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
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
be deceauâ—d The most that that Schismaticall Abbot saith is that the Emperoâ—rs enemies taking occasion of his absâ—nce inuaded his Terâ—itoâ—iâ—s And if M. Barlow will â—ay that this is all one although any blynd man will say that there is great diuersity then lâ—t him also combine these two togeather as one When M. Barlow was in LondoÌ„ the Earle oâ— â—ssex was beheadedâ— and M. Barlow was in London that the Earle of â—ssex might be beheaded And if he cry out against this laâ—â—r I will â—lso cry shame on the former for they are both of one stamp The true causes then why the Pope cauâ—ed some of his States as namely Apulia to be inuaded are diuers â—irst the certaine aduertisement he had receaued of a fraudulent peace made by him secretly with the Soldan before he dâ—parted out of Italy and in confirmation therof vpon his arriuall at Acra in Syria his Marâ—hall depaâ—ting from him with part of his army attended not saith S. Anâ—oniâ—us to fight against the Saracens but against the ChristiaÌ„s whom he spoyled as they returned victorious with great booty gotten of their enemies killing many of them taking many prisoners in accoÌ„plishment as it is thought of his â—ecret agreement before made â—oâ—â—oueâ— being aâ— Aâ—â—a hâ— would haue destroyed the Church of the Ten plans indâ—â—d he tooke many â—orâ—restes from them and â—inally Iâ—â—â—salem being yelded vnto him by the Solâ—â—n accordâ—ng to their coÌ„position he permitted the â—oly Temple of our Sauiouâ—s Sepulâ—her to be still in the Saracens hands that Maâ—omet might be serued and inuocaâ—ed thâ—â—â—iâ— In so much that neither the Popâ—s â—egate nor the Patriarch of Hiâ—rusalem nor the â—â—mâ—plars nor the Knights of S. Iohnâ— nor other Barons and Noble men in Syria nor the Captaines of the sâ—rangers would consent to this peace Quia omnibus vâ—sa est pax fraudulenta c. saith S. Aâ—toninus bâ—cause it seemed to them all a fraudulent peace to the hurt shame of the Christians hinderance of the conquâ—st of the Holy-Land And a little after he addeth Gregorius audita nequitia Imperatoris c. Gregory hearing of the wickednes of the Empeâ—our and his treacherous peace made with the Souldan ordayned that besides the senteÌ„ce of excommunication pronounced against him before that King Iohn of Hiâ—rusalâ—m who was then in Lomâ—ardy with the army of the Church should with his souldiers enter Apulia and stirre vp the people of that Kingdome to reuolt against â—redericke So he And besides this two other causes are assigned of this inuasion by Sigonius to wit that the Emperour departed before he was reconciled to the Church and moreouer because he went with so small forces leauing the most part of his aâ—mie behind him to rifle and spoile the Churches oâ— Sicily And as for his other most peâ—â—idâ—â—us dealings before related out of S. Antoninus they are all recorded in like manner not only by Ioannes Villanus who liued soone after Frâ—deâ—icke and by diuers others but also by the Pratriarch oâ— Hierusalâ—m himself who was an eie witnes of what passed in Syâ—ia in his â—pistle to the Christians of the west who setteth downe so many particulers of his foule and vnchristian dealings as maketh the matter most â—uâ—dâ—nt A fourth cause by all liklyhood one of tâ—e chiefest was that at his departure to the Holy â—and he leâ—t order with Râ—ynald his Deputie in Sicily to hould the Pope â—nd aâ—â— Clergie men for enemies who accordingly vpon Fredericks departure entred into the state of the Church and tâ—ere tooke certaine townes in the Marchia of Ancona asâ— so Conradus Guiscard another Captaine of his entred into the vale of Spoleto tooke Fulâ—gnio So as we see that the first beginning of this warre came from the Emperor and not from the Pope which M. Baâ—low might haue seene in Nauâ—lâ—rus himself whom diuers tymes he cyteth but that he will haue all men see that he seeketh not the truth but to intertaine talke by telling of vntruthes for Nauâ—lâ—â—us telleth expressely that wheras the Emperour complayned after his returne that the Pope had inuaded his territories wâ—ilâ—t he was in the Holy Land the Pope answered that he did that because Râ—ynaldus Fredericks Deputy did first â—et vpon the state of the Church And as for the cause of Fredericks voyage which M. Barlow blusheth not to affirme to be procured by the Pope that he might riâ—le his estate at home al Authors agree that it was specially proâ—ured by Ioâ—n King of Hierusalem who seeing the present daunger of his owne Countrey to be ouerruÌ„ne by the Saracens came in person into Euâ—ope most earnestly sollicited both Pope Emperor Kings oâ— France and England other Princes â—or present succour wherevnto they all contributed as euery where is testified And thus much for thiâ— point M. Barlow proceedeth and saith The Emperour by reason of his dangerous sicknes was forced to staâ—one yearâ— the Pope â—ocâ—e it for a dâ—ssâ—mbling and excommunicated â—im for his delay and the Emperour sending his Embassadours to Râ—me with their â—ffiâ—auit to make saith for his sicknes the Pope would not admâ—t 〈◊〉 to his presence So he In which words two things are auâ—uched first that the Emperours stay delay of â—is voâ—age waâ— truely sicâ—nes and secondly that for the samâ— hâ— was â—xcommuâ—icated But both these if we belieue tâ—e whoâ—e torrent of other Authors are manifestly false For most agree tâ—at the sicknes was counterfait and that the cause of hiâ— eâ—communication was not for that delâ—y but rather for his returnâ— againe with his fâ—rcâ—s gallâ—â—â—s aâ—â—â—r he had bene for some time at sea which M. Baâ—low could not but haue seene and therefore might haue beene ashamed vpon the credit of one Schismaticke to checke all other writers and to set downe this fabulous report for true For that his sicknes was counterfait may manifestly