oâ— the Egâ—ptians to hate his people not that God did either physice oâ— moraliâ—er properly moue their wills or command or counsaile the Egyptians to hate his people but only occasionaliâ—er that is to say as S. Augustine expoundeth the matter God by doing good and bâ—eâ—sing his said people which was a good action in him gâ—ue the Egyptians occasion to enuy and hate them they abusing that to euill which he did for good And for that this occasionall concurrence may be tearmed also morall in a certaine large sense therforâ— God may be said also to coÌ„curre morally in this meaning but for â—o much as these two meanings of moral concurrence are far different the first which is proper may be denied and this which is vnproper may be granted without â—ll contradiction for so much as a contradiction is not but when the selfe same thing is affirmed and denied in the selâ—e same subiect and in the same reâ—pect which here is not no more then if a man should say these two propositions are contradictory God commandeth expresly all men in generall Non ocâ—ides thou shalt not kill and yet to diuers in particuler for seuerall causes he permitteth to kil and yet here is no contradiction for that killing is taken in different senses And this is so plaine that M. Barlow though he striue to talke som what for that he is obliged for his credit hired therunto as you know yet findeth hâ— nothing to fasten vpon by any probability and therefore in the end hauing intertained himselfe for a while in repeating what Bellarmine saith in the place from whence this supposed contradiction about the different sorts of Gods concurrence is taken in repetition wherof he sheweth plainly not to vnderstaÌ„d him he finally breaketh out in his malice to end with the odious example of Iames Clemâ—nt the Monke in killing the late King of France demâ—nding how God concurred with that action either in generall or in particuler But to this now the answere is already made and so many wayes of Gods concurrence or not concurrence as concerne this cause haue bene explained as to stand longâ—r vpon it were losâ—e of time let M. Barlow meditatâ— by himselfe how God can concurre with so many â—urthering actions of his by slandering and deâ—aming his neighbour as heere againe he chargeth Iesuits witâ— poisoning of Popes which being not only apparantly fâ—â—â—â— but without all â—hew or colour of probabilitâ— yet most violently malicious sure I am that God concurreth not therwith either physicè or moraliter by mouing his hart or tongue to speake so wickedly and much lesâ—e by commanding or approuing the same But whether he â—o it occasionalitâ—r or no to his greater sinne damnation â—â—at I know not but certaine I am that the contumely being â—o intolerably false and ridiculous as it is and yet vtterâ—d and repeated againe so often by him in this his booke most certainely I say I do perswade my selfe that the Dâ—uel hath coÌ„curred with him in al these three waies both phâ—sice moraliter and occasionaliter Almighty God forgiue him and make him to see and feele out of what spirit he speaketh And so much for this second proposition The third contradiction is vrged out of Bellarmine in two books of his the first de Clericis where he sayth that all the Fathers do constantly teach that Bishops do succeed the Apostles and Priests tâ—e seâ—uenty disciples and then in his book de Pontifice he hath the contrary that Bishops do not properly succeâ—d the Apostles Vnto which my answere was at that time vpon viewing the places themselues in Bellarmin that this was no contradiction at all for that it was spoken in diuâ—rs senses to wit that Biâ—hops do succeed the Apostles iâ— power of Episcopal order not in power of extraorâ—inary Apostolical iurisdiction and so both were true and might well stand togeather for that all Bishops haue tâ—e same sacred Episcopal order which the Apostles had but not their extraordinary iurisdiction ouer the whole world as each one of them had which answere oâ— mine since that time hath bene confirmed by Cardinall Bellarmâ—ne himselfe in his owne defence though in different words saying Episcopos succedere Aposâ—olis c. that Bishops do succeed the Apostles as they were the first Bishops of particuler Churches as Iames of IerusaleÌ„ Iohn of Ephesus the like is graÌ„ted in the book de Clericis but yet that Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles as they were Apoâ—tleâ— that is to say as they were sent into all the world with most â—ull power is denyed in the booke de Ponâ—iâ—ice So as in different senses both are true Neque sunt contraria vel conâ—â—aâ—ictoria sayth Beâ—lâ—rmine nisi apudeos qui I ogiâ—am ignoranâ— vâ—l sensu communi carent neither are they contrary or contradictory but with them that want Logicke or common sense So he All which being so plaine yet notwithstanding M. Barlow will needes say somwhat to the contrary not â—or that he doth not see that the thing which he is to say is nothing at all to the purpose but perchance that hâ— thinketh himselfe bouâ—d to say somwhat for fashions â—ake and so rusheth himselfe into absurditieâ— as now â—ou â—hal 〈◊〉 Thus then he relateth the case tâ—at Bellâ—rmine 〈…〉 place that Bisâ—ops do succeed the Apostles and in another thaâ—â—isâ—opâ— do not properly succeed the Apostles and least any should thiâ—kâ— tâ—â—t this is no Antilogy because in the last proposition â—he 〈◊〉 â—pâ—â—pâ—â—ly qualifieth it tâ—e Cardinall himsâ—lfe haâ—h in the vâ—ry next pre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter preuented that whâ—re he saith that Bishops do prâ—â—â—â—â—y succeed the Apoâ—â—les then which what more strong counâ—eâ—-â—â—ocke caâ— there be bâ—â—â—â—ene any two So he And what â—e meâ—neth by this strong counter-shocke I know not but sure I am that he giueth a â—trong counter-buffe to his owne credit by bringing in this reply for that Bellarmine in the very selâ—eâ—ame place and words of the precedent Chapter whâ—re he sayth that Bishops do properly succeâ—d the Apoâ—â—les sheweth him selfe to meane in succâ—ssion of â—piscopall ordâ—r and power of preaching thereto bâ—longing in which power of preaching he sâ—yth Episâ—opi proprie Apostoli◠〈◊〉 ut Bishops do properly succeed the Apoâ—â—lâ—s and proueth it out of the sixt of the Acts but where he sayth in the other place that they do not properly succeed the Apostlâ—s he meanâ—th and so expoundeth his meaning to be tâ—at tâ—ey do not succeed them in their extraordinary vniueâ—sall iurisdiction ouer all the world And could M. Barlow choose but see this when he wrote his Reply If he did not yet will I not retuâ—ne the vnciuill word here vsed to me out of the Poet for thâ—re lyeth his learning nauiget Amiâ—yras â—or that my braine wants purging c. but I will answeâ—e â—im moâ—e modestly to wit that if he saw not this error of his then it was at
be deceauâ—d The most that that Schismaticall Abbot saith is that the Emperoâ—rs enemies taking occasion of his absâ—nce inuaded his Terâ—itoâ—iâ—s And if M. Barlow will â—ay that this is all one although any blynd man will say that there is great diuersity then lâ—t him also combine these two togeather as one When M. Barlow was in LondoÌ„ the Earle oâ— â—ssex was beheadedâ— and M. Barlow was in London that the Earle of â—ssex might be beheaded And if he cry out against this laâ—â—r I will â—lso cry shame on the former for they are both of one stamp The true causes then why the Pope cauâ—ed some of his States as namely Apulia to be inuaded are diuers â—irst the certaine aduertisement he had receaued of a fraudulent peace made by him secretly with the Soldan before he dâ—parted out of Italy and in confirmation therof vpon his arriuall at Acra in Syria his Marâ—hall depaâ—ting from him with part of his army attended not saith S. Anâ—oniâ—us to fight against the Saracens but against the ChristiaÌ„s whom he spoyled as they returned victorious with great booty gotten of their enemies killing many of them taking many prisoners in accoÌ„plishment as it is thought of his â—ecret agreement before made â—oâ—â—oueâ— being aâ— Aâ—â—a hâ— would haue destroyed the Church of the Ten plans indâ—â—d he tooke many â—orâ—restes from them and â—inally Iâ—â—â—salem being yelded vnto him by the Solâ—â—n accordâ—ng to their coÌ„position he permitted the â—oly Temple of our Sauiouâ—s Sepulâ—her to be still in the Saracens hands that Maâ—omet might be serued and inuocaâ—ed thâ—â—â—iâ— In so much that neither the Popâ—s â—egate nor the Patriarch of Hiâ—rusalem nor the â—â—mâ—plars nor the Knights of S. Iohnâ— nor other Barons and Noble men in Syria nor the Captaines of the sâ—rangers would consent to this peace Quia omnibus vâ—sa est pax fraudulenta c. saith S. Aâ—toninus bâ—cause it seemed to them all a fraudulent peace to the hurt shame of the Christians hinderance of the conquâ—st of the Holy-Land And a little after he addeth Gregorius audita nequitia Imperatoris c. Gregory hearing of the wickednes of the Empeâ—our and his treacherous peace made with the Souldan ordayned that besides the senteÌ„ce of excommunication pronounced against him before that King Iohn of Hiâ—rusalâ—m who was then in Lomâ—ardy with the army of the Church should with his souldiers enter Apulia and stirre vp the people of that Kingdome to reuolt against â—redericke So he And besides this two other causes are assigned of this inuasion by Sigonius to wit that the Emperour departed before he was reconciled to the Church and moreouer because he went with so small forces leauing the most part of his aâ—mie behind him to rifle and spoile the Churches oâ— Sicily And as for his other most peâ—â—idâ—â—us dealings before related out of S. Antoninus they are all recorded in like manner not only by Ioannes Villanus who liued soone after Frâ—deâ—icke and by diuers others but also by the Pratriarch oâ— Hierusalâ—m himself who was an eie witnes of what passed in Syâ—ia in his â—pistle to the Christians of the west who setteth downe so many particulers of his foule and vnchristian dealings as maketh the matter most â—uâ—dâ—nt A fourth cause by all liklyhood one of tâ—e chiefest was that at his departure to the Holy â—and he leâ—t order with Râ—ynald his Deputie in Sicily to hould the Pope â—nd aâ—â— Clergie men for enemies who accordingly vpon Fredericks departure entred into the state of the Church and tâ—ere tooke certaine townes in the Marchia of Ancona asâ— so Conradus Guiscard another Captaine of his entred into the vale of Spoleto tooke Fulâ—gnio So as we see that the first beginning of this warre came from the Emperor and not from the Pope which M. Baâ—low might haue seene in Nauâ—lâ—rus himself whom diuers tymes he cyteth but that he will haue all men see that he seeketh not the truth but to intertaine talke by telling of vntruthes for Nauâ—lâ—â—us telleth expressely that wheras the Emperour complayned after his returne that the Pope had inuaded his territories wâ—ilâ—t he was in the Holy Land the Pope answered that he did that because Râ—ynaldus