was this I find no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholike affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith and what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true Mother therby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother but only the declaration Wherfore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth is a meere calumniation amongst the rest So in my former writing now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points In the first whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obedience he is very briefe for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation that the Popes Breue forbids not temporall Obedience No saith he it forbids the Oath wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance But this we deny and haue often denied and still must deny and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands who though he hath often affirmed the same yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue For that being once proued all controuersie about this Oath were ended And it is a strange kind of demeanour so often and euery where to affirme it and neuer to proue it He addeth for his reason in this place He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne and sayth neuer a word more But what doth this proue Or in what forme is this argument For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor that we do so or that the Popes Breue doth so we vtterly deny it as manifestly false For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour Wherfore this proofe is nothing at allâ— But he hath another within a leafe after which is much more strange for he bringeth me for a witnes against my selfe in these words VVhat hitherto sayth he he â—aâ— laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue â—â—insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grâ—â—teth If this be so that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduantage and some cause to vaunt but if no word of this be true and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen that is forced to inuent these silly shifts Let vs lay forth then the mystery or rather misery of this matter as himselfe relateth it The Pope saith he being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause or reason of the vnlwâ—ulnes of the Oath the Epistler saith there are as many reasons that it is vnlawfull as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion against which they must sweare And is not this a good reason say I Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the coÌ„science of a Catholike man from swearing But how doth be proue by this that I confesse the Breue to forbid temporall Obedience Do you marke I pray you his inference and consider his acumen But there is no one poynt sayth he in the Oath that doth not so to wit that doth not concerne Religion euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience I do sweare before God that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme c. Ergo I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles and consequently leaueth no Obedience ciuill or temporall But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion euen the very first Article that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience â—hen doth it not touch religioÌ„ in our sense For that we do distinguish these two deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts the one conteyning points of temporall obedience for acknowledging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes the other concerning points of Catholike Religion belonging to the Popes Authority To the first wherof we refuse not to sweare but only against the second And now M. Barlow sayth that all concerne religion and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedience but denieth all And is not this a worthy dispute But let vs passe to the second question whether the Pope or Church hath authority to make new Articles of faith as the Apologer obiected And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part that the Catholicke Church preâ—endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith that were not of themselues true and of faith before he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Hermes and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall Whereto I answere that Doctor Stapleton sayth only that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not admitted before as for example the Epistles of S. Iames the two bookes of Machabees the Epistle of Iude and diuers others as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and suâ—scribed so hath the same Church at this day and shall haue vnto the worlds end authority to do the same Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret sayth Doctour Stapleton that is if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto herâ— librum aliquem alâ—â—m nâ—ndum in Canâ—nem recepâ—um Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes
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 inteÌ„ded prepared or him by his trustiest attendanâ—es as he thought vpon examination â—ouÌ„d it to be the Popes doing makes a lamentable coÌ„plaint 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 aueâ—reth it so conâ—idently saying that vpon examination he â—ound iâ— to leâ—se Popes doing But what if here also vpon examination we find M. Barlow a lier What if neither these words noâ— 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 thâ—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 verâ—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 periâ—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 argumeÌ„ts brought what place is cyted out of this Author for proofe hereof Truly no more theÌ„ there is alledged to proue that Fredericke went about to poyson the Pope And is not this perâ—idious treachery in M. Barlow to make him his chiefest pillar who hath not one word oâ— the matter in controuersy But let vs suppose that some such thing is in his booke which I caÌ„not 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 Vinâ—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
colour of this power to discerne spirits giuen theÌ„ by M. Bâ—â—loâ— out of the words of S. Iohn there would neuer be an end And lastly it appeareth by all this that his lâ—st distinction wherin he sayth that the King may iudge for the truth and not of the truth is a meere delusion giuing somewhat in wordes but nothing in deed for that if the iudging for the truth be nothing els but to execute allow and approue that which others haue defined determined and appointed out vnto him to be belieued and defended as the truth then hath he no more free choice or superiority in iudgment in this case then euery subiect or common man who is likewise bound to belieue and defend the same according to his ability and power Now then to conclude the matter and to reduce all to a briefe summe for so much as M. Barlow taketh away from his Maiesty of England not only the title and style Of Head of the Church which was giuen to King Henry and confirmed to King Edward but the Papall authority in like manner for decision of matters which was ascribed vnto them both by Parlament and confirmed to Queene Elizabeth and here saith that he cannot iudge in cases of religion and fayth iudicio definitiâ—o to define and determine any thing but only execuâ—iuo to execute what the Church of England to wit what the Bishops shall define and ordayne and for somuch as he addeth yet further now in that which before we haue discussed three other particuler cases out of S. Ambrose wherin he conâ—esâ—eth that his Maiesty hath no authority but may be resisted to wit if he should call before him a Bishop to dispute with another of a different religion as Valenâ—inian did S. Ambrose and he denyed him If he should commaund a Bishop to deliuer ouer a Church to a people of a different religion and if he should command a Bishop to deliuer vp the Veâ—els of his Church as the said Empeâ—ouâ— did and the â—ther refused to obey all these things I say laid â—ogeâ—tâ—er â—ut of M. Barlows doctrine do so much diminish the greatnes of his Maiesties Supreme power in causes Ecclesiasticall as in effect it commeth to be no more thâ—n Catholike doctrine doth ordinarily allow to euery Catholicke Temporall Prince for the obseruance and execution of that which the Church determineth And this is M. Barlâ—â—â—â— heroycall exployt to marre the matter he takes in hand for his Clyent Let euery man iudge how well he hath deserued the good fee which already he hath recâ—aâ—ed for his plea and hopeth to receaue more hereafter if he may speed according to his expectation OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE Or Iâ—stance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall §. III. THERE followeth another controuersy betweene M. Barlow me about a certayne fact of S. Gregory the Great concerning the Law of Mauritius the Emperour prohibiting souldiars and such as were accomptable to the Emperours Courtes for offices borne by them to enter into monasteries and professe a religious life without his licence whereof I wrote thus in my letter Neyther doth the last place cited out of S. Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauritius make any thing moâ—e for our Apologers purpose of taking Oathes against Conscience For albeit the same Father do greatly complaâ—ne in diuers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius whome though otherwise a Catholike Emperour he compareth in that poynt to Nero and Dioclâ—siâ—n saying Quid Nero quid Dioclesiâ—â—â—s qâ—id deâ—ique isteâ— qui â—oc tempore â—â—â—lesiam persequitur Nâ—mqâ—â—◠〈◊〉 omnes porta Inferi Whâ—t was Nero What was Dioclesâ—â—â— what is he who at this time doth persecute the Church Are they not all gates of Hell Yet in this place alleaged by the Apologer he yealded to publish and send abroâ—d into diuers Countreys and Prouinces a certayne vniust law of the sayd Emperours that prohibited Sâ—uldiars and such as had bene imployed in matters of publike accompts of the CoÌ„mon-Wealth to make theÌ„selues Monks Wâ—ich law though S. Gregory did greatly mislike and wrote sharply agaynst it to the Emperour himselfe yet to shew his due respect in temporall thinges vnto him and for that indeed the law was not absolutly so euill but that in some good sense it might be tolerated to wit that Souldiars sworn to the Emperours wars might not during the said Oath obligation be receaued into Monasteries but with the Princes liceÌ„ce yet for that it tended to the abridgmeÌ„t of Ecclesiastical freedome in taking that course or state of life which ech man chooseth for the good of his soule S. Gregoâ—y misliked the same and dealt earnestly with the Emperour to relinquish it or to suffer it to be so moderated as it might