Kinges and Emperours had bene so priuiledged by the power of their Empire aâ— they might not be censured by the high Pastours and Prelates himselfe would neuer haue cenâ—ured and excomunicated his Emperour Theodosius as he did The wordes then are found not in S. Ambrose his Booke de Apologia Dauid cap. 4 10. as here is cited for there are two Apolygies prior and posterior which M. Barlow by his citation seemeth not to haue vnderstood and the first containâ—th but 7. Chapters in all and in the 4 is only this sentence talking of the pennance of King Dauid Qui â—ullis tenebatur legibus humanis indulgentiam petebat cùm qui tenentur legibuâ— aeudent suum negare peccatâ—m King Dauid that was subiect to no humane lawes asked forgiuâ—nes when they that are bound by lawes presume to deny their sinnes But in his enarration vpon the 50. psalme of Dauid he hath the thing more plainely for thus he saith Rex vtique erat nullis ipse legibuâ— tenebatur quia liberi sunt Reges à vinculis delictorum neque enim illi ad poenam vocaÌ„tur legibus tuti Imperij potestate Dauid was a King and thereby was not vnder lawes for that Kinges are free from the bandes of their offences for that they are not called to punishment by lawes being safe by the power of their Empire So S. Ambrose Wereby is seene that he vnderstandeth that Princes commonly are not subiect to humane lawes for that they will not nor may be called to accompt for their offences as priuate meÌ„ are being free by their powâ—r or that no man is able to compell them And this priuiledge perhaps is tolerable in their priuate and personall sinnes but if the same should breake out in publicke and against the vniuersall good of Christians then may we learne by the foresaid act oâ— S. Ambrose in Excommunicating the Emperour Teodosius that God hath leâ—t some power by diuine law to râ—straine them for the coÌ„seruation of his Church and Kingdome And so we may see that al that which M. Barlow hath chirped here to the contrary is not worth a rush but to shew his penury and misery hauing bene forced of eight Authors heere alleadged by him to wit Salmeron Saâ—ders Victoria Bellarmine Barkley Sigebert Espencaeus S. Ambrose to misalledge and falsify seauen as you haue heard that is to say all of them sauing Barkley who in this matter is of lesse accompt then any of the rest if the booke be his which is extaÌ„t vnder his name For that he being no Deuine hath taken vpon him to defend a Paradoxe out of his owne head only different from all other writers of our dayes both Catholiks Heretiks graunting against the later all spiritual authority vnto the Pope ouer Princes Christian People throughout the world but denying against the former all temporall authority eyther directly or indirectly annexed vnto the spirituall wherin as he is singular from all so he is like to be impugned by all and is by M. Barlow in this place for the Protestants calling him our owne Writer And for the Catholikes Cardinall Bellarmine hath lately written a most learned booke against him by name confuting his priuat fancy by the publique authority weight and testimonies of all Catholike Deuines And so much for this OF CERTAINE NOTORIOVS Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his aduersary which no wayes can be excused from malice witting errour §. II. AS the former fraud discouered and conuinced against M. Barlow of abusing authors against their owne wordes and meaning is a foule fault and very shaÌ„full in him that pretendeth to haue conscience or care of his credit so is the crime of appareÌ„t and willfull Calumniation bearing no shew of truth or reason at all much more foolish wicked Foolish for that it doth wholy discredit the Calumniator with his Readers wicked for that it sheweth plaine malice and will to hurt although with his owne greater losse So then it falleth out in this place that M. Barlow finding himselfe much pressed and strained with the reasonable and moderate speach which I vsed in my Epistle throughout three numbers togeather concerning the Oath freely taken as was said by many Catholikes both Priests and Laicks expounding their taking of the Oath in a good sense he doth so malignantly peruert the same by open calumniatioÌ„s as euery child may discouer not only the falshood but the fury also of his passion against me nothing being in his answere but exorbitant rayling apparent lying For whereas I in reason deserued rather approbation and commendation from him for expounding plainly and sincerely that meaning which those Catholikes if they were Catholikes had or could haue in their taking of the Oath without all Equiuocation or mentall reseruation which I condemned in an Oath as altogeather vnlawfull concerning any point of religion that ought to be confessed he not being able to abide the light of this truth and plaine dealing falleth into a certaine frenzy of rayling against me for the ground of his accusation â—ayeth hiâ— owne fiction that I doe teach them perswade them 〈◊〉 Equiuocate in this very case For cleare confutatiâ—â— wherof it shal be sufficieÌ„t first to set down my own wordâ— as they ly in my epistle and then to consider and ponder the collections and inferences that he maketh vpon theâ— And if by this you doe not finde him to be one of the loosest conscience and lawâ—est tongue and least respectiuâ— of his owne credit honesty that euer yow saw I am much deceiued My words then were these that follow As for that multitude of Priestes and Lâ—ickes which he sayth haue freely takâ—n the Oath as their freedome was that which now I haue mentioned and a principall motiue as may be presumed the desire they had to giâ—e his Maiesty satisfaction and deliuer themselues and otheâ—â— so much as lay in them from that inference of disloyall meaning which vpon the denyall therof some do vse 〈◊〉 make so I cannot but in charity assure my selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as coâ—cerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in â—ome such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sincerity of true Catholike doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath not authority without iust cause to proceed againâ—â— them Quia illud possumâ—â— quod iure possumus saith the law ouâ— authority is limited by Iustice. Directly also the Pope may be denyed to haue such authority against Princes but indirectly only in ordine ad spiritualia when certayne great important and vrgent cases concerning Christian religion fall out which we hope will neuer be betweene ouâ— Soueraigne and the Sea Apostolicke for so much as they haue past already many yeares though in different Relions in peace and quietnes euen since
tome of the German History he shall find what that Author writeth of Petrus de Vineis his going to the Councell of Lyons for speaking of the Emperour he saith Qâ—i non comparuit sâ—d Râ—sponsales prose transmisit minùs sufficientes Fredericke appeared not in the Councell but sent in his behalfe vnsufficient Embassadours to wit Petrâ—s de Vineis and Thaddaeus Sinuessanus Will M. Barlow say that he sent two Chayres or Oracles That truely had bene a strange Embassage Or will he tell vs that when our King Richard the first his Embassadors went to Rome to withstand the Bishop of Roane complayning against him â—s Nubrigensis writeth Responsales quoque Regis è vestigio secuti in conspectu summi Pontificis in faciem illi restitere The Embassadours also of the King presently following resisted him to his face before the Pope that he sent Chaires or Oracles to Rome Or were these Chayrs or Oracles so earnest before the Pope in his defence I know not whether this thing deserue rather laughter or compassion Laughter for that it is so foolish and ridiculous in it selfe Compassion to see one to beare himself for Bishop of Lincolne so ignorant as to translate Responsalis for a Chaire or Oracle with this insulting adiection to the same much lesse by his Breue interdict But let vs come to the second 11. The other example of his Grammaticall construction is concerning a place of Bellarmine about the authority of Kinges where the Cardinal refelling an obiection that the exemption of Clergy-men from tributes and appearing at secular tribunalls is de iure humano and so may be repealed by Princes answereth that it doth not follow both for that not only Kings but Popes and Councels haue giuen this exemption to Clergy-men as also for that the whole world hath consented to the same which hath bestowed vpon Kinges that power which they haue So he Now let vs heare M. Barlow conster these words thus then he Englisheth them Orbis terrae t' is within the compasse of the inferiour orbe from whence is giuen to Kinges that power which they haue So he And let him turne ouer againe his Grammaticon or MaÌ„matrecton Cooper or Calepine and he shall neuer fynde these two wordes which himself setteth downe in latin to wit orbis terrae to signify t' is within the compasse of the inferiour orbe and therefore perhaps his wits were without that compasse when he wrote it and likewise his honesty was scant at home when within 3 leaues after out of this selfe same Chapter he cyteth in different letters and many of them capitalls this passage as the expresse wordes of Bellarmineâ— The Clergy is not bound to obey Kings longer then Kings are THEIR SVPERIOVRS and that is so long as THE POPE WILL for whome HE EXEMPTES they are all FRE and citeth in the margent de Cler. lib. 1. Cap. 28. â— Respondeo negando But let him read the place that list and he shal find no such thing And what then will yow say to such forgery falsity But for these two pointes I referre him to the Author of the Supplement where they are more largely discussed And were not M. Barlow of a seared conscience and his cause desperate he would neuer vse such legier-de-main and discredit himself in this base manner If his Spartans ready for the combat can fight no better it were more for his Maiestys honour and their owne honesty that they kept themselues out of the field staid at home to tend gooslinges then thus to betray their cause and shame all From Grammar let vs come to Philosophy 12. It seemeth that in this science M. Barlow is very meanly seene and not to haue read or which I rather thinke not to haue vnderstood Porphyries Introduction to the same For what puny-Sophister is there in Oxford or Cambridge who knoweth not that species producatur de pluribus differentibus numero But quite contrary M. Barlow tells vs that the powder-plot was not singular from all examples there hauing bene the like done by Protestants though not in specie yet in indiuiduo as at Antwerp c. which is asmuch as if one should say Although so grosse ignorance as we see in M. Barlow of Lincolne cannot be found in any other man yet is it to be found in many M. Barlowes whereas M. Barlow of whome we speake is but one and the selfe same man and ignorance may be found in other men as well as in him especially if they be Ministers as he is but of this also he shall see more in the ensuing Discussion And doth not he deserue to be brought againe ad inferiora subsâ—llia and to sit amongst the Sophisters in Cambridge till he hath learned to speake more like a Philosopher 13. Againe what more sollemne foolery can there be then so ignorantly to insult vpon his adâ—ersary for saying that S. Leo in a certayne place spake of vnity of names as M. Barlow doth for thus he sayth What learning will iustifie that phrase of speach An vnity of names c And againe that one name imparted to seuerall persons should be called an vnity let all the Onomasticks and Nomenclators or Mathematicians or Schoolemen be searched and t' will not be found So he Doe you not thinke that this man hath searched far into the matter read all bookes and seene what all say that so resolutly and generally pronounceth this sentence yet Aristotle could tell him that all aequiuoca vniuoca analoga agree in one name and none but one as ignorant as M. Barlow will deny that the name Father agreeth to men and God but in different manner so that it is true to say that the name of Father is all one in God and man though in nature it differ And what can be required more to the vnity of names Or can M. Barlow conceaue that they haue one name without all vnity Truly as well as conceaue that a man may be a foole without foolery or as simple as himselfe vvithout simplicity 14. And if this thing in no Schoole man can be found then must S. Thomas be blotted out of that raÌ„ke whose wordes are Ostenait Aristoteles quòd sâ—li vnitas nominis non sufficit ad vnitatem enuntiationis Aristotle sheweth that vnity of name sufficeth not for the vnity of a proposition And in his Quodlibets he expresly proueth this vnity of names which he calleth vnitateÌ„ vocis the vnity of appellatioÌ„ for that els there were no vniuoca But of this also he will heare more then he would or euer will be able to refell by the Author of the Supplement It sufficeth me to detect only his ignorance which as it is here both grosse and palpable so also combyned with singular arrogancy and pride in so resolutly affirming that no learning will iustifie this speach when as Aristotle and S. Thomas the great Philosopher and most learned of all Deuines do