be gathered by the very behauiour of the Emperour himself who in that very time when he was sicke forsooth hearing of the death of the Lantgraue of Thuring came in al hast from Sicily to Brundusium to rifle the said Lantgraues Palace where â—e tooke away â—â—yth â—rantzius diâ—ssimi Pâ—incipis â—quos arma aurum argenâ—â—m lauâ—issâ—mam supeâ—â—â—â—â—lem the â—oâ—â—â—s ar â—ouâ— gould siluer and other most sumptuous furniture oâ— tâ—at most wealthy Prince And this his dissimulatioÌ„ of sicknes in plaine termes is â—uoâ—ched fiâ—â— by the Pope himself in hiâ— letters who 〈◊〉 thâ—t he knew the samâ— euen froÌ„ the 〈◊〉 who then were with the Emperour and by the â—aâ—d â—aâ—zius Luthersâ—nco â—nco â—â—a â—omâ—iâ—aâ—io â—hronologica al Germans alâ—o by Platina Sabellicus Bloâ—dus Taâ—cagâ—oâ—a and others but these in so cleare a matter may suffice Now that his excommunication was not for his delay but for his returne after he was set forth from Brundusium is most euident by the testimony of most writers amongst whom
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
folly for saying but a supposal as though it were a speach of vncertainty I haue said sufficieÌ„t before There remaineth his vntruth in saying that Bellar. doth suppose that if the rest of the Apostles were not made Bishops by S Peter then cannot the Church of Rome be the Mother-Church of other Churches nor the Bishop vniuersal Bishop For first as coÌ„cerning the latter part about the Vniuersall Bishop Bellarmine hath no one word thereof but teacheth the quite contrary founding the power and authority of S. Peter ouer all other Churches vpon other groundes and namely vpon the commission of Christ Matth. 16. â—oan 20. not vpon his ordayning or not ordayning Bishops of the other Apostles about which question he doth but set downe the opinion of Ioannes de Tuâ—reâ—remata lib. 2. Summae de Ecclesia Cap. 32. with his reasons â—or the same and consequently doth not â—et it downe as a supposall certaine ground or principle but as a probable and disputable opinion though himself hould the opinion of Turrecremata to be more probable But on the other side Franciscus de Victoria heere cited by M. Barlow himselâ—e though he be of a contrary opinion to Turrecremata and to Bellarmine about the Ordination of all the Apostles by S. Peter yet doth he in the very same place professe that S. Peter was Vniuersall Bishop ouer all the Church of God Primus Princeps cum summa supertotam Ecclesiam potâ—state That among the Apostles he was the first and principall with supreme power ouer all the Church So as the denial of this particulâ—r priuiledge in S. Peter that he ordained all other Apostles Bishops doth not inâ—eâ—e that he was not vniuersall Bishop of the whole Church as here we see M. Barlow most falsely to inferre And whereas he noteth in the margent with great diligence diuers Catholicke writers that dâ—â— hold the question to be probable on both sids as Salmeron Victoria Suarez and Gregorius de Valâ—ntia that is but an old trick to shuâ—â—le and make a noice where there is no need for Bellarmine doth not hold the thing to be de fide or infallible supposall and consequently it little importeth to bring in this diuersity of opinions of the aâ—oresayd Authors about the matter Now then to come to the second vntruth that the Pope by decreeing the Oath as it lay was vnlawfull did also forbid euen that very point of sâ—earing ciuill obedience which is so notoriously vntrue as whosoeuer doth but read the Popes Breue it selfe or Cardinall Bellarmine his explication therof or my Letter wherin the contrary is euery where protested wil maruaile to see such impudent proceeding But of this more afterward Now wee shall passe to discusse whether there be any pointes in the sayd Oath concerning the religion and consciences of Catholicks whereby the taking thereof was made vnlawfull vnto them For this doth Maister Barlow vtterly deny as now you shall heare WHETHER THE OATH BE ONLY OF CIVILL OBEDIENCE Or whether there be any clauses in it against Catholicke Religion CHAP. II. THIS point being one of the most chief of al my Treatise about the Oath is haÌ„dled by me somewhat largely pag. 13. of my Letter where vpon the deniâ—ll of the Apologer that any thing is there required but Ciuill obedience my wordes are these And how shall we cleare tâ—is important matter to wit VVhether there be any poyntes in thâ— Oath belonging to religion besides ciuill obedience and I do answer that it is vâ—ry easy to cleare the same by fower seuerall and distinct waâ—es First by the expresse wordes sense and drift of the Oath it selfe that besides the acknowledgemenâ— of temporall respects to wit that our Soueraigne is tâ—â—â— Kâ—ng rightâ—ull Lord ouer all his dominions and â—hat the swearer is his true loyall subiect to obey him in all temporall affayres and other like clauses whereat no man sticketh or maketh difficulty there be other clauses also against the authority of the Supreme Pastour which doe iustly breed scruple of conscience to a Catholicke to â—dmit or take the same Secondly I shewed the same by the Popes wordes in his Breues wherin he doth conioyne the taking of this Oath with the going to the Churches and Seruice of a different Religion pronouncing the one and the other to be vnlawfull Thirdly I declared the same out of the iudgment of Cardinall Bellarmine other learned men who hauing considered well the nature of this Oath and different clauses therin coÌ„tayned do hold it for so cautelously compounded by artificially ioyning togeather Temporal and Spirituall thinges to wit Ciuill Obedience forswearing the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall Authority as no man can thereby profâ—sse his temporall subiection and detest treason and conspiracy which all Catholikes are most willing to doe but he must be forced also to renouÌ„ce the Primacy of the Sea Apostolicke from which all good