â— 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 coÌ„mendeth 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 coÌ„maund one of his Parish Churches of Lincolne Diocesse to be deliuered vp to the PuritaÌ„s 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
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 chaâ—eth exceedingly saying That this fugitiue for such is his modesty of speach wil fâ—tch a 〈◊〉 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 CouÌ„cels 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 Quâ—d 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 CouÌ„cels 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 wiâ—â—ing what he said though he laboured to build for the Pope yet labâ—â—reth be also to build for the Emperour and in that same place he â—â—eweth diuers reasons why it rather belongeth to Emperours then to Popes for â—o 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 CouÌ„cells 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 â—sse reuerà Pontiâ—icis 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 coÌ„cerning 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 coÌ„plaint 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
28. day of Sepâ—ember 1607. and it was subscribed thus in Latin Admodum R. dae Dom. is V. ae Frater seruus in Christo. Robertus Card. Bellarminus Which our Apologer translateth Your very Reuerend Brother wheras the word very Reuerend in the Letter is giuen to the Arch-priest and not to Card. Bellarmine which the interpreter knew well inough but that wanting other matter would take occasion of cauilling by a wilful mistaking of his owne as often he doth throughout this Answer to Bellarmine as in part will appeare by the few notes which here I am to set downe leauing the more full answere to the Cardinall himselfe or some other by his appoyntment which I doubt not but will yiâ—ld very ample satisfaction in that behalâ—e For that in truth I fynd that great aduantage is gyuen vnto him for the defence of his said Epistle and that the exceptions taken there against it be very weake and light and as easy to be dissolued by him and his pen as a thin mist by the beames of the sunne This was the Preface vsed before to this third Part. To which M. Barlow hauing very little or nothing to say seeketh to spend time in idle talke For thus he beginneth As if the Apologers answere saith he like to Iericho's walls should presently â—all with the blast of a Ramms-horne and a few tournes about it So hath he many tournings and windinges in the preface before he câ—me to itâ— and being in it he treads a labyâ—inth and some times looseth himselfe and yet in the conclusion he windeth his cornet with three seueâ—all blasts Communicatory Causatiue Supplicatory c. And is not this a pretty deuise to spend time and to play the Vise indeed VVhat of all this is seene in my Preface Next to this he beginneth against me thus This Epistler sâ—yth that Cardinall Bellarmine taketh the Oath to be compounded of lawfull and vnlawfull clauses wheras the Cardinall saith plainly though it be so tempered and modified yet is it wholy vnlawfull whiâ—â— is as much to say as there is not a lawfull clause in it So he this me thinks is to great an vntruth to begin withal For that according to art he should goe by order and degree and if he begin with such wilfull escapes as these are what wil he doe before he come to the end Cardinall Bellarmine doth not only not say this which he imposeth vpon him but sayth the quite contrary to wit Vt Iuramentum recusetur non est necessarium vt cos singulae partes eius sint male satis est vt velvna sit mala That the Oath may be refused it is not necessary that al euery part therof be naught it is inough that one only be naught Is not this plaine inough Next after this he taketh in hand the defence of that translation of the Cardinalls subscription vnto his Letter Your very reuerend brother Robert Cardinall Bellarmine the latin being as you haue now seene Admodum Rdae Domis Vae frater seruus in Christo Robertus Card. Bellarminus And it is a world to see how many wayes he windeth himself to get out of this brake First he beginneth with a talâ— of a certayne Emperour that would perforce make a gentleman belieue that he was like to be sicke for that he saw a pimple rising vnder his naile but this tale he applyeth not and I se not where vnto indeed he may apply it Then coÌ„ming to the matter he demaundeth this question Suppose it were not exactly translated is not the sense all one Whereto I answere no for it were somewhat ridiculous to call him selfe M Blackwels Reuerend Brother For by the same reason he writing to a Duke â—aying Excellentiae Vestrae Frater might translate it your excellent Brother and the same might a poore man doe in like manner writing to the same Duke Excellentia vestrae humillimus seruus your most humble Excellent Seruant which I thinke no man will approue But M. Barlow will proue it by reason for that both the Brotherhood saâ—th he and Reuerence are reciprocall and may be referred to both parties either your Reuerence-ships brother or your Reuerend brother but this is refuted now already by my examples alâ—edged And besides this wil M. Barlow haue no respect to the cases and genders in Latin Is not Reuerenda with a dipthong and of the femynine gender and genitiue case different from Reuerendus of the masculine gender and nominatiue case And if they be different how can they then be reciprocal in signification translation But yet further M. Barlow hath another shift saying that in the written copy D. in the end had such a dash as it might be taken for dus or dae But this shift is worse then any of the rest for so much as that D. doth not stand in the end of the subscription but in the very beginning as hath byn seene by the words before set downe which are Adâ—â—â—um Rdae Domis V rae which D. though it had neuer so great a dash yet could it not signify dus by force of the sense being set in the first place and in such order as it was After this M. Barlow attempteth another euasion demanding of me why I had not translated the word Domiâ—â—tionis into English that he might haue posed me therin For if it should be translated Lordship it would haue seemed to much and if Mastership it would seeme to little and therupon telleth vs againe another tale out of Diogenes Lâ—â—râ—iâ—â— for he is copious in this kind out of his note books as before I haue aduertised and the tale is that Diogenes the Cynicke begging a tallent at King Alexanders hands he â—â—d it was to much for a Cynicke to aske then he damaÌ„ded him a halfe-penny but the other answered it was to little for Alexander to giue and with this M. Barlow thinketh he hath wel satisfied the controuersy in hand Next vnto this there is an exception made against Cardinal Bellarmine his Letter to M. Blackwel as though therin he had mistaken the whole state of the question by going about to impugne the old Oath of Supremacy made in King Henry the eight his time insteed of this new Oath intituled of Allegiance and consequently that the Cardinal did batter a castle in the ayre of his owne framing Which as I confessed had beene a great ouerfight in him so learned and famous a man if it could be proued so I did conuince by sundry euident arguments and by Cardinal Bellarmines owne words that it was not so but that he impugned directly this later Oath of Allegiance The cause why this was obiected to Cardinal Bellarmine was for that he going about to impugne the vnlawfulnes of this later Oath doth insist much in reprouing the Kings spiritual Supremacy and in shewing the same to belong to the Bishop of Râ—â—â— which they say