Fredericks Deputy did first â—et vpon the state of the Church And as for the cause of Fredericks voyage which M. Barlow blusheth not to affirme to be procured by the Pope that he might riâ—le his estate at home al Authors agree that it was specially proâ—ured by Ioâ—n King of Hierusalem who seeing the present daunger of his owne Countrey to be ouerruÌ„ne by the Saracens came in person into Euâ—ope most earnestly sollicited both Pope Emperor Kings oâ— France and England other Princes â—or present succour wherevnto they all contributed as euery where is testified And thus much for thiâ— point M. Barlow proceedeth and saith The Emperour by reason of his dangerous sicknes was forced to staâ—one yearâ— the Pope â—ocâ—e it for a dâ—ssâ—mbling and excommunicated â—im for his delay and the Emperour sending his Embassadours to Râ—me with their â—ffiâ—auit to make saith for his sicknes the Pope would not admâ—t 〈◊〉 to his presence So he In which words two things are auâ—uched first that the Emperours stay delay of â—is voâ—age waâ— truely sicâ—nes and secondly that for the samâ— hâ— was â—xcommuâ—icated But both these if we belieue tâ—e whoâ—e torrent of other Authors are manifestly false For most agree tâ—at the sicknes was counterfait and that the cause of hiâ— eâ—communication was not for that delâ—y but rather for his returnâ— againe with his fâ—rcâ—s gallâ—â—â—s aâ—â—â—r he had bene for some time at sea which M. Baâ—low could not but haue seene and therefore might haue beene ashamed vpon the credit of one Schismaticke to checke all other writers and to set downe this fabulous report for true For that his sicknes was counterfait may manifestly be gathered by the very behauiour of the Emperour himself who in that very time when he was sicke forsooth hearing of the death of the Lantgraue of Thuring came in al hast from Sicily to Brundusium to rifle the said Lantgraues Palace where â—e tooke away â—â—yth â—rantzius diâ—ssimi Pâ—incipis â—quos arma aurum argenâ—â—m lauâ—issâ—mam supeâ—â—â—â—â—lem the â—oâ—â—â—s ar â—ouâ— gould siluer and other most sumptuous furniture oâ— tâ—at most wealthy Prince And this his dissimulatioÌ„ of sicknes in plaine termes is â—uoâ—ched fiâ—â— by the Pope himself in hiâ— letters who 〈◊〉 thâ—t he knew the samâ— euen froÌ„ the 〈◊〉 who then were with the Emperour and by the â—aâ—d â—aâ—zius Luthersâ—nco â—nco â—â—a â—omâ—iâ—aâ—io â—hronologica al Germans alâ—o by Platina Sabellicus Bloâ—dus Taâ—cagâ—oâ—a and others but these in so cleare a matter may suffice Now that his excommunication was not for his delay but for his returne after he was set forth from Brundusium is most euident by the testimony of most writers amongst whom
abroad p. 50. more contayned therin then ciuill obedience p. 70. 71. 280. humble petition to his Maiesty for the expositioÌ„ therof p. 89. Scandall in exhibiting therof p. 126. 127. c. No such Oath euer enacted before by former Princes p. 156. Card. Bellaâ—mins opinion therof pag. 346. 347. c. deuided into 14. parts p. 357. difference betweene the said Oath and an Indenture pag. 362. Oath of Supremacy p. 353. defeÌ„ded by M. Barlow 354. 355. Obedience against God mans conscience none pag. 282. Obedience of our temporall Prince how far when it bindeth p. 291. defined by S. Thomas 339. Ordination of Protestant Bishops first vnder Q. Elizabeth praf n. 136. P PAVLVS Quintus Pope defeÌ„ded 54. 55. 56. 57. his Breues discussed part 2. per totuÌ„ whether he forbad temporall odedience to his Maiesty therin p. 323. deinceps â— Persons calumniated by M. Barlow pag. 204. belyed p. 263. Petrus de Vâ—â—â—is extolled by M. Barlow p. 499. iustified pag. 509. censured 523â— Philip the Emperour his murder pag. 470. Plutarke abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. Popes power ouer Infidel Princes p. 76. how they are particuler Bishops of Rome Pastours of the whole Church pag. 145. whether they can make new articles of faith or no pag. 324. 325. deinceps whether they command Princes to be murdered pag. 394. 395. c. Powder-treason pag. 13. 14. 15. c. F. Persons accused therwith by M. Barlow p. 23. Powder-plot of Antwerp pag. 18. of Hage p. 19. of Edenborrow ibid. Prescription of the Church of Rome part 1. cap. 5. per totum good argument in case of Relion pag. 150. 152. vide Antiquityâ— the same vrged by the Fathers ib. belyed shamefully pag. 246. Protestants gone out of the Catholike Church pag. 149. their Ecclesiasticall power ouer Puritans pag. 259. their basenes beggary pag. 265. their conflicts with Puritans about matters of Religion pag. 270. their Church basest of all others praef n. 36. Prouidence of God discoursed of by S. Augustine pag. 416. Q QVEENE Mary of ScotlaÌ„d put to deâ—th for Religion pag. 51. preached against by M. Barlow pag. 212. Queene vide Elizabeth R RESOLVTION of Catholiks in maters of faith p. 123. of Protestants none at all ibid. 124. what resolution is taken from the Pope pag. 125. M. Reynolds writing against Whitaker pag. 457. Rome Recourse to Rome about the Oath of Allegiance p. 50. 51. 52. c. The same practised in all difficulties by our English Princes people pag. 53. 377. Church of Rome impugned p. 144. S SALMERON abused by M. Morton M. Barlow p. 75. Salomons fact of killing Adoniah condemned pag. 105. D. Sanders abused by M. Barlow pag. 77. Scandall in exhibiting the Oath of Allegiance p. 128. 129 130. c. of actiue and passiue scandall pag. 132. 134. 135. scandall of Balaaâ— pag. 139. Sigebert calumniated pag. â—3 K. Sisâ—nandus his submission to the Councell of Toledo p. 36â— Statute of Association pag. 429. Sâ—â—pition vide Idolâ—try foure kinds of suspition pag. 119. Supremacy mascuâ—â—ne feminine pag. 395. how it was giuen to K. Henry the 8. pag. 29â— to K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth â—bid to K. Iames. pag. 29â— M. Barlowes iudgment therupon ibid. pag. 300 Sycophancy vide Flattery M. Barlowes diuision of Sycophancy pag. 242. Sixtuâ— vide Pope T S. THOMAS his opinion coÌ„cerning obedience pag. â—â—â— about Totally praef n. 52. abused by M. Barlow pag. â—36 Threatnings of God vnto Kings pag. 108. Tâ—byes breach of the King of Niniue his comaâ—ndment about burying of the dead Iewes p. 289. § 2. the ancient Fathers iudgment therof pag. 288. the credit of the History of Toby pag. 287. Toleration of Religion humbly demanded of his Maiesty part 2. cap. 4. per totum Thomas vide Morton Treason vide Powder-treason V VESSELS consecrated to Church vses ancieÌ„t p. 237. Viâ—es of wicked Kings recounted after their deaths in Scripture pag. 199. Vniuersity of M. Barlow little p. 236. W M. VVHITAKER a terrour to Card. Bellarmine in M. Barlowes iudgment pag. 455. his booke refuted by M. Reynolds pag. 457. his ignorance ibid. VVilliam vide Barlow VVorkes-Good works may giue cause of confidence in God p. 440. Syr Henry VVotton a wodden Embassadour praef n. 70. his pranks at Ausburge Venice ibid. X XYSTVS 5. belyed about the murder of King Henry the 3. of France pag. 115. Z ZISCA the blind Rebell of Bohemia pag. 456. FINIS Three things declared in this preface for the Readers satisfaction Why M. Barlowes book was answered by F. Persons The cause of the stay of this edition What manner of writer M. Baâ—low is Isa. 1â— Tertull. dâ— praesâ—rip cap. 41. Aug. tract 45. in IoaÌ„nem Bernard serm 65. in Cantica M. Barlow in his epistlâ— Dedicatory to his Maiâ—sty M. Barlowes maÌ„ner of writing M. Barlowes ignorance in GraÌ„meâ— Humanity Barlow pag. 15â— pag. 295â— Gregor lib. 2. Ep. ep 65. Barl. pag. 174. A very grosâ—e Grammaticall errour Fragmentum historiâ—um in anno 1238. â—omo 1. hist. Germ. Casarum Bellarm. l. 1. de Cler. cap. 28. Barlow pag. 342. A strange construction of Orbis terrae Bellar. lâ—â— citato M. Barlowes ignorance in Philosophy Leo ep 89. D. Thâ— lec 12. in Periber lit F. M. Barlows ignorance in histories Barlow pag. 298. Barlow pag. 292. deinceps Barlow pag. 245. pag. 288. pag. 295. M. Barlowes ignorance in interpreting the Scriptures Barl. pag. 53. Cant. 3. Barlow pag. 43. Iosue 6. Pag. 201. Iosue 6. Pag. 60. Gen. 3. Matth. 9. Barlow pag. 334. M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of Diuinity Barlow pag. 188. D. Thom. 2.2 q. 104. ar 6. ad 3. 〈◊〉 pag. â—7 pag. 57 〈◊〉 pag. 114. D. Tho. 2.2 q. 162 â—â— 4. in 〈◊〉 pag. 246. M. Barlowes paradoxes Barlow pag. 160. The Protestantes coÌ„science like a cheuerall point A prophane and barbarous assertion of M. Barlow Barlow pag 99. Athan. ep ad solitarâ—aÌ„ vitâ—m ageÌ„tâ—s Hilarius lib. 1. in ConstaÌ„t AugustuÌ„ paulo post â—nitium Barlow pag 2â—2 Barlow paâ—â— 142. see supra pag. 120. D. Andr. Respons ad Apol. cap. â—5 pag. 343. §. Porrâ— negat part 2. cap. 4. Printed anno 160â— An. 1607. D. Couell in his iust and temperate defence ar 11. pag. 67. liâ— 8. in Iob. cap. 2. Puritans acknowledge an essentiall difference betweene them and the Protestants in matters of religion An. 160â— arg 10. circa medium Si nons Vpoâ— the Arâ—c pag. 142. sâ—e Baâ—on tom 12 in anno 1140. sâ—â—â—nnius tom 4. pag. 1223. and S. Bern. ep 187. 188. dem â—ps Pâ—pyâ—ius Maâ—souius l 3. Annal. in Phâ—â—ppo August pag. 268. Bern. ep 240. â—â—â—nar Luâ—â—en et 〈…〉 Aâ—bizen es 〈…〉 see Christianus Massaeus l. 17. Chron. ad an 1206. Caesaâ—ius Heiesterb l. 5. illust mirac cap. 21. see the Protestants Apology pag. 343. Iewel defence pag. 48 M. Iewell contrary to himself Guido Carmelita in suÌ„ma cap. 9. de
