and Clâ—ments Constituâ—ions before mentioned So teacheth Doctor Stapleton and the reason of his saying is for that the authority of the Church is the same now shal be vnto the worlds end as it was in the first ages to iudge of Scriptures when occasion is offered And if the Church should admit any such booke now into the Canon of holy Scriptures which was not held for Scripture before which yet is a case not like to fall out then should noâ— this booke be made Scripture by the Church but only declared to be such which was so from the beginning though not so knowne declared So as the Church in this case should not giue infallibility of truth vnto the booke but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost that this booke was such from the beginning though not so accepted So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in cyting Doctour Stapletons words first to conceale his first condition Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret if the holy Ghost should suggest the same vnto the Church and then these other two conditions if it were written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose to make M. Doctour Stapletons speach to appeare more naked and improbable but indeed it was to keep his old custome which is neuer commonly to relate things truly in all respects in any citation whatsoeuer His second obiection is out of Bishop Fisher VVho sayth quoth he that whatsoeuer the Pope with a Councell deliuereth vs to be belieued that is to be receiued as an Article of fayth which we graunting to be true do ad only this that it is to be vnderstood according to our former declaration and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it against â—uther out of Scotus saying Non quòd â—unc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but â—or that it did declare it to be true and to haue bene deliuered by God and this by direction of the holy Ghost promised by our Sauiour to the Church So sayth Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neyther the Church nor the Pope Head therof do pretend to make any new Article of fayth that was not in it selfe an article of fayth before yea and so belieued also fide implicita by implyed fayth in the faith of the Church but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to haue byn such from the beginning though not so knowne or declared and therfore men were not bound to belieue it fide explicita by expresse fayth as now they are after the Churches definition and declaration therof And that this is the common sense of all Catholicke Deuines according to my former wordes that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much adoe as though it were false is proued among other learned men of our dayes by Gregorius de Valentia whose wordes are that it is Sententia communis Theologorum the common opinion of Deuines for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors principall Schoolemen And his whole discourse founded vpon Scriptures Fathers Councells and other arguments consisteth in this that as whatsoeuer is now belieued by the Church for matter of fayth was in substance belieued before in all other precedent ages vnto Christes time actu fidei implicito by an implyed act of fayth that is to say the belieuing in generall whatsoeuer the Church belieued so many thinges are now belieued by the Church actu fidei explicito by expresse fayth which were not so belieued before for that the Church froÌ„ time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clearly and expresly which before were belieued by an implied faith only As for example the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the pâ—oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne as was afterward declared vnto vs by the Church but that it belieued the same yet may we not deny but that it belieued the same not fide expliciâ—a but implicita only And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications therof made by the subsequent Councels about the vnity of the Person differeÌ„t Natures in Christ that his Mother should be called the Mother of God were belieued implicitè by those of the Councel of Nyce and consequently were then also Articles of faith though they were not belieued by them explicitè as we are bound to do after the explication made by the Church Let vs conclude therfore with Bishop Fiâ—â—ers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tameâ—si nequeat Sumâ—â—â— Pontisex c. That albeit the Pope with a Councel that is to say the Catholick Church cannot make any thing true or false that is not true or false of it selfe and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith yet whatsoeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs as an Article of faith that al true Christians ought to belieue as an Article of faith which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth Thus Bishop Fisher whome you see how impertinently M. Barlow alleadgeth against my assertion saith the very same that I do Let vs go forward Thirdly then he obiecteth S. Thomas of Aquine who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith some more large and some more briefe demandeth to whome appertayneth noua Editio Symboli the new Edition of a Creed when the necessity of new heresies doth require And he sayth it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church And what is this against me Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed though he were not Pope with addition of many Articles for explanations sake which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed though in substaÌ„ce of truth they were nothing different Did not diuers Councells set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before All which standeth vpon this ground so much pondered by â— Irenaeus that the Apostles had all truth reuealed vnto them by Christ and they left the same in the Church so as whatsoeuer is or hath or shal be added afterward by the said Church are only explications of that first reueiled truth and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the coÌ„trary is to no purpose at al for he citeth diuers authors for that which we deny not but yet alwaies commonly with addition of some vntruth of his owne as heere he alleadgeth out of the Iesuit Azor that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei Doctrines of faith which we deny not but when he addeth that this belongeth vnto the Pope only and not to a Councel this is his owne inuention for Azor ioyneth them
to relate out of the said Petrus that amongst other points in a certaine consultatioÌ„ betweene the Popes Commissioners and the Emperours neere vnto Rome in the yeare 1110. it was demaunded by the Emperour that his Fathers dead body might be interred and that the Pope denyed the same But neyther of these points do make against vs nor in fauour of M. Barlow his assertion for that we deny not but that Pope Paschalis for the reasons before touched was after some time that the body had bene taken vp and placed in the Chappell of S. Afra in Spire vnwilling to yield to the sollemne and sumptuous reburyall therof the man dying excommunicate and out of the Church and the memory of his many violent actions against the Church being yet fresh in all mens minds But what proueth this to our principall controuersie whether the Pope did prohibite his first buryall and commanded his disinterring in Leigeâ— Do you not see how M. Barlow fighteth in the ayre with the wind and runneth from the purpose in euery thing he taketh in hand and yet braggeth of a cloud of witnesses But I hope I haue cleered the ayre and dispersed all these smoky clouds But it is worth the considering how besides this deuiation he vseth both Baronius and Petrus Diaconus in relating out of their testimonies Pope Paschalis his answere to the yong Emperors CoÌ„missioners when they proposed the matter of the solemne burying of his Father some foure yeares after his body had bene taken vp in Leige by the said Sonnes commandement M. Barlow relateth the matter ironicâ— thus The Pope yielded presently to the demaund with a strong negatiue and tells him it may not be and giues him his reason for that he had receiued a terrible iniunction from the Martyrs deceased and in those places shrined that he should suffer no wicked persons to be buryed within their Church for they would not indure it And all this relateth M. Barlow in a different letter as if they were the very words of the Author and diuers clauses he setteth out in great letters which coÌ„monly are great lies and not found in the Author I shall set downe the true words as they stand in Baronius taken out of Petrus Diaconus Ad hoc respondit Paschalis c. To this demaund of the Emperour about the buryall of his Father Pope Paschalis answered The authority of holy Scripture is against this and the reuerence we beare to diuine miracles doth forbid the same for that Martyrs themselues now placed in heauen haue dreadfully coÌ„manded that the carcasses of haynous wicked men should be cast out of their Chappell 's and with whom we haue not had communion in their liues we may not communicate when they are dead These are the words of Paschalis verbatim which M. Barlow hath trymmed to his purpose as you see For if he had set them downe sincerely as he found them in the Authour they would not haue appeared so ridiculous as he desired they should appeare and therefore spiced them after his owne fashion For first the Pope beginneth not with that strong negatiue It may not be set downe in great letters but only sayth that the authority of holy Scriptures was against it alledging as may be presumed to thâ—se places of Scriptures wherin separation is willed to be made betweene the good and the bad the wicked and godly especially such are curst out of the Church for their contempt and dyed in the same contempt according to that saying of our Sauiour si â—cclesiam non audierit sit tibi tamquam â—thnicus Puâ—licanus if he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as an Heathen and Publican And we may see by the diligence of Tobie and other holy men how carefull they were least the bodies of the faithfull people should be mingled with Gentils which S. Augustine and other Fathers do much commend and for auoyding wherof euen from the beginning of Christianity places of speciall buriall for Christians were prouided as appeareth by S. Dionysius Areopagita in the end of his Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie which places afterward were named in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Câ—emeteria that is to say dormitories or sleeping places for that Christians deaths are accompted but for sleepes appeareth by the Apostle And the holy Martyr S. Cyprian and others after him do often make mention of these Cemeteries or burials of Christians and among other thinges the foresaid S. Cyprian writing an Epistle to the Clergy and people of a certaine Church in Spaine against one Martialis that had committed Idolatry he accuseth him among other poynts quod filus apud profana sepulchra depositos alienigenis consepultos permisisset that he had suffered his children to be depositated in prophane sepulchers and to be buried with such as were externes not of the same Church and communion This was the care at that time but much more afterward did the Church by speciall prouision of Ecclesiasticall CanoÌ„s ordayne that Infidels Hereticks Schismaticks and excommunicated persons should not be buried togeather in sacred buriall as well for the instruction and terror of such sortes of men as also for the reason alleaged heere by the Pope that with whome we haue had no communion in life we should not communicate after death which reason M. Barlow in his playne dealing thought good to leaue out as also the mention of the authority of holy Scripture named by the Pope and the reuerence due to diuine miracles There remayneth then the chiefe iest brought in by M. Barlow of the terrible iniunction which the Pope said he had receaued from the Martyrs deceased and shrined in those places that he should suffer no wicked persons within their Churches for they would not indure â—t In which few lines coÌ„sider I beseech you how many corruptions there be and confesse that M. Barlow is a craftes man indeed First the Author doth not say that the Pope himself had receiued this terrible iniunction froÌ„ the Martyrs shryned in those places as M. Barlow doth but only that Martyrs now in heauen had so commaunded but by what reuelation or to whome or when he sayth not so as it might be many yeares before and in far different places that the apparitions had bene made For that Martyrs haue often tymes appeared to good men and reueiled somewhat touching their owne or other mens bodies is euident by all Ecclesiasticall histories wherof we haue example of the Saints Geruasius and Protasius in S. Ambrose S. Augustine and others and of the apparition of S. Faâ—stinus Martyr in Brixia commaunding the remouall froÌ„ thence of the body of Valerianus Patricius whereof S. Gregory wryteth as also of other examples to the like effect in the ensuing Chapters Secondly he doth not say that the Martyrs commaunded to suffer no wicked persons to be buried within their Churches for that were hard that no sort of euill men should be admitted to
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
shameles dealing doth deserue and thereward also if you will which such get who stand for the best game 89. Truly so far is F. Persons from all reuyling or whatsoeuer else inciuility against his Maiesties person whome he alwaies honoured and whome after the attayning of the Crowne of England as his dread Lord and Soueraigne he most dutifully respected 〈◊〉 that he doth not any where speake of him without due regard and honour commending his great humanity royall nature and noble disposition with other partes and talents wherewithall he is indued for which this Minister is much offended as being loath that any should prayse him but himselfe calling the Father Iudas and comparing him to the diuell who confessed CHRIST to be the Sonne of God and then makes his Maiesty to answere him What euill haue I done vt hic tam nequam de me tam bene loqueretur that so bad a fellow as this is should speake so well of me Can we gather grapes of thrones or figgs of thistles Is not this that selfe same Persons who as the Priests witnes laboured to excommunicate so long agoe his Maiesty as an obstinate and forlorâ—e Heretickâ— 90 Lo how M. Barlow taketh it to the hart that the Father should praise his Maiesty and how scornfully he speaketh of so graâ—e and â—eueâ—â—â—â— a man But such Ruâ—â—ian-like immodesâ—y we musâ— beaâ—e withâ—ll in this vnmaÌ„nerly Minister whose iâ—sâ—icall behauiour is such as well shewes what his education hath bene and of what vertuous disposition and iudgmeÌ„t he is For were I disposed to encounter with him in this veyne I would say that mutato nomine de te fabula narratur and his Maiesty hath more cause to fear the fawning flattery of such as seeke to raise themselues by other mens ruines and are ready in case their fortunes should faile them whome now they flatter to tread on their necks defile besmeare them all they can in deed then of F. Persons whose sincerity iudgement vertueâ— and constancie knowne to the world was such as all the honours and preferments that the earth could yield him of which he refused more then euer Mâ— Barlow can hope to haue were neuer able to bend him to this base seruility as to turne his sailes with euery wind praise and dispraise now to kisse and after to kill which how much it raigneth in the other for that all doe see I shall for the present forbeare to speake 91. And whereas for confirmation hereof he saith or rather demaundeth if this be not that Persons who as the Priests wittnes laboured so long ago to excoÌ„municate his Maiesty as an obstinate forlorne heretick I anâ—were that neyther the Priests vnles he speake by Eâ—â—allage numeri witnes any such thing for it was but â—one Watson he also by M. Brancrost of Canterburyâ—aught â—aught in his seely Quodlibets how to lye in print Neiâ—her did the Father euer attempt any such matter or vse any such tearmes against his Maiesty at all and it â—s a signe that M. Barlowes proofes are very beggarly and his conscience and capacity not very good whâ—â— he stoopeth to gather vp these offâ—lls out of that raylatiue lying-libell condemned by all modest men as well Catholicks as Protestants and recalled wâ—â—â— grief by the writer himselfe at the hower of his death in the presence of many hundreds when he asked the Iesuits forgiuenes that he