of which discourse what trow yoâ— doth M. Barlow infer He secretly saith he girds a his Maiesty for being both a Philosopher which is hâ—â— Maiestâ—es great glory our Realmes happinesâ— for true Philosophy ioyned to goâ—ernment regulates the scepter to the subiects comfort and the Kingdomes renowne and an heretick also a perfect slaunder in them both for by that religion which they call heresie he doth truly glorifie the God of heauen So he and who can denyâ— but that here is also besmearing as M. Barlow hath framed his CoÌ„meÌ„tary but I verily thinke that God is little glorified by such bad glosses so little coherent yea so cleane repugnanâ— to the text Let vs come to the last for hasten to aâ— end of this Preface meane not to make any longer demurr vpon this kind of sycophancy 95. The most potent proofe of all the rest to euince that F. Persons wrote against his Maiesty and not T. M. which M. Barlow will haue to be demonstratiue and therfore setteth it out with his Ministeriall eloquence and Episcopall grauity is taken from these words of the said Father where hauing aÌ„swered the obiectioÌ„s made against the liues of some Popeâ— he concludeth thus If a man would goe about to discredit Kingly authority by all the misdeeds of particuler Kings that haue byn registred by Historiographers since the tyme that Popes began he should finde no doubt aboundaÌ„t maâ—â—er and such as could not be defended by any probability And yet doth this preiudicate nothing to Princely power or dignity and much lesse in our case where the facts themselues obiected are eyther exaggerated increased wrested orâ— altogeater falsified 96. To this what replyeth M. Barlow Here first saith he is verified that speach of Seneca nemo personam diu ferre potest Art cannot long estrange nature But as the Apologue dâ—scribâ—s Venus transformed waiting-mayde who beeing trickt vp like a GentlewomaÌ„ mink'st it a while till she spied a Mouse but then made it knowne she was a Cat So this Censurer who all this while would make the Reader belieue that he confuted onely one T. M. the yonger and would seeme to take no knowledge that our Graâ—ious Soueraigue had to doe in the Apology now being exaspâ—rate with this round canuasinâ— of the Pope and knowing that it will be descried for the stile and veine of more thâ—n an ordinary man he forgets his dissembled aduersaryâ— likâ— a perfit Iesuit retorts vpon the King Thus he But how is this proued Heare I pray and admire the wisdome of Syr William For if T. M. saith he were the truâ— Apologâ—r the recrimination had bene more fit both in respâ—ct of these precedeÌ„t instances of Popes and that suppâ—sâ—d Author to haue made the comparison between Bishops Ministâ—rs But if I answere him againe that it was more fitly made betweene Kingâ— Popes in respect of their supreme authority which is not lost by the demerit of their liues he hath nothing to reply therunto but that all they who weare the habit or are inuested into holy orders amongst Protestants I vse his â—wne words are not free from notorious vices and scandalous to the world which I confesse and none I thinke can with any reason or truth gaine-say the same 97. By these then and such like reasons he would proue F. Persons to haue written against hiâ— Maiesty whatsoeuer he said against Thomas Mountague and consequently to haue railed against him which although they be very childish ridiculous and impertinent as you haue seene prouing nothing but his owne sicophancy yet as though they were cleerer mathematicall demonsâ—rations then any in Euclide he buildeth all his accusation vpon them and sayth as you haue heard that he could not without touch of disloyaltie forbeare from reproach and that in respect of F. Persons reuiling veyne nothing at all was to be pared or spared telling his Maiesty that neyther the shame of the world nor feare of God nor grace of the spirit can mortify his nature or restraine his tongue but citeth no senteÌ„ce word or syllable for the same but such as you haue heard With M Barlow whose rayling I meane heere to examine I will deale more really and out of his owne words shew what feare of God he hath what shame of the world what grace of the spirit what mortified nature what modâ—st tongue and then leaue it to Readers iudgment to determine whether in such brutish reuiling no sparing or paring were to be vsed or not 98. In his Epistle Dedicatory which is not very long besides the reproaches mentioned of rancour scorning ribaldry defiling besmearing regorging and the like he calleth F. Persons a debosâ—ed abiect and vnreformed Hypocrite belike M. Barlow is a reformed one a Rakeshame Rabshekah of a prostituted conscience impudency whose very name is the epitome of all contumely being as currant in a proâ—erb as was once the name of Daedalus In omni fabula Daedali execratio for no libell can come from Rome but Persons is presently supposed and noysed to be Author and the more vile the more Persons like a creature that doth rage snarle c. Thus much to his Maiesty himselfe And is not this thinke you fit for a Prince to read or preâ—eÌ„ded Prelate to write Is the grauity learning modesty and vertue of the English Clergy for which our Country before this reuolt was most famous so lost as insteed of answering like Deuines to see one bearing himselfe for a Bishop to renew the old Comedy in an epistle to his Soueraigne a Booke written in his defeÌ„ce which eueÌ„ on the heathen stage was so much misliked condemned by all 99. To this begining is sutable the whole worke which followes or rather much worse For in the very entrance after he hath set down what order he will obserue and repeated some of F. Persons words but falsly after his accustomed manner he calleth him a ranging voluntary runnagate an Hispanized Camelion the brat of an Incubus filius terrae no true Englishman eyther in hart or by birth This is his first assault rude Ruffianlike as you see and then afterwardes he telleth of the disgorging the gall of his bitternes and the venemous rancour of his cancred hart by his Rabshakeis pen that he is the abstract quintessence of all coynes coggeries forgeries that lyes dissembles equiuocates at euery word this fugitiue tenebrio Persons Robin Cowbucke parasite and trayterous clawbacke a knowne incendiary this serpens Epidaurius the Diuells schollar his Deuillity reader Spiritus mendax in ore omnium Prophetarum this boutefeaux he disgorgeth out of his filthy throat by his diuelish pen c. And is there heer no paring nor sparing to be vsed in the iudgment of M. Barlows exact Surueyers Truely eyther their Suruâ—y was not very exact or their iudgmeÌ„t small or els they were not his frieÌ„ds that would permit such scurrility
onely concerne ciâ—ill obedience All which speach of his if I should grant as by hiâ— it is vttered yet doth it not so much as impugne any of the former foure waies wherby it was shewed that diuers points of Catholike religion are touched in the said Oath and impugned therby so as a Catholike man cannot admit the same without preiudice of his conscience which these groundes do nothing impugne But now let vs see how well grounded are these his two groundes impertinently brought in for some shew of answere The first is that ciuill obedience to a lawfull Prince requireth the subiect to sweare not onely affirmatiuely that he is his lawful Soueraigne but also negatiuely against any intruder challenger or vsurper which we deny not but do deny that the Pope as supreme Pastour ouer alâ— Christendome is to be called an Intruder Challenger or Vsurper when for preseruation of Christian Religion he doth interpose his authority for the restraint of any Christian Prince that is or ought to be vnder his iurisdâ—ction And as for his second ground that this authority of the Pope is a temporall intrusion and no spirituall iurisdiction we deny it in like sort for though it be temporall in some respects yet is it no intrusion but giuen by Christ himselfe as contained in the most ample spirituall charge and commission deliuered to S. Peter for gouerning of all soules belonging to the sayd charge which cannot be sufficiently gouerned and prouided for if there had not beene such power left also whereby euill Princes might be restayned from peruerting their Kingdomes especially by infection of heresy And whereas for proofe of this temporall intrusion as he calleth it he saith that for to doe me a fauour he will remit me to T. M. the elder to wit to Thomas Morton â—is full SatisfactioÌ„ part 3. whom he saith I doe feare as the racke who among many others haue canuased saith he this point in a Confutation to the Popes confusion I will to quit his fauouâ— send him backe to the sayd M. Morton againe recanuased by me vpon this point in two seuerall Bookes of answere wherein so many notorious lyes are charged and convinced vpon him as may serue not only for his Confutation but also for the Confusion of all his friendes wherof this Copes-mate M. Barlow may well be one and so much the more iustly be shamed therein for that he may be presumed to haue seene one at least of my sayd bookes and the lies therein so openly layd forth and pressed as he cannot but with impudency speake here as he doth in remitting me to M. Mortons canuase and that I â—eared it as the racke c. But now let vs come to looke a little into M. Barlowes impugnation of the Popes authority ouer kinges This authority of the Pope saith he if it be a spirituall Iurisdiction it must be either from heauen or of men grounded vpon law either Diuine or Ecclesiasticall Nam quod ampliâ—u est à malo est sayth a deuout Father to a great Pope all execution therof not deriued from eyther of these implyes a Tyranny importes no right If vpon diuine law then eyther the Old or the New Testament not the Old the Priestes among the Iewes had no such authority ouer theiâ— Kinges eyther vnited to their Priesthood by God or assumed by themselues confessed so by a Iesuite that the Staâ—e of the Iewes was rather earthly then heauenly therfore the carnall part was more eminent that is Kinges had the soueraigntie ouer the Priestes Not in the new for then S. Peter should haue had it eyther when the Keyes were giuen him Matt. 16. or wheÌ„ that trebled Pasce was inioyned him Ioan. 21. If it be so then had he this Iurisdiction directly from Christ and â—â—â—uersally ouer the world but that is not so saith Robert the Cardinall this Robert his Eccho but only ouer Christian Princes and that indirectly and obliquely in ordine ad Deâ—â—â— nay neither directly nor indirectly saith Sanders for there being a dubble power of ChristiaÌ„ fortitude constant suffering couragious attempting that power of suffering as the more excellent Christ chose as the fittest sibi suis for himselfe and those that belong to him or if you will for himselâ—e and his Apostles So then to suffer oppression vnder kinges not to inferre vpon them Rebellion and disloalty was the power Apostolicall in respect of Princes This is M. Barl. his assault which I haue thought good to set downe at large both faithfully and punctually in his owne very words as my custome is not contractedly and perfidiously peruerted as he euery where vseth to set downe myne and that in a different letter as often I am forced to complain as though they were my wordes indeed And now to this passage of his I say that there is much impertinent stuffe many falsities sundry great abuses misapplications and wrong senses from the Authors owne meaning whom he citeth For first it was impertinent to cite that sentence of S. Bernard Nam quod amplius est à malo est for that he vseth the same to a far different purpose as euery man may see that will read the place in his second booke de Consideratione which particular quotation Maister Barlow did pretermitt citing only Bern. ad Eugen. therby to make the finding thereof more hard S. Bernard hauing written fiue bookes to Eugenius Secondly that which he alleageth out of Salmeron that the State of the Iewes was rather earthly then heauenly and therefore the carnall part was more eminent that is Kings had the soueraignty ouer Priestes is notably both peruerted and falsifyed For first Salmerons wordes speaking of the Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Iewes in comparison of that which was giuen to the Christian Churches are Synagoga Iudaeorum dicebatur terrenum potiùs quà m caeleste regnum The Synagogue of the Iewes was called rather an earthly then a heauenly kingdome meaning that their Power was but earthly their Sacrifices earthly their promises and blessinges earthly in respect of the heauenly and spirituall power Sacramentes Sacrifice and Promises of the new Testament Nor doth he make comparison betweene the Kings power and the power of Priestes calling the former earthly and carnall the other heauenly as most falsely seditiously M. Barlow here after M. Morton doth auer but only the Ecclesiasticall authority of the Iewes Synagogue with the excellent spirituall power of the Christian Church And as for the comparison betweene kingly Priestly eminency amongst the Iewes the said Salmeron in the same place doth not only affirme but proueth also by sundry arguments and one by the worthines of the Sacrifice offered in the first place for the Priest before the King that Priestly dignity was aboue Princely in that people and much more amongst the Christians So as here is notorious falshood on M. Barlowes behalfe which is much the more
