Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	authority_n	church_n	infallible_a	2,088	5	9.4927	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09103	A discussion of the ansvvere of M. VVilliam Barlovv, D. of Diuinity, to the booke intituled: The iudgment of a Catholike Englishman liuing in banishment for his religion &c. Concerning the apology of the new Oath of allegiance. VVritten by the R. Father, F. Robert Persons of the Society of Iesus. VVhervnto since the said Fathers death, is annexed a generall preface, laying open the insufficiency, rayling, lying, and other misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.; Coffin, Edward, 1571-1626.	1612 (1612)	STC 19409; ESTC S114157	504,337	690

to be deceiued with the difficulty of this question let him take counsaile of the Church meaning thereby the vniuersall knowne Catholike Church they hauing abandoned this way of Di● Ecclesiae tell the Church and of recourse thereunto as to the Columna firmamentum veritatis the pillar and stay of truth so called by S. Paul what remayneth then to thē for their vltima resolutio but their owne heads and priuate iudgments which are those fancyes o● their own braynes which M. Barlow recyted before our of S. Augustine And this shall I make manifest by the ensuing example Yf fiue or six learned men of different Religiōs should meet togeather in Germany or Transiluania to wit a Roman Catholike a Hussite an Arrian a Trinitarian a Lutheran a Zuinglian or a Caluinist for that all these different Religions are there publikely professed and both by speaches books and sermons preached and maintayned and that you should demaūd of each one of these the reason of his fayth and his vltima resolutio or last rest about the same you should find their answers far di●ferēt For if you should demand of the Catholicke for example why he belieueth the Reall Presence he would answere you because it is reuealed by God If you aske him further how he knoweth it is reuealed by God he will say it is conteined in his word eyther written or vnwritten or both Yf you aske him againe how he knoweth it is cōteined in Gods word in that sense that he defends it he will answere for that the knowne Catholike Church doth tell him so by whose authority he is taught what is Gods word and how it is to be vnderstood And if you demand of him further how he knoweth the Church to haue such authority and the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church he will alledg for the former diuers Scriptures acknowledged also by the opposite Sectaries as that before mentioned wherin she is called The pillar and stay of truth and for the second he will alledge so many demonstrations of the beginning growth increase continuance succession and visible de●cent of that Church confirmed from time to time with so many miracles other manifest proofes and arguments of credibility as no man in reason can contradict the same so as his vltima resolutio or last stay is vpon the Church testifying vnto vs t●e word of God and testified by the same But now the other fiue though neuer so learned in their profession will not answere you thus but being demaunded euery one of them seuerally why they are of that peculiar sect more then of any other and why they are different from the Catholicke in the former article of Reall Presence they will all answere conformably for the first step that they doe build vpon the word of God yea the writtē word only But if you go a step further demand of them how they know that this written word is well vnderstood by them for so much as they are of fiue different Religions founded by them all vpon the same written word here now they cannot passe any further to the foresaid Catholike Church for finall resolutiō as the first did for that they all do impugne her but ech man must defend his different interpretation of that written word by his owne iudgement or els by the iudgement of his owne Congregation and Sect which in effect is the same So as these fiue learned men do remaine irreconciliable as you see for want of a ground from whence to take their vltima resolutio and do shew themselues according to the former speaches of Vincentius and S. Austine both Heretikes and Idolatours in that following the ●ule resolution of their owne heads they adore as many Gods as they haue selfe-conceipts for ground of their fayth And will you say that this poynt of vltima resolutio was wisely brought in by M. Barlow being a thing wherby himselfe and his are condemned to haue no last resolution or certayne ground at all for their beliefe but only their owne ●eads But oh sayth he you depend for resolution vpon the Pope which is so vncertaine as what one Pope decrees another disallowes But I haue now answered that we depend vpon the Catholicke Church as propounding vnto vs and expounding Gods word and