A DISCUSSION OF THE ANSWER OF M. WILLIAM BARLOW, D. of Divinity, to the Book entitled: The judgement of a Catholic Englishman living in banishment for his Religion etc. CONCERNING The Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance.  
WRITTEN By the R. Father, F. Robert Persons of the Society of JESUS. WHEREUNTO since the said Father's death, is annexed a general Preface, laying open the Insufficiency, Railing, Lying, and other Misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing,  
JOHN MORRIS.  Ex fructibus 〈…〉. Matth. 7. You shall know them by their fruits. 
Permissu Superiorum. M. DC. XII.   

A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS AND PARAGRAPHES CONTAINED IN THIS BOOK.  


THE FIRST PART.  THE Preface to the Reader: In which are laid open some few examples of the singular Ignorance, Lying, and other bad dealings of M. Barlow, in his Answer to the Censure of the Apology. 
 Of Points concerning the new Oath of Allegiance, handled in the King's Apology, before the Pope's Breves, and discussed in my former Letter. 
CHAP. I. pag. 1.  About the true Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance. 
§. 1. pag. 3.  Of the pretended Cause of the new Oath, which is said to be the Powder-Treason. 
§. 2. pag. 13.  How great a pressure the urging of the new Oath is to Catholics that have a contrary Conscience in Religion. 
§. 3. pag. 25.  The same argument about the pressure of the Oath is further discussed. 
§. 4. pag. 31.  What freedom may be said to be permitted to English Catholics for swearing, or not swearing the new Oath. 
§. 5. pag. 39  About recourse made to the Bishop of Rome for decision, whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English Catholics, or no? Wherein also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations. 
§. 6. pag. 49.  Whether the O●th be only of civil obedience? O● whether th●re be any clauses in it against Catholic Religion? 
CHAP. II. pag. 70.  Of certain notorious Calumniations used by M. Barlow against his Adversary, which no ways can be excused from malice, and witting error. 
§. 2. pag. 87.  The reason is examined whether God's providence might seem defectuous, if no authority had been left in the Christian Church to restrain & punish evil Kings. And whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings, as M. Barlow maketh him. 
CHAP. III. pag. 101.  Whether the devising & urging of this new Oath were a blessing or no, either to the Receivers or Vrgers? And first of the Receivers: wherein is handled also of Conscience, & of swearing against Conscience. 
CHAP. FOUR pag. 115.  Touching the exhibitours of the Oath, and of Scandal active and passive. Wherein M. Barlowes gross Ignorance is dis●●●●red. 
§. 2. pag. 128.  The answer to an objection: by occasion whereof it is showed, that Possession and Prescription are good proofs ●uer in matters of Doctrine. And the contrary is fond affirmed by M. Barlow. 
CHAP. V. pag. 141.    


THE SECOND PART, About the Br●●●s of Pope Paulus Quintus.  CONCERNING M. Barlow his exorbitant flattery in exaggerating. Queen Elizabeth's Virtues, and Sanctity. 
CHAP. I. pag. 159.  About Queen Elizabeth her Mortifications. And of the nature of that Virtue. 
§. 2. pag. 168.  Of Queen Elizabeth her Felicities, and Infelicities. 
CHAP. II. pag. 179.  Other Points concerning Queen Elizabeth's Felicities or Infelicities. 
§. 2. pag. 194.  Of Queen Elizabeth's Sickness and Death, and other things belonging thereunto. 
§. 3. pag. 209.  Of the Flattery and Sycophancy used by divers Ministers to his Majesty of England, to the hurt and prejudice of Catholic men, and their cause. 
CHAP. III. pag. 229.  About Toleration or Liberty of Conscience demanded by humble petition at his majesties hands by Catholics, whether it were height of pride or not: As also concerning the contention between Protestants and Puritans. 
CHAP. FOUR pag. 251.  Concerning Errors, Absurdities, Ignorances' and Falsities, uttered by M. Barlow in the rest of his Answer. 
CHAP. V. pag. 273.  Whether Toby did well or no, in breaking the commandment of the King of Ninive, concerning the burying of the dead jews. And how M. Barlow answereth unto the authority of the Fathers, and overthroweth the King's Supremacy. 
§. 2. pag. 285.  Of another example or instance out of S. Gregory the Great, about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperor Mauritius, that he misliked: which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiastical. 
§. 3. pag. 303.  Whether councils have submitted themselves unto Christian Emperors in Spiritual affairs: and namely, that of Arles to Charles the great? 
CHAP. VI pag. 311.  Whether the Pope in his Breve did forbid temporal Obedience to his Majesty of England? And whether the said Pope hath power to make new Articles of faith? 
CHAP. VII. pag. 323.  Of certain other fraudulent, and untrue dealings of M. Barlow, unto the end of this Paragraph: with a notorious abuse in alleging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority. 
§. 2. pag. 334.    


THE THIRD PART Concerning Cardinal Bellarmine his Letter.  OF the occasion of the Letter written by Cardinal Bellarmine unto M. George Black●well Archpriest. And whether he mistook the state of the question. Also of the change of Supreme Head, into Supreme Governor. 
CHAP. I. pag. 245.  Whether the denying of taking this New Oath, do include the denial of all the particular clauses contained therein? 
§. 2. pag. 356.  Whether the fourth Council of Toledo did prescribe any such set form of Oath to be exhibited to the Subjects, as is affirmed in the Apology? 
CHAP. II. pag. 365.  Cardinal Bellarmine is cleared from a false imputation: and a controversy about certain words and clauses in the Oath is discussed. 
§. 2. pag. 386.  Whether Princes have just cause to fear murdering by the commandment of Popes. And in discussing of the particular example produced by the Apologer, concerning the same, great fraud and malice is discovered in M. Barlowes falsifying of Authors etc. 
CHAP. III. pag. 394.  About the death of Henry the third King of France: whether it may be an example of allowance of such murders? As also about the late Queen of England. 
§. 2. pag. 414.  Of certain contradictions objected to Card. Bellarmine: and what confidence may be placed in a man's own good works. 
CHAP. FOUR pag. 431.  Of three other contradictions imputed unto Card. Bellar. but proved to be no contradictions at all. 
§. 2. pag. 448.  Of the contentions of sundry other Emperors, Kings, and Princes with Popes of their times, in temporal affairs: objected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Pope's Superiority. Wherein many frauds a●d forgeries are discovered in M. Barlow, particularly concerning Frederick the second, and his contentions with Popes. 
CHAP. V. pag. 461.  M. Barlows more sure and stronger proofs are discovered to be lies: with other things concerning Frederick the second, and Innocentius the fourth. 
§. 2. pag. 495.  Of the Emperor Frederick the first, whose picture was said to have been sent to the Sultan by Pope Alexander the third. And of the charge of Alexander the sixth, touching the death of Zizimus or Gemen, M. Barlowes innocent Turk. 
§. 3. pag. 524.  An examination of certain Sentences, and Authorities of ancient Fathers, alleged by Cardinal Bellarmine in his Letter to M. Blackwell, and impugned by M. Barlow. 
CHAP. VI pag. 536.     

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. IN WHICH are laid open some few examples of the singular Ignorance, Lying, and other bad dealings of M. Barlow, in his Answer to the Censure of the Apology.  
THREE things (gentle Reader) at the coming forth of this Book may occur unto thy mind, in which thou mayst perhaps desire some satisfaction. First the cause why so idle a work as M. Barlowes Answer is known, and taken to be, should be answered at all by so grave and learned a man as F. Persons was. Secondly why this Answer is published so late after his death. And last of all what opinion is to be had of M. Barlowes talents, learning, & method in answering, or what others here do judge of the same. 
Three things declared in this preface for the Readers satisfaction.  And albeit this latter may seem to some to be of least moment for that one adversary most commonly will hold an others writing in highest contempt, and therefore from them so much interessed, no sound judgement may be expected: yet do I think it very necessary to insist most thereon, or rather am forced to the same, for that M. Barlow is so desirous of honour, as like the Ape he thinketh his own whelp fairest: and himself will needs persuade his Majesty that he hath so answered, as that no sound Reply can ever be made thereunto. Wherefore as well for thy instruction (good Reader) as also to rectify M. Barlowes judgement, which in this seemeth to be very erroneous, and to teach him to examine his conscience better before he presume again so far, as either to promise to a Prince, or put forth in print; I shall set down my opinion, & worth of his Book, and that upon no other grounds, than I shall produce out of the Book itself, whereby thou shalt have more light to discern in this affair between us, and M. Barlow less cause to complain of any hard measure, seeing that against M. Barlow non● is brought to plead, but M. Barlow himself.  
2. To the first point then, this briefly I answer, that F. Persons having seen the base manner & method of writing which M. Barlow holdeth through his whole Book, 
Why M. Barlowes book was answered by F. Persons.  esteemed the work not worthy of any answer, and so resolved with himself to be silent therein, and in am of refuting this answer to set forth the other two parts of Resolution, so long before promised by him, and so much desired of the catholics in England: which whiles he went about to do, a Copy of this answer of M. Barlow came to the Inquisitors hands, and was by them sent to the said Father with order to refute the same, persuading themselves that a book of that bulk & argument, written by a pretended Prelate, & dedicated to his Majesty, could not but bear some show of learning, and therefore was, not to be left unanswered. And that good opinion got M. Barlow by writing in English: for could these have but understood what was written, & with what modesty and learning, he may be sure F. Persons should never have been troubled with the sight thereof, but a shorter course had been taken by casting it into the fire, the fittest element to purge such unsavoury filth, as every where he belcheth forth in the same against all sorts of men, whereof you shall hardly find any one page to be void.  
3. Now, for the stay which hath been made in the setting forth of this work, 
The cause of the stay of this edition.  seeing that the said Father dispatched what he wrote in less than 4. months it being now more than 4. times as much since his decease, hath especially proceeded upon the manifold other encumbrances & variable disposition of body, wherewith that party hath been troubled to whom the work was committed to be finished, as himself confesseth in the very entrance of the first Chapter of his Supplement, which he intended to have set forth with this Book: but growing to so great a bulk by reason of the manifold advantages given by the Adversary, it was thought better in the end, that it should go forth a part, as making of itself a just volume with some little enlargement, or addition annexed thereunto, in answer of some things objected, forged not well understood, or misalleadged by M. Doctor Andrews, now of Ely, concerning the matters by him handled in the Supplement, whom together with M. Barlow he answereth with that gravity, judgement, and learning, as will content all, yea even his Adversaries themselves (if by these means they were to be contented:) or if that the search of truth were the centre of their motion, and chief end of their endeavours; and not contrarily with neglect & contempt thereof, to speak placentia, and write that which may please their humours best, by whom they hope to gain most, not regarding on which side equity and right doth stand, so they withstand not them, whose pleasure they make the square of their actions, & whose favour they hold for their highest felicity.  
4. But touching the last point, for that I mean to make it the subject of this Preface, I shall be more long, not for any difficulty which I find in the thing itself (for who but M. Barlow knoweth not what a weak write● M. Barlow is, 
What manner of writer M. Ba●low is.  and in all manner of learning insufficient?) but that the Reader by this example may see the weight and worth of Protestant writers, & how little regard is to be had to the bragging & vaunting of their own learning, & conquest over their Adversaries: for with such bravery of words, as with figge-leaves, they would cover their shame and nakedness, whiles full well they see, and feel the wound which even pierceth & pincheth them to the hart root. And commonly none brag more than those who perform least, or upon other occasion, then when they are most vanquished and overcome: at least so it fareth often with M. Barlow who thus vauntingly telleth his Majesty, that he is one of a great number, and a continual succession, which are ready for this cause, and already c●tred ●he combat, and as the courageous Spartans' were w●nt to sing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, try them when, and wherein you please. And after speaking more particularly of this Answer, he saith: In handling the main points, I trust it will appear, that I have neither dallied with him, nor illuded the Reader, so that, for any sound Reply thereto, I assure myself security from him. And is not this very confidently spoken trow you? And is not this Minister well persuaded of himself, and his own learning, that thus craketh? Audivimus superbiam Moab, superbus est valde, 
Isa. 1●.  sed superbia eius, & arrogantia eius, & indignatio eius plus quam fortitudo eius. We have heard the pride of Moab (M. Barlow) he is very proud, but his pride, and arrogancy, and wrath is more than his strength.  
5. Neither is this swelling humour, and arrogant confidence of knowledge & learning alone peculiar to M. Barlow, 
Tertull. d● praes●rip. cap. 41. Aug. tract. 45. in joannem. Bernard. serm. 65. in Cantica.  but common to all of his rank & calling, yea to all the Heretics of former times, for so noteth old Tertullian when he said: Omnes tument, o●nes scientiam polli●●ntur●: all are puffed up with pride, all make ostentation of learning: and S. Bernard: Omnibus una intentio haereticis semper fuit, captare gloriam de singularitate scientiae: All heretics agree in this, to seek glory by the singularity of knowledge: and therefore no marvel if we hear now & then one jewel to challenge the whole Christian world to answer him, one simple Sut●liffe to set out in print, th●t it is more easy for him to refute Bellarmine, then to read him. And not to seek further to hear M. Barlow to tell his Majesty, 
M. Barlow in his epistle Dedicatory to his Majesty.  that F. Persons is to weak to dispute: and again, Verbalize he can, dispute he cannot; in Stories a great florisher, but a false relator of them etc. And then of himself as a Cock of the G●me to crow, that he is secure from all answer, that he is like one of the Spartans', to be tried when his Majesty listeth, with other like phrases of arrogancy in the current of his Book, all breathing forth Luther's spirit, and Lucifer's pride, fitter for some Thraso upon a stage, than a Divine in a printed book. For were not ●hese Spartans he speaketh of both weak in force, and few in number, I think M. Barlow had never been singled out from amongst them for this combat, but want of store in this urging exigent, made those who employed him, to make much of a little, and to be beholding to his small skill, as you know, who are wont to be to the Knights of the Post, when they can procure no better sureties.  
6.. For whosoever ●hall with due attention and equal judgement, no way overpoysed with favour or disfavour of any part● read M. B●rlowes book, 
M. Barlowes manner of writing.  if he be learned, and can understand how things are discussed, must needs confess the whole work to be a me●re patchery (as Fa: P●rsons, cuius memoria in benedictionibus, was usually wont to term it) of many shreds of latin and greek sentences, misapplied proverbs, broken verses, idle and childish scoffs, injurious calumniations, inkhorn terms, exorbitant railing, incredible ignorance, and lying without measure, no Author lightly ever sincerely cited, F. Persons words seldom or never truly alleged, no matter from the beginning to the end with any learning, judgement, or fidelity handled: his chiefest endeavour is to rail against the Pope, to flatter the Prince, to injure Catholics, to disgrace F. Persons: much he is in whores, in Panders, in strumpets, in horns, in Asses, and spewing dogs, and other like raff: in every thing he treateth either loathsome, or ridiculous: but for that these two opinions of this Answer, I mean M. Barlowes, and mine, are so quite repugnant one to the other, I shall for discharge of my credit exemplify in some special points of the same: for to handle at length every particular would be too long for this place, and most of them are discussed in the Treatise itself. I shall begin with his ignorance, on which I mean most to insist.  
7. This fault in M. Barlow is not single, but very manifold and singular, and that in all manner of learning, in Humanity, Philosophy, History, Interpretations of Scriptures, 
M. Barlowes ignorance in Grāme● & Humanity.  and Divinity, in each of which I will for a taste allege some ●●w examples, being loath with any more to weary the Readers patience, or to draw this Preface to greater prolixity than needs I must, for the ●ull deciphering of this ignorant Minister, whose skill, albeit it seem to be most in Humanity, yet in the same it is also very little: 
Barlow. pag. 15●.  for in one place he calleth the three fatal s●sters, whom he nameth in his margin, eumenides; whereas every Grammar boy can tell him that eumenides are not the three fa●all sisters, but his familiar friends the three furies. W●th like skill he interpreteth the proverb Omnia sub unam Myconum, to signify that one may stand for all: whereas his chief Author Erasmus, out of Strabo, far otherwise expoundeth it to be meant only of such, 
pag. 295●  as under some particular title handle things of different nature, which can by no means be applied thereunto, as elsewhere it ●s told him.  
8. Besides these mistake, for more evident demonstration of his rare talents in construction, I will set down two examples, but very briefly, for that he shall again hear of them both; of the one in this Treatise, and of the other by the Author of the Supplement. The first is touching certain words of Saint Gregory in his Epistle to Theodore the Emperor Mauritius his Physician, 
Gregor. lib. 2. Ep. ep. 65.  where Saint Gregory yielding the reason why he sent not his Letters for the Emperor to his own Legate, but to the said Theodore, saith: Nolo eam à Responsali meo publicè dari, quia Vos qui ei familiariùs seruitis, loqui ei liberiùs & ap●rtiùs potestis etc. That is, I will not that this Letter I send (to the Emperor) be delivered publicly by my Legate, for that You, who are more near about him, can speak more freely & plainly unto him. So S. Gregory.  
9 But what sense or construction, think you doth M. Barlow make of these words? Truly such, as if he were a Grammar boy, under some Orbilius, he would be made to feel the smart of his folly. S. Gregory (saith he) writes to Theodore the ●m●●rours Physician, 
Barl. pag. 174.  and entreats him to deal with his Lord and Sovereign about it: the reasons whereof he had not, yea he would not (saith he) à Responsali suo publicè dare, 
A very gros●e Grammatical error.  publicly yield as fr●m his Ch●yre, or Oracle (much less by his Brave interdict) but having suggested it privately, he left it to God, and the ●●p●r●urs le●sure and wisdom. So he. And was there ever sentence so interpreted as this? what chopping, what changing what mistaking is there here? A letter is turned into reasons, the verb passive into the active, a Legate into a Chair or Oracle. And is not this man more fit to be set again to Inspeach, and Grammar rules, then to be employed in writing for defence of his Majesty? I would fain know where M. Barlow ever read Responsalis, to signify a Chair or Oracle, more than it doth a Pulpit, or Sermon, Lincoln Church, or Paul's steeple.  
10. And to omit other incongruities, by this pitiful construction M. Barlow his Petrus de Vin●is should be more miraculous, then elsewhere he hath made him, and yet he makes him to write Frederick the second his death a year after his eyes and brains were out of his head. And then further, of one & the self same man, he maketh two: but by this new Grammatical interpretation he shall neither write nor read, be one man, or two, but be metamorphosed into a Chair or Oracle. 
Fragmentum histori●um in anno 1238. ●omo 1. hist. Germ. Casarum.  For if he list to read Fragmentum historicum printed in the first tome of the Germane History, he shall find what that Author writeth of Petrus de Vineis his going to the Council of Lions: for speaking of the Emperor he saith: Q●i non comparuit, s●d R●sponsales prose transmisit minùs sufficientes: Frederick appeared not in the Council, but sent in his behalf unsufficient Ambassadors, to wit, Petr●s de Vineis, and Thaddaeus Sinuessanus. Will M. Barlow say, that he sent two Chairs, or Oracles? That truly had been a strange Embassage. Or will he tell us, that when our King Richard the first his Ambassadors went to Rome, to withstand the Bishop of Roan, complaining against him, ●s Nubrigensis writeth (Responsales quoque Regis è vestigio secuti, in conspectu summi Pontificis in faciem illi restitere. The Ambassadors also of the King presently following, resisted him to his face before the Pope) that he sent Chairs or Oracles to Rome? Or were these Chayrs or Oracles so earnest before the Pope in his defence? I know not whether this thing deserve rather laughter or compassion: Laughter, for that it is so foolish and ridiculous in itself: Compassion to see one to bear himself for Bishop of Lincoln so ignorant, as to translate Responsalis, for a Chair or Oracle, with this insulting adjection to the same, (much less by his Breve interdict.) But let us come to the second.  
11. The other example of his Grammatical construction is concerning a place of Bellarmine about the authority of Kings, where the Cardinal refelling an objection that the exemption of Clergymen from tributes, and appearing at secular tribunals, is de iure humano, and so may be repealed by Princes, answereth, that it doth not follow, 
Bellarm. l. 1. de Cler. cap. 28.  both for that not only Kings, but Popes and Counsels have given this exemption to Clergymen: as also for that the whole world hath consented to the same, which hath bestowed upon Kings that power which they have. So he. Now let us hear M. Barlow construe these words: thus than he Englisheth them: 
Barlow pag. 342.  Orbis terrae, 'tis within the compass of the inferior orb, from whence is given to Kings that power which they have. So he. And let him turn over again his Grammaticon or Mammatrecton Cooper, or Calepine, and he shall never find these two words which himself setteth down in latin, to wit, orbis terrae, to signify, 'tis within the compass of the inferior orb: 
A strange construction of Orbis terrae.  and therefore perhaps his wits were without that compass when he wrote it, and likewise his honesty was scant at home, when within 3 leaves after, out of this self same Chapter he citeth in different letters, and many of them capitals, this passage, as the express words of Bellarmine● The Clergy is not bound to obey Kings, longer than Kings are THEIR SUPERIORS: and that is, 
Bellar. l●● citato.  so long as THE POPE WILL: for whom HE EXEMPTES, they are all F: and citeth in the margin de Cler. lib. 1. Cap. 28. ●. Respondeo negando. But let him read the place that list, and he shall find no such thing. And what then will you say to such forgery & falsity? But for these two points I refer him to the Author of the Supplement, where they are more largely discussed. And were not M. Barlow of a seared conscience, and his cause desperate, he would never use such legier-de-main, and discredit himself in this base manner. If his Spartans ready for the combat, can fight no better, it were more for his Maiesties honour, and their own honesty, that they kept themselves out of the field, & stayed at home to tend gooslinges, than thus to betray their cause, and shame all. From Grammar let us come to Philosophy.  
12. It seemeth that in this science M. Barlow is very meanly seen, 
M. Barlowes ignorance in Philosophy.  and not to have read, or (which I rather think) not to have understood Porphyries' Introduction to the same. For what puny-Sophister is there in Oxford, or Cambridge, who knoweth not that, species producatur de pluribus differentibus numero? But quite contrary M. Barlow tells us, that the powder-plot was not singular from all examples, there having been the like done by Protestants (though not in specie, yet in individuo) as at Antwerp etc. which is as much, as if one should say: Although so gross ignorance as we see in M. Barlow of Lincoln, cannot be found in any other man, yet is it to be found in many M. Barlowes: whereas M. Barlow, of whom we speak, is but one and the self same man, and ignorance may be found in other men as well as in him, especially if they be Ministers as he is: but of this also he shall see more in the ensuing Discussion. And doth not he deserve to be brought again ad inferiora subs●llia, and to sit amongst the Sophisters in Cambridge, till he hath learned to speak more like a Philosopher?  
13. Again what more solemn foolery can there be, than so ignorantly to insult upon his adversary, for saying, that S. Leo in a certain place spoke of unity of names, as M. Barlow doth, for thus he saith: 
Leo ep. 89.  What learning will justify that phrase of speech, An unity of names & c? And again, that one name imparted to several persons, should be called an unity, let all the Onomasticks, and Nomenclators, or Mathematicians, or Schoolmen be searched, and 'twill not be found. So he. Do you not think that this man hath searched far into the matter, read all books, and seen what all say, that so resolutely and generally pronounceth this sentence? & yet Aristotle could tell him, that all aequivoca, univoca, analoga, agree in one name: and none but one, as ignorant as M. Barlow, will deny that the name Father agreeth to men and God, but in different manner; so that it is true to say, that the name of Father is all one in God and man, though in nature it differ. And what can be required more to the unity of names? Or can M. Barlow conceive that they have one name without all unity? Truly as well, as conceive, that a man may be a fool, without foolery, or as simple as himself, without simplicity.  
14. And if this thing in no School man can be found, then must S. Thomas be blotted out of that rank, whose words are: 
D. Th●. lec. 12. in Periber. lit. F.  Ostenait Aristoteles quòd s●li unitas nominis non sufficit ad unitatem enuntiationis. Aristotle showeth, that unity of name sufficeth not for the unity of a proposition. And in his Quodlibets he expressly proveth this unity of names, which he calleth unitatem vocis, the unity of appellation, for that else there were no univoca. But of this also he will hear more than he would, or ever will be able to refel by the Author of the Supplement. It sufficeth me to detect only his ignorance, which as it is here, both gross and palpable, so also combined with singular arrogancy and pride, in so resolutely affirming, that no learning will justify this speech; when as Aristotle, and S. Thomas the great Philosopher, and most learned of all Divines, do both teach and demonstrate the same.  
15. Another example in this kind I might here produce, touching his doctrine of contradictions, and his gross mistaking of the same, but that will come after in due place to be discussed, where I examine his disputation's, about the first contradiction objected to Bel●armine. Now let us see his ignorance in histories. 
M. Barlows ignorance in histories.  In histories what greater ignorance can there be committed then to relate fictions for truth, which have no coherence either in place, time, or persons? And yet M. Barlow doth this so confidently, as he did the former of unity of names. 
Barlow pag. 298.  Let one example suffice for this matter, by which alone the Reader may of himself conjecture of the rest. Alexander the third is charged to have sent Frederick the first his picture to the Turk, that he might by the same know him, & kill him also, if he came into his hands, and that even whiles he was fight the Lords battles: which objection M. Barlow saith, pincheth the Pope to the quick. And I must confess, that had the matter been as he doth relate it● none can deny, but it had been very barbarous indeed. But in the last chapter of F. Parson's ensuing Discussion, it is showed, and convinced most evidently, that Alexander was dead at least 7. years before that Frederick ever thought of going against the Turk, and eight before he came into Armenia. What ignorance then is there in this Minister, so to write and triumph upon lies? How shall his Auditory believe what he teacheth them out of the pulpit, that blusheth not to utter such false and injurious slanders in a printed book?  
16. I might here most of all insist upon his dealing with Pope Innocentius the fourth, whom he relateth to have done many things against Frederick the second, 
Barlow pag. 292. & deinceps.  upon the credit of Vrspergensis; and yet that very Author saith, that they fell out between Gregory the 9 and Fred●rick, many years before Innocentius was Pope. And yet such a writer is M. Barlow, as that he will not only ascribe all unto Innocentius, but also from that supposal, draw this most malicious inference● That he went about to poison the said Emperor. What more blind ignorance, and malicious dealing can be imagined then this? But for that this is afterwards very largely handled in the last Chapter of the ensuing Discussion, I will here no further treat thereof: nor yet of his telling the Reader out of Binnius & Cicarella, that Pope Sixtus statue of brass was, for that he was extremely hated, after his death cast down etc. which all Rome, 
Barlow pag. 245.  and the statue itself yet standing convince to be a lie, & Binnius hath no such word in this Pope's life; neither doth Cicarella say at all, that it was cast down. But it delighteth M. Barlow like a blind horse in the battle, boldly to adventure upon any thing, be it never so false, fond, or improbable. 
pag. 288.  The like ● kill he showeth in making Conradus à Lichetenau to be a different writer from Vrspergensis, 
pag. 295.  and Petrus à Vin●is to differ from Petrus à Vinea, with other infinite like oversights in this kind, which clearly show that to be true of himself, wherewith he charged his adversary F. Parsons, but could exemplify in no particular, In stories he is a great florisher, but a false relator of them.  
17. Neither is he a more false relator of histories than an unkillfull interpreter of the holy Scriptures; 
M. Barlowes ignorance in interpreting the Scriptures.  in which it is strange to see, how he tosseth the text, what sense he yieldeth, and what Commentaries he maketh thereon, and that either by mistaking the meaning of the words, or by ridiculous application, or by forcing arguments from the same, which have no dependence, no coherence, or agreement with the place he citeth, yea not sticking sometimes to corrupt the very text itself with ●ome addition of his own thereunto, to make it conclude more forcibly against us: so saucy he is ●n so sacred a matter. I will give briefly one example ●n each kind, where the Spouse in the Canticles is commended for all manner of vertuest under the allegorical types of Myrrh, Frankincense, 
Barl. pag. 53.  and all A●othecaryes dust: what think you, doth Barlow●ake ●ake of this dust? Doth he interpret it to signify any particular virtue? Nothing less. For he saith, 
Cant. 3.  it is worldly delights of honour and wealth: for that's p●luis pigmentarius, saith he, the Merchants (he should say Apothecaryes') wisest● and quoteth in the margin the Canticles, and place where it is to be found. And is not this, trow you, a great commendation of the Spouse, that she ascendeth through the desert of this earth with all worldly delights of honour & wealth, which tickle the eyes, and blinds the sight of the wisest? What may not be proved by Scriptures, where such application is allowed? And here to make the best Commentary in M. Barlowes excuse, there is at least great mistaking of the true sense of the word dust, which I think in no other Author besides himself, is taken for worldly delights of honour, and wealth; as neither in any Dictionary that ever I saw, is pigmentarius taken for a Merchant. But M. Barlow hath absolute authority to gaynesay both Grammar, Scriptures, and all manner of learning.  
18. As for ridiculous application, what more fond conceit could he make, then to compare Gods divine providence unto Rammes-hornes: for thus speaking thereof, he saith: The providence of God in governing of his Church, 
Barlow pag. 43.  is like the ruinating of the walls of Hierico by Rammes-hornes: it is powerful, not violent; spiritual, but not visible; by means weak in show, mighty in ●ffect. 
joshua 6.  So he. And to omit the ridiculous interpretation, or rather inversion of trumpets into Rammes-hornes, whereas they were of metal, as S. Hierome, Origen, and others affirm, or made of horn, as some later writers, and so to be called rather Cornets, than Rammes-hornes, with which I think no man can sound any blast: to omit this foolish error (I say) me thinks M. Barlow in this Commentary is very forgetful of himself; for in another place he maketh these powerful, spiritual, and mighty Rammes-hornes to be very weak, poor, and feeble; for thus he speaketh of his majesties Apology with contempt to F. Persons: As if (saith he) the Apologers Answer like Hiericoes' walls, 
Pag. 201.  should presently fall with the blast of a Ramms-horne, and a few turns about it: 
joshua. 6.  and citeth the same place as before. So as now the force of the Ramms-hornes is very feeble: for the ruinating of the walls, by this reason is more to be ascribed to their own weakness, then to any power of the Rammes-hornes. For in case they were so powerful, spiritual, and mighty, the resemblance which here Sir William makes, should be very simple: for I think he will not say that the Apologers Answer is more powerful than God's providence, which before he compared to the Rammes-hornes. Or if he do, I can say no more, but that for his labour he well deserveth to be put to the horn at Edenburrough.  
19 In another place going about to prove, that the Right which the Church hath against heretics, either for their conversion or chastisement, is Ius innatum, bred within it, & inseparable from it; how (think you) doth he prove the same against F. P●rsons, who said, that is was Ius acquisitum? Very pithily you may imagine: for thus he writeth. 
Pag. 60. Gen. 3.  No sooner was there a Church designed, but this right was annexed, Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis, as the enmity for contradiction, so the right for suppression is native. Thus M. Barlow, & no more. And is not this well proved, think you? The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head; that is, Christ the Son of the Virgin shall overcome the diue●, ergo, it is Ius innatum, to punish heretics. Me thinks this argument proves M. Barlow more to be a Natural, than any native right to be in the Church. For what is there here to signify the Church, to signify heretics, to signify this inbred right? Truly I see no more coherence between the Scripture and the foresaid argument, than I see in this which follows; 
Matth. 9  Our Saviour cured a man of the palsy: ergo, M. Barlow is troubled with the gout. But let us go on.  
20. Last of all, for adding to the holy text; what more evident example can be desired then that which he bringeth out of Deuteronomy, 
Barlow pag. 334.  to prove that bloody article of the kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes? Bloody I say, for that more effusion of blood of Ecclesiastical men hath been made for that one point enacted by Parliament, then by all the laws of former times, for the space of a thousand years together, which yet is not only by all Catholics denied, rejected by Calvin, and the Puritans; but utterly condemned also by the Lutherans, and all learned Protestants. Against all which M. Barlow will needs prove by Scripture this usurped authority, saying: God in his Word hath appointed Kings to be Guardians of b●th the Tables, to command & prohibit, not in civil affairs only, but in matters also concerning religion saith S. Augustine: and citeth Deuteron. 17. & 18, verse. But in our books either Hebrew, Greek, or Latin we find no such commission given to Kings, nor any one syllable of their being Guardians of both Tables, or of any command in matters of Religion in this place, as elsewhere by the Author of the Supplement he is more fully and roundly told. And so you see, to what desperate attempts this Minister is driven to defend a falsity.  
21. Touching the last point which remained to be treated, of M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of divinity, for that it is his chief profession, I shall more enlarge myself therein, 
M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of Divinity.  & join issue with him in one entire disputation, and that not the meanest, but rather the chiefest of his whole book: for in no other that I know, doth he use so many terms of art, or make so great vaunt or show of learning, courage, & confidence, as in the same, to wit his discourse to prove a contradiction in Bellarmine concerning three Conclusions of his, about justification and confidence to be reposed in our good works. But before I enter this combat, it will not be amiss to let the Reader see some part of his skill in another matter or two, that thereby he may take a scantling of the rest.  
22. First then he must know, that either M. Barlowes choice was so bad, or judgement so small, that he never almost citeth the Master of Sentences, S. Thomas of Aquine, or other Schoolmen, but that he doth commonly very ignorantly mistake them, or maliciously belly them, or some way or other pervert them. For example he maketh S. Thomas to say, 
Barlow pag. 188. D. Thom. 2.2. q. 104. ar. 6. ad. 3.  That if an Usurper or Intruder command things unlawful, yet in those things the subjects must notwithstanding obey, propter vitandum scandalum, aut periculum, and then addeth: Of this Divinity judge not, ti's their own. But I answer, 'tis M. Barlowes lie, & not S. Thomas his Divinity; who answering an argument, that the power of many Kings is usurped, and therefore they not to be obeyed, saith: That a man is ●ound to obey, so far forth as the order of justice doth require, and therefore if they have not lawful principality, but usurped, or command unjust things; the subjects are not bound to obey them, unless perhaps per accidens, for avoiding of scandal or danger. So S. Thomas: and here is no mention of unlawful things commanded, but of unjust, for a King may command things that are unjust; as that his subjects give him all the money or goods they have; whereto for fear of danger they may yield, which they could not do, were the thing of it own nature unlawful: which is S. Thomas his express doctrine in the next precedent article: neither is there here (must notwithstanding obey) but the contrary, that absolutely they are not bound to obey, unless perhaps it be for some other cause, as of scandal or danger: in which cases they may, to save their lives, or for avoiding the hurt and offence of others, do those things which are unjustly commanded them, so they be not of their own nature unlawful, but only in respect of the Commander, who either contrary to justice, or by usurped authority doth command them.  
23. Of this nature is that grave resolution of his taken, as he would have it seem, from S. Thomas his scholar Medina, That to full liberty, is required an unlimited scope for the judgement to deliberate. 
〈◊〉. pag. ●7.  Of which he shall hear more afterwards: for this unlimited scope for the judgement, is no other thing, than the unlimited ignorance of Sir William, which passeth all bound & measure. Again where he citeth S. Thomas, touching active & passive scandal, 
pag. 57  which is refuted in this work at large, and where he saith very boldly, but ignorantly, 
〈◊〉. pag. 114.  that the said Doctor confineth all proud men within two sorts, one of them which advance themselves above others, the other of such which arrogate to themselves that which is above them, and beyond their pitch: which seemeth to be above the pitch of his skill; 
D. Tho. 2.2. q. 162 ●●. 4. in 〈◊〉.  for S. Thomas maketh 4. sorts of pride, as any may see in the place cited in the margin, though in the place which M. Barlow citeth, I confess there be not so many sorts specified: for in his 33. question and 5. article he mentioneth none at all. So as M. Barlow roves at random, and speaketh without book, and thinks all to be well, so he say somewhat, true, or false, and make a fond flourish with the citing of schoolmen. Of this very stamp is his other of fatum, and providence, 
pag. 246.  in denying fatum to be providence, retorted upon him by F. Persons in this Answer. And truly if M. Barlow be wise, he will, if he write again, be more wary in dealing with Schoolmen, and alleging their authorities, for that kind of learning far surpasseth the compass of his shallow capacity.  
24. Another thing may be, to consider what strange Paradoxes he inserts here and there as positions dogmatical, which who so listeth in practice to follow, shall either have no religion or faith at all; or instead of Christ's Gospel, the Turks Alcoran. 
M. Barlowes paradoxes.  For example, what more gross and wicked assertion can there be, then to teach that Kings even against our conscience are to be obeyed. For thus he replieth against F. Persons saying, 
Barlow pag. 160.  that Kings were to be obeyed; propter conscientiam, sed non contra conscientiam. This (saith M. Barlow) is no sound doctrine in the negative part: for even against a man's Conscience the Prince is to be obeyed. Again: There is nothing more easy for proof, or evident for demonstration, than that obedience is to be enjoined, ●u●n against conscience, if it be erroneous, and leprous; and against religion if forged and falsely so called. And is not this a very learned Axiom? For more evident refutation whereof, let us suppose that for which we power forth our daily prayers to God, that his Majesty were as all his Noble Progenetors of both Realms have always been, a Catholic Prince, and as zealous for the truth thereof as now he is for the Protestant cause, if then he should propose unto Sir William the Oath of Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, so clearly out of Scriptures, and all antiquity, proved and evinced to be true, but yet in the blind eyes and leprous conscience of this Minister thought to be false; what would he do therein? Will he swear it to be true? But in his conscience he thinketh it to be false, and against the Scriptures. Will he refuse it? But Kings (saith he) even against conscience are to be obeyed.  
25. Neither doth he help the matter any thing at all by his distinction of leprous and erroneous conscience, 
The Protestants conscience like a cheverall point.  for with men of his stamp, conscience is like a chevril point, which they may stretch & lose at their pleasure. For who knoweth not, that in the time of Q. Marry they were held to have erroneous & leprous consciences, even by the judgement of the greatest divines in Geneva, who manteyned, that women were to be obeyed, albeit they were Queens, even in civil and temporal affairs? But within one year after, this error and leprosy was so transposed, that the quite contrary was taught, and they were not only held to have leprous and erroneous consciences who denied civil obedience, but were condemned also as Traitors by Parliament, if they did deny Q. Elizabeth to be the Supreme head or Governess of the Church of England. So that, it was not only lawful, but necessary for her to have all Temporal and Ecclesiastical government in her hands as she was Queen; which yet in Q. Mary to have civil only, even by reason of her sex, was judged monstrous, unnatural and repugnant to the Scriptures, and law of God. Many other examples might be produced in this kind, to show this new Gospel to be as constant as the weathercock, which never turneth but when the wind doth change, to wit, as often as occasions fall out that may fit their purpose: for than they will strain all conscience and honesty also, to conform themselves & become good subjects.  
26. Much like unto this of obeying Kings against our conscience, 
A profane and barbarous assertion of M. Barlow.  is his other profane and barbarous assertion of the Supremacy of the heathen Emperors, Nero, Domitian, and the rest over the Christian Church; yea which is more strange, that the ancient Fathers justinus Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others acknowledged the same. But you must know, that M. Barlow in citing their words for proof of this paradox is very silent, 
Barlow pag 99  howsoever with all confidence as a maxim in his new Devinity uncontrollable, he delivereth the same, saying: That they acknowledged the Emperor's Supremacy independent upon any but God. And a little after, that Queen Elizabeth in her Supremacy was no usurper by Novell-claime, but accepted what God himself had annexed to her crown. Out of which I first note, that by this Doctrine, the Great Turk is supreme Head of the Christian Church in Greece; and that if M. Barlow were there, for such he would acknowledge him. Secondly, the Pythagorical manner of speaking which our adversaries use in matters of greatest moment and controversy. For whereas before King H●nry the eight, no Christian King ever took that title, or usurped any such authority over the Church; yea for challenging much less, Constantius was called Antichrist both by S. Athanasius and S. Hilary: 
Athan. ep. ad solitar●ā vit●m agēt●s. Hilarius lib. 1. in Constant. Augustum paulo post ●nitium.  these men without all proof, but not without singular impupudency, think it sufficient to say● that the King is head of the Church, that he was so acknowledged by the ancient Fathers, that not only a woman may have the same authority of Supremacy in all causes Ecclesiastical; but that also the heathen Emperors had it as annexed to their Crown, and Imperial Dignity, even against the whole torrent of all writers, the practice of the Christian world, and evident text of Scripture itself; no Fathers, no history, no monument, no show, or shadow of proof, or authority in former times being found for the same, without many strains, violent enforcements, or ridiculous illations made there-upon, as in the arguments of the Protestants, who have treated this controversy, is every where to be seen.  
27. Lastly the Reader may note, that M. Barlow is so poor a Divine, as either he knoweth not what belongeth to matters of faith, or else is so wicked, as against his own knowledge, he will avouch that for true which is checked even by his own brethren, and convinced by common sense and experience to be most false, to wit, that the Protestants and the Puritans in England differ only in ma●ters cerimoniall, and agree in all essential and substantial points concerning religion, in which this Prelate is very cathegoricall (for ignorance, as himself elsewhere telleth us out of Fathers and Philosophers, 
Barlow pag 2●2.  though he cite no place or sentence, is the mother of audacious assertions and undertakings) and writeth thus; 
Barlow pa●● 142. see supra. pag. 120.  Feign they woul● possess the world, that we are at jar among ourselves, about our religion: whereas the quarrel, though it be (indeed) unkind, yet is it not in this kind sau● only for cerimonyes external, no points substantial etc. So he. Which though it be kindly spoken as you see, yet he must give me leave to believe him at leisure, and in the mean time ●o ask him one question; to wit, whether the Protestant's and Puritans understand their ow●e differences that are between them or not? If not● than we need not believe M. Barlow, as speaking of that which he doth not understand. If they do, how cometh it to pass that they condemn each other of idolatry, heresy, and false religion, as any may read in the Survey, and dangerous Positions, set forth by S●●cliffe, and the last superintendant of Canterbury for the Protestants; and Cartwright, Gilby, M●rtin Senior, and others for the Puritans?  
28. To this answereth M. Barlowes Comical companion of Ely, 
D. Andr. Respons. ad Apol. cap. ●5. pag. 343. §. Porr● negat.  of whom whiles he was silent many had some opinion of learning, but since all is resolved to lying, immodest railing, and some few light Terentian & Plautinian phrases, which aswell beseem a Divine, writing in matters of such moment, and in defence of so great a Monarch, to dally withal, as it doth a Bishop to lead a morris-dance in his hose and doublet: This man, I say, answereth hereunto, that perhaps so the case stood then, when those Protestants did write, but that is well near 20. years ago, but now it is otherwise. Which is as much, as if he had said, that this new belief in England is not like the old, always one, but is refined & altered with the time, and therefore no argument can be drawn from a thing done 20. years past, for that is to great antiquity for so newfangled a faith, which is always in motion, and hath her veins, changes, quarters, and full, like the Moon. But yet I must ask him further, how he will prove by any example of the Puritan writers, this their change and submission to the Protestants, & conformity of doctrine with them more now, then 20. years past? Are they not still in the same degree of difference and opposition as before? Do they not still deny our saviours descent into hell? Do they not disclay me from the English Hierarchy? Will they acknowledge the King's Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical, as King Henry did challenge it? Or will they recall what they have written of their discipline, that it is an essential mark of the Church, without which there were no Church, no Faith, no Gospel, and consequently the Protestants to be no Ghospellers, to be out of the Church, out of the number of the faithful?  
29. But for further confutation of both these Superintendents, and more clear explication of the thing itself, besides what is afterwards said in this book touching this point, it shall not be amiss here to set down the words of a few Protestant and Puritan late, and yet living writers, what they judge of each other in this affair, that our very enemies may be judges of the most shameful assertion of these two Prelates, That the Protestants and Puritans differ in matters only cerimoniall, and agree in essential. And the reason that I produce no more in this kind, is for want of their books, which being not worth the sending so far, seldom come to our hands. I will begin with the Protestants.  
30. And to omit Thomas Rogers, whose testimony is after to be produced in the Discussion itself, 
part. 2. cap. 4.  what other thing doth Oliver Ormerod in his discovery of Puritan-Papisme annexed to his Picture of a Puritan, prove, but that the said Puritans are Heretics, and have joined themselves with the pharisees, apostolics, Arians, Pebuzians, Petrobusians, Florinians, Corinthians, Nazarens, Begardines, Ebionites, Catababdites, E●theusiasts, Donatists, jovinianists, & Catharists. 
Printed anno 160●.  And lest any should think, that this conjunction is only in matters cerimonial, he layeth to their charge these ensuing heresies, that there is no diuers●●y between a Priest and a Bishop: that Bishops have no jurisdiction: that all sins be equal: that the Minister is of the essence of baptism, with the like. And in the second dialogue he maketh in plain terms this objection, that there is no difference in matters fundamental, but accidental: and then answereth the same, that they do differ from the Protestants in some things that are fundamental and substantial, which he proveth by the article, of Christ's descending into hell. And he might have proved it further by the above rehearsed articles, for which jovinian, Aerius, and others were reputed by the ancient Fathers, and condemned for Heretics.  
31. With this Oliver of Cambridge agreeth A. N. of Oxford in his Bible-bearer, towards the midst, for thus he writeth: 
An. 1607.  They refuse to subscribe to the King's lawful authority in causes Ecclesiastical, to the article of religion, to the book of Common prayer, and the orders, rites, and ceremonies of our Church; nay they descent from us in things accidental and cerimoniall. So he. By which last antithesis of accidental & cerimoniall differences, it is most evident, that the former were essential & fundamental. Neither do I see, how this can be denied by any: for if the Puritans refuse to subscribe to the articles of Protestant religion, who seeth not, that they approve it not, and consequently differ in essential points, and that M. Barlow overlashed very much, when he wrote, that their unkind quarrel with Puritans was in another kind, and not in matters of religion, wherein, forsooth, out of his great kindness he will have them to agree.  
32. And not to stand more for proof hereof from Protestants, D. Covel cleareth the matter, when he saith: 
D. Covell in his just and temperate defence ar. 11. pag. 67.  But least any man should think, that our contentions were but in smaller points, and the difference not great; both sides have charged the other with heresies (if not infidelities) nay even such as quite overthrow the principal foundation of our Christian faith. Thus he. And this I think is another manner of matter then external ceremonies, or accidental differences: for if this be not a plain jar amongst Protestants and Puritans in Religion, I would feign know what M. Barlow will more require thereunto? but I see S. Gregory's words verified in these men, where he saith: 
li●. 8. in job. cap. 2.  solent haeretici alia apertè dicere, alia occultè cogitare, the heretics are wont to speak otherwise openly, then inwardly they think: for when they deal amongst themselves then are Protestants and Puritans heretics and infidels to each other: but when they answer us, than all are friends, all good Christians, all united in doctrine, & divided only in ceremonies & accidental differences. 
Puritans acknowledge an essential difference between them and the Protestants in matters of religion.  This is another manner of equivocation, than any of our schools will allow, and only fit for such as are his scholars qui in veritate non stetit, sed mendax fuit ab initio.  
33. From Protestants I come to Puritans, who in this case are no less eager, plain, and resolute than the Protestants, but rather more; for this in express terms the Author of the Twelve general arguments concludeth against all the Superintendents of England together, 
An. 160●.  that they are Usurpers, and Tyrants, and execute an usurped power over the Church: and one reason to prove the same is ex concessis; 
arg. 10. circa medium.  for that their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is derived from the King, else, say they, it is a flat denial of his Supremacy, as there they show. And in the next reason, which is the 4. and last, brought in for proof of their assumption or minor, thus they conclude: There are no true and sober Christians but will say, that the Churches of Sco●land France, the Low Countries, and other places (that renounce such Archbishops and Bishops (as ours are) as Anti-christian and usurping Prelates) are true Churches of God, which they could not be, if the authority & prerogatives they claim to themselves were of Christ, and not usurped: for if it were the ordinance of Christ jesus, that in every kingdom that receiveth the Gospel, there should be one Archbishop over the whole kingdom, one Bishop over many hundred Pastors in a kingdom, and all they invested with that authority and jurisdiction Apostolical, which they claim iure divino to be due `unto them, by the ordinance of Christ; certainly that Church which should renounce and disclaim such an authority ordained in the Church, cannot be a true Church, but the Synagogue of Satan: for they that should renounce, and deny such, must needs therein renounce, and deny Christ himself. Thus the assumption is cleared. So the Author.  
34. To which argument as the Catholics for true Bishops will willingly grant the sequele● that the Church of the Puritans is no Church, but a Synagogue of Satan, for that it wanteth them● so I see not what M● Barlow and his Protestants can reply thereunto● for if Episcopal authority be de iure diuino● then cell of Rome, condemned the same, together with the Author thereof. So these Lutherans. But with our beggarly English Protestant's all is fish that cometh to the ne●●, and of these outcast rags they must patch up a Church, or else confess that before Luther, they have none to whom they can accrue.  
39 And truly it is a pitiful thing to see what rags some of them are not ashamed to gather up, what Heretics, I say, they will profess to join withal in opinions most brutish, and blasphemous, divided amongst themselves, and discarded by the more learned Protestants, that the Reader may well with the Po●t demand, quid sequar? aut quem? For M. Symons draweth in Petrús Abilardus, 

Si none Vpo● the Ar●c. pag. 142. s●e Ba●on. tom. 12 in anno 1140. s●●●nnius tom. 4. pag. 1223. and S. Bern. ep. 187. 188. & dem ●ps.  
P●py●ius Ma●souius l 3. Annal. in Ph●●ppo August. pag. 268. Bern. ep. 240.  
●●●nar. Lu●●en et 〈…〉 A●bizen es. 〈…〉   who though he died a repentant Catholic, and a religious Monk of the Abbey of Clunie in France (which singular grace I find only granted by Almighty God to no other Sect. Masters, but Berengarius & him) yet whiles he lived in error he maintained, that Christ took not flesh to redeem mankind, that he had two persons, that he was not God, and the like. Doth not this man stoop low for help think you? Again he together with M. Fox admitteth for brethren the beastly and barbarous Albigenses, who had their beginning, as Massonius writeth, from one Henry Bruis, of whom and whose filthy life S. Bernard maketh mention. And these were so far of from being Ghospellers, as they could not endure the Gospel itself, which having first most villainously abused, at the siege of 〈◊〉, they cast it over the Walls, towards the Catholic Army, shooting many arrows after it, and crying aloud unto the Soldiers, ecce lex vestra miseri, behold o miserable men, your law, or as Matthew Paris relateth it, sit● behold your law, we care not for it, take it to yourselves. I omit their execrable blasphemies against our Bl. Saviour himself & S. Mary Magdalen, 
see Christianus Massaeus l. 17. Chron. ad an. 1206. Caesa●ius Heiesterb. l. 5. illust. mirac. cap. 21.  not to offend Christian ears therewith, for which our Saviour seemed to take revenge upon them on the feast, and in the Church of the same Saint, where 7000. of them were slain, as saith Massaeus, or many more, as Heisterbachius who then lived. Now what greater discredit can there be to the Protestants, and their cause, than then to rake Hell, and make Saints of these damned souls, enemies of all piety, most seditious and rebellious spirits? But to proceed.  
40. To these by M. Buckley, Fox, abbots, & others, 
see the Protestants Apology. pag. 343.  are adjoined the Waldenses, whom they will have to be but scholars or rather followers of the former: but this following is only in time & not in doctrine, if we well consider what most authors write of them both, and M. Fox is not ashamed to draw into his den fanatical Almericke, making him, for more credit, of a Priest a Bishop. But M. jewel with one blast bloweth away all these clouted patches of this beggarly Church, saying thus: Of Abilard and Almerick and certain other your strange names (M. Harding meaneth apostolics, Petrobusians, Waldenses, Albigenses & Image-breakers) we have no skill, & they are none of ours. 
jewel defence pag. 48  So he: overthrowing in few words all M. Fox his laborious endeavours to make them Saints, Martyrs, & true Ghospellers: so well do these men agree among themselves in building up the babylonical tower of their new devised and confused Synagogue, one denying what another granteth; yea one and the self same man fight with himself, saying & unsaying, affirming and denying. For in the very tenth page of that defence, M. jewel writeth: As for john Wickliff, john Husse, Waldo, and the rest, they were godly men, their greatest heresy was this, that they complained of the dissolute and vicious lives of the Clergy etc.  
41. Lo here Waldo is a godly man without error in doctrine, & yet of his followers M. jewel hath no skill, they are none of his. 
M. jewel contrary to himself.  Whereas notwithstanding you may be sure the scholars agreed in all things with their masters. Which of these two M. jewel will you believe? Truly as for the godliness of Waldo I find no great record, so neither will M. jewel be able to show wherein he disagreed from the Waldensians, 
Guido Carmelita in summa cap. 9 de Waldensium harefibus.  who as Guido the Carmelite writeth, did hold amongst divers other things which I pretermit, that no man might judge another for life and death, because it is written, nolite judicare, judge you not: That Laymen had authority given them from Almighty God to hear Confessions, and absolve from sins; That all carnal copulation when men are tempted thereunto is lawful. They contemned the Apostles Creed, and would have Mass said but once in the year, to wit on Maunday-Thursday, by saying seven Pater Nosters, and blessing the bread and wine etc. This and much more was the godly doctrine of M. jewels Doctor Waldo, whose learning was equal to his virtue; for he could scant as most Authors affirm, either write or read. But I mean no further to prosecute this argument, of which who listeth to read more, may peruse what Coccius, the Author of the Protestants Apology, & F. Persons in the last part of his three Conversions, have written hereof, and he will rest satisfied. Now I come to examine M. Barlowes disputation, & what skill of Divinity he showeth in the same.  
42. He entereth into the list with great courage, & tells the Reader, 
Barlow pag. 257. M. Barlowes disputation about the first contradiction objected to Card. Bellarm. discussed at large.  that F. Persons standeth over the Cardinal, as if he were gasping for breath, under the blow he hath received for his contradictions, and makes the Father as a Chirurgeon of the camp to cure three or four of them: which M. Barlow will needs launce again, and cut as he thinketh to the quick; but useth such dull instruments & that so weakly, as he doth neither cut, nor bruise, though much he labour to do his best, and after some ten pages spent in idle babbling, lying, and ignorant disputing, like a victorious conqueror in the end excusing himself for the length of his discourse, by reason that F. Persons did set up (saith he) his crest, and rest upon it, that if in this, there be any contradiction, he will yield that the Apologer hath not overlashed in the other, 
pag. 266.  he concludeth triumphantly, saying: Let the unpartial trial be the severe judge either way. Which I also desire, and withal advertise the Reader, that in some things I am the shorter where much advantage is given, for that the same is afterwards by F. Persons himself handled in due place in the ensuing discussion.  
43. The controversy then in hand, 
The state of the con●trouersy with M. Barlow.  is about the comfort which our meritorious actions do yield, and what confidence is to be reposed in them, which the Cardinal delivereth in three Conclusions, the last whereof M. Barlow will have not only to contradict the two former, but to be opposite to all the ●iue books which are written of that matter: which because as F. Persons well noted it seemed strange, that five books should be contradictory to one proposition, M. Barlow telleth him he should rather have thought it to be a very strange conclusion, which in so small a roomth should have matter to cross a discourse so large. 
Barl. 257.  This than we shall now discuss; and for better perspicuity I will lay down together the three conclusions of the Cardinal, 
Bellar. l. 5. de justif. cap. 7.  which M. Barlow will have to be so contradictory; and then examine his proofs for the same. The first is, The confidence of holy men which they repose in God, proce●d●th not from only faith, but from then good merits, and therefore we are to labour all we can f●● merits, that thereby we may have confidence in God. The second. Some confidence may be placed in good merits, whic● are known to be such, so that pride be avoided. The third. For the uncertainty of our righteousness, and danger of vain glory, the surest way is to place all our confidence i● the only mercy and bounty of God. So Bellarmine● proving each assertion out of the Scriptures & ancient Fathers, but beforehand giving this caveat to the Reader (which clean dasheth a good part of M. Barlowes verbal assault) that it is not all one to say, that confidence may arise or grow from merits, and that confidence may be placed in merits, for it may so fall out, that a ma● may repose almost no confidence in his merits, for that he knoweth not certainly whether he have any true merits or not, and yet he may abound both with true & great merits: and out of these merits there may proceed in him a great confidence towards God: by which distinction the whole controversy may be decided and divers authorities of Scriptures and Fathers (which otherwise may seem repugnant) be reconciled. Thus the Cardinall● Now let us see what Sir William doth bring to impugn this doctrine, and to prove it contradictory?  


Barl. pag. 25.  
A f●●d division.   44. He beginneth with a division of vera and per●●c●a justitia, which he calleth the two principal h●ads, to which all the chief questions of that controversy in Bellarmine may by reduced. By iustice●e ●e understandeth inherent, and by perfect justice, that which is able to abide the trial of God's judgement. But ●ere is much mistaking, for that neither doth Bellar. ●n this sense call our justice perfect, neither can the perfection of a thing which must needs be intrinsical ●o the essence, be said properly to depend of an extrinsical effect, as is the trial of God's judgement, or the reward which is given in respect of our righteousness that proceedeth from the inherent grace within us, without any relation or dependence of the future judgement at al.  
45. From this division he cometh to a distinction of uncertainty, which he saith, is either rei, or personae, 
Ibidem M. Barlow understandeth not the distinction which he maketh.  of righteousness itself, or of the party that hath it. This is as wise as the former: for I would feign know of M. Barlow, how there can be inc●rti●udo rei, unless it be de futuris contingentibus? for a thing, as it is existent, cannot be uncertain, but hath his being & essence, and therewith his truth & unity. And in M. Barlowes example, the hypocrite who hath no true righteousness, and consequently not inherent, cannot be said to have incertitudinem r●i, for that it is certain, as we do suppose, that he hath no righteousness at all: and all the uncertainty depends on the person, who thinketh him to have righteousness when he hath it not, & not of the thing itself, which is determinatae Veritatis, of determinate truth in the affirmative or negative, and truth (to use M. Barlowes Martial manner of speaking) either of ●ss●nce or propriety cassi●res all uncertainty, the affirmative or negative: so a● still M. Barlow stumbleth, and with his subtle distinctions overreacheth himself, and confoundeth all learning.  
46. Well then, this uncertainty being of the person, what saith he thereunto? In this he is somewhat brief, but very confident, and concludeth thus: 
A strange inference.  If it be of the person, than merit is cut of. And why good Sir? For merit (saith he) raiseth a confidence, but where there is no comfort there can be no confidence, 
Ibid.  & in uncertainty there is no comfort; for reliance on that whereof a man doubts, causeth rath●r a fear to be deceived, than a confidence to be relieved. So he. Which argument supposeth as granted, that our meritorious works breed confidence, which we deny not, if he mean of that confidence towards God before mentioned: & than it runneth in this form: Where there is no comfort there is no confidence: but in uncertainty there is no comfort, ergo, no confidence: and so consequently no merit. That the force of this syllogism may the better appear, I shall apply it to another matter thus: Where there is no comfort, there is no confidence: but when our Saviour prayed in the garden, & said, tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem, 
Matth. 26. & 27.  and cried ou● on the Cross, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? there was no comfort, ergo, no confidence; and then Calvin's blasphemous and desperate illation of our saviours despairing on the Cross will soon be proved, from which all learned Protestants no less than Catholics, do worthily disclaim. But this is the divinity of Sir William.  
47. Again, there is great equivocation in the word uncertainty, which M. Barlow taketh in the most general and absolute signification, as excluding all manner of certainty and knowledge whatsoever; when as in Bellarmyne it is taken far otherwise: 
lib. 3. de justif. ap. 2.  for in the second Chapter of his third book, having distinguished two sorts of certainties, the one evident, the other obscure. Of this later he maketh three degrees: the first is of the certainty of faith, 
Three degrees of certainty in Bellarmyne.  cui nulla ratione potest subesse falsum; the second of such things as are believed for human authority, but so common as it excludeth all fear though not all falsity: for that all men may be false, and either deceive, or be in such things deceived. Of this sort, he putteth for examples, that Cicero and Virgil were famous men, that Augustus Caesar was Emperor, that Alexandria is in Egypt, Constantinople in Thrace, Jerusalem in Palestine, Antioch in Asia; and then declareth the last degree in this manner: Tertium gradum habent illa quae tot signis & coniecturis nituntur, ut securum hominem reddant, & anxietatem excludant, non tamen formidinem omnem expellant: a●que haec dicitur certitudo coniecturalis, & opinionis est po●iùs 〈◊〉 fidei. That is: these things have the last degree of certainty, which are grounded on so many signs and conjectures, that they make a man secure, & exclude all anxiety, though they expel not all fear: and this is called conjectural certainty, & it is rather to be termed the certainty of opinion, than the certainty of faith. So B●llarmyne. And by this conjectural certainty I assure myself, that M. Barlow understandeth not the thing, whereof now he disputeth, but shoo●eth wide of the mark in mistaking the very terms of the question, and then fight with his own fiction, as if it were indeed his adversaries positive assertion; 
Great mistaking.  for Bellarmyne disputing against the heretical opinion of these days, which is, that a man must be certain certitudine fidei, cui non potest subesse falsum, that he is in the state of grace, still taketh the word certainty or uncertainty in this sense: for so he seateth down the state of the Question in the end of his second chapter. Status igitur quaestionis etc. 
Ibidem.  Wherefore the state of the question, if it be set down without deceit, & ambiguity must be this: whether a man without special revelation ought, or may be certain, with the certainty of faith, which excludes all falsity, that his sins are forgiven him. So he● Plainly declaring of what certainty he speaketh, to wit of that, which of all others is the greatest, and most infallible.  
48. Which being supposed, let us examine how well to the purpose M. Barlow talketh of uncertainty when he saith, but in uncertainty there is no comfort. Where if he take the word uncertainty, as it excludeth all certainty, it is true; but then he abuseth the Reader, for B●llarmyne taketh it not so, but supposeth & proveth the contrary: if he take it as it is a denial only of the certainty of faith, than it is most false; for it may have other certainty sufficient to yield comfort, though it have not this, yea confidence as it is hope cannot possibly stand with that absolute certainty. 
Hope cannot stand with the absolute certainty of faith.  For who can be said to hope for that which he is certain to have? Or were it not a ridiculous manner of speech to say, that the souls of the Saints in heaven hope for the resurrection of their bodies, which infallibly they know shall be restored, & reunited again unto them? Or that we hope that God will judge both the wicked & just, punishing the first with endless torments, and rewarding the other with everlasting felicity? Well may the Saints be said to expect their bodies, and we the judgement, but neither the one, nor the other by reason of their undoubted certainty can be hoped for, as is evident.  
49. And whereas M. Barlow saith, that reliance on that whereof a man doubts, causeth rather a fear to be deceived, than a confidence's to be relieved, is far from the purpose, & a new changing of the term. For who saith, that a man doubteth of his justice or righteousness? Bellarmyme expressly denieth it, and saith, that the moral certainty that a man hath of his merits or justification, is so great, 
Bell. l. 3. de justif. cap. 11●●. Tertia sententia.  that although it take not away all fear; yet doth it exclude all anxiety, and wavering, yea doubting also, if he may be said to doubt, who assenteth to neither part. So he. Which may be made more clear by the example of S. Paul, debet in spe qui arat, arare, he that tilleth the ground, must till it in hope, 
1. Cor. 9●  that is, hope that the ground tilled, will bring forth fruit; 
Moral certainty sufficient to yield comfort.  and he who thus hopeth is neither certain that he shall reap the fruit, for than he would not hope the same, & it may so fall out, as that he may reap none at all: neither yet is he doubtful whether he shall, or shall not, for he hopeth that he shall, and for that he hath many reasons, and so assenteth to the affirmitive part, or else he would never have sown: as likewise doth the sailor on the seas, for if he were as doubtful of drowning, as arriving unto the port he saileth to, he would never I think adventure to pass them over. And whether this moral certainty which both sowers and sailors have, be not sufficient to yield them rather confidence to be relieved, than a fear to be deceived, needeth no other proof than the common practice & custom, which in the one, and in the other we daily behold. From this argument M. Barlow with like good fortune proceedeth to another thus:  
50. This also (saith he) crosseth the very next precedent proposition, 
Ibid.  that some confidence may be reposed in our own righteousness and good works, if men be assured that they be good works. But by this proposition in hand, it seems none can be assured. If they may, why doth he ●al it incertitudinem justitiae nostrae, the uncertainty of o●● righteousness? If they may not, wh●re than is their confidence's? or how m●y they settle it? If some may, and others not, he should have described, and distinguished them, or else that foregoing proposition might well have been spared● which af●oards little use and less comfort; and in that regard is directly opposite to this last, which is full of confidence and consolation. Hitherto M. Barlow, fight like a blind man with his face turned from his adversary, and then flourishing in the air, where all his dry blows do but beat against the wind, and touch not B●llarmine at all● whose words had he seen and understood, he would never I think have framed this idle conceit. For what contradiction is there, I pray you between these two propositions: some confidence may be reposed in our good works, so that by moral conjectural certainty we know them to be such, and this other, for that if we speak of the certainty of faith, which can be subject to no falsity, we are uncertain whether our works be meritorious or not; and therefore in respect thereof as also to avoid pride, is is best to repose all our confidence in the mercy and bountifulness of Almighty God. Truly no more, then is in this other, They that think themselves morally assured of M. Barlows fidelity, may repose some confidence in him: but because this their assurance is not so great, but that they may be deceived, as he deceived his master the Earl of Ess●x, who reposed so much confidence in him, by proclaiming out of the pulpit at Paul's Cross those things which the other before his death, for the quieting of his conscience had disclosed unto him in secret, therefore it is best to let him alone, and trust to Almighty God, of whose fidelity no man can have any cause to fear, or doubt.  
51. By which is easily answered the foresaid argument, the force whereof resteth upon these contradictory terms, that, 
M. Barlow altereth Bellarmine's words the better to impugn them.  a man may be assured of his good works, and, none can be assured of their good works: but neither the one, nor the other is in this place of Bellarmine. For he saith not, that a man may be assured, but, that if he be assured: and in the second, for the uncertainty of our righteousness, and not, none can be assured of their righteousness: for so it were a contradiction, if the word assured were taken in the self same sense & signification in both places. But as the words lie in Bellarm. albeit he should speak of the same certainty in both places (as he doth not;) yet were it not any contradiction at all, for both parts are true: the first, that men may repo●e confidence in their good works, if with the certainty of faith (as they may do by divine revelation) they know them to be such● the second thus, for the uncertainty of our righteousness (for without revelation we cannot be sure thereof) it is best to repose all our confidence in the mercy of Almighty God. Wherein here standeth the contradiction? And M. Barlow showeth great ignorance in this matter, when he saith that, by this proposition of Bellarmine, it seems that none can be assured: if they may, why doth he call it incertitudinem justitiae nostrae, the uncertainty of our righteousness? This, I say, is very simple stuff: for doth not this Prelate preach● sometimes to his people of the uncertainty of the hour of death, and yet God may reveal to any man in particular of his audience, when he shall die? Now of these two propositions, i● a man be certain of the hour of his death, he needeth not to be wa●ned by the Preacher, and for that men are ordinarily vncertayn●● therefore it is good that the Preachers put them often in mind thereof; what Divine, what Philosopher's yea what man of common sense and judgement, unless he have as little wit and learning as this Minister, would say that one part of this argument were contradictory to the other? I think the man was musing o● some other matter, when he wrote this patched, ill-coherent, and ignorant discourse.  
52. I pretermit his idle cavil against F. Persons about three questions worthy of M. Barlows profound learning, 
Ba●low pag. 259.  & answered after by the Father himself after which he putteth down the three conclusions of the Cardinal before alleged, and then thus like some Grammatical Monte-bank frameth this discourse: There cannot be any thing more violently contradicting, yea totally everting the very principal question: for quatenus implye● that some confidence may be placed in m●rit, but with a limitation tenus qua: this last admits no confining, but draws our whole confidence from man's m●rit to God's mercy alone, 
pag 260.  & carries with it a double contradiction, both subiecti & obiecti, so to speak. Do not you think that he hath spoken well, & much to the purpose? From these flourishing words let us come to his proof, and discuss in a word or two what he bringeth to prove a contradiction in the subject and object. But first I must her● tell the reader, that now he shall find M. Barlow ou● of his sphere (I mean out of Erasmus proverbs, 
M. Barlow extraspheram activitatis suae.  Marshal's Epigrams, and other Poets) and to handl● weapons which he knoweth not how to use, I mean● the terms of art, which become him as well to deal● withal, as to see an ape fight with a sword & buckle●● for thus he beginneth.  
53. The subject (saith he) tota fuducia, 
Ibidem.  man's whole confidence: this excludes all partition in itself, it must be entire, take it either as totum quantitatis, 
M. Barlow understandeth not the Authors he allegeth.  because confidence may be extended or remitted, be greater or less; or as totum rationis, as it is defined an hope corroborate & perfect; ●r as totum potentiale seu virtutis, confidence's of this or that nature & quality. In which words are many mistake, and those also very gross: first confidence being a spiritual quality inherent in the will or second power of the soul, cannot be said to have totum quantitatis, n●que per se, n●que per accidens, as S. Thomas in this very place mentioned by M. Barlow doth teach, 
D. Thom. 1. part. q. 76. artic. 8. in corpora articuli.  as presently we shall see. Again where he saith that confidence may be extended or remitted, there is an implicancy in the terms, if we speak in the phrase of schoolmen: for only quantity can be extended and only quality remitted: and to join them both together, is (to use M. Barlowes phrase) to couple Moses' two b●asts in one yoke, which will not agree: quantity may be extended or contracted, quality intended or remitted; but to say, that quantity may be remitted, is as proper a speech, as to say, that the nature of a quality is to be divided, and of a substance to be intended.  
54. Neither was it for nothing that B●rlow●yted ●yted only the bare name of S. Thomas in the margin without all reference to any place: for had he but quoted the part, question, and article, he should have directed the Reader, where to have seen his open ignorance refuted: for S. Thomas disputing how the whole soul is in every part of the body, 
Totality threefold in the opinion of S. Thomas.  showeth first how many ways a totality, or wholenes may be taken; ●nd answereth, that a whole thing may be said to be either, totum quod dividitur in ports quantitatively sicut tota linea, vel totum corpus A whole that is deuid●● into his quantitative parts, as a whole line, or a whol● body: or a whole that is divided into essential par●●● as a thing defined into the parts or members of the d●finition● or a potential, which is divided into his vi●tuall or operative parts (not of this, or that nature and quality, as M. Barlow very ignorantly conceiveth, or rather mistaketh it:) and then saith afterwards, tot●litas quantitativa non potest attribu● anima, nec per se, n●● per accidens, and how then can confidence have his totum quantitatiwm? Or how will M. Barlow measure the same by inches or e●ls, by feet or fathoms? yea how doth he cite S. Thomas for that which so plainly 〈◊〉 gainsaieth and refuteth? but ne suitor ultra cr●pidam, M. Barlow, now is beyond Erasm●s Chyliads, & Ovid's Metamorphosis. This triple division of totality being set down by M. B●rlow, he adjoineth as out of B●llar●mine these words: The WHOLE, s●ith the Cardinal, whether greater or less, whether weak or strong, wh●th●r one or other, is WHOLLY to be cast on God's m●rcy. 
M. Barlow Wholly mistaken.  And is there no difference in your divinity (good Sir) between these two speeches, The best course for M. Barlow were to leave his lying, and speak truly; &, M. B●●low is to leave his lying, & speak truly, when as the first is but exhortative, and the later absolute? The Cardinal only saith, that the safest way is to repose our whole confidence in God's mercy alone, and never ye● made this absolute proposition, Our whole confidence is wholly to be c●st on God's mercy alone. What wresting, what forging is this? And yet this man very devoutly in this place preacheth unto us of cor contritum, which God will have, and cor divisum, which he doth hate: but how contrite M. Barlowes hart is, or whether it be divided or united, I know not; sure I am, that here is double dealing, much ignorance, and nothing with any learning or sincerity handled.  
55. From the subject he cometh to the object. The object also (saith he) affords a strong contradiction, 
pag. 2●1.  sola misericordia, mercy alone etc. the very force of which word put the tempter to silence, and to flight also, ei soli, him only shalt thou serve. Had the Cardinal said in the first place, man's confidence must, or may be reposed in his own merits, and afterwards subjoined, man's confidence must, or may be placed in God's mercy, these had not been contradictory but communicative: merit might have part staked with mercy: but when he adds in mercy ALONE, 
M. Barlowes potent word●  merit, Saints, and Angels, and whatsoever beside are abandoned and cassiered: for solùm, alone admits no consort, as saith Aquinas. Lo here a short conquest: one word ALONE cassiering from confidence all merits, all Saints, all Angels, and whatsoever else, and from M. Barlow himself all learning, all sincerity, all truth, all honesty: this doubtless is a potent word that containeth so great virtue in it. But let us examine the force of this inference. First I would demand of M. Barlow what Saints & Angels have to do with the confidence that riseth out of our good wo●kes, that by this word Alone, they should be abandoned & cassierd? Did ever any affirm, that this confidence of our merits did depend on them, as upon the object of the same? This is one notorious foolery.  
56. Again, where will he find in all Bellarmyne that solamisericordia, only mercy, is the entire object of our confidence? Doth he no● say, that some confidence may be reposed in our works, so we be sure they be meritorious, and that we avoid pride? He saith in deed, that the securest way is to repose all our confidence in the only mercy of God, but not, that the mercy of God is the only object. And M. Barlow whiles he thinketh to put his adversary to silence, as Christ did the Devil with the word Only, 
M. Barlow makes only in the word Only.  himself is overcome with temptation of one lie at the least, if he knew what he wrote, or of ignorance if he knew it not. Moreover where he addeth, that had the Cardinal said in the first place, man's confidence must, or may be reposed in his own merit's, & afterwards had subjoined, man's confidence must, or m●y be placed in God's mercy, these had not been contradictory, but communicative; he both dealeth falsely, and refuteth himself: falsely, in foisting in the word must in both propositions, which is not in Bellarmyne, and it clean altereth the sense: for it is not all one to say, one may do such a thing, and a man must do it: for example, it is a far different thing to say, that M. Barlow may give the revenues of his Bishopric of one whole year, if he will, to the poor people of Lincoln, and M. Barlow must give his renenews of one year to the said poor people. But without this cobbling and cogging in of words M. Barlow can make no contradiction. He refuteth also himself for omitting the word must, here thrust in as I said. Bellarmin● saith the self same, to wit, that confidence's may be reposed in merit's, and confidence's may be reposed in God. But the first is subject to error and pride, the second is secure, and therefore it is best to repose all on the same. Which two propositions even by M. Barlows' confession are not contradictory, and therefore all his preaching and prattling, as F. Parson's well calleth it, se●ueth rather to show himself a false and ignorant writer, then to prove any contradiction in the Cardinal.  
57 After this sorry stuff he beginneth a Sermon out of S. Augustine upon these words of the Psalm, 
Barl. pa. 261.  Memorabor justitiae tuae solius: saying, that the said Father doth insist upon the same, both with an admiration, 
Ps. 70.  o solius, and also with a question, rogo vos, I pray you: why should he add this word solius? Had it not been enough for him to say, 
S. Augustine misunderstood.  I will remember thy righteousness? No, but solius prorsus, it alone, altogether I will remember: why so? Vbi meam non cogito, for in so saying I put out of my mind any righteousness which is mine own. So M. Barlow: and having ended his devotion, he concludeth thus: So then totum, whole confidence, that takes away the particular aliqua, in his former proposition, sola excludes meritum in both propositions. This is all he hath touching the object, and all wide of the mark, as is most evident.  
58. Yea so far is S. Augustine from checking this assertion of the Cardinal, as he elswere granteth the same, saying: ut speret regnum, habeat bonam conscientiam, credat, & operetur, 
Aug. in prafat. ad Psal. 31.  that a man may hope for the kingdom of heaven, let him have a good conscience, let him believe and labour. So he: and the place here cited by M. Barlow hath no more coherence with this matter now in controversy, than a poke full of plums, with the way to London. For our question is of such works, as be meritorious, and follow, or rather flow from God's grace inherent within us. But S. Augustine speaketh of that grace which goeth before all our good works, and of that justification which the divines call the first justification, by which a sinner is made just and first called unto God from that state, and saith, that this grace or righteousness no works can merit, which all catholics admit, & the Cardinal elsewhere at large doth prove: 
Bellarm. l. 6● de gratia & lib a●b. c●● 4. & 5.  and that he meaneth the first, not the second justification, is clear by his own words following in this explication, which are these: I am enim si superbi desideramus, v●l fatigati r●deamus etc. 
C●n 2 in psal. 70. 〈◊〉.  For now if we that are proud do desire, or wearied do return, we cannot return but by grace: grace is freely given, for if it were not a free gift, it were not grace. Moreover if therefore it be grace, because it is freely given, nothing of thine went before for which thou must receive it. For if any of thy good works went before, thou hast received a reward, no free gift; the reward due unto thee is punishment: that therefore we are delivered, comes not from our merits, but is of his grace; him therefore let us praise to whom we owe all that we are, to whom we owe our salvation, with which the Prophet concluded, after he had said many things, saying: memorabor justitiae tuae solius, I will remember thy righteousness alone. So S. Augustine. So clearly explicating himself, & evincing M. Barlows ignorance, as that I shall not need to add any further Commentary for confutation of the same. The rest which he addeth by way of antithesis totum, aliqua, sola, meritum, is nothing else but mere foolery, as shallbe afterwards showed.  
59 From Divinity he comes to Logic, making his entrance with a vaunting insultation of his adversaries ignorance, 
Barlow pag. 262.  and want of skill about the true nature of a contradiction. In delivering of which, the poor man is so embroiled, as he knoweth not what he saith, but clean mistaketh every thing which he speaketh of. For first he supposeth, that a contradiction must be where some general proposition ●ither expressly or implicatively is crossed by a particular, 
M. Barlows embroilments in Logic.  but this is no equal and perfect division, for that ● contradiction requireth not always a general proposition, but may be between two particular, so that ●he subject remain indivisible, to wit, under one, and ●he selfsame respect under them both. For if I should ●ay, that M. Barlow hath skill in Logic (though it be ●ery little) and M. Barlow hath not skill in Logic: again, M. Barlow is Bishop of Barlow●s ●s not Bishop of Lincoln etc. I do not doubt but that ●e would think these propositions, though both particular, to be truly contradictory, and consequently his ●wne supposition to be false; as that also is very fond, ●hich for explication of his express and implied contradiction he joineth, saying: contradiction●n ●n negato, the other in opposito or adiecto: of the first ●ort are these examples, wherein the negative note is expressed, as omnis homo est, aliquis non est; of the second ●ort are such, wherein the note negative is omitted, and yet ●ne member overthrows another. So M. Barlow out of Logic. And this as I said is very fond, for that it is not ●f the nature of a contradiction in adiecto, to be implied, but rather the contrary to be expressed in terms, ●t being all one with that which is called implicantia ●n terminis, an implicancy, or contradiction in the ●ery terms themselves. For example: If I should say M. Barlow is a brute beast, the adiectum or terminus ●rute beast, destroyeth the subject, to wit M. Barlow, whose behaviour, though it be often times very brutish and beastly, yet is he by nature a man, and that also a very natural one.  
60. But the greatest mistaking and ignorance of all the rest, is in the example which he maketh of this his implied contradiction: for having made this proposition, 
M. Barlow bringeth an example of a contradiction which in his own opinion is no contradiction at all.  Every Bishop of Rome is under Christ the immeatate and sole chief Pastor of the whole Church in the Christian world, this, saith our Philosopher, may be contradicted two ways: first expressly, Some Bishop o● Rome is not the immediate and sole chief pastor etc. Thi● is a contradictory with the negative. Secondly it may be crossed by implication, as thus: The patriarch of Constantinople is under Christ the immediate and sole chief pastor of the Eastern Church. This though it be a contradiction in opposito, yet doth it as mainly oppose th● former general proposition as if it had a negative no● etc. Thus far M. Barlow, as good a Philosopher a● M. Morton, who though he profess to have been ● Reader of Logic, yet shaped us out a syllogism o● six terms to prove Equivocation in an oath to b● unlawful: such great Devynes are these men● as they know not the first elements of this faculty. For ha● not M. Barlow been exceeding ignorant of the first rule, and necessary condition of a contradiction ● which is, that both parts cannot together be either true of false; he would never have given this for a● example, seeing himself, neither believeth the Bishop of R●m● to be head of the whole, or Patriarch of Constantinople of the Eastern Church. And where the● is the contradiction? And is not M. Barlow well seen● in Philosoph●, who chooseth out an example to prove a contradiction, in which, even in his own opinion there is no contradiction at all? Truly I may well suspect that he never came to be Bishop ●f Lincoln for his learning, which every where he showeth to be less than mean, and therefore ouerla●heth without measure, but for some other inferior quality, little perhaps befitting that calling. Let us to make him conceive his error the better, exemplify in some more familiar examples. The L. of Canterbu●y is Primate of all, and every part of England; and ●he L. of York is Primate of all the North part, is with me no contradiction: for that I hold both propositions to be false, and neither of them both to have any Primacy at all in that Church: and as the later will not claim it, so M. Abbot's may be sure, I will not assign it unto him, whom I do as much hold to be Abbot of W●stminster, as Bishop of Cant●r●ury. And the like must M. Barlow needs say of his two propositions, for that neither of them in his judgement ●s true, and therefore are more contrary than contradictory; as are also these, omnis homo currit, nullus homo currit, and the like.  
61. Wherefore if it be (as M. Barlow will needs have it) our very case in hand, even by the verdict of all skilful Philosophers in the world, the Cardinal will be quit at least from a contradiction: and it is but childish babbling, yet very frequent in M. Barlow, to make the oppositions of the terms themselves, saying, that h●re is a double contradiction both subiecti & praedica●i; 
Mere babbling.  the Patriarch of Constantinople crosseth the Bishop of Rome; the Eastern Church and the whole world contradict each other implicitly. This I say is but babbling, for there is as great opposition between the former two propositions before set down, as in this, Canterbury cr●ss●th York; all England the north parts. And again, omnis cannot stand with nullus, currit with non currit: and yet he will sooner bring Constantinople to Rome● and York to Canterbury, then prove any contradiction to be in the same. But let us draw to an end of M. Barlows dispute.  
62. I pass over the rest he addeth, concerning this matter, although his chiefest fraud and cozenage be contained in the same. 
M. Barlowes bad dealing.  For of an exhortative proposition in the Cardinal, he maketh an absolute and necessary, by cogging in the words is, & must, thus: man's confidence is to be reposed in the alone mercy of God, and, some confidence of man must be placed in his own merits, which are his own forgeryes, and not the cardinals assertions: and then further in falsely charging F. Persons, as though he said that good works increase confidence in their own nature, 
pag. 263.  and therefore will needs have his doctrine to be condemned by Pius V. amongst other like assertions of a Louvain Doctor; but all is forgery: for the Father speaketh not of our works, as alone they proceed from us, but as they proceed also from God's grace within us, and for that cause calleth them the good works of a Christian: & it is unchristian dealing in this Prelate to say, that this proposition was ever condemned by Pius V. or any other Pope or Council, who only speak of our works as they are done by a Pagan, without grace, or any other supernatural help; and last of all for maliciously transposing the word any, to make it signify that which the Father never dreamt of, thereby to make him contrary to B●llarmine, and contradictory to himself. For he maketh him to say, that a man may place any confidence in his own merits, so he beware of prid●, which is a notorious untruth. But I will not, as I said, further stand to refel these falshoodes, for that the Father himself hath very learnedly performed the same, and M. Barlow will never be able with any show of truth o● learning to make any reply thereunto.  
63. And whereas for the last upshot of this his dispute, he marshalleth forth in one rank together, a heap of contradictory speeches, giving us for a parting blow to make all sure a knocking Lie; I shall with the same conclusion end also this matter, not entering into any other confutation thereof, than the bare rehearsal or skoring up the untruths, which he hath couched together in this one number or paragraph, excepting only the last, in which I shallbe forced to be a little more large.  
64. First then he would feign make the Cardinal & F. Persons to disagree, 
A cluster of M. Barlowes lies.  by setting down their contrary positions, and then the Cardinal to fight with himself: the first part he proveth thus: Our own good works have such an uncertainty in them, as that our whole confidence must be referred to God's mercy saith the Cardinal: 
Barlow pag. 264. 265.  Our good works in their own nature are such as that they may give hope and confidence of themselves, saith his Champion. So he. And here at the least are three lies, if not more: for Bellarmine saith not, that our works have such an uncertainty in them, as no confidence can be reposed in them; neither doth he say, that all our confidence must be referred unto God's mercy: neither doth F. Persons affirm, that our good works IN THEIR OWN NATURE may give hope and confidence of themselves, for they require God's grace and promise of reward to make them meritorious, and to yield confidence. M. Barlow goeth on. Man's WHOLE confidence is to be placed in the mercy of God alone, saith Bellarmine: A man may willingly repose ANY confidence in his own works, saith F● Pers●n. Both are gross lies in M. Barlow. For these two propositions are neither found in Bellarmyne, nor F. P●rsons, but forged by himself, & are both most false.  
65. And truly, no marvel though M. Barlow be very resolute in his refuting our opinions, when as he frameth an adversary in the air, whom he may conquer; & then telle●h in great sadness the Reader, that he fighteth with us, which as you know is no great mastery, but misery rather, both to the man and his cause. For having in this place in four propositions told us five lies, thus he vaunteth over us, saying: Between them both, they have broached a goodly doctrine, and v●ry comfortable no doubt. But I have now showed that here is no broaching of theirs● but all of M. Barlowes own brewing, 
M. Barlo● a bad Brewer.  and abusing their words & meaning. To his former lying, he addeth ignorance, & would make the Cardinal to contradict himself, saying in his behalf, That good works of their own nature raise up our con●idence towards God, and yet a man is uncertain, whether they be good or no. The first part I have showed to be false, if by their own nature he understand them, as done without God's grace inherent in th● doer. The second is true, if M. Barlow understood it: for the word uncertain excludeth not all certainty, as before I noted, but the certainty of faith. Secondly (he saith) man must be ascertained that the works he ●●th be truly good, 
pag. 265.  or else he may not trust in them, and yet no man can assure himself that they are so, unless he have a revelation, saith the Cardinal, than which wh●t is more UNCERTAIN? saepe fallax, semper incerta, are his own words. So M. Barlow.  
66. How men may be ascertained of their good works, hath been already declared, and how we may be ascertained of your truth and fidelity, 
How we● may be ascertained of M Barlowes● fidelity.  if there were no other proof, this one place alone were sufficient to demonstrate, and evince most plainly, that either your ignorance is intolerable, or your lying most shameless. The Cardinal showeth, that without revelation, we cannot have absolute certainty of our being in grace, or perseverance in the same unto the end, because this certainty being the certainty of faith, dependeth upon God's divine revelation, as her formal object, which is made clear by the connexion of the present and future times in the Cardinal. For who but God can reveal to a man what shall be his end, either for bliss or woe? Annunciate quae ventura sunt in futurum, & sci●mus quia Dij estis vos, 
Isa. 41.  saith the Prophet to the Gods of the Gentiles: and by his own plain words in another place, where he saith, 