inferreth that 〈◊〉 temporall authority of the Pope by vs pretended beiâ—â— but humanum inuentum a humane inuention or ratâ—â—â— intrusion or vsurpation as he calleth it the matter of the Oath wherby the same is excluded must needâ—◠〈◊〉 meerly Ciuill no lesse then if it were against any oâ—â—â—â— meere temporall Prince that would vsurpe any part of our Soueraignes temporall right or Crowne Whereunâ—â— I answer that if this were so and that it could be proued that this temporall power of the Pope as we teach it were but a humane inuention indeed and not founded in any authority diuine or humane then M. Barlow had sayd somewhat to the matter and the comparison of an Oath taken against any other teÌ„poral Prince might haue place But for that we haue shewed now that this is not 〈◊〉 but that there is great difference betweene this temporall power of the Pope deriued from his supreme spirituall authority as vniuersall Pastour which no temporall Prince is and the pretension of any meere temporall Potentate therfore is the swearing against the one but a ciuil obedience and the other a point belonging to conscience and religion with those that belieue the sayd power to come from God But now for answering this his last collection of authors I say first that Bellarmine in the place by hiâ— cited hath no one word of any such matter his booke being de Concilys and his purpose is to shew both in the 13. Chapter here cited as also in the precedent Câ—iâ— sâ— congâ—egare Concilâ—a to whome it belongeth to gather Councels which he sheweth to appertaine to haue appertained alwaies to the Bishops of Rome and not to Kings and Emperoures albeit they being the Lordes of the world the sayd Councels could not well be gathered withoâ—â— their consent and power But of Excommunication or of deposition of Princes Bâ—llarmine hath no one word in this place and so M. Barlowes assertion and quotation iâ— both false and impertinent about the first six hundred yeares after Christ. But if he will looke vpon Bellarmine in other places where he handleth this argument of Excommunicationâ— and depositions of Princes as namely in his second and fiâ—th booke de Rom. Pontis he will find more ancient examples at least of ExcommunicatioÌ„ which is the ground of the other then the six hundred yeares assigned out of Bellarmine For that Bellarm. beginneth with the Excommunication of the Emperour Arcadiuâ— and Eudoxia his wife by Pope Innocentiâ—â— the first for the persecution of S. Iohn Chrysostome which was about two hundred yeares before this tyme assigned by M. Barlow and diuers other examples more ancient then the 1000. years allotted by Doctor Barkley the Scottishman here alleadged as the excommunication of Leo Isauricuâ— surnamed the Image-breaker by Pope Gregory the second the example also of King Chilperiâ—us of France by Zacharias the Pope the example also of Pope Leo the third that translated the Empyre from the East to the West And as for the Friar Sigebert brought in here for a witnesse he should haue sayd the Monke for that the religious orders of Fryars were not instituted a good while after this who is sayd to call the doctrine of the Popes power to depose Princes A Nouelty is not an Heresy it is a notable calumniation as may be seene in the wordes of Sigebert himselfe in the very place cyted by M. Barlow For though Sigebert following somewhat the faction of the Emperour Henry the third excommunicated by Pope Vrbanus the second did often speake partially concerning the actions that passed betweene them which many tymes seemed to proceed of passion more then of reason and iustice yet doth he neuer deny such power of Excommunicating deposing for iust causes to belawfull in the Pope but the playne contrary Neyther doth he call that doctrine Noâ—elty or Heresy that the Pope hath this authority as falsely M. Barlow doth here affirme but only that it seemed to him a new doctrine which he would not call Heresy to teach that vicious Princes were not to be obeyed for so are his wordes Nimirum vt pace omnium dixerim haec sola nouiâ—as non dicam hâ—resis necdum in mundo emerserat vt 〈◊〉 Dei doceant populum quâ—d maliâ— Regibus nullam debeâ—â—t 〈◊〉 To wit that I may speake without offence of all this only nouelty I will not say Heresy was not yet spâ—â—â—â— vp in the world that the Priestes of God should teach 〈◊〉 people that they ought no obedience at all to euill Priâ—ces c. In which wordes you see that Sigebert doth 〈◊〉 deny or reproue the authority of Excommunication 〈◊〉 deposition of Princes especially if they be for heresy bâ—â— only the Doctrine that no subiection or obedience is dâ—â— to vicious or cuill-liuing Princes which is false and scandalous doctrine indeed As for the fourth Author alleadged in this place 〈◊〉 wit Claudius Espencaeus that he should call the fact of Pope Gregory the seauenth his excommunicating Henry the thiâ—d Nouellum schisma a new rent or schisme which is borrowed out of M. Morton as the rest which in this poynt he alleageth I will referre him for his answer to the answer that is made of late to M. Morton himselfe which is called The quiet and sober Reckoning where this matter is returned vpon him with so â—uident a conuiction of wilful falsity as is impossible for him to cleare his credit therin For that these wordes are not spoken by Espencaeus himselfâ—â— but related only by him out of a certaine angry Epistle written by certaine schismaticall Priestes of Liege that were commaunded by Paschalis the second to be chastised by Robertâ—arle â—arle oâ— â—landers and his souldiers newly come from Ierusalem about the yeare 1102. for their rebellious behauyour Which passionate letter of theirs Espencaâ—â— doth only relate out of the second Tome of Councells expresly protesting that he wil not medle with that controuerâ—y of fighting betweene Popes and Emperours though he prâ—ue in that plâ—ce by sundry exâ—mples both of Scriptures Fathers and Councels that in some cases it is lawful for Priests to vse temporal armes also when need iustice requireth So as this falsification must now fall aswell vpon M. Barlow as vpon M. Morton before and we shall expect his answere for his dâ—fence in this behalfe As for the last authority of S. Ambrose that Kinges and Emperours be tuti Imperij potestate sate by power of their Empire from any violent censure though I find no such matter in any of the two Chapters quoted by M. Barlow out of his Apologia Dauid yet seeking â—urther into other bookes of his I find the wordes which is a token that our Doctor writeth out of note-bookes of some Brother and neuer seeth the places himselfe but though I find the wordes yet not the sense which he will inferre but wholy peruerted to another meaning For that if S. Ambrose had bene of opinioÌ„ that
not occurred any such particular occasion of actuall deposing of temporall Princes as did afterwards wherof wee haue treated before for that Princes were not so exorbitant yet the ground and origen of deposing Princes which is excommunication and exclusion from the body of the Church cannot be denied to haue byn practised often in those former ages And when a temporall Prince is so cast out of the Church by excommunication made no member therof much lesse may he be Head if he perseuere obstinate and seeke to infect and destroy the whole body I say in this case what shall the sayd Church and Gouernours therof doe with such a Prince Wherin I sayd that all Catholike Deuines doe agree that our Sauiour in this case hath not left his Church vnprouided of some remedy for that otherwise his diuine prouidence might seeme to haue bene defectuous not to haue left a remedy for so great and vniuersall an euill But now at this reason as strongly pressing him M. Barlow stormeth and stampeth exceedingly saying first it is a tryuiall obiection borrowed by me from Cardinall Allens Apology and by vs both from one Bertrand that vseth the same in his glosse vpon a place of the Canon law But what if all this were true as it is not What were this to the purpose Let the force of the reason be considered for that only importeth Nay but M. Barlow will make vs first a little merriment as he calleth it related out of Ludonicus Viâ—es who telleth this tale affirming that a certaine Countrey man whose Asse drunke at a water where the moone shined and after the sayd moone-light vanished away the Countrey-man sayd that the moone was lost or els it was in his Asses belly and this tale he very fondly applyeth to our present matter that eyther the Popes triple Crowne must haue power ouer Princes or Gods prouidence in the world must be lost and so from this merriment he passeth to a veyne of serious rayling saying that this speach of mine is irreuerent against God yea blasphemous and sauouring of the very spirit of Antichrist But this shall appeare presently by the discussion that is to ensue thereby also will appeare what spirit speaketh in this Minister to wit the most base and abiect spirit of prophane flâ—ttery towards Princes that euer proceeded from any Christian tongue or pen for he maketh God afraid of temporal Kings to walke so warily in his speaches towards them especially in their iealousies as if he were in dread of their power and anger The discourse is rare and singular and I neuer read the deuise in any before at leastwise so playnly set downe and therfore I beseech the Reader to lend me an attentiue eare whilst it is discussed He beginneth this flattery thus for I will set downe his speach more faithfully then he hath any thing of mine which he continually corrupteth and peruerteth as diuers times now I haue aduerâ—ised It is naturall to Kings to be iealous of their thrones wherin they can abide neither Mâ—te for diuision not Check-mate for scorne It cost Adoniah his life for asking Abishag to wife because Salomon did therby take occasion â—â— suspect that he which desired the Fathers bedfellow would also aspire tâ— the brothers throne It was not the blasphemie layd to our Sauiours charge by the Iewes that moued Pilate to sentence him that which hastened his death was a iealous opinion though a false perswasion that he should be a King and therby defeate Caesar of his claime to Iury. In that poynt we shall see God himselfe to be very wary for 〈◊〉 that Psalme which of the Scriptures is the most threatfull to Kings begins with a thundring expostulatioÌ„ Quare â—remuâ—runt gentes aâ—â—iterunt Reges it pleaseth him to conclude it not with a menâ—cing extrusion but with a calme perswasion Osculemini filium or as the vulgar hath it Apprehendite disciplinam And what is that Be wise ô ye Kings and serue the Lord in feare if not wâ—atâ— the danger Ne perâ—atis de via iuâ—ta that is least you loose the right way to heauen and your right in the Crowne of heauen he sayd â—ot your Titles to your Kingdomes nor right to your Crownes on earth God neuer thought it fit to support his Church by daring of Princes prosessors of his name for that had bene the way to haue made them not nourishing Fathers but eyther pinching suppressours or at least cold and wary sauourers of the same Thus far M. Barlow to shew that Almighty God dealeth more warily and respectiuely with temporall Princes theÌ„ doth the Pope which threatneth them losse of their Kingdomes if they be incorrigible and to this effect abuseth pittifully this Psalme here alledged as presently we shall shew But first I would demaund of him why he bringeth in that iealousy of Princes concerning their thrones and that Mate for diuision or Check-mate for scorne Doth he allow of these iealousies as proceeding from sanctity Doth he commend that fact of Salomon for making away his brother Adoniah for asking only Abishag to be his wife Sure I am that diuers ancient Fathers do condemne the same a learned interpreter of this age sayth Excuset qui scit mihi 〈◊〉 occurrit legitiâ—â—a Salomonis excusatio c. Let him defend Salomon that knoweth how to do it for vnto me no lawfull excuse of Salomons fact occurreth for that the sentence of death seemeth to me not only seuere but also vniust So he Now as for the iealousie of Pilate wherby he made away our Sauiour I suppose M. Barlow will not be so shamelesse as to commend the same except Pilate were aliue againe and he his Chaplaine for then perhaps the matter were doubtfull But wherto now doth all this Preface pertaine of Princes iealousies The matter is cleare that it tendeth to shew what great reason God hath to walke warily least he offend Kings and Princes For so it followeth imediately in that point Therefore and marke the inference therefore we shall see God himselfe to be very wary But wherof M. Barlow Is he so wary of not putting Kings and Princes in feare iealousie of their thrones as you call them Why is God afrayd of them For that your therefore would seeme to infer Or is his throne lesse or more weake theÌ„ theirs How then is it ascribed vnto him as a peculiar property Deposuit Potentes de sede exaltauit huâ—riles he hath put downe the powerfull from their seates and thrones and exalted the humble How is it sayd of him Qui aufert spiritum Principum est terribilis Regibus terrae who taketh away the spirit of Princes and is terrible to the Kings of the earth And yet further qui balteum Regum dissoluit pracingit fune renes eorum he that doth loose take from theÌ„ the warlike girdle girdeth their loynes with a rope And in