stand without preiudice of Christian liberty wherunto the Emperour at length yeelded and so S. Gregory sent the same abroad vnto diuers Primates and Archbishops of sundry Kingdomes mentioned by him but corrected first and reduced by himselfe as supreme Pastour to a reasonable lawfulnes and temperate moderation to wit that those who had borne offices of charge in the Common-wealth and after desired to be admitted to religious life in Monasteries should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their full accompts and had obtayned publicke discharge for the same And that Souldiars which demanded the like admittaÌ„ce should be exactly tryed and not admitted vnto Monasticall habite but after they had liued three yeares in their lay apparell vnder probation This determineth S. Gregory in his Epistle beginning Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi Vrbicio Dyrachitano c. adding further in the same Epistle as hath bene said De qua re Serâ—issâ—mus Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur about which matter our most Clement and Christian Emperour is wholy pleased and content So as in this S. Gregory shewed his pastorall care and power in limiting and moderating the Emperours law according to the law of God though in temporall respectes he shewed him the Obedience that was due vnto him But what is this vnto our Oath May we thinke that S. Gregory that would not passe a temporall law of the Emperour without reprehension of the vnlawfulnes thereof to the Emperour himselfe and correction therof in the publication for that indirectly it did infringe the liberty of Religious life when men were called therunto that he would not haue much more resisted the admission of an Oath about such affaires if it had bene proposed No man I thinke in reason can imagin the contrary To this declaration of mine M. Barlow beginneth his reply thus But that of Gregory saith he toucheth the very quicke who as he thought his duty discharged to God in shewing the reasons why he disliked the Law so did he performe it very readily to the Emperour in promulging
both togeather the Councel as the body and the Pope as the head and saith that these words of the promise of Christ The holy Ghost shal teach you al truth were not spoken to a Councel or to the Church as separate from her Head but as adhering to her head and ioyned with the same So in like manner he citeth Suarez to affirme That thâ— Pope may define any thing though not expressed in Scripture to be defide without any expresse reuelation from God which though in some part it be true for that the ordinary assistance of the holy Ghost to the Church may giue sufficient direction for the Church so to determine yet are there diuers wilful corruptions here to be discouered in these few words of M. Baâ—low for that first Suarez doth not speake of the Pope alone but of the whole Church to wit of the body togeather with the Head as Azorius did before Secondly he doth not say that any thing may be defined for a point of faith by the Church but speaketh of a special doctrine in some speciall case which case he there setteth downe Thirdly though he required not nouam reuelationem expressam a new expresse reuelation as his words be yet he requireth implicitam and tâ—citam an implyed and sâ—cret reuelation Al which limitations M. Barlow leaueth out of purpose and therin sheweth his fidelity in citing of Authors Next after this he hath this speach But what need opinions saith he when the practice is extant a whole new Symbolum is set ouâ— in the Prouincial Synod at Millan wherin twelue new Articles are added to the Nicen Creed which al Catholicks are bound 〈◊〉 paine oâ— Anathema to professe by word and sweare by oath So he And truly this is a strange point that a Prouincial Councel of Millan reaching no further then within the compasse of that Dyocesse should binde all Catholickes vpoÌ„ paine of Anathema both to professe by word sweare by oath that which was there decreed Doth M. Barlow speake like an intelligâ—nt man But the very last words of swearing by oath do discouer his fraud to wit that no new Symbole or Creed is set downe in that Councel as added to the Nycen but only a large profession of the Catholick faith according to the Decree of Pope Piuâ— Quartus there recorded for al such as take Ecclesiastical promotion in which profâ—ssion after the whole Creed set down Verbatim as it is repeated in the Masse which is not only the Nycen there is added presently Apostolicas Ecclesiasticas tradiciones firmissimè admitto amplector c. I do most firmely admit and imbrace tâ—â— Apostolical and Ecclesiastical traditions as I do also admit and imbrace the holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. running ouer the chiefe heads of such Articles as are now in controuersie betweene vs and Protestants which heads are not heere decreed for Articles of faith by this Councel but proposed only to him that maketh the profession yea the whole Chapter which is large hath this title De fidei profâ—ssione of the profession of the Catholicke faith What new Articles are then here added to the Nycen Creed Is it not a shame to roue so farre from the marke and to falsify the plaine meaning of Authors and writers in this sort But now he returneth againe to speake of the Oath we must follow him for that now we haue bouÌ„d ourselues so to do Thus he sayth of vs They reply that it is not the substance of the Oath that sticketh