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 §
wicked spirit of these hereticks is different from the spirit of Christ to wit as cleane opposite as Hell to Heauen truth to falshood darknes to light And with what face or forhead theâ— can this Minister turne the masculine gender into the feminine the Swenckfeldianâ—pirit â—pirit into Gods reuelatioÌ„ Yea with what conscience can he say that this reuelation may be an illusion As some superstitious people saith he take that fire for a walking spirit which is but ignis fatuus an illuding meteor so Pharisaycall and melancholick conceipts may thinke them to be infusions of the holy Ghost which are but speculatiue imaginations of their owne Ghost Thus M. Barlow very profoundly as you see or rather most profanely comparing Godâ— reuelation for of that Bellarmine speaketh which is alwayes certayne and certainly knowne of him to whome it is made to his walking spirit or ignis fatuus to Pharisaycall and melancholick conceipts as though the truth of the said reuelation depended on the disposition of the receauer and not wholy vpon the infallible authority of Almighty God who reuealeth the same I will not say that M. Barlow is either Pharisaycall or melancholick but that he is fatuus or else fanaticus albeit I say it not yet the thing it self will speake if his malice were not greater then his folly in this point which I meane not to discusse 68. After all these vntruthes and manifold ignorances he concludeth his disputation with a Sermon and is become very deuout vpon the suddaine and of a tender conscience telling vs that it is better for the Cardinall to acknowledge an ouersight in a long discourse then to ouerthrow one soule redeemed by Christs bloud Contradictions in assertions wounds but one opposite member but vnsoundnes in doctrine concerning saluation doth wound the weake conscience of a Christian. And then runneth on in the same descant which is as much as if some Harlot after she had wearied her tongue with rayling and lying on her neighbour should presently take vpon her the person and state of a graue vertuous Matrone foris Helena intus Hecuba to vse S. Gregory Nazianzâ—ns phrase or a false thief preach of truth and honesty For how many falshoodes ignorances and forgeryes haue bene shewed to be in this one dispute of his How many and how grosse lyes haue bene detected whereof his booke is so fraught and furnished to the full as it is hard to say whether any one number be free from the sameâ— For in one only thing in the compasse of little more then one page in laying downe 14. proofes he hath made at least 15. vntruthes whereby the Reader may see how I should be ouercloyed if in laying forth examples of his dealing in this kind which now I come to treat of I should stand vpon all particulers But I will take a shorter course and to this disputation adioyne a short examen of some few lyes and these such only as concerne the person of his Aduersary wherin as I am sure that I haue left very many vntouchedâ— so doe I also thinke that some of them are more vrgent and iniurious then those are which now I shall produce 69. The cause wherefore immediatly after M. Barlows transpareÌ„â— ignorance I adioyne his vntruthesâ— is for that if it be possible one of them may excuse the other it being a receaued axiome amongst Deuines that it is a lesse syn to lye out of ignorance then of maliceâ— and the Apostle excused himself by this meaneâ— when he said Qui priùs blasphâ—mus fui persecutor contumâ—liâ—sus sed misericordiam Dei consecutus sum quiâ— ignorans feci in inâ—redulitate I who before was a blasphemer and a persecutor and contumelious but I haue obteyned Gods mercyâ— because I did it being ignorant in incredulity And I wish from my hart that this mercy after so many blasphemyes iniuryes done to Catholicks and most contumelious reproaches against all sorts of men of neuer so singular sanctity learning powred now forth in the tyme of his ignoraÌ„t incredulity may fall vpon M. Barlow which is the worst and greatest reuenge I doe wish him 70. This I say I would wish but such as know the dispositioÌ„ of these meÌ„ although they find theÌ„ ignoraÌ„t inough yet not alwayes to offend of ignorance as it is a negatioÌ„ of knowledg but rather of that which of the Deuines is called ignoraÌ„tia prauae dispositionis because they will follow their erroneous iudgmeÌ„t loue lyes more then the truth howsoeuer to make fooles fayne they cry out against Equiuocation such as do maintayne the same For so did also our late woodden Embassadour at Venice who against the Iesuits and their doctrine in this point would be often very free as himself thought very ingenious also but more free in this art of Lying For being at Auspurge requested to write some motto or sentence with the subscription of his name thereunto was not ashamed to professe it to be the chiefest point of his office writing the definition of an Embassadour thus Legatus est virbonus peregrè missus ad mentiendum Reipublicae causa Domino Ioanni Fleckhamero in perpetuum amicitiae pignus Henricus Wottonius Serenissimi Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hyberniae Regis Orator primus ad Venetos Augustae Vindeliciae 16. Augusti anno Christiano 1604. That is An Embassadour is a good man sent far from home to lye for the good of the CoÌ„mon-wealth To M. Iohn Fleckhamer for a perpetuall pledge of friendship Henry Wotton the first Embassadour of the most Soueraigne King of England Scotland France and Ireland to the Venetians At Augusta Vindelica the 16. of August in the Christian yeare 1604. 71. So this witty Gentleman defining himselfe to vse M. Barlowes fantasticall phrase by his essentiall kindly parts to with a good man that can lye well And whether in the last tumults of Venice betwixt the Sea Apostolick and that CoÌ„mon-wealth he discharged not throughly this part of his charge and that very essentially kindly also I refer me to them who receaued his letters and know what he wrote Surely M. Barlow in this booke is so copious therein that if other of his owne ranke in our Countrey were to be defined by him a Protestant English Bishop should be nothing els but an ignorant Superintendent that can lye raile flatter notoriously Of his ignorance we haue already seene some proofe now let vs see how well he can lye 72. In the twelueth page he telleth the Reader that F. Persons hauing wished the destruction of the Kings Maiesty by the gunpowder-plot and by hope deuoured the same he came on his iourney a good step as some report towards England that he might haue song Te Deum in his natiue Countrey for the good successe of that happy exployt And this againe he repeats in the 217. page saying As if there were no difference
