A discussion of the ansvvere of M. VVilliam Barlovv, D. of Diuinity, to the booke intituled: The iudgment of a Catholike Englishman liuing in banishment for his religion &c. Concerning the apology of the new Oath of allegiance. VVritten by the R. Father, F. Robert Persons of the Society of Iesus. VVhervnto since the said Fathers death, is annexed a generall preface, laying open the insufficiency, rayling, lying, and other misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing.

THE SECOND PART, About the Breues of Paulus Quintus. (Book 2)

CONCERNING M. BARLOVVE His exorbitant flattery in exaggerating Queene Elizabeths Vertues, and Sanctity. CHAP. I.

OVR purpose then, being as now we haue declared, to touch some principal points only, handled by M. Barlow in this second and third Part of his an∣swere,* 1.1 we shall begin with the point he most standeth vpon, dilating him∣self for twenty leaues togeather cōcer∣ning Queene Elizabeth her raigne, life, and death, as an ar∣gument

very plausible in his opinion, and capable not on∣ly of his rayling eloquence, and odious amplifications, but of all grosse and abiect flattery in like manner; togeather with some hopes of other gaines also that way, wherunto it seemeth that the poore man hath his tongue and pen most ready to the sale at all turnes and occasions offered. But it may be before we end this conference, his market may be more then halfe marred in the iudgment, at least of disappassionate men, & especially with his most Excellēt Maiesty, whome aboue all other he seeketh to gull in this matter, turning all vpon him, which I both spake and meant to a Minister of M. Barlowes owne ranke: & so I dis∣claime from the calumnious imputation, that it concer∣neth any way his Highnesse, and shall answere all in the same sense which I then wrote, and meant the same; reser∣uing all dutyfull and respectiue reference to his Maiesties Person and Iudgment, as bounden duty obligeth me.

First then occasion being offered, or rather necessity imposed to speake of Queene Elizabeth: for that albeit the Pope had not so much as named her in any of his two Breues, yet had the Apologer brought in her mentiō with many high praises, for disgrasing of Catholickes, and their cause, and for scorne to the Pope, as though he had with∣out cause pittyed and mourned their afflictions vnder her, which he saith was none at all, for that to his own know∣ledge she neuer punished any Papist for Religion. For these causes, I say, I was forced in my Letter, to say some∣what to this assertiue proposition, wherunto the tribula∣tions, afflictions, calamities, spoiles, exiles, and bloud of so many shed by her, did manifestly in the eyes and eares of al men and women that haue liued in our dayes, contradict and reclaime. And yet did I resolue to do the same as mild∣ly and sparingly as I might, answering only the wordes of the Apologie, and abstayning purposely from al bitter∣nesse of speach, so far as the iust defence of the cause per∣mitted, and so shall continue 〈…〉〈…〉 Barlowes most intemperate prouocation to the contrary.

VVhereas then in reciting the wordes of the Apolo∣ger,

I mentioned these: Hauing, sayth he, sacrificed, as I may say, to the Manes of my defunct Soueraigne, as well for the discharge of my particuler dutie, as loue of veritie, I must now performe my d••ty also to his Maiestie present &c. Vpon which wordes I no∣ted that the phrase of sacrificing to the Queenes Manes, or Ghostes, seemed to me very profane, as proper to the Pagan Sacrifices, vsed to those infernall spirits which they cal∣led Gods, & hurtful Gods, & therfore endeauored to please them with sacrifices. My words & discourse were these.

But as for his heathen profane sacrificing to the Manes or Hob-goblins of his late Lady, I confesse it is an office fitter for a Protestant-Minister,* 1.2 that thinketh it vnlaw∣full to pray for her soule, to deale with her Manes, or infer∣nall spirites, then with Celestiall,* 1.3 by praying for her to Saints. But would God these Manes might now haue licēce to appeare, and talke which him, and relate what passeth with her, after all this ioylity, and ruffe in this world; I doubt not but they would coole his excessiue vaine of flat∣tering vanity. For if all the old platforme of Saints liues, prescribed in Scriptures, and practised by the seruants of God, were not erroneous and vaine, as much fasting, con∣tinual prayer, daily mortification, frequent recollection, diligent chastisement of theyr bodies, humble & feruent deuotion, labouring and working theyr saluation in feare and trembling, aboundant almes-deedes, haire-cloth and ashes, contrition, sorrow and sobbing for their sinnes: yf these things (I say) were the ancient wayes to life, and euerlasting saluation: then must the pathes of Queene E∣lizabeth, which are knowne by most men, to haue bene eyther wholy different, or most opposite to these, led to another opposite end, quia vnusquisque recipiet secundum opera s••••. Euery one shall receiue according to his, or her works: and the sentence of the Apostle is cleare & resolute: Si secun∣dum carnem vixeritis, moriemini; si facta carnis spiritu mortificaueritis vi••etis: if you liue according to the flesh you shall die; but if you shall mortify by spirit the workes of the flesh, you shall liue, that is, to life euerlasting.

About these words of mine M. Barlow taketh occasion

to make very large discourses, and to dilate himselfe in three or foure points ••xceedingly. First in the excessiue prayses of the Queene; then in superlatiue raylinges a∣gainst me; thirdly in iustifying the phrase of sacrificing to the dead Queens ghost; & fourthly in setting out her fre∣quent mortifications, that she vsed: but yet in such sort, as he well sheweth, not only not to feele what mortifica∣tion is in it selfe, but neither to vnderstand what he saith, nor wherof he affirmeth.

In the first point of Queene Elizabeths praises he straineth his eloquēce or rather loquence to the vttermost,* 1.4 as though neyther the earth whilst shee was here, nor scarce heauē where now he assureth vs she is, were wor∣thy of her: Shee was a daughter of the bloud Royall, sayth he, borne to the Crowne, in the Prophetes wordes, from the birth, from the wombe,* 1.5 from the conception, a Princesse aduanced to the Crowne in apparen•• right, and by vncontrolable succession &c. Thus he sayth, and yet doth the world know what store of controuersies was about that succession, and lawfullnes thereof, and they are extant in theyr owne Statutes yet in print; so as this man talketh that which he thinketh to be most acceptable, and fit for his presēt purpose of adulation more then what he findeth written or registred, or belie∣ueth himselfe for that matter; and such as know the man, and his constitution, are of opinion, that if his Maiestie that now is, had come into England with that minde, which his Noble Mother and her husband the King of France are knowne once to haue had, to claime & iustify her title, presently after the death of Queene Mary (for so doth Doctor Sanders t••stifie that they had that minde, and began to put the armes of England vpon all the sayd Queen•• plate, but that by the peace made, & Calis released vnto thē for the same, they were pacified for that time) it is to be presumed that his Maiestie if he had preuayled in his pre∣tence, that he should haue found no one man more fit or readie in England, or Scotland, to haue gon vp to Paules Crosse, or to any other place else, to iustifie his Maiesties Mothers pretence, against Queene Elizabeth, or to disgrace her

whome now he extolleth so much, euen in this point of legitimation, from the belly, from the wombe, from the conception, by apparent right, incontrolable succession, and the like.

But now the wind bloweth another way, and he followeth the blast, and turneth his sayles according to the weather:* 1.6 let vs then heare him out further. She was (sayth he) an Imperiall Monarch, a famous Empresse, or rather the very Empresse of ••ame, blazoned out, not by home-bred fauourites, but by forraine trauailers, and writers, before and since her death, yea, ••uen by her enemies, both for Religion, and warre, to be in her time, and for her Sexe, the starre of Soueraignty, the mirrour of Principality, a terrour to her enemies, the Loadstone of Maiesty, drawing vnto her both Embassadours Christian, and not Christian, only for enterview, and salutation, but in truth for view, and admiration: for when they had satisfied themselues with her sight (and hardly could they be satisfi∣ed) what Saba's Queene once sayd of King Salomon, they all con∣cluded of her, that which o••ten falls not out, sayth the Orator, their eyes had ouercome their eares, and truth had out-strip•• fame, report was lesse then verity, and her renowne was far short of her desert. Thus far our Oratour. And doth he not seeme to speake well for his fee?

But yet whē he telleth vs how his famous Empresse or Empresse of fame, is blazoned not only at home, but abroad by forraine writers,* 1.7 he will not forget I hope to remember, that shee is blazoned by many of them in farre other colours then heere he painteth her out: and this partly in respect of her hard measure towards Catholikes, whose religion shee professed vnder Queene Mary, and made many fayre promises of continuance therin; for the breach wherof, and contrary proceeding afterward when she came to the Crowne, she susteyned so hard a conceipt and bad opinion of all forrayne Princes, people, & King∣domes Catholik, as the memory perhapes of no one Chri∣stian Prince or Princesse that euer liued, is more vngrate∣full and odious to them. And this is the very truth not∣withstanding all this parasiticall flattery of the Minister: which I speake as God knoweth with great compassion towards her, and our Countrey, for her sake, and not with

any humor of reuenge, insultation, or exprobratiō against her. The histories are extant, their speaches and iudge∣ments are knowne to such as doe trauaile forreine Coun∣treys, and with indifferency and attention doe marke what passeth among them.

But yet this man sitting at home in his warme chāber, goeth further in his exaltations of her: and to pretermit many, as ouerlong for this place, he sayth,* 1.8 That all her actions, being Royally vertuous, vertuously religious, and religiously wise; her wisedome seasoned her religion, her religion sanctified her policyes, her polices graced her descent, all of them togeather wrought her immor∣tality, and her immortality is accompayned with renowne vpon earth, and reward in heauen. So he, and much more, which I pre∣termit as idle froath of a flattering tongue, who taketh vpon him also to Canonize her with the terme of Eterni∣zed Saynt, and affirmeth resolutely, that shee neuer blemi••hed her s••l••e with vice criminall, or continued, for soe are his words. And what he meaneth by continued,* 1.9 I know not, exept he meaneth as the word importeth, that she continued not from vice to vice without interruption, which had bene horrible to haue done (if not impossible) or had perse∣uered continually in one and the selfe same vice criminall, which had bene as bad if not worse. He auoucheth further of her, that shee neuer in her life committed hellish crime; wherby I suppose, he meaneth mortall sinne, for that the payne & punishmēt therof is hell, according to S. Paules doctri∣ne, and then I confesse that this were to be accompted an extraordinary sanctity indeed,* 1.10 that a woman brought vp in such liberty, for so many yeares togeather, in so cor∣rupt a time (who as M. Barlow here telleth vs, was no Cloystred-Nun, but a Queene that liued in all prosperity in the midest of all temptations and allurements, both of Sathan, the flesh, and the world) should neuer commit so much as one mortall sinne.

But I would aske M. Barlow, how he commeth to know this secret? did he euer heare her Confession? For if he did, he might with far better conscience vtter her ver∣tues knowne thereby, to her prayse, and to the edification

of others, then he did the Earle of Essex his vices, to his infamy, and other mens scandall. But I for my part doe thinke, that albeit Queene Elizabeth went often to confes∣sion in Queene Maries dayes, yet from that time to her death, which was more then forty yeares, she neuer tooke the benefit of that Sacrament;* 1.11 in which long time wee may wel imagine what store of dust a house much fre∣quented would haue gathered, that had neuer bene swep•• in so long a space. And albeit shee had had, both grace, wil, and time to cōfesse her sins, yet do I belieue that she would neuer haue chosen M. Barlow for her Confessour, and Ghostly Father; and consequently all that he talketh here of her vices criminall, and not continued, and of hellish crimes neuer committed, is spoken without booke, vpon no greater ground, then that he listeth to say and write so of her. And this shall serue for the first point, concerning his excessiue prayses of Queene Elizabeth, though we shall haue occasiō to handle somewhat therof againe in the fourth point a∣bout her mortifications.

Touching the second point then of impotent and exorbitant railing; albeit much were to be sayd; yet doe I not meane to loose time in the repeating thereof, or iniurie the eares of graue and modest men with hearing such contemptible matter: it is reuenge inough for me to vnderstand by diuers wayes, as I doe, that his owne friends doe condemne him, and thinke contemptuously of him, for entring into such an odious kind of writing. And for other that are different from him in religion, though they thinke him not worthy of any Answere, that taketh such a course; yet haue I thought good for this once to bestow so much paynes as to runne his Booke ouer, and to returne him answere to other points, though not to this, but yet so, as by those other points which I handle, the mans spirit may be so well knowne, as none will meruayle that he tooke so dishonest and impudent a course of virulēt rayling.

As for the third poynt of sacrificing to the Manes or Ghostes of the dead Queene Elizabeth, true it is, that suppo∣sing

my selfe to haue to do with a Minister, that vsed the phrase,* 1.12 in the case he did, I noted it as Heathenish and pro∣phane, in respect of both words, to wit sacrificing to Ghost, especially Infernall, himselfe being enemie to all Christian Sacrifice, or prayers for soules Christianly departed, or intercession to be made for them to Saints in heauen, that are Supernall Ghosts, and not Infernall. By which occa∣sion M. Barlow taketh matter to dilate himselfe much (as he doth willingly when he findeth any thing to talke of, though neuer so impertinent) to proue that this phrase of sacrificing to dead Ghosts, though it were proper to the Gentiles and Pagans, may also be vsed of Christians in a good sense:* 1.13 Especially, sayth he, it being vsed by his Maiesty, as a borrowed phrase, and vttered with a deprecatory parenthesis, as it were in modesty, asking leaue for the passage therof, secretly therby in∣sinuating, that otherwise, it was that which among the Rhetoritians is called audax Metaphora, a bould Metaphore.

Wherunto I answere, that with all these circumstāces I see no difficulty, but that the phrase may be vsed, especi∣ally by audax Metaphora, and by so great a Prince, whose licence in speach good reason alloweth to be larger then other men: nor had I euer put difficulty in the phrase, if I had knowne it to haue come from his Maiestie. But for a Minister to be so bould in his audacious Metaphors, seemed not so tollerable: so as in the thing it selfe, supposing the former qualifications, I haue no further controuersie. But yet I must note, that the arguments scraped togeather by M. Barlow,* 1.14 for allowance of the phrase, are nothing worth at all. For that first the testimonies here quoted by him, though at randome, of S. Hierome, S. Augustine & S. Basill, affirming that we may vse the learning of the Gentiles to the aduancement of Christian Religion, as the Israelites did the spoyles of the AEgyptians, are to be vnderstood of such poynts of their learning, as may piously be applyed to our vse, to wit their morall doctrine, Histories, Phi∣losophy, Examples, Sentences, Comparisons and the like, but yet do not allow that we should vse the peculiar phra∣ses of their Idolatrous worship, about the mysteries of our

Christian Religion, as certaine new prophane compani∣ons of our age haue done, I meane Castalio and others, cal∣ling God, Iupiter, and our B. Lady Diana, and the like.

Nor doe the other examples alleadged by M. Barlow for proofe and allowance of any such prophane vse,* 1.15 mak•• anything to the matter in hand, and consequently they are brought in by him to no purpose at all, but to spend time and paper without vtility. For what maketh it to our purpose if S. Luke in the narration of S. Paules nauigation to Rome,* 1.16 doe say that the ship of Alexandria wherin he went had for his badge the signe of ••astor and Pollux, the chil∣dren of Iupiter, according to the fables of Gentilitie? Or what if S. Peter in his secōd Epistle speaking of the damna∣tiō of the wicked Angels,* 1.17 do name these chaines of darknes wherwith they are bound in hel; which words of chaines & hell, are to be found in Poets? Is this a sufficient proofe that Pagan phrases concerning matters of religion may be vsed also in our Diuinity? I pretermit his idle bringing in of S. Paul, that vsed halfe a verse of Aratus, a heathen Po∣et, when he spake in the Councell house of the Areopagus in Athens;* 1.18 as also Nazianzen & Origen, for vsing the two pro∣uerbs Orci galea & Plutonis cassis, for that these things are law∣full, as before we haue sayd, nor haue they any similitude at all with the phrase in controuersie of sacrificing to Queene Elizabeths Manes, for that this being heathenish in the sense of both words, to wit, of sacrificing, and of In••ernall spirits, and applied by the Authour of the Apologie, to the Chri∣stian duty to be performed to a Christian soule deceased, conteyneth much more in it, then those other Poeticall words, vsed to no such end, by the Christian Authours.

Nor is that worth the answering, which is brought in out of the Epistle of Iustus Baronius, not long since con∣uerted from Caluins Sect, to the Catholike Church, where recounting his iourney through Millayn•• he sayth, that a∣mōgst other Reliques, they were brought to see the shrine where the Manes Ambrosij iunioris Borrh••maei were conteyned, that is to say, the memory and reliques of the yonger Am∣brose, to wit Cardinall Borrh••maeus, which M. Barlow thin∣keth

to be a great testimony against me: but indeed is none at all. For nowsoeuer this man newly conuerted from being a Protestant, did vse also some part of M. Barl••••••s audax Metaphora, which he very well approueth, and that this word Manes, being vsed alone may metaphorically haue some such sense, as the Reliques or memory of men departed: yet did he not vse the whole phrase of parent are Man••a••, to sacrifice vnto the Manes of any body departed, whic•• is not vsed or permitted in Catholike Religion, to sacrifice vnto the reliques or memory of any man dead, but only to offer sacrifice to God for them, if they stand i•• need therof. And thus much for this.

ABOVT QVEENE Elizabeth her Mortifications. And of the nature of that Vertue. §. II.

THere remaineth the fourth point cōcerning Queene Elizabeths Mortifications, and Pe••nances voluntarily ••aken here in this life: wherof I said by iust occasion giuen,

That if the old platforme of Saints liues prescribed in Scri∣ptures, and practised by the seruants of God, were not er∣roneous and vayne, as much fasting, continuall prayer, dayly mortification, frequent recollection, diligent cha∣sticement of their bodies, aboundant almes-deeds, haire∣cloath, and ashes, and the like: if these things I say, were anciently accounted Viae vitae, wayes to life, as often and highly commended in the Scriptures by the Holy Ghost, and practised from time to time in the liues of the holiest men in the Christian Church; then sayd I, must the wayes and paths of Queene Elizabeths life which are knowne to be far different from these, be very dangerous, and the end and successe thereof not so assured of glory, as her flat∣terers both promised her in her life, and now will needs after her death, beare men downe that it is performed.

To this M. Barlow answereth in diuers sorts: first out of the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans,* 1.19 VVhat art thou that iudgest another mans seruant, for somuch as to his Lord he standeth or f••lleth? But this place is manifestly abused by M. Barlow, as are commonly all other Scriptures alleadged by him. For S. Paul speaketh in this place of indifferent things, as of eating and drinking, in which a man may not condemne rashly another,* 1.20 Qui n••n manducat, manducantem non iudicet, he that eateth not, let him not iudge him that eateth. But touching our cause in hand, let him read the sentence of the fame Apostle to Timothy, both clearly and resolutely set downe,* 1.21 Querundam hominum peccata manisesta sunt, praecedentia ad iudicium: quosdam antem subsequuntur. Similiter & bona facta manisesta sunt, & quae aliter se habent, abscondi non p••ssunt. The ••innes of some men are manifest going before thē to iudg∣ment: but in some other they follow. And so in like man∣ner good workes are manifest, and those that be otherwise cannot be hidden. Wherby it is manifest in some cases, that a man may iudge, or at least wise haue a probable con∣iecture (for Almighty God may alter in secret what to his diuine wisedome and mercy shall seeme good) what end a Christian is like to ariue vnto, by the wayes wherin he walketh. And S. Paul himselfe doth set downe sundry particulars in diuers places of his Epistles, in which he sayth that Christians shall not be saued. So as this kind of iudgement is not wholy forbidden, but rash iudgment only.

Secondly then M. Barlowe commeth to lay hand on another answere, saying,* 1.22 That fasting with a sower countenance, prayer in open places, dole of almes with proclama∣tions, are ensignes of hypocrites in our Sauiours iudgment. Wher∣to I reply that these are but the abuses of good things,* 1.23 which abuse the Seruants of God flying,* 1.24 do retayne the good vse. Thirdly sayth hee, (for he deuideth his proofes into sundry heads, and all not worth a rush) such outward habits of mortification as Iesuits terme, of wearing of heare-cloth, and the like,* 1.25 might argue Achab. who went barefoote in hayre-cloth and a••••es, to be a mortified creature, as well as the seuerest sel••e chastising

Iesuite of you all. So he. And this only example is sufficient to shew, both the mans spirit, and wit. His spirit in contē∣ning and ••esting at that which God himselfe did so highly esteeme, his wit, that he seeth not what maketh for him, or ag••inst him. As for the Iesuits, their Doctrine is, that all these externall mortifications are only so far forth gra••eful and acceptable to God, as they do proceed from the inter∣nall mortification of the mind, and sorrow for their sins, and not otherwise. And that this externall mortification of Achab did so proceed, is euident by the very wordes of Scripture, alleadged by M. Barlow, which are these:* 1.26 VVhen Achab had heard the speaches of the Prophet Elias, he rent his gar∣mēts, & couered his flesh with haire-cloth and ••asted, & sl••pt in sakcloth and walked with his head bowed douneward. And the word of God was made vnto Elias, saying, hast thou not seene Achab humilia••ed before me? For so much then, as he hath humbled himselfe ••or my cause, I will not bring the euill vpō him, which I haue threatned in h•••• dayes, but in the days o•• his Sonne. And let it be marked, that he sayd humi∣litatus est mei causa, he hath humbled him selfe for my cause, which signifyed that it came from the hart, and from the sorrow that he conceyued, to haue offended God: which is true internall mortification, and made Achab, a true mor∣tified or mortifying creature in that act, for which wee haue God himselfe for a witnes.* 1.27 And it can be no lesse then prophane impiety, and sinfull secularity so prophane∣ly to rest at it. But let vs passe to another parte of his An∣swere in this matter.

Indeed, sayeth he, she was no cloystered Nunne. (to wit Queene Elizabeth:* 1.28) And so I thinke to: and that the diffe∣rence of their liues did shew it. A Queene she was (sayeth M. Barlow) and a State She had to manage, a people to gouerne•• & much busines to attend, bodily exercise sayth the Apostle profiteth nothing, b••t godlines, that is, a sound sayth with a good conscience avayl••s ••ith God and argueth a minde truely regenerate. This is M. Barlowes way of mortification, not to meddle with Achabs contri∣tion, humiliation, or hayrecloth, nor with the liues of ••loystered Nunnes, that serue God in the austerity of Christian discipline, as fasting, praying, and other morti∣fication,

but only he commendeth a sound ••aith with a good conscience, which euery man will easily perswade himselfe to haue, especially if he belieue him in citing S. Paul to Timothy, as though the Apostle had called such externall mortifications, as fasting and the like, vnprofitable ••odily exer∣cises, and that only a sound fayth were piety. But this is as fraudulent dealing as before: for that the Apostle his very manner of speach, Exerce ••e ipsum ad pietatem, exercise thy selfe to piety, doth shew that he speaketh of good workes and piety of life, and that he maketh here a difference be∣tweene bodily exercise that hath for his end, only the good of the body, and the exercise of piety, which whether they be bodily or spirituall, are alwaies directed to a spirituall end. And so do the ancient Fathers vnderstand the words of exercise and piety, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 especially such as best vnder••••ood the force, and propriety of the Greeke words,* 1.29 as namely S. Chrysostome, who in his speciall Commentary vpon this place of S. Paul defineth piety thus: pietas rectissima vitae norma est, & conuersationis optimae disciplina: Piety is a most straight rule of life, containing the discipline of a most ex∣cellent conuersatiō, wherby only faith you see is excluded. And then ••urther reiecting M. Barlows false interpretation of S. Pauls words, as though he had meant fasting, and o∣ther externall mortifications, by corporall exercises which he calleth lesse profitable, he saith,* 1.30 Quidam hoc Apostolum de ••eiunio aiunt dix••sse, sed prosectò errant: neque enim est corporalis ex••ercitatio i••iunium, sed spiritualis. Nam si corporalis esset, corpus pro¦fectò nutriret: cum autem id maceret & extenuet macie{que} conficiat, corpor••lis dici omnino non potest. Some men (as M. Barlow) do say, that the Apostle (speaking of vnprofitable bodily ex∣ercise (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 where∣as 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 an∣cient as S. Chrysostome, & most skill••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 e••iam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tua tribulatione alijs subuenire, Sicut Sareptana vidua seci••: Piety is to help other men euen with thy owne tribulation as the poore,* 1.31 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 ho∣ly 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 admoni∣tion 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 Phisitiōs for help of his said health. To which end also the said A∣postle in the same Epistle exhorteth him not to drinke wa∣ter still,* 1.32 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 pie∣ty, as now hath bene sayd. So as this place also of S. Paul hath bene abused by M. Barlow his prophane interpretati∣on against externall mortifications.

But now lastly he commeth neere vs indeed, and will shew that Queene Elizabeth her mortification was of ano∣ther 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:* 1.33 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 go∣uerne well in their owne conceipts. For what Prince thi••∣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 Gouer∣nours

vnder them, who haue one poynt more of mortifi∣cation 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 morti∣fication, and desire to be so mortified. And if to be a Bishop also be a mortification, then hath M. Barlow in like man∣ner 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 ver∣tues 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,* 1.34 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 re∣cited, as also these other to the Romans:* 1.35 Si spiritu sacta carnis mortificaueritis, viuetis: If you shall mortify the works of the flesh by spirit, you shall liue. And then followeth the con∣trary set downe in the same place. If you shall not morti∣fy 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 mortifica∣tion 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, ••eling, or other motion: so when this vertue of mortifi∣cation

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 re∣maine as it were feeble, cold, and dead, in resisting or re∣belling against the superiour parts of the soule, directed by rea••on and religion. And this is that most happy and excellent death so much desired by S. Augustine, when he sayd to God:* 1.36 moriar, ne moriar, let me dy, that I may not dy: and good S. Bernard, Vti••am hac morte ego frequenter cadam, vt euadam l••queos mortis, vt non sentiam vitae luxurian••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:* 1.37 Vt obstupescam ad sensum libidinis, ad aestum auaritiae, ad iracundiae & impatientiae stimulos, ad angoris soli∣citudinem, ad molestias cu••••rum: moriatur anima mea morte i••s••••∣rum; bo••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. Augustine vpon the former words of S. Paul is general to all men:* 1.38 Hoc est opus vestrum in hac vita, actiones carnis spiritu mortificare quotidie, affl••gere, minue••e, fraenare, interi∣••ere: This is your worke in this life, to mortify dayly the actions of the flesh, by spirit, and to afflict them, dimi∣nish them, to bridle them, and to kill them. Which sense and feeling of mortification, if M. Barlow had, and were of the same spirit, with these holy men, he would neuer seeke so many shifts to discredit the same, and to make it contemptible as he doth; first by scorning at fastings, pray∣ers,

and a••me••••ed••, when by Hypocrites they are abused, which is nothing to the true vse,* 1.39 and consequently not to the purpose; then to disgrace thē, when they are well vsed, by saying that they are bodily exercises, of small vtility; ••hen by ••e••ting at the sackcloath, ashes, and other penan∣ces, and externall mortifications, which God himselfe in King Achab approued, and tooke in great good part; then i•• ••co••ting at the state of Nunnes professing the like retired li••e of mortification; then telling vs further that the life of Queene Elizabeth had ••ore mortification by liuing in a Court wh••re many temptations were, then in a Mona∣stery, which he proueth out of Seneca, saying: Marcet enim ••••ne aduersario virtus: For vertue is sluggish where no aduer∣sary is. By which consequence it followeth that it is much better, and more excellent mortificatio••s for yong Ladies and Gentlewomen, to liue in great Courts where there be store of amourous yong Knights and Gentl••men to tempt them, then to liue solitary, or retired from such Courtes and companies, where no such impugnation of the aduersary is. And this is M. Barlowes good discipline for women, which is farre different from that which S. Cyprian prescribe••h in his Booke De disciplina. & habit•• Vir∣ginu••, no lesse then their two spirits are different.

And lastly you see that he distracteth the word Morti∣fication so farre, as he draweth it to all dignity and honour, and that it is mortification to be a King, Queene, or chiefe Gouernour, which are things most agreeable to mans sensuall desires, and opposite ••o mortification; though I would easily grant, that if a man did hate and fli•• such dig∣nities in him selfe, & that they were forced vpon him; of which sort of men S. Gregory writeth Val••è destent quòd tardè ad patriam redeunt, & tolerare insuper honoris onera copell••••ur:* 1.40 they do greatly bewaile that they returne slowly to their Coun∣trey (which is heauen) and besides are forced to beare the burthen of honours in the meane space: Of these men I say who should so be forced against their wills to sustaine pla∣ces of honour, as S. Gregory himselfe was, in taking the Popedome, to such a man it is a mortification indeed to

be a King, Prince, or Pope. But this riseth not out of the dignity it selfe as M. Barlow fondly teacheth, but out of the vertuous repugnance of the receiuers will: so as if Queene Elizabeth, to come to our proper case, did vnwillingly and with repugnancy of mind take the crowne vpon her, wh••̄ Queene Mary died•• as S. Gregory did his Popedome, then may it be said, that it was some mortification vnto her; otherwise it is ridiculous to make all high dignities and places of honour, Mortification: for so much as euery man doth ordinarily feele in himselfe, an inclination of our corrupt nature to desire them, which naturally notwith∣standing loueth not mortification.

Moreouer, wheras there are two parts and members of mortification,* 1.41 the one internall, the other externall, the internall to mortifie the inward partes of our soule, both intellectuall and sensuall, as to deny a mans owne will, represse selfe loue, subdue our iudgemen•• to the obedience of others, represse the passions both of pride, anger, concu∣piscence & the like: another part externall, that mortifieth the body and outward senses therof, making them subiect to reason by externall punishments of the body, as by fa∣stings, watchings, and other chasticements of the same, which S. Paul testifyeth both of himselfe, and the rest of the Apostles that they praised the same, which being so, I would demaund of M. Barlow, to which of these mortificati∣ons doth a Courtly & Princely life lead vs, more then the state of a poore life. For as denying a mans owne will, it is far from Princes, to practice the same, who indeauour rather to haue their wills done, and that with reason: re∣nunciation also of the world and subduing of their owne iudgments, seemeth not so properly to belong to that e∣state. And as for mortifying of passions, if they would at∣tempt to do it, their flatterers would not suffer them, for that they would both say and sweare, that euery passion of theirs is a sound and solide vertue, and euery disordi∣nate appetite a most iust desire.

And if you passe further to externall mortification, as often fasting, much prayer, long watchings, course ap∣parell,

••air-cloth, di••cipline, and the ••ike; how vnfit are they for a Court, or a Court for them?* 1.42 Is not soft & braue apparell, delicate diet, banqueting, dancing, masking, Comedies, loue-letters, and such other, more aggreable to that state and place? Of the first our Sauiour himselfe testifieth, Qui mollibus vestiuntur, in domibus Regum sunt; and for the rest that they were gratefull and familiar in Queene Elizabeth her Court, and more frequented by her selfe then the other, all men I thinke that were eye witnesses of the same will testify. Only there wanted to the world a De∣uine, who by a new Theology should celebrate these Courtly exercises for good mortifications; and now is sprong vp M. VVilliam Barlow,* 1.43 that hath taken the matter vpon him, & published it in print, making the very state and condition of life it selfe, of being a Prince, to be a state of mortification, and consequently also of pennance (for that mortifications be acts of pennance) wherof it doth ensue that Queene Elizabeths life was a penitentiall life, which is f••rre different from that store of felicity and aboundance of temporall consolation, which the Lord Cooke describeth with his Copia & Inopia, which wee shall handle afterward. And thus much of Queene Elizabeths Mortification.

There followeth in my Booke a word or two of her persecutions, for that it was sayd in the Apology,* 1.44 first in generall, that her Maiestie neuer punished any Papist for Religion. And againe, that she was most free from all persecution. And yet further, that she neuer medled with the hard punishment of any Ca∣tholicke, nor made any rigorous law against them, before the Excom∣••••nication of pope Pius Quintus, which was vpon the yeare 1569. ••••d the eleuenth of her Raigne. Wherunto I answered, that for punishments, all the Catholick Cleargy of England were depriued long before this for their religion, and many, as well Laymen as Priestes put in prison for the same, and multitude of others driuen into banishment of all sortes of people, whose names Doctor Sanders setteth downe in his seauenth booke of his Visible Monarchy. The seuere lawes also against them that refused to take the Oath of suprema∣cy,

and should say or heare masse, were made long befo••e this and put in practice: so as this narration could not stand. What replyeth M. Barlow to this? Ni••il ad Rh•••••••• sayth he, the speach is here of lawes, whose payne is death. Yea Syr. And is it so? I refer me to the wordes euen now recited out of the Apology, that her Maiestie neuer punished any Papi•••• •••••• Religion, that she was most free from all persecution; doth not all & any include other punishments besides death? Moreouer when it is sayd that she neuer made any rig••••ous lawes against Catholickes: doth this only comprehēd the lawes, whose punishment is death? To what straites is M. Barlow driuen here? And yet if he doe remember well the oath of Suprem••cie, he cannot but know, that the third refusall therof is also death. So as euery way the poore man is ta∣ken.

OF QVEENE ELIZABETH HER FELICITIES, and infelicities. CHAP. II.

AFTER this followeth another question betweene M. Barlow and me, about the felicities or infelicities of Queene E∣lizabeth, or rather betweene the Lord Iustice Cooke and me, who hauing vpon diuers occasions to the exprobration of Catholicke men and religion, whome she pursued in her life time, enlarged himselfe extraordi∣narily in her exaltation, calling her, The happie Queene, The blessed Queene, and the like: I was forced for defence of the truth, to examine somewhat the grounds of this felicitie. My words then were,

That the said Lord Cooke vpon the occasion of certaine words in Pope Clements Breue, where

Queene Elizabeth is named misera semina, a miserable wo∣man (in respect no doubt of the miseries of her soule, litle respected by her:) vpon which wordes the Oratour tri∣umpheth thus.* 1.45 What miserable! it is sayd, that, miseria cōst••s ex duobus contrarys, copia & inopia; copia tribulationis, & inopia consolationis,* 1.46 mi••erie consisteth of two contraries, of aboun∣dance, and penury, aboundance of tribulation, & penury of consolatiō. And then he sheweth in what aboūdance of cōsolations Q. Elizabeth liued in al her life, & without wāt of all tribulation: which if it were true; yet is it but the argument which the worldlinges vsed in the Psalme, to proue their felicitie, that their Cellars are full, their sheep fertile,* 1.47 their kine fat, they suffer no losse, and then, Beat•••• dixeri n•• populim cui••ac s••nt; happie did they call the people that had these things. But the holy Ghost scorneth them, and so may all men do our Oratour, that vseth and vrgeth so base an argument, in so high a matter.

And as for his definition of misery, by copia and inopia, store & want, it is a miserable one in deed, & neuer heard of before, I thinke, to come from any mans mouth, but his owne: it being ridiculous in Philosophy, and fit to be ap∣plyed to any thing that hath eyther store or want. As a wise man in this sort may be defined to be him, that hath store of witt, and want of folly, and a foole to be him, that hath store of folly•• and want of wit: and so a rich man is he, that hath store of riches, & want of beggarie, & a poore man is he that hath store of beggarie, & penury of riches. And are not these goodly definitions (thinke you) for so great and graue a man to produce?

Thus passed the matter then. But now M. Barlow doth constitute himselfe Aduocate for the Iustice, and if he plead his cause well, he will deserue a good ••ee, for the cause it selfe is but weake, as presētly you will behould.

The Lord Cooke (sayth he) who at the Arraignement of Garnet in∣dignantly scorning that the high Priest of Rome should in a Breue of his call so great a Prince (as Quene Elizabeth was) Miseram F••minam,* 1.48 a miserable woman, by a description of miserie consisting of two contraries, want of com••ort, and

plenty of tribulation, shewes by many reasons, euident and demonstratiue, that she, hauing aboundance of ioy, and no touch of affliction, but blessed with all kind of felici∣ties, could not be called Miserable &c.

In which words,* 1.49 I would haue you note first, that wheras here he sayth, that the Iustice shewed this, by many reasons, euident and demon∣stratiue, within a dozen lines after, he saith of these reasons, But if they be not concluding demonstrations, yet as least let them be probable perswasions, which is quite contrary to that which he sayd before, that they were euident and demonstratiue, so soone the man forgetteth himselfe. But to the matter it selfe, that albeit all these temporall felicities ascribed to Queene Elizabeth had bene so many, and so great, as Syr Edward affirmeth them, yet had it beene but the argument of worldlings, who in the 143. Psalme, did measure their felicity by their full Cellars, & were checked for the same by the holy Ghost, by teaching them that not, Beatus popu∣lus cui haec sunt, but beatus populus cuius Dominus Deus eius: & con∣sequētly that Queene Elizabeth might haue these temporall felicities, and yet be truly miserable in that sense wherin Pope Clement so called her, to wit concerning the affaires of her soule, and euerlasting saluation: To this, I say, he answereth first by demanding, why temporall prosperitie may not be made an argument of Gods loue to Queene Elizabeth, and of her felicitie, for so much as it is scored vp for one of the Notes of the true Church by Cardinall Bellarmine, de Not•••• Ecclesiae, Nota 15:

Whereunto I answer, that this temporall felicitie is not to our purpose, for that Pope Clement spake of her spiri∣tuall infelicitie,* 1.50 as hath bene shewed: and that temporall felicitie doth not infer or argue spirituall felicitie, euery man will confesse, that hath spirit to discerne it, for that the whole Scripture is ful of testimonies, that wicked men (and consequently miserable in soule) haue bene tempo∣rally blessed by Almighty God, made rich, powerfull,* 1.51 & prosperous, euen to the very affliction & scandalizing as it were of the iust and vertuous, but yet were they not happy for this, but most miserable, euen as those Israelites were,

that hauing their fill of quailes in the desert sent thē from God, they had no sooner eaten them as the Scripture sayth,* 1.52 adhuc escae eorum erāt in ore ipsorum, & ira Dei ascendi•• super 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the meat was yet in their mouthes, and the wrath of God did fall vpon them. And he that shall read ouer the 72. Psalme, shall see, that it is altogeather of this matter, to wit of Dauids admiration of the wealth and prosperitie of the wicked, whose end notwithstanding he sayth to be most misera∣ble, aestimabam vt cognoscerem hoc, labor est ante me, donec intelligam in nouissimis eorum; deiecisti eos dum alleuarentur: I did thinke I could haue vnderstood this matter, but it is harder then I imagined, vntil I cōsidered their ends; thou hast depres∣sed them whiles they were exalted. So sayd our Sauiour to the rich man, recepisti bona in vita tua, thou hast receiued good in thy life, and note, sayth S. Bernard, that he sayeth recepisti, non rapuisti, thou receiuedst them, and diddest not get them by force, and yet notwithstanding did he infer, that therefore he was now tormented in hell, which he would not haue sayd, if temporall prosperitie had bene a good argument of spirituall happinesse and felicitie.

* 1.53And as for that he obiecteth out of Cardinall Bellar••ine his making temporall felicitie in those Princes that defend the same to be a Note of the true Church; first it is not to our purpose, as hath bene said, for that we affirme Pope Clement when he called Queene Elizabeth, Miserable, meant of spirituall miserie, which is not contrary to Bellarmines speach:* 1.54 for he doth not argue, that euery one of those tem∣porall Princes that had prosperous successe in the warres vndertakē for defēce of the Church were happie also spiri∣tually for those temporal felicities; but that Almighty God hauing an intention to preserue his true visible Catholike Church from age to age, to the worlds end, did prosper those Princes that fought for the same; by which proui∣dence and concourse of Almighty God, togeather with the cooperation of the said Catholike Princes, she hath bene conserued from the Apostles times to ours: and all o∣ther enemies, as well Heretiks as Infidells, haue bene di∣spersed, vanquished, and ouerthrowne: which is an ar∣gument

amongst others, that this only Church is the true Catholike Church, to endure vnto the worlds end, for so much as this only, by Gods particuler prouidence hath bene thus defended, which is the true meaning of Cardi∣nall Bellarmines drift, and whole discourse in that place. Now vnto the other about the speach of worldlings in the 143. Psalme.

M. Barlow wil needs haue the words of worldlings, applauding their own felicity in this Psalme, by the beau∣ty & prosperity of their Children, their full Cellars, fer∣till sheep, and fat kyne, to be true signes of felicity indeed, as sent from God to testifie his loue towards them, & that D••••id did writ all this in his own person, giuing thanks to God for those present temporall blessings: and that the check or reprehension giu••n by the holy-Ghost in the last words, happy is the people whose Lord is Almighty God, was not a reproofe of the sentence imediatly going before, happy they esteemed the peo••le that haue these prosperities, but rather a con∣firmation of the same. And for some points of this exposi∣tion he alleageth 2. or 3. expositours of our time, as Flami∣••i••••, Genebrard, and Arias M••ntanus in their Paraphrases vpon this Psalme, who albeit vpon some wordes of the H••brew text, somewhat different from the Greeke translation of the Septuagint, do make some exposition not altogeather agreeing with our common latin translation, which in this followeth the said Septuagint: yet are they far from a∣greeing also with M. Barlowes exposition. Whatsoeuer they say by occasion of this difference betweene the Hebrews, as now it is found, and the translation of the sayd Septua∣gi••ta made 400. yeares before the Natiuity of our Sauiour, and vsed commonly to be cited by the Apostles themselues in the allegation of the old Testament; most certayne it is that the anciēt Fathers vnderstood the sense of this Psalme as we do now: for proofe wherof I might alleadge many places out of their Commentaries and Expositions, but S. Augustine shall serue for all, who expounding this part of the sayd Psalme, Erue me de manufiliorum alienorum, deli∣uer me out of the hands of strange children, whole mouth

hath spoken vanity, he expoundeth what this vanity is to wit, that they measuring happines by worldly prosperi∣ties, faire Children, full butteries, & the like, did make this inference, Blessed are the people that haue these commodities, and were checked for the same by the Prophet, saying, Happy is the people whose God is their Lord. I shall se•• downe S. Augustines discourse some what at large, for the better satisfaction of the Reader in this point, for that M. Barlow is not ashamed to charge me with the peruerting of Scriptures, and laying a slanderous imputation vpon the holy-Ghost himselfe. Thus then he writeth.