A DISCVSSION OF THE ANSVVERE OF M. VVILLIAM BARLOVV D. of Diuinity to the Booke intituled The Iudgment of a Catholike Englishman liuing in banishment for his Religion c. CONCERNING The Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance VVRITTEN By the R. Father F. Robert Persons of the Society of IESVS VVHERVNTO since the said Fathers death is annexed a generall Preface laying open the Insufficiency Rayling Lying and other Misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing IOHN MORRIS Ex fructibus 〈…〉 Matth. 7. You shall know them by their fruites Permissu Superiorum M. DC XII A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS AND PARAGRAPHES CONTEYNED IN THIS BOOKE THE FIRST PART THE Preface to the Reader In which are laid open some few examples of the singular Ignorance Lying and other bad dealings of M. Barlow in his Answere to the Censure of the Apology Of Points concerning the new Oath of Allegiance handled in the Kings Apology before the Popes Breues and discussed in my former Letter CHAP. I. pag. 1. About the true Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance § 1. pag. 3. Of the pretended Cause of the new Oath which is said to be the Powder-Treason § 2. pag. 13. How great a pressure the vrging of the new Oath is to Catholickes that haue a contrary Conscience in Religion § 3. pag. 25. The same argument about the pressure of the Oath is further discussed § 4. pag. 31. What freedome may be said to be permitted to English Catholickes for swearing or not swearing the new Oath § 5. pag. 39. About recourse made to the Bishop of Rome for decisioÌ„ whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English Catholicks or no Wherin also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations § 6. pag. 49. Whether the Oâ—th be only of ciuill obedience Oâ— whether thâ—re be any clauses in it against Catholicke Religion CHAP. II. pag. 70. Of certaine notorious Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his Aduersary which no waies can be excused froÌ„ malice and witting errour § 2. pag. 87. The reasoÌ„ is examined whether Gods prouideÌ„ce might seeme defectuous if no authority had beene left in the Christian Church to restraine punish euill Kings And whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. pag. 101. Whether the deuising vrging of this new Oath were a blessing or no eyther to the Receauers or Vrgers And first of the Recâ—auers wherin is handled also of Conscience of swearing against Conscience CHAP. IIII. pag. 115. Touching the exhibitours of the Oath and of Scandall actiue and passiue Wherin M. Barlowes grosse Ignorance is disâ—â—â—â—red § 2. pag. 128. The answere to an obiection by occasion whereof it is shewed that Pâ—ssâ—sâ—ion and Presâ—ription are good proofâ—s â—uer in matters of Dâ—ctrine And the contrary is fondly affâ—â—med by M. Barlow CHAP. V. pag. 141. THE SECOND PART About the Brâ—â—â—s of Pope Paulus Quintus CONCERNING M. Barlow his â—xorbitant flattery in exaggerating Queene Elizabeths Vertues and Sanctity CHAP. I. pag. 159. About Queene Elizabeth her Mortifications And of the nature of that Vertue § 2. pag. 168. Of Queene Elizabeth her Felicities and Infelicities CHAP. II. pag. 179. Other Points concerning Queene Elizabeths Felicities or Infelicities § 2. pag. 194. Of Queene Elizabeths Sicknes and Death and other things belonging therunto § 3. pag. 209. Of the Flattery and Sycophancy vsed by diuers Ministers to his Maiestie of England to the hurt and preiudice of Caâ—holicke men and their cause CHAP. III. pag. 229. About Toleration or Liberty of Conscience demaunded by humble petition at his Maiesties handes by Catholickes whether it were height of pride or not As also concerning the contention betweene Protestants and Puritans CHAP. IIII. pag. 251. Concerning Errours Absurdities Ignorances and Falsities vttered by M. Barlow in the rest of his Answere CHAP. V. pag. 273. Whether Toby did well or no in breaking the commandement of the King of Niniue concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authority of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy § 2. pag. 285. Of another example or instance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall § 3. pag. 303. Whether Councells haue submitted themselues vnto Christian Emperors in Spirituall affayres and namely that of Arles to Charles the great CHAP. VI. pag. 311. Whether the Pope in his Breue did forbid temporall Obedience to his Maiesty of England And whether the sayd Pope hath power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII pag. 323. Of certaine other fraudulent and vntrue dealings of M. Barlow vnto the end of this Paragraph with a notorious abuse in alleaging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority § 2. pag. 334. THE THIRD PART Concerning Cardinall Bellarmine his Letter OF the occasion of the Letter written by Cardinall Bellarmine vnto M. George Blackâ—well Archpriest And whether he mistooke the state of the question Also of the change of Supreme Head into Supreme Gouernour CHAP. I. pag. 245. Whether the denying of taking this New Oath do include the deniall of all the particulâ—r clauses contayned therin § 2. pag. 356. Whether the fourth Councell of Toledo did prescribe any such set forme of Oath to be exhibited to the Subiects as is affirmed in the Apology CHAP. II. pag. 365. Cardinall Bellarmine is cleared from a false imputation and a controuersy about certaine words and clauses in the Oath is discussed § 2. pag. 386. Whether Princes haue iust cause to feare murthering by the commaundement of Popes And in disâ—ussing of the particuler example produced by the Apologer concerning the same great fraud and malice is discouered in M. Barlowes falsifying of Authors c. CHAP. III. pag. 394. About the death of Henry the third King of France whether it may be an example of allowance of such murthers As also about the late Queene of England § 2. pag. 414. Of certaine contradictions obiected to Card. Bellarmine and what confidence may be placed in a mans owne good workes CHAP. IIII. pag. 431. Of three other contradictions imputed vnto Card. Bellar. but proued to be no contradictioÌ„s at all § 2. pag. 448. Of the contentions of sundry other Emperours Kings and Princes with Popes of their times in temporall affaires obiected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Popes Superiority Wherin many fraudes aâ—d forgeries are discouered in M. Barlow particulerly concerning Fredericke the second and his contentions with Popes CHAP. V. pag. 461. M. Barlows more sure and stronger proofes are discouered to be lyes with other things concerning Frederick the second and Innocentius the fourth § 2. pag. 495. Of the Emperour Fredericke the first whose picture was said to haue beene sent to the Soldan by Pope Alexander the third And of the charge of Alexander the sixt touching the death of Zizimus or Gemen M. Barlowes innocent Turke §
sola meritum is nothing els but meere foolery as shal be afterwards shewed 59. From Diuinity he comes to Logick making his entrance with a vaunting insultation of his Aduersaries ignorance and want of skill about the true nature of a contradiction In deliuering of which the poore man is so embroyled as he knoweth not what he saith but cleane mistaketh euery thinge which he speaketh of For first he supposeth that a conâ—radiction must be where some generall proposition â—ither expresly or implicatiuely is crossed by a particuâ—er but this is no equall and perfect diuision for that â— contradiction requireth not alwaies a generall proâ—osition but may be between two particuler so that â—he subiect remaine indiuisible to wit vnder one and â—he selfsame respect vnder them both For if I should â—ay that M. Barlow hath skill in Logicke though it be â—ery little and M. Barlow hath not skill in Logick â—gaine M. Barlow is Bishop of Barlowâ—s â—s not Bishop of Lincolne c. I do not doubt but that â—e would thinke these propositions though both parâ—iculer to be truly contradictory and consequently his â—wne supposition to be false as that also is very fond â—hich for explication of his expresse and implyed conâ—radiction he ioyneth saying contradictionâ—n â—n negato the other in opposito or adiecto of the first â—ort are these examples wherin the negatiue note is expresâ—ed as omnis homo est aliquis non est of the second â—ort are such wherin the note negatiue is omitted and yet â—ne member ouerthrowes another So M. Barlow out of Logick And this as I said is very fond for that it is not â—f the nature of a contradiction in adiecto to be impliâ—d but rather the contrary to be expressed in termes â—t being all one with that which is called implicantia â—n terminis an implicancy or contradiction in the â—ery termes themselues For example If I should say M. Barlow is a brute beast the adiectum or terminus â—rute beast destroyeth the subiect to wit M. Barlow whose behauiour though it be often tymes very bruâ—ish and beastly yet is he by nature a man and that also a very naturall one 60. But the greatest mistaking and ignorance of all the rest is in the example which he maketh of this his implyed contradiction for hauing made this proposition Euery Bishop of Rome is vnder Christ the immeatate and sole chief Pastour of the whole Church in the Christian world this saith our Philosopher may be contradicted two wayes first expresly Some Bishop oâ— Rome is not the immediate and sole chief pastour c. Thiâ— is a contradictory with the negatiue Secondly it may be crossed by implicatioÌ„ as thus The patriarch of Constantinople is vnder Christ the immediate and sole chief pâ—stour of the Eastâ—rne Church This though it be a contradiction in opposito yet doth it as mainly oppose thâ— former generall proposition as if it had a negatiue noâ— c. Thus far M. Barlow as good a Philosopher aâ— M. Morton who though he professe to haue bene â— Reader of Logick yet shaped vs out a syllogisme oâ— six termes to proue Equiuocation in an oath to bâ— vnlawfull such great Deuynes are these menâ— as they know not the first elements of this faculty For haâ— not M. Barlow bene exceeding ignorant of the first rule and necessary condition of a contradiction â— which is that both parts câ—nnot togeather be eytheâ— true of false he would neuer haue giuen this for aâ— example seeing himself neyther belieueth the Bishop of Râ—mâ— to be head of the whole or Patriarke of Constantinople of the Easterne Church And where theâ— is the contradiction And is not M. Barlow well seenâ— in Philosophâ— who chooseth out an example to proue a contradiction in which euen in his owne opinion there is no contradiction at all Truly I may well suspect that he neuer came to be Bishop â—f Lincolne for his learning which euery where he â—heweth to be lesse then meane and therfore ouerlaâ—heth without measure but for some other inferiour quality little perhaps befitting that calling Let vs to make him conceaue his errour the better exemplifie in some more familiar examples The L. of Canterbuâ—y is Primate of all and euery part of England and â—he L. of Yorke is Primate of all the North part is with me no contradiction for that I hold both propositions to be false and neyther of them both to haue any Primacy at all in that Church and as the later will not claime it so M. Abbots may be sure I will not assigne it vnto him whome I doe as much hold to be Abbot of Wâ—stminster as Bishop of Cantâ—râ—ury And the like must M. Barlow needs say of his two propositions for that neyther of them in his iudgmeÌ„t â—s true and therefore are more contrary then contradictory as are also these omnis homo currit nullus homo currit and the like 61. Wherefore if it be as M. Barlow will needs haue it our very case in hand euen by the verdict of all skilfull Philosophers in the world the Cardinall will be quit at least from a contradiction and it is but childish babling yet very frequent in M. Barlow to make the oppositioÌ„s of the termes theÌ„selues saying that hâ—re is a double contradictioÌ„ both subiecti praedicaâ—i the Patriarke of Constantinople crosseth the Bishop of Rome the Eastâ—rnâ— Church and the whole world contradict ech othâ—r implicitely This I say is but babling for there is as great opposition between the former two propositions before set downe as in this Cantâ—rbury crâ—ssâ—th Yorke all England the north parts And againe omnis cannot stand with nullus currit with non currit and yet he will sooner bring Constantinople to Romeâ— and Yorke to Canterbury then proue any contradictioÌ„ to be in the same But let vs draw to an end of M. Barlows dispute 62. I passe ouer the rest he addeth concerning this matter although his chiefest fraud and cosenage be conteyned in the same For of an exhortatiue proposition in the Cardinall he maketh an absolute and necessary by cogging in the words is must thus mans confidence is to be reposed in the alone mercy of God and some confidence of man must be placed in his owne merits which are his owne forgeryes and not the Cardinalls assertions and then further in falsly charging F. Persons as though he said that good workes increase confidence in their owne nature and therfore will needs haue his doctrine to be condemned by Pius V. amongst other like assertions of a Louain Doctor but all is forgery for the Father speaketh not of our workes as alone they proceed from vs but as they proceed also from Gods grace within vs and for that cause calleth them the good workes of a ChristiaÌ„ it is vnchristian dealing in this Prelate to say that this proposition was euer condemned by Pius V. or any other Pope or Councell who only