we depend of the Supreme Pastour as head of that Church vnto whō we rest assured by Gods owne word and promise that he will assist him with his spirit for all resolutions in matters of fayth which shal be necessary for his sayd Church nor can M. Barlow prooue that what one Pope decrees in these matters of fayth another disallowes One of them may well alter matters of policy gouernment Ceremonies or the like but for poynts of fayth we do allow M. Barlow sixteene hundred yeares to seeke them out And if in so long time he could haue produced but one true example I suppose we should haue had it I doe willingly pretermit a great deale more of idle impertinent speach which M. Barlow vseth about this matter of Catholiks Consciences ●hewing indeed to haue little himselfe nor yet to know well what it meaneth and much lesse speaketh he to the present purpose For he telleth vs first that if pressure of conscience may serue for good Plea of Recusancy to Princes lawes there is neyther malefactor for crime nor hereticke for schisme but that will make that his Apology Wherunto I answere that causes persons merits and demerits are to bee distinguished in this matter and not to be confounded For what hath the malefactour for crime or hereticke for schisme to doe in this affaire From the first I thinke the aduersaries themselues will deliuer them or at leastwise theyr neyghbors among whome they dwell and as for the second of heresy and schisme we haue spoken now already sufficiently to shew where those imputations may and must lye not vpon the Catholickes who are opposite to that charge Secondly then he telleth vs that we lacke the light within vs which should driue away the darkenesse of our consciences and purge the eye therof from mist dust lime And vpon this he maketh vs an exhortation that we take heed of Caligo tenebrarum in this life that dusketh the eies of our vnderstanding to perdition especially by worldly delightes desire of honour and wealth this being puluis pigmentarius sayth he the Merchants dust which tickleth the eies and blindeth the sight of the wisest as do also enuy by emulation preiudice of affection wilfulnes by opposition which like vnto lyme tormenteth the eye and peruerteth the iudgement c. And is not this a very graue and serious exhortation comming from such a man as he is knowne to be so clearely inlightned as neyther mist nor dust nor lyme of ambition can sticke vpon a man so hating worldly delights honour and wealth as no part of this merchants dust can tickle his eyes Are not his mortifications

wicked spirit of these hereticks is different from the spirit of Christ to wit as cleane opposite as Hell to Heauen truth to falshood darknes to light And with what face or forhead the● can this Minister turne the masculine gender into the feminine the Swenckfeldian●pirit ●pirit into Gods reuelatiō Yea with what conscience can he say that this reuelation may be an illusion As some superstitious people saith he take that fire for a walking spirit which is but ignis fatuus an illuding meteor so Pharisaycall and melancholick conceipts may thinke them to be infusions of the holy Ghost which are but speculatiue imaginations of their owne Ghost Thus M. Barlow very profoundly as you see or rather most profanely comparing God● reuelation for of that Bellarmine speaketh which is alwayes certayne and certainly knowne of him to whome it is made to his walking spirit or ignis fatuus to Pharisaycall and melancholick conceipts as though the truth of the said reuelation depended on the disposition of the receauer and not wholy vpon the infallible authority of Almighty God who reuealeth the same I will not say that M. Barlow is either Pharisaycall or melancholick but that he is fatuus or else fanaticus albeit I say it not yet the thing it self will speake if his malice were not greater then his folly in this point which I meane not to discusse 68. After all these vntruthes and manifold ignorances he concludeth his disputation with a Sermon and is become very deuout vpon the suddaine and of a tender conscience telling vs that it is better for the Cardinall to acknowledge an ouersight in a long discourse then to ouerthrow one soule redeemed by Christs bloud Contradictions in assertions wounds but one opposite member but vnsoundnes in doctrine concerning saluation doth wound the weake conscience of a Christian. And then runneth on in the same descant which is as much as if some Harlot after she had wearied her tongue with rayling and lying on her neighbour should presently take vpon her the person and state of a graue vertuous Matrone foris Helena intus Hecuba to vse S. Gregory Nazianz●ns phrase or a false thief preach of truth and honesty For how many falshoodes ignorances and forgeryes haue bene shewed to be in this one dispute of his How many and how grosse lyes haue