Nunc ergo exponat quod dicit, Quorum os loquutum est vanitate•• &c. Now then let the Prophet explayne vnto vs, that which he saith, that their mouth spake vanity: what vani∣ty did their mouth speake? That their children were new plants, well established in their youth, he intendeth to reckon vp their felicities: but be you attent that be chil∣dren of light, the sonnes of peace: attend you children of the Church, members of Christ: stand you attent whome he calleth strangers, whome he calleth forraine Children; attend I beseech you, for that amongst these men you liue in perill &c.* 1.55 Be you attent that you may discerne them: be you attent, that you thinke not the felilicity that they desire, to be the true felicity. Behould what is the vanity which their mouth speaketh: take heed least you speake the like. And take he••d that you speaking the like, do not imitate them, whose mouth speaketh such vanity, and their right hand is the right hand of iniquity. What va∣nity hath their mouth spoken? And what right hand of theirs is the right hand of iniquity?

Harken: VVhose chil∣dren, say they, are new plants, established in their youth, their Daugh∣ters faire, and adorned to the simili••ude of a Church, their butteries full, their sheep ••ertill, their kine sat &c. And what shall we say?

Is not this felicity? I demaund you children of the king∣dome of heauen: I demaund you, that are borne to euer∣lasting resurrection: I demaund you, that are the body of Christ, the members of our Sauiour, the temple of God, is not this happines to haue these things? The holy Patri∣••••ches

had good part therof, and shall we not call it felicity? Sit licèt: sed sinistra: quid est sinistra? temporalis, mortalis, corporalis, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 illam ••am diffugi••s, sed neque dextram putes. Let it be counted felicity, but it is left-handed felicity: what is left-handed felicity? temporall, mortall, corporall, which I do not perswade you to fly, but that you do not esteeme it right-handed felicity, as strange children do, and therfore it is sayd of them, dextra corum, dextra iniquitatis, their right hand, is the right hand of iniquity: for that they placed on their right hand that, which they should haue put on the left &c.

And then finally comming to the conclusion of the Psalme, and to handle the check giuen by the holy Ghost for this mistaking, and misnaming this felicity, he saith•• I doe then reprehend these strang erring children, for that their daughters be faire, their butteries full, and the like, sed quare ••os arguo? quia, Beatum dixerunt populum cui haec sunt. O l••q••entis hominis vanitatem! Wherfore then doe I reprehend them? For that they say, that the people are happy, that haue these things. O speakers of vanity! They said that the people were happy, that had these things, ô maligni, ô vani∣loqui, ô filij alieni! Beatum dixerunt, cui haec sunt. O malicious and vaine speaking men, o strange children! they named that people happy that had these things: that which was at the left hand, they placed at the right, they call the people happy that had these things. But what dost thou say King Dauid? What saist thou, o body of Christ? o members of our Sauiour, you that are Children of God, and not aliens, what say you? Beatus populus cuius Dominus Deus ipsius, happy is the people that haue God for their Lord.

Thus farre S. Au∣gustine. Wherby may be seene his sense, & the sense of the whole Christian Church in his dayes about the meaning of this Psalme, which he sayth I corrupted by my exposi∣tion, although it were no other then this of S. Augustine, as you haue seene.

And if you would see other Fathers to the same sense, you may read S. Hierome in his Commentary vpon the first Chapter of the Prophet Habacuc,* 1.56 where he reciteth these

temporall prosperities, as vanities bestowed vpon the wic∣ked.

* 1.57Arnobius also in his Cōmentary vpon the Psalmes, af∣ter hauing mentioned the sayd temporall prosperities be∣stowed vpon the wicked, cōclude•••• thus: Dicant ••rgo incro∣duli &c. Let the faithlesse say then, Blessed is the people that hath aboundance of worldly prosperities, but let vs say with the Prophet, that people to be happy who haue God for their Lord. And these are Fathers of the Latyn Church.

* 1.58And if we looke into the Fathers of the Greeke Church, we shall find the same con••ent, for the meaning of this place. As for example, S. Basil hauing touched the vanity of this temporall felicity, he putteth downe the re∣iection therof made by the Prophet: Alij quidem, inquit, beat•••• talia habentes, ego verò beatum populum iudico, cuius Dominus De••••est. The Prophet sayth, that other men do call them bles∣sed that haue these temporall commodities, but I, sayth he, iudge those people to be happy that haue God for their Lord. With S. Basil agreeth S. Chrysostome in his Commentary vpon this place of the Psalme,* 1.59 where expresly he sayth, that the Prophet Dauid spake these words, quorum fil••j sicut nouella plantationes in inuentutē sua, and the rest, according to the o∣pinion of the vulgar sort, and that he himselfe was of a contrary opinion, not holding them for happy, who possessed those things, but that people only, cuius Dominus Deus ••ius: who haue God for their Lord.

* 1.60Theodoret also in his Commentary vpon the 72. Psalme expoundeth these words in the same sense.

They call the people happy that had these things, for that being deuoyd of truth, they were not able to discerne the nature of things, but did measure happynes by their delights, wealth, and power, and so did affirme them to be happy, that had these things: but those that are studious of truth, do say with the Prophet, Happy is the people whose Lord is Al∣mighty God.

* 1.61And according to this writeth Euthymius in his Com∣mentary.

Many men (sayth he) do esteeme that people happy which haue this visible aboundance of temporall

goods, which erroneous opinion of the vulgar sort King Da••id hauing mentioned, he reiecteth the same, and set∣teth downe a better, and more true sentence, saying, Bles∣sed is the people whose Lord is their God.

By all which places and many more that might be al∣leadged, M. Barlow in his interpretation of this place of Scripture is conuinced to be one of those fily alieni, alient children, wherof the Prophet speaketh: and I am freed from that fond calumniation of his, wherby he sayth that I haue slaundered the holy Ghost, by writing, that the holy Ghost did scorne this argument of worldlings, who say, That the people is happy, that haue these temporall prosperities. For you must note that M. Barlow comming to answere my former speach before set downe, he maketh a flourish, saying: That my answere consisteth of three poyntes, first a shifting euasion, secondly a false interpre∣tation of the Psalme, thirdly a slaunderous imputation of the holy Ghost. The euasion, he saith, consisteth in that I did hou••d, that outward prosperities are no necessary argu∣ments of Gods loue and fauour, and consequently neyther in Queene Elizabeth. The false interpretatiō of the Psalme you haue now heard, to be the interpretation of S. Augustine, S. Hierome, S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, and others now men∣tioned. The slaunderous imputatiō vpon the holy Ghost, that he scorneth at such inferences, is proued by the same, to be no slaunderous imputation, but a true assertion. And if the word, scorne, do seeme vnto him vnworthy of the holy Ghost, let him remember the words of the Psalmist tal∣king of such men:* 1.62 qui habitat in caelis irridebit eos, & Dominus subsannabit eos, he that sits in heauen shall deride them, and our Lord shall laugh them to scorne: where you see both the words, irridere & subsānare in one verse: & yet further in another place:* 1.63 Dominus autem irridebit eum•• quo••iā prospicit quòd ••eniet dies eius. And our Lord shall scorn him because he for∣seeth that this day of ruyne shall come. And in another place talking of Christ, as some interpret it, he sayth,* 1.64 they shall see him, and contemne him, and God shall scorne them. And yet further the same spirit saith to the like men, Ego in

interi••u vestro ridebo, & subsannabo,* 1.65 I will laugh and scorne at your destruction: & this in words, but in fact when God Almighty said of the wicked man, miseriamur impio, & n•••• discet iustitiam: let vs haue mercy vpon the wicked man, & he shall not learne iustice: was not this a scorne? For it followeth straight, he shall not see the glory of God. What mercie was this when Christ also recounteth in the Ghos∣pell, the speach of the rich man, that tould how his barnes were full, and much riches layd vp for many yeares, and therfore bid his soule be merry, and our Sauiour calling him foole,* 1.66 for his great prouidence, aduertised him, that, that night he would take his soule from him: was not this a scornefull speach against them, that so much esteeme the beatitude of temporall felicity? So as here also M. Barlow is found minus habens.

But now to come to the solemne definition of misery, by copia & inopia deuised by the Lord Cooke, and patronized by this his Champion and Chaplin, out of which he would proue, that Queene Elizabeth was not misera femina, as Pope Clement called her in his Breue, for that misery, as he saith,* 1.67 co••si••••eth o•• ••ro contraries, aboundance, and penury: aboun∣dance of t••ibulation, and penury of consolation, which, sayth he, was not in Queene Elizabeth, but rather the contrary, for that she had perpetuall store of consolations, and penury of tr••bulations &c. wherunto I then said, that this definition of misery was miserable indeed, nor euer as I suppose heard of before, as ridiculous in Philosophy, and fit to be applied to any thing that hath eyther store or want, as a wise man in this sort may be defined to be him that hath store of wit,* 1.68 and penury of folly; and a foole to be him that hath store of folly, & penury of wit, and so in all other things: wherunto I add now, that it wanteth the chiefe points of a good definition or description, to wit, genus, & differentia, or at leastwise genus & accidentia propria, that may distinguish the thing defined from all other things, neque co••uertitur cum definito, as Logicke prescribeth, ••or that a man may haue store of a••••lic••ions, and penury of consolations, as Iob had, and yet not be miserable, but happy: & contrariwise one

may haue store of temporall consolations, and penury of afflictions, as had the rich glutton, and yet not be happy. And againe wheras a definition should speake clearly, and simply without doubtfulnes or equiuocation; this doth not, but quite contrariwise speaketh equiuocately, being apt to be vnderstood eyther of temporall or spirituall mi∣sery, which is a great defect in the law of a definition, or good description; for that by this fault, here it commeth to passe, that wheras Pope Clement called Queene Elizabeth miseram Feminā, a miserable woman, in respect of the misery of her soule, as being cut of from the Catholike Church. Syr Edward Cooke argueth that she had no temporall misery, which supposing it were true, yet doth it prooue nothing against spirituall misery, wherof only Pope Clement spake, and consequently was nothing to the purpose.

Yea ••urther, if Syr Edward had distinguished as he should haue done betwee••e tempora••l and spirituall misery, and had defined the same distinctly and seuerally, yet had not this definition agreed punctually to eyther of them. For if you talke of spirituall consolations or desolations of the mind, then is it euident by all spi••ituall writers, that a∣boundāce of sensible consolations with want of desolatiō or affliction of mind (which oftentimes euill men haue or at least wise such as are lesse perfect in vertue) maketh not a man spiritually happy: nor on the contrary part a∣boundance of inward and spirituall tribulations, doth allwayes make the party miserable; for then King Dauid should haue beene also spiritually miserable, when so often he crieth out of the desolations o•• mind, & afflictiōs of spirit, which he suffered as layd vpon him for his great triall, merit, and glory: as when he sayd,* 1.69 aquae intra∣uerun•• vsque ad animam meam, floudes of wa••er haue entred euen into my very soule, meaning thereby the waues and wat••rs of spirituall tribulations. And the like doth S. Paul himself when he vttered those words of compassion con∣cerning his internall afflictions, saying:* 1.70 supra modum grauati sumus, supra virtutem, ita vt tederet nos etiam viuere, wee were pressed aboue measure, and aboue our power to beare it,

so as wee were weary of our life, and it loathed vs to liue. And all the Apostles generally:* 1.71 Et nos ipsi primiti•••• spiritus habentes, & ipsi intra nos geminus &c. wee that haue receiued the first fruites of God his spirit, we doe mourne & groane within our selues: so as here Syr Edward did misse in his spirituall Theologie.

Nay nor yet doth this definition by copia and i••opia hold in temporall consolations themselues, wherein he notwithstanding hath had more occasions of better skill by experience, for that neyther in them is it true that a man may measure temporall felicity by temporall aboū∣dance, nor misery by their want, for he that taketh no comfort by his aboūdance, or delighteth therein, cannot be sayd to be happy temporally by the sayd aboundance, and he that loueth mediocrity, or voluntary pouerty, and hath need of no more then he possesseth, is temporally also rich: by all which is s••ene, that the Lord Cookes definition of misery by copia & inopia, was very defectuous. Let vs see now, how his Champion defendeth him. First he entreth with a great flourish, that he will defend the definition by Poetry,* 1.72 Philosophy, Diuinity, & cases of Conscience. But as commonly it falleth out, when M. Barlow would make any great o••tentation of his learning, he then most betraveth his ignorance, and rusheth vpon matters that he vnderstandeth not whereof he speaketh: soe here both the poore man stumbleth at the very entrance, and mis∣seth as it were in the very termes themselues, especially about Philosophy, Diuinity, and Cases of Conscience, as presently shall appeare.

But fi••st wee must note what obligation he hath to proue, and how far forth he performeth that obligation. I sayd in my reprehension of the Lord Cookes definition,* 1.73 by copia & inopia, that it was defectuous in Philosophy, as fit to be applied to any thing that had store or want: what is the defendant bound to proue? no doubt but that it is a good definition, according to the lawes of Philosophy both in forme and matter: and if he proue this, by any one of his foure wayes, or by altogeather, I shall confesse, that he

hath performed the office of a good aduocate, but indeed he proueth it by neyther way, but only sheweth that copia and inopia may be found in one subiect, in respect of dif∣ferent things, which no man euer denied, for it were great folly to say that a man may not haue good apparell, and an empty stomacke, and another time to haue a full stomacke & want of apparell, and so in all other matters: whereof M. Barlow giueth examples first out of Poetry, as of Tantalus, Narcissus, & others that had copiam & inopiam, and were miserable thereby, which I deny not, or is it the point that he should proue, concerning a good defini∣tion, quae conuertitur cum re definita, and hath the other con∣ditions before mentioned.

From Poetry then he passeth to Philosophy, saying, that if I had read Epictetus in his Euchiridion, and those that doe comment vpon him, I should find it a Philosophicall conclu∣sion, that those two contraries, (copia and inopia) doe make the greatest misery, when a man possesseth much & yet desireth more.

Whereto I answere first, that although it be a Philo∣sophicall conclusion, as well with Epictetus, as other morall Philosophers, that this is a misery: yet doe not they make it the definition of misery, for that there be many other miseries besides this.* 1.74 And secondly though Epictetus doe call it a kind of misery to possesse much and desire more, yet not the greatest misery, as M. Barlow doth, for it is a greater misery, by his leaue, to haue nothing at all, & to desire very much, then to haue good store, and to desire more. As for example, if M. Barlow himselfe should haue had an ardēt desire from his youth to be Archbishop of Canterbury, euen while he was a scholler in Cambridge, and had no pre∣ferment, and should continue the same desire now, I doe not thinke that he will deny, but that it is lesse misery to desire and expect the same now, being already well furni∣shed with the wealth of a good Bishopricke, then to haue expected the same with like ardent desire in his pouerty, and consequently it is not the greatest misery, when a man possesseth much, and desireth more. And this for his

Philosophy: now let vs see his Diuinity.

* 1.75And then (quoth he) in Diuinity King Salomō no meane Philosopher, found that to bee afflictionem pessimam, a most vexing misery, as any vnder the sunne, when with satiety of ric••es, which implieth plenty, there is ioyned an insatiable eye, which argues want. Here now M. Barlow beginneth to shew confusion, and not to vnderstand well the true distinction of these sciences. In Diuinity, sayth he, King Salomon no meane Philosopher found. How did he find it? by Diuinity or Philosophy? ••or here he nameth both: and if Salomon found it by Diuinity, what needed M. Barlow to add that he was no meane Philosopher? & if it be true which he writeth in the very precedent lines, that it is a Philosophicall conclusion, that the greatest misery is when a man posses∣seth much and desireth more;* 1.76 then is this second conclu∣sion, that it is a vexing misery, with satiety of riches, to haue an in••atiate eye or desire, a Philosophicall conclusion also (which is the very self same that was set downe before:) and consequently if that was a Philosophicall cōclusion, then can it not be properly Theologicall, for that one and the selfe same proposition cannot belonge to two different sci∣ences sub eadem ratione formali, to wit Philosophy and Diuini∣ty. For that Philosophy considereth her obiect according to light, & direction of naturall reason, Diuinity as it is re∣ueyled from God and referred to God, as vnto the su∣pernaturall & last end of all creatures, wherof M. Barlow making no mention, nor vnderstanding the difference as it seemeth, maketh the self same proposition to be both Philosophical & Theologicall, and that vnder the selfe same con∣siderations, which is most absurd.

And if he say that wee doe grant it to be a conclusion Philosophicall, & that he proueth it to be Theologicall, or apper∣tayning to Diuinity, for that it is in the Scriptures vttered by Salomon, I answere, that euery proposition found in the Scripture is not of his owne nature Theologicall, or apper∣tayning to Diuinity, for that it is neyther of truth reueyled not deduced from reueyled principles, nor hath reference to God, as he is the formall obiect of Diuinity, but may be

in it selfe Philosophicall, and knowne by light of reason, as wee haue sayd of this proposition,* 1.77 that it is a kinde of misery to possesse much and desire more, which not only the Heathen Philosophers, but euery man commonly by natu∣rall light of reason will discerne, and consequently M. Bar∣low though he straine the Scripture, therby to draw some semblance of proofe from the same, as you haue seene, yet doth he not proue it at all: and this third way of Diuinity is lesse then nothing.

But of all other his fourth & last way by Cases of Con∣science is notable. Let vs heare his words:* 1.78 And euen in cases of conscience, saith he, were they not those two contraries, plenty of good desires in S. Paul to do well, but want of ability to perform those desires, that made him to cry out, miser ego homo, miserable man that I am? To which question I answere, that true it is, that S. Paul complaineth in that place that he found a great fight and repugnance as other men do, betwene the law of his flesh (or stirring of concupi••••ence) and the law of his mind. Which if M. Barlow will call copia & inopia, he may draw any thing to the Lord Cookes definition: euen when as a man and his wife do fall out, there is copia commonly and inopia also, for he shalbe sure to haue copia of ill words, and inopia of peace and quietnes, and therby also some misery. But I would very gladly know why M. Barlow calleth this the doctrine of Cases of conscience, as if it were a distinct thing from Diuinity (for otherwise it would not be his fourth way of proofe?) where as we hould the said doctrine of Cases of Consciēce to be an essentiall part of Diuinity it selfe, to wit the morall part, that resolueth doubts of Conscience in practice: as for example when there ariseth some doubt a∣bout Vsury, Restitution, Matrimony, or the like, what in Conscience may be done, and what not, in this or that case, the matter is resolued by this part of Diuinity. But what is this to the example of S. Pauls conflict betweene sense and reason, flesh and spirit, alleaged by M. Barlow? had the Apostle any doubt or scruple of Conscience therin what he had to thinke or do, about these rebellions of the fl••sh •• I thinke not; he said it was a misery to suffer them against

his will, but doubted nothing whether they were to be resisted or no, by the help of Gods grace which assisted him in that combate, and gaue him the victory according to the promise of his Maister made vnto him, Sufficit ti••i gr••tia mea, my grace is sufficient for thee to get the con∣quest in this case. Wherfore M. Barlow to frame an argu∣ment vpon this place of S. Paul for his copia and inopia, hath as much ground, as if he had founded the same vpon Syr Thomas Mores Vtopia.

OTHER POINTS concerning Queene Elizabeths Felicities, or Infelicities. §. II.

VVE haue seene by that which hath hitherto bene sayd how vayne and feeble the argument hath bene to proue that Queene Elizabeth was happy in this life in regard of her temporall felicities, which the Lord Cooke reciteth in these words among many other as before we haue noted.

She was so miraculously prot••cted by God (saith he) so strengthned, and ••ortifyed, as she did beat her most potent enemy, did set vp a King in his Kingdome, defended nations, harboured distr••ssed people, and the like.

Vnto which argument besides the other reasons and proofes which I before opposed, I did sh••w out of Ieremy the Prophet the vanitie of this argument, by a notable ex∣ample of King Nabuchodonosor, much more power••ull then Queene Elizabeth was, which Nabuchodonosor receiued euen from God himselfe, greater worldly prosperity and conso∣lations then these, and was called by God, Seruus meu•• Na∣buchodonosor, my seruant Nabuchodonosor, & greatly aduanced, protected, and made powerful ouer his enemies for a time, and to punish, afflict and chas••i••e the people of God him∣selfe, and yet was he not happy but miserable therby: and so might be Queene Elizabeth, though she preuailed against

Catholicke Princes, and people abroad, and was permit∣ted to afflict her Catholicke people at home, wherby was cōuinced that this argumet of worldly prosperity •• though it were manifest that it came directly from God himselfe, yet doth it not infer any true happines at all. And hath the Chāpion M. Barlow any thing to reply for his Lord in this? no truly but granting my proofe to be substantiall, as ta∣ken from the Scripture it selfe, he runneth to othe•• imper∣tinent matter of dissimilitude, betweene Q. Elizabeth, & Nabuchodonosor,* 1.79 as that he had no successour, but the Queene hath &c. which is not the question in hand, nor was the comparison made in this, and moreouer in it selfe is false. For that Nabuchodonoso••s sonne called Euilmero••••th succeeded him, and after him againe Baltazar, which seemeth to haue bene fortold by the Prophet Ieremy c. 27. saying: Seruient ci o∣nes gentes•• & filio eius, & filio f••l•• eius. All nations shall serue Na∣buchodonosor, and his sonne, and his sonnes sonne. In which respect Nabuchodonosor was much more happy thē Q. Elizabeth who left no such issue to succeed her, and therefore the place alleadged by M. Barlow o••t of Isay, Ex quo dormisti &c. since thou wert dead none came in thy place to cut vs vp, by graue Authors is vnderstood of Baltazar the last King of that race, for to the former it cannot wel be applyed, whose sonne and nephew after his death kept them wellnigh for∣ty yeares in captiuity, and they were not deliuered till af∣ter the death of Baltazar, by Cyrus, who with Darius ouer∣threw him and succeded him: by which you may see how well M. Barlow pleadeth for Queene Elizabeths•• happines••

And all this was spoken against the infe••ence of true felicity, supposing that Queene Elizabeths dayes had beene so aboundant and affluent in all kinde of temporall pros∣perities, as the flattery of these Orators would haue it seme, & that her selfe had such copia of consolations, and inopia of tribulations, as the Lord Cooke describeth. But for proofe that this was not so, the••e were many par••iculer poynts touched, which did shew that her temporall consolations were mingled also with desolations, her prosperity with aduersities, her ioyes many tymes with griefe, as for ex∣ample

the circum••tances of her natiuity, the declaration made against her by her owne Father, as well in the put∣ting to death her Mother with note of incontinency, to∣geather with so many adulterers punished with her, as also a••terward the same declaratiō made more authentically in publike Parlament,* 1.80 her disgraces passed a••terward againe in the time of King Edward, & her contemptible reiection by the setters vp of Queene Iane, her pe••ills in Queene Ma∣ries time by the cutting off of her best friendes, whereby she was forced to a deepe dissimulation in religion, that could not be but afflictiue vnto her, her feares and doub••s in the beginning of her owne raigne, what would follow by change of religion, the pretence of the King of Fr•••••••• known to be in hand, for his wiues succession immediatly after Queene Mary, her frights by the Duke of Norfolke, & Earles rising i•• the North, & a great Counsell of the chi••∣fest Nobility held at London against her, and in fauour of the Queene of Scotland, which then ••he was not able to re∣sist, if it had gone forward: her publike excommunication, and depriuation by two or three Popes, which could no•• but bring sollicitude with it, her doubtfu••nes about ma••i∣ing, being pre••sed on the one side by the sollicitatiō of her Kingdome for hope of succession, and held backe on the o∣ther side by certayne desirs of designements of her owne & her fauorites, her intricate reckonings with her sayd fa∣uorits from time to time, as Pickering, Dudley, Hatton, Packi••g∣ton, Rawley, and Essex, among whome the two Earles be∣came in the end to be dredfull vnto her, her ielousy and feares conce••ned not only of forraine Princes, whome she had deepely offended with raising their subiects and maintayning them against them, but of domesticall inha∣bitants likewise, especially of Priestes, Iesuits and Se••in••∣ry••men, who were painted out to her to be such dangerous people, togeather with the Catholickes, that vsed their helpes in matters for their soules, as she neuer ceased to add lawes vnto lawes against them all, and against all vse of Catholicke religion, wherunto her selfe had sworne, and voluntarily protested in Queene Maries dayes.

And not only this, but breaking also into bloud, for these imagined terrors, shee put to death publickly aboue an hundred and thirty anointed Priests, only for hatred of their order and profession, togeather with many other afflicted in pri••ons, others sent into banishment, by for∣ty, fifty, yea seauenty, at a time. She put to death al∣so both the nearest in kinred, and dearest in affection, that she had on earth, as was her Maiestie of Scotlnd, and the Earle of Essex, the guilt of which proceeding lying v∣pon her conscience, did so trouble her for diuets yeares be∣fore her death, as was pittifull, but her death it selfe more pittifull, in dying without sense, feeling, or mention of God, as diuers do report, that do pretend to know the same most certainly. I should be glad with like or grea∣ter certainty to know th•• contrary, for I take compassion of her state with all my hart.

And this is in effect the summe and substance of that which was spoken before, concerning the interruptions and interpellations of Queene Elizabeths temporall ioyes and comfort, which Syr Edward Cooke, & M. Barlow do make to be so singular, and absolute. And what reply is now made (thinke you) to all this? Truly nothing at all to the purpose in hand: for that one of these two poynts should be shewed, eyther that these things are not so, or that they do nothing at all impeach Queene Elizabeth•• tē∣porall felicity, and store of con••olations; but neither of these is proued, what then? You shall heare: first he run∣neth againe into an extreme rage of rayling and reuiling, and scolding as it were a tip-toe, inforcing his whole an∣swere with the most contumelio••s speach that he can de∣uise: but to this is extant his own answere in print,* 1.81 out of Seneca, which he alleageth in the Preface of his Sermon at Paul•• Crosse, against his Maister the Earle of Essex, Vt quisque est ••••ntemptissimus, ita soluti••••ima lingua ••••t. As each man is more contemptible then others, so is he more lewd & loose in his tongue. Then he chafeth intemperatly, that any thing should be sayd or writtē against Queene Elizabeth after her death, and her•• he dilateth himselfe very largely for lacke

of better matter vpon that common place, that the rulers of the people are not to be spoken euill of, specially after their death: for which he citeth both Scriptures, and pro∣phane authors (I follow not his order in this, but the con∣••exion rather of the matter) and will proue them to be both hoggs aud doggs out of Aristophanes, Pliny, Sophocles and other Authors, that do reuile the dead. But to this obiecti∣on also I will put his owne answere, in his foresaid Sermō against the E••rle of Essex, where hauing made the same ob∣iectiō again••t himselfe, for speaking euill of the said Earle after his death, as he doth now against me for calling to memory some of Queene Eli••abeths affaires,* 1.82 his answere in his owne words is this.

But dearely beloued, there is a dif∣ference in faults of men as in diseases, some onely are hurt∣full to the parties themselues, some loathsome and infecti∣ous 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 Scrip∣ture, but their sinne is branded vpon their name, as often you may see of ••eroboam neuer mentioned, but presently ad∣deth the sonne of Nebat, which made Israell to sinne.

This was the mans answer at that time, for that it ser∣ued 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 ••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 in∣deed 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 Ca∣tholicke fayth of Christs Church?

But saith M. Barlow, reproaches are vttered eyther for repr••ose to amend,* 1.83 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 (wher∣of

M. Barlowes tongue and pen are ful••) they serue to ney∣ther of these ends, but principally to shew the wiked mind of the vtterer: but if they be true,* 1.84 as those things are which I haue touched concerning Q. Elizabeth her infelicities, ••hē 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 a∣liue, by shewing Gods iustice vpon sinne, his prouidence, his power, and his care to feare men by terror of euerla∣sting in••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 re∣peated 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,* 1.85 as Iustinus Martyr•• Irenaeus, Tertul∣lian, 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 p••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 ••it instruments to be the first actors in such a worke, which I applying to Queene Eliza∣beth, sayd that the like obseruation and comparison might be made, she being the strangest woman that euer perhaps liued, for diuers admirable circumstances before tou∣ched, and the very first absolutely of that sex eyther Chri∣stened, 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 trifling•• 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 C••th••lic•••• religion, and therin was the Fathers obseruations of enor∣mous 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:* 1.86 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 Catho∣lickes 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 ar•• not more different, then those Christian martyrs of the Primitiue Church,* 1.87 from these later of English Papists: for they, sayth he, acknowledged the Emperors supremacy inde∣pendant 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 Domi••ian did acknowledge those Emperours Supremacy independant vpon any but God,* 1.88 which inferreth to my vnderstan∣ding, that they acknowledged them for Supreme Heade•• 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 b•••• 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 ••hat our Martyrs also doe acknowledge temporall Supremacy to Kings and Princes though not spirituall, which infer∣reth that M. Barlow ascribing more to the ancient Martyrs vnder Nero and Domitian, must needes meane, that they

held them ••or Heades of their Church, euen in spirituall & Ecclesia••ticall a••fayres, although they were Pagans: and ••oe consequently might, and ought to repayre to them in matters of controuersy about Christian Religion, and were ••ound to follow their direction therein. And if this be not more then trifling, especially for a Prelate to vtter•• 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 ••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.* 1.89 Then he tel∣leth 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 cōtemne those slaunders published in print, as shee would neuer consent to haue them cleared, but rather scorned them. Item that Queene Mary also was disinabled by Par∣lament in her fathers dayes &c. And are not these strong argumentes to proue his purpose, to wit, that this pro∣ceeding of the Parlament and declaration made against her, was no temporall disgrace? Albeit for so much as belongeth to Queene Mary, all men doe know that her case was far different, for that Queene Mar••es mother was neuer noted for incontinency, and much lesse so ma∣ny adulterers put to death with her, as might be doubted whose daughter she was.

To the difficulties she had in King Edwards daies both in respect of the Admirall Seymer put to death for loue-matters towards her,* 1.90 and the like, he sayth in effect no∣thing, but breaketh forth into a fi••t of rage about the whore of Babylon her Philira, and loue-drugs, whereof this fellow can frame a common place to intertayn•• him selfe

for lacke of other matter. Of the time also of Queene 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he speaketh nothing.

About her lawes, and cruell proceedings towardes Catholickes, he intertayneth himselfe some what longer, but no more to the purpose, then in the rest. For first he sayth that the sorest punishment for the first twelue yeares w••s commitment to Bishops and Deanes houses, and some of them to prisons,* 1.91 where they lay as warme and waxed as fatt as in theyr owne houses. And this now hath no need of answer, but that if M. Barlow be not yet fa••, this were a good way to feed him, by lying in prison as they did, for some yeares, which is thought will neuer be for Reli∣gion, come what Religion there will.

Secondly he sayth, that ••or the subsequent yeares, he yeeldeth, that there was more rigour vsed, death being deser∣uedly drawne on (to vse his words) by the merit of treason, wher∣vnto Religion was made but a stawking-horse, and then citeth S. Augustine in defence of the Christian Emperours lawes a∣gainst heretickes. But first he doth not proue, or euer shall be able, any such demerit of treason to haue drawne on this rigour, but only by calumniation, which indeed is and hath beene the persecutors stawking-horse, to deceiue the simple, pretending one thing for another, thereby to oppresse the innocent: and secondly S. Augustine alloweth indeed and commendeth the Lawes of Catholike Empe∣rours made for the temporall punishment of Heretickes, a••ter they were condemned by the Church. But what Church was that? And what Catholicke Religion, for defence wherof those Catholicke Princes in S. Augustines dayes did make those lawes so commended by him? Was it the Protestant Church? And was the Religion thereof the Protestant religion, or ours? Will M. Barlow ioyne with me in this, which of our two Churches and Religions haue descended visibly from S. Augustins Church and religiō vnto our dayes? Can he deny that S. Augustins Church taught Purgatory,* 1.92 Prayer to Sayntes, Prayer for the dead, Mas••e and Sacrifice for the li••ing & dead, and many other articles now in controuersy betweene vs? Dare he stand to

this triall out of S. Augustines workes themselues? And if he dare not (as I know he dareth not, nor will euer accept thereof) why doth he here prattle out of S. Augustine, as though if he were now aliue agayne, he would allow the lawes of Protestant Princes made against that religion and Church which himselfe defended while he was lyuing? This then is another absurd shift of M. Barlow to delude his Reader. But there followeth another if not more ab∣surd, yet at least lesse shamefast, for that the malice is more apparent.

Father Persons, sayth he, who in the Preface of one of his Legends, commendeth Queene Elizabeth for her mode∣rate gouerment, & that was in the last yeare of herraigne: and yet by the way, for the mans singular honesty, it is worth the nothing, that in one and the same leafe, hauing so commended her in one page (marry then she was aliue) in the very next page (for then he heard she was dead) in a Preface to his Maiesty he compares her to no other, but Di∣••clesian for cruelty.

Thus he, and for that he citeth a booke that is in euery mans hand, to wit the first part of the Three Conuersions of England, and thereby his allegation is easy to be exami∣ned, I did magine that I should finde him very exact and punctuall in his assertion. Wherefore I went to looke vpon the two pages of the selfe same leafe, the one writ∣ten before the Queenes death, the other after: but I could see no such matter so neere togeather, then comming back some foure or fiue pages, I found that which I suppose to haue giuen him the occasion of this fond cauill, for that the Author hauing dedicated that booke to the Catholiks of England, & in the Epistle Dedicatory layd forth at large the great af••lictions and tribulations which they had long suffered for that Religion, he commendeth them for their patience, and loyall behauiour towardes theyr Prince in all worldly affayres: VVhich course, sayth he, though it hath not escaped the calumnious tongues and pens of some carping aduersaries (making all treason) yet is it iustifiable and glorious both before God and man, where reason ruleth, and not passion. And I doubt not, but

that t••e wis••dom•• and moderation both of her Maiestie and ••er S•••• Counsell i•• ••ll rather in this point p••nder y••ur owne facts, then your a••∣uersaries wordes. So there.

Where by is euident that the Authour doth not com∣mend Queene Elizabeth for her moderate gouerment to∣wards Catholickes, as this man sayth (for that within fiue lines after he sayth, they haue passed so many yeares vnder the rod of sharpe afflictions:) but only persuadeth himselfe that the wisedome and moderation both of her Maiestie, and the Counsell will stay them from condem∣ning Catholickes for treason vpon other mens words,* 1.93 rather then vpon theyr owne facts: which being but a particuler case, inferreth not, that Father Persons com∣mendeth her for her moderate gouerment. Nor is the other point true, that in a Preface to his Maiestie, he compareth her to no other, thē to Dioclesian for cruelty. For that my wordes were these: Here generally the applause is no o∣therwise, then it was in old time among the Christians vpon the entrāce o•• Constantine into the Empyre after Dioclesian, and of Ioui∣nian a••ter Iulian. Nor is there any mention, or compari∣son of cruelty in that place: so as here neyther the leafe or page do•• agree to his citation, nor the commendation of her moderate gouerment is found; neyther the compari∣son of cruelty with Dioclesian is extant; nor is he only mentioned, but Iulian also. Doe you note how many defects of truth are discouered in so smal an allegation?

But after this again he commeth in with a great scorn against me, for saying, that our Catholicke Priests put to death by Q. Elizabeth dyed for religion, and were true Mar∣tyrs: for that hauing life offered thē if they would renoūce the Pope, and con••orme themselues to the present state of of England, they resused the same. And with this he maketh himselfe merry with diuers ies••es about the consequēce of this argument. Wherunto I answere, that I alleadged di∣uers reasons, why our Catholick Priests dyed for religion, & not for treason. First for that no such treason could be proued against them, in the sense and iudgement of any indifferent man that was present at their arraignments,

to wit of the one hundred and thirty that before I mentio∣ned. Secondly for that the publike Registers themselues and Histories, as Iohn St••w, and others in their Chronicles do•• obiect no other treason to the most of them, but only being Priests, & their taking of holy Orders beyond the seas, which in no sense can be treason, no more then the confessing of the blessed Trinitie can be made treason by the Trinitarians in Transiluania.

Thirdly for that they themselues dying did protest v∣pon their consciences, as they should be saued, they neuer meant treason in thought, word, or deed against Queene Elizabeth.

And then ••ourthly for confirmation of this, I alleaged this other reason, so much scorned by M. Barlow, they ha∣uing life offered them if they would renounce the Pope, & conforme themselues to the State, they refused the same: which he saith is a false and faulty inference, and I say it is very good and true, and that if M. Barlow had any mo∣derate skill of the case according to the rules ••yther of Phi∣losophy or Diuinity he would be ashamed to say as he doth in Philosophy, it being a common axiome, that omnis actus specificatur ab obiecto & fi••e, euery action is specified, that is to say, taketh his nature and essence from his obiect and end. As if a man should kill one to gayne his goods, this act hath both the nature of man-slaughter & theft, the first from the obiect, the second from the end or intention of the doer: which Philosophicall principle being applyed to our case doth euidently proue that the choice of death in him that hath life offered, vpon conditiō he will doe some act against his faith, as going to the Protestants Church is e∣steemed by Catholickes, though otherwise he were n••uer so great a delinquent before, is an act of Martyrdome; for that it hath both the obiect and the end therof: the obiect to wit death; the end which is the profession of his faith.

And so if we passe to consider the same by Theology•• which more properly treateth of this vertue of Martyr∣dome, the controuersy will be made much more cleare,

for that the word Martyrdome being a Greeke word•• and signifying a Testimony or bearing of witnesse (as the word Martyr signifyeth him that yealdeth testimony or be••∣reth witnesse) euery testmony or bearing of witnesse is not meant by the word Martyrdome, but only such a testimo∣ny as is giuen by dying for God in the defēce of some truth belonging to our faith,* 1.94 either expressely impugned or im∣plyed in the impugnation of some other vertue, that con∣taineth the sayd truth of our faith therin; which last clause is added, for that a man may be a true Martyr, though he dye not for any expresse article of faith or part therof, but it is sufficient that he dy for the defence of any one vertue, as Chastity, Obedience, Iustice and the like, according to the saying of our Sauiour:* 1.95 Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur pro∣pter iustitiam: Blessed are they that suffer persecutiō for righ∣teousnes. And S. Iohn Baptist is acknowledged by all De∣uines for a true Martyr, although he died for no article of faith, but for reprehending the incestuous marriage of King Herod, with more libertie of speach and spirit, then any such Prince-flatterer & base mind as M. Barlow would euer haue done in the like case, if we may ghesse at his vertue by his writing.

But to apply the former ground and vncontrollable principle to our present purpose in hand, whether these Priests died for refu••ing the Oath of the Feminine Supre∣macy, or for that they were made Priests beyōd the seas, or ••or that they refused to come to your heretical seruice••; cer∣taine it is,* 1.96 according to the rules of Catholicke Diuinity, that they died for de••ence of their faith, or maintenance of vertue which is sufficiēt to iustify their Martyrdomes, ha∣uing so great warrant, and store of all manner of witnesses ••or the truth, and doctrine they suffered for, as might well in conscience assure them of the righteousnesse of their cause, and that they died for that Religion in which all the Princes and people of Christendome for so many yeares & ages both liued and died. And wheras M. Barlow impug∣neth this by two cases or examples, they are but so many arguments of his owne ignorance. Let vs speake a word or

two of them both.

The first is of Absolom, putting the case that he was an Idolator, as well as a traitor, and that King Dauid after sen∣tence passed against him ••or his treasons would acquite him frō death conditionally,* 1.97 that he should renounce his Idolatry, and that vpon re••usall he should be executed, Shall we say (sayth M. Barlow) that he died ••or Religion, or for treason? We will say, good M. Barlow, that he died rather for false reli∣gion, that is to say Idolatry, then for treason, and was the Diuels Martyr: and none I thinke can deny the same, vnles he be as ignorant as your selfe, as shall further appeare by the answere to the next example, which in effect is all one with this, to wit, that a yonger sonne should aspire his fa∣thers death with hope to haue his riches, and that being condemned, his father should offer to saue him, if he would go to Church and leaue his euil life of following queane•• &c. Shall ••e say (quoth M. Barlow) that he is executed for his whore-domes, or for this par••icide against his father?

But here I would aske M. Barlow, why he leaueth out going to Church, which was the first part of the condi∣tion, and nameth only whore-domes? no doubt but the honest man, would haue the staying from the Church in Catholicks, and whore-domes seeme to be companions. But now I answere to his question, that if he meane by refusing to go to Church, such as is practised by Catho∣likes, for Conscience sake, and not to deny thereby the truth of the Catholicke faith, which forbiddeth to go to hereticall Churches, then dyeth he for the truth of his faith, and consequently he is a Martyr. But if he choose to dye for loue of wicked life, and whoredome, it is no cause of Martyrdome, and consequently he is the Diuells Martyr, as we said before of the Idolator. But as for Par∣••icide, cleere it is, that he cannot be sayd to haue died for it properly, as the immediate cause of his death, for that it was remitted vn••o him; and their passed another electi∣on on his mind, to wit, that he would leaue his old life: so as ••or this he died propriè & proximè, properly, and im∣mediately: and for the parricide only remotè & occasi••nali∣ter,

a far of, and as from that which gaue the first occasi∣on of his death. What sayth M. Barlo•• to this? Doth not common sense teach it to be so?

And thus much for the death of those our Catholike and innocent Priests, whose death was pretiosa in con••••ecta Domini, pretious in our Lords sight, that died only for te∣stimony of his truth; which if M. Barlow did as well see and feele, as Queene Elizabeth doth at this day, he would not so prattle as he doth. Let vs see a little further.