Cathoâ—ick consciences do iustly abhorre Fourthly for a more full and finall clearing of this matter that I could thinke of no better nor more forcible meane then to make this reall offer on the behalfe of euery English Catholicke for better satisfaction of his Maiestie in this poynt so much vrged of their ciuill and temporall obedience First that he will sweare and acknowledge most willingly all those partes and clauses of the Oath that do any way appertayne to the Ciuil and Temporall obedience due to his Maiesty whom he acknowledgeth for his true and lawfull King and Soueraigne ouer all his dominions and that he will sweare vnto him as much loyalty as euer any Catholicke Subiect of England did vnto their lawfull Kinges in former tymes and ages before the change of King Henry the eight or that aâ—y forrayne subiect oweth or ought to sweare to any Catholicke Prince whatsoeuer at this day These were the â—oure wayes which then occurred 〈◊〉 my mind wherunto it shall be good to examine brieâ—â—y what M. Barlow hath bene able to say in this his answâ—â—â— He beginneth resoluâ—ely as though he had intention 〈◊〉 ioynâ— really indeed Now then saith he this must be cleâ—â—â—â— whether the Oath doth onely concerne ciuill obedience yea or no 〈◊〉 that it doth not the Censurer taketh vpon him to satisfy in eight â—â—â—bers â—rom the 20. to the 28. and that foure seuerall waies So â—e And what doth he alleage against these foure waie◠〈◊〉 eâ—fect no word at all though he babble not a little of diuers matters impertinent to the purpose VVe laying this 〈◊〉 our ground saith he that first both swearing and performing 〈◊〉 obedience is aswell negative against any intruder challenger or vsâ—â—per as affirmatiue â—or the lawfull gouernours and Soueraignes Secondly that this challeng of the Pope in dethroning and deposing of Priâ—ces is a temporall intrusion and no spirituall iurisdiâ—tion do câ—â—clâ—â—â— with a strong and apparant euidence that the whole bulke of the Oâ—â—â— both in the submissiue and exclusiue part doth
is in it selfe but neither to vnderstand what he saith nor wherof he affirmeth In the first point of Queene Elizabeths praises he straineth his eloqueÌ„ce or rather loquence to the vttermost as though neyther the earth whilst shee was here nor scarce heaueÌ„ where now he assureth vs she is were worthy of her Shee was a daughter of the bloud Royall sayth he borne to the Crowne in the Prophetes wordes from the birth from the wombe from the conception a Princesse aduanced to the Crowne in apparenâ— right and by vncontrolable succession c. Thus he sayth and yet doth the world know what store of controuersies was about that succession and lawfullnes thereof and they are extant in theyr owne Statutes yet in print so as this man talketh that which he thinketh to be most acceptable and fit for his preseÌ„t purpose of adulation more then what he findeth written or registred or belieueth himselfe for that matter and such as know the man and his constitution are of opinion that if his Maiestie that now is had come into England with that minde which his Noble Mother and her husband the King of France are knowne once to haue had to claime iustify her title presently after the death of Queene Mary for so doth Doctor Sanders tâ—stifie that they had that minde and began to put the armes of England vpon all the sayd Queenâ— plate but that by the peace made Calis released vnto theÌ„ for the same they were pacified for that time it is to be presumed that his Maiestie if he had preuayled in his pretence that he should haue found no one man more fit or readie in England or Scotland to haue gon vp to Paules Crosse or to any other place else to iustifie his Maiesties Mothers pretence against Queene Elizabeth or to disgrace her whome now he extolleth so much euen in this point of legitimation from the belly from the wombe from the conception by apparent right incontrolable succession and the like But now the wind bloweth another way and he followeth the blast and turneth his sayles according to the weather let vs then heare him out further She was sayth he an Imperiall Monarch a famous Empresse or rather the very Empresse of â—ame blazoned out not by home-bred fauourites but by forraine trauailers and writers before and since her death yea â—uen by her enemies both for Religion and warre to be in her time and for her Sexe the starre of Soueraignty the mirrour of Principality a terrour to her enemies the Loadstone of Maiesty drawing vnto her both Embassadours Christian and not Christian only for enterview and salutation but in truth for view and admiration for when they had satisfied themselues with her sight and hardly could they be satisfied what Saba's Queene once sayd of King Salomon they all concluded of her that which oâ—ten falls not out sayth the Orator their eyes had ouercome their eares and truth had out-stripâ— fame report was lesse then verity and her renowne was far short of her desert Thus far our Oratour And doth he not seeme to speake well for his fee But yet wheÌ„ he telleth vs how his famous Empresse or Empresse of fame is blazoned not only at home but abroad by forraine writers he will not forget I hope to remember that shee is blazoned by many of them in farre other colours then heere he painteth her out and this partly in respect of her hard measure towards Catholikes whose religion shee professed vnder Queene Mary and made many fayre promises of continuance therin for the breach wherof and contrary proceeding afterward when she came to the Crowne she susteyned so hard a conceipt and bad opinion of all forrayne Princes people Kingdomes Catholik as the memory perhapes of no one Christian Prince or Princesse that euer liued is more vngratefull and odious to them And this is the very truth notwithstanding all this parasiticall flattery of the Minister which I speake as God knoweth with great compassion towards her and our Countrey for her