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
colour of this power to discerne spirits giuen theÌ„ by M. Bâ—â—loâ— out of the words of S. Iohn there would neuer be an end And lastly it appeareth by all this that his lâ—st distinction wherin he sayth that the King may iudge for the truth and not of the truth is a meere delusion giuing somewhat in wordes but nothing in deed for that if the iudging for the truth be nothing els but to execute allow and approue that which others haue defined determined and appointed out vnto him to be belieued and defended as the truth then hath he no more free choice or superiority in iudgment in this case then euery subiect or common man who is likewise bound to belieue and defend the same according to his ability and power Now then to conclude the matter and to reduce all to a briefe summe for so much as M. Barlow taketh away from his Maiesty of England not only the title and style Of Head of the Church which was giuen to King Henry and confirmed to King Edward but the Papall authority in like manner for decision of matters which was ascribed vnto them both by Parlament and confirmed to Queene Elizabeth and here saith that he cannot iudge in cases of religion and fayth iudicio definitiâ—o to define and determine any thing but only execuâ—iuo to execute what the Church of England to wit what the Bishops shall define and ordayne and for somuch as he addeth yet further now in that which before we haue discussed three other particuler cases out of S. Ambrose wherin he conâ—esâ—eth that his Maiesty hath no authority but may be resisted to wit if he should call before him a Bishop to dispute with another of a different religion as Valenâ—inian did S. Ambrose and he denyed him If he should commaund a Bishop to deliuer ouer a Church to a people of a different religion and if he should command a Bishop to deliuer vp the Veâ—els of his Church as the said Empeâ—ouâ— did and the â—ther refused to obey all these things I say laid â—ogeâ—tâ—er â—ut of M. Barlows doctrine do so much diminish the greatnes of his Maiesties Supreme power in causes Ecclesiasticall as in effect it commeth to be no more thâ—n Catholike doctrine doth ordinarily allow to euery Catholicke Temporall Prince for the obseruance and execution of that which the Church determineth And this is M. Barlâ—â—â—â— heroycall exployt to marre the matter he takes in hand for his Clyent Let euery man iudge how well he hath deserued the good fee which already he hath recâ—aâ—ed for his plea and hopeth to receaue more hereafter if he may speed according to his expectation OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE Or Iâ—stance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall §. III. THERE followeth another controuersy betweene M. Barlow me about a certayne fact of S. Gregory the Great concerning the Law of Mauritius the Emperour prohibiting souldiars and such as were accomptable to the Emperours Courtes for offices borne by them to enter into monasteries and professe a religious life without his licence whereof I wrote thus in my letter Neyther doth the last place cited out of S. Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauritius make any thing moâ—e for our Apologers purpose of taking Oathes against Conscience For albeit the same Father do greatly complaâ—ne in diuers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius whome though otherwise a Catholike Emperour he compareth in that poynt to Nero and Dioclâ—siâ—n saying Quid Nero quid Dioclesiâ—â—â—s qâ—id deâ—ique isteâ— qui â—oc tempore â—â—â—lesiam persequitur Nâ—mqâ—â—◠〈◊〉 omnes porta Inferi Whâ—t was Nero What was Dioclesâ—â—â— what is he who at this time doth persecute the Church Are they not all gates of Hell Yet in this place alleaged by the Apologer he yealded to publish and send abroâ—d into diuers Countreys and Prouinces a certayne vniust law of the sayd Emperours that prohibited Sâ—uldiars and such as had bene imployed in matters of publike accompts of the CoÌ„mon-Wealth to make theÌ„selues Monks Wâ—ich law though S. Gregory did greatly mislike and wrote sharply agaynst it to the Emperour himselfe yet to shew his due respect in temporall thinges vnto him and for that indeed the law was not absolutly so euill but that in some good sense it might be tolerated to wit that Souldiars sworn to the Emperours wars might not during the said Oath obligation be receaued into Monasteries but with the Princes liceÌ„ce yet for that it tended to the abridgmeÌ„t of Ecclesiastical freedome in taking that course or state of life which ech man chooseth for the good of his soule S. Gregoâ—y misliked the same and dealt earnestly with the Emperour to relinquish it or to suffer it to be so moderated as it might stand without preiudice of Christian liberty wherunto the Emperour at length yeelded and so S. Gregory sent the same abroad vnto diuers Primates and Archbishops of sundry Kingdomes mentioned by him but corrected first and reduced by himselfe as supreme Pastour to a reasonable lawfulnes and temperate moderation to wit that those who had borne offices of charge in the Common-wealth and after desired to be admitted to religious life in Monasteries should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their full accompts and had obtayned publicke discharge for the same And that Souldiars which demanded the like admittaÌ„ce should be exactly tryed and not admitted vnto Monasticall habite but after they had liued three yeares in their lay apparell vnder probation This determineth S. Gregory in his Epistle beginning Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi Vrbicio Dyrachitano c. adding further in the same Epistle as hath bene said De qua re Serâ—issâ—mus Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur about which matter our most Clement and Christian Emperour is wholy pleased and content So as in this S. Gregory shewed his pastorall care and power in limiting and moderating the Emperours law according to the law of God though in temporall respectes he shewed him the Obedience that was due vnto him But what is this vnto our Oath May we thinke that S. Gregory that would not passe a temporall law of the Emperour without reprehension of the vnlawfulnes thereof to the Emperour himselfe and correction therof in the publication for that indirectly it did infringe the liberty of Religious life when men were called therunto that he would not haue much more resisted the admission of an Oath about such affaires if it had bene proposed No man I thinke in reason can imagin the contrary To this declaration of mine M. Barlow beginneth his reply thus But that of Gregory saith he toucheth the very quicke who as he thought his duty discharged to God in shewing the reasons why he disliked the Law so did he performe it very readily to the Emperour in promulging
A DISCVSSION OF THE ANSVVERE OF M. VVILLIAM BARLOVV D. of Diuinity to the Booke intituled The Iudgment of a Catholike Englishman liuing in banishment for his Religion c. CONCERNING The Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance VVRITTEN By the R. Father F. Robert Persons of the Society of IESVS VVHERVNTO since the said Fathers death is annexed a generall Preface laying open the Insufficiency Rayling Lying and other Misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing IOHN MORRIS Ex fructibus 〈…〉 Matth. 7. You shall know them by their fruites Permissu Superiorum M. DC XII A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS AND PARAGRAPHES CONTEYNED IN THIS BOOKE THE FIRST PART THE Preface to the Reader In which are laid open some few examples of the singular Ignorance Lying and other bad dealings of M. Barlow in his Answere to the Censure of the Apology Of Points concerning the new Oath of Allegiance handled in the Kings Apology before the Popes Breues and discussed in my former Letter CHAP. I. pag. 1. About the true Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance § 1. pag. 3. Of the pretended Cause of the new Oath which is said to be the Powder-Treason § 2. pag. 13. How great a pressure the vrging of the new Oath is to Catholickes that haue a contrary Conscience in Religion § 3. pag. 25. The same argument about the pressure of the Oath is further discussed § 4. pag. 31. What freedome may be said to be permitted to English Catholickes for swearing or not swearing the new Oath § 5. pag. 39. About recourse made to the Bishop of Rome for decisioÌ„ whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English Catholicks or no Wherin also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations § 6. pag. 49. Whether the Oâ—th be only of ciuill obedience Oâ— whether thâ—re be any clauses in it against Catholicke Religion CHAP. II. pag. 70. Of certaine notorious Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his Aduersary which no waies can be excused froÌ„ malice and witting errour § 2. pag. 87. The reasoÌ„ is examined whether Gods prouideÌ„ce might seeme defectuous if no authority had beene left in the Christian Church to restraine punish euill Kings And whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. pag. 101. Whether the deuising vrging of this new Oath were a blessing or no eyther to the Receauers or Vrgers And first of the Recâ—auers wherin is handled also of Conscience of swearing against Conscience CHAP. IIII. pag. 115. Touching the exhibitours of the Oath and of Scandall actiue and passiue Wherin M. Barlowes grosse Ignorance is disâ—â—â—â—red § 2. pag. 128. The answere to an obiection by occasion whereof it is shewed that Pâ—ssâ—sâ—ion and Presâ—ription are good proofâ—s â—uer in matters of Dâ—ctrine And the contrary is fondly affâ—â—med by M. Barlow CHAP. V. pag. 141. THE SECOND PART About the Brâ—â—â—s of Pope Paulus Quintus CONCERNING M. Barlow his â—xorbitant flattery in exaggerating Queene Elizabeths Vertues and Sanctity CHAP. I. pag. 159. About Queene Elizabeth her Mortifications And of the nature of that Vertue § 2. pag. 168. Of Queene Elizabeth her Felicities and Infelicities CHAP. II. pag. 179. Other Points concerning Queene Elizabeths Felicities or Infelicities § 2. pag. 194. Of Queene Elizabeths Sicknes and Death and other things belonging therunto § 3. pag. 209. Of the Flattery and Sycophancy vsed by diuers Ministers to his Maiestie of England to the hurt and preiudice of Caâ—holicke men and their cause CHAP. III. pag. 229. About Toleration or Liberty of Conscience demaunded by humble petition at his Maiesties handes by Catholickes whether it were height of pride or not As also concerning the contention betweene Protestants and Puritans CHAP. IIII. pag. 251. Concerning Errours Absurdities Ignorances and Falsities vttered by M. Barlow in the rest of his Answere CHAP. V. pag. 273. Whether Toby did well or no in breaking the commandement of the King of Niniue concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authority