appertaineth to the ancient Oath and not to this wherin nothing is demanded but Ciuil Obedience only which the Cardinal denyeth and in the very first leafe of his answere vnder the name of Torâ—â—â— ioyneth issue principally vpon that point saying Primùm â—stendâ—mus Iuramentum hoc Catholicis propositum non solum ciuilem obedientiam sed etiam Catholicae fidei abnegationem requirere We shal first proue that this later oath proposed vnto Catholicks doth not only require ciuil Obedience but abnegatioÌ„ also of Catholick faith And he proueth it by fiue or six arguments First by the words of the English Statute the title wherof is for the detecting and repressing of Papists which word of Papists importing such as stick to the Pope or defend his Supremacy maketh it euident that the Statute was not intended only against them that deny ciuill Obedience but rather the Kings Supremacy in spiritual affaires Secondly by the words of the Oath themselues that the Pope cannot by himselfe or any other or by any authority of the Church depose c. Which is some denyal of the Pope his authority and consequently not meerely only of temporal Obedience and so out of foure or fiue points more by him obserued and there set downe which as I had not seene when I wrote my Epistle before the publicatioÌ„ of the said Cardinals booke so I vsed not those arguments nor any of them but contented my selfe with one only taken out of the Cardinals words in the beginning of his Letter to M. Blackwel as sufficiently prouing the same that in it selâ—e was most cleare I said as followeth This exception against the Cardinal for mistaking the state of the cause seemeth to be most clerely refuted by the very first lynes almost of the letter it selfe For that telling M. Blackwel how sory he was vpon the report that he had taken illicitum Iuramentum an vnlawfull Oath he expoundeth presently what Oath he meaneth saying Not therâ—ore deare Brother is that Oath lawfull for that it is offeâ—â—â— sâ—â—ewhat tempered and modified c. Which is euidently meant of the new Oath of Allegiance not only tempered with diuers lawfull clauses of Ciuill Obedience as hath bene shewed but interlaced also with other members that â—each to Religion wheras the old Oath of Supremacy hath no such mixture but is plainly and simply set downe for absolute excluding the Popes Supremacy in causâ—s Ecclesiasticall for making the King supreme Head of the Church in the same causes all which is most euident by the Statutes made about the same from the 25. yeare of King Henry the 8. vnto the end of the raigne of King Edward the sixt To this declaration of myne M. Barlow is in effect as mute as a Macedonian frogge if to say nothing at al to the purpose be to be mute though words and wynd be not wanting But first to the Cardinalls six argumentes he sâ—yth neuer a word albeit he had both seene and read them as may be be presumed To my reason of the difference between the Oath of Supremacy and this of Allegiance for that this is modified and tempered with different clauses of thinges partly touching ciuil ObedieÌ„ce and partly Religion wheras the other is simply of Religion against the Popes Supremacy to this I say he answereth with this interrogation If this Oath be so modified iâ— comparison of the other why is it accounted by â—he Censurer the greatest affliction and pressure that euer befel the Catholickes Do you see what a question he maketh and how farre from the purpose My intention was and is to proue that for so much as Cardinall Bellarmine did particulerly impugne this mixt and tempered Oath therfore he did not mistake the question by impugning only the other Oath of Supremacy as was obiected there being between them this difference amongst others that the one to wit of AllegiaÌ„ce is compounded of different clauses as hath bene said partly touching ciuill Obedience and partly Religion wheras this other of Supremacy is simply of Religion This was my demonstration And to what purpose then for answere of this was brought in that other demâ—und of M. Barlow asking vs very seriously why this second Oath should be afflictiue vnto vs if it be modifyed and tempered Is there any sense in this We say for so much as it is compounded and tempered as the other is not therfore it was meant by the Cardinal and not the other M. Barlow saith if it be so tempered why doth it afflict yow We say first that this is nothing to the purpose noe more then VVhich is the way to London A poke â—ull of plummes Secondly to M. Barlowes impertinent demand we say that albeit we grant that this second Oath is modifyed and tempered yet we say not that it is moderate and temperate for a law that in substance is mild may be by some clauses or circumstances so modified that is to say framed in such manner as it may be seuere and rigorous and a thing may be tempered aswell with exasperating ingredientes as mollifying and as well with afflictiue as lenitiâ—e compounds and so is this Oath more sharpe perhaps then the other and so doth M. Barlow him selfe confesse within a few lynes after saying that this last Oath of Allegiance is more pressâ—ng pitthy and peremptorie and in all circumstâ—nces a more exact and searching touch-stone then the â—ormer of the Supremacy And yet as though we did not see nor feele this he will needs haue vs to acknowledge in the same place that this Oath is allaied tempered corrected and moderated for all these are his wordes by the variety of clauses therein contayned theron foundeth his subsequent discourse of our ingratitude in not accepting the same wheras both he and we do hold the contrary that it is more stinging as now you haue heard and that euen by his owne confession what then shall we say of this manner of M. Baâ—lowes disputing Is he fit to be a Kings ChaÌ„pion in writing But heere now by the way I must tell the Reader that in my Letter I interposed a few lines in this place for noting the different style vsed by King Henry King Edward in their Statutes concerning the Oâ—â—h of Supremacy and this othâ—r now related in the Aâ—â—logy in thesâ— wordes I. â— do vtterly tâ—stify and declare 〈…〉 that the Kingâ— Hâ—ghnes is the only Suprâ—me Gouerâ—â—◠〈◊〉 in all causes Ecclâ—siaâ—tâ—call as tempâ—rall wheras in tâ—e Sâ—tute of twenty sixt of king Henry the Eight where the Tytle of Supremacy is â—nactâ—d the wordes are these 〈…〉 â—â—â—cted by this present Parliament that the King his Heires 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cessors â—â—albe taken â—â—â—epted and repâ—tâ—d the â—nly Supâ—eme 〈…〉 earth of the Church of England and shâ—ll 〈◊〉 aâ—d â—niâ—y 〈◊〉 and vnited vnto the Imperiall Crowâ—e of this Realme asâ—â—â— the tytle and style therof as all honours dignitieâ— authorities 〈◊〉 profites and commâ—ditiâ—s 〈◊〉 the said dignityes
Oath and Indenture articles and Prouiso's is only in sound of words and not in substance for that in making an Indenture and the Prouiso's therof both parts must agree that the breach of euery such Prouiso shal forfeit the whole for that otherwise euery such Prouiso doth not euacuate the whole Indenture or make it naught But herein framing this new Oath and the articles therof there is not the consent or agreement of al those that are required to take the Oath nor obligatioÌ„ of conscience to agree but rather to the contrary they are bound by the principles of their religion to disagree and disclaime against the same as preiudicial to their soules So as here those articles or different clauses are not as Prouiso's agreed vpon as in an Indenture but rather as points and conditions proposed and required by the Landlord wherof the Tenant may by right deliberate and consider whether they stand wel for him or noe And if not he may refuse them or at the least so many as he shal thinke to be hurtful or iniurious vnto him Neither is the denyal of any one or more the denial of al as M. Barlows bad Diuinity and worse Philosophy presumeth to teach men that it is But yet before I end this matter on which he standeth so much I would demand him further whether this his assertion be not general concerning al Kings and he may not wel deny it for that his reason is general as presently ensueth saying The King being once in lawful possession whosoeuer shal say that he may be deposed for any cause denieth that he is lawfull King Wherupon it followeth that the Kings of France Spaine also are no lawful or true Kings in the opinion of their subiects for that they al with vniforme consent do hould this doctrine of the Church that Kings and Princes may in some cases â—e excommunicated and deposed Saul also was neuer lawful King for that he was deposed or els must we say that God did him iniury in deposing him It followeth also by this inference of M. Barlow that if a man should deny to sweare to the last clause only of al the Oath to wit that he sweareth al the former articles hartily willingly and truly vpon the faith of a Christian So help him God c. doth deny to acknowledg King Iames to be lawfull King which is another