his Maiesty then he doth in these 77. But let vs see M. Barlowes Commentary by which alone will sufficiently appeare with what malignant spirit his mind is possessed For if hell it self 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
necessary to make recourse to the Sea Apostolicke and to demaund resolution thereof according to the custome that had bene obserued in the like cases in England during the raigne of all Catholike Christian Kinges from their beginning of Christianity vntill king Henry the eight as else where largely hath bene proued by a seuerall booke writteÌ„ lately of that argument And as the English Catholickes were desirous to exhibite vnto their King all dutiâ—ull obedience and subiection in temporall matters so were they desirous also not to doe any thing against their consciences in spirituall affaires towardes their supreme Pastour whome they acknowledge to gouerne them in place of Christ our Sauiour And this was the cause why the one Oath was not consulted with Pope Clement the Eight the other was with Pope Paulus the fifth not somuch for his particuler and personall iudgemeÌ„t in Diuinity though it be great as in respect of his place and the most certaine assistancâ— which almighty God giueth him and all other in that place for gouerning of his people as also for the particuleâ— obligation that all Catholick Christians haue to obey their supreme Pastour whose authority receaued from our Sauiour is more to be respected then the gift of humane learning which I suppose M. Barlow in the Kinges Royall Authoritâ— and Person will not dare to deny or thinke it good dealing or lawâ—ull proceeding if when he setteth our a Proclamation his Subiectes should demaÌ„d what skill in Law or Diuinity he hath for auouching â—he same And much more if the question had bene made in the time of Q. Elizabeth who profeâ—â—ed not so much learning as this King and yet would be obeyed no lesse then he iâ— her dayes euen in matters Ecclesiastical although I think that the neuer studied Diuinity It followeth in M. Barlow Of Pius Quintus saith he who absolued the Queenes sâ—â—iects â—rom their obedience it was said by some of his owne that he was homo pius doctus sed nimis credulus religious and learned but too easy of beliefe But of this Paulus Quintus who hath interâ—â—cted the Subiects of our Soueraigne King to sweare their obedience eyther for his Diuinity or Piety we haue heard nothing Whereunto the answer is easy for if you haue not heard therof it is for that you are loath to heare so much good as you may of his Holines in both points His profession was not the faculty of Diuinity but rather of Ciuill and Canon law before God did choose him to the place dignity where now he is It is well knowne that his Holines hath great sufficiency also in the other for discharging of his obligation in that high Office and hath moreouer so many learned men about him in all sciences to consult withall wheÌ„ matters of weight do occurre as this poore exception of the Hereticke about learning in his Holines is a good witnes of his want of better matter what to speake to the purpose And as for his Piety which is the other point let his Holines life and actions be looked vpon as we know they are by all Heretikes in the world and curiously pried into not only at home in their owne Countreys but in Rome it selfe where many do go to certify theÌ„selues in this and sundry other like pointes and do depart much edified therby and sundry of them conuerted dayly by seeing the contrary to that which before they heard wherof my selfe among others can be a good witnes that haue seene the effect hereof in sundry of our Nation as others can say the like by theirs And this amongst other things is very notable and knowne spoken and confessed by all sortes of people in Rome to be in him to wit an Angelicall purity of life throughout the whole course therof in so much that he was neuer yet stained with the least blemish of suspicion to the contrary Which publike voice testimony how well it hath bene deserued of M. Barlow his Matesâ— I remit my selfe to the common fame of their next Neighbours or such as know them best As for that he saith of Pope Pius Quintus that he was accompted by Catholikes themselues nimis credulus notwithstanding he was homo pius doctâ—s as it is no great accusâ—tion so is it spoken and vttered without any testimony at all and therfore of small credit as comming from one that is found so full of vntruthes in most of his allegations wherof we haue giuen so many examples and shall do more in the residue of this our Answere as I doubt not but that he will scarsely seeme worthy to be belieued when he bringeth witnesses and much lesse without them But there remayneth a more large impertinency of M. Barlow coÌ„cerning this Pope his skill in Diuinity setdown in these wordes taken from the comparison of S. Peter S. Paul S. Peter saith he whose successour he is stiled and S. Paulâ— whose name he hath borrowed had their Diuinity indeed by inâ—â—sâ—â—n but their writings reuealed it to the world So that Peter we know and Paul we know to be singular Dâ—uines but who is this No men that seeketh to be â—amous doth any thing in secret say the bretheren of our Sauiour VVhere then are his labours his Sermons his Treatises his Commentaryes his Epistles Theologicall his doctrinall determinations his Iudiciall Decisâ—â—s all which are vsuall attractiues to draw an opinion vpon a man that he is a sound resoluer So he But Syr stay your Maister-ship these are no sound groundes to build the certainty of resolution vpon in a Magistrate especially such as the supreme Pastour is but rather the promised assistance that Christ our Sauiour made to S. Peter and his successours sitting in the Apostolike Chaire That Hell-gates should neuer preuaile against the same And how many haue written Sermons Treatises Commentaries Epistles Determinations and Decisions and do write dayly to whome notwithstanding we ascribe not this certainty albeit the last two for DeterminatioÌ„s and Decisions I doubt not but his Holines hath maâ—â— many in his dayes and those very profound and learned hauing bene a Iudge in diuers great affaires as the world knoweth before he came to this dignity whereto he ascended not by fortune or fauour or negotiation but by the merit of his great and rare vertue correspondent to the worthines of the noble and ancient family from the which he is descended And this wil be euident to any man that shall consider the eminent offices and dignityes wherwith he hath bene honoured euen from his youth as of Referendary in the high Court of Signatura de Gratia of Vice-Legate in Bologna of Nuntius Apostolicus into Spaine for most important matters and of Auditor de Camera in all which charges and imployments he gayned such reputation of learning wisedome and integrity that Pope Clement the eight of blessed memory held him to be most worthy of the dignity of a Cardinall wherto
inferreth that 〈◊〉 temporall authority of the Pope by vs pretended beiâ—â— but humanum inuentum a humane inuention or ratâ—â—â— intrusion or vsurpation as he calleth it the matter of the Oath wherby the same is excluded must needâ—◠〈◊〉 meerly Ciuill no lesse then if it were against any oâ—â—â—â— meere temporall Prince that would vsurpe any part of our Soueraignes temporall right or Crowne Whereunâ—â— I answer that if this were so and that it could be proued that this temporall power of the Pope as we teach it were but a humane inuention indeed and not founded in any authority diuine or humane then M. Barlow had sayd somewhat to the matter and the comparison of an Oath taken against any other teÌ„poral Prince might haue place But for that we haue shewed now that this is not 〈◊〉 but that there is great difference betweene this temporall power of the Pope deriued from his supreme spirituall authority as vniuersall Pastour which no temporall Prince is and the pretension of any meere temporall Potentate therfore is the swearing against the one but a ciuil obedience and the other a point belonging to conscience and religion with those that belieue the sayd power to come from God But now for answering this his last collection of authors I say first that Bellarmine in the place by hiâ— cited hath no one word of any such matter his booke being de Concilys and his purpose is to shew both in the 13. Chapter here cited as also in the precedent Câ—iâ— sâ— congâ—egare Concilâ—a to whome it belongeth to gather Councels which he sheweth to appertaine to haue appertained alwaies to the Bishops of Rome and not to Kings and Emperoures albeit they being the Lordes of the world the sayd Councels could not well be gathered withoâ—â— their consent and power But of Excommunication or of deposition of Princes Bâ—llarmine hath no one word in this place and so M. Barlowes assertion and quotation iâ— both false and impertinent about the first six hundred yeares after Christ. But if he will looke vpon Bellarmine in other places where he handleth this argument of Excommunicationâ— and depositions of Princes as namely in his second and fiâ—th booke de Rom. Pontis he will find more ancient examples at least of ExcommunicatioÌ„ which is the ground of the other then the six hundred yeares assigned out of Bellarmine For that Bellarm. beginneth with the Excommunication of the Emperour Arcadiuâ— and Eudoxia his wife by Pope Innocentiâ—â— the first for the persecution of S. Iohn Chrysostome which was about two hundred yeares before this tyme assigned by M. Barlow and diuers other examples more ancient then the 1000. years allotted by Doctor Barkley the Scottishman here alleadged as the excommunication of Leo Isauricuâ— surnamed the Image-breaker by Pope Gregory the second the example also of King Chilperiâ—us of France by Zacharias the Pope the example also of Pope Leo the third that translated the Empyre from the East to the West And as for the Friar Sigebert brought in here for a witnesse he should haue sayd the Monke for that the religious orders