of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy § 2. pag. 285. Of another example or instance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall § 3. pag. 303. Whether Councells haue submitted themselues vnto Christian Emperors in Spirituall affayres and namely that of Arles to Charles the great CHAP. VI. pag. 311. Whether the Pope in his Breue did forbid temporall Obedience to his Maiesty of England And whether the sayd Pope hath power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII pag. 323. Of certaine other fraudulent and vntrue dealings of M. Barlow vnto the end of this Paragraph with a notorious abuse in alleaging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority § 2. pag. 334. THE THIRD PART Concerning Cardinall Bellarmine his Letter OF the occasion of the Letter written by Cardinall Bellarmine vnto M. George Blackâ—well Archpriest And whether he mistooke the state of the question Also of the change of Supreme Head into Supreme Gouernour CHAP. I. pag. 245. Whether the denying of taking this New Oath do include the deniall of all the particulâ—r clauses contayned therin § 2. pag. 356. Whether the fourth Councell of Toledo did prescribe any such set forme of Oath to be exhibited to the Subiects as is affirmed in the Apology CHAP. II. pag. 365. Cardinall Bellarmine is cleared from a false imputation and a controuersy about certaine words and clauses in the Oath is discussed § 2. pag. 386. Whether Princes haue iust cause to feare murthering by the commaundement of Popes And in disâ—ussing of the particuler example produced by the Apologer concerning the same great fraud and malice is discouered in M. Barlowes falsifying of Authors c. CHAP. III. pag. 394. About the death of Henry the third King of France whether it may be an example of allowance of such murthers As also about the late Queene of England § 2. pag. 414. Of certaine contradictions obiected to Card. Bellarmine and what confidence may be placed in a mans owne good workes CHAP. IIII. pag. 431. Of three other contradictions imputed vnto Card. Bellar. but proued to be no contradictioÌ„s at all § 2. pag. 448. Of the contentions of sundry other Emperours Kings and Princes with Popes of their times in temporall affaires obiected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Popes Superiority Wherin many fraudes aâ—d forgeries are discouered in M. Barlow particulerly concerning Fredericke the second and his contentions with Popes CHAP. V. pag. 461. M. Barlows more sure and stronger proofes are discouered to be lyes with other things concerning Frederick the second and Innocentius the fourth § 2. pag. 495. Of the Emperour Fredericke the first whose picture was said to haue beene sent to the Soldan by Pope Alexander the third And of the charge of Alexander the sixt touching the death of Zizimus or Gemen M. Barlowes innocent Turke §
when it was vsed to any person to wâ—om the title oâ— higher dignity by common intendment was due as iâ— a man should say Maistâ—r Chancellour M. Treasurer M. Earle M Archbishop and the like But lâ—t vs sâ—e the wily winding of M. Barlow here for that â—â—â—ding himsâ—lfe much pâ—â—ssed with these examples he â—ound this deuiâ—e to shiâ—t them of Sâ—ch a digniâ—y quoth he it may be that Maâ—sâ—â—r prefixed beâ—ore it may prâ—â—e a diminishing terme but if you put it to the Syrname of any man it is an addition of â—orsâ—ip aâ—candalum â—candalum Magnatum Wâ—eâ—â—tâ— I answer that this shiâ—t is more fond then the former But let vs come to the practice of this deuise let a Sutâ—r at the Court or Counâ—ell â—or gayning the good â—ill and fauour of the Counâ—ellours bâ—gin with this additioÌ„ oâ— worship to their Sâ—rnames saying inâ—teed oâ— Lord Chauncellour M. Fgerton I haue this or that â—ute wherein I craue fauour so also Maisâ—er â—ecill inâ—â—eâ—d of Lord â—reasurer M. Howard M. â—albot others in 〈◊〉 of Honours and Lordshippes would Maister Bâ—â—low thinke to obtayne more â—auour by this addition of worâ—hip to theyr Syrnames or did he vse perhaps this manner of speach when he crouched to them and his Maâ—esty â—or gaining the Bishoprick which he now posâ—esâ—â—th or will he teach this magisteriall doctrine o courtesy to be practised in the Court at this day How many scholleâ—s and disciples were he like to haue thâ—rin but among other examples one there is wherin glâ—dly I wâ—uld haue his answer He profesâ—eth himselfe a great and singulâ—r seruitour of the Queene past and if this doctrine oâ— Maâ—ster do hold in men of neuer so great honour for addition of worship if it be giuen to the Sâ—rnâ—me then bâ— like proportion also it must hould in the word Mistâ—â—sse giuâ—n to the Sâ—rname of women tâ—â—ugh neuâ—r so grâ—at or Honorable Yf then Maister Barlow had gone vnto the sâ—yd Queene in neuer so good â— disposition yea when he had betrayed his Maister the â—arle of Essex for her sake and had preached againâ—t him that horrible Sermon which he did aâ—ter his death and should haue sayd vnto her Good Mistresâ—e Tydder this and this haue I done for your cause I hope you wil reward me what reward would you thinke that she would haue bestowed vpon him for so great a courtesy And this shal be sufficient to shew the vanity of this euasion wherein he pleaseth himselfe very much and entertayneth his pen for diuers pages as I haue said pretermitting three or foure other inâ—tances of mine of much more force for prouing my coniecture that his Maiestie himselfe penned not the Apologie promising to answer them after in their due place but this place had bene most due to the matter in hand if the Minister had found himselfe ready and sufficiently fraught with substance to refute them and therfore it is to be presupposed he would not haue pretermitted the occasion for shew at least of some furniture in this beginning for so much as he hunteth so greedily after all occasions to say somewhat though nothing to the purpose at all Well then thus remayneth the argument of this first Paragraph about the true Author of the Apology which now his Maiestie confesseth to be his somewhat discussed as you haue heard the rest remayning for the place that M. Barlow hath promised to say more thereof afterwardes The summe of all hitherto treated being that I and infinit others being strangers to that which was done in secret thinking it not conuenient nor dutifull for any subiect of his Matiâ— to ascribe vnto so great a Prince a thing that might be denyed afterwards or called in controuersy by many I did vpon the reasons alleadged perswade my selfe that it was the doing of some of his Maiesties Chaplaines namely of Maister Thomas Montague as before I haue said by some generall licence or approbation of his Highnes rather then to haue bene penned by his Maiesty himselfe And vpon this ground did I frame my Letter and iudgâ—ment to my friend in England with all modâ—sty râ—uerence and due respect vnto his Maiesties person though sometymes I was forced by the very curreÌ„t of the matter it selfe and by the iniurious dealing as to me it seemed oâ— the supposed Author to be more quick and earnest with him then I would haue bene if I had but imagined his Maiestie to haue bene the writer theroâ— Whereby also appeareth the present iniquity of this other Minister VVilliam Barlow who in all this Answer of his doth peremptorily conioyne himselfe with the person of the Prince whose champion he maketh himselfe to be reapeating all the wordes of the Apologer whom I tooke to be no better then himselâ—e as the wordes of the King and my confutation as a confutation of his Maiestie wherin he doth me open iniury for that Erâ—or Pâ—rsona mut at casum say both Lawyers and Deuines and he ought to haue taken me in the sense meaning that I supposed whether it were true or false For as if in an euening when it waxeth darke a man should meet one whom â—e thinketh to be his enemy to haue greatly abused him should vse sharp speach vnto him according to his supposed deserts and that this party should not be his enemy indeed but rather his great friend or Superiour he could not haue an action against him that vttered these former words out of opinion that he was his enemy had abused him so much lesse here in this mistaking in so great obscurity of darkenes there being so many probabilities and coniâ—ctures to the contrary as now you haue heard Wherfor I must require at M. Barlowes hands to lay down this deuise and to râ—peate my words throughout my whole Letter aâ— spoâ—en to Thomas Montague or some other of his state condition according to my perswasion and supposition at that tâ—me and not to his Maiâ—stie and as often as he dotâ— otherwise he offereth me open iniury as he doth to â—iâ— Maiestie also and maketh himselfe ridiculâ—â—â—â—o others And with this condition shall we end tâ—is â—irâ—t Paragraph and passe to the rest OF THE PRETENDED Cause of the new Oath which is sayd to be the Powder-Treason §. II. NEXT after the coniectures handled about the Author oâ— the Apologie I comming in my Letter to touch the causes pretended of presâ—ure to Catholikes by this new exacted oath I proposed some of the Apologers words in his Preamble concerning the detestatioÌ„ of the Powder-treason in which detestation though I willingly ioyned with him yet complayned I of the iniquity of some that vrged continually the hatred therof against innocent men for them that were culpable contrary to his Maiesties honorable meaning as appeared by the words vttered both in his Proclamation speach in the Parlament To which passage of mine M. Barlow coÌ„ming to answer setteth downe first my words and discourse