Bell. l. 3. d● justif. cap. 2. §.  
Status igitur & .10. §. Respondeo, haec omnia.   non posse qu●mquam sine peculiari revelatione certò s●ire certitudine fidei sibi remissa ●sse peccata. No man without special revelation can certainly know, with the certainty of faith, that his sins are forgiven him, and consequently whether he be in state of grace, and God's favour or no. And is this revelation trow you so uncertain? Is it saep● fallax, semper inc●rta? Or is Bellarm. so blasphemous, as to avouch the same? It should seem by M. Barlow, that he is For he telleth the Reader that they are his own word●; 
M. ●arlow very grisly abuseth the Cardinal.  but I must tell him the contrary, that it is M. Barlowes own lie, and that he doth singularly abuse both his Reader, & the Cardinal together by this imposture, deluding the one, and slandering the other, and most of all disgracing himself.  
67. But lest he should seem to impute this Atheistical paradox of the uncertainty of God's divine revelation to Bellarmine, without all proof, he citeth in the margin for his Readers direction lib. 1. de Verbo Dei cap. 2. where if he repair to examine this matter, I assure him, he shall not find one word thereof, but of the fanatical opinion of the Swenkfeldians, who rejecting all written authority, as well Scriptures, as Fathers, would have every man to be directed by their own inward spirits, which Bellarmine saith, is often deceitful, always uncertain. For thus he writeth: Quare cum sacra Scriptura regula credendi certissima, tutissimaque sit, sanus profectò non cri●, qui ea neglecta spiritus interni saepe fallacis, 
De verb. Dei lib. 1. cap. 2. §. Quare cum.  & semper incerti judicio se commiscrit: which is; Wherefore seeing the holy Scripture is the most sure & safest rule of belief, truly he will not be thought to be well in his wits, who leaving the same shall betake himself to the judgement of the inward spirit, often deceitful, and always uncertain. By which words he plainly showeth, that he is so far from speaking of God's divine revelation, as the wicked spirit of these heretics is different from the spirit of Christ, to wit, as clean opposite as Hell to Heaven, truth to falsehood, darkness to light. And with what face or forehead the● can this Minister turn the masculine gender into the feminine, the Swenckfeldian●pirit ●pirit into God's revelation? Yea, with what conscience can he say, that this revelation may be an illusion? As some superstitious people (saith he) take that fire for a walking spirit which is but ignis fatuus, 
M. Barlows melancholy conceit.  an illuding meteor; so pharisaical, and melancholic conceits may think them to be infusions of the holy Ghost which are but speculative imaginations of their own Ghost. Thus M. Barlow very profoundly, as you see, or rather most profanely, comparing God● revelation (for of that Bellarmine speaketh) which is always certain and certainly known of him to whom it is made, to his walking spirit, or ignis fatuus, to pharisaical and melancholic conceits; as though the truth of the said revelation depended on the disposition of the receiver, and not wholly upon the infallible authority of Almighty God, who revealeth the same. I will not say that M. Barlow is either pharisaical or melancholic, but that he is fatuus, or else fanaticus; albeit I say it not, yet the thing itself will speak, if his malice were not greater than his folly in this point, which I mean not to discuss.  
68 After all these untruths and manifold ignorances, he concludeth his disputation with a Sermon, and is become very devout upon the sudden, and of a tender conscience, telling us, 
M. Barlows sudden pang of devotion.  that it is better for the Cardinal to acknowledge an oversight in a long discourse, then to overthrow one soul redeemed by Christ's blood: Contradictions in assertions wounds but one opposite member; but unsoundness in doctrine, concerning salvation, doth wound the weak conscience of a Christian. 
ibid.  And then runneth on in the same descant; which is as much, as if some Harlot after she had wearied her tongue with railing and lying on her neighbour, should presently take upon her the person and state of a grave virtuous Matron, foris Helena, intus Hecuba, 
Nazianzen carmine adversus ●●●lieres ambitiosiùs se ornantes.  (to use S. Gregory Nazianz●ns phrase) or a false thief preach of truth and honesty. For how many falshoodes, ignorances, and forgeryes have been showed to be in this one dispute of his? How many, and how gross lies have been detected? whereof his book is so fraught and furnished to the full, as it is hard to say, whether any one number be free from the same● For in one only thing in the compass of little more than one page, in laying down 14. proofs, he hath made at least 15. untruths, whereby the Reader may see, how I should be overcloyed, if in laying forth examples of his dealing in this kind, which now I come to treat of, I should stand upon all particulars. But I will take a shorter course, and to this disputation adjoin a short examen of some few lies, and these such only, as concern the person of his Adversary, wherein as I am sure, that I have left very many vntouched● so do I also think, that some of them are more urgent and injurious, than those are which now I shall produce.  
69. The cause wherefore immediately after M. Barlows transparent ignorance I adjoin his vntruthes● 
Why after the proofs of M. Barlowes ignorance fo●low the examples of his lying.  is for that if it be possible one of them may excuse the other, it being a received axiom amongst Divines, that it is a less sin to lie out of ignorance then of maliced and the Apostle excused himself by this meane● when he said. Qui prius blasph●mus fui, & persecutor, & contum●li●sus, sed misericordiam Dei consecutus sum, qui● ignorans feci in in●redulitate. 
1 T●n 1.  I who before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and contumelious; but I have obtained God's mercy because I did it being ignorant in incredulity. And I wish from my hart that this mercy, after so many blasphemies, injuries done to Catholics, and most contumelious reproaches against all sorts of men of never so singular sanctity & learning, powered now forth in the time of his ignorant incredulity, may fall upon M. Barlow, which is the worst and greatest revenge I do wish him.  
70. This I say I would wish, but such as know the disposition of these men, although they find them ignorant enough, yet not always to offend of ignorance as it is a negation of knowledge, but rather of that which of the Divines is called ignorantia pravae dispositionis, because they will follow their erroneous judgement, & love lies, more than the truth; howsoever to make fools fain, they cry out against Equivocation, & such as do maintain the same. 
Sir Henry Wotton.  For so did also our late wooden Ambassador at Venice, who against the jesuits and their doctrine in this point, would be often very free, & as himself thought very ingenious also, but more free in this art of Lying. For being at Auspurge, & requested to write some motto, or sentence, with the subscription of his name thereunto, was not ashamed to profess it to be the chiefest point of his office, writing the definition of an Ambassador thus: 
Vide Serarium in logis Apologet. par. 3. cap. 20. §. 16. in fine.  Legatus est virbonus, peregrè missus ad mentiendum Reipublicae causa. Domino joanni Fleckhamero in perpetuum amicitiae pignus; Henricus Wottonius Serenissimi Angliae, Scotiae, Franciae, & Hyberniae Regis Orator primus ad Venetos. Augustae Vindeliciae 16. Augusti, anno Christiano 1604. That is: An Ambassador is a good man, sent far from home to lie for the good of the Commonwealth. To M. john Fleckhamer for a perpetual pledge of friendship, Henry Wotton the first Ambassador of the most Sovereign King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland to the Venetians. At Augusta Vindelica the 16. of August, in the Christian year 1604.  
71. So this witty Gentleman, 
Barlow pag. 20●.  defining himself (to use M. Barlowes fantastical phrase) by his essential & 
* in steed of essential & specifical.  kindly parts, to with a good man that can lie well. And whether in the last tumults of Venice betwixt the Sea Apostolic and that Commonwealth he discharged not thoroughly this part of his charge, and that very essentially & kindly also, I refer me to them who received his letters, and know what he wrote. Surely M. Barlow in this book is so copious therein, that if other of his own rank in our Country, were to be defined by him, 
The definition of an English Bishop taken from the Idea of M. Barlow.  a Protestant English Bishop should be nothing else, but an ignorant superintendant that can lie, rail, & flatter notoriously. Of his ignorance we have already seen some proof, now let us see how well he can lie.  
72. In the twelfth page he telleth the Reader, that F. Persons having wished the destruction of the King's Majesty by the gunpowder-plot, 
pag. 12. A malicious fiction against F. Persons  and by hope devoured the same, he came on his journey a good step (as some report) towards England, that he might have song Te Deum in his native Country, for the good success of that happy exploit. And this again he repeats in the 217. page, saying: As if there were no difference between him that should say, 
pag. 217.  F. Persons was almost upon the Sea coast of England, expecting the issue of the powder-plot, and his, that should aver, that he was upon the sea coast, and shipped for England. So he.  
73. This untruth both for the injury done to F. Persons, & for the improbability of the thing itself, which hath not so much as any shadow of truth, deserveth the first place; all Rome knowing the contrary to be most true, that for the year before and after the powder-plot, the said Father was always in the City, or in the places near adjoining: and at this very time when M. Barlow would have him to be on the sea coast he was sick in bed, in which as his weakness would permit either himself to write, or to dictate to another, he refuted the fifth part of Sir Edward Cooks Reports, which refutation is unanswered as yet by him, and not answerable by any. Neither can M. Barlow plead ignorance in this case, seeing that in the arraignment of F. Garnet, where there was so much forcing and straining of things to the uttermost, as well against the said F. Persons in particular, as the whole Order in general, there was no mention made hereof, nor yet in the printed books both English and Latyn, which since have been set forth of that matter.  
74. Was the thing so small, trow you, as that it deserved not a remembrance at least in that action in which far less presumptions than this were so tragically exaggerated? Or could there have been imagined a more forcible proof, or more direct means for the discrediting that Order, then to have convinced, by this journey, the only Superior of all the English mission, to have known and approved the same? No M. Barlow, had this happened, all you Ministers (genus irritabile vatum) had sounded it out with full mouth, all pulpits, all books had proclaimed it, all Prince's Courts, yea all corns of Christendom had been cloyed with Embassages, pamphlets, invectives, and clamours against him: and therefore to set down this fiction in print, well showeth how far your malice overwent your wit, 
Barlow pag. 360.  howsoever you temper the first place with this parenthesis (as some report) for you could not but know that they reported a lie; as you do again with exceeding impudent malice, when you write, but prove it not, that F Persons had his hart, hand and head in the powder-plot. 
Aug. l. 2. Confess. cap. 9  But I see that in you verified, pudet non esse impudentem, you are ashamed that you are not shameless  
75. In the 98. page of his book he makes in a different letter citing also the place, 
pag. 98.  F. Persons to say: That as some of the Fathers, who to amimate the persecuted Christians, 
An untruth joined with forgery.  described the l●wd life and fearful end of their persecutors (as Nero and Domitian) so he to comfort the Catholic traitors, must revile and belly that worthy Queen, the rather for that she was a woman. So he: printing only the word belly in ordinary letters, as though all the rest had been the words of the Father. But without any belying M. Barlow, I must tell him, that here are three lies in two lines: for neither doth F. Persons call catholics Traitors, whom in most of his books he hath defended and cleared from that false imputation; neither doth he say, that he must revile Queen Elizabeth, neither that he will do it the rather, for that she is a woman: and yet M. Barlow presently replieth, saying: If F. Persons have no other comfort th●n to cheer them up, because a woman quelled their insolency; then may the devil be comforted etc. What ●ill you say to this man? F. Persons saith, that Q. Elizabeth was the first woman christian, or created, that took upon her supreme power in spiritual or Ecclesiastical matters, and M. Barlow cannot refel the same, nor doth he go about it: but from his own chair of Oracles, tells us, without further proof, that she was no usurper by novell-clayme, and that God had annexed it to her crown; and instead of proving this, entereth into the commendation of women, as if F. Persons had discommended them: but the truth is, he saw, that thereby he had more matter for talk, and authority for proof, then in the barren subject of the feminine Supremacy, of which before Q. Elizabeth no example can be showed, and therefore he accommodated F. Persons text to serve to his purpose in that behalf.  
76. Again M. Barlow saith, 

See this lie refuted ●n the Treatise of Mitigation l pag. 72.  
Quiet and sober Reckoning: pag 51.   that F. Persons in his Viro doloso, his Doleman, had renounced his part in our Sovereign, and pronounced him elsewhere a desperate and forlorn heretic; yea they are his express words, whosoever shall consent to the succession of a Protestant, is a most grievous and damnable sinner. So he: and here I must tell him that this is an express lie, or rather that here be as many lies as lines; 
Barlow pag. 125. & 255.  for neither hath F. Persons renounced his part in our Sovereign, neither ever pronounced him elsewhere a desperate and forlorn heretic, with which none but some desperate forlorn heretic indeed, like M Barlow, would ever have charged him: neither are the other F. Persons express words, 
Dol. p. 1. pag. 21● &. p. 2 c● 5. pag. 117●  for in that place he neither nameth, nor meaneth a Protestant, more than a Puritan, Brownist, or else a Catholic, as in the place by me here cited is by himself declared. And doth not then M. Barlow for his writing deserve a good reward of a silver whetstone? Is this dealing Episcopal, or not rather Diabolical by such lying and forged fictions to do so open injury to others? Another in this kind he maketh in his Commentary on these words of F. Persons, as he citeth them (for in the text they are other) as I shall show. 
Barlo● pag. 13●.  As for catholics (saith he) they accept even the least favour gratefully, as hoping to have received much greater (as due unto than) if his Majesty had not been preu●nt●d by sinister information. So M. Barlow relateth his words, by making a parenthesis at (as due unto them) and then setting down the other, as immediately following, if his Majesty had not been prevented by sinister information. But let us hear F. Person● speak in his own words, as they lie in the Letter, & thereby both the fidelity of M. Barlow in citing them, and the truth of his answer in replying against them, will the better appear. Thus than he saith: 
L●●ter pag. 41. see before pag. 36. §. 17.  As for Catholics, they accept gratefully whatsoever least favour hath been, or is done unto th●m; and do not doubt, but that if his Majesty had not been prevented by sinister information, and persuasion of others, they had tasted of much greater, as due unto them, in that th●y are natural borne subjects of the realm, most Loyal in hart, and affection: and never meaning otherwise but to live in most orderly & dutiful subjection, & obedience to his Highness, as to their li●ge Lord and Souer●y●ne etc. So F. P●r●ons. And who could use more mild and moderate words to express the dutiful minds of catholics, towards his Majesty, than he doth in these?  
77. But let us see M. Barlowes Commentary by which alone will sufficiently appear with what malignant spirit his mind is possessed. For if hell itself w●re let loose, it is hard to say, whether all the Devils together would make a mo●e false, 
A most fa●se and malicious collection.  more wickeds or more injurious Answer, than he hath done. For thus he writeth. H●re judas is turned into Caiphas, & speaks a truth as Precedent of the Couns●ll for the POWDER-PLOT: 
pag. 130. & 131.  the revealing thereof by a letter unexpected, he cunningly calls a sinister information, which indeed prevented his Majesty from feeling the event of that dreadful resign, and them also of their greater hopes, which here he c●lls their DUE, as if ALL but THEY were usurpers: for had not the prevention happened, the greatest places of the land (which THEY in hope had swallowed) had e'en now at their disposal, and this prevention he calls sinister, as unlucky unto them etc. So this lying Minister. For that he doth here most loudly and lewdly lie, needeth no other proof than the comparing of F. Persons words, with this answer of his, which can no more stand together, then fire and water, truth with falsehood, or (for that he playeth the beast so brutishly in this place) to use his own example, 
pag. 268.  no more th●n Moy●es his ox and ass in on● yoke.  
78. For were not his wit very little, and honesty less, he would never show such fraudulent malignity in facing so heinous a matter without all ground, proof, or semblable conjecture, especially seeing in F. Persons the favour mentioned, to be meant only of that which his Majesty showed at his entrance. For these are his words almost in the next ensuing lines: 
Ibidem.  If there had b●n● no persecution before that treason, this might have b●n● assigned for some probable cause of the subsequent tribulation●: but all England knoweth, that this is not so, but that his Majesties' sweet and mild aspect towards Catholics at his first entrance, was soon by art of their en●myes, averted, long b●fore the conspiracy fell out etc. Which words fully declare, what he meant by sinister information and persuasion of oth●rs, 
M. ●arlows glo● hath no coherence with th● text.  and M. Barlow willing to dazzle the Readers eyes, and imprint in his mind a suspicion of F. P●rs●ns his acknowledge of the powder-plot, first by a hist●ron proteron, inverteth his words, cobbling in some of his own, and then frameth a gloss, which, notwithstanding all his dealing, agreeth not with the text: so good a writer he is, as he knoweth not of one thing how to infer another, for these words, as hoping to have received much greater, cited by M Barlow in a different letter, are not F. P●rs●ns words; neither doth F. Persons shut up (as due unto them) within a parenthesis, as immediately following the former sentence; and the words, if his Majesty had not been prevented by sinister information, in F. Persons go before the other, as due unto them, and are there so plainly explicated, as none but some malicious Minister could be ignorant of his meaning.  
79. Yet after all this cutting off, transposition, inversion, & changing in so short a sentence, to take it as it pleaseth M. Barlow to give it, how will the conclusion drawn thereof, agree with the premises, Catholics had received at his majesties hands greater favours as due unto them, if he had not been prevented by sinister information? How, I say, will it follow, that by sinister information F. Persons meant the revealing of the powder-plot by a letter, which, saith he, prevented his Majesty from feeling the event of that dreadful design? And again: and this prevention he calls sinister, as unlucky to them: adding moreover, that the hopes which F. Persons meant to be due to the catholics, were those which should have ensued unto them by that treason, which (saith M. Barlow) here he calls their DUE, as if ALL, but THEY, were usurpers. Are not these good inferences? Is not this Christian and charitable proceeding? What learning, truth, or modesty will allow this barbarous collection, and th●● in one who taketh upon him to write in defence of a Prince, and would be reputed in the Church for a Bishop? 
A notorious lie joined wi●h gross forgery.  But woe be to those sheep, that are fed and led by so perfidious a Pastor.  
80. The like perfidiousness he showeth in citing F. Persons words, where he maketh him in a different letter to say, speaking of the wars which some Popes have had with the Emperors; 

Barl. pag. 237.  
Le●t●r pag. 87.   that either they were not unlawfully done, or else the causes were just, or (saith M. Barlow, which is a pretty passage numb. 28.) the Popes have persuaded themselves they were just, and therefore as a General in the field pursued them as open enemies, or as a judge upon the Bench commanded execution to be done upon them, as MALEFACTORS. And having set down these words, as if F. Persons had spoken them, be beginneth to reply against them with this insulting entrance. But first who girt the sword to the Pope's side? But I may better retort this interrogation upon M. Barlow, and ask him; But first, who taught him to lie so loud? For in all the 28. number which he calls a pretty passage, where will he find these words; And therefore as a General in the field pursued them as open enemies, or as a judge upon the bench commanded execution to be done upon them, as MALEFACTORS? And if these Words be neither there, nor in any other place of F. Persons, is not this a pretty passage, or rather a paltry cozenage, and lying liberty in this Minister, to make his adversary to speak what himself listeth, and especially in such an odious manner and matter, as here he doth, printing the words MALEFACTORS, in great capital letters, as though F. People had said, that Popes may command execution to be done upon Princes, as upon MALEFACTORS, which is nothing else but the capital lying of M. Barlow?  
81. Perhaps the Reader here will ask, 
No ground for this lying forgery of M. Barlow in F. People book.  upon what ground this charge is made, for it is to be supposed, that he had some foundation for the same, in the discourse of F. Persons, albeit he followed not precisely the words, but their sense & meaning, from which it is to be thought that he hath no way swerved: but hereunto I answer, that neither the words or sense is to be found of this matter in the passage cited, and all that can be drawn to this purpose in the 28. number are these very words of the beginning: And so if s●●● Popes have had just wars with some Princes, King's 〈◊〉 Emperors, or have persuaded themselves that they we●● just in respect of some supposed disorders of the said Princes (as here is mentioned the war and other hostile proceedings of Pope Gregory the seventh against the Emperor He●●● the fourth) this is not contrary to the saying of Cardi●●● Bellarmine, that no Pope ever commanded any Prince 〈◊〉 be murdered, or allowed thereof, after it was done by 〈◊〉 other. These are F. Persons words; for which in his nam● M. Barlow guieth us these: The Popes have perswade● themselves the (wars) were just, and therefore as a General in the field pursued them as open enemies, or as a Iudg● upon the bench commanded execution to be done upon then as MALEFACTORS. 
A heap of injurious untruths against F. Persons.  And do you not thinks he hath played well his prize? I will end this matter, where M. Barlow doth begin it, to wit with his Ep●●stle Dedicatory, which although it be written to 〈◊〉 Majesty, yet he blusheth not in the same to tell him, that F. Persons hath through his whole book discharged his rancour both against his person and Apology. Again: that he careth not what he writes, nor whom he reviles, nor how 'tis taken. And that, he hath in the basest sort with his scorning ribaldry defiled and besmeared two sacred Princes successively reigning. 
Barlow epistle to h●s Maies●y.  And that, he cannot hold, but must needs regorge (his spirit is so turbulent and unquiet:) and as Hierome speaketh of helvidius, maledicere omnibus bonae conscientiae signum arbitratur, he thinks his conscience then best discharged when he hath reviled most. And again, if the objection be, that I have not spared from reproaching him, I deny it not. How could I forbears, or who can blame me? None that either hath loyal hart to your Majesty, being our gracious Sovereign, or Christian regard of her (who late was) that ever blessed Queen.  
82. And that you may know the task which he hath taken by interposing himself in this answer, between F. Persons and his Majesty, how great it is, & with what resolution against all adventures he is bend to go through with the same, 
M. Barlows courageous adventure.  he sticketh not for courage to compare himself to the Roman Curtius, who cast himself into the stinkng gulf; and for patience to the holy Martyr S. Sebastian: 
loco citato.  for so out of S. Ambrose he saith: Against me let him empty his whole quiver of reproaches: 
Amb. in psal. 118.  all of them I hope will be like the Roman arrows shot against S. Sebastian, drawn with bend force, loosed with much ease, but received with strong comfort. So is th●s valiant Captain fenced against all assaults and prepared with armour of proof for all encounters. But yet even in this very bravery of his, he cannot forbear his wont forgery. For S. Ambrose upon the 118. psalm hath nor ●ny mention of S. Sebastian's arrows, and therefore M. Barlow out of his good policy cited not the Octonary, but the whole volume, lest if he had made any direct reference, the Reader had soon espied the deceit. But this is a small fault in M. Barlow: we must be forced to overpass & pardon much greater.  
83. Having thus set forth himself, & as though he were a Spartan, a Curti●●, a S. Sebastian, he so contemptibly speaks of his Adversary, as if in respect of him he were b●t like a littl● mouse in the paw of a Lion, whom a man (saith M. Barlow) can neither avoid without calumny, nor encounter but with blot of infamy, nor conquer with hope of any mastery: and ●herefor● approveth ●is Majesties' opinion, who a● h● sai●●, ●●●●dged a rope the fittest answer for him: but in my book in this very page here cited I find his Majesty, 
pag. 13.  to say, that an hangman is fittest to answer such an historian; alluding worthily to M. Barlow who was to answer him: for hi● answer better befitteth a man of that trade then either a Bishop, or Divine, or one that would be taken for both, to write and set forth, and yet notwithstanding in the end of his Epistle he vauntingly promiseth to himself security from any reply thereunto from F. Persons: for verbalize, ●e saithe he can, dispute he cannot: in Stories he is a great florisher, but a false relator of them● who so enjoins him a modest answer doth undo him. Neither his age, nor profession, neither shame of the world, nor fear of God, nor grace of the spirit, can mortify his nature, or restrain his tongue. Thus to his Molestie: and after in his short Admonition to the Reader, he addeth: The style in respect of my place and profession may peradventure be adjudged too bitter, but compared with his person, and reviling vain against two such Christian monarchs, no one jote thereof, in exact Surui●●● of better judgement, is either pared off or spared at all. So M. Barlow.  
84. And do you not think that he hath her● described some Cynical Proteus, or railing zoilus, 〈◊〉 raging Thyestes', whose tongue is so intemperate, and style so contumelious, as would move even one that can bear all injuries of other men's tongues, as patiently as S. Sebastian did his arrows, to inveigh against him, and requite him in the same method and man●●● of speech? And that none who beareth either loyal hart to his Majesty, or Christian regard to M. Barlows dear deceased Mistress, can blame him for vsi●● this sharp rejection in their defence? Moreover, t●●● how bitterly soever he speak against his Aduersar●es, yet compared with his person, and reviling vain against two Princes, no io●e was to be pared, and spared, because (forsooth) a modest answer would undo him, and therefore M. Barlow is forced to be immodest (even ●gains● his mild disposition you may be sure) and to answer him with such intemperate scurrility as he doth, when as yet no modest man would ever be moved, much less forced thereunto, for that is the special praise of the virtuous, never to be drawn to d●● ill by the provocation or bad example of the wicked.  
85. But let us examine the charge it sel●, which how much the greater and more grievous it is, the more it requireth on his behalf plain and evident proof: 
M. Barlow very copious in charging his adversary, but very barren in his proofs.  for none can be free where it sufficeth only to accuse. Wherefore seeing that he is so copious in accusing with such variety of phrases and sentences, let us consider a little, how the thing itself is evicted, what words, what witnesses, what probable conjectures, inductions, or presumptions are brought for the same: we handle not now a speculative question, in which variety of judgements may breed diversity of opinions, neither talk we of China or Mex●co, and what is done in them, from whence the length of the way as it may weary the travailers, so also weaken the credit of their reports: our controversy is about a matter of fact, and that registered, as he will have it, in a printed book, in which if either M. Barlow or any other for him can find any reviling (such are the loathsome unsavoury phrases of this impure Minister) against his Majesties' person that now is (as for Q. Elizabeth I remit him to the ensuing Discussion) let M●●●●low be believed, and me discredited, yea let all his raylying pass for modest reason, his lying for ●ruth● 〈◊〉 for an honest man. But if no such thing be to be found, as I ascertain the Reader, that it cannot, them let M. Barlow be known to have made a notoriously to his Majesty in print, and have that credit hereafter which such shameless dealing doth deserve, and thereward also if you will, which such get who stand for the best game.  
89. Truly so far is F. Persons from all reviling or whatsoever else incivility against his majesties person, 
M ●arlows impatience for the praises given his Majesty by F Perso●s.  whom he always honoured, and whom after the attaining of the Crown of England, as his dread Lord and Sovereign he most dutifully respected, 〈◊〉 that he doth not any where speak of him without due regard and honour, commending his great humanity, royal nature, and noble disposition, with other parts and talents, wherewithal he is endued; for which this Minister is much offended (as being loath that any should praise him but himself) calling the Father judas, and comparing him to the devil, who confessed CHRIST to be the Son of God; and then makes his Majesty to answer him; What evil have I done, ut hic tam nequam de me tam bene loqueretur, 

Barl. pag. 1●3.  
Matth. 7.   that so bad a fellow as this is, should speak so well of me? Can we gather grapes of thrones, or figs of thistles? Is not this that self same Persons, who (as the Priest's witness) laboured to excommunicate so long ago his Majesty, as an obstinate and forlorn Heretick●?  
90 Lo how M. Barlow taketh it to the hart that the Father should praise his Majesty, and how scornfully he speaketh of so gra●e and ●eue●●●● a man. But such Ruffianlike immodesty we mus● bea●e withal in this unmannerly Minister, whose i●s●icall behaviour is such, as well shows what his education hath been, and of what virtuous disposition and judgement, he is. For were I disposed to encounter with him in this vain, I would say, that mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur, and his Majesty hath more cause to fear the fawning flattery of such as seek to raise themselves by other men's ruins, and are ready in case their fortunes should fail them whom now they flatter, to tread on their necks, defile, & besmear them all they can in deed then of F. Persons, whose sincerity, judgement, vertue● and constancy known to the world was such, as all the honours and preferments that the earth could yield him, of which he refused more than ever M● Barlow can hope to have, were never able to bend him to this base servility, as to turn his sails with every wind, praise and dispraise, now to kiss, and after to kill: which how much it reigneth in the other, for that all do see, I shall for the present forbear to speak.  
91. And whereas for confirmation hereof he saith, or rather demandeth, 
M. Watson repented at his death that ever he had written against the Fathers of the Society. See the Copy of his arraignment at Winchester, & protestation at his death.  if this be not that Persons, who, as the Priest's witness, laboured so long ago to excommunicate his Majesty, as an obstinate & forlorn heretic? I answer, that neither the Priests, unless he speak by Emballage numeri, witness any such thing, for it was but ●one Watson, & he also by M. Brancrost of Canterbury●aught ●aught in his silly Quodlibets how to lie in print. Nei●her did the Father ever attempt any such matter, or use any such terms against his Majesty at all: and it ●s a sign that M. Barlowes proofs are very beggarly, and his conscience and capacity not very good wh●● he stoopeth to gather up these off●lls, out of that raylative lying-libell condemned by all modest men, as well Catholics, as Protestants, and recalled w●●● grief by the writer himself at the hour of his death in the presence of many hundreds, when he asked the jesuits forgiveness that he had so slandered them, and much lamented that ever he had se● forth any such book, which many think he would never have do●, had not M. Mortons' suggesting devil R C. so much tempted him thereunto; 
Quiet and sober Reckoning pag. 326. 327.  at lea●t he would have for born from so open untruths, of which I can make (when need shall be) an evident demonstration, and therefore the testimonies taken from that infamous libel, are with all wise men of as much credit, as if they had been cited out of Aesop's fables, or the Acts and Monuments of john Fox.  
92. Yet lest that the Reader should think M. Barlow so shameless, as without all colour and probability to make so false and injurious a charge of F. Persons railing against his Majesty: or himself complai●● of my concealing his arguments, as fearing their force, I shall very briefly touch some two or three of them, which are so good and demonstrative, 
Example of M Barlow sycophancy.  as that they nee● no other answer to confute them, than their bare recital. F. P●rs●ns thinking the Apology to have ben● written by Thomas Montag●e, as most did here suppo●● before the coming forth of the Premonition, put down in the text T. M. but in the margin answering thereunto, his name at length; how doth M. Barlow, think you, draw an argument from hence to prove that all which is said against this Minister, was directly spoken against the King's Majesty by F. P●rsons? Strangely without doubt: for thus he writeth. By these two letters, if he will speak without equivocation, he meant Tua or Tanta Maiestas. 
Barlow● pag. 5.  Thus he maketh F. P●rsons against his own mind & meaning, to understand by these letters what liketh him to forge; for without this fiction of his, there were no defiling, or besmearing to be found against his Majesty at all, unless I say, he should turn Thomas Montague, into so great a Majesty. But let us see another.  
9●. F. Persons showing, that in an oath compounded of many clauses, if one amongst them all be false, that the whole cannot be taken as it lieth, and that the refusal of the whole, for that one clause excepted against, cannot infer the denial of all the rest combined therewithal, which are not liable to that exception. For clearer explication hereof he bringeth forth two examples, sayings As if some would say, that Plato was a man borne in Gre●●●, 
Letter pag. 75.  of an excellent wit, skilful in the Greek language, most excellent of all other Philosophers, and would require this to be confirmed by an oath; some Platonist perhaps would be content to swear it: but if some Strike, or Peripatetic, or Professor of some other Sect in Philosophy, should refuse the said oath, in respect of the last clause, might a man infer against him in all the other clauses also, ●●go he denieth Plato to be a man? He denieth him to be borne in Greece? He denieth him to be of an excellent wit? he denieth him to be skilful in the Greek tongue & c? Were not this a bad kind of arguing?  
94. So in like manner, if an Arian, or Pelagian Prince should exact an oath at his subjects hands, concerning divers articles of religion, that were believed by them both, & in the end, or middle thereof should insert some clauses sounding to the favour of their ow●● sect, for which the Subject should refuse the whole body of that Oath as it was conceived; could the other ●● justice accuse him, for denying all the several articles ●● his own religion also which therein are mentioned? W●●● seeth not the injustice of this manner of dealings S● far F. Persons. Out of which discourse, what trow yo● doth M. Barlow infer? 
Strange inferences  He secretly (saith he) girds a his Majesty, for being both a Philosopher (which is h●● Maiest●es great glory & our realms happiness for true Philosophy joined to government, 
Barlow pag. 212.  regulates the sceptre, to the subjects comfort, and the kingdoms renown) and an heretic also; a perfect slander in them both: for by that religion which they call heresy, he doth truly glorify the God of heaven. So he and who can deny● but that here is also besmearing as M. Barlow hath framed his Commentary? but I verily think that God is little glorified by such bad glosses, so little coherent, yea so clean repugnant to the text. Let us come to the last, for hasten to a● end of this Preface, & mean not to make any longer demur upon this kind of sycophancy.  
95. The most potent proof of all the rest to evince, that F. Persons wrote against his Majesty and not T. M. which M. Barlow will have to be demonstrative, and therefore setteth it out with his Ministerial eloquence and Episcopal gravity, is taken from these words of the said Father, where having answered the objections made against the lives of some Pope● he concludeth thus. 
Letter pag. 105.  If a man would go about to discredit Kingly authority, by all the misdeeds of particular Kings that have been registered by Historiographers, since the time that Popes began, he should find no doubt abundant ma●●er, and such, as could not be defended by any probability. And yet doth this prejudicate nothing to Princely power or dignity, and much less in our case, where the facts themselves objected, are either exaggerated, increased, wrested, or● altogeater falsified.  
96. To this what replieth M. Barlow? 
Barlow pag. 303.  Here first (saith he) is verified that speech of Seneca, nemo personam diu ferre potest, Art cannot long estrange nature. But as the Apologue describes Venus transformed waitingmayde, who being tricked up like a Gentlewoman, mink'st it a while till she spied a Mouse, 
M. Barlowes grave proof to show that F. Persons scorned or reproved his Majesty.  but then made it known she was a Cat: So this Censurer, who all this while would make the Reader believe that he confuted only one T. M. the younger, and would seem to take no knowledge, that our Gracious Sovereign had to do in the Apology: now being exasperated with this round canvasing of the Pope, and knowing that it will be descried for the style and vein of more th●n an ordinary man, he forgets his dissembled aduersary● & like a perfect jesuit retorts upon the King. Thus he. But how is this proved? Hear I pray, and admire the wisdom of Sir William. For if T. M. (saith he) were the tru● Apologer, the recrimination had been more fit both in respect of these precedent instances of Popes, and that supposed Author to have made the comparison between Bishops & Minister's. But if I answer him again, that it was more fitly made between King's & Popes in respect of their supreme authority which is not lost by the demerit of their lives, he hath nothing to reply thereunto, 
pag. 304.  but that all they who wear the habit, or are invested into holy orders amongst Protestants (I use his ●wne words) are not free from notorious vices and scandalous to the world: which I confess, and none I think can with any reason or truth gainsay the same.  
97. By these then, and such like reasons he would prove F. Persons to have written against hi● Majesty: whatsoever he said against Thomas Montague, and consequently to have railed against him, which although they be very childish, ridiculous, and impertinent as you have seen, proving nothing but his own sicophancy, yet as though they were clearer mathematical demons●rations than any in Euclid, he buildeth all his accusation upon them, and saith, as you have heard, 
M Barlows loyalty.  that he could not without touch of disloyalty forbear from reproach, and that in respect of F. Persons reviling vain, nothing at all was to be pared, or spared; telling his Majesty, that neither the shame of the world, nor fear of God, nor grace of the spirit, can mortify his nature, or restrain his tongue, but citeth no sentence, word or syllable for the same, but such as you have heard. With M Barlow, whose railing I mean here to examine, I will deal more really, and out of his own words show, what fear of God he hath, what shame of the world, what grace of the spirit, what mortified nature, what mod●st tongue, and then leave it to Readers judgement to determine, whether in such brutish reviling, no sparing, or paring were to be used or not.  
98. In his Epistle Dedicatory which is not very long, 
M. Barlows railing in his epistle dedicatory to his Majesty.  besides the reproaches mentioned of rancour, scorning, ribaldry, defiling, besmearing, regorging, and the like, he calleth F. Persons a debauched abject, and unreformed Hypocrite (belike M. Barlow is a reformed one) a Rakeshame, Rabshekah, of a prostituted conscience & impudence, whose very name is the epitome of all contumely being as currant in a proverb as was once the name of Daedalus: 
A Proverb misapplied.  In omni fabula & Daedali execratio: for no libel can come from Rome, but Persons is presently supposed and noised to be Author, and the more vile, the more Persons like, a creature that doth rage & snarl etc. Thus much to his Majesty himself. And is not this think you, fit for a Prince to read, or pre●ended Prelate to write? Is the gravity, learning, modesty, and virtue of the English Clergy, 
Vetus Comoedia  for which our Country before this revolt was most famous, so lost, as instead of answering like Divines, to see one bearing himself for a Bishop, to renew the old Comedy, in an epistle to his Sovereign & a Book written in his defence, which even on the heathen stage was so much misliked & condemned by all?  
99 To this beginning is suitable the whole work which follows, or rather much worse. For in the very entrance after he hath set down what order he will observe, and repeated some of F. Persons words, but falsely after his accustomed manner, he calleth him a ranging voluntary runagate, an Hispanized Chameleon, 
Barlow pag. 3.  the brat of an Incubus, filius terrae, no true Englishman either in hart or by birth. This is his first assault, rude & Ruffianlike as you see: and then afterwards he telleth of the disgorging the gall of his bitterness, and the venomous rancour of his cankered hart by his Rabshakeis' pen; that he is the abstract quintessence of all coins, coggeries & forgeries, that lies, dissembles, equivocates at every word; this fugitive tenebrio, Persons, Robin Cowbucke, parasite and traitorous clawback, a known incendiary, this serpens Epidaurius the devils scholar, his Devillity reader, Spiritus mendax in ore omnium Prophetarum, this boutefeaux, he disgorgeth out of his filthy throat by his devilish pen etc. And is there here no paring, nor sparing to be used in the judgement of M. Barlows exact surveyors? Truly either their Suru●y was not very exact, or their judgement small, or else they were not his friends, that would permit such scurrility to pass in print, without control, to his everlasting shame and discredit.  
100 There were no end, if I would stand on all particulars, for in less than the compass of one leaf he useth all these reviling terms, 
pag. 67.68.  A blackm●●thed Shemey, famous for nothing but for capital infamies, a bastard by birth, a libeler by custom, a factionist in society, an expulsed Academian, rung out with bells, as a carted strumpet with pans, 
The grace of M. Barlows spirit.  for a graceless companion, a Diabolical Machiavellian, a stain of humanity, a corrupter of all honesty. Again, a Chameleon for his profession, a backsliding Apostata, a perjured intruder, a dissolute Libertine in act, in choice, in mayntenanee, a fugitive with discontented runagates, a viperous complotter against his Country● a firebrand of treasonable combustious by pen and advice; and (which of all other is most remarkable) a jesuit b● proxy, a votary by substitution, a Paduan Mountebank, and Empirical Quacksalver, a disdainful scorner of all reproof or counsel, and yet a scorned vassal by all the Pope● he hath served, a dog to snarl etc. this canker of youth● this spawn of vipers, this slave of Satan etc. a dead dog being whiles he lives a rotten carcase of a poisoned cur, infected in his entrails, and infecting with his favour the ay●● he breathes, and the land where he had hi● first breath, a miching cur, a car●only cur etc. as if he were the porter of Had●s, Charon's Mastiff, Pluto's Cerberus, he ●arrowe● Tartar and (I tremble to write it) feigns with a wish (Q. Elizabeth's) glorified soul in a ghastly ghost to speak from hell. So he● And to all this there needeth no other answer, than Medici median pertundite● venam. The ma● is more than half mad.  
101. Only this by the way, I must tell him, ●hat here with his immodesty is conjoined exceeding great malignity, in calumniating the birth & parents of F. Persons, 

F. Persons● birth better proved to be free from all stain of bastardy then M. Barlow can prove his.  
Barl. 89.   which though by some passionate and foolish Watson, in the heat of his dissension & contradiction against him, without all proof or probability, was called into question, yet could not M. Barlow but know, that the said reproachful slander was refuted by the Father himself, in his book of Apology for the Archpriest, & Manifestation of folly and bad spirit, which ●ater M. Barlow doth often city (and I think in one place, the very page where this is handled) in which F. People proveth how free his birth was from all such suspicion, and his proofs are so plain and pregnant, as M. Barlow, if he were set to prove his own legitimation, would not, nay could not prove it better, & perhaps not so well. And it argueth little wit, and ●hame in the man, but much malice and great desire to hurt, in repeating again these refuted slanders, which as well for the falsehood they contain, and injury to the said Father, he should by the rules of Christian charity and conscience have forborn; as also for the honour of their own Clergy, in respect of his brother, who (the more pity) by profession is one of M. Barlowes own rank, I mean a Protestant Minister, and is as much injured by this infamous lie, as F. Persons himself.  
102. For according to his wont manner not of modesty but of reproachful ribaldry, he calleth their mother (a very grave Ma●rone) Pasiphae, and he● husband Actaeon, and Minotaurus: belike his mother married one of her own sons, for so was Mino●auru● to Pasiphae. And as for Actaeon, if I would learn by the example of M. Barlow to be immodest, I could tell him, if reports may be credited, where per●●●● nearer home he may find a friend, 
Where M Barlow may find Actaeon.  who laying 〈◊〉 hand on his breast (I will forbear his forehead) may truly say, Actaeon ego sum: but howsoever that be, s●●rely if from the disposition of the children a guess may be made of the parents deportment, as from the frui●● we gather of what nature the tree is that did bear it● well may we think that F. Persons mother was modest, wise, grave and virtuous, because himself wa● so; and that M. Barlows mother was either some Hecuba, whom the Poets for her railing feign to have been turned into a dog, or Proserpina that hath brought forth to the world this hellish spirit & serpentine tongue, inflámata à gehenna, 
jacob .3.  that always breaketh forth into such virulent acerbity, lying, detraction, railing, and all manner of sycophancy, as in every place almost, and passage of his book we do find.  
103. His other example of an expulsed Academi●●, rung out with bells, which M. Barlow adorneth with th●● comparison well beseeming his Episcopal gravity (as a carted strumpet with panns) we can eas●●y pardo●, as more tending to the Father's honour, than any way at all to his disgrace For had not his fervour and forwardness towards the Catholic Religion been very singular, 
The disgraces done by heretics to F. Persons were his great glory, and so likewise are M. Barlowes scold.  the professed enemies thereof had never showed such extreme spite, malice, and rancour ●gainst him, as they did whose injury done in this behalf is no more disparagement unto him in the sight of God, his Angels, Saints, and all sober men, them it was to the Apostles to be whipped by the jew, S. Fulgentius by the Arians, or S. Paul to fly from D●masco in a basket by the wall. If the cause be good, be the penalty never so sharp, base or shameful i● the sight of men, yet in the eyes of him who aba●ed himself to death, 
Philip. 3.  & to the death of the Cross for our sakes, whose followers and disciples we are, it is most precious, most honourable, most glorious. Wherefore to F. Persons we may well apply that sentence of S. Hierome, where speaking of his zeal against heretics he saith: Respondebo me numquam haereticis p●percisse, sed omni egisse study, ut hostes Ecclesiae mei quoque hosts fie●ent. 
Hierom. proem. in Dialogos adversus Felagianos.  I will answer them, that I never spared heretics but have laboured by all means I could, that the enemies of the Church, might also be my enemies. So S. Hierome: and so F. Persons: and consequently if ●his zeal against them procured their enmity, and their enmity broke forth into this heretical insolency, I nothing doubt, but that now as well his painful endeavours in his works and writings against them, as his patient endurance of the wrongs and injuries he received by them, are both crowned in heaven with their due reward of immortal glory. In which respect we may say to M. Barlow, as S. Bernard in the ●ike case did to another, 
Ep. 48.  Quid iustius, quid iucundius, quam ut quem reprehendere intendis plùs commends, ut praeconijs pro convitijs utaris nescius, & volens detrahere, laudes invitus? that is; what is more just, what more comfortable than that you should the more honour him whom you go about to reprove; that unwitting you shoul● for reproaches use praises, and desiring to detract (F. Persons) that even against your will you should commend him? But let us return again to the railing Rhetoric of M. Barlow.  
104. Within some two leaves after, as though he were in devotionis templo, 
Templum Devotionis.  at his prayers, or amongst the Lindians, or Coribantes at their Sacrifices, he saith, that F. Persons is billed by the devil, and enroled in 〈◊〉 Catalogue of the damned; 
pag. 72.73.  that he hath all the marks of 〈◊〉 reprobate; his brain the forge of mischief; his face the aquile of impudence; 
What fear of God or shame of the world is there here?  his hart the minthouse of treasons to 〈◊〉 Country; a libeling hand restless & truthless; a railing tong●● without measure or discretion; his throat an open sepulchres his feet swift for bloodshed, & interiora impietas, his very entrails the inwards of impiety; in brief the engarbled anatomy of a damned wretch, being branded with Cai● mark, that no man may attach to punish ●ym here etc. These are the Episcopal terms of M. Barlow, an● you may imagine what forceth him to this fury. Were the truth on their side, they needed not defile their pen●s with this filth; but leesers must have leave to talk, and the ignorant to rave, when they are not able to frame better answers.  
105. Many more of these flowers of M. By-blows folly, or rather frenzy, I might produce, if the Reader were delighted with their noisome savour, whose most common title of the Father, is Cur, or Do●● for so you have now heard him call him, 
pag. 93 97. 157. 254.  a dog to sna●●● a dead dog, a rotten carcase of a poisoned cur, a mitcher cur, a carionly cur, Charon's mastiff, Pluto's Cerb●rus, & afterwards, a Cur that snarls, a currish bloodhound, an opprobrious cur, base bone-gnawer. And whereas F. P●rsons made this demand of the Author of the Apology whom he took to be Thomas Mountagne: 
Rus●icus es Coridon.  A●● needeth no more, Sir, but this to condemn both ●onfesso●● and Popes of conspiring the last Queen's death? M. Barlow answereth hereunto: 
Barlow pag. 250.  There needs no more (CUR) then that: writing the word CURR, in great capital letters, for else the Reader should not have discovered him so well to be a great capital fool. Moreover he calleth him turpissima bestia, a practised Equivocatour, an equivocating Malepardus. From beasts and dogs, he cometh to the Devil, and compareth the Father to him, as he is Diabolus, as he is Satan, 
Barl. pag. 116.  as he is Lucifer: in respect of which, and the precedent terms, these which follow, that he is an imposthume of all corruptions, a Sycophant, the Pope's Scavinger, a misbegotten catachrestical companion, cogging & shameless companion, perfidious Hypocrite, and the like, may seem very mild and moderate, though yet most repugnant to the modesty of any honest or wellminded man.  
106. And albeit this tempestuous storm of M. Barlowes immodest and unchristianlike railing, do fall specially upon F. Persons, yet he forbeareth not also others of higher calling, and more eminent degree, who (even by his own rule) are further from envy, which (as he telleth his Majesty in the beginning of his Epistle) stretcheth herself no higher than these which are a man's equals, or somewhat his Superiors: 
Epist. dedicat. initio.  and in that respect, and even by the rules of common civility should have been spared, had not this Minister after that once he had broken the limits of modesty, earnestly endeavoured to be egregiously impudent, 
Railing against the Pope, and Cardinal Bellarmine.  and therefore he forbeareth none, but even this present Pope for his mildness, virtue, wisdom, and learning most laudable, he calleth out of M. Bluetts' relation (if you will believe him) a rash speaker, & a heady undertaket, of a most violent spirit, & impatient of contradiction: 
pag. 27. pag 31. 173.  & in other places a busy polypragmon, a man wedded to his own will, 
pag 199. pag. 155.  and newly possessed of Pope joanes Chair, the Grandfather of the Romish ●rats, an only Breve-compounder. And as the man is witty, so he interpreteth the words of the Apocalyps, 
Apoc. 12●  sciens quod breve tempus habet, thuss The (Pope) knowing that his time is but a Breve. 

Barl. pag. 35.  
pag. 231. 305. 236. 316.   Cardinal Bellarmyne he abuseth more grossly, for he calleth him, a Cardinal parasite, the lenocinating pander of the whore of Babylon, the whit-lyverd redcap, his roguing trycks, and the like.  
107. Besyds these personal reproaches, he hath many also more general of the whole order of jesuits, 
Railing against the whole society of jesuits.  in which live so many men of great nobility of blood, exquisite learning, & rare virtue, for which amongst all good men they are renowned, and hated specially of heretics, Infidels, and bad Christians: this man measuring and describing them all by himself, & his fellow Ministers of England saith, that they are a Society, which like Hannibal's army is gathered ex collu●●● omnium gentium, 
Ba●l. pag. 100L.  of the resuse & malcontents of all nations, cemented into a fraternity as the walls of Babylon, built with the demolished rubbish of Babells' tower, nourished by the Pope as the janissaries by the Turk, to be the valiantest cut-throats of true christians their own native Coutrymen. So in one passage without interruption: and in another he saith, 
pag. 349.  that jesuits are the principal Boutefeaux, and incendiary make-bates through all Christendom, who laying fuel to fire, with their doctrine kindle, & with their counsel inflame the minds of Princes in iealouzies each of other, & the natural subjects with disloyal con● spiracyes against their lawful Sovereigns. So he. But this rank blast with them shaketh no corn, all Princes & people, with whom they live, seeing with their eyes, and knowing by their experience the quite contrary. 
pag. 201.  But railing and lying with this Minister, to use his own phrase, seem to be his very kindly & essential parts.  
108. Neither is he content with this immodesty against Christ's Vicar, and other virtuous men, but losing the reins of his unbridled tongue, 
jacob .3.  as a ship without a stern, is carried where the fury of his passion, like a strong wind, doth transport him, and opens his mouth against heaven itself, 
Apoc. 13.  and the Saints therein, by storming or blasphemously speaking of three of them, to wit, S. Gregory, and S. Leo, 

M. Barlow raileth against three Saints.  
S. Gregory, S Leo, and S. Martin.   both which are for their rare examples of life, admirable knowledge, & renowned labours surnamed the Great, & S. Martin no less eminent in all manner of sanctity, for which all the learned Fathers since his time have never spoken of him but with singular reverence, and very special commendation. Of S. Gregory with a solemnly he telleth the Reader, that B●llarmyne maketh their great Sainted- Pope either an hypocrite to give the Emperor a hail- Master (whom in hart he contemned, yea accounted a persecutor, saith Persons) or else a temporising lukewarm Laodicaean, 
Barl. pag. 175.  that for fear or constraint would yield to any thing against his conscience, that the Emperor would command. And can there be any thing more contumeliously and Lucianlike spoken then this? Neither hath the Cardinal any word or clause, that can be drawn hereunto, without manifold injurious wresting and perverting of his whole scope, drift, & meaning, as the Reader, if he list ●o peruse the place will soon confess.  
109. Towards S. Leo he is much more exorbitant calling him the eloquent proud Pope, and saying, 
pag. 328.  that he hath certain hyperbolycall phrases, 
M. Barlows scurrility against S. Leo the Great.  wherewith he sets forth S. Peter's authority, especially that blasphemous speech of his, that our Lord did take S. Peter into the fellowship of the indivisible Unity, such an impious & profanely proud assertion, as a Christian hart would tremble to imagine it, and his hand abhor to write it. So he. And I think that al● Christian hearts will more tremble & abhor the impious and profane proud audacity, and blasphemous villainy of this wicked miscreant, for his base reviling so glorious a Saint, than any words used by S. Leo, which by the author of the Supplement are defended, & proved to contain nothing but true and Catholic doctrine, consonant to the Scriptures, Counsel, & all antiquity S. Martin he calleth a sullen surly Prelate, taxing his uncivil using of the Emperor, and proud thoughts, from which he was so free, as he is by all writers specially commended for the contrary, & made a rare example and mirror of humility. But M Barlow hath leave as it should seem of his exact Surveyors (as once the Clazemonians had of the Sparthians● indecorè facere, 
Aelian l. ●. var hist. tit. 15.  to spare none, but to rail, lie, an● blaspheme the highest and lowest, living and dead, God's servants on earth, & his Saints in heaven, with whom, unless he repent, he will never have any part or portion, 
1. Cor. 6.  Quia maledici regnum Dei non possidebunt.  
110. There would be no end, if I should unfold all that he hath in this kind, which I forbear to do● any further as having already laid forth so much as may cloy the Reader, and clearly show the spirit of the man. For if, as Cassiodorus writeth, speculum cordis hominum verba sunt, 
Cassiod. var. lib. 6. cap. 9 Matth 11.  the words of men are the looking glass of their hart, for from the abundance of the hart the mouth doth speak, we must needs see what a sink of iniquity lieth in the hart of this man, from which so many lies, contumelies, slanders, blasphemies, and wicked impure words have proceeded; what immodest malice, that spareth none, abuseth all; what malicious immodesty, that shameth not to a base ●t self to the most vile and beastly terms which be●ore have been set down, and are too filthy here to ●e again repeated. Truly whosoever will with vn●artia●l affection judge hereof, will soon see, and confess that M. Barlow is more trained and better practised in his school, who is accusator Fratrum, 
Apoc. 12.  or his, qui aperuit os suum in blasp●emias, 
Apoc. 13.  than our saviours, whose wisdom as S. james saith, is pudica, pacifica etc. peaceable and modest, of which he shall find this Minister quite devoid, without sense or feeling at all.  
111. And by this also he may further guess where to find the devils scholar indeed, 
Barl. pag. 39  and his D●uillity Reader (to use M. Barlows words) if he list to seek him, for I report me to all modest men, whether this manner of writing or rather railing have not more Devillity, 
M. Barlow much troubled about the obsession, circumsession, and possession of Devils.  than Divinity in it, and whether it do not better beseem a Devil thus to speak, than a Divine to write, unless perhaps such a Divine as for his degree of Doctorship made his position of the possession of Devils, and in defending the negative (a strange assertion) was so much in the terms of obsession, circumsession & possession, answering & distinguishing so ridulously when the Master of Queen's College pressed him, 
D. Tyndall●  as if he had been some conjurers boy, that had been to go forth Master of the black art, and not M● Barlow to proceed Doctor of Divinity: and as none will deny but that the argument of possession of Devils did very much fit his humour, so must I needs say, that Cambridge was a very unfit place for such a Doctor, when as both the dogmatical position, and disposition of the man deserved rather a B●dlam or Bridewell, 
M. Barlow a Bedlam or Bridwell Doctor.  than any Oxford or Cambridge to be stained withal. For there is neither mad man in the one, or bad woman in the other, but that may yet learn to rave and rail of M. Barlow, though he have this special privilege more than they, to set that out in print to the view of all, which some of them perhaps would be ashamed to speak privately in their chambers between themselves alone.  
112. I could here out of better proof than the infamous Quodlibets, or other such like Libels which are M. Barlows chiefest Authors and authorities against F. Persons, show other examples of his proud & insolent behaviour, I mean by such witnesses as both saw and heard what passed at Lincoln, for that he was not so honourably received as he did expect, though yet he had much more honour done him then he did deserve. For preaching in his parish at S. Edward's o● the feast of the Circumcision, not so much upon the Gospel and present solemnity, as against Sir Ioh● Cuts there present (for cutting belike some benefice, or part thereof from him) he was so enraged, as neither the place, time, Auditory, or the matter he handled could keep him from open reproach, 
M. Barlowes de●out sermon of the Circumcision in S. Edward's Church.  but that he must needs tell that out of the pulpit, which s●an● be fitted an Alebench, that now every jack would become a Cutter, with other words to that effect, which I forbear in this place, as mindful of my promise not to bring witness or proof against M. Barlow, but M. Barlow himself. These things with many other in a more ample process may come forth hereafter, if instead of answering our books he provoke us again, as here he hath done with his intemperate scurrility. From his railing let us come to his flattery.  

Laert. in Diogen.  113. Witty was the answer of the Cynic, who being asked what beast had sharpest teeth to bite, answered, that of wild beasts the Detractor or railer, ●f tame the Flatterer. And the Fathers well note, ●hat commonly these two vices combined together in the same subject. Parasitus (saith S. Hierome) ●n contumelijs gloriatur: 
Hieron. in Heluidium Chrys. hom. 31. in Act. See Apolinaris Sidonius lib. 3. epist. ep. 13. in fine.  the Parasite delighteth in reproaches. And S. Chrysostome: Nihil muliebrius est, quam ●obor in lingua habere, & in convicijs superbire, sicut Para●●ti & adulatores &c. Porci magis sunt quam homines, ●uotquot in hoc gloriantur. There is nothing more effeminate, then for a man to have his strength in his tongue, to take pride in railing, as Parasites & flatterers use ●o do. As many as do glory in this are more to be esteemed swine than men. So this Father in this short ●entence, giving a sharp censure of M. Barlowes book ●o flattering, so raylative, as it passeth all modesty & measure. Of the later we have already seen some examples, now you shall see how he can fawn, that did before so reproachfully bite, but with all brevity, as being loath for some respects, to touch the most pregnant examples of this Parasite, for fear of further reproof and check.  
114. You have heard him blaspheme three Saints of ours (for none of them was a Protestant) now you shall hear him make a new Saint of his own. 
Q. Elizabeth canonised for a Saint by M. Barlow.  For having spent almost three pages together in extolling or rather belying Q. Elizabeth far beyond all truth or desert, calling white black, and black white, making light darkness, & darkness light, after he hath made her of all living creatures the most admirable on earth, with many bombasting phrases, setting forth her praise, who yet in her life time did nothing or very little (God wot) that was praise worthy, leaving after 44. years reign, no other monument in the land of her living in it, but that she had pulled down many Church's 〈◊〉 houses, and not so much as built or let up one● or erected any thing for posterity to remain after 〈◊〉 But as Xenophon in Cyrus did not so much write 〈◊〉 life, as in him describe what a good King should be● so M. Barlow in his transformed Queen Elizabeth, ●●●leth us not so much what she was indeed, as what 〈◊〉 should have been, or as now they would for the credit of their Gospel wish that she had been: After a●● these Enconiums given of her life, I say, thus he ad●uaunceth her after her death to heaven, and without authority will needs canonize her before her time, & to use his own phrase, make her an eternised Saint● His words be theses 
pa●. 66. 67.  For her reward in heaven, if restraints of liberty, and pursuits of malice for God's truth● inflicted through jealousy, and endured with singular pat●●ence; if a release from them unexpected, 
Flattering foolery.  followed with honour's, and blessings, neither interrupted by others (whe●ther treasons or invasions) nor blemished by herself with vice criminal, or continued; if life shut up after length 〈◊〉 days and a full age, with a courage defying death, with● prayers imploring mercy, with faith assuring the prayers, with testimonies witnessing her assurance, can be preceding conjectures, or rather evidences of unspeakable happinesse● we may safely conclude, that she which passed through 〈◊〉 Crown of thorns (borne so constantly) to a Crow●e of Gold (worn so triumphantly) hath n●w gotten the thir● of Glory, to enjoy for everlasting.  
115. So M. Barlow, with more to the same effects telling how she was an example of virtue for her own to follow, and a loadst irre for other Nations to admire, concluding with this Apostrophe: Now this renowned Queen, this eternised Saint etc. And not to enter into dispute of the truth of his words, nor yet to ask him by what certainty he knows, that she passed from one of these ●hree Crowns to another, especially from the gold ●o glory, which requireth other proof than this ver●all flourish of a few Rhetorical figures, & bare imaginary conjectures of that courage, prayers, faith, and testimonies witnessing assurance, which this man sitting in his chamber doth feign, but she at her death (if we believe eye witnesses of much better credit than himself) did little feel; to omit this, I say, 
Two questions proposed to M. Barlow.  as an idle fancy or fiction rather of this foolish Parasite, two things I would demand of him: the first that seeing he will needs draw his glorious Queen into the Calendar of Saints, what title or place she shall have amongst them in the same, for that in ours there is no Saint of that sex, but is either Virgin, or Martyr, or both, or else nec Virgo, nec Martyr, as are Wives, Widows, and repentant sinners. M. Barlow shall do well in his next to tell us, in which of these degrees this his new Sainted Queen Elizabeth is to be placed: 
Q. Elizabeth nec virgo nec martyr.  perhaps when he hath thought better on the matter, he may find some perplexity, & be content to let her pass for one that was nec Virgo, nec Martyr, and thrice happy had it been for her, if she had been indeed a true repentant sinner.  
116. The other thing is to know, what he thinketh of the renowned Mother of his Majesty, 
Touching his majesties Mother.  whom by this canonizing of Q. Elizabeth, he must needs condemn to hellfire, for it is impossible that one heaven should hold both these Queens, in life and belief so quite opposite, the one, with great commendation of virtue, remaining in the unity of the Catholic faith, in which, and for which she died, to the great admiration and amazement of the whole world, to 〈◊〉 a Queen & Mother of a King indeed for religion, 〈◊〉 under the colour of ●reason, 
Cicero pro D●●otaro.  to which foul spot, as 〈◊〉 Orator well noteth Royal dignity was never liable against all law, with all disgrace, ●o lose her he●d, 〈◊〉 an ordinary malefactor by way of public and con 〈◊〉 justice, whiles the other lived in all ruff, pride, and pleasure, followed the fancies of new upstart Ghospellers, hated and persecuted that faith, wherein notwithstanding until the fall of her unhappy Father, 〈◊〉 whole Island from the first Conversion had remained, 〈◊〉 in the end shut up a wicked life with a miserable & pitiful death if that may be said to be pitiful & miserable which was without all remorse of conscience for f●●mer sins, all remonstrance of piety in, and before her agony, all remembrance of her future weal o● woe in the life to come, all naming God as of herself, or enduring others that did name him for her, or put her in mind of him; whatsoever this lying Minister who is true in nothing, with a few fine phrases chatteth and forgeth to the contrary.  
117. And if it would but please his most Excellent Majesty out of his Royal respect to his most Noble Mother to see, who in her person have always most honoured or dishonoured his, he should soon find, that as in her life time the catholics had her in highest esteem: so since her death have registered her in the rank of Martyrs, of whom the glory of this age, 
Baron. ap●end●●e a● 5. tom. in fin●.  Cardinal B●ronius (to name one for all the rest) writeth thus: Porrò eamd●m Eccl●siam nobiliss●mam etc. Moreover God in this our age hath permitted that most noble Church (of Scotland) to be tempted, that it might yield a most noble example of Christian constancy, when as a 'mongst ●ther Martyrs (which no other Country hath hitherto ●ad) it hath deserved to have their own Queen the singular glory and ornament of the Catholic faith, ●efore tried by a long imprisonment for to be honoured with the Crown of Martyrdom. So he. As contrariwise in M. Barlows brethren's books both at home ●nd abroad he shall find the most injurious slanders, ●●ying reports, and reproachful villainies, powered forth ●gainst that innocent Princess, as will make any man's ●ares to glow and hart to rue, to see so little respect of princely Majesty or such insufferable liberty in Protestant writers, conjoined with singular impudence ●nd fraudulent malignity in imputing the outrageous attempts of the traitorous subjects to the Queen herself, as though she had been the Author of that mischief which in hart she detested, & with many bitter ●eares, the true tokens of unfeigned grief most pitifully bewailed; 
Elias Reusne●us part● 5. ope●is Genealogi●i in stirpe Scotica in fine.  let one Reusn●rus in his Geneal●gyes be ●eene (whose words I abhor to set down) and the Reader will not think me too sharp; and I must contesse, that in respect of him M. Barlow may seem pardonable, though yet he be well content to have his majesties Mother to lie in hell, so that he may advance his own Mistress to heaven.  
118. In flattering his Majesty he is more diffuse, 
M. Barlows flattering of his Majesty.  taking all occasions to blaze out his praise, and sometimes forcing occasions where none are offered, and that also on false grounds: in which albeit I will not say, to use Sir Th●mas Moor's phrase, 
Com●ort in tribulation lib 2. cap. 10.  that his Gloria Patri is a ways without a Sicut erat (for who knoweth not that there are many great and commendable parts in his Majesty?) yet this I dare warrant, that in this book of his, and the Relation of the Conference at Hampton-Court, not big for bulk, but rather small 〈◊〉 respect of many great volumes written by some of th● jesuits Bellarmine, Suarez, Valentia, Vasquez, Salm●●● Tolet, and others, there shall be found more flattery to King james in this alone, then in all the books 〈◊〉 theirs together hitherto ●et forth in print, towards 〈◊〉 the Popes or Princes under whom they have written, or to whom they have dedicated their learned labours; so cunning, so careful, and so copious is th●● fawning Parasite to creep into credit, and to pray●● and please them by whom he may hope for preferments Examples in this kind do not want, were it as safe 〈◊〉 allege them, as it is easy to find them. But I se● what will be answered by him and others of the same servile spirit, that in reprehending their flattery 〈◊〉 show ourselves impatient of his majesties glory, and envy at his worthiness; which how far it is from our thoughts, he who sees all secrets, and searches al● hearts doth know and see. And that I may not seeme● to suspect this without cause, I will only produce o●● passage of his, which will make both the one and the other most clear.  
119. After his 15. proofs and 16. lies in the history of the second Frederick, this without any coherence with the matter in hand, by a needle's digression he turneth his speech to speak of his Majesty: It was hi● Majesties exceeding humility, 
Bart. pag. 297. 298.  that he would grace Bellarmine (being but a Cardinal) so much, as to vouchsafe him an answer; 'tis his eminent commendation, that he can readily understand all Stories written in this kind or any other, it argues his singular industry, that after so many hours sp●nt in the higher affairs of the Realm, he could take the pains to peruse th●se which he did; it is his pregnant dexterity, that he contrived and abridged the discourse with that method and sincerity, but it was his admirable judgement and wisdom in forbearing variety of other Authors which wrote but by hearsay, & delivered what they wrote upon the second hand, in this example to pitch principally upon him who lived in that time, and saw & wrote what passed between the Emperor & the Pope, in every particular. True Christians and well affected to godward, would rejoice to see so gr●at a Monarch, so learned, & so expert, considering what the ignorance of Kings hath been heretofore: but this is the Catholic envy and vexation, that not Eldad & Medad, 
Num. 11.  but Monarches also can prophesy and discover their weakness; so that whereas now they cannot (as in former times) enthrall them by superstition, and insult upon their ignorance, they are enraged against their knowledge, accounting their learning forgery, and their truth-●elling malice. So M. Barlow.  
120. In which passage, drawn in without occasion, 
M. Barlow buildeth the whole frame of his flattery upon a false ground.  besides that the whole ground thereof is untrue that Petrus de Vineis (for of him he speaketh) li●ed at ●he time (of Frederick his death) and saw and wrote what passed in every particular (for by a whole cloud of witnesses it is afterwards proved, that he was dead a whole year before the Emperor, whom they will have to be poisoned) the Reader doth see what insultation he makes over ignorant Kings of former times (whom yet this ignorant Minister might well have spared) and over the Catholics, for their en●y of his majesties knowledge, of their enthralling men in superstition, accounting their learning forgery, and their truth-telling mali●e: which empty froth of idle words, and untrue surmises we can well bear at his hands, who must needs say somewhat; and you see what he will say in case I should produce more examples of his flattery, which 〈◊〉 as well to avoid all occasion of such obloquy, as fo● that I mean to draw to an end of this Preface do hear forbear further to recount.  
121. There remaineth after his railing and flattery, 
M Barlows levity in writing.  that we speak a word or two of his levity (for a lewd tongue and light head are seldom separated) in his manner of speech and style, which I the rather no●e, for that it pleased M. Barlow to twyte F. Persons with the inkhorn terms of evacuating, shifting, and trifling, 
Barl. pag. 310.  which words notwithstanding are very usual i● our vulgar tongue: and he that should say, that M. Barlow doth nothing else but shift, & tryft, would I doubt not, be well understood, albeit he should not speak● altogether true, for besides that, he doth rail, lie, flatter, forge authorities, corrupt histories, and the like. But the words which M. Barlow useth are not only not usual, but very strange & uncouth, some of them being taken from the Latin, some from the Greek, so●e from the French, others I think from the Irish, fo● they are neither Greek, Latin, Fr●nch, or English, not have, as far as I see, affinity with any other tongues, Out of a great heap I will set down a few.  
122. The word Only (saith he) doth not so much signify an hypocoristicall alleviation, as a compendiary limitation. 
M. Barlowes fine phrases taken from the Greek, Latin, and French, pag. 49.  Is not this fine? And in the same page, more expedit for evidence, a very per●u●siue forc●. After, Cat●●●guised on holy Thursday; to vindicate his credit; a mendacious vanity: and then together: this reliance vnrepe●●●able, is it not in them thus tied, a vassalage of slavery? & i● the Pope thus binding them (look to himself) an oultrec●i●dance of tyranny? and in respect of Kings a licence for disloyalty in their subjects, and their allumetts of treason to their person's? So he. And do you not think, that this Gentleman can speak French? do not these words well beseem & adorn an English style? In other places. Porter of Hades; this boutife aux is acquainted; if he renege and de●y his profession; no enterparte for exchange; a sarcasti●all scorn; pharmatized with ●uch drugs; a coalition of distinct regiments; some so wild that no discipline will cicure them; 
pag. 195.  many use to rob with the valours; this fal●e atomite; the profitable mythologies of poets fables; insulting pseudoapostles; 
Very pretty.  ●ainted affections may mar good orisons; the Apologer had ●hus metaphrased; neither was her authority any thing anoindred or made less; 
pag. 207.  treacherous and unnatural chevisance; from his didactical we must follow him to his historical skill; 
pag. 247.  the Pope's over-awing surquedry; of an oultrecuidant Pope; a diametral renouncing; an iteritious Pamphlet. 
pag. 277.  These are his foreign phrases, fectht far from home, and therefore fit for Ladies: let us see some few of his that are more domestical.  
123. In the very first page he telleth F. Persons that he might have left the blunting or disloding of the tripled wedge (two pretty metaphors) to him that wears the triple Crown. 
M. Barlows new found English phrases.  A little after. An itching arm desires still to be scrubd; to retrieve an Author; ajax the whipper wreaking his teen upon a ram; as sowter's stretch leather with their teeth, he saith, that Christ gave his body to the smy●ers, his cheeks to the nippers; a hurt in his throat; the pother of different opinions; they should settle their conscience not startle it; a frapting discourse; feigned blandishments● to distinguish upon any hint; the Apostle advised ●ot to draw in a count●r-ietting yoke with Infidels, in that orbytie and age to embroider the Pope's ingratitude, in this iering scorn●; a Priest and his recepter; let them garr their wives; more awkward and violent; a pingle of trifles; a counterscarp of examples; an Empirical Quacksalver; rebecke by oppos●● provokes to wrath; to start into circumstances; a strong c●●̄tershocke; to detort or defalk; a scorning flur; a blood gl●s●●, to besm●er with his glavering balm; the rechaffment to disloyal attempts; frampold dealing; a decade of reasons to d●s● the Pope etc. I leave more than I take of these tearney and yet here are more than I well understand: he shall not do amiss, if he write again, for the ease of his Reader, to se● out some dictionary to the end he may the better know the signification of these new words, or else I verily suppose he will be mistaken in many.  
124. I will end all this matter with that which is most usual, 
M. Barlowes threefold forgery.  most gross and palpable in M. Barlow, to wit his forgery, and corrupting of Authors by exchange, addition, or subtraction of their words, inverting wholly their sense and meaning: as in others very often, as well ancient as modern, so for the most part always when in a different character he setteth down (as he would have it seem) the text of his adversary, & then taketh occasion upon his own word● foisted in, to carp, rail, & insult over him● the occasion of which foul fault in him, I find to be either his own praise, of which he is very desirous, the disgrace of his adversary, or the relief of his cau●e, when by no other way he is else able to shift, & avoid the force of the authorities produced against him, in each kind: but very briefly I will allege an example, without any choice as they shall occur to my hands, for who so listeth to read his book, & examine what he readeth, shall hardly in any place miss of examples.  
125. In the Epistle to his Majesty, he saith, that against F. Persons railing he will comfort himself with that conclusion of S. Hierom: Caninam facundiam seru●s D●mini pariter exp●riatur & unctas, accounting it my glory (saith he) that the same creature should rage and snarl at ME, 

In his epistle to his Majesty.  
M. Barlow amounteth higher than he should do, by forging a new text.   the Lords unworthy Minister, which hath not spared TWO ROYAL monarchs the Lords anointed and amounted. This text is fit as you see, for M. Barlowes purpose: for none can deny it, to be a great glory to this unworthy Minister, to be joined with royal monarchs the Lords anointed and amounted. But in the Author, I mean S. Hierome himself, there is no mention of any such Minister, or Monarch; there is no anointing, no amounting; for he only speaketh of the B. Virgin, and Mother of our Saviour, saying, or rather concluding his whole dispute with this sentence. Caninam facundiam servus Domini pariter experiatur & matter: I shall with comfort endure his railing, who together with me reviles the Mother of our Lord. So he. which full little concerneth this Minister, who with his Mates rather join with helvidius to dispraise her, then with S. Hierom & the Cath. Church to defend or commend her, as all the world doth see.  
12●. Of abusing F. Persons words, I have spoken before, in relating M. Barlowes untruths, & upon other occasions: one place more I will here adjoin, in which wit● the forgery he showeth great malice & other Ruffianlike misdemeanour, for thus he citeth F. P●rsons words. 

Barl pag. 156.  
Malicious forgery.   A third thing is an ABUSE offered by his Majesty to the words & meaning of the Breve, namely that the King should charge the Pope with undevinelike Doctrine, for saying that the Oath contained many things apertly contrary to faith and salvation, as if thereby the Pope should say or mean that natural Allegiance to their Sovereign and Kin●, were directly opposite to faith and salvation of souls. So he printing and noting the words as taken out of F. Persons book, with different characters, marginal commas as in the beginning he promised the Reader to do, saying: 
Admonion to the Reader.  The jesuits speeches through this whole book are printed in the smaller letter always with this mark ● in the beginning of the line prefixed. And who then that shall read these words will not think them all to be the words of F. Persons? and that he had in express terms abused his Majesty, with the charge of offering abuse to the Pope? Especially seeing M. Barlow in his Reply against him to sharpen his pen, & to dip it deep in gall with this Virulent answer. The high Priest himself would not have used such a saucy term of ABUSE as this rightly malapert, that is, misbegotten Catachristical● companion hath done, but if it appear that the Pope's words imply so much, and that necessarily, Quid dabitur viro? what shallbe done to him that knetcheth this opprobrious Cur? for what is this uncircumcised jesuit, that he should in so base terms scurrilize so great a King. So he.  
127. And none can deny but that here he hath showed himself, both a fervent and furious defender of his Majesty, 
M. Barlows rage overrunneth his wit.  for his rage doth over-runn his wit, & his words all modesty. But not to stand upon his immodesty, which is a quality inseparable from the subject, I would ask him in Christian charity, why he hath put down these as the words of F. Persons, or where they are to be found in his book? Doth he ever say● that his Majesty offered ABUSE? or doth he use the terms of undevinelike doctrine? what malice, what forgery, or rather what villainy is this, to make F. Persons directly to charge his Majesty, as in his own words with offering abuse, who in his book hath no one such word or syllable? All that he hath, is against him, whom he took to be the author of the Apology, whom for the reasons he alleged in the very beginning of his letter, & for other respects he could not persuade himself to be his Majesty, as all know who then lived and conversed with him, and heard him seriously give his judgement thereof. The true words of F. Persons which M. Barlow should have cited are these: 
Le●ter pag. 50  Hear now, what abuse is offered to the words and meaning of the Breve, every simple Reader will see without any explycation from me. For that the Pope doth not prohibit natural obedience in things lawful; nor doth say, that such natural, or civil obedience is opposite to faith or salvation of souls; nor that the oath is unlawful, for exhibiting such natural or civil obedience: but for that, besides this exaction of natural obedience, which is lawful, it containeth divers other points also, concerning matters of Catholic religion etc. Let the Reader compare them, with those which in the Father's name M. Barlow hath given us, & he shall soon see how well, when he is disposed to rail, he can forge a text to befit his argument, & what conscience he maketh to abuse his Reader, or slander his Adversary.  
128. Another notorious forgery he useth in cutting away of words when he is so convinced by them, as he cannot reply. 
Barl. pag. 240.  For proof that Henry the fourth Emperor was taken out of his grave the day after his burial by the Pope's commandment, M. Barl●w will needs bring a cloud of witnesses, 
M. Barlows paring away.  which F. Persons hath so dispersed, as that all the thunder and lightning will fall on M. Barlows own head. For the Emperor dying at Liege where he was besieged by the young Emperor his son, and being unburied again the next day after his burial, how could the Pope procure it to be done? 
Barl. pag 190●  Belike they dispatched M. Barlows Cut-speed the post who in one night went from Liege to Rome 800. miles and returned again ere morning. But least that this should be espied, M. Barlow out of his Authors pareth away the word pridie, the day before, and then leaves the time indeterminate in them all, as it may by his citing them as well seem to have been done a year, as a day before: for which matter I refer him to the discussion itself, where this in due place is more largely handled.  
129. I will end with one place more wherewith the forgery is joined also incredible impudence, as the Author of the Supplement doth more fully handle and clearly evince against him. You have before heard M. Barlows bold assertion, touching unity of names about a place objected out of S. Leo, saying, that S. Peter was assumpted in consortium individuae unitatis, which F. Persons said was answered long since by M. Harding, to be meant of unity of Name. 
pag. 331.  What saith M. Barlow hereunto? Speak in sooth, honest censurer (saith he) is unity of names Hardings own distinction in answer to Bishop Iewel●? 

Harding f●l. 174.  
Detection. etc.  
Intolerable impudence.   Himself denieth it; for M. Harding saith that Leo meant thereby an unity in Quality an unity in grace, an unity that is proper to Christ himself, and mentioneth no unity of NAME, for though he were a corrupt Doctor, yet was he a better D●uine then to speak so absurdly as Persons would here make him. Is not this very confidently spoken think you? And yet the Reader must know that in this very place which M. Barlow himself citeth, in the margin, punctually setting down the leaff, in this very lease, I say, after the words of M. Barlow of unity of quality, unity of grace he addeth again and again unity of name, & never saith an unity that is proper to Christ himself. And what then will you say to the brazen forehead of this shameless man, affirming that D. Harding mentioneth no unity ●f Name; yea that himself d●nyeth i●? Again, that he saith an Unity that is proper to Christ himself? Truly I cannot here but think of a sentence of S. Augustine which he wrote against one, using far less impudence than this, that if M. Barlow proceed on in this manner, 
3. cont Iuli●n. cap. 13.  puto quod ipsum libri sui atram●ntunm erubescendo convertetur in minium: I think the very ink of his book with blushing will become v●rmil●ion. I add no other examples of this perfidious dealing, yet if M. Barlow list to see them he shall find good store in the last chapter of the Supplement, to the which I remit him.  
130. By these evictions gentle Reader (that I may here conclude all this matter) of M. Barlows ignorance, Grammatical, Historical, scriptural, Theological, of his lying, sycophancy railing, fooleries and forgeries, of his bad disputing, Thrasonical vaunting, and other impertinencyes, and misdemeanour in writing, thou mayest without further proof be able of thyself to judge, how unfit a Sparthan he was to enter this combat, & how true the Censure is which before I gave of him, and of his book: which the more I consider the more I admire, either how he was chosen to write, being so weak, or his writing suffered to pass with so slight survey, and with the Apostle to say, Sic non erat inter vos sapiens etc. 
1. Cor. 5.  is your Ministry so bare, and Devinity so barren, 
A poor Clergy.  that no more learned man then this ignorant and shameless superintendant could be found to defend his Majesty or write in this controversy? Or is your cause become now so desperate, as that the weakness and wickedness thereof, enforceth you to these hard shifts, and disgraceful attempts? If it be the truth you seek, why use you so many and so manifest lies? If the controversy y●● handle belong to faith, or good life, what needeth so fraudulent, so faithless, & perfidious dealing? If all Authors stand for you, why do you corrupt their words, pervert their meaning? If the Adversary you answer be so weak as you make him, at least let him speak in his own words, and then will your refutation in that respect carry with it the more credit. Say not that which you cannot prove: meddle not with that which you do not understand: forge not accusations, and then take the advantage of your own fictions: deal like Christians, deal like Divines if you have any Divinity at all amongst you; let things be handled as their nature require, as it becomes the person of the writer, as is best for the Readers direction for finding the truth in case the iniquity of your cause, and weakness of your ability can bear it, and then we will not complain; but setting aside all personal reproaches (to which this Minister above his fellows is more subject) insist only upon the cause in controversy ut res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione concertet. 
August. contra Maximin. cap. 14.   
131. This course had M. Barlow or could he have holden, we should not have had so many oversights, so gross and childish ignorance, such lewd railing, such sycophancy, so many words, so little matter, so much chaff without all substance, so huge a heap of untruths, so great brags, so weak proofs; and is fine we should have found some Divinity besides Erasmus Chiliads, Marshal's Epigrams and other Poets, for of such peddling and pelting stuff is his whole book composed: we should not have seen such false citations such mistaking, and corrupting of Authors, such strange and unchristian assertions, and other misdemeanours of which I have laid forth some examples, but have left many more than I have taken, and in some of the heads touched more advantagions also for the cause itself, than those which I have alleged, as who so listeth with any diligence to confer M. Barlows book with F. Persons Letter, or examine the passages he citeth of others, or his own discourse, collections and inferences, will soon perceive.  
132. Wherefore I wish thee, good Reader, upon that which hath been said to weigh first the difference both in the spirit and method of these two men, 
The different manner of writing between F. Persons and M. Barlow.  and that by no other balance then their own books, for thereby thou shalt see where truth, where virtue, and learning is: and chose where falsehood, forgery, and ignorance. The letter is in many men's hands, and so is M. Barlow his book, do but confront them together and thou shalt in the one find gravity, judgement, learning method in writing, modesty, truth & what else should be in one that handleth a question of that nature; and in the other neither style, nor order, nor modesty or any gravity, learning, or truth at all: and for the manner of his writing, it is so harsh, patched together like a beggar's cloak, and like a sick man's dream so ill coherent (unless it be when he flatters, for than he strives of purpose to be eloquent) as in reading the same I often thought of that censure of S. Hierome against jovinian, who was as fond in his latin phrases as M. Barlow is in his English: Qu●tie●cumque cum legero, ubi me defecerit Spiritus, ibi est distinctio, totum incipit, totum pendet ex altero, nescias quid cui cohareat: 
Hieron. in jovin lib. 1● initio.  As often as I read him where my breath shall fail me there is a full point: the whole begins, the whole depends of some what else, that a man knows not what coherence one thing hath with another.  
133. Withal thou mayest observe what strange impudence it was in M. Barlow to tell his Majesty, that F. Persons railing was such, 
M. Barlowes impudence in his epistle to his Majesty.  as neither his age, 〈◊〉 profession, neither shame of the world, nor fear of God, nor grace of the spirit, could mortify his nature, or restrain his tongue: when as out of that Letter which he answereth, there is no sentence or syllable, that can sound of such insolency; but his tongue hath so overlashed, as neither age, nor profession, nor shame, nor fear, no● grace could restrain it. And if that such intempera●● and unsincere dealing be the grace of Protestants spirits, there needeth no great trial to be made, for discerning them from what sourg or fountain they proceed, or whether they be g●od or bad. And whereas he mentioneth profession, alluding, as I take it, to the religious profession of Father P●rsons, M. Barlow must know that in Catholic doctrine, the state of a Bishop is of more perfection in itself ● then is the state of a Religious man, and so he taking himself for such a one, should have showed more modesty then F. Persons, in case he had been immodest, as he was not. But men gather not grapes from thorns, nor from such religion, such Bishops, 
What account is to be made of the Censures whi●h Protestant's make upon the books of Catholic ●riters  such spirits, expect any other flowers, or fruit then are wont to grow in such gardens, to wit, in the barren soil of ignorance, pride, and heretical perversity.  
134. Again consider I pray you, what regard is to be had to the Censures of these men, which they pass upon Catholic books, that are set out against them. For not knowing which way to turn themselves to answer, they think it no ill policy to make the Reader believe, that they are of no worth, the authors contemptible, their proofs none at all. This M. Barlow doth often; & M. Andrews also maketh his first entrance with the same to his last book. 
See M. William Re●nolds● pag. 460. of his Refutation of Whitaker.  So likewise before them did M. Whitaker against the Rheims Testament, and M. jewel against Doctor Harding, which shameful shift, they never use so much, as when they know lest what else to reply. For proof whereof, if there were no other argument, let their own writing against us be seen, especially this answer of M. Barlow, in which his charges are fierce & frequent; but when trial is to be made, he falleth either to forging of texts, or corrupting of Authors, or idle & ignorant babbling, or to worse dealing as hath been showed. On the contrary side, we for clearer evidence and upright dealing, charge him with no more than we do prove; nor take any other proof, than what is deduced from his own words, or else plainly expressed by them; & that without any mutation, addition, chopping, or any manner of wresting them to another sense & meaning, than they of their own nature do bear, & M. Barlow himself when he wrote them did intend.  
135. Last of all if M. Barlow mislike, that he is not styled with a more honourable Till, as well in this Preface, as in the Discussion & Supplement, besides that himself acknowledgeth it sufficient honour to have the name Master, which (saith he) put to the Surname of any man, is an addition of worship: so we must tell him, that we give it not, for that we find no ground or foundation for the same. For which cause neither Harding against jewel or Stapleton against Horn, or others against other of the Superintendents have bestowed other title than Master, as not acknowledging them to be any Bishops at all. And for mine own part I take M. Barlowes wife, 
M. Barlow will have the feminine sex to be predominant.  whether she be his Lady or Mistri● for the feminine sex (to use his own words) must predominate which way soever inclined) to be as much Bishop of Lincoln as he. And albeit M. Barlow say in one place, that sure Master jewel was as lawful a Bishop, as M. Bellarmine is a Cardinal, and deserves the title as well; 

pag. 169.  
pag. 326.  
Bellarmin more a Cardinal than jewel a Bishop.   surely I must tell him that he is much mistaken, for so much as of Cardinal Beauties being Cardinal there can be no doubt, seeing he was made by the Pope, who only can, & ever yet hath made Cardinals, such as now we speak of. But of M. jewels being Bishop we have not so much certainty, yea we have no certainty at all. For who I pray you made him? Who gave him his jurisdiction? Who imposed hands upon him? What orders had they? What Bishops were they?  
136. True it is, that both He, Sands, Scory, Hor●e, Grindall, 

The first ordination of Protestant Bishops under Q. Elizabeth.  
Christo●ho●us a sacco B●sco lib. d● ini●sti ●anda Chri●ti. E●●●●sia cap. ●. Sir T●●. More.   and others, (if I mistake not their names) in the beginning of the reign of Q. Elizabeth met at the Horsehead in Cheepside (a fit sign for such a Sacrament) and being disappointed of the Catholic Bishop of Landaffe, who should there have come to consecrate them, they used the like art that the Lollards once did, in another matter, who being desirous to eat flesh on good friday, and yet fearing the penalties of the laws in such cases appointed, took a pig & diving him under the water, said down pig and up pi●●, and then after constantly avouched that they had eaten no flesh bu● fi●h: So I say these grave Prelates assembled as aforesaid, seeing the Bishop whom they expected came not, to consecrate them, they dealt with S●ory of H●r●ford to do it, who when they were all on their knees, caused him, who kneeled down john jewel, to rise up Bishop of Salisbury, & he that was Robert Horn before, to rise up Bishop of Winchester, and so forthwith all the rest● which Horsehead Ordering, was after confirmed Synodically by Parliament, wherein they were acknowledged for true Bishops: and it was further enacted, that none should make any doubt or call in question that ordination.  
137. This was the first ordering of M. jewel & the rest, as I have been informed by one that heard it from M. Neale Reader of the Hebrw lecture in Oxford, 
* The like also affirmeth Sacrobosco in the place cited.  who was there present, & an eye witness of what was done and passed. Perhaps for a further compliment to supply all defects in the matter or form of this ordering, Q. Elizabeth as Head of the Church, did as a noble Woman is said to have done near Vienna, of whom Schererius the Lutheran writeth: 
Scherer. pos●illa de ●anctis. conc. 1. de S. Stephano.  Ante paucos annos, non procul hinc mulier quaedam nobilis per impositionem muliebrium suarum manuum, & lintei quo praecingebatur loco stolae, filiorum suorum preceptorum ad praedicanticum officium vocavit, ordinavit, & consecravit. A few years since, not far from hence, a certain Noble woman did call the Master of her children, to the office of a Preacher (or Minister) and did order and consecrate him by the imposition of her hands, 
A strange ordination of a Preacher.  and of her apron which she did use in steed of a stole. Whether any such imposition of hands, aprons, or kyrtles, were used to these first Prelates by Q. Elizabeth afterwards I know not: but I have been credibly informed, that Master Whitgift would not be Bishop of Canterbury until he had kneeled down, & the Queen had laid her hands on his head: by which I suppose, ex opere operato; he received no grace.  
138. To conclude, seeing that against M. Doctor Harding, 
Harding Confutation of the Apology fol. 57 & Detection fol. 230. & deinceps.  M. jewel could never prove himself a Bishop● as the Reader may see at large, in the place here by 〈◊〉 cited, I will not put M. Barlow to prove the same, f●● I see the length of his foot, & quid valeant humeri q●●● far recusant, where M. jewel failed, to seek M. Barlowes supply were ridiculous; it shall suffice him to answer for all his own oversights in this book, to learn to be modest, 
Horace.  to take heed how he dealeth with School men, to write truly, to study to understand well the controversy whereof he writeth, and finally to write as a Scholar, as a Divine, at least as an honest man (of all which the very easiest is too hard in my opinion for him to perform) & then I dare promise him, that with all candour, sincerity, and modesty by one or other, he shall be answered. And if in some things I might seem to have been too sharp: yet in respect of his base and bitter vain, whatsoever I have said, will seem I doubt not to be both mild and temperate.  

Faults escaped in the Preface  
Quate●n. (c) pag. 1. nu. 10. in margin versus finem. add, Nubrig. l. 5. cap. 21.  
Eodem quatern. pag. 3. lin. 26. nu. 12. species producatur, lege, species praedicatur.  
Quatern. (d) pag. 3. lin. 24. nu. 22. judge not, ●ege, I judge not.  
Quatern. (f) pag. 7. lin. 30. num. 45. deal, the affirmative or negative.  
Quatern. (k) pag. 1. l. 6. nu. 73. F. Persons, league Father's person.    

OF POINTS CONCERNING THE NEW OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, Handled in the King's Apology; before the Pope's Breves: AND Discussed in my former Letter:  

CHAP. I.  
FOR as much as good order and method in writing giveth always great light and ease to the Reader, my meaning is in this ensuing Work to insist specially upon the three parts touched rather then treated at large in my Letter against the Apology: which Letter M. Barlow hath in his book pretended to answers and that also in three parts according to the former division of the Epistle, 
The division of the whole work.  whereof the first part doth contain such points, as the Apology did handle by way of preface, as it were, before the Pope's two Breves, especially concerning the substance, and circumstances of the new Oath. The second, such other matters, as by occasion of the said two Breves were brought into dispute by way either of impugnation, or defence. The third doth comprehend Cardinal Bellarmi●● his letter to M. Blackwell, together with the view, and examination of what had been written in the Apology against the same. And albeit it doth grieve me not a little to be forced to lose so much good time, from other more profitable exercises, as to go over these matters again, especially with so idle an adversary, as you will find in effect M. Barlow every where to be: yet shall I endeavour to recompense somewhat to the Reader this loss of time, by choosing out the principal matters only, & by drawing to light my said Adversaries voluntary, and affected obscurity, using also the greatest brevity that I may, without overmuch prejudice to perspicuity, which I greatly love, as the lantern or rather looking glass whereby to find out the truth, and for that cause so carefully fled by my adversary, as in the progress of this our contention will be discovered. For that as divinely our Saviour said: Qui male agit, odit lucem, & non venit ad lucem, ne arguantur op●ra eius: He that doth evil, hateth the light, and will not come at it, lest his works be discovered thereby. But we must draw him hereunto, and for better method we shall reduce the most chief and principal heads of each part unto certain Sections or Paragraphes, which may help the memory of the Reader.  

ABOUT THE TRUE Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance. §. I.  
FIRST then, for that it hath been sufficiently observed before, and the reader hath been advertised also thereof, that in all my adversaries allegations of my words (when they are in any number) he commonly falsifieth them, or offereth some other abuse to the same, by altering them to his purpose, or inserting his own among mine, and yet setting down all in a different letter, as if merely they were mine; I shall be enforced as occasion is offered, to repeat my own lines, as they lie in my own Book, that thereby I may be understood, and his answer to me conceived, which hardly can be, as he hudleth up both the one, and the other, desiring to walk in a mist of darkness: the event shall show, whether I speak this upon good grounds, or no. Now to the narration itself.  
And so first having received from my friend in England the aforesaid Apology of triplex Cuneus, concerning the new Oath of Allegiance, now called the Kings, and perused the same with some attention, I wrote back again to my said friend, as followeth, being the very first lines. 
Letter p. 1.  I cannot but yield you hearty thanks (my loving friend) for the new book you sent me over by Guntar, at his last passage: for albeit I have determined with myself in this my banishment to spend my time in other studies more profitable, then in contention about controversies: Yet must I needs accept kindly of your good will, in making me partaker of your news there. And more glad should I have been, if you had advertised me what your, and other men's opinion, was of the Book in your parts, then that you request me to write our men's judgement from hence. And yet for so much as you require it so earnestly at my hands, and that the party is to return presently, I shall say somewhat with the greatest brevity that I can: albeit I do not doubt, but that the parties that are principally interessed there●●●ill answer the same much more largely.  