in their consciencesâ— but the â—orme therof especially those last words I do make this recogniâ—ion willingly and truly otherwise they haue a tricke in their religion to swallow the whole Oath without straining for it is their Doctrine and it is worth the obsâ—râ—ing that iâ— a man be called to sweare if he take the Oath vnwillingly iâ— is vnâ—o him as he had not sworne at al yea grant he haue voluntateÌ„ iurandi be very willing to sweare but hath not voluntatem se obligandi not wil to bind himselfe to performe what he sweares it iâ— no Oath vnto him he is as free as if he were neuer sworne And thus much he reciteth as out of Azorius And do you heare this doctrine or do you belieue that he saith truth therin Certes I could hardly belieue a man to be so wilful in falshood For first where or when can he shew that we stick not at the substance of the Oath but only at â—he forme Are not al those twelue points before mentioned in this Epistle which M. Barlow goeth about to refute which do touch Catholick religion and at which we do principally sticke of the substance of the Oath Can this be denyed with any shew of shamefastnes But let vs see how egregiously he doth abuse the learned writer Azorius in making him the Author of these absurdities about swearing which here he setteth downe as our doctrine if a man sweare vnwillingly saith he it is vnto him according to the Papists Doctrine as if he had not sworne at al. But where can he find that Azorius saith this If we looke into the place by him cyted where he handleth de Iure iâ—rando there is no such matter but only it is said to this point that if a man do sweare hauing no intention to sweare indeed but only to comply and deceaue another though it be no Oath in it selfe yet in respect of the iniury or hurt ensuing it may bind the swearer to performance which is quite contrary to that which M. Barlow here citeth And in another place speaking of an Oath extorted by feare or death as to a thiefe vpon the way or the like which no man will deny to be vnwillingly made he answereth in these words Respondeo ex communi sententia Theologorum Pontifâ—ij â—uris Doctorum valere I do answere out of the common opinion of al Dâ—uines and Doctors of the Common laws that it bindâ—th For which he citeth seauen Doctors for the same And what wil M. Barlow say to this Will he not blush at this vnhonest dealing herein But he passeth further to a second member of our Doctrine in this matter If a man be willing to sweare sayth he 〈◊〉 hath no wil to bind himselâ—e to performe what he suâ—eares it is no Oath vnto him he is as free as if he were neuer sworne But what â—hal a man say to these people that are so forlorne in this point of fals dealing as they care not what they set down so they may satisfy their present appetite of seeming to say somewhat Let any man read the place of Azorius heere quoted but according to my quotation and not his which ordinarily is false and he shal see a good large and learned dispute of Azorius vpon this question VVhether a man promiâ—â—â—g aâ—y thing
that was done yea did set downe euery seuâ—rall thing in the very words that they were spâ—ken there that with all diligence as we haue seene now the Kings Legate Romualdus to haue done how I say is it probable that they would haue pretermitted this matter so strange so new so monâ—â—rous for the indecency thereof there being also so many emulators and of faction agâ—inst the Pope Would no one of them set it downe in their writings or so much as make mention therof So Baâ—oâ—ius There followeth in the third place the story of the Emperor Philip of which I wrote thus before That also of the Emperour Philip affirmed to be slaine by Otho his opposite Emperour at the incitatioÌ„ of Pope Innocentius the third is a meere slaunder for that according to all histories not Otho the â—mperour but another Otho named of VVitilâ—spacke a priuate man and one of his owne Court vpon a priuate grudg did slay him Albeit Vrspergensis that followed the â—action of the Emperours against the Popes do write that he had heard related by some the speach here set downe that Innoceâ—tius should say that he would take the Crown from Philip or Philip should take the Myter from him yet he sayth expreslyâ— quod non erat credendum that it was not to be belieued And yet is it cited here by our Apologer as an vndoubted truth vpon the only authority of Vrspergensis in the margent To this also M. Barlow hath very litle to reply might wel haue held his peace but that he saw himselfe obliged to say somwhat Wherfore first he granteth that such a mistaking of one Otho for the other might be in so intricat a Story Then he goeth about yet further to ameÌ„d the matter by this euasion that it was not sayd that Philip was slaine by Otho the Emperour his hands but that Otho slew him which may â—e reâ—â—rred saith he to his meanes rather then to his hands But what is this to our purpose who do seeke which of the Otho 's did slay Philip And Vrspergensis who then liued saith that he was slaine by Otho the Count without any mentioÌ„ in the world of any procurement therof by Otho the Emperour and much lesse of the Pope howbeit M. Barlow maketh one Nicolas Cisucrus oâ— whome yet I had otherwaies no noticeâ— to tell vs out oâ— Vrspergensis That not long after the pâ—ace was concluded mutualâ—y what â—y the Pope what by Otho betwâ—ne them BOTH Philip was murthered in his Chamber and â—laine putting