had so slandered them and much lamented that euer he had seâ— forth any such booke which many thinke he would neuer haue doâ— had not M. Mortons suggesting diuel R C. so much â—eÌ„pted him therunto at leaâ—t he would haue for borre froÌ„ so open vntruthes of which I can make when need shall be an euident demonstration and therefore the testimonyes taken from that infamous libell are with all wise men of as much credit as if they had bene cyted out of AEsops fables or the Acts and Monuments of Iohn Fox 92. Yet least that the Reader should thinke M. Barlow so shameles as without all colour and probability to make so false and iniurious a charge of F. Persons railing against his Maiesty or himselfe complaiâ—â— of my coÌ„cealing his arguments as fearing their force I shall very briefly touch some two or three of theÌ„ which are so good and demonstratiue as that they neeâ— no other answere to confute them then their bare recitall F. Pâ—rsâ—ns thinking the Apology to haue benâ— written by Thomas Montagâ—e as most did here suppoâ—â— before the coÌ„ming forth of the Premonition put downe in the text T. M. but in the margent answering therunto his name at length how doth M. Barlow thinke you draw an argument from hence to proue that all which is sayd against this Minister was diâ—ectly spoken against the Kings Maiesty by F. Pâ—rsons Strangly without doubt for thus he writeth By these two letters if he will speake without â—quiuocatioÌ„ he meant Tua or Tanta Maiestas Thus he maketh F. Pâ—rsons against his owne mind meaning to vnderstand by these letters what liketh him to forge for without this fiction of his there were no dâ—filing or bâ—smearing to be found against his Maiesty at all vnles I say he should turne Thomas Montague into so great a Maiesty But let vs see another 9â— F. Persons shewing that in an oath compouÌ„ded of many clauses if one amongst them all be false that the whole cannot be taken as it lyeth and that the refusall of the whole for that one clause excepted against cannot infer the deniall of all the rest combined therewithall which are not lyable to that exception For cleerer explication hereof he bringeth forth two examples sayingâ— As if some would say that Plato was a man borne in Greâ—â—â— of an exellent wit skilfull in the Greeke language most exellent of all other Philosophers and would require this to be confirmed by an oath some Platonist perhaps would be content to sweare it but if some Stâ—ick or Peripatâ—tick or Professor of some other Sect in Philosophy should refuse the said oath in respect of the last clause might a man infer against him in all the other clauses also â—â—go he denieth Plato to be a man He denyeth him to be borne in Greece He denyeth him to be of an exellent wit he denyeth him to be skilfull in the Greek tongue c Were not this a bad kind of arguing 94. So in like maÌ„ner if an Arian or Pelagian Prince should exact an oath at his Subiects hands concerning diuers articles of religion that were belieued by them both in the end or middle thereof should insert some clauses souÌ„ding to the fauour of their owâ—â— sect for which the Subiect should refuse the whole body of that Oath as it was conceyued could the other â—â— iustice accuse him for denying all the seuerall articles â—â— his owne religioÌ„ also which therin are meÌ„tioned Wâ—â—â— seeth not the iniustice of this manner of dealingâ— Sâ— far F. Persons Out
such aboundance of Scriptures to proue or infer that God the Father is greater then Christ Iesuâ— his Sonne what other way was there for Catholicks to say but that I distinguish as Christ Iesuâ— was man he was inâ—erior to his Father his Father greater then he but as Christ Iesuâ— is God as well as Man he is equall to his Father Will M. Barlow heere compare these two distinctions to Sedecias his two hornes Or will he call them proâ—unda Sathanae the profound mysteries of Sathan and iniquity And the like examples I might alleadg in great store of many other heresies discouered and disâ—olued by the help of distinctions as namely that of the Eutiâ—hians that denied two distinct natures in Christ that of the Nestorians that affirmed two persons to be in Christ that of the Monothelites that held one only Will to be in Christ by distinguishing on the Catholick party were vâ—â—erly ouerthrowne and confounded And now in these our dayes when the Anabaptists deny al Magistrates authority in iudging Christians especially in matters of life and death allâ—dging for their ground these words of our Sauiour â—olitâ— iudicare do not iudge we haue no refuge but a distinction that we are forbidden to iudge rashly and without iust cause and without due authority but with these circumstances we may iudge and Magistrates are lawfull And will here M. Barlow againe cry out of Proâ—â—nda Sathanae and of the hornes of Sedecias if he do I will send him to Scotland to be horned there For truely he is worthy of it to wit to be horned from the company of all lâ—arned sober men if he persist in these absurdities for that I dare auouch against him that there are many hundred places in the Bible that cannot rightly be vnderstood nor expounded without the vse of some distinction Well then distinctions in generall cannot be reproued without profunditie of folly Perhaps then my two distinctions here in particular are inueyghed against for 〈◊〉 they are false or not incident vnto the matter or of aâ—y moment or necessity for explicâ—tion of the thing aâ—d controuersy in hand or for direction of consciâ—nceâ— of Catholike men that are pressed to take the Oath Thâ—â— then let vs examine in a word or two and that as briefly and perspicuously as wee may The question is whether the Bishop of Rome as vniuersall Paâ—tour of Christendome by Catholike doctrineâ— may at his pleasure by that Pastorall power of his depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdomes at his pleasure for so is the coÌ„mon obiection framed against vs. Vnto which question the answer may be made eyther affirmatiue or negatiue according to the different senses and interpretations of the words which cannot be done but by distiâ—guishing to wit that if we vnderstand that the Pope may depose at his pleasure without iust cause it is denied but with iust cause Catholicke doctrine doth allow it And sâ— againe to vnderstand that the Pope may do it by his Pastorall power directly or immediately it is denied for that this power is spirituall and giuen to a spirituall end and to spirituall actions but if we vnderstand it indirectly as included in the other for defence and conseruation of the spirituall it is graunted And are not these distinctions needfull in this affaire Do they not cleare the doubt in controuersy Do they not remoue confusion Would M. Barlow haue Christian men to sweare swallow vp a bundle of wordâ— knit togeather without opening and looking into theâ— That is meete for his conscience that hath no eies perhaps to see nor will to receiue light but is ready to sweare any thing that may turne to his temporall commodity but Catholikes that feare God are not so taught but rather to looke before they leap and to examine well what they say or sweare for so much as they shall giue an accompt to Almighty God either to their saluation or damnation for the same By â—hâ—s then wee see the Iniquity of M. Barlow his proceeding in exclaming against me so exorbitantly for vsing the forme of two distinctioÌ„s or explanations about taking the Oath and aboue al the iniury offered me or rather to himselfe and his owne credit in saying that I doe teach Equiuocation here in this Oath num 30. contrary to that I taught a little before numb 14. His wordes are these No sort of Equiuocations is lawâ—ull saith Father Persons in matters of fayth and religion and yet sayth the same Father Persons Equiâ—â—cating in this matter of faith is lawâ—ull and may stand with the integâ—iâ—y and sincerity of true Catholik religion so then in matters of faith and religion it is not lawfull in any sort to equiuocate but yet in this matâ—â—r though it concerne â—ayth religion F. Persons sayth it is lawfull These are my contradictions according to M. Barlow And truly I confesâ—e I should blush acknowledge my ouersight if they were truly related but being falsely eyther of malice or ignorance collected by him he ought to blush and be sory for his sin For as I doe confesse the former part numb 14. that I allowed not any sort of Equiuocation in matters concerning faith and Religion so doe I vtterly deny the later clause num 30. that I doe allow Equiuocation in this particuler fact of taking the Oath Let the places be read in my booke thereby he will remayne conuinced For I do say expresly that these two clauses of explication added by me that the Popes power in deposing Princes is indirectly with iust cause must both be expressed by the swearer and accepted by the Magistrate and then are they no Equiuocations at all but direct assertions For that they are no mentall reseruations wherein consisteth the nature and force of Equiuocation Here then M. Barlow that accused me a litle before of making no conscience of God or common honesty must looke how he will defend his owne eyther conscience or honesty if he haue any in this foule calumniation wherein I doe not see what tergiuersation he can vse for his excuse And so I would leaue him in this matter if he did not continue on his rayling and raging beyond all measure as though by this my explication distinction vsed I had committed the greatest crime in the world I will demaund saith he of this Iesuit first whether â—his be not a Paganish delusion of God and men VVherto I answer that it is â—â— delusion at all but rather an instruction and a necessâ—â—y explication not Paganish but Christian for directiâ—â— mens consciences Nay saith M. Barlow it is the very 〈◊〉 oâ— Lisander that children are to be mocked with toyes and 〈…〉 Oathes Indeed Plutarke in his comparison of Lisâ—â—der and Silla recordeth that one said of Lisander Leuem esse apâ—d Liâ—â—â—drum iurisiurandi religionem Lisander made no scruple of aâ— Oath that he gaue couÌ„saile to deceiue men with Oathes as children with toyes and
corruption in it either in life or doctrine as he pretendeth nor if it had in life doth it preiudice the truth of Doctrine as by the testimony of our Sauiours owne wordes wee remaine assured These two obiections then that the Roman Church for that she hath a determinate Prouince as also for that shee hath sundry euill liuers in her are shewed to bee of no force at all Not the later for that euill manners may stand with true doctrine not the first for that wee doe not say the Roman Church is the whole Catholick Church but a chiefe member thereof as hath bene sayd whereby also will appeare what wee meane by the name of the Catholicke Church to wit that visible vniuersall Church which being erected and founded by Christ our Sauiour when he was vpon earth hath continued euer since and descended visibly from age to age by succession of Bishops throughout all Christendome vnto our times and shall so continue vnto the worldes end by which description may appeare also how vaine another obiection is of M. Barlow in these wordes If Vincentius rule be true that that only is to be accounted Catholicke Doctrine quod semper vbique ab omnibus creditum est neyther shall Rome be proued Catholicke nor England hereticke when any of these is soundly determined then let him plead her Ius acquisitum VVhereto I answere that the rule of Vincentius is verified by that which I haue sayd before of the nature of the Catholicke Church to wit that it began vnder Christ and hath descended from age to age and so shee teacheth quod semper creditum est And for that she hath imbraced all nations she teacheth quod vbique in respect of place and for that shee hath vnion of Doctrine shee teacheth quod ab omnibus creditum est For albeit there hâ—â—â— not wanted hereticks from time to time that haue deâ—ised particuler doctrines and erected particuler congregations yet were they nothing in respect of the vniuersall consent of those of the Catholike Church whose Iâ—â— acquisitum or ancient right and power vpon all Heretickes for theyr correction and punishment I sayd was manifest for that by baptisme they were made her subiectes Vnto which point M. Barlow would seeme now to say somewhat though neuer so impertinent therefore he telleth vs a tale of an indument and a stripping to be considered in Baptisme vnder the wordes Credo and Abreâ—â—â—â—iâ— and that neyther the spirituall mystery nor the prescribed forme nor intended effect of Baptisme doe make him and his liable to Rome Whereunto I answere that the whole action in that Sacrament without so many diuisions and subdiuisions as here he maketh to obscure the matter doth make him and all other Christians liable to the Catholike Church For that euery man that is baptized as he is made a member and seruant of Christ therby and entreth into his Church as by the first dore soe is he made a subiect to the sayd Church and is liable to her correction if he should renounce change or peruert that fayth which there he professeth as a child of the sayd Church And all this I thinke M. Barlow will not deny but onely his question may be of such as are baptized out of the Catholike Church by some Hereticall Congregation yet notwithstanding the matter is cleare for that such baptisme houlding only so far forth as they haue intention to doe that in their baptisme which the true Catholicke Church doth and vse the forme of wordes which the sayd Church prescribeth to wit I baptize thee in the name of the Father◠〈◊〉 the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost for that otherwise if either of these conditions to wit eyther the forme or the intention of the Catholike Church doe faile the baptisme is not auaylable it is euident I say that such as are so baptized out of the Church are liable notwithstanding to the same for any offence that they shall commit against the fayth of the sayd Catholike Church for so much as their baptisme had relation to this Church as is now declared And albeit they be departed from the same eyther by their own wilfulnes or other menâ— inducemeÌ„ts yet remaineth stil that obligation of subiectioÌ„ Which superiority oâ— the Catholik Church practized froÌ„ time to time vpon Heretiks and Schismatikes that haue gone forth from her which the Aduersary will also graunt for sundry ages after Christ caÌ„not be pretended by the Protestant Church vpoÌ„ Catholiks for that we went not out of them but they out of vs which in England is most perspicuous For that since our first Conuersion by S. Augustine the Monke to Christian Religion it cannot be sayd with any shew of probability that euer there was a Protestant Church extaÌ„tâ— and visible or publickly receyued in our Country as the Roman hath bene and consequently wee English Catholikes cannot be said to haue gone out of them but they out of vs and soe by their baptisme and admission to Christianity they are liable to the Roman Catholike Church in matters of Religion not the Roman Church to them But now besids this reason of obligation by baptisme I do alledge another of former possession and prescription whereby the English Catholike Church hath had exercised this power of punishing Sectaries froÌ„ time to time wherunto M. Barlow answereth in a strange manner Possession saith he for hould and Prescription for time may be Pleas in ciuill Courtes but not sound arguments in case of Religion Which is so absurd an answere as nothing could more shew declare that he had nothing to say then this For if wee suppose that to be true which Christ our Sauiour affirmeth in the Ghospell that the good corne was first soone that the Darnell was ouer sprinckled afterwardes and that truth of Christian religion was first planted by our Saâ—iour heresies afterward sprong vp then are the Antiquity of possession and the Plea of Prescription very excellent good argumeÌ„ts to conuince all Hereticks for that the former must needâ— be true and the later must needs be false For which cause old Tertullian writing in the second age after Christ against hereticks thought good to intitle his book de Praescriptiâ—â—â—buâ— of PrescriptioÌ„s shewing therby that heretiks are by no way so euidently conuinced as by Prescription Priority of time And first of all he giueth this generall rule by allusion to our Sauiours words before repeated of good corne and darnell Ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse Dominicum rerum quod est prius traditum id autem extraneum â—alsum quod est posteriâ—s immissâ—m By the order it selfe of sowing the corn darnellâ— it is made manifest that to be true and pertayning to our Lord which was first deliuered and that to be false and forreyne which is thrust in afterward And then passing to examine particuler heresies and beginning with them that pretended to be