Athanasius himselfe in a long Epistle of this matter where he also recouÌ„teth the bold speach of bishop Osius the famous Confessor of Corduba who was one of the 318. Fathers that saâ—â— as Iudges in the first Councell of Niâ—e and vsed the saâ—â— liberty of speach to the forsayd Emperour at another time which the other Bishops had done before him saying to him Leaue of I beseech thee o Emperor these dealingâ— in Ecclesiasticall affayres remember thou art mortall feare the day of Iudgement keep thy selfe free from this kind of sin do not vse coÌ„mandements to vs in this kind but rather learne of vs for that God hath coÌ„mitted the Empire vnto thee to vs the things that appertaine to his Church c. All which speaches doth S. Athanasius allow highly coÌ„mend in the same place adding further of his owne That now the sayd Constantius had made his Pallace a tribunall of Ecclesiasticall causes in place of Ecclesiasticall Courtes and had made himselfe the cheife Prince and head of spirituall Pleas which he calleth the abhomination foretold by Daniel the Prophet c. Which speach if old Athanasius should haue vsed to his Maiestie in the presence of all the rest and seconded by others that sate theâ—e with him could not in all reason but much moue especially ifâ— So Gregory Nazianzen and S. Ambrose should haue recounted their admonitions about the same to their temporall Lord and Emperour Valentinian as when the former sayd vnto him as is extant yet in his Oration That he should vnderstand that he being a Bishop had greater authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperor and that he had a tribunall or seat of Iudgment higher then the Emperour who was one of his sheep and that more resolutly S. Ambrose to the same Emperour when he comaunded him to giue vp a Church to the handes of the Arians Trouble not yourselfe o Emperor sayth S. Ambrose in commanding me to delyuer the Church nor do you persuade your selfe that you haue any Imperiall right ouer these things that are spirituall and diuine exalt not your selfe but be subiect to God if you will raigne be content with those things that belonge to Cesar and leaue those which are of God vnto God Pallaces appertayne vnto the Emperor and Churches vnto the Preist And these three Fathers hauing thus briefly vttered their sentences for much more might be alleaged out of them in this kind let vs see how the fourth that is to say S. ChrysostoÌ„ Archbishop of Constantinople coÌ„curred with theÌ„ Stay o king saith he within thy bounds limits for different are the bounds of a kingdome the limits of Priesthood this Kingdome of Priesthood is greater then the other Bodies are committed to the King but the soules to the Priest And againe Therfore hath God subiected the Kings head to the Priests haÌ„d instructing vs therby that the Priest is a greater Prince then the king according to S. Paul to the Hebrews the lesser alwaies receaueth blessing from the greater These foure Fathers then hauing grauely set downe their opinions about this point of spirituall power not to be assumed by teÌ„porall Princes let vs imagine the other three to talk of some other mater as namely S. Hierome that he vnderstandeth diuers pointes of the heresie of Iouinian and Vigilantius against whome he had with great labour written seuerall Bookes to be held at this day in his Maiesties kingdomes of England Scotland which could not but grieue him they being coÌ„demned heresies by the Church S. Augustine also vpon occasion giuen him may be imagined to make his coÌ„plaint that he hauing written amongst many other books one de cura pro mortuis agenda for the care that is to be had for soules departed both in that booke and in sundry other partes of his workes said downe the doctrine and practice of the Church in offering prayers Sacrifice for the dead and deliuering soules from purgatory and that the sayd Catholicke Church of his time had condemned Aërius of heresy for the contrary doctrine yet he vnderstood that the matter was laughed at now in Eâ—gland and Aërius in this point held for a better Christian then himselfe yea and wheras he S. Augustine had according to the doctrine and practice of the true Catholicke Church in his dayes prayed for the soule of his Mother besought all others to doe the like his Maiestie was taught by these new-sprong doctors to condemn the same neither to pray for the soule departed of his mother dying in the same Catholicke fayth nor to permit others to do the same All which Saint Gregory hearing â—et vs suppose him out of that great loue and charity wherwith he was inflamed towardes England and the English Nation to vse a most sweet and fatherly speach vnto his Maiestie exhorting him to remember that he sent into England by the first preachers that came from him the same Catholicke Christian Religion which was then spread ouer the whole world and that which he had receiued by succession of Bishops and former ages from the said Fathers there present and they from the Apostles and that the said ancient true and Catholicke Religion was sincerely deliuered vnto his Maiesties first Christian predecessor in England King Ethelbert and so continued from age to age vntill King Henry the eight If I say this graue assembly of ancient holy Fathers should be made about his Maiesty he fitting in the middest and should heare what they say and ponder with what great learning grauity and sanctitie they speake and how differently they talke from these new maisters that make vp M. Barlowes little Vniuersitie I thinke verily that his Maiestie out of his great iudgment would easily contemne the one in respect of the other But alas he hath neyther time nor leysure permitted to him to consider of these thinges nor of the true differences being so possessed or at least wise so obsessed with these other mens preoccupations euen from his tender youth and cradle as the Catholicke cause which only is truth could neuer yet haue entrance or indifferent audience in his Maiesties â—ares but our prayers are continually that it may And now hauing insinuated how substantially this little Vniuersity of ancient learned Fathers would speake to his Maiesty if they might be admitted eyther at table or time of repast or otherwise Let vs consider a little how different matters euen by their owne confession these new Academicks do suggest for that M. Barlow going about to excuse his fellow T. M. the yonger from that crime of Sycophancy which was obiected for his calumniations against Catholikes in his table-talke trifling first about the word what it signifyeth in greeke according to the first institution therof to wit an accusation of carrying out of figges out of Athens as before hath bene shewed and then for him that vpon small matters accuseth another as
the vse of that religion which they had receyued from their Ancestours from the first beginning of Christian religion planted in our English Nation and continued in possession for more then nyne hundred yeares togeather vntill the time of King Henry the eight and his children who made the first innouation and by Regall power interrupted the sayd possession wherunto the sayd possessors and ancient tenants though not presuming to demand restitutionem iâ— integrum full restitution of that which by violence was taken from them yet that they might remayne with some kind of quiet and rest for the vse of their said consciences in priuate which they promised to vse with all humility and moderation without scandall or publicke offence whereof they offered very good assurance both for this and for all other dutifull behauour in their ciuil obedience as became true subiects yea adding further also that they would inforce theÌ„selues to continue the payment of that mulct or penalty of Statute layd vpon them for their Recusancy at such a resonable agreed suÌ„me of money yearly to be paid as his Maiesty should thinke conuenient So as by this meanes they might haue some externall peace and quietnes from the continuall molestations which now they suffered in regard of their sayd consciences This was their supplication now why this should be called pride yea the height of pride highest degree of pride further the extreme height and celfitude of pride lastly the summity and sublimity of pride as M. Barlow calleth it I vnderstand not For if pride be defined to be an inordinate desire of excellency aboue others I doe not see that here in this petition either Catholikes doe prefer themselues disorderly before others but are content with a far inferiour degree then Protestants or that their desire in demaunding is disordinate whether we consider the same as it proceeded eyther from themselues to desire a thing so necessary to the health of their soules or as it is directed to his Maiesty their Prince and Soueraigne who is the person that may relieue them and consequently the laying forth of such theyr desires by ordinate meanes of humble supplication to theyr Lord and Prince cannot be called inordinatâ—s appetitus excellentiae â—a disordinate appetite of excellencie aboue others and consequently no pride much lesse celfitude of pride as M. Barlow out of his celfitude of amplification or rather height of hatred doth define it But yet let vs see briefly what reasons he frameth for this his consequence For first sayth he it is impious against God to graunt any such liberty of conscience for that God symbolically forbids such mixture in the linsy-wolsy garment Deut. 22. 11. Ergo it is height of pryde so sue for it But whoseeth not heere that neither the antecedent nor consequent haue any force God did forbid in Deuteronomy 〈…〉 garments Ergo it is sublimity of pride for Catholicks in England to sue to his Maiesty for some toleration of conscience Will their brethren the Protestants of France allow of this argument Let vs see the second Secondly sayth he it being a matter dishonourable to the King is extremity of pryde to demaund it for that honest men euen of their equalls will expect nothing but that which shall stand with the credit and reputation of the granter but this without stayne of the Kings honour cannot be grâ—â—â—ted Ergo it is height of pryde in the Catholicks to sue for it which second or minor proposition for that he imagined we would deny that it would be a staine to his Maiesties 〈◊〉 to grant it he goeth about to confirme the same by diuers weake and fond reasons not vnfit for his inuention as that his Maiestie should be contrary to himselfe and shew too much weaknes and slipperines hauing apprehended the religion which he now professeth from the cradle of his infancy resolued in his conscience mantayned it by disputation enacted it by lawes established it by Oath the like which are reasons quite from the matter For the graunting of toleration vnto Catholickes requireth not change of Religion in his Maiesty no more then it doth in the moderne King of France in granting the sayd toleration to his Protestants or then it did in the Emperor Charles the fifth when he permitted the same in Germany so as M. Barlow here rather roueth then reasoneth And further he is to be put in mind that if it be a good argument which here he vseth that his Maiesty may not change his religion for that he hath professed it from the cradle of his infancy c. which yet hath not the antiquity of fifty years by a good deale what may we say of the continuance of the Catholike religion in our countrey How many fifty yeares are passed since that cradle was rockt And why may not we make the same argument for any other sorâ— of men whatsoeuer that haue liued in any other Religion for so many yeares as his Maiesty hath done in this so little weight or substaunce is in this Ministers words who so he may seeme to say somewhat careth not greatly what it be or how litle to the purpose I leaue his other reasons as triuiall and not worth the answering as that Queene Elizabeth would not graunt this toleration of conscience that our doctrinall positions are dangerous that if his Maiesty should graunt toleration he should loose the loue of all his Subiects the like wherof some are false in the antecedent as the second and third for that our doctrinall positions truly vnderstood are not daungerous to any common wealth but salutiferous nor should his Maiesty leese the loue of his people by vsing such â—lemency to so principall a part of his people not a little pittied by the rest of most wisdome and best natures As for the first though it be true in the antecedent that shee graunted no such toleration yet is it most faâ—se in the consequent that therfore it is height of pride to demaund it of his Maiesty no reason requiring that her actions should be a necessary rule to his Maiesty for his they being no better then they were But now we must see briefly what M. Barlow answereth to all my reasons before alleadged for defending Catholickes from the imputation of height of pride in making this demaund and humble petition to his maiesty which I shall set downe in the very same words which before I vsed And surely I cannot but wonder that this Minister was not ashamed to call this the height of pride which is generally found in all Protestants neuer so humble yea the more humble and vnderlings they are the more earnest are they both in bookes speaches and preachings to proue that liberty of Conscience is most conforme to Gods law and that wresting or forcing of Consciences is the highest Tyranny that can be exercised vpon man And this we may see first in all M. Fox his History especially