the words what by the Pope what by Otho in diâ—â—erent letters and then the word BOTH in capitall characters to make his lye more visible which otherwaies was grosâ—e inough of it selfe â—or â—â—re I am that no such thing is to be â—ound in Vrspâ—rgensâ—s if Cisâ—erus relate no other then he hath of him it is very probable that he hath as little and that all is framed out of the forge of M. Barlows chymerical inuention And as for the distinction which he maketh in the same place betwene Conradus a Lichâ—â—naâ— and Abbot Vrspergensis I shall a little after in this Chapter vpon another occasion shew it to be no more then there is betwene VViliam Barlow and VVilliam â—incolne as he stileth himsâ—lâ—e in the end of his Epistle to his Maiesty to wit that it is one and the selfe same man and it is but a dreame of M. Barlow to make them two So likewise touching the other distinctionâ— set down in the words beâ—ore alleadged that the 〈◊〉 marke reâ—erred to Otho the Emperours meanes as wâ—ll or rather â—â—en to 〈◊〉 hands there shall need no further râ—futation 〈◊〉 the Apology it selfe saying vpâ—â—aith â—â—aith he Otho against him who slâ—â—â— him and presently went to Rome and was crowned Emperour by the Pope Do not these words affirme plainly that Otho the Emperour and not Otho the Count slew Philip And yet doth his Author Vrspâ—rgâ—nsis cited in the margent affirme expressely that Otho the Count and not Otho the Emperour slew him as now hath bene sayd which M. Barlow here granteth though with an exception saying For the Count he is plaine of the Emperour he sayth nothing silence omits the relation excuseth not the guilt By which words it seemeth that he would say that albeit Otho the Count did slâ—â— Philip yet Othâ— the Emperour had his hand therin But what one author can he alleadg of any credit that saith the same He alleageth for a coniectâ—re and vrgâ—th tâ—e words of the Pope before cyted that he would either take from Philip his crowne or Philip should take â—rom him his Mâ—tâ—r which being related only by Vrspergensis as a 〈…〉 he addeth notwithstanding quod non erat crâ—denâ—â—â— that it was not to be belieued which wordâ— M Barâ—â—â— now correâ—tâ—th sâ—â—ing that his true words are dissi 〈…〉 viâ— credendum which he Engâ—isheth thu◠〈…〉 was a hard thing to be related and scarsely 〈…〉 wherin you see that he helpeth the dye to vse M. Mâ—â—tonâ— phrase by a fauourable translation The substance is not any thing different from the summe of his words which I set downe before There ensueth in the fourth place the obiection about the â—mperour Frederiâ—k the second of whoÌ„ I wrote in my Letter thus The like may be said of the tale of Fredericke the second attempted to haue bene poysoned first in Apulia by Pope Innocentius the 4. and afterward effectuated by one Manâ—redus as hyred by thâ— Pope which is a very tale indeed and a malicious tale For that he which shall read all the Authours that write of his life or death as Platina whom the Protestants hould for free in speaking euil of diuers Popes Blondus Sabellicus Nauclerus Crantzius Sigonius others shall fynd that as they write very wicked things committed by him in his life so talking of his first danger in Apulia by greiuous sicknes they make for the most part no mention of poison at all and much lesâ—e as procured by Pope Innocenâ—ius praysed for a very holy man to haue proceeded iustly against Fredâ—ricke And sâ—condly for his death they agree all that it was not by poyson but by stopâ—ing his breath and stifeling him in his bâ—d with a pillow by Manâ—redus his owne bastard-Sonne to whome he had giuen the Princedome of Taâ—entum for 〈◊〉 lâ—aâ—t he should take it â—roÌ„ him againe bâ—stow it vpon Conradus his other sonne But that the Pope was priuy to this or hyred him to doe the fact as our Apologer aâ—â—irmeth there is no one word or syllable in these Authors theroâ— But you will saâ— that he cyteth one Petrus de Vineis in his margent and Cusâ—â—nian in the life of Fredericke both which are but one Author for that Cuspiniam pâ—ofâ—sseth to tâ—ke what he sayth out of Petrus de Vinâ—â—s which Petrus was a seruant to Fredericke a professed enemy to the Pope and wrote soe partiâ—lly
is this will he say to tâ—e Popes consent for his poysoning Surely they are violent inducementes that he thirsted after the Emperours death which way so euer â—or he which would arme the Emperours owne souldiers against him cause a treacherous reuolt from him whilest he was fighting the Lords battaâ—ls betray him into the mouth of Christes sworne enemies inuade his possessions in his absence disperse false rumors of his death coÌ„trary to truth and his owne knowledg and by contemptes and Anathema's doe his best or worst to breake his hart would make litle acompt or conscience to Drench him out this lifâ— yf opportunitie and secrecy would concurre So he Wel pleaded M. Barlow But soft Syr I pray you take me with you What is that which by these violent inducementes as you terme them you go now about to proue Is it not to shew that Innocentius the 4. hired one to poyson Fredericke And are these particulers or any one of theÌ„ which you haue so much vrged for this purpose to be verified of Innocentius Did not all these thinges passe in the tyme of Gregorie the ninth of whose going about to poyson tâ—e Emperour no man hitherto euer so much as dreamed neyther do yow your selfe charge him therewith diuers yeares before Innocentius