He bringeth in for proofe of the Queenes mildnes an Historiographer of Genua called Bizarrus, or Bizarro, which in English signifieth a Mad-cap, and he is brought in to tell vs certaine points of a Mad-cap indeed, to wit, the great moderation of her mind,* 1.98 her in-bred clemencie, though himselfe be an out-bred: that she gouerned her subiects with exceeding great mildnes, abhorring from bloud, or putting any to death &c. which belike he writing in Genua, knew better then English men liuing in England, who felt the smart in themselues, and others, whiles this man was out of the Gunshot, and, as it is like∣ly, well paid for his paynes: for Syr Horatio Parauicino was able both for his credit, and wealth, to vndertake a grea∣ter matter then this. And for that you M. Barlow, with M. Sutcliffe and others do so often alleadge this Bizarro, as an Author against vs, it shall auaile much, both for your credits, and his, to tell vs where, when, and by what authority he was printed, for here in Italy we can heare of no such worke, although some search hath bene made for him, which doubtles we should do, had he bene set forth in these parts, and therefore we thinke him to be no Catholike writer, but of a bastard brood, and a Mad-cap indeed of your owne making. Besides that, how truly he writeth, not only all England, but all the whole world can testify: and to omit all other most cruell massacring and bloud-shed, the memory of the vnnaturall, and But∣cherly Tyranny, executed vpon his Maiesties Mother, will remaine for a most rufull example to all posterity.

But M. Barlow not content with externe witnesses al∣leadgeth

also domesticall, saying: Your owne Priests shal speake for Queene Elizabeths lawes: and then cyteth out of the book of Quodlibets a certaine pathetical exaggeration in praysing Queene Elizabeth,* 1.99 and her lawes also against Ca∣tholickes, which we esteeming to come from that good suggester Ri. Can. who suggested so notorious a lie vnto M. Mort••n, as himselfe complaineth, & hath byn shewed in the late Reckoning with him, we esteeme it accordingly, & do giue it the credit, that it deserueth; which is nothing at all. And M. Barlow is driuen to a hard exigent, whē he stoopeth so low, as to take vp these base raggs to blazon Q. Elizabeths prayses withall, which a wiser man would haue byn asha∣med to alleage: especially knowing with what sorrow of hart the poore man that fathered that filthy worke, repē∣ted him at his death therof, & asked of God & the Iesuites pardon for the same, as before hath bene signified.

OF QVEENE Elizabeths Sicknes and Death, and other things belonging thereunto. §. III.

AFTER the former points of Queene Elizabeths lawes and executions therof made against Catholikes, and Catholike Religion, whereby she made her selfe most odious both at home, and abroad to forrayne Princes, yea to many Protestant Potentates themselues, that misliked such cruelty: I shewed, that as the naturall effect, and consequence in such causes is feare, diffidence, suspition, and vexation of mind: so grew the same vpon her very much in the course of her life, especially towards her latter dayes, when she was impressioned that not only Priestes, and Iesuites, who indeed did pray to God for her conuer∣sion, but souldiars also, and Captaynes, and Phisitians did seeke her death,* 1.100 eyther by poysoning her body, saddle, chayre, seate, or somewhat else belonging vnto her, as the

deathes of Lopez, Squier, & others doe testify, to all which M. Barlow doth answere now, by running to certayne common places, and sentences, that proue nothing, but only that he hath bene more diligent then iudicious in gathering them out of Authours, and applying them without pu••pose: for he telleth vs first out of Salust, that Ingenia Regum sunt prona ad form••dinem, the inclination of Kings are prone to feare. And then out of Seneca, D••bia p•••• certis solent timere Reges: Kinges are wont to feare th••ngs that be doubt••full for certayne, which in my iudgement maketh more for my purpose, then his. Then he sayth, that it was not soe with Queene Elizabeth, for that carefull she was, fearefull she was not: wary she was, but not iealous: prouident, but not suspicious: wherin I referre me to them that knew her better then M. Barlow, and to the effects themselues, which are the best witn••sses. And for that I sayd in my Letter, that this griping passion of feare, and iealousy did force her to lay hands vpon the bloud of the most dearest in affection and nearest of kinted that she had in this life, as the Earle of Essex, and his Maiesties Mother: M. ••arlow comming to answer this poynt, sayth neuer a word, but passeth it ouer with mumme-s••lence: and no marueile, for he had sayd so much before, both for the Earle, and against the Earle, while the Queene was a liue (for him,* 1.101 in setting ••orth his excessiue prayses, and tryumph after Cal••s voyage, when he hoped to haue preferment by him; and against him, a••ter his d••ath, when the path of promotion opened it selfe another way, to wit by disgracing & infaming him) as I thinke the miserable man knew not what to say, per∣swading himsel••e (wherin I thinke he erred not) that whatsoeuer he should say, no man would belieue or greatly care of it, and therefore sylence was the best.

But for the thing it selfe, I meane the manner of his d••ath, I will not meddle: nothing doubting, but that so loose and exorbitant a life as he led, being alwayes accō∣panied with crewes of goodfellow-Ministers, that by life, and doctrine taught him that way of perfection in their

trade, he deserued no better an end, then he receiued. And moreouer it may be also, that the State, and Queene had further reasons to moue them to seuerity against ••im, then euery man knoweth: although with the Queenes owne person he was thought to be further engaged for speciall ••auours receyued,* 1.102 then that vpon the suddayne he could fall to hate her, and seeke her destruction, and so he pro∣tested at his death: though this bloudy Sycophant in strayning his actions, thoughts and intentions after his death at Paules Crosse (wher in a mā may discouer supere∣minent malice issuing out of the roote of ambition) leuel∣led all his speach to that end, to styr vp and confirme iea∣lousy in the Queenes mynd, that they two could not liue togeather, and therefore in the end of his Sermon extant now in print, he left thirteene most spightfull recordes to be borne in memory, whereof the sixt is in these wordes: Hi•• li••e a danger to the Queene, marke that. Which wordes of, marke that, are not adioyned to any of the other recordes: whereby it is euident, that, that was the butt wherat he shot, and may probably bee ghessed, that as, Ladron de casa, one wholy depending of him, and knowing his secret intentions, was vsed before to beate this poynt secretly into the Queenes head, while the other was aliue, which after his death he pre••ched so publikly.

And no man doubteth, but that if his Maiestie, that now is, whome he so highly flattereth had then come in his way, and that it had as well layen in the Queenes power as it did in her desire to equall his fortune with his Mothers, for her owne greater safety: this fellow would as eagerly haue runne vpon the same Theme, as he did then against the Earle, to wit, that the King of Scotlandes life had bene a danger to the Queenes life of England, and would haue sayd also, marke that. Nay he would confirme it with the saying of Tacitus, which here he doth alledge, for iusti∣fying his Mothers death, suspectus semp••r in••isusque dominan∣tibus quis••••e proximu•• aestimatur.* 1.103 He that is next in succession to a principality is alwayes suspected, and hated by him that is in possession. Vpon which ground M. Barlowes

eloquence would quickly haue drawne forth some proba∣ble argument of likely danger to the Queenes life, if the other were permitted to liue, and consequently consulen•••••• securitati, it is good to make sure. I will not stand to dis∣course what he would haue done in such a case, if it had fallen out for his purpose, for that may be presumed by that which he did, which was to scan the sayd Earles actions, wordes, driftes, and intentions, with as much malignity, as euer lightly I haue noted in any, to make him odious to the Prince, State, and especially to the Cittie of London, which ••e knew to be well affected vnto him, & therfore his thirteenth and last record was to the sayd Cittizens there present, deliuered in these words: Hi•• hard opinion and censure of your basenes, and vnfayth••ullnes to th•• Que••ne: which manner of Sycophancy himselfe con••esseth in a Preface afterward to the Reader,* 1.104 did so much displease the Mayne•• (to vse his word) as if he had with Ananias lyed to the holy Ghost, or preached his owne damnation: Others gaue out that he was strooke suddaynly with a dredfull sicknes:

others (sayth he) with more virulence, though with lesse violence, for penal charge, frame matter of hard iudgement out of the discourse it selfe: first in ge∣nerall, that I haue broken the Canon both of religion and law, in reuealing a Penitents confession, which was with remorse, and priuate &c. Secondly in particuler, because in one part of my Preface I sayd, that I was not a penny the richer, nor a step the higher for the Earle, albeyt I celebrated his glory at the Crosse for Cales victory, and therefore hence they cōclude, that I now speake of splene, and preach for rewardes.

Thus farre M Barlow testyfieth of the peoples iudgmēt cōcerning him, & his iudgemēt of the Earle of Essex: wher∣in he being so much interessed, as now you see, no mer∣uaile though he passed this point with silence. Let vs see what he sayth to the other cōcerning his Maiesties Mother,* 1.105 and her making away. First he beginneth with a common place as before I mentioned, saying: If iealous suspition and feare extend it selfe to any; it commonly alights vpon the heyre apparent

or the successour expected. And for proofe of this he citeth the wordes of Tacitus before by me alleadged. And how litle this maketh to his purpose for excuse of the matter euery meane-witted-reader will cōsider. He goeth further therefore, saying:* 1.106 That as be••ore this censurer brought in the Mother of his Maiesties Father for a parallell to the Powder-treason: so he reckoneth now for one of Queene Elizabeths miseries, the death of the Queene his Maiesties Mother.

Wherto I answere first, that the parallel was iust, as to me it seemed: for that as this treasō was designed by pow∣der, so that of his Maiesties Father was both designed and executed. And as this was done by Catholickes, so that by Protestants: only this happy difference there was, that wheras the other had effect, this had not. And secondly I say, I did not reckon the death of the Queene his Maiesties Mother for a misery of Queene Elizabeth, if w••e respect the effect it selfe, for that I doubt not, but that the sayd Queene Elizabeth did hould it for a felicity to be able to achieue it: but I hould it for an infelicity, in respect of the cause that forced her vnto it, which was miserable feare, iealousy, and suspition. But what inference doth he make of this thinke you? Let vs heare him vtter it in his owne words: VVherby (sayth he) the Reader may iudge, how he would vse hi•• Maiesties owne fame, if he were gathered to his Fathers, when he is glad to alleadge soe vnsauoury examples of both his parents. What sequele or consequence is this? For that I doe with com∣passion and detestation of the facts make mention of both theyr murthers procured, and executed by people of M. Barlows Religion, therefore I would vse euill his Maiesties ••ame, if he were gathered to his Fathers. What coherence is there in this? or whereof doth this consequence sauour but of folly only and malice?

But yet he passeth on to a further poynt of defence, for this hath none at al, as you see. That renowned Queens death (sayth he) was a misery indeed to this whole Land, and the most in∣••••leble blot that can be recorded of this Countrey. Doe you see that now he calleth her renowned, against whom in their ordi∣narie books and Sermons they did vse in those dayes, the

most vilest and basest speaches that could ••e applyed to a woman?* 1.107 doe you heare him say now, that in deed her dea••h was a misery to the whol•• land? doe you heare him tell vs, that the blot thereo•• is indele••le? VVould he haue spoken so in his Saint Queenes life time? This fellow is no time-seruer you may be sure. VVell this is hi•• confession. Let vs heare his excu∣sation, ad excusandas excusationes in peccato. But, sayth he, that our late Soueraygne was abused therein, and that wicked act committed before her knowledge therof,* 1.108 besides her notable expressing of her owne grie••es when she heard o•• it, other sufficient proofes haue fully resolued all hon••st men hereof. So he. And I trow hee meaneth honest men of his owne honesty, that will admit for sufficient, any proo••es for the making away of any, without scruple, that stand in theyr light.

But was Queene Elizabeth abused therein? VVas the act of cutting o•• the head of Queene Mary of Scotland a wic∣ked act? VVould M. Barlow haue called it so in Queene Elizabeths dayes? That it was commited before her know∣ledge? Durst any man in her dayes ••ut to death a kitchin boy of her house, much lesse of her bloud, without her knowledge, approbation, and consent? Did she make so notable a demonstration of her owne griefes which she had therof? What demonstration was this? Wherin did it consist? Did she shed teares? Did she vest her selfe with s••ckloth for the same? Did she put any man to death, any of the doers or counsellours therof? And if not, what suf∣ficient proofes, & notable expressing of her griefes doth this Minister meane? What mourning garmentes were there seene throughout the whole Court, for this fact? What signe of sorrow, and publick affl••ction? Of her Mother, it is written, that when she heard o•• Queen Dowagers death, she mourned in yellow sattin with gould l••ce: what apparell Queene Elizabeth did mourne in for Queene Maryes death by her selfe commanded, I read not: but that then as the cause wa•• somewhat like of both theyr ioyes, both of Queene Anne and Queene Elizabeth, mother and daughter by the fa••l of their aduersaries, it is probable also that their mourning habits were not vnlike.

But in truth when I doe consider the circumstances of that lamentable and vnheard of bloudy action, that a Queene of that Nobility, so honourably borne & brought vp, a Queene of two so great Kingdomes, and Heyre appa∣rent to the third, comming into the Realme vpon assurāce giuen, hauing no obligation of subiection, nor being lyable to any corporall punishment by the lawes, eyther of nature or nations, beeing equall and no wayes subiect, and if she were guilty in any thing, yet can it not be pre••u∣med to haue bene more then the seeking of her owne li∣berty, being vniustly deteyned, which is permitted both by Diuine and humane lawes: yet notwithstanding, after soe many yeares of afflictions in restraint and pr••son, to be brought to a blocke, and to be forced to lay d••wne her necke at her commandement, whome shee allwa••••s estee∣med vnequall to her selfe, and to haue her he••d cut of as the poorest woman that liued, by the common hangman, seemeth to mee to be one of the most pittifull spectacles that hath happened in Chri••••endome, since that Christia∣nity beganne: especially she hauing so potent and able a Prince regnant at that time in so warlike a Nation, and so neere as his Maiestie was.

But let vs see what M. Barlow sayth to this, for it fo∣loweth immediatly vpon his former words: And since that ••ime, sayth hee, our now Soueraigne that had the nerest interest in that errand, was long agoe satisfied by her Maiesties owne purgation. But I would demand of M. Ba••low, what ingredients there were in that purgation, he talketh of Colloquintida a little before, but I will not stand with him about Apothecary-druggs, but this I say, that exept the purgation of Queene Elizabeth concerning his Maiesties Mothers death,* 1.109 had for ingredients these three things, first Confession of her iniu∣stice in that act: then sorrow and contrition for the same: and thirdly offer of satisfaction, I must needes say as God by the Pro••het ••eremy sayd to Ierusalem:* 1.110 Silaueris te ni••ro, & mul••iplicaue••is ti••i her••am Borith, macu••ata es, & in iniquitate tua coram me, dicit Domi••us. If thou sh••lt w••sh thy selfe with ••alt-peeter, and multiply neuer soe much the herbe Borith,

thou art defiled with thine iniquity before me, sayth the Lord God. But his Maiestie, sayth M. Barlow, was long agoe sa∣tisfied with that purgation. That may bee out of prudence, ••o•• the causes that euery wise man will gh••sse, the times stan∣ding as they did. Yt may be also that his Maiestie mea∣neth to follow the wisedome of King Dauid, who left somthing in this kind to be done by his sonne, which sure I am, that if his Maiestie were but three moneths abroad in the world to heare what is talked in other Princes Courtes and Countreys, he would exact perhaps a larger satisfactiō about this matter.

Now thē to speake briefly of Queene Elizabeths death, which of purpose for some pages I haue ouerslipt, to treat of these premises now handled that went before it:* 1.111 I sayd in my letter,

that after so long a life in such worldly pros∣perity••s, pleasures and iollityes, as hers had bene, it was a pittifull death to depart from this world to eternity with so little preparation or mention of God, as she is reported to haue vsed, wherof I sayd that I had seene a relation of a person of worth, that was present at all her sicknes and death, and had written the same not long after her buriall, which I sayd then I would passe ouer for breuities sake.

But now, for that I am so much vrged thereunto by M. Barlow, I meane to impart with the Reader the greatest part of the sayd narration, though not all, for sundry re∣spects, but without any addition of matter from my selfe, as most sincerely I doe protest. But first let vs heare what M. Barlow sayth to that which already I haue written before.

First he sayth, That if Queene Elizabeth at the first assault of her sicknes were silent, and solitary, phisicke will ascribe it vnto the nature of melancholy diseases &c. Then, •• hat reason would interprete, that as ••he in refu∣sing peremptorily her bed, did shew her Princely resolu∣tion,* 1.112 stantem mori, to dye standing; so Christian charity would inferre her retired silence to be a with-drawing of her mynd from her senses, for a more serious meditation or her by-past lyfe, and future state.

Behould heere M. Barlowes spirituall Rhetoricke or Rhetoricall spirituality, that can make madnes medita∣tion, and silence or rather dumbnes vpon melancholy to be a voluntary withdrawing of the mind from her senses. Indeed her by-past life, and future state were matters that required deep meditation, yea contrition also and teares, if wee will belieue Saint Augustine, who both wept hartily, and repeated often ouer the penitentiall psalmes when he lay on his death-bed: and further said, as Possidius relateth in his life, that no man ought to goe out of this life without pennance, if he hath time to pro∣cure it: but alas it seemeth that Queene Elizabeth was not in that state of mynd or sense to procure it, or to accept of it, if any man had offered the same vnto her.

As for the other particulers, what she answered to her Doctor of Phisicke, that she did meditate; that she did lay her hands vpon the head of Doctor VVhitguist Archbi∣shop of Canterburie kneeling by her, and saying Amen to his prayers, and sayd vnto one of her Ladyes wayting vpon her, that her mind was little of from God, and so gaue vp the Ghost &c. all this I say, for that it is much different from the faithfull relation of the aforesayd worthy person which was present and wrote the Story, as an eye-witnes, which M. Barlow doth not, I shall remit my selfe and the Reader to the sayd relation, which is this that ensueth.

Her Maiestie being in good health, one day a priuy Counsellour presented her with a peece of gould of the bignes of an Angell,* 1.113 dimly marked with some small characters, which he sayd an old woman in VVales bequea∣thed her on her death-bed, and therupon he discoursed, how the sayd old woman by vertue of the same, liued to the age of an hundred and od yeares, and in that age ha∣uing all her body withered, and consumed, and wanting nature to nourish, she died, commaunding the sayd peece of go••ld to be carefully sent her Maiesty: all••aging fur∣ther, that as long as the sayd old woman wore it vpon her body, she could not dye.

The Queene vpon the confidence she had thereof,

tooke the sayd gould•• and wore it vpon her ru••fe. Now though she fell not suddainly sicke, yet daily decreased her rest, and feeding, and within few dayes fell sick indeed, and the cause being wondred at by a Lady with whom she was very priuate and confident, her Maiesty tould her (commaunding her to conceale the same) that she saw one night in her bed, her body exceeding leane, and fear∣full in a light of fire. This sight was at VVhite-hall a little before she departed from thence to Richmond, and may be testifyed by another Lady who was one of the neerest a∣bout her Person, of whom the Queene demaunded whe∣ther she was not wont to see sightes in the night, telling her of the bright flame she had seene. Afterward in the melancholy of her sicknes she desired to see a true looking glasse, which in twenty yeares before she had not seene, but only such a one as was made of purpose to deceaue her sight, which glasse being brought her, she fell presently into exclayming agains•• them whic•• had so much com∣mended her, and tooke it so offensiuely, that some which before had flattered her, du••st not come into her sight. Now falling into extremity, she ••ate two dayes and three nightes vpon her stoole ready dresl••d, and could neuer be brought by any of her Counsell to go to bed, or to eat or drinke: only my Lord Admirall one time perswaded her to drinke some broath, ••or that any of the rest she would not answere them to any question, but sayd softly to my Lord Admiralls earnest perswasions, that if he knew what she had seene in her bed, he would not perswade her as hee did. And comaunding the rest of the Lords to depart her chamber, willed my Lord Admirall to stay, to whome she shoo•••• her head, and with a pittifull voice said vnto him. My Lord, I am tied with a chaine of iron about my n••eke:* 1.114 he alleadging her wonted courage, she replied: I am tied, and the case is altered with mee.

About the same time two Ladies waiting on her in her C••āber discouered in the bottom of her Chaire the Queen•• o•• hartes, with a nayle of iron knockt through the forehead of it, the which the Ladies durst not then pull out, remem∣bring

that the like thing was reported to be vsed to other, for witch-craft. Another Lady waiting in these times on the Queene, & leauing her asleep in her priuy chamber at Richmond at the very first distemper of her sicknes, met her at she t••ought, three or foure chambers of, & fearing that she would haue byn displeased that she le••t her alone, came towards her to excuse her selfe, but shee vanished away: and when the Lady retourned into the same chamber where she left the Queene, she found her asleepe as before. So in time growing past recouery, hauing kept her bed some daies, the Counsell sent vnto her the Bishop of Canter∣burie & other of the Prelates, vpon sight of whom, she was much offended, cholerikly rating them, bidding them be packing: & afterwardes exclaymed to my L. Admirall that ••he had the greatest indignity offered her by the Archbi∣••hop that a Prince could haue, to pronoūce sentēce of death against her, as if she had liued an Atheist. And some Lords mentioning to haue other Prelates to come vnto her, she answered that she would haue none of those hedge-priests & so none of them came to her, till after she was past sense & at the last gasp, at which tyme some praiers were said not farre from her.

The Queene being departed this life, the Lords of the Counsell went to London to proclaime his Maiesty, leauing her body with charge not to be opened, such being her de∣sire: but some for some reasons hauing giuen a secret war∣rant to the Surgeons, they opened her, which the rest of the Counsell did not contradict. Now her body being sea∣red vp, was brought to VVhite-hall, where it was watched euery night by six seuerall Ladies: who being all about the same, which was fast nayled vp within a board-coffin with leaues of lead, couered with veluet, it happened that her body brake the coffin with such a cracke, that it splea∣ted the wood, lead, and cerecloth, to the terror and asto∣nishmēt of all that were present: wherupon the next day she was fayne to be new trimmed vp, in so much as all were of opiniō, that if she had not byn opened, the breach of her body would haue byn much worse. Diuers other

particularities, ••or that they cōcerne speciall Pe••••onage••, I haue thought good for some causes to conceale.

And this narration I haue byn forced to set forth, to a∣uoid the calumniation of M. Barlow, who saith vpon my first words, in the Letter to my friend: This is another Ies••••••i∣call tricke, as well in matters histo••icall, as o•• doctrine, to ••ra••e it out with an impud••nt tale: but aske thē for their Author who saith it, then ansu••••er is like the C••clops c••y in Homer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nobody, nobody. But we say cōtrary to the Cyclops, somebody, somebody, or rather many Lodies togeather: for that in this point I haue the original by me, & haue shewed it to many men of gra∣uity & iudgmēt, though it be not cōuenient to declare the name of the Relator for this present to M. Barlow,* 1.115 for more causes then one. And as for his general slaūder & con••ume∣lies which he though good he•••• to cast in, that it is a Iesui∣tical trick, as well in matters Historicall as of doctrine, to braue it out with an impudēt tale, the assertiō therof must needs ••hew his impudency, if he doth not proue it with some examples, as he neyther doth, nor can: but how often I haue don it against him in this book, the Reader hath partly seene, and will more before wee end. And the two late bookes published, to omit all other, the one, The sober Reckoning with M. Morton, the other, The Search of M. Francis VValsingham, one of their owne Religion, do so put them to the wall in this matter of lying and falsifying, as if M. Barlow be able well to answer those two bookes, and satisfy substantially for the mayne and huge number of falsities therin obiected, and demonstrated, it shall not be needfull for him to trouble himselfe any more to an∣swer this my booke, for I will take my selfe satisfied by the satisfaction giuen to them.

And thus now hauing buried Q. Elizabeth & brought her body to rest for a time; would to God we might hope the like, both for body and soule eternally, & Christ Iesus our Sauiour knoweth how hartily & sincerely I do desire it, without any worse affectiō towards her then harty cō∣passion, notwithstanding all the outcryes & raging excla∣mations made by this intemperate Minister against me for

the contrary, to wit, ••or malice, and hat••ed against her and for iudging her before the tyme, against the prescrip∣tion 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 shalbe made mani••est, so far as it shalbe con∣uenient 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 re∣counteth, shall neuer attayne to the Kingdome of heauen, but be damned eternally, according to their workes,* 1.116 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 pē∣nance for the same to his knowledg, might not he by good warrant of S. Paul affirme, that in his opinion they are dā∣ned? Nay doth not S. Paul giue this expresse liberty of iudg∣ing to his Scholler Timothy, & by him to vs, when he saith as before also hath bene noted, Quorumdam hominum peccata mani••••sta sunt, praecedentia ad iudicium: quosdam autem subsequentur.* 1.117 The sinns of some men are manifest going before them vn∣to iudgmēt, and others haue their sinnes following them. So as i•• eyther before their death or after their death, whē the particuler iudgment of euery soule is to be made, any mans gri••uous sinnes be made manifest, there is no doubt but that men may iudge also in a certaine sort, or at least make to thēselues a very probable and likely coniecture of the miserable state of that party: yea more thē a cōiecture, if the Church should censure him for any great sin cōmit∣ted•• & d••ing a••terwards in the same without due repētāce, which is wont to be declared by denying vnto him Chri∣stian burial, as when they murther themselues, & the like.

But aboue all, when the said Church doth cut of any body by Excōmunication from being any more a member thereof, for schisme, heresy, or other offence of this qua∣lity,

a man may make iudgement of his dānation, yea must also: for then is he in the case whome S. Paul affirmeth to be s••buersum,* 1.118 subuerted by heresy, that is as much, to say, turned vpside downe, or pluckt vp by the rootes, & pro∣prio iudicio condemnatum, condemned not only by the iudg∣ment of the Church, but also by his owne iudgmēt in like manner, when he cōmeth to answere the matter: for that being bound to follow the direction of the Church, he be∣came Haereti••us homo, as the Apostles words are, that is to say, an Heretica••l man, one that out of choice or election would ne••des follow his owne iudgment.

This point then that a man or woman dying in the excōmunication 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,* 1.119 though he should shed his bloud for Christ, inexpiabilis culpa, quae nec passione pur∣gatur: 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 su••fering for Christ himselfe. And a∣gaine he sayth,* 1.120 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 ••id••i corona, sed poena 〈◊〉〈◊〉: it shall not be a Crowne of fayth, but a punish∣ment o•• per••idiousnes. And many other like places and s••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 worke••:* 1.121 in particuler, where he saith against the Donatists, That neither baptisme, nor Martyrdome profiteth an heretike any thing at all, which he repeateth o••ten times: and in another place

he saith: If thou be out o•• the Church, thou shalt be punished ••ith eternall paines, although thou shouldest be burned quicke for the name of Ch••ist.* 1.122 And yet againe the same Father: Here••ikes d•• some∣times brag, that they do giue much almes to the poore, and do su••••er much for truth, but this is not for Ch••ist, bu•• ••or their Sect. •• ••oke for whom thou sufferest, quia for as mi••••us es, ideo miser es, ••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: I•• I should giue all that I haue to the poore, and deliuer my body to the ••ire, without ••harity I am nothing: he that is out of the Church, liueth out of chari••y. And let the Reader see more of this in S. A••gus••ine, Serm. Domini in mome cap. 9. & lib. 2. contra Petilianum Donatist. cap. 98. lib. 1. contra Gaud••ntium cap. 33. & in Conc. de g••stis cum Eme∣••••••o, where he hath these words:* 1.123 I•• vnto an heretike that is out o•• t•••• Church, it should be said by an enemie of Christ: Off••r vp sa∣crifice 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 ••••le damn••d and not crowned.

I pretermit in this matter S. Chrysostome hom. 11. in ••••ist. ad E••••es. S. Pacianus Bishop of Barcelona, that liued s••m••what be••ore him Epist. 2. ad S••mpronium, S. Fulg••ntius t••at liued the next age after lib. de fide ad P••trum cap. 29. whose wordes are these, spoken with a vehement spirit, and some men ascribe them to S. Augustine: Firnassime tene & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dubi••••s &c.* 1.124 Do thou hould ••or most firme and cer∣tayne, and no wayes doubt, but that whosoeuer is an he∣reticke, or ••chismaticke, and therby out of the Church, t••ough he be baptized in the name of the Father, the S••nne, and the holy Ghost, do neuer so good workes, giue•• n••u••r so ••••ch almes, no though he should shed his bloud for th••n•• m•• o•• 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 ••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 b••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 shalbe 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 su∣preme heades on earth of the knowne Catholike Church, no man can deny: that she was likewise excommunicated by con••equence, though not by name, by the General Councel of Trent,* 1.125 in all t••ose Canons & anathematizations which were made against Protestants for their doctrine, which she also held, no mā can doubt of: as neither but that she was cōprehended in all the cases that touched her faith or actions in Bulla Coenae, euery yeare repeated and pronoū∣ced against Heretikes, Schismatikes, & Vsurpers of Eccle∣siasticall 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 succ••ssion from their dayes to ours, is so manifestly to be proued,* 1.126 as no man can with reason deny the same: and consequently if it were so certaine a damnation to be ex∣communicated, or put out of that Church, as now you haue heard the said Fathers to affirme, then is it soe now a••••o, and then go••th hard the case of Queene Elizabeth, as you see, for that it is not knowne that she was euer recon∣ciled, 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 ene∣mie, the world, the flesh, and the diuell, the many occa∣sions 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 Christiās for purging her soule, which the fore∣said 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 c••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 dy∣ing in that state, cannot be saued according to the iudg∣ment 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 ha∣uing 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 Ca∣tholike, 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 euer∣lasting saluation of Queene Elizabeth. For if there were so great & mayne a difference betwene bodily Phisitian•••• both for number, skil, experience, antiquity, and autho∣rity about the temporall death of any Prince, as there is here in all these qualities betweene the spirituall Phisitians of Christendome Catholike,* 1.127 and English Protestants, con∣cerning the eternall death of Queene Elizabeths soule, to wit that so many more temporall Phisitians in number with∣out comparison, so much more learned, so much more ex∣perienced in corporall Phisicke, as the other exceed them in spirituall: yea further, and that they had so many deadly

Symtomes, Chry••es, and Prognosticons con••••med out of the authority of Hipocrates, Gal••••, and other ancien•• Phisi∣tians, 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, fo•• Queene Elizabeths euerlasting death: I doubt nothing but that the sayd Princes temporall life, would be held for ve∣ry dangerous, or rather his death were very probable. Nei∣ther 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 & famili∣ar 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 Excōmunicated 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 s••ould spring vp, he could not be a Christian Catholicke; and consequently neyther be saued, but euerlastingly dam∣ned. 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 ••ould,* 1.128 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,* 1.129 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 profi•• them any thing at all, vpon which later poynt I am induced to make this ensuing consideration.

S. Augustine in his nynth booke of Conseffions recoun∣ting the story of his iourney from Millan to Rome,* 1.130 and from thence to Africa his Countrey, in the compaine of his Mother, a holy widdow named Moni••a, sheweth how they comming to the Port of Ostia, where they were to imbarke, his sayd Mother fell grieuously sicke, and after some dayes of sicknes departed this present li••e: and for testification of her great sanctitie, the sayd Doctor recoū∣counteth many of her godly speaches vttered before her death,* 1.131 and amongst other sh•• earnestly recommended vn∣to him and other there present, that shee might be prayed for at the altar in time of Sacrifice, which S. Augustine not only performed himselfe, but in the same place most hūbly desireth all those that shall read his wordes, to pray both for the soule of his sayd Mother, and likwise for the soule of his Father dead long before, named Patricius.

Now then haue we the testimony of S. Augustine, & by him also of all the Catholike Church in his time (for that he was neuer noted of errour eyther for thus writing, or thus doing:) first that Aërius was an Heretick, and conse∣quently damned for holding that Prayers & Sacrifice were not to be offered vp for the dead. Secōdly we see by the fact of the holy widdow, that, that was the cōmon sense of the vniuersall Church in her dayes, for that she hauing liued first in the Catholick Church in Afria, & then vnder S. Am∣brose in Millan, and sometime also in Rome, she would neuer haue demaunded this office to haue byn done for her soule after her death, if it had not byn the common known pra∣ctice of the vniuersall Church in her daies: neither would her learned godly Sonne h••ue permitted it, & much lesse performed the same himself, and intreated others to do the

like, wherof it seemeth I may well inferre, that if 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were damned for teaching the contrary doctrine, then is M. Barlow in great danger of damnation (if he repent not) for defending the same doctrine. And if S. Monica & S. Augustine her Sonne may be thought to be saued, that both belieued & practised prayers, and sacrifices for the dead, then hardly can be saued Queene Elizabeth with her Cha∣plin M. Barlow (except he change his opinion) that neither practice or belieue that doctrine. I remit me to the carefull Reader, what force there is in this Argument.

OF THE FLATTERY AND SYCOPHANCY VSED BY DIVERS MINISTERS TO HIS MAIESTY OF ENGLAND, To the hurt and preiudice of Catholicke men, and their cause. CHAP. III.

AS during the life of Queen Elizabeth one great Witch-craft of Ministers was, for bringing her asleep in the bed of care∣les security, to intoxicate her braine with excessiue praises, and immoderate adulations: So, sayd I, they attempted to do the like with his Maiesty that now is, indeauoring to incite him dayly more & more against

Catholiks, & their religiō, by pretence of zeale towards his State & Persō, which no waies would they haue him be∣lieue that Catholicks did loue or fauour. And in this poin•• I did mention in particuler T.M. the yonger, of whome I was credibly informed, that his custome was by reason of his place neere his Maiesty, at the time of repast to iniure Catholicks that were absent, either by false relating their doctrine, or miscōstruing their actiōs, or alleaging & shew∣ing forth some places out of their books, that may seeme preiudiciall agains•• thē, being taken at the worst, & with∣out due interpretation. My words at that time were these.

* 1.132 VVe doe verily perswade ourselues, that if his High∣nes had bene left to himselfe, and to his owne Royall na∣ture,* 1.133 & Noble disposition in this point (as Queene Eli∣zabeth was wont to say of her disposition in religion) we had tasted indeed much of this his great humanity; and so we began for somtime, but being preuented and diuerted by the subtile working of this and other such Ministers, as desired to draw bloud, and to incite his Maiesty against vs, we hauing no place to speake for our selues,* 1.134 no admittance to be heard, no effectual intercessour to interpose his medi∣ation for vs, no meruaile, though we were cast of, and do indure the smart.

And I doe name this Minister (T. M. the yonger) in the first place among the rest, for that it is commonly sayd,* 1.135 that his whole exercise is Sycophancy and calumni∣ation against men of our profession, be they strangers or domesticall, and that among other deuises he hath this, that euery time his Maiesty is to take his repast, he is ready either with some tale, iest, scoffe, or other bitter lance to wound vs absent, and that he hath euer lightly some book & page therof ready to read to his Highnes, somewhat fra∣med by his art to incense, or auert his Maiesty more, ey∣ther in iudgement or affection, or both, and therby to draw from him some hard speaches, which being pub∣lished afterward by himselfe, and others, do serue to no other end, but to gall, and alienate min••es, and to afflict them that are not suffered to giue reason for themselues, &

that is the seruice he doth his Maiesty in this exercise.

And now vnto this let vs see how M.Barlow beginneth to frame his answere:* 1.136 Is not this ••ellow truly can is in praesepe (saith he) that can neither speake well himsel••e, nor indure that ver∣tue should haue her due commendation by others? He m••an••th con∣cer••ing the praises of his Maiesty, which he would s••y that I can neither vtter them of my selfe, nor suffer others to do the same,* 1.137 & yet within a few lines after, finding me to haue yelded vnto his Maiesty sūdry worthy due praises, he is for∣ced to run to the quite contrary extreme, of reprehen∣ding me for it, saying:* 1.138 VVheras this Iudas cōmendeth his Maiesties great humanity, Royall nature, and Noble disposition, so did the Diueth con••esse Christ to be the Sonne of God, but their conclusion was withall Quid tibi & nobis? what haue we to doe with thee? So he.

And is not this humor of malicious contradicting verie fit for the Diuell indeed, who therof hath his name of Sathan? In the former lines he sayd, that I would ney∣ther prayse his Maiesty, nor suffer him to be praysed, and here he compareth me to the diuell for praysing him; and yet goeth further, saying•• That his Maiestie may de∣maund, what euill haue I done this day, that so bad a fellow as this is, should speake so well of me? So as whether we speake well, or hould our peace,* 1.139 still we must be blame-worthie. And this also is a principal point belonging to the prof••ssion of Parasites, if you marke it well, to admit noe concurrence of their aduersaries, in honouring that Prince (though neuer soe sincerely meant) whome themselues alone by their exorbitant adulation do meane to possesse.

Let vs see what generall ground our Antagonist here M. Barlow, that seemeth indeed to be an egregious Crafts∣man in this occupation, doth lay vs down to defend him∣selfe from the imputation of flattery, for this he is wont to do full wisely, whē he meaneth to build somwhat theron. Flattery,* 1.140 sayth he, cānot be without touch of both parties, because none vse to ••latter, but such as haue no other meanes to aduance themselues, and none loue to be flattered but those which haue no true vertue to com∣mend themselues. Which ground hath two partes as you see, and both of them most euidently false. The first, for tha••

otherwise none but poor men should be flatterers, wher∣as rich men may performe the same office,* 1.141 and do also of∣ten tymes more then others, eyther for increasing their riches, or preseruing that they haue, by the grace of the Prince, whom they flatter, or for to hurt others. The second part also is false, for that men endued with many great vertues, may delight to hear themselues praysed, and their vertues acknowledged, though in their hartes per∣haps (if they be wyse and vertuous indeed) they do scorne the prayser, when they vnderstand, that he doth it out of adulation for his owne gayne, or to hurt others. For it is to be considered that the nature of adulation which consisteth in excesse of desire to please, and delight the per∣son which is flattered, doth not alwayes require that the thinges themselues should be all false that are spoken in such adulation, but it is sufficient there be excesse in the measure or manner of vtterance, or in the time, place•• and other such circumstances.

For i•• a Prince for example, had a good leg indeed, for one to tell it him often & openly in all places & occasi∣ons, and still to bring in speach of good legs, as some wil say the custome was to flatter a certain Earle when he was yonge, in our English Court; this should be base flatte••y of it selfe, though the Subiect were true. But if here with∣all the flatterers intention should be to gayne vniustly, or to hurt any man iniuriously therby; then should it be mali∣cious and damnable flattery. And now whether also these circumstances did concurre in the flattery of M. Barlow, & his fellowes towards Queene Elizabeth, when she was aliue and towards his Maiesty that now liueth, I will not stand much to discourse: only I am sure, that the last circum∣stance, which of all other is the worst, to wit, of hurting Catholickes, neuer commonly fayled. So as we may truly say, as S. Augustine sayd vpon those words of the Psalme,* 1.142 Conuertantur statim erubescentes, Let flatterers presently with confusion be conuerted, for that, plùs nocet lingua adulatoris quàm gladius persecutoris: the tongue of the flatterer doth hurt more th••n the sword of the persecutor. And this we haue

well experienced.

I haue somewhat touched before, how well M. Barlow obserued the circumstance of time in exercising this art: For when the Earle of Essex was in his ruffe, thē was he his ••••comiast, & the loud-sounding trumpet of his triumphs, but when time began to turne, and prosperous fortune to change her face, then did he change his course also, and became not only a silent Orator in his behalfe, but also an open accuser, yea a calumniator & Syphocant, as out of his before mētioned printed Sermon you may haue obserued: for that Sycophācy (as himself in this place for the defence of his brother T. M. the yonger, will presently declare at large by the first institution of the word) signifieth a com∣plaint or accusation of carrying out figgs from Attica, con∣trary to the law, and afterwards remayned with the sig∣nification of false or trifling accusations, or calūniations, prying into other mens actiōs, malicious inferēces, odious collections, & the like, wherof in that printed Sermon a∣gainst the said Earle you shall find good store,* 1.143 especially ••hose 13. last records which are left to the Cittizens of Lon∣don to meditate vpon, which in effect are all but captious illations, and odious inferences of his owne gathering: but on the other side the flatteries bestowed vpon the Queene are both eminent and excellent, which not to loose time in repeating, I will only report the last con••ayned in the very last words of that Sermon.

VVhat now remayneth (saith he) but to conclude with my text, Giue vnto Cesar the things of Cesar, our most Gratious Soueraigne I meane, honour her, obay her, feare her, but aboue all pray for her, that she being the light of the Land, may shine among vs as long as the two great lights in heauen, the sunne and moone: this God grant for his mercies sake. Amen.

Thus he taught his Auditory to pray by vocall pray∣er, and especially the Cittizens of ••ondon there present, to whome for mentall prayer he had giuen the forersaid thir∣teene poyntes of meditation before set downe, wherof the last was, o•• the Earles opiniō & censure o•• their basenes &c. But now I would know of M. Barlow, whether in his Diui∣nitie,

prayer may be made without the vertue Theologi∣call of Hope, which appeareth by the whole course of Scripture that it cannot: for he that hopeth not to ob∣tayne that which he prayeth for, prayeth in vayne. And then secondly I would demaund wha•• grounded hope the Cittizens of London might haue to pray with him, that Queene Elizabeth might liue, as long as the two lights in heauen, the sunne and moone, should endure? Could they hope for this, seeing her now an old woman, and weakened also by many diseases? And if they could not hope it, how could they pray for it, but only in iest? And whether iesting with God in prayer be lawfull by M. Bar∣lowes Theologie,* 1.144 I would also gladly know? especially for so much as he seemeth to haue spoken this in very good earnest, by adioyning a vehement reduplicati••e in the very last words of all: This God graunt for his mercies sake, Amen: as if he had sayd, this is the poynt of most moment to be demaunded at Gods hand, that the Queene, the sunne, and the moone might liue out togeather, and be of one age, and that they shin•• togeather, she ouer Eng∣land, & they ouer the whole world: this is the grace that we ha••e most need of,* 1.145 vnum est necessariu••: other folkes with Mar••ha are solicitous & troubled about many things, but we haue need of one thing: This God graunt vs ••or his mer∣cies sake, that Queene Eliz••beth do not dye before the sunne and moone: and yet good man h•• did not consider in thi•• seruent deuotion, that he o••fered great iniurie to his Ma∣iestie that now is. For if Queene Elizabeth had liued and shined as long as the sunne and moone, his Maiesty had neuer had any part in that succession: for that after the sunne and moone I suppose there will be no succession. And this will serue for one example amongst the rest of his adulation towards Queene Elizabeth.