bene detected whereof his booke is so fraught and furnished to the full as it is hard to say whether any one number be free from the same● For in one only thing in the compasse of little more then one page in laying downe 14. proofes he hath made at least 15. vntruthes whereby the Reader may see how I should be ouercloyed if in laying forth examples of his dealing in this kind which now I come to treat of I should stand vpon all particulers But I will take a shorter course and to this disputation adioyne a short examen of some few lyes and these such only as concerne the person of his Aduersary wherin as I am sure that I haue left very many vntouched● so doe I also thinke that some of them are more vrgent and iniurious then those are which now I shall produce 69. The cause wherefore immediatly after M. Barlows transparē● ignorance I adioyne his vntruthes● is for that if it be possible one of them may excuse the other it being a receaued axiome amongst Deuines that it is a lesse syn to lye out of ignorance then of malice● and the Apostle excused himself by this meane● when he said Qui priùs blasph●mus fui persecutor contum●li●sus sed misericordiam Dei consecutus sum qui● ignorans feci in in●redulitate I who before was a blasphemer and a persecutor and contumelious but I haue obteyned Gods mercy● because I did it being ignorant in incredulity And I wish from my hart that this mercy after so many blasphemyes iniuryes done to Catholicks and most contumelious reproaches against all sorts of men of neuer so singular sanctity learning powred now forth in the tyme of his ignorāt incredulity may fall vpon M. Barlow which is the worst and greatest reuenge I doe wish him 70. This I say I would wish but such as know the dispositiō of these mē although they find thē ignorāt inough yet not alwayes to offend of ignorance as it is a negatiō of knowledg but rather of that which of the Deuines is called ignorātia prauae dispositionis because they will follow their erroneous iudgmēt loue lyes more then the truth howsoeuer to make fooles fayne they cry out against Equiuocation such as do maintayne the same For so did also our late woodden Embassadour at Venice who against the Iesuits and their doctrine in this point would be often very free as himself thought very ingenious also but more free in this art of Lying For being at Auspurge requested to write some motto or sentence with the subscription of his name thereunto was not ashamed to professe it to be the chiefest point of his office writing the definition of an Embassadour thus Legatus est virbonus peregrè missus ad mentiendum Reipublicae causa Domino Ioanni Fleckhamero in perpetuum amicitiae pignus Henricus Wottonius Serenissimi Angliae Scotiae Franciae Hyberniae Regis Orator primus ad Venetos Augustae Vindeliciae 16. Augusti anno Christiano 1604. That is An Embassadour is a good man sent far from home to lye for the good of the Cōmon-wealth To M. Iohn Fleckhamer for a perpetuall pledge of friendship Henry Wotton the first Embassadour of the most Soueraigne King of England Scotland France and Ireland to the Venetians At Augusta Vindelica the 16. of August in the Christian yeare 1604. 71. So this witty Gentleman defining himselfe to vse M. Barlowes fantasticall phrase by his essentiall kindly parts to with a good man that can lye well And whether in the last tumults of Venice betwixt the Sea Apostolick and that Cōmon-wealth he discharged not throughly this part of his charge and that very essentially kindly also I refer me to them who receaued his letters and know what he wrote Surely M. Barlow in this booke is so copious therein that if other of his owne ranke in our Countrey were to be defined by him a Protestant English Bishop should be nothing els but an ignorant Superintendent that can lye raile flatter notoriously Of his ignorance we haue already seene some proofe now let vs see how well he can lye 72. In the twelueth page he telleth the Reader that F. Persons hauing wished the destruction of the Kings Maiesty by the gunpowder-plot and by hope deuoured the same he came on his iourney a good step as some report towards England that he might haue song Te Deum in his natiue Countrey for the good successe of that happy exployt And this againe he repeats in the 217. page saying As if there were no difference