sake and not with any humor of reuenge insultation or exprobratioÌ„ against her The histories are extant their speaches and iudgements are knowne to such as doe trauaile forreine Countreys and with indifferency and attention doe marke what passeth among them But yet this man sitting at home in his warme chaÌ„ber goeth further in his exaltations of her and to pretermit many as ouerlong for this place he sayth That all her actions being Royally vertuous vertuously religious and religiously wise her wisedome seasoned her religion her religion sanctified her policyes her polices graced her descent all of them togeather wrought her immortality and her immortality is accompayned with renowne vpon earth and reward in heauen So he and much more which I pretermit as idle froath of a flattering tongue who taketh vpon him also to Canonize her with the terme of Eternized Saynt and affirmeth resolutely that shee neuer blemiâ—hed her sâ—lâ—e with vice criminall or continued for soe are his words And what he meaneth by continued I know not exept he meaneth as the word importeth that she continued not from vice to vice without interruption which had bene horrible to haue done if not impossible or had perseuered continually in one and the selfe same vice criminall which had bene as bad if not worse He auoucheth further of her that shee neuer in her life committed hellish crime wherby I suppose he meaneth mortall sinne for that the payne punishmeÌ„t therof is hell according to S. Paules doctrine and then I confesse that this were to be accompted an extraordinary sanctity indeed that a woman brought vp in such liberty for so many yeares togeather in so corrupt a time who as M. Barlow here telleth vs was no Cloystred-Nun but a Queene that liued in all prosperity in the midest of all temptations and allurements both of Sathan the flesh and the world should neuer commit so much as one mortall sinne But I would aske M. Barlow how he commeth to know this secret did he euer heare her Confession For if he did he might with far better conscience vtter her vertues knowne thereby to her prayse and to the edification of others then he did the Earle of Essex his vices to his infamy and other mens scandall But I for my part doe thinke that albeit Queene Elizabeth went often to confession in Queene Maries dayes yet from that time to her death which was more then forty yeares she neuer tooke the benefit of that Sacrament in which long time wee may wel imagine what store of dust a house much frequented would haue gathered that had neuer bene swepâ— in so long a space And albeit shee had had both grace wil and time to coÌ„fesse her sins yet do I belieue that she would neuer haue chosen M. Barlow for her Confessour and Ghostly Father and consequently all that he talketh here of her vices criminall and not continued and
Which wordes of marke that are not adioyned to any of the other recordes whereby it is euident that that was the butt wherat he shot and may probably bee ghessed that as Ladron de casa one wholy depending of him and knowing his secret intentions was vsed before to beate this poynt secretly into the Queenes head while the other was aliue which after his death he preâ—ched so publikly And no man doubteth but that if his Maiestie that now is whome he so highly flattereth had then come in his way and that it had as well layen in the Queenes power as it did in her desire to equall his fortune with his Mothers for her owne greater safety this fellow would as eagerly haue runne vpon the same Theme as he did then against the Earle to wit that the King of Scotlandes life had bene a danger to the Queenes life of England and would haue sayd also marke that Nay he would confirme it with the saying of Tacitus which here he doth alledge for iustifying his Mothers death suspectus sempâ—r inâ—isusque dominantibus quisâ—â—e proximuâ— aestimatur He that is next in succession to a principality is alwayes suspected and hated by him that is in possession Vpon which ground M. Barlowes eloquence would quickly haue drawne forth some probable argument of likely danger to the Queenes life if the other were permitted to liue and consequently consulenâ—â—â— securitati it is good to make sure I will not stand to discourse what he would haue done in such a case if it had fallen out for his purpose for that may be presumed by that which he did which was to scan the sayd Earles actions wordes driftes and intentions with as much malignity as euer lightly I haue noted in any to make him odious to the Prince State and especially to the Cittie of London which â—e knew to be well affected vnto him therfore his thirteenth and last record was to the sayd Cittizens there present deliuered in these words Hiâ— hard opinion and censure of your basenes and vnfaythâ—ullnes to thâ— Queâ—ne which manner of Sycophancy himselfe conâ—esseth in a Preface afterward to the Reader did so much displease the Mayneâ— to vse his word as if he had with Ananias lyed to the holy Ghost or preached his owne damnation Others gaue out that he was strooke suddaynly with a dredfull sicknes others sayth he with more virulence though with lesse violence for penal charge frame matter of hard iudgement out of the discourse it selfe first in generall that I haue broken the Canon both of religion and law in reuealing a Penitents confession which was with remorse and priuate c. Secondly in particuler because in one part of my Preface I sayd that I was not a penny the richer nor a step the higher for the Earle albeyt I celebrated his glory at the Crosse for Cales victory and therefore hence they coÌ„clude that I now speake of splene and preach for rewardes Thus farre M Barlow testyfieth of the peoples iudgmeÌ„t coÌ„cerning him his iudgemeÌ„t of the Earle of Essex wherin he being so much interessed as now you see no meruaile though he passed this point with silence Let vs see what he sayth to the other coÌ„cerning his Maiesties