he sayth that therin I do abuse the Reader for that they shewed their obedience sayth he to be due and performed the same in matters of spirituall seruice wherat I thinke no man can but laugh that M. Barlow is become so spirituall as that he can make those Infidell Kings to be spirituall Superiours also or at leastwise to haue spirituall power euen in spirituall thinges ouer Gods faithfull people Let vs see his proofes of so strange an assertion To offer sacrifice saith he vnto the Lord in the desert is an â—igh case of conscience and religion yet would not the Iewes in Egypt attempt it without asking and obtayning the Kings leaue And why was that Was it for that they held him for their supreme Gouernour in all causes Ecclesiastiacll and temporall Then they ought to haue obeyed him when he would haue had them offered sacrifice in Egypt which they refused to doe for that their spirituall gouernour Moyses though a naturall borne subiect of King Pharao â—ould them that Gods will was contrary and as for their asking and obtayning leaue before they went to sacrifice in the Desert who doth not see but that it was in respect of temporall danger which might ensue vnto them if so great a number of their vnarmed people should haue aduentured to depart without his licence But I would demaund of M. Barlow who sayth that the people of Israel shewed their obedience to be due vnto Pharao and performed it in matter of spirituall seruice what manner of obedience was that which came alwaies in the Imperatiue mood Thus saith our Lord Dimitte populum meum Let go my people And when he yeelded not therunto he was plagued and punished with so many afflictions as are set downe in Exodus for 9. or 10. Chapters togeather in the end what leaue obtayned they but against his will when he durst no longer deny them Which appeareth for that his feare being somewhat mitigated he pursued them afterward againe And will M. Barlow make this an example of spirituall obedience to temporall Princes that was thus extorted Or of spirituall iurisdiction in heathen Princes ouer faithfull people in causes Ecclesiasticall that was contradicted both in word and fact by Moyses himselfe But let vs heare his second instance for it is more ridiculous So saith he the commaundement of King Cyrus was in a cause meerly Ecclesiasticall viz. the building of the Lords house in IerusaleÌ„ and transporting thither the consecrated vessels But who doth not see that these things as they were ordayned by King Cyrus were meere temporall as is the building of a materiall Church for that otherwise the Masons Carpenters Architects that build the same should be Ecclesiastical officers albeit they were Gentiles If King Cyrus had had authority to appoint them out their sacrifices to dispose lawfully of their sacred actions therein as he had not nor could haue being a Pagan and not of their faith religion then might they haue sayd that he had beene a spirituall Superiour vnto them but for giuing them leaue only to go to Ierusalem to build their Temple and to carry their consecrated vessels with them that had been violeÌ„tly taken away from thence argueth no more spirituall iurisdiction in him then if a man hauing taken away a Church-dore key so as the people could not go in to pray except he opened the dore should be said to haue spirituall iurisdictioÌ„ ouer that people for opening the dore letting them in that they in praying him to open the said dore did acknowledg spiritual obedience vnto him And is not this meere childish trifllng worthy the wit of M. Barlow What definition trow you will M. Barlow giue of spirituall power and Iurisdiction therby to verifie these monstrous and absurd propositions which in this affaire he hath vttered partly by his assertions and partly by his examples Truly I know no other set downe by Deuines but that it is a power giuen by God to gouerne soules for their direction vnto euerlasting saluation euen as ciuill power is giuen for gouerning the coÌ„mon wealth to her prosperity and temporall â—elicity And will M. Barlow say that God gaue this spirituall power to Pharao and Cyrus that were Heathens and knew not God for gouerning directing the soules of the Iewes that liued vnder them whose religion or God they neyther knew nor cared for Or that Nero the Emperour or Claudius had this spirituall power and Iurisdiction vpon the soules of S. Peter and S. Paul that liued vnder them in Rome and were their temporall Lordes and Princes These thinges are so absurd that I am ashamed to exaggerate them any further and therfore let vs passe forward to the rest As for the other examples by me alleaged how Sydracâ—â— Mysach and Abdenago refused to obey Nabuchodâ—â—â—sor their King in adoring the Statua as also refuâ—ing the meates of the King of Babylon Toby of the Assyrians and the Macâ—abees for refusing to eat Swines-flesh at the commandment of their King Antiochus he sayth that all these had their warrants for defence of their consciences from the word or will of God as who should say Catholickes haue nothing for iustification of their Conscience which is a meere cauill and as Logitians call Petitio principij and wholy from the question for that we affirme first that they haue sufficient groundes for iustification of their consciences in that behalfe as they will easily verify in euery point if they might be hard with any indifferency And secondly if they had not but their consciences were erroneous yet so long as that dictamen rationis or prescript of conscience standeth to the contrary and telleth them that they haue sufficient ground they may not doe against it without sin as now hath bene proued Let vs see what he saith of the other example of Tobies breach of King Senacherib his commaundement in Niniue which wee shall examine in the next ensuing Paragraph VVHETHER TOBY DID well or no in breaking the commaundement of the King of Niniâ—e concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authorities of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy §. II. AMong other examples and testimonies alleaged by me out oâ— Scripture of lawfull disobeying temporall Princes commaundements when they are vnlawfull the exaÌ„ple of Tobias that disobeyed the edict of King Senacheriâ—â— of Niniue about burying such as were slayne seemed to haue troubled most M. Barlow in this answere and so after some discussion of the matter vp and downe whether he did it openly or in secret by day or by night by stealth or contempt he maketh this conclusion Take it eyther way sayth he was his disobedience in such a cause iustifiable No. Grauely resolued as you see and Doctour-like but yet without any testimony except only his owne For first the context of the story it selfe hauing recounted the circumstances of the fact in the
any thing against vs or for the Apologer euen as they are here nakedly cyted without declaration of the circumstances for that in temporall affaires the King or Emperour is Supreme next vnder God And when the Emperour will vse secular forces against the Priests of his dominion they being no souldiars must fall to prayers and teares which are Priestly weapons But what Did S Ambrose by this acknowledge that the Emperour had higher Authority then he in Church-matters Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion or Conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed or acknowledged his Superiority No truly For in three seuerall occasions that fell out he flatly denyed the same which this Apologer craâ—tily dissembleth and saith not a word therof The first was when he was cited by Dalmatius the Tribune bringing with him a publicke Notarie to testifie the same in the name of the Emperour Valentinian the yonger to come conferre or dispute with the hereticall Bishop Auxenâ—ius in the presence of his Maiesty other of his Nobility CouÌ„sell which poynt S. Ambrose refused vtterly to do telling the Emperour playnly by a letter written vnto him That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops And dyuers other doctrines by this occasion he taught him to that effect as is to be seene in the same Epistle The second occasion fell out the very next yeare after in Millane when the said Emperour by suite of the Arians and fauour of Iustina the Empresse on their behalfe made a Decree that a certayne Church of that Citty should be deliuered to the said Arians which Decree S. Ambrose the Bishop refused to obey And when the Emperours Officers comming with armes vrged greatly to giue possession of the Church he fled to his former weapons of weeping and praying Ego Missam facere coepi c. I began to say Masseâ— and when the temporall Magistrate vrged still that the Emperour vsed but his owne right in appoynting that Church to be deliuered S. Ambrose answered Quae diuina sunt Imperatoriae potestati non esse subiecta That such things as belonge to God are not subiect to the Imperiall power And thus answered S. Ambrose about the giuing vp of a materiall Church What would he haue said in greater matters The third accasion was when the Emperour sent his Tribunes and other Officers to require certayne Vessells belonging to the Church to be deliuered which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do saying That in this he could not obey And further adding That if the Emperour did loue him selfe he should abstayne from offering such iniury vnto Christ. And in another place handlâ—ng the same more at large he saith That he gaue to Cesar that which was Cesars and to God that which belonged to God but that the Temâ—ple of God could not be the right of Cesar which we speak saith he to the Emperours honour For what is more honourable vnto him then that he being an Emperour be called a Child of the Church for that a good Emperour is within the Church but not aboue the Church So S. Ambrose What would he haue done or said if he had bene pressed with an Oath against his Conscience or any least poynt of his Religion Thus far I answered in my letter he that shall read M Barlows reply now will seâ— that he hath nothing at all in substaÌ„ce to say against it for to that excellent speach of S. Augustine coÌ„cerning the Emperour Iulian he triâ—â—eth exceedingly first bidding vs to shew that poynt in the Oath which is different from true religion which is a cauill as you see for it is inough if it be contrary to the swearers Religion And wheras we offer vpon that speach as the subiects of Iulian did VVe will serue our Soueraigne we will go to war with him and we will fight for him the like he sayth it is but an hypocriticall florish of words To the speach and facts of S. Ambrose he is forced eyther to say nothing or to speake against himselfe For wheras I do make this demaund Did S. Ambrose by saying that he could not resist the Emperour and that his weapons were teares acknowledge by this that the Emperour had higher authority in Church-matters then he Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion and conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed and acknowledged his authority To the first he sayth that it is only extra oleâ—s not to the cause in hand and that he will handle it in another place though euery man of discretion will see that the demaund is full to the purpose and ought to haue beene answered here To the secoÌ„d he hath but a ridiculous shift Suppose saith he that S. Ambrose would refuse such an Oath vrged vpon him would he withall forbid others to take it Surely no. But I say surely yea for if we graunt S. Ambrose to haue bene a good Prelate Pastour Father to his people we must also graunt that what Oath he thought pernicious for himselfe to take he would haue forbidden the same to haue bene taken by his people if they had demaunded his opinion as English Catholickes did the Popes or els he had not bene a faythfull Pastour But what doth M. Barlow answere to the three instances alleadged out of S. Ambrose in all which he contradicted the Emperour that was his temporall Lord and denied to obey in matters Ecclesiasticall the first when he refused to go with the Tribune and Notary sent for him by the sayd Emperour to dispute in the Consistory with Auxentiâ—â— the Arian Bishop yielding for his reason That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops Which answere of S. Ambrose M. Barlow doth allow and coÌ„mendeth it much albeit we haue said somewhat before about the same yet shall we presently add a word or two more thereof The second refusall of the said Father was as now you haue heard to deliuer vp a certaine Church in Millanâ— to the Arians at the commandement of the Emperour alleadging for his reason Quae diuina sunt Imperatoriae potestatium esse subiecta that such things as are diuine are not subiect to Imperiall power Which answere in like manner M. Barlow alloweth albeit I thinke I may assure my selfe that if his Matie of England should coÌ„maund one of his Parish Churches of Lincolne Diocesse to be deliuered vp to the PuritaÌ„s or Brownists or other like Sectaries and that his Maiesty should be so earnest resolute therin as the Emperour was sending his officers souldiars to put them into possession M. Barlow would not be so resolute in his deniall as S. Ambrose was neither would he be so bold to alleage that reasoÌ„ which S. Ambrose did that diuine things are not subiect to King Iames his power including in
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
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