point of parasitisme more ancient perhaps then the former especially if you adde therunto his propositions vsed here to that effect as namely that if he were once lawful he â—â— ouer soâ—â—or thâ—◠〈…〉 neither intended nor remitted that vnlawâ—ulnes oâ— title 〈…〉 with it the casuality of deposing that no varying in religion 〈◊〉 altering of manners 〈◊〉 misordering a Common wealth 〈…〉 his title that only a King can say to God tibi soli pâ—â—â—ani that whosoeuer deâ—ieth not to the Pope a deposingâ— power deâ—ieth to 〈◊〉 King the lawâ—ulnes of hâ—â— Inuestitureâ— and doâ—â—â—ion that let a â—ing 〈◊〉 he will for his religion and gouernment if he hath right to the 〈◊〉 his subiects must indure c. And wil you not say now that M. Barlow is as good a Chaplaine for the King as he is a Champion that is to say as good a Ghostly Father of spirituall counsaile and resolution of caseâ— of Conâ—cience as he is a valiant defendour of whatsoeuer was set down before in the Apology But inough herof VVHETHER THE FOVRTH COVNCELL OF TOLEDO Did prescribe any such set forme of Oath to be exhibited to the Subiects as is affirmed in the Apology CHAP. II. BVT now we must passe to another contemplation about a certain Councel of Toledo in Spaine alledged by the Apologer for authorizing and iustifying of this new oath not only allowed but decreed also as he sayth in that ancient Councel to wit the fourth of Toledo I shall alleadg his words togeather with my answere therevnto at that time And that the world saith he may yet further se his Maiesties and whole States setting downe of this Oath did not procâ—ed from any new inuention of theirs but as it â—warraÌ„ted by the word of God So doth it take the example from an Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeares aâ— gone which a famous Councell then togeather with diâ—uers other Councels were so farre from condemning â—â— the Pope now hath done this Oath as I haue thoughâ— good to set downe their owne wordes heere in that purpose wherby it may appeare that his Maiestie craueâ—â— nothing now of his Subiects in this Oath which was noâ— expresly and carefully commanded them by the Counceâ— to be obeyed without exception of persons Nay not iâ— the very particuler poynt of Equiuocation which his Maiestie in this Oath is so carefull to haue eschewed but yoâ— shall heere see the said Councels in their Decrees as carefull to prouide for the eschewing of the saâ—e so as almosâ— euery poynt of that Action and this of ours shall be founâ— to haue relation and agreeance one with the other sauâ— only in thisâ— that those old Councels were carefull anâ— strait in commanding the taking of the same wheras by the contrary he that now vaunteth himselfe to be Heaâ— of all Councells is as carefull and strait in the prohibition of all men from the taking of this Oath of Allegiance Sâ— he And then I added And I haue alleadged his discourse at large to the enâ— yow may better see his fraudulent manner of proceedingâ— He saith That the example of this Oath is taken from aâ— Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeares agone in the Councells of Toledo but especially the fourth which prouided also for the particuler point of EquiuocatioÌ„ But leâ— any man read those Councells which are 13. in number and if he fynd eyther any forme of an Oath prescribed or any mention of Equiuocation but only of flat lying and perfidious dealing let him discredit all the rest that I doe write And if he fynd none at all as most certainly he shall notâ— then let him consider of the bad cause of this Apologer that driueth hiâ— to such manner of dealing as to auoucâ— Euery point oâ— that Action to haue agreeance with the offering of thâ—â— Oath Here now you see how M. Barlow is prouoked to shew his manhood in defence of this passage which he beginâ—eth very fiercely with many contumelious words with I â—eâ— passe as wind and only shall relate those that â—e of some moment to the cause VVhiles this Iesuite sayth â—e iâ—â—â—aching the Apologer of supposed fraudulency himself euen 〈…〉 be arested of a fraudulent impudenâ—y â—or that he charging 〈◊〉 Apologer to say that euery point of that Toletan action hath 〈◊〉 with ours â—e leaues out the principall word which the said â—â—â—â—â—ger vsed when he sayth that almost euery point agreeth as if 〈◊〉 were noâ— difference betwene his speach that should say that Father Persons was almost vpon the Sea-coast
for England and his that 〈◊〉 aâ—â—rte that he was at the sea-cost and shipt for England â—â—erto I answer first for the word almost left out Secondly 〈◊〉 the example The words of the Apologer about the likenes of our 〈◊〉 to the Toletane action are thrice repeated by me first in the beginning of the matter p. 76. n. 11. where repeating the Apologers words I said almost euery point of that action is 〈◊〉 to ours In the end also p. 81. n. 19. I related his words â—â—s that almost euery point of that action hath agreeance with that of 〈◊〉 c. So as twice the word almost is repeated though in the third place pag. 77. num 12. It is said euery point of that 〈◊〉 c. which might be as well the errour of the writer or printer as ouerslip of the Authour And how then can this be called fraudlent impudeÌ„cy Or rather was iâ— not more fraudulent in M. Barlow not to tell his reader that it was twice put downe though once left out As for the two meÌ„bers alleaged they are both known to be false that either Father Parsons was almost vpon the Sea-coast for England or vpon the Sea-coast and shipt for England to expect the â—â—â—der-â—lot for that hundreds of witnesses will testifie in 〈◊〉 that neither at that time nor in al that yeare was he out of that Citty so as this is somewhat more then almost two vntruthes And this is as much as in effect he answereth to this matter But I went forward in my Letter to shew out of the Councell and Histories of Spaine the occasions causes and circumstances of this Councell and how it was procured by the King of Spaine Sisâ—nanduâ— of the Gothish bloud who hauing ceposed his Lord and Maister King Suintila was somewhat iealous least the Oath of fâ—â—elity made vnto him by the Spaniards would not be obserued and therfore made recourse vnto the Bishops and Clergy for assisting him in that behalfe with their Ecclesiasticall authority as they did both confirming the one and excluding the other wherupon is set downe in the preface of the said Councell that he comming into the same accompanied with many Noble and honourable persons of his trayne coram Sacerdotibus Dei bumiprostratus cum lacbryâ—â—â— gemitibus pro se interueniendum postulauit he prostrate on the ground before the Priests of God besought them with teares and sobs to make intercession for him Wherupon the Councell commaunded vpon seuere Censures that no man should practise his death or deposition or breake his Oath of fidelity made vnto him but no particuler forme of oath do I find there to haue bene prescribed or decreed wherby this our new oath may be confirmed or authorized but rather another oath prescribed vnto the King and all his successours Iuramento poâ—liceanâ—ur hanc se Catholicam non permissuros eos violare sidem that they sweare that they will neuer suffer their subiects to violate this Catholike faith And marke said I that he saith 〈◊〉 which was the Catholike fayth then held in Spaine and explicated in these CouÌ„cels of Toledo the particulers wherof do easily shew that they were as oposite to the Protestants fayth as ours is now To all this what sayth M. Barlow He beginneth with a tale as he is wont when he hath little els to say Pericles sayth he as some do affirme had that skill in wrastling that though he receaued a fall yet he would perswade the wrastler that cast him and the spectatours that beheld him that he was the conquerour You will imagine how well this is â—pplyed by him he sayth that there is not one poynt of this which I haue sayd to the purpose or against the Apologer But how doth he proue it First he saith that this Conncell was gathered by the coÌ„mand of King Sisenandus And what maketh this to the purpose Did not we graunt also that Kings within their Kingdomes may cause Prouinciall Councels to be made by their Bishops Archbishops Metropolitans But how submissiuely this King did behaue himselfe in that CouÌ„cell appeareth by his former submission both in fact words And yeâ— by