or Ecclesiasticall power hath hitherto bene or may be lawfully exercisedâ— for the reâ—ormation and correction of all maÌ„ner of errors heresies schismes 〈◊〉 c. all and all manner of Iurisdiction priuâ—ledges and preheâ—â—â—â—â—ces in any wise touching any sprituall or Ecclesiasticall iurisdâ—ctiâ—â—â— with in the Realme was giuen vnto her and vnited vnto the Crâ—â—â—e This was the high doctrine in those daies of the Priâ—ces supreme Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power oâ—er the Church of England no lesse theÌ„ of the Pope himselfe ouer his Church of Rome But now of later dayes and by later writers the case seemeth wonderfully altered for not only haue they taken away the name title of Head of the Church which was treason by King Henries Statutes to deny and many were put to death for not yielding therunto but haue taken away the authority also it selfe if we respect the substance and shifting in words to seeme still to retaine somewhat Wherin among others M. Barlow seemeth eminent and vnder a shew of defending the Kings supremacy to take it quite away For let vs heare first how he handleth the question about the Princes authority for iudging in cases of religion which is the principall of all the rest He both proposeth and solueth the question thus May not then saith he a Prince iudge in cases of Religion and Faith No not iudicio definitiuo to determine what is sound Diuinity or not and so impose that vpon the consciences of men for faith which he alone defines to be so but iudicio executiuo or iurisdictionis he may and ought when the Church hath determined matters of saith command the prosessing therof within his Kingdomeâ— as the soundest and worthyest to be receaued This is his determination whereby it is euident that he permitteth only vnto the King to execute that which his Church in England to wit the Bishops and Clergy therof shall determine about matters of religion which is no one iote more of power in Ecclesiasticall matters then that which Catholicks do ascribe vnto their â—emporall Princes to execute what the Church determineth but yet with this difference of much more dignity that they are bound to the execuâ—ion only of that which the Vniuersall Church shall determine not of their owne subiects alone as it falleth out on the behalfe of his Maiesty of England in this case In which point also I do not see how he can wind himselfe out of this maze that must necessarily follow of his owne doctrine to wit that one should receiue from another that the other receiued from him As for example if the Bishops being his Maiesties subiects as well in spirituall as temporal affaires haue no spirituall iurisdiction but froÌ„ him as the Statute of King Edward doth determine and on the other side his Maiesty to haue no authority to define of any matter belonging to religion at all but only to execute that which the Bishops do define it seemeth that they receiue from his Maiesty that authority which they deny to be in him and so that he giueth them the thing which he hath not in himselfe but is to receaue from them Moreouer it is euident by this doctrine of theirs that the Bishops do make their Courtes Tribunalls for matters of Religion to be absolutly greater then the Kings for that they do allow him no other power for Iudging in spirituall matters but only to execute that which they shall define and determine And albeit for dazeling the simple readers eyes M. Barlow doth in this place fumble vp a certaine distinction not wel vnderstood by himselfe takeÌ„ out of some Schoolmen as he saith noting Occam in the margent that there be three parts of this executiue iudgmeÌ„t the one discretiue to discerne the other directiue to teach others the third decretiue which third he saith is in the Prince both affirmatiuely to bind to the obseruing of that which is so tryed and adiudged and negatiuely to suppresse the contrary and that this last is to Iudge for the truth and the former of defining is to iudge of the truth Yet doth all this reach no further but to the power of execution of that which others haue determined which may be called a power of impotency in that behalfe for that therin he is subiect and not Superiour especially if it lye not in his power either to execute or not to execute as he shall think best which M. Barlow here denveth saying That he may and ought to execute when the Church hath determined But on the other side if he haue power and liberty to execute or not to execute then is the other power of defining in the Bishops to small purpose For that they may define and he not execute his iudgment being that they haue defined eâ—ill and by that way becommeth he their Iudge againe to define whether they haue defined well or no. And this is another circle or labyrinth which I see not how M. Barlâ—â— will easily auoid I doe pretermit diuers other childish thinges that be in this speach of his as where he propoundeth thus the question as first VVhether a Prince may iudge in cases of Religion â—â—d saith as though these two were Sinonyma and all one Whereas religion contayneth many cases as well of life manners and cerimonyes as of faith in all which cases it may be demanded how far the King may be iudge Secondly he saith that the King cannot define and determine what is sound Diuinity or not which is far from the purpose For the question is not whether the King may iudge and determine what is sound Diuinity or Theologie but what is matter of faith and what is to be belieued or not be belieued by a true Christian within his realme Thirdly in like manner when he saith that the King hath only iudicium executiuum or iurisdictionis as though they were all one whereas executio and iurisdictio are two different things iurisdiction is more properly in that party that defineth then in the other that executeth for that the former commaundeth and the second obayeth Fourthly his terme also of discretiuum ascribed by him vnto all Christians to haue power to try spirits whether they be of God or no besides that it seemeth contrary to that of S. Paul to the Corinthians who reckoneth vp discretion of spirits to be a peculiar and seuerall gift vnto some alone saying Alij discretio spirituum c. is nothing well applyed by him to iudicium execuâ—iuum for that it appertayneth rather to iudicium definitiuum for somuch as those that haue power to define to determine of matters are principally to iudge of spirits not their subiects to iudge of theirs for that other wise there must needes ensue an inextricable confusion of trying iudging of one the others spirits As if for example the Bishops oâ— England should try condemne the spirits of the Purytans and they agayne the spirits of the Bishops by