About the Author of the Apology.  First then, for the Author, for so much as he setteth 〈◊〉 down his name, it seemeth not so easy to guess: yet the more general opinion in these parts is, that as that odious Discovery of Roman doctrine, and practices, which of late you have seen answered, was cast forth against the Catholics, under the cyphred name of T. M. with direction (as he said) from Superiors, 
Thomas Morton.  the Autho●● being in deed but an inferior Minister; so divers think it to be probable, that this other book also cometh from some other T. M. of like condition, 
Thomas Montague  t●ough in respect of his office, somewhat nearer to his Majesty, to whom perhaps he might show the same (as the other dedicated his) and thereupon might presume to set it forth Authoritate Regia, as in the first front of the book is set down somewhat different from other books, and cause it to be printed by Barker his Majesties' Printer, and adorned in the second page with the King's Arms, and other like devices, wherein our English Ministers do gr●● now, to be very bold, and do hope to have in time the hand which Scottish Ministers once had. But I most certainly do persuade myself, that his Majesty never read advisedly all, that in this Book is contained. For that, I take him to be of such judgement, & honour, as ●e would never have let pass sundry things, that here are published, contrary to them both.  
Thus I wrote at that time, of my conjecture about the Author of the said Apology, alleging also certain reasons in both the foresaid kinds, which albeit they be overlong to be repeated here, yet one or two of each kind, especially such as Master Barlow pretendeth to answer, may not be pretermitted. 

See Letter pag. 3.  
What his Majesty's gr●at judgement w●●ld ha●e 〈…〉.   As for example (said I) his highness great judgement would presently have discovered, that the state o● the question is twice or thrice changed in this Apology, and that thin● proved by allegations of Scriptures● Fathers & Counsels, which t●e adverse part d●ny●th not, as after in due place I shall show. And again ●e ●ould ●●u●r have let pass so manifest an oversight, as is 〈…〉 o● Cardinal Bell●●mine with ●leuen several places o●●●n●●ad●●●●●n to him●el●e in his works, whereas in the true nature o● 〈…〉, or contrariety no one of them can be proved, or maintained, as every man that understandeth the latin●on●ue & will but look upon Bellarmine himself, will presently find.  
This was one of my reasons, besides divers other, that I alleged in that place, all which for so much as it pleaseth Master Barlow to defer the answer thereof to another place afterwards, and now to satisfy a reason only of certain contemptuous speech used against the Pope, and Cardinal Bellarmine, I shall here also make repetition of my words therein. Thus than I wrote. In like manner whereas his Majesty is known to be a Prince of most honourable respects in treaty, 
See Letter pag. 4.  and usage of others, especially men of honour, & dignity, it is to be thought, that he would never have consented, if he had but seen the Book with any attention, that those phrases of contempt not only against the Pope (at least as a temporal Prince) but neither against the Cardinal, calling him by the name of Master Bellarmine, should have passed. For so much, 
What his Majesty in honour would have misliked.  as both the Emperor and greatest Kings of Christendom, do name that dignity with honour. And it seemeth no less dissonant, to call a Cardinal Master, then if a man should call the chiefest dignities of our Crown by that name, as M. Chancellor, M. Treasurer, M. Duke, M. Earie, M. Archbishop, M. Bancroft, which I azure myself, his Majesty would in law of Honour condemn, if any extern Subject, or Prince should use to men of that Sat in our country, though he were of different religion. Wherefore, I rest most assured, that this proceeded, either out of the Ministers lack of modesty, or charity: & that if his Majesty had had the perusal of the Book, before it came forth, he would presently have given a dash of his pen over it, with effectual order to remedy such oversights of incivility.  
So I then. And if I were deceived in judgement as now it seemeth I was, for that it plea●eth his Majesty to take the matter upon himself, & to avouch that Book to be his, 
Why the King was not ●amed in the book  yet in reason can it not be taken evil at my hands that followed those conjectures, and sought rather to derive upon others the points which in that book I misliked, then to touch so great a parsonage as was, and is my Prince. Yea in all duty and good manners I had obligation to conceal his majesties name, for so much as himself concealed the same: and when any Prince will not be known to be a doer in action, as in this it seemeth he would not at that time, I know not with what dutiful respect any subject might publish the same, though he did suspect that he had part therein. For that subjects must seem to know no more in Prince's affairs than themselves are willing to have known. And consequently, when I saw that his Majesty concealed his name, I thought it rather duty to seek reasons to confirm & cover the same, then by presumption to enter into Prince's secrets, and to reveal them.  
And having thus rendered a reason of my doings in this behalf, it remaineth that we see what Master Barlow hath to say against it; for somewhat he must say, wheresoever he find it, & though never so impertinent to the purpose, having taken upon him to contradict, and plead against me in all points, and reaceaved his ●ee before hand, as may appear, by the possession he hath gotten of a rich benefice, and hopeth for more.  
First then he runneth to a ridiculous imitation of my former reasons, whereby to seek out whether Persons the jesuit were the true author of my Lettter or no, & from passage to passage doth furnish his style with some railing offals out of M. Watsons' Quodlibets against him, which though the author recalled, and sore repent at his death, as is publicly known and testified by them that stood by, and heard him: yet this charitable Prelate will not suffer his sin to die with him, but will needs raise, and revive the same again after his death, and make it his own, by this sinful & unchristian exprobration thereof. But what maketh this to the purpose we have in hand? surely nothing but to show the malice, and misery of the slanderer. For let Father Persons be a ranging voluntary runegate, and Hispanized Chameleon, as here he is termed, or any thing else which an intemperate, loose, or lewd tongue can devise for his contumely, what is all this to the matter in hand, that is to say, to the writing of the former letter, or who was the author thereof? Doth not here malice, and folly strive which of them shall have the upper hand in M. Barlow?  
But yet one point he hath more of singularity in folly, which I suppose will go near to make the reader laugh, if he be not in choler with him before for his malice. For whereas I had professed myself to be persuaded upon the reasons set down, that his Majesty was not the penner of the Apology, though it was printed by Barker his Printer, and set forth authoritate Regia, by the King's authority, alleging for example, that first of the minister T. M. known afterwards to be Thomas Morton, who published some years gone, his lying and slanderous Discovery against Catholics, and gave it this approbation, that it was set forth by direction from Superiors (though perhaps no Superior ever read it) and the like I said, might be suspected that this other Apology furnished with authoritate Regia, might perhaps prove to be the work of some other T. M. to wit, Thomas Montague, somewhat near to his Majesty, by reason of his Ministerial office, which then he held: all which declaration notwithstanding Master Barlow is so set to have men think, that I knew and persuaded myself, that it was the King's book indeed, 
Barlowe pag. 5.  and that by those two letters T. M. I meant Tua, or Tanta Maiestas. By those cyphers (saith he) of T. M. if he will speak without equivocation he meant Tua, or Tanta Maiestas. 
M. Barlowes sharp wit.  And have you ever heard such a dream, or deliration in one that professeth wit? Mark his sharpness. I do say, that this second T. M. doth signify Thomas Montague, & do set it down expressly in the margin. I do describe the person, and office near the king, as being then Deane of his Chapel though I name it not. I do show probabilities, how he might presume to write, and set forth that book authoritate Regia, by showing it only to the king. And how could I then by those two letters of T. M. mean Tua, or Tanta Maiestas? or what sense of grammar, or coherence of phrase would those latin words make, for so much as I wrote in English? what shall I say? is not he worthy to pretend a Bishopric, that hath no more wit than this? But let us go forward to examine other points.  
He standeth much upon the exception taken, of calling Cardinal Bellarmine, 
About Cardinal Bellarmine's title.  Master Bellarmine, and his defence consisteth in these points, distended impertinently throughout divers pages. That his Majesty being so great a King, might call such an upstart officer, that knoweth not where to rake for the beginning of his sublimity, Master. That Christ our Saviour was called Rabbi by Nicodemus, & Rabboni by Mary Magdalen: 
Barlow p. 7. & 8.  and that Christ himself acknowleged the title to his disciples john 13. You call me Lord, & Master, 
john 7. & 20.  & you do well, for so I am. That S. Cyprian called Tertullian his Master, & Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris was called Master o● the Sentences, in all which speeches, saith he, the word Master is taken for a name of credit, and not of reproach. These are his arguments.  
Whereunto I answer first that the greater the Prince is, the more commonly they do abound in courtesy of honourable speech, and consequently his majesties greatness made rather for my conjecture, than otherwise: that if he had been the Writer of the book, he would not have used that term of contempt to such a man: and secondly for so much as concerneth the dignity & degree of a Cardinal in itself, 
The dignity ●f a Cardinal  so much scorned by M. Barlow, it shallbe well, that he do read over the fourth chapter of Cardinal Bellarmine's last book of answer to his Maies●●es preface, De comparatione Regis & Cardinalis, where he sh●●l 〈◊〉 so much raked together (to use his own phrase of contempt for the dignity, and high estimation of that state in the Catholic Church, as he willbe hardly ●b●e to disperse the same in the sight of godly, and w●s● men, with all the contumelious speech he can use thereof, especially for so much as Cardinal Bellarmine his worde● o●●●omise are these: Adducaniudicium, & testimonis Pa●●●m v●t●rum, qui primis q●●ngentis annis sloruerunt, quos à s● ●ecipi Rex ipse supra testatus est. I wil● bring forth the judgement, and testimonies (saith he) of the ancient Fathers which flourished in the first five hundred years after Christ, whom the King before testified, that he doth admit, and receive. So he.  
Thirdly where he allegeth, that Christ was called Rabbi and Rabboni, and acknowledged himself to be so, 
In what sense the word master is a title of honour.  to wit a Master, and Teacher, helpeth nothing Master Barlowes purpose at all. For we grant, that the word Master may signify two things, first the authority of a teacher, or doctor, and so our Saviour in respect of the high, and most excellent doctrine, that he was to ●each unto the world for salvation of souls was called Master by excellency, yea the only Master, for so doth our Saviour expressly affirm in S. Matthews gospel, 
Matt. 23.  Be you not called Masters, for that Christ is only your Master. In which sense he is also called Doctor by eminency in the Prophet Isay, 
Isay 30. & 20.  who promised among other things in the behalf of God, to his people; Non saciet a●ol●re ad tev●●●● Doctorem tuum. He will not take from you ag●ine your Doctor, or Master. joshua also in this sense writeth, 
joshua 24.1.  that he called together Principes, judices, & Magist●os. The Princes, judges, & Masters of the people. So as in this sense of teaching, governing, & directing, the word Master beareth a great dignity, and our Saviour joined the same with the word Lord, 
joan. 13.  when he said you call me Lord & Master, & you do well therein. And so if the Apologer whosoever he were had this intention to honour Card. Bellarmine with the dignity of Doctor, & teacher, when he called him M. Bellarmine, I grant that no discourtesy was offered unto him by that title.  
But now there is another sense in using this word Ma●●ter, as it is a common title given to vulgar men, and the lea●t● & lowest of all other titles of courtesy accustomed to be given, for that above this is the word Sir, & above that again Lord, and then Excellency, Grace, Maiest●, and the like. And in this sense, and common acceptance of the word Master, I said in my Letter, that it might be taken in contempt, when it was used to any person, to w●om the title o● higher dignity by common intendment was due, as i● a man should say Master Chancellor, M. Treasurer, M. Earl, M. Archbishop, and the like.  
But l●t us s●e the wily winding of M. Barlow here, for that ●●●ding himself much pressed with these examples, he ●ound this deui●e to shi●t them of. S●ch a digni●y (quoth he) it may be, that Ma●s●●r prefixed be●ore it, may pr●●e a diminishing term: but if you put it to the surname of any man, it is an addition of ●ors●ip. 
Barl. p. 8.  a●candalum ●candalum Magnatum?  
W●e●●t● I answer, that this shi●t is more fond than the former. But let us come to the practice of this devise, & let a Sut●r at the Court, or Coun●ell ●or gaining the good ●ill, and favour of the Coun●ellours, b●gin with this addition o● worship to their Surnames, 
M. Barl●w h●●dly preyed  saying instead o● Lord Chancellor, M. Fgerton, I have this, or that ●ute, wherein I crave favour: so also, Master cecil in●●e●d of Lord treasurer, M. Howard, M. talbot, & others in 〈◊〉 of Honours, and Lordships: would Master B●●low think to obtain more ●auour by this addition of worship to their Syrnames? or did he use perhaps this manner of speech, when he crouched to them, and his Majesty ●or gaining the Bishopric, which he now possesseth? or will he teach this magisterial doctrine o courtesy to be practised in the Court at this day? How many scholars and disciples were he like to have th●rin? but among other examples, one there is wherein gladly I w●uld have his answer. He profes●eth himself a great, and singul●r servitor of the Queen past, and if this doctrine o● Ma●ster do hold in men of never so great honour for addition of worship, if it be given to the S●rn●me: then b● like proportion also, it must hold in the word Mist●●sse, giu●n to the S●rname of women, t●●ugh neu●r so gr●at, or Honourable. If then Master Barlow, had gone unto the s●yd Queen in never so good ● disposition, yea when he had betrayed his Master the ●arle of Essex for her sake, and had preached against him that horrible Sermon, which he did a●ter his death, and should have said unto her, Good Mistres●e Tydder, this and this have I done for your cause, I hope you will reward me: what reward would you think that she would have bestowed upon him, for so great a courtesy? And this shallbe sufficient to show the vanity of this evasion, wherein he pleaseth himself very much, and entertaineth his pen for divers pages, as I have said, pretermitting three or four other in●tances of mine of much more force, for proving my conjecture, that his Majesty himself penned not the Apology, promising to answer them after in their due place: but this place had been most due to the matter in hand if the Minister had found himself ready, and sufficiently fraught with substance to refute them, and therefore it is to be presupposed, he would not have pretermitted the occasion for show at least of some furniture in this beginning, for so much as he hunteth so greedily after all occasions to say somewhat, though nothing to the purpose at all.  
Well then, thus remaineth the argument of this first Paragraph, about the true Author of the Apology (which now his Majesty confesseth to be his) somewhat discussed, as you have heard: the rest remaining for the place that M. Barlow hath promised to say more thereof afterwards. The sum of all hitherto treated being, that I and infinite others being strangers to that which was done in secret, & thinking it not convenient, nor dutiful for any subject of his Mati●. to ascribe unto so great a Prince, a thing that might be denied afterwards, or called in controversy by many: I did upon the reasons alleged, persuade myself, that it was the doing of some of his majesties Chaplains, & namely of Master Thomas Montague, as before I have said by some general licence, or approbation of his Highness, rather than to have been penned by his Majesty himself. And upon this ground, did I frame my Letter and judgement to my friend in England, with all modesty, reverence, and due respect unto his majesties person, though sometimes I was forced by the very current of the matter itself, and by the injurious dealing, as to me it seemed, o● the supposed Author to be more quick and earnest with him, than I would have been, if I had but imagined his Majesty to have been the writer thereon. Whereby also appeareth the present iniquity of this other Minister William Barlow, 
Injury done 〈…〉.  who in all this Answer of his doth peremptorily conjoin himself with the person of the Prince, whose champion he maketh himself to be, reapeating all the words of the Apologer (whom I took to be no better then himselve) as the words of the King, and my confutation, as a confutation of his Majesty, wherein he doth me open injury: for that Error P●rsona mut at casum, say both Lawyers and Divines, and he ought to have taken me in the sense, & meaning that I supposed, whether it were true, or false.  
For as, if in an evening when it waxeth dark a man should meet one, whom ●e thinketh to be his enemy, & to have greatly abused him, & should use sharp speech unto him according to his supposed deserts, and that this party should not be his enemy indeed, but rather his great friend, or Superior; he could not have an action against him, that uttered these former words out of opinion, that he was his enemy, & had abused him: so much less here in this mistaking in so great obscurity of darkness, there being so many probabilities and conjectures to the contrary, as now you have heard. Wherefore I must require at M. Barlowes hands to lay down this devise, and to repeat my words throughout my whole Letter, a● spo●en to Thomas Montague, or some other of his state & condition, according to my persuasion, and supposition at that t●me, and not to his Majesty: and as often as he dot● otherwise, he offereth me open injury, as he doth to ●i● Majesty also; and maketh himself ridicul●●●●o others. And with this condition shall we end t●is ●ir●t Paragraph, and pass to the rest.   

OF THE PRETENDED Cause of the new Oath, which is said to be the Powder-Treason. §. II.  
NEXT after the conjectures handled about the Author o● the Apology, I coming in my Letter to touch the causes pretended of pressure to Catholics by this new exacted oath, I proposed some of the Apologers words in his Preamble, concerning the detestation of the Powder-treason, 
About the powder-treason.  in which detestation, though I willingly joined with him, yet complained I of the iniquity of some that urged continually the hatred thereof against innocent men, for them that were culpable, contrary to his majesties honourable meaning, as appeared by the words uttered both in his Proclamation, & speech in the Parliament. To which passage of mine M. Barlow coming to answer, setteth down first my words and discourse in a different letter, as though they were punctually mine indeed, & nothing perverted or corrupted by him, & then playeth upon them as though this ground had been true and sincere indeed. And for that this is his perpetual use throughout the whole answer, I shall for this once, put down his words, & after also my own, whereby you may take a document now, at the beginning, how to trust him in the rest. Thus than he beginneth his first Paragraph num. 18.  
The preamble (saith he) is a Coloquintida unto him, not so much in respect of the Epithets given to the powder-treason of monstrous, 
Barlow● pag. 10.  rare, nay never heard of, treacherous, famous, and infamous attempt, it deserves them saith he: but first, that it should be singular from all examples, there having been the like done by Protestants (though not in specie, yet in individuo) as at Antwerp, the Hage, and in Scotland. Secondly that it should be Crambe bis posita, so o●ten repeated, the parties being executed. ●hirdly that the King's promise, & Proclamation being, that other Catholics shall not far the worse for it: yet the innocent for the nocent are punished, at lea●t oppressed, as by Libels, invectives, and by searching of houses, with other outward afflictions; so, above all, with this new devised Oath for their inward pressure of soul and conscience. This is Mors in olla, and makes him dilate his style into dolefully Rhetorical expostulations.  
This is his relation of my Discourse, wherein to say nothing of the confused obscurity thereof, which every ordinary reader will not understand (and therein consisteth a great part of his hope) I have no such word in my speech as Crambe bis posita; and much less do I say, that such like examples of Powder-treasons, are to be found in Protestants although not in specie, yet in individua, for I should speak like a fool in so saying, 
M. Barlow speaks like a fool.  and so doth M. Barlow in my opinion, or at least like one that understandeth not what he saith, as presently I shall declare, after that I shall have set down my own words, as they lie in my Letter, and are these that ensue.  
The preamble beginneth with,  
The monstrous, rare nay never heard of treacherous, famous, and infamous attempt, plotted within these few years here in England (of the powder-treason) infinite in cruelty, singular from all example, crying loudly for vengeance from heaven etc. All which Epithets for due detestation of so rash, and heinous an attempt, Catholics no less than Protestants do willingly admit? though for singularity from all examples, if we respect speci●m, and not individuum, that cannot be like to another in all points, there be recounted in histories many attempts of the same kind, and some also by Protestants, in our days: as that of them, who in Antwerp placed a whole bark of Powder in the vaulted great street of that City, where the Prince of Parma, with his Nobility was to pas●e: & that o● him in Hage, that would ha●e blown up the whole Counsel of Holland, upon private revenge: as also that of Edinburgh in Scotland, where the like train of Powder was laid for the cruel murder of his majesties Father, which not succeeding, his death was achieved by another no less bloody, and barbarous violence.  
But why (I pray you) is this woeful attempt of those unfortunate gentlemen, so often brought in again, 
The odious & oft repetition of the Powder treason.  and repeated almost in every corner of this book? Are they not executed, that were culpable thereof? And are not other Catholics delivered from the guilt thereof by the long and diligent search of justice made thereabout? The Minister himself confesseth in his very next lines, the equity of his Majesty to be such, as he professed in his Proclamation, & Parlament-speach, that he would not use other Catholics the worse for that. Whereof it followeth that he held them for guiltless: and that all those pressures both of conscience, and external affliction which since that time they have suffered, 
The powder treason not so much a cause as an effect of catholics tribulation.  and do at this present, were designed before that, and begun also to be put in execution (as indeed they were) and that the powder-treason was not a cause of these afflictions, but an effect rather: that is to say, that those gentlemen foreseeing or knowing the course that was designed to be taken, and partly also put in practice, resolved upon that miserable medium to their own destruction, & public calamity.  
But alas is there no end of exprobration against the Innocent, for the nocent? No compassion? No commiseration? If the clemency of his Majesty in his gracious Proclamation (as here is confessed) gave security, that notwithstanding that headlong action of those few Catholic gentlemen, none of the profession should be the worse used for that cause: how cometh it to pass, that so many agri●uances have been heaped upon them ever since, and are daily, both by infamous libels published against them, as appear by the former ●. M. ●is slanderous Discovery, and others mentioned in the answer thereunto; as also by the new Oath devised for t●e utter overthrow, both in soul, if they take it against their conscience; 
In the t●●at●●e of Mitigation in the preface.  and of body, goods and citim●tion, if they refuse it? How come so many searches of their houses, spoils o● their goods, apprehensions of their person's, afflictions of their te●●●●ts, servants, and friends, so many citations, attachments, vexations and molestations, that daily do ●low upon them, as if they were the only malefactors of the land?  
Thus far in my Letter of this matter. And now gentle Reader, consider whether his phrases of Crambe bis posita, or mors in olla be mentioned by me or not. But specially let the judicious Reader note this foul overslippe in perverting, and mistaking my words (about likeness in specie, though not in individuo) to a quite contrary absurd sense, which he would not do, but either out of great malice, or extreme ignorance, or both. 
M. Barlow ignorant in Logic & Philosophy.  For that my speech was plain, as now you have heard, that whereas the Apologer said, that the Powder-plot of England was singular from all example, I named three of the same kind, or species practised by Protestant's of our days against their Princes, and Governors in Antwerp, Hage and Edinburgh, which plots though they were not like perhaps, in all particular and individual qualities, and circumstances afore then as Logic teacheth us there should be identitas, and not similitudo;) yet were they like in specie at lea●t, for that they were Powder-plotes, and trains of fire to destroy their Princes: and yet are not all Protestants continually c●st in teeth with these c●imes, nor all condemned for some few, nor aught, as by the iniquity of our Ministers, English catholics are.  
This was my speech and reason, now let us see how this Minister relateth, and perverteth the same, for he avoucheth me to have written, that the English plot could not ●e called singular from all examples, there having been the like don● by Protestants, though not in specie, yet in individuo, as at Antwer●, H●ge, and in Sco●land. Which is the quite contrary ●o that which I said, and meant. For I said that those three examples were like, if not in indiuid●● (for that they might have different individual qualities, and circumstances) yet were they like in specie, kind, and nature: but he maketh me to say, that though they were not like in specie, yet they were in indi●iduo, which is most absurd, and ridiculous; for it is as much as if, for examples fake, a man would say, that an ox and an ass, that agree not in specie or kind, may agree in individuo: whereas all Philosophy teacheth that individual unity and agreement being the last, presupposeth all other unities going before, both specifical, & generical, 
Arist. praedicam. c. 3.  and can never be without them: and consequently wheresoever specifical unity, or agreement is not found, there can be no individual. As for example, if Peter and Paul agree not in being men (which is the species) they can never agree in the individual properties of being particular, and singular men, though contrariwise they may have perfect agreement and likeness in the first, to wit ion being men, albeit they do differ, and disagree in the later, as having different individual, & personal proprieties, whereby they are distinguished, & made several men. And so, to apply all this to our purpose, those three powder-plots by me mentioned, may well agree in the species, or genus, of being powder-plots, though they have some particular, and individual differences, whereby in some parts they disagree, and are distinguished, but how they may agree in their individual proprieties of being like powder-plotes, and yet not agree in the specifical, 
M. Barlow ridiculous.  or generical nature of powder-plotes, that is to say, without being powder-plotes at all, I see not how it can be imagined, and I suppose, that M. Doctor Barlow willbe laughed at by all Logicians in Cambridge for setting down such doctrine, contrary to all rules of Logic.  
And so much the more, for that a little before in the very same page, he vaunteth of his skill in Logic, imputing great want thereof unto me, saying, That whereas I had divided the Apology into three parts, it was made to my hand by others, 
Another folly of M. Barlow.  for he showeth not (saith he) so much Logic in all his whole censure. A great piece of Logick●-learning no doubt, to be able to divide a thing into three parts, that lieth be●ore a man's eyes. When the Butler of Trinity- 〈◊〉 whereof he was Minister and Chaplain in Cambrige, did divide a loaf into three parts, what Logic was needful thereto? Or when upon the way an ostler divideth a p●●ke o● oats to three ho●ses, what skill of Logic is required to that division? Is it not absurd, and ridiculous to call this skill of Logic? Much more Logic was required in defending the individual and specifical unities, and difference before mentioned, which M. Barlow cannot do as it seemeth: then in dividing so obvious, and material a thing into 3. parts as my Letter was, and therefore this exprobration of lack of Logic about so facile a thing, showeth to have come of stomach, rather than judgement.  
But here perhaps some man will say, that the speech before confuted of likeness of powder-plots, though not in sp●●ie, yet in individuo are not set down as M. Barlow his words, but as mine, which I confess; but yet do also deny them to be mine, but rather falsified, and perverted by him, and i● he refuse them also, them they be nobody's: but indeed he cannot refuse them, for that in the very next ensuing page, he hath the same in his own name, if not somewhat altered to the worse, saying, That howsoever the Censurer strains at it, the English powder-plot is both in specie & in individuo singular ●rom all examples. 
〈◊〉. p●●. ●1. 〈◊〉. 21.  Whereby he insinuateth, that the three examples by me mentioned, Antwe●p, Hage, and Edinburgh, do differ from the London plot, not only numero but also specie, which we should more easily have understood if he had set down the definition of a powder-treason in general: for than we might have seen, whether the said Flemish, and Scottish attempts of powder treason had agreed in substance & nature with that of England, though different in some circumstances, that are not so essential. But now we shall try the matter somewhat by his answers to these three instances of mine.  

 To the first then of the powder plot of Antwerp he saith, T●at t●is was done in open hostility, what time (saith he) all actions ●or d●●●●s●ture are lawful either by fl●ig●t or force. But by his leave, these that did practise this plot of powder against their Governor the Prince of Parma were his subjects; and little it importeth, whether they were in open or privy rebellion. For suppose that the other that practised the powder-plot in England had been in public rebellion also against his Mat●e. for what cause soever, yet had their powder plot been a powder treason, nor would M. Barlow have durst to defend the contrary; and consequently, this plot of Antwerp must be granted to have been of the same nature or species at least, with that of England, albeit they had some individual differences the one from the other.  
To the second fire-plot of Hage, 
The powder plot of Hage.  he answereth, That it was but of one single man, and in revenge upon the States for giving him discontentment, and by the report of some writers he was distracted, & mad. But all this maketh no essential, much less specifical difference, for whether the treason were complotted by one alone (which is hard to be imagined against a whole Senate) or by many, and for discontentment given by the States whom he would or have blown up, that he was distracted, as some will fayne, for excusing the matter; certain it is, that it was Powder-treason, and directed, and intented to the ruin of many, which is sufficient to make it of the same species at least, with that of Eng●and.  
But to the third of Edinburgh in Scotland, 
The powderplott of Edinburgh.  for the ruin of his majesties father, when he cometh to answer, he is exceedingly troubled, and entangled how to defend it, & therefore laying aside reasoning, he falleth to open railing; saying: But by his noting of the last (Powder-plot of Scotland) this Censurer discovereth the rancour of his hart against our Sovereign: for though the execution of Parricides, and murders upon Princes have est 'zounds alighted upon some of the greatest, and best of that Royal sort that ever were, and therefore no dishonour to them, nor their posterity: yet to cast up such a disastrous example in his majesties teeth, proveth well, that he is sorry, that his Majesty escaped the like peril, whom he so earnestly wished to be his Father's successor in such a fortune.  
So he. And who will not think this malicious speech fitter for a Parasite, then for a pretended Prelate, yea for the Devil of Lincoln, then for any William Lincoln, making no scruple to condemn me of Parricide, for that I make only mention o● so nay ●ous a wickedness practised against hi● Ma.tie Father by Ghospellers of M. Barlowes religion, & companions in conscience; who is not ashamed here to say, that it is a good inserence, and proveth well, that I was sorry, that 〈◊〉 Majesty escaped the like peril, ●or that I durst cast up such a disastrous example in his majesties teeth. But who seeth not the malicious sycophancy o● this consequence? I did not cast it up (to use his absurd phrase) into his majesties teeth, but only represented it to his ears, and memory with grief, & detestation of the ●act. My casting it up (if any were) was in M. Barlow his teeth, o● whom I doubt not, but if he had been then a Preacher, he would have been as ready to have allowed, and praised the fact, as generally most of his ●ellow Ministers, both English and Scottish did at that time, not only in regard, that the parricide was committed by them, as it was, & against a young Prince suspected by them in religion, & therefore feared: but also for that his Noble Person, & growing fortunes were in such deep jealousy with the Queen of England, then regnant, as nothing more.  
But to leave this to his Ma.tie prudent consideration, & the obscurity of his speech to the Readers due observation, I say, that this evagation, and digression of William of Lincoln doth prove nothing the point it should, to wit, that this Powder-treason of edinburgh was not of the same essence, nature, and species with the other of London, though less heinous, as not being directed perchance to the personal murders of so many particular men, but yet to the public ruune of the State of the Commonweal, as the event well declared. For that the ruin of the Father brought also consequently the ruin of his majesties Mother, wherein that William Barlow himself had not only a wish, but also a push, so far forth as his wretched forces of tongue, and pen at that time could do her any hurt, I suppose he would think it a disgrace to deny it.  
But to return to our controversy in hand, whether thi● Powder-treason of Edinburgh against his majesties father were not of the same kind and species, that was the other designed in London against himself, which I affirm, and the Minister denieth: let us see one shif● of his more, 
M. Barlowes shift  as idle, and impertinent as the rest, to avoid the force of truth. See (saith he) how malice blindeth judgement in this his resemblance: the truth is that his majesties Father was not blown up with Gunpowder, but after the murderers had strangled him in his bed sleeping, he was carried out to the garden, and then was the house blown up, to make the world believe, that it was but a casual accident o● fire: 
Barl. p. 1●.  and so what semblance o● comparison is there between the Powder-treason (of London) and this? Whereto I answer, that the semblance is very essential, that both were Powder-treasons, both of them traitorously directed by subjects to the overthrow of their Princes; and if that of Edinburgh was not put in execution, as M. Barlow saith, but after the King was murdered; no more was that of London, God be thanked, but was disc●uered and defeated, his Majesty remaining in health, and safety. And how will M. Barlow now defend this position, that they were not like in specie nor in indi●iduo? Will he not be ashamed to brag of Logic hearafter? or to exprobrate the want thereof unto me? But we shall have occasion to handle again this matter in other passages that are to ensue.  
But yet before we pass from this matter of the powder-treason let us hear how he insisteth therein, and triumpheth, as to himself he seemth, with all the most odious exaggerations that his venomous, and virulent tongue, accustomed to Satanical maledictions, can utter in spite of Catholics, & especially of Jesuits, whom (though never so innocent in that behalf) he will needs have to be authors, and actors in that foul crime. And first of all he beginneth his railing with three or four notorious lies at a clap: as namely, 
M. Barlowes virulency against jesuits.  that Hall alias Ouldcorne the jesuit said of this plot when it was discovered, that such actions are not commended, ●ut w●en they are finished. A thing most earnestly denied by h●m both at his death, and other times. And here M. Barlow is bare of alleging any testimony at all for the same.  
Secondly he saith, that the jesuits, if the Parliament house had burned, would have song with Nero, the destruction of Troy, & of this, saith, he doubteth not, other proofs he allegeth none. Thirdly he saith, that they would have graced it with no less Epithets than Sixtus the Pope did the murder of King Henry the third of France in his panegyric, calling it A rare, & memorable fact; & this also hath no other proof, but his malicious conjecture, together with the known lie of Pope Sixtus panegyric, which was never yet heard of in Rome, as Cardinal Bellarmine testifieth in his Book, who made diligent search to inform himself thereof.  
Fourthly he saith, that Garnet was the Coryphaeus of that complot, 
Touching Father Garnet.  principal privy Counsellor, and the like. Whereas notwithstanding the very acts, and examinations set forth by his Adversaries do check this ministerial malignity in that behalf, no more being proved therein, but that full against his will, and unto his ●xceeding great grief he heard thereof only in Confession not long before the matter broke forth. And albeit Sir William o● lincoln (for so the man would gladly be called) do jest here at the obligation of concealing things heard in Confession, calling it, An enammeling of hideous treasons, with the glorious pretence of Sacramental Confession: 
Barl. p. 11.  yet all true Bishops of Lincoln for more than five hundred years before himself, that went in at the door, and stole not in at the window, were of another opinion, touching the sacred seal of that Sacrament, 
M. Barlow a b●d Cof●●●●ur to the ●a●le o● 〈◊〉.  all which must be damned a most pitiful case) if this Sir William can be saved, that so contemneth the said seal of Secrecy, and betrayed his Master and Penitent, that is said to have made his Confession unto him, which though it were not Sacramental, being made to a mere Layman (as I take Sir William to be:) yet was he bound by the law of natural secrecy, not to have published the same, without his licence, and consent thereunto. But as this Minister got his Bishopric without Priest hood, so no marvel, though he proceed not Priestly, but profanely therein.  
And finally whereas he scoffeth so malignantly, and intemperately at that innocent man Master Garnet, that loved peace no less than M. Barlow doth broils, and gave his life for defence of the integrity of his Priestly function, & obligation, being of as quiet a spirit, as the other is turbulent: whereas I say the Minister scoureth, and scorneth, saying, that his head and flesh was rotting upon the bridge of London while his face did shine in a straw for his goaly purity, 
Touching Father Garnet & his face in the straw.  I can say no more in this case, then that which all good men have said, and done in the like, that the loser must have his words: the time will come, when the Minister is like to pay for all, as other ravenous Persecutors have done before. The straw we made not, nor invented, & of this can be witness divers Noble, and principal persons of contrary religion to Father Garnet, who saw, and examined the same. But if God gave, or will give any such testimony or other, in this world, that may tend to the defence of any of his servants that suffer unjustly, by the malignity of wicked tongues; what fault have we therein to be carped at by the incredulity or infidelity of such as believe nothing, but what themselves list, which commonly is that by which they may gain most.  
As for the rotting of his head, and flesh upon London-bridge, there is no reason, that he should have a privilege above other Servants of God, of whom the Prophet said in lamenting-wi●e to God himself: They have cast the dead body's o● thy Servants ●or birds o● the air to feed upon: and the flesh of thy ●aintes to ●e devoured of beasts. 
Psal. 78.2.  If that be sanctity which was wont to be in ancient Divinity consisting in true Catholic belief, and virtuous, pious and innocent life; Father Garnet is known to have lived a saints life indeed, and to have accomplished the same with a happy death, in dying for the defence of justice, and equity, that obliged him to silence, and secrecy in the matter, which without sacrilege he could not reveal, or utter, though never so much detesting the attempt pretended, and bewailing the knowledge thereof, which sore against his will was imparted unto him.  
There followeth another notorious untruth which is the fifth in this rank, concerning Father Persons being privy, 
F. Persons falsely & maliciously accused by M. B●rlow to be priu● to the powder-plot.  & consenting to their powder-plot, whereof this Minister both in this place, and many other maketh no scruple resolutely to accuse him: whereas in the whole action ●et forth in print, there is no one such accusation against him, which is like would not have been omitted, if ●ny lea●t ground had been found for the same. And moreover he addeth another assertion, no less temerarious, which is, 
Barl. p. 12.  That Father Persons came on his journey a good step towards England, that he might have sung a Te Deum in his native country for the good success o● that happy exploit. So he. But for that he saw that this might be checked by the testimony of hundreds of witnesses, that knew, that he never departed from Rome in all that time, nor long before, nor after, the Calumniator addeth this defensive Caveat in a parenthesis (as some report) and yet would he have it believed of all; so little conscience hath he to cast out false accusations without ground, as though there were no judge in heaven, or earth ●or false Calumniatours of their brethren.  
Lastly about this matter of the powder-treason he delighteth himself so greatly with the often mention, & repetition thereof, as he saith, he will never cease from talking of that matter. 
Barl. p. 13.  Nor will we (saith he) be silent thereof— rumpantur ilia Romae, so long as we have pens to write, or tongues to speak, or a generation living, or a posterity succeeding. Do you see how earne●t the man is? If we should employ our pens & tongues in the continual repetition of such attempts, by Prote●tats against their Princes, you see now already we have three for one in this kind of powder-plots, but many more in others. And let the last attempt in Scotland of the Gowryes for killing his Majesty, & the first in England of Grace, Cobham, & R●●le● for imprisoning his person, give testimony in this matter, whether they were not all professed Protestant's or no? So as in this there is no place for— rumpantur ilia Romae, brought in by M. Barlow, with more gall, than discretion, as many other things are in this place, for diminishing of the pressures laid upon Catholics for their consciences in religion: 
Of Catholics ●a●tyr●d v●der Queen E●izabeth.  amongst which he avoucheth resolutely that in fi●●y years of two Protestant Princes, scarce threes●ore persons have been executed, and all these as guilty of treasonable practices: whereas their own records, & ours also forth in print, do show above an hundred & thirty Priests, besides laymen to have been put to death within the space by him mentioned, whereof not one could be convicted of any other treason, or treasonable practice, than the exercise of their Priestly function. So as in this both for the number and cause, M. Barlow is taken with an open known falsity.   

HOW GREAT A PRESSURE the urging of the new Oath is to Catholics that have a contrary Conscience in Religion. §. III.  
IT followeth by order of M. Barlow his book and mine, that we do examine a little, how grievous and burdensome the enforcement of the new Oath is to a Catholic conscience, 
Touching the Oath of Allegiance.  that understandeth divers points of his Religion to be denied thereby, and so much the more grievous is it, by how much more desirous his majesties Catholic people are to give him contentment, and satisfaction in all points of temporal obedience, belonging to true, and loyal subjects. I do say in my Letter, 
Letter p. 8●  that the Apologer, supposed by me to be some Minister, did speak of the Oath, as of a thing of no pressure, or prejudice at all, for that he having spoken of the former asseveration of his Majesty, That none of the Catholic profession should be worse used for that cause, to wit, of the powder-treason; he adjoineth presently: Only, saith he, at the next sitting down of Parliament a form of Oath was framed to be taken by all his Majesties' subjects, whereby they should make their profession of their resolution faithfully to persist in his majesties obedience etc. By which exception of (only) a man may well perceive, that the Minister maketh little account of taking, or not taking this Oath: for so much as he supposeth Catholic people to have received no hard usage thereby, though they be brought thereby into such extremities, as either they must sw●are against their own judgements, & consciences in sundry points pertaining to their religion, or else endure his majesties heavy displeasure with los●e of goods, and lands etc.  
These were my words. And now how do you think that M. Barlow will shift of this important point appertaining to conscience in Religion? No doubt, but much according to the feeling himself hath of swearing, or not swearing, if the Prince's favour, or disfavour come between. Do you stand attended then, & you shall hear as egregious tris●ing, as ever you did perhaps in so grave a matter. The new Oath (saith he) of all other is the Phallaris Bull, 
Barlowe pag. 17.  the mo●● grievous vexation. But therein standeth the agrievance? is it in the abstract, because there is an Oath commanded? The highest judge alloweth it both by ●is own example, swearing by himself to Abraham & by precept to us. Thou shalt sear the Lord, & swear by his name. 
Genes. 26. Deut. 6.  But good Sir, we do not deny the lawfulness of swearing, either in abstract, or concrete, but the sin of false swearing, when we take an Oath against our judgement, and conscience. He goeth further. Perhaps than the aggrievance (saith he) is in the Epithet, because it is a new Oath. 
Pag. 18.  No sir. But because it is a fail Oath, when a man thinketh the things not true, that he sweareth.  
He goeth forward to prove, that a new Oath may be lawful, when the occasion thereof is new. But I denied not this, and so M. Doctor beareth the air in vain. Yet will he not leave of, but taketh another medium, to prove that this Oath is not new, but old, concerning the matter thereof. For that it is old (saith he) and hath been usual in all nation's Christian and Heathen, that subjects should bind their allegiance by Oath ●or thei● sovereigns security. But who denieth this? is it not a shame for a Doctor to wander up & down from the purposed? And yet will he pas●e further therein, for lack of better matter.  
It is grounded, saith he (he meaneth of taking Oaths of fidelity to Princes) upon Scripture both in the examples of holy Kings, and the Apostles definition of an Oath, Hebr. 6. 16. n●mel●, That an Oath is the end of all controversies. Of which speech I grant the former part, concerning the examples of holy Kings, that have taken Oaths of their subjects, though as I have said, it be little, or nothing to ou● controuersy● 
Barl. p. 1●.  Nor can I find Cardinal Bellarmine's authority cited in the margin to this purpose, in his 7. book de Romano Pontifice, he having written but five of that argument. Nor doth it import to find it, he saying nothing therein, which we do not confess. But as for the second part, where M. Barlow bringeth in the Apostles definition of an Oath to be the end of all controversies, though I acknowledge it to be his sentence, and most true: yet not a definition. Nor do I see, how M. Barlow willbe able handsomely to defend the same. For if the common axiom of Logicians known to every scholar that studieth that art be true, that Definitio & defini●um convertuntur, 
Aristot. l. 2. priorum cap. 8.  so as whatsoever is comprehended under the one, is comprehended also under the other: and chose whatsoever agreeth not to the one, agreeth not to the other: then cannot this proposition of the Apostle be a definition of an Oath, and consequently M. Barlow doth err grossly in calling it so.  
Now than that this matter is so, and that every Oath cannot end all controversies, nor that every controversy is ended with an Oath, is evident by experience. 
All controversies are not to be ended by swearing.  For how many swearers have you, that will offer to swear twenty Oaths in a controversy between them and others, if thereby they might end, and gain the controversy? But the other party admitteth them not, for that he hath not so much credit of sincerity in their Oath, that they will swear truly, as to believe them. And so also on the other side, how many controversies are there ended daily without Oaths, and many cannot with Oaths. As for example, if M. Barlow should owe a piece of money, and being urged to pay it, should offer to forswear it, that were not like to end the controversy, but rather the laying down of the money: Ergo, all Oaths are not able to end all controversies, nor all controversies are determinable by Oaths.  
You will demand then, what is S. Paul his meaning, when he saith, as here M. Barlow relateth him, that an Oath is the end of all controversies? Surely S. Paul's meaning had been clear enough, i● M. Barlow had let down all the Apostles words, as they lie in the text, which are: Homines enim per maiorem sur iurant, & omnis controversiae eorum finis ad confirma●●●● est iuramen●um. 
Heb. 6.  For men do swear by a greater than themselves, and the end of all their controversy for the confirmation, is an oath. The intention of the Apostle is to strengthen our hope in God, for that he had confirmed his pr●mises to us by Oath, which is the soundest confirmation that can be in the behalf of the swearer, for no man can add of his part more to bind, than an Oath. And for this cause he saith, That an Oath is the end of all controversy for confirmation of truth in the behalf of the swearer, ●or he can pass no further: but not so in the behalf of the other party that is interessed also in the controversy: for if he should mistrust the swearers sincerity of conscience, then would not his Oath be sufficient to end the controversy, as before we have said, & consequently the speech of S. Paul in this place, containeth no definition of an oath, as fond M. Barlow dreameth, but expresseth rather the effect of an oath for confirmation of truth in the behalf of the swearer: which word of confirmation M. Barlow craftily left out, & thrust in two greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the end of controversy, most impertinently, without a●y purpose in the world, as otherwise often he doth, to entangle his vulgar Reader with ostentation o● greek, whereas these words have no special propriety, emphasis, or different signification in the world, so as he might as well put in a whole page of greek out of S. Paul's Epistles, as those two words. But these men, as else where I have advertised, do seek occasions of darkness & obscurity, to hide the weakness of their cause therein.  
But l●t v● go forward. For having laboured all this while out of the list to prove the use of Oaths to be lawful, and ancient, which we deny not in lawful cases; he cometh now to set down the controversy more in particular, that is, this very case, saith he, the Amilogiae, or controversy, whereof is, Whether any Romish Catholic can bear any true Allegiance in his heart to ●he King's Majesty. This jesuit holdeth the affirmative, we by effect, o● so many treasonable plots of ●riest● and Jesuits, do hold the contrary: Yea the Priests of the same religion are merely contradictory to him etc. And therefore his Majesty hath taken this way of the Apostle to try the matter by both. 
Barlow p. 18. & 19  But good Sir, are you not ashamed to trifle in this manner, and to be taken every foot in false consequences? Where did you learn your Logic? Or where did you frame your conscience? 
M. Barlow void of conscience and Logic.  If the question be, Whether any Romish Catholic can bear true Allegiance in his hart to the kings Majesty, how do you hold the negative upon some effects of treasonable plots of Priests and Jesuits? If it were true, that such were sound, doth the discovery of some such plots in some Catholics infer an impossibility, that no Catholic can bear any true Allegiance? How say you to the plots of France, Flanders, and Scotland, and other parts, do they convince, that no Protesta●t can be trusty?  
Furthermore, if it be impossible for any Catholic to bear true allegiance in his hart, what is his Majesty like to gain by urging them to swear? For that either they must leave to be Catholics, or else swearing helpeth the matter nothing. For while they are Romish Catholics you hold they cannot bear true Allegiance. And as for the Priests of the same Religion, which you say do hold the same with you, and do quote in the margin the Quodlibets, 
About the Quodlibets.  if any such thing be (for I have not the book, nor do mean to seek for your allegations) it was not the writing of Priests, but either of some one Priest in his passion, or rather of your Highpriest, whom some of your Puritans have called the Tail of the Beast, which was the chief Author of that scandalous Book, published by another. And as for all other Priests their concord, and unity in true, and Catholic Religion against you is sufficiently known.  
There followeth yet an impertinency or two more: as first, that the form of the Oath, to be given tactis Euangeli●s, laying the hands of the swearer upon the gospel, is no new, or modern invention, but prescribed long since by justinian the Emperor, as though we had said the contrary, or that it made any thing to our controversy. The second imper●●nency is, that w● are muc● grieved with th●● clause o● the Oath, 
Barl. pag. ●9.  that men mu●t swear, in the tru●● faith of a Christian, without Equivocation; for this, he saith, is my greatest groan, and complaint, t●at the Oath excludes Catholics from all Equivocating: the trial o● which complaint we refer, saith he, is●saith ●saith he) ●●●us Ma●tix (in that point) F●ther Persons. Unto both which points, I answer. To the first, that it is most false, that I did ever groan, or complain of the exclusion of Equivocation in this Oath, but have always held the quite contrary in my books against M. Morton, 
No Equivocation in matt●rs of religion.  to wit, that no Equivocation was, or is to be admitted in any Oath concerning Religion or our profession thereof. Let M. Barlow read in my book of Mitigation page 277. and be ashamed of his wilful slander in this point. To the second, whether Master Thomas Morton in the point (of Equivocation) is a Mastix, or scourge to Father Persons, or the other to him, there needet● no other trial, but only the last two books published against M. Morton, the one termed The Mitigation, the other The quiet, and sober ●eckoning, where there be so many lashes laid upon him and his credit, as there be unanswerable lies proved, and convinced against him. And if M. Barl●● could help out his brother-Minister in answering some of those lies for him, he should do him no less ease, then if he had powered both wine and oil upon a man, that hath been well whipped indeed.  
There followeth immediately after in the same place, an authority of S. Augustine quoted Epist. 214. ad Alipi●●●, 
Barl. p. 1●.  where S. Augustine is said to allow, that the use of an Oath is old, and ancient, and that the swearer ought to swear to the judges mind, when he knoweth the same. But good Reader, shall we entreat M. Barlow once throughout all his book, to make a good consequence. When did we ever deny, that the use of an Oath in general is not ancient, but that this Parlament-Oath in England lately devised, is new both for time (for that M. Barlow doth expressly in this very page, grant that it was procured from his majesties prudent cogitation) and for the form, and contents including matter both of civil Obedience unto the Temporal Prince, and spiritual Disobedience to the Ecclesiastical Prelate. And as for the second point of swearing to the intention of the judge, when he is lawful, and proceedeth lawfully, whosoever hath or will read any of the last two Books in Answer and Reply to M. Morton, will see it often, and often repeated, that no Equivocation at all is admitted in that case: or when the examination is about religion, and consequently he will wonder at M. Barlow his running from the matter so manifestly, to seem to say somewhat.   

THE SAME ARGUMENT About the Pressure of the Oath is further discussed. §. FOUR  
BUT now after long gadding abroad to show, that an Oath in general is not unlawful, nor the matter of an Oath new, and the like, as you have heard; he returneth home for a while, saying: 
Barl. p. 19●  And now will we follow him to examine the weight of this pressure. And then, as if I had spoken to his Majesty, when I spoke to the Apologer T. M. (●or this injury he offereth me at every turn, 
Injury offered by M. Barlow to the Author of the Epistle.  to thrust in his Majesty to undergo my speech, meant to a Minister) he saith, that I pick a quarrel about the word Only, used by the Apologer, as a diminutive phrase of the pressure laid upon Catholics by this Oath; and he maketh me speak after an ironical scoffing manner, saying: that the King ●seth the word Only, when he talketh of the imposition of this Oath upon Catholics, as a matter of small, or no pressure, saying, That (only) an Oath was devised to try their fidelity: and then he maketh me to add these words of Ironical Sarcasmus, or bitter jest, as he calleth it, and setteth it down in a different letter as my proper words, to wit, that I should say, as, If the taking of this Oath were so lightly to be esteemed as to be thirst upon Catholics, with an (only:) whereas I have no such manner of speech, as the Reader may see in my own words set down at large in the XII. number of the first Paragraph. And therefore this perpetual custom of falsifying in every place lightly where he pretendeth to cite my words, would weary a man to deal with him. But that I have resolved to have patience with him yet somewhat further.  
My speech then about this word Only, was as you have heard, that whereas, the Apologer had said that his majesties will was, that none of the Catholic profession should be the worse used for the powder-plot, he presently adjoined, That Only at the next sitting of Parliament a form of an Oath was framed to be taken by all etc. By which word Only, I said, that the Apologer seemed to make small account of taking, or not taking this Oath; for so much as he supposed the Catholic people to have no agrievance, or pressure thereby, for that otherwise, it had not been true, that they should not far the worse for the said powder-treason.  
And what will M. Barlow say to this? You shall hear his own words. Who knoweth not, saith he, that this word Only, doth not so much signify an hypocoristicall alleviation, as a compendiary limitation? This is very high and profound stuff, as you see, and most of his Readers I suppose must go to the greek Lexicon before they pass any further, if they will understand him. But let us see how he doth explicate himself by an example. 
Barl. p. 20.  He that said to our Saviour (saith he) Only speak the word, did not thereby extenuate the power of Christ, 
Matth. 8. 8.  as is healing in absence by a speech had been a more easy miracle, then by approach to touch the party, but thereby wished a course more easeful to the body, not less powerful to show the deity of our Saviour. But to what end is all this? Do not we say the very same that the word Only is a diminutive phrase in this place, signifying, that whereas our Saviour offered to go with the Centurion for the curing of the sickman, he answered, that his Only word was sufficient, excluding the other of bodily going, as not being necessary. Wherefore the other Commentary annexed ●y M. Barlow, that the Centurion did not extenuate the power of Christ, is therefore impertinent, for that the comparison was Only in his bodily going, or curing Only by word in absence, as he himself also confesseth.  
If a Noble man should say to his tenants, Certain kindred, or friend, of yours have done me such, & such displeasure, b●t none of you that are innocent shall far the worse for that, Only you shall make me a certain acknowledgement for my better satisfaction: who will deny, but that this word Only containeth a diminution, and importeth as much, that this acknowledgement is no grievous matter, for otherwise it should not agree well with his promise, that they should not far the worse for it. And so fareth it in our case. But if that Noble man should demand at their hands a thing that importeth their lives, much more their souls, and life everlasting: then would they justly cry out, and complain of this word Only, as guilefully used unto them. And so much of this.  
About urging Catholics to swear against their consciences, this our Doctor determineth peremptorily, as it were out of his Chair, in this sort: You must know that a conscience may be misled by error, or stiffened with pertinacy, and then the Greek Devynes will tell you, that unsoundenes in the judgement, and obstinacy in the will maketh but a nicknamed conscience, 
Barl. p. 21.  which is rather to be censured● then tendered. And then he citeth in the margin Chrysostome, and Oecumenius, without specifiing any work or place of theirs, who have written divers Volumes; & this he observeth ordinarily when he meaneth to follow the wild-goose chase, to use his one phrase, 
How an erroneous conscience bindeth, or no● bindeth us to follow it.  and not to be found by his answerer. And not only he practiseth the same in his quotation here, but also in his determination of the doubt, for he flieth the proper question, that most importeth the Reader to know, which is, whether a man be bound under sin, to follow an erroneous conscience or not, which Devynes do hold that he is, to wit, either bound to follow it, or at least not to go against it: for in case the error come of invincible ignorance, then is he bound to follow 〈…〉 that he can have no 〈…〉 it away: but i● the ignorance be vincible (as 〈…〉 indeed he is bound to depose such a conscience, 〈◊〉 yet he can do nothing aga●●t it, as long as such an 〈◊〉 conscience remaineth; for that our will is alwa●●●●ound to ●o●●ow, or not to go against the direction of our re●son, whether the said reason do err, or not, ●or that it cannot be but sin for our will to embrace that which our reason 〈◊〉 to be nought. And will M. Barlow deny thi●? Or did he understand it? Why then had he not decided the question as became a learned man, and a Prelate indeed? And yet it seemeth by those words of his repeated (saying that such a conscience is rather to be censured, then tendered) that an erroneous conscience bindeth not, & that it is not sin to do against a man's own judgement; wherein he hath not only all school Devynes against him, that prove the same out of Scripture, but the ancient Fathers in like manner; especially in their Commentaries upon Saint Paules●pistles ●pistles to the Romans, where the said Apostle handleth the matter largely, and concludeth: Qui antem discernit, 〈…〉 damnatu● est. 
〈…〉 Rom. cap. 14.  He that disc●rneth, that he should not ●ate and yet eateth (against his judgement, and conscience) is damned. Upon which words S. Ambrose saith (which 〈◊〉 serve for all) Verum est, quia qui judicat non edendum & edit, damnatus est. 
〈…〉  S. Paul saith truly, for that, he that judgeth t●at he should not eat, and yet eateth is damned. And with Saint Ambrose doth agree S. Chrysostome, Origen, Theophilact, Theodoret, Ans●lmus and others upon the same place. And the s●me proveth S. Bernard. 
〈…〉  And as for Schoolmen after Saint Thomas, and Alexander de Hales, all other Devynes do agree upon the same commonly, and I would gladly know how Master Barlow will answer them?  
In the very same page, having set down his majesties words, promising, that ●e●ther the Oath, nor penalty thereof was 〈…〉 any for their opinion, or conscience, but only for an ac 〈…〉 of their 〈◊〉 obedience, 
〈…〉  he setteth down my Answer. ●f it be so (〈◊〉 I) the matter is ended, for no catholic 〈…〉 obedience that he oweth to his Majesty. And there he cutting or my words, maketh a great scanning of the last, to wit, that he oweth to his Majesty, calumniating my meaning therein, as though I meant to limit this temporal obedience also. But if the malicious man had set down the words that do immediately ensue, my meaning had been plain in my Book, for I said this: 
Letter. pag. 8.  I presume no Catholic in England will deny to swear all civil obedience, that he oweth to his Majesty, or that any subject hath ever in former Catholic times sworn to their liege Lords, and Princes, or do in other Countries at this day. Is not this plain enough? And why then did M. Barlow cut them of? What plain dealing is there in this? Let us hear how he prosecuteth his calumniation against me. Treason hatched in the hart cannot conceal itself, saith he, from uttering, though in hidden terms. For observe those words, 
Pag 22.  all obedience that he oweth to his Majesty, what is that? or how far extends it? S. Peter stretcheth it without limitation; Submit yourselves to all manner of ordinance for the Lords sake. So he. What? all manner of ordinance? 
1. Pet. 2.13.  and without limitation at all? and that in a time of Infidel Princes, as was that of S. Peter, who might, and did ordain many things against the Lord? How then could the Apostles warrant their answer to the Magistrates of the jews, that they were to obey God rather than men, that is to say, to Christ rather than to them, that were Magistrates?  
But I would ask here Master Barlow, that is such a Grecian, and bringeth in Greek phrases to no purpose at all, why he had not set down the sentence of S. Peter in Greek, which is most different from his English? and why he doth translate here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all manner of ordinance, whereas the words do import omni humanae creaturae: which all the ancient Fathers do understand to be meant of all human Princes, as by the context itself is evident. And as it were absurd to say that we must submit ourselves to all human creatures whatsoever (the Apostle his discourse being of obedience to Princes): so it is much more ab●surd, 
M. Barlow bold with the Scriptures  to translate it, as M. Barlow doth, all manner of Ordinance, leaving quite out the word human, and turning creature into ordinance. For who doth not see that many unlawful 〈◊〉 are made by Princes, and especially in S. Peter's time, as now is said● and yet (forsooth) will not M. Barlow have any limitation to be understood in S. Peter's words, nor yet the words themselves translated, as theyly in the original text: so absolute Masters will these men be, to make of Scriptures what they list.  
There followeth immediately upon the former point, an other taken out of the Apologers speech, saying: had●reely ●reely taken the same Oaths whereby they both gave his Majesty occasion to think the better of their fidelity, 
Apol. p. 4.  and likewise ●reed themselves of that heavy slander: and that his Majesty punisheth none for conscience sake. Upon which 〈◊〉 words I a●ked this question, Why are then M. Blackwell, M. 〈◊〉 and others that have taken the Oath detained still in prison? why 〈◊〉 Re●usantes punished, and fined for Recusancy, though they take the Oath o● Allegiance? is not Recusancy a case of conscience?  
To this last speech of mine, he answereth presently, differing the other for many pages after, and the sum of his answer is, That I would feign be a privy Counsellor to kn●● the reason of things: and that to answer a scorn is folly: That he wi●● not endeavour to resolve this question either by conjecture or truth: he is not my intelligencer. Let Ma●ster Blackwell answer for himself AEtatem habit: 
Page 23.  perhaps it is better for them to stay in prison, than 〈◊〉 be dismissed lest they should be made away by Jesuits, as the Bishop of C●ssano, Cardinal Allen, Tolle●, yea Pope Sixtus Quintu● himself, all f●●ged in a trice, for c●●ss●●g, or at least for not serving the Jesuits humours. So he. And by this kind of answering the poor man showeth of what humour he is himself, 
What a good con〈◊〉 M. Barlow h●th 〈◊〉 a Bishop.  having nothing to say, nor conscience to discern what to say, true or false. For what probability can there be in this conscienceles calumniation, of fi●ging, and making away so many and great personages, as here are mentioned? Doth this Pre●ate think there is a God? or account to be given of such enormous slanders, especially touching blood? Is he f●t to have care of souls, that seemeth to have no soul himself, or care what becometh of other men's souls? Would any Pagan, if otherwise a moral man be ●o 〈◊〉, or project in slandering without any semblance, or show of truth, upon mere spite and malice? Surely among other calamities happened unto our vn●ortunate Country in these days, this may be thought to be one, and very great, that such a ●ellow should ever be thought worthy of a Bishopric, not only by so judicious a Prince as ou●s is, who perhaps may be deceived by misinformation to bestow th● place upon him: but that there should be found any Informer, that would not be ashamed to suggest the promotion of such a Pretender.  
But now let us see what he saith to the former part of his speech, about such Catholics, as were said freely to have taken the Oath: which thou●● M. Barlow indeavoreth to huddle up, as not willing to be well understood: yet shall I seek to clear the matter somewhat more particularly: & to that effect, shall I first set down my own words, upon that case of free swearing. Thus than I wrote.  
And now for so much as it is said here in like manner, that very many of his majesties Subjects, 
Whether the taking of this Oath by Catholics, be a blessing from God.  that were Popishly affected, as well Priests, as Laics did Freely take the same Oath (which he calleth a blessed success from God of this godly and wise intent, in devising, and proposing the s●me:) I shall be forced also to say somewhat of this matter, before I pas●e any further. And first of all, concerning the freedom, whereby it is here said, that Priests & Laics did ●reely take the same; no man, I think, will deny, 

1. Statut. 3. jacobi  
Reg. c. 4.   but that the taking of this Oath is proposed by the Statute itself vnde● pain of the loss of all goods, and lands and perpetual imprisonment to him, that shall refuse it; which is the very same freedom, and no other, that a Merchant hath in a tempest, 
2. Ethic. c. 2  either to cast out his goods into the sea for lightning his ship, or to be drowned himself. 
D. Tho. 1. 2. q. 6. art. 6. & Va●entia vasquez etc. in eum locum.  And though Aristotle in his Ethics do seem to hold it to be simpliciter inuoluntari●m, simply against the will of the do●r, & catholic Divines, that it is inuolu●tarium secundum quid, in part involuntary, and simply voluntary, for that all circumstances considered, he resolveth finally to be the be●t to ca●t out ●is goods & save himself: yet all agree in this, that freedom is taken away by this constraint of t●e passion of fear. For that freedom requireth full liberty to ●oth extremes, or objects, that are proposed, which it not in our case. 
How freely the Oath is taken.  For that the displeasure of the Prince, the loss of goods, & liberty, the ruin of his family, the terror and persuasion of his friends, are heavy poises, and do mightily preponderate on the one side: and consequently the mention of this Freedom might have been pretermitted, for so much as no constraint of human will can be greater than this. And yet it is said in the Oath, that he must do it both willingly, & heartily, & as he believeth in conscience. Let the discreet Reader consider what coherence there is in their tale.  
So I wrote at that tyme. Now what bringeth Master Barlow to overthrow this doctrine? First, saith he, the Censurer denieth not the assertion, that many Priests and Laycks di● take the Oath, but he sticks at the adverb (freely) God loveth Aduerbes, say the Canonists, the Devil doth not. 
Ba●l. p. 36.  Do you see how the man speaketh in mysteries? I neither granted, or denied, that many had taken the Oath: Yea very many, as the words of the Apologer were, for I know not whether they be true, or false: but that I do stick at Ad●erbes which God loveth, and the Devil loveth not, as the Canonists are affirmed to say, may seem to contain some great mystery, wherein me thinketh he offereth injury to the Devil, 
The Devil in●ure● by M. Barlow.  in saying he loveth no Aduerbes, good or bad, for that bad Aduerbes must needs be as grateful to him, as good Aduerbes to Almighty God. For as, bene agere, or bene operari, to do or work well pleaseth God: so malè agere, & m●le operari liketh the Devil. And this is confirmed by M. Barlow his own reason in this place, so far as concerneth God: For that the adverb, saith he, doth make the action commendalle yea denominateth the same, and this is an axiom both in Divine and human learning.  
But good S●r, by your leave, neither Divine nor human learning dot● warrant this human folly which here you do utter, to wit, that the adverb doth make the action commendable: as though no adverb may not be reprehensible, which now I have confuted. It doth denominate also the action, 
M. Barlow a great friend to Adverbs.  say you: which I grant: but the denomination is good, or bad, as the quality requireth. It seemed that you blundered at a certain speech of some spiritual writers though not well understood by you, who ●ay, sometimes, that God loveth rather the adverb, than the Verb; ●or that the Verb implieth only the action itself, but the adverb the quality of the action: & as the good quality pleaseth good, so the bad pleaseth the Devil. So as here it seemeth to me, that this Doctor remaineth much foiled about Aduerbes in general: now let us see, what he can say about swearing freely in particular.   

WHAT FREEDOM MAY be said to be permitted to English Catholics for swearing, or not swearing the new Oath. §. V.  
AS concerning this matter, M. Barlow after his former discourse about Aduerbes cometh to handle the point itself of freedom permitted to Catholics in taking the Oath, beginning thus: 
Barley p. 36.  And is there then (saith he) such a disagreement between the pain of a Statute-law, and the will of a subject, that he which obeyeth the law so enjoining, shall not be acco●●●d a free subject for his obedience! Then are all the people of the Christi●n ●o●ld slaves, not freemen: for what nation is there governed by lawes●●ot enjoined by sharp penalties & c? Yea the law of God itself is imposed with penalties, and yet man's obedience yielded thereunto is not thraldom, but freedom. So he.  
And do you see, how he seeketh a hole to run out at? We do not say, that penal Statutes are unlawful in a Commonwealth, 
About freedom in taking the Oath.  or that they do make the subjects no free subjects, and much less that they do make all th● people of the Christian world slaves and not freemen. This must needs be spoken out of great ignorance, not understanding 〈◊〉 question: or ou● of muc● ma●●ce, that would daz●e the Readers eyes with imp●r●●nent speech. The question is, whether the choice be free, w●en in any deliberation, t●ere is a heavy predominant poised of one side, as whether a Merchant in a tempest should cast his goods or no, out of the ship for saving his li●e? or Catholics in England should take the Oath for avoiding the penalties of the Statute? whether this choice, I say, be absolutely free, or no? And I showed before both out of Aristotle according to Philosophy, and out of Schoole-Doctours according to Divinity, that this was not perfect freedom.  
For albeit Aristotle saith, the Merchant his act in casting out his goods is simpliciter involuntarium, & voluntarium secundum quid, absolute involuntary, and voluntary but in part: & the Schoolmen on the other side, that it is simply voluntary and in part involuntary: yet in effect, they say all the same, in different respects; for that Aristotle calleth it simply involuntary, in respect of the object alone, without consideration of the circumstances, that do accompany the same, in which sense no doubt the act of casting out his goods is simply involuntary in the Merchant. And the School Doctors do call it simply voluntary in respect of the object accompanied, and conjoined with the circumstances, to wit, present peril of life, and the like; which being considered, the Merchant doth simply & absolutely resolve, that all things considered, it is better to cast out his goods then to detain them: & so in this sense of the School Divines, it is simpliciter voluntarium, simply voluntary, and in the other sense of Aristotle simply involuntary; for that simply and absolutely he would not cast out his goods, if it were not for the peril, and danger of his life, which is a most ponderous circumstance, and overweigheth the balance o● the whole consultation.  
And this is our present case also, about taking the Oath by those very many Catholics, which the Apologer saith took it freely, if they were so many. For if they were Catholics, and were informed, that there were divers points therein contained against their Religion, which must necessarily retain them from taking the same, and yet on the other side there was loss of liberty, and goods in refusing the same; then said I, that neither according to Philosophy or Divinity, was this deliberation of theirs altogether free. 
The free acceptance of penal laws.  And whereas M. Barlow would infer thereof, that then there were no free subject, for that all Common Wealths do propose laws with penalties: I answer that there are two sorts of men in a Common wealth, good and bad: the good do willingly submit themselves to the laws penal, made by the Prince, and Common wealth, and that for conscience sake, as S. Paul prescribeth, without respect of punishment, where they see no injustice, & offence to God commanded; 
1. Tim. 1. 9●  in which sense the said Apostle saith, that the law is not given unto the righteous man (which is repeated here also by M. Barlow) of which sort it is to be presupposed, that a great part of every Common wealth consisteth: but to the wicked.  
But now there are others, which being evil men, & slaves to their own passions, do repine at good laws, and for these it is necessary, that punishments and penalties should be appointed to enforce them to obey: and albeit this choice of theirs is not altogether free, according to the nature of freedom before declared; yet is the coaction necessary, and profitable to themselves, nor have they any just reason, but only their disorderly passion to refuse the same, and consequently it is no reason, that they should have free choice, and freedom of election permitted unto them, in a matter so prejudicial to the common wealth, and to themselves.  
All which is different in the case of Catholics in taking the oath repugnant to their consciences. For as evil men do not follow conscience, and judgement, but passion as now hath been said, in not obeying penal laws: so may they be justly forced thereunto: and in that sense may yet truly be said to be all free, that is to say, free to do evil without punishment. But catholics following the dictamen of their consciences, concerning points of their faith, received and continued in England since the beginning of christianity, cannot with any equity be constrained, or coacted to contradict the same; no● can it be deemed, but that so grievous a punishment proposed, as the penalty of Praemunire, was, and is a grea● coaction, that taketh away freedom. And consequently tho●e Catholics, Priests and Laics, that are said to have freely taken the Oath, had not indeed freedom therein; but that only freedom, which before hath been mentioned of the M●rchant, casting out his goods into the ●ea, which according to the rules both of Philosophy, and Divinity is not true freedom, as now hath been declared, & shallbe more presently.  
For now you must see a new shift of M. Barlow, who finding himself sore graveled about my former speech of freedom, both out of the Philosophers, and Schole-devines w●nt to read Medina, a School● Doctor, about the matter of free choice, but understanding him not, as it seemth by his perverting of his meaning, hath cast himselve into 〈◊〉 greater broils, and entanglements, than before; you shall hear his discourse.  
Were th● Statute enforced peremptorily, 
Barlow pag. ●7  and no leisure granted for deliberation, or after deliberation no liberty of choice, but enforced upon them to take it, whether they will or no: 
M. Barlo●s ●illy discourse  then might the Oath be accounted a pressure & the acceptance thereof a slavery. But first time being given to consider thereof, and after consideration leave granted to choose, or refuse; this in their own School learning is true, and f●ll liberty. For to it they annex these two conditions. 
Medina in p●●mam 2. quas●. 6. a●t. 2.  1. indetermination●m iud●ij ad deliberandum, an unlimited scope for the judgement to deliberate. 2. facultatem eligerdi v●l resutandi quod deliberatum est, power either to choose, or refuse what is deliberated. The first is radix libertatis, the source, or fontaine of liberty; the other is ipsa libertas, freedom itself, saith Medina. And that is the very case between the King, and his subjects, in this matter of the Oath: so that the very refusal (a●ter deliberation) argues, that either to take it or no, they had liberty of choice; but in refusing it no loyalty of affection.  
Thus far M. Barlow. And surely it pitieth me that I must ●ere open so many defects of his in this his discourse. For first he granteth as you see, t●at the urging of this Oath were a pressure, if t●e Statute were enforced peremptorily, and no leisure grau●ted for deliberation. But what dot● he mean by peremptory enforcement? to beat men with ●●uo●s to take the Oath? for otherwise the enforcement of the punishment of the law of Praemunire, containing the lo●se of lands, goods, and liberty, peremptorily proposed by the law to him that refuseth, is I think peremptory enforcement, sufficient to make the action involuntary, no less● then t●e fear of death, enforceth the foresaid Merchant to cast out his goods in a tempest. So as in this point M. Barlow findeth no refuge, for so much, as that which ●e saith, if it were so, so it were a pressure indeed, and consequently he granteth the Oath to be a pressure.  
But you will say, that he putteth another condition necessary to make a thing involuntary, to wit, when the party hath no leisure to deliberate: and upon this he standeth much, as radix libertatis, the root of liberty or free choice, and foundeth himself in the doctrine of Michael Medina a Catholic School Doctor of our days, and thereof inferreth, for that the Catholics have a time to deliberate to take the Oath, and after deliberation have choice to take it, or not, those that take it, take it freely. But I would put to M. Barlow this case. 
M. Barlow hardly urged.  If a thief should meet him alone in a place, where he were not afraid to be discovered, and should will him, either to give him his purse or his little finger to be cut of, and should give him a whole day to deliberate, and after to choose, whether he would lose his purse, or his finger, and he chooseth to lose his purse, is this action free from enforcement, for that he hath time to deliberate, and after liberty to make his choice? What man of sense will say this, but M. Barlow? Or will M. Barlow himself say, that he gave his purse ●reely, for that he had sufficient time to deliberate, and make choice after his deliberation? I think he will not, were his time of deliberation given never so long.  
Nay in this point, he hath wholly perverted, corrupted, and misunderstood Medina, who never so much as named, 
Medina misunderstood.  or imagined this condition of time, or leisure granted to deliberate: for always it is to be presupposed, that in every action good, or bad, there is sufficient time for our reason to deliberate, for otherwise there should be no deliberate action. But the pastime is, that M. Barlow falling upon two conditions of liberty expressed by Medina, fir●● indeterminationem judicij ad deli●erandum, the indetermination of our judgement to deliberate, and for the power to choose, or refuse what is deliberated, he understood the former condition to be of time, and so translateth it most ridiculously thus, an unlimited scope for the judgement to deliberate, as who would say, that every free action must have an unlimited scope of time to deliberate first, or that otherwise it were not free. As if M. Barlow when he is riding from London to Lincoln, and hath two ways to take, must needs have an unlimited scope of time for his determination, which way to ride, and this must be, not an hour, nor half a day, nor a day, nor a month, nor a year, but an unlimited scope, so as he may sit a whole year, nay seven years, yea twenty, or more to deliberate which way he will choose: which were good for his flock, for so perchance the wolf should never come amongst them. But was there ever such a Philosopher? or any such Philosophy taught before, or Divinity? had he not evil luck at this his first stumbling upon Medina so to mistake him.  
But you will say, what doth then Medina mean when he saith, that the first condition required to liberty is indeterminatio judicij ad deliberandum, 
The true meaning of Me●ina.  the indetermination of our judgement to deliberate, which he calleth the root of liberty? Whereto I answer, that he meaneth not an unlimited scope of time to deliberate, as ignorantly M. Barlow imagineth, for of this now you have seen the absurdity: but that the judgement of him, that maketh the choice, be not determined and tied already by instinct of nature, to any one part, or parcel of the object but that it be indifferent of it self, and in the power of the said chooser, to employ it to what part he will, which is called indetermination of liberty, or indifferency of judgement, to think what the chooser will: upon which indifferency of judgement followeth liberty of choice in the will, as upon the root and ground thereof.  
Medina his example is taken from the difference between the choice of a brute beast, & a man, for that the brute beast hath his judgement, or estimatiue●power so tied, & determined by instinct o● nature to one part of the object, as he cannot divert from that to any other. As when you propose meat to a beast that is hungry, he cannot but be moved to admit the same, as thinking that best in this his estimate, or brutish judgement: but man's judgement, or understanding is not so determined to one par● by instinct of nature, but may apply itself also to consider of the opposite.  
I shall allege the words of Medina, 
Medina in 1. 2. q 6. a. 2. p. 72.  which will make all the matter clear. Libertatem voluntatis (saith he) antecedit indeterminatio, & indifferentia judicij ex part intellecius: appetitio emin sequitur cognitionem: igitur universa libertas nostra ex cognitione originem trahit. Before the liberty of the will goeth the indetermination, & indifferency of the judgement or estimate, on the behalf of the understanding, for that the appetite, or will doth follow knowledge; & therefore all the liberty of our will hath her beginning or origen from knowledge. So Medina: laying this for a foundation, that if the judgement in a man, or estimate in a beast do not first know, & discern the object, there can no appetition, or choice follow in the will or appetite But Medina doth explain himself further, showing that this knowledge of the understanding or estimate, which he calleth here judgement, if it go not before the choice, no choice at all can be made: bu● further also it must be indifferent, and indeterminate to both parts of the object, & not determined, or tied to any one, as he proveth by the example of a sheep, whose understanding or estimate is so determined by instinct of nature to fly a wolf, when she seeth him, as she cannot think on the contrary; and consequently can have no election to fly him, or not fly him; as not only a man, but a dog also may, which hath strength, and courage to resist him, and fight with him.  
But let us hear the rest of Medina his discourse to show M. Barlow his ignorance. Itaque (saith he) si iu●icium no● suerit in facultate iudican●is, se● determinatum ex iustinctu naturae etc. Wherefore if the judgement be not ●reely in the power of the judger, but be determined by the instinct of nature to one part; then the appetition or choice that followeth thereof is not free, and indifferent, but determined to one part. As for example: forsomuch as a sheep hath this judgement imprinted in her by nature, that a wolf is to be fled, she cannot choose but fly the same. But when the judgement is in the power of the judger, so as he is able to judge this, or the opposite, or contrary thereof; then the choice ensuing is free, and indifferent: as in a man that may judge whether a wolf ●e to be fled, or no, and upon this judgement of understanding may make free election out of the freedom of his w●ll, which freedom as you see doth consist formally in the will, but fundamentally in the judgement, or understanding.  
Hitherto is the discourse of Medina about the two parts, wherein the liberty of choice consisteth both of men and beasts, to wit, judgement, and will: though concerning free will in man, he referreth his Reader to a further, and far larger disputation, wherein he saith, he is to dispute fusissimè contra Lutheranos, most largely against the Lutherans, that deny free will. And then he cometh to conclude with these two conditions before mentioned, related, but grossly misunderstood by M. Barlow, of indetermination, or indifferency of the understanding, and choice of will. Modò definitum sit (saith he) quòd ad libertatem dua condi●iones sunt necessariae; alia est indifferentia & indeterminatio iudi●ij ad deliberandum, alia est post deli●erationem fa●ul●as elegendi, vel refutandi id quod deliberatum est. Prima conditio est sons, & radix libertatis: secunda est ipsa libertas. And now let it remain determined, that two conditions are necessary to liberty of freedom, the one is the indifferency, and indetermination of the judgement to deliberate what is to be done: the oth●● is power to choose or refuse that which is deliberated in judgement. The first condition is the fountain, and root of freedom, the second is freedom itself. So he.  
And now let us behold M. Barlow his good understanding, and skill in School divinity, that cannot understand the very terms thereof, 
M Barlows sheepish apprehension.  nor conceive the meaning of his own author Medina, which he allegeth, though (as you see) it be clear enough, but ignorantly by him perverted, especially when he translated i●determinationem judicij ad deliberandum, an unlimited scope (o● time) ●or the judgement to deliberate, and thereupon urgeth the Catholics, that they have t●me to deliberate, in swearing. So as according to his doctrine, If you gave the sheep mentioned, time enough to deliberate, when she seeth a wol●e, whether it be be●● for her to fly or Noah, she may chance resolve not to f●y. And is not this a very sheepish apprehension indeed? Did not M. Barlow read all this discourse now by me related in Medina himself, how the sheeps judgement, estimate, or understanding is tied, and determined to one part only by instinct of nature? to wit, that she must fly, when she seeth the wolf? And how could he conceive then, that Medina should mean, that this sheep must have time to consult, whether she must fly, or no? Hath he ever seen any sheep in this deliberation? Men-sheep may well do it, and aught to do it, & would God his Lincolne-sheep, that by this false proceeding of his, & many other of his words & actions do or may discover him for a wolf indeed, would enter into serious deliberation how to fly him for safety of their souls, whereunto according to his own doctrine they are allowed an unlimited scope for their judgement to deliberate. God grant their wills be correspondent to make choice of that, which God in their judgements shall tell them to be the best.  
But now to his last conclusion, which is, as before you have heard him say, that this is the very case between the King, and his subjects in this matter of the Oath, so that, the very refusal after deliberation (saith he) argues that they had liberty of choice, to take or not, but in refusing it no loyalty of a●●●●tion. 
M. Barlows bad inference.  Which last words, are words of slander, and ●cophancy, as now hath been sufficiently declared, not founded upon reason, or any lawful inference at all. For to repeat briefly again some of that which before hath been more largely treated, how doth the very refusal of the Oath prove, or argue this disloyalty, or that they have freedom of choice? Is every thing that is refused, refused freely without coaction? What say you then to the refusal of Eleazar in the Maccabees, that refused with loss of life to eat swines-flesh? Was there freedom in that choice? and yet, had he not sufficient time to deliberate? or did the very refusal argue, as there is said, that he had liberty of choice, and thereupon disloyalty of affection? who can say so but upon ignorance, or malice?  
When time is given to consider (saith M● Barlow) and after liberty leave given to choose or refuse, 
●arl● p. 37.  this in their own School-learning is true and full liberty. But this of School-learning M. Barlow, we have now discussed, and have found both true, and full folly, and ignorance in your collection. For Schoolmen do not talk of indetermination of time, and much less of unlimited scop●, but of indetermination, and indifferency of understanding to be able to deliberate: which being in the judicial part, then is there required power in the will, or appetite to choose or refuse freely, without balancing on either part, either by fear, hurt, preferment, hatred, interest, or other potent, and forcible impositions. By which doctrine if you ponder well, you shall find that Catholics had not free choice to swear the O●th, when loss of goods, and lands do balance on one side: nor you perhaps M. Barlow, may be said to have free power, or liberty to refuse it: for so much as the current of the time, the Prince's favour, the weight of so fat a benefice as the Bishopric of Lincoln is, and other crumbs that you have gathered together, and hope to increase, do so powerfully preponderate on the one side, that you have your judgement so fast fixed to that object as the sheep by nature hath hers. And if you have not this tie or indetermination in your judgement; yet in your will and affection: which is sufficient to make you no freeman, from which thraldom Almighty God deliver you, who only can do it, and break your bands. For as our Saviour saith. 
Ioa●●●.  If the son of God deliver you, then shall you be truly free indeed. And so much of this matter, concerning our freedom to swear or not to swear: wherein I have detained myself some what longer, than I had purposed, for that it is the most principal question of this our controversy. whether there be free election given in taking the Oath, or n●?   

ABOUT RECOURSE MADE to the Bishop of Rome for decision, whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English catholics, or no? wherein also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations. §. VI  
AND now having followed M. Barlow thus far in this controversy, we must turn back again some pages to take the whole argument with us, which he had overrun, to handle the question of freedom before mentioned. And first he telleth us, that when the Oath came forth, and was urged, the Garnettistes did differ from the Black●e●i●tes, some allowing Equivocation (saith he) in matters of ●aith, and others no●, 
Bar●. p. 23.  which is a notorious untruth. For the question was not whether the Oath might be taken with Equivocation, 
A notorious untruth of M. Barlow  but whether it might lawfully be taken, as it lay, with a good exposition? wherein some difference being found of opinions, it seemed a just cause to refer the decision to the universal Pastor: about which point M. Barlow dealeth not uprightly, as commonly never he doth in alleging my words, but with notorious corruptions. I shallbe forced to repeat again briefly, what I then said. My words were these.  
What should Catholics do? 
Letter p. ●.  they first consulted the case with learned a men at home: then also abroad. 
The Oath consulted both at home, & abroad.  And albeit at home some were moved in respect of the compassion they had of the present peril, if it were refused, 〈◊〉 think, that in some sense the Oath might be taken: yet none abroad were of that mind. For that they allowed 〈◊〉 of any sort of Equivocation in matters touching faith and religion. And in these I hearsay, that the Jesuits were among the chief, and most forward, as here also is confessed: who notwithstanding before were most accused, baited, and exagitated, both in books, pulpits, and tribunals, for allowing, in some points, the lawful use of Equivocation.  
About which doubt, Catholics, according to their rule of subordination, and spiritual obedience in such affairs, referring the matter to the judgement, and consultation of their supreme Pastor, whom by the principles of their religion they believe, that our Saviour giveth assistance, for the direction of men's souls, they received from him, after due deliberation, this answer. 
See the Breve to. Kai. Octob. 1606.  That the whole Oath as it lay could not be admitted with the integrity of Catholic faith For that albeit divers parts thereof were lawful, to wit, all such clauses, as appertained to the promise of civil and temporal obedience: yet other things being interlaced and mixed therewith, which do detract from the spiritual authority of their said highest Pastor (at least wise indirectly) the whole Oath, as it lieth, was made thereby unlawful.  
And this I understand to be the substance of the Pope's resolution and answer, though all these particularities be not set down in his Breves, but only the Oath declared to be unlawful in conscience to Catholic men, as it lieth, without distinction. And what malicious trick of the Devil than this may be thought, where sheep do make recourse to their spiritual Pastor, in so great and important occasions of their souls, as these are, I see not. Do English Catholics any other thing in this, then that which all English subjects, both great & small, learned & unlearned have done, and practised from our first Christian kings, ●ntill the ti●e of King Henry the eight upon the point of a 〈◊〉 and years? Let t●e answer to Sir Edward Cooks Book o● Reports lately set forth be examined, weather it doth not sh●w, that in all those ages, 
See Answer. c. 6.  recourse was ever made to the Sea Apostolic in like occasions, without prejudice of subjects' temporal duties to their temporal Princes.  
No one English Christian King (though they were many) did ever absolutely deny recourse to Rome in spiritual things) notwithstanding in some other civil, 
Recourse to Rome ever usual from our first Christianity.  or mixed matters, upon different occasions some restraints were sometimes made) from our first King Ethelbert to King Henry the Eight, as by the said discourse and answer is evidently proved: and much more throughout the whole ●anke of the Christian Kings of Scotland, his majesties progenitors, until his most Renowned Progenitrix (by whom, and from whom he hath his Royal Right of both Crowns) who is known, 
Q. Marry of Scotland.  and reputed throughout Christendom to have died for defence of this Catholic Doctrine. For so much, as if she would have abandoned that, there had been little doubt of making her away. And the like may be said of all other great Christian, & Catholic Princes of our days, as the Emperor himself, the Potent Kings and monarchs of Spain, France, Polonia, and other States, commonwealths, and Potentate's, do not think it any disgrace, diminution of honour, peril, or injury unto them, that their subjects, for matters of conscience, do make recourse to the Sea Apostolic, or that which is consequent thereof, the said Sea, or general Pastor do interpose his judgement, declaration, or decision in such affairs.  
This is the Catholic doctrine & practice: this hath been in use throughout Christendom from all antiquity: and no where more than in our Realms of England & Scotland, as hath been said. In this belief and practice, lived, and died all our forefathers, and our Noble Kings, that were our Sovereigns, all our Bishops and Prelates that were our Pastors, all our great counsellors, and Lawyers, that by their wisdom & learning governed the Land, all our Nobility, Gentry, Priests, & Laity. 
Catholics do ho●ld & practice what all their ancestors have done.  So as if now this be holden for a malicious trick o● the Devil, dishonourable, and prejudicial to his Majesty, his Sovereignty, Crown, Dignity and security, as here is insinuated, it must needs be, for that the Devil indeed hath made some change in other men & matters, by altering of opinions, and apprehensions. For the Catholics are the same, that they were wont to be, & do think the same, believe the same, teach the same, and practise the same, that all their Predecessors have done before them.  
This was my declaration & discourse. What substantial answer, or argument can M. Barlow bring against this● You shall see, how he will gnibble at the matter, as a mouse at the cheese-vate, and cannot enter. He saith first, that I am in my element, when I am in this argument of recourse to Rome, used to be made from age to age, by our ancient Christian English people, Prelates and Princes, & that there is scarce any Epistle, Preface, Pamphlet, Book, or Petition of mine, but that this is therein the Cypres-tree, to make Rome the loadstone for drawing thither the trial of our gold in both senses, and the like: That I borrowed all from Cardinal Allen in his Apology: that we have received full satisfactory answers in this behalf, to wit, that when the Bishops of Rome in purer times did bear themselves as religious members, not as presumptuous heads of the Church, and lived as ghostly Fathers to counsel, not as Superiors to control, our realm being then also rude, and learning scant, Religion new sprung up, and no where settled, I say then, and in those days, M. Barlow granteth, that the recourse was made to Rome, but yet upon devotion, and mere necessity, and not then neither, without leave of the Prince.  
This is his tale. And do you not see what gnibling this is? Do you not behold the poor man in what straits he is, to say somewhat? What more evident, or more strong demonstration could, or can be made (if he would join really to see, and confess the truth) to prove the right, and continuance of the Bishop of Rome his supreme spiritual authority over England, and recourse made unto him therein, then that which was made against Sir Edward C●●ke, in the answer of the fifth part of Reports, 
About recourse to Rome by our English Princes, and people.  that from King Ethelbert our first Christian King, until the defection of King Henry the eight, upon the point of a thousand years, and almost a hundred Christian Kings, it was inviolably observed in England to make such recourse in matters of doubt, concerning Ecclesiastical, and spiritual affairs, unto the Sea Apostolic and the universal Pastor thereof, as lawful judge, not for counsel only, but for sentence, determination, and decision, both be●ore, & after the Conquest. So as except M. Barlow do see more than all they did, and have more learning, and piety than any of them, who ●ollowed also therein not their own sense, and judgement only, but that of the whole Christian world beside: all these spruce, and princock exceptions of ●urer times, rudeness of the land, lack of learning, their being of new Christians, and the like, are but ridiculous inventions of an idle busy-head, and so not worth the standing upon to answer them, for that they are evidently false in the eyes of all the world.  
And like unto these are the other ●oyes, that do ensue pag. 25. 26.27. As for example, that there was no need to make recourse to Rome for deciding the doubts about the Oath, which he proveth, forsooth, and that very ●oberly, out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 6. Is there not a wise man among you? 
Idletrifling.  among all the Priests secular & ●esuited in England, that can determine a controversy about the Oath of Allegiance? Might not your Archpriest Blackwell so authorized by the Pope, so commended. and countenanced by two Cardinals, 
Barl. p. 25.  Cai●tan and Burghesius be sufficient? But all this is simple gear, as you see, and hangeth not together, but rather maketh for his adversary. For if the Archpriest that then was, had his authority from the Pope, than reason was it, that in so great a doubt concerning the souls of so many, the matter should be consulted with the Superior, as we see it usual in England, that lower judges in difficult cases do consult with them, from whom they had their authority. Neither doth S. Paul here alleged, mean that the Corinthians should choose some contemptible man to be their judge in Spiritual, or Eccle●a●ticall matters for in all those he biddeth all Christians to be subject to their Bishops, & spiritual Pastors, that have to render account for their souls; but h● meaneth in temporal matters, and particular suits, and civil controversies between man, & man, which he holdeth to be contemptible things in respect of the spiritual, and especially to contend for the same before Infidel judges, as they did. And so doth M. Barl●● wholly pervert S. Paul, as his fashion is commonly in most Scriptures, and authorities that he allegeth.  
But now we come to another argument of his, against our recourse made to Rome for decision of this great doubt, 
Touching the person of this present Pope Paulus Quintus.  concerning the taking, or not taking the Oath. And albeit you have heard how many impertinent and childish arguments he hath used before about the same, yet none of them can be compared with this for absurdity, and impertinency: and it consisteth in taking exceptions against the very person of the Pope, Paulus Quintus, that now sitteth in the Sea: who being so eminent for his good parts, & rare virtues, as laying aside his supreme dignity of Universal Father of Christ's Catholic Church, the same doth grieve exceedingly the hearts of all Heretics, that hate the Apostolic Sea, and him only, for that he sitteth and governeth so worthily therein, which they cannot abides But let us see, what they object against him in this behalf.  

