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
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
Which wordes of marke that are not adioyned to any of the other recordes whereby it is euident that that was the butt wherat he shot and may probably bee ghessed that as Ladron de casa one wholy depending of him and knowing his secret intentions was vsed before to beate this poynt secretly into the Queenes head while the other was aliue which after his death he preâ—ched so publikly And no man doubteth but that if his Maiestie that now is whome he so highly flattereth had then come in his way and that it had as well layen in the Queenes power as it did in her desire to equall his fortune with his Mothers for her owne greater safety this fellow would as eagerly haue runne vpon the same Theme as he did then against the Earle to wit that the King of Scotlandes life had bene a danger to the Queenes life of England and would haue sayd also marke that Nay he would confirme it with the saying of Tacitus which here he doth alledge for iustifying his Mothers death suspectus sempâ—r inâ—isusque dominantibus quisâ—â—e proximuâ— aestimatur He that is next in succession to a principality is alwayes suspected and hated by him that is in possession Vpon which ground M. Barlowes eloquence would quickly haue drawne forth some probable argument of likely danger to the Queenes life if the other were permitted to liue and consequently consulenâ—â—â— securitati it is good to make sure I will not stand to discourse what he would haue done in such a case if it had fallen out for his purpose for that may be presumed by that which he did which was to scan the sayd Earles actions wordes driftes and intentions with as much malignity as euer lightly I haue noted in any to make him odious to the Prince State and especially to the Cittie of London which â—e knew to be well affected vnto him therfore his thirteenth and last record was to the sayd Cittizens there present deliuered in these words Hiâ— hard opinion and censure of your basenes and vnfaythâ—ullnes to thâ— Queâ—ne which manner of Sycophancy himselfe conâ—esseth in a Preface afterward to the Reader did so much displease the Mayneâ— to vse his word as if he had with Ananias lyed to the holy Ghost or preached his owne damnation Others gaue out that he was strooke suddaynly with a dredfull sicknes others sayth he with more virulence though with lesse violence for penal charge frame matter of hard iudgement out of the discourse it selfe first in generall that I haue broken the Canon both of religion and law in reuealing a Penitents confession which was with remorse and priuate c. Secondly in particuler because in one part of my Preface I sayd that I was not a penny the richer nor a step the higher for the Earle albeyt I celebrated his glory at the Crosse for Cales victory and therefore hence they coÌ„clude that I now speake of splene and preach for rewardes Thus farre M Barlow testyfieth of the peoples iudgmeÌ„t coÌ„cerning him his iudgemeÌ„t of the Earle of Essex wherin he being so much interessed as now you see no meruaile though he passed this point with silence Let vs see what he sayth to the other coÌ„cerning his Maiesties Mother and her making away First he beginneth with a common place as before I mentioned saying If iealous suspition and feare extend it selfe to any it commonly alights vpon the heyre apparent or the successour expected And for proofe of this he citeth the wordes of Tacitus before by me alleadged And how litle this maketh to his purpose for excuse of the matter euery meane-witted-reader will coÌ„sider He goeth further therefore saying That as beâ—ore this censurer brought in the Mother of his Maiesties Father for a parallell to the Powder-treason so he reckoneth now for one of Queene Elizabeths miseries the death of the Queene his Maiesties Mother Wherto I answere first that the parallel was iust as to me it seemed for that as this treasoÌ„ was designed by powder so that of his Maiesties Father was both designed and executed And as this was done by Catholickes so that by Protestants only this happy difference there was that wheras the other had effect this had not And secondly I say I did not reckon the death of the Queene his Maiesties Mother for a misery of Queene Elizabeth if wâ—e respect the effect it selfe for that I doubt not but that the sayd Queene Elizabeth did hould it for a felicity to be able to achieue it but I hould it for an infelicity in respect of the cause that forced her vnto it which was miserable feare iealousy and suspition But what inference doth he make of this thinke you Let vs heare him vtter it in his owne words VVherby sayth he the Reader may iudge how he would vse hiâ— Maiesties owne fame if he were gathered to his Fathers when he is glad to alleadge soe vnsauoury examples of both his parents What sequele or consequence is this For that I doe with compassion and detestation of the facts make mention of both theyr murthers procured and executed by people of M. Barlows Religion therefore I would vse euill his Maiesties â—ame if he were gathered to his Fathers What coherence is there in this or whereof doth this consequence sauour but of folly only and malice But yet he passeth on to a further poynt of defence for this hath none at al as you see That renowned Queens death sayth he was a misery indeed to this whole Land and the most inâ—â—leble blot that can be recorded of this Countrey Doe you see that now he calleth her renowned against whom in their ordinarie books and Sermons they did vse in those dayes the most vilest and basest speaches that could â—e applyed to a woman doe you heare him say now that in deed her deaâ—h was a misery to the wholâ— land doe you heare him tell vs that the blot thereoâ— is indeleâ—le VVould he haue spoken so in his Saint Queenes life time This fellow is no time-seruer you may be sure VVell this is hiâ— confession Let vs heare his excusation ad excusandas excusationes in peccato But sayth he that our late Soueraygne was abused therein and that wicked act committed before her knowledge therof besides her notable expressing of her owne grieâ—es when she heard oâ— it other sufficient proofes haue fully resolued all honâ—st men hereof So he And I trow hee meaneth honest men of his owne honesty that will admit for sufficient any prooâ—es for the making away of any without scruple that stand in theyr light But was Queene Elizabeth abused therein VVas the act of cutting oâ— the head of Queene Mary of Scotland a wicked act VVould M. Barlow haue called it so in Queene Elizabeths dayes That it was commited before her knowledge Durst any man in her dayes â—ut to death a kitchin boy of her house much lesse of her bloud without her knowledge approbation and
he sayth that therin I do abuse the Reader for that they shewed their obedience sayth he to be due and performed the same in matters of spirituall seruice wherat I thinke no man can but laugh that M. Barlow is become so spirituall as that he can make those Infidell Kings to be spirituall Superiours also or at leastwise to haue spirituall power euen in spirituall thinges ouer Gods faithfull people Let vs see his proofes of so strange an assertion To offer sacrifice saith he vnto the Lord in the desert is an â—igh case of conscience and religion yet would not the Iewes in Egypt attempt it without asking and obtayning the Kings leaue And why was that Was it for that they held him for their supreme Gouernour in all causes Ecclesiastiacll and temporall Then they ought to haue obeyed him when he would haue had them offered sacrifice in Egypt which they refused to doe for that their spirituall gouernour Moyses though a naturall borne subiect of King Pharao â—ould them that Gods will was contrary and as for their asking and obtayning leaue before they went to sacrifice in the Desert who doth not see but that it was in respect of temporall danger which might ensue vnto them if so great a number of their vnarmed people should haue aduentured to depart without his licence But I would demaund of M. Barlow who sayth that the people of Israel shewed their obedience to be due vnto Pharao and performed it in matter of spirituall seruice what manner of obedience was that which came alwaies in the Imperatiue mood Thus saith our Lord Dimitte populum meum Let go my people And when he yeelded not therunto he was plagued and punished with so many afflictions as are set downe in Exodus for 9. or 10. Chapters togeather in the end what leaue obtayned they but against his will when he durst no longer deny them Which appeareth for that his feare being somewhat mitigated he pursued them afterward againe And will M. Barlow make this an example of spirituall obedience to temporall Princes that was thus extorted Or of spirituall iurisdiction in heathen Princes ouer faithfull people in causes Ecclesiasticall that was contradicted both in word and fact by Moyses himselfe But let vs heare his second instance for it is more ridiculous So saith he the commaundement of King Cyrus was in a cause meerly Ecclesiasticall viz. the building of the Lords house in IerusaleÌ„ and transporting thither the consecrated vessels But who doth not see that these things as they were ordayned by King Cyrus were meere temporall as is the building of a materiall Church for that otherwise the Masons Carpenters Architects that build the same should be Ecclesiastical officers albeit they were Gentiles If King Cyrus had had authority to appoint them out their sacrifices to dispose lawfully of their sacred actions therein as he had not nor could haue being a Pagan and not of their faith religion then might they haue sayd that he had beene a spirituall Superiour vnto them but for giuing them leaue only to go to Ierusalem to build their Temple and to carry their consecrated vessels with them that had been violeÌ„tly taken away from thence argueth no more spirituall iurisdiction in him then if a man hauing taken away a Church-dore key so as the people could not go in to pray except he opened the dore should be said to haue spirituall iurisdictioÌ„ ouer that people for opening the dore letting them in that they in praying him to open the said dore did acknowledg spiritual obedience vnto him And is not this meere childish trifllng worthy the wit of M. Barlow What definition trow you will M. Barlow giue of spirituall power and Iurisdiction therby to verifie these monstrous and absurd propositions which in this affaire he hath vttered partly by his assertions and partly by his examples Truly I know no other set downe by Deuines but that it is a power giuen by God to gouerne soules for their direction vnto euerlasting saluation euen as ciuill power is giuen for gouerning the coÌ„mon wealth to her prosperity and temporall â—elicity And will M. Barlow say that God gaue this spirituall power to Pharao and Cyrus that were Heathens and knew not God for gouerning directing the soules of the Iewes that liued vnder them whose religion or God they neyther knew nor cared for Or that Nero the Emperour or Claudius had this spirituall power and Iurisdiction vpon the soules of S. Peter and S. Paul that liued vnder them in Rome and were their temporall Lordes and Princes These thinges are so absurd that I am ashamed to exaggerate them any further and therfore let vs passe forward to the rest As for the other examples by me alleaged how Sydracâ—â— Mysach and Abdenago refused to obey Nabuchodâ—â—â—sor their King in adoring the Statua as also refuâ—ing the meates of the King of Babylon Toby of the Assyrians and the Macâ—abees for refusing to eat Swines-flesh at the commandment of their King Antiochus he sayth that all these had their warrants for defence of their consciences from the word or will of God as who should say Catholickes haue nothing for iustification of their Conscience which is a meere cauill and as Logitians call Petitio principij and wholy from the question for that we affirme first that they haue sufficient groundes for iustification of their consciences in that behalfe as they will easily verify in euery point if they might be hard with any indifferency And secondly if they had not but their consciences were erroneous yet so long as that dictamen rationis or prescript of conscience standeth to the contrary and telleth them that they haue sufficient ground they may not doe against it without sin as now hath bene proued Let vs see what he saith of the other example of Tobies breach of King Senacherib his commaundement in Niniue which wee shall examine in the next ensuing Paragraph VVHETHER TOBY DID well or no in breaking the commaundement of the King of Niniâ—e concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authorities of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy §. II. AMong other examples and testimonies alleaged by me out oâ— Scripture of lawfull disobeying temporall Princes commaundements when they are vnlawfull the exaÌ„ple of Tobias that disobeyed the edict of King Senacheriâ—â— of Niniue about burying such as were slayne seemed to haue troubled most M. Barlow in this answere and so after some discussion of the matter vp and downe whether he did it openly or in secret by day or by night by stealth or contempt he maketh this conclusion Take it eyther way sayth he was his disobedience in such a cause iustifiable No. Grauely resolued as you see and Doctour-like but yet without any testimony except only his owne For first the context of the story it selfe hauing recounted the circumstances of the fact in the
his Maiesty then he doth in these 77. But let vs see M. Barlowes Commentary by which alone will sufficiently appeare with what malignant spirit his mind is possessed For if hell it self wâ—re let loose it is hard to say whether all the Diuells togeather would make a moâ—e false more wâ—â—kedâ— or more iniurious Answere then he hath done For thus he writeth Hâ—re Iudas is turnâ—d into Caiphas spâ—akes a truth as Prâ—sident of the Counsâ—ll for the POWDER-PLOT the reuealing thereof by a letter vnexpected he cunningly calls a sinister information which indeed preuâ—nted his Maiesty from feeling the euent of that dreadfâ—ll â—esigne and them also of their grâ—ater hopes which here he câ—lls their DVE as if ALL but THEY were vsurpers for had not the preuâ—ntion hapned the greatest places of the land which THEY in hope had swallowed had â—ene now at their disposall and this preuention he calls sinister as vnlucky vnto them c So this lying Minister For that he doth here most loudly and lewdly lye needeth no other proofe then the comparing of F. Persons words with this answere of his which can no more stand togeather then fire and water truth with falshood or for that he playeth the beast so brutishly in this place to vse his owne example no more thâ—n Moyâ—es his oxe and asse in onâ— yoake 78. For were not his wit very little and honesty lesse he would neuer shew such fraudulent malignity in facing so heynous a matter without all ground proofe or semblable coniecture especially seeing in F. Persons the fauour mentioned to be meant only of that which his Maiesty shewed at his entrance For these are his words almost in the next ensuing lines If there had bâ—nâ— no pâ—rseâ—utioÌ„ before that treason this might haue bâ—nâ— assignâ—d for some probable cause of the subsâ—quent tribulationâ— but all England knoweth that this is not so but that his Maiâ—sties sweet and mild aspâ—ct towards Catholicks at his first entranâ—e was soone by art of their enâ—myes auâ—rted long bâ—fore the conspiracy fell out c. Which words fully declare what he meant by sinister informatiâ—n and perswasion of othâ—rs and M. Barlow willing to dazle the Readers eyes and imprint in his mind a suspition of F. Pâ—rsâ—ns his acknowledge of the powder-plot first by a histâ—ron proteron inuerteth his words cobling in some of his owne and then frameth a glosse which notwithstanding all his dealing agreeth not with the text so good a writer he is as he knoweth not of one thing how to inferre another for these words as hoping to haue receiued much grâ—ater cited by M Barlow in a different letter are not F. Pâ—rsâ—ns words neither doth F. Persons shut vp as due vnto them within a pareÌ„thesis as immediatly following the former sentence and the wordes if his Maiesty had not bene preuented by sinister information in F. Persons goe before the other as due vnto them and are there so plainly explicated as none but some malicious Minister could be ignorant of his meaning 79. Yet after all this cutting off transposition inuersion changing in so short a sentence to take it as it pleaseth M. Barlow to giue it how will the conclusion drawne therof agree with the premisses Catholicks had receaued at his Maiesties hands greater fauours as due vnto them if he had not bene preuented by sinister information How I say will it follow that by sinister informatioÌ„ F. Persons meant the reuealing of the powder-plot by a letter which saith he preuented his Maiesty from fâ—eling the euent of that dreadfull designe And againe and this preuention he calls sinister as vnlucky to them adding moreouer that the hopes which F. Persons meant to be due to the Catholiks were those which should haue ensued vnto them by that treason which saith M. Barlow here he calls their DVE as if ALL but THEY were vsurpers Are not these good inferences Is not this Christian and charitable proceeding What learning truth or modesty will allow this barbarous collection and thâ—â— in one who taketh vpon him to write in defence of a Prince and would be reputed in the Church for a Bishop But wo be to those sheep that are fed and led by so perfidious a Pastour 80. The like perfidiousnes he sheweth in cyting F. Persons words where he maketh him in a different letter to say speaking of the warrs which some Popes haue had with the Emperours that eyther they were not vnlawfully done or els the causes were iust or saith M. Barlow which is a pretty passage numb 28. the Popes haue perswaded themselues they were iust and therfore as a Generall in the field pursued them as open enemies or as a Iudge vpon the Bench commaunded execution to be done vpon them as MALEFACTORS And hauing set downe these wordes as if F. Persons had spoken them be beginneth to reply against them with this insulting entrance But first who girt the sword to the Popes side But I may better retort this interrogation vpon M. Barlow and aske him But first who taught him to ly so loud For in all the 28. nuÌ„ber which he calles a pretty passage where will he find these wordes And therefore as a Generall in the field pursued them as open enemies or as a Iudge vpon the bench coÌ„maunded execution to be done vpon them as MALEFACTORS And if these Wordes be neither there nor in any other place of F. Persons is not this a pretty passage or rather a paltry cosenage and lying liberty in this Minister to make his aduersary to speake what himselfe listeth and especially in such an odious manner and matter as here he doth printing the words MALEFACTORS in great capitall letters as though F. PersoÌ„s had said that Popes may coÌ„maund execution to be done vpon Princes as vpoÌ„ MALEFACTORS which is nothing els but the capital lying of M. Barlow 81. Perhaps the Reader heere will aske vpon what ground this charge is made for it is to be supposed that he had some foundation for the same in the discourse of F. Persons albeit he followed not precisely the wordes but their sense meaning from which it is to be thought that he hath no way swarued but hereunto I answere that neither the wordes or sense is to be found of this matter in the passage cyted and all that can be drawne to this purpose in the 28. number are these very wordes of the beginning And so if sâ—â—â— Popes haue had iust warrs with some Princes Kings 〈◊〉 Emperours or haue persuaded themselues that they weâ—â— iust in respect of some supposed disorders of the said Princeâ— as here is mentioned the war and other hostile proceedingâ— of Pope Gregory the seauenth against the Emperour Heâ—â—â— the fourth this is not contrary to the saying of Cardiâ—â—â— Bellarmine that no Pope euer commaunded any Prince 〈◊〉 be murthered or allowed thereof after it was done by 〈◊〉 other These are F. Persons words for