that all the courses held against him both by Popes and Princes may in respect of his outragious demerits seeme to haue bene very myld moderate and gentle And so much for Sigonius The other wordes of Genebrard also are cited with diminution by saying that Genebrard commeth not short of Sigonius who saith that this was done to wit the deposition iussu Paschalis Pontifiâ—is by the commandement of Pasâ—halis the Pope leauing out the next words Principum qui ad generalia Comitia conuenerant and of the Princes of Germany that met in that vniuersall Diet or Parliament at Mentz so as euery thing is heere minced to the purpose scarce any thing set down sincerely simply throughout the whole booke And as for the principall point that M. Barlow would and should proue in this place that Pope Paschalâ—â— did set on the sonne against his Father now you haue seene that those his two authorities alleaged of Sigonius and Genebrard that he concurred with the generall Diet in Germany do proue it nothing at all for that the Election of the Emperour by seauen German Electors hauing bene appointed by the Sea Apostolike not much aboue an hundred yeares before that time to wit by Gregory the 5. that crowned Otho the 3. and annexed the Imperiall dignity to the Germane nation Pope Paschalis hauing by this meanes besides all other so great right to haue a hand in this matter for the good of Christendome cannot be said to haue stirred vp the sonne to rebellion when he concurred with the whole State of Germany for the translation of the Crowne from the Father to the Sonne Nor wheÌ„ the said Sonne took armes against him afterwardes doth any probable author ascribe it to the Pope but expresly vnto others and namely to the three noble men before mentioned out of Cuspinian Vnto which three noble men in like manner Vrspergensis that was present saw what passed doth ascribe the said rebellioÌ„ vpon the yeare 1105. without euer mentioning the Pope against whome notwithstanding the said Vrspergensis as one that followed the part of Henry the fourth vseth no fauour at all in his relations and consequently may be a witnes without exception as also may be Huldericus Mutius a Protestant German â—riter whose wordes are Henricus filius quorumdam consilijs seductus aduersus Patrem moliâ—ur res nouas Henry the Sonne being seduced by the counsailes of certaine men did attempt new thinges against his Father and in all his narration he toucheth not the Pope ascribing any part therin vnto him And this shall be sufficient for this matter And as for the other point that he toucheth out of Cuspinian and Sigebertus that Pope Gregory the 7. did acknowledge at his death that he had molested Henry the 4. vniustly and was sory for the same besides that it maketh nothing to our purpose for stirring vp the soÌ„ne against the father which hapned almost 20. yeares after Gregories death none of thâ— doth alledge it as a thing certaine but as a report which M. Barlow a little before proued out of the Orator to be vncertaine besides that they do not agree in the narration in diuers points finally for the most of them they are plainly contradicted by a multitude of witnesses which you may read layd togeather both by Doctor Sanders in his Monarchie and Cardinall Bellarmine in his 4. booke de Rom. Pontifice And so I shall need to say no more in this matter ABOVT THE DEATH OF HENRY the third King of France whether it may be an example of the Popes allowance of such murtâ—ers As also about the late Queene of England §. II. FOR another example and proofe that Popes are wont to allow murthers of Princes is brought in a certayne Oration which Pope Sixtus Quintus is sayd to haue made in the Consistory with admiration and praise of that fact and that the fryar which committed the murther should haue beene canonized for the fact if some Cardinalls out of their wisdome had not resisted the same whereunto was answered both by me first and afterward by Cardinall Bellarmine that no such oration was euer extant in Rome or els where but onely amongst the Protestants in forrain Countreys that wrote against it in their declamatory Inuectiue intituled Anti Sixtus who in this against the Pope deserues smal credit Onely it is acknowledged that Sixtus in a secret Consistory vpon the first news of the fact did vtter a certayn speach in admiration of the strange prouidence of almighty God said I in chastising by so vnexpected a way so â—oule and impious a murther as that King had committed vpon a Prince Cardinall Archbishop those two also of nearest bloud to his Maiesty of England without any forme of iudgment at all that a spectacle hereby of Gods iustice was proposed vnto Princes to be moderate in their power and passions for that in the midst of his great royal army and corporall guards he was strangely slaine by a simple vnarmed man when he nothing lesse expected or feared then such a disasterous death To this now M. Barlow replies with great excesse of railing against the Pope saying that the Oration was made that the Pope therin was like yong Elihu whose words boyled within him for ioy of the fact like new wine in a bottle with open mouth stretched sydes glorious tearmes he did hyperbolize both the author manner and fact and that this Oration was like to haue recâ—aued in that Consistory an Herods Plaudite in Deifying the Pope canonizing the fryar c. All which as it hath no other proofe but the assertion of M. Barlowes wild and vnruly tongue so is it easily contemned by any man of discretion especially since there be so many graue men Cardinalâ— and Bishops yet aliue that can testify of the matter and Gentlemen that were at Rome also at that tyme and neuer saw or heard that euer any such Oration of Pope Sixtus Quintus was extant or made by him in allowance or approbation of that horrible fact of the fryar though otherwise as I sayd he did highly admire the straÌ„ge prouidence of God in chastising by so vnexpected a way so foule and impiouâ— a murther as that King had committed against all order of law and iustice Secondly then hauing nothing in effect to say to this yet for that he is bound to say something for his fee allready receiued he thought best to carpe at those wordes of mâ—ne that Pope Sixtus did highly admire the strange prouidence of God in his vnexpected Iustice vpoÌ„ the sayd King and so iesting at my words of strange prouidence he saith A fit Epithete doubâ—les and fetched from profound 〈◊〉 for can Gods prouidence be strange which in the vniuersall gouerment of the world and guidance with protection of particuler creatures iâ— daily and continuall Well then here M. Barlow will needs shew the profundity of
here pretermitt the residue of the trifles which M. Barlow for lengthening his booke bringeth in spicing the same euery where with most virulent raylings as the examples of Squire and Parry which so often haue beene answered by vs the former as a meere fiction for so much as concerned his sending from Spaine into England by F. VValpole the Iesuite for poisoning the Queenes chaire and the Earle of Essex his saddle the other a deuise of his owne to wit of Parry himself to gaine the Queenes goodwill and therby some preferment by telling her that he was sent to kill her by some Catholikes out of the Land whereas indeed he was neuer trusted by them in farre lesse matters then in such an enterprize But he returneth yet once agâ—ine excessiuely to praise the said Queene That Lady Queene Elizabeth saith he the diamond amongst Princes the glory of royall Maiestie the ioy of the Christian world for her sex whilst she liued And what will the discreet reader hould M. Barlow for his sex Truly I thinke for one of the most grosse and palpable flatterers that mankind doth containe and as for her being the ioy of the Christian world I meruaile what Christian world he can pretend to meane For if he will confine the Christian world within the Protestant world it is God wote but a very small part therof and yet in this Protestant world neyther was she held to be so rare a diamond or glory of royall Maiestie nor was she such a ioy vnto them as there is sayd which is euident by their writings extant especially of the Lutherans that misliked her religion maÌ„ner of proceeding and especially her taking vpon her to be head of the Church whereat they do laugh euen vntill this day And the same or greater dislike