say no more in this case then that which all good men haue said and done in the like that the looser must haue his wordes the time will come when the Minister is like to pay for al as other rauenous Persecutors haue done before The straw we made not nor inuented of this can be witnes diuers Noble and principall persons of contrary religion to Father Garnet who saw and examined the same But if God gaue or will giue any such testimony or other in this world that may tend to the defence of any of his seruantes that suffer vniustly by the malignity of wicked tongues what fault haue we therein to be carped at by the incredulity or inâ—idelity of such as belieue nothing but what themselues list which commonly is that by which they may gayne most As for the rotting of his head and flesh vpon London-bridge there is no reason that he should haue a priuiledge aboue other Seruants of God of whom the Prophet sayd in lamenting-wiâ—e to God himselfe They haue cast the dead bodies oâ— thy Seruants â—or birdes oâ— the ayre to feed vpon and the flesh of thy â—aintes to â—e deuoured of beasts If that be sanctity which was wont to be in ancient Diuinity consisting in true Catholik beliefe and vertuous pious and innocent life Father Garnet is knowne to haue lyued a Saynts life indeed and to haue accomplished the same with a happy death in dying for the defence of Iustice and equity that obliged him to silence and secresy in the matter which without sacriledge he could not reueale or vttâ—r though neuer so much detesting the attempt pretented and bewayling the knowledge thereof which sore against his will was imparted vnto him There followeth another notorious vntruth which is the fifth in this ranke concerning Father Persons being priuy consenting to their powder-plot wherof this Minister both in this place and many other maketh no scâ—uple resolutely to accuse him wheras in the whole action â—et forth in print there is no one such accusation against him which is like would not haue bene omitted if â—ny leaâ—t ground had beene found for the same And moreouer he addeth another assertion no lesse temâ—rarious which is That Father Persons came on his iourney a good step towards England that he might haue song a Te Deum in his natyue country for the good successe oâ— that happy exploit So he But for that he saw that this might be checked by the testimony of hundreds of witnesses that knew that he neuer departed from Rome in all that tyme nor long before nor after the Calumniator addeth this defensiue Caueat in a parenthesis as some report and yet would he haue it belieued of all so little conscience hath he to cast out false accusatioÌ„s without ground as though there were no Iudge in heauen or earth â—or false Calumniatours of their brethren Lastly about this matter of the powder-treason he delighteth himselfe so greatly with the often mentioÌ„ repetition therof as he saith he will neuer cease from talking of that matter Nor will wee saith he be silent thereof rumpantur ilia Romae so long as we haue pens to write or tongues to speake or a generation liuing or a posterity succeeding Do you see how earneâ—t the man is If we should imploy our pens tongues in the continual repetition of such attempts by Proteâ—tats against their Princes you see now already we haue three for one in this kind of powder-plots but many more in others And let the last attempt in Scotland of the Gowryes for killing his Maiesty the first in England of Gray Cobham Râ—â—leâ— for imprisoning his person giue testimony in this matter whether they were not all professed ProtestaÌ„ts or no So as in this there is no place for rumpantur ilia Romae brought in by M. Barlow with more gall then discretion as many other thinges are in this place for diminishing of the pressures laid vpon Catholikes for their consciences in religion amongst which he auoucheth resolutely that in fiâ—â—y years of two Protestant Princes scarce threesâ—ore persons haue bene executed and all these as guilty of treasonable practises wheras their owne recordes ours also forth in print do shew aboue an hundred thirty Priests besides lay-men to haue bene put to death within the space by him mentioned whereof not one could be conuicted of any other treason or treasonable practice then the exercise of their Priestly function So as in this both for the number and cause M. Barlow is taken with an open knowne falsity HOW GREAT A PRESSVRE the vrging of the new Oath is to Catholikes that haue a contrary Conscience in Religion §. III. IT followeth by order of M. Barlow his booke and mine that we doe examine a little how grieuous and burdensome the inforcemeÌ„t of the new Oath is to a Catholike conscience that vnderstandeth diuers points of his Religion to be denied therby and so much the more grieuous is it by how much more desirous his Maiesties Catholick people are to giue him contentment and satisfaction in all points of temporall obedience belonging to true and loyall subiects I do say in my Letter that the Apologer supposed by me to be some Minister did speake of the Oath as of a thing of no pressure or preiudice at all for that he hauing spoken of the former asseueration of his Maiesty That none of the Catholick professioÌ„ should be worse vsed for that cause to wit of the powder-tâ—eason he adioyneth presently Only sayth he at the next sitting downe of Parlament a forme of Oath was framed to be taken by all his Maiestiâ—s subiects wherby they should make their profession of their resolution faithfully to persist in his Maiesties obedience c. By which exception of only a man may well perceiue that the Minister maketh little accompt of taking or not taking this Oath for so much as he supposeth Catholick people to haue receyued no hard vsage therby though they be brought therby into such extremities as either they must swâ—are against their owne iudgments consciences in sundry points pâ—rtaining to their religion or els endure his Maiesties heauy displeasuâ—â— with losâ—e of goods and lands c. These were my wordes And now how do you thinke that M. Barlow will shift of this important point appertâ—â—ning to conscience in Religion No doubt but much according to the feeling himselfe hath of swearing or not swearing if the Princes fauour or disfauour come betweene Do you stand attent then you shal heare as egâ—egious trisâ—ing as euer you did perhaps in so graue a matter The new Oath saith he of all other is the Phallaris Bull the moâ—â— gâ—ieuous vexation But â—herin standeth the agrieuance is it in the abstract because there is an Oath commanded The highest iudge alloweth it both by â—is owne example swearing by himselfe to AbrahaÌ„ by precept to vs. Thou shalt seare
necessary to make recourse to the Sea Apostolicke and to demaund resolution thereof according to the custome that had bene obserued in the like cases in England during the raigne of all Catholike Christian Kinges from their beginning of Christianity vntill king Henry the eight as else where largely hath bene proued by a seuerall booke writteÌ„ lately of that argument And as the English Catholickes were desirous to exhibite vnto their King all dutiâ—ull obedience and subiection in temporall matters so were they desirous also not to doe any thing against their consciences in spirituall affaires towardes their supreme Pastour whome they acknowledge to gouerne them in place of Christ our Sauiour And this was the cause why the one Oath was not consulted with Pope Clement the Eight the other was with Pope Paulus the fifth not somuch for his particuler and personall iudgemeÌ„t in Diuinity though it be great as in respect of his place and the most certaine assistancâ— which almighty God giueth him and all other in that place for gouerning of his people as also for the particuleâ— obligation that all Catholick Christians haue to obey their supreme Pastour whose authority receaued from our Sauiour is more to be respected then the gift of humane learning which I suppose M. Barlow in the Kinges Royall Authoritâ— and Person will not dare to deny or thinke it good dealing or lawâ—ull proceeding if when he setteth our a Proclamation his Subiectes should demaÌ„d what skill in Law or Diuinity he hath for auouching â—he same And much more if the question had bene made in the time of Q. Elizabeth who profeâ—â—ed not so much learning as this King and yet would be obeyed no lesse then he iâ— her dayes euen in matters Ecclesiastical although I think that the neuer studied Diuinity It followeth in M. Barlow Of Pius Quintus saith he who absolued the Queenes sâ—â—iects â—rom their obedience it was said by some of his owne that he was homo pius doctus sed nimis credulus religious and learned but too easy of beliefe But of this Paulus Quintus who hath interâ—â—cted the Subiects of our Soueraigne King to sweare their obedience eyther for his Diuinity or Piety we haue heard nothing Whereunto the answer is easy for if you haue not heard therof it is for that you are loath to heare so much good as you may of his Holines in both points His profession was not the faculty of Diuinity but rather of Ciuill and Canon law before God did choose him to the place dignity where now he is It is well knowne that his Holines hath great sufficiency also in the other for discharging of his obligation in that high Office and hath moreouer so many learned men about him in all sciences to consult withall wheÌ„ matters of weight do occurre as this poore exception of the Hereticke about learning in his Holines is a good witnes of his want of better matter what to speake to the purpose And as for his Piety which is the other point let his Holines life and actions be looked vpon as we know they are by all Heretikes in the world and curiously pried into not only at home in their owne Countreys but in Rome it selfe where many do go to certify theÌ„selues in this and sundry other like pointes and do depart much edified therby and sundry of them conuerted dayly by seeing the contrary to that which before they heard wherof my selfe among others can be a good witnes that haue seene the effect hereof in sundry of our Nation as others can say the like by theirs And this amongst other things is very notable and knowne spoken and confessed by all sortes of people in Rome to be in him to wit an Angelicall purity of life throughout the whole course therof in so much that he was neuer yet stained with the least blemish of suspicion to the contrary Which publike voice testimony how well it hath bene deserued of M. Barlow his Matesâ— I remit my selfe to the common fame of their next Neighbours or such as know them best As for that he saith of Pope Pius Quintus that he was accompted by Catholikes themselues nimis credulus notwithstanding he was homo pius doctâ—s as it is no great accusâ—tion so is it spoken and vttered without any testimony at all and therfore of small credit as comming from one that is found so full of vntruthes in most of his allegations wherof we haue giuen so many examples and shall do more in the residue of this our Answere as I doubt not but that he will scarsely seeme worthy to be belieued when he bringeth witnesses and much lesse without them But there remayneth a more large impertinency of M. Barlow coÌ„cerning this Pope his skill in Diuinity setdown in these wordes taken from the comparison of S. Peter S. Paul S. Peter saith he whose successour he is stiled and S. Paulâ— whose name he hath borrowed had their Diuinity indeed by inâ—â—sâ—â—n but their writings reuealed it to the world So that Peter we know and Paul we know to be singular Dâ—uines but who is this No men that seeketh to be â—amous doth any thing in secret say the bretheren of our Sauiour VVhere then are his labours his Sermons his Treatises his Commentaryes his Epistles Theologicall his doctrinall determinations his Iudiciall Decisâ—â—s all which are vsuall attractiues to draw an opinion vpon a man that he is a sound resoluer So he But Syr stay your Maister-ship these are no sound groundes to build the certainty of resolution vpon in a Magistrate especially such as the supreme Pastour is but rather the promised assistance that Christ our Sauiour made to S. Peter and his successours sitting in the Apostolike Chaire That Hell-gates should neuer preuaile against the same And how many haue written Sermons Treatises Commentaries Epistles Determinations and Decisions and do write dayly to whome notwithstanding we ascribe not this certainty albeit the last two for DeterminatioÌ„s and Decisions I doubt not but his Holines hath maâ—â— many in his dayes and those very profound and learned hauing bene a Iudge in diuers great affaires as the world knoweth before he came to this dignity whereto he ascended not by fortune or fauour or negotiation but by the merit of his great and rare vertue correspondent to the worthines of the noble and ancient family from the which he is descended And this wil be euident to any man that shall consider the eminent offices and dignityes wherwith he hath bene honoured euen from his youth as of Referendary in the high Court of Signatura de Gratia of Vice-Legate in Bologna of Nuntius Apostolicus into Spaine for most important matters and of Auditor de Camera in all which charges and imployments he gayned such reputation of learning wisedome and integrity that Pope Clement the eight of blessed memory held him to be most worthy of the dignity of a Cardinall wherto