the way the Reader must note M. Barlows smal truth in relating for his purpose these words religiosissimi Sisenandi Regis iussu Imperijs conuenimus we are assembled by the commaund and authority of our most Religious King Sisenandus wheras the true words in the Councel are â—â—m studio amoris Christi ac diligenâ—ia religiosissâ—â—â— Sisenandi Regis apud Toletanam Vrbem in nomine Domini conuenissemus wheras for the loue of Christ and by the diligence of our most religious King we came togeather in the name of God in the Citty of Toledo And then those other words which ensue aâ—terwards to wit eius â—mperijs atque iussis are referred to another thing not to their meeting but what matters they should principally handle touching discipline c. Vt communis a nobis ageretur de quibusdam Ecclesiae disciplinis tractatus In which Treatise of discipline was contayned in like manner the Kings owne temporall cause concerning the assuring of his succession by Ecclesiasticall CeÌ„sures When or wherin then shall we find M. Barlow to deale puÌ„ctually and sincerely But let vs go forward In the next place he sayth that this Councell the Canons therof do make for the Protestants and giueth example in three or foure Canons and concludeth generally in these words The Church oâ— England both for substance in doctrine and ceremony in discipline doth hould the same which maâ—y of the sayd Canons do conclude Well then we shall see presently how many they be He citeth only foure of seauenty and foure and those so impertinently as by the citation he maketh himselfe miserable as now you will perceaue And first he cyteth the 43. CanoÌ„ saying that the marriage of Priests so it be with the consent of the Bishop is therin allowed and he beginneth with this for that it seemeth to him a knocker and to the purpose indeed for authorizing Priests marriages Wherfore we shall handle it in the last place of the foure alleadged by him In the second place then he leapeth back from the 43. Canon to the 24. saying that therin it was positiuely set downe that ignorance is the mother of all errours but not of deâ—â—tion A great obiection no doubt against vs as though we were great friends of ignorance Ignorance sayth the Canon the mother of all errours is most to be auoyded by Priests who haue the office of teaching the people Do we coÌ„tradict this What meane our Schooles Our Seminaries Our Colleges Our Vniueâ—sities for bringing vp and instructing Priests Are our Priests in England or on this side the seas more incumbred with ignorance then the Ministers Why then is this Canon brought in against vs For that perhaps it sayth not that Ignorance is the mother of deuotion nor we neither as
his Diunity and the shallownes of his aduersary And in very deed he vttereth diuers profundityes which are so deepe as I thinke that the Reader will say when he hath considered of them that himselfe vnderstood them not when he set them downe and much lesse that he can iustify them in the Readers vnderstanding I shall touch some of them in order The first profundity that he vttereth is in his first question or demand which now yow haue heard to wit Can Gods prouidence be strange which is daily and continuall As though it could not And in this demand two positions are contained if yow marke the matter and both of them false the first that the prouidence of God in those effectes which are daly and continuall can not be strange and admirable the second that this euent whereof we intreat to wit of the King of France his vnexpected chastisement from God is daily and continuall And who will not laugh at these two profundityes of M. Barlowes diuinity neither of them being iustifyable in the eyes of any man of meane capacity As for the first I remit him to S. Augustine his learned discourse vpon the miracle of our Sauiour in S. Iohns Ghospell when he did feed fiue thousand men with two barley-loaues vpon which place the sayd learned Father maketh a notable discourse to proue the quite contrary of M. Barlowes assertion to wit that many things of Gods prouidence and heauenly power that fall out daily and continually are as strange and admirable mira stupenda in themselues as other things that fall out seldome and by their seldom euents doe seeme more strange and he guieth an example of the daily gouernmeÌ„t of the whole world the course and continance of the starres the multiplying of graines of corne in the ground which is no lesse meruaylous then the multiplying of those two loaues to the feeding of fiue thousand people and yet sayth S. Augustine this is wondred at and the other not wondred at non quia maius est sed quia rarum est not for thaâ— it is a greater miracle but for that it falleth out more seldome So as according to S. Augustine the effects of Gods power and prouidence which are continuall and fall out daily are no lesse strange and admirable in themselues for that they are so common seing the strangnes therof is not to be vnderstood as M. Barlow would haue it onely for the rarenes of the euent for then it should seeme strange that M. Barlow should speake a wise word because he doth it so seldom but for some thing which is admirable in the worke it selfe whether the same be seldome or coÌ„mon and this also especially in the iudgment of wise men as here M. Barlow will seeme to be accounted but that this first depth of his helpeth him nothing to the attayning of that good opinion His second depth also or profundity contained in this question which is that this euent of King Henry of France his vnexpected chastisment by so an vnimaginable means of a simple fryar and other like circumstances is daily and continuall and consequently neither strange nor admirable is such a depth that euery shallow wit will easily discerne it to be both false and fond and against experience it selfe For how many such examples can M. Barlow produce to haue happened in many ages togeather much lesse daily and continually and therby to be neyther strange not wonderfull But now his third profundity standeth in another question immediatly ensuing vpon the former which is deep indeed and passeth all sense and vnderstanding For is any thing strange in Gods prouidence saith he which seeth things to come as if they were present and existent Which demaund is quite from the purpose for our question is whether Gods prouidence in his workes effects may be called strange and admirable in our eyes as this of the King of France his punishment and not whether any thing can be strange or admirable in the eyes of God and his eternall prouidence â—heâ—e questions are as â—arre different as are the vnderstanding of God and man and the two poles the one from the other But will you heare another profundity of his in another question Can visible acts sayth he be called Gods proâ—â—â—â—â—â— And why not Syr as they are the effects of Gods prouidence do proceed from the same As when we see certaine effects of Gods iustice vpon any wicked man we truly say it is Gods Iustice. And the like when we see certaine eminent works of Gods mercy towards any people Countrey or priuate person we truly say that it was Gods mercy towards them and so in all the rest of Gods attributes though they remayne in God and be the selfe same thing with God yet when they worke and their effects be apparent we do coÌ„monly call the effects by the names of the attributes themselues that is to say the effects of Gods iustice are called Gods Iustice the effects of his Mercy are called his Mercyes of his Wisedome his Wisdome of his Prouidence his Prouidence which as it is most true so notwithstanding my words were with more exactnes vttered then M. Barlow would seeme to take them I saying that Pope Sixtus Quintus did highly admire the Prouidence of God in chastising so â—oule a murther so as I distinguished betweene the cause and the effect and betweene Gods prouidence and the chastisement of the King proceeding from the same wherby is preuented a certain petty florish made by M. Barlow by naming the definition of Schoolemen to be that Gods Prouidence is so farre forth called Gods Prouidence as it remaineth in his secret Counsaile but when it sheweth it selfe in effects sensible then is it called Fatum and not Prouidentia And for this he cyteth in the margent Aquinas summa contra Gentes but no place at all where the said worke being great and contayning foure Bookes and aboue an hundred and fourescore Chapters the thing may be found which is a common shift of his when he will not be vnderstood nor found out But the worst of all is that the poore man vnderstandeth not one scrap of what he hath read in S. Thomas or other Schole-men concerning this matter for they do not say as he doth that Gods Prouidence is no longer called Prouidence then it remayneth secret in Gods counsaile and that when it sheweth it selfe in sensible effects it is no more prouidence but Fatum but thus they say that wheras Gods prouidence hath two partes in it the one which is in the mind of Almighty God to dispose of all thinges in the world how they shall fall out and the second the execution of this disposition by secondary causes this second part of Gods prouidence conteyning the coÌ„nexion order of the secoÌ„dary causes is called though improperly saith S. Thomas Fatum destiny for that in respect of Gods immoucable order in his