is of your owne thrusting in and put in place therof that the sayd Sonne may be the soone● induced to gra●t them that liberty in respect of their former dutifulnes and loyalty to his mother in her distresses and the consequence will not be euill To the third of his Maiesties confessed experience of the loyalty of Catholickes both towards himselfe and his Mother in their distres●es he sayth That his Maiesty nameth not Catholi●kes at all in his said Booke but only prosesseth that be found none so stedfastly to abide by him in his greatest straites as they which constantly kept their true Allegiance to his Mother Well Syr and who I pray you were they Catholickes or Protestants Let the acts of those times be seene the Authors noted the effectes considered Yet sayth M. Barlow no● i● is very probable that when his Maiesty hath cast vp his accompt of for●er disloyalties he shall ●ind the moderate ●nd dir●ct Protestant● that incli●es neither to right hand nor left to be the first and faithf●ll subiect Well Syr this may be p●rhaps f●● the time to come for your sel●e saith tha● it is but probable but for the time p●st his Maiestie hauing now cast vp his accompts hath found that reckonyng as he h●th set it downe And the common rule of wisdome is to beleeue as we haue found vntill different experience teach vs the contrary And by the way we must● learne here M. Barlowes new deuised epithetons of a moderate and direct Protestant that as he sayth is neyth●r Iesu●ted nor Geneuated that is neither Catholicke nor Pury●an but moderate and direct that is to say moderate in not belieuing to much on any s●de if it stand not with his profit and direct in following iump the Prince and State that may aduance him whatsoeuer they should determine in matters of religion This is the man by M. Barlowes direction vpon whome his Maiestie must buyld and not the Purytan or zealous Catholicke for that they are ouer scrupulous I could wish that M. Barlow had bene a litle more scrupulous in the very next ensuing number where without all blushing he casteth out two notorious lyes agaynst Father P●rsons to make him odious thereby to his Maiestie saying first that he pronounceth his sayd Maiestie to be a desperate and ●orlorne hereticke but cyteth no place where it is to be found nor indeed is there any such place to be found where Father Person● vseth any such words as euer I could yet see Secondly he alleadgeth for Father Persons expresse words these That whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant is a most grieuous and damnable sinner and citeth for the same D●l●man pag. 216. which quotation serueth only to condemne M. Barlow of a notorious wilfull calumniation for that these expresse wordes are not there found nor is there any mention of the Succession of a Protestant but in generall is sayd thus That for any man to giue his help towards the making of a King whome he iudgeth faulty in religion and consequently would aduance no religion or the wrong if ●e were in authority is a grieuous sinne of what syde soeuer the truth be c. So as neither Protestant nor Succession is named in this place but m●king of a King by such as my haue authority to doe the same and it may as well hould agaynst the entrance of a Catholicke Prince as of any other sect whatsoeuer And consequently both of these are s●landerous accusations the first being a meere inuented vntruth and the second a malicious peruerted calumniation so as in respect of both I may well say with the Prophet Dilexisti omnia verba praecipitationis lingua dolosa and I pray God the threat next insuing do not take place Propterea Deus destruct to in finem c. I desyre not his destruction but his amendment After this followeth in my foresaid Letter a narration of the Dutifull demeanour of Catholickes towardes his Maiestie euen from his first entrance and how by the vniust perswasions of their enemyes they began quickly to feele his hard hand borne ouer them euen before the powder-plot as by the confirmation of all Queen Elizabeth● penal lawes in the first yeare of his Maiesties raigne with the execution therof afterward doth well appeare wherof many particuler examples are set downe and among other things it is touched as a matter of speciall disfauour that his Maiestie vouchsafing in his owne Royall Person to giue publicke audience both to Protestants and Puryt●● for 3. dayes togeather concerning the differences of their Religion no such grace at all was graunted vnto Catholickes Vpon which words M. Barlow stayeth himselfe and maketh this cōmentary It is a strange humour sayth he that this Epistler hath i● he sayth truth he lyeth It is true there was a conference but about difference in Religion it is vtterly false say●● they would possesse the world that we are at iar among our selues ab●●● our Religion whereas the quarrell though it be indeed vnkind yet it i● not in this kinde saue only for Ceremonyes externall no poynt subst●●tiall c. But now of this I haue spoken somewhat before shewing that if this vnkinde quarrell betweene Protesta●●s Purytans as he calleth it be only about externall Ceremonies then is both his Prelacy and that of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop only an externall Ceremony And if his phrase of vnkind quarrell be of the same kind that he mentioned before to be in Queene Elizabeth towards Queene Mary