of Fryars were not instituted a good while after this who is sayd to call the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes A Nouelty is not an Heresy it is a notable calumniation as may be seene in the wordes of Sigebert himselfe in the very place cyted by M. Barlow For though Sigebert following somewhat the faction of the Emperour Henry the third excommunicated by Pope Vrbanus the second did often speake partially concerning the actions that passed betweene them which many tymes seemed to proceed of passion more then of reason and iustice yet doth he neuer deny such power of Excommunicating deposing for iust causes to belawfull in the Pope but the playne contrary Neyther doth he call that doctrine Noâ—elty or Heresy that the Pope hath this authority as falsely M. Barlow doth here affirme but only that it seemed to him a new doctrine which he would not call Heresy to teach that vicious Princes were not to be obeyed for so are his wordes Nimirum vt pace omnium dixerim haec sola nouiâ—as non dicam hâ—resis necdum in mundo emerserat vt 〈◊〉 Dei doceant populum quâ—d maliâ— Regibus nullam debeâ—â—t 〈◊〉 To wit that I may speake without offence of all this only nouelty I will not say Heresy was not yet spâ—â—â—â— vp in the world that the Priestes of God should teach 〈◊〉 people that they ought no obedience at all to euill Priâ—ces c. In which wordes you see that Sigebert doth 〈◊〉 deny or reproue the authority of Excommunication 〈◊〉 deposition of Princes especially if they be for heresy bâ—â— only the Doctrine that no subiection or obedience is dâ—â— to vicious or cuill-liuing Princes which is false and scandalous doctrine indeed As for the fourth Author alleadged in this place 〈◊〉 wit Claudius Espencaeus that he should call the fact of Pope Gregory the seauenth his excommunicating Henry the thiâ—d Nouellum schisma a new rent or schisme which is borrowed out of M. Morton as the rest which in this poynt he alleageth I will referre him for his answer to the answer that is made of late to M. Morton himselfe which is called The quiet and sober Reckoning where this matter is returned vpon him with so â—uident a conuiction of wilful falsity as is impossible for him to cleare his credit therin For that these wordes are not spoken by Espencaeus himselfâ—â— but related only by him out of a certaine angry Epistle written by certaine schismaticall Priestes of Liege that were commaunded by Paschalis the second to be chastised by Robertâ—arle â—arle oâ— â—landers and his souldiers newly come from Ierusalem about the yeare 1102. for their rebellious behauyour Which passionate letter of theirs Espencaâ—â— doth only relate out of the second Tome of Councells expresly protesting that he wil not medle with that controuerâ—y of fighting betweene Popes and Emperours though he prâ—ue in that plâ—ce by sundry exâ—mples both of Scriptures Fathers and Councels that in some cases it is lawful for Priests to vse temporal armes also when need iustice requireth So as this falsification must now fall aswell vpon M. Barlow as vpon M. Morton before and we shall expect his answere for his dâ—fence in this behalfe As for the last authority of S. Ambrose that Kinges and Emperours be tuti Imperij potestate sate by power of their Empire from any violent censure though I find no such matter in any of the two Chapters quoted by M. Barlow out of his Apologia Dauid yet seeking â—urther into other bookes of his I find the wordes which is a token that our Doctor writeth out of note-bookes of some Brother and neuer seeth the places himselfe but though I find the wordes yet not the sense which he will inferre but wholy peruerted to another meaning For that if S. Ambrose had bene of opinioÌ„ that
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
such aboundance of Scriptures to proue or infer that God the Father is greater then Christ Iesuâ— his Sonne what other way was there for Catholicks to say but that I distinguish as Christ Iesuâ— was man he was inâ—erior to his Father his Father greater then he but as Christ Iesuâ— is God as well as Man he is equall to his Father Will M. Barlow heere compare these two distinctions to Sedecias his two hornes Or will he call them proâ—unda Sathanae the profound mysteries of Sathan and iniquity And the like examples I might alleadg in great store of many other heresies discouered and disâ—olued by the help of distinctions as namely that of the Eutiâ—hians that denied two distinct natures in Christ that of the Nestorians that affirmed two persons to be in Christ that of the Monothelites that held one only Will to be in Christ by distinguishing on the Catholick party were vâ—â—erly ouerthrowne and confounded And now in these our dayes when the Anabaptists deny al Magistrates authority in iudging Christians especially in matters of life and death allâ—dging for their ground these words of our Sauiour â—olitâ— iudicare do not iudge we haue no refuge but a distinction that we are forbidden to iudge rashly and without iust cause and without due authority but with these circumstances we may iudge and Magistrates are lawfull And will here M. Barlow againe cry out of Proâ—â—nda Sathanae and of the hornes of Sedecias if he do I will send him to Scotland to be horned there For truely he is worthy of it to wit to be horned from the company of all lâ—arned sober men if he persist in these absurdities for that I dare auouch against him that there are many hundred places in the Bible that cannot rightly be vnderstood nor expounded without the vse of some distinction Well then distinctions in generall cannot be reproued without profunditie of folly Perhaps then my two distinctions here in particular are inueyghed against for 〈◊〉 they are false or not incident vnto the matter or of aâ—y moment or necessity for explicâ—tion of the thing aâ—d controuersy in hand or for direction of consciâ—nceâ— of Catholike men that are pressed to take the Oath Thâ—â— then let vs examine in a word or two and that as briefly and perspicuously as wee may The question is whether the Bishop of Rome as vniuersall Paâ—tour of Christendome by Catholike doctrineâ— may at his pleasure by that Pastorall power of his depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdomes at his pleasure for so is the coÌ„mon obiection framed against vs. Vnto which question the answer may be made eyther affirmatiue or negatiue according to the different senses and interpretations of the words which cannot be done but by distiâ—guishing to wit that if we vnderstand that the Pope may depose at his pleasure without iust cause it is denied but with iust cause Catholicke doctrine doth allow it And sâ— againe to vnderstand that the Pope may do it by his Pastorall power directly or immediately it is denied for that this power is spirituall and giuen to a spirituall end and to spirituall actions but if we vnderstand it indirectly as included in the other for defence and conseruation of the spirituall it is graunted And are not these distinctions needfull in this affaire Do they not cleare the doubt in controuersy Do they not remoue confusion Would M. Barlow haue Christian men to sweare swallow vp a bundle of wordâ— knit togeather without opening and looking into theâ— That is meete for his conscience that hath no eies perhaps to see nor will to receiue light but is ready to sweare any thing that may turne to his temporall commodity but Catholikes that feare God are not so taught but rather to looke before they leap and to examine well what they say or sweare for so much as they shall giue an accompt to Almighty God either to their saluation or damnation for the same By â—hâ—s then wee see the Iniquity of M. Barlow his proceeding in exclaming against me so exorbitantly for vsing the forme of two distinctioÌ„s or explanations about taking the Oath and aboue al the iniury offered me or rather to himselfe and his owne credit in saying that I doe teach Equiuocation here in this Oath num 30. contrary to that I taught a little before numb 14. His wordes are these No sort of Equiuocations is lawâ—ull saith Father Persons in matters of fayth and religion and yet sayth the same Father Persons Equiâ—â—cating in this matter of faith is lawâ—ull and may stand with the integâ—iâ—y and sincerity of true Catholik religion so then in matters of faith and religion it is not lawfull in any sort to equiuocate but yet in this matâ—â—r though it concerne â—ayth religion F. Persons sayth it is lawfull These are my contradictions according to M. Barlow And truly I confesâ—e I should blush acknowledge my ouersight if they were truly related but being falsely eyther of malice or ignorance collected by him he ought to blush and be sory for his sin For as I doe confesse the former part numb 14. that I allowed not any sort of Equiuocation in matters concerning faith and Religion so doe I vtterly deny the later clause num 30. that I doe allow Equiuocation in this particuler fact of taking the Oath Let the places be read in my booke thereby he will remayne conuinced For I do say expresly that these two clauses of explication added by me that the Popes power in deposing Princes is indirectly with iust cause must both be expressed by the swearer and accepted by the Magistrate and then are they no Equiuocations at all but direct assertions For that they are no mentall reseruations wherein consisteth the nature and force of Equiuocation Here then M. Barlow that accused me a litle before of making no conscience of God or common honesty must looke how he will defend his owne eyther conscience or honesty if he haue any in this foule calumniation wherein I doe not see what tergiuersation he can vse for his excuse And so I would leaue him in this matter if he did not continue on his rayling and raging beyond all measure as though by this my explication distinction vsed I had committed the greatest crime in the world I will demaund saith he of this Iesuit first whether â—his be not a Paganish delusion of God and men VVherto I answer that it is â—â— delusion at all but rather an instruction and a necessâ—â—y explication not Paganish but Christian for directiâ—â— mens consciences Nay saith M. Barlow it is the very 〈◊〉 oâ— Lisander that children are to be mocked with toyes and 〈…〉 Oathes Indeed Plutarke in his comparison of Lisâ—â—der and Silla recordeth that one said of Lisander Leuem esse apâ—d Liâ—â—â—drum iurisiurandi religionem Lisander made no scruple of aâ— Oath that he gaue couÌ„saile to deceiue men with Oathes as children with toyes and
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
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