Mother and her making away First he beginneth with a common place as before I mentioned saying If iealous suspition and feare extend it selfe to any it commonly alights vpon the heyre apparent or the successour expected And for proofe of this he citeth the wordes of Tacitus before by me alleadged And how litle this maketh to his purpose for excuse of the matter euery meane-witted-reader will coÌ„sider He goeth further therefore saying That as beâ—ore this censurer brought in the Mother of his Maiesties Father for a parallell to the Powder-treason so he reckoneth now for one of Queene Elizabeths miseries the death of the Queene his Maiesties Mother Wherto I answere first that the parallel was iust as to me it seemed for that as this treasoÌ„ was designed by powder so that of his Maiesties Father was both designed and executed And as this was done by Catholickes so that by Protestants only this happy difference there was that wheras the other had effect this had not And secondly I say I did not reckon the death of the Queene his Maiesties Mother for a misery of Queene Elizabeth if wâ—e respect the effect it selfe for that I doubt not but that the sayd Queene Elizabeth did hould it for a felicity to be able to achieue it but I hould it for an infelicity in respect of the cause that forced her vnto it which was miserable feare iealousy and suspition But what inference doth he make of this thinke you Let vs heare him vtter it in his owne words VVherby sayth he the Reader may iudge how he would vse hiâ— Maiesties owne fame if he were gathered to his Fathers when he is glad to alleadge soe vnsauoury examples of both his parents What sequele or consequence is this For that I doe with compassion and detestation of the facts make mention of both theyr murthers procured and executed by people of M. Barlows Religion therefore I would vse euill his Maiesties â—ame if he were gathered to his Fathers What coherence is there in this or whereof doth this consequence sauour but of folly only and malice But yet he passeth on to a further poynt of defence for this hath none at al as you see That renowned Queens death sayth he was a misery indeed to this whole Land and the most inâ—â—leble blot that can be recorded of this Countrey Doe you see that now he calleth her renowned against whom in their ordinarie books and Sermons they did vse in those dayes the most vilest and basest speaches that could â—e applyed to a woman doe you heare him say now that in deed her deaâ—h was a misery to the wholâ— land doe you heare him tell vs that the blot thereoâ— is indeleâ—le VVould he haue spoken so in his Saint Queenes life time This fellow is no time-seruer you may be sure VVell this is hiâ— confession Let vs heare his excusation ad excusandas excusationes in peccato But sayth he that our late Soueraygne was abused therein and that wicked act committed before her knowledge therof besides her notable expressing of her owne grieâ—es when she heard oâ— it other sufficient proofes haue fully resolued all honâ—st men hereof So he And I trow hee meaneth honest men of his owne honesty that will admit for sufficient any prooâ—es for the making away of any without scruple that stand in theyr light But was Queene Elizabeth abused therein VVas the act of cutting oâ— the head of Queene Mary of Scotland a wicked act VVould M. Barlow haue called it so in Queene Elizabeths dayes That it was commited before her knowledge Durst any man in her dayes â—ut to death a kitchin boy of her house much lesse of her bloud without her knowledge approbation and
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
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
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
of Supreme 〈◊〉 of the said Church belonging c. And in another Statute two yeares after that From hâ—â—cefâ—rth he shall accept râ—pute â—â—d take the Kings Maiestie to be the â—â—ly Supreme Head oâ— earth of 〈◊〉 Church of England c. And that the refusers of this Oath 〈◊〉 reputed traytours and suffer the pâ—yâ—es of â—â—ath c. And in other Statutes it is decrâ—â—d that it â—halbe â—reasâ—â— tâ—â—eny thâ—â— tytle 〈◊〉 Headship and that this was held of such importance vnder King Edward who succeeded his Father that it is decreed by Statute that all authority of iurisdiction spirituall and temporall in the Biâ—â—ops and Miâ—istry 〈◊〉 deduâ—ed and deriued frâ—◠〈◊〉 Kings Maiestie as Supreme 〈◊〉 c. Vpon this important doubt I was so bold as to stay my selfe a little as now â—lso I must intreating M. Barlow to giue the solution therofâ— to wit that forsomuch as this matter of the Headship of 〈◊〉 Chuâ—ch was held of so great weight by thâ—ir prime aâ—d principall Protestantâ— and especially by their Paâ—riarkes Cranmer â—idley Hâ—â—per and others then holding the places of Bishops in Parlament when the sayd Title was not only confirmed in the Child King but declared alsâ— to be the fountayne of all spirituall â—uthority and iâ—risdiction in the Clergie and that it was treason to deny this Tytle of spirituall influxe in the Clergie how this matter came about that it should be so little esteemed as to be left of and changed now yea to be denyed expressely by their principall wryâ—â—â—â— as namely by Doctour Iohn â—â—ynolds in his â—oÌ„ference with M. Hart where he flatly deâ—yeth that they doe call the Queene Supreme Head but only Supreâ—◠〈◊〉 which if they be Synoâ—â—ma and all one then what necâ—â—â—â—â—ie to hâ—ue denyed 〈◊〉 vnto herâ— But iâ— Goâ—ernour do signify any thing lesâ—e then Supreme Head then haue they changed their principall point oâ— doctrine wheron dependeth the lawâ—ulneâ— of their whole Clâ—rgie aâ— you seâ— and so the matter being of such weight I thought it worth the staying to haue some answere But M. Barlow falleth into a great chafe for this my stay The giddy fellow sayth he hath an other err and to do not 〈◊〉 of the way but by the way The Scripture