depriued by the Pope of the kingdome of Nauarre and himselfe I meane this King of France forced to begge so submissiuely the relaxation of his excommunication as he was content to suffer his Embassadour to be whipped at Rome for pennance All these examples sayd I in my Letter were heaped togeather to make a muster of witnâ—sses for profe of the dangers that Princes persons are or may be in by acknowledging the Popes supreme Authority adding this for answere But first quoth I in perusing of these I find such a heape indeed oâ— exaggerations additions wrestings and other vnsincere deâ—lings as would require a particuler Booke to refute them at large And the very last here mentioned of the present King of France mâ—y shew what credit is to be giuen to all the rest to wit Romeâ— the latin Interpreter turneth it Vt Legatum suum Romae virgis caesum passus sit as though he had byn scourged with rodds vpon the bare flesh or whipped vp and downe Rome wheras so many hundreds being yet aliue that saw the Cerimony which was no more but the laying on or touching of the sayd Embassadours shoulder with a long white wand vpon his apparell in token of submitting himselfe to Ecclesiaâ—tical discipline it maketh them both to wonder and laugh at such monstrous assertions comming out in print and with the same estimatioÌ„ of punctual fidelity do they measure other things here auouched As â—or example that our King Henry the second was whipped vp and downe the Chapter-house and glad that he could escape so too â—or which he citeth Houeden and this he insinuateth to be by order of the Pope in respect wherof he saith the King had iust cause to be afraid But the Author doth plainely shew the contrary first setting downe the Charter of the Kings absolution where no such pennance is appointed and secondly after that againe in relating the voluntary pennance which the King did at the Sepulcher of S. Thomas for being some occasion of his death doth refute therby this narration as fraudulent and vnsincere that the King was whipped like a school boy by order of tâ—e Pope as though it had not come from his owne free choice and deuotion Thus sayd I in my Letter To these two last examples of whipping both in the King of France his â—mbassadour our King Henry the second of England M. Barlows reply is only in certaine scoffs for intertaining of tâ—â—e A wand saith he was laid soâ—tly on the Embassadour of France his shoulders c. Is the rod of Ecclesiasticall discipline in Rome turnâ—d now inâ—o a white wand soâ—tly laid on Againe after Herby a man may coniecture what the selâ—e-whipping of Iesuits and Romanâ—sts is VVill they not sâ—y when they haue the â—â—ip in their hands as S. Peter said to his Maister Parce tibi be good to your selâ—e Syr For no man yet euer hated his owne flesh but nourished it which is a better place of Scripture against selfe-whipping then tâ—e Popâ— hath any for turning the rod of correction into a wand of Cerimony So he And whether it be a better place of Scripture or no I wilâ— not decide but sure I am that the practice is more â—asy and sweet to nourish a mans owne flesh then to disciplin the same and more allowed I doubt not by M. Barlow such as follow his spirituall directions But yet about this better place of Scripture auouched by M. Barlow against whipping it shall not be amisse to consider somewhat how rightly it is aleadged and therby see what becoÌ„meth of Scriptures when it is once brought into these mens possessions The place is cited togeather as you see all in a different letter as if S. Peter had spoken the whole yet in the margent he quoteth Matth. 16. and Ephes. 5. wherby those that are learned vnderstand that the former words only of Parce tibi spare your selfe Syr are of S. Peter and the later of nourishing our flesh against disciplining is of S Paul And not to stand vpon the former clause albeit that it differ from the vulgar translation surely the place of S. Paul beareth not M. Barlows sense and application against disciplining of our flesh which is so farre of from the Apostles true drift and meaning as nothing can be more His words are these Husbands ought to loue their wiues as their owne bodies and he that loueth his wife loueth himselfe for no man euer hated his owne flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth the same euen as Christ the Church And is this so good a place of Scripture now as M. Barlow saith against selfe-whipping for so much as here the Apostle speaketh of husbands nourishing and cherishing their wiues as Christ doth his Church Which though he loued as his owne flesh yet doth he often whip and chasten as all men do both see and feele that liue in her This then is impertinent and nothing to S. Pauls meaning But what were it not a better place to the contrary for whipping and chastening a mans owne flesh voluntarily when the same apostle saith Casâ—igo corpus meum in â—â—râ—itutem â—eâ—igo It do chasten my owne body and doe bring it into seruitude the Greeke word also being more forcible to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to make blacke or â—lew as also where he talketh of Vigiliae ieiunia multa of manie Vigills and fastings practized by him and other Apostles Doth not this proue that a selfe-chastizing of a mans bodie is pleasing to God What will M. Barlow say to that other precept of â—erramâ— do you mortifie your members vpon earth Doth not voluntary mortification of the members of our body include voluntary chaâ—tisment of the flesh and consequently allso whipping sometimes if need require What will he say of that crucifying our members wherof the same Apostle speaketh Doth not crucifying imply as much as self whipping But it semeth that these things are strange paradoxes to M. Barl. that was neuer acquainted with the same but being accustomed rather with the other paâ—t of the sentence of nourishing cherishing his flesh by good cheere soft apparell and other delicacies of life so far â—orth as he hath bene able to procure it laughing at them that taâ—ke oâ— whipping quia aniâ—alis homo non percipiâ—â—a qu◠〈◊〉 spâ—â—itus Dâ—â— because the fleshly man doth not vnderstand those thingâ— that appertaine to the spirit of God And this shal be a sufficient answer to M. Barlowes trifâ—ing about whipping both in the King of France his Embassadour at Rome and King Henry the second at Canterburie in England But yet one thing is to be noted for conclusion about whipping King Henry the second of whom it was sayd before that he was whipped vp and downe the Chapter-â—ouse like a schoole boy and glad to escape so too now being prâ—ssed by my answer thereunto out of Houeden and other