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
being in the iudiciall part then is there required power in the will or appetite to choose or refuse freely without ballancing on eyther part eyther by feare hurt preferment hatred interest or other potent and forcible impositions By which doctrine if you ponder well you shall find that Catholikes had not free choice to sweare the Oâ—th when losse of goods and lands do ballance on one side nor you perhaps M. Barlow may be said to haue free power or liberty to refuse it for so much as the current of the time the Princes fauour the weight of so fat a benefice as the Bishoprick of Lincolne is and other crummes that you haue gathered togeather and hope to increase do so powerâ—ully preponderate on the one side that you haue your iudgment so fast fixed to that obiect as the sheepe by nature hath hers And if you haue not this tye or indetermination in your iudgement yet in your will and affection which is sufficient to make you no free-man from which thraldome Almighty God deliuer you who onely can do it and breake your bandes For as our Sauiour saith If the sonne of God deliuer you then shall you be truly free indeed And so much of this matter concerning our freedome to sweare or not to sweare wherin I haue detayned my self some what longer then I had purposed for that it is the most principall question of this our controâ—â—â—sy whether there be free election giuen in taking the Oath or nâ— ABOVT RECOVRSE MADE to the Bishop of Rome for decision whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English Catholiks or no wherin also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations §. VI. AND now hauing followed M. Barlow thus farre in this controuersy we must turne back againe some pages to take the whole argument with vs which he had ouerrunne to handle the question of freedome before meÌ„tioned And first he telleth vs that when the Oath came forth and was vrged the Garnettistes did differ from the Blackâ—eâ—iâ—tes some aâ—â—owing Equiuocation saith he in matters of â—aith and others noâ— which is a notorious vntruth For the question was not whether the Oath might be taken with Equiuocation but whether it might lawfully be takeÌ„ as it lay with a good exposition wherin some difference being found of opinionâ— it seemed a iust cause to referre the decision to the vniuersall Pastour about which point M. Barlow dealeth not vprightly as commonly neuer he doth in alleaging my words but with notorious corruptions I shal be forced to repeat againe briefly what I then said My wordes were these What should Catholikes do they first consulted the case with learned a men at home then also abroad And albeit at home some were moued in respect of the compassion they had of the present perill if it were refused 〈◊〉 thinke that in some sense the Oath might be taken yet none abroad were of that mind For that they allowed 〈◊〉 of any sort of Equiuocation in matters touching faith and religion And in these I hearesay that the Iesuites were among the chiefe and most forward as heere also is confessed who notwithstanding before were most accused bayted and exagitated both in bookes pulpits and tribunalls for allowing in some points the lawfull vse of Equiuocation About which doubt Catholikes according to their rule of subordination and spirituall obedience in such affaires referring the matter to the iudgement and consultation of their supreme Pastour whome by the principles of their religion they belieue that our Sauiour giueth assistance for the direction of mens soules they receyued from him after due deliberation this answere That the whole Oath as it lay could not be admitted with the integrity of Catholike faith For that albeit diuers parts therof were lawfull to wit all such clauses as appertayned to the promise of ciuil and temporall obedience yet other things being interlaced and mixt therwith which doe detract from the spirituall authority of their said highest Pastour at least wise indirectly the whole Oath as it lyeth was made thereby vnlawfull And this I vnderstand to be the substance of the Popes resolution and answer though all these particularities be not set downe in his Breues but only the Oath declared to be vnlawfull in conscience to Catholike men as it lieth without distinction And what malicious tricke of the Diuel then this may be thought where sheepe do make recourse to their spirituall Pastour in so great and important occasions of their soules as these are I see not Doe English Catholicks any other thing in this then that which all English subiects both great small learned vnlearned haue done and practised from our first Christian Kinges â—ntill the tiâ—e of King Henry the eight vpon the point of a 〈◊〉 and yeares Let tâ—e answere to Syr Edward Cooks Book oâ— Reportes lately set forth be examined wether it doth not shâ—w that in all those ages recourse was euer made to the Sea Apostolicke in like occasions without preiudice of subâ—ects temporall duties to their temporall Princes No one English Christian King though they were many did euer aâ—solutely deny recourse to Rome in spirituall thinges notwithstanding in some other ciuill or mixt matters vpon different occasions some restraints were sometimes made froÌ„ our first King Ethelbert to King Henry the Eight as by the said discourse and answere is euidently proued and much more throughout the whole â—anke of the Christian Kings of Scotland his Maiesties Progenitours vntill his most Renowned Progenitrix by whome and from whom he hath his Royall Right of both Crownes who is knowne and reputed throughout Christendome to haue died for defence of this Catholike Doctrine For so much as if she would haue abandoned that there had bene little doubt of making her away And the like may be said of all other great Christian Catholicke Princes of our daies as the Emperour himselfe the Potent Kinges and Monarches of Spaine France Polonia and other States Common-wealthes and Poâ—entates doe not thinke it any disgrace diminution of honour perill or iniury vnto them that their subiects for matters of conscience doe make recourse to the Sea Apostolicke or that which is consequent thereof the said Sea or generall Pastour doe interpose his iudgement declaration or decision in such affaires This is the Catholike doctrine practice this hath bene in vse throughout Christendome from all antiquity and no where more then in our Realmes of England Scotland as hath bene said In this beliefe and practice liued and died all our forefathers and our Noble Kinges that were our Soueraignes all our Bishops and Prelates that were our Pastours all our great Counsellours and Lawiers that by their wisdome learning gouerned the Land all our Nobility Gentry Priests Laity So as if now this be houlden for a malicious tricke oâ— the Diuel dishâ—â—â—â—â—ble and preiudiciall to his Maiesty his Soueraignty Crowne Dignity
out of Plato Aristophanes and other Greeke Authors may be proued And albeit I will not stand to defend that in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Barlow doth wrong Plutarke and Gracchus in translating headdy vndertaker rather then magnanimous yet doth he offer them open iniury in translating the other epithete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a rash speaker whereas indeed it signifyeth to Graccâ—us his praise a prompt and ready man in speaking eloquent copious and the like But as for the other exprobrations of a most violent spirit impatient of contradiction and the rest he abuseth â—gregiously both Gracchus Plutarke for not only are those reproaches not found there as applyable to Gracchus but the very contrary is sayd of him and therin is he preferred before his brother Caius in these words of Plutarke Vulâ—u obtutu motu blaâ—dâ— erat compositus Tyberius acer Caius vehemeÌ„s Deinde or atiâ— sulnâ—nans Caij dulcior Tyberij pari modo in victu mensa frugalis sâ—â—rplex Tyberius c. lenis etiam placidus confragosus alter seruidus Tyberius both in countenance and motion was aâ—â—â—ble and composed Caius sharpe and vehement and consequently to this the Orations of Caius were thundering but those of Tyberius more sweete and in like manner Tyberiâ—â— was more frugall and simple in his dyet and table then his brother Caius he was also very gentle and pleasing in his behauiour and speach but the other was rough and feruent c. Now then let the prudent reader see and consider how all this doth agree to the description of Tyberiâ—â— set downe by M. Barlow and how true a man he is in all his assertions And how false soeuer he was in the allegation certaine it is that he dealt most wickedly in the application of all to the person of his Holines that now liueth And this much shall suffice about this matter It followeth pag 27. 28. after he had discharged such a storme against the Popes owne person as now you haue heard for his medling in this Oath and giuing his decisioÌ„ therof he sayth that this was to be Iudg in his owne cause alleaging a Poet for his proofe about sur latro one pleading at the barre the other sitting at the bench But doth not the malicious man see that this his cauillation toucheth the interest of all Princes as though they might not be Iudges or giue sentence in cases wherein themselues haue a part if law stand with theÌ„ For to cause other men to do it in their name by their authority is as much as to do it themselues And what did the Pope more in this case theÌ„ this making a decision by counsaile of his learned men according to Christian law that this case of England touched points of Religion concerning the Sea Apostolick which authority no Pope can infringe or diminish without sinne if he would for that it was giueÌ„ not only to him but to his antâ—cessors and successors in like maÌ„ner to indure for the good of the whole Church to the worlds end But saith M. Barlow it had bene plaine dealing in the Pope if before he had sent his Breues of Interdiction he had acquainted his Maiâ—stie with encounters of doubt that bred the quarrell and the ouer-swaying reason that carried him to the negatiue Very wisely spoken and worth the wit of M. Barlow And would his Maiesty haue admitted the messenger or message who seeth not that there is nothing heere but trifling and caueling But I may adde also scoulding for he breaketh presently into a most desperate blast of rayling against F. Persoâ—s calling him trayterous Absolom that careth not to set his â—â—â—e friendes land yea to see his natiue soile on a light fire so he may purchase the Popes fauour All which is spoken with much passion little reason for that the probability is much more that Maister Barlow flattereth the Kinges Maiesty for hope of preferment whereof he is capable and hath gotten possession of a good part already then â—a Persons the Pope whose state and condition of life hath no need of such preferment nor can it be proued that euer Father Persons spake for a fee forward and backward as M. Barlow hath done in his best Patrones cause As for the authority of the sixt Councell of Carthage about appellations to Rome noted in the margent it is not worth the answering both for that the words nor sense alleadged by him are there found and the controuersie about Appeales to Rome from Africa is so handled by me at large in my last Reckoning with M. Morton and he found so faulty and defectuous in that accomptâ— as if M. Barlow will take vpon him to pay that debt and to answer that only Paragraph for him I shall say that he is his friend indeed Wherefore I expect the euent In the very next lines following M. Barlow doth so brokenly recite my wordes about Mâ—â—â—is aliena another mans haruest for so did the Apologer write that English Catholikes are to the Pope that he maketh neyther me nor himselfe to be vnderstood Read I pray you his relation of my wordes pag. 29. numb 5. and see whether you can vnderstand him about Mâ—ssâ—â—aliena My words were plaine inough for thus I wrote page 12. numb 20. by him cited For first about putting the Popes hooke in anoâ—â—er mans haruest supposing as we do that we â—â—â—aâ—e of Catâ—olike people onely and according to Catholike doctrine and in matters belonging to Catholike mâ—ns soules and consciences it cannot be called Messisaliâ—na another mans haruest that the Pope dealeth in England with such kind of people in such cases as well as in Spaine France Flaunders Italy Germany Polonia and other States and kingdomes for that they are no lesse appertayning to his â—â—ock care charge and haruest then the rest Neyther doth the materiall separation of our Iland separate vs from the vnion of one body nor of one obedience to one and the selfe same generall head and Pastour no more then it doth froÌ„ the vnion of one beliefe and of one number and forme of Sacraments of one manner of seruice and other like pointes belonging to the internall and externall vnity of Catholike Religion And is not this plaine inough How doth he reply You shall heare it in his owne wordes and he will so imbroyle himselfe therin as he will let fall neere halfe a dozen of absurdities ignorances and open falsities by the way Do you stand attent then â— thus he bringeth his answere to my former discourse of Messis aliena This is a 〈◊〉 argument no doubt quoth he the Pope hath to do in England saitâ— the Censurer because some Catholikes suppose he hath but before this supposall be brought into a positiue resolute conclusion it will aske a longer time then such a Pamphlet c. Where you see first that he quite mistaketh me eyther
Kinges and Emperours had bene so priuiledged by the power of their Empire aâ— they might not be censured by the high Pastours and Prelates himselfe would neuer haue cenâ—ured and excomunicated his Emperour Theodosius as he did The wordes then are found not in S. Ambrose his Booke de Apologia Dauid cap. 4 10. as here is cited for there are two Apolygies prior and posterior which M. Barlow by his citation seemeth not to haue vnderstood and the first containâ—th but 7. Chapters in all and in the 4 is only this sentence talking of the pennance of King Dauid Qui â—ullis tenebatur legibus humanis indulgentiam petebat cùm qui tenentur legibuâ— aeudent suum negare peccatâ—m King Dauid that was subiect to no humane lawes asked forgiuâ—nes when they that are bound by lawes presume to deny their sinnes But in his enarration vpon the 50. psalme of Dauid he hath the thing more plainely for thus he saith Rex vtique erat nullis ipse legibuâ— tenebatur quia liberi sunt Reges à vinculis delictorum neque enim illi ad poenam vocaÌ„tur legibus tuti Imperij potestate Dauid was a King and thereby was not vnder lawes for that Kinges are free from the bandes of their offences for that they are not called to punishment by lawes being safe by the power of their Empire So S. Ambrose Wereby is seene that he vnderstandeth that Princes commonly are not subiect to humane lawes for that they will not nor may be called to accompt for their offences as priuate meÌ„ are being free by their powâ—r or that no man is able to compell them And this priuiledge perhaps is tolerable in their priuate and personall sinnes but if the same should breake out in publicke and against the vniuersall good of Christians then may we learne by the foresaid act oâ— S. Ambrose in Excommunicating the Emperour Teodosius that God hath leâ—t some power by diuine law to râ—straine them for the coÌ„seruation of his Church and Kingdome And so we may see that al that which M. Barlow hath chirped here to the contrary is not worth a rush but to shew his penury and misery hauing bene forced of eight Authors heere alleadged by him to wit Salmeron Saâ—ders Victoria Bellarmine Barkley Sigebert Espencaeus S. Ambrose to misalledge and falsify seauen as you haue heard that is to say all of them sauing Barkley who in this matter is of lesse accompt then any of the rest if the booke be his which is extaÌ„t vnder his name For that he being no Deuine hath taken vpon him to defend a Paradoxe out of his owne head only different from all other writers of our dayes both Catholiks Heretiks graunting against the later all spiritual authority vnto the Pope ouer Princes Christian People throughout the world but denying against the former all temporall authority eyther directly or