and security as here is insinuated it must needes be for that the Diuell indeed hath made some change in other men matters by altering of opinions and apprehensions For the Catholickes are the same that they were wont to be do thinke the same belieue the same teach the same and practice the same that all their Predecesâ—ours haue done before them This was my declaration discourse What substantiall answer or argument can M. Barlow bring against thisâ— You shall see how he will gnibble at the matter as a mouse at the cheese-vate and cannot enter He saith first that I am in my element when I am in this argument of recourse to Rome vsed to be made from age to age by our ancient Christian English people Prelates and Princes that there is scarce any Epistle Preface Pamphlet Booke or Petition of myne but that this is therein the Cypres-tree to make Rome the loadstone for drawing thither the tryall of our gould in both senses and the like That I borrowed all from Cardinall Allen in his Apology that we haue receyued full satisfactory answers in this behalfe to wit that when the Bishops of Rome in purer times did beare theÌ„selues as religious members not as presumptuous heads of the Church and lyued as ghostly Fathers to counsaile not as Superiors to controle our realme being then also rude and learning scant Religion new sprong vp and no where setled I say then and in those dayes M. Barlow graunteth that the recourse was made to Rome but yet vpon deuotion and mere necessity and not then neither without leaue of the Prince This is his tale And doe you not see what gnibling this is Doe you not behould the poore man in what straites he is to say somewhat What more euident or more strong demonstration could or can be made if he would ioyne really to see and confesse the truth to proue the right and continuance of the Bishop of Rome his supreme spirituall authoriâ—y ouer England and recourse made vnto him therein then that which was made against Syr Edward Câ—â—ke in the answer of the fifth part of Reportes that from King Ethelbert our first ChristiaÌ„ King vntil the defection of King Henry the eight vpon the poynt of a thousand yeares and almost a hundred Christian Kinges it was inuiolably obserued in England to make such recourse in matters of doubt concerning Ecclesiasticall and spirituall affaires vnto the Sea Apostolike and the vniuersall Pastour thereof as lawfull iudge not for counsaile only but for sentence determination and decision both beâ—ore after the Conquest So as except M. Barlow do see more then all they did and haue more learning and piety then any of them who â—ollowed also therein not their owne sense and iudgement only but that of the whole Christian world besides all these spruse and princocke exceptions of â—urer tymes rudenesse of the land lacke of learning theyr being of new Christians and the like are but ridiculous inuentions of an idle busy-head and so not worth the standing vpon to answer them for that they are euidently false in the eyes of al the world And like vnto these are the other â—oyes that do ensue pag. 25. 26.27 As for example that there was no need to make recourse to Rome for deciding the doubts about the Oath which he proueth forsooth and that very â—oberly out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. Is there not a wise man among you among al the Priests secular â—esuited in EnglaÌ„d that can determine a controuersy about the Oath of Allegiance Might not your Arch-Priest Blackwell so authorized by the Pope so commended and countenanced by two Cardinals Caiâ—tan and Burghesius be sufficient But al this is simple geere as you see and hangeth not togeather but rather maketh for his aduersary For if the Arch-Priest that then was had his authority from the Pope then reason was it that in so great a doubt concerning the soules of so many the matter should be consulted with the Superiour as we see it vsuall in England that lower Iudges in difficult cases doe consult with them from whom they had their authority Neyther doth S. Paul here alleaged meane that the Corinthians should choose some contemptible man to be their iudge in Spirituall or Eccleâ—aâ—ticall matters for in all those he biddetâ— all Christians to be subiect to their Bishops spirituâ—ll Pastours that haue to render accouÌ„t for their soules but hâ— meaneth in temporall matters and particuler sutes and ciuill controuersies betweene man man which he houldeth to be contemptible thinges in respect of the spirituall and especially to contend for the same before Infidell Iudges as they did And so doth M. Barlâ—â— wholy peruert S. Paul as his fashion is commonly in most Scriptures and authorityes that he alleageth But now we come to another argument of his against our recourse made to Rome for decision of this great doubt concerning the taking or not taking the Oath And albeit you haue heard how many impertinent and childish arguments he hath vsed before about the same yet none of them can be compared with this for absurdity and impertinency and it consisteth in taking exceptions against the very person of the Pope Paulus Quintus that now sitteth in the Sea who being so eminent for his good partes rare vertues as laying aside his supreme dignity of Vniuersall Father of Christs Catholick Church the same doth grieue exceedingly the hartes of all Heretickes that hate the Apostoâ—â—cke Sea and him only for that he sitteth and gouerneth so worthily therein which they cannot abydeâ— But let vs see what they obiect against him in this behalfe VVhat is there saith he in this Pope for his iudgment in Diuinity that his determination should be expected about this Oath of Allegâ—â—â—ce to his Maiestie more then in his predecessour Clemens whose opinion was not inquired of about the Oath for conspiracy against the whole Realme Wherunto I answer that for so much as the other Oath of conspiracy if any such were was but betweene certaine particuler men who did vpon discontentmeÌ„t coÌ„spyre togeather and bynd one the other by Oath to secresy did presume that both Pope Clement this Pope if they had bene made priuy therof would haue letted their bad intentions therfore the conspirators neuer proposed the mâ—â—ter vnto them but concealed it from their knowledge whome they asâ—urâ—d to find opposite to their designements in such like attempts But this other Oath called of Allegiâ—â—ce for that it was a publike matter and vrged publikly to be taken by all Catholicks with most grieuous penalties of loâ—se of goods landes liberty proposed for the refusers and for that the sayd Catholikes had a great doubt whether they might receiue the same with a safe conscience in respect of diuers clauses therein contayned tending to the deniall or calling into question the Popes supreme authority ouer Christian soules therefore they thought it