* 1.146B••t as for those which he vseth towards his Maiesty that now is, both in this place, & throughout his whole Booke, though they be grosse and palpable inough•• and consequently also seene I doubt not, and scorned in great part by his Maiesties prudence: yet meane I not to treat

therof, for that the common refuge of flatterers in this poynt is to say, that such as do taxe or mislike their flat∣terie, are enemies or enuious of the prayses giuen to the person flattered: and the same is M. Barlowes defence in this place. Only then shall I ••eau•• ••his matter to the iudgment of the Reader, but especially of his Maiestie, who in this case for m••ny respects may be the most competent Iudge, notwithstanding the cause doth most concerne himselfe.

Let vs now se•• wh••t M•• Ba••lo•• sayth ••o that which before was obiec••ed ag••inst him, and his like, and nam••∣ly against T. M. the yonger, for sycophancie and calum∣niation against Catholickes, and their doctrine by sini∣ster meanes, at such times as his Maiesty tak••th his repast. It is true, sayth he, that his Maiesties 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for the most part at times of repast, is a•• Constantines Court (Ecclesiae 〈…〉〈…〉) a li••le V∣••iuersitie compa••sed with learned men in all professions, and his Ma••e∣stie in the midd••st of them (as the Grecian in••ituled one lesse deser∣••••••••) a liuing Library,* 1.147 furni••h•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all handes to reply•• answere•• 〈…〉〈…〉 explayne 〈…〉〈…〉 vpon fact,* 1.148 or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vpon 〈◊〉〈◊〉•• In which wordes for so much as concerneth his Maiesties person, I will not meddle withall to con••r••dict, but rather to ad∣mite and r••ioyce 〈◊〉〈◊〉 such excellencies of lea••ning in so great a Prince, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 most hartily and 〈…〉〈…〉 Almighty God euery day that his Di••ine Maiesty would bestow vpon him the true excellencie, and indeed aboue all other learning, which is ••he knowledge of his true Cat••olick•• Church and doctrin••, without which, as we haue now heard out of the an••ient Fathers before allead∣ged, that all other skill and learning is eyther vayne or pernicious, for that it shall be as S. Cyprian sayth, non corona 〈…〉〈…〉.

His 〈…〉〈…〉 heard but one part, and hath bene ••uer obse••t with th••s•• Academicall fellows both in Scotland and England, which here M. B••rlow nameth his Table-••niuersity, being indeed ••ut ••r••ncher-Minister••: for in Sc••o•••••••• and publicke 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they dare not ••ppeare, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thei•• f••ce. And ••ow th••t his Ma••••••ty hath giuen so

plentifull occasion of tryall by writing with his hand t•• all Christiā Princes, stirring vp the••by great store of lear∣ned men to dis••usse the questions in controuersy; we do verily hope in the mercy of Almighty God, that as goo••d by rubbing and heating is made more cleare; so will ••ruth by disputation, and examination, wherin his Maiestie hauing so principall an interest, as now to the world is knowne, he will stand more attent to the discussion, an•• issue of all, and therby recei••e that lig•••• which is need∣full to euerl••sting blisse. A••d this concerning his Maie∣stie with all duty and respectiue loue.

But as for the little Vniuersitie of learned men of all professions,* 1.149 that inuirone his Mai••sties table at time of repast, I must say somewhat more, though verie b••eif••y also. We doe easily imagine by the effects, what m••••ner of learned men, and of what measure in learning they are, that attend his Maiestie at those times, and places: and we do measure them principally by their bookes whic•• they haue published, for that it i•• like t••at their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 writings are no lesse considerate and weighty, then their table-talke ex tempore. And then if M. Barlow for example, ••hould talke no more substantially in that place, and audi∣ence then he doth here in this hi•• ••ooke, which he hath published to the world, it would pro••e, God knoweth, a very poore Vniuersity, which his Maiesty should haue about him, of such men, wherin I remi•• me for some part to the triall already made in this discussion of mine.

If we should compa••e the Ac••demies & Vniuer••••tyes of learned de••ines, that his Mai••styes noble & renowned ancestours both of England and Scotland had about them, from time to time for a thousand yeares togeather, for re∣soluing them in all cases necessary for belie••e or man••••••, with these new men, lear••ing with learning, grauitie with grauity, & authority wi••h authority, they being ioy∣ned with all other learned men of the Christian world in vnity of doctrine: & these men being alone, & ag••••ei••g with no other part or sect, ••o not of their owne Prot••stā•• that liue out of England, no•• hauing any other cert••ine ••••le

of infallible direction but their owne heads: the difference will quickly be seene betweene them, as also whether his Maie••ties furniture be better or not, in this behalfe, then all theirs, and of all other Princes of the Christian world be∣s••des.

And yet further to increase the weight of this consi∣deration somewhat more, let vs suppose that this Maiesty our Soueraigne, with that great pregnancy of wit, and ot••er gui••tes bestowed by Almightie God vpon him, should sit downe in an Assembly of halfe a dozen of the ancient learned Fathers and Doctours of the primitiue Christian Church, as S. Athanasius, S. Gregory Nazianzen,* 1.150 and S. C••rysostome of the Greeke Church; S. Ambrose, S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & S. Augustine of the latin, all liuing aboue twelu•• ••••ndred yeares agone, and that S. Gregorie the Gre•••• though comming somewhat after them, yet for that he sent first Christian preachers into England, should sit downe with them, and that all the••e togeather should reason grauely wi••h his Maiestie de Reg••o Dei, of the kingdome of God, as S. Luke testifieth that our Sauiour did with his disciples after his resurrection for fourtie dayes togeather;* 1.151 and that S. Athanasius as somewhat more ancient then the rest,* 1.152 should grauely begin, and recount vnto his Maiesti•• what passed betweene him, and other Catholicke Bi∣••hops, and his Lord the Emperour Constantius, deceaued by the Arian Preachers, and Ministers of that sect, who flocked no•• lesse about him at that time, to flatter him, ••••d incite him against Catholickes, then doe these Pro∣testant Ministers about his Maiestie in these dayes: and namely he should tell him, that which he hath left writ∣ten in a large Epistle of his,* 1.153 how the sayd Emperour be∣ing auerted now from the Catholickes by the Arian M••∣••isters, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for di••ers Bishops, commanding them in his p••••ence to subscribe to his Imperiall order, for the banishing of Athanasius, and communion to be frequented with the sayd Arians; and that the sayd Catholick Bishops wond••ing at his command••ment, and telling him that it was against Ecclesiasticall Canons, that the Emperor

should meddle with such matters; he persisting notwith∣standing to haue his will done, they held vp their hands to heauen appealing vnto God for remedy: presuming fur∣ther to tell him, that his Kingdome was not his, but from God, who gaue it him, and it was to be feared least ••b would take it away againe, if he proceeded in that course: and finally deuounced vnto him the dreadfull day of Iud∣gement, perswading him not to peruert the course of Ecclesiasticall affaires, neither intermeddle the Roman Empire in dealing with Ecclesiasticall institutions &c.

All which and much more is set downe by S. Athana∣sius himselfe in a long Epistle of this matter, where he also recoūteth the bold speach of bishop Osius the famous Con∣fessor of Corduba, who was one of the 318. Fathers that sa•••• as Iudges in the first Councell of Ni••e, and vsed the sa•••• 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 dealing•• in Ecclesiasticall affayres; remember thou art mortall, feare the day of Iudgement, keep thy selfe free from this kind of sin, do not vse cōmandements to vs in this kind, but rather learne of vs, for that God hath cōmitted the Empire vnto thee, & to vs the things that appertaine to his Church &c.

All which speaches doth S. Athanasius allow, & highly cō∣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 spi∣rituall 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 the••e with him, could not in all reason but much moue, especially if•• So Gregory Na∣zianzen,* 1.154 and S. Ambrose* 1.155 should haue recounted their admo∣nitions about the same, to their temporall Lord and Em∣perour 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 Ecclesi∣asticall

matters then the Emperor; and that he had a tribu∣nall, or seat of Iudgment higher then the Emperour,* 1.156 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,* 1.157 in comman∣ding 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 Em∣peror, 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,* 1.158 that is to say S. Chrysostō Archbishop of Constantinople cōcurred with thē:

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 hād, instructing vs therby, that the Priest is a grea∣ter 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 tēporall Princes, let vs imagine the other three to talk of some other mater, as namely S. Hierome,* 1.159 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 Maie∣sties kingdomes of England & Scotland, which could not but grieue him, they being cōdemned heresies by the Church. S. Augustine also vpon occasion giuen him,* 1.160 may be imagi∣ned to make his cōplaint, 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 purga∣tory: 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 E••g∣land, and Aërius in this point held for a better Christian then himselfe: yea, and wheras he (S. Augustine) had accor∣ding 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.* 1.161 All which Saint Gregory hearing, ••et vs sup∣pose him out of that great loue and charity wherwith he was inflamed towardes England, and the English Nati∣on, to vse a most sweet and fatherly speach vnto his Ma∣iestie, exhorting him to remember that he sent into England by the first preachers that came from him, the same Ca∣tholicke Christian Religion, which was then spread o∣uer the whole world, and that which he had receiued by succession of Bishops, and former ages from the said Fa∣thers there present, and they from the Apostles: and that the said ancient, true, and Catholicke Religion was sin∣cerely deliuered vnto his Maiesties first Christian prede∣cessor 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 mid∣dest, 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 consi∣der 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 ne∣uer yet haue entrance, or indifferent audience in his Maiesties ••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,* 1.162 from that crime of Sycophancy which was obiected for his calumniations a∣gainst 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 ano∣ther; as also for him that seeketh to recreate Princes & great men by pleasant speaches; and finally also him that ie∣steth with a deprauing vayne; he telleth how that Mai∣ster T. M. may with credit be called a Sycophant in the three first senses, but not in the last (sayth he) for that Sy∣cophancy must be clanculum, and without witnesses, but T.M. vseth this Sycophancy openly, euen by the Censurers confession, when his Maiesty taketh his repast, that is, in the hearing of many; so that the party being knowne, and the tale openly tould, he cānot be called a Sycophant, saith M. Barlow.But I would first demaud of him, where he findeth that the word Clanculū, or Secretly, must be contei∣ned in the definition of a Sychophant, for that the first, & prime signification, and deriuation of the word doth o∣penly repugne: for as M. Barlow sayth, in this place, such delatores ficuum, or Sycophants in Athens, were honorable Magistrates, that did accuse publikely: and secondly in ap∣plicatiō of the word, to a false accuser, & malicious forged crime, there is no such restraint, that it must be secret, by

any Author set downe, as may be seene in Henri••••s St••∣phanus his Thesaurus, where there is no restraint of the na∣ture of a Syc••ophant, or Sychophancy to such secrecy, •••• here M. Barlow assigneth, but it is sufficient, that it be a false forged malicious crime: albeit if we consider the priuate place, and auditory while his Maiesty taketh his repast eith••r by day, or night, in comparison of the whole bo∣dy of Catholickes there calumniated, in their absence, there will not want also this circumstance of clanculary ca∣lumniation, if M. Barlow will needs haue it necessary. But now let vs passe to another point touched by M. Barlow, wherin he pretendeth to be somwhat pleasant & to recre∣ate his reader with certaine iestes, though with little grace, as you will see.

The occasions of his iestes are these, that for so much as this word Sycophan••ie, is deriued of figges, as now you haue vnderstood, he will tell vs diuers stories of figgs, some sweet, some sower, some pleasant, some vngrateful, some poysoned, and the like: and vnder this m••eaphor he will shew vs what figges T. M. and his fellowes do p••rhappes represent vnto his Maiestie at his table for his better rec••eation and pastyme:* 1.163 as namely first, diuers stories of Popish feigned myracles, as that, sayth M. Barlow, of S. Denis in France,

who being Byshop of Paris and beheaded, carried his owne head in his hand after it was stroken of: and of Clement the first, who when he was cast into the sea, with a milstone about his necke, the sea fled three myles frō the shore, and there was found a lytle Chappell ready built in the sea, where his bodie was bestowed: and that of S. Gregorie of Ne••caesarea whose sta••••e being stuck downe by him at the banke side, kept the riuer frō ouerflowing the banks, and presently sprong vp and spred it s••lf into a n••ighty tree.

Thus he. Con∣demning as you see our credulity in belieuing these mi∣racles.

But first I would demād of this little learned Vniuersitie, an•• their Procter M. Barlow, what more religion there is in not belieuing these, and other like recounted myracles,

then in belieuing them? for so much as Infide••ity is an easie matter to be found euery where,* 1.164 in the worst kind of men, as Turkes, Iewes, and Gentiles, and the worst Chri∣stians; but to belieue is more hard, and to be found in fewer men, be it humane or diuine fayth that is required. Secondly these, and many other such like myracles not recounted in Scripture, are not proposed as articles of fayth necessary for euery man to belieue, though they be∣ing related by good and probable Authors, euery pious mind will rather incline to giue them credit, then scoffe ••t them, as Heretickes do. For that the scoffing at these things, which they haue no ground of any moment to impugne, sheweth but a prophane, audacious, and Luci∣anicall spirit.

And in this case I would demand of M. Barlow, what ground he hath to scoffe so at these three miracles here set down as he doth? to wit, of S. Denis•• S. Clement, & S. Gregory of Neocaesarea, surnamed by ancient writers Thaumaturgus, for the multitude and grea••nes of the miracles done by him? Is it perhaps, for that they are strange, and not according to mans reason or vse of things that fall out ordinarily in the world? If this were not so, they were no myracles. What then? Do they passe (perhaps) Gods power to doe them? This he wilbe ashamed to say. What then? Hath he any testimonies of authors that auow the con∣trary, and affirme that they were not true? This I presume he cannot say; whereas wee on the other side, haue diuers Authors that affirme the same. And if M. Barlow, and his fellowes doe belieue many thinges of fact by hu∣mane faith, for that some one probable Historiographer either Christian, or prophane doth recount the same; with what reason can they scoffe at vs, for giuing credit to these things, that are testifed by many Authors? As for example, the myracle of S. Denis the Areopagite,* 1.165 of carrying his head in his hands is testified by Nicephorus Calixtus, a Grecian, in his second booke of Histories, and twentith Chapter, and by Symon Metaphrastes another Grecian before him againe in the life of S. Denis: and be∣fore

him againe by Hildewinus Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Denis by Paris, vpon the point of eight hundred yeares agone, who all••adgeth also an other Author elder then himself, named Lysbius, that had set forth the same in his writings, and some other Authors in like manner: all which the sayd Hildewinus gathered togeather bo••h out of Greeke and Latin writers, at the request of Ludouicus Pius King of France.

* 1.166The other miracle also of Saynt Clement the first who was cast into the sea with an anchor about his necke (but not with a milstone, as M. Barlow hath deuised) and that the sea went three myles backe &c. and the rest heere obiected by M. Barlow,* 1.167 is mentioned not onlie by the foresaid two Greeke Authors Nicephorus lib. 3. Histor. Cap. 18. and Metaphrastes in vita Clementis: but by S. Gregorie of Towers also, that liued a thousand yeares agoe, in his booke de gloria Martyrum Cap. 35. &. 36. And no lesse the third of S. Gregory Neocaesarea* 1.168 surnamed Thauma∣turgus,* 1.169 that he piched his staffe vpon a banke side, and kept the riuer from ouerflowing, is writt••n and testified at large, not only by the sayd Necephorus lib. 6. Cap. 17. but by a farre more ancient Father, as namely by S. Gre∣go••y Nyssen, brother to S. Basil; which said holie man hath written the admirable life at large of the aforesaid S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, well neere 1300. yeares agone, which is extant in his works from the page. 918. to 949. and S. Basil himself lib. de Spiritu Sancto Cap. 29. hath touched the same:

and after repetition of many of his miracles, he endeth thus: Sed omnino pe••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 ve∣ry 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 La∣dy of Hales, of the conformities of S. Francis, the life of

••••••••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 rea∣son 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 wa∣ter and ioyne it selfe to a handle, with the like, which in another place I haue handled more at large against M. Sut∣cliffe, and Syr Francis Hastings.

Next after this he bringeth in other figgs, and com∣meth to scoffe at diuers Indulgences that do pardon,* 1.170 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 ••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 autho∣rity 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 ar∣gument was so absurd, and the fraud so manifest: and yet now do I see it often alleaged by Protestāt writers against them, and namely by Thomas Rogers in his late edition of 39. Protestant Articles: so as one way or other, these peo∣ple

will euer make themselues matter for exclayming a∣gainst vs, be it true or false, or neuer so maliciously inuen∣ted or peruerted.

And here I would aske M. Barlow in good earnest, whe∣ther 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 can∣not easily perswade my selfe, that in truth of conscience (if he haue any) he can be of that iudgment, and muc•• lesse in the other clause of slander which immediatly fol∣oweth:* 1.171 to wit; that Pope Sixtus Quartu•• 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 ••he same of a manifest lye & fictiō:* 1.172 which reason is, ••or because his Catholicks, q••••••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 Protestāts in his Indulgence, which M. Barlow hath deuised. And would any learned man fal in∣to 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 inex∣cusable, when he affirmeth, that Popes doe pardon enor∣mous sinnes, for innumerable yeares vpon sweet conditiōs. 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 on∣ly to the remission of temporall punishments due after the guilt of sinne remitted, and not of sinne it selfe, which c••nnot be remitted, but by the Sacrament of Pennance,

or vertue therof. And it is strange that one profes••ing lear∣ning as M. Barlow would faine ••eeme to do, would eyther erre ••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. Bar∣l••w of Indulgences hath bene only spoken eyther vpon he∣resy, and false relation, or of error, ignorance, or mali∣cious fiction, the iudicious Reader may consider, how vnworthy an argument this was for M. Barl•• his little Vniuer∣sity to treat by scoffs, before his Maiesty at his rep••st: much more to the purpose, had it bene to haue treated substanti∣ally, 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 si•••••• in this world, wherof S. Chrysostomes bookes de Sacerdo∣tis, prouing that Christs Tribunal•• in heauen hath sub∣mitted it selfe in a certaine sort vn••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 remay∣neth 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 discus∣sed, and well pondered: for that it belongeth to all, and ••one can auoid their part therin. And to this purpose they might haue considered of diuers Tr••atises, as of Origen, Saint Augustine, and other Fathers that handle the question at large. This then had ben•• to some purpose to be trea∣ted before his Maiesty: but those other trifling ••oye•• here mentioned by M. Barlow, of looking vpon the top of a steeple, and the like, are vnfit both for his Maiesties ••ares, and presence.

But now he doth insinuate further, that some other figgs also are exhibited now & then in that assembly 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bitter then these,* 1.173 as namely, about the Powder-traitours, and absoluing them by the Iesuites.

Those dreadfull cruel positions also (saith he) of Popes deposing Kings, exposing them to murther, incyting their subiects to rebellion, and determining such parricide be to meritorious &c. And furthermore what an excellent vaine, both Popes h••••e in figging ech other away (by poison) and Iesuits too (as the Priests relate) in dispatching, with such pleasant pilles any that stand in their light &c.

Which be meere calūnia∣tions, and malicious maledictions, vnworthy eyther to be heard by his Maiesty, or to be refuted by me: as also that in∣sulse insolency of the Minister, where he maketh his Ma∣iesty to vse those odious words against all of the Catholike religiō, O Romanistae seruum pecus! O Romanists slauish beasts•• as though there were no Princes, and Monarches of that religion, that might take in euill part this insolencie of the malepart Minister: as if it had some allowance from his Maiesty, for that in his name he speaketh it, & doth de∣dicate his booke vnto him.

And thus much about this point of adulation, wher∣unto also I must add one thing more, tending to the same effect, and much talked of at this present, both at home, and abroad, which is; That these new Maisters, of the little Vniuersity, and other their friendes haue perswaded his Maiestie, that they are valiant men in writing against their Aduersaries, and would performe great exploytes therin, if besides their Vniuersities, & Cathedrall Chur∣ches, they had some speciall Colledge of writers erected for that purpose, which men say is appointed to be at Chelsey,* 1.174 and that the matter is very forward: and that his Maiesty hath assigned therunto, both situation of a house and other great helpes; which if it be so, I doubt not but that it proceedeth from him, out of a most honourable re∣spect, for aduancing learning: but I assure my selfe this will not serue, though there were twenty Colledges more applyed to this end, except his Maiestie should giue them

a new cause to write o••, ••or o•• this betweene Catholikes and Protestants, albeyt they multiply books, neuer so fast, they will neuer be able to write with credit, either of them selues, or of their founders: for that falsity cannot be defended but by ••alshood, nor one vntruth but by an∣other; and consequently their cause being such as it is, their multuplying of writers, and increasing the number of bookes is but to multiply their owne disgrace, whereof some scantling may be taken in the last two bookes (not to speake of any others) that haue gone ••orth on the Catholicke side, to wit, the Reckoning with M. Morton, and the Search of Francis VValsingham, wherein the proper ar∣gument now in hand, is treated about true or false writing.

And yet on the other side, if the said designement shall go forward, I thinke our English Catholickes will be glad thereof. First, for that it will honour not a litle their cause, it appearing by this, that the learneder sort of Protestants, do feele the weight of their weapons: for the besides the forsaid Vniuersities, Scholes, & Churches, they are forced to seeke yet further furniture for their de∣fence. Secondly, it may be hoped, that forraine Catholick Princes hearing of this matter, will thinke themselues bound in zeale, and honour of their owne Religion to assist in like manner, for erection of some House, or Col∣ledge, for English Catholike writers to defend the same. Thirdly it may in reason be expected that this little Vniuer∣sity of Protestant Writers, will for their honour, and credits sake, deale effectually with his Maiestie, that the passage of Catholike bookes written in answere vnto theirs, may be more free, and not so subiect to losse, danger, and vexation, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••therto they haue bene, (especi∣ally, if they be written modestly, and to the purpose only) for that otherwise it would seeme a very vniust matter•• to open, as it were, a Schoole of fence, and yet to forbid the entrance of any that would offer to try their man∣hood and skill with them; or as, if proposing a goale for runners, they would bynd the leggs of such as should

runne with them. But fourthly and lastly, our greate•••••• help of all would be in this case, that his Excellent Ma∣iestie as before in part hath bene touched, beeing inui∣ted by this occasion to read some bookes of both sides, would by the sharpnes of his Great Capacity, enlightened with Gods grace, discouer in tyme, where truth, and where falsity remayneth, where substance, or fraud is stood vpon: which would be the greatest benefit that we can possibly desire, or wish for at Gods hands, for the common benefit of our cause.

ABOVT TOLERATION OR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE demaunded by humble petition at his Ma∣iesties handes by Catholikes, whether it were height of pryde or not: AS Also concerning the contention betweene Prote∣stants and Puritans. CHAP. IIII.

AS by that which hath bene set downe in the former Chapter, we haue seene and beheld, the good talent that M. Barlow, and his fellowes haue in fl••∣tering the memory of Queene Elizabeth now dead, and his Maiesty liuing: so now there ensueth another large Trea∣tise of his, that sheweth his iniquity and virulent humor

of most bitter calumniation against all sortes of Catho∣licks, for making humble supplication to his Maiesty, af∣ter his entrance to the Crowne for some liberty of con∣science, or toleration at least in matters concerning reli∣gion, which petition though proposed, as hath bene sayd, with neuer so much humility and prostrate subiecti∣on of the petitioners, and many most forcible and appa∣rent reasons alleaged for the same: yet will M. Barlow needs defend it for a supreme height of Pryde in them, to haue hoped for such a matter, or made supplication for the same.

* 1.175The clemency of his Maiesty (saith he) wrought in them that height of pride, that in confidence therof they directly did expect, and a∣ssuredly promise vnto themselues liberty of conscience, & equality in all things with vs, his Maiesties most best and faythfull subiects. And doe not you see how great and grieuous a charge this is, especially if you cut of the second part, as you must do, to wit,* 1.176 equality in all things with Protestants his Maiesties best subiects? For this was neuer demaunded in the petition of Catho∣licks: & much lesse either directly or indirectly expected, and least of all assuredly promised to themselues. For then should they haue demaunded also to share equally with Bi∣shops, and Ministers in their benefices, which we may as∣sure our selus they neuer so much as dreamed of, or of other preferments in the common wealth, with that equality which heer they are made to haue assured themselues of.

Their petition then was only for liberty of conscience as hath bene sayd, or if not that, yet at least wise some mo∣derate toleration of the vse of that religion, which they had receyued from their Ancestours, from the first begin∣ning of Christian religion planted in our English Nation, and continued in possession for more then nyne hundred yeares togeather, vntill the time of King Henry the eight, and his children, who made the first innouation, and by Regall power interrupted the sayd possession, wherunto the sayd possessors, and ancient tenants, though not pre∣suming to demand restitutionem i•• integrum, full restitution of that which by violence was taken from them; yet that

they might remayne with some kind of quiet and rest, for the vse of their said consciences in priuate,* 1.177 which they promised to vse with all humility and moderation, with∣out scandall, or publicke offence, whereof they offered ve∣ry good assurance, both for this, and for all other dutifull behauour in their ciuil obedience, as became true subiects: yea adding further also, that they would inforce thēselues to continue the payment of that mulct, or penalty of Sta∣tute layd vpon them for their Recusancy, at such a resona∣ble agreed sūme of money yearly to be paid, as his Maiesty should thinke conuenient: So as by this meanes, they might haue some externall peace, and quietnes from the continuall molestations, which now they suffered in re∣gard of their sayd consciences.

This was their supplication, & now why this should be called pride, yea the height of pride, & highest degree of pride, & further, the extreme height and celfitude of pride, & lastly, the sum∣mity and sublimity of pride, as M. Barlow calleth it, I vnderstand not. For if pride be defined to be an inordinate desire of excellency aboue others, I doe not see that here in this pe∣tition, either Catholikes doe prefer themselues disorderly before others, but are content with a far inferiour degree then Protestants: or that their desire in demaunding, is disordinate; whether we consider the same as it procee∣ded eyther from themselues to desire a thing so necessary to the health of their soules, or as it is directed to his Ma∣iesty, their Prince, and Soueraigne, who is the person that may relieue them: and consequently, the laying forth of such theyr desires, by ordinate meanes of humble sup∣plication, to theyr Lord, and Prince, cannot be called in∣ordinat••s appetitus excellentiae, ••a disordinate appetite of excel∣lencie aboue others, and consequently no pride, & much lesse celfitude of pride, as M. Barlow out of his celfitude of amplification, or rather height of hatred doth define it.

But yet let vs see briefly what reasons he frameth for this his consequence. For first, sayth he, it is impious a∣gainst God to graunt any such liberty of conscience, for that God sym∣bolically forbids such mixture in the linsy-wolsy garment, Deut. 22.

& 11. Ergo, it is height of pryde so sue for it. But whose∣eth not heere that neither the antecedent nor consequent haue any force? God did forbid in Deuteronomy 〈…〉〈…〉 garments, Ergo, it is sublimity of pride for Catholicks in England, to sue to his Maiesty for some toleration of con∣science. Will their brethren the Protestants of France al∣low of this argument? Let vs see the second. Secondly (sayth he) it being a matter dishonourable to the King,* 1.178 is extremity of pryde to demaund it, for that honest men (euen of their equalls) will expect nothing, but that which shall stand with the credit, and reputation of the granter: but this without stayne of the Kings honour cannot be gr••••••∣ted, Ergo, it is height of pryde in the Catholicks to sue for it: which second or minor proposition, for that he imagined we would deny, that it would be a staine to his Maiesties 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to grant it, he goeth about to confirme the same, by diuers weake, and fond reasons, not vnfit for his inuention, as, that his Maiestie should be contrary to himselfe, and shew too much weaknes and slipperines, hauing apprehended the religion, which he now professeth, from the cradle of his infancy, resolued in his conscience, mantayned it by disputation, enacted it by lawes, established it by Oath, & the like: which are reasons quite from the matter. For the graunting of toleration vnto Catholickes, requireth not change of Religion in his Maiesty, no more then it doth in the moderne King of France, in granting the sayd toleration to his Protestants, or then it did in the Emperor Charles the fifth, when he permitted the same in Germany: so as M. Barlow here rather roueth then reasoneth.

And further he is to be put in mind, that if it be a good argument, which here he vseth, that his Maiesty may not change his religion, for that he hath professed it from the cradle of his infancy &c. which yet hath not the antiquity of fifty years by a good deale, what may we say of the continuance of the Catholike religion in our countrey? How many fifty yeares are passed since that cradle was rockt? And why may not we make the same argument for any other sor•• of men whatsoeuer, that haue liued in any other Religion for so many yeares, as his Maiesty hath done in this? so lit∣tle

weight, or substaunce is in this Ministers words, who, so he may seeme to say somewhat, careth not greatly what it be, or how litle to the purpose.

I leaue his other reasons as triuiall, and not worth the answering, as that Queene Elizabeth would not graunt this toleration of conscience, that our doctrinall positions are dangerous, that if his Maiesty should graunt toleration, he should loose the loue of all his Subiects, & the like: wher∣of some are false in the antecedent, as the second and third, for that our doctrinall positions truly vnderstood, are not daungerous to any common wealth but salutiferous: nor should his Maiesty leese the loue of his people, by vsing such ••lemency to so principall a part of his people, not a little pittied by the rest, of most wisdome, and best natures. As for the first, though it be true in the antecedent, that shee graunted no such toleration, yet is it most fa••se in the con∣sequent, that therfore it is height of pride, to demaund it of his Maiesty: no reason requiring that her actions should be a necessary rule to his Maiesty for his, they being no better then they were.

But now we must see briefly what M. Barlow answe∣reth to all my reasons before alleadged for defending Ca∣tholickes from the imputation of height of pride, in making this demaund, and humble petition to his maiesty, which I shall set downe, in the very same words, which before I vsed.

And surely, I cannot but wonder,* 1.179 that this Minister was not ashamed to call this the height of pride, which is generally found in all Protestants neuer so humble: yea the more humble, and vnderlings they are, the more earnest are they both in bookes, speaches, and preachings, to proue, that liberty of Conscience is most conforme to Gods law, and that wresting, or forcing of Consciences, is the highest Tyranny that can be exercised vpon man. And this we may see first, in all M. Fox his History, espe∣cially during the time of the three King Henries. 4. 5. and 6. and afterward, when those that were called L••llards, and Wickelissians, who as M. Fox saith, were indeed good

Protestants, being pressed some what about their Religion did continually beate vpon this argument of libertie of Conscience, and when they obteyned it not, they set v•• publicke schedles vpon the Church dores of London, an•• made ••hose famous conspiracyes of killing K. Henry the 5 d and all his family,* 1.180 which are recounted by VVatsingham. Stow, Fox, and other English Historiographers.

In this our age also, the first opposition of Protestant Princes in Germanie, against their Emperour Charles the 5. both at Smalcald, Austburgh, and other meetings; as after∣wards also the fierce and perilous warrs by the Duke of Saxony, Marques of Brandeburge, and other Protestant Princes, and their people, against the same Emperour, begunne in the very same yeare that our K. Henry dyed: * 1.181were they not all for liberty of Conscience? so pretended, so printed so published, so diuulged to the world? The first Suppli∣cations, Memorials, and Declarations in like manner, which the Protestants of France set forth in print•• as also they of Holland,* 1.182 & Zeland in tyme of the gouernments, as well of the Duchesse of Parma, Duke of Alua, Commenda••or Major, and other Gouernours: did they not all expresly professe, that their principall griefes were, about liberty of Conscience restrayned? And did not they cyte many places of Scriptures, to proue the equity & necessity therof? And do not all Protestants the like at this day, in all places where they are, both in Polonia, Austria, Bohemia, Styria, and els where?* 1.183And how then is Iordanis conuersus retr••rs••m, with this Minister? How is his voyce contrary to the voyce & sense of all the rest? How, & with what reason, may he call it the height of pryde in English Catholicks, to haue but hope therof, which is so ordinary a doctrine & practice of all his brethren in forraine nations, to wit, for vs to expect liberty of Conscience, at the first entrance of our new King, of so noble, and royall a mynd be∣fore that tyme, as he was neuer knowne to be giuen to cruelty, or persecution in his former raigne? The Sonne of such a Mother, as held her selfe much beholden to Eng∣lish Catholicks? And himselfe in his litle Golden * 1.184 Booke

to his Sonne the Prince, had confessed that he had euer found the Catholicke party most trusty vnto him, and therupon had done sundry ••auours to diuers of them, and giuen no small hope of greater vnto others. From this King (I say) whom they so much loued, and honoured, receyued so gladly, and with vniuersall ioy, meant to serue faithfully; & trusted that as he had vnited the two Kingdomes in one Obedience by his Suc∣cession: so would he by his liberality, vnite and con∣ioyne the harts of all his Subiects, in bearing a sweet and equall hand towards them all: From such a King (I say) for vs to expect liberty of Conscience, and equality with other Subiects (in this poynt at least of freedome of soule) what height of pryde may it be called?* 1.185 May it not rather seeme height of pryde in this Minister, & his fellowes, that hauing byn old enemyes, and alwayes borne a hard, & hatefull hand, and tongue against his Maiesti•• both in their Sermons, Bookes, Speaches, all the tyme of the late Queenes raigne; now vpon the suddayne sine vllis meritis praecedentibus, will needs be so priuiledged, & assume vnto themselues such a confident presumption of his Maiesties speciall fauour, as to suffer no man to stand by them, but to hold it for height of pryde in vs to hope for any freedome and liberty of our Conscience at all? What is height of pryde and folly, if this be not?

These are my words in my former booke: and now let vs behould what M. Barlow layeth forth agaynst the same. First he beginneth with a pull at the Purytans, though I neither named, nor designed them, but only sayd as now your haue heard, that generally all sorts of Protestants neuer so humble (or far of from height of pryde in theyr owne conceipt) doe allow, and desyre, yea the more humble and vnderlinges they are, the more earnest they insist, both by bookes, speach, and preaching, to proue, that liberty of conscience is most conforme to Gods law &c. Wherupon M. Barlow maketh this comment, that by vnderlinge Protestantes,* 1.186 I do meane them, that doe seuer themselues from him, and hi••, in matter of ceremony,

and Church-gouerment, who are not vnderlings, sayth he, because they are humble, for that pryde only keepeth them aloofe. It is not the inferiour place, sayth he, or the deiected vysage, or the soft voyce, or dislike of Prelacy, that doth denominate humility.* 1.187 And these are the notes belike, that doe distinguish Puritans from the Protestants, to wit, the in••eriour place, the deiected ••isage, the soft speach, dislike of Prelacy. But yet I cannot but wonder to see him twice in this place to repeate, that the difference betweene these brethren and them••elues•• is only in matters of Ceremony, differing (sayth he) only in matters ceremoniall, though before he added also Church-gouernment. Whereby is euydent that he houldeth theyr Church-gouernment, and Prelacy, matter of ceremony only, and consequently also his owne Prelacy and his being a Bi∣shop, is but a meere Ceremony, and no substantiall matter in their Religion.

Now then let vs see, what ensueth vpon this, and what honour and seruice M. Barlow doth to his whole Cleargy, and namely to his old Maister and Lord of Ca••∣terbury, by this his new doctrine.* 1.188 Is all the dignity, and preheminence, which his sayd Lord hath aboue all the Ministers in England, his superiority ouer the Cleargy, his being Archbishop & Primate, his spirituall Iurisdiction, his Courtes of the Arches, his power of dispensations, his making Ministers, and giuing them power to preach, ••each, & administer Sacramēts: Is all this but a ceremony? Or do the Puritans in denying and impugning this, im∣pugne but a ceremony, and no poynt of Religion it selfe? Truely then must I say that their cause against you, is far better then I euer hitherto esteemed it to be. For if all these thinges be but ceremonies, and contayne no substā∣tiall poynt of religion: why do you, that in other things professe your selues enemies to Ceremonies, stand so much vpon them to the disturbance of the whole Realme? But of this I shall haue occasion to speake againe a little after, and to lay open your absurdities in this eua••ion.

Now only, will I say a word to your argumēt which heere you make against vs, for toleration or liberty of cō∣science••

If t••ese humble vnderlings, say you, dwelling amongst 〈◊〉〈◊〉•• ••••d differing only from vs in matters ceremoniall, are not heard in their suite of liberty of conscience:* 1.189 how much lesse those who in poyntes essentiall, and fundamentall are seuered from vs, may not be tolerated? Wherunto I answere, that if we respect reason and iustice in this matter, there is more on the behalfe of Catholicks, then of Puritans,* 1.190 for obtayning this toleration, notwith∣standing their differences in poynts of Religion were, or be greater: for that the Puritans came out of the Prote∣stants, and therby the Protestant Church may pretend to haue Ius aliquod Ecclesiasticum, some Ecclesiasticall right vp∣on them. But the Catholicks of England came neuer out of the Protestants, nor their Church out of the Prote∣stant Church, but were long before them in possession, which is the markable poynt so much pondered by S. Iohn to discerne heresy,* 1.191 & heretickes thereby, Prodierunt ex nobis, they went out of vs. And consequently the Protestant Church can haue no spirituall iurisdiction vpon the sayd Catholickes, and much lesse by right, or reason, can they barre them the vse of their Religion, as they may do to Purytans, that were members once of them, though they differ in fewer poyntes of beliefe. An Exāple may be the Iewes in Rome, who are tolerated in their religion, which Protestants are not, though they differ in more poyntes of beliefe: but yet for that they were in possession of their Religion, before Christians, and went not out from them, as Protestants did from Catholickes, they are tolerated in that place, and Protestants not.

And hereby is also answered M. Barlowes last reason a∣gainst graunting of toleration, which I pretermitted be∣fore to be answered in this place: which is, that if the cause were ours, as God be thanked he sayth it is theirs, we wil not graunt liberty to them, for their religion. But how doth he know that, seeing soe many Catholike Princes both in France, Low-Countryes, and Germany doe permit the sayd toleration, to diuers and different sectes? And if he obiect that in Queene Maries daies, it was not permited to Protestants in England, nor yet by King Henry the eight,

much lesse by the foresayd 3. Henryes that went before him, yet may the causes, and reasons be different now. For al∣beit for equity and iustice the matter do passe, as before we haue sayd, that no sect in England whatsoeuer, as of L••••∣lords, VVickcliffians, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calui••ists, or the like can haue any right in conscience to deny toleratiō of their religion vnto them,* 1.192 out of which they themselues went, and that the Catholike Church hath that right vpon them as going out of her: yet may shee leaue to vse that right of∣tentimes, and tolerate different sectaryes also, when they are so multiplied, as they cannot be restrayned without greater scandall, tumult, and perturbation, according to the parable to our Sauiour, concerning the cockle growne vp amongst the wheat, which our sayd Sauiour willed ra∣ther to be let alone, vntill the haruest day, left by going a∣bout to weed out the one out of due time,* 1.193 they might pluck vp the other. So as these Catholicke Princes his Maiesties Ancestors, that did deny toleration, considering their kingdomes to be quietly setled in the Ancient religion of theyr fore fathers, did iustly and lawfully resist the new at∣tempts of innouators: and iustly also may we affirme that if other forrayne Princes at this day, of the same Catholick religion do permit vpon other reasons liberty, or toleratiō of different religion: much more may his Maiesty of England do the same to his Catholick subiects, for the reasons that haue bene now alleadged. And so much of this.

To the exāples of the Lollardes & VVickliffian Protestants, that made such earnest suite for toleration and liberty of conscience, in the dayes of three King Henries 4. 5. and 6. and tooke armes for obtayning the same, he sayth, that if any such conspiracies were, we de••end them not: subiection to Princes we preach, insurr••ctions we defy &c. And with this he thinketh he hath well satisfyed the matter•• To the forreyne exam∣ples of higher Germany in the time of Charles the fifth, and of the low-Countryes in these our dayes, he answereth, That these are noe fit presidentes for our State, the gouerment of the Emperour being limited•• and conditionall, and we speake of subiects vnder an ab∣solute Monarchy. To those of Bo••hemia, Polonia, and Hungarie

he sayth, that it is to be considered, VVhether the en••rance in∣to those kingdomes be Successiue, or Electiue by descent, without condi∣••i••••all restraintes: and if they were absolute Monarchies, what is that to his Maiesty, who in cases of religion taketh not mens examples, but Gods lawes, for his dyrects. He knoweth what Princes ought to doe, not regarding what they please to doe &c. But al this while me thinkes the chiefe point is not answered by M. Barlow,* 1.194 which is that those good Protestants were of opinion, that toleration, or liberty of conscience might be graunted ac∣cording to the law of God, and ought also to be graunted. And why is Iordani•• now turned backward, saith the letter•• Why is this Ministers voice contrary to the voice & sens•• of all other Protestants?