setteth a more esseâ—â—iâ—â—◠〈◊〉 vpon such by-way takers saying That wicked men declinant 〈◊〉 oâ—â—iquationâ—s take all the by-wayes nâ—okes aâ—d lanes they câ—â— passe for feare to be descryed or apprehended This is one reprehension as you see insteed of answering the matter Yoâ— shall heare anoâ—hâ—r more châ—leriâ—ke It is a vexing tormeâ—◠〈◊〉 a man sayth he thâ—â— is inioyned a ioâ—rney vpon a speed◠〈◊〉 requiring a serious dispatch to traâ—aile with a triâ—ling companâ—â—â— that will make many erâ—ands by thâ— way or hath many acquaintances to stop him in the way or is forced to make often returnes vpâ—â— forgeâ—fullnes of dâ—â—ers â—hingâ— c. And I expected that he would haue sayd also that he must needâ— dâ—inke at eueâ—y Ale-house as he passeth by But this perhaps he thought would haue caused more reflection then he esteemed conuenient and those other triflings are inough for so much as they yield such a veâ—ing tâ—rmeâ—â— to M. Barlow in his iâ—ioyned 〈…〉 â—pon so speedy a busines But why did he not giue me 〈◊〉 a speedy answere without tryfling and so dispatch both me and himselfe quickly Truly you haue heard somewhat largely bâ—forâ— what he can say to this matter â—nd therfore I meane noâ— to dwell theron long in this plâ—â—e especiâ—lly for so much as the man is in such hast and so impatient of stay You haue heard what hath bene treated before about this point of spirituall authority in the temporall Prince and to â—ow â—ow a pitch he bringeth the same euen in effect to agree with vs granting â—nto the Prince the power â—â—ly oâ— execution of such things as are determâ—â—ed by the Church But now in a woâ—â— let vs see how he shifteth of the change of the name of Supreme Head First he sayth that 〈◊〉 Maiesty did not leaue it out oâ— his Title vpon â—uer-awed 〈◊〉 to take it forasmuch as God gaue the said Tyâ—le to a far worse King I pray you note the phrase which is strang from a sâ—biects pen to wit to Saul when he said he was Caput in Triâ—â—busâ— Head among the Tribeâ—â—f Israel And S. Paul nameth the â—â—sband head of the wife But what is this to our purposâ— that do talke of the spirituall Head of the Church Nay it seemeth rather to make against M. Barlowes prouing that the Tytle oâ— Head was lawfull and so it was in the true sense of ciuill Head ship and consequently it should haue bene conâ—inued wheras we demand why it was left of chanâ—ed So as this first answere is nothing to the purpose His second is that it is but identity of commaund expressed 〈◊〉 â—iuersitie of termes But why then was it changed And why doth M. Doctour Reynolds by M. Barlowes owne â—â—â—â—iâ—ony giue the Title not of Headâ— but of Supreme Gouernour What need that expresse negatiue if they were all one If you should deny to the Kings Highnes the Tytle of King and of Supreme Head of the Common-Wealth and call him only supreme Gouernour would it be taken well or excused by identity No man can be ignorant but that in euery state neuer so popular there is a supreme Gouernour â—hough no King Thirdly he sayth that the change of supreme Head into supreme Gouernour was made by Parlament the first yeare of Queene Elizabeths raigne at the request of the Nobles and Deuines of the Land But the question is why and vpon what ground forsomuch as it may be presumed there were as great Deuines in King Henry the Eight hâ—â— time in the Parlament And if not yet at least in King Edwards Parlament that did approue and establish this Tytle of supreme Head It was saith M. Barlow not in regard of Queene Elizabeth her sexe for she being descended as she was she had as absolute authority in the fruition of the Crowne for both powers spirâ—tuall and temporall as any Male-Monarch whatsoeuer And a little after agaiâ—e he saith that this change was made least a weaker 〈…〉 thinke that they gaue vnâ—o Kings tâ—â—t Tiâ—le secundum interioreâ— influâ—um according to â—he inâ—â—riour influence which 〈◊〉 the prâ—pâ—â— office of the head as being the fountayne of moisture and is â—he â—â—st 〈◊〉 attribute of Christ alone But not to speake in this place of this internall influxe of grace that commeth originally from Christ alone although instrumentally also froÌ„ men as in the administration of Sacraments according to Câ—tholike doctrine what will he say of the externall influâ—â— of power iurisdiction ouer soules of preaching teâ—ching administring Sacraments ordayning Ministers and the like Could this power come aswell from a Feminine as a Masculine Monâ—rch If it couldâ— I do
and exact a crafâ—seman M. 〈◊〉 is in the art of adulation in somuch that if the sciâ—ncâ— of parasitisme were lost he could restore it agayne of himselfe And I say he is vigilant in this place for that he hath taken occasion to flatter his Maiesty where none at all was giuen For I did not so much as name his Maiesty but only said as now you haue seene that if any â—an would describe Plato affirming him to be a man born in Greece c. of an excellent wit and â—â—ally aâ—â—ing that he was the most eminent of all other Philosopher◠〈◊〉 last point only might be sufficient to make 〈…〉 Peâ—â—pateâ—icke deny to sweare the Oath although they did not dâ—ny all the other particulers therin contayned â—o wit that he was borne â—n Greece of an excellent wit skilfull in the Grâ—â—ke Language and the rest and so thâ—t albeit a Catholicke man doe refuse to sweare to aâ—e Oatâ— of Allegiance in respect of diuers clauses theâ—â—in coâ—tained in prâ—iudice of his religion yet doth not he deny all the other clauses as both absurdly and iniâ—riously M. Barlow doth affirme The second example in like manner of an Ariâ—â— Prince proposing vnto his subiects an Oath contayning diâ—â—â—â— clauses of true Catholicke Religion and some one of Aâ—ianismâ— for which the whole is refused Barlowâ—â—ndeth â—â—ndeth to be as vnanswerable as the former though for a â—â—â—rish he taketh vpon him to set it downe againe in a better frame as he