indirectly annexed vnto the spirituall wherin as he is singular from all so he is like to be impugned by all and is by M. Barlow in this place for the Protestants calling him our owne Writer And for the Catholikes Cardinall Bellarmine hath lately written a most learned booke against him by name confuting his priuat fancy by the publique authority weight and testimonies of all Catholike Deuines And so much for this OF CERTAINE NOTORIOVS Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his aduersary which no wayes can be excused from malice witting errour §. II. AS the former fraud discouered and conuinced against M. Barlow of abusing authors against their owne wordes and meaning is a foule fault and very shaÌ„full in him that pretendeth to haue conscience or care of his credit so is the crime of appareÌ„t and willfull Calumniation bearing no shew of truth or reason at all much more foolish wicked Foolish for that it doth wholy discredit the Calumniator with his Readers wicked for that it sheweth plaine malice and will to hurt although with his owne greater losse So then it falleth out in this place that M. Barlow finding himselfe much pressed and strained with the reasonable and moderate speach which I vsed in my Epistle throughout three numbers togeather concerning the Oath freely taken as was said by many Catholikes both Priests and Laicks expounding their taking of the Oath in a good sense he doth so malignantly peruert the same by open calumniatioÌ„s as euery child may discouer not only the falshood but the fury also of his passion against me nothing being in his answere but exorbitant rayling apparent lying For whereas I in reason deserued rather approbation and commendation from him for expounding plainly and sincerely that meaning which those Catholikes if they were Catholikes had or could haue in their taking of the Oath without all Equiuocation or mentall reseruation which I condemned in an Oath as altogeather vnlawfull concerning any point of religion that ought to be confessed he not being able to abide the light of this truth and plaine dealing falleth into a certaine frenzy of rayling against me for the ground of his accusation â—ayeth hiâ— owne fiction that I doe teach them perswade them 〈◊〉 Equiuocate in this very case For cleare confutatiâ—â— wherof it shal be sufficieÌ„t first to set down my own wordâ— as they ly in my epistle and then to consider and ponder the collections and inferences that he maketh vpon theâ— And if by this you doe not finde him to be one of the loosest conscience and lawâ—est tongue and least respectiuâ— of his owne credit honesty that euer yow saw I am much deceiued My words then were these that follow As for that multitude of Priestes and Lâ—ickes which he sayth haue freely takâ—n the Oath as their freedome was that which now I haue mentioned and a principall motiue as may be presumed the desire they had to giâ—e his Maiesty satisfaction and deliuer themselues and otheâ—â— so much as lay in them from that inference of disloyall meaning which vpon the denyall therof some do vse 〈◊〉 make so I cannot but in charity assure my selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as coâ—cerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in â—ome such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sincerity of true Catholike doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath not authority without iust cause to proceed againâ—â— them Quia illud possumâ—â— quod iure possumus saith the law ouâ— authority is limited by Iustice. Directly also the Pope may be denyed to haue such authority against Princes but indirectly only in ordine ad spiritualia when certayne great important and vrgent cases concerning Christian religion fall out which we hope will neuer be betweene ouâ— Soueraigne and the Sea Apostolicke for so much as they haue past already many yeares though in different Relions in peace and quietnes euen since
this â—axatio â—f iudging consciences and consequently this is no inseparâ—ble marke that agreeth to all In like manner also it agrâ—â—â—â— not soli that is only to the sinne of hypocrisie to iudgeâ— of other mens consciences for pride may do it anger may do it temerity may do it reuenge may do it this withoâ—â— hypocrisy or iustifying of himselfe For if to a knowne vsâ—rer for example you should obiect or exprobrate the finne of vsury he answere you againe that he suspected yoâ—â— conscieÌ„ce of like sinne here he iudgeth of your conscience perhaps falsly and yet not by hypocrisie for he iustifietâ— not himselfe ergo this is not propriuÌ„ quarto modo any inseâ—arable marke or propriety of hypocrisie to iudge of other mens conâ—ciences Lastly let vs consider if you please the definition of hypocrisy which should indeed haue bene the first iâ— consideration for trying out of the true nature of this marke propriety for so much as according to Aristotles doctrine and the thing in it selfe is euident by Philosophy prâ—priâ— passiones flâ—unt ab essentijs rerum proprieties doe flow from the essence of things and therefore they are best vnderstood knowne by reâ—erence to the sayd natures and essences conteyned as Aristotle sayth in their definitions The definition theÌ„ of hypocrisie is according to S. Isidorus in his Etimologies simulatio alienae personae when a man pretendeth to be another maâ— and better then he is and according to S. Augustine Qui se vult videâ—iquâ—d non est hypocrita est hâ— that will seeme to be that which he is not is an hypocrite which the greeke word also whereof it is deriued to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth confirme that it signifieth dissimulation this definition I say which must conuerâ—i cum deâ—iniâ—o clâ—areth vs that this iâ—separable marke or propriety deuised by M. Barlâ— to be in all hypocrisie is both ignorantly falsly â—eygned by himselfe as not knowing the true nature of propriâ— pasâ—â— for that there be many wayes of dissimulation of â—eygâ—ing our selues to be better then we are without iudging otheâ— mens consciences that is to say there be many sâ—eâ—iâ— and kinâ—s oâ— hypocrisie and hypocrites that haue not this marke propriety as before hath byn shewed consequently not inseparable that is no proper or inseparable propriety at all no more then it is to â—ay that it is an inseparable propriety to horses to be white for that some few are found white And so we see M. Barlow when he coÌ„meth to speake of any matter of substance and learning sheweth himselâ—e a very feeble man scarce to vnderstand the very termes and first principles of the same But let vs passe on now to another more grieuous calumniation against me He is not content to make the former outcry against me for hypocrisie and iudging mens consciences but addeth also another assault â—saying that I doe teach Equiuocation to be vsed in thiâ— Oath which is so far froÌ„ all truth as I do teach the playne contrary as now hath appeared by my owne words before alledged For I say there of them that tooke the Oath I cannot in charity but assure 〈◊〉 selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as concerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in sâ—me such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sinceâ—iâ—y of true Christian doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath â—ot â—uthority â—ithout iust cause nor directly but indirectly only in â—â—dine ad spiritualia So I wrote then and the cleare addition that these exceptions and clauses must be expressed by the swearers and accepted by the Magistrate doth clearly exclude Equiuocation which consisteth of mentall reseruation not expressed nor vnderstood or accepted of him to whom it is vsed and moreouer within very few lines after continuing my speach and desiring his Maiesty to accept of these clauses of moderation Catholike exposition I doe yield this reason that Catâ—olikes doâ— not hold it lâ—wfull in a matter so neâ—rely concerning the Conâ—ession of their sayth to equiuocate or sweare in any other sense then from his Maiesty is proposed Can any thing be spoken more plainly With what face then can M. Barlow accuse me of the quite contrary and so reuile against me for the same Wherof some shal be here set downe Let the Reader bâ—hold sayth he a malicious trick of a notable Equiuocaâ—â—uâ— that cannot be contented to be him selfe alone the Diuells schâ—ller that ancient Equiâ—ocatourâ— but must be 〈◊〉 his Deuility Reader or Schoole-man to teach others â—o distinguish themselues tâ— hell fire sheweth him selfe to be verè spiritus mendaâ— iâ— ore Propâ—â—tarum framing two distinctions like the two 〈◊〉 of Sedecias the false Prophet such another as himselfe fuâ—â— of thâ— spirit putting them into their moâ—thes the first that the Pope 〈◊〉 not Authority withouâ— iust cause to proceeâ— against Princes the secâ—â—â— that the Pope hath not this authority directly but indirectly in ordine ad spiritualia c. So he Whereby wee see how much the man delighteth himselfe in comparing these two distinctions or explications of mine to the two iron-hornes of Sedecias though the Scripture hath not the particuler number of two but M. Barlow addeth that of â—is owne to make theâ— meet the more fitly with the number of my two distinctions for besides the parity of number which yet is false there is no other parity or likenes at all For what haue hornes to do with distinctions And yet after a large and lewd blast of rayling against me for the same he concludeth thus And now let the Christian Reader that maketh a conscience eyther of God or common honesty consider whether this be not the profunda Sathanae in the Reuelatió euen the very mist and mysterie of Iniquitie But what Syr to distinguish or vse distinctions in a matter that may haue diuers senses or intendmeÌ„ts Is this the profundâ—tie of Sathan or is not this rather profound ignorance and absurdity in you to say so Doe not you know that to distinguish belongeth to the wise and learned according to Aristotle and not to distinguish est imperâ—â—â— mulâ—itudinis appertaineth saith he to the vnlearned vulgar sort Doth not reason and expeâ—ience teach vs that to diâ—tinguish matters that be obscure perplexed into their cleere sâ—nses or that be confused into their seuerall parts members or that may haue many senses into their different significations is a high worke of wit that giueth life to our vnderstanding to conceiue the truth and light to our will to make choice of the same How many foule heresies in the Church oâ— Chrisâ— since her beginning haue beene beaten downe principally by pious and prudent distinguishing which otherwise would neuer perhaps haue bene ouercome As namely the Arians when they alleaged
actiuum siue pecâ—â—â—â—â—â—tâ—rius qui scandalizaâ—etur There may be notwithstanding an actiue scandall giuen without the sinne of another man that is scandalized which is to say that one man may sâ—eke to induce another man by word or fact to sinne which is the scandall giuen and yet the same not to be taken by the other for that the sayd other consenteth not but resisteth or contemneth the sayd scandall giuen or offered And of this there may be fiue hundred examples alleadged And I cannot but wonder at M. Barlowes grosâ—e ouersight in this behalfe for when himselfe for example sake in a Sermon doth go about to perswade his hearers against the Reall Presence against the Sacramentall Confession of their sinnes against their Spirituall Obedience to their Supreme Pastour and other such poynts that we that be Catholikes do hold to be great sinnes this we say to be a scandall actiue inducing men to fall into sinne so that in him the scandall is giuen but many of his auditours do not take this scandall nor are induced to sinne by him for that they belieue him not nor esteeme him but for a deceiuer So that here is a scandall actiue without a passiue and scandall giuen but not taken And the like example may be giuen of facts As if a man should see M. Barlow to eate flesh and feed freely on fasting dayes and in the lent which perhaps were not hard to find him doing here is a scandall giuen but it is not necessary that euery one that seeth him doe this should fall and follow his fact and so take the scandall For many will say to themselues that M. Barlow followeth not the life of S. Antony or S. Hilarion other Saints that were great fasters but a good fellowes life that loueth a good morsell when he hath it making no difference of dayes or meâ—tes for auoiding of superstition for that this is pleasant Deuinity agreeing to his appetite Some other would passe further and say with the Apostle Animalis hâ—mo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei the sensuall man giuenâ— to his belly vnderstaÌ„deth not the things that belong to the spirit of God But howsoeuer it be here is a scandal giuen not taken consequently M. Barl. is much ouertaken in this to say there is no scandal giuen if it be not taken But now followeth a far greater abuse against Thomas Aquinas in peruerting his whole discourse meaning with inteÌ„t therby to disgrace the consciences of our English Catholiks that do refuse the Oath For it followeth immediatly in M. â—arlow If their conscienceâ— be offended at it they 〈◊〉 sayth Aquinas eyther simply ignoranâ— or wickedly maliâ—â—â—â—s◠〈…〉 last rather And these words of simply ignorant or wickedly â—â—â—â—cious he layeth forth to the view in a different letter 〈◊〉 markable to all and thereby would haue vs thinke that they are so set downe by Aquinaâ— himselfe adding also the reason of Aquinas as he sayth â—or that he which is well instrâ—cted and truly sanctiâ—ied can take no offence though giuen neuer so openly But if you marke this discourse of M. Barlow you shall find it intricate and difficult to be vnderstood which iâ— the marke he shooteth at I meane not to be vnderstood as els where I haue notified but much more would you discouer detest his fraud if you looke vpon Aquinas himselfe in his 43. question about scandal deuided into eight seuerall questions or articles all which M. Barlow hideth as before I haue noted And albeit he founded himselfe wholy vpon him as in this place you see and dotâ— quote him twice in the margent yet doth he not vouchsafe to name any one part or place of Aquinas his workes where he handleth this matter But we haue found the place and shall cleare the fraud as briefly as may be When S. Thomas Aquinas had shewed in his first article the definition of Scandal that It is an euill speach and fact giuing occasion to another man of spirituall ruyne or â—alling into sâ—â—â— by occasion of this definition had declared diuers other pointes concerning the same as that there is a scandall actiue and passiue giuen and taken giuen when a maâ— doth giue occasion by his speach or deeds to draw anotheâ— man to sinne and this either out of his owne purpose and intention which is the most malicious kind of actiue scandall or for that his speach or fact being naught is of it selfe inductiue to sinne though not intended by the scandalizer And that passiue scandall is when any man is induced and falleth into sinne by another mans speach or act and this eyther with ground or without it as presâ—tly shal be shewed After this I say S. Thomas in his seauenth article doth declare how that sometime there may be a passiue scandall without an actiue or taken and not giuen as when one is scandalized and falleth into sinne by another mans fact or speach without a iust cause and this eyther of malice by misinterpreting his wordes or deedes or by ignorance or infirmity by mistaking the same The first is called Scandalum Pharisaeorum the scandall of Pharises for that these people did maliciously so misinterprete the wordes and factes of our Sauiour to an euill senâ—e therby fell into synne themselues the other is called Scandalum Pusillorum the scandall of weaklings for that they are scandalized and fall into sin by infirmity or mistaking Now then sayth S. Thomas for so much as wee may not scandalize our brethren or giue them any iust occasion by our words or actions to fall into sinne vnder so grieuous and horrible threatnings as our Sauiour threatneth in the Ghospell what shall we do when we see any man scandalized without a iust cause Wherunto he answereth that if it be the scandall of Pharises that is to say wilful and out of malice we must let them alone according to our Sauiours doctrine Matth. 15. and go forward in our doings as himselfe did But if the scandall which they take do ariâ—e by reason of infirmity or ignorance then ought we to instruct them and giue them reason of our doings and sometimes also deferr our actions vntill the occasion of scandall be taken awayâ— Si autem post redditam rationem huiâ—smâ—di scandâ—lum dâ—ret iam vidâ—tur ex â—â—alitia â—sseâ— But if after we haue yielded the reason of our doings the sayd party remayneth scandalized stillâ— now it seemeth that his scandall is not of infirmity but of malice This is the doctrine of S. Thomas which M. Barlow applieth to the Consciences of our English Catholikes that refuse the Oath which is hard to say whether he doth it eyther of ignorance or of malice or of both But sure I am he abuseth egregiously the meaning of S. Thomas who writeth this of those only that take scandall and occasion of fal where none is giuenâ— this eyther out of