this matter there is more on the behalfe of Catholicks then of Puritans for obtayning this toleration notwithstanding their differences in poynts of Religion were or be greater for that the Puritans came out of the Protestants and therby the Protestant Church may pretend to haue Ius aliquod Ecclesiasticum some Ecclesiasticall right vpon them But the Catholicks of England came neuer out of the Protestants nor their Church out of the Protestant Church but were long before them in possession which is the markable poynt so much pondered by S. Iohn to discerne heresy heretickes thereby Prodierunt ex nobis they went out of vs. And consequently the Protestant Church can haue no spirituall iurisdiction vpon the sayd Catholickes and much lesse by right or reason can they barre them the vse of their Religion as they may do to Purytans that were members once of them though they differ in fewer poyntes of beliefe An ExaÌ„ple may be the Iewes in Rome who are tolerated in their religion which Protestants are not though they differ in more poyntes of beliefe but yet for that they were in possession of their Religion before Christians and went not out from them as Protestants did from Catholickes they are tolerated in that place and Protestants not And hereby is also answered M. Barlowes last reason against graunting of toleration which I pretermitted before to be answered in this place which is that if the cause were ours as God be thanked he sayth it is theirs we wil not graunt liberty to them for their religion But how doth he know that seeing soe many Catholike Princes both in France Low-Countryes and Germany doe permit the sayd toleration to diuers and different sectes And if he obiect that in Queene Maries daies it was not permited to Protestants in England nor yet by King Henry the eight much lesse by the foresayd 3. Henryes that went before him yet may the causes and reasons be different now For albeit for equity and iustice the matter do passe as before we haue sayd that no sect in England whatsoeuer as of Lâ—â—lords VVickcliffians Lutherans Zuinglians Caluiâ—ists or the like can haue any right in conscience to deny toleratioÌ„ of their religion vnto them out of which they themselues went and that the Catholike Church hath that right vpon them as going out of her yet may shee leaue to vse that right oftentimes and tolerate different sectaryes also when they are so multiplied as they cannot be restrayned without greater scandall tumult and perturbation according to the parable to our Sauiour concerning the cockle growne vp amongst the wheat which our sayd Sauiour willed rather to be let alone vntill the haruest day left by going about to weed out the one out of due time they might pluck vp the other So as these Catholicke Princes his Maiesties Ancestors that did deny toleration considering their kingdomes to be quietly setled in the Ancient religion of theyr fore fathers did iustly and lawfully resist the new attempts of innouators and iustly also may we affirme that if other forrayne Princes at this day of the same Catholick religion do permit vpon other reasons liberty or toleratioÌ„ of different religion much more may his Maiesty of England do the same to his Catholick subiects for the reasons that haue bene now alleadged And so much of this To the exaÌ„ples of the Lollardes VVickliffian Protestants that made such earnest suite for toleration and liberty of conscience in the dayes of three King Henries 4. 5. and 6. and tooke armes for obtayning the same he sayth that if any such conspiracies were we deâ—end them not subiection to Princes we preach insurrâ—ctions we defy c. And with this he thinketh he hath well satisfyed the matterâ— To the forreyne examples of higher Germany in the time of Charles the fifth and of the low-Countryes in these our dayes he answereth That these are noe fit presidentes for our State the gouerment of the Emperour being limitedâ— and conditionall and we speake of subiects vnder an absolute Monarchy To those of Boâ—hemia Polonia and Hungarie he sayth that it is to be considered VVhether the enâ—rance into those kingdomes be Successiue or Electiue by descent without condiâ—iâ—â—all restraintes and if they were absolute Monarchies what is that to his Maiesty who in cases of religion taketh not mens examples but Gods lawes for his dyrects He knoweth what Princes ought to doe not regarding what they please to doe c. But al this while me thinkes the chiefe point is not answered by M. Barlow which is that those good Protestants were of opinion that toleration or liberty of conscience might be graunted according to the law of God and ought also to be graunted And why is Iordaniâ— now turned backward saith the letterâ— Why is this Ministers voice contrary to the voice sensâ— of all other Protestants The sayd Letter goeth forward laying downe diâ—erâ— considerations which engendred hope in the mindeâ— of Catholicks for obtayning this suite of toleration and namely these three to wit First the first entraÌ„ce of our new King knowne to be of so noble and royall a mind before that time as he neuer was noted to be giueÌ„ to cruelty or persecution for religion Secondly the sonne of such a Mother as held her selfe much behoulding to English Catholiâ—kes And thirdly that himselfe had confessed that he had euer found the Catholicke party most trusty vnto him in his troubles and many conspiraciâ—â— made against him To the first wherof M. Barlow in effect answereth nothing at all but only citeth certayne places of Scripture for punishing of Idolatry To the second he sayth That if his Maiesties Moâ—her had not relied too much vpon the Priested sort in England her end had not bene so suddaine or vnkind Belike he was priuy vnto it that he can tell those particulars And his Epithete of vnkind in cutting off her Maiesties head was very iudiciously deuised by him For indeed there can nothing be deuised more vnkind then for two Queenes so neere of kinred to cut off one the others head and that vpon the suddaine as here is graunted which increaseth the vnkindnes of so barbarous a fact perswaded and vrged principally as al men know by the continuall incitations of those of M. Barlows coate to the despite both of Mother and Sonne and ruine of them both if it had layeâ— iâ— their handeâ— Neyther is this to cast salt into his Maiesties eyes as M. Barlow heere sayth but rather to open the saâ—e that he may seeâ— what kind of people these are that do sâ— much flatter him now and impugned both him and his at that time But let vs heare how Ironically he dealeth with vsâ— in framing a fond argument on our behalfe as to him it seemeth The Mother sayth he loyaltyâ— Ergo the Sonne must giue them liberty of conscâ—â—câ— And iâ— this Syâ— so bad an argument Do you take away the word 〈◊〉 which