The sayd Letter goeth forward, laying downe di••er•• considerations, which engendred hope in the minde•• of Catholicks, for obtayning this suite of toleration, and namely these three, to wit: First, the first entrāce of our new King, knowne to be of so noble and royall a mind before that time, as he neuer was noted to be giuē to cruelty or per∣secution for religion. Secondly the sonne of such a Mother, as held her selfe much behoulding to English Catholi••kes. And thirdly that himselfe had confessed, that he had euer found the Catholicke party most trusty vnto him in his troubles, and many conspiraci•••• made against him. To the first wherof M. Barlow in effect answereth nothing at all, but only citeth certayne places of Scripture, for pu∣nishing of Idolatry. To the second he sayth, That if his Maiesties Mo••her had not relied too much vpon the Priested sort in Eng∣land, her end had not bene so suddaine, or vnkind. Belike he was priuy vnto it, that he can tell those particulars. And his Epithete of vnkind,* 1.195 in cutting off her Maiesties head, was very iudiciously deuised by him. For indeed there can no∣thing be deuised more vnkind, then for two Queenes so neere of kinred, to cut off one the others head, and that vpon the suddaine, as here is graunted, which increaseth the vnkindnes of so barbarous a fact, perswaded and vrged principally, as al men know, by the continuall incitations of those of M. Barlows coate, to the despite both of Mother

and Sonne, and ruine of them both, if it had laye•• i•• their hande••. Neyther is this to cast salt into his Maiesties eyes, as M. Barlow heere sayth, but rather to open the sa••e, that he may see•• what kind of people these are, that do s•• much flatter him now, and impugned both him and his at that time.

But let vs heare how Ironically he dealeth with vs•• in framing a fond argument on our behalfe, as to him it seemeth. The Mother, sayth he, loued Catholikes for their duti∣fulnes and loyalty•• Ergo, the Sonne must giue them liberty of consc••••c••. And i•• this Sy•• so bad an argument?* 1.196 Do you take away the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which is of your owne thrusting in, and put in place therof, that the sayd Sonne may be the soone•• induced to gra••t them that liberty, in respect of their for∣mer dutifulnes, and loyalty to his mother in her distres∣ses, and the consequence will not be euill.

To the third of his Maiesties confessed experience of the loyalty of Catholickes both towards himselfe and his Mother, in their distres••es, he sayth: That his Maiesty nameth not Catholi••kes at all, in his said Booke, but only prosesseth that be found none so stedfastly to abide by him in his greatest straites, as they which constantly kept their true Allegiance to his Mother. Well Syr, and who I pray you were they? Catholickes or Prote∣stants? Let the acts of those times be seene, the Authors noted, the effectes considered.* 1.197 Yet, sayth M. Barlow, no•• i•• is very probable that when his Maiesty, hath cast vp his accompt of for••er disloyalties, he shall ••ind the moderate ••nd dir••ct Protestant•• that incli••es neither to right hand nor left, to be the first and faithf••ll subiect.

Well Syr, this may be p••rhaps f•••• the time to come, for your sel••e saith, tha•• it is but probable: but for the time p••st his Maiestie hauing now cast vp his accompts, hath found that reckonyng, as he h••th set it downe. And the common rule of wisdome is to beleeue as we haue found, vntill different experience teach vs the contrary. And by the way we must•• learne here M. Barlowes new deuised epithetons, of a moderate and direct Protestant, that as, he sayth, is neyth••r Iesu••ted, nor Geneuated, that is neither

Catholicke nor Pury••an, but moderate, and direct: that is to say, moderate in not belieuing to much on any s••de, if it stand not with his profit, and direct in following iump the Prince and State that may aduance him, whatsoeuer they should determine in matters of religion. This is the man by M. Barlowes direction, vpon whome his Maiestie must buyld, and not the Purytan or zealous Catholicke, for that they are ouer scrupulous.

I could wish that M. Barlow had bene a litle more scru∣pulous in the very next ensuing number, where without all blushing, he casteth out two notorious lyes, agaynst Father P••rsons,* 1.198 to make him odious thereby to his Maiestie, saying first, that he pronounceth his sayd Maiestie to be a desperate and ••orlorne hereticke, but cyteth no place where it is to be found; nor indeed is there any such place to be found where Father Person•• vseth any such words, as euer I could yet see.

Secondly he alleadgeth for Father Persons expresse words, these: That whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant, is a most grieuous, and damnable sinner, and citeth for the same D••l••man pag. 216. which quotation serueth only to condemne M. Barlow of a notorious wilfull ca∣lumniation, for that these expresse wordes are not there found, nor is there any mention of the Succession of a Pro∣testant, but in generall is sayd thus, That for any man to giue his help towards the making of a King whome he iudgeth faulty in reli∣gion, and consequently would aduance no religion, or the wrong, if ••e were in authority, is a grieuous sinne of what syde soeuer the truth be &c. So as neither Protestant nor Succession is named in this place, but m••king of a King, by such as my haue authority to doe the same; and it may as well hould a∣gaynst the entrance of a Catholicke Prince, as of any other sect whatsoeuer. And consequently both of these are s••landerous accusations, the first being a meere inuented vntruth, and the second a malicious peruerted calum∣niation: so as in respect of both, I may well say with the Prophet,* 1.199 Dilexisti omnia verba praecipitationis lingua dolosa, and I pray God the threat next insuing do not take place,

Propterea Deus destruct to in finem &c. I desyre not his destru∣ction, but his amendment.

After this followeth in my foresaid Letter a narra∣tion of the Dutifull demeanour of Catholickes towardes his Maiestie, euen from his first entrance, and how by the vniust perswasions of their enemyes, they began quickly to feele his hard hand borne ouer them, euen before the powder-plot, as by the confirmation of all Queen Elizabeth•• penal lawes, in the first yeare of his Maiesties raigne, with the execution therof afterward, doth well appeare: wher∣of many particuler examples are set downe; and among other things it is touched, as a matter of speciall disfauour, that his Maiestie vouchsafing in his owne Royall Person to giue publicke audience both to Protestants and Puryt•••• for 3. dayes togeather concerning the differences of their Religion, no such grace at all was graunted vnto Catho∣lickes. Vpon which words M. Barlow stayeth himselfe, and maketh this cōmentary. It is a strange humour, sayth he,* 1.200 that this Epistler hath, i•• he sayth truth, he lyeth: It is true there was a conference, but about difference in Religion, it is vtterly false; say•••• they would possesse the world that we are at iar among our selues ab•••••• our Religion, whereas the quarrell, though it be indeed vnkind, yet it i•• not in this kinde, saue only for Ceremonyes externall, no poynt subst••••∣tiall &c.

But now of this I haue spoken somewhat before, shewing, that if this vnkinde quarrell betweene Protesta••••s & Purytans,* 1.201 as he calleth it, be only about externall Ceremonies, then is both his Prelacy, and that of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop only an externall Ceremony. And if his phrase of vnkind quarrell be of the same kind that he men∣tioned before to be in Queene Elizabeth towards Queene Mary of Scotland, whose he••d she cut of•• then is the matter somewhat substantiall, & not only Ceremoniall: and indeed he that shall consider what the Purytan in this vnkind quarrell pretendeth agaynst the Protestant and his Church, shall see, that he striketh at the head indeed, or rather striketh of the head of the sayd Church, whether we con∣syder either the externall and ministeryall head thereof, to

wit, the Princes Ecclesiasticall power, and of Bishops vnder him; or the internall head metaphorically taken for the life, spirit, and essence of the sayd Church in deny∣ing it to be a true Christian Church, but only a prophane Congregation, without any spirituall power at all.

This appeareth by all the course and drift of Puritan wryters, and bookes extant, of the differences acknow∣ledged also by Protestant writers in their Treatises against them: so as to me it seemeth, not only a shameles bould∣nes to deny it, as M. Barlow here doth, but a sham••full basenes also, and beggary so to runne after their enemyes,* 1.202 intreating them to haue some association with them; whereas the other do both contemne, and detest them. For this falleth out not only in this case, but also with the Lutherans, whom M. Barlow and his fellowes, when they deale with vs, will needes haue to be theyr brethren of one and the same Church, fayth, and beliefe, for all substantiall poyntes of doctrine: Whereas the Lutherans on the other syde do both deny and defy this communion in fayth with them, and haue set forth whole bookes to proue the same, which were too long here to repeate. Yea Caluinian, and Zwinglian Ministers themselues are witnesses hereof, in many of their Treatises, as namely, the Tigu∣rine Deuines,* 1.203 who confesse, that theyr differences, and con∣tentions with the Lutherans are about Iustification, Free-will, the Ghospell, the law, the Person of Christ, his des∣cent into hell, of Gods election, of his children to life e∣uerlasting, & de multis alijs non leuis momenti articulis, & of ma∣ny more articles of no small importance: which is eui∣dent,* 1.204 for that Ioannes Sturmius another Zwinglian or Calui∣nist addeth other controuersies, as of the Supper of our Lord, and Reall Presence, of Predestination, of the As∣cension of Christ to heauen, his sitting at the right hand of his Father, and the like: adding also that the Lutherans do hould the Protestant Caluinian Churches of England, France, Flanders, and Scotland for Hereticall, and their Mar∣tyrs, for Martyrs of the Diuell.

And conforme to these their writings are their do∣inges

and proceedings with them, where they haue domi∣nion; for that they admyt them not to cohabitation, nor to the common vse of marriage betweene them, nor to be buryed with them, after theyr deaths, as they well know who haue liued, or do liue among them. And thus much for the Lutherans of the one syde. Now let vs see somewhat also of the Purytans of the other.

And first of all this matter hath beene handled dyuers times, and demonstrated by Catholicke English wryters of our dayes, agaynst this absurd assertion of M. Barlow that the differences at this day betweene Protestants and Purytans are not at all concerning religion, nor of any substantiall, and essentiall poyntes thereof; but only Ceremoniall: and in particuler the same is conuinced, and made most manifest in the Preface of a late Booke, intituled An answere to the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports, where the different grounds of Spirituall and Ecclesiasti∣call power,* 1.205 betweene Protestants, Puritans, and Catholickes being examined, it is found, that their differences are such as cannot possibly stand togeather, to make one Church and house of saluation, but that if one hath the truth, the other must necessarily remayne in damnable error; which is euident also by the writings of Protestants themselues, especially by the bookes intituled Dangerous positions, set forth and imprinted at London 1593. and the Suruey ofpreten∣ded holy discipline, made as they say, by him that is now Lord of Canterbury, and Doctor Sutcliffe, as also the Booke intitu∣led, the Picture of a Purytan, writen by O. O. of Emanuel, printed 1603. and other like bookes. But especially at this time will I vse for proofe of this poynt, the testimony of Thomas Rogers Minister, and Chaplin, as he styleth him∣selfe, to his Lord of Canterbury, who of late hauing set forth by publike authority, the fayth, doctrine, and reli∣gion of England expressed in 39. articles vpon the yeare 1607. doth in his Preface to his said Lord, hādle this matter of the differences betweene the Puritans and Protestantes, though partially agaynst the discontented brethren, he being theyr aduersary, but yet setteth downe out of their

owne words, what their iudgment is of the importance, and moment of the controuersyes betwene them,* 1.206 to wit, that they are not only about Ceremonies, and circum∣••tances, as M. Barlow pretendeth, but about poyntes con∣tayned in scripture, & in the very Ghospell it selfe. They are compryzed, say they,* 1.207 in the booke o•• God, and also be a part of the Ghospell, yea the very Ghospell it selfe: so true are they, and o•• such importance, that if euery hayre of our head were a life, we ought to aff••ard them all, in defence of these matters: and that the articles of religion penned, and agreed vpon by the Bishops, are but childish toyes in respect of the other. So they.

And will any man thinke or say now that these men doe not hould that theyr differences with the Protestants are differences in religion, as M. Barlow sayth, or that they are only matters of ceremonyes, and not of any one sub∣stantiall poynt concerning religion? Let vs heare them yet further telling theyr owne tale, and related by M. Rogers.

The controuersy betwene them and vs (say they, of the Pro∣testants) is not as the Bishops, and their welwillers beare the world in hand, for a cap, or tippet, or a Surplisse, but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry, and regi∣ment of the Church according to the word of God. The first wherof, which is a true Ministry, they (Protestants) shall neuer haue, till Bishops and Archbishops be put downe, and all Ministers be made equall. The other also will neuer be brought to passe, vntill Kings and Queenes doe subiect themselues vnto the Church, and doe submit their Scepters, and throw downe their Crownes before the Church, and licke vp the dust of the feete of the Church, and willingly abyde the Censures of the Church &c.

This they write, and much more in that place•• which I trow is more then M. Barlow ascribeth vnto the matter. For if it be contayned in Gods booke, yea a part o•• the Ghospell, the very Ghospell it selfe, about which they contend; what proter••ity is it on the other part, to call it a matter only of Ceremony.

But yet further within two pages after agayne, they doe explayne themselues, and theyr cause more in parti∣culer

saying: Our controuersy with the Protestants is, whether Iesus Christ shalbe King or no: and the end of all our trauell is, to b••yld vp the walls of Ierusalem, and to set vp the throne of Iesus Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 heauenly king in the myddest thereof. And are these poyntes also not substantiall, nor any wayes touching religion, but Ceremonies?

Harken then yet further what they do inferre vpon the Protestantes Church, for dissenting from them in these pointes: Neyther is there among them, say they, a Church, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 least wise no true Church: neither are they but titular Christians, & no true Christians indeed. And yet will M. Barlow continue to say, that there is no difference at all in Religion; and that I lyed, when I sayd, that his Maiesty yeelded to a Confe∣rence between Protestants & Puritans, concerning their differences of Religion. VVhat will he answere to the two precedent members touched by the Puritans, to wit•• that their strife is for a true Ministry, & a lawfull gouermēt therof, expounding their meaning to be, that for obtaining the first, all Bishops and Archbishops must be put downe, & for the second, all temporall Princes, Kings, & Queenes must leaue their superiority ouer the Church, & submit themselues, and their Crownes vnto the same Church, to wit, their Presbyteries, as M. Rogers expōdeth their words? And is there no substantiall point neyther in all this, but only matter of Ceremony? And doth not the very life, & soule of the Church depend of these two things, a true Mi∣nistry, and lawful Head? Is not the power of preaching, tea∣ching, administration of Sacraments, care of soules, pos∣sessing Cures and Benefices, absoluing from sinnes, spi∣rituall iurisdiction, and all Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy deryued from hence? And are all these thinges only Cere∣moniall without substance, or essence of religion?* 1.208 Doth M. Barlow discharge his duty of a Champion, eyther to∣wardes his king, or his old Lord (from both which it seemeth al••eady he hath receaued large fees) in bringing both their authorities in Ecclesiastical matters to be meere Ceremonies? No man I thinke will sue to be his Clyent hereafter, i•• he can plead no better.

But let vs yet see a little further, how he hath aduanced his Maiestyes spirituall authority. Thus he writeth of his being Moderator in the Conference betwene the Puritans and Protestants. This difference (sayth he) about thinges indiffe∣rent, his Maiesty desirous to reconcile, vouchsafed his Princely paynes to moderate, & mediate. In which wordes, first doe you note againe his often repetition, that they were thinges indifferēt, to wit, whether his Maiesty should haue Supreme Pri∣macy in Church causes, or renounce the same, and cast it downe, togeather with his Scepter before the Presbytery of the Puritans; and whether the Lord of Canterbury should leaue of his Lordship, and Graceship, and become a simple Minister equall with the rest? And so likewise M. Barlow himselfe to leaue the Sea of Lincolne, and title of Lordship, which none that knowes the humor of the man will imagine that he holdeth for a thing indifferent, or a meere Ceremony.

This I say is the first Notandum: for if these things be indifferent, what need so much a doe about them? And the second Notandum is, that he saith, that his Maiesty did mo∣derate and mediate in this Conference: which is a very mo∣derate and meane word indeed to expresse so high and emi∣nent Authority Ecclesiasticall, as sometimes they wil seem to ascribe vnto his Maiesty. For who cannot moderate or mediate in a Conference, if he haue sufficient learning and knowledge of the cause, though he haue no eminent au∣thority at all to decide the same? But who shall deter∣mine or define the Controuersy?* 1.209 Here no doubt M. Barlow wilbe in the brakes. For that a little after being pressed with the free speach and deniall of S. Ambrose vnto Valentini∣an the Emperour,* 1.210 when he medled in Ecclesiasticall affairs, and in particuler when he sent for him by Dalmatius a Tri∣b••ne, with a Notary to come and dispute in the Consisto∣ry before him, his Counsell, and Nobility, with the He∣reticall Bishop Auxen••ius, S. Ambrose refused vtterly to goe, yeelding for his reason, that in matters of faith and religi∣on Bishops must iudge of Emperours, and not Emperours of Bishops: which deniall M. Barlow well alloweth, say∣ing,

that Ambrose did well in it,* 1.211 and sayd well for it, his fact and reason were both Christianlike.

But suppose, that his Maiesty, had sent for the Bishops to dispute and confer with the doctors of the Puritan par∣ty in his presence, as the Emperour Valentinian did S. Ambrose & that they had refused to come, with the same reasō, that S. Ambrose did, would M. Barlow that wrote the Conference haue defended the same as good, and lawful? Or would his Maiesty haue taken the same, in as good part, as Valentiniā did? I doubt it very much, as also I doubt, whether S. Am∣brose if he had disputed, would haue suffered Valentiniā (sup∣pose he had bin learned) to haue moderated & mediated in that disputatiō, as M. Ba••low saith his Maiesty did in this. But if without effect, & that he could not conclude; who should giue iudgment of the matter? The Bishops? They were party, and theyr whole interest lay therein. The Puritan Doctors? They were also a party, and therby partiall. His Maiesty could not doe it, according to M. Barlowes doctrin in this place,* 1.212 if any point of religion were handled there∣in. Who then should iudge, or giue sentence? The Church saith M. Barlow in another place. But who maketh that Church? Or who giueth authority of iudgement to that Church, if the supreme Head and gouernour haue it not in himself? Do you not see how intricate this matter is, & hard to resolue? And according to this, as it seemeth, was the effect and consequence of this meeting, if we belieue M. Barlow himselfe, who maketh this question: Did th••se great and Princely paynes which his Maiesty tooke with the Purit••ns, worke a generall conformity? And then he answereth: VVith the iudicious and discreet it did, (wherof M. Barlow was one) but the rest grew more aukward, and violent. So he.

But all this while if you marke it, there is nothing said to the point, for which all this was brought in, to wit, why the like fauour had not beene shewed to Catholikes, for a Conference also with them about their Religion. M. Barlow doth touch some number of reasons, as that our o∣pinions doe touch the very head, and foundation of reli∣gion: That his Maiesty was perfect in all the arguments,

that could be ••rought for the aduerse part, and that he throughly vnderstanding the weaknes of them,* 1.213 held it both vnsafe and vnnecessary to haue them examined: That the Protestant religion being throughly well placed, and hauing so long continued, is not now to be disputed &c. Which reasons being either in themselues fond, or against himselfe, I will not stand to refute. One only contradicti∣on wil I note, that our argumēts being so weake, yet that it should be vnsafe to haue them examined; and that the long continuance of Protestant religion in England should make it indisputable: whereas more then ten times so long prescription of Catholike religion could not defend it, by shew of a conference or dispute h••ld at VVestminster at the beginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne, when the same was changed and put out.

And finally I will end this with a notable calumnia∣tion, insteed of a reason vttered by M. Barlow, why this Conference ought not to be granted to Catholikes, for sooth: For that, euen in their common petition for toleration, they ••is••hed his Maiesty to be as great a Saint in heauē, as he is a King vp∣on earth, shewing thereby, saith he, that gladly they would be rid o•• him, but w••ich way they care not, so he were not here. And may not this Prelate now beare the prize for calumniati∣on and Sycophancy, that out of so pious an antecedent can inferre so malicious a consequent? The Catholickes doe wish vnto his Maiesty both life present, and euerlasting to come; here a great King and there a great Saint:* 1.214 M. Barlow seemeth not to care much for his eternity, so he may en∣ioy his temporality, by the which he himselfe gayneth for the present, and hopeth euery day to do more & more: it import••th him litle how great a Saint his Maiestie be in heauen, so vpon earth he liue longe to fauour him and to furnish him with fat benefices.

And thus he inforceth me to answere him, contrary to my owne inclination, for repressing somewhat his inso∣lent malignant speach, which is the most exorbitant per∣chance, virulent, and impotently passionate, that euer ap∣peared in paper in our English tongue, for which I intend

not to follow him any further, step by step, and foote by foote, as hitherto I haue done: for it would require a huge volume, & weary both vs, and the reader with the imper∣tinency therof. Wherfore I shal in that which is to ensue, draw the rest of this his Answere to certaine particuler heads for more perspicuity and breuities sake, wherby shal appeare how worthy a writer he is, and well deseruing his fee, that runneth into such absurdities, errors, igno∣rances, corruptions, and falsityes, as wilbe layd against him: wherin I remit my selfe, not only to that which is already sayd, but particulerly also to that which is to ensue.

CONCERNING ERRORS, ABSVRDITIES, IGNORANCES AND FALSITIES, Vttered by M. Barlow in the rest of his Answere. CHAP. V.

WHER AS page 49. & 50. of my Letter I began in the second Part of the se∣cond Paragraph to handle whether temporall obedience were denied vn∣to his Maiesty, by those that refused the Oath of Allegiance, and that by the expresse order and commandement of the Pope in his Breue, as the Apologer often affirmeth, and M. Barlow still auoucheth,

I sayd, that this was iniuri∣ous dealing towards vs, who ne••er denied this poyn••, that all dutifull ciuill obedience was to be performed•• and that it needed not to cite both Scriptures, Fathers, and Councells, to proue the said temporall obedience to be due, for that we both confessed, taught, and perswa∣ded the same to all his Mai••sties subiects, and that the co••∣trary neuer passed through our cogitations, but do hould

(said I) and tea••h that subiects are bound to obey their temporall Princes,* 1.215 in all thinges lawf••ll, & not only good Princes, but bad also; and not only out of f••••re, & fla••tery (as some do) but out of conscience, as the Apostle ••eac••••th vs to the Romans, propter conscientiam, sayth he, for con∣science sake, but yet not contra conscien••iam, against consci∣ence, or contrary to conscience.

Against which clause M. Barlow very learnedly and piously setteth downe this doctrine: They teach (sayth he), that the Prince is to be obeyed;* 1.216 propter con••cien••iam•• n•••• con∣tra conscientiam, for conscience sake, not against conscience: that is no sound doctrine in the negatiue part: for euen against a mans con∣scien••e the Prince is to be obeyed, vnlesse that he that disobeyeth, c•••• proue his conscience to be the same, which the Apostle describeth, a good conscience, accompanied with true loue, and ••ayth vn••ayned. So he. And presently he add••th a reason out of Syr Thomas More one o•• our Martyr's, as he calleth him, and we worthily account him so, who sayth, that there may be consci••ntia a••••∣nina, and conscientia lupina, the conscience of an As••e, and the conscience of a Wolfe,* 1.217 which we easily graunt, and that Syr Thomas More had neyther of them, and M. Barlow perhaps hath both; the Asinina in making this ignorant & impious determination, That a man may obey Princes against his owne conscience; and the Lupina in going a∣bout craftily & violently to defend it by the shew of Scri∣pture, as presently will appeare.

For albeit I haue written somewhat of this mat••er be∣fore in the first Part of this discussion, to wit, of the ob∣ligation that euery man hath to follow his Conscience, and precept of his inward reason, be it right or wrong, so long as it standeth vncontrolled: yet am I forced to say somewhat more here, for detection of this mans wilfull ••rror or grosse ignorance in this place, and that in both the two poynts now mentioned, concerning the obliga∣tion that men haue not to do against their conscience, and the prescription of a good conscience pretended to be al∣leaged out of Saint Paules Epistle to Timothy, for in both pointes there be e••regious fraudes, if not fooleries.

And for the first, the Reader must vnderstand, that this proposition so assertiuely set downe here by M. Barlow;* 1.218 that euen against a mans conscience the Prince is to be obeyed, is so absurd and impious in Catholicke Christi∣an ••ares, especially of the learned, as nothing can be more, for that it openeth a playne way to Atheisme, and ouer∣throweth the very first morall principles of vertuous acti∣ons in vs, to wit, the Synderisis, and pr••script of reason it selfe, that God hath by nature planted in our soules, for our gouernment and direction: against which light and rule, whosoeuer doth any thing willingly must needes sinne, whatsoeuer the thing that is done be, good or bad: the reason wherof is, for that the goodnes or badnes of any thing•• imbraced by our will, dependeth of the appre∣hension, and estimation therof by our vnderstanding and prescript of reason, that inwardly directeth the said will, so as if it should be proposed vnto our will for exa••ple sake, as an euill thing, and with that apprehension imbra∣ced by our will, though it were good in it selfe, yet to me it must needs be euill, for that I did it, thinking it to be an euill thing.

As for example to belieue in Christ (sayth S. Thomas) in it selfe is a good thing, and necessary to saluation,* 1.219 but y••t the will of man doth not imbrace it, but as it is pro∣pounded vnto the same by our reason, and therfore if the said reason and iudgment should propose it as an euill thing, and not good to belieue in Christ (as in Turkes and Iewes it doth) and that the will notwithstanding should choose, and imbrace it as it is proposed, vnder the same apprehension that it is euill indeed, then doth our will commit sinne, for that in her conceipt and appre∣hension, she chooseth and imbraceth euill: and though in it selfe it be not so, yet to her it is, that iudging it so, doth notwithstāding imbrace it. In which case School∣men do define, that a good obiect so chosen by the will against the dictamen of reason, and conscience, is ••on••m s••••pliciter and secundum se, but m••lum per accidens huic homini si•• eligenti, it is good simply and in it selfe, but accidentally

euill to this particuler man that chooseth it, against the direction of his iudgment and conscience.

And this poynt is a thing so cleare in nature it selfe•• as that Aristotle in his ••irst and seauenth bookes of Mor••ls, trea••ing o•• the nature, and condition of the incontinen•• man, sheweth that a man may be incontinent two wayes, one way properly in that he doth exercise any act that ap∣pertayneth properly a••d truely to the vice of incontinen∣cie, the other way accidentally, when he doth exe••cise an act, that he imagineth and perswadeth himselfe ••o be in the matter of incontinency, and is not: and yet doth Ari∣stotle conclude this man to be incontinent, for ••hat his will did disagree in this matter from his reason and iudg∣ment, making choice of that which the said reason did propound vnto her, as an euill thing.

Wherfore according to these principles, the vniuer∣sall consent both of Philosophers an Deuines is, first that bonitas voluntatis seu actus interioris dependet à ratione propone••te;* 1.220 that the goodnes of the internall act of our will•• in choo∣sing any thing, dependeth vpon our reason & iudgment that propoūdeth the same; So as the will may not choose or imbrace any thing, that is so propounded, and conse∣quently that, Voluntas discordans à ratione, ••on solùm recta ••e••um etiam errante, est semper mala: that our will when it doth d••sagree from our reason, and conscience, and chooseth not that which our said reason and conscience propoun∣deth, it is alwayes euill and sinneth, though the sayd rea∣son and conscience do erre in propounding the same: yea further that this obligation for our will, and ch••ice to follow our reason, iudgment, and conscience, is, by the law of God, in na••ure it sel••e so strong and indispensa∣ble, as that not onl•• any man liuing•• Prince or Potentate can dispense with the same, to haue it bro••ē whi•••• the ••aid repugn••nce ••ndureth, but neither God himselfe. Wheru∣pon a great learned Deuine of our dayes setteth downe & defendeth thi•• proposi••ion, Neminem nec ips••m Deum dispens••∣re posse, vt sin•• peccato quis faciat contra propriam conscientiam, that no man, nor God ••imsel••e can di••pense, that a man may

do any thing against his owne conscience without sinne. ••nd his reason is, for that Almighty God should be con∣trary to himsel••e, if hauing put a precept by nature, that our will must ••ollow our reason and cōscience, & do no∣thing against the same, he should notwithstāding dispense that the breach of this precept should be no sinne, for the•• should these lawes contradictory stand ••ogeather, I ha••e∣••ery breach of Gods precept is a sin: & yet that the breach of this precept is no sin. True it is, that God according to some Deuines may dispense in his precepts by taking thē away, and thereby also take away the force of their ob∣liging man to sinne, that should doe against them, but they standing in force and vigor, no dispensation can be giuen to do against them without sinne, for the reasons now set downe.

Well then this position & assertion is most certaine in all Catholike Scholes, as well by the groundes of Philoso∣phy,* 1.221 as Deuinity, that no man without sinne may do a∣gainst th•• dictamen, or direction of his owne reason or cō∣science, yea though it should be erroneous in it selfe, for that so long as it is not knowne to be erroneous to the doer, but thought to be right, he esteemeth it as a rule prescribed vnto him by God, and consequently to doe a∣gainst it, is to doe against Gods rule, and precept, and so must it needs be sinne vnto him.

But here perhaps some man will demaund, what then may be done in ••a•• erroneous conscience,* 1.222 whether it be Afi∣••••a by ignorance, or Lupina by loosenes, or otherwise e••∣ring as M. Barlow mentioneth. Truly the remedy is not, as he prescribeth, to doe against a mans conscience, I meane against that very erring conscience, so long as it semeth to the doe•• not to erre, but to be right, for therin he ••••old si••ne, as hath beene said: But he ought to depose that conscience if he can, and to seeke rea••ons of bet∣ter information, and therwithall frame vnto himselfe another conscience: but yet so long as he cannot doe this, he is bound not to doe against the other conscience, which he think••th to be right, though vnknowing vnto him, ••t

should be erroneous.

But now in what cases, and vpon what grounds, and with what circumstances a man may be bound to reforme or alter his conscience, either by direction or authority of his Superiours, or by contrary reasons, proofes, arguments and authorities, according to the substance and quality of the things, is a large dispute among Schoole Deuines, Casuistes, and Canonistes.

For vs it is sufficient at this time to haue seene, that all generally doe condemne, as most false and wicked, this proposition of M. Barlow, that euen agaynst a mans conscience the Prince is to be obeyed: which proposition you haue seene be∣fore confuted. Now we must consider certayne shi••te•• and absurdityes vsed by M. Barlow in setting downe this his false doctrine.* 1.223 Euen agaynst conscience, sayth he, the Prynce is to be obeyed, vnlesse he that disobeyeth, can proue his conscience to be the same, that the Apostle describeth, a good conscience accompanied with true loue and fayth vnfayned. In which wordes you must note, that first there is contayned a very absurd shift, not voyde of impiety; and secondly much corruption and falsity. The shift is, in that when any thing is proposed to a man by a Prince or Superiour, that is contrary to his consci∣ence, he byndeth him absolutely to doe it, euen agaynst his conscience, vnlesse he can proue that his conscience hath true loue and fayth vnfayned, which being a very hard matter for many men to discerne in themselues, especially the ignorant and vnlearned, he doth not only licence them•• but obligeth them also, to doe agaynst theyr conscience, good or bad, whatsoeuer is proposed vnto them, which openeth a gap to all impiety, and to the ouerthrow of all conscience in most men.

For certayne it is, that the far greater part of Chri∣stians haue not sufficient time, leasure, learning, or com∣modity to make this proofe prescribed out of the Apostle: and then I would demaund him, what he will say of Turkes, Iewes, and Gentiles that haue not true fayth? Haue they no conscience? and must they doe what soe∣uer is ordayned them, though neuer so repugnant to theyr

rea••on, because they cannot proue theyr conscience to be such as the Apostle (though falsely) is presumed here to describe?* 1.224 What will M. Barlow say also of Christian Sectaryes of our time, to wit, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, ••••••••••tes, L••••berans, Swingfeldians, Brownists &c. whom he will not grant I am sure to haue true loue, and vnfayned fayth? Haue they no conscience, that may bind them to any thing, different frō that which is proposed vnto them by Kings or Princes, whether it seeme vnto them good or bad? May all these men ••weare to whatsoeuer is requyred, or do what soeuer is exacted by a temporall Prince, with∣out further examen, for that they cannot proue as M. Barlow will no doubt suppose, that they haue true loue, and fayth vnfayned? Who would expect such mon∣strous doctrines, from the Chayre of a Prelate?

But now let vs see how he vseth S. Paul in this matter, and abuseth his Reader vnder pretence of his name, and authority. He sayth, that the Apostle describeth a good conscien••e,* 1.225 to be that, which is accompanied with true loue and fayth vnfayned: and vpon this foundeth his discourse, as now you haue heard, cyting for it•• 1. Tim. 1. 5. But if you read the place, you shall find the matter quite other∣wise, and by this you may learne, how these fellowes that cry nothing but Scriptures, do abuse the simple peo∣ple, with misalleadging, and misconstruing the same. For that the Apostle describeth not a good conscience at all in that place, but only assigneth the same as a thing necessarily requyred, to the end and perfection of the Law. For the wordes of the Apostle are these: Finis pr••∣cepti est, charitas de corde puro, conscientia bona, & fide non ficta: The end of the cōmandement or law is charity out of a pure hart, a good conscience, & faith not fayned. Which is no description of a good conscience as you see, but of the end & perfection of th•• law, which is Charity, according to that which in another place the same Apostle sayth: Ple∣••itudo legis Charitas: the fullnes or fulfilling of the Law is charity. But here he describeth more at large what man∣ner of charity it must be, to wit proceding out of a pure

hart, as also out of a good conscience (which ••••ge•••••••••• hope) and out of vnfayned fayth. So as here tr••e charity 〈◊〉〈◊〉 described, and not a good conscience (which i•• named ••••••∣ly as a condition needfully required to the fulfilling of the Law, and not described, as M. Barlow falsely aff••••••••••••.) For if a thing be described that hath many parts of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 requi••ed to the complement thereof, it were very•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to say, that euery one of the said parts, or parcels it descri∣bed therby, or that the said description may be ascribed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 euery one of them. As if a man should describe a Knight or a Captaine, that is to go to the wars, what ••••••••i••ure i•• required, to wit, a horse, s••ddle, speare, armour, and the like, it cannot be said that a horse is here described, or a saddle, or a speare, but only the Knight himself, who hath need of all these thinges: So as in this M. Barlow is found 〈◊〉〈◊〉 haue peruerted the whole text and meani••g of S. Paul.

There remaineth then his conclusion, that for so much as Hereticks and Schismatickes also doe plead conscience for their standing out, and that there is no one article in the Oath offered, that can be proued to be contrary to a good conscience, and true Christian religion, therefore standeth the Apologers conclusion incōtrollable still, That the Pope hath prohibited English Catholikes to performe euen ciuill obedience to their Soueraigne. But all this hath beene now answered, by that which hath beene treated before: for that Shi••matikes and Heretikes though they be ••ound both to informe & reforme their consciences: that be erroneous: yet so long as that repugnācy indureth; they should sinne in doing contrary to the dictamen therof.* 1.226 And as for the articles in the Oath, that are contrary to Englis•• Catholikes consciences, and to theyr religion, they are so many, as do any way impeach, or preiudice their religi∣on, which are the most part in the Oath, as is knowne. Neyther must M. Barlow run to this ordinary shift, and say as he is wont, that their consciences are not well cleansed•• and that their religion is not true Christian Religion, & therefore they ought not to haue scruple in sweating•• for that now it hath been shewed, that it is sufficient for bin∣ding

them from swearing, that their conscyences doe tell them the contrary, which conscience to them doth appear good, and their religion true: in which respect the Pope that is of the same conscience and Religion hath defined it to be vnlawfull vnto them, to sweare against this their cō∣science and religion, so long as it standeth as it doth. And therefore if M. Barlow will haue them sweare without sinne in this case, he must first make them Protestants, and so giue them a new conscience, and new religion, for in that they haue, they cannot doe it; albeit for temporall obedi∣ence, they offer all that may be exacted, at their hands by any law of Christian subiection to their temporall soue∣raigne.

And this much may be sufficient for discussing of this point, Whether subiects may or must obey their Princes, when they command things against their consciences, which in my Letter I denyed. And whereas the Apologer did alleadg dyuers authorities out of Scriptures, Fathers, and Councels to proue the obedience of Subiects to theyr Princes, not only Christian but also Infidels, as to king Nabuchodonosor of Babylon, to king Pharao of Egypt, King Cyrus of Persia, my answer then was this.

He alledgeth for examples out of the Scriptures,* 1.227 that the children of Israel obeyed the King of Babylon, as also they exhibited temporall Obedience vnto King Pha∣rao of Egypt;* 1.228 as in like manner to Cyrus King of Persia: All which examples we grant to be true,* 1.229 and could add many more, both of the Iewes, and Christians that lyued pea∣ceably vnder Infidell Princes in those dayes.

But let one example (as I said) be brought forth, wherin they obeyed them in points contrarie to their Conscience or Religion, and it shall be sufficient. We read in the Prophesie of Daniel•• that those three famous Iewes,* 1.230 Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, were most trustie vnto King Nabuchodonosor in temporall affayres, and so much esteemed by him, as he made them his vniuersall Gouernors ouer all the workes of the Religion of Babylon, saith the Scripture: and yet when it came to the poynt, that he would haue them for his

honour and pleasure,* 1.231 and vpon his commandement, adore the golden Statua, which he had set vp; they for∣sooke him flatly, and said to him in the presence of all his Nobility assembled togeather, that they were not so much as to answere him in that Commandement, not would they do, as he had appoynted them.

The like in effect did the ancienter Iewes do with King Pharao of Egypt; for that albeit in temporall affayres they obeyed him, euen in that tyme when he oppressed, and persecuted them most: yet in that he would haue had them stay and sacrifice in Egypt, and not follow Moyses their Spiritual Superiour into the desert (notwithstāding that the King had some cause perhaps to suspect their tem∣porall Allegiance also by that departure, they being a potent multitude of people:) yet would they not obey him nor do as he would haue them, when they persuaded themselues that God would haue the contrary.

* 1.232I let passe how Daniel and his fellowes would not eate the meates of the King of Babylon, nor Tobie those of the Assyrians, & much lesse would he leaue of to bury the dead, though it were forbidden by Proclamation vnder payne of death.* 1.233 The Machabees in like manner obeyed King An∣tiochus so long, as he commanded nothing against their Law and Conscience: but when he went about to force them to sacrifice, and to eate swynes-flesh, and other things against their Law and Conscience, they refused openly to performe that Obedience. So as these places of Scriptures alledged by the Apologer, do proue nothing for him at all, but are rather flat against him, and for vs as yow haue seene.

Thus I wrote then, now let vs see how M. Barlow ouerthroweth it. First as concerning the 3. Pagan Kings Pharao, Cyrus, and Nabuchodonosor, wherof I sayd the Iewes obedience vnto them was in temporall matters only, he sayth, that therin I do abuse the Reader, for that they shewed their obedience (sayth he) to be due, and performed the same, in matters of spirituall seruice:* 1.234 wherat I thinke no man can but laugh, that M. Barlow is become so spirituall, as that he can make

those Infidell Kings to be spirituall Superiours also,* 1.235 or at leastwise to haue spirituall power, euen in spirituall thinges ouer Gods faithfull people. Let vs see his proofes of so strange an assertion.

To offer sacrifice (saith he) vnto the Lord in the desert is an ••igh case of conscience, and religion; yet would not the Iewes in Egypt attempt it, without asking, and obtayning the Kings leaue.* 1.236 And why was that? Was it for that they held him for their supreme Gouernour in all causes Ecclesiastiacll, and tem∣porall? Then they ought to haue obeyed him, when he would haue had them offered sacrifice in Egypt, which they refused to doe, for that their spirituall gouernour Moyses, though a naturall borne subiect of King Pharao, ••ould them that Gods will was contrary: and as for their asking, and obtayning leaue before they went to sacrifice in the Desert, who doth not see, but that it was in re∣spect of temporall danger, which might ensue vnto them, if so great a number of their vnarmed people should haue aduentured to depart without his licence. But I would demaund of M. Barlow, who sayth, that the people of Israel shewed their obedience to be due vnto Pharao, and performed it in mat∣ter of spirituall seruice, what manner of obedience was that, which came alwaies in the Imperatiue mood, Thus saith our Lord, Dimitte populum meum, Let go my people? And when he yeelded not therunto, he was plagued and pu∣nished with so many afflictions, as are set downe in Exo∣dus for 9. or 10. Chapters togeather: & in the end what leaue obtayned they, but against his will, when he durst no longer deny them? Which appeareth, for that his feare being somewhat mitigated, he pursued them afterward a∣gaine. And will M. Barlow make this an example of spiri∣tuall obedience to temporall Princes, that was thus ex∣torted? Or of spirituall iurisdiction in heathen Princes, ouer faithfull people in causes Ecclesiasticall, that was contradicted both in word and fact by Moyses himselfe? But let vs heare his second instance, for it is more ridicu∣lous.

So, saith he, the commaundement of King Cyrus was in a cause

meerly Ecclesiasticall viz. the building of the Lords house in Ierusalē, and transporting thither the consecrated vessels. But who doth not see that these things as they were ordayned by King Cyrus were meere temporall, as is the building of a materi∣all Church,* 1.237 for that otherwise, the Masons, Carpenters & Architects, that build the same, should be Ecclesiastical officers, albeit they were Gentiles. If King Cyrus had had authority to appoint them out their sacrifices, & to dispose lawfully of their sacred actions therein, as he had not, nor could haue, being a Pagan, and not of their faith & religion; then might they haue sayd, that he had beene a spirituall Superiour vnto them: but for giuing them leaue only to go to Ierusalem to build their Temple, and to carry their consecrated vessels with them, that had been violēt∣ly taken away from thence, argueth no more spirituall iurisdiction in him, then if a man hauing taken away a Church-dore key, so as the people could not go in to pray, except he opened the dore, should be said to haue spirituall iurisdictiō ouer that people for opening the dore, & letting them in, & that they in praying him to open the said dore, did acknowledg spiritual obedience vnto him. And is not this meere childish trifllng, & worthy the wit of M. Barlow.