was euen in the purer sort of Caluinists both at Geneua the Mother-Church of that profession as also throughout all France Holland Zeland Scotland and England so as this little Protestant world held her not for such a ioy nor yet Iewell of theirs as here by M. Barlow she is described But as for the Catholike Christian world for what diamond they held her and what Ioy they tooke of her and in her appeareth well by their bookes which are extant and will indure till the worlds end so as the chiefe ground of all these excessiue and exorbitant prayses and flatteries is no other as far as I can see but the volubility of this Ministers tongue for the present what it may be hereafter vpon the blast of other windes I know not but it is like that the Weather cock will turne Some examples haue we seene before of his constancy about the Earle of Essex and may do also hereafter concerning Queene Elizabeth if his Maiestie that now reigneth shall neuer so little turne the fauour of his eyes from her actions which of all other Princes by the iudgement of most men he hath most cause to do as somwhat I touched in my â—ormer letter and now shal be inforced to repeat somwhat againe for defending my selfe against M. Barlows calumniations but it shal be only the conclusion of that my discourse To conclude then said I about Queen Elizabeth albeit Pius Quintus some other Popes did excoÌ„municate her and cut her of from the body of the Catholike Church by Ecclesiasticall Censures in regard of her persecuting Catholicke Religion yet did I neuer know it hitherto proued that any Pope procured or consented to any priuate violence against her person albeit if the forealleadged Statute of the 28. yeare of King Henry the 8. be true wherin it is determined both by the King himself his Counsel and whole Parliament and by the Archbishop Cranmer with his Doctors in his Iudiciall Seat of the Arches that Lady Elizabeth was not legitimate nor that her mother was euer King Henryes true wife which once being true could neuer afterward by any humane power be made vntrue or amended to the preiudice of a third rightly by due succession interessed therin if as the whole Parlament testifyed it should be against all honour equity reason and good conscience that the said La. Elizabeth should at any tyme possesse the said Crowne then the said Popes respecting in their said sentence as it is certayne they did the actuall right of the Queene oâ— France and Scotland and of her noble issue his Maiestie that now is they might proceed as they did against the other for her remouall whom they held for an vsurper in fauour of the true inheritours oppressed by her not only by spirituall but temporall armes also as agâ—inst a publicke malefactor and intruder contrary to right and conscience And I cannot see how this fawning Apologer can eyther without open vntruth or manifest iniury to his Maiesty auerre the contrary Which being true doth greatly iustify the endeauours and desires of all good Câ—tholicke people both at home and abroad against her their principall meaning being euer knowne to haue bene the deliuerance preferment of the true Heire most wrongfully kept out vniustly persecuted for right â—ousnes sake To this discourse of mine M. Barlow with many bitter wordes taketh vpon him to reply this that followeth First that there are many more euidences to proue that the Pope is Antichrist then that Queene Elizabeth was illegitimate this you see what force it hath how fit it is vnto this purpose and therfore he taketh haÌ„dfast of another hould thus If King Henry her Father B. Cranmer with his Court of Arches and body of the Parlament did sentence her for such yet the same Father Arches and Parlament vpon better ground within few yeares renounced the same sentence and repealed that act This now is somewhat if M. Barlow had cited the Act or Parlament or Decree of Bishop Cranmer or his Arches or some other particularity how or where it was repealed as I did cite for the contrary of her condemnation Rastals Abridgments I do find indeed in the booke of Statutes that seauen yeares afterwards to wit anno 35. of Henry the eight cap. pâ—â—â—o when King Henry had determined in person to go ouer and make warre in France as in the said Statute is affirmed and after the death of so many other wyues had married the Lady Katherine Parre widdow hauing small hope of more issue he made a certaine declaration of the succession if in case himselfe and the Prince Edward and Lady Mary should dye without lawfull issue to wit that for lacke of such issue the said Lady Elizabeth should succeed in her turne but there is no word of her legitimation nor of the repeale of the foresaid Statute declaratory of the inualidity of her Fathers and Mothers marriage And albeit I find diuers other clauses of that Statute 28. Henry 8. cap. 7. repealed by 1. Edward 6. cap. 12. and primo secundo Philip. Mariae cap. 1. 8. yet do I not find any
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 repeale made concerning the said illegitimation of Queene Elizabeth And King Henry himselfe in that Parlament of the 35. cap. 1. doth professe that he had authority by Parlament to giue and dispose the said Imperiall Crowne by his Letter Patent at his wil pleasure which sheweth that he might if he would appoint her to succeed in default of other issue though she were neuer so much illegitimate seing all was referred to his owne appointment But for so much as M. Barlow doth make so light accompt of this sentence of Parlament as after you shall heare out of his owne conteÌ„ptible words against the same I haue thought it good briefely to repeate them heere and therby shew the weight and moment therof Thus then they ly in the Statute And albeit most dread soueraigne Lord saith the Parlament that the said acts were then made as it was then thought by your Maiesties Nobles and Commons vpon a â—â—re perfect and cleare foundation thinking the said mâ—rriage then had betwene your Highnes the said Lady Anne in their consciences to haue bene pure sincere pâ—râ—â—â—â— and good and so was reputed accepted and taken in the Realme till now of late that God of his infinite goodnes from whom no secret things can be hid hath caused to be brought to light euident and opeÌ„ knowledg as well certaine iust true and lawful impediments vnknown at the making of the sayd acts and fithence that tyme confessed by the sayd Lady Anne before the most Reâ—erâ—nd Father in God Thomas Archbishop of CaÌ„terbury Metropolitan and Primate of all England sitting iudicially for the same by the which plainely appeareth that the said marriage betwene your Grace and the said Lady Anne was neuer good nor correspondent to the lawes but vtterly void and of no effect by reason wherof your Highnes was and is lawfully diuorced and separated from the bands of the said marriage in the life of the sayd lady Anne And this notwithstanding most gracious and soueraigne Lord the Lady Elizabeth your Daughter being borne vnder the said vnlawfull marriage by vertue and authority of the act of your Succession aboue remembred for lack of Heirs-males of your Body should immediatly succeed as your lawfull heiâ—e in the most royall Estate of your Imperiall Crowne of this Realme against all honor equity reason and good conscience if remedy should not be prouided for the same This was the sentence which is graue and weighty as yow see for that the whole Parlament affirmeth that such impediments were discouered by Gods infinite goodnesse and conâ—essed by Queene Anne in publicke