Barl. p. 26.  What is there (saith he) in this Pope for his judgement in Divinity, that his determination should be expected about this Oath of Alleg●●●ce to his Majesty, more than in his predecessor Clemens, whose opinion was not inquired of about the Oath for conspiracy against the whole Realm? Whereunto I answer that for so much as the other Oath of conspiracy (if any such were) was but between certain particular men, who did upon discontentment conspire together, and bind one the other by Oath to secrecy, & did presume, that both Pope Clement, & this Pope if they had been made privy thereof, would have letted their bad intentions, therefore the conspirators never proposed the m●●ter unto them, but concealed it from their knowledge whom they assured to find opposite to their designments in such like attempts. But this other Oath called of Allegiance, for that it was a public matter, and urged publicly to be taken by all Catholics, with most grievous penalties of lo●se of goods, lands, & liberty proposed for the refusers, and for that the said Catholics had a great doubt, whether they might receive the same with a safe conscience in respect of divers clauses therein contained, tending to the denial, or calling into question the Pope's supreme authority over Christian souls, therefore they thought it necessary to make recourse to the Sea Apostolic, 
See the answer to S. Edward Cook, now chief● justice.  and to demand resolution thereof, according to the custom that had been observed in the like cases in England, during the reign of all Catholic Christian Kings from their beginning of Christianity until king Henry the eight, as else where largely hath been proved by a several book written lately of that argument.  
And as the English Catholics were desirous to exhibit unto their King all dutiful obedience, and subjection in temporal matters: so were they desirous also not to do any thing against their consciences in spiritual affairs towards their supreme Pastor, whom they acknowledge to govern them in place of Christ our Saviour. And this was the cause, why the one Oath was not consulted with Pope Clement the Eight, & the other was with Pope Paulus the fifth, not somuch for his particular and personal judgement in Divinity (though it be great) as in respect of his place, and the most certain assistanc●, which almighty God giveth him, and all other in that place for governing of his people: as also for the particular obligation, that all Catholic Christians have to obey their supreme Pastor, whose authority received from our Saviour, is more to be respected, than the gift of human learning, which I suppose M. Barlow in the kings Royal Authority, and Person will not dare to deny; or think it good dealing, or lawful proceeding, if when he setteth our a Proclamation, his Subjects should demand what skill in Law or Divinity he hath for avouching ●he same? And much more if the question had been made in the time of Q. Elizabeth who professed not so much learning as this King, and yet would be obeyed no less than he, i● her days, even in matters Ecclesiastical, although I think, that the never studied Divinity. It followeth in M. Barlow.  

Ibidem.  Of Pius Quintus (saith he) who absolved the Queen's subjects from their obedience, it was said by some of his own, that he was homo pius & doctus, sed nimis credulus, religious and learned, but too easy of belief. But of this Paulus Quintus who hath inter●●cted the Subjects of our Sovereign King to swear their obedience, either for his Divinity, or Piety we have heard nothing. Whereunto the answer is easy, for if you have not heard thereof, it is for that you are loath to hear so much good, as you may, of his Holiness in both points. His profession was not the faculty of Divinity, but rather of Civil, and Canon law, before God did choose him to the place & dignity, where now he is. It is well known that his Holiness hath great sufficiency also in the other, for discharging of his obligation in that high Office: and hath moreover so many learned men about him in all sciences to consult withal, when matters of weight do occur, as this poor exception of the Heretic about learning in his Holiness, is a good witness of his want of better matter, what to speak to the purpose.  
And as for his Piety, which is the other point, let his Holiness life, and actions be looked upon, as we know they are by all Heretics in the world, and curiously pried into; not only at home in their own Countries, but in Rome itself, where many do go to certify themselves in this, and sundry other like points, and do depart much edified thereby, and sundry of them converted daily by seeing the contrary to that which before they heard: whereof myself among others, can be a good witness, that have seen the effect hereof in sundry of our Nation, as others can say the like by theirs. And this amongst other things is very notable and known, spoken and confessed by all sorts of people in Rome to be in him, to wit, an Angelical purity of life, throughout the whole course thereof: in so much that he was never yet stained with the least blemish of suspicion to the contrary. Which public voice, 
The purity of life in Paulus Quintus.  & testimony how well it hath been deserved of M. Barlow & his Mates● I remit myself to the common fame of their next Neighbours, or such as know them best.  
As for that he saith of Pope Pius Quintus, that he was accounted by Catholics themselves, nimis credulus, notwithstanding he was homo pius, & doct●s, as it is no great accusation: so is it spoken and uttered without any testimony at all, and therefore of small credit, as coming from one, that is found so full of untruths in most of his allegations, whereof we have given so many examples, and shall do more in the residue of this our Answer, as I doubt not, but that he will scarcely seem worthy to be believed, when he bringeth witnesses, and much less without them.  
But there remaineth a more large impertinency of M. Barlow concerning this Pope his skill in Divinity, setdown in these words, taken from the comparison of S. Peter, & S. Paul. S. Peter (saith he) whose successor he is styled, 
Ibidem.  and S. Paul● whose name he hath borrowed, had their Divinity indeed by in●●s●●n, but their writings, revealed it to the world. So that Peter we know, and Paul we know to be singular D●uines; but who is this? 
Childish babbling of M. Barlow.  No men that seeketh to be ●amous doth any thing in secret, say the brethren of our Saviour. Where then are his labours? his Sermons? his Treatises? his Commentaries? his Epistles Theological? his doctrinal determinations? his judicial Decis●●s? all which are usual attractives to draw an opinion upon a man, that he is a sound resoluer. So he.  
But Sir, stay your Mastership: these are no sound grounds to build the certainty of resolution upon in a Magistrate, especially such as the supreme Pastor is, but rather the promised assistance, that Christ our Saviour made to S. Peter and his successors, sitting in the Apostolic Chair, That Hell-gates should never prevail against the same. And how many have written Sermons, Treatises, Commentaries, Epistles, Determinations, and Decisions, and do write daily, to whom notwithstanding we ascribe not this certainty: albeit the last two, for Determinations, and Decisions, I doubt not but his Holiness hath ma●● many in his days, and those very profound, and learned, having been a judge in divers great affairs, as the world knoweth, before he came to this dignity, whereto he ascended, not by fortune, or favour, or negotiation, but by the merit of his great and rare virtue, correspondent to the worthiness of the noble and ancient family, from the which he is descended. And this willbe evident to any man that shall consider the eminent offices and dignities, wherewith he hath been honoured even from his youth, as of Referendary in the high Court of Signatura de Gratia, of Vice-Legate in Bologna, of Nuntius Apostolicus into Spain for most important matters, and of Auditor de Camera; in all which charges, and employments, he gained such reputation of learning, wisdom, and integrity, that Pope Clement the eight of blessed memory, held him to be most worthy of the dignity of a Cardinal, whereto he advanced him; and afterward never ceased to employ him in the gravest and weightiest affairs of the Sea Apostolic, partly in the holy Congregation of the Inquisition, and partly in the Office of Vicar-general of Rome: besides other continual occupations in divers Congregations, and particular commissions which the said Pope Clement daily commended unto him, as to one of the wisest, and most confident counsellors he had. So that all this being considered, malice itself cannot deny, but that his singular parts of learning, wisdom, experience, and all virtue opened him the ga●e to the sovereign dignity of supreme Pastor, whereto Almighty God of his particular providence (no doubt) hath exalted him, for the special good of his Church.  
But M. Barlow misseth in the very ground of our Catholic certainty, and infallibility, and so rangeth most ridiculously to matters nothing to the purpose. For 〈◊〉 what end I pray you, or with what judgement, doth he bring in that speech of our saviours brethren, in S. I●●●s gospel, 
joan. 7.4.  No man that seeketh to be famous, doth any thing insecret? doth it appertain any thing to our purpose? Or doth his Holiness seek fame by learning, or in secret, when he determineth any matter? Surely it seemeth that this false Bishop will needs make himself famous by his folly and false dealing; and yet we must hear him out a little further for that the further he goeth, the more gall and malice he showeth against the person, and dignity of Pope Paulus Quintus. Now than he will needs bring in the testimony of certain secular Priests, as he calleth them, against the person of his Holiness; though in this he deserve as little credit, as in the rest. His words are these.  
Into his qualities I will not enter: he standeth, 
Barlow pag. 27.  and falls to his own Master. But if he be that Cardinal Burghesius whom some of the secular Priests have sometimes described, and have assured us to be true in him, which is spoken of Tiberius Gracchus, 
M. Blues &c.  that he is a rash speaker, and an heady undertaker, of a most violent spirit, and impatient of contradiction, in whatsoever he hath but once imagined. If this, I say, be true (which God forbid in so great a Churchman) now surely he is not the fittest judge to be resorted unto in cases of conscience, especially of such a nature, and consequence as this in hand. So he.  
Where first the Reader may note, that he saith, he will not enter into the Pope his personal qualities, and yet he doth: showing thereby, that his abundance of malice overcame his judgement, & first intention. And if you stand attended, you shall see, that Satan the Author, & Inspirer of all malignity, to work this Heretics greater shame, made him lay hands upon such a calunniation as all the world both catholics, & Heretics that have any knowledge of his Holiness person will testify, to be a mere slander, 
M. Barlowes want of wit in accusing the Pope.  to accuse Cardinal Burghesius, before he was Pope, to be a rash speaker, an heady undertaker, a violent spirit, & impatient of contradiction, is as probable an accusation among them that know him, as to say, that S. Francis was covetous, S. Thomas unlearned, S. Bernard indevout, S. Dominicke without zeal of souls at all; that is to say, to ascribe the contrary vices to him that was singular, & eminent in the opposite virtues. And this is so evident, & notorious in the present calunniation, that whosoever did but come to Rome, and did discourse of Cardinals, of their qualities, and conditions (as men are wont to do) but much more, if they conversed with him, should understand that he was so far of from rash speaking, heady vnderta●●●●●iolent spirit, and the like; as the contrary virtues were singularly respected in him, to wit, of prudent speech, of slow and moderate enterprizing, suavity of spirit, and patience in hearing every man with lenity, as it pleased the divine Prudence of almighty God afterwards to use this general opinion, and conceit of him, as a potent means among others, to induce the Cardinals to choose him to the place and dignity that now he holdeth. So as any other slander, or calumination might sooner find place against him, than this.  
And whereas he allegeth some of the secular English Priests to have been Authors of this false accusation against his Holiness, quoting in the margin M. Bluet etc. whereby he would signify, that he, and his fellows had affirmed the same; 
Anno Domini 1602.  it seemeth that he doth allude unto the time, when the said M. Bluet and three other Priests went to Rome, upon a certain appeal; and so at their return, might make this description, as he calleth it. But why doth he name one only, and he dead? No doubt, but that the fal●e Bishop did foresee, that if he had named them all, or the most part of them, the slander would have been answered by some of them that are alive: but by naming a dead man that answereth not, he thought he might scape scotfree from reprehension of the slander. And this is no unusual art of heresy, that seeketh to maintain itself by lying, and forgery.  
And thus much now be spoken about the thing itself to wit, how unjustly these Phrases, and Epithets are ascribed unto the person of his Holiness, supposing that the Heretic had deal● uprightly in alleging them out of Plutarch, as given to Tiberius Grac●hus: but the truth is, that in no one thing commonly shall you ever find him true: & so here he both falsifieth Plutarch, & iniureth Tiberius Gr●●chus. For Plutarch hath nothing so much of Tiberius Gracch●●, as here in English is fett down, neither that which he hath, is spoken by him in such reproach, as Master Barl●● would have it seem. For Plutarch relateth the contention had before the people between Tiberius Gracc●us, and Titus A●r●us, the first a most eloquent man in speech, the second crafty in proposing subtle questions, whereof having proposed one at their first encounter that did sting Gracc●us, Plutarch saith: 
Plutar. in vit●s Tib. & Caij Graccherum.  Ad hanc quaestionem reserunt ita Tyberium hasitasse, ●t qui omnium esset ad dicendum expectitissimus, & proiectissimus ad ●udendum, obmutuerit. At this question of ●itus Annius men say, that Tiberius Gracchus did so stick, as that he held his peace, though he were of all other men, the most prompt to speak, and most bold to attempt. This is all that Plutarch saith: so as the rest which M. Barlow addeth, of a most violent spirit and most impatient of contradiction, in what he hath but once imagined, is his own imaginary fiction, and not Plutarkes relation, as indeed he is forced also to confess in the eye of the learned by setting down the sentence itself in grenke, amplifying the same in the English tongue, for the deceiving of the unlearned English Reader: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prompt in speaking, and bold in attempting, which later, though it be taken for the most part in ill sense, yet sometimes also in good, that is for magnanimus animosus etc. as out of Plato, Aristophanes, and other Greek Authors may be proved.  
And albeit I will not stand to defend that in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Barlow doth wrong Plutarch and Gracchus in translating, 
A shameful mistaking in M. Barlow.  heady undertaker, rather than magnanimous; yet doth he offer them open injury in translating the other epithet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a rash speaker, whereas indeed it signifieth to Gracc●us his praise, a prompt, and ready man in speaking, eloquent, copious, and the like. But as for the other exprobrations of a most violent spirit impatient of contradiction, and the rest; he abuseth egregiously both Gracchus, & Plutarch: for not only are those reproaches not found there, as appliable to Gracchus, but the very contrary is said of him, and therein is he preferred before his brother Caius in these words of Plutarch: Vul●u & obtutu, & motu bla●d● erat & compositus Tiberius, acer Caius & vehemens: Deinde or ati● suln●nans Caij, dulcior Tyberij: pari modo in victu, & mensa frugalis, & s●●rplex Tiberius' etc. lenis etiam & placidus: confragosus alter & seruidus. Tiberius' both in countenance and motion was a●●●ble and composed, Caius sharp and vehement; and consequently to this the Orations of Caius were thundering, but those of Tiberius more sweet: and in like manner Tyberi●● was more frugal and simple in his diet, and table, than his brother Caius: he was also very gentle, and pleasing in his behaviour and speech; but the other was rough and fervent etc. Now then, let the prudent reader see, and consider how all this doth agree to the description of Tyberi●● set down by M. Barlow, and how true a man he is in all his assertions. And how false soever he was in the allegation, certain it is, that he dealt most wickedly in the application of all to the person of his Holiness that now liveth. And this much shall suffice about this matter.  
It followeth pag 27. & 28. after he had discharged such a storm against the Pope's own person, as now you have heard, for his meddling in this Oath, and giving his decision thereof, he saith, that this was to be judge in his own cause, alleging a Poet for his proof, about sur & latro, one pleading at the bar, & the other sitting at the bench. But doth not the malicious man see, that this his cavillation toucheth the interest of all Princes, as though they might not be judges, or give sentence in cases wherein themselves have a part, if law stand with them. For to cause other men to do it in their name, by their authority, is as much as to do it themselves. And what did the Pope more in this case than this? making a decision by counsel of his learned men, according to Christian law, that this case of England touched points of Religion concerning the Sea Apostolic; which authority no Pope can infringe or diminish without sin, if he would; for that it was given not only to him, but to his ant●cessors, and successors in like manner to endure for the good of the whole Church, to the world's end.  

Very wisely spoken.  But (saith M. Barlow) it had been plain dealing in the Pope, if before he had sent his Breves of Interdiction, he had acquainted his Majesty with encounters of doubt that bred the quarrel, and the overswaying reason that carried him to the negative. Very wisely spoken, and worth the wit of M. Barlow. And would his Majesty have admitted the messenger, or message? who seeth not, that there is nothing here but trifling, and caviling? But I may add also scolding, for he breaketh presently into a most desperate blast of railing against F. Perso●s, calling him, 
M. Barlowes scolding.  traitorous Absolom, that careth not to set his ●●●e friends, land, yea to see his native soil on a light fire, so he may purchase the Pope's favour. All which is spoken with much passion, & little reason, for that the probability is much more that Master Barlow flattereth the kings Majesty for hope of preferment, whereof he is capable, and hath gotten possession of a good part already, then ●a. Persons the Pope, whose state and condition of life hath no need of such preferment; nor can it be proved, that ever Father Persons spoke for a fee, forward, and backward as M. Barlow hath done, in his best patrons cause.  
As for the authority of the sixth Council of Carthage, about appellations to Rome noted in the margin, it is not worth the answering, both for that the words nor sense alleged by him are there found, and the controversy about Appeals to Rome from Africa is so handled by me at large in my last Reckoning with M. Morton, 
Sober R●c. cap. 3. §. 2.  and he found so faulty, and defectuous in that accompt● as if M. Barlow will take upon him to pay that debt, and to answer that only Paragraph for him, I shall say, that he is his friend indeed. Wherefore I expect the event.  
In the very next lines following M. Barlow doth so brokenly recite my words about M●●●is aliena, 
Earl. pag. 29. & 30.  another man's harvest (for so did the Apologer write, that English Catholics are to the Pope) that he maketh neither me, nor himself to be understood. Read I pray you his relation of my words pag. 29. numb. 5. and see whether you can understand him, about M●ss●●aliena. My words were plain enough, for thus I wrote page 12. numb. 20. by him cited.  
For first about putting the Pope's hook in another man's harvest, 
English catholics not ●●ssis aliena to the Sea Apostolic  supposing, as we do, that we ●●●a●e of Catholic people only, and according to Catholic doctrine, and in matters belonging to Catholic m●ns souls, and consciences; it cannot be called Messisali●na, another man's harvest, that the Pope dealeth in England, with such kind of people, & in such cases, as well as in Spain, France, Flaunders, Italy, Germany, Polonia, and other States, and kingdoms: for that they are no less appertaining to his ●●ock, care, charge, and harvest, than the rest. Neither doth the material separation of our Island, separate us from the union of one body, nor of one obedience, to one and the self same general head and Pastor, no more than it doth from the union of one belief, and of one number and form of Sacraments, of one manner of service, and other like points, belonging to the internal, and external unity of Catholic Religion.  
And is not this plain enough? How doth he reply? You shall hear it in his own words, and he will so embroil himself therein, 
M. Barlowes imbroylements.  as he will let fall near half a dozen of absurdities, ignorances, and open falsities by the way. Do you stand attended then ● thus he bringeth his answer to my former discourse of Messis aliena. This is a 〈◊〉 argument no doubt (quoth he) the Pope hath to do in England sait● the Censurer, because some Catholics suppose he hath, but before this supposal be brought into a positive resolute conclusion, it will ask a longer time, than such a Pamphlet etc. Where you see first, that he quite mistaketh me, either of oversight, or of purpose. For I do not make that argument, which he frameth i● my name, that the Pope hath to do in England, because some Catholics suppose he hath. Nor is the word supposing used by me, applied to some Catholics, as though they supposed; but to myself, that I supposed: and so this change of the person, as you see, is a foul oversight in repeating his adversaries argument. There followeth the like change of the subject, for my supposal was not, that the Pope had to do in England, but that we treated, and spoke in that place of Catholic people, according to Catholic Doctrine, and of Catholic consciences, not of Protestants consciences, or judgements, for that the question was not, whether Protestant's with a good conscience might take the Oath, or not, but Catholics with the integrity of their Religion. Out of which supposal is inferred, that forsomuch, as Catholic doctrine in all Schools of the world, as well of Spain, France, Italy, and others, do teach, and define, that all Catholic people, whether they be far, or near, without exception, are equally subject to the supreme Pastor of the Church, whereof they are members: it followeth, I say, that dwell they never so far of, they cannot be called, nor accounted Messis aliena to their said universal Pastor.  
But let us hear M. Barlow further, uttering other ignorances intolerable in the ears of learned men. But before this supposal (saith he) be brought into a positive, and resolute conclusion, will require more time etc. What, M. Barlow this supposal, that we treated of Catholic people only and according to Catholic Doctrine, and not of Protestants? My words are plain, do you read them over again, supposing as we do (quoth I) that we treat of Catholic people only, and according to Catholic doctrine. You see my words: this was my supposal: what difficulty is there now, to reduce them to a positive, and resolute conclusion, saying and affirming resolutely that which then I supposed, to wi●, that I treated in that place of Catholics only and their consciences according to Catholic doctrine, and not of Protestants? Do you see, how hard a matter this is to bring a supposal into a conclusion? And doth not your Reader see, to what straits of absurdities, your folly hath brought you?  
But yet the Reader must further know, that there is included in your words, greater ignorance perhaps, than any of the former; for you imagine, as by your sequent words appeareth, that a supposal is of much less certainty, then is a positive, and res●lute conclusion, which is quite contrary: for that a positive conclusion, how resolute soever it be on the behalf of the defender, yet may it be controverted, and called into question, or disputed of: but a supposal cannot, for that it is supposed, and granted by both parts. Let us see then M. Barlow his acumen in this matter. Thus he writeth of me, and my supposal.  
It argued (say you) some ingenuity in the man, that he made it but a supposal, and afterwards again, talking of a proposition, or conclusion of Cardinal Bellarmine, about the Mother-Church of Rome, 
Barlow pag. 30.  you say, the best writing jesuits do indeed make it a supposal, and the most favourable of them, that it is b● likely. Whereby it is plain, that the silly man holdeth, that a supposal in Divinity, 
M. ●arlowes new Philosophy.  or Philosophy is more uncertain, than a resolute proposition or conclusion, and in effect he takes it for only a Likelihood, or probability, which only to hear is ridiculous amongst learned men: for that always the things supposed in any silence, are taken for most ●ue, and undoubted, as granted by both parts, yea they are the very grounds and principles of all sciences, whereon the certainty of all conclusions, throughout those sciences, doth depend. And so we see, for example's sake, the euclid in the beginning of his books of Ge●●●● doth suppose certain principles, and grounds of that science, as that, 〈◊〉 est main sua part, every whole is greater than the part thereof: Si ab aequalibus aequalia domas, ●●liqua e●●nt aequalia: i● from equal things you take equally away, the rest which remain shall be equal, and many such other like suppositions, which are to be seen in t●e ●●st ●ooke of these 15. which euclid calleth the Elements, ●● t●e ●l●ments, or principles of Geometry. And now to say, that these supposals are of les●e certainty then positive o● resolute conclusions deduced from them, and grounded upon them, as M. Barlow imagineth, is so absurd, as nothing can be more, ●or that the conclusions may be denied or disputed 〈◊〉, but the supposals may not.  

 A●is●otle also when he treateth of the Principles of 〈…〉 wh●c● as P●●lus testif●eth, he calleth suppos●io●●, a 〈…〉 or supposals, quia supponenda sunt, for that 〈◊〉 are to be ●●ppos●d, and not to be proved; showeth that 〈…〉 supposals is infallible, for that they 〈…〉 parts, for which let this one example 〈…〉 C●ris●i●n should contend with a l●w, about 〈…〉. Death or Resurrection of our Saviour, & 〈…〉, fi●st as a thing evident, & acknowledged 〈◊〉 both, that whatsoever is contained in the old Testament, is o● infallible truth, & authority, and thereupon should frame many positive and resolute Conclusions from the predictions of the ancient Prophets about these mysteries of Christ; should these conclusions be of more certainty, than the foresaid supposals upon which they stand? Or shall it be but likely only, and probable, that the old Testament is true, for that it was only supposed, and not proved at the beginning? What can be more ignorantly spoken then this, concerning the comparison of conclusions, and suppositions? Nor can he run out, by saying that he agreed not to my supposal at the beginning, for that there are certain supposals so evident of themselves, as they require no consent of the adversary, as were those of Euclid before mentioned: and so was this of mine in the passage of my Letter already cited, where I supposed that I treated of Catholic people only, and according to Catholic Doctrine, and in matters belonging to Catholic men's souls, and consciences, 
Letter pag. 12. num. 20. , and not of Protestants: which supposal no man can contradict, for that it is most clear and evident by my own words, 
M. Barlow a poor Philosopher and worse Divine.  and therefore consequently M. Barlow hath showed himself but a very poor Philosopher, and a worse Divine in this place.  
But the two notorious untruths, which he uttereth presently in the next ensuing lines (though I be weary now of such stuff) may not be pretermitted. The first is against Cardinal Bellarmine, the second is against the Pope concerning his prohibition of the Oath. His words for the first are these. 
Barlow pag. 30.  If all the rest of the Apostles were not ordered Bishops by S. Peter (saith Bellarmine) then cannot the Church of Rome be Mother of all other Churches (much less the Bishop) and whether it were so or no, the best writing Jesuits do indeed make it but a supposal.  
But now for the chastisement of his folly, for saying but a supposal, as though it were a speech of uncertainty I have said sufficient before. There remaineth his untruth in saying that Bellar. doth suppose, that if the rest of the Apostles were not made Bishops by S Peter, then cannot the Church of Rome be the Mother-Church of other Churches, nor the Bishop universal Bishop. For first as concerning the latter part, about the Universal Bishop, Bellarmine hath no one word thereof, but teacheth the quite contrary, founding the power, and authority of S. Peter over all other Churches, upon other grounds, and namely upon the commission of Christ, Matth. 16. & ●oan. 20. & not upon his ordaining or not ordaining Bishops of the other Apostles: about which question, he doth but set down the opinion of joannes de Tu●re●remata lib. 2. Summae de Ecclesia. Cap. 32. with his reasons ●or the same, 
Bellar. l. 1. de ●ont Rom. cap. 2●.  and consequently, doth not ●et it down, as a supposal, certain ground, or principle, but as a probable, and disputable opinion, though himself hold the opinion of Turrecremata to be more probable. But on the other side Franciscus de Victoria here cited by M. Barlow himsel●e, 
Victor ●ele●t. 2. de potest. Eccl. conclu. 3.  though he be of a contrary opinion to Turrecremata, and to Bellarmine, about the Ordination of all the Apostles by S. Peter: yet doth he in the very same place profess, that S. Peter was Universal Bishop over all the Church of God. Primus, & Princeps cum summa supertotam Ecclesiam pot●state. That among the Apostles he was the first, and principal, with supreme power over all the Church. So as the denial of this particular privilege in S. Peter, that he ordained all other Apostles Bishops, doth not in●e●e, that he was not universal Bishop of the whole Church, as here we see M. Barlow most falsely to infer. And whereas he noteth in the margin with great diligence divers Catholic writers, that d●● hold the question to be probable on both sides, as Salmeron, Victoria, Suarez, and Gregorius de Val●ntia, that is but an old trick to shu●●le and make a noise, where there is no need: for Bellarmine doth not hold the thing to be de fide, or infallible supposal, and consequently it little importeth to bring in this diversity of opinions of the aforesaid Authors, about the matter.  
Now then to come to the second untruth, that the Pope by decreeing the Oath, as it lay, was unlawful, did also forbid even that very point of s●earing civil obedience, which is so notoriously untrue, as whosoever doth but read the Pope's Breve itself, or Cardinal Bellarmine his explication thereof, or my Letter, wherein the contrary is every where protested, will marvel to see such impudent proceeding. But of this more afterward. Now we shall pass to discuss, whether there be any points in the said Oath, concerning the religion, and consciences of Catholics, whereby the taking thereof was made unlawful unto them. For this doth Master Barlow utterly deny, as now you shall hear.    

WHETHER THE OATH BE ONLY OF CIVIL OBEDIENCE? Or whether there be any clauses in it against Catholic Religion? CHAP. II.  
THIS point being one of the most chief of all my Treatise about the Oath, is handled by me somewhat largely pag. 13. of my Letter, where, upon the denial of the Apologer, that any thing is there required but Civil obedience, my words are these: 
More cōteyn●● in the O●●h then ●●●●ll obedience.  And how shall we clear t●is important matter, to wit, Whether there be any points in th● Oath belonging to religion, besides civil obedience? and I do answer that it is v●ry easy to clear the same by four several, and distinct wa●es. First, by the express words, sense, and drift of the Oath itself, that besides the acknowledgement of temporal respects, to wit, that our Sovereign is t●●● K●ng, rightful Lord over all his dominions, and ●hat the swearer is his true loyal subject, to obey him in all temporal affairs, and other like clauses, whereat no man sticketh, or maketh difficulty; there be other clauses also against the authority of the Supreme Pastor, which do justly breed scruple of conscience to a Catholic to admit, or take the same.  
Secondly I showed the same, by the Pope's words in his Breves, wherein he doth conjoin the taking of this Oath with the going to the Churches, and Service of a different Religion, pronouncing the one and the other to be unlawful. Thirdly I declared the same out of the judgement of Cardinal Bellarmine, & other learned men, who having considered well the nature of this Oath, and different clauses therein contained, do hold it for so cautelously compounded by artificially joining together Temporal and Spiritual things, to wit Civil Obedience, & forswearing the Pope's supreme Ecclesiastical Authority, as no man can thereby profess his temporal subjection, and detest treason and conspiracy, which all Catholics are most willing to do, but he must be forced also to renounce the Primacy of the Sea Apostolic, from which all good Catholic consciences do justly abhor.  
Fourthly, for a more full, and final clearing of this matter, 
Letter pag. 16. num. xxv●.  that I could think of no better, nor more forcible mean, then to make this real offer on the behalf of every English Catholic, for better satisfaction of his Majesty in this point so much urged of their civil, and temporal obedience. 
A loyal offer of Civil obedience made by catholics to ●is Majesty.  First that he will swear, and acknowledge most willingly all those parts, and clauses of the Oath, that do any way appertain to the Civil, and Temporal obedience due to his Majesty, whom he acknowledgeth for his true, and lawful King, and Sovereign over all his dominions: and that he will swear unto him as much loyalty, as ever any Catholic Subject of England, did unto their lawful Kings in former times and ages, before the change of King Henry the eight: or that a●y foreign subject oweth, or aught to swear to any Catholic Prince whatsoever at this day.  
These were the ●oure ways, which then occurred 〈◊〉 my mind, whereunto it shall be good, to examine brie●●y, what M. Barlow hath been able to say in this his answers He beginneth resolutely, as though he had intention 〈◊〉 ioyn● really indeed. 
Barlow pag. 31.  Now then (saith he) this must be cle●●●●, whether the Oath doth only concern civil obedience, yea or no: 〈◊〉 that it doth not, the Censurer taketh upon him, to satisfy in eight ●●●bers from the 20. to the 28., and that four several ways. So ●e. And what doth he allege against these four waie●? 
Impertinency.  〈◊〉 e●fect no word at all, though he babble not a little of divers matters impertinent to the purpose. We laying this 〈◊〉 our ground, saith he, that first both swearing, and performing 〈◊〉 obedience, is aswell negative against any intruder, challenger, or usurper, as affirmative ●or the lawful governors, 
Barlow pag. 32.  and Sovereigns. Secondly that this challenge of the Pope in dethroning, and deposing of Prince's is a temporal intrusion, and no spiritual jurisdiction; do c●●cl●●● with a strong and apparent evidence, that the whole bulk of the O●●● both in the submissive, and exclusive part, doth only concern ci●ill obedience.  
All which speech of his, if I should grant, as by hi● it is uttered, yet doth it not so much as impugn any of the former four ways, whereby it was showed, that divers points of Catholic religion are touched in the said Oath and impugned thereby: so as a Catholic man cannot admit the same without prejudice of his conscience, which these grounds do nothing impugn. But now let us see how well grounded are these his two grounds impertinently brought in for some show of answer.  
The first is, that civil obedience to a lawful Prince requireth the subject to swear, not only affirmatively, that he is his lawful Sovereign, but also negatively against any intruder, challenger, or usurper, which we deny not: but do deny that the Pope as supreme Pastor over al● Christendom is to be called an Intruder, Challenger, or Usurper, when for preservation of Christian Religion, he doth interpose his authority for the restraint of any Christian Prince, that is, or aught to be under his jurisdiction.  
And as for his second ground, that this authority of the Pope is a temporal intrusion, 
The reason of the Pope's power in tēporalibu●●  and no spiritual jurisdiction, we deny it in like sort: for though it be temporal in some respects, yet is it no intrusion, but given by Christ himself, as contained in the most ample spiritual charge and commission delivered to S. Peter for governing of all souls belonging to the said charge, which cannot be sufficiently governed and provided for, if there had not been such power left also, whereby evil Princes might be restayned from perverting their Kingdoms, especially by infection of heresy.  
And whereas for proof of this temporal intrusion, as he calleth it, he saith, that for to do me a favour he will remit me to T. M. the elder, to wit to Thomas Morton ●is full Satisfaction part. 3. (whom he saith, I do fear as the rack) who among many others have canvased (saith he) this point, in a Confutation, to the Pope's confusion: I will to quit his fauou● send him back to the said M. Morton again recanuased by me upon this point in two several Books of answer, 
Thoma● Morton canvased.  wherein so many notorious lies are charged, and convinced upon him, as may serve not only for his Confutation, but also for the Confusion of all his friends, whereof this Copesmate M. Barlow may well be one: and so much the more justly be shamed therein, for that he may be presumed to have seen one at least of my said books, and the lies therein so openly laid forth, and pressed, as he cannot but with impudence speak here as he doth, in remitting me to M. Mortons' canvas, and that, I ●eared it as the rack etc.  
But now let us come to look a little into M. Barlowes impugnation of the Pope's authority over kings. 
Barl. p. 33. num. 66. & 67.  This authority of the Pope (saith he) if it be a spiritual jurisdiction, it must be either from heaven, or of men, grounded upon law, either Divine, or Ecclesiastical: 
Bern. ad Eugen.  Nam quod ampli●u est, à malo est, saith a devout Father to a great Pope:  
all execution thereof not derived from either of these, implies a Tyranny, imports no right. If upon divine law, then either the Old, or the New Testament: not the Old, the Priests among the jews had no such authority over thei● Kings, 
Salmer. in Epist Pauli disp. ●2.  either united to their Priesthood by God, or assumed by themselves, confessed so by a jesuit, that the Sta●e of the jews was rather earthly, then heavenly: therefore the carnal part was more eminent, that is, Kings had the sovereignty over the Priests.  
Not in the new, for then S. Peter should have had it, either when the Keys were given him, Matt. 16. or when that trebled Pasce was enjoined him, joan. 21. If it be so, then had he this jurisdiction directly from Christ, and universally over the world: 
Bellar. l. 5. de Pontif. Rom. c. 4. & 6.  but that is not so, saith Robert the Cardinal, & this Robert his Echo, but only over Christian Princes, and that indirectly and obliquely in ordine ad De●●● nay neither directly nor indirectly, saith Sanders; for there being a double power of Christian fortitude, 
De clave l. 2. cap. 13.  constant suffering, & courageous attempting, that power of suffering (as the more excellent) Christ chose, as the fittest sibi & suis, for himself and those that belong to him: or if you will, for himselve and his Apostles. So then, to suffer oppression under kings, not to infer upon them Rebellion, and disloalty, was the power Apostolical in respect of Princes.  
This is M. Barl. his assault, which I have thought good to set down at large, both faithfully, and punctually in his own very words, as my custom is, & not contractedly and perfidiously perverted, as he every where useth to set down mine, and that in a different letter (as often I am forced to complain) as though they were my words indeed. And now to this passage of his I say, that there is much impertinent stuff, many falsities, sundry great abuses, misapplications, and wrong senses from the Authors own meaning whom he citeth. 
●. de Consider. longius ab in●●io.  For first it was impertinent to cite that sentence of S. Bernard, Nam quod amplius est, à malo est: for that he useth the same to a far different purpose, as every man may see, that will read the place in his second book the Consideratione, which particular quotation Master Barlow did pretermitt, citing only Bern. ad Eugen. thereby to make the finding thereof more hard, S. Bernard having written five books to Eugenius.  
Secondly that which he allegeth out of Salmeron that the State of the jews, 
Salmeron abused by M. Mort. M. Barl. etc.  was rather earthly, then heavenly, and therefore the carnal part was more eminent, that is, Kings had the sovereignty over Priests, is notably both perverted and falsified. For first Salmerons' words (speaking of the Ecclesiastical government of the jews in comparison of that, which was given to the Christian Churches) are, 
Salm. in Epist. Paul. disp. 12.  Synagoga judaeorum dicebatur terrenum potius quam caeleste regnum. The Synagogue of the jews was called rather an earthly, than a heavenly kingdom: meaning that their Power was but earthly, their Sacrifices earthly, their promises and blessings earthly, in respect of the heavenly and spiritual power, Sacraments, Sacrifice, and Promises of the new Testament. Nor doth he make comparison between the King's power, and the power of Priests, calling the former earthly and carnal, & the other heavenly, as most falsely & seditiously M. Barlow here, after M. Morton, doth aver: but only the Ecclesiastical authority of the jews Synagogue, with the excellent spiritual power of the Christian Church. And as for the comparison between kingly, & Priestly eminency amongst the jews, the said Salmeron in the same place, doth not only affirm, but proveth also by sundry arguments, and one, by the worthiness of the Sacrifice offered in the first place for the Priest before the King: that Priestly dignity, was above Princely in that people, and much more amongst the Christians. So as here is notorious falsehood on M. Barlowes behalf, 
Malicious falsehood in M. Barlow.  which is much the more malicious, and intolerable in him, for that he had seen me to have objected the same falsehood, and untrue dealing unto M. Morton in my book of Mitigation: 
Mitigation pag. 101.  & that the said M. Morton was so far of from being able to answer the same, as in his last Reply he left it quite out: & now lately I have objected the ●ame to him again in my last Reckoning with him cap. 6. & 7. whereunto I refer M. Barl. to help him out. And so much of this point.  
It followeth in M. Barlowes speech, that i● S. Peter had received of Christ with the keys, Math. 16. this jurisdiction over Princes which we pretend, than had it been directly, & universally over the whole world. But this is not necessary, for he might recei●● the same indirectly, as included and comprehended in the spiritual, to be used for the preservation of the Church, when spiritual necessity should require, as before ha●● been said. And as for Universal over the world, 
How the Pope may be said to have power over Infidel Princes.  it is sufficient that it be over Christian Princes and people only, w●● are properly the sheep and lambs that are commended 〈◊〉 the chief Pastors feeding or government, joan. 21● though upon Infidel Princes also he may have some power, in certain cases; as when they will go about to let the preaching of the Gospel authorized by these words, Praedicate evangelium omni creaturae. But this appertaineth not to our question.  
But whereas he saith, that Cardinal Bellarmi●e & I do affirm, that the Pope hath only authority over Princes, indirectly, & obliquely in ordine ad Deum: we grant the word indirectly, but as for obliquely in ordine ad Deum, he will not I think find the phrase in any writing of ours, but only ●● ordine ad spiritualia, which is to say, that the Pope hath such authority upon Princes, when the preservation of the spiritual affairs doth so require, to wit, the salvation of souls: & he that shall read the place of Bellarmin here by M. Barlow quoted (for of mine he citteth nothing) to wit, lib. 5. de Pontif. cap. 4. & 6. shall find this sentence, in ordine ad spiritualia, but never I suppose in ordine ad Deum: for that all power of the Pope is in ordine ad Deum, & propter Deum, whether it be spiritual, or temporal: but in ordine ad spiritualia hath an other meaning, as now hath been showed, to wit that the Pope hatH directly only spiritual authority to execute spiritual functions: but when this cannot be construed, or executed without the help of temporal, he may use that also for defence of the other. So as it seemeth, that this our great Doctor doth not understand the very terms of Devinity, in this matter whereof he disputeth: and this his ignorance showeth itself no less here, then before, about indeterminatio iudicy, in free choice.  
Nor doth he only relate falsely, & ignorantly this point, as out o● Cardinal Bellarmine and me, but much more doth he abuse the name of D. Sanders in the very next words, that do ensue, 
D. Sanders abused by M. Barlow.  as though he should say, that neither directly, nor indirectly hath the Pope this temporal authority from Christ, but rather power to suffer, as now you have heard him say, he citing for it de clave David lib. 2. cap. 13. whereas D. Sanders doth hold the quite contrary in that book throughout sundry Chapters, to wit, that the Pope hath received from Christ utrumque gladium, temporalem & spiritualem, both swords, that is, both temporal and spiritual authority, and proveth it by many arguments, and demonstrations: only in the 13. Chapter he demandeth, why then had not the Apostles deprived Nero and Domitius of their Empires? Whereto he answereth, among other causes, that these were Pagan Tyrants, and not under the charge and power that was given to the Church over sheep, & lambs. And then in the 14. Chapter, he demandeth further, why the Apostles, & first Christians had not elected some new King Christian for the good of the Church at the beginning? Whereto he answereth, alleging sundry reasons, why it was not convenient, that the Christian Church should be planted with violence, but that for the space, and time appointed by God's providence Christians should exercise the other part of Christian fortitude which consists in suffering, as is before touched● but yet he never denieth notwithstanding that the said temporal power over Christian Princes was in the Church, & Head thereof (though that season admitted not the use) but rather proveth it expressly: and consequently is egregiously abused, and falsified by M. Barlow, when he saith Doctor Sanders to affirm, that the Pope had neither directly, or indirectly any such power from Christ.  
But will you see this our doughty Doctor overthrown & confounded both in himself, and by himself? 
De Clau● cap. 10.  then hearken to his words in the very next page. It is so, saith Sanders: S. Peter with the Keys received both powers, temporal and civil. Is it so Sir? 
Contradiction in M. Barlow.  and why then did you even now deny it? Are you so mutable within the compass of two pages? What misery is this of your cause to be driu●n to these shifts? But let us see another devise, which is ●● oppose Franciscus de Victoria to this saying of Sanders; 
Victoria relect. 1. sect. 2. Barl. p. 35.  〈◊〉 thus you bring him in, No, not so, saith a jesuit, for this power o● the Keys, est alia à civili potestate: is another power differed from the civil: thus they jar, say you. But whether we jar or no, one Catholic writer with another; sure I am ●●at you jar with yourself, and seem not to ha●● your wits at home. For even now you cited Docto●● Sanders, as denying the Pope's temporal power, to co●● neither directly nor indirectly from Christ: and now you say him to affirm, that S. Peter received both powers with the Keys. Are not these plain contradictions? How can this jar be excused by you?  
But I have further to say to you yet in this matter, fo● that in the very next words, where you would make a contradiction between Doctor Sanders, & Franciscus de Victoria, you show much more folly, if not a worse quality. For whereas you write, that a jesuit saith, No not so, for 〈◊〉 the power of the keys is different from civil power, and do quo● the place of Victoria in the margin: 
Victor. ●●lect. 1. sect. 2.  first, in calling him jesuit, who was a Dominican friar, you show much ignorance, if you err not of purpose. For who knoweth not, that Jesuits and Dominicans are two different Religious Orders? & the very first page of the book, and words of the title, which are Reverendi Patris Francisci de Victoria Ordinis Praedicatorum Relectiones etc. might have taught you, 
M. Barlow a Preacher, though not Ordinis Pr●dicatorum.  that Victoria was no jesuit: but it may be, that you seeing the words Ordinis Praedicatorum, and understanding that jesuits did use to preach also, you did (full wisely) imagine Victoria to be a jesuit, and by the same reason, you might ●●well have imagined him to be a Minister of your coat, for you preach also, if I be not deceived, though with shame enough somtims, as you did against your Master the Earl of Essex after that you had heard his Confession; and consequently in this your sense, you may be counted in like manne● Ordinis Praedicatorum, of the order of Preachers, and so a jesuit. But this is ridiculous. Let us come to that which is more malicious.  
You write that the jesuit Victoria doth jar with Doctor Sanders about this temporal power of the Pope: for that whereas Doctor Sanders saith, that the Pope received both powers, spiritual and civil, together with the keys, you make Victoria to contradict him, saying: No, not so, for that this power of the keys, is another power different from the civil. But what jar is this? both speeches are true in both Author's senses, and meanings. For as it is true, that S. Peter with the keys, received both powers, spiritual and temporal, the one directly, and the other indirectly, 
M. Barlow understandeth not his Authors.  as Doctor Sanders teacheth: so it is also true, which Victoria writeth, that these two powers are different one from the other, in their own natures, especially when they are in different subjects, as the one in the Pope, and the other in the King (in which sense Victoria spoke) yea also, and when they are found in one, and the self same man, as namely the Pope, for that he hath them by different manners, the one immediately and directly, which is the spiritual, the other secondarily, and indirectly, which is the temporal: so as here is no jar, or contradiction, but a cozenage rather of M. Barlow in misalleadging the plain meaning of this new made-Iesuite Franciscus de Victoria.  
And no less abuse doth he offer to Cardinal B●llarmine in alleging him quite against his own meaning in the very last upshot of his pretended proofs, out of Scriptures a little before, whereof he maketh his Conclusion in these words: By law Divine then (saith he) it was excluded (to wit this temporal authority given to S. Peter) for no man can transfer that to another, 
Barlow pag. 34. num. 6●.  which he hath not himself: but this royal Sovereignty over Princes, to depose them, or dispose of their States, Christ ●ad not, as he was man (and yet he said, Omnis potestas data est mihi in caelo, & in terra) yea such power had been unprofitable and superfluous (saith the Grand Cardinal) therefore he could not transfer it to S. Peter, or the rest.  
This is his Conclusion, that this temporal po●●r was excluded by God's law, which he promised to prove out of the old, and new Testament; and it is to be considered how substantially he hath performed it. For out o● the old Testament, he hath alleged no one proof, sentence, or example, but only brought in the jesuit Salmer●● to affirm the same, who hath no such matter, but proveth of purpose the plain contrary. And out of the new Testament hath as little, though he falsify and wrest both D. S●ders & Franciscus de Victoria to make some show; but especially the Grand Cardinal (to use his own words) whom mo●● notably he abuseth. 
Cardinal Bellarmin abused.  For albeit the Cardinal doth affirm, that Christ as he was man, and as he came to work ou● redemption had not any temporal kingdom, for that it was not needful, or profitable to the high spiritual end of our salvation which he had before his eyes, yet had he by his supreme spiritual authority, power also to dispos● of all temporal affairs whatsoever, so far forth, as should be needful to that spiritual end of his; for so teacheth the Cardinal expressly, in these words: Finis adue●us Christi in mundum etc. The end of Christ his coming into the world, was the redemption of mankind, and to this end temporal authority was not needful, but spiritual; for so much as by this spiritual authority Christ had power to dispose of all temporal things also, as he thought to be expedient to man's redemption.  
So the Cardinal: whereby is evident, that albeit he holdeth with the common opinion of Divines, that Christ upon earth had no mere temporal kingdom or civil power, yet could he by his spiritual power dispose of all temporal matters in order to his spiritual end, and that this power he gave also to S. Peter, to wit, indirectly, and in ordine ad finem spiritualem. 
Bell. l. 5. de Rom. Pon. c. 6. 7. 8.  So as the Grand Cardinal denieth not this, but proveth the same at large for divers Chapters together, both by Scriptures, reasons, and examples, out of ●n my Histories both divine, & Ecclesiastical; and it had been good, that M. Barlow had answered to some of them, if he had thought himself able to meddle in this matter; or at leastwise he ought not to have so fraudulently cited Card. Bellarmine against his own meaning, as now you have seen.  
But now next after Scriptures M. Barlow cometh to Ecclesiastical law, requiring to have this power proved by Canons, councils, Decrees, and Practices, for which I refer him to the Book, & Chapters now cited in Bellarmine. And for so much as this temporal power of S. Peter, is founded upon his spiritual commission as a thing necessarily following the same, and needful thereunto, for the perfect government of the whole Church, & that this spiritual power is founded most evidently & abundantly in the new Testament, and consent of all antiquity upon the same, as the said Cardinal doth prove, and demonstrate throughout many Chapters of his first, and second Books De Romano Pontifice, I will weary the Reader no longer in this matter, but remit him thither, I mean to the foresaid Cardinal Bellarmine, where he shall find store of proofs for both powers in the Pope, I mean both spiritual and temporal, though differently derived unto him, the one immediately and directly, the other secondarily and indirectly.  
And albeit this were sufficient for this point, yet to the end that M. Barlow shall not say, that I do leave out any thing of moment, which herein he setteth down, I shall repeat his own words of conclusion in this ma●ter, with far more fidelity, than he doth mine. Thus than he writeth, borrowing all in effect out of M. Morton in his late Preambulatory Reply. 

Barl. pag. 34. nu. 69. De Concil. lib. 1. cap. 13 Bar●l. lib. 6. cap. ●6. Sigebert in anno. 1089. Cl●●d. Espencaus in Tim. digress. li● 2. cap. 6.  
Ambros. Apolog. David. c. 4 & 10.    
For Ecclesiastical law, no Canon, Council, Decree, Practise extant, reckon to 600. years after Christ, by Bellarm. confession, yea to 1000 & ampliùs saith one of their own writers, doth avow it; in so much that a Friar of account, writing in the year 1088. calls then the Doctrine thereof a Nouel●y, if not an heresy: & that act of Hildebrand, that famously infamous Pope, who first took upon him to deprive an Emperor of his Regiment, is by a Popish Divine called novellum Schisma, a rent, & ● rend of novelty. The challenge of this authority utterly unknown to the Fathers, who have pronounced Kings to be no way liable to any violent Censure, or penal law of man, ●●i Imperij potestate, their Empire & Sovereignty exempting & privileging them therefrom.  
This is his discourse, whereof he inferreth that 〈◊〉 temporal authority of the Pope by us pretended, bei●● but humanum inventum, a human invention, or rat●●● intrusion, or usurpation, as he calleth it; the matter of the Oath, whereby the same is excluded, must need●● 〈◊〉 merely Civil, no less, then if it were against any o●●●● mere temporal Prince, that would usurp any part of our Sovereign's temporal right or Crown. Whereunto I answer that if this were so, and that it could be proved, that this temporal power of the Pope as we teach it, were but a human invention indeed, and not founded in any authority divine, or human; then M. Barlow had said somewhat to the matter, and the comparison of an Oath taken against any other temporal Prince might have place. But for that we have showed now, that this is not 〈◊〉, but that there is great difference between this temporal power of the Pope derived from his supreme spiritual authority, as universal Pastor (which no temporal Prince is) and the pretension of any mere temporal Potentate; therefore is the swearing against the one, but a civil obedience, and the other a point belonging to conscience, and religion, with those that believe the said power to come from God.  
But now for answering this his last collection of authors: I say first, that Bellarmine in the place by hi● cited, hath no one word of any such matter, his book being the Concilies: and his purpose is to show both in the 13. Chapter here cited, as also in the precedent, C●i● s● cong●egare Concil●a, 
M Barlowes impertinent falshood●  to whom it belongeth to gather Counsels, which he showeth to appertain, & to have appertained always to the Bishops of Rome, and not to Kings and Emperors, albeit they being the Lords of the world, the said Counsels could not well be gathered without their consent, and power. But of Excommunication, or of deposition of Princes B●llarmine hath no one word in this place: and so M. Barlowes assertion and quotation i● both false and impertinent, about the first six hundred years after Christ.  
But if he will look upon Bellarmine in other places, where he handleth this argument of Excommunications, 
Bellar. li. 2. cap. 19 & lib. 5. cap. 7. & 8.  and depositions of Princes, as namely in his second, and fi●th book de Rom. Pontis. he will find more ancient examples, at least of Excommunication, which is the ground of the other, than the six hundred years assigned out of Bellarmine. For that Bellarm. beginneth with the Excommunication of the Emperor Arcadiu● and Eudoxia his wife by Pope Innocenti●● the first, for the persecution of S. john Chrysostome, which was about two hundred years before this time assigned by M. Barlow, and divers other examples, more ancient than the 1000 years allotted by Doctor Barkley the Scottishman here alleged, as the excommunication of Leo Isauricu●, surnamed the Image-breaker, by Pope Gregory the second; the example also of King Chilperi●us of France, by Zacharias the Pope: the example also of Pope Leo the third, that translated the Empire from the East to the West.  
And as for the Friar Sigebert brought in here for a witness (he should have said the Monk, for that the religious orders of Friars were not instituted a good while after this) who is said to call the doctrine of the Pope's power to depose Princes A Novelty, is not an Heresy, it is a notable calumniation, 
Sigebert calumniated.  as may be seen in the words of Sigebert himself, in the very place cited by M. Barlow. For though Sigebert following somewhat the faction of the Emperor Henry the third, excommunicated by Pope Vrbanus the second, did often speak partially concerning the actions, that passed between them, which many times seemed to proceed of passion, more than of reason and justice: yet doth he never deny such power of Excommunicating, & deposing for just causes to belawfull in the Pope, but the plain contrary. Neither doth he call that doctrine Novelty, or Heresy, that the Pope hath this authority, as falsely M. Barlow doth here affirm; but only that it seemed to him a new doctrine, which he would not call Heresy, to teach, that vicious Princes were not to be obeyed, for so are his words; Nimirum (ut pace omnium dixerim) haec sola noui●as (non dicam h●resis) necdum in mundo emerserat, ut 〈◊〉 Dei doceant populum, qu●d mali● Regibus nullam debe●●t 〈◊〉 To wit (that I may speak without offence of all) this only novelty (I will not say Heresy) was not yet sp●●●● up in the world, that the Priests of God should teach 〈◊〉 people, that they ought no obedience at all to evil Prince's etc. In which words, you see, that Sigebert doth 〈◊〉 deny or reprove the authority of Excommunication, 〈◊〉 deposition of Princes (especially if they be for heresy) b●● only the Doctrine, that no subjection or obedience is d●● to vicious, or cuill-living Princes, which is false, and scandalous doctrine indeed.  
As for the fourth Author alleged in this place, 〈◊〉 wit Claudius Espencaeus, that he should call the fact of Pope Gregory the seventh his excommunicating Henry the thi●d Novellum schisma, a new rent, or schism (which is borrowed out of M. Morton, as the rest, which in this point he allegeth) I will refer him for his answer, to the answer that is made of late to M. Morton himself, which is called The quiet, and sober Reckoning, 
Sober reckoning c. 1. num. 104.  where this matter is returned upon him with so evident a conviction of wilful falsity, as is impossible for him to clear his credit therein. For that these words are not spoken by Espencaeus himself●● but related only by him, out of a certain angry Epistle written by certain schismatical Priests of Liege, that were commanded by Paschalis the second to be chastised by Robert●arle ●arle o● ●landers, and his soldiers, newly come from jerusalem, about the year 1102. for their rebellious behaviour. Which passionate letter of theirs Espenca●● doth only relate out of the second Tome of councils, 
M. Barl. and M. Morton ●oth falsifiers.  expressly protesting, that he will not meddle with that controversy of fight between Popes, and Emperors, though he prove in that pl●ce by sundry examples both of Scriptures, Fathers, and Counsels, that in some cases it is lawful for Priests to use temporal arms also, when need & justice requireth. So as this falsification must now fall aswell upon M. Barlow as upon M. Morton before, and we shall expect his answer for his defence in this behalf.  
As for the last authority of S. Ambrose, that Kings, and Emperors be tuti Imperij potestate, sat by power of their Empire from any violent censure; though I find no such matter in any of the two Chapters quoted by M. Barlow out of his Apologia David: yet seeking ●urther into other books of his, I find the words, which is a token that our Doctor writeth out of note-bookes of some Brother, and never seeth the places himself: but though I find the words, yet not the sense which he will infer, but wholly perverted to another meaning. For that if S. Ambrose had been of opinion, that Kings and Emperors had been so privileged by the power of their Empire, a● they might not be censured by the high Pastors and Prelates, himself would never have censured, and excommunicated his Emperor Theodosius, as he did.  
The words than are found not in S. Ambrose his Book de Apologia David cap. 4 & 10. as here is cited, for there are two Apolygies prior and posterior, which M. Barlow by his citation seemeth not to have understood, and the first containeth but 7. Chapters in all, and in the 4 is only this sentence, talking of the penance of King David, 
Ambros. in 1. Apolog. David cap. 4.  Qui ●ullis tenebatur legibus humanis, indulgentiam petebat, cum qui tenentur legibu●, aeudent suum negare peccat●m. King David that was subject to no human laws, asked forgiveness, when they that are bound by laws presume to deny their sins. 
A place of S. Ambrose explicated.  But in his enarration upon the 50. psalm of David, he hath the thing more plainly, for thus he saith. Rex utique erat, nullis ipse legibu● tenebatur, quia liberi sunt Reges à vinculis delictorum, neque enim illi ad poenam vocantur legibus, tuti Imperij potestate. 
Ambros. in psalm. 50. statim ab initio.  David was a King, and thereby was not under laws for that Kings are free from the bands of their offences, for that they are not called to punishment by laws, being safe by the power of their Empire.  
So S. Ambrose. Whereby is seen, that he understandeth, that Princes commonly are not subject to human laws, for that they will not, nor may be called to account for their offences, as private men are, being free by their pow●r, or that no man is able to compel them. And this privilege perhaps is tolerable in their private and personal sins: but if the same should break out in public, and against the universal good of Christians, then may we learn by the foresaid act o● S. Ambrose in Excommunicating the Emperor Teodosius, that God hath le●t some power by divine law to restrain them, for the conservation of his Church and Kingdom.  
And so we may see, that all that which M. Barlow hath chirped here to the contrary, is not worth a rush, but to show his penury and misery, having been forced of eight Authors here alleged by him, to wit, Salmeron, Sa●ders Victoria, Bellarmine, Barkley, Sigebert, Espencaeus, & S. Ambrose to misalledge and falsify seven, 
Of eight Authors seven misalledged.  as you have heard, that is to say all of them saving Barkley, who in this matter is of less account, than any of the rest (if the book be his which is extant under his name.) For that he being no Divine hath taken upon him to defend a Paradox out of his own head only, different from all other writers of our days, both catholics & Heretics, granting against the later all spiritual authority unto the Pope over Princes & Christian People throughout the world, but denying against the former all temporal authority either directly or indirectly annexed unto the spiritual: wherein as he is singular from all, so he is like to be impugned by all, and is by M. Barlow in this place, for the Protestants, calling him our own Writer. And for the Catholics, Cardinal Bellarmine hath lately written a most learned book against him by name, confuting his private fancy, by the public authority, weight and testimonies of all Catholic Divines. And so much for this.  

OF CERTAIN NOTORIOUS Calumniations used by M. Barlow against his adversary, which no ways can be excused from malice, & witting error. §. II.  
AS the former fraud discovered and convinced against M. Barlow, of abusing authors against their own words and meaning, is a foul fault and very shameful in him that pretendeth to have conscience or care of his credit: so is the crime of apparent and wilful Calumniation, bearing no show of truth or reason at all, much more foolish & wicked. Foolish, for that it doth wholly discredit the Calumniator with his Readers: wicked, for that it showeth plain malice, and will to hurt, 
Nu. 10. 3●. 32.  although with his own greater loss. So than it falleth out in this place, that M. Barlow finding himself much pressed and strained with the reasonable and moderate speech which I used in my Epistle throughout three numbers together, concerning the Oath freely taken (as was said by many Catholics, both Priests and Laics expounding their taking of the Oath in a good sense) he doth so malignantly pervert the same, by open calumniations, as every child may discover, not only the falsehood, but the fury also of his passion against me, nothing being in his answer but exorbitant railing, & apparent lying.  
For whereas I in reason deserved rather approbation, and commendation from him, for expounding plainly and sincerely that meaning which those Catholics, (if they were Catholics) had, or could have in their taking of the Oath, without all Equivocation or mental reservation, which I condemned in an Oath, as altogether unlawful concerning any point of religion, that aught to be confessed; he not being able to abide the light of this truth, and plain dealing, falleth into a certain frenzy of railing against me, & for the ground of his accusation ●ayeth hi● own fiction, that I do teach them & persuade them 〈◊〉 Equivocate in this very case. For clear confutati●● whereof, it shallbe sufficient first to set down my own word● as they lie in my epistle, and then to consider and ponder the collections and inferences that he maketh upon the●. And if by this you do not find him to be one of the losest conscience, and law●est tongue, and least respective of his own credit & honesty, that ever you saw, I am much deceived. My words then were these that follow.  
As for that multitude of Priests, and L●ickes, which he saith, have freely tak●n the Oath; as their freedom was that, which now I have mentioned, and a principal motive (as may be presumed) the desire they had to gi●e his Majesty satisfaction, and deliver themselves, and othery so much as lay in them, from that inference of disloyal meaning, 
The sense and meaning of catholics that took the Oath.  which upon the denial thereof, some do use 〈◊〉 make: so I cannot but in charity assure myself, that they being Catholics took the said Oath (for so much as concerns the Pope's authority in dealing with temporal Princes) in ●ome such lawful sense, and interpretation, as (being by them expressed, and accepted by the Magistrate) may stand with the integrity, and sincerity of true Catholic doctrine, and faith: to wit, that the Pope hath not authority without just cause, to proceed against them, Quia illud possum●●, quod iure possumus, saith the law: ou● authority is limited by justice. Directly also the Pope may be denied to have such authority against Princes, but indirectly only, in ordine ad spiritualia, & when certain great, important, and urgent cases, concerning Christian religion fall out, which we hope will never be, between ou● Sovereign, and the Sea Apostolic; for so much as they have passed already many years (though in different Relions) in peace, and quietness, even since his Majesty beg●● first to reign.  
But concerning the general Question, to deny simply and absolutely, That the Pope is supreme Pastor of the Catholics Church, hath any authority le●t him by Christ, either directly or ●●●●●●ctly, with cause, or without cause, in never so great a necessity, or for ●euer so great and public an utility of the Christian Religion, to proceed against any Prince whatsoever temporally, ●or his restraint or amendment, or to per●it other Princes to do the s●me: this, I suppose, was never their meaning that took the Oath, for that they should thereby contradict the general conse●t of all Catholic Divines, and contesse, that God's providence, for the conservation, and preservation of his Church, and Kingdom upon earth, had been defectuous, for that he should have left no lawful remedy, for so great and excessive an evil, as that way might fall out●  
Wherefore, for so much as some such moderate meaning, must needs be presumed, to have been in those that took the Oath, for safeguard of their Consciences; if it might please his Majesty to like well, and allow of this moderation, and favourable interpretation, as all foreign Catholic Kings and Monarches do, without any prejudice at all of their safety, dignity, or Imperial pre-eminence: 
An humble petition to his Majesty for exposition of the Oath.  I doubt not but he should find most ready conformity in all his said English Catholic Subjects, to take the said Oath, who now have great scruple and repugnance of Conscience therein: both for that the chiefest learned men of their Church, do hold the same for utterly unlawful, being mixed and compounded, as it is, and the voice of their chief Pastor, to whom by the rules of their Religion, they think themselves bound to hearken in like cases, hath utterly condemned the same: and the very tenor of the Oath itself, and last lines thereof are, That every ●●e shall swear without any Equivocation, or mental reservation at ●●l, that is to say, heartily, willingly, and truly upon the true faith of a Christian. Which being so, they see not how they may take the said Oath in truth of conscience: for so much, as they find no such willingness in their hearts, nor can they induce themselves in a matter so nearly concerning the Confession of their faith● to Equivocate or swear in any other sense, then from his Majesty is proposed: and therefore do think it less hurt to deny plainly, a●d sincerely to swear, then by swearing, neither to give satisfaction to God, nor to his Majesty, nor to themselves nor to their neighbours.  
And so much for this point.  
Hitherto have I thought good to relate my for●●● words somewhat at large, to the end the Reader may se● my reasonable and dutiful speech in this behalf, a●● upon what ground M. Barlow hath fallen into such a ra●e against me, as now shall appear by his reply. First of a●● he condemneth me of hypocrisy, saying: Let the Reader c●●●●der ●●at an hypocrite he is, for it is an inseparable mark of ●n hyp●c●●●● to judge o● other m●ns consciences; the hart of man is God's peculi●●, & ●o● an● man to place his consistory there, is high presumption: 
M. ●arl●ws fond charge of h●poc●i●● in his adversary.  & so be ●●nneth out in that common place which maketh nothing at all to ou● purpose as you see. For I did not iudg●t or con●●mne then consciences that took the Oath, but exc●s●● the same, yea interpreted their ●act in good sense, giving my ●ea●ons for it● that they being good Catholic could not be presumed to mean otherwise then the integrity of Catholic doctrine did permit them, for that otherwise they should be no good Catholics, if they should have done any thing contrary to that whic● the● selves held to appertain to the same, in which I did not excuse their fact, which my whole book proveth to be unlawful, but only their intention, and meaning touching the integrity of Catholic doctrine. And this is far different from the nature of hypocrisy which forbiddeth not all judging, but only evil and rash judging of other m●ns actions or intentions, thereby to seem better & more i●st than they. For if two (for example sake) should see M. Barlow to sup largely with flesh and other good meat upon a vigil or fasting-day, and the one should judge it in the worst part, saying, that he did it for the love of h●s belly, and sensuality, the other should interpret the same spiritually, as done for glorifying God in his creatures, by his thanksgiving for the same, for liberty also of the gospel, and for to make him the more strong & able to speak & preach his Service and Sermon the next day, I doubt no● but that this second judgement would not be censured by him for hypocritical. And this is ou● very case with those that took the Oath. For that I hearing what they had done, and that they were Catholics, did interpret their meaning to the best sense. And was not this rather charity, than hypocrisy?  
But let us see a little if you please how M. Barlow can defend this general proposition of his, that, it is an inseparable m●rke of an hypocrite to judge of other men's consciences. 
To judge of other men's consciences no inseparable mark of an hypocrite.  You have heard before how wisely he defended a certain definition which he gave of an Oath: now you shall see him as wisely & learnedly defend an inseparable propriety or mark of an hypocrite. And first you see that here is no distinction or limitation at all, whether he judge well or ill, with cause or without cause, rashly or maturely, how then if we should hear a man or woman speak ordinarily lewd words, can no judgement be made of the speakers consciences without hypocrisy? If a man should see another frequent bad houses, or exercise wicked actions, may no man judge him to have an ill conscience, from whence these things do proceed, but he must be ●n hypocrite? Moreover if this be an inseparable mark or propriety, as he saith, then according to Aristotle & Porphyri●● it must convenire omni, soli, & semper, agree to all, only, and ever. For if it do not agree to all, and ever, it is not inseparable: and if it agree to others besides hypocrites, it is not always the mark of an hypocrite: and therefore albeit that I had judged their consciences, as M. Barlow imposeth upon me, he could not by good consequence have inferred, that I was an hypocrite. But this is ridiculous that all hypocrites, and only hypocrites judge of men's consciences: for first the hypocrite, that soundeth a trumpet before his alms, whose conscience doth he judge? The other also that kneeleth and prayeth in the corners of streets, whose conscience doth he judge, or condemn? Those also that came to tempt Christ about the woman taken in adultery, and about Tribute to be paid to Cesar, I read not whose consciences they judged, and therefore would be loath to do them injury, except M. ●arlow can bring any just accusation against them: and yet were they called hypocrites by our Saviour, whereby i● inferred that all hypocrisy is not subject to this ●axatio ●f judging consciences, and consequently this is no inseparable mark that agreeth to all. In like manner also it agr●●●● not soli, that is, only to the sin of hypocrisy, to iudge● of other men's consciences; for pride may do it, anger may do it, temerity may do it, revenge may do it, & this without hypocrisy or justifying of himself. For if to a known vs●rer, for example, you should object or exprobrate the fin of usury, & he answer you again, that he suspected yo●● conscience of like sin, here he judgeth of your conscience perhaps falsely, and yet not by hypocrisy: for he iustifiet● not himself, ergo, this is not, proprium quarto modo, any inseparable mark or propriety of hypocrisy to judge of other men's consciences.  
Lastly let us consider, if you please, the definition of hypocrisy, which should indeed have been the first i● consideration, for trying out of the true nature of this mark & propriety; for so much as according to Aristotle's doctrine, and the thing in itself is evident by Philosophy, pr●pri● passiones fl●unt ab essentijs rerum, proprieties do flow from the essence of things, and therefore they are best understood & known by re●erence to the said natures and essences contained (as Aristotle saith) in their definitions. The definition them of hypocrisy is, 
Isidor. l. 10. ●. humilis à medio  according to S. Isidorus in his Etimologies, simulatio alienae personae, when a man pretendeth to be another ma●, and better than he is, and according to S. Augustine, 
Aug. l. 2. the s●rm. in mo●●e c. 3. ●i●ca prin●i●i●m.  Qui se vult vide●iqu●d non est, hypocrita est, h● that will seem to be that which he is not, is an hypocrite (which the greek word also whereof it is derived, to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth confirm, that it signifieth dissimulation) this definition I say, which must conuer●i cum de●ini●o, cleareth us, that this inseparable mark, or propriety devised by M. Barley to be in all hypocrisy, is both ignorantly & falsely feigned by himself, as not knowing the true nature of propri● pas●●, for that there be many ways of dissimulation of ●eyg●ing ourselves to be better than we are, without judging other men's consciences, that is to say, there be many s●e●i● and kin●s o● hypocrisy and hypocrites that have not this mark & propriety, as before hath been showed, & consequently not inseparable, that is, no proper or inseparable propriety at all, no more than it is to ●ay, that it is an inseparable propriety to horses to be white, for that some few are found white. 
M. Barlow a very feeble Philosopher and weak Scholar.  And so we see M. Barlow when he cometh to speak of any matter of substance and learning, showeth himsel●e a very feeble man, scarce to understand the very terms, and first principles of the same.  
But let us pass on now to another more grievous calumniation against me. He is not content to make the former outcry against me for hypocrisy and judging men's consciences, but addeth also another assault, ●saying, that I do teach Equivocation to be used in thi● Oath, which is so far from all truth as I do teach the plain contrary, as now hath appeared by my own words before alleged. For I say there of them that took the Oath, 
Letter pag. 18.  I cannot in charity but assure 〈◊〉 self, that they being Catholics, took the said Oath, for so much as concerneth the Pope's authority in dealing with temporal Princes, in s●me such lawful sense and interpretation, as (being by them expressed, and accepted by the Magistrate) may stand with the integrity and sincerity of true Christian doctrine, and faith: to wit, that the Pope hath ●ot authority without just cause, nor directly, but indirectly only, in ●●dine ad spiritualia. So I wrote then: and the clear addition that these exceptions and clauses must be expressed by the swearers, and accepted by the Magistrate, doth clearly exclude Equivocation, 
Impudent dealing of M. Barlow.  which consisteth of mental reservation, not expressed, nor understood, or accepted of him to whom it is used: and moreover within very few lines after continuing my speech, and desiring his Majesty to accept of these clauses of moderation & Catholic exposition, I do yield this reason, that Catholics do● not hold it lawful in a matter so ne●rely concerning the Con●ession of their saith, to equivocate, or swear in any other sense, then from his Majesty is proposed. Can any thing be spoken more plainly? With what face then can M. Barlow accuse me of the quite contrary, and so revile against me for the same? Whereof some shallbe here set down. 
Barlow pag. 39  Let the Reader behold (saith he) a malicious trick of a notable Equiuoca●●u●, that cannot be contented to be himself alone the devils sch●ller (that ancient Equi●ocatour● but must be 〈◊〉 his Devility Reader, or Schoolman to teach others ●o distinguish themselves t● hell fire, showeth himself to be verè spiritus menda● i● o'er Prop●●tarum, framing two distinctions, like the two 〈◊〉 of Sedecias, the false Prophet (such another as himself, fu●● of th● spirit) & putting them into their mo●thes. 
3. Reg. 22  the first, that the Pope 〈◊〉 not Authority without just cause to proceed against Princes: the sec●●●, that the Pope hath not this authority directly, but indirectly, & in ordine ad spiritualia etc.  
So he. Whereby we see how much the man delighteth himself, in comparing these two distinctions or explications of mine to the two iron-hornes of Sedecias, though the Scripture hath not the particular number of two: but M. Barlow addeth that of ●is own, to make the● meet the more fitly with the number of my two distinctions, for besides the parity of number (which yet is false) there is no other parity or likeness at all. For what have horns to do with distinctions? And yet after a large and lewd blast of railing against me for the same, he concludeth thus: And now let the Christian Reader, that maketh a conscience either of God or common honesty, consider whether this be not the profunda Sathanae, in the Revelatió, even the very mist and mystery of Iniquity.  
But what Sir, to distinguish or use distinctions in a matter that may have divers senses or intendments? Is this the profundity of Satan? or is not this rather profound ignorance and absurdity in you to say so? 
To distinguish i● not prof●nda Sathanae, but to reject distinctions is the profundity of M. Barlows ignorance  Do not you know that to distinguish belongeth to the wise and learned, according to Aristotle, and not to distinguish est imper●●● mul●itudinis, appertaineth (saith he) to the unlearned vulgar sort? Doth not reason and expe●ience teach us, that to distinguish matters that be obscure & perplexed, into their clear senses, or that be confused into their several parts & members, or that may have many senses, into their different significations, is a high work of wit, that giveth life to our understanding to conceive the truth, and light to our will to make choice of the same? How many foul heresies in the Church o● Chris● since her beginning have been beaten down principally by pious and prudent distinguishing, which otherwise would never perhaps have been overcome? As namely the Arians, when they alleged such abundance of Scriptures to prove or infer, that God the Father is greater than Christ Iesu● his Son, what other way was there for Catholics to say, but that I distinguish: as Christ Iesu● was man, he was in●erior to his Father, & his Father greater than he, but as Christ Iesu● is God as well as Man, he is equal to his Father? Will M. Barlow here compare these two distinctions to Sedecias his two horns? Or will he call them pro●unda Sathanae, the profound mysteries of Satan and iniquity?  
And the like examples I might allege in great store of many other heresies discovered and dissolved by the help of distinctions, as namely that of the Euti●hians, that denied two distinct natures in Christ: that of the Nestorians, that affirmed two persons to be in Christ: that of the Monothelites, that held one only Will to be in Christ, by distinguishing on the Catholic party, were v●●erly overthrown, and confounded. And now in these our days when the Anabaptists deny all Magistrate's authority in judging Christians (especially in matters of life and death) alleging for their ground these words of our Saviour, 
Matt. 7.  ●olit● judicare, do not judge, we have no refuge, but a distinction, that we are forbidden to judge rashly, and without just cause, and without due authority: but with these circumstances we may judge, and Magistrates are lawful. And will here M. Barlow again cry out of Pro●●nda Sathanae, 
M. Barlow for his two horns deserveth to be horned in Scotland.  and of the horns of Sedecias? if he do I will send him to Scotland to be horned there. For truly he is worthy of it, to wit to be horned from the company of all learned & sober men, if he persist in these absurdities, for that I dare avouch against him, that there are many hundred places in the Bible that cannot rightly be understood, nor expounded without the use of some distinction.  
Well then distinctions in general cannot be reproved without profundity of folly. Perhaps than my two distinctions here in particular are inveyghed against, for 〈◊〉 they are false, or not incident unto the matter, or of a●y moment, or necessity, for explication of the thing a●d controversy in hand, or for direction of consci●nce● of Catholic men, that are pressed to take the Oath. Th●● then let us examine in a word or two, and that as briefly and perspicuously as we may.  
The question is whether the Bishop of Rome as universal Pastor of Christendom, by Catholic doctrines may at his pleasure by that Pastoral power of his, depose Princes, and dispose of their Kingdoms at his pleasure, for so is the common objection framed against us. Unto which question the answer may be made, either affirmative or negative, according to the different senses and interpretations of the words, which cannot be done but by distinguishing, to wit, that if we understand that the Pope may depose at his pleasure, without just cause, it is denied, but with just cause Catholic doctrine doth allow it. And s● again to understand that the Pope may do it by his Pastoral power directly or immediately, it is denied, for that this power is spiritual and given to a spiritual end, and to spiritual actions: but if we understand it indirectly, as included in the other, for defence and conservation of the spiritual, it is granted. And are not these distinctions needful in this affair? Do they not clear the doubt in controversy? Do they not remove confusion? Would M. Barlow have Christian men to swear, & swallow up a bundle of word● knit together, without opening and looking into the●? That is meet for his conscience that hath no eyes perhaps to see, nor will to receive light, but is ready to swear any thing that may turn to his temporal commodity: but Catholics that fear God, are not so taught, but rather to look before they leap, and to examine well what they say or swear, for so much as they shall give an account to Almighty God, either to their salvation or damnation for the same.  
By ●h●s then we see the Iniquity of M. Barlow his proceeding in exclaiming against me so exorbitantly, for using the form of two distinctions, or explanations about taking the Oath; and above all the injury offered me, or rather to himself and his own credit, in saying, 
Barl. p. 41.  that I do teach Equivocation here in this Oath num. 30. contrary to that I taught a little before numb. 14. His words are these: No sort of Equivocations is lawful, saith Father Persons, 
Notable falsity in M. Barl.  in matters of faith and religion, and yet saith the same Father Persons, Equivocating in this matter of faith is lawful, and may stand with the integrity and sincerity of true Catholic religion: so then in matters of faith and religion it is not lawful in any sort to equivocate, but yet in this mat●●r, though it concern ●ayth & religion, F. Persons saith it is lawful.  
These are my contradictions according to M. Barlow. And truly I confess I should blush & acknowledge my oversight, if they were truly related, but being falsely either of malice or ignorance collected by him, he ought to blush, and be sorry for his sin. For as I do confess the former part numb. 14. that I allowed not any sort of Equivocation in matters concerning faith and Religion: so do I utterly deny the later clause num. 30. that I do allow Equivocation in this particular fact of taking the Oath. Let the places be read in my book & thereby he will remain convinced. For I do say expressly that these two clauses of explication added by me, that the Pope's power in deposing Princes is indirectly, & with just cause, must both be expressed by the swearer, and accepted by the Magistrate, and then are they no Equivocations at all; but direct assertions. For that they are no mental reservations wherein consisteth the nature and force of Equivocation.  
Here then M. Barlow that accused me a little before of making no conscience of God or common honesty, must look how he will defend his own, either conscience or honesty (if he have any) in this foul calumniation, wherein I do not see what tergiversation he can use for his excuse. And so I would leave him in this matter, if he did not continue on his railing and raging beyond all measure, as though by this my explication & distinction used, I had committed the greatest crime in the world. I will demand (saith he) of this jesuit: first, whether ●his be not a Paganish delusion of God and men? Whereto I answer, that it is ●● delusion at all, but rather an instruction, and a necess●●y explication, not Paganish, but Christian, for directi●● men's consciences. Nay, saith M. Barlow, 
M. Barlowes bad application.  it is the very 〈◊〉 o● Lisander, that children are to be mocked with toys, and 〈…〉 Oaths. Indeed Plutarch in his comparison of Lis●●der and Silla recordeth, that one said of Lisander. Levem esse ap●d Li●●●drum iurisiurandi religionem: Lisander made no scruple of a● Oath, that he gave counsel to deceive men with Oaths, as children with toys and babbles. This was the fact of a Pagan Atheist. What doth the matter appertain to vs● do we esteem so little a false Oath? Why then do Catholics stand so much in England against the receiving of this Oath? Why do they put themselves in danger of losing the Prince's favour, their goods, their lands, their Country, their lives, rather than to take the same against their consciences? It seemeth rather, that M. Barl●● concurreth with Lisander's opinion, who will have the● take it, although it be against their consciences, for thi● is to have levem iurisiurandi religionem, little conscience of an Oath.  
But yet he goeth further in this matter, and cannot get out of it, for he will needs prove this my distinction, and as he calleth it Equivocation, not only to be Paga●i●●, but more than Heathenish, & that even by Aristotle's testimony in his Book of Rhetoric to King Alexander: 
Aristot. ad Alex. cap. 17.  his words are these: Nay this delusion is more than Heathenish, ●or Aristotle was of opinion that he which doubteth in his Oath, for th●● i● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
M. Barlowes egregious folly and falsehood.  to swear with a mental addition, hath neither ●ear o● Go●● vengeance, or sh●me o● mens reproof. But truly I having considered the place of Aristotle how far his meaning is from that which here is alleged in his name, me thinks that M. Barlow should fear these two last points of God's vengeance & man's reproof. For Aristotle hath not a word of d●●b●ing in his Oath, or of mental addition, or reservation in an Oath, b●t only of plain forswearing. For his argument is, having treated in that book to Alexander, 
Cap. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.  how by the precepts of Rhetoric an Orator may prove or improve any fact or crime that shall come in question, as by signs, by arguments, by conjectures, by probability, by witness, and by torture, he cometh at length to show how it may be proved or improved by an Oath. His words are these: Iufiurandu● est cum divina veneratione dictio probationis expels etc. An Oath is a speech without proofs with divine veneration: wherefore if we will confirm our Oath and the credit thereof, we must say th●●, no man truly will forswear himself, both in respect of the ●eare of punishment from the Gods, as also of disgrace among men; and we may add, that men may be deceived, but the Gods cannot. But now if the adversary will fly also to an Oath, and we would extenuate or discredit the same, than we must show that the man that will not stick to d●e evil, will not stick also to forswear himself, for that he which thinketh he may lie hidden from the Gods after he hath committed an e●ill ●act, will think that he may also escape punishment after he hath forsworn himself. This is Aristotle's discourse, which maketh no mention at all, as you see of doubting in an Oath, and much less of mental addition or reservation. 
Aristotle abused by M. Barl.  And albeit M. Barlow do boldly and ignorantly say that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which by all Interpreters doth signify peierare, to perjure, or forswear, doth import also to swear with mental addition: yet is this only a fiction of his, nor can he bring forth one example out of Aristotle or any Greek writer which doth use it in that sense, nor could Aristotle use it so in this place, where he useth the said words thrice in these lines by me alleged always for peierare, to forswear, and never for doubting or mental addition. Nay it cannot stand with any sense of Aristotle's discourse, for if Aristotle should say, that no man truly will doubt in his Oath, or have a mental reservation both for fear of God's chastisement, & discredit amongst men, it were a ridiculous speech: for that men do not know when a mental reservation is made, or when a man doubteth in his Oath, but when he forsweareth himself it may come to be known. And in like manner it is more ridiculous, to say against the adversary, as Aristotle teacheth us, that he which sticketh not to do wickedly, will not stick to doubt also in his Oath, or to use a mental addition, which no man I think would understand, or can read without laughing.  
Wherefore seeing that Aristotle speaketh only of forswearing, and that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken by him and by all other Greek Authors, whereof we might he●● allege infinite examples, & M Barlow cannot allege one for his fiction; it is evidently seen, that he, miserable man, is sore pressed, when to sustain his bad cause, he is forced to falsify and corrupt Authors, by perverting and wresting them aside, quite contrary to their meaning, & purpose. But now we shall pass to some other points.    

THE REASON IS EXAMINED WHETHER GOD'S PROVIDENCE MIGHT SEEM DEFECTVOUS, if no authority had been left in the Christian hurch to restrain and punish evil Kings. AND Whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings, as M. Barlow maketh him. CHAP. III.  
I SAID in my former Letter, as in the precedent Chapter hath been seen, that I could not persuade myself, that such Catholics as were said to have accepted the Oath, did mean to abjure all authority of the Pope for depo●ing temporal Princes for any cause whatsoever, for that therein they should contradict the general consent of all Catholic Divines, and confess that God's providence for the conservation and preseruati●● of his Church, and Kingdom upon earth had been defectuous. For that he should have left no lawful remedy for so great & perilous an evil as that way might fall out, by the exorbitant actions of some incorrigible Prince.  

Barl. p. 41.  To this my speech M. Barlow answereth thus: If by Catholic Divines he meaneth Scriptures, councils, Fathers, Stories, for a thousand years after Christ, the Reader must take it for a mendacious vanity, and let it pass for no better. Whereto I reply, that as I do mean it, it is no mendacious vanity, but a religio●● verity, for that I mean by Catholic Divines in this place, all such of that profession as have handled the question particularly of this temporal Authority of the Pope in certain urgent occasions, which are principally Scholastical Divines, especially those of this age, that have written against all sorts of Heretics that denied the same. And albeit M. Barlow in his railing vain, do challenge the Schoolmen, 
The learning and sincerity of Schoolmen.  as blasphemously detorting Scriptures; yet he that shall read them with judgement and attention, without this furious passion of hatred against them, and lack of capacity to understand them, shall quickly perceive that their skill in Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, & Stories is far superior by infinite degrees to that of M. Barlow, and his Mates, that crack so much against them, and their sincerity in expounding them according to their true meaning; and is also without comparison more sound, as may appear by the many gross and wilful corruptions, which I have noted in him before in that kind.  

Excommunication of Princes practised in the Primitive Church.  And albeit in some hundreds of years after Christ, there had not occurred any such particular occasion of actual deposing of temporal Princes, as did afterwards, whereof we have treated before, for that Princes were not so exorbitant: yet the ground and origen of deposing Princes, which is excommunication and exclusion from the body of the Church, cannot be denied to have been practised often in those former ages. And when a temporal Prince is so cast out of the Church by excommunication, & made no member thereof (& much less may he be Head) if he persevere obstinate, and seek to infect, and destroy the whole body; I say in this case what shall the said Church and Governors thereof do with such a Prince? Wherein I said that all Catholic Divines do agree, that our Saviour in this case hath not left his Church unprovided of some remedy, for that otherwise his divine providence might seem to have been defectuous, not to have left a remedy for so great and universal an evil.  
But now at this reason, as strongly pressing him, M. Barlow stormeth and stampeth exceedingly, saying, first it is a trivial objection borrowed by me from Cardinal Allens Apology, 
Pag. 42.  and by us both from one Bertrand that useth the same in his gloss upon a place of the Canon law. But what if all this were true, as it is not? 
M. Barlowes merriment of the moon in the Asse● belly.  What were this to the purpose? Let the force of the reason be considered, for that only importeth. Nay, but M. Barlow will make us first a little merriment as he calleth it, related out of Ludonicus Vi●es, who telleth this tale, affirming that a certain Country man, whose Ass drunk at a water, where the moon shined, and after the said moonlight vanished away, the Countryman said that the moon was lost, or else it was in his Ass' belly, and this tale he very fond applieth to our present matter, that either the Pope's triple Crown must have power over Princes, or God's providence in the world must be lost; and so from this merriment he passeth to a vain of serious railing, saying, that this speech of mine is irreverent against God, yea blasphemous and savouring of the very spirit of Antichrist. But this shall appear presently by the discussion that is to ensue & thereby also will appear what spirit speaketh in this Minister, to wit the most base and abject spirit of profane fl●ttery towards Princes that ever proceeded from any Christian tongue or pen: for he maketh God afraid of temporal Kings, & to walk so warily in his speeches towards them, especially in their jealousies, as if he were in dread of their power and anger. The discourse is rare, and singular, and I never read the devise in any before, at leastwise so plainly set down, and therefore I beseech the Reader to lend me an attentive ear whilst it is discussed.  