What definition trow you, will M. Barlow giue of spi∣rituall power and Iurisdiction, therby to verifie these monstrous and absurd propositions, which in this affaire he hath vttered, partly by his assertions, and partly by his examples? Truly I know no other set downe by De∣uines, but that it is a power giuen by God, to gouerne soules for their direction vnto euerlasting saluation, euen as ciuill power is giuen for gouerning the cōmon wealth to her prosperity and temporall ••elicity. And will M. Bar∣low say, that God gaue this spirituall power to Pharao and Cyrus, that were Heathens, and knew not God, for gouer∣ning & directing the soules of the Iewes, that liued vnder them, whose religion or God they neyther knew, nor ca∣red for? Or that Nero the Emperour, or Claudius had this spirituall power and Iurisdiction, vpon the soules of S. Peter and S. Paul, that liued vnder them in Rome, and were

their temporall Lordes and Princes? These thinges are so absurd that I am ashamed to exaggerate them any fur∣ther, and therfore let vs passe forward to the rest.

As for the other examples by me alleaged how Sydrac•••• Mysach and Abdenago, refused to obey Nabuchod••••••sor their King in adoring the Statua, as also refu••ing the meates of the King of Babylon, & Toby of the Assyrians, and the Mac••a∣bees for refusing to eat Swines-flesh at the commandment of their King Antiochus, he sayth, that all these had their warrants for defence of their consciences, from the word or will of God: as who should say, Catholickes haue no∣thing for iustification of their Conscience, which is a meere cauill, and as Logitians call, Petitio principij, and wholy from the question: for that we affirme, first that they haue sufficient groundes, for iustification of their consciences in that behalfe, as they will easily verify in euery point if they might be hard with any indifferency. And second∣ly if they had not, but their consciences were erroneous; yet so long as that dictamen rationis, or prescript of consci∣ence standeth to the contrary, and telleth them, that they haue sufficient ground, they may not doe against it with∣out sin, as now hath bene proued. Let vs see what he saith of the other example of Tobies breach of King Senacherib his commaundement in Niniue, which wee shall examine in the next ensuing Paragraph.

VVHETHER TOBY DID well or no, in breaking the commaundement of the King of Nini••e, concerning the burying of the dead Iewes. And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authori∣ties of the Fathers: and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy. §. II.

AMong other examples and testimonies alleaged by me out o•• Scripture of lawfull disobeying temporall

Princes commaundements, when they are vnlawfull, the exāple of Tobias that disobeyed the edict of King Senacheri•••• of Niniue about burying such as were slayne, seemed to haue troubled most M. Barlow in this answere; and so after some discussion of the matter vp and downe, whe∣ther he did it openly or in secret, by day or by night, by stealth or contempt, he maketh this conclusion; Take it ey∣ther way,* 1.238 sayth he, was his disobedience in such a cause iustifiable? No. Grauely resolued, as you see, and Doctour-like, but yet without any testimony, except only his owne. For first the context of the story it selfe hauing recounted the cir∣cumstances of the fact, in the first and second Chapters of the booke of Toby, to wit, how the foresayd King Sena∣cherib sonne to Salmanasar being returned much exasperated from Iury agaynst the Iewes, for the euill successe which there he had, did promulgate an Edict, that such as he caused to be slayne should not be buryed, the Story sayth, that Toby notwithstanding this Edict and Commaun∣dement, did bury them by night,* 1.239 yea and left also on day his dinner, and the ghests which he had with him, at the same, for to fetch in the dead body of a Iew slayne in the streetes: and when some of his neighbous, seeing the peril thereof did reprehend him, for aduenturing vpon so great daunger, saying to him•• that himselfe had bene com∣maunded to be slayne for burying men before, the Story doth not only defend him, but also commendeth him for the same; saying:* 1.240 Sed Tobias plùs timens Deum, quàm Regem, rapiebat corpora occisorum &c. But Toby feating God more then the King, did take away the dead bodies that he found in the streetes, hyding them in his house and burying them at mydnight.

Secondly the Angell Raphael in the twelth Chapter discouering himselfe vnto Toby, togeather with the myste∣ry of all his actions with him, doth manifestly shew, that these his deeds of charity, of giuing of almes, and burying the dead bodyes of such as were slayne, were grat∣full vnto Almighty God:* 1.241 Quando cra••as cum lachrymis, & sepeliebas mortous, & derelinquebas prandium tuum &c. ego obtuli

••••ationem tuam Domino, & quia acceptus eras Deo, necesse suit, vt tentatio probaret te. When thou didst pray with teares, and didst bury the dead, and didst leaue thy dinner for do∣ing this worke of Charity, I did offer to God thy prayer, and because thou wert acceptable vnto God, it was nece∣ssary that temptation should try thee.* 1.242 Here then we haue the testimony of an Angell, agaynst M. Barlow, that is no Angell: and if he be, yet must we account him for a very wicked, and false Angell, if the other be a good and true Angell.

Now then let vs examine a little whether of these An∣gels deserueth most to be belieued, or whether for a mans saluation it be more secure to follow the one or the other, for that they speake contraryes. The one that this fact of Toby was not iustifyable, the other that it was not on∣ly iustifiable, but acceptable also, and pleasing to Almigh∣ty God, and that in a very high degree, as by the text ap∣peareth. The one determineth as you haue heard, that Toby was reprehensible in that he obeyed not the King•• the other saith, he did very well in obeying God, more then the king. How shall we know which of these two Angels is the good, and which the bad. M. Barlow will on his part perhaps say, that this booke of Toby is not held by him for Canonicall Scripture,* 1.243 but only Hagiographum, a holy ancient writing, as the Iewes themselues do allow it to be, though not in their Canon of Scriptures: yet doth not this take away the credit of the Story, which hath in∣dured, and hath beene belieued, and taken for true, so many ages bo••h before, and after Christian Religion was planted? And M. Barlow cannot alleadg one authenticall Author, or holy man before these our tymes, that euer sayd this Story was false, or not to be credited, though he receiued it not for Canonicall Scripture.

Secondly we see it acknowledged for Canonicall Scripture, and of infallible truth, not only by a generall Councell of our dayes, wherin the flower of the learnedst men in Christendome were present, I meane that of Trent:* 1.244 but by another Councell also aboue 1000. yeares before

that, to wit, the third of Carthage* 1.245 wherein S. Augustine him∣selfe was present,* 1.246 and subscribed thereunto; and in diuers other places of his workes, giueth the same testimony to this booke, as do sundry other Fathers ancienter then he, as S. Ambrose,* 1.247 that wrote a whole booke of the Story of To∣by, containing twenty foure whole Chapters, S. Basil in his Oration of Auarice; yea the holy Martyr S. Cyprian also himselfe more ancienter then them all,* 1.248 and this in sun∣dry places of his works, and after S. Augustine, S. Gregory, S. Isiodo••us, Cassiodorus, and others: wherby is euident, that in S. Augustins time, and before, this booke was held for diuine, and Canonicall. And therfore for a man now to venture his soule, vpon this bare deniall of M. Barlow, and his Consorts (for there goeth no lesse in the matter, his assertion being blasphemy, if this be true Scripture) let his poore sheepe of Lincolne thinke well of it, for other men will beware how they venture so much with him.

But now setting aside this consideration, whether it be Canonicall Scripture, or no; let vs consider a little further what holy men in ancient times did thinke of this fact of Toby,* 1.249 whether it were iustifiable or no. S. Augu∣stine in his booke De cura pro mortuis habenda, hath these words: Tobias sepeliendo mortuos Deum promeruisse, teste Angelo commendatur. Tobias is commended by the testimony of the Angell, in that by burying the dead he merited the fauour of Almighty God. And the same Father repeateth the very same words and sentence againe, in his first booke of the Citty of God. Whereby we see what his sense was in this matter, both in belieuing the good Angell, and este∣ming that good worke of burying the dead (which M. Bar∣low by contēpt calleth a ciuil co••rtesy) to haue merited with God.

* 1.250And of the same sense was S. Ambrose, who speaking of this Edict of the King, that no man should bury any dead man of the Iewes in that captiuity, commendeth high∣ly holy Toby for neglecting the same, in respect of that charitable worke.* 1.251 Ille interdicto non reuocabatur, sed magis inci∣tabatur &c. he was not stayd by that Edict or Proclama∣tion

from burying the dead, but rather was therby incy∣ted the more to doe the same: Erat ••••im misericordiae praemium, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p••na: for that the punishment of death, was the prince of mercy.

S. Cyprian also that holy Bishop and Martyr long be∣fore S. Amb••ose, in his booke Of our Lords prayer, extolling much the meryt of good workes, and exhorting men vnto the same, amongst many other authoryties of the Scrip∣tures, cyteth this of Toby saying: Et ideo diuina Scriptura in∣••••r••it, dicens, bona est oratio cum ieiunio, & ••leemosyna: & ther∣fore the dyuine Scripture in••tructeth vs saying: That Prayer is good accompanied with fasting and almes. In which wordes first we see this booke of Toby affirmed to be diuine Scripture,* 1.252 and secondly this speach & doctrine of the Angell Raphael vnto Toby concerning the prayse and merit of good works, to be allowed by S. Cyprian•• which is full contrary to M. Barlowes Diuinity. But let vs heare our S. Cypriā in the same place:* 1.253 Nam qui in die Iudicij praemium pro operibus &c.

For that he in the day of iudgment (to wit our Sa••iour) will giue reward for our good works, & almes, & is now also ready to shew himsel••e a most benigne hea∣ter to him, that shall come vnto him by prayer & works:* 1.254 and so did Cornelius the Centurion merit to be heard, as do∣ing 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 nost••i operis imponunt. Our prayers do quickly ascēd vnto God, which the merits of our good works do lay before him &c. And presētly with this Scripture, he ioyneth the other out of Toby: Sic & Raphel Angelus &c. So the Angel Raphael did testify vnto Toby alwayes praying & al∣wayes working: whē 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 af∣terward to cure thee, & I am Raphael one of the sea••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 M••••∣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 persecu∣tion,* 1.255 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 perse∣cutors hands, and the like, if he had liued amongst Chri∣stians, 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 allead∣ged 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 ••et downe here what I answered to the same.

* 1.256

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 tēporall & cyuill affayres we must obey dutifully our temporall Princes, though Infidels or Pagans:* 1.257 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 & di∣rectly 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 I••dian, saith thus:* 1.258 Iulian was an vn∣belieuing Emperour, was he not an Apostata? an oppressor and an Idolatour? Christiā souldiars serued that vnbe∣lieuing 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 pre∣sently 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:* 1.259 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,* 1.260 and the other of our Religion, & Conscience, belonging only to God. And to that playne sense are Tertullians words cyted by the Apologer: * 1.261 VVe honour the Emperour in such sort,

as is lawfull for vs, and ••xpedient for him, as a man second after God, and as hauing receyued from God, whatsoeuer he is, and only l••sse th••n God. And will not the Catholicks of England vse this speac•• 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 no•• to be obeyed in any point against Christian faith or Religion?

The like playne sense haue the words of Iustin•••• Martyr to the Emperour himselfe,* 1.262 cited here in the third place, to wit: VVe only adore God, and in all things we cheer∣fully performe seruice to you, prosessing you to be Emperours, and Prin∣ces 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 of∣fer 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?

* 1.263 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 thē do make any thing against vs, or for the Apologer, euen as they are here nakedly cyted, without declaration of the circumstances: for that in temporall affaires, the King or Emperour is Supreme, next vnder God. And when the Emperour will vse secular forces against the Priests of his dominion, they, being no souldiars, must fall to prayers, and teares, which are Priestly weapons. But what? Did S Ambrose by this acknowledge that the Emperour had higher Authority, then he, in Church-matters? Or that if he had offered him an Oath, repugnant to his Religion, or Conscience, in those matters he would haue obeyed, or acknowledged his Superiority? No truly. For in three seuerall occasions that fell out, he flatly denyed the same,

which this Apologer cra••tily dissembleth, and saith not a word therof. [ 1]

The first was, when he was cited by Dalmatius the Tribune,* 1.264 bringing with him a publicke Notarie to testi∣fie the same, in the name of the Emperour Valentinian the yonger, to come & conferre, or dispute with the hereticall Bishop Auxen••ius, in the presence of his Maiesty & other of his Nobility & Coūsell, which poynt S. Ambrose refused vtterly to do, telling the Emperour playnly by a letter written vnto him; That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours, and not Emperours of Bishops. And dy∣uers other doctrines, by this occasion, he taught him to that effect, as is to be seene in the same Epistle.

The second occasion fell out the very next yeare after [ 2] in Millane, when the said Emperour, by suite of the Arians,* 1.265 and fauour of Iustina the Empresse on their behalfe, made a Decree, that a certayne Church of that Citty should be deliuered to the said Arians: which Decree S. Ambrose the Bishop refused to obey. And when the Emperours Offi∣cers comming with armes, vrged greatly to giue possession of the Church, he fled to his former weapons of weeping and praying: Ego Missam facere coepi &c. I began to say Masse•• and when the temporall Magistrate vrged still, that the Emperour vsed but his owne right in appoynting that Church to be deliuered, S. Ambrose answered: Quae diuina sunt, Imperatoriae potestati non esse subiecta: That such things as belonge to God, are not subiect to the Imperiall power. And thus answered S. Ambrose about the giuing vp of a materiall Church. What would he haue said in greater matters?

The third accasion was when the Emperour sent his [ 3] Tribunes, and other Officers to require certayne Vessells belonging to the Church to be deliuered,* 1.266 which S. Am∣brose constantly denyed to do, saying: That in this, he could not obey: And further adding.* 1.267 That if the Emperour did loue him selfe, he should abstayne from offering such iniury vnto Christ. And in another place, handl••ng the same more at large, he saith: That he gaue to Cesar that which was Cesars, and

to God, that which belonged to God, but that the Tem••ple of God could not be the right of Cesar: which we speak (saith he) to the Emperours honour. For what is more honourable vnto him, then that he being an Emperour, be called a Child of the Church, for that a good Em∣perour is within the Church, but not aboue the Church. So S. Ambrose. What would he haue done, or said, if he had bene pressed with an Oath against his Conscience, or any least poynt of his Religion?

Thus far I answered in my letter, & he that shall read M Barlows reply now, will se•• that he hath nothing at all in substāce to say against it: for to that excellent speach of S. Augustine cōcerning the Emperour Iulian, he tri••••eth ex∣ceedingly; first bidding vs to shew that poynt in the Oath which is different from true religion: which is a cauill, as you see, for it is inough if it be contrary to the swearers Religion. And wheras we offer vpon that speach as the subiects of Iulian did, VVe will serue our Soueraigne, we will go to war with him, and we will fight for him, & the like, he sayth, it is but an hypocriticall florish of words. To the speach and facts of S. Ambrose he is forced eyther to say nothing, or to speake against himselfe. For wheras I do make this demaund, Did S. Ambrose by saying that he could not resist the Em∣perour, and that his weapons were teares, acknowledge by this that the Emperour had higher authority in Church-matters then he? Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion and conscience in those matters, he would haue obeyed; and acknowledged his autho∣rity? To the first he sayth that it is only extra ole••s, not to the cause in hand, and that he will handle it in another place; though euery man of discretion will see, that the demaund is full to the purpose, and ought to haue beene answered here. To the secōd he hath but a ridiculous shift: Suppose, saith he, that S. Ambrose would refuse such an Oath vrged vpon him, would he withall forbid others to take it? Surely no. But I say surely yea: for if we graunt S. Ambrose to haue bene a good Prelate, Pastour, & Father to his people, we must also graunt, that what Oath he thought pernicious for himselfe to take, he would haue forbidden the same to

haue bene taken by his people, if they had demaunded his opinion, as English Catholickes did the Popes, or els he had not bene a faythfull Pastour.

But what doth M. Barlow answere to the three instan∣ces alleadged out of S. Ambrose,* 1.268 in all which he contradi∣cted the Emperour, that was his temporall Lord, and de∣nied to obey in matters, Ecclesiasticall: the first, when he refused to go with the Tribune, and Notary sent for him by the sayd Emperour to dispute, in the Consistory with Auxenti•••• the Arian Bishop, yielding for his reason, That in matters of faith and Religion, Bishops must iudge of Emperours, and not Emperours of Bishops. Which answere of S. Ambrose M. Barlow doth allow, and cōmendeth it much: & albeit we haue said somewhat before about the same, yet shall we presently add a word or two more thereof.

The second refusall of the said Father was, as now you haue heard, to deliuer vp a certaine Church in Millan•• to the Arians, at the commandement of the Emperour, al∣leadging for his reason, Quae diuina sunt, Imperatoriae potestatium esse subiecta, that such things as are diuine, are not subiect to Imperiall power. Which answere in like manner M. Barlow alloweth, albeit I thinke I may assure my selfe, that if his Ma^tie of England should cōmaund one of his Parish Chur∣ches of Lincolne Diocesse to be deliuered vp to the Puritās, or Brownists, or other like Sectaries, and that his Maiesty should be so earnest, & resolute therin, as the Emperour was, sending his officers & souldiars to put them into pos∣session, M. Barlow would not be so resolute in his deniall as S. Ambrose was; neither would he be so bold to alleage that reasō which S. Ambrose did,* 1.269 that diuine things are not subiect to King Iames his power; including in the name of diuine things, the possession of this, or that materiall Church. Or if he would be so bold now, I assure my self he would not haue bene so in Queene Elizabeths dayes, whose spirituall Supre∣macy though femininae, seemed much more to be esteemed of him, then this now of his Maiesty, as presētly will appeare.

The third refusall of S. Ambrose to the Emperour was, when the said Emperour sent his Tribunes, and other offi∣cers

to require certaine Vessels belonging to the Church, to be deliuered, which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do, answering as before hath bene set downe, That i•• th•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 could not obey him, and that if he loued himselfe, he should abst••••••e to offer such iniurie vnto Christ &c. which answer also M. Barl•••• well alloweth, signifying therby, that he would a••••wer•• in the same sort to the magistrates & officers of King Iam•••• if he should send them vpon any occasion, to require at his hands the Cōmunion cup, or any other such vessels be∣longing to any Church in Lincolne Diocesse. And will any man belieue this, that he will be so stout? But it is a pa∣stime to see how he chatteth about this matter, as though he would say somewhat indeed, but yet saith nothing, at least to the purpose. Let vs heare what he bringeth. Things separated (saith he) to holy vse, are not to be alienated to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vsage.* 1.270 Here now euery man will laugh, that remembreth, how the Vessels, Vestments, and other such things dedi∣cated vnto God, and consecrated to Ecclesiasticall vses, in the Catholike Church, haue bene handled by Protestants, taken away, defaced, and conuerted to prophane vses, which this man I presume dareth not to condemne. Let vs heare him further. God hath in them, saith he, a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 right, as King Dauid confesseth: first as his gift to man, secondly as mans gift agayne to him, which twofold cord tyeth them so strong, as it is an Anathema (or curse) for any man, not consecrated to cha∣lenge them: yea for them which are consecrated, if they do not only p•••• them to that vse alone, for which they were dedicated.

And do you see now heer••, how zealous M. Barlow is become vpon the suddayne for defence of consecrated ves∣sels in the Church? What Vessels haue they consecrated thinke you? Or what kind of consecration do they vse therein? He sayth it is an anathema for any person not conse∣crated to chalenge them: the sacred Emperour, and King do demand them in this our case: if their persons be sacred, then in M. Barlows sense they are also consecrated, and they may demaund these Vessels, which as I said are very few in the Protestant Church: and if they had beene as few in the Church meant by S. Ambrose, it is not likely that the

Emperour would haue troubled himselfe so much in sen∣ding Tribunes, and other officers for the same.

But suppose the vessels were of like number, price, and value in the one, and the other Church. Yet I thinke M. Barlow will not deny, but that the manner of consecra∣ting them was far different, which may be seene in the ••••g••••churgians themselues, in the fourth Century,* 1.271 and by S. Ambrose in his second booke of Office, cap. 29. where he putteth downe two sorts of Church-Vessels dedicated to diuine vses, the one initiata, hallowed or consecrated, and the other not yet hallowed; and that in the time of nece∣ssity to redeeme Captiues,* 1.272 or to relieue the poore, the second sort are first to be broken, and applied to these holy vses, but the former with much more difficulty, for that they were now hallowed. Which difference I thinke the Protestants do not greatly obserue, in their hallowed Ve∣ssels. S. Gregory Nazianzen in like manner talking of such consecrated Vessels as were vsed in the Church in his time sayth,* 1.273 that it was such, as it made it vnlawfall for lay men to touch them, which I thinke M. Barlow will not lay of his Communion-Cup, which all men take in their hands. But now to the question it selfe.

Do you thinke that M. Barlow would deny vnto King Iames that Communion-Cup, or any other Vessels of a Church, if he should as earnestly demand them, as Valenti∣nia•• the Emperour did, when he sent his Tribunes and o∣ther chiefe officers to require them of S. Ambrose? If he would, what kind of Supremacy doth he allow his Maie∣sty in spirituall matters, if he may be denyed and disobeyed in these also that are in a certaine sort mixt, and in some part conioyned with temporall respects?

And truly when I do consider with my selfe, with what degrees M. Barlow doth descend and go downeward in defending of the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of his Maie∣sty,* 1.274 bringing it, as it were to nothing from that high pitch, wherin King Henry the eight both placed it, and left it, & his children King Edward, and Queene Elizabeth continu∣ed the same; I cannot but wonder and admire the proui∣dēce

of Almighty God, that hath wrought the ouerthrow in effect of that new Protestant Idoll, of spirituall Autho∣rity in temporall Princes, euen by Protestants themselues. Iohn ••aluin beginning the battery, as all men know, cal∣ling it Antichristian: the Puritans following him in that do∣ctrine; and now M. Barlow (though vnder-hand and dis∣semblingly) confirming all that they haue sayd or do•••• therin.

The first pitch wherin King Henry did place the same, was,* 1.275 as appeareth by the Statute it selfe, in the twentith six yeare of his raigne, That he and his herres should be taken, ••c∣cepted, and reputed the only Supreme head on earth of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia,* 1.276 and should haue and enioy, ••••∣nexed ••nd vnited to his Imperiall Crowne, asi••eli the title & style ther∣of, as also all honours, dignities, preheminences, iurisdictions, pri••iled∣ges to the said Dignity of supreme. Head belonging &c. Wherby is euident that the Parlament gaue vnto him, as great au∣thority ouer the Church of Englād, as the Pope had before. And this very fame authority was translated after him, to his Sonne King Edward though a child,* 1.277 yea all Preachers were commanded to teach the people that his Minority of age w•••• no impediment to his supreme spiritual gouern∣ment, for that a King is as truly a King, at one yeares age as at ••wenty: so as the exception made by M. Barlow, that Valentinian ••he Emperour was yong, when he commanded S. Am••ro••e to dispute before him, maketh nothing accor∣ding to this Doctrine, against his spirituall authority, if he were Head of the Church, as King Edward was. And further the Parliament in the first yeare of King Edward, explaining this authority, hath these words:* 1.278 That all au∣thority of Iurisdictions spirituall and rēporall is deriued, and deducted frō the Kings Maiesty, as supreme head of the Churches and Realmes of En∣gland and Ireland vnto the Bishops, and Archbishops &c.

And the like was passed ouer also to Queene Elizabeth by a Statute in the first yeare of her raigne, wherin it is said,* 1.279 That all such iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall as by any spirituall or Ec∣clesiasticall power hath hitherto bene or may be lawfully exercised•• for the re••ormation and correction of all māner of errors, heresies, schismes,

〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. all and all manner of Iurisdiction, priu••ledges, and prehe∣••••••••••ces, in any wise touching any sprituall, or Ecclesiasticall iuris∣d••cti•••••• with in the Realme, was giuen vnto her, and vnited vnto the Cr••••••e. This was the high doctrine in those daies of the Pri••ces supreme Ecclesiasticall, and spirituall power, o∣••er the Church of England, no lesse thē of the Pope himselfe ouer his Church of Rome. But now of later dayes, and by later writers, the case seemeth wonderfully altered; for not only haue they taken away the name, & title of Head of the Church, which was treason by King Henries Sta∣tutes to deny, and many were put to death for not yiel∣ding therunto: but haue taken away the authority also it selfe, if we respect the substance, and shifting in words, to seeme still to retaine somewhat. Wherin among others M. Barlow seemeth eminent, and vnder a shew of defen∣ding the Kings supremacy, to take it quite away. For let vs heare, first how he handleth the question, about the Princes authority for iudging in cases of religion; which is the principall of all the rest. He both proposeth, and solueth the question thus.

May not then, saith he, a Prince iudge in cases of Religion and Faith? No: not iudicio definitiuo,* 1.280 to determine what is sound Diuinity or not and so impose that vpon the consciences of men for faith, which he alone defines to be so: but iudicio executiuo, or iurisdi∣ctionis he may, and ought when the Church hath determined mat∣ters of saith, command the prosessing therof, within his Kingdome•• as the soundest and worthyest to be receaued. This is his determi∣nation; whereby it is euident, that he permitteth only vn∣to the King to execute that which his Church in England, to wit, the Bishops and Clergy therof, shall determine a∣bout matters of religion, which is no one iote more of power in Ecclesiasticall matters, then that which Catho∣licks do ascribe vnto their ••emporall Princes, to execute what the Church determineth: but yet with this diffe∣rence of much more dignity, that they are bound to the execu••ion only of that which the Vniuersall Church shall determine, & not of their owne subiects alone, as it falleth out on the behalfe of his Maiesty of England in this case. In

which point also I do not see, how he can wind himselfe out of this maze, that must necessarily follow of his owne doctrine, to wit, that one should receiue from another, that the other receiued from him. As for example, if the Bishops being his Maiesties subiects, as well in spirituall as temporal affaires, haue no spirituall iurisdiction but frō him, as the Statute of King Edward doth determine: and on the other side his Maiesty to haue no authority, to define of any matter belonging to religion at all, but only to exe∣cute that which the Bishops do define; it seemeth that they receiue from his Maiesty that authority, which they deny to be in him, and so, that he giueth them the thing, which he hath not in himselfe, but is to receaue from them.

Moreouer it is euident by this doctrine of theirs, that the Bishops do make their Courtes & Tribunalls for mat∣ters of Religion, to be absolutly greater then the Kings, for that they do allow him no other power for Iudging in spirituall matters, but only to execute, that which they shall define and determine.

And albeit for dazeling the simple readers eyes, M. Barlow doth in this place fumble vp a certaine distinction,* 1.281 not wel vnderstood by himselfe, takē out of some School∣men, as he saith, noting Occam in the margent, that there be three parts of this executiue iudgmēt, the one discretiue to discerne, the other directiue to teach others, the third decretiue: which third he saith, is in the Prince both af∣firmatiuely to bind to the obseruing of that, which is so tryed and adiudged, and negatiuely to suppresse the con∣trary: and that this last is to Iudge for the truth; and the former of defining, is to iudge of the truth. Yet doth all this reach no further, but to the power of execution of that which others haue determined, which may be called a power of impotency in that behalfe; for that therin he is subiect, and not Superiour, especially if it lye not in his power, either to execute, or not to execute, as he shall think best, which M. Barlow here denveth, saying: That he may, and ought to execute, when the Church hath determined. But on the

other side, if he haue power and liberty to execute, or not to execute, then is the other power of defining in the Bi∣shops to small purpose. For that they may define, and he not execute, his iudgment being that they haue defined e••ill, and by that way becommeth he their Iudge againe, to define whether they haue defined well, or no. And this is another circle or labyrinth which I see not how M. Bar∣l•••• will easily auoid.

I doe pretermit diuers other childish thinges that be in this speach of his, as where he propoundeth thus the question: as first, VVhether a Prince may iudge in cases of Religion, ••••d saith? as though these two were Sinonyma, and all one; Whereas religion contayneth many cases, as well of life, manners, and cerimonyes, as of faith; in all which cases it may be demanded, how far the King may be iudge. Secondly he saith, that the King cannot define, and de∣termine, what is sound Diuinity or not, which is far from the purpose. For the question is not, whether the King may iudge and determine what is sound Diuinity or Theologie, but what is matter of faith, and what is to be belieued, or not be belieued by a true Christian within his realme. Thirdly in like manner when he saith, that the King hath only iudicium executiuum, or iurisdictionis,* 1.282 as though they were all one: whereas executio, and iurisdictio are two different things, & iurisdiction is more properly in that party that defineth, then in the other that execu∣teth: for that the former commaundeth, and the second obayeth.

Fourthly his terme also of discretiuum ascribed by him vnto all Christians, to haue power to try spirits, whether they be of God or no (besides that it seemeth contrary to that of S. Paul to the Corinthians, who recko∣neth vp discretion of spirits to be a peculiar and seuerall gift vnto some alone, saying, Alij discretio spirituum &c.) is nothing well applyed by him to iudicium execu••iuum, for that it appertayneth rather to iudicium definitiuum, for so∣much as those that haue power to define, & to determine of matters, are principally to iudge of spirits, & not their

subiects to iudge of theirs: for that other wise there must needes ensue an inextricable confusion of trying, & iudg∣ing of one the others spirits. As if for example the Bishops o•• England should try & condemne the spirits of the Pu∣rytans, and they agayne the spirits of the Bishops, by co∣lour of this power to discerne spirits, giuen thē by M. B••••lo•• out of the words of S. Iohn, there would neuer be an end.

And lastly it appeareth by all this that his l••st distin∣ction, wherin he sayth, that the King may iudge for the truth, and not of the truth, is a meere delusion,* 1.283 giuing somewhat in wordes, but nothing in deed; for that if the iudging for the truth be nothing els, but to execute, allow, and approue, that which others haue defined, determined, and appointed out vnto him, to be belieued, and defen∣ded as the truth, then hath he no more free choice, or su∣periority in iudgment in this case, then euery subiect or common man, who is likewise bound to belieue and de∣fend the same, according to his ability and power.

Now then to conclude the matter, and to reduce all to a briefe summe, for so much as M. Barlow taketh away from his Maiesty of England not only the title and style Of Head of the Church,* 1.284 which was giuen to King Henry, and confirmed to King Edward, but the Papall authority in like manner, for decision of matters, which was ascribed vnto them both by Parlament, and confirmed to Queene Elizabeth; and here saith, that he cannot iudge in cases of religion and fayth iudicio definiti••o, to define and determine any thing, but only execu••iuo, to execute what the Church of England, to wit, what the Bishops shall define, and or∣dayne: and for somuch as he addeth yet further now, in that which before we haue discussed, three other parti∣culer cases out of S. Ambrose, wherin he con••es••eth that his Maiesty hath no authority, but may be resisted, to wit, if he should call before him a Bishop to dispute with ano∣ther of a different religion, as Valen••inian did S. Ambrose, and he denyed him: If he should commaund a Bishop to deliuer ouer a Church to a people of a different religion: and if he should command a Bishop to deliuer vp the

Ve••els of his Church, as the said Empe••ou•• did, and the ••ther refused to obey: all these things, I say, laid ••oge••t••er ••ut of M. Barlows doctrine, do so much diminish the great∣nes of his Maiesties Supreme power in causes Ecclesiasti∣call, as in effect it commeth to be no more, th••n Catho∣like doctrine doth ordinarily allow to euery Catholicke Temporall Prince, for the obseruance, and execution of that which the Church determineth. And this is M. Bar∣l•••••••• heroycall exployt, to marre the matter he takes in hand for his Clyent. Let euery man iudge how well he hath deserued the good fee, which already he hath rec••a∣••ed for his plea, and hopeth to receaue more hereafter, if he may speed according to his expectation.

OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE Or I••stance out of S. Gregory the Great, about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius, that he misliked: which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall. §. III.

THERE followeth another controuersy betweene M. Barlow & me about a certayne fact of S. Gregory the Great concerning the Law of Mauritius the Emperour prohibiting souldiars, and such as were accomptable to the Emperours Courtes for offices borne by them, to enter into monasteries and professe a religious life without his licence, whereof I wrote thus in my letter.

Neyther doth the last place cited out of S. Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauritius,* 1.285 make any thing mo••e for our Apologers purpose of taking Oathes against Consci∣ence.* 1.286 For albeit the same Father do greatly compla••ne in diuers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius, whome (though otherwise a Catholike Emperour) he compareth in that poynt to

Nero and Diocl••si••n, saying: Quid Nero? quid Dioclesi••••••s? q••id de••ique iste•• qui ••oc tempore ••••••lesiam persequitur? N••mq•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 omnes porta Inferi? Wh••t was Nero? What was Diocles••••••? what is he who at this time, doth persecute the Church? Are they not all gates of Hell? Yet in this place alleaged by the Apologer, he yealded to publish and send abro••d into diuers Countreys and Prouinces, a certayne vniust law of the sayd Emperours,* 1.287 that prohibited S••uldiars, and such as had bene imployed in matters of publike ac∣compts of the Cōmon-Wealth, to make thēselues Monks. W••ich law, though S. Gregory did greatly mislike, and wrote sharply agaynst it,* 1.288 to the Emperour himselfe: yet to shew his due respect in temporall thinges vnto him, and for that indeed the law was not absolutly so euill, but that in some good sense, it might be tolerated, to wit, that Souldiars sworn to the Emperours wars, might not (during the said Oath & obligation) be receaued into Mo∣nasteries, but with the Princes licēce: yet for that it tended to the abridgmēt of Ecclesiastical freedome, in taking that course or state of life, which ech man chooseth for the good of his soule; S. Grego••y misliked the same, and dealt ear∣nestly with the Emperour to relinquish it, or to suffer it to be so moderated, as it might stand without preiudice of Christian liberty: wherunto the Emperour at length yeelded, and so S. Gregory sent the same abroad vnto diuers Primates and Archbishops of sundry Kingdomes mentio∣ned by him, but corrected first and reduced by himselfe, as supreme Pastour, to a reasonable lawfulnes, and tempe∣rate moderation: to wit, that those who had borne offi∣ces of charge in the Common-wealth, and after desired to be admitted to religious life in Monasteries, should not be receaued, vntill they had giuen vp their full accompts, and had obtayned publicke discharge for the same. And that Souldiars which demanded the like admittāce, should be exactly tryed, and not admitted vnto Monasticall ha∣bite, but after they had liued three yeares in their lay ap∣parell, vnder probation.

This determineth S. Gregory in his Epistle, beginning,

Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi, Vrbicio Dyrachitano &c. adding further in the same Epistle, as hath bene said,* 1.289 De qua re, Ser••iss••mus & Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur: a∣bout which matter our most Clement and Christian Em∣perour is wholy pleased and content. So as in this S. Gre∣gory shewed his pastorall care and power, in limiting and moderating the Emperours law, according to the law of God, though in temporall respectes he shewed him the Obedience, that was due vnto him. But what is this vn∣to our Oath? May we thinke that S. Gregory, that would not passe a temporall law of the Emperour, without re∣prehension of the vnlawfulnes thereof to the Emperour himselfe, and correction therof in the publication, for that indirectly it did infringe the liberty of Religious life, when men were called therunto; that he would not haue much more resisted the admission of an Oath, about such affaires, if it had bene proposed? No man, I thinke, in reason can imagin the contrary.

To this declaration of mine M. Barlow beginneth his reply thus: But that of Gregory, saith he,* 1.290 toucheth the very quicke, who as he thought his duty discharged to God, in shewing the reasons why he disliked the Law, so did he performe it very readily to the Emperour, in promulging the same immediately, according to cōmand∣ment. Wherto I answere first, that howsoeuer it be, the quicke of our question is little touched hereby, for that we treat, whether an Oath offered against the conscience of the swearer, may be taken or not, especially when the points therof concerne matters of Religion: and here the question betweene S. Gregory & Mauritius is about the pu∣blishing of a law,* 1.291 partly temporall, for as much as it con∣cerned the Emperours Army, Officers, and publike ac∣compts, and partly also including some touch against Ec∣clesiasticall liberty, intaking that holy profession of Mo∣nasticall life, for help of their soules; for which la••er re∣spect. S. Gregory was most earnest with the said Emperour to be content to haue the said Law mitigated, & tempered as he had proposed the same; and so in the end obtained his purpose, as by his words now recited doth appeare.

Secondly then, the chiefest point o•• difference be∣tweene M. Barlow & me in this matter seemeth to be, whe∣ther S. Gregory did yield to the publishing o•• this Law, be∣fore the mitigation & correction therof, or not. He sayth he did. But Cardinall Baronius, who seemeth more practi∣sed in the writings of S. Gregory, then M. Barlow in his Cō∣munion booke, holdeth the contrary, and proueth it out of S. Gregories owne words and writings vnto the foresaid Archbishops & Metropolitās, Eusebius of Thessalonica, Vrbi••i•••• of Dyrachium, Constātius of Millane, Iohn o•• Corynth, Iohn of Creet, & others mentioned in his said l••tter: which letter he sent togeather with the said Law, vnto those chiefe Bi••hops & Metropolitans, to be diuulged; but first moderated and corrected (saith Baronius) in the two points before by me mentioned. Adding fu••ther that this Epistle o•• S. Gregory concerning this co••rec••ion is found in his Register, not in his due place & ranke, but remoued from thence, as many other of his ••pi••tles also are, which haue giuen some occa∣sion to M. Barlow for to wrangle about the matter, for that in two other Epistles of his that go before this, to wit, the 62. to the Emperour himselfe, and 65. to Theodorus his Phi∣sitian, he intreateth earnestly for the Emperours consent to this mitigation: wherof no man can meruaile, consi∣dering the humility and sweetnes of S. Gregories nature, & that the Law it sel••e seemed to be made vpon great reason, for the Common-Wealth, for some abuses perhaps that had pass••d, & might passe; and consequently was no such Ec∣clesiastical Law, as M. Barlow would haue it to be taken for. And so much the more reason had S. Gregory to deale hum∣bly by way of petition, with the sayd Mauritius•• for allow∣ing of his modification, for that the Law did not direct∣ly repugne any Ecclesiasticall matter,* 1.292 but by a consequence only, the subiect of the Law being grounded vpon tem∣porall respects, which consequence notwithstanding S. Gregory as a care••ull supreme P••stour, would not suffer to passe wit••out due reflection made theron, with endeauour to haue it amended.

But wh••ther this were before or after his first sen∣ding

o•• the law into diuers Prouinces, a•• he sayth Epist. 62. lib. 2. or after, as he writeth to the foresayd Metro∣politans, Epist. 11. lib. 7. or whether he sent it two times, ••i••t to the Prouinces with some aduertisements to be considered of, vntill he should haue obtained the Empe∣rours consent: and then againe vnto the sayd Metrop••li∣tans, with more full resolution, and ••ssurance that the Emperour was content, and satisfyed, I shall leaue the matter to be disputed betweene Cardinall Baronius, and M. Barlow; albeyt the matter it selfe be of sm••ll moment to our purpose, as I haue sayd, for that, as S. Gregory did on the one side shew himselfe subiect vnto Mauritius at that time, in te••porall ••ffaires, so did he not neglect his Pa∣storall office, & supreme care, in dealing with those Arc••∣bishops, & Metropolitans of diuers Nations (to whom he sent the Emperours Law) to practise the sam•• according to the temperament, and declaration sent them. And if his spirituall authority had bene acknowledged to haue bene no more at that time, then ouer the Roman Diocesse only, as now our Protestants will acknowledge no more to our present Popes, he would neuer haue taken vpon him to write, and send the Law with his exposition, to so many great Archbishops of diuers other Realmes, and Nations. And if Mauritius the Emperour had held himselfe for Head of the Church in those dayes, and to haue power aswell in Ecclesiasticall affaires,* 1.293 as temporall, and that S. Gregory had not bene Head, he would neuer haue sent the law to haue bene published by him to the Metropolitans, both of the East and West, Greeke and Latin Church, himsel••e liuing in Constantinople, being neerer vnto diuers of the said Metrop••litans, then was Rome, but would haue sent the same immediately vnto them, as from himselfe.

And this might be su••ficient for this matter, but that I may not let passe without the note of another egregious ignorance, and malice, or rather malicious ignorance of M. Barlow conioyned togeather in this place•• The malice standeth in this, that he accuseth me of falsifying, for lea∣uing out wittingly certayne wordes of S. Gregory in his

for••said Epi••tle to the Metropolitans, whereby he assureth them, that the Emperour was pacifyed, and contented with his mitigation of the law sent vnto them.* 1.294 This ••alsi∣••ying Iesuit (saith he) mentioneth the Epistle, but leaueth out the wordes very cunningly, mihi credite, Belieue me, our Grati••••s Emperour is so contented.* 1.295 Whereas if you looke backe vpon my wordes, you shall find them set downe by me thus, as they stand in S. Gregory; De qua re Serenissimus & Christianis∣simus Imperator omnimodò placatur. About which matter our most Clement, & Christian Emperour is wholy pleased, & contended; if mihi credite were pretermitted, it impor∣teth little to the matter.

This then was malicious, let vs see the ignorance coupled with more then with a single malice, when he speaketh of S. Gregories wordes written vnto Theodoru•• the Emperours Phisitian, as before hath beene mentioned, sending a letter to him to be deliuered to the said Empe∣rour, at his good commodity. M. Barlow relateth the mat∣ter thus. He writes to Theodore the Emperours Phisitian,* 1.296 saith he, and intreats him to deale with his Lord and Soueraigne about it. The reasons wherof he had not, yea he would not, he saith, à Respōsali suo publicè dare, publikely yeald as frō his Chaire and Oracle (much lesse by his Breue interdict) but hauing suggested it priuatly, he left it to God and the Emperours leasure and wisdome.* 1.297 In which words, besides the gros••e ignorance, in taking Responsali for the Popes Chayre or Oracle, wherin he defineth matters for di∣rection of Christendome (whereas the word signifieth only his Messēger, Nuntius, or Legat) there are diuers eui∣dent fraudes discouered: as first that he doth interprete the Popes priuate letter or suggestion (as S. Gregory calleth it, which he sent to Theodore to be giuen to the Emperour) by the words yealding of reasons publikly, which is far from S. Gregories meaning, as presently shall appeare.