iudgment before the Archbishop Cranmer sitting vpon the same matter as by the same it was euideÌ„tly conuinced that she was neuer King Henries true wife indeed and consequently that the lady Elizabeth was neuer his true and lawfull daughter And did not this deserue that M. Barlow should haue brought forth authenticall testimony to the contrary For if this attestation of the Parlament King and Metropolitan were good and true that Queene Anne was neuer in her life lawfull wife to King Henry then could not any future Parlament though neuer so faine it would afterward make her legitimate or lawfully giue her the Crowne in preiudice of the next lawful heire after Queene Maries death which at that time was his Maiesties Mother Queene of France and Scotland But here now M. Barlow would seeme to make some answere to these last words of mine saying that being once true quoth he to wit the illegitimation no humaÌ„ power could make it vntrue to the preiudice of another then he answereth If the illegitimation had byn in her bloud it is true no law could make it good against the right Heire And do you grant thus much Syr That if the illegitimation had bin in her bloud no law could make it good Wherein then I pray you was this illegitimation Was it in her bones or in her flesh or skinne For in one of these foure it must needs be for asmuch as it descended by her birth from her Father Mother But saith M Barlow her bloud being sound seming allegations and plausible inferences might for a time dazell not alter her right but they being cleared and reuersed these second deliberations did not so much establish her right which was inherent in her blâ—ud as make it more apparent and sensibly incontrollable Here now is indeed that begging of the question which without cause it pleaseth M. Barlow sometimes for fashioÌ„s sake to obiect against me For here our questioÌ„ being whether Queene Elizabeth was sound in bloud or no he supposeth it for a principle that it being so then seeming allegatioâ—s or plausible inferences cannot hurt her right but the Parlament supposeth proueth the coÌ„trary that she was not souÌ„d in bloud but wholy vnsouÌ„d by her birth natiuity and the same do we suppose by the authority of this Parlament and by the testification both of her Father and Mother And how ridiculous then is it that M. Barlow should suppose the conâ—â—ary without proofe saying that supposing she was sound plausible inferences could not hurt her Secondly he calleth the resolute and seuere asseuerations of King Henry himselfe and of Archbishop Cranmer and of all the Lords both spirituall and temporall of the Parlament togeather with the iudiciall confession of Queene Anne her selfe beâ—ore her execution he termeth them I say but seeming allegations and plausible infereâ—ces which thing considering both the greatnes of the persons and grauityâ— of the matter both in the sight of God and man and the most weighty consequences which therof did depend is the grieuous iniury that in words could be offered to so great authority For it is to make them all wicked men and lyers they affirming the matter to be true and to hâ—ue beene reuealed by gods infinite goodnes so euidently as there is set down and M. Barlow saying to the contrary that they are nothing but seeming allegations plausible inferences Thirdly where he sayth that these plausible inferences being cleared and reuersed in the second deliberation to wit of the Parlament did not so much establish her right which was inherent in her bloud as make it more apparent he beggeth againe the question and supposeth that for his ground which we deny vntill he can proue it to wit that the former determination of Parlament was reuersed concerning her illegitimation For why should not this appeare in the Satute booke as well as the former And wheras he sayth that her right of successioÌ„ was but dazeled not altered by this Decree of Parlament for that it was inherent in her bloud we haue now shewed that it is a ridiculous tergiueâ—sation for that the Parlament condemning and disanulling vtterly the marryage of her mother with her father doth therby condemne her whole bloud for vnlawfull to succeed except M. Barlow will say she had other bloud which she tooke not from Father
sayth M. Barloâ— to this Doth not common sense teach it to be so And thus much for the death of those our Catholike and innocent Priests whose death was pretiosa in conâ—â—ecta Domini pretious in our Lords sight that died only for testimony of his truth which if M. Barlow did as well see and feele as Queene Elizabeth doth at this day he would not so prattle as he doth Let vs see a little further He bringeth in for proofe of the Queenes mildnes an Historiographer of Genua called Bizarrus or Bizarro which in English signifieth a Mad-cap and he is brought in to tell vs certaine points of a Mad-cap indeed to wit the great moderation of her mind her in-bred clemencie though himselfe be an out-bred that she gouerned her subiects with exceeding great mildnes abhorring from bloud or putting any to death c. which belike he writing in Genua knew better then English men liuing in England who felt the smart in themselues and others whiles this man was out of the Gunshot and as it is likely well paid for his paynes for Syr Horatio Parauicino was able both for his credit and wealth to vndertake a greater matter then this And for that you M. Barlow with M. Sutcliffe and others do so often alleadge this Bizarro as an Author against vs it shall auaile much both for your credits and his to tell vs where when and by what authority he was printed for here in Italy we can heare of no such worke although some search hath bene made for him which doubtles we should do had he bene set forth in these parts and therefore we thinke him to be no Catholike writer but of a bastard brood and a Mad-cap indeed of your owne making Besides that how truly he writeth not only all England but all the whole world can testify and to omit all other most cruell massacring and bloud-shed the memory of the vnnaturall and Butcherly Tyranny executed vpon his Maiesties Mother will remaine for a most rufull example to all posterity But M. Barlow not content with externe witnesses alleadgeth also domesticall saying Your owne Priests shal speake for Queene Elizabeths lawes and then cyteth out of the book of Quodlibets a certaine pathetical exaggeration in praysing Queene Elizabeth and her lawes also against Catholickes which we esteeming to come from that good suggester Ri. Can. who suggested so notorious a lie vnto M. Mortâ—n as himselfe complaineth hath byn shewed in the late Reckoning with him we esteeme it accordingly do giue it the credit that it deserueth which is nothing at all And M. Barlow is driuen to a hard exigent wheÌ„ he stoopeth so low as to take vp these base raggs to blazon Q. Elizabeths prayses withall which a wiser man would haue byn ashamed to alleage especially knowing with what sorrow of hart the poore man that fathered that filthy worke repeÌ„ted him at his death therof asked of God the Iesuites pardon for the same as before hath bene signified OF QVEENE Elizabeths Sicknes and Death and other things belonging thereunto §. III. AFTER the former points of Queene Elizabeths lawes and executions therof made against Catholikes and Catholike Religion whereby she made her selfe most odious both at home and abroad to forrayne Princes yea to many Protestant Potentates themselues that misliked such cruelty I shewed that as the naturall effect and consequence in such causes