M. Barlows flattery of Kings. Barl. p. 44  He beginneth this flattery thus, (for I will set down his speech more faithfully than he hath any thing of mine, which he continually corrupteth and perverteth as divers times now I have advertised.) It is natural to Kings to be jealous of their thrones, wherein they can abide neither M●te for division, not Checkmate for scorn. It cost Adoniah his life for ask Abishag to wife, 
3. Reg. 2.  because Solomon did thereby take occasion ●● suspect, that he which desired the Father's bedfellow, would also aspire t● the brother's throne. It was not the blasphemy laid to our saviours charge by the jews, that moved Pilate to sentence him; that which hastened his death, was a jealous opinion, though a false persuasion, that he should be a King, and thereby defeat Caesar of his claim to Iury.  
In that point we shall see God himself to be very wary; for 〈◊〉 that Psalm, 
Wisely Sir William.  which of the Scriptures is the most threatfull to Kings, & begins with a thundering expostulation, Quare ●remu●runt gentes, & a●●iterunt Reges, it pleaseth him to conclude it, not with a menacing extrusion, but with a calm persuasion, Osculemini filium, or as the vulgar hath it, Apprehendite disciplinam. And what is that? Be wise o ye Kings, and serve the Lord in fear: if not, w●at● the danger? Ne per●atis de via iu●ta, that is, lest you lose the right way to heaven, and your right in the Crown of heaven: he said ●ot, your Titles to your Kingdoms, nor right to your Crowns on earth. God never thought it fit to support his Church, by daring of Princes, prosessors of his name; for that had been the way to have made them not nourishing Fathers, but either pinching suppressours, or at least cold and wary savourers of the same.  
Thus far M. Barlow, to show that Almighty God dealeth more warily and respectively with temporal Princes, them doth the Pope, which threateneth them loss of their Kingdoms if they be incorrigible: and to this effect abuseth pitifully this Psalm here alleged, as presently we shall show. But first I would demand of him, why he bringeth in that jealousy of Princes concerning their thrones, and that Mate for division, or Checkmate for scorn? Doth he allow of these jealousies as proceeding from sanctity? Doth he commend that fact of Solomon for making away his brother Adoniah, for ask only Abishag to be his wife? Sure I am, that divers ancient Fathers do condemn the same, 
Salomon's fact of kill Adoniah condemned.  & a learned interpreter of this age, saith: Excuset qui scit, mihi 〈◊〉 occurrit legiti●●a Salomonis excusatio etc. Let him defend Solomon that knoweth how to do it, for unto me no lawful excuse of Salomon's fact occurreth, for that the sentence of death seemeth to me not only severe, but also unjust. So he. Now as for the jealousy of Pilate whereby he made away our Saviour, I suppose M. Barlow will not be so shameless as to commend the same, except Pilate were alive again, and he his Chaplain, for then perhaps the matter were doubtful.  
But whereto now doth all this Preface pertain, of Prince's jealousies? The matter is clear, that it tendeth to show what great reason God hath to walk warily, lest he offend Kings and Princes. For so it followeth immediately in that point. Therefore (and mark the inference therefore) we shall see God himself to be very wary. But whereof M. Barlow? Is he so wary of not putting Kings and Princes in fear & jealousy of their thrones as you call them? Why is God afraid of them? For that your (therefore) would seem to infer. Or is his throne less or more weak than theirs? How then is it ascribed unto him as a peculiar property, Deposuit Potentes de sede, & exaltavit hu●riles, 
Lucae 2.  he hath put down the powerful from their seats, and thrones, and exalted the humble? How is it said of him, Qui aufert spiritum Principum, & est terribilis Regibus terrae, who taketh away the spirit of Princes, and is terrible to the Kings of the earth? And yet further qui balteum Regum dissoluit, & pracingit fune renes eorum, 
job 36.  he that doth loose & take from them the warlike girdle, & girdeth their loins with a rope. And in another Psalm, how dareth God to say, if he be so very wary, Ad alligandos Reges eorum in compedib●s, & Nobiles eorum in manicis serre●: to bind Kings in fetters, and their Noble men in iron manacles? And finally how warily was this spoken by the holy Ghost, not offending Princes & Potentates, when he saith, Potentes potenter tormenta pa●ientur; powerful men shall suffer powerful torments? Was almighty God wary in these speeches?  
But let us see, how this Prince-flatterer doth go about to prove this his foolish impiety out of the Scripture itself, to wit, out of the second Psalm before cited, and thereby let the Reader learn what assurance men have of the true sense of any Scripture by him and his alleged, when it is powdered and seasoned with their exposition, God himself is very wary (saith he) in speaking to Princes, for that Psalm, which of all the Psalms is most dreadful to Kings, and begins with a thundering expostulation, 
Psal. 2.  Quare fremuerunt gentes & Reges astiterunt? it pleaseth him to conclude, not with a menacing extrusion, but with a calm persuasion, Osculemini filium, ne irascatur, Kiss the son, lea●t he be angry, or as the vulgar hath it, Apprehendite disciplinam, ad●●it discipline. And is not this a goodly discourse of Master Barlow, to prove the greatness of Princes, and that God himself doth speak very wari●● unto them? The hebrew phrase Kiss the Son, is as much to say, as adore the son of God, when he shallbe man, and acknowledge and obey him as your King.  
For as learned Vatablu● in his notes upon the Hebrew text doth observe, it was a sign of submission & subjection amongst the jews to kiss the Prince's hand, which is here meant by the phrase of the Psalmist, Osculemini filium, that is kiss his hands, and adore him for your King, which the Septuaginta Interpreters well understanding, did many years before the Nativity of our Saviour, as the Chaldean Paraphrasis in like manner, translate it, Apprehendite disciplin●●, do you apprehend or admit the discipline, and doctrine of the Son of God when he shall appear in flesh, and so do all the ancient Greek and Latin Fathers interpret this passage of the Psalm: nor can I see with what show of reason or probability M. Barlow can bring it for his purpose of flattering Kings in this place: he saith, that God concludeth not here, with a menacing extrusion (of Kings) but with a calm persuasion, Kiss the son: this kissing seems perhaps to him an amiable thing: but if it be interpreted, as now I have showed, and S. Hierome doth expound it, for a matter of subjection, humiliation, and of admitting discipline, it seemeth not oftentimes so sweet & pleasant to Princes, as M. Barlow would have it.  
But what shall we say to other phrases here contained, as when Kings & Princes do swell, & take counsel against God and his Christ, saying: Let us break their bands and cast of their yoke, then saith the Prophet: He that sitteth in heaven will scorn them, and our Lord will scoff at them. Then will he speak unto them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury. A little after he saith, That, he shall rule them with an iron-rod, and shall break them in pieces like a potter's vessel. 
The second psalm ill chosen of M. Barlow for flattery of Princes.  And now M. Barlow, is this a calm persuasion? is here no menacing extrusion threatened to Princes when they are threatened to be crushed like a potter's vessel? Nay mark also the subsequent persuasion, Nunc ergo Reges intelligite etc. Now therefore understand, o ye Kings, & be wise: Learn how to judge the earth. Serve god in fear, and rejoice in him with trembling. Admit discipline lest he wax angry, and you perish from your way (for so hath the Hebrew text:) when his wrath shallbe but a little kindled, happy are all those that trust in him. What can be spoken more severely to Princes then all this? Or was this Psalm well chosen by M. Barlow for his purpose of flattering Kings and Princes, in respect of God's wariness in his speeches? Whereas no Psalm amongst all the rest uttereth so much terror unto them, only the words osculemini Filium do seem to have drawn him to this impertinent imagination.  
But now let us see his Conclusion, and application against the Pope's pretending authority over Kings, for which all the rest hitherto hath been brought in, Ne pereatis de via justa: lest you lose the right way to heaven, and your right in the crown of heaven: he said not, your titles to your Kingdoms, nor right to your Crowns upon earth: God thought it never fit to support his Church by daring of Princes, Professors of his name. A Godly speech, & fitting for so spiritual a man, as this Doctor seemeth to be, if for refusing discipline and obedience God doth threaten to Princes the loss of heaven, with all the right they have to that everlasting Crown and Kingdom, which includeth also their eternal condemnation to hellfire and torments! What great privilege is it to spare their titles to their temporal crowns & kingdoms on earth, that may be lost in an instant, and long cannot endure, why should God think it so inconvenient to support his Church by daring of Princes, lest perhaps they should wax angry, and dare him again? For so it seemeth by the reason given here, least by daring they should not be nourishing Fathers to the said Church, but either pinching suppressors, or cold savourers. And why? For that God dareth them forsooth with losing their temporal states. His daring for losing of heaven seemeth not to trouble them so much, but their peril to lose their temporal kingdom, if they be incorrigible, is the thing that principally troubleth them, according to this wise discourse of M. Barlow. Do not his friends take pity of his folly? If I would take upon me to lay forth the examples that are found in Scriptures of Gods plain speeches, & menacing threats unto Princes (let M. Barlow call them dare if he will) it would quickly appear how vain, and profane the former observation of his is, that God is so very wary in his speeches towards them.  
For what will you say to that speech of his to King Sennacherib: Ponam circulum in naribus tuis, & camum in labijs t●●s, & reducan in viam per quam venisti. 
Examples of Gods terrible threats unto Kings.  I will put a ring in thy nostrils, & a bit in thy mouth, and will bring thee back into the way by which thou diddest come. That also of Nabuchodonosor the most potent King of Babylon, as the Scripture calleth him: Eijcient te ab hominibus, & cum bestijs serisque erit habitatio tua, & soenum ut bos comedes. 
Dani●l .4.  They shall cast thee out from the company of men, and thy dwelling shallbe amongst wild beasts, thou shalt eat hay as an ox. Was this a wary and respective speech to so great a King, and Monarch? That other speech also of God to King Achab of Israel: D●m●tam posteriora tua, & interficiam de Achab mingentem ad parietem. Si mort●us fu●rit Achab in Civitate, comedent eum canes: si autem in agro, comedent eum volucres caeli. 
3. R●g. 21.  The hinder part of thy life I shall cut o●, & shall kill of thy stock, that shall make water against the wall. And if that Achab die in the City, the d●●gs shall e●t him: and if he die in the field, the birds of the ●air● shall devour him. And the like to his Queen jezabel: The dogs shall eat ●ezabel in the field of jezrael. And finally to let pass balthasar, jeroboam, jebu, Manasses, and many other Kings, whom God threatened & dared, and performed also the same without any such respective wariness, as M. Barlow doth fancy; his words and meaning are plain, and general in job, that when Princes are warned and do not amend: 
job 36.  Si non audierint, transibunt per gladium; If they obey not, they shall pass by the sword. And this is God's plain speech, and plain dealing, for that Princes to him are no more then poor men, all flesh and dust: albeit whilst they live upon earth, & bear rule in his place, he will have them respected, obeyed, and honoured, as his Deputies in all that they shall command, not contrary to his laws, which he will have observed both by Prince and people; and detesteth all such profane flattery as here we have heard uttered by M. Barlow. And so much for this matter.  
Now then to come to my former proposition, that the Providence of God might seem to be defectuous, if his divine Majesty had left no remedy for so great an evil: it is founded upon all those places of Scripture, where it is said that God's works are perfect, as Deuter. 32. and that they are made in wisdom, Psalm 103. vers. 24. that is to say, in most high wisdom, & ordinata sunt, saith S. Paul, Rom. 13. they are according to order & well ordered, & the like. Out of all which is inferred, that whatsoever the perfection of wisdom, & good order doth or can prescribe in any work, that is to be presumed to be in God's works, yea with far higher perfection than man's wisdom can reach unto. Whereby it followeth, that as when a prudent human Law giver suiteth a Commonwealth, he provideth for all inconveniences, that by human probability may fall out unto the same: so much more Christ our Saviour, being not only man, but also God, must be presumed to have provided sufficiently and abundantly for his Kingdom, and Commonwealth which is the Christian Church, purchased with his own blood, for prevention of all hurts and evils imminent to the same; which seemeth had not been done, if he had left this gre●t g●ppe unstopped, and this main mischief unprovided for, which might come thereunto by the incorrigibilitie of some deplored Prince, 
God's providence in governing his Church perfect & no ways defectuous.  impugning the same: for so much as all human lawgivers and Erectors of Commonwealths, do never fa●●e commonly in this particular, for the defensive part; and much less may it be thought, that Christ our Saviour would be wanting in so important a point. Neither is this any way blasphemous or disgraceful to our saviours infinite wisdom and providence, as M. Barlow would most impertinently seem to urge, but highly rather to his honour: for somuch, as we profess that he hath provided for this evil, and the Protestants hold that he hath not.  
For as, when a man beholdeth a house made by some excellent Architect, and considereth all the parts & commodities thereof, with provision for all uses, and providence for all cases that may fall out, he admireth the coherence & dependence of one thing upon another, praiseth and extolleth the wisdom and foresight of the Author, saying: If this or that had not been foreseen, and provided for, as excellently it was, it had been a great want and defect, but being provided for, it doth infinitely commend his said care, wisdom, foresight, and providence. And even so in our case, when a man considereth the admirable excellency of Christ our saviours wisdom, in other points concerning the government of his Church, how carefully and orderly he hath provided for the same, in all necessary points, as in part the holy Apostle doth describe both to the Corinthians, and Ephesians, appointing some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Doctors, some Pastors, ad consummationem Sanctorum, in op●s ministerij, in aedificationem Corporis Christi, for the consummation of the Saints, and for the works of the ministry, & for the building up the body of Christ, which is his Church, with exact order, providence and subordination of things, men, and offices, one to another, with sufficient power and authority for every party to do his office: these things, I say, being well considered, do infer that it cannot possibly stand with such high wisdom & providence of our Saviour, to leave his said body and Church unprovided of sufficient authority, to prevent, or remedy so main a calamity, as might fall upon the said Church by temporal Christian Princes, if there were no restraint or punishment for them.  
Nor do the Protestants themselves pretermit to use such kind of arguments, and consequences for their own defence, when they deal with domestical Adversaries, to wit, with Protestants of other Sects. As for example, when the Puritan refuseth all Bishops, Archbishops, and other distinction of subordination in the Clergy: what urgeth in effect the Protestant on the other side, but that it belonged to Christ his divine providence to leave such distinction and subordination: and consequently that it might be noted for defectuous, if he had left but the Puritan parity in all?  
The like passeth with the Lutheran, who denying the temporal Prince to be Head of the Church, and confesseth consequently that their Church is headless upon earth, but only dependeth on jesus Christ, as head in heaven; is refuted by the English Caluinists with the same argument of the defect of God's providence, if he had not provided some Head on earth also. And much more holdeth this argument against the Anabaptists, who hold that Christ hath left no temporal power or Magistrate in his Church, to judge or condemn, and especially to death, for any cause whatsoever, for that he saith, nolite i●dicare, do not judge; which I doubt not, but our English Protestant's will re●ute, by this argument of God's providence, which would have been judged insufficient, if he had left so many commonwealths and Kingdoms, as are contained within this Christian Church, without any temporal Magistrate at all. Whereby remaineth confuted the insulse insultation of M. Barlow against the same, for that our inference is no●, as he fraudulently telleth his Reader, except the Pope's triple Crown had power to depose Princes, God's providence had been defectuous, but if his divine Majesty having provided most sufficiently for all other inconveniences, it would have been a note of defect in the same, not to have provided for this case of extreme necessity, in some occurrents, which we say he hath done, by leaving sufficient authority in S. Peter● Successors to remedy the same; not by their triple Cro●●es, but by virtue of their Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority (including indirectly this temporal) when great necessity urgeth, even then when they were most poor, and lay in caves and vaults under ground, though there occurred not then occasions to use the same. And thus now would I end this matter, but that I must say a word or two concerning two Authors cited in the margin about the same.  
The first is of Aluarus Pelagius, an ancient Canonist, saith he, 
Alu. Pelag. lib. 1. De planctu Eccl. cap. 13.  of their own, who talking of the Mathematical donation of Constantine, saith, Palea est, at Ecclesia pro gran● habe●: And then do●h English it, that is chaff indeed, though the Church doth hold it for good corn, which word, though they be in Aluarus, yet are they alleged by M. Barlow, 
Aluarus Pelagius abused by M. Barl.  no less than commonly are other Authors by him cited, with a guilty conscience, for that he well knew, that Aluarus doth not hold that Donation to be chaff, but doth approve the same to be true in divers places of his works, as namely, lib. 1. cap. 43. & lib. 2. cap. 29. and elsewhere, which M. Barlow could not choose but know, by Aluarus his own words, and wh●le discourse: as also for that otherwise he had confessed himself to hold against the Church, who being a Catholic & an ancient Canonist of our own (as M. Barlow saith) would never have done, nor can be presumed to have done. What then will you say was his meaning in those words, quae palea est, at Ecclesia pro grano habe●? Surely his meaning is far different from that wherein M. Barlow citeth him. And this is, that Gratian Compiler of the Canons, hau●ng this word (Palea) set down in his Decretal, and prefixed before divers Chapters, not to signify thereby Ch●ffe, or contemptible matter to be contained therin● 〈◊〉 rather that it was either the collection, or addition of one Protopalea, that was a Cardinal, as divers grave Authors do write, or some later collections of Gratia● himself, noted in the margin for memory and distinction sake, 
Gratian Decret. part. 1. distinct. 5.  with this word Palea, derived either from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth ancient, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that signifieth rursum, or again, as who would say they were additions to the former collections, whereof the Reader may see more in the Preface to the first volume of Gratian his decretals. But in what sense soever the word Palea is there taken, certain it is, that it doth not signify Chaff in Al●ar●● his judgement, though he doth allude to the words Chaff, and corn, for that the common signification of the latin word Palea importeth Chaff; but that he himself did not hold those things for Chaff, and contemptible, which are contained in Gratian, under the titles of Palea, may appear by the very first Chapter so entitled, which contain the words and determination of S. Gregory the first, 
Greg. c. 10. ad interrogata Augustini. Beda lib. 1. de hist. Angl. cap. 27.  written unto S. Augustine our Apostle, and recorded by Venerable Bede: so that the meaning of Aluarus was, that albeit this donation of Constantine was recorded by Gratian under the title of Palea, yet the Church doth hold it for corn, that is to say, for a matter of truth, about which I remit me to those Authors, that did write of that affair long before Gratian, as Petrus Damianus accounted for a most holy & learned man before the Conquest, Iuo Carnotensis, & others. So as here the untruth of M. Barlow, alleging of Aluarus against his own meaning, is evident, that he intended thereby to deceive his Reader.  
As for the second, that is Bertrand, 
Bertrand. in additione ad glos. de maioritate & obedientia c. ●.  in the addition upon a gloss of the Common law, whom M. Barlow allegeth to say, that our Lord, saving his reverence, had failed in his discretion, for government of this Church, if he had not left such a government therein for deposing of incorrigible Princes; there is no great matter to be stood upon therein, but only his manner of simple speech, which M. Barlow out of his sincerity maketh always worse by his relation: for whereas Bert●and saith, Videretur Dominus, God should seem to have failed: this man maketh him say, God had failed: and wher●s Bertrand saith, ut cum reverentia ei● l●quar, that I may speak it with due reverence, or regard unto him, M. Barlow translateth, saving his reverence, which i● our English phrase seemeth contemptible. And thus he helpeth himself out at every turn, with sleights and shifts, never using sincerity commonly in any thing that passeth from his pen against us.   

WHETHER THE DEVISING AND URGING OF THIS NEW OATH WERE A BLESSING or no, either to the Receivers or Vrgers? AND first of the Receivers: Wherein is handled also of Conscience, and of swearing against Conscience. CHAP. FOUR  
AFTER humble supplication made in my Letter to his Majesty as you have heard, that it would please him to admit the acceptance of this Oath, by his Catholic subjects, in the form and substance that should be allowable by Catholic Doctrine, by yielding all dutiful temporal obedience unto his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, with reservation only of their consciences in points that concern their Religion; I was forced to unswere some few lines about that which was said in the Apology, that God did bless this godly devise and intent (of making and urging this Oath) by ●he admittance thereof by so many Priests and laics: & I think it good to repeat my own words again, to the end I may be the better understood. But before I do this, it shall not be perhaps amiss to set down the relation of my said words by M. Barlow, whereby you may see how faithfully and sincerely he doth relate them, as well here, as in all other places, for this is his fashion, albeit he set them down in a several distinct letter, to the end the Reader may imagine that they be mine indeed. 
Barl. p. 49.  Is it be a blessing (saith he) it must be so first to the takers, which are of two sorts, either in act which are sworn already, or in desire, which wish they might, and dare not. The fi●st have no outward blessing of liberty, for they are still imprisoned: if inward blessing of comfort, he knows not. But to the other it is the greatest pressure of conscience and angariation of mind, that ever be●ell them; for that oppression exceeds all other, either corporal for pains, or worldly for loss.  

M. Barlows false dealing in alleging his adversaries words.  This is my speech as he setteth it down, both ragged & scarce coherent, if you consider it well: and this cou●se he holdeth throughout the whole book, that he maketh me speak as pleaseth him to appoint me. My own speech is that which ensueth, somewhat more clear and perspicuous at least wise, as you will see.  
About this matter (said I) where the Apology saith, That God did bl●sse this godly devise and intent (of making and urging this Oath) by the admittance thereof by so many Priests & Laics etc. 
●et. p. 20.  Which bl●ssing (if it be a blessing) must concern either the takers, or the exibitours, or both. But for the takers, what inward blessing of comfort in conscience they may have received thereby, I know not. But ●or outward blessing, I see small, for they remain, ei●h●r in prisons, or under pressures still, a● hath been said. But for others of the same Religion that cannot frame their Consciences to take the said Oath, and yet would gladly give his Royal Majesty conten●ment & satisfaction, so far as they might, without offending God; I can assure you, that it is the greatest affliction of mind, among other pressures, that ever fell unto them. For that no violence is like to that, which is laid upon men's Consciences; for so much, as it lieth in a man's own will and resolution, to bear all other oppressions whatsoever, whether it be loss of goods, honours, dignities, yea of life itself: but the oppression of the Conscience, no man may bear patiently, though he would never so feign. For if he yield therein, he offendeth God, & loseth his soul: neither doth Metus cade●s in constantem virum, fear that may terrify even a constant man, excuse in this behalf, as appeareth by the example of the ancient Martyrs, who were forced, under pain of damnation, to stand out to death against all human power, vexations, torments, and highest violence,, rather than to do, say or swear any thing against their Conscience. To all these men then, which are thousands in our Country, that never thought otherwise then to be good Subjects to his Majesty, the devising of this new Oath, was no blessing, but an unspeakable affliction, and angariation of mind.  
Thus much I wrote concerning the Receivers of the Oath. The other part of the Vrgers, we shall handle presently after. Now I say only, that I think the Reader hath seen some difference between my speech, as it is mine, and cometh from myself, and as it passeth through the lips, and pen of M. Barlow. But what doth he answer to the substance of the matter? You shall hear his first words. Indeed (saith he) the trouble of conscience is a fearful vexation, but the next to it is the trouble in answering a cavilling Sophister. But what Sophistry, Sir, do you find in these words of mine now recited● Are they not plain? Are they not perspicuous? You run out into a common place, that in the multitude of a people is the honour of a King, 
Prou. ●4. vers. 28.  saith Solomon; and then, God having blessed his Majesty, with the a●crewment of a mighty ●ation etc. he devised this Oath for a pledge of his assurance, and ma●y vnrequired came and showed themselves to be populus voluntari●● freely offering to take the Oath, and this the Apology truly call●●● a blessing of God upon the devise.  
Well Sir, let it be so: yet this blessing, if it be a blessing, concerneth rather the exhibitours of the Oath than the swears themselves, and consequently toucheth no● the point in hand; though I grant notwithstanding that if those that come to swear, were indeed populus volunt●●●● in that behalf, freely offering themselves to swear of their own accord, than no injury or angariation of conscience was laid upon them. But I speak only of those Catholics which felt repugnance of their conscience, for that they esteemed divers clauses in the Oath to prejudice their Religion: What say you of these and this case● Let us hear your resolution. To answer once for all (say you) is your Catholics have vexed consciences, 
Vincen. advers. hares.  it is no marvel, for idolatry being mixed with superstition, and superstition never void of 〈◊〉 (because as it supposeth there be many Gods, so it wisheth there were 〈◊〉) so sear must needs work vexation of mind: but heresy is Idolatry, 〈◊〉 Vincentius, 
August. de vera rel. cap. 38.  for so many self-conceipts are so many Gods, yea the ●ase●● kind of Idolatry, saith S. Augustine: this adoring the work of men hands, and the other worshipping fancies of their own brains.  
This is his first resolution about Catholic consciences, which if he knew what a true conscience meaneth, and what is truly Catholic, he would never say as he doth: but for that it seemeth he is as far from feeling in the one, as from knowledge in the other, he talketh at random, he knoweth not what against fear, and bringeth in Idolatry and superstition as causes of fear, which have no more coherence with the matter in hand, 
Idolatry and superstition not always causes of f●ar.  of the grief of a forced, and coacted conscience, than Canter●●ry with Constantinople. For we say, that when Catholic men are forced by penal laws to swear against their own consciences, that is to say, against the dictamen of their own reason and judgement, which they have in matter of Religion, their grief must needs be excessive, there being undique angustiae, for that on the one side if they swear, their own consciences will condemn them: and if they swear not, they of●end their Prince, and incur most grievous penalties of the law. What saith our Doctor to this dilemma? He telleth us a tale, how that Idolatry is mixed with superstition never void of fear. What is this to the purpose? We talk not now of fear which may be both good and bad, and the former is highly commended in Scripture: and we are commanded to work our salvation with fear and trembling: but this is not now to our purpose, nor will I examine M. Doctor why he ascribeth fear so particularly to superstition, as that it is never void thereof, for that superstition being an excess in religion, maketh commonly the superstitious person to be more confident, and less fearful than any other men; & this likewise overthroweth that foolish clause put in by M. Barlow, that superstition wisheth there were no Gods: for that her nature consisting in excess of supposed religion, as h●th been said, she cannot wish that there were no Gods, but leaveth this rather to Atheism her contradictour; which as it believeth no Gods, nor careth for them, so would it wish that there were none. But superstition standing, on the contrary, upon disordinate, excessive & erroneous serving of God, is absurdly said here to wish there were no Gods at all.  
For whereas divers do assign four parts or members of superstition, 
Four kind's of superstition.  to wit disorderly worship, Idolatry, divination by wicked spirits, and vain observation, I would know of M. Barlow by which of these four kinds superstition may be said to hate Gods; to wish that there were none, or to live in such special fear, as he imagineth? But in truth our● Doctor knoweth not what he saith, but is one of those doughty Doctors that S. Paul speaketh of to Timothy: desiring to be Doctors of the law, do not understand neither what they say, nor whereof they do affirm: 
1. Tim. 1.  he seemeth not to understand distinctly, what is the true nature of any one thing here by him mentioned, to wit of conscience, of ●eare, of superstition, of Idolatry, or of heresy.  
And as for the last which is heresy, he hath brought in two such Authors, and authorities against himself, as in the whole rank of antiquity he could not find 〈◊〉 two more fit, and forcible to convince him, and his of Heresy, and consequently also as himself inferreth, of more grievous and damnable Idolatry. 
M. Barl. provoked to stand to his own Authors.  And he would not have brought them in to the purpose he doth, if he had vel micam salu, any the least part of prudence. For if I should by the occasion of these two Fathers here brought i●, frame a Syllogism against M. Barlow his religion, taking the mayor proposition out of these words here set down, and adding the minor out of these two Fathers most manifest assertions, he would never be able to avoid the conclusion: and if he can, I do provoke him to the trial.  

The Mayor.  The mayor proposition is this, according to S. A●gu●●●●● and Vincentius Lyrine●sis, that lived not long the one after the other. Heresy is Idolatry, and heretics are idolators, yea the basest kind of idolators, that do worship the fancies of their own brains. This proposition is here brought in, and granted by M. Barlow as true● and avouched by these two ancient Fathers: the minors do add, and do offer to prove, which is this:  

The Mi●or.  But according to the judgement and writing of these two Fathers, concerning the nature and property of heresy, and heretics, M. Barlowes religion (if it be the Protestants) is convinced to be heresy, and the professors thereof heretics. Ergo, also they are idolators, and of the basest kind of idolators, and damnably worship the fancies of their own brains.  
This Syllogism, consisting of M. Barl. his mayor, & my minor, & the conclusion following of them both, I could wish he would consider well. And for so much as I know he will deny the minor, 
An important controversy to be handled.  I do offer to join issue with him, upon that point only, if he please, reducing all our combat begun between him and me, to this important question, much more profitable to the Reader, than these wranglings, wherein we are now conversant: Whether according to the doctrine and judgement of S. Augustine and Vincen●ius Lyrinensis, concerning heresy Protestant's or Roman Catholics be truly Heretics. Let us lay all other quarrels, I say, aside, and handle only this grave and weighty Controversy, if he hath so much confidence in his cause, & in the doctrine of these two Fathers. But for so much as I do imagine that M. Barlow will pause a great while, and consult before he accept of this offer, and perhaps expect until the designed new College of Protestant Writers be up at Chelsey, or else where; I will in the mean space invite the Reader, to study and make familiar unto himself, the two aforenamed Authors about this point of heresy, and heretics. And as for Vincentius Lyrinensis, it willbe easy, for that it is but a little book, though weighty in substance, and it is printed both severally and together with Tertullian his excellent book of Prescriptions against Heretics, both of his, and these our days: yea illustrated also with divers short notes, and Commentaries both of joannes Costerus, and of I●stus Baronius a learned man and Counsellor to the Archbishop elector of Me●tz, converted from Protestant Religion, principally by reading and pondering that golden Treatise of the said Vincentius.  
The other Author S. Augustine is far more large and difficult to be studied thoroughly, in respect of the multitude of his works, but there is a collection made of them into four books by a learned man of our time, with the title of Confessio Augustiniana: wherein is gathered the judgement of S. Augustine about all the controversies of our time, which he hath handled in his works so many hundred years ago, before the new names of Protestants or Papists were ever heard of; and to the diligent reading of this Book I would exhort all indifferent men that have care of their souls, and understand the latin tongue. For that S. Augustine being the man he was, both in learning, and sanctity, and so special a Pillar of Christ his Church in his days, which was about four hundred years after Christ, when yet the true Catholic Church is granted to have flourished; it followeth, that what doctrine he held for true, and Catholic in his time, must also be now: & what held to be heresy, we may also boldly hold the same: and what rules he gave to know and descry the one or the other, 
If M. Barlow list to accept this offer, al●beit the author be dead, he shall find those that will join with him.  may serve us now to the same end. I will not set down any particular places in this Epitome of S. A●gus●i●●, for the Reader to repair unto above others, for they are clearly propounded in the beginning of the work, and reduced unto several heads, and Chapters. But if M. Ba●low or any of his shallbe content to join with me upon the issue before mentioned, we shall have occasion to examine the work more exactly.  
And this hath been spoken by occasion of M. Barlowes answer once for all, about Catholics vexed consciences with fear, as he termeth them, which full wisely he will have to proceed of Idolatry, superstition, & heresy, as you have heard; but saith nothing of enforcement of their consciences by penal laws, though that be the only matter in question. But it may be he will say somewhat thereof in his second resolution, about this matter, for this is but his first: let us hear him then further if you please.  
Again (saith he) where the mind hath no certain stay for ●e● ultima resolutio, 
Barl. p. 52.  in matters and cases of faith & conscience, there must necessarily follow a miserable vexation, which is the case of th●se Catholics, whose dependence for resolution, must rest upon the supreme pastors determination, than which, what is more uncertain: for what one Pope decrees, the other disallows.  
Here again you see he runneth from the whole purpose, and talketh in the air: for the Catholics do not demand of him, What is the cause of their vexed consciences? but rather do tell him what it is, as you have heard in my words before rehearsed; to wit, the pressing of them to swear against the judgement of their own consciences, or else to incur displeasure and suspicion of disloyalty with his Majesty, as also the penalty of the law. And what then doth our Doctor tell us a tale of ultima r●solutio in matters & cases of faith and conscience, to be the cause of their trouble and affliction? Truly it is as far from the purpose as the other before was: and no less also against himself, to make mention of this ultima resol●tio, which more convinceth him and his of heresy, than any other demonstration that can be used to that effect. For that they having abandoned the authority and judgement of the known Catholic Church, from which final resolution in matters of controversy is to be taken, according to that rule of S. Augustine: 
There is no ultima resolutio with the Protestant's in matters of faith.  Si quis quaestionis difficultate ●alli meti●t, Ecclesia● consulat: if any man tear to be deceived with the difficulty of this question, let him take counsel of the Church (meaning thereby the universal known Catholic Church:) they having abandoned this way, of Di● Ecclesiae, tell the Church, and of recourse thereunto, as to the Columna & firmamentum veritatis, the pillar and stay of truth, so called by S. Paul; what remaineth then to them for their ultima resolutio, but their own heads, and private judgements, which are those fancies o● their own brains, which M. Barlow recited before our of S. Augustine. And this shall I make manifest by the ensuing example.  
If five or six learned men of different Religions should meet together in Germany or Transiluania, to wit a Roman Catholic, a Hussite, an Arrian, a Trinitarian, a Lutheran, a zwinglian, or a Caluinist (for that all these different Religions are there publicly professed, and both by speeches, books, and sermons, preached and maintained:) and that you should demand of each one of these the reason of his faith, and his ultima resolutio, or last rest about the same; you should find their answers far different. For if you should demand of the Catholic, 
The Catholics answer concerning his v●tima ●esolutio.  for example, why he believeth the Real Presence; he would answer you, because it is revealed by God? If you ask him further how he knoweth it is revealed by God; he will say it is contained in his word, either written or unwritten, or both. If you ask him again, how he knoweth it is contained in God's word, in that sense that he defends it; he will answer, for that the known Catholic Church doth tell him so, by whose authority he is taught what is God's word, and how it is to be understood. And if you demand of him further, how he knoweth the Church to have such authority, and the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church; he will allege for the former divers Scriptures, acknowledged also by the opposite Sectaries, as that before mentioned, wherein she is called, The pillar and stay of truth: and for the second, he will allege so many demonstrations, of the beginning, growth, increase, continuance, succession, and visible descent of that Church, confirmed from time to time, with so many miracles, & other manifest proofs and arguments of credibility, as no man in reason can contradict the same: so as his ultima resolutio, or last stay is upon the Church, testifying unto us t●e word of God, and testified by the same.  
But now the other five, though never so learned in their profession, will not answer you thus; but being demanded every one of them severally, why they are of that peculiar sect, more than of any other: and why they are different from the Catholic in the former article of Real Presence: 
No resolution amongst heretics.  they will all answer conformably for the first step, that they do build upon the word of God, yea the written word only. But if you go a step further, & demand of them, how they know that this written word is well understood by them, for so much as they are of five different Religions, founded by them all upon the same written word: here now they cannot pass any further to the foresaid Catholic Church for final resolution, as the first did, for that they all do impugn her, but each man must defend his different interpretation of that written word, by his own judgement, or else by the judgement of his own Congregation and Sect, which in effect is the same. So as these five learned men do remain irreconcilable as you see, for want of a ground from whence to take their ultima resolutio, and do show themselves according to the former speeches of Vincentius, and S. Austin both Heretics and idolators, in that, following the ●ule, & resolution of their own heads, they adore as many Gods, as they have selfe-conceipts for ground of their faith. And will you say that this point of ultima resolutio was wisely brought in by M. Barlow, being a thing whereby himself and his are condemned to have no last resolution, or certain ground at all for their belief, but only their own ●eads? But oh (saith he) you depend for resolution upon the Pope, which is so uncertain, as what one Pope decrees another disallows. But I have now answered, that we depend upon the Catholic Church, 
What resolution is taken from the Pope.  as propounding unto us and expounding God's word, and we depend of the Supreme Pastor as head of that Church, unto whom we rest assured by Gods own word and promise, that he will assist him with his spirit for all resolutions in matters of faith, which shallbe necessary for his said Church: nor can M. Barlow prove that what one Pope decrees in these matters of faith, another disallows. One of them may well alter matters of policy, government, Ceremonies, or the like; but for points of faith we do allow M. Barlow sixteen hundred years to seek them out. And if in so long time he could have produced but one true example, I suppose we should have had it.  
I do willingly pretermit a great deal more of idle & impertinent speech which M. Barlow useth about this matter of catholics Consciences, chewing indeed to have little himself, nor yet to know well what it meaneth, and much less speaketh he to the present purpose. For he telleth us first, that if pressure of conscience may serve for good Plea of Recusancy to Prince's laws, there is neither malefactor for crime, nor heretic for schism, but that will make that his Apology. Whereunto I answer, that causes, persons, merits, and demerits are to be distinguished in this matter, and not to be confounded. For what hath the malefactor for crime, or heretic for schism to do in this affair? From the first I think the adversaries themselves will deliver them, or at leastwise their neighbours, among whom they dwell: and as for the second of heresy and schism, we have spoken now already sufficiently, to show where those imputations may, and must lie, & not upon the Catholics, who are opposite to that charge.  
Secondly, 
Pag. 53.  than he telleth us, that we lack the light within us, which should drive away the darkness of our consciences, and purge the eye thereof from mist, dust, & lime. And upon this he maketh us an exhortation, that we take heed of Caligo tenebrarum in this life, that dusketh the eyes of our understanding to perdition, especially by worldly delights, desire of honour, and wealth, this being pulvis pigmentarius, saith he, the Merchant's dust, which tickleth the eyes, and blindeth the sight of the wisest, as do also envy by emulation, prejudice of affection, wilfulness by opposition, which like unto lime tormenteth the eye, and perverteth the judgement etc. And is not this, a very grave, 
M. Barlows hate of ambition, scilicet, and his mortification.  and serious exhortation, coming from such a man as he is, known to be so clearly enlightened, as neither mist, nor dust, nor lime of ambition can stick upon a man so hating worldly delights, honour, and wealth, as no part of this merchant's dust can tickle his eyes? Are not his mortifications known? His contempt of the world seen by his life, and conversation? Is not his hate of ambition, honour, and wealth discovered by his voluntary poverty? abundance of alms? refusal of dignities, & temporal commodities? Let his Parishioners testify for him.  
But yet against us he goeth forward, telling us, that the jews veil is spread over our hearts, and consciences, and that by our own wilfulness, error, and peevishness. Item, to a corrupt stomach, yea the lightest meats are troublesome, but cleansed, it will easily concoct, and orderly digest the strongest food etc. Which last direction of cleansing the stomach, to be able to concoct, and put over the strongest food, being applied as M. Barlow applieth it, to the purging of a man's conscience from fear, thereby not to have scruple, cometh very evil from his mouth, 
M. Barlows stomach for digestion and concoction.  who as they write from thence, is held to have so purged a conscience from all due fear of offending God, by doing, saying, or swearing any thing, which to the state or present Prince may be grateful, that already as I understand the commonvoyce hath been of him, as of D. Shaw who in his Sermon betrayed his Lord & masters Children, & whole Succession: as this man, I say, in a like public speech betrayed his dearest patrons honour, fame & credit. Wherefore he may talk of corrupted stomachs what he please: he may also talk of strong digestions; no man's I think of his order, though many be bad, is known to be more corrupt than his own. As for Catholics, if in this point they ●ad corrupt stomachs, they would never stand so much as they do, and with so great losses upon the contrary: but would rather cleanse their stomachs of all fear & make that strong digestion, which here M. Barlow doth insinuate unto them, of putting over without scruple whatsoever is offered to be said, long, or sworn, so it be plausible or commodious.  
But now after all this, he maketh his conclusion; and the best comfort that he can give to Catholics is this: For them, saith he, who are to take the Oath, if they refuse it, the penalty is before them, their conscience is free. But now what freedom this is, we have discussed before, both out of Philosophy, and Devinity, and M. Barlow hath been showed to understand rightly neither of them concerning this point, but to have showed himself ridiculous in both: But let us hear yet what threat he addeth further of his own to the former words. 
Barl. p. 54.  The penalty, saith he, is before them, their conscience is free, but his Majesty no doubt will beware of them, and the State observe them, as branded by the Apostle, seduced by the error of Balaams' wages, and perishing in the contradiction of Corah and Dathan. Here be words of great malice as you see, but of small reason, coherence, or consequence. For first why is there no doubt, but that his Majesty will beware of them, if they pay the penalty of the Statute, for not swearing against any clause of their Religion, and do otherwise offer to swear all temporal obedience? Why should not we think rather that his Majesty will esteem of them as of men that have care of their consciences, and consequently that being true to God willbe also true to him, as God's Substitute?  
We know that one of his majesties most noble Ancestors, yea Constantius, Constantine the great his Father, did make that argument and consequence, when he proposed some like Oath to his Courtiers, that might prejudice his Christian Religion, the swearers he rejected, the refusers he embraced, as more faithful than the other: and why may it not be hoped that his Majesty out of his great wisdom, and clemency will do the same? And why should these men be said here to be branded by the Apostle, sed●c●● by the error of Balaams' wages, perishing in the contradiction of Corah and Dathan? Is there any least similitude of these things against the Catholics of England? Wherein hath the Apostle branded them? What hope of gain, what corruption of money, what wages of Balaam hath seduced them, that suffer themselves to be so much spoiled & impoverished for not swearing against their own Consciences? What contradiction of Corah and Dathan is there in them, that offer all obedience, and duty both to temporal & spiritual Governors? that which is due to Cesar, to Cesar, that which is due to God, to God: matters of the world, life, and goods unto the King: matters of the soul, spirit, & life to come, unto those whom God hath appointed for government of souls. And this is no contradiction of Cor●● and Dathan, but the quite contrary, of conformity in dutiful subordination, only found in Catholic men: all Heretics perishing indeed, in the foresaid schism and contradiction peculiar unto them.  

TOUCHING THE Exhibitours of the Oath, and of Scandal active and passive. Wherein M. Barlowes gross ignorance is discovered. §. II.  
THIS having been spoken principally in the behalf of those that were pressed with the Oath: there remaineth now the other member, concerning the Exhibitours, or those that urge it, about which my former speech in my Letter to my friend was this.  

Letter pag. ●●.  To the exhibitours of the Oath also (quoth I) I see not what blessing it could or can be, so extremely to vex other men without profit, or emolument to themselves, or to his majesties service, which herein they would pretend to advance. For if there be any cause of doubt of loyal good will in them, that are forced to swear against their consciences: much more cause and reason may there be of like doubt, after they have so sworn, then before. For that the grief of their new wound of conscience remaining still within them, & stirring them to more aversion of hart, for the injury received, must needs work contrary effects to that which is pretended. And whosoever will not stick to swear against his conscience for fear, favour, or some other like passion, may be presumed that he will as easily break his oath, after he hath sworn upon like motives, if occasion do move him. And among all other passions, none is more strong t●●n that of revenge for oppressions received: so as we read of the whole Monarchy of Spain overthrown and given to the Moors, for one passion of Count julian, whereby he desired to be revenged of his King Roderiquez. Nothing then is gained in this behalf of loyal good will, by such extreme pressures, but much rather lost.  
Th●se were my words, what cavil hath M. Barlow against them? You shall hear it in his own phrase. They are extravagant (saith he) from all Divinity and Policy. 
Bar. p. 55.  How proveth he this? Nay no one word of proof doth he allege, it is enough for this Pythagoras to say it; let the judicious Reader judge of it. He goeth forward: Of conscience we have already spoken, now for desperation. No doubt Sir, but you have spoken substantially of conscience, as before hath been seen; but of desperation. I know not what you can say, if you keep yourself to your text: for I remember not to have mentioned that word in my speech before rehearsed whereunto you pretend to answer. 
M. Barlows idle discourse.  True it is, that of the passion of anger and revenge, for supposed injuries or oppressions received, I have made mention. But you have turned all your sh●w of answer against desperation, telling us much of the furious fancy of the Donatists in Africa, that were desperately enraged. You ask also whether the catholics be no better instructed in Devinity by their Priests? You tell us that S. Peter's Devinity was better, who● he●●horteth Servants to be buxom and obedient in all fe●●● to their Masters. You say further, that true Catholic Devinity teacheth men to endure laws, with all ●●●dy ●●bedience: and if through weakness they cannot, or by repugnancy of conscience they dare not be persuaded that they may lawfully swear unto them, then to endure the penalty with an humble patience, alleging for the same, the words of S. Peter, that, This is thanksworthy, if a man f●● conscience sake towards God end●●e grief wrongfully, because o●r ●●●ster did so etc. which we take for very good doctrine indeed, 
1. Pet. 2.  and so do teach and preach the same diligently, exhorting all good Catholics to follow that rule. But yet on the other side we cannot forget also the saying of the Apostle, non in omni●us est scientia, 
1. Cor. 8.  all men have not true knowledge 〈◊〉 they ought to do, and much less patience in what they ought to suffer, and therefore is the gi●t of wisdom, providence, and discretion granted unto Governors to moderate matters according to men's infirmities in some ca●●●, & this is all that is said, or insinuated in this passage, though M. Barlow out of his great prudence in De●i●●ty & Policy noteth that the example of Count julian of Spai●e, that overthrew his Country upon the passion of revenge, aught to be a caveat to the State of England, that I do threaten. But it is a childish quarrel picked, for I do but call 〈◊〉 memory the history in confirmation of that which in my Speech is set down.  
But there followeth a second reason concerning them that press the Oath upon others, to wit, the consideration of active scandal, which I set down before in these words. But besides all this (said I) is the grievous sin that they commit, 
Lett. p. 22.  who force or press other men to swear against their conscience, than which nothing can be imagined more heinous, for it is to thrust men headlong (especially such as are fearful) into the very precipitation & downfall of hell itself. For it is the highest degree of scandal active, so much condemned and detested in the Scripture, and so dreadfully threatened by our Saviour, to be severely punished in the life to come. For that scandalising properly is nothing else, but laying a stumbling block for other men to fall and break their necks: and such a one is this formal Oath, which containeth divers things lawful for a Catholic to swear, & other things unlawful, and he is forced by terror to pass over, and swallow down one with another without distinction, with manifest repugnance of his conscience, which repugnance to him is always a sin, and damnable in such a public and weighty action, though the matter were lawful in itself: and consequently also unto them that forced him to the same, either knowing or suspecting his said repugnance of conscience. For he that should force a jew, or a Turk to swear that there were a blessed Trinity, either knowing or suspecting that they would do it against their conscience, should sin grievously by forcing them to commit that sin. This is Catholic Doctrine, which I also think the learned Protestants themselves will not deny.  
Unto this speech of mine M. Barlow answereth, first granting that a man should rather endure any loss, of life, or goods, then swear against his conscience: which doctrine I am glad, that in this present case the force of truth hath drawn from him. But he goeth further treating of this point of scandal, after such a fashion, out of our Schoole-Doctours, as he marreth all again. 
M. Barlowes ill fortune in dealing with Schol men.  And truly he hath so evil luck in dealing with them (not understanding as it seemeth what they mean) as I marvel that he would ever name them. For though in this place he allege only S. Thomas by the name of Aquinas in the margin without quoting where, in what part, or place of his Works it is to be found; yet doth he pervert his meaning egregiously, going forward, and backward, and taking one thing for another, that it is both pitiful, & ridiculous to consider. But I shall city his own words as they lie, and thereby shall we see how able a Schoolman he is.  
But in this point of scandal (saith he) will this great Divine vouchsafe to learn a lesson from their own Schoolman. 
Barl. p. 57  Is the exacting of this Oath a scandal active in our Magistrates? then is it passive in their Catholics. For it is no scandal given if is 〈…〉 I● their consciences be offended a● it, they are (saith Aquin●●) 〈◊〉 simply ignorant, or wickedly malicious; and the last ●●●●er, 〈…〉 well instructed or truly sanctified, can take no offence, though 〈◊〉 ●uer so openly: which he confirmeth by that place of David, G●●●● is th●●● peace that love thy law, & non est illi scandalum: he which 〈◊〉 loveth God neither doth scandalise by sinning, nor is scandalised by ●●●ning, quicquid ei fiat.  
In which discourse of M. Barlow, is to be noted first, that after his scorn uttered against me, he taketh upon him as a great School Divine, to determine this consequence: Is the exacting of the Oath scandal active in our Magistrates? The● i● it passive in their Catholics: 
Of active & passive scandal.  which I grant to be true in such Catholics, as by force of that exaction, have been induced to swear against their consciences, and so finned. It is not true in them that refuse the same, and they are those whom the Prophet commendeth in the place here mentioned, Great is their peace, who love thy law, and they are not scandalized, nor do fall into sin, by the sin or inducement of others. So as in this sense it is true, that such Catholics as take the Oath with a repugnant conscience, suffered Scandalum p●ssiuum, but not these that refused.  
But M. Barlowes reason for that there is no scandal given, if it be not taken, is most manifestly false, and the more intolerably foolish, for that he setteth it down as the reason of S. Thomas Aquinas: whereas the said Docto●● doth expressly contradict the same in sundry places, saying in one: 
●. 2. q. 43. ar. 1. ad 4.  Quandoque est scandalum actiu●m sine passive, pui●●●●●●quis inducit alium ad peccand●m, ille n●n consentit. Sometimes ●●ere may be a scandal active without a passive, 
Scandal active without passive.  to wit, when any man doth induce by word, or fact, another man to sin, and he do not consent unto him. And again in another place, Potest tamen esse scandalum actiwm sive pec●●●●●●t●rius, qui scandaliza●etur. 
Ibid. art. 2. in co●por●.  There may be notwithstanding an active scandal given, without the sin of another man that is scandalised, which is to say, that one man may s●eke to induce another man by word, or fact to sin (which is the scandal given) and yet the same not to be taken by the other, for that the said other consenteth not, but resisteth, or contemneth the said scandal given or offered. And of this there may be five hundred examples alleged. And I cannot but wonder at M. Barlowes gros●e oversight in this behalf: for when himself, for example sake, in a Sermon doth go about to persuade his hearers against the Real Presence, against the Sacramental Confession of their sins, against their Spiritual Obedience to their Supreme Pastor, and other such points, that we that be Catholics do hold to be great sins: this we say to be a scandal active, inducing men to fall into sin; so that in him the scandal is given: but many of his auditors do not take this scandal, nor are induced to sin by him, for that they believe him not, nor esteem him, but for a deceiver. So that here is a scandal active without a passive, and scandal given, but not taken.  
And the like example may be given of facts. As if a man should see M. Barlow to eat flesh and feed freely, on fasting days, and in the lent, which perhaps were not hard to find him doing, here is a scandal given, but it is not necessary that every one that seeth him do this, should fall, and follow his fact, and so take the scandal. For many will say to themselves, that M. Barlow followeth not the life of S. Antony, or S. Hilarion, & other Saints that were great fasters, 
Carnal Divinity.  but a good fellows life, that loveth a good morsel when he hath it, making no difference of days or mertes, for avoiding of superstition; for that this is pleasant Devinity & agreeing to his appetite. Some other would pass further and say with the Apostle, Animalis h●mo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei: the sensual man givens to his belly, understandeth not the things that belong to the spirit of God. But howsoever it be, here is a scandal given, & not taken, & consequently M. Barl. is much overtaken in this, to say there is no scandal given if it be not taken.  
But now followeth a far greater abuse against Thomas Aquinas in perverting his whole discourse & meaning, with intent thereby to disgrace the consciences of our English catholics, that do refuse the Oath. For it followeth immediately in M. ●arlow: If their conscience● be offended at it, they 〈◊〉, saith Aquinas, either simply ignorant, or wickedly maliceless 〈…〉 last rather. And these words of simply ignorant, or wickedly ●●●●cious, he layeth forth to the view in a different letter, 〈◊〉 markable to all, and thereby would have us think that they are so set down by Aquina● himself, adding also the reason of Aquinas, as he saith, ●or that he which is well instructed, and truly sanctified, can take no offence, though given never so openly.  

Bad dealing in M. Barlow.  But if you mark this discourse of M. Barlow, you shall find it intricate and difficult to be understood, which i● the mark he shooteth at, I mean, not to be understood, as else where I have notified: but much more would you discover & detest his fraud, if you look upon Aquinas himself, in his 43. question about scandal, divided into eight several questions or articles, all which M. Barlow hideth, as before I have noted. And albeit he founded himself wholly upon him, as in this place you see, and dot● quote him twice in the margin: yet doth he not vouchsafe to name any one part or place of Aquinas his works, where he handleth this matter. But we have found the place, and shall clear the fraud, as briefly as may be.  
When S. Thomas Aquinas, had showed in his first article the definition of Scandal, 
The definition of scandal, & what is active and passive scandal.  that, It is an evil speech and fact, giving occasion to another man, of spiritual ruin, or ●alling into s●●●: & by occasion of this definition, had declared divers other points concerning the same; as that, there is a scandal active, and passive given, and taken: given, when a ma● doth give occasion by his speech or deeds to draw another man to sin, and this either out of his own purpose and intention, which is the most malicious kind of active scandal; or for that his speech or fact being nought, is of itself inductive to sin, though not intended by the scandalizer. And that passive scandal is, when any man is induced and falleth into sin by another man's speech or act, and this either with ground or without it, as pres●tly shallbe showed. After this (I say) S. Thomas in his seventh article doth declare how that sometime, there may be a passive scandal without an active, or taken, and not given, as when one is scandalised, and falleth into sin by another man's fact or speech without a just cause, and this either of malice, by misinterpreting his words or deeds, or by ignorance, or infirmity by mistaking the same. The first is called Scandalum Pharisaeorum, 
Scandalum Pharisaeorum.  the scandal of pharisees, for that these people did maliciously so misinterpret the words and facts of our Saviour to an evil sen●e, & thereby fell into sin themselves: the other is called Scandalum Pusillorum, 
Scandalum Pusillo●ū.  the scandal of weaklings, for that they are scandalised, and fall into sin by infirmity or mistaking.  
Now then, saith S. Thomas, for so much as we may not scandalise our brethren, or give them any just occasion by our words or actions, to fall into sin, under so grievous and horrible threatenings, as our Saviour threateneth in the Gospel, what shall we do when we see any man scandalised without a just cause? Whereunto he answereth, that if it be the scandal of pharisees, that is to say, wilful, and out of malice, we must let them alone according to our saviours doctrine Matth. 15. and go forward in our doings, as himself did. 
S. Thomas expounded.  But if the scandal which they take do ari●e by reason of infirmity or ignorance, then ought we to instruct them, and give them reason of our doings, and sometimes also defer our actions until the occasion of scandal be taken aways Si autem post redditam rationem hui●sm●di scand●lum d●ret, iam vid●tur ex ●●alitia ●sse●: But if, after we have yielded the reason of our doings, the said party remaineth scandalised still● now it seemeth that his scandal is not of infirmity, but of malice. This is the doctrine of S. Thomas, which M. Barlow applieth to the Consciences of our English Catholics, that refuse the Oath, which is hard to say, whether he doth it either of ignorance, or of malice, or of both. But sure I am he abuseth egregiously the meaning of S. Thomas, who writeth this of those only that take scandal, and occasion of fall where none is givens & this either out of malice or infirmity, by misconstring, or by misunderstanding, as you have heard.  
But in our case there is the urging of the Oath both by speech & penalty, which Oath being contrary to th●●r consciences as they are Catholics, and yet swearing the same, they fall and run into the ruin of their souls by that means, and this neither out of malice, nor ignorance, but rather out of a certain weakness culpable, that is sinful both to themselves and to the urgers thereof. So as what S. Thomas speaketh of one sort of men, M. Barl●● slily applieth it to the other. Neither doth S. Thom●● use these bitter speeches, of simply ignorant, or wickedly malicious, as before I have noted: 
S. Thom. abused.  much less the third clause (and the la●● rather.) But least of all doth he add that reason, which here is touched, to wit, For that he who is instructed, or truly sanctified, can take no offence though given never so openly. For S. Thomas doth not use the words instructed, or sanctified, but only maketh the title of his fifth article thus: Vtrum scand●●●● passiwm possit etiam in perfectos cadere? Whether a scandal passive may fall even upon such men as are perfect? which ●e proveth that it cannot, for that a passive scandal importing an offence taken by other men's words or works, whereby the scandalized upon perturbation depart from God, and fall into sin; perfect men are so firmly united unto God, & to his holy will in all things, as no evil words or works of men can wrest them aside from the same, according to the words of the Psalm before recited, to wit, Such as do 〈◊〉 thy law, have much peace, and suffer no scandal: and consequently perfect men cannot take passive scandal (and much less commit active) without departing from their perfection. And such men may be accounted in our case, those Catholics that would not be scandalised, nor fall into sin and ruin of their souls by the unlawful Oath offered unto them, but chose rather to incur the penalty of the law. The other, as more imperfect, took the scandal that was given them, and either must be presumed to have sworn against their consciences, if they were Catholics, or to have followed an erroneous conscience in this matter, if they took the Oath as it lieth, as may appear by the declaration of the Sea Apostolic.  
Well then to conclude, let us repeat briefly M. Barl. contexture, and see his defects. Is the exacting of the Oath (saith he) a scandal active in our Magistrates? then is it passive in their Catholics. Which inference I have allowed in some Catholics of the weaker sort, that took the Oath, but not in all (for it is no scandal given (saith he) if it be not taken.) This I have showed to be very false. It followeth. If their consciences be offended at it, they are, saith Aquinas, either simply ignorant, or wickedly malicious. This I have showed for the later part not to be in Aquinas, and for the former, evil applied, and falsely alleged: evil applied, for those words which in Aquinas his sense appertain to weak Catholics that took the Oath, this man ascribeth to the more constant that refused the same. Misalleaged also it is, 
The errors of M. Barlow about the matter of scandal.  for that Aquinas saith not, 〈◊〉 their consciences be offended at it, for that it is another thing for consciences to be offended at a thing, and mislike the same, then to be scandalised & fall thereby into sin: for the former may be in perfect men; yea the more perfect they be, the more are they offended and grieved with evil things, that may scandalise, but the later cannot, as now out of S. Thomas hath been declared. And again a man may be scandalised and fall into sin by another man's word, or act that offendeth him not, but rather pleaseth him: as when a young man by some lascivious speech, or fact of his companion, should fall into fornication himself, he is scandalised thereby but not offended.  
So as M. Barlow seemeth to speak exactly in nothing: for neither doth he translate well the word perfect, used by S. Thomas, o● perfect men, which are not subject to scandal, by the words, well instructed and truly sanctified, for that a man may be well instructed, and yet not perfect in mastering his passions, according to the saying of the Poet— Video meliorae proboque, deteriora sequor: instruction may teach him what he should do, & yet not always make him perfect in doing. How many well instructed Protestants, yea Ministers have you in England, who if they should receive a scandal active from one of their ●ellowes by a box on the care, would be so scandalised, as they wo●ld return him a passive for requital? And yet is not this for lack of instruction, but of patience rather, which perfect men h●●●; and you M. Barlow had not, 
M. Barlows want of patience.  when you gave the poor fellow, that came to be confirmed, so heavy a blow under the care in Lincoln Church, with which, as I have been credibly informed, you felled him to the ground, for no other matter, then because he smiled upon you. A rare example of Bishoply patience, such as I think was never seen in that Church before.  
Neither is every man truly sanctified, to be reputed for perfect, on whom scandal may not fall, for that a jew, or a Gentile newly baptised are truly sanctified, and yet if you should exact works of perfection at their hands, as patience in adversities, mortification of their passions & appetites, contempt of the world, stability, and immobility in God's love and service, perhaps you should not find the same. Wherefore by perfect men that cannot be scandalised, is signified a far different thing in S. Thomas, then well instructed or truly sanctified. And it is very fond that M. Barlow yet addeth again, that these well instructed and truly sanctified men, can take no offence though given never so openly, for that no so●t of men are more offended, grieved, and vexed with the open offence of Almighty God, t●●n these that are well instructed, and truly sanctified, for that their zeal is greater than of any other, as we see in our Saviour, who beholding the offence given to his Father, by the abuse of his House, was so offended thereat, as that he made a whip to drive them out: unto to which the Apostle applied those words of the Prophet: The zeal of thy House hath eaten & consumed me. To which effect also K. David said in great fervour: Tabescere me se●it zelus me●: quia obliti sunt verba tua inimici mei. My zeal hath made me wither away, and consume: for that my enemies were forgetful of thy words. And many such other testimonies might be alleged, to show that M. Barlow understandeth not well what he writeth, 
M. Barlow understandeth not the tear●es o● school Divinity.  nor conceiveth rightly the Authors meaning whom he allegeth, especially if he be a Schooledoctour, as S. Thomas here alleged is, wherein, as before hath been noted, he seemeth not to understand the very ordinary terms of School- Divinity, and much less the true substance of things handled by him.  
I do pretermitt, as very fond and impertinent, the next passage that ensueth (and is the last in this matter) in M. Barlow his book, where he maketh this demand: But what if there be none, or few that make such conscience, or take such offence at the admission of the Oath, as he speaketh of? To this question I say, it is in vain to answer, for if there be so few, or no Catholics, that make conscience, or scruple to take the Oath, the contention will be soon at an end. But presently he contradicteth himself again, taking another medium, and saying, that there would be none, if they were not threatened by us, to have their houses overturned, as some Donatists, saith he, confessed of themselves, by the witness of S. Augustine, 
Epist. 50.  that they would have been Catholics if they had not been put in fear, ne domus corum eu●rt●r●ntur (by the Circumcellians perhaps) which M. Barlow saith, may spiritually be applied to our threatening, that such as take the Oath, shall be accounted Apostates, and to have renounced their first faith, and to be no members of the Catholic Church: and finally that we shall remain branded in everlasting record with Balaams' infamy, that taught Balaac, to lay a scandal (or occasion of fall) to the people of Israel.  
To all which I answer, first, that he that layeth forth the truth of Catholic doctrine unto Catholic men, 
Who lay the scandal of Balaam, Catholics or Protestants?  may not justly be said to threaten, or terrify, but to deal sincerely and charitably with them, laying truth before their eyes, what their obligation is to God, before man, and how they are bound as members of his true Catholic Church, to hold and defend the unity and integrity of ●ayth, and doctrine delivered by the same, though it be with never so much temporal danger. And as for laying a scandal, whereby they may fall into the ruin of their souls, it is easy to judge, whether we do it rather, that teach them to deal sincerely with God and their Prince, whereby they shall preserve their peace, and alacrity of conscience; or you that endeavour to induce th●●●● swear, and do against the same, whereby they shall be sure to lose both their peace in this life, and their everlasting inheritance in the next.    

THE ANSWER TO AN OBJECTION. BY OCCASION WHEREOF IT IS showed, THAT POSSESSION and Prescription are good proofs ever in matters of Doctrine. AND The contrary is fond affirmed by M. Barlow. CHAP. V.  
THERE remaineth now for the final end of this first Part, to examine an objection that might be made by the adversary, which I thought good by anticipation to satisfy in the very last number of the first par● of my Letter. And it was, that whereas we complain of so great pressures laid upon us for our conscience, especially by this enforced Oath, some man may say● that the li●● course is held in the Catholic States against them● whom we esteem as heretics. I shall repeat my own words, and then see what M. Barlow answereth to the same.  

Letter pag. 22.  Here if a man should object, quoth I, that among us also, men are urged to take Oaths, and to abjure ●heir opinions in the Tribunals of Inquisitions, and the like, and consequently in this Oath they may be forced under punishment to abjure the Pope's temporal authority in dealing with Kings: I answer first, that if any heretic, or other should be forced to ●biure his opinions, with repugnance of conscience, it should be a sin to the enforcers, if they knew it, or suspected it: neither is it practised or● permitted in any Catholic Court, that eue● I knew. But you will reply, that if he do it not, he shallbe punished by d●ath, or otherwise, as the crime requireth, and Canons appoint, and consequently the like may be used towards Catholics, that will not renounce their old opinions of the Pope's authority. But here is a great difference, for that the Catholic Church hath ius acquisitum, ancient right over heretics, as her true subjects, ●or that by their baptism, they were made her subjects, and left her afterwards● and went out of her; and she useth but her ancient manner of proceeding against them, as against all other of their kind and quality from the beginning. But the Protestant Church of England hath nullum iu● acquisitum upon Catholics, that were in possession before them, for many hundred years, as is evident: neither was there ever any such Oath exacted at their hands, by any of their. Kings in former Catholic times● neither is t●e●e by any Catholic foreign Monarch, now living upon 〈◊〉 and consequently, by no ●e●son or right at all, can English Catholic men, be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience, or be punished, be●●●●, or destroyed, if for their conscience they refuse to take t●e same: humbly offering notwithstanding to their Sovereign, to give him all other dutiful satisfaction, for their temporal obedience and allegiance, which of loyal Catholic subjects may be exacted. And this shall suffice for this first point, concerning the contents and nature of this Oath.  
This was my speech and conclusion then. And now shall we take a view how it is confuted by M. Barlow. First be amplifyeth & exaggerateth with great vehemency the torments and tortures of our Inquisitions, which are used, as he saith, 
M. Barlow speaketh mor● than he can prove.  with the most extreme violence, that flesh can endure, or malice invent: wherein he saith more I think, than he knoweth, and more perhaps than he believeth, and at leastwise much more than is true in my knowledge. For of twenty that are imprisoned there, not one lightly is touched with torture: and when any is in the case, by law appointed, it is known to be more mildly, then commonly in any other tribunal. But let us leave this as of least moment, and depending only upon his asseveration, and my denial, and let us pass to that which is of more importance, for justifying the cause itself, to wit, by what right of power and authority, the Roman Church proceedeth against heretics, and how different it is from that whereby Protestants pretend to be able justly to proceed against us for matters of Religion.  
First of all he saith, that I do take as granted, that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, which we deny saith he, and the chiefest learned of their side could as yet never convict our denials. Whereto I answer that if themselves may be judges, that are most interessed in the controversy, I do not marvel, though they never yield themselves for convicted. But if any indifferent judgement or trial might be admitted, I do not doubt, but that their eviction and conviction, would quickly appear: and many learned men of our days have made most clear demonstrations thereof, by deducing the Roman Church, doctrine, and faith, from the Apostles days, unto our times successively, 
The succession of the Church of Rome.  as namely Doctor Sanders his Book of Ecclesiastical Monarchy, Cardinal Baronius in the continuation of his Annals, G●nebrar● in his Chronology, Cardinal Bellarmine in his controversies: two special Books also in English, not long ago especially published about that matter, the Three 〈◊〉 of England, and the Answer to Sir Edward Cooks Reports, where it is showed, that from age to age, after the Apostles, the self same Church of theirs was continued throughout the world, with acknowledgement of the pre-eminence, and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the same Church; which course of proof was held also with the Ancient Fathers, S. Augustine, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others, that brought down the descent of the true Catholic Church, by the succession of the Roman Bishops, as Heads of the same.  

Barl. pag. 59 & 60.  M● Barlow demandeth of me, in what sense I take the word Catholic, when I suppose the Roman Church to be the Catholic Church? For if I take it (saith he) for Universal, then Rome being but a particular City, and the true jurisdiction thereof, confined within a limited Diocese, or Province, the Roman Church cannot be the Catholic or Universal Church, 
M. Barlows arguments against the Church of Rome.  for that it is but a particular Province. But if (saith he) I take Catholic, for the profession of the true faith, as S. Cyprian doth, calling that Church of Africa, the Catholic Church, then cannot the Romish Church neither in this sense be the Catholic Church: for that which the Prophet Esay said of the jews Church, Her gold is mixed with dross, and she whose faith was plighted in Christ, is become an adulteress, may be said also of the Roman Church of this day, and so cannot be the Catholic Church etc. Which are two such mighty arguments, as well declare the poor man's misery in the defence of his cause.  
For to the first I would ask M. Barlow whether one man may not have two jurisdictions, or rather one jurisdiction extended differently to two things, one more particular, the other more general. As for example, the Mayor of London hath his particular government first and immediately over his own house, family, and peculiar lands, and yet besides that, he hath jurisdiction also over all the City. And to make the case more clear, let us suppose that he hath both the one & the other from the kings shall it be a good argument to say, that he is Governor of his own particular lands, house, and family, which is known to be confined and limited to such a part of the City, therefore he usurpeth by styling himself lord Governor of the whole City? And the like demand may be made of the King's authority first and immediately over his Crown lands, which is peculiar unto him, and limited with confines, but yet it impeacheth not his general authority over the whole Realm: 
The Pope both particular Bishop of Rome, and yet chief Pastor of the whole Church.  Even so the Bishop of Rome hath two relations or references, the one as a several Bishop, over that people, and so had S. Peter who was Bishop of the same place, even as S. james had of jerusalem, S. john of Ephesus, and the like: and besides this, he hath an universal Superintendency and jurisdiction given him over all, as Head of the rest. So as Catholics do not deny but that the Church of Rome, as it maketh a particular Province or Diocese, is a member only of the Catholic Church, not the whole, though a principal & chief member, by the reason of the eminency of her Pastor, & that the said Pastor thereof is but a member also of the Catholic Church, but yet the chiefest member, whereunto all the rest are subordinate, that is to say the head & guide thereof. So as this is poor argument as you see.  
But the second is more pitiful, if you consider it well: for if we take Catholic, saith he, for the profession of the true faith, as S. Cyprian did, when he called the Church of Africa the Catholic Church; then cannot the Romish Church be the Catholic Church. And why? for that her gold is mixed with dross, as the Prophet Isay said of the jewish Church in his tyme. 
M. Barlowes bad argument which is false both in antecedent and consequent.  But here are two propositions, an antecedent, and consequent and both of them false. The antecedent is, that as the Church of the jews, in the Prophet Isay his days, being in her corrupt state, was not the true teaching Church, in respect of the naughty life used therein: so neither the Church of Rome in our days being full of the same sins & bad life, can be the true Catholic Church: this antecedent, I say, is most evidently false, and impertinent, for that Isay the Prophet in the place cited, doth not reprehend the Religion of the jews, but their life and ●●●ners; nor doth he so much as name their Church or synagogue, or tax their false teaching. For albeit the wicked King Manasses that afterward slew him, did perforce set up false Gods among the jews: yet did not only he, and other Prophets then living, to wit Oseas, Amos, Micheas, I●●●, joel, Nahum, Habacuc, with the whole Church and synagogue not admit the same, but resisted also what they might, which is a sign that their faith was pure and good. Wherefore Isay in this place alleged, nameth not their Church or Religion, as hath been said, but expressly nameth the City of Jerusalem, & wicked livers therein, saying: Q●●modo facta es meretrix, Civitas fidelis, plena iudicy? I●st●ia habitavit in ea, nunc autem homicidae. Argentum tuum versum 〈◊〉 in scoriam, vinum tuum mixtum aqua. How art thou made an harlot, thou faithful City, that wert once full of judgement, and justice dwelled therein, but now murderers? Thy silver is turned into dross, & thy wine is mixed with water.  
Doth here the Prophet speak of facts, think you, or else of faith? Of wicked life, or of false doctrine? and if it be evident, that he speaketh of manners, as he doth indeed, then how false is the dealing of M. Barlow, in bringing it i● for proof of false teaching, and to convince, that as the Church of the jews could not be the true Catholic Church of that time, in respect of the corrupt manners used in her: so cannot the Church of Rome at this day, for the self same cause be the true Church?  
But I would demand of M. Barlow, what other known Church had God in those days wherein a man might find true doctrine, besides that of the jews, which, he sayeth, was not the true Church? Will he say perhaps of the Gentills? But they lived all in Idolatry. And if a Gentle would in those days have left his Idolatry in the time of Isay the Prophet, and have desired to have been mad● one of the people of God by true instruction, whither could he have gone for the same, but only to the jewish Church? And whither would Isay have sent him, but to the Governors thereof? Both false and impious then, is this antecedent about the jews Church, but much more the consequent that would draw in the Roman Christian Church by this example, 
Evil life doth not prejudice truth of doctrine.  which hath no similitude or connection at all. For neither can he prove that it hath such corruption in it, either in life, or doctrine, as he pretendeth: nor if it had in life, doth it prejudice the truth of Doctrine, as by the testimony of our saviours own words we remain assured.  
These two objections then, that the Roman Church for that she hath a determinate Province, as also for that she hath sundry evil livers in her, are showed to be of no force at all. Not the later, for that evil manners may stand with true doctrine: not the first, for that we do not say the Roman Church is the whole Catholic Church but a chief member thereof, as hath been said: whereby also will appear what we mean by the name of the Catholic Church, to wit, that visible universal Church, which being erected and founded by Christ our Saviour, when he was upon earth, hath continued ever since and descended visibly from age to age, by succession of Bishops throughout all Christendom unto our times, and shall so continue unto the worlds end: by which description may appear also how vain another objection is of M. Barlow, in these words: If Vincentius rule be true, that that only is to be accounted Catholic Doctrine, 
Barl. p. 60.  quod semper, ubique, & ab omnibus creditum est, neither shall Rome be proved Catholic, nor England heretic: when any of these is sound determined, then let him plead her Ius acquisitum.  
Whereto I answer, that the rule of Vincentius is verified, by that which I have said before, of the nature of the Catholic Church, to wit, that it began under Christ, and hath descended from age to age, and so she teacheth, quod semper creditum est. And for that she hath embraced all nations, she teacheth quod ubique, in respect of place: and for that she hath union of Doctrine, she teacheth quod ab omnibus creditum est. For albeit there h●●● not wanted heretics from time to time, that have de●ised particular doctrines, and erected particular congregations: yet were they nothing in respect of the universal consent of those of the Catholic Church, whose I●● acquisitum, or ancient right and power, upon all Heretics for their correction and punishment, I said, was manifest, for that by baptism they were made her subjects. Unto which point M. Barlow would seem now to say somewhat, 
M. Barlowes Ministerial phrases of indument and stripping.  though never so impertinent: therefore he telleth us a tale of an indument, and a stripping to be considered in Baptism, under the words, Credo, and Abre●●●●i●, and that neither the spiritual mystery, nor the prescribed form, nor intended effect of Baptism do make him and his liable to Rome.  
Whereunto I answer, that the whole action in that Sacrament without so many divisions and subdivisions, as here he maketh to obscure the matter, doth make him and all other Christians liable to the Catholic Church. For that every man that is baptised, as he is made a member and servant of Christ thereby, 
By Baptism we are made members of the Church.  and entereth into his Church, as by the first door; so is he made a subject to the said Church, and is liable to her correction, if he should renounce, change, or pervert that faith, which there he professeth as a child of the said Church. And all this I think M. Barlow will not deny: but only his question may be of such as are baptised out of the Catholic Church, by some Heretical Congregation; yet notwithstanding the matter is clear, for that such baptism holding only so far forth as they have intention to do that in their baptism, which the true Catholic Church doth, and use the form of words which the said Church prescribeth, to wit, I baptise thee in the name of the Father's 〈◊〉 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, for that otherwise if either of these conditions, to wit, either the form, or the intention of the Catholic Church do fail, the baptism is not available: it is evident, I say, that such as are so baptised out of the Church, are liable notwithstanding to the same, for any offence that they shall commit against the faith of the said Catholic Church; for so much as their baptism had relation to this Church, as is now declared.  
And albeit they be departed from the same, either by their own wilfulness, or other men● inducements: yet remaineth still that obligation of subjection. Which superiority o● the Catholic Church practised from time to time upon Heretics, 
Protestant's gone out of the Catholic Church, not Catholics out of them.  and Schismatics, that have gone forth from her (which the Adversary will also grant for sundry ages after Christ) cannot be pretended by the Protestant Church upon catholics: for that we went not out of them, but they out of us, which in England is most perspicuous. For that since our first Conversion by S. Augustine the Monk to Christian Religion, it cannot be said with any show of probability, that ever there was a Protestant Church extant● and visible, or publicly received in our Country, as the Roman hath been: and consequently we English Catholics cannot be said to have gone out of them, but they out of us: and so by their baptism and admission to Christianity, they are liable to the Roman Catholic Church, in matters of Religion; & not the Roman Church to them.  
But now besides this reason of obligation by baptism, I do allege another of former possession and prescription, whereby the English Catholic Church hath had, & exercised this power of punishing Sectaries from time to time: whereunto M. Barlow answereth in a strange manner. Possession, 
Barl. p. 62●  saith he, for hold, and Prescription for time, may be Pleas in civil Courts; but not sound arguments in case of Religion. Which is so absurd an answer, as nothing could more show & declare, that he had nothing to say, than this. For if we suppose that to be true which Christ our Saviour affirmeth in the Gospel that the good corn was first soon, 
Matt●. 13●  & that the Darnell was over sprinkled afterwards, and that truth of Christian religion was first planted by our Saviour, & heresies afterward sprung up, then are the Antiquity of possession, and the Plea of Prescription very excellent good arguments to convince all Heretics: for that the former must need● be true, 
Antiquity & prescription good arguments in case of Religion.  and the later must needs be false. For which cause old Tertullian writing in the second age after Christ against heretics, thought good to entitle his book, de Praescripti●●●bu●, of Prescriptions, showing thereby, that heretics are by no way so evidently convinced, as by Prescription & Priority of time. And first of all he giveth this general rule by allusion to our saviours words before repeated, of good corn and darnel: Ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse Dominicum & rerum, quod est prius traditum: id autem extraneum & balsam, quod est posteri●s immiss●m. 
Matth. 13.  By the order itself of sowing the corn & darnell● it is made manifest, that to be true and pertaining to our Lord which was first delivered, and that to be false and foreign, which is thrust in afterward.  
And then passing to examine particular heresies, and beginning with them that pretended to be of greatest antiquity, yea from the Apostles times themselves, he giveth also a Prescription how to try them. If any heresies (saith he) dare presume to thrust themselves into the Apostles age, edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evoluant ordines Episcoporum, let them publish the beginnings of their Churches, and let them lay forth the order & succession of their Bishops. And with this he thought their mouths stopped. And yet in another place he canua●eth than again with the same Prescription, saying: Qui estis vos? unde, & quando venistis? ubi tam diu latuistis? What are you? whence, and when came you? and where have you lurked so long? signifying hereby that the Priority of time was a great argument against them.  
And furthermore he disputing against Martion the Heretic, hath these words: 
Tertul. adverse. Marc. lib. 4.  Ego dico meum evangelium verum, Martion suum etc. I say that my Gospel is true, and Marcio● faith his: I do affirm Martion to have falsified, and Martion saith I have done it: who shall determine the matter between us, but the difference of time, that will give Authority to that which shallbe found to be most ancient, and pronounce that to be corrupted which shallbe proved to be the later? So as here supposing that which before we have touched, that Catholic doctrine was planted first, before any heresy sprang up, by the Prescription of time, 
The Fathers do urge prescription.  is not only a sound argument in case of religion (which fond M. Barlow denieth) but a convincent demonstration also of truth; and to that effect used commonly by all Fathers, that wrote against Heretics after Tertullian. Tardè mihi (saith ancient Hilarius against the Arians) hos pijssimos Doctores ●ta● nunc huiu● saeculi protulit, s●r● h●s habui● fides mea magistros. 
Hilar. lib. 6. De Trinitate, ante medium.  Too late hath this present age brought ●orth these pious Doctors (he speaketh in scorn) too late are they come to be masters of my faith. And S. Hierome writing against the Luciferian Heretics, useth the same argument: Ex h●c ipso (saith he) qu●d posteriùs instituti sunt, ●os ess● indica●t ●●os ●uturos Apostolus annunci●●i●. Even by this it ●el●e, that Luci●erans have risen up later, they show themselves to be those deceiving Heretics, of whom the Apostle doth forewarn us, and bid us take heed of. And the same S. Hierom talking to an Heretic, saith: 
Hier. Epis●● ad Pa●nachium.  Cur post quadringentos annos d●cere ●os ●iteris, quod ante nescivimus? usque ad hunc diem ●ine vestra doctrina Christianus mundus fuit. Wherefore after four hundred years, dost thou go about to teach us that which before we knew not? Even until this day the Christian world hath endured without this your doctrine. And to this effect I might allege the saying of many other Fathers, who use this argument of Prescription of time as a principal demonstration against Heretics and Heresies.  
But let us hear the reasons alleged by M. Barlow, 
Pag. ●2.  why Possession for hold (for so are his words) and Prescription for time may be Pleas in civil Courts, but no sound arguments in case of Religion. For the first, saith he, may be claim by intrusion, which is their case that plead for Rome, & the other may be antiquity of error, for so is prescription without verity: therefore when truth appears, let custom yield to truth, was the conclusion of a Council. 
Concil. Ca●thag. apu● Cyprianun.  So he. And citeth in the margin Concil. Carthag. apud Cyprian. But he that shall read that Council of Carthage in S. Cyprian, shall find first that these words are not a conclusion of a Council, but the saying of one Bishop in that Council, to wit Zozimus of Tarassa: 
Bad dealing of M. Barlow.  and secondly M. Barlow well knoweth, or should know, that, that Council or Synod was rejected after by a● the catholic Christian world, for tha● it was gathered in favour of rebaptisation of heretics that were baptised in heresy, as may appear largely in S. A●gustine in his book against the Donatists, where he setteth down the sentences of divers of that Council, and among other one of Zozimus, which he saith was this: so it appeareth also in S. Cyprian: Revelatione facta veritatis, 〈◊〉 error veritati, when the truth is revealed, let error yield to truth. Upon which words S. Augustine maketh this note, Noluit quide● iste dicere consuetudinem, sed errorem. This Bishop would not say that custom s●ould yield, but error. And yet M. Barlow against the testimony of them both would needs relate it otherwise, let custom yield to truth, and say it was the Conclusion of a Council, which was neither of the Council, nor any in the Council; for that sometimes custom containeth truth itself, and giveth testimony to truth, and we know it to be truth by tradition of custom: so as the ancient Fathers went warily herein, & not so rashly against all kind of custom, as M. Barlow & his fellows and followers do.  
But perhaps he will allege out of M. Morton & other his fellow-writers, the saying of S. Cyprian himself in his Epistle ad Pompeium: Consuetudo sine veritate, vetustas erroris est, Custom without truth, is antiquity of error: which all men will grant, but maketh nothing to our case. For we suppose true religion to have been planted first by Christ & afterward heresy to have risen: which supposal being true, the argument of the Fathers before mentioned is most effectual. We were before you in Christian religion and you rose up after us, 
How possession with prescription are evincing arguments in m●tters of faith.  professing a different faith from us: Ergo, our religion is Catholic, and yours Heresy. For that this is to be accounted Catholic doctrine, as M. Barlow before allegeth himself out of Vincentius, quod semper creditum est, that always hath been believed since the beginning of Christianity; and so that which is most ancient is truest. And where M. Barlow saith, that possession may be a claim by intrusion, it may be indeed in temporal possession, but not in this our case, especially when it is joined with Prescription from antiquity. For supposing that the true Catholic religion was first put in possession by our Saviour, and his Apostles, as hath been said, and that it can be proved that this possession hath been continued by Prescription, time out of mind, even from the beginning, as we offer to prove: & that on the contrary side no known interruption can be showed of this possession, either by intrusion or other wise, as M. Barlow cannot prove that there hath been, nor doth he go about to prove it, though he blush not to say it; Possession in this case together with Prescription doth evince the verity of our cause.  
And for the saying of S. Cyprian, That custom without verity is the antiquity of error, though in itself it be true, yet doth S. Augustine tell us, that it was ill applied by S. Cyprian, against the custom of the Church in his days, for not rebaptizing Heretics, when himself was in that error, that they ought to be rebaptized, & the Catholics urged the force of custom, and antiquity against him. But yet otherwise when he was out of that necessity of defending an error, himself saith, he did not only allow of custom, but also did often urge the custom, and tradition of the Church for very good arguments, and proveth many Catholic doctrines thereby, as the necessity of Chrism or Unction, lib. 1. Epist. 12. the offering of wine together with water in the Sacrifice, lib. 2. Epist. 3. saying that it is Dominica ●r●di●io, a tradition of our Lord, and other like points of Christian religion, which he proveth by the like force of Tradition, Antiquity, and Prescription, 
Sober Rec. cap. 3. §. 101. etc.  whereof I have treated more largely in my Book against M. Morton, showing the same more abundantly out of S. Augustine: and that both S. Augustine and S. Cyprian are in this point and many others abused by him.  
And so now to return to our argument of Possession and Prescription, and to end also with the same this first Part of our Answer, I say, that Possession and Prescription 〈…〉 hath been declared, the cause of M. Barlow is utterly o●erthrowne, for that he willbe never able to prove, either Intrusion in our Possession, or Error in our Antiquity; which for a final upshot to the Reader in this behalf, I shall demonstrate by this ensuing reason. If ever the Protestant's Church or Religion were received publicly in Christendom, from Christ's time downward unto ours, that is to say, in any one or more ages, and was that first visible Church that was founded by Christ, into which M. Barlow saith, that we entered afterward by intrusion and fi●●●orce, and so possessed Christendom, in such sort as for many ages the said Protestant Church appeared not publicly, until these our days, I would demand of M. Barlow, 
M. Barlow hardly urged.  Whether this his Church so put to flight from the eyes of Christendom, did perish, or lay hidden only. For if it perished, than the true Church of Christ perished, and the promises made by him, were not performed, 
Matth. ult.  That he wo●ld be with the same unto the end of the world: That the gates of hell should not prevail against it: 
Matth. 16.  for that in this case, the said hell should have prevailed. Moreover I would demand, if she once perished how could she be raised to life again? In which case S. Augustine writing against the Donatists, saith thus: Si peri●t Ecclesia, unde ergo Donatus apparuit? Dic de qua terra germinavit? De quo mari emersit? De quo caelo cecidit? If the true Church did perish, from whence is Donatus come unto us? Out of what ground is he sprung? Out of what sea hath he peeped? From what heaven is he fallen? which S. Augustin● saith, for that if the true Church were perished before Donatus was borne, in what Church was he borne, and how came he into the true Church, that now he braggeth of? and how did that Church rise from death to life again!  
But if M. Barlow will say, that the Protestant Church which flourished in, and after the Apostles times, did not perish, but fled only into the wilderness, and lay hidden, being spread visibly before over all the whole world (for so he must say, if she were the Catholic Church:) then would I demand him, whether this Church being thus in exile, and covert, but yet living, did make profession of her faith or not, and if she made profession thereof, as she was bound, for that as S. Paul saith to the Romans, o'er 〈…〉 a● salutem; Confession of our faith is necessary to our salvation: then by this confession she must needs make herself known, as Martyrs, and Confessors did in time of persecution, and then she cannot be said to have lain hidden, and covert from the sight of the world, no more than the Christian Church lay hidden in the time of persecution, in Rome, and other places, when men and women lay in caves under ground, but yet the confession of their faith appeared unto the whole world: and no more than the Catholic religion may be said to lie hidden now at this day in England, when all Christendom can be witness of their Confession of the Catholic faith: which point I think M. Barlow doth not take upon him to prove of the Protestants Confession in ancient ages.  
If then he will say, that the said Church lay altogether hidden indeed, without any public confession of their faith: then must he confess that the state and condition of this Church which was the only true Church which Christ had upon earth, & of whose exceeding glory the Prophets did foretell so many wonderful things, was more miserable than any least Sect of heretics that ever was; ye● then the Church of the jews themselves in any of their Captivities; for that still they confessed their religion, and every Sect did the like in their times, and had some meeting or Congregation & exercises of their Religion, registered by some Authors, which the Protestant Church of this our age cannot prove to have had visibly in the world, and dstinct from other people in any age before ours. And this demonstration is sufficient to convince the vanity of M. Barlow his assertion, that Possession and Prescription for time, are no good arguments in case of Religion.  
The last point which he toucheth, as he passeth it over very sleigtly, so shall I as briefly answer the same. I said in my Letter that among other considerations, this was one very considerable, that there was never any such Oath as this is, exacted at the hands of Catholic subjects, either by any of their own Kings, or Princes at home in former Catholic times: ●or yet by any ●orraine King, or Monarch now living upon earth. 
No such Oath ever exa●ted by o●her Princes.  Whereunto I may also add, if I be not deceived, all Protestant Princes in other Countries, of whom I never heard or read, tha● they odered such Oaths to their subjects that were of different opinion in religion: all which M. Barlow in effect confessing, or not contradicting, saith: 
Barl. pag. 62.  If other Prince's 〈◊〉 not the like, we judge them not: perhaps it is in some of them an infused persuasion, that it is not lawful: in others peradventure it is a violent restraint, yea gladly they would, but cannot be suffered. Where you see that all his answers goeth by i●s and and's, perhaps and peradventures, and yet is the matter of moment, and sequel, if it be well pondered, to take a course of extraordinary rigour, different from all other Christian Princes beside.  
It is not the Parasitical flattery of a few Ministers at home, respecting their own trenchers, will work the State so much honour & security, as the general mislikes and murmurations abroad, may work the contrary in time. He saith, that his Majesty wanted not a motive to take this course, for that the Pope was not so insolently busy with any nation, as of late with his Majesty, and his Kingdom. He addeth further, that if it had not been for him, our gracious King might have enjoyed a peace more continual and happy, then Solomon or Augustus.  
But I would ask him out of passion, if ever he be void thereof, as by report he is very seldom, what insolency hath this Pope showed in being busy, as he calleth it, with his majesties Person, State, or Realm? For as for his Person he hath always honoured the same, both before he was Pope and after, whereof many evident testimonies might be alleged: and for his State and Kingdom, while he was in Scotland, neither he, nor his Predecessors did go about to trouble the same, in almost forty years, while he reigned there: all troubles came from Protestants and their Ministers. And when his Majesty was called into England, the Pope that then was, by this man's counsel principally, as it may be presumed, for that he was Protector of Scotland, wrote to the Catholics to further their Obedience towards him. He never meddled in any thing, until this Oath so prejudicial unto his Authority, and unto the Consciences of Catholics was proposed and urged.  
And as for the peace here named, more continual & happy then that of Solomon or Augustus, which M. Barlow saith might be enjoyed by his Majesty, with his Subjects, if the Pope were not: it is well, that he will so much as name peace, who seemeth in all his speeches, to sow the seeds of wars, hatred, and contention. But if his mind were to peace indeed, he cannot be so simple, but to see, that the rigorous and afflictive courses used, and this, as all men take it, by the instigation of those of his coat and order, cannot be means to peace of minds, howsoever otherwise they live in external quietness and devoid of tumults. And this is all, that for the present I have to write in this matter.   
The end of the first Part.   

THE SECOND PART, About the Breves of Paulus Quintus.  