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
for the last which is heresie he hath brought in two such Authours and authorities against himselfe as in the whole ranke of antiquitie he could not find 〈◊〉 two more fit and forcible to conuince him and his of Heresie and consequently also as himselfe inferreth of more griâ—uous and damnable Idolatry And he would not haue brought them in to the purpose he doth if he had vel micam salu any the least part of prudeÌ„ce For if I should by the occasion of these two Fathers here brought iâ— frame a Syllogisme against M. Barlow his religion taking the maior proposition out of these wordes here set downe and adding the minor out of these two Fathers most manifest assertions he would neuer be able to auoyd the conclusion and if he can I doe prouoke him to the triall The maior proposition is this according to S. Aâ—guâ—â—â—â—â— and Vincentius Lyrineâ—sis that liued not long the one after the other Heresy is Idolatry and heretickes are Idolatours yea the basest kinde of Idolatours that do woâ—ship the fancies of their owne braynes This propositioâ— is here brought in and grâ—unted by M. Barlow as trueâ— and auouched by these two anâ—ient Fathers the minorâ— doe adde and doe offer to proue which is this But according to the iudgement and writing of these two Fathers concerning the nature and property of heresy and heretickes M. Barlowes religion if it be the Protestants is conuinced to be heresy and the professors thereof heretickes Ergo also they are Idolatours and of the basest kinde of Idolatours and damnably worship the fancies of their owne braynes This Syllogisme consisting of M. Barl. his maior my minor the conclusion following of them both I could wish he would coÌ„sider wel And for so much as I know he wil deny the minor I do offer to ioine issue with him vpon that point only if he please reducing all our combate begun betweene him and me to this important question much more profitable to the Reader then these wranglings wherin wee are now conuersant Whether according to the doctrine and iudgement of S. Augustine and Vincenâ—ius Lyrinensis coÌ„cerning heresyâ— Protestants or RomaÌ„ Catholickes be truly Hereticks Let vs lay all other quarrels I say aside and handle only this graue and weighty Controuersy if he hath so much confidence in his cause in the doctrine of these two Fathers But for so much as I do imagine that M. Barlow will pause a greate while and consult before he accept of this offer and perhaps expect vntill the designed new Colledge of Protestant VVriters be vp at Chelsey or els where I will in the meane space inuite the Reader to study and make familiar vnto himselfe the two aforenamed Authors about this point of heresie and hereticks And as for Vincentius Lyrinensis it wil be easie for that it is but a little booke though weighty in substance and it is printed both seuerally and togeather with Tertullian his excellent booke of Prescriptions against Hereticks both of his and these our dayes yea illustrated also with diuers short notes and Commentaries both of Ioannes Costerus and of Iâ—stus Baronius a learned man and Counsellour to the Arch-bishop Electour of Meâ—tz conuerted from Protestant Religion principally by reading and pondering that goulden Treatise of the sayd Vincentius The other Authour S. Augustine is far more large and difficult to be studied throughly in respect of the multitude of his workes but there is a collection made of them into foure bookes by a learned man of our time with the title of Confessio Augustiniana wherin is gathered the iudgement of S. Augustine about all the controuersies of our time which he hath handled in his workes so many hundred yeares agoe before the new names of Protestants or Papists were euer heard of and to the diligent reading of this Booke I would exhort all indifferent men that haue care of their soules and vnderstand the latin tongue For that S. Augustine being the man he was both in learning and sanctity and so speciall a Pillar of Christ his Church in his dayes which was about foure hundred yeares after Christ when yet the true Catholike Church is granted to haue flourished it followeth that what doctrine he held for true and Catholike in his time must also be now what held to be heresy we may also boldly hold the same and what rules he gaue to know and descry the one or the other may serue vs now to the same end I will not set downe any particuler places in this Epitome of S. Aâ—gusâ—iâ—â— for the Reader to repaire vnto aboue others for they are clearly propounded in the beginning of the worke and reduced vnto seuerall heads and Chapters But if M. Baâ—low or any of his shal be content to ioine with me vpon the issue before mentioned we shall haue occasion to examine the worke more exactly And this hath bene spoken by occasion of M. Barlowes answer once for all about Catholikes vexed consciences with feare as he termeth theÌ„ which full wisely he will haue to proceed of Idolatry superstition heresy as you haue heard but sayth nothing of inforcemeÌ„t of their consciences by penal lawes though that be the only matter in questioÌ„ But it may be he will say somewhat therof in his second resolution about this matter for this is but his first let vs heare him then further if you please Againe saith he where the mind hath no certayne stay for â—eâ— vltima resolutio in matters and cases of faith conscience there must necessarily follow a miserable vexaâ—ion which is the case of thâ—se Catholickes whose dependance for resolution must rest vpon the supreme Pastours determination then which what is more vncertayne for what one Pope decrees the other disallowes Here againe you see he runneth from the whole purpose and talketh in the ayre for the Catholikes doe not demaund of him What is the cause of their vexed consciences but rather doe tell him what it is as you haue heard in my words before rehearsed to wit the pressing of them to sweare against the iudgement of their owne consciences or els to incurre displeasure and suspition of disloyalty with his Maiestie as also the penalty of the law And what then doth our Doctour tell vs a tale of vltima râ—solutio in matters cases of fayth and conscience to be the cause of their trouble and affliction Truly it is as far from the purpose as the other before was and no lesse also against himselfe to make mention of this vltima resolâ—tio which more conuinceth him and his of heresy then any other demonstration that can be vsed to that effect For that they hauing abandoned the authority and iudgemeÌ„t of the knowne Catholike Church from which finall resolution in matters of controuersy is to be taken according to that rule of S. Augustine Si quis quaestionis difficultate â—alli metiâ—t Ecclesiaâ— consulat if any man teare
downe in his seauenth booke of his Visible Monarchy The seuere lawes also against them that refused to take the Oath of supremacy and should say or heare masse were made long befoâ—e this and put in practice so as this narration could not stand What replyeth M. Barlow to this Niâ—il ad Rhâ—â—â—â— sayth he the speach is here of lawes whose payne is death Yea Syr. And is it so I refer me to the wordes euen now recited out of the Apology that her Maiestie neuer punished any Papiâ—â—â—â—â— Religion that she was most free from all persecution doth not all any include other punishments besides death Moreouer when it is sayd that she neuer made any rigâ—â—ous lawes against Catholickes doth this only compreheÌ„d the lawes whose punishment is death To what straites is M. Barlow driuen here And yet if he doe remember well the oath of Supremâ—cie he cannot but know that the third refusall therof is also death So as euery way the poore man is taken OF QVEENE ELIZABETH HER FELICITIES and infelicities CHAP. II. AFTER this followeth another question betweene M. Barlow and me about the felicities or infelicities of Queene Elizabeth or rather betweene the Lord Iustice Cooke and me who hauing vpon diuers occasions to the exprobration of Catholicke men and religion whome she pursued in her life time enlarged himselfe extraordinarily in her exaltation calling her The happie Queene The blessed Queene and the like I was forced for defence of the truth to examine somewhat the grounds of this felicitie My words then were That the said Lord Cooke vpon the occasion of certaine words in Pope Clements Breue where Queene Elizabeth is named misera semina a miserable woman in respect no doubt of the miseries of her soule litle respected by her vpon which wordes the Oratour triumpheth thus What miserable it is sayd that miseria coÌ„stâ—s ex duobus contrarys copia inopia copia tribulationis inopia consolationis miâ—erie consisteth of two contraries of aboundance and penury aboundance of tribulation penury of consolatioÌ„ And then he sheweth in what abouÌ„dance of coÌ„solations Q. Elizabeth liued in al her life without waÌ„t of all tribulation which if it were true yet is it but the argument which the worldlinges vsed in the Psalme to proue their felicitie that their Cellars are full their sheep fertile their kine fat they suffer no losse and then Beatâ—â— dixeri nâ— populim cuiâ—ac sâ—nt happie did they call the people that had these things But the holy Ghost scorneth them and so may all men do our Oratour that vseth and vrgeth so base an argument in so high a matter And as for his definition of misery by copia and inopia store want it is a miserable one in deed neuer heard of before I thinke to come from any mans mouth but his owne it being ridiculous in Philosophy and fit to be applyed to any thing that hath eyther store or want As a wise man in this sort may be defined