Turkes malice as being a publike enemie of the Church and dispatched secret Letters to the Patriarke of Ierusalem and the Souldiers there to Rebell against tâ—e Emperour aâ— Blondus the Popes soothing flatterer is forc't to confesse and by priuate Letters which were intercepted by the Emperour wherof he complaines dealt with the Saracens to make no truce with the Emperour nor to deliuer the Crowne of Hierusalem vnto him though he should winne it by Conquest And when the Emperour sent Letters of ioyfull aduertisment to the Pope of his victory and truce taken with the Turke the Pope threw away his Letters in disdaine and caused it to be giuen out through the Empire that the Emperour was dead vpon which rumor there grew a deâ—ection of many Citties from the Emperour to the Pope and those valiant souldiers the Almaines which were returned from that Christian expedition against the Turke into Apulia were designed to be slaine by the Inhabitants vpon this rumor VVhat is this will he say to the Popes consent for his POISONING Surely they are violent inducements that he thirsted aâ—ter the Emperours death which way soeuer for he which would arme the Emperours owne Souldiers against him cause a treacherous Reuolt from him while he was fighting the Lords Battails betray him into the mouth of Christs sworne enemy inuade his possessions in his absence disperse â—alâ—e rumors of his death contrary to truth and his owne knowledg and by contempts and Anathema's do his bestâ— or worst to breake his heart would make little accompt or conscience to drenâ—h him out of this life if opportunity secrecy wouâ—d concurre Thus you see I haue fully set down M. Barlows loathsome discourâ—e now let vs briefly examine the substance and truth therof And wheras he doth so odiâ—â—sly accumulate the rigorous proceedings as he would haue them to seeme of diuers Popes against the â—mperour yet doth he as you see fraudulâ—ntly dissemble conceale the Emperours demerits and misbehauiour against the Church and whole State of Christianity â—â—sâ—ifiâ—d by so many Authors as he may be ashamed to plead ignorance of it as it may appeare first by that which Binnius out of others setteth downe of the causes of his excommunication by Gregory the 9. in these words Fredericum secundum tamquam â—oedifragum Saraceâ—oâ—â—m sautorem c. Gregory did iusâ—ly and worthily excommunicate Fredericke the second as a league-breaker a fauourer oâ— Saracens a deceauer of the King of Hierusalem yea and of all the Christians that made warre in Asia against Infidels a breaker of his vow often confirmed by oath to make warre against the Saracens and wheÌ„ afterwards he was absolued from câ—nsures by the same Gregory and restored to the communion of the Church he added to his offences before abiured other more griâ—uous crimes to wit he besieged the Citties of the Church and raised vp againe that most odious faction of the Guâ—lphs and Gibbelines after it had bene appeased for more then 200. yeares He gaue offices to the Saracens and granted them a Citty called Nuâ—eria Saracenorum Hâ— spoyled Churches and Monasteries he Tyrannically oppressed the Sicilians he dissuaded and withdrew the King of Tunis his brother from his holy desire of Baptisme at Palermo he stopped all the waies for the assembly of the Councel which Pope Gregory had called at Rome and finally he kept certaine Cardinalls and other Prelats in prison for which Pope Gregory excommunicated him the second tyme. Thus he All which may be seene more at large in the definitiâ—e sentence of Excommunication and deposition extaâ—t in the Councell it selfe of Lyons and related by Matthew Paris where also are specified diuers other particulâ—rs of his periury vpon periury horrible abusing of the Clergie his Assassinating of the Duke of Bauaria the notorious suspition of his being an Hereticke for as Fazelius writeth he tearmed Moyses and our Sauiour Impostors Deum de Virgine nasci non potuisse horrende protulerit and horribly pronounced that God could not be borne of a Virgin and the like which albeit he partly excused and resolutly denyed yet were the prooâ—es so euident and euincent that Patrum omnium consensu saith Fazelius with diuers others here noted with common consent of all the Fathers he was excommunicated and deposed To which if we add what all other Authors excepting Vrspergensis his follower and fabulous Cuspinian write of â—im we shall find him a fit subiect for such an Encomiast worthy I meane to haue his prayses thus blazoned out by M. Barlow For none I thinke of any honesty would euer go about to coÌ„mend so wicked a man But this whole matter will better appeare by the particulâ—r examination of that which M. Barlow here reporteth He is excommunicated and depriued sayth he of Crowne and Allegiance vpon sleight pretenses by them And are these sleight pretenses Syr VVilliam It seemes your conscieÌ„ce is not very â—trait that can swallow downe so fast such great gudgeoÌ„s And the same to be no vniust charge against the Emperour great multitude of Authors may be produced which both for learning truth and credit wil farre ouer-weigh the flattering collusion of one Vrspergensis of whome Paulus Aâ—milius seeing how he contradicted all manner oâ— authority in his French history writeth thus Abbas Vrspergensis cius temporis aequalis Historias suas claudit laudibus Frederici insectationâ—que Pontisicum c. Fama frequenter sensus propè omnium conspirans eum dâ—mnaÌ„t c. Abbot Vrspergensis who liued at that time endeth his histories with the praise of Fredericke and railing against the Pope c. The more common fame and the conspiring consent almost of all men do condemn him So he But it sufficed M. Barlow that this Abbot could flatter the Prince â—nd raâ—lâ— against the Pope which are the most frequent flowers in all his writings Which two alone with the huge heape of his lyes being deducted out of this his large Answer that â—eâ—t which remaines may be â—hut vp in a leâ—se nut-shell then that was wherin â—lexander is said to â—aue kept Homers Iliades But M. Baâ—low goeth on He is procured saith he to promise in person to goe to the Holy-â—and against the Turke that in the meane tyme they may riâ—lâ— his Territories in his absence and so they did indeed So he This is much wrested or to speake more plainly is a notorious vntruth and framed out of his fingers ends not only against the credit and vniforme report of Authors but euen contrary to Vrspergensis himself on whome only he wil seeme to rely for â—is whole narratioÌ„ For read Vrspergensis that will he shall not find him to assigne any such cause of the Emperours sending and if he haue it not I would faine know vpon what authority M. Barlow doth auerre it But we haue seene store of such legier-dâ—-main if any one trust such a Iugler further then he seeth with his owne eyes he shall not tayle to
be deceauâ—d The most that that Schismaticall Abbot saith is that the Emperoâ—rs enemies taking occasion of his absâ—nce inuaded his Terâ—itoâ—iâ—s And if M. Barlow will â—ay that this is all one although any blynd man will say that there is great diuersity then lâ—t him also combine these two togeather as one When M. Barlow was in LondoÌ„ the Earle oâ— â—ssex was beheadedâ— and M. Barlow was in London that the Earle of â—ssex might be beheaded And if he cry out against this laâ—â—r I will â—lso cry shame on the former for they are both of one stamp The true causes then why the Pope cauâ—ed some of his States as namely Apulia to be inuaded are diuers â—irst the certaine aduertisement he had receaued of a fraudulent peace made by him secretly with the Soldan before he dâ—parted out of Italy and in confirmation therof vpon his arriuall at Acra in Syria his Marâ—hall depaâ—ting from him with part of his army attended not saith S. Anâ—oniâ—us to fight against the Saracens but against the ChristiaÌ„s whom he spoyled as they returned victorious with great booty gotten of their enemies killing many of them taking many prisoners in accoÌ„plishment as it is thought of his â—ecret agreement before made â—oâ—â—oueâ— being aâ— Aâ—â—a hâ— would haue destroyed the Church of the Ten plans indâ—â—d he tooke many â—orâ—restes from them and â—inally Iâ—â—â—salem being yelded vnto him by the Solâ—â—n accordâ—ng to their coÌ„position he permitted the â—oly Temple of our Sauiouâ—s Sepulâ—her to be still in the Saracens hands that Maâ—omet might be serued and inuocaâ—ed thâ—â—â—iâ— In so much that neither the Popâ—s â—egate nor the Patriarch of Hiâ—rusalem nor the â—â—mâ—plars nor the Knights of S. Iohnâ— nor other Barons and Noble men in Syria nor the Captaines of the sâ—rangers would consent to this peace Quia omnibus vâ—sa est pax fraudulenta c. saith S. Aâ—toninus bâ—cause it seemed to them all a fraudulent peace to the hurt shame of the Christians hinderance of the conquâ—st of the Holy-Land And a little after he addeth Gregorius audita nequitia Imperatoris c. Gregory hearing of the wickednes of the Empeâ—our and his treacherous peace made with the Souldan ordayned that besides the senteÌ„ce of excommunication