the name of diuine things the possession of this or that materiall Church Or if he would be so bold now I assure my self he would not haue bene so in Queene Elizabeths dayes whose spirituall Supremacy though femininae seemed much more to be esteemed of him then this now of his Maiesty as preseÌ„tly will appeare The third refusall of S. Ambrose to the Emperour was when the said Emperour sent his Tribunes and other officers to require certaine Vessels belonging to the Church to be deliuered which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do answering as before hath bene set downe That iâ— thâ—◠〈◊〉 could not obey him and that if he loued himselfe he should abstâ—â—â—e to offer such iniurie vnto Christ c. which answer also M. Barlâ—â— well alloweth signifying therby that he would aâ—â—werâ— in the same sort to the magistrates officers of King Iamâ—â— if he should send them vpon any occasion to require at his hands the CoÌ„munion cup or any other such vessels belonging to any Church in Lincolne Diocesse And will any man belieue this that he will be so stout But it is a pastime to see how he chatteth about this matter as though he would say somewhat indeed but yet saith nothing at least to the purpose Let vs heare what he bringeth Things separated saith he to holy vse are not to be alienated to 〈◊〉 vsage Here now euery man will laugh that remembreth how the Vessels Vestments and other such things dedicated vnto God and consecrated to Ecclesiasticall vses in the Catholike Church haue bene handled by Protestants taken away defaced and conuerted to prophane vses which this man I presume dareth not to condemne Let vs heare him further God hath in them saith he a 〈◊〉 right as King Dauid confesseth first as his gift to man secondly as mans gift agayne to him which twofold cord tyeth them so strong as it is an Anathema or curse for any man not consecrated to chalenge them yea for them which are consecrated if they do not only pâ—â— them to that vse alone for which they were dedicated And do you see now heerâ— how zealous M. Barlow is become vpon the suddayne for defence of consecrated vessels in the Church What Vessels haue they consecrated thinke you Or what kind of consecration do they vse therein He sayth it is an anathema for any person not consecrated to chalenge them the sacred Emperour and King do demand them in this our case if their persons be sacred then in M. Barlows sense they are also consecrated and they may demaund these Vessels which as I said are very few in the Protestant Church and if they had beene as few in the Church meant by S. Ambrose it is not likely that the Emperour would haue troubled himselfe so much in sending Tribunes and other officers for the same But suppose the vessels were of like number price and value in the one and the other Church Yet I thinke M. Barlow will not deny but that the manner of consecrating them was far different which may be seene in the â—â—gâ—â—churgians themselues in the fourth Century and by S. Ambrose in his second booke of Office cap. 29. where he putteth downe two sorts of Church-Vessels dedicated to diuine vses the one initiata hallowed or consecrated and the other not yet hallowed and that in the time of necessity to redeeme Captiues or to relieue the poore the second sort are first to be broken and applied to these holy vses but the former with much more difficulty for that they were now hallowed Which difference I thinke the Protestants do not greatly obserue in their hallowed Vessels S. Gregory Nazianzen in like manner talking of such consecrated Vessels as were vsed in the Church in his time sayth that it was such as it made it vnlawfall for lay men to touch them which I thinke M. Barlow will not lay of his Communion-Cup which all men take in their hands But now to the question it selfe Do you thinke that M. Barlow would deny vnto King Iames that Communion-Cup or any other Vessels of a Church if he should as earnestly demand them as Valentiniaâ— the Emperour did when he sent his Tribunes and other chiefe officers to require them of S. Ambrose If he would what kind of Supremacy doth he allow his Maiesty in spirituall matters if he may be denyed and disobeyed in these also that are in a certaine sort mixt and in some part conioyned with temporall respects And truly when I do consider with my selfe with what degrees M. Barlow doth descend and go downeward in defending of the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of his Maiesty bringing it as it were to nothing from that high pitch wherin King Henry the eight both placed it and left it his children King Edward and Queene Elizabeth continued the same I cannot but wonder and admire the prouideÌ„ce of Almighty God that hath wrought the ouerthrow in effect of that new Protestant Idoll of spirituall Authority in temporall Princes euen by Protestants themselues Iohn â—aluin beginning the battery as all men know calling it Antichristian the Puritans following him in that doctrine and now M. Barlow though vnder-hand and dissemblingly confirming all that they haue sayd or doâ—â— therin The first pitch wherin King Henry did place the same was as appeareth by the Statute it selfe in the twentith six yeare of his raigne That he and his herres should be taken â—ccepted and reputed the only Supreme head on earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia and should haue and enioy â—â—nexed â—nd vnited to his Imperiall Crowne asiâ—eli the title style therof as also all honours dignities preheminences iurisdictions priâ—iledges to the said Dignity of supreme Head belonging c. Wherby is euident that the Parlament gaue vnto him as great authority ouer the Church of EnglaÌ„d as the Pope had before And this very fame authority was translated after him to his Sonne King Edward though a child yea all Preachers were commanded to teach the people that his Minority of age wâ—â— no impediment to his supreme spiritual gouernment for that a King is as truly a King at one yeares age as at â—wenty so as the exception made by M. Barlow that Valentinianâ—he â—he Emperour was yong when he commanded S. Amâ—roâ—e to dispute before him maketh nothing according to this Doctrine against his spirituall authority if he were Head of the Church as King Edward was And further the Parliament in the first yeare of King Edward explaining this authority hath these words That all authority of Iurisdictions spirituall and reÌ„porall is deriued and deducted froÌ„ the Kings Maiesty as supreme head of the Churches and Realmes of England and Ireland vnto the Bishops and Archbishops c. And the like was passed ouer also to Queene Elizabeth by a Statute in the first yeare of her raigne wherin it is said That all such iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall as by any spirituall