CONCERNING M. BARLOWE His exorbitant flattery in exaggerating Queen Elizabeth's Virtues, and Sanctity. CHAP. I.  
OUR purpose then, being as now we have declared, to touch some principal points only, handled by M. Barlow in this second and third Part of his answer, 
About Q. Elizabeth's reign, life, & death,  we shall begin with the point he most standeth upon, dilating himself for twenty leaves together concerning Queen Elizabeth her reign, life, and death, as an argument very plausible in his opinion, and capable not only of his railing eloquence, and odious amplifications, but of all gross and abject flattery in like manner; together with some hopes of other gains also that way, whereunto it seemeth that the poor man hath his tongue and pen most ready to the sale at all turns and occasions offered. But it may be before we end this conference, his market may be more then half marred in the judgement, at least of disappassionate men, & especially with his most Excellent Majesty, whom above all other he seeketh to gull in this matter, turning all upon him, which I both spoke and meant to a Minister of M. Barlowes own rank: & so I disclaim from the calumnious imputation, that it concerneth any way his Highness, and shall answer all in the same sense which I then wrote, and meant the same; reserving all dutiful and respective reference to his majesties Person and judgement, as bounden duty obligeth me.  
First then occasion being offered, or rather necessity imposed to speak of Queen Elizabeth: for that albeit the Pope had not so much as named her in any of his two Breves, yet had the Apologer brought in her mention with many high praises, for disgrasing of Catholics, and their cause, and for scorn to the Pope, as though he had without cause pitied and mourned their afflictions under her, which he saith was none at all, for that to his own knowledge she never punished any Papist for Religion. For these causes, I say, I was forced in my Letter, to say somewhat to this assertive proposition, whereunto the tribulations, afflictions, calamities, spoils, exiles, and blood of so many shed by her, did manifestly in the eyes and ears of all men and women that have lived in our days, contradict and reclaim. And yet did I resolve to do the same as mildly and sparingly as I might, answering only the words of the Apology, and abstaining purposely from all bitterness of speech, so far as the just defence of the cause permitted, and so shall continue 〈…〉 Barlowes most intemperate provocation to the contrary.  
Whereas then in reciting the words of the Apologer, I mentioned these: Having, saith he, sacrificed, as I may say, to the Manes of my defunct Sovereign, as well for the discharge of my particular duty, as love of verity, I must now perform my d●ty also to his Majesty present etc. Upon which words I noted that the phrase of sacrificing to the Queen's Manes, or Ghosts, seemed to me very profane, as proper to the Pagan Sacrifices, used to those infernal spirits which they called Gods, & hurtful Gods, & therefore endeavoured to please them with sacrifices. My words & discourse were these.  
But as for his heathen profane sacrificing to the Manes or Hobgoblins of his late Lady, I confess it is an office fitter for a Protestant-Minister, 
Lett. p. 27.  that thinketh it unlawful to pray for her soul, to deal with her Manes, or infernal spirits, then with Celestial, 
Queen Elizabeth her Manes  by praying for her to Saints. But would God these Manes might now have licence to appear, and talk which him, and relate what passeth with her, after all this ioylity, and ruff in this world; I doubt not but they would cool his excessive vain of flattering vanity. For if all the old platform of Saints lives, prescribed in Scriptures, and practised by the servants of God, were not erroneous and vain, as much fasting, continual prayer, daily mortification, frequent recollection, diligent chastisement of their bodies, humble & fervent devotion, labouring and working their salvation in fear and trembling, abundant almsdeeds, haircloth and ashes, contrition, sorrow and sobbing for their sins: if these things (I say) were the ancient ways to life, and everlasting salvation: then must the paths of Queen Elizabeth, which are known by most men, to have been either wholly different, or most opposite to these, led to another opposite end, quia unusquisque recipiet secundum opera s●●. Every one shall receive according to his, or her works: and the sentence of the Apostle is clear & resolute: Si secundum carnem vixeritis, moriemini; si facta carnis spiritu mortificaveritis vi●etis: if you live according to the flesh you shall die; but if you shall mortify by spirit the works of the flesh, you shall live, that is, to life everlasting.  
About these words of mine M. Barlow taketh occasion to make very large discourses, and to dilate himself in three or four points ●xceedingly. First in the excessive praises of the Queen; then in superlative railings against me; thirdly in justifying the phrase of sacrificing to the dead Queen's ghost; & fourthly in setting out her frequent mortifications, that she used: but yet in such sort, as he well showeth, not only not to feel what mortification is in itself, but neither to understand what he saith, nor whereof he affirmeth.  
In the first point of Queen Elizabeth's praises he straineth his eloquence or rather loquence to the uttermost, 
M. Barlowes flattering loquence.  as though neither the earth whilst she was here, nor scarce heaven where now he assureth us she is, were worthy of her: She was a daughter of the blood Royal, saith he, borne to the Crown, in the Prophets' words, from the birth, from the womb, 
Barl. 64.  from the conception, a Princess advanced to the Crown in apparent right, and by uncontrollable succession etc. Thus he saith, and yet doth the world know what store of controversies was about that succession, and lawfulness thereof, and they are extant in their own Statutes yet in print; so as this man talketh that which he thinketh to be most acceptable, and fit for his present purpose of adulation more than what he findeth written or registered, or believeth himself for that matter; and such as know the man, and his constitution, are of opinion, that if his Majesty that now is, had come into England with that mind, which his Noble Mother and her husband the King of France are known once to have had, to claim & justify her title, presently after the death of Queen Mary (for so doth Doctor Sanders testify that they had that mind, and began to put the arms of England upon all the said Queen plate, but that by the peace made, & Calis released unto them for the same, they were pacified for that time) it is to be presumed that his Majesty if he had prevailed in his pretence, that he should have found no one man more fit or ready in England, or Scotland, to have gone up to Paul's Cross, or to any other place else, to justify his majesties Mother's pretence, against Queen Elizabeth, or to disgrace her whom now he extolleth so much, even in this point of legitimation, from the belly, from the womb, 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 sails according to the weather: 
M. Barl. turns with the wind like a weathercock.  let us then hear him out further. She was (saith he) an Imperial Monarch, a famous Empress, or rather the very Empress of ●ame, blazoned out, not by homebred favourites, but by foreign travailers, and writers, before and since her death, yea, ●uen by her enemies, both for Religion, and war, to be in her time, and for her Sex, the star of Sovereignty, the mirror of Principality, a terror to her enemies, the Loadstone of Majesty, drawing unto her both Ambassadors Christian, and not Christian, only for interview, and salutation, but in truth for view, and admiration: for when they had satisfied themselves with her sight (and hardly could they be satisfied) what Saba's Queen once said of King Solomon, they all concluded of her, that which o●ten falls not out, saith the Orator, their eyes had overcome their ears, and truth had out-strip● fame, report was less than verity, and her renown was far short of her desert. Thus far our Orator. And doth he not seem to speak well for his fee?  
But yet when he telleth us how his famous Empress or Empress of fame, is blazoned not only at home, but abroad by foreign writers, 
Queen Elizabeth otherwise blazoned by foreign writers then M. Barlow reporteth.  he will not forget I hope to remember, that she is blazoned by many of them in far other colours then here he painteth her out: and this partly in respect of her hard measure towards Catholics, whose religion she professed under Queen Mary, and made many fair promises of continuance therein; for the breach whereof, and contrary proceeding afterward when she came to the Crown, she sustained so hard a conceit and bad opinion of all foreign Princes, people, & kingdoms Catholic, as the memory perhaps of no one Christian Prince or Princess that ever lived, is more ungrateful and odious to them. And this is the very truth notwithstanding all this parasitical flattery of the Minister: which I speak as God knoweth with great compassion towards her, and our Country, for her sake, and not with any humour of revenge, insultation, or exprobration against her. The histories are extant, their speeches and judgements are known to such as do travail foreign Countries, and with indifferency and attention do mark what passeth among them.  
But yet this man sitting at home in his warm chamber, goeth further in his exaltations of her: and to pretermit many, as overlong for this place, he saith, 
Barlow. p. 66. & 67.  That all her actions, being Royally virtuous, virtuously religious, and religiously wise; her wisdom seasoned her religion, her religion sanctified her policies, her polices graced her descent, all of them together wrought her immortality, and her immortality is accompanied with renown upon earth, and reward in heaven. So he, and much more, which I pretermit as idle froth of a flattering tongue, who taketh upon him also to Canonize her with the term of Eternised Saint, and affirmeth resolutely, that she never blemished her s●l●e with vice criminal, or continued, for so are his words. And what he meaneth by continued, 
Q. Elizabeth Canonised for a Saint by M. Barlow.  I know not, except he meaneth as the word importeth, that she continued not from vice to vice without interruption, which had been horrible to have done (if not impossible) or had persevered continually in one and the self same vice criminal, which had been as bad if not worse. He avoucheth further of her, that she never in her life committed hellish crime; whereby I suppose, he meaneth mortal sin, for that the pain & punishment thereof is hell, according to S. Paul's doctrine, and then I confess that this were to be accounted an extraordinary sanctity indeed, 
Q. Elizabeth in M. Barl. his judgement never committed an● mortal sin.  that a woman brought up in such liberty, for so many years together, in so corrupt a time (who as M. Barlow here telleth us, was no Cloystred-Nun, but a Queen that lived in all prosperity in the midst of all temptations and allurements, both of Satan, the flesh, and the world) should never commit so much as one mortal sin.  
But I would ask M. Barlow, how he cometh to know this secret? did he ever hear her Confession? For if he did, he might with far better conscience utter her virtues known thereby, to her praise, and to the edification of others, than he did the Earl of Essex his vices, to his infamy, and other men's scandal. But I for my part do think, that albeit Queen Elizabeth went often to confession in Queen Mary's days, yet from that time to her death, which was more than forty years, she never took the benefit of that Sacrament; 
Q. Elizabeth would never have chosen M. Barlow for her ghostly Father.  in which long time we may well imagine what store of dust a house much frequented would have gathered, that had never been swep● in so long a space. And albeit she had had, both grace, will, and time to confess her sins, yet do I believe that she would never have chosen M. Barlow for her Confessor, and Ghostly Father; and consequently all that he talketh here of her vices criminal, and not continued, and of hellish crimes never committed, is spoken without book, upon no greater ground, then that he listeth to say and write so of her. And this shall serve for the first point, concerning his excessive praises of Queen Elizabeth, though we shall have occasion to handle somewhat thereof again in the fourth point about her mortifications.  
Touching the second point then of impotent and exorbitant railing; albeit much were to be said; yet do I not mean to lose time in the repeating thereof, or injury the ears of grave and modest men with hearing such contemptible matter: it is revenge enough for me to understand by divers ways, as I do, that his own friends do condemn him, and think contemptuously of him, for entering into such an odious kind of writing. And for other that are different from him in religion, though they think him not worthy of any Answer, that taketh such a course; yet have I thought good for this once to bestow so much pains as to run his Book over, and to return him answer to other points, though not to this, but yet so, as by those other points which I handle, the man's spirit may be so well known, as none will marvel that he took so dishonest and impudent a course of virulent railing.  
As for the third point of sacrificing to the Manes or Ghosts of the dead Queen Elizabeth, true it is, that supposing myself to have to do with a Minister, that used the phrase, 
About Q. Elizabeth's Manes & sacrificing unto them.  in the case he did, I noted it as Heathenish and profane, in respect of both words, to wit sacrificing to Ghost, especially Infernal, himself being enemy to all Christian Sacrifice, or prayers for souls Christianly departed, or intercession to be made for them to Saints in heaven, that are Supernal Ghosts, and not Infernal. By which occasion M. Barlow taketh matter to dilate himself much (as he doth willingly when he findeth any thing to talk of, though never so impertinent) to prove that this phrase of sacrificing to dead Ghosts, though it were proper to the Gentiles and Pagans, may also be used of Christians in a good sense: 
Barl. p. 74.  Especially, saith he, it being used by his Majesty, as a borrowed phrase, and uttered with a deprecatory parenthesis, as it were in modesty, ask leave for the passage thereof, secretly thereby insinuating, that otherwise, it was that which among the rhetoricians is called audax Metaphora, a bold Metaphor.  
Whereunto I answer, that with all these circumstances I see no difficulty, but that the phrase may be used, especially by audax Metaphora, and by so great a Prince, whose licence in speech good reason alloweth to be larger than other men: nor had I ever put difficulty in the phrase, if I had known it to have come from his Majesty. But for a Minister to be so bold in his audacious Metaphors, seemed not so tolerable: so as in the thing itself, supposing the former qualifications, I have no further controversy. But yet I must note, that the arguments scraped together by M. Barlow, 
Hierom. E●ist. ad Rom. Orat●●em. August. de D●●tr. Chris●ian.  for allowance of the phrase, are nothing worth at all. For that first the testimonies here quoted by him, though at random, of S. Hierome, S. Augustine & S. Basill, affirming that we may use the learning of the Gentiles to the advancement of Christian Religion, as the Israelites did the spoils of the Egyptians, are to be understood of such points of their learning, as may piously be applied to our use, to wit their moral doctrine, Histories, Philosophy, Examples, Sentences, Comparisons and the like, but yet do not allow that we should use the peculiar phrases of their Idolatrous worship, about the mysteries of our Christian Religion, as certain new profane companions of our age have done, I mean Castalio and others, call God, jupiter, and our B. Lady Diana, and the like.  
Nor do the other examples alleged by M. Barlow for proof and allowance of any such profane use, 
M. Barl. his trifling.  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 utility. For what maketh it to our purpose if S. Luke in the narration of S. Paul's navigation to Rome, 
Act. 28. v. 11.  do say that the ship of Alexandria wherein he went had for his badge the sign of ●astor and Pollux, the children of jupiter, according to the fables of Gentility? Or what if S. Peter in his second Epistle speaking of the damnation of the wicked Angels, 
2. Pet. 2. 4.  do name these chains of darkness wherewith they are bound in hell; which words of chains & hell, are to be found in Poets? Is this a sufficient proof that Pagan phrases concerning matters of religion may be used also in our Divinity? I pretermit his idle bringing in of S. Paul, that used half a verse of Aratus, a heathen Poet, when he spoke in the Council house of the Ariopaguses in Athens; 
Act. 17. 28.  as also Nazianzen & Origen, for using the two proverbs Orci galea & Plutonis cassis, for that these things are lawful, as before we have said, nor have they any similitude at all with the phrase in controversy of sacrificing to Queen Elizabeth's 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 Author of the Apology, to the Christian duty to be performed to a Christian soul deceased, containeth much more in it, than those other Poetical words, used to no such end, by the Christian Authors.  
Nor is that worth the answering, which is brought in out of the Epistle of justus Baronius, not long since converted from Calvin's Sect, to the Catholic Church, where recounting his journey through Millayn● he saith, that amongst other Relics, they were brought to see the shrine where the Manes Ambrosijs iunioris Borrh●maei were contained, that is to say, the memory and relics of the younger Ambrose, to wit Cardinal Borrh●maeus, which M. Barlow thinketh to be a great testimony against me: but indeed is none at all. For nowsoever this man newly converted from being a Protestant, did use also some part of M. Barl●●●s audax Metaphora, which he very well approveth, and that this word Manes, being used alone may metaphorically have some such sense, as the Relics or memory of men departed: yet did he not use the whole phrase of parent are Man●a●, to sacrifice unto the Manes of any body departed, whic● is not used or permitted in Catholic Religion, to sacrifice unto the relics or memory of any man dead, but only to offer sacrifice to God for them, if they stand i● need thereof. And thus much for this.  

ABOUT QUEEN Elizabeth her Mortifications. And of the nature of that Virtue. §. II.  
THere remaineth the fourth point concerning Queen Elizabeth's Mortifications, and Pe●nances voluntarily ●aken here in this life: whereof I said by just occasion given, That if the old platform of Saints lives prescribed in Scriptures, and practised by the servants of God, were not erroneous and vain, as much fasting, continual prayer, daily mortification, frequent recollection, diligent chastisement of their bodies, abundant almsdeeds, haircloth, and ashes, and the like: if these things I say, were anciently accounted Viae vitae, ways to life, as often and highly commended in the Scriptures by the Holy Ghost, and practised from time to time in the lives of the holiest men in the Christian Church; then said I, must the ways and paths of Queen Elizabeth's life which are known to be far different from these, be very dangerous, and the end and success thereof not so assured of glory, as her flatterers both promised her in her life, and now will needs after her death, bear men down that it is performed.  
To this M. Barlow answereth in divers sorts: first out of the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans, 
Rom. 14.4.  What art thou that judgest another man's servant, for somuch as to his Lord he standeth or falls? But this place is manifestly abused by M. Barlow, as are commonly all other Scriptures alleged by him. For S. Paul speaketh in this place of indifferent things, as of eating and drinking, in which a man may not condemn rashly another, 
In what cases a man may judge of another  Qui n●n manducat, manducantem non judicet, he that eateth not, let him not judge 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 down, 
1. Tim. 5. 24.  Querundam hominum peccata manisesta sunt, praecedentia ad judicium: 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 them to judgement: but in some other they follow. And so in like manner good works are manifest, and those that be otherwise cannot be hidden. Whereby it is manifest in some cases, that a man may judge, or at least wise have a probable conjecture (for Almighty God may alter in secret what to his divine wisdom and mercy shall seem good) what end a Christian is like to arrive unto, by the ways wherein he walketh. And S. Paul himself doth set down sundry particulars in divers places of his Epistles, in which he saith that Christians shall not be saved. So as this kind of judgement is not wholly forbidden, but rash judgement only.  
Secondly then M. Barlowe cometh to lay hand on another answer, saying, 
Barl. p. 75.  That fasting with a sour countenance, prayer in open places, dole of alms with proclamations, are ensigns of hypocrites in our saviours judgement. Whereto I reply that these are but the abuses of good things, 
Matth. 6.  which abuse the Servants of God flying, 
About external mortifications.  do retain the good use. Thirdly saith he, (for he divideth his proofs into sundry heads, and all not worth a rush) such outward habits of mortification as jesuits term, of wearing of hearecloth, and the like, 
3. Reg. 2●. 27.  might argue Achab. who went barefoot in haircloth and a●●es, to be a mortified creature, as well as the severest sel●e chastising jesuit of you all. So he. And this only example is sufficient to show, both the man's spirit, and wit. His spirit in contemning and ●esting at that which God himself did so highly esteem, his wit, that he seeth not what maketh for him, or against him. As for the jesuits, their Doctrine is, that all these external mortifications are only so far forth gra●eful and acceptable to God, as they do proceed from the internal mortification of the mind, and sorrow for their sins, and not otherwise. And that this external mortification of Achab did so proceed, is evident by the very words of Scripture, alleged by M. Barlow, which are these: 
Achab truly mortified.  When Achab had heard the speeches of the Prophet Elias, he rend his garments, & covered his flesh with haircloth and ●asted, & slept in sakcloth and walked with his head bowed downwardly. And the word of God was made unto Elias, saying, hast thou not seen Achab humiliated before me? For so much then, as he hath humbled himself ●or my cause, I will not bring the evil upon him, which I have threatened in h●● days, but in the days o● his Son. And let it be marked, that he said humilitatus est mei causa, he hath humbled himself for my cause, which signified that it came from the hart, and from the sorrow that he conceived, to have offended God: which is true internal mortification, and made Achab, a true mortified or mortifying creature in that act, for which we have God himself for a witness. 
Profane impiety in M. Barlow.  And it can be no less than profane impiety, and sinful secularity so profanely to rest at it. But let us pass to another part of his Answer in this matter.  
Indeed, sayeth he, she was no cloistered Nun. (to wit Queen Elizabeth: 
Q. Elizabeth no cloistered Nunce. ) And so I think to: and that the difference of their lives did show it. A Queen she was (sayeth M. Barlow) and a State She had to manage, a people to governed & much business to attend, bodily exercise saith the Apostle profiteth nothing, b●t godliness, that is, a sound saith with a good conscience avayl●s ●ith God and argueth a mind truly regenerate. This is M. Barlowes way of mortification, not to meddle with Achabs' contrition, humiliation, or hayrecloth, nor with the lives of cloistered Nuns, that serve God in the austerity of Christian discipline, as fasting, praying, and other mortification, but only he commendeth a sound ●aith with a good conscience, which every man will easily persuade himself to have, especially if he believe him in citing S. Paul to Timothy, as though the Apostle had called such external mortifications, as fasting and the like, unprofitable bodily exercises, and that only a sound faith were piety. But this is as fraudulent dealing as before: for that the Apostle his very manner of speech, Exerce ●e ipsum ad pietatem, exercise thyself to piety, doth show that he speaketh of good works and piety of life, and that he maketh here a difference between bodily exercise that hath for his end, only the good of the body, and the exercise of piety, which whether they be bodily or spiritual, are always directed to a spiritual end. And so do the ancient Fathers understand the words of exercise and piety, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially such as best understood the force, and propriety of the Greek words, 
A place of S. Paul expounded concerning bodily exercise.  as namely S. Chrysostome, who in his special Commentary upon this place of S. Paul defineth piety thus: pietas rectissima vitae norma est, & conversationis optimae disciplina: Piety is a most strait rule of life, containing the discipline of a most excellent conversation, whereby only faith you see is excluded. And then ●urther rejecting M. Barlows false interpretation of S. Paul's words, as though he had meant fasting, and other external mortifications, by corporal exercises which he calleth less profitable, he saith, 
Ch●ysost. in comment. ad c. 4. in 1. Tim.  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 profectò nutriret: cum autem id maceret & extenuet macieque conficiat, corpor●lis dici omnino non potest. Some men (as M. Barlow) do say, that the Apostle (speaking of unprofitable bodily exercise (meaneth of fasting, but truly they do err: for that fasting is no bodily exercise, but spiritual. For if it were bodily, it would no doubt nourish the body: but whereas it doth chastise the body, extenuateth and maketh it lean, it cannot any way be called corporal. So he.  
And if we will have the testimony of another as ancient as S. Chrysostome, & most skilful in the Greek tongue wherein S. Paul writeth these words, though no Grecian borne; we may hear S. Hierome, who upon those words, of Exerce te ipsum ad pietatem, exercise thyself to piety, setteth down first what piety is, saying Pietas est e●iam 〈◊〉 tua tribulatione aliis subvenire, Sicut Sareptana vidua seci●: Piety is to help other men even with thy own tribulation as the poor, 
3. Reg. 17.  widow of Sarepta did feed the Prophet Elias, with the bread that she had reserved for her son and herself. And then as for corporal exercise, named by the Apostle, he saith it was meant of things belonging to the bodily health, as Sanctarum balnearum, venationum & huiusmodi quae ad breve tempus carnali proficiunt sanitati: holy baths (such as holy men did use for help of their health) hunting and other such bodily exercises for the same end, which do profit to the health of the flesh but for a short time, which admonition is thought to have been given by S. Paul to Timothy, as to a young man, that was somewhat delighted with these bodily exercises, or counseled thereunto by Physicians for help of his said health. To which end also the said Apostle in the same Epistle exhorteth him not to drink water still, 
M. Barlow no friend to mortifications.  but to use a little wine for help of his stomach, and in regard of his other frequent infirmities. but yet would have him to exercise himself in the works of piety, as now hath been said. So as this place also of S. Paul hath been abused by M. Barlow his profane interpretation against external mortifications.  
But now lastly he cometh near us indeed, and will show that Queen Elizabeth her mortification was of another kind, perhaps not heard of before. Let us hear his words: Fourthly (saith he) to be a King, and to govern as a King should do, is mortification of itself. This is the largest way (I suppose) of mortification that he can lay before us: 
A strange kind of mortification.  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 & Queens, and to govern well in their own conceits. For what Prince thi●keth not, that he governeth well, and not only Kings & Princes are to be comprehended under this mortification, but proportionally also all other Magistrates and Governors under them, who have one point more of mortification lying upon them, than their Supreme Princes, for that they are liable to give account to them, which the others are not, and consequently they are more subject to mortification in their offices, and dignities; and yet most men do seek after them, both in England and else where, which doth show that there is great store of mortified men in the world, or at leastwise of men that love this mortification, and desire to be so mortified. And if to be a Bishop also be a mortification, then hath M. Barlow in like manner proved himself a mortified man, & then those words of S. Paul to the Collossians, Mortificate membra vestra quae sunt super terram: Mortify your members which are upon earth, may have this sense also among other; do you mortify yourself with some good Bishopric, or other dignity, that in itself is a mortification. And do we not see what profane trifling this is? And that by this drawing Christian virtues out of their compass, true natures, and spheres, they do enervate and evacuate all their force, and bring their practice to a mere sound of words.  
The Catholic doctrine is, that mortification is a most excellent Christian virtue, commended highly in the Scriptures, 
Mortification.  and exercised by all Saints, and especially by our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles, and by the greatest Saints, & Servants of his, that have ensued in his Church, as may appear as well by those words of S. Paul now recited, as also these other to the Romans: 
Rom. 8. 13●.  Si spiritu sacta carnis mortificaveritis, vivetis: If you shall mortify the works of the flesh by spirit, you shall live. And then followeth the contrary set down in the same place. If you shall not mortify your said members, & deeds of the flesh thereof ensuing, but shall live Secundum carnem, by obeying the lust thereof, you shall die everlastingly. Whereby is also understood, the nature of this excellent virtue, whose name of mortification is derived from the word Mors, that signifieth Death: for that as when death entereth upon a body and driveth out the soul, the said body remaineth without sense, ●eling, or other motion: so when this virtue of mortification is well exercised of a Christian man, it doth take a way the sensual life of our lusts and passions, and doth mortify them in their unlawful appetites, so as they remain as it were feeble, cold, and dead, in resisting or rebelling against the superior parts of the soul, directed by rea●on and religion. And this is that most happy and excellent death so much desired by S. Augustine, when he said to God: 
Aug. l. 1. confe●s. c. 5.  moriar, ne moriar, let me die, that I may not die: and good S. Bernard, Vti●am hac morte ego frequenter cadam, ut euadam l●queos mortis, ut non sentiam vitae luxurian●is mortisera blandimenta: Would to God I may often die this death, that thereby I may escape the snares of the other death, & that I may not feel the deadly flatter and allurements of this present dissolute life. And then he goeth further to many particularities, saying: 
Bern serm. 52. in Cant.  Vt obstupescam ad sensum libidinis, ad aestum avaritiae, ad iracundiae & impatientiae stimulos, ad angoris solicitudinem, ad molestias cu●●rum: moriatur anima mea morte i●s●●rum; bo●a mors quae non aufert, sed transfert in meltus. Let me die by this death of mortification, that I may become senseless to the feeling of carnal lusts, to the heat of covetousness, to the pricks of anger and impatience, to the afflictions of solicitude, to the troubles of to many cares: let my soul die with the death of just men; this is a good death, and doth not take life from me, but doth change it to a better.  
Thus that holy and devout Father of the works and effects of mortification, and of his ardent love that he had thereunto. And the like I might most abundantly show out of other Fathers, but it were overlong for this place. The saying of S. Augustine upon the former words of S. Paul is general to all men: 
Ser. 13 the verb●● Apost.  Hoc est opus vestrum in hac vita, actiones carnis spiritu mortificare quotidie, affl●gere, minue●e, fraenare, interi●ere: This is your work in this life, to mortify daily the actions of the flesh, by spirit, and to afflict them, diminish 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 never seek so many shifts to discredit the same, and to make it contemptible as he doth; first by scorning at fastings, prayers, and a●me●●ed●, when by Hypocrites they are abused, which is nothing to the true use, 
Strange kind of answering.  and consequently not to the purpose; then to disgrace them, when they are well used, by saying that they are bodily exercises, of small utility; ●hen by ●e●ting at the sackcloth, ashes, and other penances, and external mortifications, which God himself in King Achab approved, and took in great good part; then i●●co●ting at the state of Nuns professing the like retired li●e of mortification; then telling us further that the life of Queen Elizabeth had ●ore mortification by living in a Court wh●re many temptations were, then in a Monastery, which he proveth out of Seneca, saying: Marcet enim ●●ne adversario virtus: For virtue is sluggish where no adversary is. By which consequence it followeth that it is much better, and more excellent mortificatio●s for young Ladies and Gentlewomen, to live in great Courts where there be store of amorous young Knights and Gentlemen to tempt them, then to live solitary, or retired from such Courts and companies, where no such impugnation of the adversary is. And this is M. Barlowes good discipline for women, which is far different from that which S. Cyprian prescribe●h in his Book De disciplina. & habits Virginu●, no less than their two spirits are different.  
And lastly you see that he distracteth the word Mortification so far, as he draweth it to all dignity and honour, and that it is mortification to be a King, Queen, or chief Governor, which are things most agreeable to man's sensual desires, and opposite ●o mortification; though I would easily grant, that if a man did hate and fli● such dignities in himself, & that they were forced upon him; of which sort of men S. Gregory writeth Val●è destent quòd tardè ad patriam redeunt, & tolerare insuper honoris onera copell●●ur: 
Gregor. 5. moral. c. ●.  they do greatly bewail that they return slowly to their Country (which is heaven) and beside are forced to bear the burden of honours in the mean space: Of these men I say who should so be forced against their wills to sustain places of honour, as S. Gregory himself was, in taking the Popedom, to such a man it is a mortification indeed to be a King, Prince, or Pope. But this riseth not out of the dignity itself as M. Barlow fond teacheth, but out of the virtuous repugnance of the receivers will: so as if Queen Elizabeth, to come to our proper case, did unwillingly and with repugnancy of mind take the crown upon her, wh●̄ Queen Mary diede as S. Gregory did his Popedom, then may it be said, that it was some mortification unto her; otherwise it is ridiculous to make all high dignities and places of honour, Mortification: for so much as every man doth ordinarily feel in himself, an inclination of our corrupt nature to desire them, which naturally notwithstanding loveth not mortification.  
Moreover, whereas there are two parts and members of mortification, 
Two parts of mortification, internal & external.  the one internal, the other external, the internal to mortify the inward parts of our soul, both intellectual and sensual, as to deny a man's own will, repress self love, subdue our judgement to the obedience of others, repress the passions both of pride, anger, concupiscence & the like: another part external, that mortifieth the body and outward senses thereof, making them subject to reason by external punishments of the body, as by fastings, watchings, and other chastisements of the same, which S. Paul testifieth both of himself, and the rest of the Apostles that they praised the same, which being so, I would demand of M. Barlow, to which of these mortifications doth a Courtly & Princely life lead us, more than the state of a poor life. For as denying a man's own will, it is far from Princes, to practise the same, who endeavour rather to have their wills done, and that with reason: renunciation also of the world and subduing of their own judgements, seemeth not so properly to belong to that estate. And as for mortifying of passions, if they would attempt to do it, their flatterers would not suffer them, for that they would both say and swear, that every passion of theirs is a sound and solid virtue, and every disordinate appetite a most just desire.  
And if you pass further to external mortification, as often fasting, much prayer, long watchings, course apparel, haircloth, discipline, and the ●ike; how unfit are they for a Court, or a Court for them? 
external mortification in Princes.  Is not soft & brave apparel, delicate diet, banqueting, dancing, masking, Comedies, love-letters, and such other, more agreeable to that state and place? Of the first our Saviour himself testifieth, Qui mollibus vestiuntur, in domibus Regum sunt; and for the rest that they were grateful and familiar in Queen Elizabeth her Court, and more frequented by herself then the other, all men I think that were eye witnesses of the same will testify. Only there wanted to the world a Divine, who by a new Theology should celebrate these Courtly exercises for good mortifications; and now is sprung up M. William Barlow, 
M. Barlow a Divine for the Court.  that hath taken the matter upon him, & published it in print, making the very state and condition of life itself, of being a Prince, to be a state of mortification, and consequently also of penance (for that mortifications be acts of penance) whereof it doth ensue that Queen Elizabeth's life was a penitential life, which is f●rre different from that store of felicity and abundance of temporal consolation, which the Lord Cook describeth with his Copia & Inopia, which we shall handle afterward. And thus much of Queen Elizabeth's Mortification.  
There followeth in my Book a word or two of her persecutions, for that it was said in the Apology, 

Apol. pag. 16.  
M. Barl. foolish shift in answering his adversaries objection about the Persecution under Q. Elizabeth. Lett. pa●. 18.   first in general, that her Majesty never punished any Papist for Religion. And again, that she was most free from all persecution. And yet further, that she never meddled with the hard punishment of any Catholic, nor made any rigorous law against them, before the Excommunication of pope Pius Quintus, which was upon the year 1569. ●●d the eleventh of her Reign. Whereunto I answered, that for punishments, all the Catholic Clergy of England were deprived long before this for their religion, and many, as well Laymen as Priests put in prison for the same, and multitude of others driven into banishment of all sorts of people, whose names Doctor Sanders setteth down in his seventh book of his Visible Monarchy. The severe laws also against them that refused to take the Oath of supremacy, and should say or hear mass, were made long before this and put in practice: so as this narration could not stand. What replieth M. Barlow to this? Ni●il ad Rh●●●● saith he, the speech is here of laws, whose pain is death. Yea Syr. And is it so? I refer me to the words even now recited out of the Apology, that her Majesty never punished any Papi●●●●● Religion, that she was most free from all persecution; doth not all & any include other punishments besides death? Moreover when it is said that she never made any rigorous laws against Catholics: doth this only comprehend the laws, whose punishment is death? To what straits is M. Barlow driven here? And yet if he do remember well the oath of Supremacy, he cannot but know, that the third refusal thereof is also death. So as every way the poor man is taken.    

OF QUEEN ELIZABETH HER FELICITIES, and infelicities. CHAP. II.  
AFTER this followeth another question between M. Barlow and me, about the felicities or infelicities of Queen Elizabeth, or rather between the Lord justice Cook and me, who having upon divers occasions to the exprobration of Catholic men and religion, whom she pursued in her life time, enlarged himself extraordinarily in her exaltation, calling her, The happy Queen, The blessed Queen, and the like: I was forced for defence of the truth, to examine somewhat the grounds of this felicity. My words then were,  
That the said Lord Cook upon the occasion of certain words in Pope Clements Breve, where Queen Elizabeth is named misera semina, a miserable woman (in respect no doubt of the miseries of her soul, little respected by her:) upon which words the Orator triumpheth thus. 
Let. p. 29.  What miserable! it is said, that, miseria cōst●s ex duobus contraries, copia & inopia; copia tribulationis, & inopia consolationis, 
L. Cook in the book of the late arraignment f●l. 53.  misery consisteth of two contraries, of abundance, and penury, abundance of tribulation, & penury of consolation. And then he showeth in what abundance of consolations Q. Elizabeth lived in all her life, & without want of all tribulation: which if it were true; yet is it but the argument which the worldlings used in the Psalm, to prove their felicity, that their Cellars are full, their sheep fertile, 
Psal. 143.  their kine fat, they suffer no loss, and then, Beat●● dixeri n● populim cui●ac s●nt; happy did they call the people that had these things. But the holy Ghost scorneth them, and so may all men do our Orator, that useth and urgeth 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, & never heard of before, I think, to come from any man's mouth, but his own: it being ridiculous in Philosophy, and fit to be applied to any thing that hath either store or want. As a wise man in this sort may be defined to be him, that hath store of wit, and want of folly, and a fool 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 beggary, & a poor man is he that hath store of beggary, & penury of riches. And are not these goodly definitions (think you) for so great and grave a man to produce?  
Thus passed the matter then. But now M. Barlow doth constitute himself Advocate for the justice, and if he plead his cause well, he will deserve a good ●ee, for the cause itself is but weak, as presently you will behold. The Lord Cook (saith he) who at the Arraignment of Garnet indignantly scorning that the high Priest of Rome should in a Breve of his call so great a Prince (as Queen Elizabeth was) Miseram F●minam, 
Barl. p. 78.  a miserable woman, by a description of misery consisting of two contraries, want of com●ort, and plenty of tribulation, shows by many reasons, evident and demonstrative, that she, having abundance of joy, and no touch of affliction, but blessed with all kind of felicities, could not be called Miserable etc. In which words, 
M. Barlow very forgetful.  I would have you note first, that whereas here he saith, that the justice showed this, by many reasons, evident and demonstrative, within a dozen lines after, he saith of these reasons, But if they be not concluding demonstrations, yet as least let them be probable persuasions, which is quite contrary to that which he said before, that they were evident and demonstrative, so soon the man forgetteth himself. But to the matter itself, that albeit all these temporal felicities ascribed to Queen Elizabeth had been so many, and so great, as Sir Edward affirmeth them, yet had it been but the argument of worldlings, who in the 143. Psalm, did measure their felicity by their full Cellars, & were checked for the same by the holy Ghost, by teaching them that not, Beatus populus cui haec sunt, but beatus populus cuius Dominus Deus eius: & consequently that Queen Elizabeth might have these temporal felicities, and yet be truly miserable in that sense wherein Pope Clement so called her, to wit concerning the affairs of her soul, and everlasting salvation: To this, I say, he answereth first by demanding, why temporal prosperity may not be made an argument of God's love to Queen Elizabeth, and of her felicity, for so much as it is scored up for one of the Notes of the true Church by Cardinal Bellarmine, de Not●● Ecclesiae, Nota 15:  
Whereunto I answer, that this temporal felicity is not to our purpose, for that Pope Clement spoke of her spiritual infelicity, 
Temporal felicity no argument of spiritual happiness  as hath been showed: and that temporal felicity doth not infer or argue spiritual felicity, every man will confess, that hath spirit to discern it, for that the whole Scripture is full of testimonies, that wicked men (and consequently miserable in soul) have been temporally blessed by Almighty God, made rich, powerful, 
Psal. 72. Hier. 12. Abacu● 10.  & prosperous, even to the very affliction & scandalising as it were of the just and virtuous, but yet were they not happy for this, but most miserable, even as those Israelites were, that having their fill of quails in the desert sent them from God, they had no sooner eaten them as the Scripture saith, 
Psalm. 77.  adhuc escae eorum erant in ore ipsorum, & ira Dei ascendi● super 〈◊〉, the meat was yet in their mouths, and the wrath of God did fall upon them. And he that shall read over the 72. Psalm, shall see, that it is altogether of this matter, to wit of David's admiration of the wealth and prosperity of the wicked, whose end notwithstanding he saith to be most miserable, aestimabam ut cognoscerem hoc, labour est ante me, donec intelligam in novissimis eorum; deiecisti eos dum allevarentur: I did think I could have understood this matter, but it is harder than I imagined, until I considered their ends; thou hast depressed them whiles they were exalted. So said our Saviour to the rich man, recepisti bona in vita tua, thou hast received good in thy life, and note, saith S. Bernard, that he sayeth recepisti, non rapuisti, thou receivedst them, and didst not get them by force, and yet notwithstanding did he infer, that therefore he was now tormented in hell, which he would not have said, if temporal prosperity had been a good argument of spiritual happiness and felicity.  

Bellarm. de notis Eccl. cap. 15.  And as for that he objecteth out of Cardinal Bellar●ine his making temporal felicity in those Princes that defend the same to be a Note of the true Church; first it is not to our purpose, as hath been said, for that we affirm Pope Clement when he called Queen Elizabeth, Miserable, meant of spiritual misery, which is not contrary to Bellarmine's speech: 
A place of B●llarm● answered concerning temporal felicity.  for he doth not argue, that every one of those temporal Princes that had prosperous success in the wars undertaken for defence of the Church were happy also spiritually for those temporal felicities; but that Almighty God having an intention to preserve his true visible Catholic Church from age to age, to the world's end, did prosper those Princes that fought for the same; by which providence and concourse of Almighty God, together with the cooperation of the said Catholic Princes, she hath been conserved from the Apostles times to ours: and all other enemies, as well Heretics as Infidels, have been dispersed, vanquished, and overthrown: which is an argument amongst others, that this only Church is the true Catholic Church, to endure unto the world's end, for so much as this only, by God's particular providence hath been thus defended, which is the true meaning of Cardinal Bellarmine's drift, and whole discourse in that place. Now unto the other about the speech of worldlings in the 143. Psalm.  
M. Barlow will needs have the words of worldlings, applauding their own felicity in this Psalm, by the beauty & prosperity of their Children, their full Cellars, fertile sheep, and fat kine, to be true signs of felicity indeed, as sent from God to testify his love towards them, & that D●●id did writ all this in his own person, giving thanks to God for those present temporal 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 reproof of the sentence immediately going before, happy they esteemed the people that have these prosperities, but rather a confirmation of the same. And for some points of this exposition he allegeth 2. or 3. expositors of our time, as Flami●i●●, Genebrard, and Arias M●ntanus in their Paraphrases upon this Psalm, who albeit upon some words of the H●brew text, somewhat different from the Greek translation of the Septuagint, do make some exposition not altogether agreeing with our common latin translation, which in this followeth the said Septuagint: yet are they far from agreeing also with M. Barlowes exposition. Whatsoever they say by occasion of this difference between the Hebrews, as now it is found, and the translation of the said Septuagi●ta made 400. years before the Nativity of our Saviour, and used commonly to be cited by the Apostles themselves in the allegation of the old Testament; most certain it is that the ancient Fathers understood the sense of this Psalm as we do now: for proof whereof I might allege many places out of their Commentaries and Expositions, but S. Augustine shall serve for all, who expounding this part of the said Psalm, Erue me de manufiliorum alienorum, deliver me out of the hands of strange children, whole mouth hath spoken vanity, he expoundeth what this vanity is to wit, that they measuring happiness by worldly prosperities, fair Children, full butteries, & the like, did make this inference, Blessed are the people that have these commodities, and were checked for the same by the Prophet, saying, Happy is the people whose God is their Lord. I shall se● down S. Augustine's 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 perverting of Scriptures, and laying a slanderous imputation upon the holy-Ghost himself. Thus than he writeth. 
Nunc ergo exponat quod dicit, Quorum os locutum est vanitate● etc. Now then let the Prophet explain unto us, that which he saith, that their mouth spoke vanity: what vanity did their mouth speak? That their children were new plants, well established in their youth, he intendeth to reckon up their felicities: but be you attended that be children of light, the sons of peace: attend you children of the Church, members of Christ: stand you attended whom he calleth strangers, whom he calleth foreign Children; attend I beseech you, for that amongst these men you live in peril etc. 
S. August. discourse.  Be you attended that you may discern them: be you attended, that you think not the felilicity that they desire, to be the true felicity. Behold what is the vanity which their mouth speaketh: take heed lest you speak 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 vanity hath their mouth spoken? And what right hand of theirs is the right hand of iniquity?  hearken: Whose children, say they, are new plants, established in their youth, their Daughters fair, and adorned to the similitude of a Church, their butteries full, their sheep kertill, their kine sat etc. And what shall we say? 
Is not this felicity? I demand you children of the kingdom of heaven: I demand you, that are borne to everlasting resurrection: I demand you, that are the body of Christ, the members of our Saviour, the temple of God, is not this happiness to have these things? The holy Patriarches had good part thereof, 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 lefthanded felicity: what is lefthanded felicity? temporal, mortal, corporal, which I do not persuade you to fly, but that you do not esteem it right-handed felicity, as strange children do, and therefore it is said 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 have put on the left etc.  
And then finally coming to the conclusion of the Psalm, and to handle the check given by the holy Ghost for this mistaking, and misnaming this felicity, he saithe I do then reprehend these strange erring children, for that their daughters be fair, their butteries full, and the like, sed quare ●os arguo? quia, Beatum dixerunt populum cui haec sunt. O l●q●entis hominis vanitatem! Wherefore then do I reprehend them? For that they say, that the people are happy, that have these things. O speakers of vanity! They said that the people were happy, that had these things, o maligni, o vaniloqui, o filii alieni! Beatum dixerunt, cui haec sunt. O malicious and vain 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 David? What sayst thou, o body of Christ? o members of our Saviour, you that are Children of God, and not aliens, what say you? Beatus populus cuius Dominus Deus ipsius, happy is the people that have God for their Lord.  Thus far S. Augustine. Whereby may be seen his sense, & the sense of the whole Christian Church in his days about the meaning of this Psalm, which he saith I corrupted by my exposition, although it were no other than this of S. Augustine, as you have seen.  
And if you would see other Fathers to the same sense, you may read S. Hierome in his Commentary upon the first Chapter of the Prophet Habacuc, 
S. Hierome.  where he reciteth these temporal prosperities, as vanities bestowed upon the wicked.  

Arnobius.  Arnobius also in his Commentary upon the Psalms, after having mentioned the said temporal prosperities bestowed upon the wicked, cōclude●● thus: Dicant ●rgo incroduli etc. Let the faithless say then, Blessed is the people that hath abundance of worldly prosperities, but let us say with the Prophet, that people to be happy who have God for their Lord. And these are Fathers of the Latyn Church.  

S. Basil.  And if we look into the Fathers of the Greek Church, we shall find the same con●ent, for the meaning of this place. As for example, S. Basil having touched the vanity of this temporal felicity, he putteth down the rejection thereof made by the Prophet: Alij quidem, inquit, beat●● talia habentes, ego verò beatum populum judico, cuius Dominus De●●est. The Prophet saith, that other men do call them blessed that have these temporal commodities, but I, saith he, judge those people to be happy that have God for their Lord. With S. Basil agreeth S. Chrysostome in his Commentary upon this place of the Psalm, 
S. Chrysostome.  where expressly he saith, that the Prophet David spoke these words, quorum fil●j sicut novella plantationes in inventuten sua, and the rest, according to the opinion of the vulgar sort, and that he himself was of a contrary opinion, not holding them for happy, who possessed those things, but that people only, cuius Dominus Deus ●ius: who have God for their Lord.  

Theodoret.  Theodoret also in his Commentary upon the 72. Psalm expoundeth these words in the same sense. They call the people happy that had these things, for that being devoid of truth, they were not able to discern the nature of things, but did measure happiness by their delights, wealth, and power, and so did affirm 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 Almighty God.  

Euthymius.  And according to this writeth Euthymius in his Commentary. Many men (saith he) do esteem that people happy which have this visible abundance of temporal goods, which erroneous opinion of the vulgar sort King Da●id having mentioned, he rejecteth the same, and setteth down a better, and more true sentence, saying, Blessed is the people whose Lord is their God.  
By all which places and many more that might be alleged, M. Barlow in his interpretation of this place of Scripture is convinced to be one of those fily alieni, alien children, whereof the Prophet speaketh: and I am freed from that fond calumniation of his, whereby he saith that I have slandered the holy Ghost, by writing, that the holy Ghost did scorn this argument of worldlings, who say, That the people is happy, that have these temporal prosperities. For you must note that M. Barlow coming to answer my former speech before set down, he maketh a flourish, saying: That my answer consisteth of three points, first a shifting evasion, secondly a false interpretation of the Psalm, thirdly a slanderous imputation of the holy Ghost. The evasion, he saith, consisteth in that I did hou●d, that outward prosperities are no necessary arguments of God's love and favour, and consequently neither in Queen Elizabeth. The false interpretation of the Psalm you have now heard, to be the interpretation of S. Augustine, S. Hierome, S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, and others now mentioned. The slanderous imputation upon the holy Ghost, that he scorneth at such inferences, is proved by the same, to be no slanderous imputation, but a true assertion. And if the word, scorn, do seem unto him unworthy of the holy Ghost, let him remember the words of the Psalmist talking of such men: 
Psal. 2. 4.  qui habitat in caelis irridebit eos, & Dominus subsannabit eos, he that sits in heaven shall deride them, and our Lord shall laugh them to scorn: where you see both the words, irridere & subsamnare in one verse: & yet further in another place: 
Psa. ● 36.23.  Dominus autem irridebit eum● quo●iam prospicit quòd ●eniet dies eius. And our Lord shall scorn him because he foreseeth that this day of ruin shall come. And in another place talking of Christ, as some interpret it, he saith, 
Sapien. 4.  they shall see him, and contemn him, and God shall scorn them. And yet further the same spirit saith to the like men, Ego in interi●u vestro ridebo, & subsannabo, 
Proverb. 1. 26.  I will laugh and scorn at your destruction: & this in words, but in fact when God Almighty said of the wicked man, miseriamur impio, & n●● discet justitiam: let us have mercy upon the wicked man, & he shall not learn justice: was not this a scorn? For it followeth strait, he shall not see the glory of God. What mercy was this when Christ also recounteth in the Gospel, the speech of the rich man, that told how his barns were full, and much riches laid up for many years, and therefore bid his soul be merry, and our Saviour calling him fool, 
M. Barley moves habens.  for his great providence, advertised him, that, that night he would take his soul from him: was not this a scornful speech against them, that so much esteem the beatitude of temporal felicity? So as here also M. Barlow is found minus habens.  
But now to come to the solemn definition of misery, by copia & inopia devised by the Lord Cook, and patronized by this his Champion and chaplain, out of which he would prove, that Queen Elizabeth was not misera femina, as Pope Clement called her in his Breve, for that misery, as he saith, 
L. C●●●● in t●e last bo●ke ●f Arr●ignmēts pag. 64.  co●si●●eth o● ●ro contraries, abundance, and penury: abundance of tribulation, and penury of consolation, which, saith he, was not in Queen Elizabeth, but rather the contrary, for that she had perpetual store of consolations, and penury of tr●bulations etc. whereunto I then said, that this definition of misery was miserable indeed, nor ever as I suppose heard of before, as ridiculous in Philosophy, and fit to be applied to any thing that hath either store or want, as a wise man in this sort may be defined to be him that hath store of wit, 
A bad definition of Misery by co●●a & ino●ia.  and penury of folly; and a fool to be him that hath store of folly, & penury of wit, and so in all other things: whereunto I add now, that it wanteth the chief 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 Logic prescribeth, ●or that a man may have store of afflictions, and penury of consolations, as job had, and yet not be miserable, but happy: & chose one may have store of temporal consolations, and penury of afflictions, as had the rich glutton, and yet not be happy. And again whereas a definition should speak clearly, and simply without doubtfulness or equivocation; this doth not, but quite chose speaketh equivocately, being apt to be understood either of temporal or spiritual misery, which is a great defect in the law of a definition, or good description; for that by this fault, here it cometh to pass, that whereas Pope Clement called Queen Elizabeth miseram Feminan, a miserable woman, in respect of the misery of her soul, as being cut of from the Catholic Church. Sir Edward Cook argueth that she had no temporal misery, which supposing it were true, yet doth it prove nothing against spiritual misery, whereof only Pope Clement spoke, and consequently was nothing to the purpose.  
Yea ●urther, if Sir Edward had distinguished as he should have done between temporal and spiritual misery, and had defined the same distinctly and severally, yet had not this definition agreed punctually to either of them. For if you talk of spiritual consolations or desolations of the mind, then is it evident by all spiritual writers, that abundance of sensible consolations with want of desolation or affliction of mind (which oftentimes evil men have or at least wise such as are less perfect in virtue) maketh not a man spiritually happy: nor on the contrary part abundance of inward and spiritual tribulations, doth always make the party miserable; for then King David should have been also spiritually miserable, when so often he crieth out of the desolations o● mind, & afflictions of spirit, which he suffered as laid upon him for his great trial, merit, and glory: as when he said, 
Psal. 68  aquae intrauerun● usque ad animam meam, floods of wa●er have entered even into my very soul, meaning thereby the waves and waters of spiritual tribulations. And the like doth S. Paul himself when he uttered those words of compassion concerning his internal afflictions, saying: 
2. Cor. 1.  supra modum gravati sumus, supra virtutem, ita ut tederet nos etiam vivere, we were pressed above measure, and above our power to bear it, so as we were weary of our life, and it loathed us to live. And all the Apostles generally: 
Sir Edw. Cook a poor Divine.  Et nos ipsi primiti●● spiritus habentes, & ipsi intra nos geminus etc. we that have received the first fruits of God his spirit, we do mourn & groan within ourselves: so as here Sir Edward did miss in his spiritual Theology.  
Nay nor yet doth this definition by copia and i●opia hold in temporal consolations themselves, wherein he notwithstanding hath had more occasions of better skill by experience, for that neither in them is it true that a man may measure temporal felicity by temporal abundance, nor misery by their want, for he that taketh no comfort by his abundance, or delighteth therein, cannot be said to be happy temporally by the said abundance, and he that loveth mediocrity, or voluntary poverty, and hath need of no more than he possesseth, is temporally also rich: by all which is s●ene, that the Lord Cook's definition of misery by copia & inopia, was very defectuous. Let us see now, how his Champion defendeth him. First he entereth with a great flourish, that he will defend the definition by Poetry, 
None so bold as blind bayard.  Philosophy, Divinity, & cases of Conscience. But as commonly it falleth out, when M. Barlow would make any great ostentation of his learning, he then most betraveth his ignorance, and rusheth upon matters that he understandeth not whereof he speaketh: so here both the poor man stumbleth at the very entrance, and misseth as it were in the very terms themselves, especially about Philosophy, Divinity, and Cases of Conscience, as presently shall appear.  
But fi●st we must note what obligation he hath to prove, and how far forth he performeth that obligation. I said in my reprehension of the Lord Cook's definition, 
Lett. pag. 29.  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 prove? no doubt but that it is a good definition, according to the laws of Philosophy both in form and matter: and if he prove this, by any one of his four ways, or by altogether, I shall confess, that he hath performed the office of a good advocate, but indeed he proveth it by neither way, but only showeth that copia and inopia may be found in one subject, in respect of different things, which no man ever denied, for it were great folly to say that a man may not have good apparel, and an empty stomach, and another time to have a full stomach & want of apparel, and so in all other matters: whereof M. Barlow giveth example's 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 prove, concerning a good definition, quae convertitur cum re definita, and hath the other conditions before mentioned.  
From Poetry than he passeth to Philosophy, saying, that if I had read Epictetus in his Euchiridion, and those that do comment upon him, I should find it a Philosophical conclusion, that those two contraries, (copia and inopia) do make the greatest misery, when a man possesseth much & yet desireth more.  
Whereto I answer first, that although it be a Philosophical conclusion, as well with Epictetus, as other moral Philosophers, that this is a misery: yet do not they make it the definition of misery, for that there be many other miseries besides this. 
M. Barlowes weak Philosophy.  And secondly though Epictetus do call it a kind of misery to possess much and desire more, yet not the greatest misery, as M. Barlow doth, for it is a greater misery, by his leave, to have nothing at all, & to desire very much, then to have good store, and to desire more. As for example, if M. Barlow himself should have had an ardent desire from his youth to be Archbishop of Canterbury, even while he was a scholar in Cambridge, and had no preferment, and should continue the same desire now, I do not think that he will deny, but that it is less misery to desire and expect the same now, being already well furnished with the wealth of a good Bishopric, then to have expected the same with like ardent desire in his poverty, and consequently it is not the greatest misery, when a man possesseth much, and desireth more. And this for his Philosophy: now let us see his Divinity.  


Barlow p. 82.  
1. ●eg. 31. Eccles. 4. & 5.   And then (quoth he) in Divinity King Solomon no mean Philosopher, found that to be afflictionem pessimam, a most vexing misery, as any under the sun, when with satiety of richeses, which implieth plenty, there is joined an insatiable eye, which argues want. Here now M. Barlow beginneth to show confusion, and not to understand well the true distinction of these sciences. In Divinity, saith he, King Solomon no mean Philosopher found. How did he find it? by Divinity or Philosophy? ●or here he nameth both: and if Solomon found it by Divinity, what needed M. Barlow to add that he was no mean Philosopher? & if it be true which he writeth in the very precedent lines, that it is a Philosophical conclusion, that the greatest misery is when a man possesseth much and desireth more; 
M. Barlow hardly urged.  then is this second conclusion, that it is a vexing misery, with satiety of riches, to have an insatiate eye or desire, a Philosophical conclusion also (which is the very self same that was set down before:) and consequently if that was a Philosophical conclusion, then can it not be properly Theological, for that one and the self same proposition cannot belong to two different sciences sub eadem ratione formali, to wit Philosophy and Divinity. For that Philosophy considereth her object according to light, & direction of natural reason, Divinity as it is revealed from God and referred to God, as unto the supernatural & last end of all creatures, whereof M. Barlow making no mention, nor understanding the difference as it seemeth, maketh the self same proposition to be both Philosophical & Theological, and that under the self same considerations, which is most absurd.  
And if he say that we do grant it to be a conclusion Philosophical, & that he proveth it to be Theological, or appertaining to Divinity, for that it is in the Scriptures uttered by Solomon, I answer, that every proposition found in the Scripture is not of his own nature Theological, or appertaining to Divinity, for that it is neither of truth revealed not deduced from revealed principles, nor hath reference to God, as he is the formal object of Divinity, but may be in itself Philosophical, and known by light of reason, as we have said of this proposition, 
M. Barlowes want of Divinity.  that it is a kind of misery to possess much and desire more, which not only the Heathen Philosophers, but every man commonly by natural light of reason will discern, and consequently M. Barlow though he strain the Scripture, thereby to draw some semblance of proof from the same, as you have seen, yet doth he not prove it at all: and this third way of Divinity is less than nothing.  
But of all other his fourth & last way by Cases of Conscience is notable. Let us hear his words: 
Strange cases of conscience proposed by M. Barlow.  And even 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 answer, that true it is, that S. Paul complaineth in that place that he found a great fight and repugnance as other men do, between the law of his flesh (or stirring of concupiscence) and the law of his mind. Which if M. Barlow will call copia & inopia, he may draw any thing to the Lord Cook's definition: even when as a man and his wife do fall out, there is copia commonly and inopia also, for he shallbe sure to have copia of ill words, and inopia of peace and quietness, and thereby 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 Divinity (for otherwise it would not be his fourth way of proof?) where as we hold the said doctrine of Cases of Conscience to be an essential part of Divinity itself, to wit the moral part, that resolveth doubts of Conscience in practice: as for example when there ariseth some doubt about Usury, Restitution, Matrimony, or the like, what in Conscience may be done, and what not, in this or that case, the matter is resolved by this part of Divinity. But what is this to the example of S. Paul's conflict between sense and reason, flesh and spirit, alleged by M. Barlow? had the Apostle any doubt or scruple of Conscience therein what he had to think or do, about these rebellions of the fl●sh ● I think 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 God's grace which assisted him in that combat, and gave him the victory according to the promise of his Master made unto him, Sufficit ti●i gr●tia mea, my grace is sufficient for thee to get the conquest in this case. Wherefore M. Barlow to frame an argument upon this place of S. Paul for his copia and inopia, hath as much ground, as if he had founded the same upon Sir Thomas Mores Utopia.  

OTHER POINTS concerning Queen Elizabeth's Felicities, or Infelicities. §. II.  
WE have seen by that which hath hitherto been said how vain and feeble the argument hath been to prove that Queen Elizabeth was happy in this life in regard of her temporal felicities, which the Lord Cook reciteth in these words among many other as before we have noted. She was so miraculously protected by God (saith he) so strengthened, and ●ortifyed, as she did beat her most potent enemy, did set up a King in his Kingdom, defended nations, harboured distressed people, and the like. Unto which argument besides the other reasons and proofs which I before opposed, I did sh●w out of jeremy the Prophet the vanity of this argument, by a notable example of King Nabuchodonosor, much more powerful than Queen Elizabeth was, which Nabuchodonosor received even from God himself, greater worldly prosperity and consolations than these, and was called by God, Servus meu● Nabuchodonosor, my servant Nabuchodonosor, & greatly advanced, protected, and made powerful over his enemies for a time, and to punish, afflict and chas●i●e the people of God himself, and yet was he not happy but miserable thereby: and so might be Queen Elizabeth, though she prevailed against Catholic Princes, and people abroad, and was permitted to afflict her Catholic people at home, whereby was convinced that this argumet of worldly prosperity ● though it were manifest that it came directly from God himself, yet doth it not infer any true happiness at all. And hath the Champion M. Barlow any thing to reply for his Lord in this? no truly but granting my proof to be substantial, as taken from the Scripture itself, he runneth to other impertinent matter of dissimilitude, between Q. Elizabeth, & Nabuchodonosor, 
Nabuchodonosor more happy then Q. Elizabet●  as that he had no successor, but the Queen hath etc. which is not the question in hand, nor was the comparison made in this, and moreover in itself is false. For that Nabuchodonoso●s son called Euilmero●●th succeeded him, and after him again balthasar, which seemeth to have been foretold by the Prophet jeremy c. 27. saying: Seruient ci ones gentes● & filio eius, & filio f●l● eius. All nations shall serve Nabuchodonosor, and his son, and his sons son. In which respect Nabuchodonosor was much more happy than Q. Elizabeth who left no such issue to succeed her, and therefore the place alleged by M. Barlow o●t of Isay, Ex quo dormisti etc. since thou wert dead none came in thy place to cut us up, by grave Authors is understood of balthasar the last King of that race, for to the former it cannot well be applied, whose son and nephew after his death kept them wellnigh forty years in captivity, and they were not delivered till after the death of balthasar, by Cyrus, who with Darius overthrew him and succeeded him: by which you may see how well M. Barlow pleadeth for Queen Elizabeths● happiness  
And all this was spoken against the inference of true felicity, supposing that Queen Elizabeth's days had been so abundant and affluent in all kind of temporal prosperities, as the flattery of these Orators would have it seem, & that herself had such copia of consolations, and inopia of tribulations, as the Lord Cook describeth. But for proof that this was not so, the●e were many particular points touched, which did show that her temporal consolations were mingled also with desolations, her prosperity with adversities, her joys many times with grief, as for example the circumstances of her nativity, the declaration made against her by her own Father, as well in the putting to death her Mother with note of incontinency, together with so many adulterers punished with her, as also afterwards the same declaration made more authentically in public Parliament, 
Q. Elizabeth her infelicities.  her disgraces passed afterwards again in the time of King Edward, & her contemptible rejection by the setters up of Queen jane, her perils in Queen Mary's time by the cutting off of her best friends, whereby she was forced to a deep dissimulation in religion, that could not be but afflictive unto her, her fears and doubts in the beginning of her own reign, what would follow by change of religion, the pretence of the King of Fr●●●● known to be in hand, for his wives succession immediately after Queen Mary, her frights by the Duke of Norfolk, & Earls rising i● the North, & a great Counsel of the chiefest Nobility held at London against her, and in favour of the Queen of Scotland, which then ●he was not able to resist, if it had gone forward: her public excommunication, and deprivation by two or three Popes, which could no● but bring solicitude with it, her doubtfulness about ma●iing, being pressed on the one side by the solicitation of her Kingdom for hope of succession, and held back on the other side by certain desires of designments of her own & her favourites, her intricate reckonings with her said favourits from time to time, as Pickering, Dudley, Hatton, Packi●gton, Rawley, and Essex, among whom the two Earls became in the end to be dreadful unto her, her jealousy and fears concerned not only of foreign Princes, whom she had deeply offended with raising their subjects and maintaining them against them, but of domestical inhabitants likewise, especially of Priests, jesuits and Se●in●ry●men, who were painted out to her to be such dangerous people, together with the Catholics, that used their helps in matters for their souls, as she never ceased to add laws unto laws against them all, and against all use of Catholic religion, whereunto herself had sworn, and voluntarily protested in Queen Mary's days.  
And not only this, but breaking also into blood, for these imagined terrors, she put to death publicly above an hundred and thirty anointed Priests, only for hatred of their order and profession, together with many other afflicted in prison's, others sent into banishment, by forty, fifty, yea seventy, at a time. She put to death also both the nearest in kindred, and dearest in affection, that she had on earth, as was her Majesty of Scotlnd, and the Earl of Essex, the guilt of which proceeding lying upon her conscience, did so trouble her for divets years before her death, as was pitiful, but her death itself more pitiful, in dying without sense, feeling, or mention of God, as divers do report, that do pretend to know the same most certainly. I should be glad with like or greater certainty to know th● contrary, for I take compassion of her state with all my hart.  
And this is in effect the sum and substance of that which was spoken before, concerning the interruptions and interpellations of Queen Elizabeth's temporal joys and comfort, which Sir Edward Cook, & M. Barlow do make to be so singular, and absolute. And what reply is now made (think you) to all this? Truly nothing at all to the purpose in hand: for that one of these two points should be showed, either that these things are not so, or that they do nothing at all impeach Queen Elizabeth● temporal felicity, and store of consolations; but neither of these is proved, what then? You shall hear: first he runneth again into an extreme rage of railing and reviling, and scolding as it were a tiptoe, enforcing his whole answer with the most contumelious speech that he can devise: but to this is extant his own answer in print, 
M. Barlow eue● by his own censure and sentence contemptible.  out of Seneca, which he allegeth in the Preface of his Sermon at Paul● Cross, against his Master the Earl of Essex, Vt quisque est ●●ntemptissimus, ita soluti●●ima lingua ●●t. As each man is more contemptible than others, so is he more lewd & loose in his tongue. Then he chafeth intemperately, that any thing should be said or written against Queen Elizabeth after her death, and her● he dilateth himself very largely for lack of better matter upon that common place, that the rulers of the people are not to be spoken evil of, specially after their death: for which he citeth both Scriptures, and profane authors (I follow not his order in this, but the connexion rather of the matter) and will prove them to be both hogs and dogs out of Aristophanes, Pliny, Sophocles and other Authors, that do revile the dead. But to this objection also I will put his own answer, in his foresaid Sermon against the E●rle of Essex, where having made the same objection against himself, for speaking evil of the said Earl after his death, as he doth now against me for calling to memory some of Queen Eli●abeths affairs, 
M. Barlow followeth not his own rules  his answer in his own words is this. But dearly beloved, there is a difference in faults of men as in diseases, some only are hurtful to the parties themselves, some loathsome and infectious to others; the first are to be buried with their bodies, & forgotten, but the other will annoy, and therefore must be remembered after death. In Scripture some Kings that were vicious, had their faults touched ever after their burial, but no more, yet some are never named in Scripture, but their sin is branded upon their name, as often you may see of jeroboam never mentioned, but presently addeth the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin.  
This was the man's answer at that time, for that it served for his purpose, & the same may serve me now against him: for if the case of jeroboam that made Israel to sin, might be applied to the Earl of essex, that was of their own religion, and changed nothing therein so far as is known, and was but a private person: how much more may the same be applied to Queen Elizabeth, that indeed brought in that fatal division and new worship of jeroboam into her Kingdom, which she found quiet & united with the rest of Christendom in the known Catholic faith of Christ's Church?  
But saith M. Barlow, reproaches are uttered either for repr●ose to amend, 
●arlow pag. 96.  or for vexation to grieve the parties calumniated, both which ends do cease in death. Whereunto I answer, that if they be reproaches, and contumelyes indeed without truth (whereof M. Barlowes tongue and pen are ful●) they serve to neither of these ends, but principally to show the wicked mind of the utterer: but if they be true, 
The vices of wicked Kings recounted after their death in Scripture.  as those things are which I have touched concerning Q. Elizabeth her infelicities, ●hē albeit they be uttered to none of these two foolish ends mentioned by M. Barlow, either to amend, or vex the dead, yet are they recorded to warn & instruct them that are alive, by showing God's justice upon sin, his providence, his power, and his care to fear men by terror of everlasting infamy from the like offences, & many other such holy ends: for the which in Scripture it is a most common & ordinary thing to hear the sins of wicked Princes repeated and reiterated after death, M. Barlow himself cannot deny it.  
I did further add also in my former Letter the example of divers ancient Fathers, 
Letter pag. 35.  as justinus Martyr● Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others, who to comfort the afflicted Christians in their days, and to honour more the cause for which they suffered, did put them in mind what manner of people 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 work, which I applying to Queen Elizabeth, said that the like observation and comparison might be made, she being the strangest woman that ever perhaps lived, for divers admirable circumstances before touched, and the very first absolutely of that sex either Christened, or created, that took upon her Supreme Power in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical matters etc. Whereunto M. Barlow coming to answer, and having nothing at all to say to the purpose, doth so childishly trifle, as is most ridiculous, telling us first, that if the Papists may comfort themselves, for that they have been beaten by a woman, then may the devil comfort himself also that a woman is prophesied in Genesis, according to our interpretation to break his head: Sysera also the Captain may glory that he was overthrown by a woman. But this is trifling for I do not say simply by a woman, but by such a woman as never was the like, in divers points of enormity against C●th●lic●● religion, and therein was the Father's observations of enormous manners of Nero and Domitian, and not in the sex, as they were men.  
Secondly he saith, that divers Popes were more like to Nero and Domitian, than Queen Elizabeth: 
A monstrous head of the English Protestant Church.  but this is also trifling. For neither is the matter proved, & if it could be, yet doth it not improve my comparison, as it was some comfort to the ancient afflicted Catholics to consider what manner of Princes they were that first began most sharp persecution against them: so might English Catholics do by consideration of the person of Queen Elizabeth that first of all women persecuted them in England, and with unspeakable monstrosity made herself Head of the Church.  
Thirdly he saith about this matter, that heaven and hell ar● not more different, than those Christian martyrs of the Primitive Church, 
Barlow pag. 99  from these later of English Papists: for they, saith he, acknowledged the Emperor's supremacy independent upon any but God, prayed for them seriously both living and dying etc. But this now is more than trifling, for it seemeth to me mere madness to say, that ancient Christian martyrs under Nero and Domi●ian did acknowledge those emperors Supremacy independent upon any but God, 
Nero and Domitian heads of the Church in M. Barlowes opinion.  which inferreth to my understanding, that they acknowledged them for Supreme Heade● of the Catholic Church in those days, for so signifieth the word Supremacy in the controversy between us: and the words immediately following, independent upon any b●● God, do seem plainly to confirm the same, as doth also the comparison and contrariety itself, which he putteth between those old Martyrs, and ours. For if he had meant of temporal Supremacy there had not been any difference, or contrariety between them. For ●hat our Martyrs also do acknowledge temporal Supremacy to Kings and Princes though not spiritual, which inferreth that M. Barlow ascribing more to the ancient Martyrs under Nero and Domitian, must needs mean, that they held them ●or Heads of their Church, even in spiritual & Ecclesiastical affairs, although they were Pagans: and ●oe consequently might, and aught to repair to them in matters of controversy about Christian Religion, and were ●ound to follow their direction therein. And if this be not more than trifling, especially for a Prelate to utters I leave to the discreet Reader to consider.  
But now let us see briesely some of his answers to the points before rehearsed of Queen Elizabeth's life and death. First he saith to the note about her birth and disgrace by her Father and Parliament, that the Scriptures are not so Censorious, for God himself mislikes the Proverb that it should be said, the fathers did eat sour grapes, and the children's ●eeth were set on edge; but this is folly: for I alleged it not as a sin of hers, for the sin was her fathers and mothers, but as some disgrace in temporal felicity. 
Touching the birth of Queen Elizabeth.  Then he telleth us, that in some places the civil Laws do permit some bastards to succeed. Item that she showed well by her courage, and other Princely qualities, that she was King Henry's daughter. Item that herself did so far contemn those slanders published in print, as she would never consent to have them cleared, but rather scorned them. Item that Queen Mary also was disenabled by Parliament in her father's days etc. And are not these strong arguments to prove his purpose, to wit, that this proceeding of the Parliament and declaration made against her, was no temporal disgrace? Albeit for so much as belongeth to Queen Mary, all men do know that her case was far different, for that Queen Mar●es mother was never noted for incontinency, and much less so many adulterers put to death with her, as might be doubted whose daughter she was.  
To the difficulties she had in King Edward's days both in respect of the Admiral Seymer put to death for love-matters towards her, 
M. Barl. Babylon, Phil●ra, & love-druggs.  and the like, he saith in effect nothing, but breaketh forth into a fi●t of rage about the whore of Babylon her Philira, and love-drugs, whereof this fellow can frame a common place to entertain himself for lack of other matter. Of the time also of Queen 〈◊〉 he speaketh nothing.  
About her laws, and cruel proceedings towards Catholics, he entertaineth himself some what longer, but no more to the purpose, then in the rest. For first he saith that the sorest punishment for the first twelve years w●s commitment to Bishops and Deans houses, and some of them to prisons, 
M. Barl. never like to be prisoner for religion.  where they lay as warm and waxed as fat as in their own 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 years, which is thought will never be for Religion, come what Religion there will.  
Secondly he saith, that ●or the subsequent years, he yieldeth, that there was more rigour used, death being deservedly drawn on (to use his words) by the merit of treason, whereunto Religion was made but a stalking-horse, and then citeth S. Augustine in defence of the Christian Emperors laws against heretics. But first he doth not prove, or ever shall be able, any such demerit of treason to have drawn on this rigour, but only by calumniation, which indeed is and hath been the persecutors stalking-horse, to deceive the simple, pretending one thing for another, thereby to oppress the innocent: and secondly S. Augustine alloweth indeed and commendeth the Laws of Catholic Emperors made for the temporal punishment of Heretics, a●ter they were condemned by the Church. But what Church was that? And what Catholic Religion, for defence whereof those Catholic Princes in S. Augustine's days did make those laws so commended by him? Was it the Protestant Church? And was the Religion thereof the Protestant religion, or ours? Will M. Barlow join with me in this, which of our two Churches and Religions have descended visibly from S. Augustins Church and religion unto our days? Can he deny that S. Augustins Church taught Purgatory, 
S. Augus●●●●●o Prot●stant.  Prayer to Saints, Prayer for the dead, Mas●e and Sacrifice for the li●ing & dead, and many other articles now in controversy between us? Dare he stand to this trial out of S. Augustine's works themselves? And if he dare not (as I know he dareth not, nor will ever accept thereof) why doth he here prattle out of S. Augustine, as though if he were now alive again, he would allow the laws of Protestant Princes made against that religion and Church which himself defended while he was living? This then is another absurd shift of M. Barlow to delude his Reader. But there followeth another if not more absurd, yet at least less shamefast, for that the malice is more apparent.  
Father Persons, saith he, who in the Preface of one of his Legends, commendeth Queen Elizabeth for her moderate government, & that was in the last year of herraigne: and yet by the way, for the man's singular honesty, it is worth the nothing, that in one and the same leaf, having so commended her in one page (marry than she was alive) in the very next page (for then he heard she was dead) in a Preface to his Majesty he compares her to no other, but Di●clesian for cruelty.  
Thus he, and for that he citeth a book that is in every man's hand, to wit the first part of the Three Conversions of England, and thereby his allegation is easy to be examined, I did magine that I should find him very exact and punctual in his assertion. Wherefore I went to look upon the two pages of the self same leaf, the one written before the Queen's death, the other after: but I could see no such matter so near together, then coming back some four or five pages, I found that which I suppose to have given him the occasion of this fond cavil, for that the Author having dedicated that book to the catholics of England, & in the Epistle Dedicatory laid forth at large the great afflictions and tribulations which they had long suffered for that Religion, he commendeth them for their patience, and loyal behaviour towards their Prince in all worldly affairs: Which course, saith he, though it hath not escaped the calumnious tongues and pens of some carping adversaries (making all treason) yet is it justifiable 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 Majesty and ●er S●● Counsel i●●ll rather in this point p●nder your own facts, than your adversaries words. So there.  
Where by is evident that the Author doth not commend Queen Elizabeth for her moderate government towards Catholics, as this man saith (for that within five lines after he saith, they have passed so many years under the rod of sharp afflictions:) but only persuadeth himself that the wisdom and moderation both of her Majesty, and the Counsel will stay them from condemning Catholics for treason upon other men's words, 
Calumnious citations.  rather than upon their own facts: which being but a particular case, inferreth not, that Father Persons commendeth her for her moderate government. Nor is the other point true, that in a Preface to his Majesty, he compareth her to no other, than to Dioclesian for cruelty. For that my words were these: Here generally the applause is no otherwise, than it was in old time among the Christians upon the entrance o● Constantine into the Empire after Dioclesian, and of jovinian a●ter julian. Nor is there any mention, or comparison of cruelty in that place: so as here neither the leaf or page do● agree to his citation, nor the commendation of her moderate government is found; neither the comparison of cruelty with Dioclesian is extant; nor is he only mentioned, but julian also. Do you note how many defects of truth are discovered in so small an allegation?  
But after this again he cometh in with a great scorn against me, for saying, that our Catholic Priests put to death by Q. Elizabeth died for religion, and were true Martyrs: for that having life offered them if they would renounce the Pope, and conform themselves to the present state of of England, they resused the same. And with this he maketh himself merry with divers ies●es about the consequence of this argument. Whereunto I answer, that I alleged divers reasons, why our Catholic Priests died for religion, & not for treason. First for that no such treason could be proved against them, in the sense and judgement of any indifferent man that was present at their arraignments, to wit of the one hundred and thirty that before I mentioned. Secondly for that the public Registers themselves and Histories, as john St●w, and others in their Chronicles do● object 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 than the confessing of the blessed Trinity can be made treason by the Trinitarians in Transiluania.  
Thirdly for that they themselves dying did protest upon their consciences, as they should be saved, they never meant treason in thought, word, or deed against Queen Elizabeth.  
And then fourthly for confirmation of this, I alleged this other reason, so much scorned by M. Barlow, they having life offered them if they would renounce the Pope, & conform themselves 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 moderate skill of the case according to the rules ●yther of Philosophy or Divinity he would be ashamed to say as he doth in Philosophy, it being a common axiom, that omnis actus specificatur ab obiecto & fi●e, every action is specified, that is to say, taketh his nature and essence from his object and end. As if a man should kill one to gain his goods, this act hath both the nature of manslaughter & theft, the first from the object, the second from the end or intention of the doer: which Philosophical principle being applied to our case doth evidently prove that the choice of death in him that hath life offered, upon condition he will do some act against his faith, as going to the Protestants Church is esteemed by Catholics, though otherwise he were n●uer so great a delinquent before, is an act of Martyrdom; for that it hath both the object and the end thereof: the object to wit death; the end which is the profession of his faith.  
And so if we pass to consider the same by Theology● which more properly treateth of this virtue of Martyrdom, the controversy will be made much more clear, for that the word Martyrdom being a Greek word● and signifying a Testimony or bearing of witness (as the word Martyr signifieth him that yieldeth testimony or berreth witness) every testmony or bearing of witness is not meant by the word Martyrdom, but only such a testimony as is given by dying for God in the defence of some truth belonging to our faith, 
For what cause a man may be a Martyr.  either expressly impugned or implied in the impugnation of some other virtue, that containeth the said truth of our faith therein; which last clause is added, for that a man may be a true Martyr, though he die not for any express article of faith or part thereof, but it is sufficient that he die for the defence of any one virtue, as Chastity, Obedience, justice and the like, according to the saying of our Saviour: 
Matth. 5.  Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter justitiam: Blessed are they that suffer persecution for righteousness. And S. john Baptist is acknowledged by all Divines for a true Martyr, although he died for no article of faith, but for reprehending the incestuous marriage of King Herod, with more liberty of speech and spirit, than any such Prince-flatterer & base mind as M. Barlow would ever have done in the like case, if we may guess at his virtue by his writing.  
But to apply the former ground and uncontrollable principle to our present purpose in hand, whether these Priests died for refu●ing the Oath of the Feminine Supremacy, or for that they were made Priests beyond the seas, or ●or that they refused to come to your heretical services; certain it is, 
The Priest's that d●e ●●n Q. 〈◊〉 time true Martyr's.  according to the rules of Catholic Divinity, that they died for de●ence of their faith, or maintenance of virtue which is sufficient to justify their Martyrdoms, having 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 righteousness of their cause, and that they died for that Religion in which all the Princes and people of Christendom for so many years & ages both lived and died. And whereas M. Barlow impugneth this by two cases or examples, they are but so many arguments of his own ignorance. Let us speak a word or two of them both.  
The first is of Absolom, putting the case that he was an Idolater, as well as a traitor, and that King David after sentence passed against him ●or his treasons would acquit him from death conditionally, 
M. Barlows two foolish cases.  that he should renounce his Idolatry, and that upon refusal he should be executed, Shall we say (saith M. Barlow) that he died ●or Religion, or for treason? We will say, good M. Barlow, that he died rather for false religion, that is to say Idolatry, then for treason, and was the devils Martyr: and none I think can deny the same, unless he be as ignorant as yourself, as shall further appear by the answer to the next example, which in effect is all one with this, to wit, that a younger son should aspire his father's death with hope to have his riches, and that being condemned, his father should offer to save him, if he would go to Church and leave his evil life of following queans etc. Shall ●e say (quoth M. Barlow) that he is executed for his whoredoms, or for this parricide against his father?  
But here I would ask M. Barlow, why he leaveth out going to Church, which was the first part of the condition, and nameth only whoredoms? no doubt but the honest man, would have the staying from the Church in Catholics, and whoredoms seem to be companions. But now I answer to his question, that if he mean by refusing to go to Church, such as is practised by Catholics, for Conscience sake, and not to deny thereby the truth of the Catholic faith, which forbiddeth to go to heretical Churches, then dieth he for the truth of his faith, and consequently he is a Martyr. But if he choose to die for love of wicked life, and whoredom, it is no cause of Martyrdom, and consequently he is the devils Martyr, as we said before of the Idolater. But as for Parricide, clear it is, that he cannot be said to have died for it properly, as the immediate cause of his death, for that it was remitted vn●o him; and their passed another election on his mind, to wit, that he would leave his old life: so as ●or this he died propriè & proximè, properly, and immediately: and for the parricide only remotè & occasi●naliter, a far of, and as from that which gave the first occasion of his death. What saith M. Barlo● to this? Doth not common sense teach it to be so?  
And thus much for the death of those our Catholic and innocent Priests, whose death was pretiosa in con●●ecta Domini, precious in our Lord's sight, that died only for testimony of his truth; which if M. Barlow did as well see and feel, as Queen Elizabeth doth at this day, he would not so prattle as he doth. Let us see a little further.  
He bringeth in for proof of the Queen's mildness an Historiographer of Genua called Bizarrus, or Bizarro, which in English signifieth a Madcap, and he is brought in to tell us certain points of a Madcap indeed, to wit, the great moderation of her mind, 
●arl. p. 92.  her inbred clemency, though himself be an out-bred: that she governed her subjects with exceeding great mildness, abhorring from blood, or putting any to death etc. which belike he writing in Genua, knew better than English men living in England, who felt the smart in themselves, and others, whiles this man was out of the Gunshot, and, as it is likely, well paid for his pains: for Sir Horatio Paravicino was able both for his credit, and wealth, to undertake a greater matter than this. And for that you M. Barlow, with M. Sutcliffe and others do so often allege this Bizarro, as an Author against us, it shall avail much, both for your credits, and his, to tell us where, when, and by what authority he was printed, for here in Italy we can hear of no such work, although some search hath been made for him, which doubtless we should do, had he been set forth in these parts, and therefore we think him to be no Catholic writer, but of a bastard brood, and a Madcap indeed of your own making. Besides that, how truly he writeth, not only all England, but all the whole world can testify: and to omit all other most cruel massacring and bloodshed, the memory of the unnatural, and Butcherly Tyranny, executed upon his majesties Mother, will remain for a most rueful example to all posterity.  
But M. Barlow not content with extern witnesses allegeth also domestical, saying: Your own Priests shall speak for Queen Elizabeth's laws: and then citeth out of the book of Quodlibets a certain pathetical exaggeration in praising Queen Elizabeth, 
Quodlib. pag. 269. 277.  and her laws also against Catholics, which we esteeming to come from that good suggester Ri. Can. who suggested so notorious a lie unto M. Mort●n, as himself complaineth, & hath been showed in the late Reckoning with him, we esteem it accordingly, & do give it the credit, that it deserveth; which is nothing at all. And M. Barlow is driven to a hard exigent, when he stoopeth so low, as to take up these base rags to blazon Q. Elizabeth's praises withal, which a wiser man would have been ashamed to allege: especially knowing with what sorrow of hart the poor man that fathered that filthy work, repent him at his death thereof, & asked of God & the Jesuits pardon for the same, as before hath been signified.   