is feare diffidence suspition and vexation of mind so grew the same vpon her very much in the course of her life especially towards her latter dayes when she was impressioned that not only Priestes and Iesuites who indeed did pray to God for her conuersion but souldiars also and Captaynes and Phisitians did seeke her death eyther by poysoning her body saddle chayre seate or somewhat else belonging vnto her as the deathes of Lopez Squier others doe testify to all which M. Barlow doth answere now by running to certayne common places and sentences that proue nothing but only that he hath bene more diligent then iudicious in gathering them out of Authours and applying them without puâ—pose for he telleth vs first out of Salust that Ingenia Regum sunt prona ad formâ—dinem the inclination of Kings are prone to feare And then out of Seneca Dâ—bia pâ—â— certis solent timere Reges Kinges are wont to feare thâ—ngs that be doubtâ—full for certayne which in my iudgement maketh more for my purpose then his Then he sayth that it was not soe with Queene Elizabeth for that carefull she was fearefull she was not wary she was but not iealous prouident but not suspicious wherin I referre me to them that knew her better then M. Barlow and to the effects themselues which are the best witnâ—sses And for that I sayd in my Letter that this griping passion of feare and iealousy did force her to lay hands vpon the bloud of the most dearest in affection and nearest of kinted that she had in this life as the Earle of Essex and his Maiesties Mother M. â—arlow comming to answer this poynt sayth neuer a word but passeth it ouer with mumme-sâ—lence and no marueile for he had sayd so much before both for the Earle and against the Earle while the Queene was a liue for him in setting â—orth his excessiue prayses and tryumph after Calâ—s voyage when he hoped to haue preferment by him and against him aâ—ter his dâ—ath when the path of promotion opened it selfe another way to wit by disgracing infaming him as I thinke the miserable man knew not what to say perswading himselâ—e wherin I thinke he erred not that whatsoeuer he should say no man would belieue or greatly care of it and therefore sylence was the best But for the thing it selfe I meane the manner of his dâ—ath I will not meddle nothing doubting but that so loose and exorbitant a life as he led being alwayes accoÌ„panied with crewes of goodfellow-Ministers that by life and doctrine taught him that way of perfection in their trade he deserued no better an end then he receiued And moreouer it may be also that the State and Queene had further reasons to moue them to seuerity against â—im then euery man knoweth although with the Queenes owne person he was thought to be further engaged for speciall â—auours receyued then that vpon the suddayne he could fall to hate her and seeke her destruction and so he protested at his death though this bloudy Sycophant in strayning his actions thoughts and intentions after his death at Paules Crosse wher in a maÌ„ may discouer supereminent malice issuing out of the roote of ambition leuelled all his speach to that end to styr vp and confirme iealousy in the Queenes mynd that they two could not liue togeather and therefore in the end of his Sermon extant now in print he left thirteene most spightfull recordes to be borne in memory whereof the sixt is in these wordes Hiâ— liâ—e a danger to the Queene marke that
common Catholicke Church nor in that vnitie without good life especially if he should die in any of these sinns mentioned before by S. Paul that goe bâ—fore or follow him to Iudgement The minor proposition is that Q. Elizabeth is noted most grieuously in both these kinds Ergo there may be a iust feare of her euerlasting damnation Neyther doth this preiudice Almightie God his extraordinarie mercies to whome he listeth we speake here of the ordinarie way of saluation reuealed vnto the Church and in that sense onely shal be sayd somewhat to the Minor proposition wherin standeth the cheife moment of this our question That Queene Elizabeth was excommunicated by name by two or three Bishops of Rome whome we hould for supreme heades on earth of the knowne Catholike Church no man can deny that she was likewise excommunicated by conâ—equence though not by name by the General Councel of Trent in all tâ—ose Canons anathematizations which were made against Protestants for their doctrine which she also held no maÌ„ can doubt of as neither but that she was coÌ„prehended in all the cases that touched her faith or actions in Bulla Coenae euery yeare repeated and pronouÌ„ced against Heretikes Schismatikes Vsurpers of Ecclesiasticall power and authority whereof she auouched herselfe to be Head in her owne kingdomes And now that this externall visible Church called Catholike and knowne by that name throughout the world aswell by friends as enemies which S. Augustine sayth is an argument that it is the true Church indeed is the selfe same visible Church that was in the foresaid Fathers times and visibly deduced by succâ—ssion from their dayes to ours is so manifestly to be proued as no man can with reason deny the same and consequently if it were so certaine a damnation to be excommunicated or put out of that Church as now you haue heard the said Fathers to affirme then is it soe now aâ—â—o and then goâ—th hard the case of Queene Elizabeth as you see for that it is not knowne that she was euer reconciled or taken into the sayd Church againe And as for the other point concerning other sinnes meant or mentioned by the Apostle as on the one side I will not take vpon me to determine what or how many or how great she committed so on the other considering the frailty of mankind the temptations of the triple enemie the world the flesh and the diuell the many occasions she had in her free state of life to fall into sinne and that in the space of foure and fourty yeares at least after the entrance to her Crowne she neuer vsed the ordinary help of ancient ChristiaÌ„s for purging her soule which the foresaid Fathers doe teach vs to be not onely contrition but also Sacramental Confession absolution of the Church her state I say being this it must needs follow that so many as belieue and acknowledg this Sacrament of the Church to be necessary to saluation when it may be had yea is câ—mmaunded by the sayd Church vnder paine of Censures to be reiterated euery yeare once at least if not oftener that this woman neuer making the same and dying in that state cannot be saued according to the iudgment of all those that belieue follow that Church that condemneth her which Church being spread throughout the whole world as it was in S. Augustines time and hauing obtayned the same priuiledge which he tooke to be sufficient to demonstrate the true Church to wit that she is knowne by the name of Catholicke both to friends enemies true Christians and Heretickes according to the common sense of men for he proueth that neuer heretical Congregation could obtayne to be so much as called Catholike throughout Christendome or to be knowne by that name this thing I say being soe we see what a dreadful preiudice this may appeare to be against the euerlasting saluation of Queene Elizabeth For if there were so great mayne a difference betwene bodily Phisitianâ—â— both for number skil experience antiquity and authority about the temporall death of any Prince as there is here in all these qualities betweene the spirituall Phisitians of Christendome Catholike and English Protestants concerning the eternall death