the power and authority of the Pope and Sea Apostolicke c. be any point belonging to religion among Catholicks then is there not only some one word but many sentences concerning Religion in the Oath What answereth M. Barlow This Epistler saith he doth impudently impugne the Oath as vtterly vnlawfull and agaynst religion which yet dependeth vpon an If and is not yet determined for a point of religion that the Pope hath any such authority ouer Kings as in the Oath is mentioned No Syr not among Catholiks for of them only I speake though you leaue it out and doe many wayes corrupt my words Will not they grant the Popes authority in such cases to be a point belonging to their Religion Doth the word If put the matter in doubt that when you say If there be a God this or that is true or false you may be said to doubt whether there be a God or no And when you say If I be a true man this is so you may be thought to doubt whether your selfe be a true man or no Do not you see that this is playne cauelling indeed and not disputing But what more You say that when I do affirme the Popes power I do not distinguish whether in Ecclesiasticall or ciuill causes but you know well inough that I haue often distinguished and so do other Catholicke Deuines that the Popes authority is directly only Ecclesiasticall and spirituall for gouerning and directing of soules to euerlasting life though indirectly for conseruation of this Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall end there is annexed also Temporall in such cases as before hath bene specified concerning temporall Princes And so this is but a shift to say that I doe not distinguish As that is also another about my answere to the second demaund of the Apologer where he demandeth whether any man that taketh the Oath doth promise to belieue or not to belieue any one article of religion contayned in the said Oath For answere wherunto I did set downe sundry clauses of the said Oath wherby it seemeth plaine that the swearer doth make such promise Now you reply with this new shift saying that I doe still beg the question in controuersy So you talke to seem to say somwhat But what is the question in controuersy Is it not whether the swearer doth make promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of religion in taking the Oath Yes And I haue proued that he doth so by diuers examples How then doe I beg the question when I do euince it by proofe You reply that these articles abiured or allowed by him that takes the Oath concerning the Popes authority are not points of â—aith but rather Machiauelismes of the Conclaue But this now is rayling and not reasoning for that a Catholike conscience houldeth the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and all poynts belonging therunto for matters appertayning to fayth Catholicisme and not to Machiauelisme which Machiauelisme agreeth much more fitly to M. Barlows assertions that depend on the pleasures of Prince State alteration of times and temporall vtilities wherof Machiauel was a great Doctour then to the simple positions of Catholikes who without these worldly respects do playnly and sincerely imbrace and belieue all such points of doctrine as the knowne Catholike Church doth deliuer vnto them as any way appertayning to the integrity of Catholike Religion Heere then M. Barlow being driuen from his refuge of my begging the question layeth hand vpon another much more ridiculous in my opinion for it is somewhat like the Sermon of the Parish Priest to his Parishioners which he deuided into three parts the one that he vnderstood and not they the other that they vnderstood and not he the third that neither of them both vnderstood and the third part seemeth to be our case now for as I confesse that I do not conceaue well what M. Barlow would say so I haue reason to suspect that himselfe also can hardly explane his owne meaning or at least wise he doth it not so here as the Reader may easily vnderstand the same His words are these This censurer is an absurd dispuâ—â—nt still to beg the Question as if these articles abiured or allowed were points of â—aith c. This you haue heard answered now there followeth the other member Or as if saith he beliefe were vsed euery where â—heologically and that a Christians beliefe should alwayes be taken for his Christian beliefe â—or there is a naturall beliefe the Obiects wherof are naturall and ciuill things such as in this Oath c. So he And did not I tell you that you should haue mysteries A Christians beliefe is not alwayes a Christian beliefe but a naturall beliefe the good man would haue holpen himself with the School-mens distinction of fides diuina fides â—umana diuine humane fayth if he could haue hit vpoÌ„ it but yet wholy from the purpose if he had found it out nay quite contrary to himselfe For I would aske what fayth or beliefe diuine or humane Christian or naturallâ— did the Apologer meane in his demaund Whether he that taketh the oath do promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of Religion Did not he meane diuine fayth or Theologicall beliefe It cannot be denied for that the obiect being articles of Religion as heere is sayd which are not belieued but by diuine fayth as they are such it followeth that in this question the Apologer maâ—e his demaund of Christian beliefe and not only of a Christians beliefe yea of Theologicall beliefe and not of naturall beliefe that is to say of humane beliefe so conforme to this his quâ—stion were the clauses of my answere I do truly and sâ—â—cerely acknowledge professe testify and declare in my conscience c. And againe I do further sweare that I do from my hart abhorre deteâ—t and abiure as impious doctrine c. And yet further I do belieue and am in conscience resolued c. And is not all this beliefe in Conscience out of Conscience and for Conscience and of things belonging to Catholike Religion to be vnderstood of Christian and Theologicall beliefe but naturall only Who would write so absurdly but M. Barlow who seemeth not to vnderstand what he writeth And that this may be better vnderstood I am mynded to say a word or two more of this matter He maketh a distinction heere as you see betweene naturall and Theologicall beliefe adding for his reason that the Obiects of naturall fayth are naturall and ciuill things and that such are the articles contained in the Oath ayming as before hath bene said at the distinction of diuine and humane faith But he is grosly deceaued in that he distinguisheth these two faiths or beliefes by their materyall obiects and things belieued contrary to the generall consent of all Philosophers and Deuines who do hould that oâ—â—es actus specificantur ab obiectis formalibus that all acts are
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
disposition the second causes doe worke infallibly though in producing their effects some worke necessarily some casually some freely Hereby then we see first that M. Barlow vnderstood not his Authors in saying that Gods Prouidence is so farre forth called Gods Prouidence only as it remayneth in Gods secret counsaile for as Saint Thomas in the booke by him alleadged saith Gods Prouidence hath two partes the one is ordinatio or â—ispositio rerum the other is ordinâ—â— executio per causas secundas which second is called fatum or destiny but yet is a part of Prouidence as yow see and therby doth M. Barlow erre grossely in contraposing it to Prouidence saying it is called fatum and not prouidence wheras fatum is a part of prouidence as appeareth by that which hath beene said but yet more grosly doth he erre when he sayth that when Gods Prouidence doth shew it selfe in sensible effects it is destiny not prouidence for that this Fatum or destiny consisteth as it hath beene said in the order connexion of the second causes before they worke their effect not in the sensible effects themselues when they are now produced and extra causas And so by this we see in part M. Barlowes profundity in Schoole-diuinity But we haue not yet done for that he goeth forward against the Pope saying If after the murther of the King of France the Pope had seene that some really true not partially supposed good had bene effectuated by the Parricyde that should he truly and only haue ascribed to Gods Prouidence as Ioseph applyed his being in Egypt for the reliefe of his kinred vnto Gods permission but not vnto his brethrens sale c. And heere now we see another profundity not so much of Diuinity as eyther of ignorance or impiety ascribing only vnto Gods Prouidence things that in our eyes seeme good and profitable wherin he impiously abridgeth Gods Prouidence which is ouer all things without exception eyther dispositiuè or permissiuè by ordayning or by permitting as he might haue seene in the Author by him alleadged I meane S. Thomas in his question de Prouidentia not that God is the Author of sinne or of the obliquity therof as Caluin his followers wickedly affirme but that God doth vse euen naughty and sinfull actions oftentimes to his glory and to the vniuersall good of his gouernment and so he vsed the wicked action of Herod Pylate and others to the furthering of Christ his sacred passion for so it is sayd expressly in the Acts of the Apostles vnto God himself that Herod Pilate togeather with the Gentils and Iewes conspired against our Sauiour facere quae manus tua consilium tuum decreuerunt fieri to do those things which thy hand counsaile haue determined to be done To which effect many other places of Scripture might be alleadged wherby it is euident that the admiring of Gods Prouidence in such actions is not an allowaÌ„ce of the thing it selfe as lawfull in the doer for that no man will say that the Apostles did allow the actions of Herod Pilate in putting Christ to death though they do acknowledge it as we haue now seene to haue come by the particuler prouidence of almighty God consequently all that idle speach which is here vsed by M. Barlow against Pope Sixtus Qâ—intus that he did not as King Dauid did in detesting Ioab for his trayterous slaughter of Abner but would haue canonized the Fryar if some Cardinals had not resisted this speach I say is very idle indeed For neuer was there any such cogitation knowne to haue bene in the Pope for canonizing that man nor did the Pope euer prayse or allow the fact as often hath bene sayd nor doth M. Barlow know how he would haue dealt with the sayd Fryar for the same if he had escaped death and had bene in his power to punish him so that all heere is spoken out of passion and will to calumniate much also out of errour and ignorance as hath bene sayd as namely that nothing is to be ascribed to Gods Prouidence but that which to vs seemeth really true good and not partially so supposed So as heere a man is made iudge what is to be ascribed to Gods Prouidence and what not In which case I doe not see how the actions of Herod Pilate could well be ascribed to Gods prouidence as the Apostles did ascribe them I do not see also how M. Barlow can mantaine his assertion here set downe that the selling of Ioseph into Egypt by his brethren was not by Gods Prouidence but only as he sayth for the reliefe of his kinred which the Patriarch Ioseph doth seeme plainly to contradict when discouering himselfe vnto his brethren he said I am your Brother Ioseph whom you sold into Egypt be not afrayd nor let it seeme vnto you a hard thing