OF QUEEN Elizabeth's Sickness and Death, and other things belonging thereunto. §. III.  
AFTER the former points of Queen Elizabeth's laws and executions thereof made against Catholics, and Catholic Religion, whereby she made herself most odious both at home, and abroad to foreign Princes, yea to many Protestant Potentates themselves, that misliked such cruelty: I showed, that as the natural effect, and consequence in such causes is fear, diffidence, suspicion, and vexation of mind: so grew the same upon her very much in the course of her life, especially towards her latter days, when she was impressioned that not only Priests, and Jesuits, who indeed did pray to God for her conversion, but soldiers also, and Captains, and Physicians did seek her death, 
M. Barlows trifling.  either by poisoning her body, saddle, chair, seat, or somewhat else belonging unto her, as the deaths of Lopez, squire, & others do testify, to all which M. Barlow doth answer now, by running to certain common places, and sentences, that prove nothing, but only that he hath been more diligent than judicious in gathering them out of Authors, and applying them without purpose: for he telleth us first out of Sallust, that Ingenia Regum sunt prona ad form●dinem, the inclination of Kings are prone to fear. And then out of Seneca, D●bia p●● certis solent timere Reges: Kings are wont to fear th●ngs that be doubtful for certain, which in my judgement maketh more for my purpose, than his. Then he saith, that it was not so with Queen Elizabeth, for that careful she was, fearful she was not: wary she was, but not jealous: provident, but not suspicious: wherein I refer me to them that knew her better than M. Barlow, and to the effects themselves, which are the best witness. And for that I said in my Letter, that this griping passion of fear, and jealousy did force her to lay hands upon the blood of the most dearest in affection and nearest of kinted that she had in this life, as the Earl of Essex, and his majesties Mother: M. ●arlow coming to answer this point, saith never a word, but passeth it over with mumme-s●lence: and no marvel, for he had said so much before, both for the Earl, and against the Earl, while the Queen was a live (for him, 
M. Barl silence and the cause thereof.  in setting ●orth his excessive praises, and triumph after Cal●s voyage, when he hoped to have preferment by him; and against him, a●ter his d●ath, when the path of promotion opened itself another way, to wit by disgracing & infaming him) as I think the miserable man knew not what to say, persuading himselve (wherein I think he erred not) that whatsoever he should say, no man would believe or greatly care of it, and therefore silence was the best.  
But for the thing itself, I mean the manner of his d●ath, I will not meddle: nothing doubting, but that so loose and exorbitant a life as he led, being always accompanied with crews of goodfellow-Ministers, that by life, and doctrine taught him that way of perfection in their trade, he deserved no better an end, than he received. And moreover it may be also, that the State, and Queen had further reasons to move them to severity against ●im, than every man knoweth: although with the Queens own person he was thought to be further engaged for special ●auours received, 
A charitable Bishop.  then that upon the sudden he could fall to hate her, and seek her destruction, and so he protested at his death: though this bloody Sycophant in straining his actions, thoughts and intentions after his death at Paul's Cross (where in a man may discover supereminent malice issuing out of the root of ambition) leveled all his speech to that end, to stir up and confirm jealousy in the Queen's mind, that they two could not live together, and therefore in the end of his Sermon extant now in print, he left thirteen most spiteful records to be borne in memory, whereof the sixth is in these words: Hi● li●e a danger to the Queen, mark that. Which words of, mark that, are not adjoined to any of the other records: whereby it is evident, that, that was the butt whereat he shot, and may probably be guessed, that as, Ladron de casa, one wholly depending of him, and knowing his secret intentions, was used before to beat this point secretly into the Queen's head, while the other was alive, which after his death he preached so publicly.  
And no man doubteth, but that if his Majesty, that now is, whom he so highly flattereth had then come in his way, and that it had as well lain in the Queen's power as it did in her desire to equal his fortune with his Mothers, for her own greater safety: this fellow would as eagerly have run upon the same Theme, as he did then against the Earl, to wit, that the King of Scotlandes' life had been a danger to the Queen's life of England, and would have said also, mark that. Nay he would confirm it with the saying of Tacitus, which here he doth allege, for justifying his Mother's death, suspectus semp●r in●isusque dominantibus quis●●e proximu● aestimatur. 
Barl. p. 94.  He that is next in succession to a principality is always suspected, and hated by him that is in possession. Upon which ground M. Barlowes eloquence would quickly have drawn forth some probable argument of likely danger to the Queen's life, if the other were permitted to live, and consequently consulen●●● securitati, it is good to make sure. I will not stand to discourse what he would have 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 said Earls actions, words, drifts, and intentions, with as much malignity, as ever lightly I have noted in any, to make him odious to the Prince, State, and especially to the City of London, which ●e knew to be well affected unto him, & therefore his thirteenth and last record was to the said Citizens there present, delivered in these words: Hi● hard opinion and censure of your baseness, and vnfayth●ullnes to th● Quern: which manner of Sycophancy himself confesses in a Preface afterward to the Reader, 
Barl. Preface to his s●●mon the fi●st sunday in Lent, 16●0.  did so much displease the Mayne● (to use his word) as if he had with Ananias lied to the holy Ghost, or preached his own damnation: Others gave out that he was struck suddenly with a dreadful sickness: others (saith he) with more virulence, though with less violence, for penal charge, frame matter of hard judgement out of the discourse itself: first in general, that I have broken the Canon both of religion and law, in revealing a Penitents confession, which was with remorse, and private etc. Secondly in particular, because in one part of my Preface I said, that I was not a penny the richer, nor a step the higher for the Earl, albeit I celebrated his glory at the Cross for Cales victory, and therefore hence they conclude, that I now speak of spleen, and preach for rewards.  
Thus far M Barlow testifieth of the people's judgement concerning him, & his judgement of the Earl of Essex: wherein he being so much interessed, as now you see, no marvel though he passed this point with silence. Let us see what he saith to the other concerning his majesties Mother, 
About the making a way his majesties Mother.  and her making away. First he beginneth with a common place as before I mentioned, saying: If jealous suspicion and fear extend itself to any; it commonly alights upon the heir apparent or the successor expected. And for proof of this he citeth the words of Tacitus before by me alleged. And how little this maketh to his purpose for excuse of the matter every meane-witted-reader will consider. He goeth further therefore, saying: 
Tacitus l● 1. Histor.  That as be●ore this censurer brought in the Mother of his majesties Father for a parallel to the Powder-treason: so he reckoneth now for one of Queen Elizabeth's miseries, the death of the Queen his majesties Mother.  
Whereto I answer first, that the parallel was just, as to me it seemed: for that as this treason was designed by powder, so that of his majesties Father was both designed and executed. And as this was done by Catholics, so that by Protestants: only this happy difference there was, that whereas the other had effect, this had not. And secondly I say, I did not reckon the death of the Queen his majesties Mother for a misery of Queen Elizabeth, if w●e respect the effect itself, for that I doubt not, but that the said Queen Elizabeth did hold it for a felicity to be able to achieve it: but I hold it for an infelicity, in respect of the cause that forced her unto it, which was miserable fear, jealousy, and suspicion. But what inference doth he make of this think you? Let us hear him utter it in his own words: Whereby (saith he) the Reader may judge, how he would use hi● Majesties own fame, if he were gathered to his Fathers, when he is glad to allege so unsavoury examples of both his parents. What sequel or consequence is this? For that I do with compassion and detestation of the facts make mention of both their murders procured, and executed by people of M. Barlows Religion, therefore I would use evil his majesties ●ame, if he were gathered to his Fathers. What coherence is there in this? or whereof doth this consequence savour but of folly only and malice?  
But yet he passeth on to a further point of defence, for this hath none at all, as you see. That renowned Queen's death (saith he) was a misery indeed to this whole Land, and the most indelible blot that can be recorded of this Country. Do you see that now he calleth her renowned, against whom in their ordinary books and Sermons they did use in those days, the most vilest and basest speeches that could ●e applied to a woman? 
M. Barlow turns his sails with the wind & serves the tyme.  do you hear him say now, that in deed her death was a misery to the whol● land? do you hear him tell us, that the blot thereo● is indelible? Would he have spoken so in his Saint Queen's life time? This fellow is no time-seruer you may be sure. Well this is hi● confession. Let us hear his excusation, ad excusandas excusationes in peccato. But, saith he, that our late sovereign was abused therein, and that wicked act committed before her knowledge thereof, 
Barl. p. 59  besides her notable expressing of her own grie●es when she heard o● it, other sufficient proofs have fully resolved all honest men hereof. So he. And I trow he meaneth honest men of his own honesty, that will admit for sufficient, any proo●es for the making away of any, without scruple, that stand in their light.  
But was Queen Elizabeth abused therein? Was the act of cutting o● the head of Queen Mary of Scotland a wicked act? Would M. Barlow have called it so in Queen Elizabeth's days? That it was committed before her knowledge? Durst any man in her days ●ut to death a kitchen boy of her house, much less of her blood, without her knowledge, approbation, and consent? Did she make so notable a demonstration of her own griefs which she had thereof? What demonstration was this? Wherein did it consist? Did she shed tears? Did she vest herself with sackcloth for the same? Did she put any man to death, any of the doers or counsellors thereof? And if not, what sufficient proofs, & notable expressing of her griefs doth this Minister mean? What mourning garments were there seen throughout the whole Court, for this fact? What sign of sorrow, and public affliction? Of her Mother, it is written, that when she heard o● Queen Dowagers death, she mourned in yellow satin with gold l●ce: what apparel Queen Elizabeth did mourn in for Queen mary's death by herself commanded, I read not: but that then as the cause wa● somewhat like of both their joys, both of Queen Anne and Queen Elizabeth, mother and daughter by the fa●l of their adversaries, it is probable also that their mourning habits were not unlike.  
But in truth when I do consider the circumstances of that lamentable and unheard of bloody action, that a Queen of that Nobility, so honourably borne & brought up, a Queen of two so great Kingdoms, and Heir apparent to the third, coming into the Realm upon assurance given, having no obligation of subjection, nor being liable to any corporal punishment by the laws, either of nature or nations, being equal and no ways subject, and if she were guilty in any thing, yet can it not be presumed to have been more than the seeking of her own liberty, being unjustly detained, which is permitted both by Divine and human laws: yet notwithstanding, after so many years of afflictions in restraint and pr●son, to be brought to a block, and to be forced to lay d●wne her neck at her commandment, whom she allwa●●s esteemed unequal to herself, and to have her he●d cut of as the poorest woman that lived, by the common hangman, seemeth to me to be one of the most pitiful spectacles that hath happened in Chri●●endome, since that Christianity began: especially she having so potent and able a Prince regnant at that time in so warlike a Nation, and so near as his Majesty was.  
But let us see what M. Barlow saith to this, for it followeth immediately upon his former words: And since that ●ime, saith he, our now Sovereign that had the nearest interest in that errand, was long ago satisfied by her majesties own purgation. But I would demand of M. Ba●low, what ingredients there were in that purgation, he talketh of coloquintida a little before, but I will not stand with him about Apothecary-druggs, but this I say, that except the purgation of Queen Elizabeth concerning his majesties Mother's death, 
Q. Elizabeth's purgation about the Q of Scotland's death.  had for ingredients these three things, first Confession of her injustice in that act: then sorrow and contrition for the same: and thirdly offer of satisfaction, I must needs say as God by the Prophet ●eremy said to jerusalem: 
Hier. 2. 22.  Silaveris 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 thyself with saltpetre, and multiply never so much the herb Borith, thou art defiled with thine iniquity before me, saith the Lord God. But his Majesty, saith M. Barlow, was long ago satisfied with that purgation. That may be out of prudence, ●o● the causes that every wise man will guess, the times standing as they did. It may be also that his Majesty meaneth to follow the wisdom of King David, who left something in this kind to be done by his son, which sure I am, that if his Majesty were but three months abroad in the world to hear what is talked in other Prince's Courts and Countries, he would exact perhaps a larger satisfaction about this matter.  
Now them to speak briefly of Queen Elizabeth's death, which of purpose for some pages I have overslipped, to treat of these premises now handled that went before it: 
About the disastrous death of Q. Elizabeth.  I said in my letter, that after so long a life in such worldly prosperity●s, pleasures and iollityes, as hers had been, it was a pitiful death to depart from this world to eternity with so little preparation or mention of God, as she is reported to have used, whereof I said that I had seen a relation of a person of worth, that was present at all her sickness and death, and had written the same not long after her burial, which I said than I would pass over for brevities sake. But now, for that I am so much urged thereunto by M. Barlow, I mean to impart with the Reader the greatest part of the said narration, though not all, for sundry respects, but without any addition of matter from myself, as most sincerely I do protest. But first let us hear what M. Barlow saith to that which already I have written before.  
First he saith, That if Queen Elizabeth at the first assault of her sickness were silent, and solitary, physic will ascribe it unto the nature of melancholy diseases etc. Then, ● hat reason would interpret, that as ●he in refusing peremptorily her bed, did show her Princely resolution, 
●●5 ●5.  stantem mori, to die standing; so Christian charity would infer her retired silence to be a withdrawing of her mind from her senses, for a more serious meditation or her bypassed life, and future state.  
Behold here M. Barlowes spiritual Rhetoric or Rhetorical spirituality, that can make madness meditation, and silence or rather dumbnes upon melancholy to be a voluntary withdrawing of the mind from her senses. Indeed her bypassed life, and future state were matters that required deep meditation, yea contrition also and tears, if we will believe Saint Augustine, who both wept heartily, and repeated often over the penitential psalms when he lay on his deathbed: and further said, as Possidius relateth in his life, that no man ought to go out of this life without penance, if he hath time to procure it: but alas it seemeth that Queen Elizabeth was not in that state of mind or sense to procure it, or to accept of it, if any man had offered the same unto her.  
As for the other particulars, what she answered to her Doctor of Physic, that she did meditate; that she did lay her hands upon the head of Doctor Whitguist Archbishop of Canterbury kneeling by her, and saying Amen to his prayers, and said unto one of her Ladies waiting upon her, that her mind was little of from God, and so gave up the Ghost etc. all this I say, for that it is much different from the faithful relation of the aforesaid worthy person which was present and wrote the Story, as an eye-witness, which M. Barlow doth not, I shall remit myself and the Reader to the said relation, which is this that ensueth.  
Her Majesty being in good health, one day a privy Counsellor presented her with a piece of gold of the bigness of an Angel, 
The narration of the manner of Q. Elizabeth's death.  dimly marked with some small characters, which he said an old woman in Wales bequeathed her on her deathbed, and thereupon he discoursed, how the said old woman by virtue of the same, lived to the age of an hundred and odd years, and in that age having all her body withered, and consumed, and wanting nature to nourish, she died, commanding the said piece of go●ld to be carefully sent her Majesty: alleging further, that as long as the said old woman wore it upon her body, she could not die.  
The Queen upon the confidence she had thereof, took the said gold and wore it upon her ruff. Now though she fell not suddenly sick, yet daily decreased her rest, and feeding, and within few days fell sick indeed, and the cause being wondered at by a Lady with whom she was very private and confident, her Majesty told her (commanding her to conceal the same) that she saw one night in her bed, her body exceeding lean, and fearful in a light of fire. This sight was at Whitehall a little before she departed from thence to Richmond, and may be testified by another Lady who was one of the nearest about her Person, of whom the Queen demanded whether she was not wont to see sights in the night, telling her of the bright flame she had seen. Afterward in the melancholy of her sickness she desired to see a true looking glass, which in twenty years before she had not seen, but only such a one as was made of purpose to deceive her sight, which glass being brought her, she fell presently into exclaiming against them whic● had so much commended her, and took it so offensively, that some which before had flattered her, dared not come into her sight. Now falling into extremity, she ●ate two days and three nights upon her stool ready dresl●d, and could never be brought by any of her Counsel to go to bed, or to eat or drink: only my Lord Admiral one time persuaded her to drink some broth, ●or that any of the rest she would not answer them to any question, but said softly to my Lord Admirals earnest persuasions, that if he knew what she had seen in her bed, he would not persuade her as he did. And comaunding the rest of the Lords to depart her chamber, willed my Lord Admiral to stay, to whom she shoo●● her head, and with a pitiful voice said unto him. My Lord, I am tied with a chain of iron about my neck: 
 he alleging her wont courage, she replied: I am tied, and the case is altered with me.  
About the same time two Ladies waiting on her in her C●amber discovered in the bottom of her Chair the Queen o● hearts, with a nail of iron knocked through the forehead of it, the which the Ladies durst not then pull out, remembering that the like thing was reported to be used to other, for witchcraft. Another Lady waiting in these times on the Queen, & leaving her asleep in her privy chamber at Richmond at the very first distemper of her sickness, met her at she t●ought, three or four chambers of, & fearing that she would have been displeased that she le●t her alone, came towards her to excuse herself, but she vanished away: and when the Lady returned into the same chamber where she left the Queen, she found her asleep as before. So in time growing past recovery, having kept her bed some days, the Counsel sent unto her the Bishop of Canterbury & other of the Prelates, upon sight of whom, she was much offended, cholerikly rating them, bidding them be packing: & afterwards exclaimed to my L. Admiral that ●he had the greatest indignity offered her by the Archbishop that a Prince could have, to pronounce sentence of death against her, as if she had lived an Atheist. And some Lords mentioning to have other Prelates to come unto her, she answered that she would have none of those hedge-priests & so none of them came to her, till after she was past sense & at the last gasp, at which time some prayers were said not far from her.  
The Queen being departed this life, the Lords of the Counsel went to London to proclaim his Majesty, leaving her body with charge not to be opened, such being her desire: but some for some reasons having given a secret warrant to the Surgeons, they opened her, which the rest of the Counsel did not contradict. Now her body being seared up, was brought to Whitehall, where it was watched every night by six several Ladies: who being all about the same, which was fast nailed up within a board-coffin with leaves of lead, covered with velvet, it happened that her body broke the coffin with such a crack, that it spleated the wood, lead, and cerecloth, to the terror and astonishment of all that were present: whereupon the next day she was fain to be new trimmed up, in so much as all were of opinion, that if she had not been opened, the breach of her body would have been much worse. divers other particularities, ●or that they concern special Personages, I have thought good for some causes to conceal.  
And this narration I have been forced to set forth, to avoid the calumniation of M. Barlow, who saith upon my first words, in the Letter to my friend: This is another jesuitical trick, as well in matters historical, as o● doctrine, to ●ra●e it out with an impudent tale: but ask them for their Author who saith it, than ansu●●er is like the C●clops c●y in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nobody, nobody. But we say contrary to the Cyclops, somebody, somebody, or rather many Lodies together: for that in this point I have the original by me, & have showed it to many men of gravity & judgement, though it be not convenient to declare the name of the Relator for this present to M. Barlow, 
 for more causes than one. And as for his general slander & con●umelies which he though good he●● to cast in, that it is a jesuitical trick, as well in matters Historical as of doctrine, to brave it out with an impudent tale, the assertion thereof must needs ●hew his impudence, if he doth not prove it with some examples, as he neither doth, nor can: but how often I have done it against him in this book, the Reader hath partly seen, and will more before we end. And the two late books published, to omit all other, the one, The sober Reckoning with M. Morton, the other, The Search of M. Francis Walsingham, one of their own 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 books, and satisfy substantially for the main and huge number of falsities therein objected, and demonstrated, it shall not be needful for him to trouble himself any more to answer this my book, for I will take myself satisfied by the satisfaction given to them.  
And thus now having buried Q. Elizabeth & brought her body to rest for a time; would to God we might hope the like, both for body and soul eternally, & Christ jesus our Saviour knoweth how heartily & sincerely I do desire it, without any worse affection towards her then hearty compassion, notwithstanding all the outcries & raging exclamations made by this intemperate Minister against me for the contrary, to wit, ●or malice, and hat●ed against her and for judging her before the time, against the prescription of the Apostle S. Paul, which I have not done. For God's judgements are secret, & cannot absolutely be known in particular before the last day, when according to the Scripture all shallbe made manifest, so far as it shallbe convenient for men to know. But yet in this life men also may give a guess, and take notice according to our present state of many things, how they are to fall out afterwards, as S. Paul doth often repeat, and affirm most resolutely, that such as shall commit such and such delicts, as he there recounteth, shall never attain to the Kingdom of heaven, but be damned eternally, according to their works, 
In what case we may judge of other men's souls after their death.  as loose life, murders, fornications, adulteryes, sects, schisms, heresies, and the like. And if one should see, or know some persons to commit all these sins together, or the most of them, & so die without contrition, or penance for the same to his knowledge, might not he by good warrant of S. Paul affirm, that in his opinion they are damned? Nay doth not S. Paul give this express liberty of judging to his Scholar Timothy, & by him to us, when he saith as before also hath been noted, Quorumdam hominum peccata mani●●sta sunt, praecedentia ad judicium: quosdam autem subsequentur. 
1. Tim. 5.  The sins of some men are manifest going before them unto judgement, and others have their sins following them. So as i● either before their death or after their death, when the particular judgement of every soul is to be made, any man's grievous sins be made manifest, there is no doubt but that men may judge also in a certain sort, or at least make to themselves a very probable and likely conjecture of the miserable state of that party: yea more than a conjecture, if the Church should censure him for any great sin cōmitted● & d●ing afterwards in the same without due repentance, which is wont to be declared by denying unto him Christian burial, as when they murder themselves, & the like.  
But above all, when the said Church doth cut of any body by Excommunication from being any more a member thereof, for schism, heresy, or other offence of this quality, a man may make judgement of his damnation, yea must also: for than is he in the case whom S. Paul affirmeth to be s●buersum, 
No sin to judge of men deceased in heresy.  subverted by heresy, that is as much, to say, turned upside down, or plucked up by the roots, & proprio judicio condemnatum, condemned not only by the judgement of the Church, but also by his own judgement in like manner, when he cometh to answer the matter: for that being bound to follow the direction of the Church, he became Haereti●us homo, as the Apostles words are, that is to say, an Heretical man, one that out of choice or election would ne●des follow his own judgement.  
This point then that a man or woman dying in the excommunication of the known Catholic Church, may be pronounced to be damned, and cannot possibly be saved (albeit their lives were otherwise never so good and apparent holy) is a thing so generally, earnestly, and resolutely affirmed, and incultated by the ancient Fathers of the primitive 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 divers places, saying first, that an heretic or schismatic that is out of the Church cannot be saved, 
Cyprian l. 〈…〉.  though he should shed his blood for Christ, inexpiabilis culpa, quae nec passione purgatur: it is an inexpiable sin (to be an Heretic or Schismatic) that is to say, not ever to be forgiven, nor can it be purged by suffering for Christ himself. And again he saith, 
S. C●priā● judgement of su●h as die out o● the Church.  that such a man can never be a martyr though he should die for Christ; nor yet receive any Crown for confession of Christian faith, even unto death: which death, saith he, non erit ●id●i corona, sed poena 〈◊〉: it shall not be a Crown of faith, but a punishment o● per●idiousnes. And many other like places and saying he hath, which for brevity I omit: wherein also do coacurre with him, the other ancient Fathers that ensued after, and namely S. Augustine in many parts of his worke●: 
〈◊〉 l 4 〈…〉 17.  in particular, where he saith against the Donatists, That neither baptism, nor Martyrdom profiteth an heretic 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 eternal pains, although thou shouldest be burned quick for the name of Ch●ist. 
Au●ust. 〈◊〉 2● 4. ad Donat●  And yet again the same Father: Heretics d● sometimes brag, that they do give much alms to the poor, 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 forth of the communion of the Church, therefore art thou miserable, whatsoever thou dost or sufferest otherwise. For hearken to the Apostle, saying to himself: I● I should give all that I have to the poor, and deliver my body to the ●ire, without charity I am nothing: he that is out of the Church, liveth 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: 
A notable sentence of S. Augustine.  I● unto an heretic that is out o● t●● Church, it should be said by an enemy of Christ: Off●r up sacrifice to my idols, and adore my Gods, and he in refusing to adore, should be put to death by the said enemy of Christ for this fact: yet shall ●●le damned and not crowned.  
I pretermit in this matter S. Chrysostome hom. 11. in ●●ist. ad E●●es. S. Pacianus Bishop of Barcelona, that lived somewhat be●ore him Epist. 2. ad S●mpronium, S. Fulg●ntius t●at lived the next age after lib. de fide ad P●trum cap. 29. whose words are these, spoken with a vehement spirit, and some men ascribe them to S. Augustine: Firnassime tene & 〈◊〉 dubious etc. 
A ●ard cesure against all the ●abble of I●●n Fox his Martyrs.  Do thou hold ●or most firm and certain, and no ways doubt, but that whosoever is an heretic, or schismatic, and thereby out of the Church, t●ough he be baptised in the name of the Father, the S●nne, and the holy Ghost, do never so good works, giue● n●u●r so ●●ch alms, no though he should shed his blood for th●n● m● o● Christ, yet can he not be saved.  
Well then this is the Mayor proposition, no Christian man or woman, though of never so good life can be saved ●ut of the unity of the known common Catholic Church, nor in that unity without good life; especially if he should die in any of these sins mentioned before by S. Paul, that go b●fore or follow him to judgement.  
The minor proposition is, that Q. Elizabeth is noted most grievously in both these kinds: Ergo, there may be a just fear of her everlasting damnation. Neither doth this prejudice Almighty God his extraordinary mercies to whom he listeth; we speak here of the ordinary way of salvation revealed unto the Church, and in that sense only shallbe said somewhat to the Minor proposition, wherein standeth the chief moment of this our question.  
That Queen Elizabeth was excommunicated by name by two or three Bishops of Rome, whom we hold for supreme heads on earth of the known Catholic Church, no man can deny: that she was likewise excommunicated by consequence, though not by name, by the General Council of Trent, 
A convincing argument upon th● Premi●●s.  in all t●ose Canons & anathematizations which were made against Protestants for their doctrine, which she also held, no man can doubt of: as neither but that she was comprehended in all the cases that touched her faith or actions in Bulla Coenae, every year repeated and pronounced against Heretics, Schismatics, & Usurpers of Ecclesiastical power, and authority, whereof she avouched herself to be Head in her own kingdoms. And now that this external visible Church called Catholic, and known by that name throughout the world, aswell by friends as enemies, which S. Augustine saith is an argument that it is the true Church indeed, is the self same visible Church, that was in the foresaid Father's times, and visibly deduced by succ●ssion from their days to ours, is so manifestly to be proved, 
The hard ●ase of Q. elizabeth  as no man can with reason deny the same: and consequently if it were so certain a damnation to be excommunicated, or put out of that Church, as now you have heard the said Fathers to affirm, then is it so now a●●o, and then goeth hard the case of Queen Elizabeth, as you see, for that it is not known that she was ever reconciled, or taken into the said Church again.  
And as for the other point, concerning other sins, meant or mentioned by the Apostle, as on the one side I will not take upon 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 enemy, the world, the flesh, and the devil, the many occasions she had in her free state of life to fall into sin; and that in the space of four and forty years at least, after the entrance to her Crown, she never used the ordinary help of ancient Christians for purging her soul, which the foresaid Fathers do teach us to be not only contrition, but also Sacramental Confession, & absolution of the Church: her state, I say, being this, it must needs follow, that so many as believe and acknowledge this Sacrament of the Church to be necessary to salvation, when it may be had yea is commanded by the said Church under pain of Censures to be reiterated every year once at least, if not oftener, that this woman never making the same, and dying in that state, cannot be saved according to the judgement of all those that believe & follow that Church that condemneth her: which Church being spread throughout the whole world, as it was in S. Augustine's time, and having obtained the same privilege which he took to be sufficient to demonstrate the true Church, to wit, that she is known by the name of Catholic, both to friends & enemies, true Christians and Heretics, according to the common sense of men (for he proveth that never heretical Congregation could obtain to be so much as called Catholic, throughout Christendom, or to be known by that name) this thing, I say, being so, we see what a dreadful prejudice this may appear to be against the everlasting salvation of Queen Elizabeth. For if there were so great & main a difference between bodily Phisitian●● both for number, skill, experience, antiquity, and authority about the temporal death of any Prince, as there is here in all these qualities between the spiritual Physicians of Christendom Catholic, 
A remarkable comparison.  and English Protestants, concerning the eternal death of Queen Elizabeth's soul, to wit that so many more temporal Physicians in number without comparison, so much more learned, so much more experienced in corporal Physic, as the other exceed them in spiritual: yea further, and that they had so many deadly Symptoms, Chry●es, and Prognosticons con●●med out of the authority of Hipocrates, Gal●●, and other ancient Physicians, all tending to mortality, as the other have out of the doctrine, judgement, and perpetual practice both of the said Church, and holy Ghostly Fathers of the same, fo● Queen Elizabeth's everlasting death: I doubt nothing but that the said Princes temporal life, would be held for very dangerous, or rather his death were very probable. Neither did I say any more of the spiritual death of Queen Elizabeth most likely to accompany her corporal. I beseech the mercy of Almighty God that it be not so.  
And here I might add also another plain & familiar proof, 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 universal known: Catholic Church in his days, 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 Heretic, Schismatic, or an Excommunicated person, dying in that state to be saved, he goeth further in an other place into more particulars; for being required by his friend Quod-Vult-Deus to set down unto him a brief Catalogue, or enumeration of all the particular heresies, that the Catholic Church had condemned, from the beginning of Christianity unto their time, or did hold for heresies in those days; he set down above fourscore, and added in the end, that if any man should profess, or believe any of those heresies, or any other that had, or s●ould spring up, he could not be a Christian Catholic; and consequently neither be saved, but everlastingly damned. Now in this Catalogue or book of heresies (which was also gathered unto their days by Philastrius, and S. Epiphanius before him) S. Augustine setteth down for damned heresies some that Queen Elizabeth did manifestly ●ould, 
Q. Elizabeth held condemned heresies.  and so was thought to hold, and for any thing that we know, died in the same, as namely those heresies of the Heretic Aërius, that solemn fasts appointed by the Church were not to be observed, but every man or woman to fast when they would, 
Haeresi 53.  lest they should seem to be under the law. So saith that heretic. And then (which maketh most to our present purpose) that prayer and sacrifice were not to be offered up for the dead, nor did profi● them any thing at all, upon which later point I am induced to make this ensuing consideration.  
S. Augustine in his ninth book of Conseffions recounting the story of his journey from Milan to Rome, 
Aug. l. 9 conf●●●. c. 13.  and from thence to Africa his Country, in the company of his Mother, a holy widow named Moni●a, showeth how they coming to the Port of Ostia, where they were to embark, his said Mother fell grievously sick, and after some days of sickness departed this present li●e: and for testification of her great sanctity, the said Doctor recouncounteth many of her godly speeches uttered before her death, 
S. Monica desired to be prayed for at the altar after her death which Q. Elizabeth did not.  and amongst other sh● earnestly recommended unto him and other there present, that she might be prayed for at the altar in time of Sacrifice, which S. Augustine not only performed himself, but in the same place most humbly desireth all those that shall read his words, to pray both for the soul of his said Mother, and likewise for the soul of his Father dead long before, named Patricius.  
Now then have we the testimony of S. Augustine, & by him also of all the Catholic Church in his time (for that he was never noted of error either for thus writing, or thus doing:) first that Aërius was an Heretic, and consequently damned for holding that Prayers & Sacrifice were not to be offered up for the dead. Secondly we see by the fact of the holy widow, that, that was the common sense of the universal Church in her days, for that she having lived first in the Catholic Church in Afria, & then under S. Ambrose in Milan, and sometime also in Rome, she would never have demanded this office to have been done for her soul after her death, if it had not been the common known practice of the universal Church in her days: neither would her learned godly Son h●ue permitted it, & much less performed the same himself, and entreated others to do the like, whereof it seemeth I may well infer, 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 Son may be thought to be saved, that both believed & practised prayers, and sacrifices for the dead, then hardly can be saved Queen Elizabeth with her chaplain M. Barlow (except he change his opinion) that neither practice or believe that doctrine. I remit me to the careful Reader, what force there is in this Argument.    

OF THE FLATTERY AND SYCOPHANCY USED BY DIVERS MINISTERS TO HIS MAJESTY OF ENGLAND, To the hurt and prejudice of Catholic men, and their cause. CHAP. III.  
AS during the life of Queen Elizabeth one great Witchcraft of Ministers was, for bringing her asleep in the bed of careless security, to intoxicate her brain with excessive praises, and immoderate adulations: So, said I, they attempted to do the like with his Majesty that now is, indeauoring to incite him daily more & more against catholics, & their religion, by pretence of zeal towards his State & Person, which no ways would they have him believe that Catholics did love or favour. And in this poin● I did mention in particular T.M. the younger, of whom I was credibly informed, that his custom was by reason of his place near his Majesty, at the time of repast to injure Catholics that were absent, either by false relating their doctrine, or misconstruing their actions, or alleging & showing forth some places out of their books, that may seem prejudicial against them, being taken at the worst, & without due interpretation. My words at that time were these.  

Lett. p. 36.  We do verily persuade ourselves, that if his Highness had been left to himself, and to his own Royal nature, 
See Answer to Sir Edw. Cook c. 15.  & Noble disposition in this point (as Queen Elizabeth was wont to say of her disposition in religion) we had tasted indeed much of this his great humanity; and so we began for sometime, but being prevented and diverted by the subtle working of this and other such Ministers, as desired to draw blood, and to incite his Majesty against us, we having no place to speak for ourselves, 
His majesties mild disposition diverted.  no admittance to be heard, no effectual intercessor to interpose his mediation for us, no marvel, though we were cast of, and do endure the smart.  
And I do name this Minister (T. M. the younger) in the first place among the rest, for that it is commonly said, 
The exercise of the Minister T. Montague.  that his whole exercise is Sycophancy and calumniation against men of our profession, be they strangers or domestical, and that among other devices he hath this, that every time his Majesty is to take his repast, he is ready either with some tale, jest, scoff, or other bitter lance to wound us absent, and that he hath ever lightly some book & page thereof ready to read to his Highness, somewhat framed by his art to incense, or avert his Majesty more, either in judgement or affection, or both, and thereby to draw from him some hard speeches, which being published afterward by himself, and others, do serve to no other end, but to gall, and alienate min●es, and to afflict them that are not suffered to give reason for themselves, & that is the service he doth his Majesty in this exercise.  
And now unto this let us see how M. Barlow beginneth to frame his answer: 
Barl. pag. 102.  Is not this ●ellow truly can is in praesepe (saith he) that can neither speak well himselve, nor endure that virtue should have her due commendation by others? He m●an●th concer●ing the praises of his Majesty, which he would s●y that I can neither utter them of myself, nor suffer others to do the same, 
Malicious contradiction.  & yet within a few lines after, finding me to have yielded unto his Majesty sundry worthy due praises, he is forced to run to the quite contrary extreme, of reprehending me for it, saying: 
Barl. pag. 103.  Whereas this judas commendeth his majesties great humanity, Royal nature, and Noble disposition, so did the Diveth contesse Christ to be the Son of God, but their conclusion was withal Quid tibi & nobis? what have we to do with thee? So he.  
And is not this humour of malicious contradicting very fit for the Devil indeed, who thereof hath his name of Satan? In the former lines he said, that I would neither praise his Majesty, nor suffer him to be praised, and here he compareth me to the devil for praising him; and yet goeth further, sayings That his Majesty may demand, what evil have I done this day, that so bad a fellow as this is, should speak so well of me? So as whether we speak well, or hold our peace, 
M. Barlow a true parasite.  still we must be blameworthy. And this also is a principal point belonging to the profession of Parasites, if you mark it well, to admit no concurrence of their adversaries, in honouring that Prince (though never so sincerely meant) whom themselves alone by their exorbitant adulation do mean to possess.  
Let us see what general ground our Antagonist here M. Barlow, that seemeth indeed to be an egregious Craftsman in this occupation, doth lay us down to defend himself from the imputation of flattery, for this he is wont to do full wisely, when he meaneth to build somewhat thereon. Flattery, 
Barl. pag● 102.  saith he, cannot be without touch of both parties, because none use to ●latter, but such as have no other means to advance themselves, and none love to be flattered but those which have no true virtue to commend themselves. Which ground hath two parts as you see, and both of them most evidently false. The first, for tha● otherwise none but poor men should be flatterers, whereas rich men may perform the same office, 
About the nature of flattery & how Sy● William demeaneth himself therein.  and do also often times more than others, either for increasing their riches, or preserving that they have, 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 virtues, may delight to hear themselves praised, and their virtues acknowledged, though in their hearts perhaps (if they be wise and virtuous indeed) they do scorn the praiser, when they understand, that he doth it out of adulation for his own gain, or to hurt others. For it is to be considered that the nature of adulation which consisteth in excess of desire to please, and delight the person which is flattered, doth not always require that the things themselves should be all false that are spoken in such adulation, but it is sufficient there be excess in the measure or manner of utterance, 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 & occasions, and still to bring in speech of good legs, as some will say the custom was to flatter a certain Earl when he was young, in our English Court; this should be base flattery of itself, though the Subject were true. But if here withal the flatterer's intention should be to gain unjustly, or to hurt any man injuriously thereby; then should it be malicious and damnable flattery. And now whether also these circumstances did concur in the flattery of M. Barlow, & his fellows towards Queen Elizabeth, when she was alive and towards his Majesty that now liveth, I will not stand much to discourse: only I am sure, that the last circumstance, which of all other is the worst, to wit, of hurting Catholics, never commonly failed. So as we may truly say, as S. Augustine said upon those words of the Psalm, 
Augu. in 〈◊〉. 69.  Conuertantur statim erubescentes, Let flatterers presently with confusion be converted, for that, plùs nocet lingua adulatoris quam gladius persecutoris: the tongue of the flatterer doth hurt more th●n the sword of the persecutor. And this we have well experienced.  
I have somewhat touched before, how well M. Barlow observed the circumstance of time in exercising this art: For when the Earl of Essex was in his ruff, them was he his encomiast, & the loud-sounding trumpet of his triumphs, but when time began to turn, and prosperous fortune to change her face, than did he change his course also, and became not only a silent Orator in his behalf, but also an open accuser, yea a calumniator & Syphocant, as out of his before mentioned printed Sermon you may have observed: for that Sycophancy (as himself in this place for the defence of his brother T. M. the younger, will presently declare at large by the first institution of the word) signifieth a complaint or accusation of carrying out figs from Attica, contrary to the law, and afterwards remained with the signification of false or trifling accusations, or calumniations, prying into other men's actions, malicious inferences, odious collections, & the like, whereof in that printed Sermon against the said Earl you shall find good store, 
M. Barlow an egregious flatterer.  especially ●hose 13. last records which are left to the Citizens of London to meditate upon, which in effect are all but captious illations, and odious inferences of his own gathering: but on the other side the flatteries bestowed upon the Queen are both eminent and excellent, which not to lose time in repeating, I will only report the last contained in the very last words of that Sermon. What now remaineth (saith he) but to conclude with my text, Give unto Cesar the things of Cesar, our most Gracious Sovereign I mean, honour her, obey her, fear her, but above all pray for her, that she being the light of the Land, may shine among us as long as the two great lights in heaven, the sun and moon: this God grant for his mercy's sake. Amen.  
Thus he taught his Auditory to pray by vocal prayer, and especially the Citizens of ●ondon there present, to whom for mental prayer he had given the forersaid thirteen points of meditation before set down, whereof the last was, o● the Earl's opinion & censure o● their baseness etc. But now I would know of M. Barlow, whether in his Divinity, prayer may be made without the virtue Theological of Hope, which appeareth by the whole course of Scripture that it cannot: for he that hopeth not to obtain that which he prayeth for, prayeth in vain. And then secondly I would demand wha● grounded hope the Citizens of London might have to pray with him, that Queen Elizabeth might live, as long as the two lights in heaven, the sun and moon, 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 jest? And whether jesting with God in prayer be lawful by M. Barlowes theology, 
M. Barlows prayers without hope.  I would also gladly know? especially for so much as he seemeth to have spoken this in very good earnest, by adjoining a vehement reduplicative in the very last words of all: This God grant for his mercy's sake, Amen: as if he had said, this is the point of most moment to be demanded at God's hand, that the Queen, the sun, and the moon might live out together, and be of one age, and that they shin● together, she over England, & they over the whole world: this is the grace that we ha●e most need of, 
Luc. 10. 21.  unum est necessariu●: other folks with Mar●ha are solicitous & troubled about many things, but we have need of one thing: This God grant us ●or his mercy's sake, that Queen Eliz●beth do not die before the sun and moon: and yet good man h● did not consider in thi● servant devotion, that he offered great injury to his Majesty that now is. For if Queen Elizabeth had lived and shined as long as the sun and moon, his Majesty had never had any part in that succession: for that after the sun and moon I suppose there will be no succession. And this will serve for one example amongst the rest of his adulation towards Queen Elizabeth.  

Flattering of his Majesty.  B●t as for those which he useth towards his Majesty that now is, both in this place, & throughout his whole Book, though they be gross and palpable enough and consequently also seen I doubt not, and scorned in great part by his majesties prudence: yet mean I not to treat thereof, for that the common refuge of flatterers in this point is to say, that such as do tax or mislike their flattery, are enemies or envious of the praises given to the person flattered: and the same is M. Barlowes defence in this place. Only then shall I ●eau●●his matter to the judgement of the Reader, but especially of his Majesty, who in this case for m●ny respects may be the most competent judge, notwithstanding the cause doth most concern himself.  
Let us now se● wh●t M● Ba●lo● saith ●o that which before was objected against him, and his like, and namely against T. M. the younger, for sycophancy and calumniation against Catholics, and their doctrine by sinister means, at such times as his Majesty takes his repast. It is true, saith he, that his majesties 〈◊〉 for the most part at times of repast, is a● Constantine's Court (Ecclesiae 〈…〉) a li●le University compassed with learned men in all professions, and his majesty in the midst of them (as the Grecian entitled one less deser●●●●) a living Library, 
Barl p. 105.  furni●h● 〈◊〉 all hands to reply● answere● 〈…〉 explain 〈…〉 upon fact, 
Sir Willi●m deserves his fee.  or 〈◊〉 upon 〈◊〉 ● In which words for so much as concerneth his majesties person, I will not meddle withal to contradict, but rather to admite and rejoice 〈◊〉 such excellencies of learning in so great a Prince, and 〈◊〉 most heartily and 〈…〉 Almighty God every day that his Di●ine Majesty would bestow upon him the true excellency, and indeed above all other learning, which is ●he knowledge of his true Cat●olick● Church and doctrine, without which, as we have now heard out of the ancient Fathers before alleged, that all other skill and learning is either vain or pernicious, for that it shall be as S. Cyprian saith, non corona 〈…〉.  
His 〈…〉 heard but one part, and hath been ●uer obse●t with th●s● Academical 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 public 〈◊〉 they dare not appear, or 〈◊〉 thei● f●ce. And ●ow th●t his Ma●●●ty hath given so plentiful occasion of trial by writing with his hand t● all Christian Princes, stirring up thereby great store of learned men to discuss the questions in controversy; we do verily hope in the mercy of Almighty God, that as goo●d by rubbing and heating is made more clear; so will ●ruth by disputation, and examination, wherein his Majesty having so principal an interest, as now to the world is known, he will stand more attended to the discussion, an● issue of all, and thereby receive that lig●● which is needful to everlasting bliss. A●d this concerning his Majesty with all duty and respective love.  
But as for the little University of learned men of all professions, 
About the little University.  that invirone his Majesties' table at time of repast, I must say somewhat more, though very briefly also. We do easily imagine by the effects, what m●●ner of learned men, and of what measure in learning they are, that attend his Majesty at those times, and places: and we do measure them principally by their books whic● they have published, for that it i● like t●at their 〈◊〉 writings are no less considerate and weighty, than their tabletalk ex tempore. And then if M. Barlow for example, ●hould talk no more substantially in that place, and audience than he doth here in this hi●●ooke, which he hath published to the world, it would pro●e, God knoweth, a very poor University, which his Majesty should have about him, of such men, wherein I remi● me for some part to the trial already made in this discussion of mine.  
If we should compa●e the Academies & Vniuer●●tyes of learned desines, that his Majesties' noble & renowned ancestors both of England and Scotland had about them, from time to time for a thousand years together, for resolving them in all cases necessary for believe or man●●●, with these new men, learning with learning, gravity with gravity, & authority wi●h authority, they being joined with all other learned men of the Christian world in unity of doctrine: & these men being alone, & agreeing with no other part or sect, ●o not of their own Protestant that live out of England, no● having any other cert●ine ●●le of infallible direction but their own heads: the difference will quickly be seen between them, as also whether his Majesties' furniture be better or not, in this behalf, then all theirs, and of all other Princes of the Christian world besides.  
And yet further to increase the weight of this consideration somewhat more, let us suppose that this Majesty our Sovereign, with that great pregnancy of wit, and ot●er gui●tes bestowed by Almighty God upon him, should sit down in an Assembly of half a dozen of the ancient learned Fathers and Doctors of the primitive Christian Church, as S. Athanasius, S. Gregory Nazianzen, 
These were an other manner of University.  and S. C●rysostome of the Greek Church; S. Ambrose, S. 〈◊〉, & S. Augustine of the latin, all living above twelu●●●ndred years agone, and that S. Gregory the Gre●● though coming somewhat after them, yet for that he sent first Christian preachers into England, should sit down with them, and that all the●e together should reason gravely wi●h his Majesty de Reg●o Dei, of the kingdom of God, as S. Luke testifieth that our Saviour did with his disciples after his resurrection for forty days together; 
Act. ●●  and that S. Athanasius as somewhat more ancient than the rest, 
S. Athan●sius.  should gravely begin, and recount unto his Maiesti● what passed between him, and other Catholic Bishops, and his Lord the Emperor Constantius, deceived by the Arian Preachers, and Ministers of that sect, who flocked no● less about him at that time, to flatter him, ●●d incite him against Catholics, then do these Protestant Ministers about his Majesty in these days: and namely he should tell him, that which he hath left written in a large Epistle of his, 
Epist. ad solitari●m vitam agentes.  how the said Emperor being averted now from the Catholics by the Arian M●●isters, 〈◊〉 for di●ers Bishops, commanding them in his p●●ence to subscribe to his Imperial order, for the banishing of Athanasius, and communion to be frequented with the said Arians; and that the said Catholic Bishops wondering at his command●ment, and telling him that it was against Ecclesiastical Canons, that the Emperor should meddle with such matters; he persisting notwithstanding to have his will done, they held up their hands to heaven appealing unto God for remedy: presuming further to tell him, that his Kingdom was not his, but from God, who gave it him, and it was to be feared least ●b would take it away again, if he proceeded in that course: and finally devounced unto him the dreadful day of judgement, persuading him not to pervert the course of Ecclesiastical affairs, neither intermeddle the Roman Empire in dealing with Ecclesiastical institutions etc.  
All which and much more is set down by S. Athanasius himself in a long Epistle of this matter, where he also recounteth the bold speech of bishop Osius the famous Confessor of Corduba, who was one of the 318. Father's that sa●● as judges in the first Council of Ni●e, and used the sa●● liberty of speech to the foresaid Emperor at another time which the other Bishops had done before him, saying to him: Leave of I beseech thee o Emperor these dealings in Ecclesiastical affairs; remember thou art mortal, fear the day of judgement, keep thyself free from this kind of sin, do not use commandments to us in this kind, but rather learn of us, for that God hath committed the Empire unto thee, & to us the things that appertain to his Church etc. All which speeches doth S. Athanasius allow, & highly commend in the same place, adding further of his own, That now the said Constantius had made his Palace a tribunal of Ecclesiastical causes, in place of Ecclesiastical Courts, and had made himself the chief Prince and head of spiritual Pleas, which he calleth, the abomination foretold by Daniel the Prophet etc. Which speech, if old Athanasius should have used to his Majesty in the presence of all the rest, and seconded by others that sat the●e with him, could not in all reason but much move, especially if● So Gregory Nazianzen, 
S. Gregor. Nazian.  and S. Ambrose 
S. Ambrose.  should have recounted their admonitions about the same, to their temporal Lord and Emperor Valentinian, as when the former said unto him, as is extant yet in his Oration, That he should understand that he being a Bishop had greater authority in Ecclesiastical matters than the Emperor; and that he had a tribunal, or seat of judgement higher than the Emperor, 
Nazian. orat. ad ●iues timore perculsos.  who was one of his sheep; and that more resolutely S. Ambrose to the same Emperor, when he commanded him to give up a Church to the hands of the Arians: Trouble not yourself o Emperor, saith S. Ambrose, 
Ambros. epist. 33. ad sororem.  in commanding me (to deliver the Church) nor do you persuade yourself, that you have any Imperial right over these things that are spiritual, and divine: exalt not yourself, but be subject to God if you will reign, be content with those things that belong to Cesar, and leave those which are of God, unto God: Palaces appertain unto the Emperor, and Churches unto the Priest.  
And these three Fathers having thus briefly uttered their sentences (for much more might be alleged out of them in this kind) let us see how the fourth, 
S. Chrysostome.  that is to say S. Chrysostom Archbishop of Constantinople concurred with them: Stay o king (saith he) within thy bounds & limits, for different are the bounds of a kingdom, & the limits of Priesthood, & this Kingdom of Priesthood is greater than the other. Bodies are committed to the King, but the souls to the Priest. And again: Therefore hath God subjecteth the King's head to the Priest's hand, instructing us thereby, that the Priest is a greater Prince than the king, according to S. Paul to the Hebrews, the lesser always receiveth blessing from the greater.  
These four Fathers then having gravely set down their opinions, about this point of spiritual power not to be assumed by temporal Princes, let us imagine the other three to talk of some other matter, as namely S. Hierome, 
S. Hierome.  that he understandeth divers points of the heresy of jovinian, and Vigilantius, against whom he had with great labour written several Books, to be held at this day in his majesties kingdoms of England & Scotland, which could not but grieve him, they being condemned heresies by the Church. S. Augustine also upon occasion given him, 
S. Aug●stine.  may be imagined to make his complaint, that he having written amongst many other books one, de cura pro mortuis agenda, for the care that is to be had for souls departed, & both in that book and in sundry other parts of his works, said down the doctrine and practice of the Church in offering prayers & Sacrifice for the dead, and delivering souls from purgatory: and that the said Catholic Church of his time had condemned Aërius of heresy, for the contrary doctrine: yet he understood that the matter was laughed at now in E●gland, and Aërius in this point held for a better Christian then himself: yea, and whereas he (S. Augustine) had according to the doctrine and practice of the true Catholic Church in his days, prayed for the soul of his Mother, & besought all others to do the like, his Majesty was taught by these new-sprong doctors to condemn the same, & neither to pray for the soul departed of his mother, dying in the same Catholic faith, nor to permit others to do the same. 
S. Gregory.  All which Saint Gregory hearing, ●et us suppose him out of that great love and charity wherewith he was inflamed towards England, and the English Nation, to use a most sweet and fatherly speech unto his Majesty, exhorting him to remember that he sent into England by the first preachers that came from him, the same Catholic Christian Religion, which was then spread over the whole world, and that which he had received by succession of Bishops, and former ages from the said Fathers there present, and they from the Apostles: and that the said ancient, true, and Catholic Religion was sincerely delivered unto his majesties first Christian predecessor in England King Ethelbert, and so continued from age to age, until King Henry the eight.  
If, I say, this grave assembly of ancient holy Fathers should be made about his Majesty, he fitting in the midst, and should hear what they say, and ponder with what great learning, gravity, and sanctity they speak, and how differently they talk from these new masters, that make up M. Barlowes little University, I think verily that his Majesty out of his great judgement, would easily contemn the one, in respect of the other. But alas, he hath neither time nor leisure permitted to him to consider of these things, nor of the true differences, being so possessed, or at least wise so obsessed with these other men's preoccupations, even from his tender youth, and cradle, as the Catholic cause, which only is truth, could never yet have entrance, or indifferent audience in his majesties ●ares, but our prayers are continually that it may.  
And now having insinuated, how substantially this little University of ancient learned Fathers, would speak to his Majesty if they might be admitted, either at table, or time of repast, or otherwise: Let us consider a little how different matters, even by their own confession, these new Academics do suggest, for that M. Barlow going about to excuse his fellow T. M. the younger, 
M. Barlows division of Sycophancy.  from that crime of Sycophancy which was objected for his calumniations against Catholics, in his tabletalk; & trifling first about the word, what it signifieth in greek, according to the first institution thereof; to wit, an accusation of carrying out of figs out of Athens, as before hath been showed: and then for him that upon small matters accuseth another; as also for him that seeketh to recreate Princes & great men by pleasant speeches; and finally also him that jesteth with a depraving vain; he telleth how that Master T. M. may with credit be called a Sycophant in the three first senses, but not in the last (saith he) for that Sycophancy must be clanculum, and without witnesses, but T.M. useth this Sycophancy openly, even by the Censurers confession, when his Majesty taketh his repast, that is, in the hearing of many; so that the party being known, and the tale openly told, he cannot be called a Sycophant, saith M. Barlow. But I would first demaud of him, where he findeth that the word Clanculun, or Secretly, must be contained in the definition of a Sychophant, for that the first, & prime signification, and derivation of the word doth openly repugn: for as M. Barlow saith, in this place, such delatores ficuum, or Sycophants in Athens, were honourable Magistrates, that did accuse publicly: and secondly in application of the word, to a false accuser, & malicious forged crime, there is no such restraint, that it must be secret, by any Author set down, as may be seen in Henri●●s St●phanus his Thesaurus, where there is no restraint of the nature 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 private place, and auditory while his Majesty taketh his repast either by day, or night, in comparison of the whole body of Catholics there calumniated, in their absence, there will not want also this circumstance of clanculary calumniation, if M. Barlow will needs have it necessary. But now let us pass to another point touched by M. Barlow, wherein he pretendeth to be somewhat pleasant & to recreate his reader with certain jests, though with little grace, as you will see.  
The occasions of his jests are these, that for so much as this word Sycophancy, is derived of figs, as now you have understood, he will tell us divers stories of figs, some sweet, some sour, some pleasant, some ungrateful, some poisoned, and the like: and under this m●eaphor he will show us what figs T. M. and his fellows do p●rhappes represent unto his Majesty at his table for his better recreation and pastime: 
Miracles ●●●d●d and contemned.  as namely first, divers stories of Popish feigned miracles, as that, saith M. Barlow, of S. Denis in France, who being Bishop of Paris and beheaded, carried his own head in his hand after it was strooken of: and of Clement the first, who when he was cast into the sea, with a millstone about his neck, the sea fled three miles from the shore, and there was found a little Chapel ready built in the sea, where his body was bestowed: and that of S. Gregory of Ne●caesarea whose sta●●e being stuck down by him at the bank side, kept the river from overflowing the banks, and presently sprung up and spread it s●lf into a n●ighty tree. Thus he. Condemning as you see our credulity in believing these miracles.  
But first I would demand of this little learned University, an● their Proctor M. Barlow, what more religion there is in not believing these, and other like recounted miracles, then in believing them? for so much as Infidelity is an easy matter to be found every where, 
M. Barl. a good proctor for the Turks & Infidels.  in the worst kind of men, as Turks, jews, and Gentiles, and the worst Christians; but to believe is more hard, and to be found in fewer men, be it human or divine faith that is required. Secondly these, and many other such like miracles not recounted in Scripture, are not proposed as articles of faith necessary for every man to believe, though they being related by good and probable Authors, every pious mind will rather incline to give them credit, than scoff ●t them, as Heretics do. For that the scoffing at these things, which they have no ground of any moment to impugn, showeth but a profane, audacious, and Lucianicall spirit.  
And in this case I would demand of M. Barlow, what ground he hath to scoff so at these three miracles here set down as he doth? to wit, of S. Device 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 man's reason or use of things that fall out ordinarily in the world? If this were not so, they were no miracles. What then? Do they pass (perhaps) God's power to do them? This he willbe ashamed to say. What then? Hath he any testimonies of authors that avow the contrary, and affirm that they were not true? This I presume he cannot say; whereas we on the other side, have divers Authors that affirm the same. And if M. Barlow, and his fellows do believe many things of fact by human faith, for that some one probable Historiographer either Christian, or profane doth recount the same; with what reason can they scoff at us, for giving credit to these things, that are testifed by many Authors? As for example, the miracle of S. Denis the Areopagite, 
The miracles of S. Denys.  of carrying his head in his hands is testified by Nicephorus Calixtus, a Grecian, in his second book of Histories, and twentieth Chapter, and by Simon Metaphrastes another Grecian before him again in the life of S. Denis: and before him again by Hildewinus Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Denis by Paris, upon the point of eight hundred years agone, who allegeth also an other Author elder than himself, named Lysbius, that had set forth the same in his writings, and some other Authors in like manner: all which the said Hildewinus gathered together bo●h out of Greek and Latin writers, at the request of Ludovicus Pius King of France.  

The miracle of S. Clement.  The other miracle also of Saint Clement the first who was cast into the sea with an anchor about his neck (but not with a millstone, as M. Barlow hath devised) and that the sea went three miles back etc. and the rest here objected by M. Barlow, 
M Barl. turns an anchor into a millstone.  is mentioned not only by the foresaid two Greek Authors Nicephorus lib. 3. Histor. Cap. 18. and Metaphrastes in vita Clementis: but by S. Gregory of Towers also, that lived a thousand years ago, in his book de gloria Martyrum Cap. 35. &. 36. And no less the third of S. Gregory Neocaesarea 
Of S. Gregory  surnamed Thaumaturgus, 
Thaumaturgus.  that he piched his staff upon a bank side, and kept the river from overflowing, is written and testified at large, not only by the said Necephorus lib. 6. Cap. 17. but by a far more ancient Father, as namely by S. Grego●y Nyssen, brother to S. Basil; which said holy man hath written the admirable life at large of the aforesaid S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, well near 1300. years 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 etc. But it should be overlong to recite all his miracles who for the excellency of gifts bestowed upon him in that kind, wrought by the holy Ghost in all power, signs and miracles: he is called a second Moses, even by the very enemies of truth themselves etc. here than you see what ground & just cause M. Barlow had to scoff at these miracles, as he doth with like ground and spirit, at the miracles of the new mint, as he calleth them, of the Lady of Hales, of the conformities of S. Francis, the life of ●●●●rius, of M. Garnets' countenance in a straw, with all which he maketh himself sport, upon no other ground than lust of speaking evil. And upon the same might any Infidel or Atheist scoff at the miracles recorded in the old and new Testament, which to human sense and reason are as impossible, as these here alleged and scorned at by this Minister: as the multiplying of loaves, walking on the sea, a hatchet to rise from the bottom of the water and join itself to a handle, with the like, which in another place I have handled more at large against M. Sutcliffe, and Sir Francis Hastings.  
Next after this he bringeth in other figs, and cometh to scoff at divers Indulgences that do pardon, 
M. Barlows fooleries.  saith he, enormous sins, for innumerable years upon sweet conditions; as for kissing two Iron crosses at Saint Peter's Church door, 500 years of pardon: for looking upon one of the Pence that our Saviour was sold for, 1400. years of pardon: for beholding the Cross upon the top of S. john Lateran's steeple 14000. years of pardon, and other like ●oyes of his own invention, which those that live at Rome are never acquainted with, and himself citeth no other proof but only noteth in the margin indulge. Rom. liber: but where that book is to be had, whether printed or written, where it was set forth, or with what authority he telleth nothing at all. In these parts I am sure, it is not to be had or heard of. What these good fellows to make themselves merry and deceive other men, may have devised to themselves in England, or else where I know not, but I suspect the rather, for that I do understand that the Hugonots of France devised a book not long ago, whose title was, Catechismus jesuitarum; & set it forth as in their name, full fraught with all manner of errors, and ignorances, which being brought to Rochel, by them that had devised it, they could not get it there printed, the argument was so absurd, and the fraud so manifest: and yet now do I see it often alleged by Protestant writers against them, and namely by Thomas Rogers in his late edition of 39 Protestant Articles: so as one way or other, these people will ever make themselves matter for exclaiming against us, be it true or false, or never so maliciously invented or perverted.  
And here I would ask M. Barlow in good earnest, whether he do think indeed, these particulars to be true, which here so confidently he hath set down about the years of pardon which he numbereth? For that I cannot easily persuade myself, that in truth of conscience (if he have any) he can be of that judgement, and muc● less in the other clause of slander which immediately followeth: 
Sixtus Quartus belied.  to wit; that Pope Sixtus Quartu● granted forty thousand years of pardon, to him that would say a prayer of his making, consisting of about forty five words, but he bringeth no other proof at all for the same, but his own bare word. And the reason by himself alleged, why it was granted, convinceth ●he same of a manifest lie & fiction: 
Barl. pag. ●08●  which reason is, ●or because his Catholics, q●●●h he, might not complain, that the Protestants satisfaction was easier than theirs; & yet was there no name of Protestant known in the world in Pope Sixtus Quartus time, nor a good while after: for that there passed four Popes, between him and Leo decimus, under whom Luther began, & under him the name of Protestants: so as Sixtus Quartus could not have that consideration of Protestant's in his Indulgence, which M. Barlow hath devised. And would any learned man fall into such absurdyties, and so show his ignorance both in things & times?  
Again in his very first entrance to this Calumniation he uttereth two or three gross untruths, which are inexcusable, when he affirmeth, that Popes do pardon enormous sins, for innumerable years upon sweet conditions. For first they pardon no sins at all by Indulgences, and much less enormous sins: for that Indulgences of the Church in Catholic doctrine, as every man knoweth that hath the least degree of learning therein, do reach only to the remission of temporal punishments due after the guilt of sin remitted, and not of sin itself, which cannot be remitted, but by the Sacrament of Penance, or virtue thereof. And it is strange that one professing learning as M. Barlow would feign ●eeme to do, would either err ●oe grossly or wilfully as here it cannot be denied, that he doth. But if he be desirous to know better our doctrine herein, he may read Cardinal Bellarmine, Gregory of Valentia and Francis Suarez in their learned books of this argument, & by them, if he understand them, he may learn to see his own error, & acknowledge it also if he have so much grace. Now then seeing that all which hath been said by M. Barl●w of Indulgences hath been only spoken either upon heresy, and false relation, or of error, ignorance, or malicious fiction, the judicious Reader may consider, how unworthy an argument this was for M. Barley his little University to treat by scoffs, before his Majesty at his rep●st: much more to the purpose, had it been to have treated substantially, and gravely out of the holy Scriptures, and Fathers, the principal question about this affair, to wit, what ample authority Christian Priesthood hath to remit si●●● in this world, whereof S. Chrysostom's books de Sacerdotis, proving that Christ's Tribunals in heaven hath submitted itself in a certain sort vn●o the Priest's tribunal upon earth, would have yielded them ample and grave matter: as also many other ancient Father's Treatises, and discourses to the same purpose.  
The other question also that followeth after this, whether after the guilt of sin forgiven, there remaineth some temporal punishment to be satisfied, either in this life, or in the next, either by satisfactory works here or by fire there, had been a matter of moment to be discussed, and well pondered: for that it belongeth to all, and ●one can avoid their part therein. And to this purpose they might have considered of divers Tr●atises, as of Origen, Saint Augustine, and other Fathers that handle the question at large. This than had ben● to some purpose to be treated before his Majesty: but those other trifling ●oye● here mentioned by M. Barlow, of looking upon the top of a steeple, and the like, are unfit both for his majesties ●ares, and presence.  
But now he doth insinuate further, that some other figs also are exhibited now & then in that assembly 〈◊〉 bitter than these, 
Base babbling.  as namely, about the Powder-traitours, and absolving them by the Jesuits. Those dreadful cruel positions also (saith he) of Pope's deposing Kings, exposing them to murder, incyting their subjects to rebellion, and determining such parricide be to meritorious etc. And furthermore what an excellent vain, both Pope's h●●e in figging each other away (by poison) and jesuits too (as the Priests relate) in dispatching, with such pleasant pills any that stand in their light etc. Which be mere calumniations, and malicious maledictions, unworthy either to be heard by his Majesty, or to be refuted by me: as also that insulse insolency of the Minister, where he maketh his Majesty to use those odious words against all of the Catholic religion, O Romanistae servum pecus! O Romanists slavish beasts● as though there were no Princes, and monarchs of that religion, that might take in evil part this insolency of the malapert Minister: as if it had some allowance from his Majesty, for that in his name he speaketh it, & doth dedicate his book unto him.  
And thus much about this point of adulation, whereunto 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 Masters, of the little University, and other their friends have persuaded his Majesty, that they are valiant men in writing against their Adversaries, and would perform great exploits therein, if besides their Universities, & Cathedral Churches, they had some special College of writers erected for that purpose, which men say is appointed to be at Chelsey, 
Chelsey erection for writers.  and that the matter is very forward: and that his Majesty hath assigned thereunto, both situation of a house and other great helps; which if it be so, I doubt not but that it proceedeth from him, out of a most honourable respect, for advancing learning: but I assure myself this will not serve, though there were twenty Colleges more applied to this end, except his Majesty should give them a new cause to write o●, ●or o● this between Catholics and Protestants, albeit they multiply books, never so fast, they will never be able to write with credit, either of themselves, or of their founders: for that falsity cannot be defended but by falsehood, nor one untruth but by another; and consequently their cause being such as it is, their multuplying of writers, and increasing the number of books is but to multiply their own disgrace, whereof some scantling may be taken in the last two books (not to speak of any others) that have gone ●orth on the Catholic side, to wit, the Reckoning with M. Morton, and the Search of Francis Walsingham, wherein the proper argument now in hand, is treated about true or false writing.  
And yet on the other side, if the said designment shall go forward, I think our English Catholics will be glad thereof. First, for that it will honour not a little their cause, it appearing by this, that the learneder sort of Protestants, do feel the weight of their weapons: for the besides the foresaid Universities, Schools, & Churches, they are forced to seek yet further furniture for their defence. Secondly, it may be hoped, that foreign Catholic Princes hearing of this matter, will think themselves bound in zeal, and honour of their own Religion to assist in like manner, for erection of some House, or College, for English Catholic writers to defend the same. Thirdly it may in reason be expected that this little University of Protestant Writers, will for their honour, and credit's sake, deal effectually with his Majesty, that the passage of Catholic books written in answer unto theirs, may be more free, and not so subject to loss, danger, and vexation, 〈◊〉 ●●therto they have been, (especially, if they be written modestly, and to the purpose only) for that otherwise it would seem a very unjust matter● to open, as it were, a School of fence, and yet to forbid the entrance of any that would offer to try their manhood and skill with them; or as, if proposing a goal for runners, they would bind the legs of such as should run with them. But fourthly and lastly, our greater's help of all would be in this case, that his Excellent Majesty as before in part hath been touched, being invited by this occasion to read some books of both sides, would by the sharpness of his Great Capacity, enlightened with God's grace, discover in time, where truth, and where falsity remaineth, where substance, or fraud is stood upon: which would be the greatest benefit that we can possibly desire, or wish for at God's hands, for the common benefit of our cause.   

ABOUT TOLERATION OR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE demanded by humble petition at his majesties hands by Catholics, whether it were height of pride or not: AS Also concerning the contention between Protestants and Puritans. CHAP. FOUR  
AS by that which hath been set down in the former Chapter, we have seen and beheld, the good talon that M. Barlow, and his fellows have in fl●tering the memory of Queen Elizabeth now dead, and his Majesty living: so now there ensueth another large Treatise of his, that showeth his iniquity and virulent humour of most bitter calumniation against all sorts of Catholics, for making humble supplication to his Majesty, after his entrance to the Crown for some liberty of conscience, or toleration at least in matters concerning religion, which petition though proposed, as hath been said, with never so much humility and prostrate subjection of the petitioners, and many most forcible and apparent reasons alleged for the same: yet will M. Barlow needs defend it for a supreme height of Pride in them, to have hoped for such a matter, or made supplication for the same.  

Bar●. pag. 112.  The clemency of his Majesty (saith he) wrought in them that height of pride, that in confidence thereof they directly did expect, and assuredly promise unto themselves liberty of conscience, & equality in all things with us, his majesties most best and faithful subjects. And do not you see how great and grievous a charge this is, especially if you cut of the second part, as you must do, to wit, 
M. Barlow addeth to the text.  equality in all things with Protestants his majesties best subjects? For this was never demanded in the petition of Catholics: & much less either directly or indirectly expected, and least of all assuredly promised to themselves. For than should they have demanded also to share equally with Bishops, and Ministers in their benefices, which we may assure our selves they never so much as dreamt of, or of other preferments in the common wealth, with that equality which here they are made to have assured themselves of.  
Their petition then was only for liberty of conscience as hath been said, or if not that, yet at least wise some moderate toleration of the use of that religion, which they had received from their Ancestors, from the first beginning of Christian religion planted in our English Nation, and continued in possession for more than nine hundred years together, until the time of King Henry the eight, and his children, who made the first innovation, and by Regal power interrupted the said possession, whereunto the said possessors, and ancient tenants, though not presuming to demand restitutionem i● integrum, full restitution of that which by violence was taken from them; yet that they might remain with some kind of quiet and rest, for the use of their said consciences in private, 
A most reasonable and modest request of the Cath.  which they promised to use with all humility and moderation, without scandal, or public offence, whereof they offered very good assurance, both for this, and for all other dutiful behaviour in their civil obedience, as became true subjects: yea adding further also, that they would enforce themselves to continue the payment of that mulct, or penalty of Statute laid upon them for their Recusancy, at such a reasonable agreed sum of money yearly to be paid, as his Majesty should think convenient: So as by this means, they might have some external peace, and quietness from the continual molestations, which now they suffered in regard of their said consciences.  
This was their supplication, & now why this should be called pride, yea the height of pride, & highest degree of pride, & further, the extreme height and celfitude of pride, & lastly, the summity and sublimity of pride, as M. Barlow calleth it, I understand not. For if pride be defined to be an inordinate desire of excellency above others, I do not see that here in this petition, either Catholics do prefer themselves disorderly before others, but are content with a far inferior degree then Protestants: or that their desire in demanding, is disordinate; whether we consider the same as it proceeded either from themselves to desire a thing so necessary to the health of their souls, or as it is directed to his Majesty, their Prince, and Sovereign, who is the person that may relieve them: and consequently, the laying forth of such their desires, by ordinate means of humble supplication, to their Lord, and Prince, cannot be called inordinat●s appetitus excellentiae, ●a disordinate appetite of excellency above others, and consequently no pride, & much less celfitude of pride, as M. Barlow out of his celfitude of amplification, or rather height of hatred doth define it.  
But yet let us see briefly what reasons he frameth for this his consequence. For first, saith he, it is impious against God to grant any such liberty of conscience, for that God symbolically forbids such mixture in the linsy-wolsy garment, Deut. 22. & 11. Ergo, it is height of pride so sue for it. But whoseeth not here that neither the antecedent nor consequent have any force? God did forbid in Deuteronomy 〈…〉 garments, Ergo, it is sublimity of pride for Catholics in England, to sue to his Majesty for some toleration of conscience. Will their brethren the Protestants of France allow of this argument? Let us see the second. Secondly (saith he) it being a matter dishonourable to the King, 
Simple & impertinent reasoning of M. Barlow.  is extremity of pride to demand it, for that honest men (even of their equals) will expect nothing, but that which shall stand with the credit, and reputation of the granter: but this without stain of the King's honour cannot be gr●●●ted, Ergo, it is height of pride in the Catholics to sue for it: which second or minor proposition, for that he imagined we would deny, that it would be a stain to his majesties 〈◊〉 to grant it, he goeth about to confirm the same, by divers weak, and fond reasons, not unfit for his invention, as, that his Majesty should be contrary to himself, and show too much weakness and slipperines, having apprehended the religion, which he now professeth, from the cradle of his infancy, resolved in his conscience, maintained it by disputation, enacted it by laws, established it by Oath, & the like: which are reasons quite from the matter. For the granting of toleration unto Catholics, requireth not change of Religion in his Majesty, no more than it doth in the modern King of France, in granting the said 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 roveth than reasoneth.  
And further he is to be put in mind, that if it be a good argument, which here he useth, that his Majesty may not change his religion, for that he hath professed it from the cradle of his infancy etc. which yet hath not the antiquity of fifty years by a good deal, what may we say of the continuance of the Catholic religion in our country? How many fifty years are passed since that cradle was rocked? And why may not we make the same argument for any other sor● of men whatsoever, that have lived in any other Religion for so many years, as his Majesty hath done in this? so little weight, or substance is in this Ministers words, who, so he may seem to say somewhat, careth not greatly what it be, or how little to the purpose.  
I leave his other reasons as trivial, and not worth the answering, as that Queen Elizabeth would not grant this toleration of conscience, that our doctrinal positions are dangerous, that if his Majesty should grant toleration, he should lose the love of all his Subjects, & the like: whereof some are false in the antecedent, as the second and third, for that our doctrinal positions truly understood, are not dangerous to any common wealth but salutiferous: nor should his Majesty lose the love of his people, by using such ●lemency to so principal a part of his people, not a little pitied by the rest, of most wisdom, and best natures. As for the first, though it be true in the antecedent, that she granted no such toleration, yet is it most fa●se in the consequent, that therefore it is height of pride, to demand it of his Majesty: no reason requiring that her actions should be a necessary rule to his Majesty for his, they being no better than they were.  
But now we must see briefly what M. Barlow answereth to all my reasons before alleged for defending Catholics from the imputation of height of pride, in making this demand, and humble petition to his majesty, which I shall set down, in the very same words, which before I used.  
And surely, I cannot but wonder, 
Let. p. 38.  that this Minister was not ashamed to call this the height of pride, which is generally found in all Protestants never so humble: yea the more humble, and underlings they are, the more earnest are they both in books, speeches, and preachings, to prove, that liberty of Conscience is most conform to God's law, and that wresting, or forcing of Consciences, is the highest Tyranny that can be exercised upon man. And this we may see first, in all M. Fox his History, especially 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 beat upon this argument of liberty of Conscience, and when they obtained it not, they set v● public schedles upon the Church doors of London, an● made ●hose famous conspiracies of kill K. Henry the 5 d and all his family, 
In vita 〈◊〉 ●un●i.  which are recounted by Watsingham. Stow, Fox, and other English Historiographers.  
In this our age also, the first opposition of Protestant Princes in Germany, against their Emperor Charles the 5. both at Smalcald, Austburgh, and other meetings; as afterwards also the fierce and perilous wars by the Duke of Saxony, Marquis of Brandeburge, and other Protestant Princes, and their people, against the same Emperor, begun in the very same year that our K. Henry died: 
Anno 1●46.  were they not all for liberty of Conscience? so pretended, so printed so published, so divulged to the world? The first Supplications, Memorials, and Declarations in like manner, which the Protestants of France set forth in print● as also they of Holland, 
Liberty of conscience demanded by all Protestants.  & Zealand in time of the governments, as well of the Duchess of Parma, Duke of Alva, Commenda●or Major, and other Governors: did they not all expressly profess, that their principal griefs were, about liberty of Conscience restrained? And did not they city many places of Scriptures, to prove the equity & necessity thereof? And do not all Protestants the like at this day, in all places where they are, both in Polonia, Austria, Bohemia, Styria, and else where? 
● Psal. 113.  And how then is jordanis conversus retr●rs●m, with this Minister? How is his voice contrary to the voice & sense of all the rest? How, & with what reason, may he call it the height of pride in English Catholics, to have but hope thereof, which is so ordinary a doctrine & practice of all his brethren in foreign nations, to wit, for us to expect liberty of Conscience, at the first entrance of our new King, of so noble, and royal a mind before that time, as he was never known to be given to cruelty, or persecution in his former reign? The Son of such a Mother, as held herself much beholden to English Catholics? And himself in his little Golden 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Book to his Son the Prince, had confessed that he had ever found the Catholic party most trusty unto him, and thereupon had done sundry ●auours to divers of them, and given no small hope of greater unto others. From this King (I say) whom they so much loved, and honoured, received so gladly, and with universal joy, meant to serve faithfully; & trusted that as he had united the two Kingdoms in one Obedience by his Succession: so would he by his liberality, unite and conjoin the hearts of all his Subjects, in bearing a sweet and equal hand towards them all: From such a King (I say) for us to expect liberty of Conscience, and equality with other Subjects (in this point at least of freedom of soul) what height of pride may it be called? 
Height of pride, and in whom it may be said to be.  May it not rather seem height of pride in this Minister, & his fellows, that having been old enemies, and always borne a hard, & hateful hand, and tongue against his Maiesti● both in their Sermons, Books, Speeches, all the time of the late Queen's reign; now upon the sudden sine ullis meritis praecedentibus, will needs be so privileged, & assume unto themselves such a confident presumption of his majesties special favour, as to suffer no man to stand by them, but to hold it for height of pride in us to hope for any freedom and liberty of our Conscience at all? What is height of pride and folly, if this be not?  
These are my words in my former book: and now let us behold what M. Barlow layeth forth against the same. First he beginneth with a pull at the Purytans, though I neither named, nor designed them, but only said as now your have heard, that generally all sorts of Protestants never so humble (or far of from height of pride in their own conceit) do allow, and desire, yea the more humble and underlings they are, the more earnest they insist, both by books, speech, and preaching, to prove, that liberty of conscience is most conform to God's law etc. Whereupon M. Barlow maketh this comment, that by underlinge Protestants, 
Barl. pag. 110.  I do mean them, that do sever themselves from him, and hi●, in matter of ceremony, and Church-goverment, who are not underlings, saith he, because they are humble, for that pride only keepeth them aloof. It is not the inferior place, saith he, or the dejected visage, or the soft voice, or dislike of Prelacy, that doth denominate humility. 
Strange notes of humility set down b● M. Barl●w.  And these are the notes belike, that do distinguish Puritans from the Protestants, to wit, the in●eriour place, the dejected ●isage, the soft speech, dislike of Prelacy. But yet I cannot but wonder to see him twice in this place to repeat, that the difference between these brethren and them●elues● is only in matters of Ceremony, differing (saith he) only in matters ceremonial, though before he added also Church-government. Whereby is evident that he holdeth their Church-government, and Prelacy, matter of ceremony only, and consequently also his own Prelacy and his being a Bishop, is but a mere Ceremony, and no substantial matter in their Religion.  
Now then let us see, what ensueth upon this, and what honour and service M. Barlow doth to his whole Clergy, and namely to his old Master and Lord of Ca●terbury, by this his new doctrine. 
M. Barlow betrayeth his own cause.  Is all the dignity, and pre-eminence, which his said Lord hath above all the Ministers in England, his superiority over the Clergy, his being Archbishop & Primate, his spiritual jurisdiction, his Courts of the Arches, his power of dispensations, his making Ministers, and giving them power to preach, ●each, & administer Sacraments: Is all this but a ceremony? Or do the Puritans in denying and impugning this, impugn but a ceremony, and no point of Religion itself? Truly then must I say that their cause against you, is far better than I ever hitherto esteemed it to be. For if all these things be but ceremonies, and contain no substantial point of religion: why do you, that in other things profess yourselves enemies to Ceremonies, stand so much upon them to the disturbance of the whole Realm? But of this I shall have occasion to speak again a little after, and to lay open your absurdities in this evasion.  
Now only, will I say a word to your argument which here you make against us, for toleration or liberty of conscience● If t●ese humble underlings, say you, dwelling amongst 〈◊〉 ●●●d differing only from us in matters ceremonial, are not heard in their suit of liberty of conscience: 
Barl. ibidem.  how much less those who in points essential, and fundamental are severed from us, may not be tolerated? Whereunto I answer, that if we respect reason and justice in this matter, there is more on the behalf of Catholics, then of Puritans, 
The Protestant hath Ecclesiastical power over Puritans.  for obtaining this toleration, notwithstanding their differences in points of Religion were, or be greater: for that the Puritans came out of the Protestants, and thereby the Protestant Church may pretend to have Ius aliquod Ecclesiasticum, some Ecclesiastical right upon them. But the Catholics of England came never out of the Protestants, nor their Church out of the Protestant Church, but were long before them in possession, which is the markable point so much pondered by S. john to discern heresy, 
1. joan. 2.  & heretics thereby, Prodierunt ex nobis, they went out of us. And consequently the Protestant Church can have no spiritual jurisdiction upon the said Catholics, and much less by right, or reason, can they bar them the use of their Religion, as they may do to Purytans, that were members once of them, though they differ in fewer points of belief. An Example may be the jews in Rome, who are tolerated in their religion, which Protestants are not, though they differ in more points of belief: but yet for that they were in possession of their Religion, before Christians, and went not out from them, as Protestants did from Catholics, they are tolerated in that place, and Protestants not.  
And hereby is also answered M. Barlowes last reason against granting of toleration, which I pretermitted before to be answered in this place: which is, that if the cause were ours, as God be thanked he saith it is theirs, we will not grant liberty to them, for their religion. But how doth he know that, seeing so many Catholic Princes both in France, Low-Countryes, and Germany do permit the said toleration, to divers and different sects? And if he object that in Queen Mary's days, it was not permitted to Protestants in England, nor yet by King Henry the eight, much less by the foresaid 3. Henry's that went before him, yet may the causes, and reasons be different now. For albeit for equity and justice the matter do pass, as before we have said, that no sect in England whatsoever, as of L●●lords, Wickcliffians, Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calui●ists, or the like can have any right in conscience to deny toleration of their religion unto them, 
In what case Catholics may yield and grant toleration to Protestants.  out of which they themselves went, and that the Catholic Church hath that right upon them as going out of her: yet may she leave to use that right oftentimes, and tolerate different sectaries also, when they are so multiplied, as they cannot be restrained without greater scandal, tumult, and perturbation, according to the parable to our Saviour, concerning the cockle grown up amongst the wheat, which our said Saviour willed rather to be let alone, until the harvest day, left by going about to weed out the one out of due time, 
Matth. 13.  they might pluck up the other. So as these Catholic Princes his majesties Ancestors, that did deny toleration, considering their kingdoms to be quietly settled in the Ancient religion of their fore fathers, did justly and lawfully resist the new attempts of innovators: and justly also may we affirm that if other foreign Princes at this day, of the same Catholic religion do permit upon other reason's liberty, or toleration of different religion: much more may his Majesty of England do the same to his Catholic subjects, for the reasons that have been now alleged. And so much of this.  
To the examples of the lollard & Wickliffian Protestants, that made such earnest suit for toleration and liberty of conscience, in the days of three King Henry's 4. 5. and 6. and took arms for obtaining the same, he saith, that if any such conspiracies were, we de●end them not: subjection to Princes we preach, insurr●ctions we defy etc. And with this he thinketh he hath well satisfied the matter● To the foreign examples of higher Germany in the time of Charles the fifth, and of the low-Countryes in these our days, he answereth, That these are no fit presidents for our State, the government of the Emperor being limited● and conditional, and we speak of subjects under an absolute Monarchy. To those of Bo●hemia, Polonia, and Hungary he saith, that it is to be considered, Whether the entrance into those kingdoms be Successive, or Elective by descent, without conditional restraintes: and if they were absolute Monarchies, what is that to his Majesty, who in cases of religion taketh not men's examples, but God's laws, for his dyrects. He knoweth what Princes ought to do, not regarding what they please to do etc. But all this while me thinks the chief point is not answered by M. Barlow, 
M. Barlow at a Nonplus.  which is that those good Protestants were of opinion, that toleration, or liberty of conscience might be granted according to the law of God, and aught also to be granted. And why is Iordani● now turned backward, saith the letter● Why is this Minister's voice contrary to the voice & sens● of all other Protestants?  
The said Letter goeth forward, laying down di●er● considerations, which engendered hope in the minde● of Catholics, for obtaining this suit of toleration, and namely these three, to wit: First, the first entrance of our new King, known to be of so noble and royal a mind before that time, as he never was noted to be given to cruelty or persecution for religion. Secondly the son of such a Mother, as held herself much beholding to English Catholi●kes. And thirdly that himself had confessed, that he had ever found the Catholic party most trusty unto him in his troubles, and many conspiracies made against him. To the first whereof M. Barlow in effect answereth nothing at all, but only citeth certain places of Scripture, for punishing of Idolatry. To the second he saith, That if his majesties Mo●her had not relied too much upon the Priested sort in England, her end had not been so sudden, or unkind. Belike he was privy unto it, that he can tell those particulars. And his Epithet of unkind, 
Unkind dealing indeed.  in cutting off her majesties head, was very judiciously devised by him. For indeed there can nothing be devised more unkind, then for two Queens so near of kindred, to cut off one the others head, and that upon the sudden, as here is granted, which increaseth the unkindness of so barbarous a fact, persuaded and urged principally, as all men know, by the continual incitations of those of M. Barlows coat, to the despite both of Mother and Son, and ruin of them both, if it had laye● i● their hande●. Neither is this to cast salt into his majesties eyes, as M. Barlow here saith, 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 us hear how Ironically he dealeth with vs● in framing a fond argument on our behalf, as to him it seemeth. The Mother, saith he, loyalty Ergo, the Son must give them liberty of consc●●c●. And i● this Sy● so bad an argument? 
Barl. pag. 124.  Do you take away the word 〈◊〉, which is of your own thrusting in, and put in place thereof, that the said Son may be the soone● induced to gra●t them that liberty, in respect of their former dutifulness, and loyalty to his mother in her distresses, and the consequence will not be evil.  
To the third of his majesties confessed experience of the loyalty of Catholics both towards himself and his Mother, in their distres●es, he saith: That his Majesty nameth not Catholi●kes at all, in his said Book, but only professeth that be found none so steadfastly to abide by him in his greatest straits, as they which constantly kept their true Allegiance to his Mother. Well Sir, and who I pray you were they? Catholics or Protestants? Let the acts of those times be seen, the Authors noted, the effects considered. 
M. Barlow● moderate & direct Prot●●t●nt.  Yet, saith M. Barlow, no● i● is very probable that when his Majesty, hath cast up his account of for●er disloyalties, he shall ●ind the moderate ●nd direct Protestant's that inclines neither to right hand nor left, to be the first and faithf●ll subject.  
Well Sir, this may be perhaps f●● the time to come, for your sel●e saith, tha● it is but probable: but for the time p●st his Majesty having now cast up his accounts, hath found that reckoning, as he h●th set it down. And the common rule of wisdom is to believe as we have found, until different experience teach us the contrary. And by the way we must● learn here M. Barlowes new devised epithetons, of a moderate and direct Protestant, that as, he saith, is neither jesuited, nor Genevated, that is neither Catholic nor Pury●an, but moderate, and direct: that is to say, moderate in not believing to much on any s●de, if it stand not with his profit, and direct in following jump the Prince and State that may advance him, whatsoever they should determine in matters of religion. This is the man by M. Barlowes direction, upon whom his Majesty must build, and not the Purytan or zealous Catholic, for that they are over scrupulous.  
I could wish that M. Barlow had been a little more scrupulous in the very next ensuing number, where without all blushing, he casteth out two notorious lies, against Father P●rsons, 
M. Barlow belieth F. Persons.  to make him odious thereby to his Majesty, saying first, that he pronounceth his said Majesty to be a desperate and forlorn heretic, but citeth no place where it is to be found; nor indeed is there any such place to be found where Father Person● useth any such words, as ever I could yet see.  
Secondly he allegeth for Father Persons express words, these: That whosoever shall consent to the succession of a Protestant, is a most grievous, and damnable sinner, and citeth for the same D●l●man pag. 216. which quotation serveth only to condemn M. Barlow of a notorious wilful calumniation, for that these express words are not there found, nor is there any mention of the Succession of a Protestant, but in general is said thus, That for any man to give his help towards the making of a King whom he judgeth faulty in religion, and consequently would advance no religion, or the wrong, if ●e were in authority, is a grievous sin of what side soever the truth be etc. So as neither Protestant nor Succession is named in this place, but m●king of a King, by such as my have authority to do the same; and it may as well hold against the entrance of a Catholic Prince, as of any other sect whatsoever. And consequently both of these are s●landerous accusations, the first being a mere invented untruth, and the second a malicious perverted calumniation: so as in respect of both, I may well say with the Prophet, 
Psal. 5●.  Dilexisti omnia verba praecipitationis lingua dolosa, and I pray God the threat next ensuing do not take place, Propterea Deus destruct to in finem etc. I desire not his destruction, but his amendment.  
After this followeth in my foresaid Letter a narration of the Dutiful demeanour of Catholics towards his Majesty, even from his first entrance, and how by the unjust persuasions of their enemies, they began quickly to feel his hard hand borne over them, even before the powder-plot, as by the confirmation of all Queen Elizabeth● penal laws, in the first year of his majesties reign, with the execution thereof afterward, doth well appear: whereof many particular examples are set down; and among other things it is touched, as a matter of special disfavour, that his Majesty vouchsafing in his own Royal Person to give public audience both to Protestants and Puryt●● for 3. days together concerning the differences of their Religion, no such grace at all was granted unto Catholics. Upon which words M. Barlow stayeth himself, and maketh this commentary. It is a strange humour, saith he, 
Barl. pag. 142.  that this Epistler hath, i● he saith truth, he lieth: It is true there was a conference, but about difference in Religion, it is utterly false; say●● they would possess the world that we are at jar among ourselves ab●●● our Religion, whereas the quarrel, though it be indeed unkind, yet it i● not in this kind, save only for Ceremonies external, no point substantial etc.  
But now of this I have spoken somewhat before, showing, that if this unkind quarrel between Protestant's & Purytans, 
Strange impudence.  as he calleth it, be only about external Ceremonies, then is both his Prelacy, and that of his Lord and Master the Archbishop only an external Ceremony. And if his phrase of unkind quarrel be of the same kind that he mentioned before to be in Queen Elizabeth towards Queen Mary of Scotland, whose he●d she cut of● then is the matter somewhat substantial, & not only Ceremonial: and indeed he that shall consider what the Purytan in this unkind quarrel pretendeth against the Protestant and his Church, shall see, that he striketh at the head indeed, or rather striketh of the head of the said Church, whether we consider either the external and ministeryall head thereof, to wit, the Prince's Ecclesiastical power, and of Bishops under him; or the internal head metaphorically taken for the life, spirit, and essence of the said Church in denying it to be a true Christian Church, but only a profane Congregation, without any spiritual power at all.  
This appeareth by all the course and drift of Puritan writers, and books extant, of the differences acknowledged also by Protestant writers in their Treatises against them: so as to me it seemeth, not only a shameless boldness to deny it, as M. Barlow here doth, but a shameful baseness also, and beggary so to run after their enemies, 
Baseness and beggary of Protestant's  entreating them to have some association with them; whereas the other do both contemn, and detest them. For this falleth out not only in this case, but also with the Lutherans, whom M. Barlow and his fellows, when they deal with us, will needs have to be their brethren of one and the same Church, faith, and belief, for all substantial points of doctrine: Whereas the Lutherans on the other side do both deny and defy this communion in faith with them, and have set forth whole books to prove the same, which were too long here to repeat. Yea calvinian, and Zwinglian Ministers themselves are witnesses hereof, in many of their Treatises, as namely, the Tigurine Divines, 
Theol. Tigurin. in prafat. Apol. prafix. orthodox. C●n. anno 1578.  who confess, that their differences, and contentions with the Lutherans are about justification, freewill, the Gospel, the law, the Person of Christ, his descent into hell, of God's election, of his children to life everlasting, & de multis aliis non levis momenti articulis, & of many more articles of no small importance: which is evident, 
Lib. 2. the rat ineund● Concordiae p. 2. & 24.  for that joannes Sturmius another Zwinglian or Caluinist addeth other controversies, as of the Supper of our Lord, and Real Presence, of Predestination, of the Ascension of Christ to heaven, his sitting at the right hand of his Father, and the like: adding also that the Lutherans do hold the Protestant calvinian Churches of England, France, Flanders, and Scotland for Heretical, and their Martyrs, for Martyrs of the Devil.  
And conform to these their writings are their doings and proceedings with them, where they have dominion; for that they admit them not to cohabitation, nor to the common use of marriage between them, nor to be buried with them, after their deaths, as they well know who have lived, or do live among them. And thus much for the Lutherans of the one side. Now let us see somewhat also of the Purytans of the other.  
And first of all this matter hath been handled divers times, and demonstrated by Catholic English writers of our days, against this absurd assertion of M. Barlow that the differences at this day between Protestants and Purytans are not at all concerning religion, nor of any substantial, and essential points thereof; but only Ceremonial: and in particular the same is convinced, and made most manifest in the Preface of a late Book, entitled An answer to the fifth part of Sir Edward Cooks Reports, where the different grounds of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical power, 
Protestant's and Puritans differ in substantial points of religion.  between Protestants, Puritans, and Catholics being examined, it is found, that their differences are such as cannot possibly stand together, to make one Church and house of salvation, but that if one hath the truth, the other must necessarily remain in damnable error; which is evident also by the writings of Protestants themselves, especially by the books entitled Dangerous positions, set forth and imprinted at London 1593. and the Survey ofpretended holy discipline, made as they say, by him that is now Lord of Canterbury, and Doctor Sutcliffe, as also the Book entitled, the Picture of a Purytan, written by O. O. of Emanuel, printed 1603. and other like books. But especially at this time will I use for proof of this point, the testimony of Thomas Rogers Minister, and chaplain, as he styleth himself, to his Lord of Canterbury, who of late having set forth by public authority, the faith, doctrine, and religion of England expressed in 39 articles upon the year 1607. doth in his Preface to his said Lord, handle this matter of the differences between the Puritans and Protestants, though partially against the discontented brethren, he being their adversary, but yet setteth down out of their own words, what their judgement is of the importance, and moment of the controversies between them, 
Roger's pr●f●●e pag. 9  to wit, that they are not only about Ceremonies, and circumstances, as M. Barlow pretendeth, but about points contained in scripture, & in the very Gospel itself. They are compryzed, say they, 
Arrige aures Sir William.  in the book o● God, and also be a part of the Gospel, yea the very Gospel itself: so true are they, and o● such importance, that if every hair 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 upon by the Bishops, are but childish toys in respect of the other. So they.  
And will any man think or say now that these men do not hold that their differences with the Protestants are differences in religion, as M. Barlow saith, or that they are only matters of ceremonies, and not of any one substantial point concerning religion? Let us hear them yet further telling their own tale, and related by M. Rogers. The controversy between them and us (say they, of the Protestants) is not as the Bishops, and their well-willers bear the world in hand, for a cap, or tippet, or a Surplice, but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry, and regiment of the Church according to the word of God. The first whereof, which is a true Ministry, they (Protestants) shall never have, till Bishops and Archbishops be put down, and all Ministers be made equal. The other also will never be brought to pass, until Kings and Queens do subject themselves unto the Church, and do submit their Sceptres, and throw down their Crowns before the Church, and lick up the dust of the feet of the Church, and willingly abide the Censures of the Church etc. This they write, and much more in that place● which I trow is more than M. Barlow ascribeth unto the matter. For if it be contained in God's book, yea a part o● the Gospel, the very Gospel itself, about which they contend; what protervity is it on the other part, to call it a matter only of Ceremony.  
But yet further within two pages after again, they do explain themselves, and their cause more in particular saying: Our controversy with the Protestants is, whether jesus Christ shallbe King or no: and the end of all our travel is, to buyld up the walls of jerusalem, and to set up the throne of jesus Christ 〈◊〉 heavenly king in the midst thereof. And are these points also not substantial, nor any ways touching religion, but Ceremonies?  
hearken then yet further what they do infer upon the Protestants Church, for dissenting from them in these points: Neither 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 lied, when I said, that his Majesty yielded to a Conference between Protestants & Puritans, concerning their differences of Religion. What will he answer to the two precedent members touched by the Puritans, to wit● that their strife is for a true Ministry, & a lawful government thereof, expounding their meaning to be, that for obtaining the first, all Bishops and Archbishops must be put down, & for the second, all temporal Princes, Kings, & Queens must leave their superiority over the Church, & submit themselves, and their Crowns unto the same Church, to wit, their Presbyteries, as M. Rogers expondeth their words? And is there no substantial point neither in all this, but only matter of Ceremony? And doth not the very life, & soul of the Church depend of these two things, a true Ministry, and lawful Head? Is not the power of preaching, teaching, administration of Sacraments, care of souls, possessing Cures and Benefices, absolving from sins, spiritual jurisdiction, and all Ecclesiastical Hierarchy derived from hence? And are all these things only Ceremonial without substance, or essence of religion? 
M. Barlow a bad Advocate  Doth M. Barlow discharge his duty of a Champion, either towards his king, or his old Lord (from both which it seemeth already he hath received large fees) in bringing both their authorities in Ecclesiastical matters to be mere Ceremonies? No man I think will sue to be his Client hereafter, i● he can plead no better.  
But let us yet see a little further, how he hath advanced his majesties spiritual authority. Thus he writeth of his being Moderator in the Conference between the Puritans and Protestants. This difference (saith he) about things indifferent, his Majesty desirous to reconcile, vouchsafed his Princely pains to moderate, & mediate. In which words, first do you note again his often repetition, that they were things indifferent, to wit, whether his Majesty should have Supreme Primacy in Church causes, or renounce the same, and cast it down, together with his Sceptre before the Presbytery of the Puritans; and whether the Lord of Canterbury should leave of his Lordship, and Graceship, and become a simple Minister equal with the rest? And so likewise M. Barlow himself to leave the Sea of Lincoln, and title of Lordship, which none that knows the humour of the man will imagine that he holdeth for a thing indifferent, or a mere Ceremony.  
This I say is the first Notandum: for if these things be indifferent, what need so much a do about them? And the second Notandum is, that he saith, that his Majesty did moderate and mediate in this Conference: which is a very moderate and mean word indeed to express so high and eminent Authority Ecclesiastical, as sometimes they will seem to ascribe unto his Majesty. For who cannot moderate or mediate in a Conference, if he have sufficient learning and knowledge of the cause, though he have no eminent authority at all to decide the same? But who shall determine or define the Controversy? 
M. Barlow in the brakes.  Here no doubt M. Barlow willbe in the brakes. For that a little after being pressed with the free speech and denial of S. Ambrose unto Valentinian the Emperor, 
Amb. ep. 33.  when he meddled in Ecclesiastical affairs, and in particular when he sent for him by Dalmatius a Tribune, with a Notary to come and dispute in the Consistory before him, his Counsel, and Nobility, with the Heretical Bishop Auxen●ius, S. Ambrose refused utterly to go, yielding for his reason, that in matters of faith and religion Bishops must judge of Emperors, and not Emperors of Bishops: which denial M. Barlow well alloweth, saying, that Ambrose did well in it, 
Ba●l. pag. ●69.  and said well for it, his fact and reason were both Christianlike.  
But suppose, that his Majesty, had sent for the Bishops to dispute and confer with the doctors of the Puritan party in his presence, as the Emperor Valentinian did S. Ambrose & that they had refused to come, with the same reason, that S. Ambrose did, would M. Barlow that wrote the Conference have defended the same as good, and lawful? Or would his Majesty have taken the same, in as good part, as Valentinian did? I doubt it very much, as also I doubt, whether S. Ambrose if he had disputed, would have suffered Valentinian (suppose he had been learned) to have moderated & mediated in that disputation, as M. Ba●low saith his Majesty did in this. But if without effect, & that he could not conclude; who should give judgement of the matter? The Bishops? They were party, and their whole interest lay therein. The Puritan Doctors? They were also a party, and thereby partial. His Majesty could not do it, according to M. Barlowes doctrine in this place, 
A hard argument for M. Barlow to solve.  if any point of religion were handled therein. Who then should judge, or give sentence? The Church saith M. Barlow in another place. But who maketh that Church? Or who giveth authority of judgement to that Church, if the supreme Head and governor have it not in himself? Do you not see how intricate this matter is, & hard to resolve? And according to this, as it seemeth, was the effect and consequence of this meeting, if we believe M. Barlow himself, who maketh this question: Did th●se great and Princely pains which his Majesty took with the Puritans, work a general conformity? And then he answereth: With the judicious and discreet it did, (whereof M. Barlow was one) but the rest grew more awkward, and violent. So he.  
But all this while if you mark it, there is nothing said to the point, for which all this was brought in, to wit, why the like favour had not been showed to Catholics, for a Conference also with them about their Religion. M. Barlow doth touch some number of reasons, as that our opinions do touch the very head, and foundation of religion: That his Majesty was perfect in all the arguments, that could be ●rought for the adverse part, and that he thoroughly understanding the weakness of them, 
Silly stuff  held it both unsafe and unnecessary to have them examined: That the Protestant religion being thoroughly well placed, and having so long continued, is not now to be disputed etc. Which reasons being either in themselves fond, or against himself, I will not stand to refute. One only contradiction will I note, that our arguments being so weak, yet that it should be unsafe to have them examined; and that the long continuance of Protestant religion in England should make it indisputable: whereas more than ten times so long prescription of Catholic religion could not defend it, by show of a conference or dispute h●ld at Westminster at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, when the same was changed and put out.  
And finally I will end this with a notable calumniation, instead of a reason uttered by M. Barlow, why this Conference ought not to be granted to Catholics, for sooth: For that, even in their common petition for toleration, they ●is●hed his Majesty to be as great a Saint in heaven, as he is a King upon earth, showing 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 bear the prize for calumniation and Sycophancy, that out of so pious an antecedent can infer so malicious a consequent? The Catholics do wish unto his Majesty both life present, and everlasting to come; here a great King and there a great Saint: 
M. Barlows li●le care of his Majesties' eternal life.  M. Barlow seemeth not to care much for his eternity, so he may enjoy his temporality, by the which he himself gaineth for the present, and hopeth every day to do more & more: it imports him little how great a Saint his Majesty be in heaven, so upon earth he live long to favour him and to furnish him with fat benefices.  
And thus he enforceth me to answer him, contrary to my own inclination, for repressing somewhat his insolent malignant speech, which is the most exorbitant perchance, virulent, and impotently passionate, that ever appeared in paper in our English tongue, for which I intent not to follow him any further, step by step, and foot by foot, as hitherto I have done: for it would require a huge volume, & weary both us, and the reader with the impertinency thereof. Wherefore I shall in that which is to ensue, draw the rest of this his Answer to certain particular heads for more perspicuity and brevities sake, whereby shall appear how worthy a writer he is, and well deserving his fee, that runneth into such absurdities, errors, ignorances, corruptions, and falsityes, as willbe laid against him: wherein I remit myself, not only to that which is already said, but particularly also to that which is to ensue.   