in his Chronology Cardinall Bellarmine in his controuersies two speciall Bookes also in English not long agoe especially published about that matter the Three 〈◊〉 of England and the Answer to Syr Edward Cookes Reports where it is shewed that from age to age after the Apostles the selfe same Church of theirs was continued throughout the world with acknowledgment of the preheminence and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the same Church which course of proofe was held also with the Ancient Fathers S. Augustine Tertullian Irenaeus and others that brought downe the descent of the true Catholike Church by the succession of the Roman Bishops as Heads of the same Mâ— Barlow demaundeth of me in what sense I take the word Catholike when I suppose the Roman Church to be the Catholicke Church For if I take it sayth he for Vniuersall then Rome being but a particuler Citty and the true iurisdiction therof confined within a limited Diocesse or Prouince the Roman Church cannot be the Catholicke or Vniuersall Church for that it is but a particular Prouince But if sayth he I take Catholike for the profession of the true fayth as S. Cyprian doth calling that Church of Africa the Catholike Church then cannot the Romish Church neyther in this sense be the Catholik Church for that which the Prophet Esay said of the Iewes Church Her gould is mixed with drosse and she whose fayth was plighted in Christ is become an Adultresse may be sayd also of the Roman Church of this day and so cannot be the Catholike Church c. Which are two such mighty arguments as well declare the poore mans misery in the defence of his cause For to the first I would aske M. Barlow whether one man may not haue two Iurisdictions or rather one Iurisdiction extended differently to two things one more particuler the other more generall As for example the Mayor of London hath his particuler gouerment first and immediatly ouer his owne howse family and peculiar lands and yet besides that he hath iurisdiction also ouer all the Citty And to make the case more cleare let vs suppose that he hath both the one the other from the kingâ— shall it be a good argument to say that he is Gouernor of his owne particuler landes house and family which is knowne to be confined and limited to such a part of the Citty therfore he vsurpeth by stiling himself lord Gouernour of the whole Citty And the like demaund may be made of the Kings authority first and imediatly ouer his Crowne lands which is peculiar vnto him and limited with confines but yet it impeacheth not his generall authority ouer the whole Realme Euen so the Bishop of Rome hath two relations or references the one as a seuerall Bishop ouer that people and so had S. Peter who was Bishop of the same place euen as S. Iames had of Ierusalem S. Iohn of Ephesus and the like and besids this he hath an vniuersall Superintendency and iurisdiction giuen him ouer all as Head of the rest So as Catholikes doe not deny but that the Church of Rome as it maketh a particuler Prouince or Diocesse is a member only of the Catholicke Church not the whole though a principall chiefe member by the reason of the emineÌ„cy of her Pastour that the sayd Pastour therof is but a member also of the Catholik Church but yet the chiefest meÌ„ber wherunto all the rest are subordinate that is to say the head guid therof So as this is poore argument as you see But the second is more pittifull if you consider it well for if we take Catholike sayth he for the profession of the true faith as S. Cyprian did when he called the Church of Africa the Catholike Church then cannot the Romish Church be the Catholike Church And why for that her gould is mixed with drosse as the Prophet Isay sayd of the Iewish Church in his tyme. But here are two propositions an antecedent and consequent and both of them false The antecedent is that as the Church of the Iewes in the Prophet Isay his dayes being in her corrupt state was not the true teaching Church in respect of the naughty life vsed therein so neyther the Church of Rome in our dayes being full of the same sinnes bad life can be the true Catholicke Church this antecedent I say is most â—uidently false and impertinent for that Isay the Prophet in the place cited doth not repâ—â—hend the Religion of the Iewes but their life and â—â—â—ners nor doth he so much as name their Church or Synagoge or taxe their false teaching For albeit the wicked King Manasses that afterward slew him did perforce set vp false Gods among the Iewes yet did not only he and other Prophets then liuing to wit Oseas Amos Micheas Iâ—â—â— Ioel Nahum Habacuc with the whole Church and Synagog not admit the same but resisted also what they might which is a signe that their faith was pure and good Wherfore Isay in this place alleadged nameth not their Church or Religion as hath bene sayd but expresly nameth the Cittie of Hierusalem wicked liuers therin saying Qâ—â—modo facta es meretrix Ciuitas fidelis plena iudicy Iâ—stâ—ia habitauit in ea nunc autem homicidae Argentum tuum versum 〈◊〉 in scoriam vinum tuum mixtum aqua Hovv art thou made an harlot thou faithfull Citty that wert once full of iudgement and iustice dwelled therin but now murtherers Thy siluer is turned into drosse thy wine is mixed with water Doth here the Prophet speake of factes think yow or else of faiâ—h Of wicked life or of false doctrine and if it be euident that he speaketh of manners as he doth indeed then how false is the dealing of M. Barlow in bringing it iâ— for proofe of false teaching and to conuince that as the Church of the Iewes could not be the true Catholicke Church of that time in respect of the corrupt maÌ„ners vsed in her so cannot the Church of Rome at this day for the selfe same cause be the true Church But I would demande of M. Barlow what other knowne Church had God in those dayes wherin a man might find true doctrine besides that of the Iewes which he sayeth was not the true Church Will he say perhaps of the Gentills But they liued all in Idolatry And if a GeÌ„tile would in those daies haue left his Idolatry in the time of Isay the Prophet and haue desired to haue bene madâ— one of the people of God by true instruction whither could he haue gone for the same but only to the Iewish Church And whither would Isay haue sent him but to the Gouernours thereof Both false and impious then is this antecedent about the Iewes Church but much more the consequent that would draw in the Roman Christian Church by this example which hath no similitude or connection at all For neither can he proue that it hath such
Salomon or Augustus But I would aske him out of passion if euer he be voyd therof as by report he is very seldome what insolencie hath this Pope shewed in being busy as he calleth it with his Maiesties Person State or Realme For as for his Person he hath alwayes honoured the same both before he was Pope and after wherof many euident testimonies might be alleadged and for his State and Kingdome while he was in Scotland neyther he nor his Predecessours did go about to trouble the same in almost fourty yeares while he reygned there all troubles came from Protestants and their Ministers And when his Maiesty was called into England the Pope that then was by this mans counsaile principally as it may be presumed for that he was Protectour of Scotland wrote to the Catholickes to further their Obedience towards him He neuer medled in any thing vntill this Oath so preiudiciall vnto his Authority and vnto the Consciences of Catholikes was proposed and vrged And as for the peace here named more continuall happy then that of Salomon or Augustus which M. Barlow sayth might be enioyed by his Maiestie with his Subiects if the Pope were not it is well that he will so much as name peace who seemeth in all his speaches to sow the seeds of warres hatred and contention But if his mind were to peace indeed he cannot be so simple but to see that the rigorous and afflictiue courses vsed and this as all men take it by the instigation of those of his coate and order cannot be meanes to peace of mindes howsoeuer otherwise they liue in externall quietnes and deuoyd of tumults And this is all that for the present I haue to write in this matter The end of the first Part. THE SECOND PART About the Breues of Paulus Quintus CONCERNING M. BARLOVVE His exorbitant flattery in exaggerating Queene Elizabeths Vertues and Sanctity CHAP. I. OVR purpose then being as now we haue declared to touch some principal points only handled by M. Barlow in this second and third Part of his answere we shall begin with the point he most standeth vpon dilating himself for twenty leaues togeather coÌ„cerning Queene Elizabeth her raigne life and death as an argument very plausible in his opinion and capable not only of his rayling eloquence and odious amplifications but of all grosse and abiect flattery in like manner togeather with some hopes of other gaines also that way wherunto it seemeth that the poore man hath his tongue and pen most ready to the sale at all turnes and occasions offered But it may be before we end this conference his market may be more then halfe marred in the iudgment at least of disappassionate men especially with his most ExcelleÌ„t Maiesty whome aboue all other he seeketh to gull in this matter turning all vpon him which I both spake and meant to a Minister of M. Barlowes owne ranke so I disclaime from the calumnious imputation that it concerneth any way his Highnesse and shall answere all in the same sense which I then wrote and meant the same reseruing all dutyfull and respectiue reference to his Maiesties Person and Iudgment as bounden duty obligeth me First then occasion being offered or rather necessity imposed to speake of Queene Elizabeth for that albeit the Pope had not so much as named her in any of his two Breues yet had the Apologer brought in her mentioÌ„ with many high praises for disgrasing of Catholickes and their cause and for scorne to the Pope as though he had without cause pittyed and mourned their afflictions vnder her which he saith was none at all for that to his own knowledge she neuer punished any Papist for Religion For these causes I say I was forced in my Letter to say somewhat to this assertiue proposition wherunto the tribulations afflictions calamities spoiles exiles and bloud of so many shed by her did manifestly in the eyes and eares of al men and women that haue liued in our dayes contradict and reclaime And yet did I resolue to do the same as mildly and sparingly as I might answering only the wordes of the Apologie and abstayning purposely from al bitternesse of speach so far as the iust defence of the cause permitted and so shall continue 〈…〉 Barlowes most intemperate prouocation to the contrary VVhereas then in reciting the wordes of the Apologer I mentioned these Hauing sayth he sacrificed as I may say to the Manes of my defunct Soueraigne as well for the discharge of my particuler dutie as loue of veritie I must now performe my dâ—ty also to his Maiestie present c. Vpon which wordes I noted that the phrase of sacrificing to the Queenes Manes or Ghostes seemed to me very profane as proper to the Pagan Sacrifices vsed to those infernall spirits which they called Gods hurtful Gods therfore endeauored to please them with sacrifices My words discourse were these But as for his heathen profane sacrificing to the Manes or Hob-goblins of his late Lady I confesse it is an office fitter for a Protestant-Minister that thinketh it vnlawfull to pray for her soule to deale with her Manes or infernall spirites then with Celestiall by praying for her to Saints But would God these Manes might now haue liceÌ„ce to appeare and talke which him and relate what passeth with her after all this ioylity and ruffe in this world I doubt not but they would coole his excessiue vaine of flattering vanity For if all the old platforme of Saints liues prescribed in Scriptures and practised by the seruants of God were not erroneous and vaine as much fasting continual prayer daily mortification frequent recollection diligent chastisement of theyr bodies humble feruent deuotion labouring and working theyr saluation in feare and trembling aboundant almes-deedes haire-cloth and ashes contrition sorrow and sobbing for their sinnes yf these things I say were the ancient wayes to life and euerlasting saluation then must the pathes of Queene Elizabeth which are knowne by most men to haue bene eyther wholy different or most opposite to these led to another opposite end quia vnusquisque recipiet secundum opera sâ—â— Euery one shall receiue according to his or her works and the sentence of the Apostle is cleare resolute Si secundum carnem vixeritis moriemini si facta carnis spiritu mortificaueritis viâ—etis if you liue according to the flesh you shall die but if you shall mortify by spirit the workes of the flesh you shall liue that is to life euerlasting About these words of mine M. Barlow taketh occasion to make very large discourses and to dilate himselfe in three or foure points â—xceedingly First in the excessiue prayses of the Queene then in superlatiue raylinges against me thirdly in iustifying the phrase of sacrificing to the dead Queens ghost fourthly in setting out her frequent mortifications that she vsed but yet in such sort as he well sheweth not only not to feele what mortification
the consequeÌ„ce of this argument Wherunto I answere that I alleadged diuers reasons why our Catholick Priests dyed for religion not for treason First for that no such treason could be proued against them in the sense and iudgement of any indifferent man that was present at their arraignments to wit of the one hundred and thirty that before I mentioned Secondly for that the publike Registers themselues and Histories as Iohn Stâ—w and others in their Chronicles doâ— obiect no other treason to the most of them but only being Priests their taking of holy Orders beyond the seas which in no sense can be treason no more then the confessing of the blessed Trinitie can be made treason by the Trinitarians in Transiluania Thirdly for that they themselues dying did protest vpon their consciences as they should be saued they neuer meant treason in thought word or deed against Queene Elizabeth And then â—ourthly for confirmation of this I alleaged this other reason so much scorned by M. Barlow they hauing life offered them if they would renounce the Pope conforme themselues to the State they refused the same which he saith is a false and faulty inference and I say it is very good and true and that if M. Barlow had any moderate skill of the case according to the rules â—yther of Philosophy or Diuinity he would be ashamed to say as he doth in Philosophy it being a common axiome that omnis actus specificatur ab obiecto fiâ—e euery action is specified that is to say taketh his nature and essence from his obiect and end As if a man should kill one to gayne his goods this act hath both the nature of man-slaughter theft the first from the obiect the second from the end or intention of the doer which Philosophicall principle being applyed to our case doth euidently proue that the choice of death in him that hath life offered vpon conditioÌ„ he will doe some act against his faith as going to the Protestants Church is esteemed by Catholickes though otherwise he were nâ—uer so great a delinquent before is an act of Martyrdome for that it hath both the obiect and the end therof the obiect to wit death the end which is the profession of his faith And so if we passe to consider the same by Theologyâ— which more properly treateth of this vertue of Martyrdome the controuersy will be made much more cleare for that the word Martyrdome being a Greeke wordâ— and signifying a Testimony or bearing of witnesse as the word Martyr signifyeth him that yealdeth testimony or beâ—reth witnesse euery testmony or bearing of witnesse is not meant by the word Martyrdome but only such a testimony as is giuen by dying for God in the defeÌ„ce of some truth belonging to our faith either expressely impugned or implyed in the impugnation of some other vertue that containeth the sayd truth of our faith therin which last clause is added for that a man may be a true Martyr though he dye not for any expresse article of faith or part therof but it is sufficient that he dy for the defence of any one vertue as Chastity Obedience Iustice and the like according to the saying of our Sauiour Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam Blessed are they that suffer persecutioÌ„ for righteousnes And S. Iohn Baptist is acknowledged by all Deuines for a true Martyr although he died for no article of faith but for reprehending the incestuous marriage of King Herod with more libertie of speach and spirit then any such Prince-flatterer base mind as M. Barlow would euer haue done in the like case if we may ghesse at his vertue by his writing But to apply the former ground and vncontrollable principle to our present purpose in hand whether these Priests died for refuâ—ing the Oath of the Feminine Supremacy or for that they were made Priests beyoÌ„d the seas or â—or that they refused to come to your heretical seruiceâ— certaine it is according to the rules of Catholicke Diuinity that they died for deâ—ence of their faith or maintenance of vertue which is sufficieÌ„t to iustify their Martyrdomes hauing so great warrant and store of all manner of witnesses â—or the truth and doctrine they suffered for as might well in conscience assure them of the righteousnesse of their cause and that they died for that Religion in which all the Princes and people of Christendome for so many yeares ages both liued and died And wheras M. Barlow impugneth this by two cases or examples they are but so many arguments of his owne ignorance Let vs speake a word or two of them both The first is of Absolom putting the case that he was an Idolator as well as a traitor and that King Dauid after sentence passed against him â—or his treasons would acquite him froÌ„ death conditionally that he should renounce his Idolatry and that vpon reâ—usall he should be executed Shall we say sayth M. Barlow that he died â—or Religion or for treason We will say good M. Barlow that he died rather for false religion that is to say Idolatry then for treason and was the Diuels Martyr and none I thinke can deny the same vnles he be as ignorant as your selfe as shall further appeare by the answere to the next example which in effect is all one with this to wit that a yonger sonne should aspire his fathers death with hope to haue his riches and that being condemned his father should offer to saue him if he would go to Church and leaue his euil life of following queaneâ— c. Shall â—e say quoth M. Barlow that he is executed for his whore-domes or for this parâ—icide against his father But here I would aske M. Barlow why he leaueth out going to Church which was the first part of the condition and nameth only whore-domes no doubt but the honest man would haue the staying from the Church in Catholicks and whore-domes seeme to be companions But now I answere to his question that if he meane by refusing to go to Church such as is practised by Catholikes for Conscience sake and not to deny thereby the truth of the Catholicke faith which forbiddeth to go to hereticall Churches then dyeth he for the truth of his faith and consequently he is a Martyr But if he choose to dye for loue of wicked life and whoredome it is no cause of Martyrdome and consequently he is the Diuells Martyr as we said before of the Idolator But as for Parâ—icide cleere it is that he cannot be sayd to haue died for it properly as the immediate cause of his death for that it was remitted vnâ—o him and their passed another election on his mind to wit that he would leaue his old life so as â—or this he died propriè proximè properly and immediately and for the parricide only remotè occasiâ—naliter a far of and as from that which gaue the first occasion of his death What