pronounced against him before that King Iohn of Hiâ—rusalâ—m who was then in Lomâ—ardy with the army of the Church should with his souldiers enter Apulia and stirre vp the people of that Kingdome to reuolt against â—redericke 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 aâ—mie behind him to rifle and spoile the Churches oâ— Sicily And as for his other most peâ—â—idâ—â—us dealings before related out of S. Antoninus they are all recorded in like manner not only by Ioannes Villanus who liued soone after Frâ—deâ—icke and by diuers others but also by the Pratriarch oâ— Hierusalâ—m himself who was an eie witnes of what passed in Syâ—ia in his â—pistle to the Christians of the west who setteth downe so many particulers of his foule and vnchristian dealings as maketh the matter most â—uâ—dâ—nt A fourth cause by all liklyhood one of tâ—e chiefest was that at his departure to the Holy â—and he leâ—t order with Râ—ynald his Deputie in Sicily to hould the Pope â—nd aâ—â— Clergie men for enemies who accordingly vpon Fredericks departure entred into the state of the Church and tâ—ere tooke certaine townes in the Marchia of Ancona asâ— so Conradus Guiscard another Captaine of his entred into the vale of Spoleto tooke Fulâ—gnio So as we see that the first beginning of this warre came from the Emperor and not from the Pope which M. Baâ—low might haue seene in Nauâ—lâ—rus 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 Nauâ—lâ—â—us telleth expressely that wheras the Emperour complayned after his returne that the Pope had inuaded his territories wâ—ilâ—t he was in the Holy Land the Pope answered that he did that because Râ—ynaldus Fredericks Deputy did first â—et 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 riâ—le his estate at home al Authors agree that it was specially proâ—ured by Ioâ—n King of Hierusalem who seeing the present daunger of his owne Countrey to be ouerruÌ„ne by the Saracens came in person into Euâ—ope most earnestly sollicited both Pope Emperor Kings oâ— France and England other Princes â—or 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 staâ—one yearâ— the Pope â—ocâ—e it for a dâ—ssâ—mbling and excommunicated â—im for his delay and the Emperour sending his Embassadours to Râ—me with their â—ffiâ—auit to make saith for his sicknes the Pope would not admâ—t 〈◊〉 to his presence So he In which words two things are auâ—uched first that the Emperours stay delay of â—is voâ—age waâ— truely sicâ—nes and secondly that for the samâ— hâ— was â—xcommuâ—icated But both these if we belieue tâ—e whoâ—e torrent of other Authors are manifestly false For most agree tâ—at the sicknes was counterfait and that the cause of hiâ— eâ—communication was not for that delâ—y but rather for his returnâ— againe with his fâ—rcâ—s gallâ—â—â—s aâ—â—â—r he had bene for some time at sea which M. Baâ—low 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 â—e tooke away â—â—yth â—rantzius diâ—ssimi Pâ—incipis â—quos arma aurum argenâ—â—m lauâ—issâ—mam supeâ—â—â—â—â—lem the â—oâ—â—â—s ar â—ouâ— gould siluer and other most sumptuous furniture oâ— tâ—at most wealthy Prince And this his dissimulatioÌ„ of sicknes in plaine termes is â—uoâ—ched fiâ—â— by the Pope himself in hiâ— letters who 〈◊〉 thâ—t he knew the samâ— euen froÌ„ the 〈◊〉 who then were with the Emperour and by the â—aâ—d â—aâ—zius Luthersâ—nco â—nco â—â—a â—omâ—iâ—aâ—io â—hronologica al Germans alâ—o by Platina Sabellicus Bloâ—dus Taâ—cagâ—oâ—a 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
abroad p. 50. more contayned therin then ciuill obedience p. 70. 71. 280. humble petition to his Maiesty for the expositioÌ„ therof p. 89. Scandall in exhibiting therof p. 126. 127. c. No such Oath euer enacted before by former Princes p. 156. Card. Bellaâ—mins opinion therof pag. 346. 347. c. deuided into 14. parts p. 357. difference betweene the said Oath and an Indenture pag. 362. Oath of Supremacy p. 353. defeÌ„ded by M. Barlow 354. 355. Obedience against God mans conscience none pag. 282. Obedience of our temporall Prince how far when it bindeth p. 291. defined by S. Thomas 339. Ordination of Protestant Bishops first vnder Q. Elizabeth praf n. 136. P PAVLVS Quintus Pope defeÌ„ded 54. 55. 56. 57. his Breues discussed part 2. per totuÌ„ whether he forbad temporall odedience to his Maiesty therin p. 323. deinceps â— Persons calumniated by M. Barlow pag. 204. belyed p. 263. Petrus de Vâ—â—â—is extolled by M. Barlow p. 499. iustified pag. 509. censured 523â— Philip the Emperour his murder pag. 470. Plutarke abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. Popes power ouer Infidel Princes p. 76. how they are particuler Bishops of Rome Pastours of the whole Church pag. 145. whether they can make new articles of faith or no pag. 324. 325. deinceps whether they command Princes to be murdered pag. 394. 395. c. Powder-treason pag. 13. 14. 15. c. F. Persons accused therwith by M. Barlow p. 23. Powder-plot of Antwerp pag. 18. of Hage p. 19. of Edenborrow ibid. Prescription of the Church of Rome part 1. cap. 5. per totum good argument in case of Relion pag. 150. 152. vide Antiquityâ— the same vrged by the Fathers ib. belyed shamefully pag. 246. Protestants gone out of the Catholike Church pag. 149. their Ecclesiasticall power ouer Puritans pag. 259. their basenes beggary pag. 265. their conflicts with Puritans about matters of Religion pag. 270. their Church basest of all others praef n. 36. Prouidence of God discoursed of by S. Augustine pag. 416. Q QVEENE Mary of ScotlaÌ„d put to deâ—th for Religion pag. 51. preached against by M. Barlow pag. 212. Queene vide Elizabeth R RESOLVTION of Catholiks in maters of faith p. 123. of Protestants none at all ibid. 124. what resolution is taken from the Pope pag. 125. M. Reynolds writing against Whitaker pag. 457. Rome Recourse to Rome about the Oath of Allegiance p. 50. 51. 52. c. The same practised in all difficulties by our English Princes people pag. 53. 377. Church of Rome impugned p. 144. S SALMERON abused by M. Morton M. Barlow p. 75. Salomons fact of killing Adoniah condemned pag. 105. D. Sanders abused by M. Barlow pag. 77. Scandall in exhibiting the Oath of Allegiance p. 128. 129 130. c. of actiue and passiue scandall pag. 132. 134. 135. scandall of Balaaâ— pag. 139. Sigebert calumniated pag. â—3 K. Sisâ—nandus his submission to the Councell of Toledo p. 36â— Statute of Association pag. 429. Sâ—â—pition vide Idolâ—try foure kinds of suspition pag. 119. Supremacy mascuâ—â—ne feminine pag. 395. how it was giuen to K. Henry the 8. pag. 29â— to K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth â—bid to K. Iames. pag. 29â— M. Barlowes iudgment therupon ibid. pag. 300 Sycophancy vide Flattery M. Barlowes diuision of Sycophancy pag. 242. Sixtuâ— vide Pope T S. THOMAS his opinion coÌ„cerning obedience pag. â—â—â— about Totally praef n. 52. abused by M. Barlow pag. â—36 Threatnings of God vnto Kings pag. 108. Tâ—byes breach of the King of Niniue his comaâ—ndment about burying of the dead Iewes p. 289. § 2. the ancient Fathers iudgment therof pag. 288. the credit of the History of Toby pag. 287. Toleration of Religion humbly demanded of his Maiesty part 2. cap. 4. per totum Thomas vide Morton Treason vide Powder-treason V VESSELS consecrated to Church vses ancieÌ„t p. 237. Viâ—es of wicked Kings recounted after their deaths in Scripture pag. 199. Vniuersity of M. Barlow little p. 236. W M. VVHITAKER a terrour to Card. Bellarmine in M. Barlowes iudgment pag. 455. his booke refuted by M. Reynolds pag. 457. his ignorance ibid. VVilliam vide Barlow VVorkes-Good works may giue cause of confidence in God p. 440. Syr Henry VVotton a wodden Embassadour praef n. 70. his pranks at Ausburge Venice ibid. X XYSTVS 5. belyed about the murder of King Henry the 3. of France pag. 115. Z ZISCA the blind Rebell of Bohemia pag. 456. FINIS Three things declared in this preface for the Readers satisfaction Why M. Barlowes book was answered by F. Persons The cause of the stay of this edition What manner of writer M. Baâ—low is Isa. 1â— Tertull. dâ— praesâ—rip cap. 41. Aug. tract 45. in IoaÌ„nem Bernard serm 65. in Cantica M. Barlow in his epistlâ— Dedicatory to his Maiâ—sty M. Barlowes maÌ„ner of writing M. Barlowes ignorance in GraÌ„meâ— Humanity Barlow pag. 15â— pag. 295â— Gregor lib. 2. Ep. ep 65. Barl. pag. 174. A very grosâ—e Grammaticall errour Fragmentum historiâ—um in anno 1238. â—omo 1. hist. Germ. Casarum Bellarm. l. 1. de Cler. cap. 28. Barlow pag. 342. A strange construction of Orbis terrae Bellar. lâ—â— citato M. Barlowes ignorance in Philosophy Leo ep 89. D. Thâ— lec 12. in Periber lit F. M. Barlows ignorance in histories Barlow pag. 298. Barlow pag. 292. deinceps Barlow pag. 245. pag. 288. pag. 295. M. Barlowes ignorance in interpreting the Scriptures Barl. pag. 53. Cant. 3. Barlow pag. 43. Iosue 6. Pag. 201. Iosue 6. Pag. 60. Gen. 3. Matth. 