to be him that hath store of witt and want of folly and a foole to be him that hath store of follyâ— and want of wit and so a rich man is he that hath store of riches want of beggarie a poore man is he that hath store of beggarie penury of riches And are not these goodly definitions thinke you for so great and graue a man to produce Thus passed the matter then But now M. Barlow doth constitute himselfe Aduocate for the Iustice and if he plead his cause well he will deserue a good â—ee for the cause it selfe is but weake as preseÌ„tly you will behould The Lord Cooke sayth he who at the Arraignement of Garnet indignantly scorning that the high Priest of Rome should in a Breue of his call so great a Prince as Quene Elizabeth was Miseram Fâ—minam a miserable woman by a description of miserie consisting of two contraries want of comâ—ort and plenty of tribulation shewes by many reasons euident and demonstratiue that she hauing aboundance of ioy and no touch of affliction but blessed with all kind of felicities could not be called Miserable c. In which words I would haue you note first that wheras here he sayth that the Iustice shewed this by many reasons euident and demonstratiue within a dozen lines after he saith of these reasons But if they be not concluding demonstrations yet as least let them be probable perswasions which is quite contrary to that which he sayd before that they were euident and demonstratiue so soone the man forgetteth himselfe But to the matter it selfe that albeit all these temporall felicities ascribed to Queene Elizabeth had bene so many and so great as Syr Edward affirmeth them yet had it beene but the argument of worldlings who in the 143. Psalme did measure their felicity by their full Cellars were checked for the same by the holy Ghost by teaching them that not Beatus populus cui haec sunt but beatus populus cuius Dominus Deus eius consequeÌ„tly that Queene Elizabeth might haue these temporall felicities and yet be truly miserable in that sense wherin Pope Clement so called her to wit concerning the affaires of her soule and euerlasting saluation To this I say he answereth first by demanding why temporall prosperitie may not be made an argument of Gods loue to Queene Elizabeth and of her felicitie for so much as it is scored vp for one of the Notes of the true Church by Cardinall Bellarmine de Notâ—â— Ecclesiae Nota 15 Whereunto I answer that this temporall felicitie is not to our purpose for that Pope Clement spake of her spirituall infelicitie as hath bene shewed and that temporall felicitie doth not infer or argue spirituall felicitie euery man will confesse that hath spirit to discerne it for that the whole Scripture is ful of testimonies that wicked men and consequently miserable in soule haue bene temporally blessed by Almighty God made rich powerfull prosperous euen to the very affliction scandalizing as it were of the iust and vertuous but yet were they not happy for this but most miserable euen as those Israelites were that hauing their fill of quailes in the desert sent theÌ„ from God they had no sooner eaten them as the Scripture sayth adhuc escae eorum eraÌ„t in ore ipsorum ira Dei ascendiâ— super 〈◊〉 the meat was yet in their mouthes and the wrath of God did fall vpon them And he that shall read ouer the 72. Psalme shall see that it is altogeather of this matter to wit of Dauids admiration of the wealth and prosperitie of the wicked whose end notwithstanding he sayth to be most miserable aestimabam vt cognoscerem hoc labor est ante me donec intelligam in nouissimis eorum deiecisti eos dum alleuarentur I did thinke I could haue vnderstood this matter but it is harder then I imagined vntil I coÌ„sidered their ends thou
this ensuing consideration S. Augustine in his nynth booke of Conseffions recounting the story of his iourney from Millan to Rome and from thence to Africa his Countrey in the compaine of his Mother a holy widdow named Moniâ—a sheweth how they comming to the Port of Ostia where they were to imbarke his sayd Mother fell grieuously sicke and after some dayes of sicknes departed this present liâ—e and for testification of her great sanctitie the sayd Doctor recouÌ„counteth many of her godly speaches vttered before her death and amongst other shâ— earnestly recommended vnto him and other there present that shee might be prayed for at the altar in time of Sacrifice which S. Augustine not only performed himselfe but in the same place most huÌ„bly desireth all those that shall read his wordes to pray both for the soule of his sayd Mother and likwise for the soule of his Father dead long before named Patricius Now then haue we the testimony of S. Augustine by him also of all the Catholike Church in his time for that he was neuer noted of errour eyther for thus writing or thus doing first that Aërius was an Heretick and consequently damned for holding that Prayers Sacrifice were not to be offered vp for the dead SecoÌ„dly we see by the fact of the holy widdow that that was the coÌ„mon sense of the vniuersall Church in her dayes for that she hauing liued first in the Catholick Church in Afria then vnder S. Ambrose in Millan and sometime also in Rome she would neuer haue demaunded this office to haue byn done for her soule after her death if it had not byn the common known practice of the vniuersall Church in her daies neither would her learned godly Sonne hâ—ue permitted it much lesse performed the same himself and intreated others to do the like wherof it seemeth I may well inferre that if 〈◊〉 were damned for teaching the contrary doctrine then is M. Barlow in great danger of damnation if he repent not for defending the same doctrine And if S. Monica S. Augustine her Sonne may be thought to be saued that both belieued practised prayers and sacrifices for the dead then hardly can be saued Queene Elizabeth with her Chaplin M. Barlow except he change his opinion that neither practice or belieue that doctrine I remit me to the carefull Reader what force there is in this Argument OF THE FLATTERY AND SYCOPHANCY VSED BY DIVERS MINISTERS TO HIS MAIESTY OF ENGLAND To the hurt and preiudice of Catholicke men and their cause CHAP. III. AS during the life of Queen Elizabeth one great Witch-craft of Ministers was for bringing her asleep in the bed of careles security to intoxicate her braine with excessiue praises and immoderate adulations So sayd I they attempted to do the like with his Maiesty that now is indeauoring to incite him dayly more more against Catholiks their religioÌ„ by pretence of zeale towards his State PersoÌ„ which no waies would they haue him belieue that Catholicks did loue or fauour And in this poinâ— I did mention in particuler T.M. the yonger of whome I was credibly informed that his custome was by reason of his place neere his Maiesty at the time of repast to iniure Catholicks that were absent either by false relating their doctrine or miscoÌ„struing their actioÌ„s or alleaging shewing forth some places out of their books that may seeme preiudiciall againsâ— theÌ„ being taken at the worst without due interpretation My words at that time were these VVe doe verily perswade ourselues that if his Highnes had bene left to himselfe and to his owne Royall nature Noble disposition in this point as Queene Elizabeth was wont to say of her disposition in religion we had tasted indeed much of this his great humanity and so we began for somtime but being preuented and diuerted by the subtile working of this and other such Ministers as desired to draw bloud and to incite his Maiesty against vs we hauing no place to speake for our selues no admittance to be heard no effectual intercessour to interpose his mediation for vs no meruaile though we were cast of and do indure the smart And I doe name this Minister T. M. the yonger in the first place among the rest for that it is commonly sayd that his whole exercise is Sycophancy and calumniation against men of our profession be they strangers or domesticall and that among other deuises he hath this that euery time his Maiesty is to take his repast he is ready either with some tale iest scoffe or other bitter lance to wound vs absent and that he hath euer lightly some book page therof ready to read to his Highnes somewhat framed by his art to incense or auert his Maiesty more eyther in iudgement or affection or both and therby to draw from him some hard speaches which being published afterward by himselfe and others do serue to no other end but to gall and alienate minâ—es and to afflict them that are not suffered to giue reason for themselues that is the seruice he doth his Maiesty in this exercise And now vnto this let vs see how M. Barlow beginneth to frame his answere Is not this â—ellow truly can is in praesepe saith he that can neither speake well himselâ—e nor indure that vertue should haue her due commendation by others He mâ—anâ—th concerâ—ing the praises of his Maiesty which he would sâ—y that I can neither vtter them of my selfe nor suffer others to do the same yet within a few lines after finding me to haue yelded vnto his Maiesty suÌ„dry worthy due praises he is forced to run to the quite contrary extreme of reprehending me for it saying VVheras this Iudas coÌ„mendeth his Maiesties great humanity Royall nature and Noble disposition so did the Diueth conâ—esse Christ to be the Sonne of God but their conclusion was withall Quid tibi nobis what haue we to doe with thee So he And is not this humor of malicious contradicting verie fit for the Diuell indeed who therof hath his name of Sathan In the former lines he sayd that I would neyther prayse his Maiesty nor suffer him to be praysed and here he compareth me to the diuell for praysing him and yet goeth further sayingâ— That his Maiestie may demaund what euill haue I done this day that so bad a fellow as this is should speake so well of me So as whether we speake well or hould our peace still we must be blame-worthie And this also is a principal point belonging to the profâ—ssion of Parasites if you marke it well to admit noe concurrence of their aduersaries in honouring that Prince though neuer soe sincerely meant whome themselues alone by their exorbitant adulation do meane to possesse Let vs see what generall ground our Antagonist here M. Barlow that seemeth indeed to be an egregious Craftsman in this occupation doth lay vs down to