nutriret cum autem id maceret extenuet macieque conficiat corporâ—lis dici omnino non potest Some men as M. Barlow do say that the Apostle speaking of vnprofitable bodily exercise meaneth of fasting but truely they do erre for that fasting is no bodily exercise but spirituall For if it were bodily it would no doubt nourish the body but whereas it doth chastise the body extenuateth and maketh it leane it cannot any way be called corporall So he And if wee will haue the testimony of another as ancient as S. Chrysostome most skillâ—ull in the Greeke tongue wherin S. Paul writeth these wordes though no Grecian borne wee may heare S. Hierome who vpon those wordes of Exerce te ipsum ad pietatem exercise thy selfe to piety setteth downe first what piety is saying Pietas est eâ—iam 〈◊〉 tua tribulatione alijs subuenire Sicut Sareptana vidua seciâ— Piety is to help other men euen with thy owne tribulation as the poore widdow of Sarepta did feed the Prophet Elias with the bread that she had reserued for her sonne and her selfe And then as for corporall exercise named by the Apostle he sayth it was meant of things belonging to the bodily health as Sanctarum balnearum venationum huiusmodi quae ad breue tempus carnali proficiunt sanitati holy bathes such as holy men did vse for help of their health hunting and other such bodily exercises for the same end which do profit to the health of the flesh but for a short time which admonition is thought to haue bene giuen by S. Paul to Timothy as to a young man that was somewhat delighted with these bodily exercises or counsailed therunto by PhisitioÌ„s for help of his said health To which end also the said Apostle in the same Epistle exhorteth him not to drinke water still but to vse a little wine for help of his stomacke and in regard of his other frequent infirmities but yet would haue him to exercise himselfe in the workes of piety as now hath bene sayd So as this place also of S. Paul hath bene abused by M. Barlow his prophane interpretation against externall mortifications But now lastly he commeth neere vs indeed and will shew that Queene Elizabeth her mortification was of another kind perhaps not heard of before Let vs heare his words Fourthly sayth he to be a King and to gouerne as a King should do is mortification of it selfe This is the largest way I suppose of mortification that he can lay before vs for of this kind he will find no doubt many mortified people both of men and women that would be content to accept of this mortification to be Kings Queenes and to gouerne well in their owne conceipts For what Prince thiâ—keth not that he gouerneth well and not only Kings Princes are to be comprehended vnder this mortification but proportionally also all other Magistrates and Gouernours vnder them who haue one poynt more of mortification lying vpon them then their Supreme Princes for that they are lyable to giue account to them which the others are not and consequently they are more subiect to mortification in their offices and dignities and yet most men do seeke after them both in England and els where which doth shew that there is great store of mortified men in the world or at leastwise of men that loue this mortification and desire to be so mortified And if to be a Bishop also be a mortification then hath M. Barlow in like manner proued himselfe a mortified man then those words of S. Paul to the Collossians Mortificate membra vestra quae sunt super terram Mortify your members which are vpon earth may haue this sense also among other do you mortify your self with some good Bishopricke or other dignity that in it selfe is a mortification And do we not see what prophane trifling this is And that by this drawing Christian vertues out of their compasse true natures and spheres they do eneruate and euacuate all their force and bring their practice to a meere sound of words The Catholike doctrine is that mortification is a most excellent Christian vertue commended highly in the Scriptures and exercised by all Saints and especially by our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles and by the greatest Saints Seruants of his that haue ensued in his Church as may appeare as well by those words of S. Paul now recited as also these other to the Romans Si spiritu sacta carnis mortificaueritis viuetis If you shall mortify the works of the flesh by spirit you shall liue And then followeth the contrary set downe in the same place If you shall not mortify your sayd members deeds of the flesh therof ensuing but shall liue Secundum carnem by obeying the lust therof you shall dy euerlastingly Wherby is also vnderstood the nature of this excellent vertue whose name of mortification is deriued from the word Mors that signifieth Death for that as when death entreth vpon a body and driueth out the soule the sayd body remayneth without sense â—eling or other motion so when this vertue of mortification is well exercised of a Christian man it doth take a way the sensuall life of our lusts and passions and doth mortify them in their vnlawfull appetites so as they remaine as it were feeble cold and dead in resisting or rebelling against the superiour parts of the soule directed by reaâ—on and religion And this is that most happy and excellent death so much desired by S. Augustine when he sayd to God moriar ne moriar let me dy that I may not dy and good S. Bernard Vtiâ—am hac morte ego frequenter cadam vt euadam lâ—queos mortis vt non sentiam vitae luxurianâ—is mortisera blandimenta Would to God I may often dy this death that therby I may escape the snares of the other death that I may not feele the deadly flatterings and allurements of this present dissolute life And then he goeth further to many particularities saying Vt obstupescam ad sensum libidinis ad aestum auaritiae ad iracundiae impatientiae stimulos ad angoris solicitudinem ad molestias cuâ—â—rum moriatur anima mea morte iâ—sâ—â—rum boâ—a mors quae non aufert sed transfert in meltus Let me dy by this death of mortification that I may become sensles to the feeling of carnall lusts to the heate of couetousnes to the pricks of anger and impatience to the afflictions of solicitude to the troubles of to many cares let my soule dy with the death of iust men this is a good death and doth not take life from me but doth change it to a better Thus that holy and deuout Father of the workes and effects of mortification and of his ardent loue that he had therunto And the like I might most aboundantly shew out of other Fathers but it were ouerlong for this place The saying of S.
Eliâ—abeths affaires his answere in his owne words is this But dearely beloued there is a difference in faults of men as in diseases some onely are hurtfull to the parties themselues some loathsome and infectious to others the first are to be buried with their bodies forgotten but the other will annoy and therfore must be remembred after death In Scripture some Kinges that were vicious had their faultes touched euer after their buriall but no more yet some are neuer named in Scripture but their sinne is branded vpon their name as often you may see of â—eroboam neuer mentioned but presently addeth the sonne of Nebat which made Israell to sinne This was the mans answer at that time for that it serued for his purpose the same may serue me now against him for if the case of Ieroboam that made Israell to sinne might be applied to the Earle of â—ssex that was of their owne religion and changed nothing therein so far as is knowne and was but a priuate person how much more may the same be applyed to Queene Elizabeth that indeed brought in that fatall diuision and new worship of Ieroboam into her Kingdome which she found quiet vnited with the rest of Christendome in the knowne Catholicke fayth of Christs Church But saith M. Barlow reproaches are vttered eyther for reprâ—ose to amend or for vexation to grieue the parties calumniated both which endes doe cease in death Whereunto I answere that if they be reproches and contumelyes indeed without truth wherof M. Barlowes tongue and pen are fulâ— they serue to neyther of these ends but principally to shew the wiked mind of the vtterer but if they be true as those things are which I haue touched concerning Q. Elizabeth her infelicities â—heÌ„ albeit they be vttered to none of these two foolish ends mentioned by M. Barlow eyther to amend or vex the dead yet are they recorded to warne instruct them that are aliue by shewing Gods iustice vpon sinne his prouidence his power and his care to feare men by terror of euerlasting inâ—amy from the like offences many other such holy ends for the which in Scripture it is a most common ordinary thing to heare the sinnes of wicked Princes repeated and reiterated after death M. Barlow himselfe cannot deny it I did further add also in my former Letter the example of diuers ancient Fathers as Iustinus Martyrâ— Irenaeus Tertullian and others who to comfort the afflicted Christians in theyr dayes and to honour more the cause for which they suffered did put them in mind what manner of pâ—ople and Princes their first persecutors were as namely Nero and Domitian what life they led what end they made and that indeed they were â—it instruments to be the first actors in such a worke which I applying to Queene Elizabeth sayd that the like obseruation and comparison might be made she being the strangest woman that euer perhaps liued for diuers admirable circumstances before touched and the very first absolutely of that sex eyther Christened or created that tooke vpon her Supreme Power in Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters c. Wherunto M. Barlow comming to answere and hauing nothing at all to say to the purpose doth so childishly trifle as is most ridiculous telling vs first that if the Papists may comfort themselues for that they haue bene beaten by a woman then may the diuell comfort himselfe also that a woman is prophesied in Genesis according to our interpretation to breake his head Sysera also the Captaine may glory that he was ouerthrowne by a woman But this is triflingâ— for I doe not say simply by a woman but by such a woman as neuer was the like in diuers points of enormity against Câ—thâ—licâ—â— religion and therin was the Fathers obseruations of enormous manners of Nero and Domitian and not in the sex as they were men Secondly he sayth that diuers Popes were more like to Nero and Domitian then Queene Elizabeth but this is also trifling For neyther is the matter proued if it could be yet doth it not improue my comparison as it was some comfort to the ancient afflicted Catholickes to consider what manner of Princes they were that first began most sharpe persecution against them so might English Catholickes doe by consideration of the person of Queene Elizabeth that first of all women persecuted them in England and with inspeakable monstrosity made her selfe Head of the Church Thirdly he sayth about this matter that heauen and hell arâ— not more different then those Christian martyrs of the Primitiue Church from these later of English Papists for they sayth he acknowledged the Emperors supremacy independant vpon any but God prayed for them seriously both lyuing and dying c. But this now is more then trifling for it seemeth to me meere madnes to say that ancient Christian martyrs vnder Nero and Domiâ—ian did acknowledge those Emperours Supremacy independant vpon any but God which inferreth to my vnderstanding that they acknowledged them for Supreme Headeâ— of the Catholicke Church in those dayes for so signifieth the worde Supremacy in the controuersy betweene vs and the wordes immediatly following independant vpon any bâ—â— God doe seeme playnely to confirme the same as doth also the comparison and contrariety it selfe which hee putteth betweene those old Martyrs and ours For if he had meant of temporall Supremacy there had not bene any difference or contrariety betweene them For â—hat our Martyrs also doe acknowledge temporall Supremacy to Kings and Princes though not spirituall which inferreth that M. Barlow ascribing more to the ancient Martyrs vnder Nero and Domitian must needes meane that they held them â—or Heades of their Church euen in spirituall Ecclesiaâ—ticall aâ—fayres although they were Pagans and â—oe consequently might and ought to repayre to them in matters of controuersy about Christian Religion and were â—ound to follow their direction therein And if this be not more then trifling especially for a Prelate to vtterâ— I leaue to the discreet Reader to consider But now let vs see briesely some of his answers to the points before rehearsed of Queene Elizabeths life and death First he sayth to the note about her birth and disgrace by her Father and Parlament that the Scriptures are not soe Censorious for God himselfe mislikes the Prouerb that it should be sayd the fathers did eat sower grapes and the childrens â—eeth were sett on edge but this is folly for I alleadged it not as a sinne of hers for the sinne was her fathers and mothers but as some disgrace in temporall felicity Then he telleth vs that in some places the ciuill Lawes doe permit some bastards to succeed Item that she shewed well by her courage and other Princely qualities that she was King Henries daughter Item that her selfe did so far coÌ„temne those slaunders published in print as shee would neuer consent to haue them cleared but rather scorned them Item that
hartily sincerely I do desire it without any worse affectioÌ„ towards her then harty coÌ„passion notwithstanding all the outcryes raging exclamations made by this intemperate Minister against me for the contrary to wit â—or malice and hatâ—ed against her and for iudging her before the tyme against the prescription of the Apostle S. Paul which I haue not done For Gods iudgements are secret cannot absolutly be known in particuler before the last day when according to the Scripture all shal be made maniâ—est so far as it shal be conuenient for men to know But yet in this lyfe men also may giue a ghesse and take notice according to our present state of many things how they are to fal out afterwards as S. Paul doth often repeate and affirme most resolutly that such as shall commit such and such delicts as he there recounteth shall neuer attayne to the Kingdome of heauen but be damned eternally according to their workes as loose life murthers fornications adulteryes sectes schismes heresies and the like And if one should see or know some persons to commit all these sinnes togeather or the most of them so dye without contrition or peÌ„nance for the same to his knowledg might not he by good warrant of S. Paul affirme that in his opinion they are daÌ„ned Nay doth not S. Paul giue this expresse liberty of iudging to his Scholler Timothy by him to vs when he saith as before also hath bene noted Quorumdam hominum peccata maniâ—â—sta sunt praecedentia ad iudicium quosdam autem subsequentur The sinns of some men are manifest going before them vnto iudgmeÌ„t and others haue their sinnes following them So as iâ— eyther before their death or after their death wheÌ„ the particuler iudgment of euery soule is to be made any mans griâ—uous sinnes be made manifest there is no doubt but that men may iudge also in a certaine sort or at least make to theÌ„selues a very probable and likely coniecture of the miserable state of that party yea more theÌ„ a coÌ„iecture if the Church should censure him for any great sin coÌ„mittedâ— dâ—ing aâ—terwards in the same without due repeÌ„taÌ„ce which is wont to be declared by denying vnto him Christian burial as when they murther themselues the like But aboue all when the said Church doth cut of any body by ExcoÌ„munication from being any more a member thereof for schisme heresy or other offence of this quality a man may make iudgement of his daÌ„nation yea must also for then is he in the case whome S. Paul affirmeth to be sâ—buersum subuerted by heresy that is as much to say turned vpside downe or pluckt vp by the rootes proprio iudicio condemnatum condemned not only by the iudgment of the Church but also by his owne iudgmeÌ„t in like manner when he coÌ„meth to answere the matter for that being bound to follow the direction of the Church he became Haeretiâ—us homo as the Apostles words are that is to say an Hereticaâ—l man one that out of choice or election would neâ—des follow his owne iudgment This point then that a man or woman dying