And secondly to make the sentence of S. Gregory more appliable to his fond purpose, of interpreting it a Chayre or Oracle, he chāgeth dari into dare. The words of S. Gregory be: Nol•• eam (scilicet Epistolam, vel suggestion••m) à Responsali me•• publicèdari, quia vos qui ei familiariùs seruitis, loquiei liberiùs & ape••∣ti••••

p••••••sti••, que pro eius sunt anima. I will not haue my sayd ••••••••er (or suggestion) to be giuen to the Emperour publik∣ly, by my Legate or Agent, for that you who do serue him more familiarly, may speake vnto him more freely and o∣penly, those things which be for his soule. Which words being most plaine, who but an ignorant man, or most malicious, would translate Responsali, as from hi•• Chayre and Oracle? which cannot stand in the sight of euery child, either with signification of Responsali••, or with the rea∣son of S. Gregory here alleadged. For what sense may it haue if S. Gregory should say to Theodore the Phisitian, as M. Barlow feigneth him to say, I haue not, nor will not yield reasons publickely from my Chayre and Oracle, and much lesse, i••erdict by Breue, for that you seruing him more familiarly, may speake more boldly and openly. But as I say the wilfull igno∣rance or malice is manifest, for that he can neuer in his whole life shew vs in any one example where Responsalis is taken for the Popes Chayre or Oracle, but for a Messenger, Embassadour, Nuntius, Legate, or Agent, named other∣wise Apo••rysiarius.

We could shew him a multitude of places out of S. Gregory him selfe, if we would stand vpon it, as namely in his 30. Epistle lib. 6. to Mauritius the Emperour, talking of the Legates of Cyriacus Archbishop of Cōstantinople he saith, Responsales Fratris & Consacerdotis mei Cyriaci benignè suscepi: I benignly receaued the Legates or Messengers of my Bro∣ther and fellow Priest Cyriacus. And agayne afterward in the same Epistle, Responsales eius mecum feci Sacra Missarum so∣lemnia celebrare. I caused his Messengers to celebrate the holy solemnity of the Masses togeather with me. Where I hope M. Barlow will not say, that he receaued Bishop Cyriacu•• his Chayre with benignity, or that he made his C••aire and Oracle to say masse with him. And the very same speach he vseth againe in the very next ensuing epistle, to E••logius Bishop of Alexandria, and to Anastasius Bishop of An••ioch. And agayne in his epistle 38. to Iohn Arch∣bishop of Constantinople. Et antè per R••sponsales me••s, & nunc per communem filium meum Sabinianum Diaconum alloqui Fra••erni••••∣tem

vestram volui. I resolued first to admonish your Bro∣therhood by other Messengers of myne, and now by our cōmon sonne Sabinianus the Deacon. Many other such like exāples might be alleaged, which for breuity I pretermit: & doe take pitty of M. Barlow to see him erre so grossely, as to imagine that Responsalis should signify a Popes Chayre, or Oracle. And so much of this.

VVHETHER COVNCELS HAVE SVBMITTED THEMSELVES VNTO CHRISTIAN EMPERORS in Spi••ituall affayres: and namely that of Arles to Charles the Great? CHAP. VI.

AFTER the examination of the Autho∣rities of Scriptures, and Fathers allea∣ged by the Apologer, for the preroga∣tiue of temporall Princes in matters of Religion, there followeth also in ••he third place somewhat of Councells, that seemed to submit themselues in t••eir Decrees about Religion, vnto the iudgment and li∣king of Emperours, which to the end the Reader may the better conceaue, and ••ee the whole conflict betwene M. Ba••low and me in this poynt, wherin as in all the rest ••e seek••th to be obscure, I shall set downe the whole speach ••sed in my former Letter: thus then it was.

The last thing thē (said I) that i•• cited without pur∣pose by the Apologer,* 1.298 are certayne Councels which ar••

said to haue submitted themselues to Emperours as that of Arles in France vnto Charles the Great their King, for that in the last words of the said Councell, the Bishops there gathered togeather, presenting the same to the said Charles write thus:* 1.299 Haec sub breuitate, quae emendatione digna perspexim••s, &c. these thinges briefly which we haue seene worthy of reformation, we haue noted, and deemed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour, beseeching his Clemency, if any thing be wanting to supply it by his wisdome, and if any thing be otherwise done then reason requireth, it be amended by his iudgment, and if any thing be reasona∣bly censured, it may be perfected by his help, and by the clemency of Almighty God. So the Councell. And heerof would the Apologer inferre that this Councell of Bishops submitted it selfe to the Emperour.

But I would aske him wherin? To take any Oath that the Emperour Charles should propose vnto them? We see no Oath offered, nor mentioned, and so nothing here to our purpose. Wherin then, or why are they said to haue submitted themselues? For that, perhaps, it is said in the Preface of the Councell, that they were gathered togea∣ther by order, and cōmaundement of the said Emperour. Surely it was hard, that so many Bishops, and Archbi∣shops should be assembled togeather without his liking, and Order. But that the consent, direction, and chiefe Commission for the same, came from the Bishop of Rome, may easily be gathered:* 1.300 for that in the first Councell that he caused to be celebrated in his Dominions, which was that of VVormes in the yeare of Christ 770. it was left regi∣stred in these words: Auctoritas Ecclesiastica, atque Canonica d••∣cet, non debere, absque sententia Romani Ponti••icis, Concilia celebra∣ri. Ecclesiasticall and Canonicall authority teacheth, that Councels may not be held, without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome.

And wher in thē? Or why is this submission made? For approbation of matters concerning faith? No, for that yow haue heard before out of S. Ambrose, that therin Emperours are not iudges of Bishops, but Bishops of

Emperours. Wherin then, or why is this submission,* 1.301 or rather r••mission to the Emperour, and his iudgment? It was, for that this Councell was made onely for reforma∣tion of manners and matters, at the religious instance of the good Emperour, the effectuating wherof did depend principally of his good will and ass••••tance, and so after the first Canon, where briefly is set downe the Confession o•• the Christian faith, all the other 25. Canons (for there are only 26. in all) are about reformation of matters a∣misse: as for more diligence in daylie prayer for the Em∣perours person, and his children, to wit, thata 1.302 Masses and ••et••••ies be said da••lie for them by all Bishops, Abbots, Monks, and Priests. b 1.303 That Bishops and Priests study more diligently, and teach the people, both by lessons and preachings: c 1.304 That lay men may not put out Priests of their benefice, without the sentence of the Bishop, nor that they take money of them for collation of the said benefices: d 1.305 That none be admitted to enter into the Monasteries of Virgins eyther to say Masse, or otherwise, but such as be of appro∣••ed vertue: e 1.306 How peace is to be held betweene Bishops, Earles, and other Great men, especially in execution of Iustice:f 1.307 That weightes and measures be iust and equall, and that none worke vpon holy dayes: g 1.308 That all Tythes be payd, al ancient possession mantayned to the Churches. That no secular courtes be held in Churches, or Church porches: That no Earles, or other Great men do fraudu∣lently buy poore mens goods &c.

These then were the pointes of Reformation,* 1.309 decreed in that Councel of Arles, at the instance of Charles the Great, who was so zealous a Prince in this behalf••, as he caused fiue seueral Councels to be celebrated in diuers Partes of his Dominions within one yeare, to wit, this of A••les, another at Towers, a third at Chalo••s, a fourth at Mentz, the fifth at Rhemes, and another the yeare before (which was the ••ixt) ad Theodonis villam, which is a towne in Luxemburge. Al which Prouincial Synodes are extant i•• the third Tome of Councels, togeather with the Canons and Decrees, which are such as could not be put in execu∣tion,

but by the temporall fauour, authoritie, and ap∣probation of the Emperour in such matters, as concerned his temporall Kingdome and iurisdiction. Wherfore i•• for these respects, the Councell did present vnto the Em∣perour these Canons to be cōsidered of by his wisedome, whether any thing were to be added, altered, or taken away, for the publike good of the Common Wealth (no Controuersy of faith being treated therin) what is this to proue, eyther that the Emperour in spirituall matters was superiour to the said Bishops, or that if he had pro∣posed vnto them any such Oath, as this is, wherin by pro∣••essing their temporall Allegiance, they must also haue impugned some poynt of their faith, that they would haue obeyed him? And so much of this Councell.

This was then my speach, yielding furthermore a reason, why I did not stand vpon the places of some par∣ticuler Councels alleadged, for that the discussion of this one made manifest all the rest, that they tended only to this end, that they proued temporal obedience in subiects towards their Princes, in temporal affaires, which Ca∣tholicks deny not, and so in effect they proue nothing to the purpose in hand. But yet it shall be good to ponder a little, what M. Barlow bringeth in against that, which heere I haue written. First he saith, that not only these Prouinciall Councels, of Arles in France, and diuers others submitted themselues wholy to the Emperour Charles the Great, in most humble termes, but the foure Generall Councels also s••mmoned at the beck, and command of the Emperour, submitted themselues for the validity, and establishing of their Decrees to his most Royal assent. And within three lines after againe:* 1.310 VVhole Councels, saith he, submitted themselues in all dutifull reuerence to their Soueraignes, not only in matters of temporall affaires, but in faith and religion. And yet further in the very next page: The Emperour, saith he, that hath the sole authority to summon a Councel,* 1.311 hath the sole power to make good or voyd what it concludes. And we must note that he putteth downe the words to make good, or voyd, in a dif∣ferent markable letter, therby to signify that this is an A∣xiome

of great solidity. And yet I suppose that he could not be so forgetfull, or negligent as not to see, that all this is quite contrary to that which he wrote within three leaues•• before, to wit, that in cases of religion and faith, Princes could not iudge any thing, iudicio definitiuo, to de∣fine or determine, but only executiuo, to put in execution that which the Church determineth.

But now if not only the Councell of Arles, and other Prouincial Councels, but the first foure General Councels submitted themselues also for the validity and establish∣ment of their Decrees, which are knowne to haue bene concerning points of religion and faith, vnto the Empe∣rours Royal assent: so as whatsoeuer was decreed there by the Church (& this not a Prouincial or National Church only of England, but the whole Vniuersall Church ga∣thered in those first foure Counc••ls) should haue no validi∣ty, except the Emperour approued the same; this is more then iudicium executiuum, to execute that which the other had determined. For here the Emperour doth iudge of al, yea euen of the iudges themselues, and of their Iudgments and decrees, and consequently hath the last and supreme iudgment de••initiue, to define and determine what De∣crees are truly and rightly made, and to ratify or make void what he shall think good, which is as much as we do, or can ascribe vnto the Pope. And this is confirmed in like manner by M. Barlows second ass••ueration, That Councels must submit themselues in all dutifull reuerence, not only in matters of temporall affaires, but of faith and religion also•• What can be ••po∣ken more plainly in contradiction of his former assertion? And what more absurdly then that which followeth in the third place, That the temporall Prince hath sole power to make good or voyd•• what the Councell concludes?* 1.312 For that hereby all the Conciliabula or vnlawfull false Councels that met togeather often in the primitiue Church, as that of A••iminum for the Arians against the Catholickes, that of Carthage against Ceci∣lianus, that of Constan••inople against Marcellus, that of Antioch against Athanasius, that of Burges in France against S. Hilary, & diuers other, hauing the assent and approbation of hereti∣call

Emperours then bearing rule, shalbe good and law∣full Councels, and all other Councels gathered for the Catholicks against these to be voyd, & of no validity. Do you see heere M. Barlows manner of writing? and how he plungeth himself aboue the eares in contradictions, with∣out marking, or respecting what he said before, so he may say somewhat for the present?

But do you thinke that he wil stand to this now? No. For that in the very next ensuing leafe, he being pressed by me to answere what submission that was, which the Councel of Arles made to Charls the Great for his approba∣tion, and whether it were of matters concerning faith, he runneth quite backe againe, denying that Emperours haue any such authority.* 1.313 To iudge, saith he, definitiuely which are matters of faith, or no, is not for the Emperour: but to ratify by hi•• assent, and command by his authority, what the Church or Councell so assembled hath defined to be matter of faith, is proper to Emper••••rs and Kings. Which words if you consider them well, do cō∣taine most euidently the contradictory of that he sayd be∣fore, That Councels were to submit themselues for the validity of their Decrees to the Emperours Royall assent, and that not only in temporall affaires, but in faith and ••eligion: and that they only haue power to make good or voyde all conclusions of Councels: which contayneth ma∣nifestly power also to define: & it is but a shift to say heere, that it is not for the Emperour to iudge definitiuely, which are matters of faith or not. For it is not the chiefe question, which mat∣ters belong to faith, and which not, for that is easily dis∣cerned in general, but which opinions in these matters be true, or false, doubtfull, dangerous, Catholicke, or He∣reticall in particuler.

Wherin, forasmuch as the Decrees that are, or shalbe made by the Councels assembled, must take their validity from the Emperours assent, yea euen as they are matters of fayth and religion, and that without this assent they are vtterly vo••de; it is a ridiculous thing to see M. Barlow play fast and loose,* 1.314 as he doth in this matter, taking away with one hand, that which he giueth with the other, & then yielding againe that which before he had taken a∣way,

which proceedeth of the miserable labyrinth, wher∣i•• he seeth himselfe to be in this question, about the Kings spirituall authority, which he would seeme to defend, ••••t in effect ouerthroweth the same, when he commeth to the point, as before hath byn noted. And this necessity driueth him to such contradictory speaches, not knowing well where to rest himselfe, as euen heere in these his last wordes, there is a notorious intanglement, if they be wel considered.

For first he sayth, that it belongeth not to the Empe∣rour definitiuely to iudge which are matters of faith, but to ratify by his assent, what the Councel had defined to be matter of faith. Suppose that some Councel had decreed that Christ was the Sonne of God, and equal in God∣••ead to his Father, as diuers did vnder Constantius the Ariā Emperour, and he would not ratify the ••ayd decrees by his assent, were they all voyd for this? and had they no vali∣dity? Or was this Councel bound to submit it selfe,* 1.315 in these points of faith and religion, vnto that Emperour, as M. Barlows former doctrine inferreth? though heere he would seeme to moderate the matter; but indeed he kno∣weth not where to consist. For if no Decrees of Coun∣cels in any matters of faith or religion, haue any validity, without the Emperours ratification and assent, as heere also he doth insinuate, then must we needs allow also vnto him power to iudge definitiuely, and not only to execute, as before hath beene proued.

And as for the instance which he alleage••h out of the Synod of Aquileia held vnder the raigne of Gratian, Valenti∣••••an, and Theodosius ioynt Emperours, wherin was S. Am∣brose that wrote with the rest of the Bishops vnto the fore∣sai•• Emperours, humbly and earnestly desiring them (saith M. Barlow,* 1.316 that they would vouchsafe to make good, what the Bishops ••ad in th••s Assem••ly concluded, it is meerely false,* 1.317 For first no such speach is found in the place by him cited: & secondly though the sayd Bishops doe complayne much in that letter of certa••ne disorderly hereticks, that troubled their peace, namely Valence, and Attal••••, and did request the

protection o•• t••e ••ayd Emperours, for their quiet: ye•• doe they not, as M. Barlow falsely affirmeth, desire th•• Emperours to ratify their Decrees, set downe in matter•• o•• faith, or to make good, what they had concluded; fo•• that had byn to haue made them Iudges of their said De∣crees, against which thing, as attempted by the heretiks, S•• Ambrose excepteth in that very place, saying,* 1.318 That Pries•• must iudge of lay men, and not lay men o•• priests, in matters belo••g•••••• to religion: but they did demaund their temporall help an•• protection, only for defence of that which they had de∣creed, and for peaceable obseruing thereof, putting th•• said Emperours in mind, to haue first respect vnto th•• reuerence of the Catholick Church, and then vnto th•• obseruation of their owne laws therby: Reuerentiam pri•••••• Ecclesiae Catholicae, deinde etiam legibus vestris Pietas Vestra defer•••• ••ubeat. ••hat your Piety doe first commaund reuerence t•• be exhibited to the Catholicke Church, and afterward t•• your owne laws. So S. Ambrose with that Synod. Where••by may appeare, what reuerence, and respect they requy∣red at these three Christian Emperours hands vnto thei•• Ecclesiastical decrees (they representing the Church) be∣fore their owne Imperiall lawes.

Vnto the sentence which I doe cite in my Letter on•• of the Councell of VVormes,* 1.319 that Councels may not b•• held without allowance o•• the Bishop of Rome•• M. Barl•••• an••wereth with more choller then reason, That it is a ma∣nifest vntruth, made good by an obscure author, out of a Councel ••e∣uer assembled, or neuer recorded. But if it be so manifest, why had not he alleadged so much as one author, old or new since that time, which is aboue 800. yeares agone tha•• denied the same, vntill this our age? Whereas we alleadg•• for the affirmatiue, that there was such a Councell held at VVormes vpon that yeare of 770.* 1.320 both out of the life o•• Charles the Great, written by a very ancient Author, a•• al••o out of the 6. and 7. Bookes de Capitularibu•• Franc. and out of m••ny Histo••ies after them, as namely Rhegine, tha•• liued full 700. yeares agone, and mentioneth that Coun∣cell of VVormes, vpon the same yeare: yea the Author••

themselues mentioned by M. Barlow, namely Genebra••d, Byn∣•••••• and Caranza, being confessed by him to mention such •• Councel, do proue also that it was recorded. And as fo•• his negatiue argument out of Canisius in his short table of Chronography, prefixed before his Catechisme, who ••••ming some Councels, doth not name that Councel of VVormes, hath no substance at al. For that Canisius his pur∣pose was not to name all Councels, especially such as were Prouinciall, as this of VVormes was, but some only 〈◊〉〈◊〉 example sake: for in that very Age of 800. wherein Ch••••les did florish as Emperour, I find 5. or 6. at least pre∣••••rmitted by Canisius, as Ratisponense, Altinense, Constantino∣p•••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Actinacense, Lugdunense, and some others. And in the precedent age, when Charles was King of France, I f••nd aboue a dozen Prouincial Councels left out of Ca∣••••••••••s his Chronology; and so might this also be of VVor∣••es, albeit there is a Councel of VVormes registred by him, about the middle of the age of 800; which also may be this, that we talke of, though placed by the Printer some∣what lower in the Columne, then it should be.

But why do we stand spending of time in these tri∣••••ing obiections brought in by M. Barlow against himselfe? If the Counc••ll be confessed by so many as himselfe men∣tioneth here in this place, to wit, Genebrard, By••nius, and Caranza, and the sentence before cited for the necessity of the Popes consent in gathering of the Councels cannot be denied, but that it is registred in the history before men∣tioned, de Capitularibus Franc. as Bynnius also expresly affir∣meth, though concealed by M•• Barlow; who doth not see but that one or two ancient Authors affirming any thing, are to be preferred before many, that hould their peace, and say nothing to the contrary? But as for the mayne question it selfe, whether it appertayne vnto the Popes au∣thority to call Councels, and approue the same, the profe is not taken so much from this acknowledgment or testi∣mony of the Councell of VVormes, which did but set downe the sense of the Christian Church in these dayes; but from other far more ancient proofes and testimonies,

as M. Barlow wel knoweth, though here he dissembleth the same,* 1.321 and cha••eth exceedingly, saying, That this fugi∣tiue (for such is his modesty of speach) wil f••tch a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sentence from this Councel to warrant no Councel to be good, that i•• celebrated without the Popes Authority, and therby at one push ouer∣throw the credit of al Councels, both general and particuler for the bet∣ter part of 900. yeares after Christ. Wherto I answer first, that to be a fugitiue for the cause of Catholicke Religion, is no reproach at al, but a high commendation, warranted by Christes owne words, when he willed them that were persecuted in one Citty, to fly into another: and much more happy is it to be a fugitiue, then a persecutour. S. Atha∣nasius in his booke de fugasua, of his flight and persecution, doth handle the matter at large, to whom I remit the Reader.

Secondly, as for the summoning & gathering of Coū∣cels, general or particuler, our controuersy is principally of General Councels, for as for Diocesian Synods, as they may be assembled by ech Bishop in his district, and the Prouincial Councels by the Metropolitan, which Pro∣testants themselues wil not deny: so by the due propor∣tion of good order, General Councels must be gathered by commandment or consent at least of the general Pa∣stour,* 1.322 though in States subiect to temporal Princes, good reason requireth that the matter be done in like manner with the approbation of the said temporal Princes, for the houlding of the said Councel, in this, or that place of their Dominions. And this was obserued in the first 4. General Councels, which were commanded to be ga∣thered by Constantine, Theodosius the elder, Theodosius the yon∣ger, and Martian the Emperours, by the assent and ap∣probation of the Popes, Syluester, Damasus, Celestinus, and Leo: which besides other proofes of seueral histories is made euident by the last of the said 4. Councels, to wit, that of Chalcedon, where, in the first action, the heretical Archbishop Dioscorus was punished publikely, and forbid∣den to sit amongst the Bishops, for that he had presumed to call a Councell without the authority of the Aposto∣like

Sea: Qu••d numquam licui••, say they, numquam sactum est, that neuer was lawfull, nor euer was done. And conse∣quently this prooueth that all the first 4. Generall Coun∣cells were gathered by the consents and approbations of the Bishops of Rome, though with the concurrence also of the Emperours, without whose good liking, the meeting of so many Bishops in their States could not be permit∣ted, as before hath bene said.

But now here before I passe any further, I must make you acquainted with a solemne foolery and falshood of M Barlow, concerning Cardinall Bellarmine, for that hauing vttered the words before mentioned,* 1.323 that Coūcels were to be gathered by the Emperours, and not by the Bishops of Rome, though he citeth no one argument for the same: yet saith he, this is a thing so cleare and radiant, that Bellarmine him∣selfe being dazeled with behoulding the euidence, euen as S. Peter, not wi••••ing what he said, though he laboured to build for the Pope, yet la∣b••••reth be also to build for the Emperour, and in that same place he ••••eweth diuers reasons, why it rather belongeth to Emperours, then to Popes for ••o assemble Councells, citing for the same in his mar∣gent Bellar. de Concil. cap. 13. But truly when I went to the place of Bellarmine and read his words,* 1.324 I was ashamed on M. Barlowes behalfe, and his folly was so radiant in my eyes (to vse his phrase) that I could not read them with∣out blushing: for that in the Chapter by him cited, and in the other going before, Bellarmine doth proue most sub∣stantially by many arguments both out of Scriptures, Fa∣thers, Councels, reasons, histories, practice, and exam∣ples, that it appertayneth not to the Emperour only or principally, but to the Bishop of Rome to call General Coū∣cells, or at leastwise, that it may not be done without the said Bishops consent, and approbation first had, so as the very contradictory proposition to this, which M. Barlow sets downe, is found in these expresse words in Bellarmine, ••sse reuerà Ponti••icis, non Imperatoris congregare Synodum generalem, that is belongeth truely to the Pope, and not to the Em∣perour to gather a generall Councell. Adding notwith∣standing 4. particuler reasons and temporall respects,

why diuers generall Councells could not be gathered to¦geather vnder the Emperours, who were temporal Lords of the world, without their likings & consents. Not, saith he, for that a Councell gathered without the authority of the Emperour among Christians should not be of vali∣dity, as our aduersaries doe dreame (whereas S. Athanasiu•• saith plainely in his epistle to them that lead a solitary life, Quando vmquam iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatē habuit? when did euer the iudgment of the Church take authority from the Emperour?* 1.325) but for that the temporall state of Christendome standing in the Emperours hands, no such meeting could be made without their approbation. And can this stand with that which M. Barlow here affirmeth in his name, that he shewes diuers reasons why it rather belonged to Emperours, then to the Pope to assemble Councells? Will he not blush, and be ashamed of this shameles calumniation, or rather forgery?

As for that he obiected cōcerning the Graunt giuen to Charles the Great, by Adrian the Pope, to haue authority to approue the Election of the Bishop of Rome, and other Bi∣shops and Archbishops, and to dispose of the Sea Aposto∣like &c.* 1.326 I referre him to Cardinall Baronius for his answer in his Annales of the yeare 774. where he discusseth the matter at large, and proueth it a meere fiction, and plaine fraud inuented, & registred first by Sigebertus in fauour of the cause of Henry the fourth Emperour excommunicated by the Pope: which he proueth by many playne euiden∣ces out of all the ancient writers, for the space of 300. years after Charles his time, who neuer made mention of any such Graunt; as also the expresse testimony of Eginhardus, that was Notary to Charles the Great, and was alwayes a∣bout him, and wrote his life, and by diuers other proofes which were too long here to recite. Therfore with this shall we end this Chapter.

VVHETHER THE POPE IN HIS BREVE DID FORBID TEMPORALL OBEDIENCE to his Maiesty of England? AND Whether the said Pope hath Power to make new Articles of faith? CHAP. VII.

WHERAS in the Apology, a great cō∣plaint was made against the Pope,* 1.327 for that in his Breue he did forbid tempo∣rall Obedience to be performed to his Maiesty, as a poynt against fayth and saluation of soules; & moreouer char∣geth him with assuming vnto himselfe in∣fallibility of spirit to make new Articles of sayth when euer it shall please him &c. my answer therunto was this.

I find no such thing in the Breue at all,* 1.328 as that Temporall

Obedience is against faith & saluation of soules: nor doth the Breue forbid it:* 1.329 nor doth any learned Catholike af∣firme, that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith: nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines, that the Pope, and all the Church togeather, cannot make any new Article of beliefe, that was not truth before, though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith, and what not, vpon any new heresies or doubts arising; which articles so declared, though they be more particulerly, and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith, and so to be belieued, after the declaration of the Church, then before: yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues, that now they haue. Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them, but this declara∣tion only. As for example, when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt, he made her not the true Mother therby, nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother: but only the declaration. Wher∣fore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth, is a meere calumniation amongst the rest.

So in my former writing: now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points. In the first, whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obe∣dience, he is very briefe; for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation, that the Popes Breue forbids not tempo∣rall Obedience.* 1.330 No, saith he, it forbids the Oath, wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance. But this we deny and haue often denied, and still must deny, and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands, who though he hath often affirmed the same, yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting, which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue. For that being once proued, all controuersie about this Oath were ended. And it is a strange kind of demeanour, so often and euery where to affirme it,* 1.331 and neuer to proue it. He addeth for his reason in this place: He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer, denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne: and sayth neuer a word more. But what doth this proue?

Or in what forme is this argument? For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor, that we do so, or that the Popes Breue doth so, we vtterly deny it as manifestly false. For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer? Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one, and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour? Wherfore this proofe is nothing at all••

But he hath another within a leafe after, which is much more strange, for he bringeth me for a witnes a∣gainst my selfe in these words.* 1.332 VVhat hitherto (sayth he) he ••a•• laboured to confute, and now peremptorily denyeth (that the Breue ••••insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things) he plainly now confesseth, and gr••••teth.* 1.333 If this be so, that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges, then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduan∣tage, and some cause to vaunt: but if no word of this be true, and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne, then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen, that is forced to inuent these silly shifts. Let vs lay forth then the mystery, or rather misery of this matter as him∣selfe relateth it.

The Pope, saith he, being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause, or reason of the vnlw••ulnes of the Oath, the Epistler saith, there are as many reasons, that it is vnlawfull, as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion, against which they must sweare. And is not this a good reason, say I? Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the cō∣science of a Catholike man from swearing? But how doth be proue by this, that I confesse the Breue to forbid tempo∣rall Obedience? Do you marke, I pray you, his inference, and consider his acumen.* 1.334 But there is no one poynt (sayth he) in the Oath, that doth not so, to wit, that doth not concerne Religion, euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience. I do sweare before God, that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme &c. Ergo, I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swea∣ring to all the Articles, and consequently leaueth no Obe∣dience, ciuill or temporall.

But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line, when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion, euen the very first Ar∣ticle, that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience? For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience, ••hen doth it not touch religiō in our sense. For that we do distinguish these two, deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts, the one con∣teyning points of temporall obedience, for acknowled∣ging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes; the other concerning points of Catholike Religion, belonging to the Popes Authority. To the first wherof, we refuse not to sweare, but only against the second. And now M. Barlow sayth,* 1.335 that all concerne religion, and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedi∣ence, but denieth all. And is not this a worthy dispute? But let vs passe to the second question, whether the Pope or Church, hath authority to make new Articles of faith, as the Apologer obiected.

And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part, that the Catholicke Church pre••endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith, that were not of themselues true, and of faith before; he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying, that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Her∣mes, and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall. Whereto I answere, that Doctor Stapleton sayth only, that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not ad∣mitted before, as for example the Epistles of S. Iames, the two bookes of Machabees, the Epistle of Iude, and diuers others,* 1.336 as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage, wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present, and su••scri∣bed;* 1.337 so hath the same Church at this day, and shall haue vnto the worlds end, authority to do the same, Si id ei san∣ctus Spiritus suggereret, sayth Doctour Stapleton, that is, if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto her•• librum aliquem al••••m n••ndum in Can••nem recep••um, Apostolorum tamen tempore con∣scriptum

&c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles, and neuer reiected by the Church, though it were not receiued for Canonicall before, giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes, and Cl••ments Constitu••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, & shalbe 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 no•• 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 begin∣ning, 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,* 1.338 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 re∣late things truly in all respects, in any citation whatsoe∣uer.

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 vn∣derstood according to our former declaration, and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it,* 1.339 against ••uther out of Sco∣tus saying: Non quòd ••unc verum Ecclesia fecerit, sed à Deotradi∣tum explicauerit, sayth Scotus: not for that the Church made

true this Article (for it was true before;) but ••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.* 1.340 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 Arti∣cle of beliefe, that was not truth before, (at which asser∣tion 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,* 1.341 the common opinion of De∣uines: for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors, & principall Schoolemen. And his whole dis∣course 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 vn∣to 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 frō time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clear∣ly and expresly, which before were belieued by an impli∣ed faith only. As for example, the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the p••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 explici••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 & differēt 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 Fi∣••••ers owne words against M. Barlow: Quod tame••si nequeat Sum∣•••••• 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 conse∣quently cannot make any new articles of faith: yet what∣soeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs, as an Article of faith, that, al true Christians ought to belieue as an Ar∣ticle of faith, which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth.

Thus Bishop Fisher (whome you see how im∣pertinently 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,* 1.342 who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concer∣ning 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 ne∣cessity of new heresies doth require? And he sayth it belon∣geth 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 Arti∣cles for explanations sake, which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed, though in substāce 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 ••. 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 shalbe added afterward by the said Church, are only explications of that first reueiled truth: and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the cō∣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 allead∣geth out of the Iesuit Azor, that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei,* 1.343 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 inuen∣tion, for Azor ioyneth them both togeather, the Councel as the body,* 1.344 and the Pope as the head, and saith that these words of the promise of Christ, The holy Ghost shal teach you al truth, were not spoken to a Councel, or to the Church, as separate from her Head, but as adhering to her head, and ioyned with the same.

So in like manner he citeth Suarez to affirme, That th•• Pope may define any thing, though not expressed in Scripture, to be de¦fide,* 1.345 without any expresse reuelation from God; which though in some part it be true, for that the ordinary assistance of the holy Ghost to the Church, may giue sufficient direction for the Church so to determine: yet are there diuers wil∣ful corruptions here to be discouered, in these few words of M. Ba••low, for that first Suarez doth not speake of the Pope alone, but of the whole Church, to wit, of the body togeather with the Head, as Azorius did before. Secondly he doth not say that any thing may be defined, for a point of faith, by the Church, but speaketh of a special doctrine in some speciall case, which case he there setteth downe. Thirdly,* 1.346 though he required not nouam reuelationem expres∣sam, a new expresse reuelation, as his words be, yet he re∣quireth implicitam and t••citam, an implyed and s••cret reue∣lation. Al which limitations M. Barlow leaueth out of pur∣pose, and therin sheweth his fidelity in citing of Au∣thors.

* 1.347Next after this he hath this speach: But what need opi∣nions, saith he, when the practice is extant, a whole new Symbo∣lum is set ou•• in the Prouincial Synod at Millan, wherin twelue new

Articles are added to the Nicen Creed, which al Catholicks are bound 〈◊〉〈◊〉 paine o•• Anathema, to professe by word, and sweare by oath. So he. And truly this is a strange point, that a Prouincial Councel of Millan, reaching no further then within the compasse of that Dyocesse, should binde all Catholickes vpō paine of Anathema, both to professe by word & sweare by oath that which was there decreed. Doth M. Barlow speake like an intellig••nt man? But the very last words of swearing by oath, do discouer his fraud, to wit, that no new Symbole or Creed is set downe in that Councel, as added to the Nycen, but only a large profession of the Catholick faith, accor∣ding to the Decree of Pope Piu•• Quartus there recorded,* 1.348 for al such as take Ecclesiastical promotion, in which prof••ssi∣on, after the whole Creed set down Verbatim, as it is repea∣ted in the Masse (which is not only the Nycen) there is added presently,* 1.349 Apostolicas & Ecclesiasticas tradiciones firmissimè admitto & amplector &c. I do most firmely admit and imbrace t•••• Apostolical and Ecclesiastical traditions, as I do also ad∣mit and imbrace the holy Scripture, according to that sense which our holy Mother the Church hath held, and doth hold &c. running ouer the chiefe heads of such Ar∣ticles as are now in controuersie betweene vs and Prote∣stants, which heads are not heere decreed for Articles of faith by this Councel, but proposed only to him that maketh the profession: yea the whole Chapter, which is large, hath this title, De fidei prof••ssione, of the profession of the Catholicke faith. What new Articles are then here ad∣ded to the Nycen Creed? Is it not a shame to roue so farre from the marke, and to falsify the plaine meaning of Au∣thors, and writers in this sort?

But now he returneth againe to speake of the Oath, & we must follow him, for that now we haue boūd ourselues so to do. Thus he sayth of vs,* 1.350 They reply that it is not the sub∣stance of the Oath that sticketh in their consciences•• but the ••orme therof, especially those last words: I do make this recogni••ion willingly and truly: otherwise they haue a tricke in their religion to swallow the whole Oath, without straining: for it is their Doctrine and it is worth the obs••r••ing; that i•• a man be called to sweare, if he take the Oath vnwillingly, i•• is vn∣••o

him as he had not sworne at al: yea grant he haue voluntatē iu∣randi, be very willing to sweare, but hath not voluntatem se ob∣ligandi, not wil to bind himselfe to performe what he sweares, it i•• no Oath vnto him: he is as free, as if he were neuer sworne. And thus much he reciteth as out of Azorius.

And do you heare this doctrine, or do you belieue that he saith truth therin?* 1.351 Certes I could hardly belieue a man to be so wilful in falshood. For first where, or when can he shew, that we stick not at the substance of the Oath, but only at ••he forme? Are not al those twelue points be∣fore mentioned in this Epistle, which M. Barlow goeth a∣bout to refute, which do touch Catholick religion, and at which we do principally sticke, of the substance of the Oath? Can this be denyed with any shew of shamefastnes? But let vs see how egregiously he doth abuse the learned writer Azorius, in making him the Author of these absur∣dities about swearing, which here he setteth downe, as our doctrine, if a man sweare vnwillingly, saith he, it is vnto him (according to the Papists Doctrine) as if he had not sworne at al. But where can he find that Azorius saith this? If we looke into the place by him cyted, where he handleth de Iure i••rando, there is no such matter, but only it is said to this point, that if a man do sweare hauing no intention to sweare in∣deed (but only to comply and deceaue another) though it be no Oath in it selfe, yet in respect of the iniury or hurt ensuing, it may bind the swearer to performance: which is quite contrary to that which M. Barlow here citeth. And in another place speaking of an Oath extorted by feare or death, as to a thiefe vpon the way, or the like, which no man will deny to be vnwillingly made, he answereth in these words:* 1.352 Respondeo ex communi sententia Theologorum & Pon∣tif••ij ••uris Doctorum, valere. I do answere out of the common opinion of al D••uines, and Doctors of the Common laws that it bind••th. For which he citeth seauen Doctors for the same. And what wil M. Barlow say to this? Will he not blush at this vnhonest dealing herein?

But he passeth further to a second member of our Do∣ctrine in this matter. If a man be willing to sweare, sayth he,

〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath no wil to bind himsel••e to performe what he su••eares, it is no Oath vnto him: he is as free, as if he were neuer sworne. But what ••hal a man say to these people, that are so forlorne in this point of fals dealing, as they care not what they set down; so they may satisfy their present appetite, of seeming to say somewhat? Let any man read the place of Azorius heere quoted, but according to my quotation, and not his which ordinarily is false, and he shal see a good large and learned dispute of Azorius vpon this question, VVhether a man promi∣••••••g a••y thing by Oath, without intention to per••orme the same, be not∣w••thstanding bound in conscience to per••orme it? Wherein hauing hid downe the two different opinions of ••undry learned ••en, togeather with their reasons, arguments, and proofs, the one affirming that he is bound, as Caietan, Sotus, and C••••••rruuias; the other that he is not bound by force of that Oath, as Syluester, Nauar, and others, Azorius sheweth that both parts haue their probability of reason, but he incli∣neth more to the first opinion, saying:* 1.353 that if the swearer had an intention to sweare, thinking nothing of the ob∣ligation, then was he bound: and that in this sense the o∣pinion Caietan is most true. And further determineth not the question: and therefore this notorious vntruth of M. B••••low, that Azorius holdeth this to be no Oath vnto him that sweareth at al, but that he is as free, as if he had neuer sworne, I cannot tell in ••hat Predicament of impudency to place it, and therfore we will let it passe for a Tran∣••cendent.

OF CERTAINE OTHER Fraudulent, and vntrue dealings of M. Barlow, vnto the end of this Paragraph: with a notorious abuse in alleadging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority. §. II.

VVHereas often and eager inuectiues are made by M. Barlow against the Pope and Cardinall Bel∣larmine, and all others, that do seeme in any sort to exhort the Catholickes of England to stand for their consciences, and to suffer rather whatsoeuer losses, hurtes, or dangers may happen to their liues, liberty, goods, or other tem∣porall affaires, then to preiudice any point of their religi∣on, M. Barlow terming these exhortations not only need∣lesse and vayne (there being no persecution at al against the Catholickes) but that they do tend in like manner to o∣pen disobedience against their temporall Princes, and so may iustly be cause of their ruyne indeed; my answere was,* 1.354

I did not see but that the very same might be ob∣iected vnto S. Cyprian, and other Fathers of the Primitiue Church, that they were guilty of so many Martyrs bloud, wilfully cast a way,* 1.355 and of the ruyne of their familyes, and other inconueniences, by exhorting them not to do against their Consciences, nor to yield to their temporall Prince•• Commandements against God and their religion: no not for any tormēts that might be laid vpon them, nor for any losse that might fall vnto them, of goodes, life, honor, fame, friends, wyfe, children, or the like, which were ordinary exhortations in those dayes of persecution, as by their bookes yet ••xtant doth appeare.

Neyther is i•• sufficient to say, that those times & ours are different, for that the thing••s then demanded were apparen••ly vnlawfull, but these not: for that, to vs that are Catholickes, these thinges are as vnlawfull now, as

••hose other were then to them, for that they are no lesse against our consciences in matters of Religion. For why should it be more damnable then, and indispensable to deliuer vp a Bible, or new Testament, for example sake, when the Emperour commanded it, then now to sweare an Oath against our conscience and Religion, when our Temporall Prince exacteth it? For that this perhaps, is called the Oath of Allegiance? who knoweth not, that the fayrest title is put vpon the fowlest matter, when it is ••o be perswaded or ••xacted? And he that shal read the Hi∣stories of that time, and of those ancient afflictions, shall s••e that Act also to haue bene required,* 1.356 as of Obedience & Allegiance, and not of Religion, being only the deliue∣••y vp of material books: and yet did the whole Church of God condemne them for it, that deliuered the same, and ••eld for true Martyrs, all those that died for denying ther∣of, for that they would not do an Act against their con∣sciences.

Against this my speach M. Barlow first doth trifle, affirmimg me to say, that in the consciences of Catholicks it is as vnlawfull to sweare Allegiance vnto his Maiestie their naturall and rightfull Soueraigne, as to sacrifice to Idols. Which is a meer cauill indeed, for first I do not say, that it is vnlawfull at all to sweare Allegiance to their na∣turall Soueraigne, as often hath bene told him:* 1.357 but he ••••uer stayeth his tongue from repeating the contrary againe without end. The vnlawfulnes consisteth in swea∣ring that for Allegiance, which appertaineth not to hu∣maine and temporal Allegiance, but diuine Allegiance also, in keeping our consciences vnspotted before Almi∣ghty God. Secondly my comparison was not so much in the thinges themselues, to wit, swearing and sacrificing, or to determine which of these is the greatest sinne in it se••fe, as of the similitude in obligation both in those times and ours, to st••nd for defence of the integrity of our con∣science both in them and vs, whatso••uer inequality of the sinne may be in the sight either of man or God. It is inough that both of them be forbydden to sacrifice against

Christian Religion, & to sweare against C••tholick Reli∣gion. And further to shew that the external small appa∣rence of that which is forbydden, cannot alwaies be a ••ule of taking away, or diminishing the obligation of consci∣ence in obeying the prohibition; I did alleadg the other example of giuing vp diuine bookes vnto the persecutors, when they demaunded them, and might haue alleadged many other examples to the like purpose, as namely the ••ating of flesh offered to Idols, in the beginning of Chri∣stianity, with offence of others, whereof S. Paul maketh so great accompt, as albeyt he maketh light of the thing it sel••e, and sayth that the Idol is nothing, yet doth he account the transgression for damnable, if he doe it against his owne conscience.