during the time of the three King Henries 4. 5. and 6. and afterward when those that were called Lâ—llards and Wickelissians who as M. Fox saith were indeed good Protestants being pressed some what about their Religion did continually beate vpon this argument of libertie of Conscience and when they obteyned it not they set vâ— publicke schedles vpon the Church dores of London anâ— made â—hose famous conspiracyes of killing K. Henry the 5 d and all his family which are recounted by VVatsingham Stow Fox and other English Historiographers In this our age also the first opposition of Protestant Princes in Germanie against their Emperour Charles the 5. both at Smalcald Austburgh and other meetings as afterwards also the fierce and perilous warrs by the Duke of Saxony Marques of Brandeburge and other Protestant Princes and their people against the same Emperour begunne in the very same yeare that our K. Henry dyed were they not all for liberty of Conscience so pretended so printed so published so diuulged to the world The first Supplications Memorials and Declarations in like manner which the Protestants of France set forth in printâ— as also they of Holland Zeland in tyme of the gouernments as well of the Duchesse of Parma Duke of Alua Commendaâ—or Major and other Gouernours did they not all expresly professe that their principall griefes were about liberty of Conscience restrayned And did not they cyte many places of Scriptures to proue the equity necessity therof And do not all Protestants the like at this day in all places where they are both in Polonia Austria Bohemia Styria and els where And how then is Iordanis conuersus retrâ—rsâ—m with this Minister How is his voyce contrary to the voyce sense of all the rest How with what reason may he call it the height of pryde in English Catholicks to haue but hope therof which is so ordinary a doctrine practice of all his brethren in forraine nations to wit for vs to expect liberty of Conscience at the first entrance of our new King of so noble and royall a mynd before that tyme as he was neuer knowne to be giuen to cruelty or persecution in his former raigne The Sonne of such a Mother as held her selfe much beholden to English Catholicks And himselfe in his litle Golden Booke to his Sonne the Prince had confessed that he had euer found the Catholicke party most trusty vnto him and therupon had done sundry â—auours to diuers of them and giuen no small hope of greater vnto others From this King I say whom they so much loued and honoured receyued so gladly and with vniuersall ioy meant to serue faithfully trusted that as he had vnited the two Kingdomes in one Obedience by his Succession so would he by his liberality vnite and conioyne the harts of all his Subiects in bearing a sweet and equall hand towards them all From such a King I say for vs to expect liberty of Conscience and equality with other Subiects in this poynt at least of freedome of soule what height of pryde may it be called May it not rather seeme height of pryde in this Minister his fellowes that hauing byn old enemyes and alwayes borne a hard hatefull hand and tongue against his Maiestiâ— both in their Sermons Bookes Speaches all the tyme of the late Queenes raigne now vpon the suddayne sine vllis meritis praecedentibus will needs be so priuiledged assume vnto themselues such a confident presumption of his Maiesties speciall fauour as to suffer no man to stand by them but to hold it for height of pryde in vs to hope for any freedome and liberty of our Conscience at all What is height of pryde and folly if this be not These are my words in my former booke and now let vs behould what M. Barlow layeth forth agaynst the same First he beginneth with a pull at the Purytans though I neither named nor designed them but only sayd as now your haue heard that generally all sorts of Protestants neuer so humble or far of from height of pryde in theyr owne conceipt doe allow and desyre yea the more humble and vnderlinges they are the more earnest they insist both by bookes speach and preaching to proue that liberty of conscience is most conforme to Gods law c. Wherupon M. Barlow maketh this comment that by vnderlinge Protestantes I do meane them that doe seuer themselues from him and hiâ— in matter of ceremony and Church-gouerment who are not vnderlings sayth he because they are humble for that pryde only keepeth them aloofe It is not the inferiour place sayth he or the deiected vysage or the soft voyce or dislike of Prelacy that doth denominate humility And these are the notes belike that doe distinguish Puritans from the Protestants to wit the inâ—eriour place the deiected â—isage the soft speach dislike of Prelacy But yet I cannot but wonder to see him twice in this place to repeate that the difference betweene these brethren and themâ—eluesâ— is only in matters of Ceremony differing sayth he only in matters ceremoniall though before he added also Church-gouernment Whereby is euydent that he houldeth theyr Church-gouernment and Prelacy matter of ceremony only and consequently also his owne Prelacy and his being a Bishop is but a meere Ceremony and no substantiall matter in their Religion Now then let vs see what ensueth vpon this and what honour and seruice M. Barlow doth to his whole Cleargy and namely to his old Maister and Lord of Caâ—terbury by this his new doctrine Is all the dignity and preheminence which his sayd Lord hath aboue all the Ministers in England his superiority ouer the Cleargy his being Archbishop Primate his spirituall Iurisdiction his Courtes of the Arches his power of dispensations his making Ministers and giuing them power to preach â—each administer SacrameÌ„ts Is all this but a ceremony Or do the Puritans in denying and impugning this impugne but a ceremony and no poynt of Religion it selfe Truely then must I say that their cause against you is far better then I euer hitherto esteemed it to be For if all these thinges be but ceremonies and contayne no substaÌ„tiall poynt of religion why do you that in other things professe your selues enemies to Ceremonies stand so much vpon them to the disturbance of the whole Realme But of this I shall haue occasion to speake againe a little after and to lay open your absurdities in this euaâ—ion Now only will I say a word to your argumeÌ„t which heere you make against vs for toleration or liberty of coÌ„scienceâ— If tâ—ese humble vnderlings say you dwelling amongst 〈◊〉 â—â—â—d differing only from vs in matters ceremoniall are not heard in their suite of liberty of conscience how much lesse those who in poyntes essentiall and fundamentall are seuered from vs may not be tolerated Wherunto I answere that if we respect reason and iustice in
specified by their formall obiects and not by their materyall which may be the same in acts of different nature and consequently cannot distinguish them and so in our present purpose these two faiths or beliefes are not distinguished for that the one hath naturall and ciuill things for her obiects and the other supernaturall For that as well humane and naturall faith may both haue naturall and supernaturall thinges for her obiects as also dyuine and Theologicall faith may haue the same As for example when a man belieueth that there is a Citty called Constantinople for that many men do report it and when a Pagan belieueth that there is a God for that some learned Philosopher hath tould him so to whom he giueth credit heere both naturall and supernaturall things are obiects of humane and naturall fayth And so on the contrary side if a man should belieue naturall and ciuill things as reuealed by God in his Scriptures or otherwise as that Cayn killed his brother Matthâ—salem lyued so long and the like these things should be obiects of Thologicall and diuine fayth as well as if they were in themselues supernaturall Wherfore these two faithes and beliefes are not distinguished by their materiall obiects be they either naturall or supernaturall but by their formal obiects or motiues non per res creditas sed per rationes credendi as Scholemen say not by the things that are beleiued but by the motiues and causes for which they are belieued so as whatsoeuer is belieued vpon any humane motiue or authority though in it self it be supernaturall appertayneth to humane fayth and not dyuine so likwise on the contrary side whatsoeuer is beleiued vpon diuine motiues and authoritie and as reuealed from God though in it self it be naturall and cyuill as M. Barlow calleth it yet doth it appertaine to Theologicall and diuine fayth as an obiect thereof But these things it is like M. Barlow hath no commodity to study and therefore I would easily pardon him these rude and grosse escapes if he did not shew himself so insolent in vaunting as he doth and so conâ—umelious against others that know more then himself VVHETHER PRINCES HAVE IVST CAVSE TO FEARE MVRTHERING by the commandement of Popes And in discussing of the particuler example produced by the Apologer concerning the fame great fraud and malice is discouered in M. Barlowes falsifying of Authors c. CHAP. III. IN the page 86. of my Letter I do handle a certaine speach of Cardinal Bellarmine in his letter to the Archpriest wherin he saith that neither his maiestie of England nor any Prince else hath cause to feare violence from the Pope for that it was neuer heard oâ— from the Churches infancy vnâ—il this day that any Pope did command that any Prince though an hereticke though an Ethnicke though a persecutor should be murthered or did allow of the murther when it was done by another Thus the Cardinall Against which was obiected that Popes had depriued diuers Princes and had raysed great warres against others and that in warre was contayned the casualty of killing in like manner But this was answered that the question was of murthering Now what reply thinke you maketh M. Barlow First he bringeth in a long idle discourse to shew that according to Homer and other Poets politicke Historians Princes ought to go alwayes armed and vigilant for their safety and then he maketh this demaund What difference is there betweene personal murthering of Princes raysing war against them the lot wherof is common and vnpartiall Thirdly he bringeth in my answer as saying that though the Pope hath waged warre against Princes yet he neuer caused any to be vnlawâ—ully murthered Wherin saith he the Aduerbe is worth the obseruing secretly implying that the Pope hath commanded or may command Princes to be murthered but not vnlawfully Wherin he sheweth himselfe to be a meere calumniator for that I speaking diuers times of this matter did neuer ioyne the Aduerbe vnlawfully with the word murthered but in one place only I sayd thus that albeit Popes vpon iust causes haue waged warrs against diuers Princes yet they neuer caused any to be vnlawfully made away murthered or allowed of their murthers committed by others Where you see the Aduerbe vnlawfully is not ioyned with the word murthered but with the wordes made away And the like corruption of my wordes and peruerting my sense he vseth afterward in the same page with intolerable iniquity making me to say that which was farre from my meaning concerning the warres betwene popes and Princes and it is his generall fashion neuer commonly to recite my wordes with sincerity But he goeth forward to proue that Popes do command murthers of Princes saying VVere there no example of fact extant against the