in the excoÌ„munication of the known Catholicke Church may be pronounced to be damned and cannot possibly be saued albeit their liues were otherwise neuer so good and apparent holy is a thing so generally earnestly and resolutely affirmed and incultated by the ancient Fathers of the primitiue Church that no man can doubt of it without pertinacity or impiety For S. Cyprian that holy Bishop and Martyr doth treat the same largely in diuers places saying first that an hereticke or schismatike that is out of the Church cannot be saued though he should shed his bloud for Christ inexpiabilis culpa quae nec passione purgatur it is an inexpiable synne to be an Hereticke or Schismaticke that is to say not euer to be forgiuen nor can it be purged by suâ—fering for Christ himselfe And againe he sayth that such a man can neuer be a martyr though he should dye for Christ nor yet receiue any Crowne for confession of Christian fayth euen vnto death which death saith he non erit â—idâ—i corona sed poena 〈◊〉 it shall not be a Crowne of fayth but a punishment oâ— perâ—idiousnes And many other like places and sâ—yings he hath which for breuity I omit wherin also do coacurre with him the other ancient Fathers that ensued after and namely S. Augustine in many parts of his workeâ— in particuler where he saith against the Donatists That neither baptisme nor Martyrdome profiteth an heretike any thing at all which he repeateth oâ—ten times and in another place he saith If thou be out oâ— the Church thou shalt be punished â—ith eternall paines although thou shouldest be burned quicke for the name of Châ—ist And yet againe the same Father Hereâ—ikes dâ— sometimes brag that they do giue much almes to the poore and do suâ—â—er much for truth but this is not for Châ—ist buâ—â—or their Sect. â—â—oke for whom thou sufferest quia for as miâ—â—us es ideo miser es â—or that thou art cast sorth of the communion of the Church therfore art thou miserable whatsoeuer thou doest or sufferest otherwise For harken to the Apostle saying to himselfe Iâ— I should giue all that I haue to the poore and deliuer my body to the â—ire without â—harity I am nothing he that is out of the Church liueth out of chariâ—y And let the Reader see more of this in S. Aâ—gusâ—ine Serm. Domini in mome cap. 9. lib. 2. contra Petilianum Donatist cap. 98. lib. 1. contra Gaudâ—ntium cap. 33. in Conc. de gâ—stis cum Emeâ—â—â—o where he hath these words Iâ— vnto an heretike that is out oâ— tâ—â— Church it should be said by an enemie of Christ Offâ—r vp sacrifice to my idols and adore my Gods and he in refusing to adore should be put to death by the sayd enemy of Christ for this fact yet shall â—â—le damnâ—d and not crowned I pretermit in this matter S. Chrysostome hom 11. in â—â—ist ad Eâ—â—es S. Pacianus Bishop of Barcelona that liued sâ—mâ—what beâ—ore him Epist. 2. ad Sâ—mpronium S. Fulgâ—ntius tâ—at liued the next age after lib. de fide ad Pâ—trum cap. 29. whose wordes are these spoken with a vehement spirit and some men ascribe them to S. Augustine Firnassime tene 〈◊〉 dubiâ—â—s c. Do thou hould â—or most firme and certayne and no wayes doubt but that whosoeuer is an hereticke or â—chismaticke and therby out of the Church tâ—ough he be baptized in the name of the Father the Sâ—nne and the holy Ghost do neuer so good workes giueâ— nâ—uâ—r so â—â—ch almes no though he should shed his bloud for thâ—nâ— mâ— oâ— Christ yet can he not be saued Well then this is the Maior proposition no Christian man or woman though of neuer so good life can be saued â—ut of the vnitie of the knowne
common Catholicke Church nor in that vnitie without good life especially if he should die in any of these sinns mentioned before by S. Paul that goe bâ—fore or follow him to Iudgement The minor proposition is that Q. Elizabeth is noted most grieuously in both these kinds Ergo there may be a iust feare of her euerlasting damnation Neyther doth this preiudice Almightie God his extraordinarie mercies to whome he listeth we speake here of the ordinarie way of saluation reuealed vnto the Church and in that sense onely shal be sayd somewhat to the Minor proposition wherin standeth the cheife moment of this our question That Queene Elizabeth was excommunicated by name by two or three Bishops of Rome whome we hould for supreme heades on earth of the knowne Catholike Church no man can deny that she was likewise excommunicated by conâ—equence though not by name by the General Councel of Trent in all tâ—ose Canons anathematizations which were made against Protestants for their doctrine which she also held no maÌ„ can doubt of as neither but that she was coÌ„prehended in all the cases that touched her faith or actions in Bulla Coenae euery yeare repeated and pronouÌ„ced against Heretikes Schismatikes Vsurpers of Ecclesiasticall power and authority whereof she auouched herselfe to be Head in her owne kingdomes And now that this externall visible Church called Catholike and knowne by that name throughout the world aswell by friends as enemies which S. Augustine sayth is an argument that it is the true Church indeed is the selfe same visible Church that was in the foresaid Fathers times and visibly deduced by succâ—ssion from their dayes to ours is so manifestly to be proued as no man can with reason deny the same and consequently if it were so certaine a damnation to be excommunicated or put out of that Church as now you haue heard the said Fathers to affirme then is it soe now aâ—â—o and then goâ—th hard the case of Queene Elizabeth as you see for that it is not knowne that she was euer reconciled or taken into the sayd Church againe And as for the other point concerning other sinnes meant or mentioned by the Apostle as on the one side I will not take vpon me to determine what or how many or how great she committed so on the other considering the frailty of mankind the temptations of the triple enemie the world the flesh and the diuell the many occasions she had in her free state of life to fall into sinne and that in the space of foure and fourty yeares at least after the entrance to her Crowne she neuer vsed the ordinary help of ancient ChristiaÌ„s for purging her soule which the foresaid Fathers doe teach vs to be not onely contrition but also Sacramental Confession absolution of the Church her state I say being this it must needs follow that so many as belieue and acknowledg this Sacrament of the Church to be necessary to saluation when it may be had yea is câ—mmaunded by the sayd Church vnder paine of Censures to be reiterated euery yeare once at least if not oftener that this woman neuer making the same and dying in that state cannot be saued according to the iudgment of all those that belieue follow that Church that condemneth her which Church being spread throughout the whole world as it was in S. Augustines time and hauing obtayned the same priuiledge which he tooke to be sufficient to demonstrate the true Church to wit that she is knowne by the name of Catholicke both to friends enemies true Christians and Heretickes according to the common sense of men for he proueth that neuer heretical Congregation could obtayne to be so much as called Catholike throughout Christendome or to be knowne by that name this thing I say being soe we see what a dreadful preiudice this may appeare to be against the euerlasting saluation of Queene Elizabeth For if there were so great mayne a difference betwene bodily Phisitianâ—â— both for number skil experience antiquity and authority about the temporall death of any Prince as there is here in all these qualities betweene the spirituall Phisitians of Christendome Catholike and English Protestants concerning the eternall death of Queene Elizabeths soule to wit that so many more temporall Phisitians in number without comparison so much more learned so much more experienced in corporall Phisicke as the other exceed them in spirituall yea further and that they had so many deadly Symtomes Chryâ—es and Prognosticons conâ—â—med out of the authority of Hipocrates Galâ—â— and other ancienâ— Phisitians all tending to mortality as the other haue out of the doctrine iudgment and perpetuall practice both of the said Church and holy Ghostly Fathers of the same foâ— Queene Elizabeths euerlasting death I doubt nothing but that the sayd Princes temporall life would be held for very dangerous or rather his death were very probable Neither did I say any more of the spirituall death of Queene Elizabeth most likely to accompany her corporall I beseech the mercie of Almighty God that it be not soe And here I might adde also another plaine familiar proofe out of the said ancient Fathers and namely out of S. Augustine to the end we may see how his Church did agree with ours or rather the vniuersall known Catholicke Church in his dayes with that Church that hath the same name notes in ours For besides that number of authorities which I cited out of him before as agreeing with other Fathers that it is impossible for an Heretick Schismatick or an ExcoÌ„municated person dying in that state to be saued he goeth further in an other place into more particulers for being required by his freind Quod-Vult-Deus to set downe vnto him a briefe Catalogue or enumeration of all the particuler heresies that the Catholicke Church had condemned from the beginning of Christianitie vnto their time or did hould for heresies in those dayes he set downe aboue fourescore and added in the end that if any man should professe or belieue any of those heresies or any other that had or sâ—ould spring vp he could not be a Christian Catholicke and consequently neyther be saued but euerlastingly damned Now in this Catalogue or booke of heresies which was also gathered vnto their dayes by Philastrius and S. Epiphanius before him S. Augustine setteth downe for damned heresies some that Queene Elizabeth did manifestly â—ould and so was thought to hould and for any thing that we know died in the same as namely those heresies of the Hereticke Aërius that solemne fasts appoynted by the Church were not to be obserued but euery man or woman to fast when they would least they should seeme to be vnder the law So sayth that hereticke And then which maketh most to our present purpose that prayer and sacrifice were not to be offered vp for the dead nor did profiâ— them any thing at all vpon which later poynt I am induced to make
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
he endeth thus Sed omnino peâ—longum fuerit Viri percensere miracula qui c. But it should be ouerlong to recyte all his myracles who for the excellency of gyftes bestowed vpon him in that kind wrought by the holy Ghost in all power signes and myracles he is called a second Moyses euen by the very enemies of truth themselues c. Heere then you see what ground iust cause M. Barlow had to scoffe at these myracles as he doth with like ground and spirit at the myracles of the new mynt as he calleth them of the Lady of Hales of the conformities of S. Francis the life of â—â—â—â—rius of M. Garnets countenance in a straw with all which he maketh himselfe sport vpon no other ground then lust of speaking euill And vpon the same might any Infidell or Atheist scoffe at the myracles recorded in the old and new Testament which to humane sense and reason are as impossible as these here alleaged and scorned at by this Minister as the multiplying of loaues walking on the sea a hatchet to rise from the bottome of the water and ioyne it selfe to a handle with the like which in another place I haue handled more at large against M. Sutcliffe and Syr Francis Hastings Next after this he bringeth in other figgs and commeth to scoffe at diuers Indulgences that do pardon sayth he enormous sinnes for innumerable yeares vpon sweet conditions as for kissing two Iron crosses at Saint Peters Church dore 500. yeares of pardon for looking vpon one of the Pence that our Sauiour was sould for 1400. yeares of pardon for behoulding the Crosse vpon the top of S. Iohn Laterans steeple 14000. yeares of pardon and other like â—oyes of his owne inuention which those that liue at Rome are neuer acquaynted with and himself cyteth noe other profe but only noteth in the margent Indulg Rom. liber but where that booke is to be had whether printed or written where it was set forth or with what authority he telleth nothing at all In these partes I am sure it is not to be had or heard of What these good fellowes to make themselues merry and deceaue other men may haue deuised to themselues in England or els where I know not but I suspect the rather for that I do vnderstand that the Hugonots of France deuised a booke not long agoe whose title was Catechismus Iesuitarum set it forth as in their name full fraught with all manner of errors and ignorances which being brought to Rochell by them that had deuised it they could not get it there printed the argument was so absurd and the fraud so manifest and yet now do I see it often alleaged by ProtestaÌ„t writers against them and namely by Thomas Rogers in his late edition of 39. Protestant Articles so as one way or other these people will euer make themselues matter for exclayming against vs be it true or false or neuer so maliciously inuented or peruerted And here I would aske M. Barlow in good earnest whether he do thinke indeed these particulers to be true which here so confidently he hath set downe about the yeares of pardon which he numbreth For that I cannot easily perswade my selfe that in truth of conscience if he haue any he can be of that iudgment and mucâ— lesse in the other clause of slander which immediatly foloweth to wit that Pope Sixtus Quartuâ— graunted forty thousand yeares of pardon to him that would say a praier of his making consisting of about fourty fiue wordes but he bringeth no other proof at all for thesame but his owne bare word And the reason by himselfe alleadged why it was granted conuinceth â—he same of a manifest lye fictioÌ„ which reason is â—or because his Catholicks qâ—â—â—h he might not complaine that the Protestants satisfaction was easier then theirs yet was there noe name of Protestant knowne in the world in Pope Sixtus Quartus tyme nor a good while after for that there passed foure Popes betwene him and Leo decimus vnder whome Luther began vnder him the name of Protestants soe as Sixtus Quartus could not haue that consideration of ProtestaÌ„ts in his Indulgence which M. Barlow hath deuised And would any learned man fal into such absurdyties and so shew his ignorance both in things times Againe in his very first entrance to this Calumniation he vttereth two or three grosse vntruthes which are inexcusable when he affirmeth that Popes doe pardon enormous sinnes for innumerable yeares vpon sweet conditioÌ„s For first they pardon no sinnes at all by Indulgences and much lesse enormous sinnes for that Indulgences of the Church in Catholike doctrine as euery man knoweth that hath the least degree of learning therin doe reach only to the remission of temporall punishments due after the guilt of sinne remitted and not of sinne it selfe which câ—nnot be remitted but by the Sacrament of Pennance or vertue therof And it is strange that one profesâ—ing learning as M. Barlow would faine â—eeme to do would eyther erre â—oe grosly or wilfully as here it cannot be denied that he doth But if he be desirous to know better our doctrin herein he may read Cardinall Bellarmine Gregory of Valentia and Francis Suarez in their learned bookes of this argument by them if he vnderstand them he may learne to see his own error acknowledg it also if he haue so much grace Now then seeing that all which hath bene sayd by M. Barlâ—w of Indulgences hath bene only spoken eyther vpon heresy and false relation or of error ignorance or malicious fiction the iudicious Reader may consider how vnworthy an argument this was for M. Barlâ— his little Vniuersity to treat by scoffs before his Maiesty at his repâ—st much more to the purpose had it bene to haue treated substantially and grauely out of the holy Scriptures and Fathers the principall question about this affaire to wit what ample authority Christian Priesthood hath to remit siâ—â—â— in this world wherof S. Chrysostomes bookes de Sacerdotis prouing that Christs Tribunalâ— in heauen hath submitted it selfe in a certaine sort vnâ—o the Priests tribunall vpon earth would haue yealded them ample and graue matter as also many other ancient Fathers Treatises and discourses to the same purpose The other question also that followeth after this whether after the guilt of synne forgiuen there remayneth some temporall punishment to be satisfied eyther in this life or in the next eyther by satisfactory workes here or by fyre there had bene a matter of moment to be discussed and well pondered for that it belongeth to all and â—one can auoid their part therin And to this purpose they might haue considered of diuers Trâ—atises as of Origen Saint Augustine and other Fathers that handle the question at large This then had benâ— to some purpose to be treated before his Maiesty but those other trifling â—oyeâ— here mentioned by M. Barlow of looking vpon the top of a