of Queene Elizabeths soule to wit that so many more temporall Phisitians in number without comparison so much more learned so much more experienced in corporall Phisicke as the other exceed them in spirituall yea further and that they had so many deadly Symtomes Chryâ—es and Prognosticons conâ—â—med out of the authority of Hipocrates Galâ—â— and other ancienâ— Phisitians all tending to mortality as the other haue out of the doctrine iudgment and perpetuall practice both of the said Church and holy Ghostly Fathers of the same foâ— Queene Elizabeths euerlasting death I doubt nothing but that the sayd Princes temporall life would be held for very dangerous or rather his death were very probable Neither did I say any more of the spirituall death of Queene Elizabeth most likely to accompany her corporall I beseech the mercie of Almighty God that it be not soe And here I might adde also another plaine familiar proofe out of the said ancient Fathers and namely out of S. Augustine to the end we may see how his Church did agree with ours or rather the vniuersall known Catholicke Church in his dayes with that Church that hath the same name notes in ours For besides that number of authorities which I cited out of him before as agreeing with other Fathers that it is impossible for an Heretick Schismatick or an ExcoÌ„municated person dying in that state to be saued he goeth further in an other place into more particulers for being required by his freind Quod-Vult-Deus to set downe vnto him a briefe Catalogue or enumeration of all the particuler heresies that the Catholicke Church had condemned from the beginning of Christianitie vnto their time or did hould for heresies in those dayes he set downe aboue fourescore and added in the end that if any man should professe or belieue any of those heresies or any other that had or sâ—ould spring vp he could not be a Christian Catholicke and consequently neyther be saued but euerlastingly damned Now in this Catalogue or booke of heresies which was also gathered vnto their dayes by Philastrius and S. Epiphanius before him S. Augustine setteth downe for damned heresies some that Queene Elizabeth did manifestly â—ould and so was thought to hould and for any thing that we know died in the same as namely those heresies of the Hereticke Aërius that solemne fasts appoynted by the Church were not to be obserued but euery man or woman to fast when they would least they should seeme to be vnder the law So sayth that hereticke And then which maketh most to our present purpose that prayer and sacrifice were not to be offered vp for the dead nor did profiâ— them any thing at all vpon which later poynt I am induced to make
first and second Chapters of the booke of Toby to wit how the foresayd King Senacherib sonne to Salmanasar being returned much exasperated from Iury agaynst the Iewes for the euill successe which there he had did promulgate an Edict that such as he caused to be slayne should not be buryed the Story sayth that Toby notwithstanding this Edict and Commaundement did bury them by night yea and left also on day his dinner and the ghests which he had with him at the same for to fetch in the dead body of a Iew slayne in the streetes and when some of his neighbous seeing the peril thereof did reprehend him for aduenturing vpon so great daunger saying to himâ— that himselfe had bene commaunded to be slayne for burying men before the Story doth not only defend him but also commendeth him for the same saying Sed Tobias plùs timens Deum quà m Regem rapiebat corpora occisorum c. But Toby feating God more then the King did take away the dead bodies that he found in the streetes hyding them in his house and burying them at mydnight Secondly the Angell Raphael in the twelth Chapter discouering himselfe vnto Toby togeather with the mystery of all his actions with him doth manifestly shew that these his deeds of charity of giuing of almes and burying the dead bodyes of such as were slayne were gratfull vnto Almighty God Quando craâ—as cum lachrymis sepeliebas mortous derelinquebas prandium tuum c. ego obtuli â—â—ationem tuam Domino quia acceptus eras Deo necesse suit vt tentatio probaret te When thou didst pray with teares and didst bury the dead and didst leaue thy dinner for doing this worke of Charity I did offer to God thy prayer and because thou wert acceptable vnto God it was necessary that temptation should try thee Here then we haue the testimony of an Angell agaynst M. Barlow that is no Angell and if he be yet must we account him for a very wicked and false Angell if the other be a good and true Angell Now then let vs examine a little whether of these Angels deserueth most to be belieued or whether for a mans saluation it be more secure to follow the one or the other for that they speake contraryes The one that this fact of Toby was not iustifyable the other that it was not only iustifiable but acceptable also and pleasing to Almighty God and that in a very high degree as by the text appeareth The one determineth as you haue heard that Toby was reprehensible in that he obeyed not the Kingâ— the other saith he did very well in obeying God more then the king How shall we know which of these two Angels is the good and which the bad M. Barlow will on his part perhaps say that this booke of Toby is not held by him for Canonicall Scripture but only Hagiographum a holy ancient writing as the Iewes themselues do allow it to be though not in their Canon of Scriptures yet doth not this take away the credit of the Story which hath indured and hath beene belieued and taken for true so many ages boâ—h before and after Christian Religion was planted And M. Barlow cannot alleadg one authenticall Author or holy man before these our tymes that euer sayd this Story was false or not to be credited though he receiued it not for Canonicall Scripture Secondly we see it acknowledged for Canonicall Scripture and of infallible truth not only by a generall Councell of our dayes wherin the flower of the learnedst men in Christendome were present I meane that of Trent but by another Councell also aboue 1000. yeares before that to wit the third of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and subscribed thereunto and in diuers other places of his workes giueth the same testimony to this booke as do sundry other Fathers ancienter then he as S. Ambrose that wrote a whole booke of the Story of Toby containing twenty foure whole Chapters S. Basil in his Oration of Auarice yea the holy Martyr S. Cyprian also himselfe more ancienter then them all and this in sundry places of his works and after S. Augustine S. Gregory S. Isiodoâ—us Cassiodorus and others wherby is euident that in S. Augustins time and before this booke was held for diuine and Canonicall And therfore for a man now to venture his soule vpon this bare deniall of M. Barlow and his Consorts for there goeth no lesse in the matter his assertion being blasphemy if this be true Scripture let his poore sheepe of Lincolne thinke well of it for other men will beware how they venture so much with him But now setting aside this consideration whether it be Canonicall Scripture or no let vs consider a little further what holy men in ancient times did thinke of this fact of Toby whether it were iustifiable or no. S. Augustine in his booke De cura pro mortuis habenda hath these words Tobias sepeliendo mortuos Deum promeruisse teste Angelo commendatur Tobias is commended by the testimony of the Angell in that by burying the dead he merited the fauour of Almighty