that you sold me into these Regions for that God sent me before you into Egypt for your safety And more plainly in the last of Genesis where the Patriarch speaking to his Brethren sayth Vos cogitasâ—is de me malum c. you thought to do me hurt but God turned it to good to exalt me as at this present you see and to saue many people And are not these words playne that the whole action of Ioseph his selling into Egypt was by Gods permissiue prouidence Or will M. Barlowes profound diuinity teach vs that in the selfe same mysterious actions one part is subiect to Gods Prouidence and the other not The last example brought forth to proue the Pops accustomed attempts for murthering Princes is that of Queene â—lizabeth late Queene of England against whose life was obiected many attemptes to haue beene made by priuity and incitation of diuers Popes but I desired some proofes therof whereto was answered in thâ—se words for veryfication of this there needeth no more proofe then that neuer Pope eyther then or since called any Church-man in question for medling in those treasonable conspiracyes To which my words of answer were And needeth there noe more Syr but this quoth I to condemne both Confessors and Popes for that no Pope hath called into question or punished any Clergy-man for such like attempts what if he neuer knew of any such attempt nor beleiued that there were any such really designed What if he neuer heard of any Clergie man accused except such as were put to death by the Queene herselfe and so were sufficiently punished whether they were culpable or innocent To all which demands of myne M. Barlow answereth with great impatience For where I demand And needeth there no more Syr for proofe but this His answere is There needeth no more CVRR but that But this I ascribe to his choller And for that he bringeth no other thing of any moment about this matter that I haue spoken largely els where of Queene Elizabeth her affaires I shall
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
is this will he say to tâ—e Popes consent for his poysoning Surely they are violent inducementes that he thirsted after the Emperours death which way so euer â—or he which would arme the Emperours owne souldiers against him cause a treacherous reuolt from him whilest he was fighting the Lords battaâ—ls betray him into the mouth of Christes sworne enemies inuade his possessions in his absence disperse false rumors of his death coÌ„trary to truth and his owne knowledg and by contemptes and Anathema's doe his best or worst to breake his hart would make litle acompt or conscience to Drench him out this lifâ— yf opportunitie and secrecy would concurre So he Wel pleaded M. Barlow But soft Syr I pray you take me with you What is that which by these violent inducementes as you terme them you go now about to proue Is it not to shew that Innocentius the 4. hired one to poyson Fredericke And are these particulers or any one of theÌ„ which you haue so much vrged for this purpose to be verified of Innocentius Did not all these thinges passe in the tyme of Gregorie the ninth of whose going about to poyson tâ—e Emperour no man hitherto euer so much as dreamed neyther do yow your selfe charge him therewith diuers yeares before Innocentius was Pope How then may these thinges violently induce any man to beleiue that Poâ—e Innocentius did conspire the poysoning of Fredericke Aâ—d to the end that your inducementes may be the more strong we shall reduce the whole force of them into a Logicall argument thus Pope Gregory the ninth armed the Emperours soulddiers against him caused a treacherous reuolt from him whilest he was fighting the Lords battails betrayed him into the mouth of Christs sworne enemies c. Ergo twenty yeares and more after this Pope Innocentius the 4. hired one to poyson him This is M. Barlowes violent inducement set downe in forme to prooue Pope Innocentius the 4. to be guilty of poysoning the Emperour And what force it hath I shall not need to declare For the argument is so ridiculous and transparent as there is no child so simple that doth not see through it And truly M. Barlow cannot here excuse himselfe in my iudgment from willfull malice that alleaging all this out of Vrspergensis who ended his historie with the yeare 1228. or the beginning of the next at what time Pope Gregory liued as he did for 12. yeares after would notwithstanding lay it all vpon Innocentius the 4. for which cause as it may be thought he dissembled Pope Gregories name throughout al his relation which he could not but see expressed in his Author And what will you say to such malicious follie or foolish malice M. BARLOVVS MORE sure and stronger proofes are discouered to be lyes with other things concerning Fredericke the second and Innocentius the fourth §. II. BVT M. Barlow yow may thinke hath some better proof besides these violent inducements to proue the Pope accessory to the poyson and death of Fredericke by which he will make all so cleare as there shal rest no more difficulty in the matter In those perhaps he will vse more sinceritie I say perhaps for that the custome of lying is so habituated and rooted in him as it is difficise mobilis a subiecto hardly to be separated from him as the Philosopher speaketh of all other habits which are not easily separated from their subiectes Let vs see then what demonstratiue proofs and irrefutable arguments he will bring to proue what he intendeth His words are these And yet that presumptions sayth he may not only carry it Cuspinian hauing Authors for both reports relateth the procurers therof doubtfully but the instrument certainly that Mansredus POYSONED him witâ—out controuersie siue ab hostibus siue a Pontiâ—ice corruptus but whether corrupted by enemyes of the Emperour or by the Pope he will not say but so he diedâ— So he What still nothing but lying M. Barlow Did you not promise vs surer argumentes then presumptions And why then doe you beginne with so notorious vntruthes Doth Cuspinian say that Manfred poysoned him Then truly hath M. Barlow belied Cuspinian before for that he saied And Cuspinian agreeth with them to wit Petrus de Vineis and Nauclerus that the Emperour recouering by the help of Phisuians from the poison Manfred tooke a shorter course with him and as Hazael serued Benhadad with a cloth stopped his breath with a pillow So he And yf this be true M. Barlow how then do you here set it out in Capitall letters by the Authority of Cuspinian that Manâ—red POISONED him and that so died for these are your words heere So as if M. Barlow be true in one place he must needes be false in the other For in the one he sayth that he recouered of the poyson in the other that he died of the same which is so playne a contradiction as M. Barlow will neuer be able to make doth partes to agree Besides it is a grosse vntruth to affirme that Cuspinian should say that the Emperour was poysoned by Manâ—red whereof he speaketh nothing at all and therfore where you say that he reported the instrumeÌ„t certainly that Mansredus poysoned him without coÌ„trouersy certainly without conâ—rouersie it is a lie of yours and not the assertion of Cuspinian whose words you might haue seene set downe in my letter alleadged thus Non potâ—it cauere c. The Emperour could not auoide but when he returned into Apulia he perished with poyson the 37 â—eare of his raigne and 57. of his age and the very same day that he was made Emperor for wheras at the towne of Florenzola in Apulia he was daungerously sicke and at length by diligence of Phisitians had ouer come the same he was stifled by Manfredus his bastard-sonne begotten of a noble woman his concubine with a pillow thrust into his mouth whether it were that Manfredus did it as corrupted by his enemies or by the Pope or for that he did aspire to the kingdome of Siâ—ilia So he where you see no mention made of Manâ—red for the poysoning but only for the stiâ—eling And how then doth he relate the procurers of the poyson doubtfully and the instrument certainely I thinke M. Barlow vseth to write sometimes in his sleepe for had he bene waking he would not as I suppose euer haue bene so shameles or ignorant as so to corrupt or mistake the Authors which he citeth in so base a manner And truly Cuspinian himself seemeth to haue dreamed in these few lines here cited as before I haue noted for hauing said veneno peryt he perished or died with poyson yet presently after as you see he saith that by diligence of Phisitians he ouercame the same and afterwards was stifeled And with such sleepers and dreamers are we troubled with all who not seeking to finde out or deliuer the truth in the matters they handle do contradict themselues and runne into
liued in Africk he not only suffered but procured throughout all Sicily and his kingdome of Italy the fairest women and maidens which the Turkes lusted after to be taken from their parents bosome and married wiues euen out of their husbands armes to be giuen vnto them So he And was not this a vertuous man trow you who to pleasure the Turkes sworn enemies of Christ would thus deale with Christians And doth not this man deserue to be credited speaking in his owne behalfe before Pope all writers and whatsoeuer other testimony But indeed this dealing was conforme to his deuotion for he who so vilely esteemed of our Sauiour himself no meruaile if in his other behauiour he were so irreligious base and wicked for as we haue before out of Fazelius shewed he held our Sauiour and Moyses to be no better theÌ„ Mahomet calling them all three Seducers as with Fazelius the Chronicles of Augusta and Compilatio Chronologica both German histories do auouch and moreouer affirme that he speake the same in the hearing of Henry the Lantgraue saying withal If the Princes of the Empire would but follow me I would ordaine a bâ—tter maner of beliefe and liâ—e for all Nations And verily it seemeth that he aymed at this when as you haue seene before out of his owne epistle set downe and censured by both the Matthews he went about to abase all the Clergie by taking all liuings from them and to depriue them of all their dignity â—or that being once effected he might with more ease afterwardes haue made a new Clergy a new faith a new Christ but he forgot in this his foolish feruor what the Kingly Prophet Dauid said and praied against such atteÌ„ptes Omnes Principes qui dixerunt hereditate possideamus Sanctuarium Dei c. All thoâ—e Princes who haue sayed let vs possesse as our inheritance the Sanctuary of God let them be O my God as a wheele and as straw before the face of the wind as a fier that burnes the wood and as a flame that consumes the mountaines So shalt thou persecute them c. Which seemes in some sort to be verified litteâ—ally in this man who after his excommunication being in extreme calamitie as well by the election of another Emperour defection of a great part of the Empire from him as also for that one of his sonnes to wit Entius King of Sardinia was taken prisoner by the people of Bolognia and