appertaineth to the ancient Oath and not to this wherin nothing is demanded but Ciuil Obedience only which the Cardinal denyeth and in the very first leafe of his answere vnder the name of Torâ—â—â— ioyneth issue principally vpon that point saying Primùm â—stendâ—mus Iuramentum hoc Catholicis propositum non solum ciuilem obedientiam sed etiam Catholicae fidei abnegationem requirere We shal first proue that this later oath proposed vnto Catholicks doth not only require ciuil Obedience but abnegatioÌ„ also of Catholick faith And he proueth it by fiue or six arguments First by the words of the English Statute the title wherof is for the detecting and repressing of Papists which word of Papists importing such as stick to the Pope or defend his Supremacy maketh it euident that the Statute was not intended only against them that deny ciuill Obedience but rather the Kings Supremacy in spiritual affaires Secondly by the words of the Oath themselues that the Pope cannot by himselfe or any other or by any authority of the Church depose c. Which is some denyal of the Pope his authority and consequently not meerely only of temporal Obedience and so out of foure or fiue points more by him obserued and there set downe which as I had not seene when I wrote my Epistle before the publicatioÌ„ of the said Cardinals booke so I vsed not those arguments nor any of them but contented my selfe with one only taken out of the Cardinals words in the beginning of his Letter to M. Blackwel as sufficiently prouing the same that in it selâ—e was most cleare I said as followeth This exception against the Cardinal for mistaking the state of the cause seemeth to be most clerely refuted by the very first lynes almost of the letter it selfe For that telling M. Blackwel how sory he was vpon the report that he had taken illicitum Iuramentum an vnlawfull Oath he expoundeth presently what Oath he meaneth saying Not therâ—ore deare Brother is that Oath lawfull for that it is offeâ—â—â— sâ—â—ewhat tempered and modified c. Which is euidently meant of the new Oath of Allegiance not only tempered with diuers lawfull clauses of Ciuill Obedience as hath bene shewed but interlaced also with other members that â—each to Religion wheras the old Oath of Supremacy hath no such mixture but is plainly and simply set downe for absolute excluding the Popes Supremacy in causâ—s Ecclesiasticall for making the King supreme Head of the Church in the same causes all which is most euident by the Statutes made about the same from the 25. yeare of King Henry the 8. vnto the end of the raigne of King Edward the sixt To this declaration of myne M. Barlow is in effect as mute as a Macedonian frogge if to say nothing at al to the purpose be to be mute though words and wynd be not wanting But first to the Cardinalls six argumentes he sâ—yth neuer a word albeit he had both seene and read them as may be be presumed To my reason of the difference between the Oath of Supremacy and this of Allegiance for that this is modified and tempered with different clauses of thinges partly touching ciuil ObedieÌ„ce and partly Religion wheras the other is simply of Religion against the Popes Supremacy to this I say he answereth with this interrogation If this Oath be so modified iâ— comparison of the other why is it accounted by â—he Censurer the greatest affliction and pressure that euer befel the Catholickes Do you see what a question he maketh and how farre from the purpose My intention was and is to proue that for so much as Cardinall Bellarmine did particulerly impugne this mixt and tempered Oath therfore he did not mistake the question by impugning only the other Oath of Supremacy as was obiected there being between them this difference amongst others that the one to wit of AllegiaÌ„ce is compounded of different clauses as hath bene said partly touching ciuill Obedience and partly Religion wheras this other of Supremacy is simply of Religion This was my demonstration And to what purpose then for answere of this was brought in that other demâ—und of M. Barlow asking vs very seriously why this second Oath should be afflictiue vnto vs if it be modifyed and tempered Is there any sense in this We say for so much as it is compounded and tempered as the other is not therfore it was meant by the Cardinal and not the other M. Barlow saith if it be so tempered why doth it afflict yow We say first that this is nothing to the purpose noe more then VVhich is the way to London A poke â—ull of plummes Secondly to M. Barlowes impertinent demand we say that albeit we grant that this second Oath is modifyed and tempered yet we say not that it is moderate and temperate for a law that in substance is mild may be by some clauses or circumstances so modified that is to say framed in such manner as it may be seuere and rigorous and a thing may be tempered aswell with exasperating ingredientes as mollifying and as well with afflictiue as lenitiâ—e compounds and so is this Oath more sharpe perhaps then the other and so doth M. Barlow him selfe confesse within a few lynes after saying that this last Oath of Allegiance is more pressâ—ng pitthy and peremptorie and in all circumstâ—nces a more exact and searching touch-stone then the â—ormer of the Supremacy And yet as though we did not see nor feele this he will needs haue vs to acknowledge in the same place that this Oath is allaied tempered corrected and moderated for all these are his wordes by the variety of clauses therein contayned theron foundeth his subsequent discourse of our ingratitude in not accepting the same wheras both he and we do hold the contrary that it is more stinging as now you haue heard and that euen by his owne confession what then shall we say of this manner of M. Baâ—lowes disputing Is he fit to be a Kings ChaÌ„pion in writing But heere now by the way I must tell the Reader that in my Letter I interposed a few lines in this place for noting the different style vsed by King Henry King Edward in their Statutes concerning the Oâ—â—h of Supremacy and this othâ—r now related in the Aâ—â—logy in thesâ— wordes I. â— do vtterly tâ—stify and declare 〈…〉 that the Kingâ— Hâ—ghnes is the only Suprâ—me Gouerâ—â—◠〈◊〉 in all causes Ecclâ—siaâ—tâ—call as tempâ—rall wheras in tâ—e Sâ—tute of twenty sixt of king Henry the Eight where the Tytle of Supremacy is â—nactâ—d the wordes are these 〈…〉 â—â—â—cted by this present Parliament that the King his Heires 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—cessors â—â—albe taken â—â—â—epted and repâ—tâ—d the â—nly Supâ—eme 〈…〉 earth of the Church of England and shâ—ll 〈◊〉 aâ—d â—niâ—y 〈◊〉 and vnited vnto the Imperiall Crowâ—e of this Realme asâ—â—â— the tytle and style therof as all honours dignitieâ— authorities 〈◊〉 profites and commâ—ditiâ—s 〈◊〉 the said dignityes