death-bed and therupon he discoursed how the sayd old woman by vertue of the same liued to the age of an hundred and od yeares and in that age hauing all her body withered and consumed and wanting nature to nourish she died commaunding the sayd peece of goâ—ld to be carefully sent her Maiesty allâ—aging further that as long as the sayd old woman wore it vpon her body she could not dye The Queene vpon the confidence she had thereof tooke the sayd gouldâ— and wore it vpon her ruâ—fe Now though she fell not suddainly sicke yet daily decreased her rest and feeding and within few dayes fell sick indeed and the cause being wondred at by a Lady with whom she was very priuate and confident her Maiesty tould her commaunding her to conceale the same that she saw one night in her bed her body exceeding leane and fearfull in a light of fire This sight was at VVhite-hall a little before she departed from thence to Richmond and may be testifyed by another Lady who was one of the neerest about her Person of whom the Queene demaunded whether she was not wont to see sightes in the night telling her of the bright flame she had seene Afterward in the melancholy of her sicknes she desired to see a true looking glasse which in twenty yeares before she had not seene but only such a one as was made of purpose to deceaue her sight which glasse being brought her she fell presently into exclayming againsâ— them whicâ— had so much commended her and tooke it so offensiuely that some which before had flattered her duâ—st not come into her sight Now falling into extremity she â—ate two dayes and three nightes vpon her stoole ready dreslâ—d and could neuer be brought by any of her Counsell to go to bed or to eat or drinke only my Lord Admirall one time perswaded her to drinke some broath â—or that any of the rest she would not answere them to any question but sayd softly to my Lord Admiralls earnest perswasions that if he knew what she had seene in her bed he would not perswade her as hee did And comaunding the rest of the Lords to depart her chamber willed my Lord Admirall to stay to whome she shooâ—â— her head and with a pittifull voice said vnto him My Lord I am tied with a chaine of iron about my nâ—eke he alleadging her wonted courage she replied I am tied and the case is altered with mee About the same time two Ladies waiting on her in her Câ—aÌ„ber discouered in the bottom of her Chaire the Queenâ— oâ— hartes with a nayle of iron knockt through the forehead of it the which the Ladies durst not then pull out remembring that the like thing was reported to be vsed to other for witch-craft Another Lady waiting in these times on the Queene leauing her asleep in her priuy chamber at Richmond at the very first distemper of her sicknes met her at she tâ—ought three or foure chambers of fearing that she would haue byn displeased that she leâ—t her alone came towards her to excuse her selfe but shee vanished away and when the Lady retourned into the same chamber where she left the Queene she found her asleepe as before So in time growing past recouery hauing kept her bed some daies the Counsell sent vnto her the Bishop of Canterburie other of the Prelates vpon sight of whom she was much offended cholerikly rating them bidding them be packing afterwardes exclaymed to my L. Admirall that â—he had the greatest indignity offered her by the Archbiâ—hop that a Prince could haue to pronouÌ„ce senteÌ„ce of death against her as if she had liued an Atheist And some Lords mentioning to haue other Prelates to come vnto her she answered that she would haue none of those hedge-priests so none of them came to her till after she was past sense at the last gasp at which tyme some praiers were said not farre from her The Queene being departed this life the Lords of the Counsell went to London to proclaime his Maiesty leauing her body with charge not to be opened such being her desire but some for some reasons hauing giuen a secret warrant to the Surgeons they opened her which the rest of the Counsell did not contradict Now her body being seared vp was brought to VVhite-hall where it was watched euery night by six seuerall Ladies who being all about the same which was fast nayled vp within a board-coffin with leaues of lead couered with veluet it happened that her body brake the coffin with such a cracke that it spleated the wood lead and cerecloth to the terror and astonishmeÌ„t of all that were present wherupon the next day she was fayne to be new trimmed vp in so much as all were of opinioÌ„ that if she had not byn opened the breach of her body would haue byn much worse Diuers other particularities â—or that they coÌ„cerne speciall Peâ—â—onageâ— I haue thought good for some causes to conceale And this narration I haue byn forced to set forth to auoid the calumniation of M. Barlow who saith vpon my first words in the Letter to my friend This is another Iesâ—â—â—icall tricke as well in matters histoâ—icall as oâ— doctrine to â—raâ—e it out with an impudâ—nt tale but aske theÌ„ for their Author who saith it then ansuâ—â—er is like the Câ—clops câ—y in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nobody nobody But we say coÌ„trary to the Cyclops somebody somebody or rather many Lodies togeather for that in this point I haue the original by me haue shewed it to many men of grauity iudgmeÌ„t though it be not coÌ„uenient to declare the name of the Relator for this present to M. Barlow for more causes then one And as for his general slauÌ„der conâ—umelies which he though good heâ—â— to cast in that it is a Iesuitical trick as well in matters Historicall as of doctrine to braue it out with an impudeÌ„t tale the assertioÌ„ therof must needs â—hew his impudency if he doth not proue it with some examples as he neyther doth nor can but how often I haue don it against him in this book the Reader hath partly seene and will more before wee end And the two late bookes published to omit all other the one The sober Reckoning with M. Morton the other The Search of M. Francis VValsingham one of their owne Religion do so put them to the wall in this matter of lying and falsifying as if M. Barlow be able well to answer those two bookes and satisfy substantially for the mayne and huge number of falsities therin obiected and demonstrated it shall not be needfull for him to trouble himselfe any more to answer this my booke for I will take my selfe satisfied by the satisfaction giuen to them And thus now hauing buried Q. Elizabeth brought her body to rest for a time would to God we might hope the like both for body and soule eternally Christ Iesus our Sauiour knoweth how
so much from this acknowledgment or testimony of the Councell of VVormes which did but set downe the sense of the Christian Church in these dayes but from other far more ancient proofes and testimonies as M. Barlow wel knoweth though here he dissembleth the same and chaâ—eth exceedingly saying That this fugitiue for such is his modesty of speach wil fâ—tch a 〈◊〉 sentence from this Councel to warrant no Councel to be good that iâ— celebrated without the Popes Authority and therby at one push ouerthrow the credit of al Councels both general and particuler for the better part of 900. yeares after Christ. Wherto I answer first that to be a fugitiue for the cause of Catholicke Religion is no reproach at al but a high commendation warranted by Christes owne words when he willed them that were persecuted in one Citty to fly into another and much more happy is it to be a fugitiue then a persecutour S. Athanasius in his booke de fugasua of his flight and persecution doth handle the matter at large to whom I remit the Reader Secondly as for the summoning gathering of CouÌ„cels general or particuler our controuersy is principally of General Councels for as for Diocesian Synods as they may be assembled by ech Bishop in his district and the Prouincial Councels by the Metropolitan which Protestants themselues wil not deny so by the due proportion of good order General Councels must be gathered by commandment or consent at least of the general Pastour though in States subiect to temporal Princes good reason requireth that the matter be done in like manner with the approbation of the said temporal Princes for the houlding of the said Councel in this or that place of their Dominions And this was obserued in the first 4. General Councels which were commanded to be gathered by Constantine Theodosius the elder Theodosius the yonger and Martian the Emperours by the assent and approbation of the Popes Syluester Damasus Celestinus and Leo which besides other proofes of seueral histories is made euident by the last of the said 4. Councels to wit that of Chalcedon where in the first action the heretical Archbishop Dioscorus was punished publikely and forbidden to sit amongst the Bishops for that he had presumed to call a Councell without the authority of the Apostolike Sea Quâ—d numquam licuiâ— say they numquam sactum est that neuer was lawfull nor euer was done And consequently this prooueth that all the first 4. Generall Councells were gathered by the consents and approbations of the Bishops of Rome though with the concurrence also of the Emperours without whose good liking the meeting of so many Bishops in their States could not be permitted as before hath bene said But now here before I passe any further I must make you acquainted with a solemne foolery and falshood of M Barlow concerning Cardinall Bellarmine for that hauing vttered the words before mentioned that CouÌ„cels were to be gathered by the Emperours and not by the Bishops of Rome though he citeth no one argument for the same yet saith he this is a thing so cleare and radiant that Bellarmine himselfe being dazeled with behoulding the euidence euen as S. Peter not wiâ—â—ing what he said though he laboured to build for the Pope yet labâ—â—reth be also to build for the Emperour and in that same place he â—â—eweth diuers reasons why it rather belongeth to Emperours then to Popes for â—o assemble Councells citing for the same in his margent Bellar. de Concil cap. 13. But truly when I went to the place of Bellarmine and read his words I was ashamed on M. Barlowes behalfe and his folly was so radiant in my eyes to vse his phrase that I could not read them without blushing for that in the Chapter by him cited and in the other going before Bellarmine doth proue most substantially by many arguments both out of Scriptures Fathers Councels reasons histories practice and examples that it appertayneth not to the Emperour only or principally but to the Bishop of Rome to call General CouÌ„cells or at leastwise that it may not be done without the said Bishops consent and approbation first had so as the very contradictory proposition to this which M. Barlow sets downe is found in these expresse words in Bellarmine â—sse reuerà Pontiâ—icis non Imperatoris congregare Synodum generalem that is belongeth truely to the Pope and not to the Emperour to gather a generall Councell Adding notwithstanding 4. particuler reasons and temporall respects why diuers generall Councells could not be gathered togeather vnder the Emperours who were temporal Lords of the world without their likings consents Not saith he for that a Councell gathered without the authority of the Emperour among Christians should not be of validity as our aduersaries doe dreame whereas S. Athanasiuâ— saith plainely in his epistle to them that lead a solitary life Quando vmquam iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritateÌ„ habuit when did euer the iudgment of the Church take authority from the Emperour but for that the temporall state of Christendome standing in the Emperours hands no such meeting could be made without their approbation And can this stand with that which M. Barlow here affirmeth in his name that he shewes diuers reasons why it rather belonged to Emperours then to the Pope to assemble Councells Will he not blush and be ashamed of this shameles calumniation or rather forgery As for that he obiected coÌ„cerning the Graunt giuen to Charles the Great by Adrian the Pope to haue authority to approue the Election of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops and Archbishops and to dispose of the Sea Apostolike c. I referre him to Cardinall Baronius for his answer in his Annales of the yeare 774. where he discusseth the matter at large and proueth it a meere fiction and plaine fraud inuented registred first by Sigebertus in fauour of the cause of Henry the fourth Emperour excommunicated by the Pope which he proueth by many playne euidences out of all the ancient writers for the space of 300. years after Charles his time who neuer made mention of any such Graunt as also the expresse testimony of Eginhardus that was Notary to Charles the Great and was alwayes about him and wrote his life and by diuers other proofes which were too long here to recite Therfore with this shall we end this Chapter VVHETHER THE POPE IN HIS BREVE DID FORBID TEMPORALL OBEDIENCE to his Maiesty of England AND Whether the said Pope hath Power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII WHERAS in the Apology a great coÌ„plaint was made against the Pope for that in his Breue he did forbid temporall Obedience to be performed to his Maiesty as a poynt against fayth and saluation of soules moreouer chargeth him with assuming vnto himselfe infallibility of spirit to make new Articles of sayth when euer it shall please him c. my answer therunto
was this I find no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholike affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith and what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true Mother therby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother but only the declaration Wherfore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth is a meere calumniation amongst the rest So in my former writing now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points In the first whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obedience he is very briefe for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation that the Popes Breue forbids not temporall Obedience No saith he it forbids the Oath wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance But this we deny and haue often denied and still must deny and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands who though he hath often affirmed the same yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue For that being once proued all controuersie about this Oath were ended And it is a strange kind of demeanour so often and euery where to affirme it and neuer to proue it He addeth for his reason in this place He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne and sayth neuer a word more But what doth this proue Or in what forme is this argument For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor that we do so or that the Popes Breue doth so we vtterly deny it as manifestly false For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour Wherfore this proofe is nothing at allâ— But he hath another within a leafe after which is much more strange for he bringeth me for a witnes against my selfe in these words VVhat hitherto sayth he he â—aâ— laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue â—â—insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grâ—â—teth If this be so that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduantage and some cause to vaunt but if no word of this be true and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen that is forced to inuent these silly shifts Let vs lay forth then the mystery or rather misery of this matter as himselfe relateth it The Pope saith he being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause or reason of the vnlwâ—ulnes of the Oath the Epistler saith there are as many reasons that it is vnlawfull as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion against which they must sweare And is not this a good reason say I Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the coÌ„science of a Catholike man from swearing But how doth be proue by this that I confesse the Breue to forbid temporall Obedience Do you marke I pray you his inference and consider his acumen But there is no one poynt sayth he in the Oath that doth not so to wit that doth not concerne Religion euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience I do sweare before God that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme c. Ergo I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles and consequently leaueth no Obedience ciuill or temporall But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion euen the very first Article that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience â—hen doth it not touch religioÌ„ in our sense For that we do distinguish these two deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts the one conteyning points of temporall obedience for acknowledging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes the other concerning points of Catholike Religion belonging to the Popes Authority To the first wherof we refuse not to sweare but only against the second And now M. Barlow sayth that all concerne religion and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedience but denieth all And is not this a worthy dispute But let vs passe to the second question whether the Pope or Church hath authority to make new Articles of faith as the Apologer obiected And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part that the Catholicke Church preâ—endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith that were not of themselues true and of faith before he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Hermes and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall Whereto I answere that Doctor Stapleton sayth only that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not admitted before as for example the Epistles of S. Iames the two bookes of Machabees the Epistle of Iude and diuers others as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and suâ—scribed so hath the same Church at this day and shall haue vnto the worlds end authority to do the same Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret sayth Doctour Stapleton that is if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto herâ— librum aliquem alâ—â—m nâ—ndum in Canâ—nem recepâ—um Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes
appertaineth to the ancient Oath and not to this wherin nothing is demanded but Ciuil Obedience only which the Cardinal denyeth and in the very first leafe of his answere vnder the name of Torâ—â—â— ioyneth issue principally vpon that point saying Primùm â—stendâ—mus Iuramentum hoc Catholicis propositum non solum ciuilem obedientiam sed etiam Catholicae fidei abnegationem requirere We shal first proue that this later oath proposed vnto Catholicks doth not only require ciuil Obedience but abnegatioÌ„ also of Catholick faith And he proueth it by fiue or six arguments First by the words of the English Statute the title wherof is for the detecting and repressing of Papists which word of Papists importing such as stick to the Pope or defend his Supremacy maketh it euident that the Statute was not intended only against them that deny ciuill Obedience but rather the Kings Supremacy in spiritual affaires Secondly by the words of the Oath themselues that the Pope cannot by himselfe or any other or by any authority of the Church depose c. Which is some denyal of the Pope his authority and consequently not meerely only of temporal Obedience and so out of foure or fiue points more by him obserued and there set downe which as I had not seene when I wrote my Epistle before the publicatioÌ„ of the said Cardinals booke so I vsed not those arguments nor any of them but contented my selfe with one only taken out of the Cardinals words in the beginning of his Letter to M. Blackwel as sufficiently prouing the same that in it selâ—e was most cleare I said as followeth This exception against the Cardinal for mistaking the state of the cause seemeth to be most clerely refuted by the very first lynes almost of the letter it selfe For that telling M. Blackwel how sory he was vpon the report that he had taken illicitum Iuramentum an vnlawfull Oath he expoundeth presently what Oath he meaneth saying Not therâ—ore deare Brother is that Oath lawfull for that it is offeâ—â—â— sâ—â—ewhat tempered and modified c. Which is euidently meant of the new Oath of Allegiance not only tempered with diuers lawfull clauses of Ciuill Obedience as hath bene shewed but interlaced also with other members that â—each to Religion wheras the old Oath of Supremacy hath no such mixture but is plainly and simply set downe for absolute excluding the Popes Supremacy in causâ—s Ecclesiasticall for making the King supreme Head of the Church in the same causes all which is most euident by the Statutes made about the same from the 25. yeare of King Henry the 8. vnto the end of the raigne of King Edward the sixt To this declaration of myne M. Barlow is in effect as mute as a Macedonian frogge if to say nothing at al to the purpose be to be mute though words and wynd be not wanting But first to the Cardinalls six argumentes he sâ—yth neuer a word albeit he had both seene and read them as may be be presumed To my reason of the difference between the Oath of Supremacy and this of Allegiance for that this is modified and tempered with different clauses of thinges partly touching ciuil ObedieÌ„ce and partly Religion wheras the other is simply of Religion against the Popes Supremacy to this I say he answereth with this interrogation If this Oath be so modified iâ— comparison of the other why is it accounted by â—he Censurer the greatest affliction and pressure that euer befel the Catholickes Do you see what a question he maketh and how farre from the purpose My intention was and is to proue that for so much as Cardinall Bellarmine did particulerly impugne this mixt and tempered Oath therfore he did not mistake the question by impugning only the other Oath of Supremacy as was obiected there being between them this difference amongst others that the one to wit of AllegiaÌ„ce is compounded of different clauses as hath bene said partly touching ciuill Obedience and partly Religion wheras this other of Supremacy is simply of Religion This was my demonstration And to what purpose then for answere of this was brought in that other demâ—und of M. Barlow asking vs very seriously why this second Oath should be afflictiue vnto vs if it be modifyed and tempered Is there any sense in this We say for so much as it is compounded and tempered as the other is not therfore it was meant by the Cardinal and not the other M. Barlow saith if it be so tempered why doth it afflict yow We say first that this is nothing to the purpose noe more then VVhich is the way to London A poke â—ull of plummes Secondly to M. Barlowes impertinent demand we say that albeit we grant that this second Oath is modifyed and tempered yet we say not that it is moderate and temperate for a law that in substance is mild may be by some clauses or circumstances so modified that is to say framed in such manner as it may be seuere and rigorous and a thing may be tempered aswell with exasperating ingredientes as mollifying and as well with afflictiue as lenitiâ—e compounds and so is this Oath more sharpe perhaps then the other and so doth M. Barlow him selfe confesse within a few lynes after saying that this last Oath of Allegiance is more pressâ—ng pitthy and peremptorie and in all circumstâ—nces a more exact and searching touch-stone then the â—ormer of the Supremacy And yet as though we did not see nor feele this he will needs haue vs to acknowledge in the same place that this Oath is allaied tempered corrected and moderated for all these are his wordes by the variety of clauses therein contayned theron foundeth his subsequent discourse of our ingratitude in not accepting the same wheras both he and we do hold the contrary that it is more stinging as now you haue heard and that euen by his owne confession what then shall we say of this manner of M. Baâ—lowes disputing Is he fit to be a Kings ChaÌ„pion in writing But heere now by the way I must tell the Reader that in my Letter I interposed a few lines in this place for noting the different style vsed by King Henry King Edward in their Statutes concerning the Oâ—â—h of Supremacy and this othâ—r now related in the Aâ—â—logy in thesâ— wordes I. â— do vtterly tâ—stify and declare 〈…〉 that the Kingâ— Hâ—ghnes is the only Suprâ—me Gouerâ—â—◠〈◊〉 in all causes Ecclâ—siaâ—tâ—call as tempâ—rall wheras in tâ—e Sâ—tute of twenty sixt of king Henry the Eight where the Tytle of Supremacy is â—nactâ—d the wordes are these 〈…〉 â—â—â—cted by this present Parliament that the King his Heires 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cessors â—â—albe taken â—â—â—epted and repâ—tâ—d the â—nly Supâ—eme 〈…〉 earth of the Church of England and shâ—ll 〈◊〉 aâ—d â—niâ—y 〈◊〉 and vnited vnto the Imperiall Crowâ—e of this Realme asâ—â—â— the tytle and style therof as all honours dignitieâ— authorities 〈◊〉 profites and commâ—ditiâ—s 〈◊〉 the said dignityes
Oath and Indenture articles and Prouiso's is only in sound of words and not in substance for that in making an Indenture and the Prouiso's therof both parts must agree that the breach of euery such Prouiso shal forfeit the whole for that otherwise euery such Prouiso doth not euacuate the whole Indenture or make it naught But herein framing this new Oath and the articles therof there is not the consent or agreement of al those that are required to take the Oath nor obligatioÌ„ of conscience to agree but rather to the contrary they are bound by the principles of their religion to disagree and disclaime against the same as preiudicial to their soules So as here those articles or different clauses are not as Prouiso's agreed vpon as in an Indenture but rather as points and conditions proposed and required by the Landlord wherof the Tenant may by right deliberate and consider whether they stand wel for him or noe And if not he may refuse them or at the least so many as he shal thinke to be hurtful or iniurious vnto him Neither is the denyal of any one or more the denial of al as M. Barlows bad Diuinity and worse Philosophy presumeth to teach men that it is But yet before I end this matter on which he standeth so much I would demand him further whether this his assertion be not general concerning al Kings and he may not wel deny it for that his reason is general as presently ensueth saying The King being once in lawful possession whosoeuer shal say that he may be deposed for any cause denieth that he is lawfull King Wherupon it followeth that the Kings of France Spaine also are no lawful or true Kings in the opinion of their subiects for that they al with vniforme consent do hould this doctrine of the Church that Kings and Princes may in some cases â—e excommunicated and deposed Saul also was neuer lawful King for that he was deposed or els must we say that God did him iniury in deposing him It followeth also by this inference of M. Barlow that if a man should deny to sweare to the last clause only of al the Oath to wit that he sweareth al the former articles hartily willingly and truly vpon the faith of a Christian So help him God c. doth deny to acknowledg King Iames to be lawfull King which is another point of parasitisme more ancient perhaps then the former especially if you adde therunto his propositions vsed here to that effect as namely that if he were once lawful he â—â— ouer soâ—â—or thâ—◠〈…〉 neither intended nor remitted that vnlawâ—ulnes oâ— title 〈…〉 with it the casuality of deposing that no varying in religion 〈◊〉 altering of manners 〈◊〉 misordering a Common wealth 〈…〉 his title that only a King can say to God tibi soli pâ—â—â—ani that whosoeuer deâ—ieth not to the Pope a deposingâ— power deâ—ieth to 〈◊〉 King the lawâ—ulnes of hâ—â— Inuestitureâ— and doâ—â—â—ion that let a â—ing 〈◊〉 he will for his religion and gouernment if he hath right to the 〈◊〉 his subiects must indure c. And wil you not say now that M. Barlow is as good a Chaplaine for the King as he is a Champion that is to say as good a Ghostly Father of spirituall counsaile and resolution of caseâ— of Conâ—cience as he is a valiant defendour of whatsoeuer was set down before in the Apology But inough herof VVHETHER THE FOVRTH COVNCELL OF TOLEDO Did prescribe any such set forme of Oath to be exhibited to the Subiects as is affirmed in the Apology CHAP. II. BVT now we must passe to another contemplation about a certain Councel of Toledo in Spaine alledged by the Apologer for authorizing and iustifying of this new oath not only allowed but decreed also as he sayth in that ancient Councel to wit the fourth of Toledo I shall alleadg his words togeather with my answere therevnto at that time And that the world saith he may yet further se his Maiesties and whole States setting downe of this Oath did not procâ—ed from any new inuention of theirs but as it â—warraÌ„ted by the word of God So doth it take the example from an Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeares aâ— gone which a famous Councell then togeather with diâ—uers other Councels were so farre from condemning â—â— the Pope now hath done this Oath as I haue thoughâ— good to set downe their owne wordes heere in that purpose wherby it may appeare that his Maiestie craueâ—â— nothing now of his Subiects in this Oath which was noâ— expresly and carefully commanded them by the Counceâ— to be obeyed without exception of persons Nay not iâ— the very particuler poynt of Equiuocation which his Maiestie in this Oath is so carefull to haue eschewed but yoâ— shall heere see the said Councels in their Decrees as carefull to prouide for the eschewing of the saâ—e so as almosâ— euery poynt of that Action and this of ours shall be founâ— to haue relation and agreeance one with the other sauâ— only in thisâ— that those old Councels were carefull anâ— strait in commanding the taking of the same wheras by the contrary he that now vaunteth himselfe to be Heaâ— of all Councells is as carefull and strait in the prohibition of all men from the taking of this Oath of Allegiance Sâ— he And then I added And I haue alleadged his discourse at large to the enâ— yow may better see his fraudulent manner of proceedingâ— He saith That the example of this Oath is taken from aâ— Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeares agone in the Councells of Toledo but especially the fourth which prouided also for the particuler point of EquiuocatioÌ„ But leâ— any man read those Councells which are 13. in number and if he fynd eyther any forme of an Oath prescribed or any mention of Equiuocation but only of flat lying and perfidious dealing let him discredit all the rest that I doe write And if he fynd none at all as most certainly he shall notâ— then let him consider of the bad cause of this Apologer that driueth hiâ— to such manner of dealing as to auoucâ— Euery point oâ— that Action to haue agreeance with the offering of thâ—â— Oath Here now you see how M. Barlow is prouoked to shew his manhood in defence of this passage which he beginâ—eth very fiercely with many contumelious words with I â—eâ— passe as wind and only shall relate those that â—e of some moment to the cause VVhiles this Iesuite sayth â—e iâ—â—â—aching the Apologer of supposed fraudulency himself euen 〈…〉 be arested of a fraudulent impudenâ—y â—or that he charging 〈◊〉 Apologer to say that euery point of that Toletan action hath 〈◊〉 with ours â—e leaues out the principall word which the said â—â—â—â—â—ger vsed when he sayth that almost euery point agreeth as if 〈◊〉 were noâ— difference betwene his speach that should say that Father Persons was almost vpon the Sea-coast
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
fayth This was the summe of my answer and the Cardinalls booke comming out afterwards hath the same in effect in these words Distinguish the tymes you shal agree the Scriptures Iudas belieued and was iust and good in the beginning of his election but afterward he yealded to the tempter and not only did not belieue but became a thief also and betrayed his Lord and lastly hanged himselfe So he And now what do you think that M. Barlow out of his ingeniosity will find to bring for maintenance that this was a true contradiction in Bellarmine Truly he will adventure far to find somewhat though it be to his owne shame and discredit Let vs heare his mad defence ioyningâ—sayth â—sayth he of the Aduerbe verè by Bellarmine that Iudas was truly righteous and certainlie good and yet did not belieue makes it a contradiction incurable And to the end that his fraud may be more notorious he writeth the wordes truly certainly and not belieue in great letters But now if you looke vpon Cardinal Bellarmines words you shall find first that he doth not ioyne the aduerbe vere that is truly righteous nor the others of certainly good at all his words are these Dominiâ—o â—o annis 17. Pater quos dedisti mihi custodiui nemo ex eis periji nisi filius perditionis Si Pater de dit illum Filio certe bonus erat That Iudas was sometimes iust S. Hierome doth proue out of the words of S. Iohn 17. Father I haue kept those that thou hast giuen me and none haue perished but the sonne of perdition If God the Father gaue him to his Sonne truly he was then good Heere then you see that there is no â—ere iustus truly righteous as M. Barlow hath thrust into Bellarmines words And albeit he sayth certe bonus erat yet certe is not referred to bonus as is euident These are then two willfull corruptions But the third is much more eminent that he maketh Bellarmine to say that notwithstanding that Iudas was truly righteous and certainely good yet did he not belieue Wheras Bellarmine sayth he did belieue and so is it set downe in the forme it selfe of the obiected contradiction saying that first he did belieue when he was chosen an Apostle and that then he was iust but afterward he lost his faith and did not belieue And now wil M. Barlow for making vp of some shew of contradiction against Bellarmine make him say that at the one and the selfe same tyme Iudas was truly righteous certaynely good and yet not belieued And to shew that this is an absurd proposition he maketh a long discourse out of Scriptures and Fathers to proue that without fayth a man cannot be truly righteous nor certainely good as though Cardinall Bellarmine had denied the same Is there any shame in these men But after this againe he goeth further in another place demanding whether supposing Iudas to haue belieued at the beginning his fayth were â—ormata or no that is informed by grace working by charity â—lleadâ—ging Aquinas in these words Surely in him that hath such a â—aith Aquinas sayth nihilinest damnationis there is no damnation For being once had it cannot totally and finally be lost nor is it more separable from him then the essentiall forme of any thing frome the subiect which it denominates Thus he And will not euery man that readeth these words thinke that Aquinas doth hould all this doctrine heere auerred that fides formata once had cannot be finally lost M. Barlow hath holpen the matter the best he can to deceaue his Reader in not citing any place of Aquinas where he houldeth this for that he could not do it but they that are acquinted with Aquinas his bookes and doctrine know him expresly to teach the coÌ„trary as the Reader may see if he liâ—t to peruse the places here quoted where he purposly proueth that charitas semel habita potest amiâ—â—i and for that charity is the forme of faith it