another was dead in Apulia Likewise himself percussus est saith Matthew Paris morbo qui dicitur lupus vel sacer ignis was stroken with the disease which is called the wolâ—e or holy fier whereby he was so humbled as the same Author witnesseth that he offered vnto the Pope good conditions of peace according saith Matthew to that saying of the Psalmist which followeth immediatly in the same Psalme by me now alleadged Imple facies eorum ignominia quaerent nomen tuum Domine fill their face with confusion and they will seeke thy name O lord And this chastismeÌ„t of almighty God as it began in his owne person so it continued in his issue partly whiles he liued partly after his death vntill they were all extirpated In his life tyme his Sonne Henry was made away by his owne procurement being cast into pryson where he was eyther poysoned by his command as some thinke or else died naturally as others report Entius was taken by the Bolognians and there after twenty yeares restrainst and more being kept in an iron cage he pined away and died miserablie Bononiam ductus saith Mutiâ—â— mittitur in ferreamâ— caueam in qua sordidissimo victu nutritus miserimam vitam post aliquot annos finiuit Entiuâ— being brought to Bolognia is cast into an iron cage in which being intertained with most filthy diet after some yeares imprisonmeÌ„t ended a most miserable life So he His other bastard-sonne Fredericke died in Apulia And after the said Emperour his death his sonne Conrade King of Sicily was poysoned by Manfred his bastard-brother and Manfred was slaine in battaile by Charles of Angâ—ow and Conradinus Sonne or Nephew to Conradus for in this Authors differ was beheaded at Naples and so ended the race of this wicked and vnfortunate Emperour of whome that may iustly be said which Iob speaketh of the like men Haec est pars impij apud Deum c. This is the portion of the wicked man with God aâ—d the inheritance of the violent oppressors which they shall receaue from the omnipotent If his sonnes shal be multiplied they shall die by the sworde and his nephews shall not be filled with bread All whome he shall leaue behind him shal be buried in destruction Which if all Princes could remeÌ„ber amidst their greatnes no doubt but they would be more moderate in their power and actions and also feare him more qui auâ—ert spiritum Principum terribilis apud omnes Reges terrâ— who taketh away the life of Princes and is dreadfull to all the Kinges of the earth Before we haue set downe out of the Councell it self then which there can be no more graue or greater authority all the causes of his condemnation as his sacriledges his periuries vpon periuries his perfidiousnes to the Christians his treacherous treaty with the Soldan his spoiling of Churches and monasteries his expelling of the Christians out of Nuceria and giuing it to the Turkes his reuiuing the foule faction of the Guelphes and Gibbelines all which and many more as they may be seene in the sentence of Innocentius and Seuerinus Binnius so also many other Authors might be alleadged for the same And he who listeth to read more herof may peruse VVilliam of Nangis the Frenchman in the life of S. Lewis and with him all the Authors whom before we haue cited where some of these things haue bene more particulerly touched which no doubt was the cause why VViceliâ—â— a German in his Epitome of the Popes liues in this Innocentiâ—â— the 4. spake so contemptibly of the Emperours death as he said sub hoc perijt bestia Fredericus In the time of this Pope died that beast Fredericke And the Monke of Padua registring the same death saith Vitam amisit in Apulia c. On S. Lucies day Fredericke died in Apulia and descended into hell carrying nothing with him but a sack of sinnes So he far different from that which before we haue heard others to write of the death of Innocentiuâ— And this may suffice to shew what smal reason M. Barl. had so much to iustify this Emperor for his sake to coÌ„demne the Popes who then liued forgetting in boâ—h that seuere coÌ„mination of the Holy Ghost Qui iustificat impiuÌ„ qui condemnat iustum abominabilis est vterque apud Deum He that iustifies the wicked and he that condemnes the iust both are abominable before God Which makes M. Barlowes case the more pittifull for that he
But let vs heare some reason of his VVhat insolency sayth he is this to compare Popes with Kings subiectes with superiours for euen Preists as well as others are subiect to their soueraignes by Chrysostoms rule And so say we also Syr in temporall affaires belonging to the Comon wealth But how doth this inference of yours hould Priests are subiect vnto temporall Princes that are their Soueraignes therefore also Popes Is there no difference And for that you name S. Chrysostome in this matter and call it an insolency to compare Kings with Popes I would demaund of you whether you euer read S. Chrysostome de comparatione Regis Monachi of the comparyson of a King and a Monke as also his other Books de Sacerdotio And if you haue and vnderstood what you read then will you haue seene that S. Chrysostome preferred â—he dignity of both the one and the other Monke and Priest before the dignity of a King And Cardinall Bellarminâ— last booke and third Chapter doth alledge so much about this matter as maketh it sufficiently cleere without any derogation of Princely authority at all AN EXAMINATION OF CERTAâ—NE â—ENTENCES AND AVTHORâ—TIES of ancient Fathers alleadged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Letter to M. Blackwell and impugned by M. Barlow CHAP. VI. AMONG other points that were impugned out of Cardinall Bellarmines Letter were certaine sentences examples and authorities of ancient Fathers about the Oath And first of all was the comparison of the subtill art and deceipt said I vsed by Iulian the Emperour surnamed the Apostata and recounted by S. Gregorie Nazianzen in placing and inserting the Images of his false Gods into the pictures of the Emperour in his Imperiall banner so as no man could bow downe and do reuerence to the Emperours picture as then was the custome but that he must adore also the Images of the false Gods which art of temâ—erament the Cardinall doth compare vnto this mixture and combination of clauses lawfull and vnlawfull ciuill and ecclesiasticall in the Oath proposed so as a man cannot sweare the one but he must sweare also the other for which cause I said in my Letter that the whole Oath with all the clauses as it lyeth in which sense it hath bin also forbidden by his Holynes cannot in any wise be taken although touching some one only clause not only cyuill but also ecclesiasticall as for example of the Popes authority of charity I might thinke as then I wrote that the Priests who tooke the Oath tooke it in some such sense as being explycated by them and accepted of the Magistrate might stand with the integrity of fayth And that the sense of the sayd clause might be agreed vpon betwene his Maiesty and his subiects in such sort as it should agree with the opinion and practise of all other Catholicke Princes But the whole Oath as it lyeth is no other then the picture of the Emperour togeather with the Images of false Gods Which similitude and comparison though it expresse most fitly as it seemeth the matter in hand yet was it impugned by seeking out dissimilitudes disparities in other pointes then wherein was made the sayd comparison As for example that first Iulian was an Apostata but our Soueraigne is a Christian Iulian changed the religion he once professed but our King not Iulian became an Ethnick or Atheist our King is not ashamed of his profession Iulian dealt against Christians his Maiesty dealeth only to make a distinction betweene true subiects and false harted traytors c. And so he goeth forward alleadging many sundry diuersityes betwene man and man thing and things state states which I said is nothing to our purpose For a similitude requireth not likenes or parity in all poyntes for then it should be idem and not simile but liknes only in the point wherin the comparison is made as here in the compounding and couching togeather of lawfull and vnlawfull clâ—uses in the oath as the other did Images in his banner for that other wise if we will stand vpon seeking out differences between the things that are compared other things wherein the comparison is not made and thereby condemne the similitude we shall ouerthrow all similitudes whatsoeuer and particulerly we shall eneruate make voide all the Parables coÌ„monly of our Sauiour wherin if we go from the point it self that is compared we may find â—or the most part more dissimilitudes then simâ—litudes As for example Be yee â—ise as serpentes and simple as doues what enemy of Christian religion might not cauill and calumniate this similitude by seeking out diuersities betwene a serpent and a man and betwene the malicious craft of the serpent and the true wisdome that ought to be in a prudent man and the like in the nature and simplicity of doues many dissimilitudes may be sought but it is sufficient that the similitude do hould in the poynt wherein the comparison was made which is that Christians shoâ—ld be both wise and simple as are serpents and doues and imitate both the wisdome of the one and simplicity of the other so far forth as is conuenient for a Christian life which S. Paul doth afterward expound how far it must reach when he sayth Volo vos sapientes esse in bono simplices in malo I would haue you to be wise in good and simple in â—uill This then being my declaration of that similitude out commeth M. Barlow as it were with his dagger drawne in great heate to incounter the same casting vpon me all kind of reproach and by his ordinary scurrility calling me Salomons loathsome creature to wit a spuing dog resuming the eiection which he had once auoyded such is the modestie and ciuilytie of this new Prelate But why doth he shew himself so enraged You must imagine he is in some straits to answer the former discourse but yet must needs set vpon it well or ill Let vs se how he performeth it All the Censurers speach sayth this Minister commeth to this profound conclusion that a similitude must only hould in that poynt wherein it is compared because that if the comparison should hould in all it were pentity and not resemblance Which doctrine of myne he seemeth to allow and replieth not but yet to seeme to say somewhat and not syt out he passeth to another discourse that in foure manners comparisons mâ—y be made eyther in the nature of the thing or in the disposition when some affection is resembled or when a passion or perturbation is assimilated or when the action only is compared without circumstances which are obscure things without ground at all and as well may foureteene poyntes of comparisons be found out as foure to wit so many as there may be differences betwene things that be compared and therefore we recall M. Barlow from these idle euagations to the point it self And for so much as he now graunteth that things compared