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
depriued by the Pope of the kingdome of Nauarre and himselfe I meane this King of France forced to begge so submissiuely the relaxation of his excommunication as he was content to suffer his Embassadour to be whipped at Rome for pennance All these examples sayd I in my Letter were heaped togeather to make a muster of witnâ—sses for profe of the dangers that Princes persons are or may be in by acknowledging the Popes supreme Authority adding this for answere But first quoth I in perusing of these I find such a heape indeed oâ— exaggerations additions wrestings and other vnsincere deâ—lings as would require a particuler Booke to refute them at large And the very last here mentioned of the present King of France mâ—y shew what credit is to be giuen to all the rest to wit Romeâ— the latin Interpreter turneth it Vt Legatum suum Romae virgis caesum passus sit as though he had byn scourged with rodds vpon the bare flesh or whipped vp and downe Rome wheras so many hundreds being yet aliue that saw the Cerimony which was no more but the laying on or touching of the sayd Embassadours shoulder with a long white wand vpon his apparell in token of submitting himselfe to Ecclesiaâ—tical discipline it maketh them both to wonder and laugh at such monstrous assertions comming out in print and with the same estimatioÌ„ of punctual fidelity do they measure other things here auouched As â—or example that our King Henry the second was whipped vp and downe the Chapter-house and glad that he could escape so too â—or which he citeth Houeden and this he insinuateth to be by order of the Pope in respect wherof he saith the King had iust cause to be afraid But the Author doth plainely shew the contrary first setting downe the Charter of the Kings absolution where no such pennance is appointed and secondly after that againe in relating the voluntary pennance which the King did at the Sepulcher of S. Thomas for being some occasion of his death doth refute therby this narration as fraudulent and vnsincere that the King was whipped like a school boy by order of tâ—e Pope as though it had not come from his owne free choice and deuotion Thus sayd I in my Letter To these two last examples of whipping both in the King of France his â—mbassadour our King Henry the second of England M. Barlows reply is only in certaine scoffs for intertaining of tâ—â—e A wand saith he was laid soâ—tly on the Embassadour of France his shoulders c. Is the rod of Ecclesiasticall discipline in Rome turnâ—d now inâ—o a white wand soâ—tly laid on Againe after Herby a man may coniecture what the selâ—e-whipping of Iesuits and Romanâ—sts is VVill they not sâ—y when they haue the â—â—ip in their hands as S. Peter said to his Maister Parce tibi be good to your selâ—e Syr For no man yet euer hated his owne flesh but nourished it which is a better place of Scripture against selfe-whipping then tâ—e Popâ— hath any for turning the rod of correction into a wand of Cerimony So he And whether it be a better place of Scripture or no I wilâ— not decide but sure I am that the practice is more â—asy and sweet to nourish a mans owne flesh then to disciplin the same and more allowed I doubt not by M. Barlow such as follow his spirituall directions But yet about this better place of Scripture auouched by M. Barlow against whipping it shall not be amisse to consider somewhat how rightly it is aleadged and therby see what becoÌ„meth of Scriptures when it is once brought into these mens possessions The place is cited togeather as you see all in a different letter as if S. Peter had spoken the whole yet in the margent he quoteth Matth. 16. and Ephes. 5. wherby those that are learned vnderstand that the former words only of Parce tibi spare your selfe Syr are of S. Peter and the later of nourishing our flesh against disciplining is of S Paul And not to stand vpon the former clause albeit that it differ from the vulgar translation surely the place of S. Paul beareth not M. Barlows sense and application against disciplining of our flesh which is so farre of from the Apostles true drift and meaning as nothing can be more His words are these Husbands ought to loue their wiues as their owne bodies and he that loueth his wife loueth himselfe for no man euer hated his owne flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth the same euen as Christ the Church And is this so good a place of Scripture now as M. Barlow saith against selfe-whipping for so much as here the Apostle speaketh of husbands nourishing and cherishing their wiues as Christ doth his Church Which though he loued as his owne flesh yet doth he often whip and chasten as all men do both see and feele that liue in her This then is impertinent and nothing to S. Pauls meaning But what were it not a better place to the contrary for whipping and chastening a mans owne flesh voluntarily when the same apostle saith Casâ—igo corpus meum in â—â—râ—itutem â—eâ—igo It do chasten my owne body and doe bring it into seruitude the Greeke word also being more forcible to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to make blacke or â—lew as also where he talketh of Vigiliae ieiunia multa of manie Vigills and fastings practized by him and other Apostles Doth not this proue that a selfe-chastizing of a mans bodie is pleasing to God What will M. Barlow say to that other precept of â—erramâ— do you mortifie your members vpon earth Doth not voluntary mortification of the members of our body include voluntary chaâ—tisment of the flesh and consequently allso whipping sometimes if need require What will he say of that crucifying our members wherof the same Apostle speaketh Doth not crucifying imply as much as self whipping But it semeth that these things are strange paradoxes to M. Barl. that was neuer acquainted with the same but being accustomed rather with the other paâ—t of the sentence of nourishing cherishing his flesh by good cheere soft apparell and other delicacies of life so far â—orth as he hath bene able to procure it laughing at them that taâ—ke oâ— whipping quia aniâ—alis homo non percipiâ—â—a qu◠〈◊〉 spâ—â—itus Dâ—â— because the fleshly man doth not vnderstand those thingâ— that appertaine to the spirit of God And this shal be a sufficient answer to M. Barlowes trifâ—ing about whipping both in the King of France his Embassadour at Rome and King Henry the second at Canterburie in England But yet one thing is to be noted for conclusion about whipping King Henry the second of whom it was sayd before that he was whipped vp and downe the Chapter-â—ouse like a schoole boy and glad to escape so too now being prâ—ssed by my answer thereunto out of Houeden and other