of Scotland whose he●d she cut of● then is the matter somewhat substantiall not only Ceremoniall and indeed he that shall consider what the Purytan in this vnkind quarrell pretendeth agaynst the Protestant and his Church shall see that he striketh at the head indeed or rather striketh of the head of the sayd Church whether we consyder either the externall and ministeryall head thereof to wit the Princes Ecclesiasticall power and of Bishops vnder him or the internall head metaphorically taken for the life spirit and essence of the sayd Church in denying it to be a true Christian Church but only a prophane Congregation without any spirituall power at all This appeareth by all the course and drift of Puritan wryters and bookes extant of the differences acknowledged also by Protestant writers in their Treatises against them so as to me it seemeth not only a shameles bouldnes to deny it as M. Barlow here doth but a sham●full basenes also and beggary so to runne after their enemyes intreating them to haue some association with them whereas the other do both contemne and detest them For this falleth out not only in this case but also with the Lutherans whom M. Barlow and his fellowes when they deale with vs will needes haue to be theyr brethren of one and the same Church fayth and beliefe for all substantiall poyntes of doctrine Whereas the Lutherans on the other syde do both deny

witnesses that the penn●nce which King Henry did there was voluntary and not enioyned by the Pope now I say M. Barlow answereth it thus VVhether the pennance were voluntary or enio●ned to the King who maketh the question the Apologer said no such thing c. But let the words themselues now recited be iudges in the matter which say that he was whipped vp downe the Chapter-house like a schole boy and glad to escape so too Doth this import voluntary or inuoluntary whipping And how then can M. Barlow say that the Apologer said no such thing For if he were glad to escape so too who will not inferre that he would haue escaped with lesse whipping if he could and that therefore the same was in●erred which is y●t contradicted by those Historiographers that recount the same And I think M. Barlow will find very few school-bo●es that are voluntarily whipped There remaine now the other examples of the Emperours Frederick the first Henry the sixt and the rest before mentioned affirmed to haue bene iniuriouslie dealt withall by Popes of their time All which I might iustly pretermit as prouing nothing against our case of the Oath though all were graunted which hath bene obiected about them For suppose that some Popes had dealt hardly and rigorously with some Emperours Kings and Princes that should no more take away his authority then it should take away any Kings authority if he should offer iniury to one or more of his Nobilitie But besides this I sayd further in my Letter that in examining the particulers I found many exaggerations additions wrestings and vnsincere dealings in the alleaging of these examples And as for the first of Fredericke that he should ly a groo● on his belly and suffer Pope Alexander the third to tread on his necke and say super aspidem basilis●um c. is a great exaggeration and refuted as fabulous by many reasons authorities of Authors alleadged by Card. Baronius to whom I remitted the same for that the discourse therof was euer long to be repeated by me in that Letter The other exāple also of Henry the 6. Emperour whose Crowne C●l●stinus the Pope is accused to haue stroken from his head with his foote after he had set it on I held in the same number of fabulous narrations for that it being sayd to be done in Rome it was only mentioned first by an ●nglish writer Roger H●ueden that liued so many hundred miles from the place and thereby might easily be deceaued as Reynold of Ch●ster in like māner was that took it of him Wh●ras no other writer o● other nations eyther present 〈…〉 coronation when the thing is fayg●ed to haue bene done●● God● fridus 〈◊〉 Secr●tary to the said Emperor n●r other writers afterward relating the said Coronation 〈◊〉 Na●●●●rus Sab●ll●●●s Blondus Sigoni●s and 〈◊〉 do so much as o●●● make mentiō therof which ●s ●m●rob●●le that they would haue pretermitted being so 〈◊〉 a ●oint if it had fallen out To this last example and my answer about the same M. Barlow hath no reply to make but that Baronius seemeth to take it for a truth and graceth it saith he with a symbolical hieroglyphike expressing what the Pope should meane in doing so Whereto I answer that Baronius relating the matter out of Roger Houeden doth neither affirme it to be true or false but according to that narration of Houeden expounds what it might signify if it had bene true and as it was ●ould Houed●n in England But so many other authors that speake of that Coronatiō mention not this other f●ct as ●ow we haue alleadged do make the negatiue much more probable And as for the former about Fredericke the first Emperour and Pope Alexander the third I 〈◊〉 to stand to my former remissiō therof to the large di●cussion of Cardinall Baronius far ouer long to be brought in into this place but there all may be seene at large to wit the meeting of the said Pope and Emperour at Venice vpon the yeare 1177. the kynd and friendly reconcilement betweene them written by the second Archbishop of Sal●rnum called Rom●aldus who was Legate or ●mbas●ad●ur to the King of Sicily was present saw all that pass●d whose Recordes are yet extant in an ancient Got●icall character aswell in the Church of Sal●rnum as in the Vaticam Library He proueth the same also by the epi●●les act●s themselues of Pope Alexander yet extant and by the silence of all ancient writers that lyued then or soone after w●o m●ntioning all that passed very particulerly do not make mention of this act of the Popes putting his foot vpon the Emperours necke nor of any such spe●ch as super a●pidem ●asilis●ū c. And finally he proueth the same to be a table by the disconueniency of diuers other thing● there done to make peace as that yt had beene the way to ouerthrow all and to exasperate the Emperour for euer whom the Pope sought by all meanes to pacific and gaine and yt was contrary to that Popes nature and condition who was sweet and curteous with sundry other arguments which I let pa●●e re●erring the Reader to that co●ious discou●s● and declaration of his about this matter Agaynst all which M. Barlow now alleageth nothing of any moment at all but inueighing ●irst against Baronius for alleaging a manuscript in the Popes Librarie one Romualdus sayth he not yet extant in view and for ought is knowne may aswell be ●orged as true And is not this good dealing when ther● are so many authors o● credit in print to a●●ow this s●orie One manuscript vn●o●h ●b●●ure ●rit●r must encou●t●r the credit of them all So he And ag●ine after he tea●meth the said Rom●aldus A Vatican Desk-creeper c. But the answere is easie that the printing o● a booke maketh it not of greater authority for then no worke had beene of authoritie some hundred yeares agoe when there was no print in the world but all were manuscripts And as for the truth of this s●orie Baronius toucheth so many particulers of the two Libraries where the worke is extant in Gothicall characters which euery man may see and read as no probable doubt can be that he hath deuised or faigned it as there may well be of VValthramus Naumburg●nsis so often alledged against vs of whom notwithstanding we haue no other certainety then the credit of Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran which with vs is very small wheras Baronius remitteth all men to these two auncient manuscripts stil extāt and to be seene by al that wil. And as for some later writers obiected by M. Barlow to haue affirmed the same of Fredericke Baronius his answere a●ter many other proofs is this Si quid huiusmodi per Alexandrum Papam c. If any such thing had byn done by Alexander the Pope how would these writers that were present and wrote euery least thing

grosse and palpable absurdities But let vs proceed The second maine pillar vpon which M. Barlow relieth for proofe of the Popes poisoning of the Emperour Frederick is Matthew Paris an English man who saith M. Barlow affirmeth that the Emperour hauing discouered a poyson intēded prepared or him by his trustiest attendan●es as he thought vpon examination ●oūd it to be the Popes doing makes a lamentable cōplaint therof So he And indeed this testimony seemeth somwhat more forcible and euincent then the former both for that the Author liued at that time and for that he aue●reth it so con●idently saying that vpon examination he ●ound i● to le●se Popes doing But what if here also vpon examination we find M. Barlow a lier What if neither these words no● the sense of them be to be found in Matthew Paris as indeed they are not nor yet in any Author besides Is not then the false Prelate worthie for euer to be discredited Well let vs see what Matthew Paris hath hereof who hauing set downe the storie how the Emperour discouered the treachery of Petrus de Vineis and his intent to poyson him setteth also downe the said Emperours complaint in these wordes Vae mihi contra quem propria pugnant viscera c. Wo be to me against whom my owne bowells doe fight Peter whom I beleyued to haue bene a rocke the half of my soule hath by treason sought my life And lo the Pope whom the Empire hath exalted of nothing and enriched vnder my Noble predecessors doth go about to exterminate it and seekes to ouerthrow me the Gouernour of the same declining Empire Whom shall I trust Where shal I be safe c So Matthew Paris whom you see auerreth not as M. Barlow sayth he doth that the Emperour