pretendeth but in very deed the very same in effect and wholy against himselfe to wit thaâ— an Arian Prince conâ—â—yueth an Oath for his subiects to sweare thâ—t there are three persons in Trinity that the sâ—cond Person is the Sâ—â—â— of God c. adding notwithstanding that he is not â—quall with his Father which is Arianisme some Christiaâ—â— saith M. Barlow fearing an error therein haue recourse to sâ—â—e great Doctour he descrying the Arianisme sorbids them to take it and not shewing them the erroneous articâ—e assureth them that the 〈◊〉 Oath as it lyeth is vnlawfull And doth not that doctour condeâ—â—e all the articles theâ—in and willeth them inclusiuely to deny the Trinity This is M. Barlowes demaund vpon this case And euery man of common sense I trow will answer No that he doth not eyther inclusiuely or exclusiuely deny the Blessed Trinity And it is strange that a man of sense will argue so or make so senselesse a demand For why or how doth this doctour deny heere the other two articles of true Catholick doctrine For that he did not tell them distinctly which of the clauses contayned Arianisâ—â— First this maketh not to our case of the Oath of Allegiance for that we set downe clerly the clausâ—s that we mislyke therin which are all those that touch either the Popes authoritie or any other part of the Roman Catholicke Religion Secondly it was not necessary to tell the clause in particuler that contayned the Arianisme for that some of the people perhaps that demaunded him the question could not well vnderstand it and therefore it was sufficient to say that the oath was as it lay naught that there was some heresie therin as if a Phisitian should say of a dish of mynâ—ed meate brought to the table that the eaters should beware for that in some part there were poison it were sufficieÌ„t though he shewed not the particuler part Or if a Cooke should say that among other hearbes in the pot there was one very noysome it were sufficient for aduise to refuse the whole pot of pottage and yet by this he doth not condemne all the other good hearbes that might be in the pot Or was it perhaps for that the Doctour said that the whole Oath as it lay was vnlawâ—ull First I do not find the word whole to be vsed by Cardinal Bellarmine but only the word Iur amentum indefinitly And secondly if he had said that the whole Oath as it lyeth were to be refused he had not thereby condemned â—uery clause or part therof which he proueth in these words saying Nam ex 〈◊〉 sententia bonum ex integra a causa constituitur malum autem ex singulis deâ—ectibuâ— quare vt Iur amentum prohibeatur vel recusetur 〈◊〉 est necessarium omnes singulae partes eius sint malae satis autem est si vel vna sit mala c. For according to the common sentence of Philosophers that which is good must consist of the whole cause that is to say of all parts requisite but to make a thing euill it is sufficient that it hath but some one defect wherefore for prohibiting or refusing this Oath as euill it is not necessary that all and euery part thereof be euill but it is inough if any one part therof be naught And soe on the contrary part to the end that this oath may be admitted as good and lawfull it is necessary that no part thereof be euill This is Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine wherein we see first that he doth not vse the word VVhole totum Iâ—ramentum which word notwithstandinge M. Barlow doth often vse and repeate in this place making it the foundation of all his idle dispute And secondly we see that he doth not condemne al the parts of this oath for that some be vnlawfull but rather proueth the contrary out of the common sentence of Philosophers that if any one part be euil it is sufficieÌ„t to make the Oath euil vnlawful In which kind M. Barlow himselfe in the very nexâ— ensuing page giueth an example of an IndeÌ„ture that hath many clauses wherof the breach of any one Prouisâ— sayth he doth forfeit the whole whereby is euident that one deâ—ect is sufficient to make the thing euil but to make it good al that is requisite must be obserued And so in this Oath to make it vnlawful it is inough that any one clause therof be naught or against a Catholick mans conscience but to make it good and lawfull al the clauses therof must be good and lawfull And so you see how substantially M. Barlow hath answered this point ouer throwing himselfe with his owne argument I wil not stand to confute that other mad assertion of his more franticke then fantastical wherby he affirmeth and wil needes defend that whosoeuer refuseth to sweare to any one of the articles of this Oath acknowledgeth not the first that King Iames is lawful King of England And what is his reason trow you No other but that of the Indenture before mentioned for the whole Oath sayth he is like an Indenture al the clauses tying and tending to one condition oâ— Allegiance the breach of oue Prouiso in the Indenture â—orâ—eits the whole the denying of one article in the Oath is the dental of the whole euen of the very first that King Iames is not lawful King So he But he that shall examine the matter wel wil find that this pretended parity betweene the