Popes in this kind yet they may command Princes to be killed is Bellarmines owne doctrine both Symbolical as the spirit may command the flesh to â—asting and chastisement yea euen 〈◊〉 death it selfe iâ— the spirit sâ—e it necessary and Positiue also for that Christians may not suffer an Infidell or hereticall King to raigne ouer them So he And out of these two arguments doth proue that Popes do or may command Princes to be murthered But who doth not see the folly of these arguments which can moue nothing but laughter or stomacke For albeit Bâ—llarmine do teach that the spirit in a man may punish the flesh by fasting and chastisement where it is necessary for the souls health and I could wiâ—h that M. Barlow had some of this spirit yet may he not kil him selfe or punish his body vnto death as M. Barlow falsifyeth him but cum detrimento aliquo debilitatione ipsius corporis though it be with some losse and weaknes of the said body True it is that in another case of Martyrdome Bellarmine teacheth that the spirit may command the flesh to yield it selfe vp to the persecutour for defence of Christian fayth but this is not our questioÌ„ So as in this first point M. Barlow is fouÌ„d to falsify in the second to make a foolish consequeÌ„ce that for so much as Christian men may not tolerate in some cases an Infidell Prince c. therfore they must murther him as though there were no other remedy but murther these are odious inferences fit for such a spirit as M. Barlowes who notwithstanding meaneth not to murther himselfe by the seuerity of Bellarmines doctrine whom he falsely affirmeth to teach that the spirit may subdue the flesh by fasting and other chastisements yea euen vnto death nor yet to debilitate his body therby according to Cardinall Bellarmines true doctrine Another argument of the Popes murthers is made to be for that he is said to haue coÌ„manded the body of Henry the 4. Emperour of that name that died excoÌ„municated in Liege vpon the yeare 1106. to be taken out againe of his sepulcher and thereof he inferreth that if the Pope would vse
such rage against a dead body much more against alyue But this argumeÌ„t houldeth no more though the matter were true as heere it is alledged then the former for that many things are done against Princes bodies when they are dead which would not be attempted in their life tyme. Who will not confesse this to be true But let vs leaue the consequent consider the antecedeÌ„t two things are auouched by the Apologer pag. 65. first that the Pope which was then Paschal is the second was enraged at the yong Emperour Henry the fiâ—th for giuing buryall to his fathers body when it was dead in the Citty of Leodium or Leige The second was that the Pope had stirred vp the said sonne Emperour against his Father and for both these points were cited in the margent as wittnesses Platina and Cuspinian in their Histories To which I answered in my Letter that Platina had no such matter that Cuspinian had the contrary to wit that when Henry the Father was dead and buried in a monastery at Leige his sonne would not make peace with the Bishop of that place called Otbert except the dead body were pulled out of the graue againe as it was and so remayned for fiue yeares This I answered to the first point about the exhumation of the body by the enraged sonne against his father for taking armes against him againe after that with common consent he had resigned the Empire vnto him and for more proofe of this I cited two authors more to wit Nauclerus and Crantzius in their histories that affirme the same To this now M. Barlow in his replie sayth first neuer a word vnto the silence of Platina nor to the testimonies of Nauclerus Crantzius but passeth slyly to proue another matter that we deny not to wit that the bodie of the elder Henry was taken out of the graue againe at Leige after it was buryed but by whome or whose commaundemeÌ„t eyther of the Pope Paschalis then liuing or of his Sonne Henry that lay neere by with an army that he proueth not which is the only point he should haue proued to wit that by order of the Pope the dead corps had bin takâ—n out of the graue I haue for the coÌ„trary besides the Authors before alledged the manyfest authority of Vrspergensis who liued and wrote in that tyme and might be present perhaps at tâ—e fact relating the matter how after that the death of Henry the 4. was knowne to his sonne to all the Bishops and Archbishops that were there with him and that notwithstanding he dyed excommunicate his body was buryed by the B. of Leige that had followed also his part the said yong Emperour and Bishops would not admit the said Bishop of Leige vnto their communion though he most earnestly offered himself but with condition that he should both doe pennance and besides that take out of the sepulcher agayne the buried bodie of the said Emperour which contrary to the Canons of the Church he had buryed the day before his words are these Leodâ—ensis autem Episcopus c. But the B. of Leige and other Bishops who had followed the part of Henry the 4. were receiued into communion to doe pennance with this condition that they should take forth of the graue the dead corpes of the said excommunicate Henry which they had buryed in a Monastery the day before So he And the same word pridie the day before hath not only Vrspergensis but also Nauclerus which doth euidently conuince that this exhumation could not be commaunded by the Pope Paschalis that liued at Rome and could not be aduertised of the death of the Emperour Henry and of his buriall so soone and much lesse giue order for his taking vp againe within the compasse of 3. or 4. dayes if there were so many betweene his death and his buriall To this I do add the manifest and perspicuous testimony of Huldericus Mutius in the 16. booke of his Germane Chronicle who speaking of the admitting to fauour of the foresaid Bishop of Leige and his people sayth Leodienses noluit recipere nisi eâ—â—ossum Genitoris sui cadauer abijcerent in locum quempiam vbi solent mortua pecora locaâ—i Henry the yonger would not receaue into grace those of Leige except they would cast out the dead body of his Father into some place where dead beasts are wont to be cast and this not so much for religion sayth the same Author as for deepe â—atred that he had conceaued against his said Father By all which is seene that not the Pope but the yong Emperour and the Bishops Archbishops that were with him hauing stood against the old Emperour and his followers and excommunicated the same were the cause why the body was taken vp agayne But now let vs see how M. Barlow doth seeke to establish the contrary to wit that he was digged out of his graue by commandment of the Pope for in this he laboureth much and alleageth for shew therof some 5. or 6. authorities of different Authors calling them a cloud of witnesses For digging vp saith he the dead body out of his graue that is compassed with a whole cloud of witnesses But if in all this cloud we find nothing in manner but clouted fraudâ—s and that no one of them hath passed his hands without corruption then may you cal it a blacke cloud indeed First then let vs examine the two Authors already alleadged for our cause to wit Vrspergensis and Nauclerus cyted here in his margent for that he will haue theÌ„ to proue the quite coÌ„trary of that for which I produced theÌ„ before And as for Vrspergensis he citeth his words thus The Bishop of Leige with other of his sort were receiued into the communion of the Church who cast them out but the Pope vpon condition they would dig out of the graue the corps of the Emperour which he had before buried in the Monastery So he relateth the words of Vrâ—ergensis in a different letter as though they were punctually his which indeed they are not but accommodated by M. Barlow with some paring and mincing to his purpose For wheras Vrspergensis saith that the Bishop of Leige and his fellow Bishops inter caetera recipiuntur in commuâ—â—nem poenitentiae were receaued among other conditions to the communion of pennance M. Barlow thought good to leaue out the word pennance as also where he sayth cadauer iâ—siuâ— excommunicati the dead corps of the excommunicate Emperour which did yield the reason of their digging vp M. Barlow left out also the word excommunicate But of much more moment was his leauing out the word pridie when he saith the body of the excommunicate Emperour buried by him the day before in the Monastery should be digged vp for by that he striketh of the head of the strongest argument that is against him as beâ—ore we haue shewed For if the Emperour were buried
Where you may see that in this only translation of two latyn lines he hath inserted twice two falsities of his owne against the Authors owne sense meaning The first is that the Emperour had procured the stay of the Bishops reconciliation at the Popes hands which could not be for the breuity of time and distance of places as before hath bene shewed nor doth it agree with the sense of Cuspinian and other Authors that haue the words mox fine mora pridie and the like The second is in his second interrogation what needed any procurement by himselfe to himself which is a fallacy for that a man being desirous to stay a sute yet not willing to take all the enuy vpon himselfe may procure that the stay may seeme to come from others The third fallacy is in his other demaund to whom could not the Bishop of Liege be reconciled but to the Pope Yes to the Archbishops Bishops and others out of whose communion he was cast forth before as now hath bene shewed The fourth vntruth is that the Pope had excoÌ„municated both the Church and all Church-men of Liege for burying of the Emperour which cannot be true as now hath bene declared for that in so short a space as 2. or 3. dayes newes could not be sent to Rome and answere be returned and much lesse such an Excommunication be sent And albeit M. Barlow for this last do cyte ViterbieÌ„sis saying that he liued in those very times yet he being an ItaliaÌ„ liuing neere â—n hundred yeares after the fact might be misinformed And howsoeuer it be the credit of his owne relation is not to be matched with that of so many other Authors and namely of Vâ—spergensis that liued at the very same time and with the said two Henryes the Father and the Sonne There remaine three other Authors cyted by M. Barlow who are Helmoldus in his History of Sclauonia Sigoniâ—â— in his ninth booke De regno Italia Binnius in his last edition of the Councels all which he cyteth to proue this poynt that Pope Paschalis did forbid the buriall of the dead body of Henry the fourth But in all this is voluntary fraud M. Barlow could not but know it going about to deceaue his Reader by Equiuocation in the time For albeit Pope Paschalis did not nor had time to forbid the first buriall after the Emperour was dâ—ad nor yet commaunded the taking vp therof