followeth by necessary consequence that fides formata to wit a iustifying faith may in Aquinas his opinioÌ„ be lost and herof no Catholicke Deuine can doubt So as the impudency was strange in charging Aquinas with this which is the proper heresie of Iohn Caluin but much more that in the very place whence this pretended contradiction about Iudas is taken to wit out of Bellarmines third booke de Iustificatione Bellarmine doth proue by eight examples out of Scriptures the quite contrary to wit that fayth and iustice being once had may be lost againe What will M. Bâ—â—low answere to all this wil not his friends blush for him in this behalfe Or will not euery iudicious Reader make a pause here and say that it is a strange misery of a cause in religion which cannot be defended but with such grosse palpable falshoods Let vs leaue theÌ„ these obiected contradictions and passe to some other things The Cardinal hath answered al the rest him selfe nor did I think it good that wrot besore him to preuent him therin nor yet to â—asse any further hauing proued these first foure to be such as now you haue seene though M. Barlows defence hath made the matter far worse OF THE CONTENTIONS OF SVNDRY OTHER EMPEROVRS KINGS AND PRINCES with Popes of their times in temporall affaires obiected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Popes Superiority VVHERIN many fraudes and forgeries are discouered in M. Barlow particulerly concerning Fredericke the second and his contentions with Popes CHAP. V. THis argument of the temporall dangers imminent to Princes as is pretended by acknowledging the Popes supreme Authority and of so many hurts and dangers ensuing therof though we haue â—omwhat largely handled before by occasion of the examples obiected of the Emperours Henry the 4. and Henry the 5. yet here are we forced to reâ—teratâ— the same argument againe for that many more examples are obiected concerning the sayd Henry the fourth his doing pennance at the Caâ—tle of Canusium inforced therunto by Pope Gregory the 7. as also of the Emperour Fredericke the 1. forced by Pope Alexander the third to lye a grooâ—e on his belly and to suffer the other to tread on his neck of Philip the Emperour sayd to be slaine by Otho at the Popes motion of the Emperour Fredericke the second excommunicated and depriued by Pope Innocentius the 4. procured afterward to be poisoned that Pope Alexander the third wrote to the Souldan to poison the Emperour sent him his picture to that effect that Pope Alexander the sixt caused the brother of Baiazetes the Turkish Emperour named Gemen to be poisoned at his brothers request and had two hundred thousand crowns for the same That our King Henry the second besides his going barefoote on pilgrimage was whipped vp and downe the Chapterhouse like a schoole boy and glad to â—scape so too That the Father of the moderne King of France was
Turkes malice as being a publike enemie of the Church and dispatched secret Letters to the Patriarke of Ierusalem and the Souldiers there to Rebell against tâ—e Emperour aâ— Blondus the Popes soothing flatterer is forc't to confesse and by priuate Letters which were intercepted by the Emperour wherof he complaines dealt with the Saracens to make no truce with the Emperour nor to deliuer the Crowne of Hierusalem vnto him though he should winne it by Conquest And when the Emperour sent Letters of ioyfull aduertisment to the Pope of his victory and truce taken with the Turke the Pope threw away his Letters in disdaine and caused it to be giuen out through the Empire that the Emperour was dead vpon which rumor there grew a deâ—ection of many Citties from the Emperour to the Pope and those valiant souldiers the Almaines which were returned from that Christian expedition against the Turke into Apulia were designed to be slaine by the Inhabitants vpon this rumor VVhat is this will he say to the Popes consent for his POISONING Surely they are violent inducements that he thirsted aâ—ter the Emperours death which way soeuer for he which would arme the Emperours owne Souldiers against him cause a treacherous Reuolt from him while he was fighting the Lords Battails betray him into the mouth of Christs sworne enemy inuade his possessions in his absence disperse â—alâ—e rumors of his death contrary to truth and his owne knowledg and by contempts and Anathema's do his bestâ— or worst to breake his heart would make little accompt or conscience to drenâ—h him out of this life if opportunity secrecy wouâ—d concurre Thus you see I haue fully set down M. Barlows loathsome discourâ—e now let vs briefly examine the substance and truth therof And wheras he doth so odiâ—â—sly accumulate the rigorous proceedings as he would haue them to seeme of diuers Popes against the â—mperour yet doth he as you see fraudulâ—ntly dissemble conceale the Emperours demerits and misbehauiour against the Church and whole State of Christianity â—â—sâ—ifiâ—d by so many Authors as he may be ashamed to plead ignorance of it as it may appeare first by that which Binnius out of others setteth downe of the causes of his excommunication by Gregory the 9. in these words Fredericum secundum tamquam â—oedifragum Saraceâ—oâ—â—m sautorem c. Gregory did iusâ—ly and worthily excommunicate Fredericke the second as a league-breaker a fauourer oâ— Saracens a deceauer of the King of Hierusalem yea and of all the Christians that made warre in Asia against Infidels a breaker of his vow often confirmed by oath to make warre against the Saracens and wheÌ„ afterwards he was absolued from câ—nsures by the same Gregory and restored to the communion of the Church he added to his offences before abiured other more griâ—uous crimes to wit he besieged the Citties of the Church and raised vp againe that most odious faction of the Guâ—lphs and Gibbelines after it had bene appeased for more then 200. yeares He gaue offices to the Saracens and granted them a Citty called Nuâ—eria Saracenorum Hâ— spoyled Churches and Monasteries he Tyrannically oppressed the Sicilians he dissuaded and withdrew the King of Tunis his brother from his holy desire of Baptisme at Palermo he stopped all the waies for the assembly of the Councel which Pope Gregory had called at Rome and finally he kept certaine Cardinalls and other Prelats in prison for which Pope Gregory excommunicated him the second tyme. Thus he All which may be seene more at large in the definitiâ—e sentence of Excommunication and deposition extaâ—t in the Councell it selfe of Lyons and related by Matthew Paris where also are specified diuers other particulâ—rs of his periury vpon periury horrible abusing of the Clergie his Assassinating of the Duke of Bauaria the notorious suspition of his being an Hereticke for as Fazelius writeth he tearmed Moyses and our Sauiour Impostors Deum de Virgine nasci non potuisse horrende protulerit and horribly pronounced that God could not be borne of a Virgin and the like which albeit he partly excused and resolutly denyed yet were the prooâ—es so euident and euincent that Patrum omnium consensu saith Fazelius with diuers others here noted with common consent of all the Fathers he was excommunicated and deposed To which if we add what all other Authors excepting Vrspergensis his follower and fabulous Cuspinian write of â—im we shall find him a fit subiect for such an Encomiast worthy I meane to haue his prayses thus blazoned out by M. Barlow For none I thinke of any honesty would euer go about to coÌ„mend so wicked a man But this whole matter will better appeare by the particulâ—r examination of that which M. Barlow here reporteth He is excommunicated and depriued sayth he of Crowne and Allegiance vpon sleight pretenses by them And are these sleight pretenses Syr VVilliam It seemes your conscieÌ„ce is not very â—trait that can swallow downe so fast such great gudgeoÌ„s And the same to be no vniust charge against the Emperour great multitude of Authors may be produced which both for learning truth and credit wil farre ouer-weigh the flattering collusion of one Vrspergensis of whome Paulus Aâ—milius seeing how he contradicted all manner oâ— authority in his French history writeth thus Abbas Vrspergensis cius temporis aequalis Historias suas claudit laudibus Frederici insectationâ—que Pontisicum c. Fama frequenter sensus propè omnium conspirans eum dâ—mnaÌ„t c. Abbot Vrspergensis who liued at that time endeth his histories with the praise of Fredericke and railing against the Pope c. The more common fame and the conspiring consent almost of all men do condemn him So he But it sufficed M. Barlow that this Abbot could flatter the Prince â—nd raâ—lâ— against the Pope which are the most frequent flowers in all his writings Which two alone with the huge heape of his lyes being deducted out of this his large Answer that â—eâ—t which remaines may be â—hut vp in a leâ—se nut-shell then that was wherin â—lexander is said to â—aue kept Homers Iliades But M. Baâ—low goeth on He is procured saith he to promise in person to goe to the Holy-â—and against the Turke that in the meane tyme they may riâ—lâ— his Territories in his absence and so they did indeed So he This is much wrested or to speake more plainly is a notorious vntruth and framed out of his fingers ends not only against the credit and vniforme report of Authors but euen contrary to Vrspergensis himself on whome only he wil seeme to rely for â—is whole narratioÌ„ For read Vrspergensis that will he shall not find him to assigne any such cause of the Emperours sending and if he haue it not I would faine know vpon what authority M. Barlow doth auerre it But we haue seene store of such legier-dâ—-main if any one trust such a Iugler further then he seeth with his owne eyes he shall not tayle to
that he denyed passage by â—ea to the signed souldiers in Apulia and â—ombaâ—dy which commeth far short of kâ—eping back all supply vnlesse it may be proued that â—e had no otâ—er souldiers but in those two places or that they could haue no passage but from thence both which are very false as this charge is both ridiculous vntrue Ridiculous for the warrs being so â—oat on foote both in Lombardy and Apulia what need was there of any prohibition â—or not sending away of souldiers out of these partes when as they were so needfull at home Vntrue for that M. Barlow cannot be ignorant that Fredericke in his letter to the Duke of Cornewall which he wrot after his returne from the Holy-land in which he laieth down all his agrieuances sustayned as he would haue the world to beleiue at the Popes handes hath not one syllable therof which silence could not come of any â—orgetfulnes being written aâ—ter his returne when things were fresh in his mind nor yet of any desire he had to spare the Pope seeing that lesser matters more vnlikely are there vrged with the most aduantage and by all meanes he did seeke by this accusation to discredit him with all Princes as the most potent meanes to couer his owne shame and dishonourable behauiour as well in the Holy-Land as in other partes of Europe Secondly it is false that the Emperour performed his promise which was to go to aide the Christians and recouer the Holy-Land wâ—eras he with his secret and treacherous treaty peace which of purpose he made to hinder the war intended against the Soldan sayth Antoninus Villanus betrayed them both the one to wit the Christians sustayning intolerable iniuries at his hands and Hierusalem with all the Countrey soone after his returne being vtterlâ— lost And this cause all Authors alâ—eadge for the not absâ—luing of the Emperour by Pope Gregorie when by his Embassadours he did request it To whom saith Crantzius the Pope euen to their faces obiected the perâ—idious dealing of their Lord the Emperour as Fazâ—lius addeth euen the very Turkes themselues confessed that had Fredericke ioyned with the Christians and fought â—gainst them he had gotten out of their hands by force both Citty and Kingdome And the euidence of this truth is so radiant to vse M. Barlows phrase that euen the aboue named Zwinglian Huldâ—â—icus Mutius writing of this request of the Emperâ—ur the Pops denyall setteth down the matter in these words Mitâ—it autem in Europam Legatos c. The Emperour sendes his Embassadours to â—â—gniâ—y to the Pope and Princes how he had forced the Soldan to yield him vp Hierusalem but that peace with the Soldan nothing pleased the Pope who forsaw that it would not endure because the chiefe strength of the Kingdome remained in the enemies hands in such sort that as soone as the Christian army should be diâ—â—olued the enemie would easily recouer all againe Neither was Fredericke himselfe so simple that he saw not this but that his mind was wholy set on Germanie and Italy and thought it inough for him to haue satisâ—â—ed his vow by going thither sic fit cùm venatur aliqâ—is inâ—iâ—is â—aâ—ilus So it falles out saith he when men doe hunt with doggs that haue no list to runne And Naucleruâ— sheweth the issue of this affaire after the â—mperours returne into Europe vpon the yeare 1247. where he writeth that this very Soldan of Babylon with whom the Emperour had dealt caused the Araâ—ians to rise in armes against the Christians which Arabians setting first vpon the Knights of the TeÌ„ple quite vanquished theÌ„ and easily tooke the Citty of HierusaleÌ„ which had no wall to defend it slew the Christians that were in the same And the Sepulcher of our Sauiour which vntill that tyme had bene kept vntouched was now with great shame defiled Thus he And this may suffice to shew how well Fredericke performed his promise and what good ofâ—ices he did to the Christian cause by his going to the Hâ—lâ—-Land The third which followes is so eminâ—nt an vntruth that alone it may carry away the siluer whetstone froÌ„ all the lyars of Lincolne for who euer heard or read before M. Barlow set it out in print that the Pope â—oÌ„maundâ—d the Christian souldiers in Asia to leaue the Emperour to the Turkes malice What malice is this in M. Barlow to report so shamâ—ull an vntruth What Author besides himselfe doth auerre it in this manner as he doth For the Pope knew full wâ—ll that Fredericke was in no danger of the Turke with whom before his departure from Europe he had made peace and by whom vpon his arriuall into Syria he was still either feaâ—â—ed or presented with rich giftes in recompence of his perfidious league by which he betrayed the Christian army and cause as hath bene declared And all that which Nauclâ—rus sayth whom M. Barlow citeth to auer the same is in these words Pontisex Hospitalarijs TeÌ„plarijsque in Asia miliâ—aÌ„â—ibus vt â—rederico taÌ„quam hosti publico sauores detraherâ—nt iniunxit The Pope commaunded the Knightes of the Hospitall and Templares to withdraw their help from Frederick as from a publicke enemy or as other Authors Platina Fazelius Paulus Aâ—milius others expresâ—e it Vt ab Imperaâ—orâ—â—aueâ—â—nt that they should beware of the Emperour And the last named is more particuler saying Vt cauâ—â—ët nomini Christiano insidias à perditissima simulatione Fâ—ederiâ—i that they should beware of the treachery intended against the Christian cause by the most wicked dissimulation of Frâ—dâ—riâ—ke Sâ— he Aâ—d theÌ„ addeth Neâ— vana suspitio visa Arabibus Aâ—â—ypâ—yâ—que aequioâ— inuâ—niâ—atuâ— Caesar quam nostris Neither was this a vaine â—uâ—pitioÌ„ â—or the Emperour was found to be a greater friend to the Arabians Aegiptians theÌ„ to the Christians And this alone sheweth how free Frederiâ—ke was froÌ„ any danger at the Soldans hands which the Pope well knowing could not intend to leaue him to his malice as M. Barlow hath most confidently affirmed but contrary wise in respect of the great league and loue that was betwene him and the Soldan he feared more that the Emperour would betray the Christians and leaue them to the Soldans malice as in the end it fell out as now you haue heard then that they should leaue him of whom there was no feare by reasoÌ„ of the ten yeares truce already made betwene theÌ„ by which Fredâ—ricke was secure from all danger and might stay in the Holy-Land and returne at his pleasure Which being so and the Emperour excommunicated at this time there was great reason why the Pope should giue order to the Christians for the one and the other to wit as well to take heed of him as of a perfidious Traytouâ— to the cause as also to withdraw their fauours from him as from an excommunicated person and publicke enemy of the Church but both of these come farre short of