who liued soone aâ—ter but also of Blondus do make euident who sayth Suanisâ—â—mus erat in Gallys famae odor grauitatis sanctiâ—atis ac rerum gesâ—arum eius Pontificis chaâ—is there was a most sweet odour in France of the grauity sanctity and actes of this Pope Innocâ—nâ—ius And this seemeth to be confirmed by the singular reuerence and dutiful respect which S. Lewis of France did yield him at the Councell of Lions as writeth Paulus Aâ—milius in his history And Ioannetus in the liâ—e of this Pope sayth that the Emperour was nothing glad for his election Norat enim virtutem viri atque animi magnitudinem for he knew well his vertue and great courage The same also is auouched by Ciaconius who with Onuphrius Panuinus a famous historiographer of our daies giues him this â—â—ncomiumâ— Multis egregys factis clarissimus ob vendicatam assertamque libertatem Ecclesiasticam omnibus saculis laudatissimus most famous for his worthy deedes and for recouering the Ecclesiasticall liberty of the Church to all posterity most renowned And therefore his life being so commendable no meruaile though his death were be wailed of all good men â—s testifieth Hicronymus Rubeus in his history of Rauenna saying Innocentius vitam cum morte commutauit quidem ingenti â—onorum omnium dolore Vir enim suerat magnitudine animi virâ—tute praestaÌ„tissimus Iâ—mocentius departed this life and truly with the great griefe of all good men for he was a man both for courage and vertue most excellent But this is more fully expressed by Vbertus Folieta in these words Hic annus non modò Genuensibus sed omni Christiano orbe atque omnibus bonis luctuosus suit morte Innocentij 4. in Vrbe Neapolâ— c. This yeare was dolefull not only to the people of Genua but also to all the Christian world and all good men by the death of Innocentius the 4. in the Citty of Naples who in the eleauenth yeare of his Popedome ended the course of his most renowned gouerment with this noble act of adding the Kingdome of Naples to the State of the Church This man was made memorable famous to all posterity as well for his exquisite learning wherof he left notable monuments as also for his excellent piety his noble deserts towardes the Weale publicke of Christendome and continuall and infatigable labours whose knowne vertue was so admired and beleiued of all men that bewayling his losse they did commonly say talem Virum aut numquam nasci aut numquam mori oportuisse that so worthy a man either should neuer haue bene borne or neuer haue died So he And that this their mourning was not for the present only at his descease Ciaconius testifieth saying Clerus populus eum dudum luxerunt c. The Cleargie and the people mourned for him a long tyme as appeareth in the History of Genua written by Augustinus Iustinianus Bishop of Nebia as also in Ricardonus a Florentine writer So he VVho also yealdeth the cause herof in thâ—se words Relicta apud omnes fama non modò excellenâ—is scientiae exquisitae virtutis sed ettam integritatis vitae admirabilisque prudentiae For that he left behind him the fame not only of excellent learning and exquisite vertue but also of integrity of life and admirable wisdome Which rare encomium of good life long lamentation after his death may be much doubted whether it wil euer be left registred by any Historiographer of M. Barlow vnles he make some great chang of himself from that which at the present he is sayd to be And this may suffice for Innocentius wherby good Reader thou maiest see and iudge with what truth spirit M. Barlow wrote of this Pope that he was forced to defend himselfe for that his actes were discried and could be no longer â—id Now then let vs see what opinion writers haue of Fredericke whom M. Barlow so much coÌ„mendeth defendeth against all Popes and writers Although it be an odious and loath some thing to rake vp the ashes of dead men and to rip vp their vices which shouldly buried with them in silence for which cause I shal be the shorter in their rehearsal yet inforced hereuÌ„to euen against my inclination by M. Barlows importunity or rather impudency who to commend this Emperour blusheth not to condemne so worthy a man as you haue now heard Innocentius to haue bene But I shall deale more vprightly therin then he hath done with the Pope for that I will charge the Emperour no further then with that which I find him in all Historiographers or publicke recordes to be charged withall one only schismaticall Vrspergensis being excepted who in this as I haue shewed deâ—erueth no credit And to beginne with them who seeme to fauour and defend him most I meene Matthew Paris and Cuspinian the former hauing set downe an Epistle of Fredericks to King Henry the third of England written after his excommunication and deposition in the generall Councell of Lions giueth his censure therof in these wordes Haec cùm ad Christianissimos Francorum Anglorum Reges nuntiata peruenissent c. When these things came to the knowledge of the most Christian Kings of France and England it appeared more cleare then the sunne to them and their Nobility that Frederiâ—ke with all his endeauours went about to anihilate the liberty and dignity of the Church which he himselfe neuer aduanced but was established without his liking by his noble predecessors and therfore making himselfe suspected of heresy did impudently and imprudently extinguish worthily blot out that little sparke of good name which hitherto he had amongst the people for wisdome and prudence c. And with Matthew Paris agreeth Matthew of VVestminster saying that by this letter Se volens excusare impudenter accusauit going â— out to excuse the matter he did impudently accuse himselfe And as for Cuspinianâ— although by all meanes he seeketh to excuse and iustiâ—y this Emperour yet were his vices so notorious as he could not conceale them altogeather but hauing set downe those things which he thought commendable in him as there are none so bad commonly but that some good thing or other may be noted in them he concludeth his prayses thus Has praeclaras virtutes contaminaâ—unt obscurarunt etiam quadam vitia saeâ—itia scilicet hominis libido immensa qui praeter gentis morem concubinas multas scorta aluit These noble vertues certaine vices did staine and obscure â— to wit the cruelty of the man and his vnsatiable lust who against the custome of his Countrey did maintaine many Concubines and queanes And this as already hath beene noted he speaketh of himsese without any reference to Petrus de Vineis as M. Barlow would haue vs belieue neither want there store of Authors who tax him for the same And for the first Palmerius saith he was non essrenis