not see why she might not be called aswell supreme Head of the Church as supreme Gouernour And if it could not then is there some difference in the names for that according to the Protestant Bishops diuers of King Edwards dayes that made the forenamed Statute all spirituall power descended from the title of Headship which is here denied to descend from the Title of supreme Gouernour And this shal be sufficient for this place WHETHER THE DENYING Of taking this New Oath doe include the deniall of all the particuler clauses contayned therin §. II. IN the progresse of the Argument here handled about the refusall of this New Oath the Apologer affirmeth first as you haue heard that there was no one clause in the whole Oath that touched Religion but were all and meerly of Ciuill Obedience Secondly that a man could not refuse this Oath but he must refuse all euery one of the clauses therin contained The former point hath bene hâ—ndled in the precedent Chapter of the other we must speake now in this place â—â—d for more perspicuâ—ty we â—â—all set downe heere what I wrote before in my Epistle about the same which was this This later Oath said I albeit the Apologer sticketh â—ot to say that it toucheth not any part of the Popes Spiâ—ituall Supremacy yet in the very next period he contradicteth ouerthroweth himselfe therin For so much as deuiding the said Oath of Allegiance into 14. seuerall partes or parcels twelue of them at least do touch the said Supremacy one way or other as by examination yow will fynd and we shall haue occasion after to declare more at large As for example he writeth thus And that the Iniâ—stice saith he as well as the error of Bellarmine his grosse mistaking in this point may yet be more cleerly discouered I haue thought good to insert immediatly the contrary conclusions to all the poynts Articles wherof â—his other latter Oath doth consist wherby it may appeare what vnreasonable and rebellious poynts he would dryue his Maiesties Subiects vnto by refusing the whole body of that Oath as it is conceaued For he that shall refuse to tâ—ke this Oath must of necessity hold these propositions following First that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames is not the lâ—wfull King of this Kingdome and of all other his Maiesties Dominions Secondly that the Pope by his owne authority may depose c. But who doth not see what a simple fallacy this is which the Logicians do call à composito ad diuisa from denying of a compound to inferre the denyall of all the parcels therin conteyned As if some would say that Plato was a Man borne in Greece of an excellent wit skilfull in the Greeke language most excellent of all other Philosophers and would require this to be confirmed by an Oath some Platoâ—ist perhaps would be content to sweare it but if some Sâ—â—icke or Peripateticke or Professour of some other Sect in Philosophy should refuse the said Oath in respect of the lâ—st clause might a man infer against him in all the other clauses also Ergo he denyeâ—h Plato to be a Man He denieth him to be borne in Greece he denyeth him to be of an excellent wit he denyeth hiâ— to be skilfull in the Greekâ— tongue c. Were not this a bad kind of arguing So in like manner if an Arrian or Pelagian Princeâ— should exact an Oath at his subiects hands concerning diuers articles of Religion that were belieued by them bothâ— and in the end or middle therof should insert some clâ—â—ses sounding to the fauour of their owne sect for which the Subiect should refuse the whole body of that Oath as it was conceyued could the other in iustice accuse hiâ— for denying all the seuerall articles of his owne Religion also which therin are mentioned Who seeth not the iniustice of this manner of dealing And yet this is that which our Apologer vseth heere with Catholicks affirming in good earnest that he which refuseth the whole body of this Oath as it is conceyued in respect of some clauses therof that stand against his Conscience about matters of Religion refuseth consequently euery poynt and parcell therof and must of necessity hold in the first place that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames is not the lawfull King of this Kingdome and of all other his Maiesties Dominions The contrary wherof all Catholicks do both confesse and professe consequently it is a meere calumniation that they deny this This much was written about the matter Let vs consider what is brought by M. Barlow against the same And first concerning the contradiction obiected to the Apologer in that he sayd that the Oath touched not any point of the Popes Supremacy and yet he deuiding the said Oath into foureteene points diuers of them are euidently seene to be agaynst the same M. Barlow after a great deale of fumbling and shuffling of things togeather as desirous to say somewhat thougâ— with such obscurity as that I dare auoâ—ch any ordinary Reader can hardly vnderstand him I find him to say no more in effect but that these clauses excepted against in the Oath do concerne the Popes temporall authoritie not his spirituall Supremacy but that is nothing For as it hath bene often sayd this extraordinary temporall auâ—â—ority to be vsed in some cases belonging to the censurâ—â—g of temporall Princes when other remedy is not fouÌ„d â—s it proceedeth from the Popes spirituall charge and is giuen for the conseruation of the spirituall so consequently can it not be denyed or impugned without preiudice â—â—d impeachment of the sayd spirituall Supremacy it selfe and consequently for so much as in the Oath it is â—â—idently by sundry clauses impugned it must needs follow that the Popes spirituall Supremacy is also impugâ—ed which no man can deny but that it appertaineth to the integrity of Catholike Religion which is contrary to that which M. Barlow saith Thâ—â— only and meerly ciuill obeâ—â—â—â—ce is exacted in this Oath To the Sophisticall fallacy obiected by me of arguing à câ—â—posito ad diuisa that whosoeuer denieth this coÌ„pound 〈◊〉 must needs deny all and euery part parcell therofâ— and to the two examples by me alleadged against the â—â—â—e one of a Philosopher describing Plato the other of 〈◊〉 Arian Prince propounding an oath with many lawfull clauses and one only vnlawfull tending to the setting â—â—â—th of his owne heresie for that they are euident in coÌ„â—on sense and do presse M. Barlow to the quicke he findeth himself in very great straits and to the first he preâ—ermitteth to answer at all seeking to couer himself with a ridiculous calumniation against me for naming a Philosopher He girds sayth he at his Maiestie for beiâ—â—â— Philoâ—â—â—her which is his Maiestâ—â—s great glory our Realmes happinesâ— for true Philosophy ioyned to gouernment regulats the scepter to his subiects câ—â—fort and to the Kingdomes renowne By which words you may see how vigilant
Oath and Indenture articles and Prouiso's is only in sound of words and not in substance for that in making an Indenture and the Prouiso's therof both parts must agree that the breach of euery such Prouiso shal forfeit the whole for that otherwise euery such Prouiso doth not euacuate the whole Indenture or make it naught But herein framing this new Oath and the articles therof there is not the consent or agreement of al those that are required to take the Oath nor obligatioÌ„ of conscience to agree but rather to the contrary they are bound by the principles of their religion to disagree and disclaime against the same as preiudicial to their soules So as here those articles or different clauses are not as Prouiso's agreed vpon as in an Indenture but rather as points and conditions proposed and required by the Landlord wherof the Tenant may by right deliberate and consider whether they stand wel for him or noe And if not he may refuse them or at the least so many as he shal thinke to be hurtful or iniurious vnto him Neither is the denyal of any one or more the denial of al as M. Barlows bad Diuinity and worse Philosophy presumeth to teach men that it is But yet before I end this matter on which he standeth so much I would demand him further whether this his assertion be not general concerning al Kings and he may not wel deny it for that his reason is general as presently ensueth saying The King being once in lawful possession whosoeuer shal say that he may be deposed for any cause denieth that he is lawfull King Wherupon it followeth that the Kings of France Spaine also are no lawful or true Kings in the opinion of their subiects for that they al with vniforme consent do hould this doctrine of the Church that Kings and Princes may in some cases â—e excommunicated and deposed Saul also was neuer lawful King for that he was deposed or els must we say that God did him iniury in deposing him It followeth also by this inference of M. Barlow that if a man should deny to sweare to the last clause only of al the Oath to wit that he sweareth al the former articles hartily willingly and truly vpon the faith of a Christian So help him God c. doth deny to acknowledg King Iames to be lawfull King which is another point of parasitisme more ancient perhaps then the former especially if you adde therunto his propositions vsed here to that effect as namely that if he were once lawful he â—â— ouer soâ—â—or thâ—◠〈…〉 neither intended nor remitted that vnlawâ—ulnes oâ— title 〈…〉 with it the casuality of deposing that no varying in religion 〈◊〉 altering of manners 〈◊〉 misordering a Common wealth 〈…〉 his title that only a King can say to God tibi soli pâ—â—â—ani that whosoeuer deâ—ieth not to the Pope a deposingâ— power deâ—ieth to 〈◊〉 King the lawâ—ulnes of hâ—â— Inuestitureâ— and doâ—â—â—ion that let a â—ing 〈◊〉 he will for his religion and gouernment if he hath right to the 〈◊〉 his subiects must indure c. And wil you not say now that M. Barlow is as good a Chaplaine for the King as he is a Champion that is to say as good a Ghostly Father of spirituall counsaile and resolution of caseâ— of Conâ—cience as he is a valiant defendour of whatsoeuer was set down before in the Apology But inough herof VVHETHER THE FOVRTH COVNCELL OF TOLEDO Did prescribe any such set forme of Oath to be exhibited to the Subiects as is affirmed in the Apology CHAP. II. BVT now we must passe to another contemplation about a certain Councel of Toledo in Spaine alledged by the Apologer for authorizing and iustifying of this new oath not only allowed but decreed also as he sayth in that ancient Councel to wit the fourth of Toledo I shall alleadg his words togeather with my answere therevnto at that time And that the world saith he may yet further se his Maiesties and whole States setting downe of this Oath did not procâ—ed from any new inuention of theirs but as it â—warraÌ„ted by the word of God So doth it take the example from an Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeares aâ— gone which a famous Councell then togeather with diâ—uers other Councels were so farre from condemning â—â— the Pope now hath done this Oath as I haue thoughâ— good to set downe their owne wordes heere in that purpose wherby it may appeare that his Maiestie craueâ—â— nothing now of his Subiects in this Oath which was noâ— expresly and carefully commanded them by the Counceâ— to be obeyed without exception of persons Nay not iâ— the very particuler poynt of Equiuocation which his Maiestie in this Oath is so carefull to haue eschewed but yoâ— shall heere see the said Councels in their Decrees as carefull to prouide for the eschewing of the saâ—e so as almosâ— euery poynt of that Action and this of ours shall be founâ— to haue relation and agreeance one with the other sauâ— only in thisâ— that those old Councels were carefull anâ— strait in commanding the taking of the same wheras by the contrary he that now vaunteth himselfe to be Heaâ— of all Councells is as carefull and strait in the prohibition of all men from the taking of this Oath of Allegiance Sâ— he And then I added And I haue alleadged his discourse at large to the enâ— yow may better see his fraudulent manner of proceedingâ— He saith That the example of this Oath is taken from aâ— Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeares agone in the Councells of Toledo but especially the fourth which prouided also for the particuler point of EquiuocatioÌ„ But leâ— any man read those Councells which are 13. in number and if he fynd eyther any forme of an Oath prescribed or any mention of Equiuocation but only of flat lying and perfidious dealing let him discredit all the rest that I doe write And if he fynd none at all as most certainly he shall notâ— then let him consider of the bad cause of this Apologer that driueth hiâ— to such manner of dealing as to auoucâ— Euery point oâ— that Action to haue agreeance with the offering of thâ—â— Oath Here now you see how M. Barlow is prouoked to shew his manhood in defence of this passage which he beginâ—eth very fiercely with many contumelious words with I â—eâ— passe as wind and only shall relate those that â—e of some moment to the cause VVhiles this Iesuite sayth â—e iâ—â—â—aching the Apologer of supposed fraudulency himself euen 〈…〉 be arested of a fraudulent impudenâ—y â—or that he charging 〈◊〉 Apologer to say that euery point of that Toletan action hath 〈◊〉 with ours â—e leaues out the principall word which the said â—â—â—â—â—ger vsed when he sayth that almost euery point agreeth as if 〈◊〉 were noâ— difference betwene his speach that should say that Father Persons was almost vpon the Sea-coast