was Pope How then may these thinges violently induce any man to beleiue that Poâ—e Innocentius did conspire the poysoning of Fredericke Aâ—d to the end that your inducementes may be the more strong we shall reduce the whole force of them into a Logicall argument thus Pope Gregory the ninth armed the Emperours soulddiers against him caused a treacherous reuolt from him whilest he was fighting the Lords battails betrayed him into the mouth of Christs sworne enemies c. Ergo twenty yeares and more after this Pope Innocentius the 4. hired one to poyson him This is M. Barlowes violent inducement set downe in forme to prooue Pope Innocentius the 4. to be guilty of poysoning the Emperour And what force it hath I shall not need to declare For the argument is so ridiculous and transparent as there is no child so simple that doth not see through it And truly M. Barlow cannot here excuse himselfe in my iudgment from willfull malice that alleaging all this out of Vrspergensis who ended his historie with the yeare 1228. or the beginning of the next at what time Pope Gregory liued as he did for 12. yeares after would notwithstanding lay it all vpon Innocentius the 4. for which cause as it may be thought he dissembled Pope Gregories name throughout al his relation which he could not but see expressed in his Author And what will you say to such malicious follie or foolish malice M. BARLOVVS MORE sure and stronger proofes are discouered to be lyes with other things concerning Fredericke the second and Innocentius the fourth §. II. BVT M. Barlow yow may thinke hath some better proof besides these violent inducements to proue the Pope accessory to the poyson and death of Fredericke by which he will make all so cleare as there shal rest no more difficulty in the matter In those perhaps he will vse more sinceritie I say perhaps for that the custome of lying is so habituated and rooted in him as it is difficise mobilis a subiecto hardly to be separated from him as the Philosopher speaketh of all other habits which are not easily separated from their subiectes Let vs see then what demonstratiue proofs and irrefutable arguments he will bring to proue what he intendeth His words are these And yet that presumptions sayth he may not only carry it Cuspinian hauing Authors for both reports relateth the procurers therof doubtfully but the instrument certainly that Mansredus POYSONED him witâ—out controuersie siue ab hostibus siue a Pontiâ—ice corruptus but whether corrupted by enemyes of the Emperour or by the Pope he will not say but so he diedâ— So he What still nothing but lying M. Barlow Did you not promise vs surer argumentes then presumptions And why then doe you beginne with so notorious vntruthes Doth Cuspinian say that Manfred poysoned him Then truly hath M. Barlow belied Cuspinian before for that he saied And Cuspinian agreeth with them to wit Petrus de Vineis and Nauclerus that the Emperour recouering by the help of Phisuians from the poison Manfred tooke a shorter course with him and as Hazael serued Benhadad with a cloth stopped his breath with a pillow So he And yf this be true M. Barlow how then do you here set it out in Capitall letters by the Authority of Cuspinian that Manâ—red POISONED him and that so died for these are your words heere So as if M. Barlow be true in one place he must needes be false in the other For in the one he sayth that he recouered of the poyson in the other that he died of the same which is so playne a contradiction as M. Barlow will neuer be able to make doth partes to agree Besides it is a grosse vntruth to affirme that Cuspinian should say that the Emperour was poysoned by Manâ—red whereof he speaketh nothing at all and therfore where you say that he reported the instrumeÌ„t certainly that Mansredus poysoned him without coÌ„trouersy certainly without conâ—rouersie it is a lie of yours and not the assertion of Cuspinian whose words you might haue seene set downe in my letter alleadged thus Non potâ—it cauere c. The Emperour could not auoide but when he returned into Apulia he perished with poyson the 37 â—eare of his raigne and 57. of his age and the very same day that he was made Emperor for wheras at the towne of Florenzola in Apulia he was daungerously sicke and at length by diligence of Phisitians had ouer come the same he was stifled by Manfredus his bastard-sonne begotten of a noble woman his concubine with a pillow thrust into his mouth whether it were that Manfredus did it as corrupted by his enemies or by the Pope or for that he did aspire to the kingdome of Siâ—ilia So he where you see no mention made of Manâ—red for the poysoning but only for the stiâ—eling And how then doth he relate the procurers of the poyson doubtfully and the instrument certainely I thinke M. Barlow vseth to write sometimes in his sleepe for had he bene waking he would not as I suppose euer haue bene so shameles or ignorant as so to corrupt or mistake the Authors which he citeth in so base a manner And truly Cuspinian himself seemeth to haue dreamed in these few lines here cited as before I haue noted for hauing said veneno peryt he perished or died with poyson yet presently after as you see he saith that by diligence of Phisitians he ouercame the same and afterwards was stifeled And with such sleepers and dreamers are we troubled with all who not seeking to finde out or deliuer the truth in the matters they handle do contradict themselues and runne into