againe as now by many witnesses and other arguments hath bene proued yet the said body being once taken vp and carried to Spire and there placed in the Chappell of S. Asra in sarcophago lapideo saith Cuspinian in a tombe of stone where it remayned fiue yeares before it was buryed solemnely in the Church of our Lady In this time I say the Pope informed perhaps of more of his enormityes of life not to seeme to condemne the fact of so many Archbishops and Bishops who had excommunicated him as among others Dodechinus Abbas that liued presently after the fact doth testify and to the terrour of others that should liue and dye out of the Church in excommunication for these and other reasons I say Pope Paschalis seing the body placed already in a sacred Chappel was not easily moued for some time to haue the same solemnly and publikely buryed though at length his Sonne in respect of his honour desired and demaunded the same But what is this to proue our chiefe question whether the said Pope did forbid the first buriall or commanded him to be digged vp againe when he was buryed Where is the Cloud of VVitnesses that should proue this No one of these three last alleaged doth auerre it no not as M. Barlow corruptly alleadgeth their words For out of Helmodus he cyteth them thus Tanta seueritate Dominus Papa in ipsum vlâ—us est vt humari non sineret the Pope did pursue him with such seuerity as being dead he suffered him not to be buryed which could not be at the first buriall and consequently must be vnderstood of the subsâ—quent time when he lay in the Chappell of S. Afra I pretermit the sleight of M. Barlow heere laying all vpon the Pope alone wheras the Author saith Papa 〈◊〉 adâ—ersary ciuâ— the Pope and other of his aduersaryes did pursue him speaketh still in the plurall nuÌ„ber Sigenius also speaketh to the very same effect that the Emperours body lay vnburyed for fiue yeares in a certaine deâ—art Cell of a Church Pontifice id sepeliri vetante the Pope prohibiting the same to be buryed which must needs be vnderstood in like maÌ„ner of the time ensuing after the first taking vp of the body And finally Binnius maketh no more to his purpose then the other but sayth the same thing though he haue taken more paines in corrupting him then the rest For thus â—e relateth him to say the Emperours body being put into the earth hortatu Papa by the Popes perswasion it â—aâ— digged out againe and remayned aloâ—e ground fiue yeares And heere you will find a notable patching to make vp a sense without a Verbe and therby seeme to say somewhat but flying the true words and contexture indeed as they lye in the Author which are these Câ—m hortatu Papae defuncti excommunicati cadauâ—r exhumatum quinque annis insepultum reliquisset anno Domini 1110. Romani petyâ— c. Wheras Henry the fifth by perswasion of the Pope had left the dead body of the ExcoÌ„municate Emperor taken out of the graue vnburied for fiue yeares he went vpoÌ„ the yeare 1110. to Rome c. By which words we see that the Popes perswasioÌ„ was not to haue the dead corps digged vp againe but forsomuch as his Father died in excoÌ„munication that his body was now taken vp he should leaue the same vnburyed according to the Canons for terrour of others and not that he perswaded it to be taken vp as it was in Leige or this was not possible as before hath bene shewed And why now had not M. Barlow recited the whole sentence as it lay in Binniuâ— Why should he vse such nipping paring in his allegations but that Iuglers must not be seene in all their knacks If his cause were good he would not need these shifts And by this also we may discouer the foundation of a great many of other impertinent discourses and assertions which M. Baâ—low maketh in this place both out of Viterbiensis and Baronius to proue that the Sonne Emperour was â—ory to haue his Father lye vnburyed and therfore he alleadgeth out of Viterbiensis Filius ossa Patris doluit fore câ—â— sceleratis It grieued the Sonne that his Father should lye amongst wicked men Baronius is also alleaged to affirme out of Petrus Diaconus not Paulus as M. Barlow erroneously or ignorantly doth name him for that Petrus Paulus Diaconus were different Authors and liued long one after another Baronius I say is affirmed
who liued soone aâ—ter but also of Blondus do make euident who sayth Suanisâ—â—mus erat in Gallys famae odor grauitatis sanctiâ—atis ac rerum gesâ—arum eius Pontificis chaâ—is there was a most sweet odour in France of the grauity sanctity and actes of this Pope Innocâ—nâ—ius And this seemeth to be confirmed by the singular reuerence and dutiful respect which S. Lewis of France did yield him at the Councell of Lions as writeth Paulus Aâ—milius in his history And Ioannetus in the liâ—e of this Pope sayth that the Emperour was nothing glad for his election Norat enim virtutem viri atque animi magnitudinem for he knew well his vertue and great courage The same also is auouched by Ciaconius who with Onuphrius Panuinus a famous historiographer of our daies giues him this â—â—ncomiumâ— Multis egregys factis clarissimus ob vendicatam assertamque libertatem Ecclesiasticam omnibus saculis laudatissimus most famous for his worthy deedes and for recouering the Ecclesiasticall liberty of the Church to all posterity most renowned And therefore his life being so commendable no meruaile though his death were be wailed of all good men â—s testifieth Hicronymus Rubeus in his history of Rauenna saying Innocentius vitam cum morte commutauit quidem ingenti â—onorum omnium dolore Vir enim suerat magnitudine animi virâ—tute praestaÌ„tissimus Iâ—mocentius departed this life and truly with the great griefe of all good men for he was a man both for courage and vertue most excellent But this is more fully expressed by Vbertus Folieta in these words Hic annus non modò Genuensibus sed omni Christiano orbe atque omnibus bonis luctuosus suit morte Innocentij 4. in Vrbe Neapolâ— c. This yeare was dolefull not only to the people of Genua but also to all the Christian world and all good men by the death of Innocentius the 4. in the Citty of Naples who in the eleauenth yeare of his Popedome ended the course of his most renowned gouerment with this noble act of adding the Kingdome of Naples to the State of the Church This man was made memorable famous to all posterity as well for his exquisite learning wherof he left notable monuments as also for his excellent piety his noble deserts towardes the Weale publicke of Christendome and continuall and infatigable labours whose knowne vertue was so admired and beleiued of all men that bewayling his losse they did commonly say talem Virum aut numquam nasci aut numquam mori oportuisse that so worthy a man either should neuer haue bene borne or neuer haue died So he And that this their mourning was not for the present only at his descease Ciaconius testifieth saying Clerus populus eum dudum luxerunt c. The Cleargie and the people mourned for him a long tyme as appeareth in the History of Genua written by Augustinus Iustinianus Bishop of Nebia as also in Ricardonus a Florentine writer So he VVho also yealdeth the cause herof in thâ—se words Relicta apud omnes fama non modò excellenâ—is scientiae exquisitae virtutis sed ettam integritatis vitae admirabilisque prudentiae For that he left behind him the fame not only of excellent learning and exquisite vertue but also of integrity of life and admirable wisdome Which rare encomium of good life long lamentation after his death may be much doubted whether it wil euer be left registred by any Historiographer of M. Barlow vnles he make some great chang of himself from that which at the present he is sayd to be And this may suffice for Innocentius wherby good Reader thou maiest see and iudge with what truth spirit M. Barlow wrote of this Pope that he was forced to defend himselfe for that his actes were discried and could be no longer â—id Now then let vs see what opinion writers haue of Fredericke whom M. Barlow so much coÌ„mendeth defendeth against all Popes and writers Although it be an odious and loath some thing to rake vp the ashes of dead men and to rip vp their vices which shouldly buried with them in silence for which cause I shal be the shorter in their rehearsal yet inforced hereuÌ„to euen against my inclination by M. Barlows importunity or rather impudency who to commend this Emperour blusheth not to condemne so worthy a man as you haue now heard Innocentius to haue bene But I shall deale more vprightly therin then he hath done with the Pope for that I will charge the Emperour no further then with that which I find him in all Historiographers or publicke recordes to be charged withall one only schismaticall Vrspergensis being excepted who in this as I haue shewed deâ—erueth no credit And to beginne with them who seeme to fauour and defend him most I meene Matthew Paris and Cuspinian the former hauing set downe an Epistle of Fredericks to King Henry the third of England written after his excommunication and deposition in the generall Councell of Lions giueth his censure therof in these wordes Haec cùm ad Christianissimos Francorum Anglorum Reges nuntiata peruenissent c. When these things came to the knowledge of the most Christian Kings of France and England it appeared more cleare then the sunne to them and their Nobility that Frederiâ—ke with all his endeauours went about to anihilate the liberty and dignity of the Church which he himselfe neuer aduanced but was established without his liking by his noble predecessors and therfore making himselfe suspected of heresy did impudently and imprudently extinguish worthily blot out that little sparke of good name which hitherto he had amongst the people for wisdome and prudence c. And with Matthew Paris agreeth Matthew of VVestminster saying that by this letter Se volens excusare impudenter accusauit going â— out to excuse the matter he did impudently accuse himselfe And as for Cuspinianâ— although by all meanes he seeketh to excuse and iustiâ—y this Emperour yet were his vices so notorious as he could not conceale them altogeather but hauing set downe those things which he thought commendable in him as there are none so bad commonly but that some good thing or other may be noted in them he concludeth his prayses thus Has praeclaras virtutes contaminaâ—unt obscurarunt etiam quadam vitia saeâ—itia scilicet hominis libido immensa qui praeter gentis morem concubinas multas scorta aluit These noble vertues certaine vices did staine and obscure â— to wit the cruelty of the man and his vnsatiable lust who against the custome of his Countrey did maintaine many Concubines and queanes And this as already hath beene noted he speaketh of himsese without any reference to Petrus de Vineis as M. Barlow would haue vs belieue neither want there store of Authors who tax him for the same And for the first Palmerius saith he was non essrenis