found it to be the Popes doing for all that can be truly gathered out of these wordes is that the Emperour suspected some such thing in the Pope And so far is Matthew Paris from affirming that it was found to be true that hauing said that the Popes fame was therby much blemished he addeth this restrictiue clause as from himself Veritatem tamen nouit Deus secretorum scutator infallibilis but God knoweth the truth who is the infallible searcher of secrets as though he had sayd that this matter had no other ground then the Emperours suspition and slaunder of his scismatical followers for had there bene but any apparent proof therof it would haue bene layed open to the vttermost And to confirme this the same Author a little before the wordes now rehearsed saith that the enemies of the Church gaue out that the Pope had sought to corrupt Petrus de Vineis to poyson the Emperour So then to conclude wheras out of this Author M. Barlow saith that Fredericke vpon examination found it to be the Popos doing there is no such thing to be found that which we find is that M. Barlow either corrupteth or corruptly alleadgeth all the Authors which he dealeth with But now you may thinke that he hath kept a sure card for the last and bringeth forth an Author without all checke or controll who with his verie name will ouerbeare all opposition and indeed he is here discribed as an vnconquerable Giant and as such a one who by himselfe may stand for thousandes and this man forsooth is Petrus de Vineis of whom M. Barlow speaketh th●s But what better witnes and of more credit can there be then Petrus de Vineis who liued in those dayes and was continually about the Emperor and as Cuspinian sayth hath truly related the occurrences of that time And againe after VVho was euer about him wrote truly is an Author approued And yet further In whome Cuspinian an Authenticall writer ver●ies that Prouerbe omnia sub vnam Myconum he alone may stand for all rest Yea this man is so great that in M. Barlows iudgement no man is to be heard against him Not Innocentius the Pope who refuted him not the Italians who contradicted him nor yet all other Authors that condemned his partiality and falshood in so much as if we will beleiue M. Barlow he is an Author of infallible truth notwithstanding he were a professed enemy of the Pope and sworne seruant of the Emperour And if we belieue other Authors a very corrupt man therefore iustly punished by allmighty God with vntimely death that rather for his greatnes vpon a pickt quarrell as some affirme then for any iust cause of demerit giuen by himselfe for the same against the Emperour What then shall we say to this ground or rather to this strong foundation inuincible bulwarke The words of this Author are plaine In Apuliam rediens veneno peri●t returning into Apulia he perished by poyson and M. Barlow noteth vs the place in the margent thus Epist. lib. 2. but yet like a bad Grammarian he omitteth the principall verbe I meane our cheifest question in hand which is not so much whether Frederick were poysoned as whether he were poysoned by the Pope for to that end are these strong presumptions violent inducements other argumēts brought what place is cyted out of this Author for proofe hereof Truly no more thē there is alledged to proue that Fredericke went about to poyson the Pope And is not this per●idious treachery in M. Barlow to make him his chiefest pillar who hath not one word o● the matter in controuersy But let vs suppose that some such thing is in his booke which I cānot beleiue to be true I am content that for once it be not thought ridiculous in M. Barlow which in other men would seme to be meer madnes to produce one that such a one against the whole stream of other Authors Let vs make this Petrus de Vin●is another Achilles Hercules or Golias yea let him stand for all as M. Barlow will haue him let his litle finger be as great as Alexanders backe yet sure I am that for the poysoning death of Fredericke eyther by the Pope or any other he will stand for nothing els but to condemne M. Barlow and all others who layne so much vpon him of fraud or folly or worse dealing which I trust to make so euident cleere as it is cleer euident M. Barlow neuer saw one to write after that his eies and braines were out his body cold and his bones rotten And first I suppose which M. Barlow doth freely grant me that this Petrus de Vineis was Secretary vnto Fredericke and continually about him but certaine it is by vniforme consent of all Authors of those tymes that the same Petrus de Vineis was dead a yeare at least before the Emperour and therefore could testify nothing of his death vnles he wrote by Prophesy for by the Emperors commaundment for treason eyther indeed intended or pretended only as I haue said he had his eyes put out and being committed to prison he knocked