9. Barlow pag. 334. M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of Diuinity Barlow pag. 188. D. Thom. 2.2 q. 104. ar 6. ad 3. 〈◊〉 pag. â—7 pag. 57 〈◊〉 pag. 114. D. Tho. 2.2 q. 162 â—â— 4. in 〈◊〉 pag. 246. M. Barlowes paradoxes Barlow pag. 160. The Protestantes coÌ„science like a cheuerall point A prophane and barbarous assertion of M. Barlow Barlow pag 99. Athan. ep ad solitarâ—aÌ„ vitâ—m ageÌ„tâ—s Hilarius lib. 1. in ConstaÌ„t AugustuÌ„ paulo post â—nitium Barlow pag 2â—2 Barlow paâ—â— 142. see supra pag. 120. D. Andr. Respons ad Apol. cap. â—5 pag. 343. §. Porrâ— negat part 2. cap. 4. Printed anno 160â— An. 1607. D. Couell in his iust and temperate defence ar 11. pag. 67. liâ— 8. in Iob. cap. 2. Puritans acknowledge an essentiall difference betweene them and the Protestants in matters of religion An. 160â— arg 10. circa medium Si nons Vpoâ— the Arâ—c pag. 142. sâ—e Baâ—on tom 12 in anno 1140. sâ—â—â—nnius tom 4. pag. 1223. and S. Bern. ep 187. 188. dem â—ps Pâ—pyâ—ius Maâ—souius l 3. Annal. in Phâ—â—ppo August pag. 268. Bern. ep 240. â—â—â—nar Luâ—â—en et 〈…〉 Aâ—bizen es 〈…〉 see Christianus Massaeus l. 17. Chron. ad an 1206. Caesaâ—ius Heiesterb l. 5. illust mirac cap. 21. see the Protestants Apology pag. 343. Iewel defence pag. 48 M. Iewell contrary to himself Guido Carmelita in suÌ„ma cap. 9. de
first and second Chapters of the booke of Toby to wit how the foresayd King Senacherib sonne to Salmanasar being returned much exasperated from Iury agaynst the Iewes for the euill successe which there he had did promulgate an Edict that such as he caused to be slayne should not be buryed the Story sayth that Toby notwithstanding this Edict and Commaundement did bury them by night yea and left also on day his dinner and the ghests which he had with him at the same for to fetch in the dead body of a Iew slayne in the streetes and when some of his neighbous seeing the peril thereof did reprehend him for aduenturing vpon so great daunger saying to himâ— that himselfe had bene commaunded to be slayne for burying men before the Story doth not only defend him but also commendeth him for the same saying Sed Tobias plùs timens Deum quà m Regem rapiebat corpora occisorum c. But Toby feating God more then the King did take away the dead bodies that he found in the streetes hyding them in his house and burying them at mydnight Secondly the Angell Raphael in the twelth Chapter discouering himselfe vnto Toby togeather with the mystery of all his actions with him doth manifestly shew that these his deeds of charity of giuing of almes and burying the dead bodyes of such as were slayne were gratfull vnto Almighty God Quando craâ—as cum lachrymis sepeliebas mortous derelinquebas prandium tuum c. ego obtuli â—â—ationem tuam Domino quia acceptus eras Deo necesse suit vt tentatio probaret te When thou didst pray with teares and didst bury the dead and didst leaue thy dinner for doing this worke of Charity I did offer to God thy prayer and because thou wert acceptable vnto God it was necessary that temptation should try thee Here then we haue the testimony of an Angell agaynst M. Barlow that is no Angell and if he be yet must we account him for a very wicked and false Angell if the other be a good and true Angell Now then let vs examine a little whether of these Angels deserueth most to be belieued or whether for a mans saluation it be more secure to follow the one or the other for that they speake contraryes The one that this fact of Toby was not iustifyable the other that it was not only iustifiable but acceptable also and pleasing to Almighty God and that in a very high degree as by the text appeareth The one determineth as you haue heard that Toby was reprehensible in that he obeyed not the Kingâ— the other saith he did very well in obeying God more then the king How shall we know which of these two Angels is the good and which the bad M. Barlow will on his part perhaps say that this booke of Toby is not held by him for Canonicall Scripture but only Hagiographum a holy ancient writing as the Iewes themselues do allow it to be though not in their Canon of Scriptures yet doth not this take away the credit of the Story which hath indured and hath beene belieued and taken for true so many ages boâ—h before and after Christian Religion was planted And M. Barlow cannot alleadg one authenticall Author or holy man before these our tymes that euer sayd this Story was false or not to be credited though he receiued it not for Canonicall Scripture Secondly we see it acknowledged for Canonicall Scripture and of infallible truth not only by a generall Councell of our dayes wherin the flower of the learnedst men in Christendome were present I meane that of Trent but by another Councell also aboue 1000. yeares before that to wit the third of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and subscribed thereunto and in diuers other places of his workes giueth the same testimony to this booke as do sundry other Fathers ancienter then he as S. Ambrose that wrote a whole booke of the Story of Toby containing twenty foure whole Chapters S. Basil in his Oration of Auarice yea the holy Martyr S. Cyprian also himselfe more ancienter then them all and this in sundry places of his works and after S. Augustine S. Gregory S. Isiodoâ—us Cassiodorus and others wherby is euident that in S. Augustins time and before this booke was held for diuine and Canonicall And therfore for a man now to venture his soule vpon this bare deniall of M. Barlow and his Consorts for there goeth no lesse in the matter his assertion being blasphemy if this be true Scripture let his poore sheepe of Lincolne thinke well of it for other men will beware how they venture so much with him But now setting aside this consideration whether it be Canonicall Scripture or no let vs consider a little further what holy men in ancient times did thinke of this fact of Toby whether it were iustifiable or no. S. Augustine in his booke De cura pro mortuis habenda hath these words Tobias sepeliendo mortuos Deum promeruisse teste Angelo commendatur Tobias is commended by the testimony of the Angell in that by burying the dead he merited the fauour of Almighty God And the same Father repeateth the very same words and sentence againe in his first booke of the Citty of God Whereby we see what his sense was in this matter both in belieuing the good Angell and esteming that good worke of burying the dead which M. Barlow by conteÌ„pt calleth a ciuil coâ—rtesy to haue merited with God And of the same sense was S. Ambrose who speaking of this Edict of the King that no man should bury any dead man of the Iewes in that captiuity commendeth highly holy Toby for neglecting the same in respect of that charitable worke Ille interdicto non reuocabatur sed magis incitabatur c. he was not stayd by that Edict or Proclamation from burying the dead but rather was therby incyted the more to doe the same Erat â—â—im misericordiae praemium 〈◊〉 pâ—na for that the punishment of death was the prince of mercy S. Cyprian also that holy Bishop and Martyr long before S. Ambâ—ose in his booke Of our Lords prayer extolling much the meryt of good workes and exhorting men vnto the same amongst many other authoryties of the Scriptures cyteth this of Toby saying Et ideo diuina Scriptura inâ—â—râ—it dicens bona est oratio cum ieiunio â—leemosyna therfore the dyuine Scripture inâ—tructeth vs saying That Prayer is good accompanied with fasting and almes In which wordes first we see this booke of Toby affirmed to be diuine Scripture and secondly this speach doctrine of the Angell Raphael vnto Toby concerning the prayse and merit of good works to be allowed by Cyprianâ— which is full contrary to M. Barlowes Diuinity But let vs heare our S. CypriaÌ„ in the same place Nam qui in die Iudicij praemium pro operibus c. For