God And the same Father repeateth the very same words and sentence againe in his first booke of the Citty of God Whereby we see what his sense was in this matter both in belieuing the good Angell and esteming that good worke of burying the dead which M. Barlow by conteÌ„pt calleth a ciuil coâ—rtesy to haue merited with God And of the same sense was S. Ambrose who speaking of this Edict of the King that no man should bury any dead man of the Iewes in that captiuity commendeth highly holy Toby for neglecting the same in respect of that charitable worke Ille interdicto non reuocabatur sed magis incitabatur c. he was not stayd by that Edict or Proclamation from burying the dead but rather was therby incyted the more to doe the same Erat â—â—im misericordiae praemium 〈◊〉 pâ—na for that the punishment of death was the prince of mercy S. Cyprian also that holy Bishop and Martyr long before S. Ambâ—ose in his booke Of our Lords prayer extolling much the meryt of good workes and exhorting men vnto the same amongst many other authoryties of the Scriptures cyteth this of Toby saying Et ideo diuina Scriptura inâ—â—râ—it dicens bona est oratio cum ieiunio â—leemosyna therfore the dyuine Scripture inâ—tructeth vs saying That Prayer is good accompanied with fasting and almes In which wordes first we see this booke of Toby affirmed to be diuine Scripture and secondly this speach doctrine of the Angell Raphael vnto Toby concerning the prayse and merit of good works to be allowed by Cyprianâ— which is full contrary to M. Barlowes Diuinity But let vs heare our S. CypriaÌ„ in the same place Nam qui in die Iudicij praemium pro operibus c. For
conscience iustice to giue it him yet if I should doubt that by my deniall he would take away the other halfe also or perhaps my life or that some scandall would follow as that other men by my example would shew disobedience in greater thinges I should be bound in prudence and pâ—ety for auoyding of these greater euilâ— both to my selfe and others to obey and giue him the halfe of my goodes which he demaundeth but this is not directly by force of iustice and conscience as you see but per accidens that is to say â—accidentally for auoyding of those greater euills of scandall and perill if I obey noâ— But now let vs see the truth of M. Barlow in relating this resolution of S. Thomas First he cutteth of the words nisi forè per accidens which do alter the whole case and â—ayth that their Angelicall Doctour telleth them that in vnlawfâ—ll things commaunded they must obey â—or auoyding scandall and perill wheras S. Thomas sayth non teâ—tentur obedire si iniusta praecipiâ—â—â— that they are not bound to obey their Princes if they commaund vniust things Secondly M. Barlow distinguisheth not when vnlawfull things are commaunded whether they be vnlawfull only vnto the Prince that coÌ„maundeth or to the subiect in like manner to whom they are commaunded And it may be that the Ministers head conceaued not the distinction or if he did he concealed it by guile and fraud for the thing importeth much to the resolution of the case for when the thing commaunded is vnlawfull only to the commaunder as in the former example when he commaundeth me to giue halfe of my goods wrongfully then may I out of prudence as hath bene sayd for auoyding of greater euils obey that vniust commaundment but if the thing commaunded should be vnlawfull not only to the Prince to coÌ„maund but to me also to performe as to do another man iniury or to endanger my owne soule or to offend God by any sin whatsoeuer then may not I according to S. Thomas his doctrine for auoyding any scandall or perill whatsoeuer perâ—orme the same This was craftily here concealed by M. Barlow for I will not hold him so grossely ignorant as that he did not consider it and the câ—â—se oâ— this concealment was for that it maketh wholy agâ—â—st him in our mayne controuersy of temporall Obedience For that the swearing to the new Oath coÌ„maunded vnto Catholikes in preiudice of their conscience Religion is of the number of those vnlawfull things that are vnlawfull not only to the commaunder but also to â—â—e performer and consequently neither for the auoyding scandall or perill may be obeyed And therby is cut of all M. Barlowes idle discourse which he maketh in this place of â—â—e danger and perill that by taking this Oath he sayth may be auoyded vrgeth vs with the doctrine of S. Thoâ—â—â— therin that euen in things vnlawfull we must obey our temporall Princes But in this you haue seene both the depth and fidelity of the man Now let vs see a poynt or two more and so end this Parapraph Pag. 190. he hath these words against me The Epistler saith he makes the way to end this Paragraph for as coÌ„cerning Rome beiâ—g Babylon he speakes not a word as by silence granting that to be true which Cardinall Matthew playnly also acknowledgeth and â—â—sesseth to be that Babylon of the Apocalyps So hâ— And truly it is strange and ridiculous to see men of reason to proceed in this manner so without reason for it Cardinall Bellâ—rmine and other Catholikes do graunt that Rome was called Babylon by S. Iohn in the Apocalyps and by S. Peter also that wrote his Epistle from thence vnder the name of â—abylon and if S. Hierome and other Fathers do expound 〈◊〉 of Râ—me as it was Heathen persecuted the Martyrs in â—hose dayes and not of Christian Rome or the Christian people of Rome who were holy and Saynts in those dayes if this I say be so and that the Protestants be told therof aboue an hundred times and yet still their writers do comeâ— forth with this doughty Argument that Rome was Babylon what shall a modest man do but passe it ouâ—r with silence and contempt There followeth a certayne contentioÌ„ about the two â—reues of Clemens Octauus written into England at two different timesâ— about the point of succession to the Crowne â—fteâ— the Queenes death the first exhorting the Catholickeâ— to doe their best indeâ—uours â—or procuring a Cathâ—â—licke Prince the other altogether in fauour and recomâ—mendation of the aduancement of his Maiestie that 〈◊〉 is of which two Breues I wrote in my Epistle that hauiâ—â— procured some knowledg about that point I found thâ—â— they were sent into England not both togeather nor iâ—â—mediatly before the late Queenes death as was obiected but the one diuers yeâ—res before she died to wit vpon thâ— yeare 1600. and the other 3. yeares after to wit vpon thâ— yeare 1603. immediatly after the sayd Queenes death contrary to which M. Barlow sayth that Tortâ—â— affirmâ—â—â— that hauing the Copyes of 2. Breues in his hand 〈◊〉 findeth that they were sent in togeather vpon the yearâ— 1600. But the reconciliation of this is easy For thaâ— those two Breues named by Tortus are accounted by me bâ— one Breue for that they were all of one matter but dâ—plicated in effect the one to the Archpriest and Clergie thâ— other to the Laity so that there is no contradiction at alâ— For that besides that first double Breue there was anotheâ— sent in of another Argument wholy in fauour of hiâ— Maiestie in particuler as now hath bin said vpon thâ— yeare 1603. And so there iâ— no contradictioÌ„ at all in this but that both the assertions are true Only that is falsâ— which is here in parciculer affirmed by M. Barlow that iâ— the first Breue was set downe that no man might be admitted except he would first sweare not only to tolerate but also to promote the Romish Catholicke Religion which wordes are not there neither is swearing once mentioned in either of these duplicated Breues And as this is vntrue so that which ensueth is parasiticall when vnto my speach of Pope Clements particuler good opinion and affection towards his Maiesties Person when he was King of Scotland to wit that he loued him most hartily and alwayes spake honorably of him treated kindly all those of his Nationâ— that said they came froÌ„ him or any wayes belonged vnto him and oftentimes vsed more liberality that way vpon diuers occasions theÌ„ is conuenient for me perhaps to vtter here caused specialâ— prayer to be made â—or his Maiestie c. To all which M. 〈◊〉 answereth in these words That albeys there is nothing 〈◊〉 Mâ—â—â—stie but that which is amyable and admirable his parts of 〈◊〉 art grace all so singular that by the eminency of his place 〈◊〉 descryed far and neere they must needes excite great loue to his