that he in the day of iudgment to wit our Saâ—iour will giue reward for our good works almes is now also ready to shew himselâ—e a most benigne heater to him that shall come vnto him by prayer works and so did Cornelius the Centurion merit to be heard as doing many almes vpon the people sayth the Scripture And when about nyne of the clocke the sayd Centurion prayed an Angell stood by him and gaue testimony of his good works saying Cornelius thy prayers and almes haue ascended vp before God citò orationes ad Deum ascendunt quas ad Deum merita nostâ—i operis imponunt Our prayers do quickly asceÌ„d vnto God which the merits of our good works do lay before him c. And preseÌ„tly with this Scripture he ioyneth the other out of Toby Sic Raphel Angelus c. So the Angel Raphael did testify vnto Toby alwayes praying alwayes working wheÌ„ thou didst pray togeather with Sara I did offer the memory of thy prayer in the sight of God when thou didst bury the dead and leaue thy dinner for doing the same I was sent by God to tempt thee and afterward to cure thee I am Raphael one of the seaâ—en iust Angels who do assist conuerse in the sight of God c. Where we see that S. Cyprian maketh another manner of accompt of the holynes and meryt of this worke and of the truth of this Angell then M. Barlow doth And the very self same speach S. Cyprian vseth in his booke de Mâ—â—talitate alleadging this place of Toby and testimony of the Angell Raphael in the commendation of Tobies fact in burying the dead against the Kinges commandement So as white and black hoat and cold or the two poles are not more opposite one to the other then the spirit of S. Cyprian and that of M. Barlow in this point And truly it seemeth that a man may gather by good consequence that for so much as he condemneth that fact of Toby in burying the dead bodies of the Iewes in persecution he would also if he had bene there not only not haue buried these dead bodies against the Kings Edict but also neyther haue receaued the persecuted into his house agaynst the commaundement of the sayd King Nay he would haue rather deliuered them vp to the persecutors hands and the like if he had liued amongst Christians vnder Nero Domitius and Dioclesian And this is M. Barlows piety in respect of that of holy Toby and S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Augustine and other such sincere pious men who both approued and commended this fact Now let vs passe on to the rest After these examples of Scriptures there were alleadged by the Apologer sundry authorityes of ancient Fathers which shew the obligation that subiects haue to obey their temporall Princes which in my Letter I declared no way to preiudice our cause who both acknowledge and offer all dutifull obedience in temporall affaires which is so much as the sayd ancient Fathers doe teach and for that the sayd authorityes are cleare for vs in that behalfe I shall â—et downe here what I answered to the same As these places of Scripture said I alleaged against vs do make for vs so much more do the authorities produced out of the ancient Fathers for that they go about to proue the very same point that we here hold that in teÌ„porall cyuill affayres we must obey dutifully our temporall Princes though Infidels or Pagans but not in matters concerning God our Religion or Conscience And his very first example out of S. Augustine is such as I meruaile much that he would cyte the same but that somwhat for shew must be alleadged For it maketh so clearly directly against him as if it had beene written purposely to confute him in this our case But let vs heare what it is Agreable to the Scriptures saith he did the Fathers teach Augustine speaking of Iâ—dian saith thus Iulian was an vnbelieuing Emperour was he not an Apostata an oppressor and an Idolatour ChristiaÌ„ souldiars serued that vnbelieuing Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they would acknowledge no Lord but him that is in heauen when he would haue them worship Idolls sacrifice they preferred God before him but when he said Go forth to fight inuade such a nation they presently obeyed they distinguished their eternall Lord from their temporall and yet were they subiect euen vnto their temporall Lord for his sake that was their eternall Lord and Maister Thus he And can any thing be spoken more cleerly for vs and for our cause then this For euen this do we offer to our King Soueraigne we will serue him we wil obey him we will go to warre with him we will fight for him and we will do all other offices belonging to temporall duty but when the cause of Christ commeth in hand who is Lord of our Consciences or any matter concerning the same or our Religion there we do as S. Augustine heere appoynteth vs preferre our eternall King before our Temporall And like to these are all the other places of Fathers cyted by him who distinguish expresly betweene the Temporall honour and Allegiance due to the Emperour and the other of our Religion Conscience belonging only to God And to that playne sense are Tertullians words cyted by the Apologer VVe honour the Emperour in such sort as is lawfull for vs and â—xpedient for him as a man second after God and as hauing receyued from God whatsoeuer he is and only lâ—sse thâ—n God And will not the Catholicks of England vse this speacâ— also vnto their King Or will the Apologer himselfe deny that Tertullian heere meant nothing els but in temporall affayres for somuch as the Emperors at that tyme were Heathens Gentils and consequently were noâ— to be obeyed in any point against Christian faith or Religion The like playne sense haue the words of Iustinâ—â— Martyr to the Emperour himselfe cited here in the third place to wit VVe only adore God and in all things we cheerfully performe seruice to you prosessing you to be Emperours and Princes of men And do not all English Catholickes say the same at this day in all other things that concerne not God his Obedience by rule of Catholicke Religion they offer cheerfully to serue his Maiesty acknowledging him to be their liege Lord and King inferiour only to God in his Temporall Gouernment And how then are these and such other places brought in for witnesse as though they had somewhat to say against vs The other two sentences in like manner cited out of Optatus and S. Ambrose the first saying That ouer the Emperour there is none but only God that made the Emperour And the other That teares were his weapons against the armes and souldiars of the Emperour That he neither ought nor could resist neyther of theÌ„ do make
so taken there by the Councell but for inferiour Orders â—nder Subdeacon which is the first of the three that excludeth marriage This is seene by many Canons as namely by the 40. which beginneth thus Omnes Clerici vel Lectores siue Leuitae Sacerdotes detonso superiùs capite toto inserius solam circuli coronam relinquant All Clarks and Readers as also Deacons and Priests cutting of all the hayre of the vpper part of their head let them leaue in the lower part only the crowne of a circle Here you see that Clerici Sacerdotes are distinct Degrees you see also this Ceremony of discipline in that Church of Spaine Will M. Barlow confesse that his Church agreeth in this The tytle also of the 67. Canon is de cupiditate Episcopi Presbyteri vâ—l Diacomi siuâ— Clericorum Of the couetousnes of a Bishop of a Priest or Deacon or Clarks Wherby is euident that in the Councels sense Priests Deacons and Clarkes are distinct Orders in the Church and consequently though the Councell doth say that Clarks may not take wiues without the consent of their Bishops yet their meaning is not that may take wiues with the said consent so as in this M. Barlow was false and knew that he deceaued when he translated Clerici for Priests But now for the second point that he must needes know also that the meaning of this Councell could not be that Priests myght marry by allowance of the Bishop I proue it thus for that this Councell did make profession to follow their Auncestors and forefathers decrees and we find registred in an ancient Spanish Councell held three hundred yeares before this called Elibertinum this Canon which is the 33. of the said Councell Placuit in totum prohibere Episcopis Praebyteris Diaconibus Subdiaconibus positis in Ministâ—rio abstinere se coniugibus suis nâ—n gâ—nerare filios quod quicumque â—ecerit ab honore Clericatus extermiâ—etur It seemeth good to the Councell wholy to forbid all Bishops Priests DeacoÌ„s Subdeacons placed in Ministrie that they abstayne themselues from their wiues and beget no children and whosoeuer shall do the contrary let him be cast out of the Clergie After this agayne in another CouÌ„cell of Toledo which was the second held some hundred yeares before this fourth the mater is determined in the very first Canon thus speaking of yong men that pretended to take holy Orders to be Priests Vbi octauum decimum aetatis suae compleuerint annum c. When they shal be full eighteen yeares of age let the Bishop in the presence of the Clergie and people search their wils about desire of marriage then if by the inspiration of God the grace of chastity shall please them and they shall answer that they will keep their promise made of chastity without coniugall necessity then let these men as desirous of a most strait way be admitted vnder the most sweet and easie yoake of our Sauiour And first let them take the Ministry of Subdeacon at 20. â—eares of age after the probation had of their constancy and at 25. yeares let them take the office of Deacon cauendum tamenest his ne quando suae sponsionis immemores ad terrenas nuptias vltrà recurrant yet must these men take heed least being at any time forgetfull of their promise or band they do run backe to earthly marryage By these two more ancient Councells then of Spayne not to speake of others we may see what could be the sense of this fourth of Toledo coÌ„cerning marriage of Priests as also what is meant by that direction giuen in the 26. Canon vt quando Presbyteri aut Diaconi per parochias constituunâ—â— â—pâ—rtet eos primùm professioneÌ„ Episcopo suo facere vt castè purè â—iâ—ant when Priests or Deacons are appoynted throughout Parishes they must first make profession vnto their Bishop that they will lyue chastly and purely The Councell doth not say heere that they may take wiues with the Bishops consent as was said of Clerici before Wherfore in both these points I meane as well in this translation as in the maine assertion that then it was lawfull for Priests to haue wiues M. Barlow dealt fraudulently I will not cite other Councells held both before and after this both in Spaine elswhere concerning this matter as before that of Toledo the third about the yeare 589. that of Lyons 5â—6 that of Tâ—uâ—rs 570. that of Orleaâ—ce 587. as also after let the Reader view the 8. and 9. of Toledo about the yeare 656. and 657. that of Shalons in France the very next yeare after Yet can I not pretermyt one Canon of the forsaid third Councel of Toledo held vpon the point of fifty yeares before this fourth wherof we now talke which third Councell of Toledo in the fifth Canon hath these words Câ—mpertum â—st à sancto Concilio c. It is vnderstood by this holy Councell that certayne Bishops Priests and Deacons comming from Heresie do contynue to haue carnall desires and copulation with their wiues and to the end this may not be done hereafter it is coÌ„manded by the Councell as also it hath bene determyned in former Canons that it is not lawfull for them to lyue togeather in carnall society but that so long as coniugall faith doth â—â—mayne betwene them they may haue care one of the others coÌ„mon vtility but yet not dwell togeather in one â—oome or if their vertue be such as may seeme to haue noâ— perill yet let them place their wiues in another house that their chastitie may haue testimony both before God and man And if any man after this ordinatioÌ„ will choose rather to liue scandalously with his wife let him be deposed from Priestly function and beheld only as a Lector or a Reader c. By which ordination of the CouÌ„cell we may see the seueritie of that time not only in keeping Priests from marriage after they were Priests but euen in forbiding the vse of their wiues that were married before if any such were admitted And it is to be noted that the CouÌ„cell saith here that this custome of Priests liuing with wiues came from the heroticks of those dayes and was practized by them principally that were turned from heresy to Catholike Religion And finally I cannot pretermit for the vpshot of this matter to note one sentence of Isidorus Archbishop of Siâ—â—ll that was President and first subscribed to the foresayd Councel of Toledo who in his second booke de Ecclesiasticâ—â— officys talking of this very same Councel as it may seeme sayd Placuit sanctis Patribus vt qui sâ—cra mysterâ—â— contâ—â—ctaâ— â—asti sint continentes ab vxoribus It seemed good vnto the holy Father to determine that such as do handle the holy mysteries should be chast continent from wiues And thus much for the first point auerred by M. Barlow that foure Canons of the fourth Councel of Toledo do
we do testyfie before Godâ— and all the orders of Angells as alsoâ— before the quire of holy Prophets and Apostles and of all Martyrs and before the whole Catholike Church and congregation of Christians that no man intend the destruction of the King that no man attempt any thing against the life of the Prince that no man depriue him of the gouernment of the Kingdome that no man by TyraÌ„nicall presumption vsurpe vnto himself the height of his Kingdome that no man by any machination in his aduersytie do associate vnto him the assistance of Conspirators and if any man shall presume to attempt any of these thinges let him be stroken with our Curse and be condemned to euerlasting iudgment without any hope of remedy Here now M. Barlow tryumpheth and sayth that this is a forme of an oath prescribed and therfore I haue lost my credit that denied the same in the 4. Councel Whereto first I answere that this is rather a protestation of the Councel a commination or threatning to others as appeareth by the punishment appointed theÌ„ any forme of an oath either taken by themselues or prescrybed to others And secondly I say that this is so far different from the forme of our new oath of Allegiance now exacted as nothing can be more which euery man will see by comparing them togeather for I hope M. Barlow will not allow the inuocation of Angells Prophetts Apostles Martyrs called for witnesses as heere is vsed and so the formes are nothing like nor is this an Oath made to the King But let vs see somewhat more of this matter He alleageth my exception that the Oath in the Councell confirmed was an Oath of ciuill Allegiance only which neither the Catholikes refuse now Pope Paulus doth prohibite Against which he maketh a long idle discourse that the same thinges are contayned in the one and the other Oath as the safety of the King the preseruation of his life and Crowne and the like Which though in some part it be acknowledged to be true and in this we haue no difficulty to agree with him yet is not this only sought in the new Oath but the deniall also of the Popes authority Or if M. Barlow will contend that this of the Princes safety is only sought we answere that at least it is not sought by good and lawfull meanes but by such as the Councel of Toledo would neuer haue yielded vnto if their King Sisâ—â—dus should haue demanded them such an Oath with such and so many exceptions against the Popes authoritie wherof in that Oath M. Barlow shal not find one although he search and sist it neuer so narrowly and therfore all that hitherto he hath said is nothing to the purpose There remayneth then only the last clause to be examined whether the said Councell of Toledo did prouide euen for the particuler point of Equiuocation as the Apolâ—gâ—â— said I in my answere denied that there was any mention of Equiuocation in that Councel but only a reprehension of lying and perâ—idious dealing which M. Barloâ— comming now to treate confesseth that there is no mention indeed therof but that lying and