it hath bene sufficiently proued against Syr Francis Hâ—stingâ— that ignorant Knight who following M. Iewell obiected it as spoken once by Doctour Cole meaning if he spake it that some simple people are more deuout then greater learned but that ignorance should be a mother or necessary bringer forth of deuotion was neuer affirmed by any position of Catholikes and was proued to be very false in Syr Francis owne person who shewed himselfe to be very ignorant and yet nothing deuout And the same in due measure and proportion may be verified in M. Barlow if he deny it let vs part our proofes I haue shewed his ignorance in alleaging this Canon that maketh nothing for him let him proue his deuotion From the 24. Canon he steppeth forward againe to the 46. Wherin he saith is decreed that the Clergies immâ—nitie from ciuill molestations and troubles is from the King and by his CoÌ„maund and authority And what maketh this against vs or for the Protestants Why is not this practised at this time in EnglaÌ„d that all Clergie men be free ab omnipublica indictione atque labore â—t lilâ—ri sâ—ruiant Deo sayth the same Canon from all publike taxes labour to the end they may attend to seâ—ue God more freely Is the vse of this Canon more amongst Catholikes or Protestants and if more amongst Catholikes and nothing at all amongst Protestants especially in England what wisdome was this of M. Barlow to bâ—ing it in as a point decreed by the Councel conforme to their doctrine and practice But saith he this immunity came from King Sisenandus his order and commandement True it is that he as a good Catholike Prince was very forward therin yet the Decree was the Councels and therfore it is sayd in the Canon id decreuit Sanctum Concilium the holy Councell decreed it Neither do we teach that this immunity or freedome of the Clergy from secular burthens is without the consent concurrence of Christian Princes proceeding out of their piety and deuotion towards the Church to fauour further that which was esteemed by the Church needfull to Gods seruice conforme to Gods diuine Law both written impressed by nature So as this immunity of Clergy men was brought in both by Diuine and Humane Law as largly learnedly doth proue Cardinall Bellarmine in two seuerall Chapters of his Booke de Clericis to whom as to his Maister I send M. Barlow to Schoole though much against his will where also he will learne that long before this fact of King Sisenandus other Christian Emperours and Kings had consented to these immunities of Clergy men and confirmed the same by their temporall lawes decrees which piety King Sisenandus did follow and imitate in Spaine And would God he would inspire his Maiesty to do the same in England But what helpeth this M. Barlowes cause Truly euen as much as the rest Let vs see if you please what is his fourth Canon which he cyteth for his proof of the CouÌ„cels agreement with Protestants He leapeth then lastly to the 75. Canon which is one more then is in the booke for there be but 74. but this is a small fault in respect of that which presently ensueth His words are these Lastly that all the decrees and Canons of that Councell were confirmed by the Clergy annuente religiosissimo Principe after the Kings royll assent had vnto them and that set downe Can. 75. But first of all if the thing did stand in the Councell as heere it is set downe that the Princes consent and confirmation had bene demaunded to all the Decrees and Canons as M. Barlow sayth yet the words being but annuente Principâ— the Prince consenting therunto I do not see how it can be truly translated as it is by M. Barlow after the Kings Royall assent had vnto them which are the vsuall words whereby Parlament Statutes are confirmed wherein the King as truly supreme head hath chiefe authority to allow or reiect which I doubt not but that King SisenaÌ„duâ— toke not vpon him in this Councell of Toledo nay if the place be rightly examined which is in the very last lynes of the sayd Councell it wil be found that the said consent of the Prince was not about the decrees of the Councell but about the subscribing of all the Bishops names vnto the sayd Councell For they hauing ended all and made a large prayer for the prosperity of the said King and all said Amen it is added lastly Definitis itaque â—is qua superiùs comprehensa sunt annuente religiosissâ—mo Pâ—incipâ— â—lacâ—it dâ—inde c. Et quia prosâ—ctilus Ecclesiae anima nostra conâ—â—niâ—nt iam propria subscriptione vt permaneant roboramus Wherâ—fore hauing defined these things that before are comprehended it seemed good also by the consent of our most Religious Prince that forsomuch as these things that are decreed are profitable for the Church and for our soules we do strengthen them also by our owne subscriptions to the end they may remayne I Isidorus in the name of Christ Metropolitan Bishop of the Church of Siuill hauing decreed these things do subscribe c. And so did all the other Bishops by name Heere then I see not what M. Barlow can gayne by alleaging this Canon For if this allowance of King Sisenaâ—dus be referred to the Bishops subscriptions as it seemeth by that it coÌ„meth after the mention of the made decrees or if it were in generall allowance of the whole Councâ—ll by way of yielding to the execution therof as M. Barlows doctrine â—lse where is it maketh nothing against vs at all For we grant this consent to all Princes whithin their owne Kingdomes therby to haue their assistance for execution especially for such points as interesse or touch the politicall state or CoÌ„mon-Wealth There remaineth then to examine a little the first allegation out of the 43. Canon where he sayth that Priests marriage is allowed in this Canon so it be with the coÌ„sâ—nt of the Bishops Wherin two egregious frauds are discouered so manifestly as he could not but know when he wrote them that they were such The first is for that he translateth Presbyteri for Clerici peruersly thereby turning Clarks into Priests knowing well inough what he did for that he must needs see the difference in the very Canon as presently we shall shew The second fraud is that he knowing that this CouÌ„cell did vtterly disallow the marriage of Priests yet he shamed not to affirme the quite contrary We shall say a word of the one and the other For the first he alleageth as you haue heard the 43. CanoÌ„ whose words are Clerici qui sine consultu Episcopi sui duâ—â—int c. Clarks that without the consultation of their Bishop shall marry wiues c. must be separated from the Clergie by their proper Bishop Which word Cleriâ—i M. Barlow translateth Priests notwithstanding he knoweth iâ— iâ— not
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