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
buriall within Saints Churches but the apparitions must be presumed to haue bene at certayn particuler places vpon particuler occasions where the said Martyrs willed vt sceleratorum corpora de suis basilicis eiâ—cerentur that the bodyes of certayn heynous wicked men such as Infidells Hereticks excommunicated persons are should be cast out of their Chappels Why doth M. Barlow confine the matter to these Martyrs that were deceased shrined in those places of Germany where the Emperours body lay Hath he a generall licence to take away or adde what he listeth to his Authors words And finally those last words that they would not indure it written in great letters where doth he find them And if he find them not who gaue him leaue to add them and crowne his owne inuention with Capitall letters Is there no law of truth or sincerity Is it lawfull for euery man to deuise add alter cut of or disguise what he wil without controlment Is this the liberty of Ghospellers There haue bene now alleadged by him about this point some eight seueral authors Cuspinian Helmodus Vrspergensis Nauclerus Sigonim Binnius Baronius and Petrus Diaconus and euery one hath receaued his cut Will euer Catholicke writer be found that dealeth so with authors And so much of this point Then followeth the other whether the Pope did stir vp the Emperours Sonne that is Henry the 5. against his Father And first I sayd that it could not be verified of Pope Hildebrand called Gregory the seauenth for that the rebellion of the sonne succeded after Gregories death and the report also was that Gregory the 7. before his death had absolued the same Emperour Henry the fourth And this I alleadged out of the Apologers owne author Cuspinian and moreouer I shewed that the said Cuspinian affirmed that the rising of the Sonne against his Father was by the perswasion of the Marques Theobald and of Berâ—ngarius Count of Noricum now called Stâ—ria and of Otho which was neere a kinne vnto him by his Mothers side and for confirmation of this I alleadged foure other Historiographers besides to wit Vrspergensis Nauclerus Crantzius and Sigonius To all which authorities M. Barlow replyeth neuer a word in this his answer yet to the former point wherin I said that the report was that Gregory the 7. did before his death absolue the Emperour he answereth thus First this is written but for a report then which there is nothing more vncertaine saith the Orator But yet what followes hâ—erof therfore the Pope stirred not vp the Sonne against the Father A weake consequent Whereto I answere that the consequent is good and strong to proue that Pope Gregory the 7. of whome I spake did not stir vp the Sonne against the Father if he absolued him especially if you ioyne this with the other alledged by me that he tooke not armes against the Father till after the said Popes death And as for the other Popes that followed Victor Vrbanus and Pasâ—halis vnder whome the rising of the Sonne against his Father was and vnder whome the said Henry the 4. died almost twenty yeares after the death of Gregory the seauenth the testimonies now alleadged of those other three Noble men that stirred the said Sonne against the father do sufficiently deliuer the sequâ—nt Popes from that calumniatioÌ„ of setting him on albeit it is not denied but that diuers yeares after when that all the States of Germany did generally so much mislike the life gouernment of Henry the fourth as by common consent and counsaile they determined that it was conuenient and necessary for the good of ChristeÌ„dome that he should giue ouer his gouernment to his said sonne Henry the 5. Paschalis the second of that name Pope being informed by the said States of the said necessity and that Christendome otherwise could not be quieted nor infinite miseries calamities and abuses remedied he concurred with them with his consent and approbation though himselfe were at Rome And the Diet or meeting of the States was held at Mentz from which Parlament were sent in the name of the Pope and all the rest three Archbishops to wit of Mentz Cullen and VVormes all Princes of the Empire to take from him that was prisoner in a little castell neere vnto that place all the Imperiall ornaments and ensignes belonging to that State and to deliuer them ouer to his sonne Henry and so was it done And what more orderly proceeding could there be then this in an act of such quality M. Barlow maketh it a hainous point against the Pope for dealing in the matter and bringeth in the testimonies both of Sigonius Genebrard to aggrauate the same but both of them as alwaies somwhat corrupted for albeit he do alleadge these words of Sigonius truly which were spoken by the foresâ—id tâ—ree Embassadors vnto Henry the 4. Ponâ—â—fici Principibusque Germaniae placuit c. It hath seemed good to the Pope and to the Princes of Germany that thou be depriued yet doth he craftily leaue out the reasons yielded of the said deposition by the Embassadors to wit quia tu deterrimo dissidio multos iam annos Dei Ecclesiam lacerasti c. for that thou hast rent the Church of God many yeares by most wicked breach of discord and for that thou hast put to sale both Bishoprickes Abbeys and all other Ecclesiasticall dignities and that thou hast broken all lawfull order in choosing of Bishops c. And that M. Barlow may not except against the testimony of these Embassadours because they were then in actuall opposition against him their sentence in this behalfe may be confirmed by one who was not the Popes friend but of great authority as I suppose with M. Barlow to wit Iohn Caluyn himself who in his 4. booke of Institutions sayth thus Henricus Imperator eius nominis quartus 〈◊〉 leuis temerarius c. Henry the 4. Emperour of that name an vnconstant and rash man of no wit very audacious and of dissolute life had the Bishopricks of all Germany exposed in his Court partly to sale and partly to pillage And a litle after Erat Henricus c. This Henry for his very insolent manner of gouernement was odious to the most part of the Princes So he But not to depart from Sigonius of whose testimony we now specially treat he that shall read what he relateth of him out of Helmodus and Dodecâ—iâ—â—â— touching the horrible abuse done to the Empresse his wife called Adelis by his commandement will be ashamed if he haue any shame in him to praise and commend a man of so monstrous iniquity as I for my part do for meere shame forbeare to expresse the thing And besides that his other excesses were so enormous in the eies of all disapassionate men as he of all others may least seeme worthy to be produced for an example of such as haue susteined wrong at the hands of the Pope in regard