Equiuocating is all one which is to rayse vp agayne an old contention that passed betweene M. Morton and me wherein I presume to haue made so euident demonstration that lying and Amphilology or doubtfull speach by others called Equiuocation are far different thinges and cannot stand togeather and much lesse are all one as no man though â—f very meane capacity can but see the same though malice doth not suffer M. Barlow to confesse it To which effect I haue alleaged many proofes out of the nature and definition both of the one and the other many examples out of the holy Scriptures out of the old new Testament the authority of sundry ancient Fathers the practice of many Saints the consent of Schoolmen and other like proofes which M. Barlow hauing read and wel pondered should haue confuted or at least some of theÌ„ in this place before he had cast him selfe anew into M. Mortons absurdities by affirming againe with him that mendaâ—iâ—â— and Amphibologia lying and Equiuocating is all one But he doth not only this but he runneth also to find out certayne Synonima of different soundes of the same sense in the North and South of England as for example Takers in the North doe signify theeues in the Soâ—th 〈◊〉 vsed women in the North are called whâ—res as he saith in the south fit examples for his inuention But all is impertinent for we do not hould that mendacium Equiâ—ocatio are Syâ—â—â—iâ—a but quite different things For a lye as largly hath bin hanâ—ed against M. Morton is when any false thing is vttered contrary to the knowledge of the vtterer but he that doth Equiuocate doth alwayes speake truth in his owne sense and meaning though the hearer doe conceaue another meaning for that the speaker reserued somewhat in his minde which he vttereth not this thing is so ordinary euident in the speaches both of the ancyent Prophets and Apostles and of Christ our Sauiour himselfe as M. Barlow and M. Morton laying their heads togeather will neuer be able to answere the multitude of examples by me alleadged in that behalfe which appeareth sufficiently both by that M. Morton in his late Reply pretermitted them all and durst not as much as take them in hand to answer and the like doth M. Barlow heere but only that this later as more temerarious runneth into other absurdities shewing indeed not to vnderstand well the state of the question or nature of the thing it selfe For thus he describeth Equiuocation lying VVhen a man saith he speaketh any thing contrary to that he thinketh in his mind Equiuocare est say the Iesuits mentiri est sayth the M. of Sentences Wheras notwithstanding euery learned man knoweth that both the Iesuits and others that write of this matter do agree with the M. of SeÌ„tences in this point For whosoeuer speaketh coÌ„trary to that which in his mind he thinketh it is a lye no EquiuocatioÌ„ for he that doth Equiuocate must alwayes haue a true sense in his owne meaning which he cannot haue who doth speake contrary to that which in his mind he thinketh Then goeth he forward in his declaration saying The principall difference which they make is in their purpose for that they do it not with an intent to deceaue but only to defend themselues and then as though this supposed ground were true he goeth forward to shew vpon the same that a good intention is not sufficient to iustifie the doing of that which is euill but this principall difference seemeth to be a principall ignorance in M. Barlow shewing that he doth not vnderstand indeed wherin we do put the principall difference betweene lying and equiuocating which is not in the purpose and intention of the speaker as he sayth but partly in
such rage against a dead body much more against alyue But this argumeÌ„t houldeth no more though the matter were true as heere it is alledged then the former for that many things are done against Princes bodies when they are dead which would not be attempted in their life tyme. Who will not confesse this to be true But let vs leaue the consequent consider the antecedeÌ„t two things are auouched by the Apologer pag. 65. first that the Pope which was then Paschal is the second was enraged at the yong Emperour Henry the fiâ—th for giuing buryall to his fathers body when it was dead in the Citty of Leodium or Leige The second was that the Pope had stirred vp the said sonne Emperour against his Father and for both these points were cited in the margent as wittnesses Platina and Cuspinian in their Histories To which I answered in my Letter that Platina had no such matter that Cuspinian had the contrary to wit that when Henry the Father was dead and buried in a monastery at Leige his sonne would not make peace with the Bishop of that place called Otbert except the dead body were pulled out of the graue againe as it was and so remayned for fiue yeares This I answered to the first point about the exhumation of the body by the enraged sonne against his father for taking armes against him againe after that with common consent he had resigned the Empire vnto him and for more proofe of this I cited two authors more to wit Nauclerus and Crantzius in their histories that affirme the same To this now M. Barlow in his replie sayth first neuer a word vnto the silence of Platina nor to the testimonies of Nauclerus Crantzius but passeth slyly to proue another matter that we deny not to wit that the bodie of the elder Henry was taken out of the graue againe at Leige after it was buryed but by whome or whose commaundemeÌ„t eyther of the Pope Paschalis then liuing or of his Sonne Henry that lay neere by with an army that he proueth not which is the only point he should haue proued to wit that by order of the Pope the dead corps had bin takâ—n out of the graue I haue for the coÌ„trary besides the Authors before alledged the manyfest authority of Vrspergensis who liued and wrote in that tyme and might be present perhaps at tâ—e fact relating the matter how after that the death of Henry the 4. was knowne to his sonne to all the Bishops and Archbishops that were there with him and that notwithstanding he dyed excommunicate his body was buryed by the B. of Leige that had followed also his part the said yong Emperour and Bishops would not admit the said Bishop of Leige vnto their communion though he most earnestly offered himself but with condition that he should both doe pennance and besides that take out of the sepulcher agayne the buried bodie of the said Emperour which contrary to the Canons of the Church he had buryed the day before his words are these Leodâ—ensis autem Episcopus c. But the B. of Leige and other Bishops who had followed the part of Henry the 4. were receiued into communion to doe pennance with this condition that they should take forth of the graue the dead corpes of the said excommunicate Henry which they had buryed in a Monastery the day before So he And the same word pridie the day before hath not only Vrspergensis but also Nauclerus which doth euidently conuince that this exhumation could not be commaunded by the Pope Paschalis that liued at Rome and could not be aduertised of the death of the Emperour Henry and of his buriall so soone and much lesse giue order for his taking vp againe within the compasse of 3. or 4. dayes if there were so many betweene his death and his buriall To this I do add the manifest and perspicuous testimony of Huldericus Mutius in the 16. booke of his Germane Chronicle who speaking of the admitting to fauour of the foresaid Bishop of Leige and his people sayth Leodienses noluit recipere nisi eâ—â—ossum Genitoris sui cadauer abijcerent in locum quempiam vbi solent mortua pecora locaâ—i Henry the yonger would not receaue into grace those of Leige except they would cast out the dead body of his Father into some place where dead beasts are wont to be cast and this not so much for religion sayth the same Author as for deepe â—atred that he had conceaued against his said Father By all which is seene that not the Pope but the yong Emperour and the Bishops Archbishops that were with him hauing stood against the old Emperour and his followers and excommunicated the same were the cause why the body was taken vp agayne But now let vs see how M. Barlow doth seeke to establish the contrary to wit that he was digged out of his graue by commandment of the Pope for in this he laboureth much and alleageth for shew therof some 5. or 6. authorities of different Authors calling them a cloud of witnesses For digging vp saith he the dead body out of his graue that is compassed with a whole cloud of witnesses But if in all this cloud we find nothing in manner but clouted fraudâ—s and that no one of them hath passed his hands without corruption then may you cal it a blacke cloud indeed First then let vs examine the two Authors already alleadged for our cause to wit Vrspergensis and Nauclerus cyted here in his margent for that he will haue theÌ„ to proue the quite coÌ„trary of that for which I produced theÌ„ before And as for Vrspergensis he citeth his words thus The Bishop of Leige with other of his sort were receiued into the communion of the Church who cast them out but the Pope vpon condition they would dig out of the graue the corps of the Emperour which he had before buried in the Monastery So he relateth the words of Vrâ—ergensis in a different letter as though they were punctually his which indeed they are not but accommodated by M. Barlow with some paring and mincing to his purpose For wheras Vrspergensis saith that the Bishop of Leige and his fellow Bishops inter caetera recipiuntur in commuâ—â—nem poenitentiae were receaued among other conditions to the communion of pennance M. Barlow thought good to leaue out the word pennance as also where he sayth cadauer iâ—siuâ— excommunicati the dead corps of the excommunicate Emperour which did yield the reason of their digging vp M. Barlow left out also the word excommunicate But of much more moment was his leauing out the word pridie when he saith the body of the excommunicate Emperour buried by him the day before in the Monastery should be digged vp for by that he striketh of the head of the strongest argument that is against him as beâ—ore we haue shewed For if the Emperour were buried
but one day before his exhumation was commanded then could not that commandment come from the Pope but mâ—st needs come from the Emperour Bishops there present Heere then is found fraud in M. Barlow his allegation and to publish the same more he would needes vse the word BEFORE BVRIED in great letters as though they had well expressed pridie tumulatum buried the day before But heere perhaps some will demaund suppose this narration of Vâ—spergensis were graunted to be true as M. Barlow setteth it downe how doth it proue that the Pope commanded the exhumation Whereunto he answereth heere by a certayne demaund in a parenthesis VVho cast them out to wit those of Liege but the Pope Wherunto I answere that the Bishops and Archbishops that were with the new Emperour had excommunicated them long before and the Emperour himselfe had giuen out against them the Imperiall band which is a ciuill excommunication which besides that it is euident by the testifications of Histories is made cleere also by that they receaued them into communion presently vpon the death of the old Emperour without imparting the matter to the Pope which they would not haue done if the excoÌ„munication had not come from themselues For that no man can take away that which he could not impose And so here is nothing proued against the Pope but a great good will to calumniate him The like fraud is committed in the allegation of the other Authour Naucleâ—us who saith M. Barlow relateth verbatim both the fact and the reason of the fact as Vrspergensis doth VVherunto I answere that it is true that he relateth both but the one and the other are peruerted by M. Barlow for thus writeth Nauclerus Inopinata fama mortis Imâ—eratoris mox subsequitur c. The vnexpected fame of the death of the old Emperour did presently ensue which being diuulged all those that for gayne-sake had stuck vnto him and had sould their soules vnto him did subiect themselues sine mora without delay vnto the obedience of the yong Emperour and to the Catholicke communion But they of Liege were receaued into the said CoÌ„munion with this condition that the dead body of him that was excoÌ„municated and buried the day before in a monastery should be digged vp c. In relating which words we see that M. Barlow left out first the censure of the Author against them that had followed the part of the old excoÌ„municated Emperour And secondly he leaueth out that they were reconcyled to the new Emperour and to the Catholicke communion of the Bishops there present sine mora without any stay which inferreth that they could not send for the Popes consent to Rome Thirdly he leaueth out as he did in his former Author the words per se pridie tumulatum â—ffâ—derent that they of Leige should dig vp againe the body which the day before they had buryed Fourthly he leaneth out these words that ensued comprobaÌ„tibuâ— his qui aderant Archiepiscopis Episcopis the Archbishops and Bishops that were present approuing and giuing their consents To whome To the new Emperour that would needs haue it so which deliuereth the Pope from hauing any part therin And doth not M. Barlow trim vp Authors well that passe through his hands to make them serue his purpose But now you must heare the trymming of another which is Cuspinian the Historiographer whom I denied before to affirme that Pope Paschalis was enraged with the new Emperour Henry the fifth for burying his Father as was said in the Apologie but rather the contrary For that when King Henry the Father said I was dead and buryed in a Monastery at Leige Cuspinian writeth that his Sonne would not make peace with the Bishop of that place called Otbert except the dead corpes were pulled out of the graue againe which words he sayth that I alleadged as Cuspinian his owne words But I deny it but only I alledged his sense as may appeare in that I did not recite them in a different letter as is accustomed by them that deale playnly when the proper words of any Author are alleaged though M. Barlow doth not obserue this with me but alledgeth as my words euery where coÌ„monly in a different letter those which are not my words nor often times my sense but either framed of himself or so interlaced with speaches of his owne as that it is a quite different thing from that which I do say Let the Reader examine but some few places as they come coÌ„ferring his booke and my booke togeather and he shall see that I haue good reason to make this complaint of his perfidious dealing therein But now to the present case M. Barlow affirmeth that the latyn words of Cuspâ—â—â—â—â— are Filio procurante non potuit reconciliari Episcopus Leodiensis nisi exhumaretur cadauer by the Sonnes procurement the Bishop of Leige could not be reconciled except the dead body were taken out of the ground againe Out of which words I did inferre that the Bishop of Leige could not be reconciled to the other Bishops but vpon condition that the body should be taken vp and this at the procurement of the yong Emperour And for so much as his reconciliation with the said Bishops did imply also his reconciliation with the Emperour he that letted the one letted the other which was the yong Emperour himself who though himself would not for respectes the Bishop being a potent man vtterly deny to admyt his submission yet did he procure the stay therof by others to wit by the Archbishops and Bishops vntill he had yielded vnto the condition of taking vp the dead body consequeÌ„tly the thing is true which I alledged out of Cuspinian that the yong Emperour would not make peace with the Bishop of Leige except the body were taken vp for so much as himself was he that had letted that reconciliation as here appeareth and procured also as may be supposed the great reprehension which was giuen to the said Bishop and his coÌ„pany when they were admitted wherof Crantzius speaketh when he sayth ad fidem Regis confugieÌ„tes grauiter increpati recâ—piuntur they making their refuge to the protectioÌ„ of the Emperour they were admitted but with a grieuous reprehensioÌ„ this among other causes no doubt for hauing buryed the dead body of the ExcoÌ„municate Emperour This then being the playne meaning and sense of Cusâ—â—â—ian his alleaged speach let vs see how M. Barlow doth trym vp the same for his turne The â—ords of Cuspinian sayth he are playne Filio procurante non potuit reconciliari â—piscopus Leodiâ—â—sis nisi exhâ—maretur cadauâ—r That is By the SoÌ„nes procuremeÌ„t at whose hands but the Popes for what needed any procurement by himselfe to himselfe the Bishop could not be reconciled to whom but to the Pope who had accursed both Church and Churchmen at Liege for burying the Emperour except the dead body were taken vp againe So M. Barlow