But what sayth M. Barlow to this? you shall heare his distinction and determination. Simply, sayth he, to deli••••r vp a Bible to his Superiour, requiring it, is no sinne, yea to deny i••, i•• a contempt. About this proposition we will not much con∣tend, but only aduertise him, that it is not to the pur∣pose, that we doe talke here of Superiours lawfully requi∣ring it, but of a Persecutor vniustly exacting the same. Let vs see then what he sayth further. But if the Emperour, sayth he,* 1.358 requireth them, to wit the books, to burne and de••ac••, in conte••p•• and despight, or ••ury and passion, or as Iulian the Apostata, wh•• called in all the heathen writers, both of Philosophy and Poetry, out o•• the Christians hands, vnder a fayre pretence of abandoning Paganisme, to bereaue them o•• all knowledge, therby to take ••rom Christians the true meanes o•• their instructions, the cause is far different: for so to o••ey were wil••ully to betray the truth of God. This is his determina∣tion consisting of two members, as you see: the first, of the vnlawfulnes of giuing vp the Bible, & other such diuine bookes of Christian Religion, consisted in the ill inten∣tion of the persecutor, to bereaue men of so importāt mea∣nes, for their instruction and saluation, and therefore not to be obe••ed, which seemeth to be far different, from that which before he held so resolutely, that Princes were to be obeied euen against conscience: but of this we will not dispute any more now, but only I say, that conforme

to this his doctrine, English Catholickes are admoni••h••d also to consider, with what intention this new Oath ••g••inst the authority of the Bishop of Rome is exacted, whether to preiudice Catholike Religion, or no. For that ••••is may increase their obligatiō of refusall or acceptance, ••••en according to M. Barlowes doctrine in this place.

But for the second point concerning the fact of Iulian the Apostata in demaunding Heathen wryters to be deli∣••ered vp of Philosophy, and Poetry; that, in this case I say, there should be the like obligation not to obey that Emperour, but rather to deny to obey, yea and to dy for the sayd deniall, if need were, as many did for the other: I confesse that I cannot conceaue M. Barlowes mystery ther∣in. For who euer wrote this before?* 1.359 Or who was euer accounted a Martyr in the Church of God, for refusing to deliuer vp •• Heathen Poet, or Philosophers booke? Doth not now M. Barlow shorten againe, and straiten greatly the lymits of temporall obedience to Princes, when h•• graun∣teth that Christiā Subiects may deny to obey them, when they exact the deliuery vp of a Poeticall prophane booke, to wit a Catullus, or Tibullus, or Ouids Metamorphosis, or some such other fit for M. B••rlowes reading? Is not the man very constant to hims••lfe in his assertions, that sometimes so ouerlasheth in extending temporall obedience, and some∣times so exc••ssiuely contracteth the same?

He sayth that Iulian herby did meane to bereaue Chri∣stians of all knowledge, and therby to take from them the true meanes of their instruction; and for this he noteth in the margēt the Ecclesiasticall History of Socrates lib. 3. cap. 12. But as in all other citations commonly he erreth more or lesse, wherof I might all••adge some scores of examples, if I would stand therupon, and therby giueth iust suspition, that he neuer read the Authors themselues, but had them out of other mens note••bookes (as M. Morto•• confessed of himselfe, when he was pressed therunto,) so here no such matter is found in the Chapter by him cyted, but in two Chapters after,* 1.360 Socrates hath these words,

Atque Iulianus Im∣perator &c. And Iulian the Emperour applying his mind ear∣••estly to this thing, made a law that Christians should not

be instructed in the doctrine of the Gentiles, most certain∣ly assuring himselfe, that the f••bles that are read in Hea∣then writers,* 1.361 would ••asily be turned by the said Christians to the reproofe of his Religion.

Which is anoth••r thing you see, then this which here is set downe by M. Barlow. And much more likely that he was afraid, that Christians reading the Pagan wryters, would turne the folly and foulenes of Heathen fabl••s against his religion: and not that Christians should want true meanes of instruction•• for want of those fables, as M. Barlow here fable••h. Albeit if he instruct his flocke with no better meanes of instructi∣ons, I must needs graunt that they are in a miserable case.

But let vs go forward to examine a little further his very next lines, as they ly in his booke, about tēporall obe∣dience to Princes, in which point he runneth so forth & backe, from extremes to extremes, as it is strange to con∣sider: for hauing so diminished the same in hi•• former e∣xample of the Emperour Iulian, as now you haue heard, that Christians might disobey him euen about the deliue∣ry of a Poeticall Booke, though he had neuer so earnestly required, or cōmanded the same, now he starteth to the other end againe, saying, as out of S. Thomas Aquinas, that temporall Princes are to be obeyed euen in things vnlawf••••••. His words are these:* 1.362 From subiection to Princes there is no startling exception, sayth Aquinas, vnlesse he be either an vsurper or I••tru∣der which commaunds (and this is not our case God be thanked:) or that he commaund things vnlawfull; if he say this is their case, we deny it; but let vs suppose it, yet their Angelicall Doctour will tell them, that in those things they must notwi••hstanding obey propter vi••andum scandalum, aut periculum:* 1.363 (of this diuinity I iudge not, it is their owne.) Is this our owne Syr? Not so properly, as it seemeth that lying & cogging is your owne, for we acknowledge not this doctrine, but with due lymits, far different from your allegation. But you do absolutely abuse both S. Tho∣mas and the Reader, and cannot choose but know that here is falshood vsed by you, except you will confesse ex∣treme ignorance in not vnderstanding the sense of S. Tho∣mas, whom you alleadge, though it be most cleare and plaine for children to conceaue, that haue the latin tongue.

The title of S. Thomas h••s Article is, VV••ether Christians b•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to obey secular Powers, or not?* 1.364 And he proueth that they are, by an euident argument deduced out of the 3. to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that the fayth of Christ hindreth not the order of I••stice appoynted by the Law of Nature, and consequent∣ly that no man is excused by being a Christian from per∣forming due obedience to temporall Princes: and for bet∣ter strengthning of this his assertion, he proposeth an ob∣iection according to his custome, and solueth the same. The obiection is this.

S. Augustine in his fourth booke of the Citty of God teacheth, that great Kingdomes when they cast of iustice become great robberies, and the••uedomes, but Christ his l••w doth not bind Christians to obey such vniust Prin∣ces & Magistrates,* 1.365 and therfore in all cases Christians are not bound to temporall obedience. Wherunto he answe∣reth thus; that forsomuch as the order of Iustice is the ground of all Obedience,* 1.366 therfore a Christian man is bound so far forth to obey secular Princes•• as order of iu∣stice requireth: and therfore if such Princes haue not iust principality, but vsurped, or that they should command vniust ••hinges, his subiects are not bound to obey him, ••i••i fortè per accidens, ad vitandum sc••ndalum, vel periculum, except perhaps accidentally, for auoyding of scandall, or perill.

And this is the Diuinity that M. Barlow scoffeth at, & saith he will not iudge of it, for it is our owne. And I say that the Diui••ity is very good, and so would haue appeared, if M. B••rlow had eyther vnderstood it rightly, or truly alleaged it, for that the doctrine of S. Thomas is very cleare and in∣controllable, that Christian subiects are bound to obey their lawfull temporall Princes, so long as they commād lawfull thinges: but if they be vsurpers (in which ••ase I say also with M. Barlow, God be thanked we are not) or command vnlawfull thinges, then are not subiects bound to obey them, at leastwise by obligation of iustice, and conscience, which is the true foundation of obedience; though perhaps, saith S. Thomas, accidentally they may be somtimes boūd therunto, for auoyding sc••ndal & perill.

As for example, if a Prince s••ould demaund of me

the one hal••e of my goodes vniustly, I were not bo••nd in conscience & iustice to giue it him: yet if I should doubt that by my deniall, he would take away the other halfe also, or perhaps my life, or that some scandall would fol∣low, as that other men by my example, would shew dis∣obedience in greater thinges; I should be bound in pru∣dence, and p••ety, for auoyding of these greater euil••, both to my selfe and others, to obey, and giue him the halfe of my goodes, which he demaundeth: but this is not directly by force of iustice and conscience, as you see, but per accidens, that is to say ••accidentally for auoyding of those greater euills of scandall, and perill, if I obey no••.

But now let vs see the truth of M. Barlow in rela∣ting this resolution of S. Thomas. First he cutteth of the words, nisi forè per accidens, which do alter the whole case, and ••ayth, that their Angelicall Doctour telleth them, that in vnlawf••ll things commaunded they must obey, ••or auoyding scandall and perill: wheras S. Thomas sayth, non te••tentur obedire, si iniusta praecipi••••••, that they are not bound to obey their Princes, if they commaund vniust things.

Secondly M. Barlow distinguisheth not, when vnlaw∣full things are commaunded, whether they be vnlawfull only vnto the Prince that cōmaundeth, or to the subiect in like manner, to whom they are commaunded. And it may be that the Ministers head conceaued not the distin∣ction, or if he did, he concealed it by guile and fraud, for the thing importeth much to the resolution of the case: for when the thing commaunded is vnlawfull only to the commaunder,* 1.367 as in the former example, when he com∣maundeth me to giue halfe of my goods wrongfully; then may I out of prudence, as hath bene sayd, for auoyding of greater euils, obey that vniust commaundment: but if the thing commaunded should be vnlawfull, not only to the Prince to cōmaund, but to me also to performe, as to do another man iniury, or to endanger my owne soule, or to offend God by any sin whatsoeuer, then may not I accor∣ding to S. Thomas his doctrine, for auoyding any scandall or perill whatsoeuer per••orme the same. This was craftily here concealed by M. Barlow (for I will not hold him so

grossely ignorant, as that he did not consider it) and the c••••se o•• this concealment was, for that it maketh, wholy a∣g••••st him, in our mayne controuersy of temporall Obe∣dience. For that the swearing to the new Oath cōmaun∣ded vnto Catholikes in preiudice of their conscience, & Religion, is of the number of those vnlawfull things, that are vnlawfull not only to the commaunder, but also to ••••e performer: and consequently neither for the auoyding scandall or perill may be obeyed. And therby is cut of all M. Barlowes idle discourse which he maketh in this place of ••••e danger, and perill, that by taking this Oath he sayth, may be auoyded: & vrgeth vs with the doctrine of S. Tho∣•••••• therin, that euen in things vnlawfull we must obey our temporall Princes. But in this you haue seene both the depth, and fi∣delity of the man. Now let vs see a poynt or two more, and so end this Parapraph.

Pag. 190. he hath these words against me: The Epistler saith he, makes the way to end this Paragraph, for as cōcerning Rome bei••g Babylon, he speakes not a word, as by silence granting that to be true which Cardinall Matthew playnly also acknowledgeth, and ••••sesseth to be that Babylon of the Apocalyps. So h••. And tru∣ly it is strange, and ridiculous to see men of reason, to pro∣ceed in this manner so, without reason: for it Cardinall Bell••rmine and other Catholikes do graunt that Rome was called Babylon by S. Iohn in the Apocalyps, and by S. Peter al∣so that wrote his Epistle from thence, vnder the name of ••abylon:* 1.368 and if S. Hierome and other Fathers do expound 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of R••me, as it was Heathen, & persecuted the Martyrs in ••hose dayes, and not of Christian Rome, or the Christi∣an people of Rome, who were holy, and Saynts in those dayes: if this I say be so, and that the Protestants be told therof aboue an hundred times, and yet still their writers do come•• forth with this doughty Argument, that Rome was Babylon; what shall a modest man do, but passe it ou••r with silence and contempt?

There followeth a certayne contentiō about the two ••reues of Clemens Octauus written into England at two dif∣ferent times•• about the point of succession to the Crowne ••fte•• the Queenes death; the first exhorting the Catho∣licke••

to doe their best inde••uours ••or procuring a Cath••••licke Prince: the other altogether in fauour and recom••mendation of the aduancement of his Maiestie that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is; of which two Breues I wrote in my Epistle, that haui•••• procured some knowledg about that point,* 1.369 I found th•••• they were sent into England, not both togeather, nor i••••mediatly before the late Queenes death, as was obiected but the one diuers ye••res before she died, to wit, vpon th•• yeare 1600. and the other 3. yeares after, to wit vpon th•• yeare 1603. immediatly after the sayd Queenes death contrary to which M. Barlow sayth, that Tort•••• affirm•••••• that hauing the Copyes of 2. Breues in his hand,* 1.370 〈◊〉〈◊〉 findeth that they were sent in togeather vpon the year•• 1600. But the reconciliation of this is easy. For tha•• those two Breues named by Tortus, are accounted by me b•• one Breue, for that they were all of one matter, but d••∣plicated in effect, the one to the Archpriest and Clergie, th•• other to the Laity, so that there is no contradiction at al•• For that besides that first double Breue, there was anothe•• sent in, of another Argument, wholy in fauour of hi•• Maiestie in particuler, as now hath bin said, vpon th•• yeare 1603. And so there i•• no contradictiō at all in this, but that both the assertions are true. Only that is fals•• which is here in parciculer affirmed by M. Barlow, that i•• the first Breue was set downe, that no man might be ad∣mitted, except he would first sweare, not only to tolerate, but also to promote the Romish Catholicke Religion, which wordes are not there, neither is swearing once mentioned in either of these duplicated Breues.

And as this is vntrue, so that which ensueth is parasi∣ticall, when vnto my speach of Pope Clements particuler good opinion and affection towards his Maiesties Person, when he was King of Scotland, to wit, that he loued him most hartily, and alwayes spake honorably of him, trea∣ted kindly all those of his Nation•• that said they came frō him, or any wayes belonged vnto him: and oftentimes vsed more liberality that way vpon diuers occasions, thē is conuenient for me perhaps to vtter here; caused special•• prayer to be made ••or his Maiestie &c. To all which M.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 answereth in these words. That albeys there is nothing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 M••••••stie, but that which is amyable, and admirable, his parts of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, art, & grace all so singular, that by the eminency of his place 〈◊〉〈◊〉 descryed far and neere, they must needes excite great loue to his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, draw ••ne••s affections to him, and occasionate most honorable ••••••••es of his qualityes, and deportementes: yet that Pope Clement 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be so kindly respectiue vnto him, is much no be doubted.

And is it so Syr? Yet spirituall writers do admonish 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that in dubiis pars p••a magis s••quēda, in doubtfull things the more pious part is to be followed by a pious mind.* 1.371 And why had not you done this also, if your mind had not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 impious? You know who sayth Mala mens, malus animus. And this is that which before I called parasiticall in this answer, not so much for your grosse flattery, & annoin∣ting his Maiestie with oleum peccatoris, which holy King 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so much detested, and his Maiesty in time I doubt not will discerne; but for your malignity in misconstru∣ing the knowne good affections of Pope Clement towards his Maiesties Person, for that both these parts belong pro∣perly to a parasite, as you know, not only laudare in ••s pra∣••••••••••, ambitiously to prayse him that is present, whether the thinges vttered be true or false; but malignantly also 〈◊〉〈◊〉 absenti, to detract from him that is absent: of which two partes, the latter is the worse, for that the for∣mer may proceed sometimes of lightnes, or intemperate desire to please, but the other alwayes goeth accompanied with enuy and malice.

And as for his Maiesties due prayses,* 1.372 albeit they can∣not be but most pleasing and comfortable to all his louing subiects, yet when they are so rudely clowted on, and so importunely thrust in, and that by such a one as M. Barlow is held to be, that alwayes speaketh for his profit, men can haue commonly no other sense therof, then is wont to be when they see a faire garment marred in the cutting, or a delicate peece of meat spoyled in the dressing. And as for the honorable speaches occasionated abroad, as he saith, of his Maiesties qualities & deportments, true it is, that as his Maiesties rare qualities are had in due consideration with externall Princes & people, so is it not doubted, but that

his deportmēt towards his Catholike subiects also 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be correspondent, were not the sycophancy of this, a•••• other like flatterers continually occupied in egging & v••∣ging him to the contrary. And among other speaches i•• these partes,* 1.373 none are more ordinary, then in lamentin•• that so good a nature, as that of his Maiesty is, should be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 strange••y abused: as also in pittying the same, that for w•••• of fit men he should be forced to bestow the Prelacies and Bishopricks of his Realme, vpon such as M. Barlow is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who in other Coūtreyes would scarse be thought worthy for his manners to be a Seruant or Sexton, in so honour••∣ble a Church as Lincolne is.

The last point remayning of this Paragraph is of th•• later two Breues of Paulus Quintus concerning the Oath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Allegiance, and his misliking thereof in respect of th•• poynts conteyned therin in preiudice of the integrity o•• Catholicke religion, which M. Barlow doth so much de∣base, as here he taketh vpon him to defend, that they ar•• deuoyd (especially the first which is the principal••, the other being but a confirmation, or ratification thereo••) not only of all diuinity, but of policy, and cōmon sense also: which is a long dispute, and a large enterprize to b•• taken vpon his shoulders, that any man that doth but read the Breue, and is acquaynted with the grauity, learning, wisdome, and modesty of the Author thereof, will rather laugh at M. Barlow, for taking such an enterprize in hand, then perswade himselfe, that he can haue good successe therin: but he that shall turne from reading the said Breue, to read the pittifull proofes, which here M. Barlow goeth about to set downe, to shew that the said Breue hath neither diuinity, policy, or common sense in it, will pitty him indeed, and thinke that he lacketh cōmon sense in set∣ting downe such senselesse reasons, as he doth against so sensible a declaration, as there the Pope maketh in that his Breue.

The end of the second Part.

Notes

• * 1.1

  About Q. Eliza∣beths rai∣gne, life, & death,
• * 1.2

  Lett. p. 27.
• * 1.3

  Queene Elizabeth her Manes
• * 1.4

  M. Bar∣lowes flat∣tering lo∣quence.
• * 1.5

  Barl. 64.
• * 1.6

  M. Barl. turnes with the wynd like a weather∣cocke.
• * 1.7

  Quene E∣lizabeth o∣therwise blazoned by forrain writers then M. Barlow reporteth.
• * 1.8

  Barlow. p. 66. & 67.
• * 1.9

  Q. Eliza∣beth Ca∣nonized for a Saint by M. Bar∣low.
• * 1.10

  Q. Eliza∣beth in M. Barl. his iudgment neuer cō∣mitt••d a∣n•• mortal sinne.
• * 1.11

  Q. Eliza∣beth would ne∣uer haue chosen M. Barlow for her ghost∣ly Father.
• * 1.12

  About Q. Elizabeths Manes & sacrificing vnto thē.
• * 1.13

  Barl. p. 74.
• * 1.14

  Hierom. E∣••ist. ad Rom. Ora∣t••••em. August. de D••••tr. Chris••ian.
• * 1.15

  M. Barl. his tri∣fling.
• * 1.16

  Act. 28. v. 11.
• * 1.17

  2. Pet. 2. 4.
• * 1.18

  Act. 17. 28.
• * 1.19

  Rom. 14.4.
• * 1.20

  In what cases a mā may iudg of another
• * 1.21

  1. Tim. 5. 24.
• * 1.22

  Barl. p. 75.
• * 1.23

  Matth. 6.
• * 1.24

  About ex∣ternall mortifica∣tions.
• * 1.25

  3. Reg. 2••. 27.
• * 1.26

  Achab tru¦ly morti∣fied.
• * 1.27

  Prophane impietie in M. Bar∣low.
• * 1.28

  Q. Eliza∣beth no cloystered Nun••e.
• * 1.29

  A place of S. Paul ex¦pounded cōcerning bodily ex∣ercise.
• * 1.30

  Ch••ysost. in comment. ad c. 4. in 1. Tim.
• * 1.31

  3. Reg. 17.
• * 1.32

  M. Bar∣low no friend to mortifica∣tions.
• * 1.33

  A strange kind of mortifica∣••••on.
• * 1.34

  Mortifica∣tion.
• * 1.35

  Rom. 8. 13••.
• * 1.36

  Aug. l. 1. confe••s. c. 5.
• * 1.37

  Bern serm. 52. in Cant.
• * 1.38

  Ser. 13 de verb•••• A∣post.
• * 1.39

  Strange kind of an¦swering.
• * 1.40

  Gregor. 5. moral. c. ••.
• * 1.41

  Two parts of mortifi∣cation, in∣ternall & externall.
• * 1.42

  Externall mortifica∣tion in Princes.
• * 1.43

  M. Barlow a Deuine for the Court.
• * 1.44

  Apol. pag. 16.

  M. Barl. foolish shift in an∣swering his Ad∣uersaries obiection about the Persecutiō vnder Q. Elizabeth. Lett. pa••. 18.
• * 1.45

  Let. p. 29.
• * 1.46

  L. Cooke in the book of the late arraignmēt f••l. 53.
• * 1.47

  Psal. 143.
• * 1.48

  Barl. p. 78.
• * 1.49

  M. Barlow very for∣getfull.
• * 1.50

  Tempo∣rall felici∣ty no ar∣gument of spirituall happines
• * 1.51

  Psal. 72. Hier. 12. Abacu•• 10.
• * 1.52

  Psalm. 77.
• * 1.53

  B••llarm. de notis Eccl. cap. 15.
• * 1.54

  A place of B••llarm•• answered concer∣ning tem∣porall fe∣licity.
• * 1.55

  S. August. discourse.
• * 1.56

  S. Hie∣rome.
• * 1.57

  Arnobi∣us.
• * 1.58

  S. Basil.
• * 1.59

  S. Chry∣sostome.
• * 1.60

  Theodo∣ret.
• * 1.61

  Euthymi∣us.
• * 1.62

  Psal. 2. 4.
• * 1.63

  Psa.•• 36.23.
• * 1.64

  Sapien. 4.
• * 1.65

  Prouerb. 1. 26.
• * 1.66

  M. Barl•• moues ha∣bens.
• * 1.67

  L. C•••••••• in t••e last bo••ke ••f Arr••ign∣mēts pag. 64.
• * 1.68

  A bad de∣finition of Misery by co••••a & in∣o••ia.
• * 1.69

  Psal. 68.
• * 1.70

  2. Cor. 1.
• * 1.71

  Syr Edw. Cooke a poore De∣uine.
• * 1.72

  None soe bold as blind bay∣ard.
• * 1.73

  Lett. pag. 29.
• * 1.74

  M. Bar∣lowes weake Philoso∣phy.
• * 1.75

  Barlow p. 82.

  1. ••eg. 31. Eccles. 4. & 5.
• * 1.76

  M. Bar∣low hard∣ly vrged.
• * 1.77

  M. Bar∣lowes wāt of Diuini∣ty.
• * 1.78

  Strange cases of conscien∣ce propo∣sed by M. Barlow.
• * 1.79

  Nabucho∣donosor more happy then Q. Elizabet••
• * 1.80

  Q. Eliza∣beth her infelici∣ties.
• * 1.81

  M. Bar∣low eue•• by his owne cen∣sure and sentence contemp∣tible.
• * 1.82

  M. Bar∣low fol∣loweth not his owne ru∣les
• * 1.83

  ••arlow pag. 96.
• * 1.84

  The vices of wicked Kings recounted after their death in Scripture.
• * 1.85

  Letter pag. 35.
• * 1.86

  A mon∣strous head of the En∣glish Pro∣testant Church.
• * 1.87

  Barlow pag. 99.
• * 1.88

  Nero and Domitian heads of the Church in M. Bar∣lowes opinion.
• * 1.89

  Touching the birth of Queene Elizabeth.
• * 1.90

  M. Barl. Babylon, Phil••ra, & loue-druggs.
• * 1.91

  M. Barl. neuer like to be priso¦ner for re∣ligion.
• * 1.92

  S. Augu∣s•••••••• ••o Prot••stāt.
• * 1.93

  Calumni∣ous citati∣ons.
• * 1.94

  For what cause a mā may be a Martyr.
• * 1.95

  Matth. 5.
• * 1.96

  The Pri∣e••••s that d••e ••••n Q. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 time true Mar¦ty••s.
• * 1.97

  M. Bar∣lows two foolish cases.
• * 1.98

  ••arl. p. 92.
• * 1.99

  Quodlib. pag. 269. 277.
• * 1.100

  M. Bar∣lows tri∣fling.
• * 1.101

  M. Barl si∣lence and the cause therof.
• * 1.102

  A charita∣ble Bi∣shop.
• * 1.103

  Barl. p. 94.
• * 1.104

  Barl. Pre∣face to his s••••mon the fi••st sonday in Lent, 16••0.
• * 1.105

  About the making a way his Maiesties Mother.
• * 1.106

  Tacitus l•• 1. Histor.
• * 1.107

  M. Bar∣low turns his sailes with the wind & serues the tyme.
• * 1.108

  Barl. p. 59.
• * 1.109

  Q. Eliza∣beths pur∣gation a∣bout the Q of Scot¦lands death.
• * 1.110

  Hier. 2. 22.
• * 1.111

  About the disastrous death of Q. Eliza∣beth.
• * 1.112

  Barl. •• ••5.
• * 1.113

  The nar∣ration of the man∣ner of Q. Eliza∣beths death.
• * 1.114

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.115

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.116

  In what case we may iudg of other mēs soules after their death.
• * 1.117

  1. Tim. 5.
• * 1.118

  No sin to iudge of men de∣ceased in her••sie.
• * 1.119

  Cyprian l. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.120

  S. C••priā•• iudgment of su••h as dye out o•• the Church.
• * 1.121

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 l 4 〈…〉〈…〉 17.
• * 1.122

  Au••ust. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2•• 4. ad Donat••
• * 1.123

  A notable sentence of S. Au∣gustine.
• * 1.124

  A ••ard c••∣sure a∣gainst all the ••abble of I••••n Fox his Martyrs.
• * 1.125

  A co••uin∣cing argu∣ment vpō th•• Pre∣mi••••s.
• * 1.126

  The hard ••ase of Q. ••lizabeth
• * 1.127

  A remar∣kable cō∣parison.
• * 1.128

  Q. Eliza∣beth held condem∣ned here∣sies.
• * 1.129

  Haeresi 53.
• * 1.130

  Aug. l. 9. cōf••••••. c. 13.
• * 1.131

  S. Monica desired to be prayed for at the altar after her death which Q. Elizabeth did not.
• * 1.132

  Lett. p. 36.
• * 1.133

  See An∣swere to Syr Edw. Cook c. 15.
• * 1.134

  His Maie∣sties mild dispositiō diuerted.
• * 1.135

  The exer∣cise of the Minister T. Mon∣tague.
• * 1.136

  Barl. pag. 102.
• * 1.137

  Maliciou•• contradi∣ction.
• * 1.138

  Barl. pag. 103.
• * 1.139

  M. Bar∣low a true parasite.
• * 1.140

  Barl. pag•• 102.
• * 1.141

  About the nature of flattery & how Sy•• William demea∣neth him∣selfe ther∣in.
• * 1.142

  Augu. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 69.
• * 1.143

  M. Bar∣low an e∣gregious flatterer.
• * 1.144

  M. Bar∣lows prai∣ers with∣out hope.
• * 1.145

  Luc. 10. 21.
• * 1.146

  Flattering of his Ma¦iesty.
• * 1.147

  Barl p. 105.
• * 1.148

  Syr VVil∣li••m de∣serues his fee.
• * 1.149

  About the little Vni∣uersity.
• * 1.150

  These were an other mā∣ner of V∣niuersity.
• * 1.151

  Act. ••••
• * 1.152

  S. Athan••∣sius.
• * 1.153

  Epist. ad solitari••m vitam agē∣tes.
• * 1.154

  S. Gregor. Nazian.
• * 1.155

  S. Am∣brose.
• * 1.156

  Nazian. orat. ad ••i∣ues timore perculsos.
• * 1.157

  Ambros. epist. 33. ad sororem.
• * 1.158

  S. Chry∣sostome.
• * 1.159

  S. Hie∣rome.
• * 1.160

  S. Aug••∣stine.
• * 1.161

  S. Grego∣ry.
• * 1.162

  M. Bar∣lows diui∣sion of Sycophā∣cy.
• * 1.163

  M••r••cles ••••••d••d and c••n∣temned.
• * 1.164

  M. Barl. a good proctor for the Turkes & Infidels.
• * 1.165

  The my∣racles of S. Denys.
• * 1.166

  The my∣racle of S. Clement.
• * 1.167

  M Barl. turnes an anchor in∣to a mil∣stone.
• * 1.168

  Of S. Gre∣gory
• * 1.169

  Thauma∣turgus.
• * 1.170

  M. Bar∣lows foo∣leries.
• * 1.171

  Sixtus Quartus b••lyed.
• * 1.172

  Barl. pag. ••08••
• * 1.173

  Base ba∣bling.
• * 1.174

  Chelsey erection for writers.
• * 1.175

  Bar••. pag. 112.
• * 1.176

  M. Bar∣low ad∣deth to the text.
• * 1.177

  A most resonable and mo∣dest re∣quest of the Cath.
• * 1.178

  Simple & imperti∣nent rea∣soning of M. Bar∣low.
• * 1.179

  Let. p. 38.
• * 1.180

  In vita 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••un••i.
• * 1.181

  Anno 1••46.
• * 1.182

  Liberty of consci∣ence de∣manded by al Pro∣testants.
• * 1.183

  •• Psal. 113.
• * 1.184

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.185

  Height of pride, and in whome it may be said to be.
• * 1.186

  Barl. pag. 110.
• * 1.187

  Strange notes of h••mility set downe b•• M. Bar∣l••w.
• * 1.188

  M. Bar∣low be∣trayeth his owne cause.
• * 1.189

  Barl. ibidē.
• * 1.190

  The Pro∣testant hath Ec∣clesiastical power o∣uer Puri∣tans.
• * 1.191

  1. Ioan. 2.
• * 1.192

  In what case Ca∣tholicks may yeld and grant toleration to Prote∣stants.
• * 1.193

  Matth. 13.
• * 1.194

  M. Bar∣low at a Non-plus.
• * 1.195

  Vnkind dealing indeed.
• * 1.196

  Barl. pag. 124.
• * 1.197

  M. Bar∣low•• mo∣derate & dir••ct Pro∣t••••t••nt.
• * 1.198

  M. Bar∣low bely∣eth F. Per∣sons.
• * 1.199

  Psal. 5••.
• * 1.200

  Barl. pag. 142.
• * 1.201

  Strāge im∣pudency.
• * 1.202

  Basenesse and beg∣gery of Protestāts
• * 1.203

  Theol. Ti∣gurin. in prafat. A∣pol. pra∣fix. ortho∣dox. C••n. anno 1578.
• * 1.204

  Lib. 2. de rat ine∣und•• Con∣cordiae p. 2. & 24.
• * 1.205

  Protestāts and Puri∣tans differ in substā∣tial points of religiō.
• * 1.206

  Rogers pr••f••••e pag. 9.
• * 1.207

  Arrige aures Syr William.
• * 1.208

  M. Bar∣low a bad Aduocate
• * 1.209

  M. Bar∣low in the brakes.
• * 1.210

  Amb. ep. 33.
• * 1.211

  Ba••l. pag. ••69.
• * 1.212

  A hard ar∣gument for M. Barlow to solue.
• * 1.213

  Silly stuffe
• * 1.214

  M. Bar∣lows li••le care of his Maiestie•• eternall life.
• * 1.215

  Good & euill Prin∣ces to be obeyed for con∣sciēce, but not against coscience.
• * 1.216

  Barlow pag. 160.
• * 1.217

  M. Bar∣low hath the cōsci¦ence of an Asse & a Wolfe.
• * 1.218

  A strange & wicked assertiō of M. Bar∣low.
• * 1.219

  1. 2. q. 19. art. 5.
• * 1.220

  The goodnes of the act of our will doth de∣pēd vpon our reason and iudg¦ment.
• * 1.221

  A sinne to doe cōtra∣ry to an erroneous cōscience.
• * 1.222

  What i•• to be ••one of him who ha••h an erroneo•••• cōscience.
• * 1.223

  ••. Tim. 1.
• * 1.224

  M. Bar∣lowes mō∣strous do∣ctrines more fit∣ting the Turkes Alcoran then the Ghospell of Iesus Christ.
• * 1.225

  S. Paul a∣bused.
• * 1.226

  More cō∣te••ned in the Oath, then ciuill obediēce.
• * 1.227

  Let. p. 51. Apol. pag. 22.
• * 1.228

  Hi••r. 27. 12.
• * 1.229

  Exod. 5.1.

  Esdr. 1.3.
• * 1.230

  Dan. 3.12.
• * 1.231

  No obedi∣ence a∣gainst God & a mans consciēce.
• * 1.232

  Deu. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1.
• * 1.233

  ••. Mach. 1.
• * 1.234

  Barl. pag. 161.
• * 1.235

  A strange assertion.
• * 1.236

  Weake proofes.
• * 1.237

  A simple Discourse
• * 1.238

  Barl. pag. 168.
• * 1.239

  The fact of Toby against the cōmande∣ment of K. Sena∣cherib.
• * 1.240

  Tob. 2. v. 9.
• * 1.241

  Tob. 12.
• * 1.242

  M. Bar∣low a bad Angell.
• * 1.243

  The cre∣dit of the history of Toby.
• * 1.244

  C••c. Tri••, sess. 4.
• * 1.245

  Carth. can. 47.
• * 1.246

  Aug. 2. de doc. chrism. cap. 8.
• * 1.247

  Amb. de Tob. 2.
• * 1.248

  Cyp. de o∣rat. Domi∣nica & l. de morta∣li••.
• * 1.249

  S. Augu∣stines and other Fa∣thers iudg¦ments of the fact of Toby.

  Cap. 3.

  Cap. 13.
• * 1.250

  S. Ambr.
• * 1.251

  ••ib. de Tob. c. 1.
• * 1.252

  Tob. 12.
• * 1.253

  Cyp. lib. d•• oratione Dom.
• * 1.254

  This is no Protestāt doctrine.
• * 1.255

  A great presump¦tiō of M. Barlowes piety.
• * 1.256

  Letter pag. 52.
• * 1.257

  Authori∣ties of an∣cient Fa∣thers.
• * 1.258

  Apol. p. 23. ••

  Aug. in Psal. 124.
• * 1.259

  How far we are bound to obey our temporall Prince.
• * 1.260

  Apol. p. 23.
• * 1.261

  Tertull. ad Scap.
• * 1.262

  Iust. Apol. 2. ad An∣ton. Impe∣ra••.
• * 1.263

  Optat. con∣tra Parmē. lib. 3. Am∣bros. Orat. cōtra Au∣xent. de Basilicis nō trad. lib. 5. Epist.
• * 1.264

  Three oc∣casions in which S. Ambrose resisted the Empe∣rour his temporall Soue∣raigne.

  Libellus. Ambros. epist. 32.
• * 1.265

  Amb. l. ••. epist. 33.
• * 1.266

  Amb. ibid.
• * 1.267

  Ambros. Con••. de Basili••••s nō traden••••••s.
• * 1.268

  M. Bar∣lowes shifting answere to the three pla∣ces of S. Ambrose.
• * 1.269

  Feminine Suprema∣cy more esteemed of M. Bar∣low then Mascu∣line.
• * 1.270

  Barlow pag. 171.
• * 1.271

  Magdeb. cent. 4. c. 5. 6. & 7.
• * 1.272

  The anci∣ent vse of hallowing Church Vessels.
• * 1.273

  Naz. orat. de s••ipso cō¦tra Aria∣nos.
• * 1.274

  M. Bar∣lows de∣clining in the point of Supre∣macy.
• * 1.275

  Stat. H. 8. anno Do∣mini 1535.
• * 1.276

  The supre¦macy how it was gi¦uen to K•• Henry & in what high mea∣sure.
• * 1.277

  K. Ed∣war••.
• * 1.278

  An 1 E 6. cap. 2.
• * 1.279

  Queene E∣lizabeth.
• * 1.280

  M. Bar∣lows iudg¦ment a∣bout the Kings su∣preme Ec∣clesiastical authority.
• * 1.281

  M. Bar∣lows fum∣bling.
• * 1.282

  M. Bar∣lows ab∣surde di∣stinctions & diuisi∣ons.
• * 1.283

  M. Bar∣lows delu∣sion.
• * 1.284

  M. Bar∣low hath marred the mar∣ket of the Kings su∣premacy.
• * 1.285

  Lett. p. 56.
• * 1.286

  Apolog. pag. 24.
• * 1.287

  How S. Gregory agreed to the publi∣shing of the law of the Empe∣rour ••au∣ritius.
• * 1.288

  Greg. l. 2. Epist. 65. Indict. 11.
• * 1.289

  Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 1••. Indict. 1.
• * 1.290

  Barl. pag. 173.
• * 1.291

  Mauritius his law no•• alto∣geather Ecclesia∣sticall.
• * 1.292

  How the Emperors Law vvas Ecclesia∣sticall.
• * 1.293

  A good considera∣tion.
• * 1.294

  A fond cauill.
• * 1.295

  Pag. 174.
• * 1.296

  Barl. pag. 174.
• * 1.297

  A ridicu∣lous error in Grāmar of M. Bar∣low.
• * 1.298

  Letter pag. ••8.
• * 1.299

  Cōc. Arel. sub Carol. Can. 26.
• * 1.300

  Vi••e in Capitulari∣bus Franc. lib. 6. c. 285. de Concilio Worma••.
• * 1.301

  Wherin the Coū∣cell or Ar∣les did sub¦mit it selfe to the Em∣perour.
• a 1.302

  Can. 2.
• b 1.303

  Can. 3.
• c 1.304

  Can. 4.
• d 1.305

  Can. 7. & 8.
• e 1.306

  Can. 13••
• f 1.307

  Can. 15. & 16.
• g 1.308

  Can. 20. 22. 23.
• * 1.309

  The zeale of Charl•• the Great to haue manners reformed by the au∣thority of Bishops.
• * 1.310

  Barlow pag. 175.
• * 1.311

  A grosse contradi∣cti•• in M. Barlow
• * 1.312

  A very forcible argumēt.
• * 1.313

  M. Bar∣lows me∣mory ve∣ry short.
• * 1.314

  M. Bar∣low plai∣eth fast & loose, a∣bout the Kings au∣thority.
• * 1.315

  A hard question for M. Bar¦low to an∣swere.
• * 1.316

  Barl. pag. 178.
• * 1.317

  False dea∣ling.
• * 1.318

  Amb. tō. 5. edit. Va∣tican. epist. pr••fix. an∣••e Con••il. Aquile••ē.
• * 1.319

  About the of Coūcel Wormes.
• * 1.320

  ••••ō. ann. 77••. & 772.

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 F••āc. •• 6. c. 28••. •••• l 7. c. 2••••.
• * 1.321

  Better to be a fugi∣tiue for the Catho¦lick religi∣on on abroad then to be a persecu∣tour at home.
• * 1.322

  Generall Councels ••lwaies called by the Bishop of Rome.
• * 1.323

  Barl. pag. 178.
• * 1.324

  The radi∣ant folly of M. Bar∣low.
• * 1.325

  M Bar∣••owes im∣pudency.
• * 1.326

  Ba••on. tom. 9. ann. 774.
• * 1.327

  A••o••. p. 26. & ••7.
• * 1.328

  Lett. p. 61.
• * 1.329

  Neither the Pope or Church can make new Arti∣cles of Faith.
• * 1.330

  Barlow pag. 181.
• * 1.331

  A foolish wrangling of M. Bar∣low.
• * 1.332

  Barlow pag. 184.
• * 1.333

  The silly shifting of M. Bar∣low.
• * 1.334

  M. Bar∣lowes acumen.
• * 1.335

  M. Bar∣lowes cō∣tradictiō.
• * 1.336

  C••••. 47.
• * 1.337

  ••ta••leton. lib 9. c••••∣tro••. 5. de C••••. 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.338

  M. Bar∣lowes fi∣delity.
• * 1.339

  Art. 27. c••nt••a Lu∣th••rum.
• * 1.340

  B Fisher abused.
• * 1.341

  Valētia in 2.2. dis••. 1. pun••••o 6.
• * 1.342

  D. Thom•• 2. 2. q. 1. art. 10.
• * 1.343

  Azor. In••stitut. par. 2, l. 5. c. 12.
• * 1.344

  Azor a∣bused.
• * 1.345

  Suarez a∣bused.
• * 1.346

  Suarez ••ō. ••. in 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •• 27 3. a••t. sect. 6.
• * 1.347

  ••a••l. pag. 18••.
• * 1.348

  Tō. 5. Cōc. concil. 4. Mediolan. cap. 1.
• * 1.349

  About the Professiō of faith in the fourth Counc••l of Mill••ne fraudul••̄t∣ly all••ad∣ged by M. Barlow.
• * 1.350

  Azor. par 1. l. 11. c. 4. §. 2. Quae∣ritur.
• * 1.351

  Strange impuden∣cy of M. Barlow.
• * 1.352

  Azor. par. 1. l. 1. c. 11. §. 1••. Quae¦ritur.
• * 1.353

  M. Bar∣lows tran∣scendent impuden∣cy.
• * 1.354

  Letter pag. 64.
• * 1.355

  See S. Cypr. exhor. ad Martyres.
• * 1.356

  See Euseb•• l. 8. c. 4. & Aug. de Bapt. l. 7. c. 2. & l. 7. cōtra Cres∣con. c. 27. & A••nob. cōtra Gen∣tes l. 4. in fine.
• * 1.357

  M. Bar∣lows slan∣der with∣out end.
• * 1.358

  Barl. pag. 187.
• * 1.359

  M Bar∣lowes strange mystery.
• * 1.360

  Socrat. lib. ••. hist. cap. 14.
• * 1.361

  Socrates peruerted.
• * 1.362

  D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 104. artic•• 6. ad. 3.
• * 1.363

  Lying & cogging is proper to M. Bar∣low.
• * 1.364

  S. Thomas his opiniō cōcerning Obediēce due vnto Princes.
• * 1.365

  Aug. 4. de Ciuit. c. 4.
• * 1.366

  An obie∣ction an∣swered by S. Thom.
• * 1.367

  M. Bar∣lowes ig∣norance or malice more de∣clared.
• * 1.368

  Strange dealing of our Ad∣uersaries.
• * 1.369

  Letter pag. 65.
• * 1.370

  About the Breues of Clemens Octauus.
• * 1.371

  M. Bar∣lowes mind im∣pious.
• * 1.372

  M. Bar∣lows cob∣ling and clowting on of his Maiesties prayses.
• * 1.373

  M. Bar∣low more fit to be a Sexton then B. of Lincolne.