that all the courses held against him both by Popes and Princes may in respect of his outragious demerits seeme to haue bene very myld moderate and gentle And so much for Sigonius The other wordes of Genebrard also are cited with diminution by saying that Genebrard commeth not short of Sigonius who saith that this was done to wit the deposition iussu Paschalis Pontifiâ—is by the commandement of Pasâ—halis the Pope leauing out the next words Principum qui ad generalia Comitia conuenerant and of the Princes of Germany that met in that vniuersall Diet or Parliament at Mentz so as euery thing is heere minced to the purpose scarce any thing set down sincerely simply throughout the whole booke And as for the principall point that M. Barlow would and should proue in this place that Pope Paschalâ—â— did set on the sonne against his Father now you haue seene that those his two authorities alleaged of Sigonius and Genebrard that he concurred with the generall Diet in Germany do proue it nothing at all for that the Election of the Emperour by seauen German Electors hauing bene appointed by the Sea Apostolike not much aboue an hundred yeares before that time to wit by Gregory the 5. that crowned Otho the 3. and annexed the Imperiall dignity to the Germane nation Pope Paschalis hauing by this meanes besides all other so great right to haue a hand in this matter for the good of Christendome cannot be said to haue stirred vp the sonne to rebellion when he concurred with the whole State of Germany for the translation of the Crowne from the Father to the Sonne Nor wheÌ„ the said Sonne took armes against him afterwardes doth any probable author ascribe it to the Pope but expresly vnto others and namely to the three noble men before mentioned out of Cuspinian Vnto which three noble men in like manner Vrspergensis that was present saw what passed doth ascribe the said rebellioÌ„ vpon the yeare 1105. without euer mentioning the Pope against whome notwithstanding the said Vrspergensis as one that followed the part of Henry the fourth vseth no fauour at all in his relations and consequently may be a witnes without exception as also may be Huldericus Mutius a Protestant German â—riter whose wordes are Henricus filius quorumdam consilijs seductus aduersus Patrem moliâ—ur res nouas Henry the Sonne being seduced by the counsailes of certaine men did attempt new thinges against his Father and in all his narration he toucheth not the Pope ascribing any part therin vnto him And this shall be sufficient for this matter And as for the other point that he toucheth out of Cuspinian and Sigebertus that Pope Gregory the 7. did acknowledge at his death that he had molested Henry the 4. vniustly and was sory for the same besides that it maketh nothing to our purpose for stirring vp the soÌ„ne against the father which hapned almost 20. yeares after Gregories death none of thâ— doth alledge it as a thing certaine but as a report which M. Barlow a little before proued out of the Orator to be vncertaine besides that they do not agree in the narration in diuers points finally for the most of them they are plainly contradicted by a multitude of witnesses which you may read layd togeather both by Doctor Sanders in his Monarchie and Cardinall Bellarmine in his 4. booke de Rom. Pontifice And so I shall need to say no more in this matter ABOVT THE DEATH OF HENRY the third King of France whether it may be an example of the Popes allowance of such murtâ—ers As also about the late Queene of England §. II. FOR another example and proofe that Popes are wont to allow murthers of Princes is brought in a certayne Oration which Pope Sixtus Quintus is sayd to haue made in the Consistory with admiration and praise of that fact and that the fryar which committed the murther should haue beene canonized for the fact if some Cardinalls out of their wisdome had not resisted the same whereunto was answered both by me first and afterward by Cardinall Bellarmine that no such oration was euer extant in Rome or els where but onely amongst the Protestants in forrain Countreys that wrote against it in their declamatory Inuectiue intituled Anti Sixtus who in this against the Pope deserues smal credit Onely it is acknowledged that Sixtus in a secret Consistory vpon the first news of the fact did vtter a certayn speach in admiration of the strange prouidence of almighty God said I in chastising by so vnexpected a way so â—oule and impious a murther as that King had committed vpon a Prince Cardinall Archbishop those two also of nearest bloud to his Maiesty of England without any forme of iudgment at all that a spectacle hereby of Gods iustice was proposed vnto Princes to be moderate in their power and passions for that in the midst of his great royal army and corporall guards he was strangely slaine by a simple vnarmed man when he nothing lesse expected or feared then such a disasterous death To this now M. Barlow replies with great excesse of railing against the Pope saying that the Oration was made that the Pope therin was like yong Elihu whose words boyled within him for ioy of the fact like new wine in a bottle with open mouth stretched sydes glorious tearmes he did hyperbolize both the author manner and fact and that this Oration was like to haue recâ—aued in that Consistory an Herods Plaudite in Deifying the Pope canonizing the fryar c. All which as it hath no other proofe but the assertion of M. Barlowes wild and vnruly tongue so is it easily contemned by any man of discretion especially since there be so many graue men Cardinalâ— and Bishops yet aliue that can testify of the matter and Gentlemen that were at Rome also at that tyme and neuer saw or heard that euer any such Oration of Pope Sixtus Quintus was extant or made by him in allowance or approbation of that horrible fact of the fryar though otherwise as I sayd he did highly admire the straÌ„ge prouidence of God in chastising by so vnexpected a way so foule and impiouâ— a murther as that King had committed against all order of law and iustice Secondly then hauing nothing in effect to say to this yet for that he is bound to say something for his fee allready receiued he thought best to carpe at those wordes of mâ—ne that Pope Sixtus did highly admire the strange prouidence of God in his vnexpected Iustice vpoÌ„ the sayd King and so iesting at my words of strange prouidence he saith A fit Epithete doubâ—les and fetched from profound 〈◊〉 for can Gods prouidence be strange which in the vniuersall gouerment of the world and guidance with protection of particuler creatures iâ— daily and continuall Well then here M. Barlow will needs shew the profundity of
here pretermitt the residue of the trifles which M. Barlow for lengthening his booke bringeth in spicing the same euery where with most virulent raylings as the examples of Squire and Parry which so often haue beene answered by vs the former as a meere fiction for so much as concerned his sending from Spaine into England by F. VValpole the Iesuite for poisoning the Queenes chaire and the Earle of Essex his saddle the other a deuise of his owne to wit of Parry himself to gaine the Queenes goodwill and therby some preferment by telling her that he was sent to kill her by some Catholikes out of the Land whereas indeed he was neuer trusted by them in farre lesse matters then in such an enterprize But he returneth yet once agâ—ine excessiuely to praise the said Queene That Lady Queene Elizabeth saith he the diamond amongst Princes the glory of royall Maiestie the ioy of the Christian world for her sex whilst she liued And what will the discreet reader hould M. Barlow for his sex Truly I thinke for one of the most grosse and palpable flatterers that mankind doth containe and as for her being the ioy of the Christian world I meruaile what Christian world he can pretend to meane For if he will confine the Christian world within the Protestant world it is God wote but a very small part therof and yet in this Protestant world neyther was she held to be so rare a diamond or glory of royall Maiestie nor was she such a ioy vnto them as there is sayd which is euident by their writings extant especially of the Lutherans that misliked her religion maÌ„ner of proceeding and especially her taking vpon her to be head of the Church whereat they do laugh euen vntill this day And the same or greater dislike was euen in the purer sort of Caluinists both at Geneua the Mother-Church of that profession as also throughout all France Holland Zeland Scotland and England so as this little Protestant world held her not for such a ioy nor yet Iewell of theirs as here by M. Barlow she is described But as for the Catholike Christian world for what diamond they held her and what Ioy they tooke of her and in her appeareth well by their bookes which are extant and will indure till the worlds end so as the chiefe ground of all these excessiue and exorbitant prayses and flatteries is no other as far as I can see but the volubility of this Ministers tongue for the present what it may be hereafter vpon the blast of other windes I know not but it is like that the Weather cock will turne Some examples haue we seene before of his constancy about the Earle of Essex and may do also hereafter concerning Queene Elizabeth if his Maiestie that now reigneth shall neuer so little turne the fauour of his eyes from her actions which of all other Princes by the iudgement of most men he hath most cause to do as somwhat I touched in my â—ormer letter and now shal be inforced to repeat somwhat againe for defending my selfe against M. Barlows calumniations but it shal be only the conclusion of that my discourse To conclude then said I about Queen Elizabeth albeit Pius Quintus some other Popes did excoÌ„municate her and cut her of from the body of the Catholike Church by Ecclesiasticall Censures in regard of her persecuting Catholicke Religion yet did I neuer know it hitherto proued that any Pope procured or consented to any priuate violence against her person albeit if the forealleadged Statute of the 28. yeare of King Henry the 8. be true wherin it is determined both by the King himself his Counsel and whole Parliament and by the Archbishop Cranmer with his Doctors in his Iudiciall Seat of the Arches that Lady Elizabeth was not legitimate nor that her mother was euer King Henryes true wife which once being true could neuer afterward by any humane power be made vntrue or amended to the preiudice of a third rightly by due succession interessed therin if as the whole Parlament testifyed it should be against all honour equity reason and good conscience that the said La. Elizabeth should at any tyme possesse the said Crowne then the said Popes respecting in their said sentence as it is certayne they did the actuall right of the Queene oâ— France and Scotland and of her noble issue his Maiestie that now is they might proceed as they did against the other for her remouall whom they held for an vsurper in fauour of the true inheritours oppressed by her not only by spirituall but temporall armes also as agâ—inst a publicke malefactor and intruder contrary to right and conscience And I cannot see how this fawning Apologer can eyther without open vntruth or manifest iniury to his Maiesty auerre the contrary Which being true doth greatly iustify the endeauours and desires of all good Câ—tholicke people both at home and abroad against her their principall meaning being euer knowne to haue bene the deliuerance preferment of the true Heire most wrongfully kept out vniustly persecuted for right â—ousnes sake To this discourse of mine M. Barlow with many bitter wordes taketh vpon him to reply this that followeth First that there are many more euidences to proue that the Pope is Antichrist then that Queene Elizabeth was illegitimate this you see what force it hath how fit it is vnto this purpose and therfore he taketh haÌ„dfast of another hould thus If King Henry her Father B. Cranmer with his Court of Arches and body of the Parlament did sentence her for such yet the same Father Arches and Parlament vpon better ground within few yeares renounced the same sentence and repealed that act This now is somewhat if M. Barlow had cited the Act or Parlament or Decree of Bishop Cranmer or his Arches or some other particularity how or where it was repealed as I did cite for the contrary of her condemnation Rastals Abridgments I do find indeed in the booke of Statutes that seauen yeares afterwards to wit anno 35. of Henry the eight cap. pâ—â—â—o when King Henry had determined in person to go ouer and make warre in France as in the said Statute is affirmed and after the death of so many other wyues had married the Lady Katherine Parre widdow hauing small hope of more issue he made a certaine declaration of the succession if in case himselfe and the Prince Edward and Lady Mary should dye without lawfull issue to wit that for lacke of such issue the said Lady Elizabeth should succeed in her turne but there is no word of her legitimation nor of the repeale of the foresaid Statute declaratory of the inualidity of her Fathers and Mothers marriage And albeit I find diuers other clauses of that Statute 28. Henry 8. cap. 7. repealed by 1. Edward 6. cap. 12. and primo secundo Philip. Mariae cap. 1. 8. yet do I not find any