Where you may see that in this only translation of two latyn lines he hath inserted twice two falsities of his owne against the Authors owne sense meaning The first is that the Emperour had procured the stay of the Bishops reconciliation at the Popes hands which could not be for the breuity of time and distance of places as before hath bene shewed nor doth it agree with the sense of Cuspinian and other Authors that haue the words mox fine mora pridie and the like The second is in his second interrogation what needed any procurement by himselfe to himself which is a fallacy for that a man being desirous to stay a sute yet not willing to take all the enuy vpon himselfe may procure that the stay may seeme to come from others The third fallacy is in his other demaund to whom could not the Bishop of Liege be reconciled but to the Pope Yes to the Archbishops Bishops and others out of whose communion he was cast forth before as now hath bene shewed The fourth vntruth is that the Pope had excoÌ„municated both the Church and all Church-men of Liege for burying of the Emperour which cannot be true as now hath bene declared for that in so short a space as 2. or 3. dayes newes could not be sent to Rome and answere be returned and much lesse such an Excommunication be sent And albeit M. Barlow for this last do cyte ViterbieÌ„sis saying that he liued in those very times yet he being an ItaliaÌ„ liuing neere â—n hundred yeares after the fact might be misinformed And howsoeuer it be the credit of his owne relation is not to be matched with that of so many other Authors and namely of Vâ—spergensis that liued at the very same time and with the said two Henryes the Father and the Sonne There remaine three other Authors cyted by M. Barlow who are Helmoldus in his History of Sclauonia Sigoniâ—â— in his ninth booke De regno Italia Binnius in his last edition of the Councels all which he cyteth to proue this poynt that Pope Paschalis did forbid the buriall of the dead body of Henry the fourth But in all this is voluntary fraud M. Barlow could not but know it going about to deceaue his Reader by Equiuocation in the time For albeit Pope Paschalis did not nor had time to forbid the first buriall after the Emperour was dâ—ad nor yet commaunded the taking vp therof againe as now by many witnesses and other arguments hath bene proued yet the said body being once taken vp and carried to Spire and there placed in the Chappell of S. Asra in sarcophago lapideo saith Cuspinian in a tombe of stone where it remayned fiue yeares before it was buryed solemnely in the Church of our Lady In this time I say the Pope informed perhaps of more of his enormityes of life not to seeme to condemne the fact of so many Archbishops and Bishops who had excommunicated him as among others Dodechinus Abbas that liued presently after the fact doth testify and to the terrour of others that should liue and dye out of the Church in excommunication for these and other reasons I say Pope Paschalis seing the body placed already in a sacred Chappel was not easily moued for some time to haue the same solemnly and publikely buryed though at length his Sonne in respect of his honour desired and demaunded the same But what is this to proue our chiefe question whether the said Pope did forbid the first buriall or commanded him to be digged vp againe when he was buryed Where is the Cloud of VVitnesses that should proue this No one of these three last alleaged doth auerre it no not as M. Barlow corruptly alleadgeth their words For out of Helmodus he cyteth them thus Tanta seueritate Dominus Papa in ipsum vlâ—us est vt humari non sineret the Pope did pursue him with such seuerity as being dead he suffered him not to be buryed which could not be at the first buriall and consequently must be vnderstood of the subsâ—quent time when he lay in the Chappell of S. Afra I pretermit the sleight of M. Barlow heere laying all vpon the Pope alone wheras the Author saith Papa 〈◊〉 adâ—ersary ciuâ— the Pope and other of his aduersaryes did pursue him speaketh still in the plurall nuÌ„ber Sigenius also speaketh to the very same effect that the Emperours body lay vnburyed for fiue yeares in a certaine deâ—art Cell of a Church Pontifice id sepeliri vetante the Pope prohibiting the same to be buryed which must needs be vnderstood in like maÌ„ner of the time ensuing after the first taking vp of the body And finally Binnius maketh no more to his purpose then the other but sayth the same thing though he haue taken more paines in corrupting him then the rest For thus â—e relateth him to say the Emperours body being put into the earth hortatu Papa by the Popes perswasion it â—aâ— digged out againe and remayned aloâ—e ground fiue yeares And heere you will find a notable patching to make vp a sense without a Verbe and therby seeme to say somewhat but flying the true words and contexture indeed as they lye in the Author which are these Câ—m hortatu Papae defuncti excommunicati cadauâ—r exhumatum quinque annis insepultum reliquisset anno Domini 1110. Romani petyâ— c. Wheras Henry the fifth by perswasion of the Pope had left the dead body of the ExcoÌ„municate Emperor taken out of the graue vnburied for fiue yeares he went vpoÌ„ the yeare 1110. to Rome c. By which words we see that the Popes perswasioÌ„ was not to haue the dead corps digged vp againe but forsomuch as his Father died in excoÌ„munication that his body was now taken vp he should leaue the same vnburyed according to the Canons for terrour of others and not that he perswaded it to be taken vp as it was in Leige or this was not possible as before hath bene shewed And why now had not M. Barlow recited the whole sentence as it lay in Binniuâ— Why should he vse such nipping paring in his allegations but that Iuglers must not be seene in all their knacks If his cause were good he would not need these shifts And by this also we may discouer the foundation of a great many of other impertinent discourses and assertions which M. Baâ—low maketh in this place both out of Viterbiensis and Baronius to proue that the Sonne Emperour was â—ory to haue his Father lye vnburyed and therfore he alleadgeth out of Viterbiensis Filius ossa Patris doluit fore câ—â— sceleratis It grieued the Sonne that his Father should lye amongst wicked men Baronius is also alleaged to affirme out of Petrus Diaconus not Paulus as M. Barlow erroneously or ignorantly doth name him for that Petrus Paulus Diaconus were different Authors and liued long one after another Baronius I say is affirmed
buriall within Saints Churches but the apparitions must be presumed to haue bene at certayn particuler places vpon particuler occasions where the said Martyrs willed vt sceleratorum corpora de suis basilicis eiâ—cerentur that the bodyes of certayn heynous wicked men such as Infidells Hereticks excommunicated persons are should be cast out of their Chappels Why doth M. Barlow confine the matter to these Martyrs that were deceased shrined in those places of Germany where the Emperours body lay Hath he a generall licence to take away or adde what he listeth to his Authors words And finally those last words that they would not indure it written in great letters where doth he find them And if he find them not who gaue him leaue to add them and crowne his owne inuention with Capitall letters Is there no law of truth or sincerity Is it lawfull for euery man to deuise add alter cut of or disguise what he wil without controlment Is this the liberty of Ghospellers There haue bene now alleadged by him about this point some eight seueral authors Cuspinian Helmodus Vrspergensis Nauclerus Sigonim Binnius Baronius and Petrus Diaconus and euery one hath receaued his cut Will euer Catholicke writer be found that dealeth so with authors And so much of this point Then followeth the other whether the Pope did stir vp the Emperours Sonne that is Henry the 5. against his Father And first I sayd that it could not be verified of Pope Hildebrand called Gregory the seauenth for that the rebellion of the sonne succeded after Gregories death and the report also was that Gregory the 7. before his death had absolued the same Emperour Henry the fourth And this I alleadged out of the Apologers owne author Cuspinian and moreouer I shewed that the said Cuspinian affirmed that the rising of the Sonne against his Father was by the perswasion of the Marques Theobald and of Berâ—ngarius Count of Noricum now called Stâ—ria and of Otho which was neere a kinne vnto him by his Mothers side and for confirmation of this I alleadged foure other Historiographers besides to wit Vrspergensis Nauclerus Crantzius and Sigonius To all which authorities M. Barlow replyeth neuer a word in this his answer yet to the former point wherin I said that the report was that Gregory the 7. did before his death absolue the Emperour he answereth thus First this is written but for a report then which there is nothing more vncertaine saith the Orator But yet what followes hâ—erof therfore the Pope stirred not vp the Sonne against the Father A weake consequent Whereto I answere that the consequent is good and strong to proue that Pope Gregory the 7. of whome I spake did not stir vp the Sonne against the Father if he absolued him especially if you ioyne this with the other alledged by me that he tooke not armes against the Father till after the said Popes death And as for the other Popes that followed Victor Vrbanus and Pasâ—halis vnder whome the rising of the Sonne against his Father was and vnder whome the said Henry the 4. died almost twenty yeares after the death of Gregory the seauenth the testimonies now alleadged of those other three Noble men that stirred the said Sonne against the father do sufficiently deliuer the sequâ—nt Popes from that calumniatioÌ„ of setting him on albeit it is not denied but that diuers yeares after when that all the States of Germany did generally so much mislike the life gouernment of Henry the fourth as by common consent and counsaile they determined that it was conuenient and necessary for the good of ChristeÌ„dome that he should giue ouer his gouernment to his said sonne Henry the 5. Paschalis the second of that name Pope being informed by the said States of the said necessity and that Christendome otherwise could not be quieted nor infinite miseries calamities and abuses remedied he concurred with them with his consent and approbation though himselfe were at Rome And the Diet or meeting of the States was held at Mentz from which Parlament were sent in the name of the Pope and all the rest three Archbishops to wit of Mentz Cullen and VVormes all Princes of the Empire to take from him that was prisoner in a little castell neere vnto that place all the Imperiall ornaments and ensignes belonging to that State and to deliuer them ouer to his sonne Henry and so was it done And what more orderly proceeding could there be then this in an act of such quality M. Barlow maketh it a hainous point against the Pope for dealing in the matter and bringeth in the testimonies both of Sigonius Genebrard to aggrauate the same but both of them as alwaies somwhat corrupted for albeit he do alleadge these words of Sigonius truly which were spoken by the foresâ—id tâ—ree Embassadors vnto Henry the 4. Ponâ—â—fici Principibusque Germaniae placuit c. It hath seemed good to the Pope and to the Princes of Germany that thou be depriued yet doth he craftily leaue out the reasons yielded of the said deposition by the Embassadors to wit quia tu deterrimo dissidio multos iam annos Dei Ecclesiam lacerasti c. for that thou hast rent the Church of God many yeares by most wicked breach of discord and for that thou hast put to sale both Bishoprickes Abbeys and all other Ecclesiasticall dignities and that thou hast broken all lawfull order in choosing of Bishops c. And that M. Barlow may not except against the testimony of these Embassadours because they were then in actuall opposition against him their sentence in this behalfe may be confirmed by one who was not the Popes friend but of great authority as I suppose with M. Barlow to wit Iohn Caluyn himself who in his 4. booke of Institutions sayth thus Henricus Imperator eius nominis quartus 〈◊〉 leuis temerarius c. Henry the 4. Emperour of that name an vnconstant and rash man of no wit very audacious and of dissolute life had the Bishopricks of all Germany exposed in his Court partly to sale and partly to pillage And a litle after Erat Henricus c. This Henry for his very insolent manner of gouernement was odious to the most part of the Princes So he But not to depart from Sigonius of whose testimony we now specially treat he that shall read what he relateth of him out of Helmodus and Dodecâ—iâ—â—â— touching the horrible abuse done to the Empresse his wife called Adelis by his commandement will be ashamed if he haue any shame in him to praise and commend a man of so monstrous iniquity as I for my part do for meere shame forbeare to expresse the thing And besides that his other excesses were so enormous in the eies of all disapassionate men as he of all others may least seeme worthy to be produced for an example of such as haue susteined wrong at the hands of the Pope in regard
proceed from grace haue not the promise to God made vnto theÌ„ What then doth this make against me Nay harken I pray you what ensueth he bringeth the wordes of Bellarmine against me saying that if good workes should be considerâ—d in their owne nature without respect both of the promise made â—nto them and also of the dignity of Gods spirit the originall worker of them they could carry no merit which doctrine I willingly acknowledge as fully making with me and condemning M. Barlow of false dealing that he left out wilfully in my words before recited the clause of the promise of God made vnto them and so in this he fighteth against himselfe and discouereth his owne vntrue dealing But hath he any more to say thinke you against the first question or doth he answere one word to the plaine testimony of Scriptures alleadged out of Toby Iob and S. Paul for proofe therof all cyted by me No not so much as one word and much lesse to those other that stand in Bellarmines booke which are more in number as neyther to the ancient Fathers S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Augustine euidently confirming the same that good and meritorious workes do of themselues comfort the conscience of the doer by increasing hope and confidence in him in respect of the promised reward yea albeit he do not of himselfe place any confidence in them but respecteth onely and relyeth vpon God almightyes grace mercy for that so it may often fall out and it is to be noted and borne in mind that a man may haue confidence by good works and yet place no confidence in good works for that a vertuous life enriched with many meritorious actions may of it self giue a man much confidence for the life to come though he for his part do not place any confidence therin but only in Gods mercy so as now we see the first propositioÌ„ of Cardinall Bellarmine to be true that the confidence of holy mâ—n which they place in God doth not only spring out of â—ayth but also out of good meriâ—s and therefore that â—uery man must labour wiâ—h all study to procure good meriâ—s to the end that they may haue confidence with God which is the very same in substance that I set downe in my letter though somewhat by me abridged and accommodated to the capacity of the vulgar reader There followeth the second question proposed by me in these words VVhether this being so a man may place any confidence wittingly in his own merits or vertuous life and it is answered that he may so he aâ—oyd pride c. which containeth the very same in effect that dâ—th Cardinall Bellarmines second propositioÌ„ that some confidence may be placed in good meâ—its which are known to be such so as pride be auoyded vnto which second proposition M. Barlow not being able to say any thing agâ—inst the truth therof confirmed by many testimonies exaÌ„ples both out of the old new Testament and writings of holy Fathers that did both teach and practice the coÌ„fidence of a good conscience he runneth to seeke Cauills both against me and Cardinall Bellarmine and for me he hath deuised one of the most childish that euer perhaps you heard and such a one that doth euideÌ„tly declare the malice of his mind and misery of his cause that driueth