grosse and palpable absurdities But let vs proceed The second maine pillar vpon which M. Barlow relieth for proofe of the Popes poisoning of the Emperour Frederick is Matthew Paris an English man who saith M. Barlow affirmeth that the Emperour hauing discouered a poyson inteÌ„ded prepared or him by his trustiest attendanâ—es as he thought vpon examination â—ouÌ„d it to be the Popes doing makes a lamentable coÌ„plaint therof So he And indeed this testimony seemeth somwhat more forcible and euincent then the former both for that the Author liued at that time and for that he aueâ—reth it so conâ—idently saying that vpon examination he â—ound iâ— to leâ—se Popes doing But what if here also vpon examination we find M. Barlow a lier What if neither these words noâ— the sense of them be to be found in Matthew Paris as indeed they are not nor yet in any Author besides Is not then the false Prelate worthie for euer to be discredited Well let vs see what Matthew Paris hath hereof who hauing set downe the storie how the Emperour discouered the treachery of Petrus de Vineis and his intent to poyson him setteth also downe the said Emperours complaint in these wordes Vae mihi contra quem propria pugnant viscera c. Wo be to me against whom my owne bowells doe fight Peter whom I beleyued to haue bene a rocke the half of my soule hath by treason sought my life And lo the Pope whom the Empire hath exalted of nothing and enriched vnder my Noble predecessors doth go about to exterminate it and seekes to ouerthrow me the Gouernour of the same declining Empire Whom shall I trust Where shal I be safe c So Matthew Paris whom you see auerreth not as M. Barlow sayth he doth that the Emperour found it to be the Popes doing for all that can be truly gathered out of these wordes is that the Emperour suspected some such thing in the Pope And so far is Matthew Paris from affirming that it was found to be true that hauing said that the Popes fame was therby much blemished he addeth this restrictiue clause as from himself Veritatem tamen nouit Deus secretorum scutator infallibilis but God knoweth the truth who is the infallible searcher of secrets as though he had sayd that this matter had no other ground then the Emperours suspition and slaunder of his scismatical followers for had there bene but any apparent proof therof it would haue bene layed open to the vttermost And to confirme this the same Author a little before the wordes now rehearsed saith that the enemies of the Church gaue out that the Pope had sought to corrupt Petrus de Vineis to poyson the Emperour So then to conclude wheras out of this Author M. Barlow saith that Fredericke vpon examination found it to be the Popos doing there is no such thing to be found that which we find is that M. Barlow either corrupteth or corruptly alleadgeth all the Authors which he dealeth with But now you may thinke that he hath kept a sure card for the last and bringeth forth an Author without all checke or controll who with his verie name will ouerbeare all opposition and indeed he is here discribed as an vnconquerable Giant and as such a one who by himselfe may stand for thousandes and this man forsooth is Petrus de Vineis of whom M. Barlow speaketh thâ—s But what better witnes and of more credit can there be then Petrus de Vineis who liued in those dayes and was continually about the Emperor and as Cuspinian sayth hath truly related the occurrences of that time And againe after VVho was euer about him wrote truly is an Author approued And yet further In whome Cuspinian an Authenticall writer verâ—ies that Prouerbe omnia sub vnam Myconum he alone may stand for all rest Yea this man is so great that in M. Barlows iudgement no man is to be heard against him Not Innocentius the Pope who refuted him not the Italians who contradicted him nor yet all other Authors that condemned his partiality and falshood in so much as if we will beleiue M. Barlow he is an Author of infallible truth notwithstanding he were a professed enemy of the Pope and sworne seruant of the Emperour And if we belieue other Authors a very corrupt man therefore iustly punished by allmighty God with vntimely death that rather for his greatnes vpon a pickt quarrell as some affirme then for any iust cause of demerit giuen by himselfe for the same against the Emperour What then shall we say to this ground or rather to this strong foundation inuincible bulwarke The words of this Author are plaine In Apuliam rediens veneno periâ—t returning into Apulia he perished by poyson and M. Barlow noteth vs the place in the margent thus Epist. lib. 2. but yet like a bad Grammarian he omitteth the principall verbe I meane our cheifest question in hand which is not so much whether Frederick were poysoned as whether he were poysoned by the Pope for to that end are these strong presumptions violent inducements other argumeÌ„ts brought what place is cyted out of this Author for proofe hereof Truly no more theÌ„ there is alledged to proue that Fredericke went about to poyson the Pope And is not this perâ—idious treachery in M. Barlow to make him his chiefest pillar who hath not one word oâ— the matter in controuersy But let vs suppose that some such thing is in his booke which I caÌ„not beleiue to be true I am content that for once it be not thought ridiculous in M. Barlow which in other men would seme to be meer madnes to produce one that such a one against the whole stream of other Authors Let vs make this Petrus de Vinâ—is another Achilles Hercules or Golias yea let him stand for all as M. Barlow will haue him let his litle finger be as great as Alexanders backe yet sure I am that for the poysoning death of Fredericke eyther by the Pope or any other he will stand for nothing els but to condemne M. Barlow and all others who layne so much vpon him of fraud or folly or worse dealing which I trust to make so euident cleere as it is cleer euident M. Barlow neuer saw one to write after that his eies and braines were out his body cold and his bones rotten And first I suppose which M. Barlow doth freely grant me that this Petrus de Vineis was Secretary vnto Fredericke and continually about him but certaine it is by vniforme consent of all Authors of those tymes that the same Petrus de Vineis was dead a yeare at least before the Emperour and therefore could testify nothing of his death vnles he wrote by Prophesy for by the Emperors commaundment for treason eyther indeed intended or pretended only as I haue said he had his eyes put out and being committed to prison he knocked
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
clamorous English Clergy cry out against the same How would they exaggerate such an aduantage And yet here in a most heynous accusation against all writers without all proof we must stand to M. Barlows bare assertion or else to two moderne writers both heretikes both enemies to wit Iohn Bale and Simon Scardius who especially the former for his notorious lying and lasciuious scurrilitie with vs the Lutherans all learned Protestants are of as much credit as Robin-Hood and Little-Iohn But let vs proceed with that which followeth in M. Barlow who for that I sayd in my Letter that Paulus Ioâ—ius in his second booke did not testifie this matter though he were â—yted for it both in the English and latin bookes of the Apology replyeth against me thus If Saul in seeking his fathers asses had returned such an answer or himself retyred because he â—ound them not in Salila and Salim he had not proued Saul inter Prophetas So contumeâ—â—ous still is M. Barlow in all his speaches but we haue now shewed where the Asse without further seeking is to be found Let vs likewise see how prudent his answer is or rather euasion The Printer sayth he displaced the quotation giuing it a higher roome by fiue lines in the page then he should haue done for that it concerned the next story imediatly following But then I would aske M. Barlow why the letter F. was placed in the text before Alexander and the same correspondent in the margent in Paulus â—ouius Could the Printer also change the letter in the text And not only this but the Latin translation also that came after the English hath the same quotation of Paulus â—ouius annexed with the letter A. both in the text and margent vnto the same storie Was this also the slip of the Printer Besides this the sayd Latin translation leaueth out the word tertius and nameth only Alexander will you assigne this also to the Printer But if this quotation of Iouius did not seâ—ue to this allegation about the Popes writing to the Solâ—an what other Author is there that doth testifie so odious an accusation For if that had bene omitted then why had not M. Barlow now supplyed that defect with aleadging or quoting some Author that testifieth the same Lastly for that we haâ—e bene ouerlong in this matter we shall end with one only example more which is that wheras he alleadgeth out of Cuspinian that Pope Alexander the sixth did take two hundreth thousand Crownes of Baiazeâ—es the Emperour of the Turkes to cause his brother Gemin whom he held captiue in Rome to be put to death which soone after ensued he being in the French-mens hands that tooke him with them from Rome when Charles the eight King of France passed that way with his army towards the Conquest of Naples I answered that concerning the story it self true it is that Cuspiniâ—n that gladly seeketh occasion to speake ill of Popes writeth that the sayd Gemin or Zizimus for by both nâ—mes he is called brother of the Turke was put to death by poyson in the army of the French-men haud ignorante Pontifice Pope Alexander not being ignoranâ— theroâ— But he sayth nothing that the Pope procured the same as neyther that he receaued the sayd summe of two hundred thousand Crownes as neyther doth Iouius though he doth mâ—ntion that such a summe was offered by the â—urke togeather with â—estis inconsâ—tilis Christi the garment of our Sauiour without seame And that besids these Authors others also writing therof do relate the matter doubtfully as Onufrius Panuinus saying that he died at Capua of a bloudy flux without mentioning poysonâ— and before him Sabelliâ—us relating the matter as doubtfully saith Fuerunt qui crederent veneno sublaâ—â— there were some that belieued that he was made away by poyson that Pope Alâ—xander was not ignorant thereof And albeyt M. Barlow about this poynâ—â—â—riueth to vtter a grâ—at company of wordes partly to proue that which was not denyed that diuers authours do make mention of this thing though with vncertayntie as you haue heard partly in amplifying the wickednes of the thing to yield to the putting to death as he sayd of an innocent Turke partly by inueghing and scoffing at the offer made by the Turkish Emperour of Vestis inconsutilis Christi of Christs garment without seame deriding much in his veine of Infidelity that such a garment can be imagined to haue come downe from the Souldyers that cast lotts ouer it vnto the Turks hands and yet notwithstanding it is knowne and confessed that he had taken Ierusalem and thereby had the spoyle of all Christian monumentes of that place but much more scorning that now such a Relique forsooth should be made the price of innocent Gemins bloud without any iust cause giuen for the same and yet can it not be denyed but that he had rebelled against his Lord and brother the Emperour and procured both against his person and state what mischife he could All this I say notwithstanding it is euident that these wordes of M. Barlow are but wind to intertayne tyme and fill vp paper as he hath bound himself by the enterprize he hath takeÌ„ in hand so you will see partly by the stir he maketh about my very last wordes and lines in this matter which yet I assure mâ— being equally considered by the indifferent Reader will not seeme so reprehensible For these they are If a man would goe about sayd I to discredit Kingly authority by all the misdeeds of particuler Kings that haue bene registred by Historiographers since the tyme that Popes began he should find no doubt aboundant matter and such as could not be defended by any probability and yet doth this preiudicate nothing to Princely power or dignity c. For this speach of myne which M. Barlow termeth a yerking comparison of Kings with Popes though I know not why he inueigheth greatly against me alleadging first out of Seneca That art cannot long estrange nature as though out of Nature belike I were inclyned to make such comparisons and then likening me to Venus her Cat that was trickt vp as he sayth like a wayting-mayde but yet she discouered her self when she saw a mouse So the censurer quoth he who all this while would make the Reader belieue that he confuted only one T. M. the younger who being exasperated with his round caÌ„uasing of the Pope he forgetteth his dissembled aduersarie and retorts vpon Kings So he And do you see his vanytie Is the very naming of Kings especially in so honourable a sense as I doe for mayntenance of their authority sufficient to make retorting vpon Kings Or is the mentioning of Kings in generall a sufficient inference that I meane of his Maiestie in particuler What speach can be free from calumination when such Sicophancy is vsed Doth not euery man see the itching humour of adulation discouered here vpon any least occasion
CARDINALL what dignity title it is pag. 8. Cardinall Bellarmine abused by M. Barlow pag. 80. his Letter to the Archpriest discussed pag. 345. deincâ—ps his opinion of the Oath of Allegiance p. 346. 347. deinceps cleered from false imputation pag. 386. 387. defended from ContradictioÌ„s pag. 432. 442. 443. 448. 449. Charles the Great Emperour his zeale in reformation of manners in the Clergy pag. 313. Châ—lsey erection for wryters pag. 248. Clement 8. his Breues sent into England pag. 342. Clergymen freed from secular burtheÌ„s whence it first proceeded pag. 371. L. Cooke Chiefe Iustice of the CoÌ„mon Pleas his booke of Arraignments pag. 188. his definition of Misery by Copia â—nopia ibid. his poore Deuinity pag. 190. Conscience erroneous how and when it bindeth p. 33. 277. Contentions betweene Popes and Emperours pag. 480. deinceps Controuersie betweene S. Gregory and Mauritius the Emperour pag. 304. Councell of Aâ—les how it submitted it selfe to the Emperour pag. 313. Councells Generall alwayes assembled by the B. of Rome p. 320. Councell of Millaine corrupted by M. Barlow pag. 33â— Councell 4. of Toledo in Spaine of the Oath prescribed to Subiects therin pag. 365. dâ—inceps Difference betweene that the Oath of Allegiance pag. 381. 384. falsified by M. Barlow pag. 369. Whether it agreed with the Protestant Church of England 377. S. Cyprians iudgment of such as dy out of the Catholik Church pag. 222. D DESCENDING of Christ into hell pag. 377. Difference Essentiall betweene Protestants Puritans praef n. 32. Differenâ—e between the writing of F. Persons M. Barlow praef n. 132. Diuells concurrence with M. Barlow pag. 450. Diuinity of M. Barlow carnall p. 133. fit for the Court pag. 177. Diuision of the worke pag. 2. Doctâ—ine of the Church not preiudicated by euill life p. 147. E EARLE of Eâ—sex his Confession reuealed by M. Barlow p. 22. Preached against by him 212. Edward vide Cooke Eleazar his glorious death for not eating of swines flesh pag. 541. Q. Elizabeth her life discussed paâ—t 2. cap. 1. 2. per totum Her manes pag. 161. 166. Canonized for a Saint by M. Barlow pâ—g 164. praef n. 114. her Mortifications pag. 168. § 2. per totum No cloistred Nunne â— 170. her Felicities Infelicities part 2. cap. 2. per totum her birth pag. 201. her sicknes and death pag. 209. § 3. her Purgation about the Q. of Scotlands death pag. 215. her disastrous end pag. 216. 217. held for an Heretike pag. 226. How she was a ioy Iewell to the Christian world pag. 422. her Illegitimation p. 424. declared by her owne Father in Parlament pag. 426. nec Virgo nec Martyr praef n. 115. Equiuocation not lawfull in matters of Religion pag. 30. confounded with lying by M. Barlow pag. 384. 385. Excommunication of Princes practised in the Primitiue Church pag. 102. F FAITH diuine humane distinguished pag. 392. Feliâ—ities and Infelicites of Q. Elizabeth part 2. c. 2. per totum Felicity temporall no argument of spirituall p. 181. 182. 183. AncieÌ„t Fathers discourses therupon p. 184. 185. 186. Festiuities Masses of Saints p. 379. B. Fisher abused by M. Barlow p. 328. Flattery of his Maiesty by Mininisters partâ— 2. cap. 3. per totum of the nature of flattery p. 231. Fox his rabble of Martyrs p. 233. Fâ—edericke the first Emperour his submission to the Pope p 466. Fredericke the second his contention with Popes pag. 480. deinceps his voyage to the holy land 481. 48â— his counterfait sicknes ibid. his vices and bad life pag. 514. his barbarous cruelty 517. his blasphemy 519. Gods punishment laid vpoÌ„ him 520. G F. Garnets face in the straw p. 23. Gemen the Turke poysoned pag. 533. Gracchus abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. S. Gregory rayled at by M. Barlow praef n. 108. H HEAD of the Protestant Church monstrous p. 200. Henry vide Wotton Henry the 4. Emperour taken vp again out of his graue after buriall pag. 398. His deposition 411. Henry the 5. Emperour his insurrection against his father pag. 410. Henry the 3. of France his murder pag. 414. Henry the 8. of England iniured by M. Barlow pag. 428. Henry the 2. of England his absolution pag. 463. Henry the 6. Emperour his coronation pag. 466. S. Hieromes Discourse of felicity and infelicity pag. 185. Hope cannot stand without certainty of faith praef n. 48. Huldericus Mutius a Lutheran pag. 398. Hypocrisy what it is and what is the marke of an hypocrit p. 91. I IAMES vide King Idolatry suspition not cause of feare alwayes pag. 118. M. Iewell contrary to himselfe prâ—f n. 41. Immunity of the Clergy whence it first proceeded pag. 371. Inconstancy vide â—arlow Infelicity vide Felicity Infidels denyed Christian buriall 408. also Heretikes and excoÌ„municated persons ibid. Innocentius the 4. Pope abused by M. Barlow pag. 509. 510. 511. his death lamentation therof 513. 514. Ioâ—n vide Fox Syr Ioâ—n Cuâ—â— abused by M. Barlow in the pulpit praf n. 112. Iosâ—phsâ—â—lling â—â—lling into Egypt p. 421 K KING Iames said to be the Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance part 1. cap. 11 § 1. Why his Maiesty was not named in the booke pag. 5. that he neuer â—ead the booke â—ttentiâ—ely ibid. Iniured by M. Barlow pag. 12. flattered by Ministers egregiously part 2. cap. 3. per totum His mild disposition diuerted pag. 230. Kings their vices recounted in Scripture pag. 199. King Henry the 2. of England his absolution pag. 46â— King Henry the 4. of France his Embassador at Rome and the Ceremony of publike absolution pag. 465. L S. LEO rayled at by M. Barlow â—raf n. 108. 109. Liberty of Conscience demaunded by all forraine Protestants p. 256â— Liberty of Conscience vide toleration M MACHIAVELS principles agree with ProtestaÌ„t doctrine pag. 390. Maister what it signifieth how it is a title of honour pag. 9. Marriage of Priests and M. Barlows forgery therabout p. 373. Decree of the Councell of Toledo against the same pag. 374. 375. 376. Martyrs in Q. Elizabeths dayes pag. 206. Medina misunderstood by M. Barlow p. 43. explicated 44. 45. Mâ—riâ— of workes pag. 377. Misery defined by the L. Cooke pag. 188. Moone in the Asses belly p. 103. Monkes punished liuing disorderly pag. 380. M. Morton canuased pag 73. 74. his abuse of Salmeron 75. Mortification of M. Barlow pag. 126. of Q. Elizabeth pag. 163. externall Mortification and internall pag. 169. 171. 176. Mortification for Princes pag. 177. Mortification in time of Lent pa. g 376. N NABVchodonosors punishment pag. 195. more happy then Q. Elizabeth ibid. Neâ—o Domitiâ—n Heades of the Church in M. Barlowes opinion pag. 200. O OATH of Allegiance discussed partâ— 1. cap. 1. 2. per totum whether the taking of it be a blessing from God p. 37. part 1. c. 4. per totum what freedome the taking thereof bringeth to Catholikes p. 39. coufuted both at home and