CARDINALL what dignity title it is pag. 8. Cardinall Bellarmine abused by M. Barlow pag. 80. his Letter to the Archpriest discussed pag. 345. deincâ—ps his opinion of the Oath of Allegiance p. 346. 347. deinceps cleered from false imputation pag. 386. 387. defended from ContradictioÌ„s pag. 432. 442. 443. 448. 449. Charles the Great Emperour his zeale in reformation of manners in the Clergy pag. 313. Châ—lsey erection for wryters pag. 248. Clement 8. his Breues sent into England pag. 342. Clergymen freed from secular burtheÌ„s whence it first proceeded pag. 371. L. Cooke Chiefe Iustice of the CoÌ„mon Pleas his booke of Arraignments pag. 188. his definition of Misery by Copia â—nopia ibid. his poore Deuinity pag. 190. Conscience erroneous how and when it bindeth p. 33. 277. Contentions betweene Popes and Emperours pag. 480. deinceps Controuersie betweene S. Gregory and Mauritius the Emperour pag. 304. Councell of Aâ—les how it submitted it selfe to the Emperour pag. 313. Councells Generall alwayes assembled by the B. of Rome p. 320. Councell of Millaine corrupted by M. Barlow pag. 33â— Councell 4. of Toledo in Spaine of the Oath prescribed to Subiects therin pag. 365. dâ—inceps Difference betweene that the Oath of Allegiance pag. 381. 384. falsified by M. Barlow pag. 369. Whether it agreed with the Protestant Church of England 377. S. Cyprians iudgment of such as dy out of the Catholik Church pag. 222. D DESCENDING of Christ into hell pag. 377. Difference Essentiall betweene Protestants Puritans praef n. 32. Differenâ—e between the writing of F. Persons M. Barlow praef n. 132. Diuells concurrence with M. Barlow pag. 450. Diuinity of M. Barlow carnall p. 133. fit for the Court pag. 177. Diuision of the worke pag. 2. Doctâ—ine of the Church not preiudicated by euill life p. 147. E EARLE of Eâ—sex his Confession reuealed by M. Barlow p. 22. Preached against by him 212. Edward vide Cooke Eleazar his glorious death for not eating of swines flesh pag. 541. Q. Elizabeth her life discussed paâ—t 2. cap. 1. 2. per totum Her manes pag. 161. 166. Canonized for a Saint by M. Barlow pâ—g 164. praef n. 114. her Mortifications pag. 168. § 2. per totum No cloistred Nunne â— 170. her Felicities Infelicities part 2. cap. 2. per totum her birth pag. 201. her sicknes and death pag. 209. § 3. her Purgation about the Q. of Scotlands death pag. 215. her disastrous end pag. 216. 217. held for an Heretike pag. 226. How she was a ioy Iewell to the Christian world pag. 422. her Illegitimation p. 424. declared by her owne Father in Parlament pag. 426. nec Virgo nec Martyr praef n. 115. Equiuocation not lawfull in matters of Religion pag. 30. confounded with lying by M. Barlow pag. 384. 385. Excommunication of Princes practised in the Primitiue Church pag. 102. F FAITH diuine humane distinguished pag. 392. Feliâ—ities and Infelicites of Q. Elizabeth part 2. c. 2. per totum Felicity temporall no argument of spirituall p. 181. 182. 183. AncieÌ„t Fathers discourses therupon p. 184. 185. 186. Festiuities Masses of Saints p. 379. B. Fisher abused by M. Barlow p. 328. Flattery of his Maiesty by Mininisters partâ— 2. cap. 3. per totum of the nature of flattery p. 231. Fox his rabble of Martyrs p. 233. Fâ—edericke the first Emperour his submission to the Pope p 466. Fredericke the second his contention with Popes pag. 480. deinceps his voyage to the holy land 481. 48â— his counterfait sicknes ibid. his vices and bad life pag. 514. his barbarous cruelty 517. his blasphemy 519. Gods punishment laid vpoÌ„ him 520. G F. Garnets face in the straw p. 23. Gemen the Turke poysoned pag. 533. Gracchus abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. S. Gregory rayled at by M. Barlow praef n. 108. H HEAD of the Protestant Church monstrous p. 200. Henry vide Wotton Henry the 4. Emperour taken vp again out of his graue after buriall pag. 398. His deposition 411. Henry the 5. Emperour his insurrection against his father pag. 410. Henry the 3. of France his murder pag. 414. Henry the 8. of England iniured by M. Barlow pag. 428. Henry the 2. of England his absolution pag. 463. Henry the 6. Emperour his coronation pag. 466. S. Hieromes Discourse of felicity and infelicity pag. 185. Hope cannot stand without certainty of faith praef n. 48. Huldericus Mutius a Lutheran pag. 398. Hypocrisy what it is and what is the marke of an hypocrit p. 91. I IAMES vide King Idolatry suspition not cause of feare alwayes pag. 118. M. Iewell contrary to himselfe prâ—f n. 41. Immunity of the Clergy whence it first proceeded pag. 371. Inconstancy vide â—arlow Infelicity vide Felicity Infidels denyed Christian buriall 408. also Heretikes and excoÌ„municated persons ibid. Innocentius the 4. Pope abused by M. Barlow pag. 509. 510. 511. his death lamentation therof 513. 514. Ioâ—n vide Fox Syr Ioâ—n Cuâ—â— abused by M. Barlow in the pulpit praf n. 112. Iosâ—phsâ—â—lling â—â—lling into Egypt p. 421 K KING Iames said to be the Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance part 1. cap. 11 § 1. Why his Maiesty was not named in the booke pag. 5. that he neuer â—ead the booke â—ttentiâ—ely ibid. Iniured by M. Barlow pag. 12. flattered by Ministers egregiously part 2. cap. 3. per totum His mild disposition diuerted pag. 230. Kings their vices recounted in Scripture pag. 199. King Henry the 2. of England his absolution pag. 46â— King Henry the 4. of France his Embassador at Rome and the Ceremony of publike absolution pag. 465. L S. LEO rayled at by M. Barlow â—raf n. 108. 109. Liberty of Conscience demaunded by all forraine Protestants p. 256â— Liberty of Conscience vide toleration M MACHIAVELS principles agree with ProtestaÌ„t doctrine pag. 390. Maister what it signifieth how it is a title of honour pag. 9. Marriage of Priests and M. Barlows forgery therabout p. 373. Decree of the Councell of Toledo against the same pag. 374. 375. 376. Martyrs in Q. Elizabeths dayes pag. 206. Medina misunderstood by M. Barlow p. 43. explicated 44. 45. Mâ—riâ— of workes pag. 377. Misery defined by the L. Cooke pag. 188. Moone in the Asses belly p. 103. Monkes punished liuing disorderly pag. 380. M. Morton canuased pag 73. 74. his abuse of Salmeron 75. Mortification of M. Barlow pag. 126. of Q. Elizabeth pag. 163. externall Mortification and internall pag. 169. 171. 176. Mortification for Princes pag. 177. Mortification in time of Lent pa. g 376. N NABVchodonosors punishment pag. 195. more happy then Q. Elizabeth ibid. Neâ—o Domitiâ—n Heades of the Church in M. Barlowes opinion pag. 200. O OATH of Allegiance discussed partâ— 1. cap. 1. 2. per totum whether the taking of it be a blessing from God p. 37. part 1. c. 4. per totum what freedome the taking thereof bringeth to Catholikes p. 39. coufuted both at home and
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