him to such shifts for that neuer man of grauity or sincerity would vse the like knowing that it must needs be discouered by the first inspection of the booke by his aduersary thus then it is Where I do frame the second question thus VVhether a â—an may place any confidence in his owne merits and do answer yea he leaueth out of purpose the question it self and putteth downe the solution only without question aâ—â—iâ—ming me to say as it were by way of propositioÌ„ A man mâ—â— place any confidence in his owne merits and writeth the word ANY in great letters to make it more markable as though I haâ— said a man may place any confidence wâ—atsoeuer that is to say al confideÌ„ce in his own merits wheras if he had set down the queâ—tioÌ„ simply as I did whether a maÌ„ may place any coÌ„fidence in his merits answered only yea as I did without adding any further it would haue appeared plainly that the word any did signify as much as some conâ—idence answering to Bellarm. words aliqua fiducia wheras omitting the question putting down againe the word any he changeth the significatioÌ„ therof maketh it to signify as much as all or any whatsoeuer as though I had said a man may put all confidence or what confidence soeuer in our merits therby disagree froÌ„ Bellarmine whose wordâ— are as hath bene sayd aliqua fiducia in bonis meritis collocari potest some confidence may be placed in good merits this shifting fraud is so palpable as it may be discouered by infinite examples If one should aske another whether he had any bread in his house as Elias for example did aske the poore widdow of Sarepta euery man of sense seeth that the meaning is whether he haue any bread at all of any sort soeuer and not whether he haue all kind of bread so if the other do answer yea without adding further it is to be vnderstood that he answereth according to the meaning of the demaunder that he hath some bread in his house but if he should answer as M. Barlow maketh me to answer yea I haue any bread it would import that he had all sorts of bread And the like is if a man should aske M. Barlow whether he haue any vertue the meaning is whether he haue any at all and soe euery man I thinke will vnderstand it and himselfe also I belieue would take it and thinke himself iniured thereby if any man should answere no but if he should repeate againe the same word any in the aâ—swere saying yâ—a he hath any vertue heere the word ◠〈◊〉 changeth the foâ—mer signification and importâ—th as much as that he hath all vertueâ— which I suppose himself would be ashamed to answer in his owne cause as a thing contrary aswâ—ll to his owne conscience as to other mens knowledge And the lâ—ke iâ—â— if a man should demaund him whâ—â—heâ— hâ— hatâ— any sâ—â—ll in the Mathematickes he might anâ—â—â—â—e peâ—hâ—pps yâ—a if he added no â—urther vndersâ—â—nding therâ—by that hâ— hath some skill but if he should aâ—swere aâ— he maketh me to do yea I haue any skill it may sâ—â—ue to make paâ—time to his demaunder and yet vpon thâ—â— fâ—olâ—sh â—â—â—ging dâ—uise of the different taking of tâ—e word aâ—y he makâ—tâ— great a doe and foundeth mâ—ny â—râ—â—â—â—ntations writing it still with great letters aâ— presâ—nâ—ly you shall see seeking thereby to proue that Cardinal Bâ—llarmine I are at debate he saying that some conâ—â—dence may â—e placed in merits I saying that any confidence may be placed which is al he hath
fayth This was the summe of my answer and the Cardinalls booke comming out afterwards hath the same in effect in these words Distinguish the tymes you shal agree the Scriptures Iudas belieued and was iust and good in the beginning of his election but afterward he yealded to the tempter and not only did not belieue but became a thief also and betrayed his Lord and lastly hanged himselfe So he And now what do you think that M. Barlow out of his ingeniosity will find to bring for maintenance that this was a true contradiction in Bellarmine Truly he will adventure far to find somewhat though it be to his owne shame and discredit Let vs heare his mad defence ioyningâ—sayth â—sayth he of the Aduerbe verè by Bellarmine that Iudas was truly righteous and certainlie good and yet did not belieue makes it a contradiction incurable And to the end that his fraud may be more notorious he writeth the wordes truly certainly and not belieue in great letters But now if you looke vpon Cardinal Bellarmines words you shall find first that he doth not ioyne the aduerbe vere that is truly righteous nor the others of certainly good at all his words are these Dominiâ—o â—o annis 17. Pater quos dedisti mihi custodiui nemo ex eis periji nisi filius perditionis Si Pater de dit illum Filio certe bonus erat That Iudas was sometimes iust S. Hierome doth proue out of the words of S. Iohn 17. Father I haue kept those that thou hast giuen me and none haue perished but the sonne of perdition If God the Father gaue him to his Sonne truly he was then good Heere then you see that there is no â—ere iustus truly righteous as M. Barlow hath thrust into Bellarmines words And albeit he sayth certe bonus erat yet certe is not referred to bonus as is euident These are then two willfull corruptions But the third is much more eminent that he maketh Bellarmine to say that notwithstanding that Iudas was truly righteous and certainely good yet did he not belieue Wheras Bellarmine sayth he did belieue and so is it set downe in the forme it selfe of the obiected contradiction saying that first he did belieue when he was chosen an Apostle and that then he was iust but afterward he lost his faith and did not belieue And now wil M. Barlow for making vp of some shew of contradiction against Bellarmine make him say that at the one and the selfe same tyme Iudas was truly righteous certaynely good and yet not belieued And to shew that this is an absurd proposition he maketh a long discourse out of Scriptures and Fathers to proue that without fayth a man cannot be truly righteous nor certainely good as though Cardinall Bellarmine had denied the same Is there any shame in these men But after this againe he goeth further in another place demanding whether supposing Iudas to haue belieued at the beginning his fayth were â—ormata or no that is informed by grace working by charity â—lleadâ—ging Aquinas in these words Surely in him that hath such a â—aith Aquinas sayth nihilinest damnationis there is no damnation For being once had it cannot totally and finally be lost nor is it more separable from him then the essentiall forme of any thing frome the subiect which it denominates Thus he And will not euery man that readeth these words thinke that Aquinas doth hould all this doctrine heere auerred that fides formata once had cannot be finally lost M. Barlow hath holpen the matter the best he can to deceaue his Reader in not citing any place of Aquinas where he houldeth this for that he could not do it but they that are acquinted with Aquinas his bookes and doctrine know him expresly to teach the coÌ„trary as the Reader may see if he liâ—t to peruse the places here quoted where he purposly proueth that charitas semel habita potest amiâ—â—i and for that charity is the forme of faith it followeth by necessary consequence that fides formata to wit a iustifying faith may in Aquinas his opinioÌ„ be lost and herof no Catholicke Deuine can doubt So as the impudency was strange in charging Aquinas with this which is the proper heresie of Iohn Caluin but much more that in the very place whence this pretended contradiction about Iudas is taken to wit out of Bellarmines third booke de Iustificatione Bellarmine doth proue by eight examples out of Scriptures the quite contrary to wit that fayth and iustice being once had may be lost againe What will M. Bâ—â—low answere to all this wil not his friends blush for him in this behalfe Or will not euery iudicious Reader make a pause here and say that it is a strange misery of a cause in religion which cannot be defended but with such grosse palpable falshoods Let vs leaue theÌ„ these obiected contradictions and passe to some other things The Cardinal hath answered al the rest him selfe nor did I think it good that wrot besore him to preuent him therin nor yet to â—asse any further hauing proued these first foure to be such as now you haue seene though M. Barlows defence hath made the matter far worse OF THE CONTENTIONS OF SVNDRY OTHER EMPEROVRS KINGS AND PRINCES with Popes of their times in temporall affaires obiected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Popes Superiority VVHERIN many fraudes and forgeries are discouered in M. Barlow particulerly concerning Fredericke the second and his contentions with Popes CHAP. V. THis argument of the temporall dangers imminent to Princes as is pretended by acknowledging the Popes supreme Authority and of so many hurts and dangers ensuing therof though we haue â—omwhat largely handled before by occasion of the examples obiected of the Emperours Henry the 4. and Henry the 5. yet here are we forced to reâ—teratâ— the same argument againe for that many more examples are obiected concerning the sayd Henry the fourth his doing pennance at the Caâ—tle of Canusium inforced therunto by Pope Gregory the 7. as also of the Emperour Fredericke the 1. forced by Pope Alexander the third to lye a grooâ—e on his belly and to suffer the other to tread on his neck of Philip the Emperour sayd to be slaine by Otho at the Popes motion of the Emperour Fredericke the second excommunicated and depriued by Pope Innocentius the 4. procured afterward to be poisoned that Pope Alexander the third wrote to the Souldan to poison the Emperour sent him his picture to that effect that Pope Alexander the sixt caused the brother of Baiazetes the Turkish Emperour named Gemen to be poisoned at his brothers request and had two hundred thousand crowns for the same That our King Henry the second besides his going barefoote on pilgrimage was whipped vp and downe the Chapterhouse like a schoole boy and glad to â—scape so too That the Father of the moderne King of France was
alone hath done both the one and other in this example God send him grace to see repent amend his errour And so much for Fredericke the second I will now end this matter with this aduertisement to the Reader that whereas M. Barlow others of his profession vse to serue themselues much out of the writinges of Matthew Paris Cuspinian Peter de Vineiâ— the truth is that no one of them deserueth so much credit as our Aduersaries would faine force vpon them For the first hath many fables contradictions railinges and dogmaticall assertions which little beseeme a religious spirit or true Catholike which at least he was knowen to be and therfore as well this Matthew as the other being set out by Heretikes and printed at London by order as I haue bene informed from the SuperintendeÌ„t of Canterbury that then was and no other ancient copie being extant that I can heare of that might be conferred with this in print it is very likely that many thinges which are now vrged against vs are not the wordes of Matthew Paris the Monke but of Matthew Parker of Canterbury and he who shal but reade Harpsfields History examine the places which he bringeth or things which on their authority he auoucheth shall soone see that his Matthewes spake otherwayes then these who in many thinges are made to write like good Protestants although hitherto nothing hath bene alleadged out of them by M. Barlow in this matter which I haue not fully answered Iohn Cuspinian as he is a late writer so is he of little credit especially for his bookes of History of the Emperours which himselfe neuer set forth but as Gerbelius writeth morte praeuentus inemendatos ob scriptoris inscitiam soedissimis erâ—oribus deprauatos reliquit being preuented by death he left his bookes of history vncorrected and through ignorance of the writer corrupted with most filthy errors So he By profession Cuspinian was a Phisitian knew perhaps how to frame his potions according to the complexion of the receauers and therfore this Frederick being desceÌ„ded as some thinke or at least by marirage neerly allied to the House of Austria he thought by making the most of him to gratify both Maximilian his maister and yong Charles the fifth of the same family yet seeing he neuer set forth this booke but left it imperfect vncorrected full of errors c. that afterwards it was first published by Nicolas Gerbelius a ProtestaÌ„t-brother of Strasburge as may be presumed who printed it in the yeare 1540. we may well thinke that it was sauced by the setter forth according to the new Ghospell and good appetite of them of his owne profession And as for Petrus de Vineis besides the iust exception of partialitie which I tooke against him in my Letter and that which I haue already answered vnto M. Barlowes Reply therunto I shall not need to adioyne any more Wherfore I will only content my self with two censures which I find in two Authors of him to wit in S. Antoninus an Italian and Tritemius a German The first noteth him in these words Iusto Dei iudicio factum videtur c. The death of Petrus de Vineis seemeth to haue byn procured by the iust iudgment of God that because he had done many things to please the Emperour against the Church in fauour and excuse of him by him he was condemned for whome he had offended both God and the Church So he And Tritemius thus writeth of him Petrus de Vineis c. Peter de Vineis by nation a German Secretary Counsellour of the Emperour Fredericke the second was a learned and eloquent man but in this very faulty that adhering to Frederick he did in fauour of him barke like a foole stolidus latrauit against the Roman Church by whome he was worthily rewarded for hauing in some things offended him he had his eyes pulled out c. So he And in his Catalogue of Worthy men to the like câ—nsure he addeth this clause Hoc praemium eorum c. This is the reward of theÌ„ who do serue the humors of Princes against the obedience of the Roman Sea and Vicar of Christ and like wretches fall headlong into hell except they repent c. Which aduertisment being giuen by so graue an Author before these controuersies were raised by Luther I wish M. Barlow and all other in authority and credit with Princes as Petrus de Vineis was seriously to ponder OF THE EMPEROVR Fredericke the first whose picture was said to haue bene sent to the Soldan by Pope Alexander the third And of the charge of Alexander the sixt touching the death of Zizimus or Gemen M. Barlows innocent Turke §. III. METHOD and rules of learning require that euery thing be put downe in his due place and order and therfore me thinks that Fredericke the first should by all reason haue bene mentioned before the second Fredericke his successour especially seeing that there is another obiection made a litle before out of this very Emperour and Pope wherunto this might well haue bene annexed had it not bene that the margent of the Apology was to be filled with citations and the text with variety of examples to make Popes more odious But the transposition weâ—e pardonable if the thing auouched were true and the Reader not abused by these forged calumniations who through the heat and heape of many words is made to conceaue that M. Barlow sayth much to the purpose and with great sincerity wheras all he hath is nothing else but vaine Thrasonicall ostentation impudent lying that which alwaies accoÌ„panieth the loose liberty of a licentious tongue exorbitant rayling against all sorts and degrees of men whatsoeuer And this as it hath bene euery where already shewed so shall it be more in this and the other ensuing Chapters though with much more breuity then the former least both this Chapter and the whole booke be drawne forth to greater prolixity and length then I haue purposed with myselfe that it should be which only reason hath made me in other places to leaue more aduantages then I might haue taken against M. Barlow albeit I haue taken more then I thinke will stand with his credit or honesty if yet he haue any part or parcell of the one or the other left him But let vs heare him speake if he can without lying which here I assure you he will not but begin with a round one at the very first entrance For thus he sayth Another instance saith he obiected â—y his Maiesty which pincheth their holy Father to the quicke is of that Pope who when Emperour Fredericke was in the Holy-Land â—ighting in Christs quarrell â—earing that his returne would be some annoyance to the Romish Sea betraied him to the Soldan to whome he directs his priuate letters and with them also sent the Emperours picture in case the Soldan should mistake his