least a great ouersight in him to look so negligently to what he writeth but if he did see it yet wouâ—d so falsely alledg it then were a puâ—gation rather to be wished for his conscience then for his braines But he ceaseth not heere we must see two or three false tricâ—s of his more First he taketh vpon him to proue that Bellaâ—mine in the place before cited de Clericis doth indâ—â—d proue thaâ— Bishops do succeed the Apostle not only in power of holy Order but also of Iurisdiction For that Bâ—llarmine being to proue sayth he according to the title of his Chapter that Bishops are greater then Priâ—sts he setcheth his sâ—cond reason from their differâ—nt power of iurisdiction in the new Testament because they the Bishops haue the same that the Apostles had Nam â—piâ—copos Apostolis succedere that Bishops do succâ—ed the Apostles therin is not one mans testimony alone constanter docent omnes Patres sayâ—h he all the Fathers do hould it with one consent without varying in themselues or differing from others Hitherto M. Barlow And if he shew himself faithfull in this you may trust him if you will another time but if in this as in most other things he still vse shifting then you may trust him as you find him First then it is true that Cardâ— Bellarmine his purpose in this 14. Chapter is to proue against Caluin and some other Protestants that Bishops and Priests are not equall in degree but that Priests are inferiour to Bishops and he promiseth to proue three points First that a Bishop is greater then a Priest quoad Ordinis poâ—estatem in the powâ—r of holy order Secondly quantùm ad iurisdictionem that he iâ— greater also in iurisdiction for that a Priest hath iuriâ—diction but ouer one Parish and a Bishop ouer his Diocâ—ssâ— thirdly that Bishops in the primitiue Church were not only as Caluin sayth like Consuls in a Senate but like Princâ—s ratâ—er in 〈◊〉 The firâ—t an◠〈◊〉 of which points appertaine not to our pâ—â—sâ—nt pâ—â—poâ—e â—ut â—â—ly the â—â—cond about iuriâ—â—â—ction â—â—d this not much neiâ—her if you consider it weâ—l â—or that Cardinaâ—◠〈◊〉 inâ—ent is to shew that the iuriâ—â—iction of Bâ—sâ—ops iâ— greater theÌ„ that oâ— Prieâ—ts but not thâ—t Bishops had aâ—l the iuriâ—dictioÌ„ which the Apostles had noâ— doth â—e once name it or say any such thing and it is a noâ—orioâ—â— deceipt of M. Barâ—â—â— when he sayth â—â—ere that 〈◊〉 â—etcheth his sâ—cond reâ—son to proue the prehemineÌ„ce of Bishops aboue Pâ—iests froÌ„ their power of iuridisâ—tion becauâ—e they haue the sâ—me that the Apostles had Bellarmines words are these Seâ—â—â—â—â— probatur hâ—c idem ex aistinâ—â—iâ—ue Aposâ—cloâ—um Disâ—ipâ—lorâ—m sâ—ptuaginta Secondly the same is proued to wit that Bishops are greater then Priests by the diâ—tinction of the Apostles and the seauenty Disciples and then do ensue immediatly those words Episâ—opos Apostolis sucâ—edere that Bishops do succeed the Apostles and Prieâ—â—s the seauenty disciples all Fathers do constantly teach So that here Bellarmine doth not found his argument of prouing Bishops to be greater and worthâ—er then Priestsâ— vpon the succession of Bishops to the Apostles Apostlicall Iuâ—isdiction but in the dignity of holy Order which is sufficient to proue theÌ„ to be greater then Priâ—sts nor doth he fetch this his second reason from iurisdiction but from distinction as you see in his plaine words and therfore these other words of M. Barlow written in great letters that they haue the same to wit IurisdictioÌ„ which the Apostles had and did succeed the Apostles therin this I say is falsely put in and he did well to write the word therin in markable great letters for that it contayneth a markable fraude no such word bâ—ing in Bellarmine to that sense nor did all Fathers nor any Father teach this that Bishops succeed the Apostles in Apostolicall Iurisdiction but rather the plaine contrary as is largely proued in the other places ciâ—ed out of the fouâ—th book de Pontifice where the negatiue is put downe by Bellarmine as you haue heard concerning Apostolicall Iurisdiction to wit that Bishops do not therin succeed vnto the Apostles which though of it selfe it be euident for that euery Bishop hath not Iurisdiction ouer the whole world as the Apostles had nor may teach or preach or build Churcheâ— throughout the world as they by their vniuersal iurisdiction might yet doth Bellarmine proue the same largely tâ—roughout foure whole Chapters togeather shewing that alâ—eit Christ our Sauiour did giue immediatly vnto all the Apostles vniuersall iurisdiction ouer the world but yet differently to S. Peter from the rest for that he was appointed to be the ordinary high Pastour ouer the same and they extraordinary and consequently he to haue successours in his vniuersall iurisdiction and they not yet doth he not so giue it to all their successours but only mediatly by the chiefe ordinary Pastour of al which is Peters successour and that also with more limitation of place wherof ensueth that no Bishop besides the Bishop of Rome though he succâ—ed the Apostles in dignity of Episcopall Order yet doth he noâ— in iuriâ—diction but receiueth that mediatly only from God by the sayd Bishop of Rome And this doth Bellarmin proue to wit that all Bishops take their iurisdiction from the Bishop of Rome by eight seuerall arguments out of Scriptures Fathers Councells and reasons in one chapter which is the 24. next following and answereth all the arguments obiected to the contrary to wit fix by name repeating often and prouing that in this power of iurisdiction Episcopi non succedunt proprie Apostâ—lis Biâ—hops do not succeed properly the Apostles expounding also what he meanâ—th by the word properlyâ— Dicuntur Episcopi sayth he succedere Apostolis non proprie eo modo quo â—nus Episcopus alteri vnus Rex alteri sed duplici alia ratione primò ratione Ordinis sacri Episcopalis secundò per quamdam similituâ—inem c. Bishops are sayd to succeed the Apostles not propeâ—ly as one Bishop succeedeth another and one King aâ—other in all their power and iurisdiction but two other wayes the first by reason of sacred Episcopâ—ll Ordâ—r which they haue which the Apostles had and secondly by a certaine similitude or proportion that as the Apostles were the â—irst and immediate vnder Christ when he was vpon earth so are Bishops now vnder the chiefe Bishop c. Aâ—l which being set downe so clearely in Bellarmines owne words and writings heare I pray you what modest conclusion M. Baâ—low maketh of all that is said If he stand saith he on the place where the negatiue is to wit in the fourth booke de Pontifice there indeed the Cardinall driuen to â—is shifâ—s is forced to coyne this distinction but yet that salues not the contradictioÌ„ but maketh it greater For therin he sheweth that he maniâ—estly opposeth both himselfe and all the Fathers For in superiority of Iurisdiction Bishops by
clamorous English Clergy cry out against the same How would they exaggerate such an aduantage And yet here in a most heynous accusation against all writers without all proof we must stand to M. Barlows bare assertion or else to two moderne writers both heretikes both enemies to wit Iohn Bale and Simon Scardius who especially the former for his notorious lying and lasciuious scurrilitie with vs the Lutherans all learned Protestants are of as much credit as Robin-Hood and Little-Iohn But let vs proceed with that which followeth in M. Barlow who for that I sayd in my Letter that Paulus Ioâ—ius in his second booke did not testifie this matter though he were â—yted for it both in the English and latin bookes of the Apology replyeth against me thus If Saul in seeking his fathers asses had returned such an answer or himself retyred because he â—ound them not in Salila and Salim he had not proued Saul inter Prophetas So contumeâ—â—ous still is M. Barlow in all his speaches but we haue now shewed where the Asse without further seeking is to be found Let vs likewise see how prudent his answer is or rather euasion The Printer sayth he displaced the quotation giuing it a higher roome by fiue lines in the page then he should haue done for that it concerned the next story imediatly following But then I would aske M. Barlow why the letter F. was placed in the text before Alexander and the same correspondent in the margent in Paulus â—ouius Could the Printer also change the letter in the text And not only this but the Latin translation also that came after the English hath the same quotation of Paulus â—ouius annexed with the letter A. both in the text and margent vnto the same storie Was this also the slip of the Printer Besides this the sayd Latin translation leaueth out the word tertius and nameth only Alexander will you assigne this also to the Printer But if this quotation of Iouius did not seâ—ue to this allegation about the Popes writing to the Solâ—an what other Author is there that doth testifie so odious an accusation For if that had bene omitted then why had not M. Barlow now supplyed that defect with aleadging or quoting some Author that testifieth the same Lastly for that we haâ—e bene ouerlong in this matter we shall end with one only example more which is that wheras he alleadgeth out of Cuspinian that Pope Alexander the sixth did take two hundreth thousand Crownes of Baiazeâ—es the Emperour of the Turkes to cause his brother Gemin whom he held captiue in Rome to be put to death which soone after ensued he being in the French-mens hands that tooke him with them from Rome when Charles the eight King of France passed that way with his army towards the Conquest of Naples I answered that concerning the story it self true it is that Cuspiniâ—n that gladly seeketh occasion to speake ill of Popes writeth that the sayd Gemin or Zizimus for by both nâ—mes he is called brother of the Turke was put to death by poyson in the army of the French-men haud ignorante Pontifice Pope Alexander not being ignoranâ— theroâ— But he sayth nothing that the Pope procured the same as neyther that he receaued the sayd summe of two hundred thousand Crownes as neyther doth Iouius though he doth mâ—ntion that such a summe was offered by the â—urke togeather with â—estis inconsâ—tilis Christi the garment of our Sauiour without seame And that besids these Authors others also writing therof do relate the matter doubtfully as Onufrius Panuinus saying that he died at Capua of a bloudy flux without mentioning poysonâ— and before him Sabelliâ—us relating the matter as doubtfully saith Fuerunt qui crederent veneno sublaâ—â— there were some that belieued that he was made away by poyson that Pope Alâ—xander was not ignorant thereof And albeyt M. Barlow about this poynâ—â—â—riueth to vtter a grâ—at company of wordes partly to proue that which was not denyed that diuers authours do make mention of this thing though with vncertayntie as you haue heard partly in amplifying the wickednes of the thing to yield to the putting to death as he sayd of an innocent Turke partly by inueghing and scoffing at the offer made by the Turkish Emperour of Vestis inconsutilis Christi of Christs garment without seame deriding much in his veine of Infidelity that such a garment can be imagined to haue come downe from the Souldyers that cast lotts ouer it vnto the Turks hands and yet notwithstanding it is knowne and confessed that he had taken Ierusalem and thereby had the spoyle of all Christian monumentes of that place but much more scorning that now such a Relique forsooth should be made the price of innocent Gemins bloud without any iust cause giuen for the same and yet can it not be denyed but that he had rebelled against his Lord and brother the Emperour and procured both against his person and state what mischife he could All this I say notwithstanding it is euident that these wordes of M. Barlow are but wind to intertayne tyme and fill vp paper as he hath bound himself by the enterprize he hath takeÌ„ in hand so you will see partly by the stir he maketh about my very last wordes and lines in this matter which yet I assure mâ— being equally considered by the indifferent Reader will not seeme so reprehensible For these they are If a man would goe about sayd I to discredit Kingly authority by all the misdeeds of particuler Kings that haue bene registred by Historiographers since the tyme that Popes began he should find no doubt aboundant matter and such as could not be defended by any probability and yet doth this preiudicate nothing to Princely power or dignity c. For this speach of myne which M. Barlow termeth a yerking comparison of Kings with Popes though I know not why he inueigheth greatly against me alleadging first out of Seneca That art cannot long estrange nature as though out of Nature belike I were inclyned to make such comparisons and then likening me to Venus her Cat that was trickt vp as he sayth like a wayting-mayde but yet she discouered her self when she saw a mouse So the censurer quoth he who all this while would make the Reader belieue that he confuted only one T. M. the younger who being exasperated with his round caÌ„uasing of the Pope he forgetteth his dissembled aduersarie and retorts vpon Kings So he And do you see his vanytie Is the very naming of Kings especially in so honourable a sense as I doe for mayntenance of their authority sufficient to make retorting vpon Kings Or is the mentioning of Kings in generall a sufficient inference that I meane of his Maiestie in particuler What speach can be free from calumination when such Sicophancy is vsed Doth not euery man see the itching humour of adulation discouered here vpon any least occasion