CONCERNING ERRORS, ABSURDITIES, IGNORANCES' AND FALSITIES', Uttered by M. Barlow in the rest of his Answer. CHAP. V.  
WHERE AS page 49. & 50. of my Letter I began in the second Part of the second Paragraph to handle whether temporal obedience were denied unto his Majesty, by those that refused the Oath of Allegiance, and that by the express order and commandment of the Pope in his Breve, as the Apologer often affirmeth, and M. Barlow still avoucheth, I said, that this was injurious dealing towards us, who ne●er denied this poyn●, that all dutiful civil obedience was to be performed● and that it needed not to cite both Scriptures, Fathers, and councils, to prove the said temporal obedience to be due, for that we both confessed, taught, and persuaded the same to all his Majesties' subjects, and that the contrary never passed through our cogitations, but do hold (said I) and tea●h that subjects are bound to obey their temporal Princes, 
Good & evil Princes to be obeyed for conscience, but not against conscience.  in all things lawf●ll, & not only good Princes, but bad also; and not only out of f●●re, & flattery (as some do) but out of conscience, as the Apostle reaches us to the Romans, propter conscientiam, saith he, for conscience sake, but yet not contra conscien●iam, against conscience, or contrary to conscience.  
Against which clause M. Barlow very learnedly and piously setteth down this doctrine : They teach (saith he), that the Prince is to be obeyed; 
Barlow pag. 160.  propter con●cien●iam● n●● contra conscientiam, for conscience sake, not against conscience: that is no sound doctrine in the negative part: for even against a man's conscience the Prince is to be obeyed, unless that he that disobeyeth, c●● prove his conscience to be the same, which the Apostle describeth, a good conscience, accompanied with true love, and ●ayth unfeigned. So he. And presently he adds a reason out of Sir Thomas More one o● our Martyr's, as he calleth him, and we worthily account him so, who saith, that there may be consci●ntia a●●nina, and conscientia lupina, the conscience of an As●e, and the conscience of a Wolf, 
M. Barlow hath the conscience of an Ass & a Wolf.  which we easily grant, and that Sir Thomas More had neither of them, and M. Barlow perhaps hath both; the Asinina in making this ignorant & impious determination, That a man may obey Princes against his own conscience; and the Lupina in going about craftily & violently to defend it by the show of Scripture, as presently will appear.  
For albeit I have written somewhat of this mat●er before in the first Part of this discussion, to wit, of the obligation that every man hath to follow his Conscience, and precept of his inward reason, be it right or wrong, so long as it standeth uncontrolled: yet am I forced to say somewhat more here, for detection of this man's wilful error or gross ignorance in this place, and that in both the two points now mentioned, concerning the obligation that men have not to do against their conscience, and the prescription of a good conscience pretended to be alleged out of Saint Paul's Epistle to Timothy, for in both points there be egregious frauds, if not fooleries.  
And for the first, the Reader must understand, that this proposition so assertively set down here by M. Barlow; 
A strange & wicked assertion of M. Barlow.  that even against a man's conscience the Prince is to be obeyed, is so absurd and impious in Catholic Christian ●ares, especially of the learned, as nothing can be more, for that it openeth a plain way to Atheism, and overthroweth the very first moral principles of virtuous actions in us, to wit, the Synderisis, and pr●script of reason itself, that God hath by nature planted in our souls, for our government and direction: against which light and rule, whosoever doth any thing willingly must needs sin, whatsoever the thing that is done be, good or bad: the reason whereof is, for that the goodness or badness of any things embraced by our will, dependeth of the apprehension, and estimation thereof by our understanding and prescript of reason, that inwardly directeth the said will, so as if it should be proposed unto our will for example sake, as an evil thing, and with that apprehension embraced by our will, though it were good in itself, yet to me it must needs be evil, for that I did it, thinking it to be an evil thing.  
As for example to believe in Christ (saith S. Thomas) in itself is a good thing, and necessary to salvation, 
1. 2. q. 19 art. 5.  but y●t the will of man doth not embrace it, but as it is propounded unto the same by our reason, and therefore if the said reason and judgement should propose it as an evil thing, and not good to believe in Christ (as in Turks and jews it doth) and that the will notwithstanding should choose, and embrace it as it is proposed, under the same apprehension that it is evil indeed, then doth our will commit sin, for that in her conceit and apprehension, she chooseth and embraceth evil: and though in itself it be not so, yet to her it is, that judging it so, doth notwithstanding embrace it. In which case Schoolmen do define, that a good object 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 itself, but accidentally evil to this particular man that chooseth it, against the direction of his judgement and conscience.  
And this point is a thing so clear in nature itself ● as that Aristotle in his ●irst and seventh books of Morals, trea●ing o● the nature, and condition of the incontinent man, showeth that a man may be incontinent two ways, one way properly in that he doth exercise any act that appertaineth properly a●d truly to the vice of incontinency, the other way accidentally, when he doth exercise an act, that he imagineth and persuadeth himself ●o be in the matter of incontinency, and is not: and yet doth Aristotle conclude this man to be incontinent, for ●hat his will did disagree in this matter from his reason and judgement, making choice of that which the said reason did propound unto her, as an evil thing.  
Wherefore according to these principles, the universal consent both of Philosophers an Divines is, first that bonitas voluntatis seu actus interioris dependet à ratione propone●te; 
The goodness of the act of our will doth depend upon our reason and judgement.  that the goodness of the internal act of our will● in choosing any thing, dependeth upon our reason & judgement that propoundeth the same; So as the will may not choose or embrace any thing, that is so propounded, and consequently that, Voluntas discordans à ratione, ●on solùm recta ●e●um etiam errant, est semper mala: that our will when it doth disagree from our reason, and conscience, and chooseth not that which our said reason and conscience propoundeth, it is always evil and sinneth, though the said reason and conscience do err in propounding the same: yea further that this obligation for our will, and choice to follow our reason, judgement, and conscience, is, by the law of God, in nature it sel●e so strong and indispensible, as that not only any man livings Prince or Potentate can dispense with the same, to have it bro●en whi●● the ●aid repugnance endureth, but neither God himself. Whereupon a great learned Divine of our days setteth down & defendeth thi● proposition, Neminem nec ips●m Deum dispens●re posse, ut sin● peccato quis faciat contra propriam conscientiam, that no man, nor God himselve can dispense, that a man may do any thing against his own conscience without sin. ●nd his reason is, for that Almighty God should be contrary to himsel●e, if having put a precept by nature, that our will must ●ollow our reason and conscience, & do nothing against the same, he should notwithstanding dispense that the breach of this precept should be no sin, for the● should these laws contradictory stand together, I ha●e●ery breach of God's precept is a sin: & yet that the breach of this precept is no sin. True it is, that God according to some Divines may dispense in his precepts by taking them away, and thereby also take away the force of their obliging man to sin, that should do against them, but they standing in force and vigour, no dispensation can be given to do against them without sin, for the reasons now set down.  
Well then this position & assertion is most certain in all Catholic Schools, as well by the grounds of Philosophy, 
A sin to do contrary to an erroneous conscience.  as Devinity, that no man without sin may do against th● dictamen, or direction of his own reason or conscience, yea though it should be erroneous in itself, for that so long as it is not known to be erroneous to the doer, but thought to be right, he esteemeth it as a rule prescribed unto him by God, and consequently to do against it, is to do against God's rule, and precept, and so must it needs be sin unto him.  
But here perhaps some man will demand, what then may be done in ●a● erroneous conscience, 
What i● to be ●one of him who ha●h an erroneous conscience.  whether it be Afi●●a by ignorance, or Lupina by looseness, or otherwise e●ring as M. Barlow mentioneth. Truly the remedy is not, as he prescribeth, to do against a man's conscience, I mean against that very erring conscience, so long as it seemeth to the doe● not to err, but to be right, for therein he ●●old si●ne, as hath been said: But he ought to depose that conscience if he can, and to seek reason's of better information, and therewithal frame unto himself another conscience: but yet so long as he cannot do this, he is bound not to do against the other conscience, which he think●th to be right, though unknowing unto him, ●t should be erroneous.  
But now in what cases, and upon what grounds, and with what circumstances a man may be bound to reform or alter his conscience, either by direction or authority of his Superiors, or by contrary reasons, proofs, arguments and authorities, according to the substance and quality of the things, is a large dispute among School Divines, Casuistes, and canonists.  
For us it is sufficient at this time to have seen, that all generally do condemn, as most false and wicked, this proposition of M. Barlow, that even against a man's conscience the Prince is to be obeyed: which proposition you have seen before confuted. Now we must consider certain shi●te● and absurdities used by M. Barlow in setting down this his false doctrine. 
●. Tim. 1.  Even against conscience, saith he, the Prince is to be obeyed, unless he that disobeyeth, can prove his conscience to be the same, that the Apostle describeth, a good conscience accompanied with true love and faith unfeigned. In which words you must note, that first there is contained a very absurd shift, not void 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 Superior, that is contrary to his conscience, he bindeth him absolutely to do it, even against his conscience, unless he can prove that his conscience hath true love and faith unfeigned, which being a very hard matter for many men to discern in themselves, especially the ignorant and unlearned, he doth not only licence them● but obligeth them also, to do against their conscience, good or bad, whatsoever is proposed unto them, which openeth a gap to all impiety, and to the overthrow of all conscience in most men.  
For certain it is, that the far greater part of Christians have not sufficient time, leisure, learning, or commodity to make this proof prescribed out of the Apostle: and then I would demand him, what he will say of Turks, jews, and Gentiles that have not true faith? Have they no conscience? and must they do what soever is ordained them, though never so repugnant to their rea●on, because they cannot prove their conscience to be such as the Apostle (though falsely) is presumed here to describe? 
M. Barlowes monstrous doctrines more fitting the Turks Alcoran then the Gospel of jesus Christ.  What will M. Barlow say also of Christian sectaries of our time, to wit, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, ●●●●●tes, L●●berans, Swingfeldians, Brownists etc. whom he will not grant I am sure to have true love, and unfeigned faith? Have they no conscience, that may bind them to any thing, different from that which is proposed unto them by Kings or Princes, whether it seem unto them good or bad? May all these men ●weare to whatsoever is required, or do what soever is exacted by a temporal Prince, without further examen, for that they cannot prove as M. Barlow will no doubt suppose, that they have true love, and faith unfeigned? Who would expect such monstrous doctrines, from the Chair of a Prelate?  
But now let us see how he useth S. Paul in this matter, and abuseth his Reader under pretence of his name, and authority. He saith, that the Apostle describeth a good conscience, 
S. Paul abused.  to be that, which is accompanied with true love and faith unfeigned: and upon this foundeth his discourse, as now you have heard, citing for it● 1. Tim. 1. 5. But if you read the place, you shall find the matter quite otherwise, and by this you may learn, how these fellows that cry nothing but Scriptures, do abuse the simple people, 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 required, to the end and perfection of the Law. For the words of the Apostle are these: Finis pr●cepti est, charitas de cord puro, conscientia bona, & fide non ficta: The end of the commandment or law is charity out of a pure hart, a good conscience, & faith not feigned. 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 saith: Ple●itudo legis Charitas: the fullness or fulfilling of the Law is charity. But here he describeth more at large what manner of charity it must be, to wit proceeding out of a pure hart, as also out of a good conscience (which ●●ge●●●●● hope) and out of unfeigned faith. 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 veryn 〈◊〉 to say, that every one of the said parts, or parcels it described thereby, or that the said description may be ascribed 〈◊〉 every one of them. As if a man should describe a Knight or a Captain, that is to go to the wars, what ●●●●i●ure i● required, to wit, a horse, s●ddle, spear, armour, and the like, it cannot be said that a horse is here described, or a saddle, or a spear, but only the Knight himself, who hath need of all these things: So as in this M. Barlow is found 〈◊〉 have perverted the whole text and meaning of S. Paul.  
There remaineth then his conclusion, that for so much as Heretics and schismatics also do plead conscience for their standing out, and that there is no one article in the Oath offered, that can be proved to be contrary to a good conscience, and true Christian religion, therefore standeth the Apologers conclusion incontrollable still, That the Pope hath prohibited English Catholics to perform even civil obedience to their Sovereign. But all this hath been now answered, by that which hath been treated before: for that Shi●matikes and Heretics though they be ●ound both to inform & reform their consciences: that be erroneous: yet so long as that repugnancy endureth; they should sin in doing contrary to the dictamen thereof. 
More contemned in the Oath, then civil obedience.  And as for the articles in the Oath, that are contrary to Englis● Catholics consciences, and to their religion, they are so many, as do any way impeach, or prejudice their religion, which are the most part in the Oath, as is known. Neither 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 have scruple in sweating● for that now it hath been showed, that it is sufficient for binding them from swearing, that their consciences do 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 unlawful unto them, to swear against this their conscience and religion, so long as it standeth as it doth. And therefore if M. Barlow will have them swear without sin in this case, he must first make them Protestants, and so give them a new conscience, and new religion, for in that they have, they cannot do it; albeit for temporal obedience, they offer all that may be exacted, at their hands by any law of Christian subjection to their temporal sovereign.  
And this much may be sufficient for discussing of this point, Whether subjects may or must obey their Princes, when they command things against their consciences, which in my Letter I denied. And whereas the Apologer did allege divers authorities out of Scriptures, Fathers, and Counsels to prove the obedience of Subjects to their Princes, not only Christian but also Infidels, as to king Nabuchodonosor of Babylon, to king Pharaoh of Egypt, King Cyrus of Persia, my answer then was this.  
He allegeth for examples out of the Scriptures, 
Let. p. 51. Apol. pag. 22.  that the children of Israel obeyed the King of Babylon, as also they exhibited temporal Obedience unto King Pharaoh of Egypt; 
Hi●r. 27. 12.  as in like manner to Cyrus' King of Persia: All which examples we grant to be true, 

Exod. 5.1.  
Esdr. 1.3.   and could add many more, both of the jews, and Christians that lived peaceably under Infidel Princes in those days. But let one example (as I said) be brought forth, wherein they obeyed them in points contrary to their Conscience or Religion, and it shall be sufficient. We read in the prophesy of Daniel● that those three famous jews, 
Dan. 3.12.  Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, were most trusty unto King Nabuchodonosor in temporal affairs, and so much esteemed by him, as he made them his universal Governors over all the works of the Religion of Babylon, saith the Scripture: and yet when it came to the point, that he would have them for his honour and pleasure, 
No obedience against God & a man's conscience.  and upon his commandment, adore the golden Statue, which he had set up; they forsook him flatly, and said to him in the presence of all his Nobility assembled together, that they were not so much as to answer him in that Commandment, not would they do, as he had appointed them. 
The like in effect did the ancienter jews do with King Pharaoh of Egypt; for that albeit in temporal affairs they obeyed him, even in that time when he oppressed, and persecuted them most: yet in that he would have had them stay and sacrifice in Egypt, and not follow Moses their Spiritual Superior into the desert (notwithstanding that the King had some cause perhaps to suspect their temporal Allegiance also by that departure, they being a potent multitude of people:) yet would they not obey him nor do as he would have them, when they persuaded themselves that God would have the contrary.  

Deu. 1. 〈◊〉 1.  I let pass how Daniel and his fellows would not eat the meats of the King of Babylon, nor Toby those of the Assyrians, & much less would he leave of to bury the dead, though it were forbidden by Proclamation under pain of death. 
●. Mach. 1.  The Maccabees in like manner obeyed King Antiochus so long, as he commanded nothing against their Law and Conscience: but when he went about to force them to sacrifice, and to eat swynes-flesh, and other things against their Law and Conscience, they refused openly to perform that Obedience. So as these places of Scriptures alleged by the Apologer, do prove nothing for him at all, but are rather flat against him, and for us as you have seen.   
Thus I wrote then, now let us see how M. Barlow overthroweth it. First as concerning the 3. Pagan Kings Pharaoh, Cyrus, and Nabuchodonosor, whereof I said the jews obedience unto them was in temporal matters only, he saith, that therein I do abuse the Reader, for that they showed their obedience (saith he) to be due, and performed the same, in matters of spiritual service: 
Barl. pag. 161.  whereat I think no man can but laugh, that M. Barlow is become so spiritual, as that he can make those Infidel Kings to be spiritual Superiors also, 
A strange assertion.  or at leastwise to have spiritual power, even in spiritual things over Gods faithful people. Let us see his proofs of so strange an assertion.  
To offer sacrifice (saith he) unto the Lord in the desert is an ●igh case of conscience, and religion; yet would not the jews in Egypt attempt it, without ask, and obtaining the King's leave. 
Weak proofs.  And why was that? Was it for that they held him for their supreme Governor in all causes Ecclesiastiacll, and temporal? Then they ought to have obeyed him, when he would have had them offered sacrifice in Egypt, which they refused to do, for that their spiritual governor Moses, though a natural borne subject of King Pharaoh, ●ould them that Gods will was contrary: and as for their ask, and obtaining leave before they went to sacrifice in the Desert, who doth not see, but that it was in respect of temporal danger, which might ensue unto them, if so great a number of their unarmed people should have adventured to depart without his licence. But I would demand of M. Barlow, who saith, that the people of Israel showed their obedience to be due unto Pharaoh, and performed it in matter of spiritual service, what manner of obedience was that, which came always in the Imperative mood, Thus saith our Lord, dimit populum meum, Let go my people? And when he yielded not thereunto, he was plagued and punished with so many afflictions, as are set down in Exodus for 9 or 10. Chapters together: & in the end what leave obtained they, but against his will, when he durst no longer deny them? Which appeareth, for that his fear being somewhat mitigated, he pursued them afterward again. And will M. Barlow make this an example of spiritual obedience to temporal Princes, that was thus extorted? Or of spiritual jurisdiction in heathen Princes, over faithful people in causes Ecclesiastical, that was contradicted both in word and fact by Moses himself? But let us hear his second instance, for it is more ridiculous.  
So, saith he, the commandment of King Cyrus was in a cause merely Ecclesiastical viz. the building of the Lords house in jerusalem, and transporting thither the consecrated vessels. But who doth not see that these things as they were ordained by King Cyrus were mere temporal, as is the building of a material Church, 
A simple Discourse  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 have, being a Pagan, and not of their faith & religion; then might they have said, that he had been a spiritual Superior unto them: but for giving them leave only to go to jerusalem to build their Temple, and to carry their consecrated vessels with them, that had been violently taken away from thence, argueth no more spiritual jurisdiction in him, then if a man having taken away a Church-door key, so as the people could not go in to pray, except he opened the door, should be said to have spiritual jurisdiction over that people for opening the door, & letting them in, & that they in praying him to open the said door, did acknowledge spiritual obedience unto him. And is not this mere childish trifllng, & worthy the wit of M. Barlow.  
What definition trow you, will M. Barlow give of spiritual power and jurisdiction, thereby to verify these monstrous and absurd propositions, which in this affair he hath uttered, partly by his assertions, and partly by his examples? Truly I know no other set down by Divines, but that it is a power given by God, to govern souls for their direction unto everlasting salvation, even as civil power is given for governing the common wealth to her prosperity and temporal felicity. And will M. Barlow say, that God gave this spiritual power to Pharaoh and Cyrus, that were Heathens, and knew not God, for governing & directing the souls of the jews, that lived under them, whose religion or God they neither knew, nor cared for? Or that Nero the Emperor, or Claudius had this spiritual power and jurisdiction, upon the souls of S. Peter and S. Paul, that lived under them in Rome, and were their temporal Lords and Princes? These things are so absurd that I am ashamed to exaggerate them any further, and therefore let us pass forward to the rest.  
As for the other examples by me alleged how Sydrac●● Mysach and Abdenago, refused to obey Nabuchod●●●sor their King in adoring the Statue, as also refu●ing the meats of the King of Babylon, & Toby of the Assyrians, and the Maccabees for refusing to eat Swines-flesh at the commandment of their King Antiochus, he saith, that all these had their warrants for defence of their consciences, from the word or will of God: as who should say, Catholics have nothing for justification of their Conscience, which is a mere cavil, and as Logicians call, Petitio principij, and wholly from the question: for that we affirm, first that they have sufficient grounds, for justification of their consciences in that behalf, as they will easily verify in every point if they might be hard with any indifferency. And secondly if they had not, but their consciences were erroneous; yet so long as that dictamen rationis, or prescript of conscience standeth to the contrary, and telleth them, that they have sufficient ground, they may not do against it without sin, as now hath been proved. Let us see what he saith of the other example of Tobies' breach of King Senacherib his commandment in Ninive, which we shall examine in the next ensuing Paragraph.  

WHETHER TOBY DID well or no, in breaking the commandment of the King of Nini●e, concerning the burying of the dead jews. And how M. Barlow answereth unto the authorities of the Fathers: and overthroweth the King's Supremacy. §. II.  
AMong other examples and testimonies alleged by me out o● Scripture of lawful disobeying temporal Prince's commandments, when they are unlawful, the example of Tobias that disobeyed the edict of King Senacheri●● of Ninive about burying such as were slain, seemed to have troubled most M. Barlow in this answer; and so after some discussion of the matter up and down, whether he did it openly or in secret, by day or by night, by stealth or contempt, he maketh this conclusion; Take it either way, 
Barl. pag. 168.  saith he, was his disobedience in such a cause justifiable? No. Gravely resolved, as you see, and Doctourlike, but yet without any testimony, except only his own. For first the context of the story itself having recounted the circumstances of the fact, in the first and second Chapters of the book of Toby, to wit, how the foresaid King Senacherib son to Salmanasar being returned much exasperated from jury against the jews, for the evil success which there he had, did promulgate an Edict, that such as he caused to be slain should not be buried, the Story saith, that Toby notwithstanding this Edict and Commandment, did bury them by night, 
The fact of Toby against the commandment of K. Senacherib.  yea and left also on day his dinner, and the guests which he had with him, at the same, for to fetch in the dead body of a jew slain in the streets: and when some of his neighbous, seeing the peril thereof did reprehend him, for adventuring upon so great danger, saying to him● that himself had been commanded to be slain for burying men before, the Story doth not only defend him, but also commendeth him for the same; saying: 
Tob. 2. v. 9  Sed Tobias plùs timens Deum, quam Regem, rapiebat corpora occisorum etc. But Toby fearing God more than the King, did take away the dead bodies that he found in the streets, hiding them in his house and burying them at midnight.  
Secondly the Angel Raphael in the twelfth Chapter discovering himself unto Toby, together with the mystery of all his actions with him, doth manifestly show, that these his deeds of charity, of giving of alms, and burying the dead bodies of such as were slain, were grateful unto Almighty God: 
Tob. 12.  Quando cra●as cum lachrymis, & sepeliebas mortous, & derelinquebas prandium tuum etc. ego obtuli ●●ationem tuam Domino, & quia acceptus eras Deo, necesse suit, ut tentatio probaret te. When thou didst pray with tears, and didst bury the dead, and didst leave thy dinner for doing this work of Charity, I did offer to God thy prayer, and because thou wert acceptable unto God, it was necessary that temptation should try thee. 
M. Barlow a bad Angel.  Here than we have the testimony of an Angel, against M. Barlow, that is no Angel: and if he be, yet must we account him for a very wicked, and false Angel, if the other be a good and true Angel.  
Now then let us examine a little whether of these Angels deserveth most to be believed, or whether for a man's salvation it be more secure to follow the one or the other, for that they speak contraries. The one that this fact of Toby was not iustifyable, the other that it was not only justifiable, but acceptable also, and pleasing to Almighty God, and that in a very high degree, as by the text appeareth. The one determineth as you have heard, that Toby was reprehensible in that he obeyed not the King● the other saith, he did very well in obeying God, more than 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 book of Toby is not held by him for Canonical Scripture, 
The credit of the history of Toby.  but only Hagiographum, a holy ancient writing, as the jews themselves 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 endured, and hath been believed, and taken for true, so many ages bo●h before, and after Christian Religion was planted? And M. Barlow cannot allege one authentical Author, or holy man before these our times, that ever said this Story was false, or not to be credited, though he received it not for Canonical Scripture.  
Secondly we see it acknowledged for Canonical Scripture, and of infallible truth, not only by a general Council of our days, wherein the flower of the learnedst men in Christendom were present, I mean that of Trent: 
C●c. Tri●, sess. 4.  but by another Council also above 1000 years before that, to wit, the third of Carthage 
Carth. can. 47.  wherein S. Augustine himself was present, 
Aug. 2. de doc. chrism. cap. 8.  and subscribed thereunto; and in divers other places of his works, giveth the same testimony to this book, as do sundry other Father's ancienter than he, as S. Ambrose, 
Amb. de Tob. 2.  that wrote a whole book of the Story of Toby, containing twenty four whole Chapters, S. Basil in his Oration of Avarice; yea the holy Martyr S. Cyprian also himself more ancienter than them all, 
Cyp. de orat. Dominica & l. de mortali●.  and this in sundry places of his works, and after S. Augustine, S. Gregory, S. Isiodo●us, Cassiodorus, and others: whereby is evident, that in S. Augustins time, and before, this book was held for divine, and Canonical. And therefore for a man now to venture his soul, upon this bare denial of M. Barlow, and his Consorts (for there goeth no less in the matter, his assertion being blasphemy, if this be true Scripture) let his poor sheep of Lincoln think well of it, for other men will beware how they venture so much with him.  
But now setting aside this consideration, whether it be Canonical Scripture, or no; let us consider a little further what holy men in ancient times did think of this fact of Toby, 

S. Augustine's and other Father's judgements of the fact of Toby.  
Cap. 3.  
Cap. 13.   whether it were justifiable or no. S. Augustine in his book De cura pro mortuis habenda, hath these words: Tobias sepeliendo mortuos Deum promeruisse, teste Angelo commendatur. Tobias is commended by the testimony of the Angel, in that by burying the dead he merited the favour of Almighty God. And the same Father repeateth the very same words and sentence again, in his first book of the City of God. Whereby we see what his sense was in this matter, both in believing the good Angel, and esteeming that good work of burying the dead (which M. Barlow by contempt calleth a civil courtesy) to have merited with God.  

S. Ambr.  And 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 jews in that captivity, commendeth highly holy Toby for neglecting the same, in respect of that charitable work. 
●ib. de Tob. c. 1.  Ille interdicto non revocabatur, sed magis incitabatur etc. he was not stayed by that Edict or Proclamation from burying the dead, but rather was thereby incited the more to do 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 before S. Amb●ose, in his book Of our Lord's prayer, extolling much the merit of good works, and exhorting men unto the same, amongst many other authorities of the Scriptures, citeth this of Toby saying: Et ideo divina Scriptura intermit, dicens, bona est oratio cum jeiunio, & ●leemosyna: & therefore the divine Scripture in●tructeth us saying: That Prayer is good accompanied with fasting and alms. In which words first we see this book of Toby affirmed to be divine Scripture, 
Tob. 12.  and secondly this speech & doctrine of the Angel Raphael unto Toby concerning the praise and merit of good works, to be allowed by S. Cyprian● which is full contrary to M. Barlowes Divinity. But let us hear our S. Cyprian in the same place: 
Cyp. lib. d● oratione Dom.  Nam qui in die judicij praemium pro operibus etc. For that he in the day of judgement (to wit our Saviour) will give reward for our good works, & alms, & is now also ready to show himselve a most benign heater to him, that shall come unto him by prayer & works: 
This is no Protestant doctrine.  and so did Cornelius the Centurion merit to be heard, as doing many alms upon the people, saith the Scripture. And when about nine of the clock the said Centurion prayed, an Angel stood by him and gave testimony of his good works, saying, Cornelius thy prayers and alms have ascended up before God: citò orationes ad Deum ascendunt, quas ad Deum merita nost●i operis imponunt. Our prayers do quickly ascend unto God, which the merits of our good works do lay before him etc. And presently with this Scripture, he joineth the other out of Toby: Sic & Raphel Angelus etc. So the Angel Raphael did testify unto Toby always praying & always working: when thou didst pray together with Sara, I did offer the memory of thy prayer in the sight of God, & when thou didst bury the dead, and leave thy dinner for doing the same, I was sent by God to tempt thee, and afterward to cure thee, & I am Raphael one of the sea●en just Angels, who do assist, & converse in the sight of God etc. Where we see that S. Cyprian maketh another manner of account of the holiness and merit of this work, and of the truth of this Angel, then M. Barlow doth. And the very self same speech S. Cyprian useth in his book de M●●talitate, alleging this place of Toby, and testimony of the Angel Raphael in the commendation of Tobies' fact, in burying the dead against the kings commandment. So as white and black, hot and cold, or the two poles are not more opposite one to the other, than 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 jews in persecution, 
A great presumption of M. Barlowes piety.  he would also, if he had been there, not only not have buried these dead bodies against the King's Edict, but also neither have received the persecuted into his house, against the commandment of the said King. Nay he would have rather delivered them up to the persecutors hands, and the like, if he had lived amongst Christians, under 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 approved and commended this fact. Now let us pass on to the rest.  
After these examples of Scriptures there were alleged by the Apologer sundry authorities of ancient Fathers which show the obligation that subjects have to obey their temporal Princes, which in my Letter I declared no way to prejudice our cause, who both acknowledge and offer all dutiful obedience in temporal affairs, which is so much as the said ancient Fathers do teach, and for that the said authorities are clear, for us in that behalf, I shall ●et down here what I answered to the same.  

Letter pag. 52.  As these places of Scripture (said I) alleged against us do make for us, so much more do the authorities produced out of the ancient Fathers, for that they go about to prove the very same point that we here hold, that in temporal & civil affairs we must obey dutifully our temporal Princes, though Infidels or Pagans: 
Authorities of ancient Fathers.  but not in matters concerning God, our Religion, or Conscience. And his very first example out of S. Augustine is such, as I marvel much, that he would city the same, but that somewhat for show must be alleged: For it maketh so clearly & directly against him, as if it had been written purposely to confute him in this our case. But let us hear what it is. agreeable to the Scriptures (saith he) did the Fathers teach. Augustine speaking of Indian, saith thus: 

Apol. p. 23. ●  
Aug. in Psal. 124.   julian was an unbelieved Emperor, was he not an Apostata? an oppressor and an Idolator? Christian soldiers served that unbelieved Emperor: when they came to the cause of Christ, they would acknowledge no Lord, but him that is in heaven: when he would have them worship Idols & sacrifice, they preferred God before him: but when he said, Go forth to fight, invade such a nation, they presently obeyed: they distinguished their eternal Lord from their temporal, and yet were they subject even unto their temporal Lord, for his sake that was their eternal Lord and Master. Thus he.  
And can any thing be spoken more clearly for us, and for our cause, than this? For even this do we offer to our King & Sovereign: 
How far we are bound to obey our temporal Prince.  we will serve him: we will obey him: we will go to war with him: we will fight for him: and we will do all other offices belonging to temporal duty: but when the cause of Christ cometh in hand, who is Lord of our Consciences, or any matter concerning the same, or our Religion; there we do, as S. Augustine here appointeth us, prefer our eternal King, before our Temporal.  
And like to these are all the other places of Fathers cited by him, who distinguish expressly between the Temporal honour and Allegiance due to the Emperor, 
Apol. p. 23.  and the other of our Religion, & Conscience, belonging only to God. And to that plain sense are Tertullians' words cited by the Apologer: 
Tertull. ad Scap.  We honour the Emperor in such sort, as is lawful for us, and expedient for him, as a man second after God, and as having received from God, whatsoever he is, and only l●sse th●n God. And will not the Catholics of England use this speech also unto their King? Or will the Apologer himself deny that Tertullian here meant nothing else, but in temporal affairs, for somuch as the Emperors at that time were Heathens & Gentiles, and consequently were no● to be obeyed in any point against Christian faith or Religion?  
The like plain sense have the words of Iustin●● Martyr to the Emperor himself, 
Iust. Apol. 2. ad Anton. Impera●.  cited here in the third place, to wit: We only adore God, and in all things we cheerfully perform service to you, professing you to be Emperors, and Princes of men. And do not all English Catholics say the same at this day: & in all other things, that concern not God & his Obedience, by rule of Catholic Religion, they offer cheerfully to serve his Majesty, acknowledging him to be their liege Lord and King, & inferior only to God in his Temporal Government? And how then are these, and such other places brought in for witness, as though they had somewhat to say against us?  

Optat. contra Parmen. lib. 3. Ambros. Orat. contra Auxent. de Basilicis non trad. lib. 5. Epist.  The other two sentences in like manner cited out of Optatus and S. Ambrose, the first saying: That over the Emperor there is none, but only God, that made the Emperor. And the other, That tears were his weapons against the arms and soldiers of the Emperor: That he neither aught, nor could resist: neither of them do make any thing against us, or for the Apologer, even as they are here nakedly cited, without declaration of the circumstances: for that in temporal affairs, the King or Emperor is Supreme, next under God. And when the Emperor will use secular forces against the Priests of his dominion, they, being no soldiers, must fall to prayers, and tears, which are Priestly weapons. But what? Did S Ambrose by this acknowledge that the Emperor had higher Authority, than he, in Church-matters? Or that if he had offered him an Oath, repugnant to his Religion, or Conscience, in those matters he would have obeyed, or acknowledged his Superiority? No truly. For in three several occasions that fell out, he flatly denied the same, which this Apologer craftily dissembleth, and saith not a word thereof.  
The first was, when he was cited by Dalmatius the Tribune, 

Three occasions in which S. Ambrose resisted the Emperor his temporal Sovereign.  
Libellus. Ambros. epist. 32.   bringing with him a public Notary to testify the same, in the name of the Emperor Valentinian the younger, to come & confer, or dispute with the heretical Bishop Auxen●ius, in the presence of his Majesty & other of his Nobility & Counsel, which point S. Ambrose refused utterly to do, telling the Emperor plainly by a letter written unto him; That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must judge of Emperors, and not Emperors of Bishops. And divers other doctrines, by this occasion, he taught him to that effect, as is to be seen in the same Epistle.  
The second occasion fell out the very next year after in Milan, when the said Emperor, by suit of the Arians, 
Amb. l. ●. epist. 33.  and favour of justina the Empress on their behalf, made a Decree, that a certain Church of that City should be delivered to the said Arians: which Decree S. Ambrose the Bishop refused to obey. And when the emperors Officers coming with arms, urged greatly to give possession of the Church, he fled to his former weapons of weeping and praying: Ego Missam facere coepi etc. I began to say Masse● and when the temporal Magistrate urged still, that the Emperor used but his own right in appointing that Church to be delivered, S. Ambrose answered: Quae divina sunt, Imperatoriae potestati non esse subiecta: That such things as belong to God, are not subject to the Imperial power. And thus answered S. Ambrose about the giving up of a material Church. What would he have said in greater matters?  
The third occasion was when the Emperor sent his Tribunes, and other Officers to require certain Vessels belonging to the Church to be delivered, 
Amb. ibid.  which S. Ambrose constantly denied to do, saying: That in this, he could not obey: And further adding. 
Ambros. Con●. de Basili●●s non traden●●●s.  That if the Emperor did love himself, he should abstain from offering such injury unto Christ. And in another place, handling the same more at large, he saith: That he gave to Cesar that which was Caesar's, 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 emperors honour. For what is more honourable unto him, then that he being an Emperor, be called a Child of the Church, for that a good Emperor is within the Church, but not above the Church. So S. Ambrose. What would he have done, or said, if he had been pressed with an Oath against his Conscience, or any least point 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 substance to say against it: for to that excellent speech of S. Augustine concerning the Emperor julian, he trigleth exceedingly; first bidding us to show that point in the Oath which is different from true religion: which is a cavil, as you see, for it is enough if it be contrary to the swearers Religion. And whereas we offer upon that speech as the subjects of julian did, We will serve our Sovereign, we will go to war with him, and we will fight for him, & the like, he saith, it is but an hypocritical flourish of words. To the speech and facts of S. Ambrose he is forced either to say nothing, or to speak against himself. For whereas I do make this demand, Did S. Ambrose by saying that he could not resist the Emperor, and that his weapons were tears, acknowledge by this that the Emperor had higher authority in Church-matters than he? Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion and conscience in those matters, he would have obeyed; and acknowledged his authority? To the first he saith that it is only extra ole●s, not to the cause in hand, and that he will handle it in another place; though every man of discretion will see, that the demand is full to the purpose, and aught to have been answered here. To the second he hath but a ridiculous shift: Suppose, saith he, that S. Ambrose would refuse such an Oath urged upon him, would he withal forbid others to take it? Surely no. But I say surely yea: for if we grant S. Ambrose to have been a good Prelate, Pastor, & Father to his people, we must also grant, that what Oath he thought pernicious for himself to take, he would have forbidden the same to have been taken by his people, if they had demanded his opinion, as English Catholics did the Popes, or else he had not been a faithful Pastor.  
But what doth M. Barlow answer to the three instances alleged out of S. Ambrose, 
M. Barlowes shifting answer to the three places of S. Ambrose.  in all which he contradicted the Emperor, that was his temporal Lord, and denied to obey in matters, Ecclesiastical: the first, when he refused to go with the Tribune, and Notary sent for him by the said Emperor to dispute, in the Consistory with Auxenti●● the Arian Bishop, yielding for his reason, That in matters of faith and Religion, Bishops must judge of Emperors, and not Emperors of Bishops. Which answer of S. Ambrose M. Barlow doth allow, and commendeth it much: & albeit we have said somewhat before about the same, yet shall we presently add a word or two more thereof.  
The second refusal of the said Father was, as now you have heard, to deliver up a certain Church in Millan● to the Arians, at the commandment of the Emperor, alleging for his reason, Quae divina sunt, Imperatoriae potestatium esse subiecta, that such things as are divine, are not subject to Imperial power. Which answer in like manner M. Barlow alloweth, albeit I think I may assure myself, that if his Ma.tie of England should command one of his Parish Churches of Lincoln Diocese to be delivered up to the Puritans, or Brownists, or other like Sectaries, and that his Majesty should be so earnest, & resolute therein, as the Emperor was, sending his officers & soldiers to put them into possession, M. Barlow would not be so resolute in his denial as S. Ambrose was; neither would he be so bold to allege that reason which S. Ambrose did, 
Feminine Supremacy more esteemed of M. Barlow then Masculine.  that divine things are not subject to King james his power; including in the name of divine things, the possession of this, or that material Church. Or if he would be so bold now, I assure myself he would not have been so in Queen Elizabeth's days, whose spiritual Supremacy though femininae, seemed much more to be esteemed of him, than this now of his Majesty, as presently will appear.  
The third refusal of S. Ambrose to the Emperor was, when the said Emperor sent his Tribunes, and other officers to require certain Vessels belonging to the Church, to be delivered, which S. Ambrose constantly denied to do, answering as before hath been set down, That i● th●● 〈◊〉 could not obey him, and that if he loved himself, he should abst●●●e to offer such injury unto Christ etc. which answer also M. Barl●● well alloweth, signifying thereby, that he would a●●wer● in the same sort to the magistrates & officers of King Iam●● if he should send them upon any occasion, to require at his hands the Communion cup, or any other such vessels belonging to any Church in Lincoln Diocese. And will any man believe this, that he will be so stout? But it is a pastime 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 us hear what he bringeth. Things separated (saith he) to holy use, are not to be alienated to 〈◊〉 usage. 
Barlow pag. 171.  Here now every man will laugh, that remembreth, how the Vessels, Vestments, and other such things dedicated unto God, and consecrated to Ecclesiastical uses, in the Catholic Church, have been handled by Protestants, taken away, defaced, and converted to profane uses, which this man I presume dareth not to condemn. Let us hear him further. God hath in them, saith he, a 〈◊〉 right, as King David confesseth: first as his gift to man, secondly as man's gift again to him, which twofold cord tieth them so strong, as it is an Anathema (or curse) for any man, not consecrated to challenge them: yea for them which are consecrated, if they do not only p●● them to that use alone, for which they were dedicated.  
And do you see now heer●, how zealous M. Barlow is become upon the sudden for defence of consecrated vessels in the Church? What Vessels have they consecrated think you? Or what kind of consecration do they use therein? He saith it is an anathema for any person not consecrated to challenge them: the sacred Emperor, 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 demand these Vessels, which as I said are very few in the Protestant Church: and if they had been as few in the Church meant by S. Ambrose, it is not likely that the Emperor would have troubled himself so much in sending 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 think M. Barlow will not deny, but that the manner of consecrating them was far different, which may be seen in the ●●g●●churgians themselves, in the fourth Century, 
Magdeb. cent. 4. c. 5. 6. & 7.  and by S. Ambrose in his second book of Office, cap. 29. where he putteth down two sorts of Church-Vessels dedicated to divine uses, the one initiata, hallowed or consecrated, and the other not yet hallowed; and that in the time of necessity to redeem Captives, 
The ancient use of hallowing Church Vessels.  or to relieve the poor, the second sort are first to be broken, and applied to these holy uses, but the former with much more difficulty, for that they were now hallowed. Which difference I think the Protestants do not greatly observe, in their hallowed Vessels. S. Gregory Nazianzen in like manner talking of such consecrated Vessels as were used in the Church in his time saith, 
Naz. orat. de s●ipso contra Arianos.  that it was such, as it made it unlawfall for lay men to touch them, which I think M. Barlow will not lay of his Communion-Cup, which all men take in their hands. But now to the question itself.  
Do you think that M. Barlow would deny unto King james that Communion-Cup, or any other Vessels of a Church, if he should as earnestly demand them, as Valentinia● the Emperor did, when he sent his Tribunes and other chief officers to require them of S. Ambrose? If he would, what kind of Supremacy doth he allow his Majesty in spiritual matters, if he may be denied and disobeyed in these also that are in a certain sort mixed, and in some part conjoined with temporal respects?  
And truly when I do consider with myself, with what degrees M. Barlow doth descend and go downward in defending of the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of his Majesty, 
M. Barlows declining in the point of Supremacy.  bringing it, as it were to nothing from that high pitch, wherein King Henry the eight both placed it, and left it, & his children King Edward, and Queen Elizabeth continued the same; I cannot but wonder and admire the providence of Almighty God, that hath wrought the overthrow in effect of that new Protestant Idol, of spiritual Authority in temporal Princes, even by Protestants themselves. john ●aluin beginning the battery, as all men know, calling it Antichristian: the Puritans following him in that doctrine; and now M. Barlow (though underhand and dissemblingly) confirming all that they have said or do●● therein.  
The first pitch wherein King Henry did place the same, was, 
Stat. H. 8. anno Domini 1535.  as appear by the Statute itself, in the twentieth six year of his reign, That he and his herres should be taken, accepted, and reputed the only Supreme head on earth of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia, 
The supremacy how it was given to K● Henry & in what high measure.  and should have and enjoy, ●●nexed ●nd united to his Imperial Crown, asi●eli the title & style thereof, as also all honours, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, pri●iledges to the said Dignity of supreme. Head belonging etc. Whereby is evident that the Parliament gave unto him, as great authority over the Church of England, as the Pope had before. And this very fame authority was translated after him, to his Son King Edward though a child, 
K. Edwar●.  yea all Preachers were commanded to teach the people that his Minority of age w●● no impediment to his supreme spiritual government, for that a King is as truly a King, at one years age as at ●wenty: so as the exception made by M. Barlow, that Valentinian●he ●he Emperor was young, when he commanded S. Am●ro●e to dispute before him, maketh nothing according to this Doctrine, against his spiritual authority, if he were Head of the Church, as King Edward was. And further the Parliament in the first year of King Edward, explaining this authority, hath these words: 
An 1 E 6. cap. 2.  That all authority of jurisdictions spiritual and remporall is derived, and deducted from the King's Majesty, as supreme head of the Churches and Realms of England and Ireland unto the Bishops, and Archbishops etc.  
And the like was passed over also to Queen Elizabeth by a Statute in the first year of her reign, wherein it is said, 
Queen Elizabeth.  That all such jurisdiction Ecclesiastical as by any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power hath hitherto been or may be lawfully exercised● for the reformation and correction of all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, 〈◊〉 etc. all and all manner of jurisdiction, priu●ledges, and preeminences, in any wise touching any spiritual, or Ecclesiastical jurisdictions with in the Realm, was given unto her, and united unto the Cr●●●e. This was the high doctrine in those days of the Prince's supreme Ecclesiastical, and spiritual power, o●er the Church of England, no less than of the Pope himself over his Church of Rome. But now of later days, and by later writers, the case seemeth wonderfully altered; for not only have they taken away the name, & title of Head of the Church, which was treason by King Henry's Statutes to deny, and many were put to death for not yielding thereunto: but have taken away the authority also itself, if we respect the substance, and shifting in words, to seem still to retain somewhat. Wherein among others M. Barlow seemeth eminent, and under a show of defending the King's supremacy, to take it quite away. For let us hear, first how he handleth the question, about the Prince's authority for judging in cases of religion; which is the principal of all the rest. He both proposeth, and solveth the question thus.  
May not then, saith he, a Prince judge in cases of Religion and Faith? No: not judicio definitivo, 
M. Barlows judgement about the King's supreme Ecclesiastical authority.  to determine what is sound Divinity or not and so impose that upon the consciences of men for faith, which he alone defines to be so: but judicio executivo, or jurisdictionis he may, and aught when the Church hath determined matters of saith, command the prosessing thereof, within his Kingdomed as the soundest and worthiest to be received. This is his determination; whereby it is evident, that he permitteth only unto the King to execute that which his Church in England, to wit, the Bishops and Clergy thereof, shall determine about matters of religion, which is no one jot more of power in Ecclesiastical matters, then that which Catholics do ascribe unto their temporal Princes, to execute what the Church determineth: but yet with this difference of much more dignity, that they are bound to the execution only of that which the Universal Church shall determine, & not of their own subjects alone, as it falleth out on the behalf of his Majesty of England in this case. In which point also I do not see, how he can wind himself out of this maze, that must necessarily follow of his own doctrine, to wit, that one should receive from another, that the other received from him. As for example, if the Bishops being his majesties subjects, as well in spiritual as temporal affairs, have no spiritual jurisdiction but from him, as the Statute of King Edward doth determine: and on the other side his Majesty to have no authority, to define of any matter belonging to religion at all, but only to execute that which the Bishops do define; it seemeth that they receive from his Majesty that authority, which they deny to be in him, and so, that he giveth them the thing, which he hath not in himself, but is to receive from them.  
Moreover it is evident by this doctrine of theirs, that the Bishops do make their Courts & Tribunals for matters of Religion, to be absolutely greater than the Kings, for that they do allow him no other power for judging in spiritual matters, but only to execute, that which they shall define and determine.  
And albeit for dazzling the simple reader's eyes, M. Barlow doth in this place fumble up a certain distinction, 
M. Barlows fumbling.  not well understood by himself, taken out of some Schoolmen, as he saith, noting Occam in the margin, that there be three parts of this executive judgement, the one discretive to discern, the other directive to teach others, the third decretive: which third he saith, is in the Prince both affirmatively to bind to the observing of that, which is so tried and adjudged, and negatively to suppress the contrary: and that this last is to judge for the truth; and the former of defining, is to judge of the truth. Yet doth all this reach no further, but to the power of execution of that which others have determined, which may be called a power of impotency in that behalf; for that therein he is subject, and not Superior, especially if it lie 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 aught to execute, when the Church hath determined. But on the other side, if he have power and liberty to execute, or not to execute, then is the other power of defining in the Bishops to small purpose. For that they may define, and he not execute, his judgement being that they have defined e●ill, and by that way becometh he their judge again, to define whether they have defined well, or no. And this is another circle or labyrinth which I see not how M. Barl●● will easily avoid.  
I do pretermit divers other childish things that be in this speech of his, as where he propoundeth thus the question: as first, Whether a Prince may judge in cases of Religion, ●●d saith? as though these two were Sinonymas, and all one; Whereas religion containeth 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 judge. Secondly he saith, that the King cannot define, and determine, what is sound Divinity or not, which is far from the purpose. For the question is not, whether the King may judge and determine what is sound Divinity or Theology, but what is matter of faith, and what is to be believed, or not be believed by a true Christian within his realm. Thirdly in like manner when he saith, that the King hath only judicium executiwm, or jurisdictionis, 
M. Barlows absurd distinctions & divisions.  as though they were all one: whereas executio, and iurisdictio are two different things, & jurisdiction is more properly in that party that defineth, then in the other that executeth: for that the former commandeth, and the second obeyeth.  
Fourthly his term also of discretiwm ascribed by him unto all Christians, to have power to try spirits, whether they be of God or no (besides that it seemeth contrary to that of S. Paul to the Corinthians, who reckoneth up discretion of spirits to be a peculiar and several gift unto some alone, saying, Alij discretio spirituum etc.) is nothing well applied by him to judicium execu●iuum, for that it appertaineth rather to judicium definitiwm, for somuch as those that have power to define, & to determine of matters, are principally to judge of spirits, & not their subjects to judge of theirs: for that other wise there must needs ensue an inextricable confusion of trying, & judging of one the others spirits. As if for example the Bishop's o● England should try & condemn the spirits of the Purytans, and they again the spirits of the Bishops, by colour of this power to discern spirits, given them by M. B●●lo● out of the words of S. john, there would never be an end.  
And lastly it appeareth by all this that his l●st distinction, wherein he saith, that the King may judge for the truth, and not of the truth, is a mere delusion, 
M. Barlows delusion.  giving somewhat in words, but nothing in deed; for that if the judging for the truth be nothing else, but to execute, allow, and approve, that which others have defined, determined, and appointed out unto him, to be believed, and defended as the truth, then hath he no more free choice, or superiority in judgement in this case, than every subject or common man, who is likewise bound to believe and defend the same, according to his ability and power.  
Now then to conclude the matter, and to reduce all to a brief sum, for so much as M. Barlow taketh away from his Majesty of England not only the title and style Of Head of the Church, 
M. Barlow hath marred the market of the King's supremacy.  which was given to King Henry, and confirmed to King Edward, but the Papal authority in like manner, for decision of matters, which was ascribed unto them both by Parliament, and confirmed to Queen Elizabeth; and here saith, that he cannot judge in cases of religion and faith judicio 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 ordain: and for somuch as he addeth yet further now, in that which before we have discussed, three other particular cases out of S. Ambrose, wherein he confesses that his Majesty hath no authority, but may be resisted, to wit, if he should call before him a Bishop to dispute with another of a different religion, as Valen●inian did S. Ambrose, and he denied him: If he should command a Bishop to deliver over a Church to a people of a different religion: and if he should command a Bishop to deliver up 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 greatness of his majesties Supreme power in causes Ecclesiastical, as in effect it cometh to be no more, th●n Catholic doctrine doth ordinarily allow to every Catholic Temporal Prince, for the observance, and execution of that which the Church determineth. And this is M. Barl●●●● heroical exploit, to mar the matter he takes in hand for his Client. Let every man judge how well he hath deserved the good fee, which already he hath recrayed for his plea, and hopeth to receive more hereafter, if he may speed according to his expectation.   

OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE Or Instance out of S. Gregory the Great, about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperor Mauritius, that he misliked: which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiastical. §. III.  
THERE followeth another controversy between M. Barlow & me about a certain fact of S. Gregory the Great concerning the Law of Mauritius the Emperor prohibiting soldiers, and such as were accountable to the emperors Courts for offices borne by them, to enter into monasteries and profess a religious life without his licence, whereof I wrote thus in my letter.  
Neither doth the last place cited out of S. Gregory the Great to the Emperor Mauritius, 
Lett. p. 56.  make any thing mo●e for our Apologers purpose of taking Oaths against Conscience. 
Apolog. pag. 24.  For albeit the same Father do greatly compla●ne in divers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius, whom (though otherwise a Catholic Emperor) he compareth in that point to Nero and Diocl●si●n, saying: Quid Nero? quid Dioclesi●●●s? q●id delique iste● qui ●oc tempore ●●●lesiam persequitur? Numquid 〈◊〉 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 alleged by the Apologer, he yielded to publish and send abro●d into divers countries and Provinces, a certain unjust law of the said Emperors, 
How S. Gregory agreed to the publishing of the law of the Emperor ●auritius.  that prohibited Soldiers, and such as had been employed in matters of public accounts of the commonwealth, to make themselves Monks. W●ich law, though S. Gregory did greatly mislike, and wrote sharply against it, 
Greg. l. 2. Epist. 65. Indict. 11.  to the Emperor himself: yet to show his due respect in temporal things unto him, and for that indeed the law was not absolutely so evil, but that in some good sense, it might be tolerated, to wit, that Soldiers sworn to the emperors wars, might not (during the said Oath & obligation) be received into Monasteries, but with the Prince's licence: yet for that it tended to the abridgement of Ecclesiastical freedom, in taking that course or state of life, which each man chooseth for the good of his soul; S. Grego●y misliked the same, and dealt earnestly with the Emperor to relinquish it, or to suffer it to be so moderated, as it might stand without prejudice of Christian liberty: whereunto the Emperor at length yielded, and so S. Gregory sent the same abroad unto divers Primates and Archbishops of sundry Kingdoms mentioned by him, but corrected first and reduced by himself, as supreme Pastor, to a reasonable lawfulness, and temperate moderation: to wit, that those who had borne offices of charge in the Commonwealth, and after desired to be admitted to religious life in Monasteries, should not be received, until they had given up their full accounts, and had obtained public discharge for the same. And that Soldiers which demanded the like admittance, should be exactly tried, and not admitted unto Monastical habit, but after they had lived three years in their lay apparel, under probation.  
This determineth S. Gregory in his Epistle, beginning, Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi, Vrbicio Dyrachitano etc. adding further in the same Epistle, as hath been said, 
Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 1●. Indict. 1.  De qua re, Ser●iss●mus & Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur: about which matter our most Clement and Christian Emperor is wholly pleased and content. So as in this S. Gregory showed his pastoral care and power, in limiting and moderating the emperors law, according to the law of God, though in temporal respects he showed him the Obedience, that was due unto him. But what is this unto our Oath? May we think that S. Gregory, that would not pass a temporal law of the Emperor, without reprehension of the unlawfulness thereof to the Emperor himself, and correction thereof in the publication, for that indirectly it did infringe the liberty of Religious life, when men were called thereunto; that he would not have much more resisted the admission of an Oath, about such affairs, if it had been proposed? No man, I think, in reason can imagine the contrary.  
To this declaration of mine M. Barlow beginneth his reply thus: But that of Gregory, saith he, 
Barl. pag. 173.  toucheth the very quick, who as he thought his duty discharged to God, in showing the reasons why he disliked the Law, so did he perform it very readily to the Emperor, in promulging the same immediately, according to commandment. Whereto I answer first, that howsoever it be, the quick 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 thereof concern matters of Religion: and here the question between S. Gregory & Mauritius is about the publishing of a law, 
Mauritius his law no● altogether Ecclesiastical.  partly temporal, for as much as it concerned the emperors Army, Officers, and public accounts, and partly also including some touch against Ecclesiastical liberty, intaking that holy profession of Monastical life, for help of their souls; for which la●er respect. S. Gregory was most earnest with the said Emperor to be content to have 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 appear.  
Secondly then, the chiefest point o● difference between M. Barlow & me in this matter seemeth to be, whether S. Gregory did yield to the publishing o● this Law, before the mitigation & correction thereof, or not. He saith he did. But Cardinal Baronius, who seemeth more practised in the writings of S. Gregory, then M. Barlow in his Communion book, holdeth the contrary, and proveth it out of S. Gregory's own words and writings unto the foresaid Archbishops & Metropolitans, Eusebius of Thessalonica, Vrbi●i●● of Dyrachium, Constantius of Milan, john o● Corinth, john of Crect, & others mentioned in his said l●tter: which letter he sent together with the said Law, unto those chief Bishops & Metropolitans, to be divulged; but first moderated and corrected (saith Baronius) in the two points before by me mentioned. Adding further that this Epistle o● S. Gregory concerning this correction is found in his Register, not in his due place & rank, but removed from thence, as many other of his spitals also are, which have given some occasion 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 Emperor himself, and 65. to Theodorus his Physician, he entreateth earnestly for the emperors consent to this mitigation: whereof no man can marvel, considering the humility and sweetness of S. Gregory's nature, & that the Law it sel●e seemed to be made upon great reason, for the Commonwealth, for some abuses perhaps that had passed, & might pass; and consequently was no such Ecclesiastical Law, as M. Barlow would have it to be taken for. And so much the more reason had S. Gregory to deal humbly by way of petition, with the said Mauritius● for allowing of his modification, for that the Law did not directly repugn any Ecclesiastical matter, 
How the Emperor's Law was Ecclesiastical.  but by a consequence only, the subject of the Law being grounded upon temporal respects, which consequence notwithstanding S. Gregory as a careful supreme Pastor, would not suffer to pass without due reflection made thereon, with endeavour to have it amended.  
But wh●ther this were before or after his first sending o● the law into divers Provinces, a● he saith Epist. 62. lib. 2. or after, as he writeth to the foresaid Metropolitans, Epist. 11. lib. 7. or whether he sent it two times, ●i●t to the Provinces with some advertisements to be considered of, until he should have obtained the emperors consent: and then again unto the said Metrop●litans, with more full resolution, and assurance that the Emperor was content, and satisfied, I shall leave the matter to be disputed between Cardinal Baronius, and M. Barlow; albeit the matter itself be of sm●ll moment to our purpose, as I have said, for that, as S. Gregory did on the one side show himself subject unto Mauritius at that time, in te●porall ●ffaires, so did he not neglect his Pastoral office, & supreme care, in dealing with those Archbishops, & Metropolitans of divers Nations (to whom he sent the emperors Law) to practise the sam● according to the temperament, and declaration sent them. And if his spiritual authority had been acknowledged to have been no more at that time, then over the Roman Diocese only, as now our Protestant's will acknowledge no more to our present Popes, he would never have taken upon him to write, and send the Law with his exposition, to so many great Archbishops of divers other Realms, and Nations. And if Mauritius the Emperor had held himself for Head of the Church in those days, and to have power aswell in Ecclesiastical affairs, 
A good consideration.  as temporal, and that S. Gregory had not been Head, he would never have sent the law to have been published by him to the Metropolitans, both of the East and West, Greek and Latin Church, himselve living in Constantinople, being nearer unto divers of the said Metrop●litans, then was Rome, but would have sent the same immediately unto them, as from himself.  
And this might be sufficient for this matter, but that I may not let pass without the note of another egregious ignorance, and malice, or rather malicious ignorance of M. Barlow conjoined together in this place● The malice standeth in this, that he accuseth me of falsifying, for leaving out wittingly certain words of S. Gregory in his for●said Epistle to the Metropolitans, whereby he assureth them, that the Emperor was pacified, and contented with his mitigation of the law sent unto them. 
A fond cavil.  This falsifying jesuit (saith he) mentioneth the Epistle, but leaveth out the words very cunningly, mihi credit, Believe me, our Grati●●s Emperor is so contented. 
Pag. 174.  Whereas if you look back upon my words, you shall find them set down by me thus, as they stand in S. Gregory; De qua re Serenissimus & Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur. About which matter our most Clement, & Christian Emperor is wholly pleased, & contended; if mihi credit were pretermitted, it importeth little to the matter.  
This than was malicious, let us see the ignorance coupled with more than with a single malice, when he speaketh of S. Gregory's words written unto Theodoru● the emperors Physician, as before hath been mentioned, sending a letter to him to be delivered to the said Emperor, at his good commodity. M. Barlow relateth the matter thus. He writes to Theodore the emperors Physician, 
Barl. pag. 174.  saith he, and entreats him to deal with his Lord and Sovereign about it. The reasons whereof he had not, yea he would not, he saith, à Responsali suo publicè dare, publicly yield as from his Chair and Oracle (much less by his Breve interdict) but having suggested it privately, he left it to God and the emperors leisure and wisdom. 
A ridiculous error in Grammar of M. Barlow.  In which words, besides the gros●e ignorance, in taking Responsali for the Pope's Chair or Oracle, wherein he defineth matters for direction of Christendom (whereas the word signifieth only his Messenger, Nuntius, or Legate) there are divers evident frauds discovered: as first that he doth interpret the Pope's private letter or suggestion (as S. Gregory calleth it, which he sent to Theodore to be given to the Emperor) by the words yielding of reasons publicly, which is far from S. Gregory's meaning, as presently shall appear.  
And secondly to make the sentence of S. Gregory more appliable to his fond purpose, of interpreting it a Chair or Oracle, he changes 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 have my said ●●●●er (or suggestion) to be given to the Emperor publicly, by my Legate or Agent, for that you who do serve him more familiarly, may speak unto him more freely and openly, those things which be for his soul. Which words being most plain, who but an ignorant man, or most malicious, would translate Responsali, as from hi● Chair and Oracle? which cannot stand in the sight of every child, either with signification of Responsali●, or with the reason of S. Gregory here alleged. For what sense may it have if S. Gregory should say to Theodore the Physician, as M. Barlow feigneth him to say, I have not, nor will not yield reasons publicly from my Chair and Oracle, and much less, i●erdict by Breve, for that you serving him more familiarly, may speak more boldly and openly. But as I say the wilful ignorance or malice is manifest, for that he can never in his whole life show us in any one example where Responsalis is taken for the Pope's Chair or Oracle, but for a Messenger, Ambassador, Nuntius, Legate, or Agent, named otherwise Apo●rysiarius.  
We could show him a multitude of places out of S. Gregory himself, if we would stand upon it, as namely in his 30. Epistle lib. 6. to Mauritius the Emperor, talking of the Legates of Cyriacus Archbishop of Constantinople he saith, Responsales Fratris & Consacerdotis mei Cyriaci benignè suscepi: I benignly received the Legates or Messengers of my Brother and fellow Priest Cyriacus. And again afterward in the same Epistle, Responsales eius mecum feci Sacra Missarum solemnia celebrare. I caused his Messengers to celebrate the holy solemnity of the Masses together with me. Where I hope M. Barlow will not say, that he received Bishop Cyriacu● his Chair with benignity, or that he made his C●aire and Oracle to say mass with him. And the very same speech he useth again in the very next ensuing epistle, to E●logius Bishop of Alexandria, and to Anastasius Bishop of An●ioch. And again in his epistle 38. to john Archbishop of Constantinople. Et antè per R●sponsales me●s, & nunc per communem filium meum Sabinianum Diaconum alloqui Fra●erni●●tem vestram volui. I resolved first to admonish your Brotherhood by other Messengers of mine, and now by our common son Sabinianus the Deacon. Many other such like examples might be alleged, which for brevity I pretermit: & do take pity of M. Barlow to see him err so grossly, as to imagine that Responsalis should signify a Pope's Chair, or Oracle. And so much of this.    

WHETHER COUNSELS HAVE SUBMITTED THEMSELVES UNTO CHRISTIAN EMPERORS in Spiritual affairs: and namely that of Arles to Charles the Great? CHAP. VI  
AFTER the examination of the Authorities of Scriptures, and Fathers alleged by the Apologer, for the prerogative of temporal Princes in matters of Religion, there followeth also in ●he third place somewhat of councils, that seemed to submit themselves in their Decrees about Religion, unto the judgement and liking of Emperors, which to the end the Reader may the better conceive, and ●ee the whole conflict between M. Ba●low and me in this point, wherein as in all the rest ●e seeks to be obscure, I shall set down the whole speech used in my former Letter: thus than it was.  
The last thing then (said I) that i● cited without purpose by the Apologer, 
Letter pag. ●8.  are certain Counsels which ar● said to have submitted themselves to Emperors as that of Arles in France unto Charles the Great their King, for that in the last words of the said Council, the Bishops there gathered together, presenting the same to the said Charles write thus: 
Conc. Arel. sub Carol. Can. 26.  Haec sub brevitate, quae emendatione digna perspexim●s, etc. these things briefly which we have seen worthy of reformation, we have noted, and deemed to be presented to our Lord the Emperor, beseeching his Clemency, if any thing be wanting to supply it by his wisdom, and if any thing be otherwise done then reason requireth, it be amended by his judgement, and if any thing be reasonably censured, it may be perfected by his help, and by the clemency of Almighty God. So the Council. And hereof would the Apologer infer that this Council of Bishops submitted itself to the Emperor.  
But I would ask him wherein? To take any Oath that the Emperor Charles should propose unto them? We see no Oath offered, nor mentioned, and so nothing here to our purpose. Wherein then, or why are they said to have submitted themselves? For that, perhaps, it is said in the Preface of the Council, that they were gathered together by order, and commandment of the said Emperor. Surely it was hard, that so many Bishops, and Archbishops should be assembled together without his liking, and Order. But that the consent, direction, and chief Commission for the same, came from the Bishop of Rome, may easily be gathered: 
Vi●e in Capitularibus Franc. lib. 6. c. 285. de Concilio Worma●.  for that in the first Council that he caused to be celebrated in his Dominions, which was that of Worms in the year of Christ 770. it was left registered in these words: Auctoritas Ecclesiastica, atque Canonica d●cet, non debere, absque sententia Romani Ponti●icis, Concilia celebrari. Ecclesiastical and Canonical authority teacheth, that Counsels may not be held, without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome.  
And where in them? Or why is this submission made? For approbation of matters concerning faith? No, for that you have heard before out of S. Ambrose, that therein Emperors are not judges of Bishops, but Bishops of Emperors. Wherein then, or why is this submission, 
Wherein the Council or Arles did submit itself to the Emperor.  or rather remission to the Emperor, and his judgement? It was, for that this Council was made only for reformation of manners and matters, at the religious instance of the good Emperor, the effectuating whereof did depend principally of his good will and assistance, and so after the first Canon, where briefly is set down the Confession o● the Christian faith, all the other 25. Canons (for there are only 26. in all) are about reformation of matters amiss: as for more diligence in daily prayer for the emperors person, and his children, to wit, that 
a Can. 2.  Masses and betonies be said da●lie for them by all Bishops, Abbots, Monks, and Priests. 
b Can. 3.  That Bishops and Priests study more diligently, and teach the people, both by lessons and preachings: 
c Can. 4.  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 Can. 7. & 8.  That none be admitted to enter into the Monasteries of Virgins either to say Mass, or otherwise, but such as be of approved virtue: 
e Can. 13●  How peace is to be held between Bishops, Earls, and other Great men, especially in execution of justice: 
f Can. 15. & 16.  That weights and measures be just and equal, and that none work upon holy days: 
g Can. 20. 22. 23.  That all Tithes be paid, all ancient possession maintained to the Churches. That no secular courts be held in Churches, or Church porches: That no Earls, or other Great men do fraudulently buy poor men's goods &c.  
These than were the points of Reformation, 
The zeal of Charl● the Great to have manners reform by the authority of Bishops.  decreed in that Council of Arles, at the instance of Charles the Great, who was so zealous a Prince in this behalves, as he caused five several Counsels to be celebrated in divers Parts of his Dominions within one year, to wit, this of A●les, another at Towers, a third at Chalo●s, a fourth at Mentz, the fifth at Rheims, and another the year before (which was the ●ixt) ad Theodonis villam, which is a town in Luxemburge. All which Provincial Synods are extant i● the third Tome of Counsels, together with the Canons and Decrees, which are such as could not be put in execution, but by the temporal favour, authority, and approbation of the Emperor in such matters, as concerned his temporal Kingdom and jurisdiction. Wherefore i● for these respects, the Council did present unto the Emperor these Canons to be considered of by his wisdom, whether any thing were to be added, altered, or taken away, for the public good of the Common Wealth (no Controversy of faith being treated therein) what is this to prove, either that the Emperor in spiritual matters was superior to the said Bishops, or that if he had proposed unto them any such Oath, as this is, wherein by professing their temporal Allegiance, they must also have impugned some point of their faith, that they would have obeyed him? And so much of this Council.  
This was then my speech, yielding furthermore a reason, why I did not stand upon the places of some particular Counsels alleged, for that the discussion of this one made manifest all the rest, that they tended only to this end, that they proved temporal obedience in subjects towards their Princes, in temporal affairs, which Catholics deny not, and so in effect they prove nothing to the purpose in hand. But yet it shall be good to ponder a little, what M. Barlow bringeth in against that, which here I have written. First he saith, that not only these Provincial Counsels, of Arles in France, and divers others submitted themselves wholly to the Emperor Charles the Great, in most humble terms, but the four General Counsels also summoned at the beck, and command of the Emperor, submitted themselves for the validity, and establishing of their Decrees to his most Royal assent. And within three lines after again: 
Barlow pag. 175.  Whole Counsels, saith he, submitted themselves in all dutiful reverence to their Sovereigns, not only in matters of temporal affairs, but in faith and religion. And yet further in the very next page: The Emperor, saith he, that hath the sole authority to summon a Council, 
A gross contradicti● in M. Barlow  hath the sole power to make good or void what it concludes. And we must note that he putteth down the words to make good, or void, in a different markable letter, thereby to signify that this is an Axiom of great solidity. And yet I suppose that he could not be so forgetful, or negligent as not to see, that all this is quite contrary to that which he wrote within three leavest before, to wit, that in cases of religion and faith, Princes could not judge any thing, judicio definitivo, to define or determine, but only executivo, to put in execution that which the Church determineth.  
But now if not only the Council of Arles, and other Provincial Counsels, but the first four General Counsels submitted themselves also for the validity and establishment of their Decrees, which are known to have been concerning points of religion and faith, unto the emperors Royal assent: so as whatsoever was decreed there by the Church (& this not a Provincial or National Church only of England, but the whole Universal Church gathered in those first four Councils) should have no validity, except the Emperor approved the same; this is more than judicium executiwm, to execute that which the other had determined. For here the Emperor doth judge of all, yea even of the judges themselves, and of their judgements and decrees, and consequently hath the last and supreme judgement definitive, to define and determine what Decrees 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 unto the Pope. And this is confirmed in like manner by M. Barlows second ass●ueration, That Counsels must submit themselves in all dutiful reverence, not only in matters of temporal affairs, but of faith and religion also● What can be spoken more plainly in contradiction of his former assertion? And what more absurdly than that which followeth in the third place, That the temporal Prince hath sole power to make good or void what the Council concludes? 
A very forcible argument.  For that hereby all the Conciliabula or unlawful false Counsels that met together often in the primitive Church, as that of A●iminum for the Arians against the Catholics, that of Carthage against Cecilianus, that of Constan●inople against Marcellus, that of Antioch against Athanasius, that of Burges in France against S. Hilary, & divers other, having the assent and approbation of heretical Emperors then bearing rule, shallbe good and lawful Counsels, and all other Counsels gathered for the Catholics against these to be void, & of no validity. Do you see here M. Barlows manner of writing? and how he plungeth himself above the ears in contradictions, without marking, or respecting what he said before, so he may say somewhat for the present?  
But do you think that he will stand to this now? No. For that in the very next ensuing leaf, he being pressed by me to answer what submission that was, which the Council of Arles made to Charles the Great for his approbation, and whether it were of matters concerning faith, he runneth quite back again, denying that Emperors have any such authority. 
M. Barlows memory very short.  To judge, saith he, definitively which are matters of faith, or no, is not for the Emperor: but to ratify by hi● assent, and command by his authority, what the Church or Council so assembled hath defined to be matter of faith, is proper to Emper●●rs and Kings. Which words if you consider them well, do contain most evidently the contradictory of that he said before, That Counsels were to submit themselves for the validity of their Decrees to the emperors Royal assent, and that not only in temporal affairs, but in faith and religion: and that they only have power to make good or void all conclusions of Counsels: which containeth manifestly power also to define: & it is but a shift to say here, that it is not for the Emperor to judge definitively, which are matters of faith or not. For it is not the chief question, which matters belong to faith, and which not, for that is easily discerned in general, but which opinions in these matters be true, or false, doubtful, dangerous, Catholic, or Heretical in particular.  
Wherein, forasmuch as the Decrees that are, or shallbe made by the Counsels assembled, must take their validity from the emperors assent, yea even as they are matters of faith and religion, and that without this assent they are utterly volde; it is a ridiculous thing to see M. Barlow play fast and loose, 
M. Barlow playeth fast & loose, about the King's authority.  as he doth in this matter, taking away with one hand, that which he giveth with the other, & then yielding again that which before he had taken away, which proceedeth of the miserable labyrinth, wherein he seeth himself to be in this question, about the King's spiritual authority, which he would seem to defend, ●●t in effect overthroweth the same, when he cometh to the point, as before hath been noted. And this necessity driveth him to such contradictory speeches, not knowing well where to rest himself, as even here in these his last words, there is a notorious entanglement, if they be well considered.  
For first he saith, that it belongeth not to the Emperor definitively to judge which are matters of faith, but to ratify by his assent, what the Council had defined to be matter of faith. Suppose that some Council had decreed that Christ was the Son of God, and equal in Godhead to his Father, as divers did under Constantius the Arian Emperor, and he would not ratify the ●ayd decrees by his assent, were they all void for this? and had they no validity? Or was this Council bound to submit itself, 
A hard question for M. Barlow to answer.  in these points of faith and religion, unto that Emperor, as M. Barlows former doctrine inferreth? though here he would seem to moderate the matter; but indeed he knoweth not where to consist. For if no Decrees of Counsels in any matters of faith or religion, have any validity, without the emperors ratification and assent, as here also he doth insinuate, then must we needs allow also unto him power to judge definitively, and not only to execute, as before hath been proved.  
And as for the instance which he allegeth out of the Synod of Aquileia held under the reign of Gratian, Valenti●●an, and Theodosius joint Emperors, wherein was S. Ambrose that wrote with the rest of the Bishops unto the foresai● Emperors, humbly and earnestly desiring them (saith M. Barlow, 
Barl. pag. 178.  that they would vouchsafe to make good, what the Bishops ●ad in th●s Assembly concluded, it is merely false, 
False dealing.  For first no such speech is found in the place by him cited: & secondly though the said Bishops do complain much in that letter of certa●ne disorderly heretics, that troubled their peace, namely Valence, and Attalic, and did request the protection o● t●e ●ayd Emperors, for their quiet: ye● do they not, as M. Barlow falsely affirmeth, desire th● Emperors to ratify their Decrees, set down in matter● o● faith, or to make good, what they had concluded; fo● that had been to have made them judges of their said Decrees, against which thing, as attempted by the heretics, S● Ambrose excepteth in that very place, saying, 
Amb. tun. 5. edit. Vatican. epist. prefix. an●e Con●il. Aquile●en.  That Pries● must judge of lay men, and not lay men o● priests, in matters belo●g●●● to religion: but they did demand their temporal help an● protection, only for defence of that which they had decreed, and for peaceable observing thereof, putting th● said Emperors in mind, to have first respect unto th● reverence of the Catholic Church, and then unto th● observation of their own laws thereby: Reverentiam pri●●● Ecclesiae Catholicae, deinde etiam legibus vestris Pietas Vestra defer●●●ubeat. ●hat your Piety do first command reverence t● be exhibited to the Catholic Church, and afterward t● your own laws. So S. Ambrose with that Synod. Where●by may appear, what reverence, and respect they required at these three Christian Emperors hands unto thei● Ecclesiastical decrees (they representing the Church) before their own Imperial laws.  
Unto the sentence which I do cite in my Letter on● of the Council of Worms, 
About the of Council Worms.  that Counsels may not b● held without allowance o● the Bishop of Rome● M. Barl●● answereth with more choler than reason, That it is a manifest untruth, made good by an obscure author, out of a Council ●euer assembled, or never recorded. But if it be so manifest, why had not he alleged so much as one author, old or new since that time, which is above 800. years agone tha● denied the same, until this our age? Whereas we alleadg● for the affirmative, that there was such a Council held at Worms upon that year of 770. 

●●om. ann. 77●. & 772.  
〈◊〉 F●anc. ● 6. c. 28. ●● l 7. c. 2●●.   both out of the life o● Charles the Great, written by a very ancient Author, a● al●o out of the 6. and 7. Books de Capitularibu● Franc. and out of m●ny Histories after them, as namely Rhegine, tha● lived full 700. years agone, and mentioneth that Council of Worms, upon the same year: yea the Author's themselves mentioned by M. Barlow, namely Genebra●d, Byn●●● and Caranza, being confessed by him to mention such ● Council, do prove also that it was recorded. And as fo● his negative argument out of Canisius in his short table of Chronography, prefixed before his Catechism, who ●●ming some Counsels, doth not name that Council of Worms, hath no substance at al. For that Canisius his purpose was not to name all Counsels, especially such as were Provincial, as this of Worms was, but some only 〈◊〉 example sake: for in that very Age of 800. wherein Ch●●les did flourish as Emperor, I find 5. or 6. at least pretermitted by Canisius, as Ratisponense, Altinense, Constantinop●●●● 〈◊〉, Actinacense, Lugdunense, and some others. And in the precedent age, when Charles was King of France, I f●nd above a dozen Provincial Counsels left out of Ca●●●●●s his Chronology; and so might this also be of Wor●es, albeit there is a Council of Worms registered by him, about the middle of the age of 800; which also may be this, that we talk of, though placed by the Printer somewhat lower in the Column, than it should be.  
But why do we stand spending of time in these tri●●ing objections brought in by M. Barlow against himself? If the Council be confessed by so many as himself mentioneth here in this place, to wit, Genebrard, By●nius, and Caranza, and the sentence before cited for the necessity of the Pope's consent in gathering of the Counsels cannot be denied, but that it is registered in the history before mentioned, de Capitularibus Franc. as Bynnius also expressly affirmeth, 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 hold their peace, and say nothing to the contrary? But as for the main question itself, whether it appertain unto the Pope's authority to call Counsels, and approve the same, the proof is not taken so much from this acknowledgement or testimony of the Council of Worms, which did but set down the sense of the Christian Church in these days; but from other far more ancient proofs and testimonies, as M. Barlow well knoweth, though here he dissembleth the same, 
Better to be a fugitive for the Catholic religion on abroad then to be a persecutor at home.  and chaseth exceedingly, saying, That this fugitive (for such is his modesty of speech) will f●tch a 〈◊〉 sentence from this Council to warrant no Council to be good, that i● celebrated without the Pope's Authority, and thereby at one push overthrow the credit of all Counsels, both general and particular for the better part of 900. years after Christ. Whereto I answer first, that to be a fugitive for the cause of Catholic Religion, is no reproach at all, but a high commendation, warranted by Christ's own words, when he willed them that were persecuted in one City, to fly into another: and much more happy is it to be a fugitive, than a persecutor. S. Athanasius in his book 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 Counsels, general or particular, our controversy is principally of General Counsels, for as for Diocesian Synods, as they may be assembled by each Bishop in his district, and the Provincial Counsels by the Metropolitan, which Protestants themselves will not deny: so by the due proportion of good order, General Counsels must be gathered by commandment or consent at least of the general Pastor, 
General Counsels always called by the Bishop of Rome.  though in States subject to temporal Princes, good reason requireth that the matter be done in like manner with the approbation of the said temporal Princes, for the holding of the said Council, in this, or that place of their Dominions. And this was observed in the first 4. General Counsels, which were commanded to be gathered by Constantine, Theodosius the elder, Theodosius the younger, and Martian the Emperors, by the assent and approbation of the Popes, Sylvester, Damasus, Celestinus, and Leo: which besides other proofs of several histories is made evident by the last of the said 4. Counsels, to wit, that of Chalcedon, where, in the first action, the heretical Archbishop Dioscorus was punished publicly, and forbidden to sit amongst the Bishops, for that he had presumed to call a Council without the authority of the Apostolic Sea: Qu●d numquam licui●, say they, numquam sactum est, that never was lawful, nor ever was done. And consequently this proveth that all the first 4. General councils were gathered by the consents and approbations of the Bishops of Rome, though with the concurrence also of the Emperors, without whose good liking, the meeting of so many Bishops in their States could not be permitted, as before hath been said.  
But now here before I pass any further, I must make you acquainted with a solemn foolery and falsehood of M Barlow, concerning Cardinal Bellarmine, for that having uttered the words before mentioned, 
Barl. pag. 178.  that Counsels were to be gathered by the Emperors, and not by the Bishops of Rome, though he citeth no one argument for the same: yet saith he, this is a thing so clear and radiant, that Bellarmine himself being dazzled with beholding the evidence, even as S. Peter, not wi●●ing what he said, though he laboured to build for the Pope, yet laboureth be also to build for the Emperor, and in that same place he treweth divers reasons, why it rather belongeth to Emperors, then to Popes for ●o assemble councils, citing for the same in his margin Bellar. de Concil. cap. 13. But truly when I went to the place of Bellarmine and read his words, 
The radiant folly of M. Barlow.  I was ashamed on M. Barlowes behalf, and his folly was so radiant in my eyes (to use his phrase) that I could not read them without blushing: for that in the Chapter by him cited, and in the other going before, Bellarmine doth prove most substantially by many arguments both out of Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, reasons, histories, practice, and examples, that it appertaineth not to the Emperor only or principally, but to the Bishop of Rome to call General councils, or at leastwise, that it may not be done without the said Bishop's consent, and approbation first had, so as the very contradictory proposition to this, which M. Barlow sets down, is found in these express words in Bellarmine, ●sse reverà Ponti●icis, non Imperatoris congregare Synodum generalem, that is belongeth truly to the Pope, and not to the Emperor to gather a general Council. Adding notwithstanding 4. particular reasons and temporal respects, why divers general councils could not be gathered together under the Emperors, who were temporal Lords of the world, without their like & consents. Not, saith he, for that a Council gathered without the authority of the Emperor among Christians should not be of validity, as our adversaries do dream (whereas S. Athanasiu● saith plainly in his epistle to them that lead a solitary life, Quando umquam judicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit? when did ever the judgement of the Church take authority from the Emperor? 
M Bar●owes impudence. ) but for that the temporal state of Christendom standing in the emperors 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 shows divers reasons why it rather belonged to Emperors, then to the Pope to assemble councils? Will he not blush, and be ashamed of this shameless calumniation, or rather forgery?  
As for that he objected concerning the Grant given to Charles the Great, by Adrian the Pope, to have authority to approve the Election of the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishops and Archbishops, and to dispose of the Sea Apostolic &c. 
Ba●on. tom. 9 ann. 774.  I refer him to Cardinal Baronius for his answer in his Annals of the year 774. where he discusseth the matter at large, and proveth it a mere fiction, and plain fraud invented, & registered first by Sigebertus in favour of the cause of Henry the fourth Emperor excommunicated by the Pope: which he proveth by many plain evidences out of all the ancient writers, for the space of 300. years after Charles his time, who never made mention of any such Grant; as also the express testimony of Eginhardus, that was Notary to Charles the Great, and was always about him, and wrote his life, and by divers other proofs which were too long here to recite. Therefore with this shall we end this Chapter.   

WHETHER THE POPE IN HIS BREVE DID FORBID TEMPORAL OBEDIENCE to his Majesty of England? AND Whether the said Pope hath Power to make new Articles of faith? CHAP. VII.  
WHEREAS in the Apology, a great complaint was made against the Pope, 
A●o●. p. 26. & ●7.  for that in his Breve he did forbid temporal Obedience to be performed to his Majesty, as a point against faith and salvation of souls; & moreover chargeth him with assuming unto himself infallibility of spirit to make new Articles of saith when ever it shall please him etc. my answer thereunto was this. I find no such thing in the Breve at all, 
Lett. p. 61.  as that Temporal Obedience is against faith & salvation of souls: nor doth the Breve forbid it: 
Neither the Pope or Church can make new Articles of Faith.  nor doth any learned Catholic affirm, that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith: nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholic Divines, that the Pope, and all the Church together, cannot make any new Article of belief, that was not truth before, though they may explain what points are to be held for matters of faith, and what not, upon any new heresies or doubts arising; which articles so declared, though they be more particularly, and perspicuously known now for points of faith, and so to be believed, after the declaration of the Church, than before: yet had they before the self same truth in themselves, that now they have. Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them, but this declaration only. As for example, when Solomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt, he made her not the true Mother thereby, nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother: but only the declaration. Wherefore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of faith, is a mere calumniation amongst the rest.  
So in my former writing: now we shall examine what M. Barlow replieth about these two points. In the first, whether the Oath do contain only temporal Obedience, he is very brief; for having repeated my words by abbreviation, that the Pope's Breve forbids not temporal Obedience. 
Barlow pag. 181.  No, saith he, it forbids the Oath, wherein is only acknowledgement of civil Allegiance. But this we deny and have often denied, and still must deny, and crave the proof at M. Barlowes hands, who though he hath often affirmed the same, yet hath he never proved it by any one argument worth the reciting, which notwithstanding is the only or principal thing that he should prove. For that being once proved, all controversy about this Oath were ended. And it is a strange kind of demeanour, so often and every where to affirm it, 
A foolish wrangling of M. Barlow.  and never to prove it. He addeth for his reason in this place: He that prohibits the swearing against a usurping deposer, denieth temporal obedience to his rightful Sovereign: and saith never a word more. But what doth this prove? Or in what form is this argument? For if unto this Mayor proposition he shall add a Minor, that we do so, or that the Pope's Breve doth so, we utterly deny it as manifestly false. For who will say that the Pope's Breve prohibits swearing against an usurping deposer? Or what Catholic will say that his refusal of swearing is against such a one, and not rather against the authority of his lawful Pastor? Wherefore this proof is nothing at all●  
But he hath another within a leaf after, which is much more strange, for he bringeth me for a witness against myself in these words. 
Barlow pag. 184.  What hitherto (saith he) he ●a● laboured to confute, and now peremptorily denieth (that the Breve gainsayeth not Obedience in civil things) he plainly now confesseth, and gr●●teth. 
The silly shifting of M. Barlow.  If this be so, that I do grant the Pope's Breve to prohibit obedience in temporal things, then will I grant also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an advantage, and some cause to vaunt: but if no word of this be true, and that it is only a fond sleight of his own, then may you imagne to what poverty the man is driven, that is forced to invent these silly shifts. Let us lay forth then the mystery, or rather misery of this matter as himself relateth it.  
The Pope, saith he, being justly 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 unlawful, as there are points in the Oath which concern religion, against which they must swear. And is not this a good reason, say I? Is not the forswearing of any one point of Catholic Religion sufficient to stay the conscience of a Catholic man from swearing? But how doth be prove by this, that I confess the Breve to forbid temporal Obedience? Do you mark, I pray you, his inference, and consider his acumen. 
M. Barlowes acumen.  But there is no one point (saith he) in the Oath, that doth not so, to wit, that doth not concern Religion, even that first Article which merely toucheth civil obedience. I do swear before God, that King james is the lawful King of this Realm etc. Ergo, I do grant that the Breve forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles, and consequently leaveth no Obedience, civil or temporal.  
But do not you see how he contradicteth himself in the self same line, when he saith that there is no one point that concerneth not religion, even the very first Article, that toucheth merely civil obedience? For if it touch only and merely civil obedience, ●hen doth it not touch religion in our sense. For that we do distinguish these two, dividing the Oath into two several parts, the one containing points of temporal obedience, for acknowledging the right of his Majesty in his Crowns; the other concerning points of Catholic Religion, belonging to the Pope's Authority. To the first whereof, we refuse not to swear, but only against the second. And now M. Barlow saith, 
M. Barlowes contradiction.  that all concern religion, and consequently we grant that the Pope's Breve alloweth no temporal obedience, but denieth all. And is not this a worthy dispute? But let us pass to the second question, whether the Pope or Church, hath authority to make new Articles of faith, as the Apologer objected.  
And first to my declaration before set down to the negative part, that the Catholic Church pre●endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith, that were not of themselves true, and of faith before; he objecteth first Doctor Stapletons' saying, that the Pope and Council may make the Apocryphal books named Hermes, and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonical. Whereto I answer, that Doctor Stapleton saith only, that as the ancient Christian Church had authority upon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receive into the Canon of divine Books some that were not admitted before, as for example the Epistles of S. james, the two books of Maccabees, the Epistle of Jude, and divers others, 
C●●. 47.  as appear in the third Council of Carthage, wherein S. Augustine himself was present, and subscribed; 
stapleton. lib 9 c●●tro●. 5. de C●●. 〈…〉  so hath the same Church at this day, and shall have unto the world's end, authority to do the same, Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret, saith Doctor Stapleton, that is, if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same unto her● librum aliquem al●●m n●ndum in Can●nem recep●um, Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum etc. to receive into the Canon some other book written in the time of the Apostles, and never rejected by the Church, though it were not received for Canonical before, giving instance of the said two books of Hermes, and Cl●ments Constitutions before mentioned.  
So teacheth Doctor Stapleton, and the reason of his saying is, for that the authority of the Church is the same now, & shallbe unto the world's end, as it was in the first ages to judge of Scriptures, when occasion is offered. And if the Church should admit any such book 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 book be made Scripture by the Church, but only declared to be such, which was so from the beginning, though not so known & declared. So as the Church in this case should not give infallibility of truth unto the book, but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost, that this book was such from the beginning, though not so accepted. So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in citing Doctor Stapletons' words, first to conceal his first condition, Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret, if the holy Ghost should suggest the same unto the Church: and then these other two conditions, if it were written in the time of the Apostles, 
M. Barlowes fidelity.  and never rejected by the Church: which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose, to make M. Doctor Stapletons' speech to appear more naked and improbable: but indeed it was to keep his old custom, which is never commonly to relate things truly in all respects, in any citation whatsoever.  
His second objection is out of Bishop Fisher, Who saith quoth he, that whatsoever the Pope with a Council delivereth us to be believed, that is to be received as an Article of faith: which we granting to be true, do add only this, that it is to be understood according to our former declaration, and as the Bishop himself expoundeth it, 
Art. 27. c●nt●a Luth●rum.  against ●uther out of Scotus saying: Non quòd ●unc verum Ecclesia fecerit, sed à Deotraditum explicaverit, saith 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 have been delivered by God, and this by direction of the holy Ghost, promised by our Saviour to the Church. 
B Fisher abused.  So saith Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neither the Church, nor the Pope Head thereof do pretend to make any new Article of faith that was not in itself an article of faith before (yea and so believed also fide implicita, by implied faith) in the faith of the Church: but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to have been such from the beginning, though not so known or declared, and therefore men were not bound to believe it fide explicita, by express faith, as now they are, after the Church's definition, and declaration thereof.  
And that this is the common sense of all Catholic Divines, according to my former words, that the Pope and all the Church together cannot make any new Article of belief, that was not truth before, (at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much ado, as though it were false) is proved among other learned men of our days by Gregorius de Valentia, whose words are; that it is Sententia communis Theologorum, 
Valentia in 2.2. dis●. 1. pun●●o 6.  the common opinion of Divines: for which he citeth in particular a multitude of Authors, & principal Schoolmen. And his whole discourse founded upon Scriptures, Fathers, councils and other arguments consisteth in this, that as whatsoever is now believed by the Church for matter of faith, was in substance believed before, in all other precedent ages unto Christ's time actu fidei implicito, by an implied act of faith, that is to say, the believing in general whatsoever the Church believed: so many things are now believed by the Church, actu fidei explicito, by express faith, which were not so believed before, for that the Church from time to time hath had authority to explain matters more clearly and expressly, which before were believed by an implied faith only. As for example, the first Council of Nice though it determined nothing for the p●oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Son, as was afterward declared unto us by the Church, but that it believed the same, yet may we not deny but that it believed the same, not fide explici●a, but implicita only. And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications thereof made by the subsequent Counsels, about the unity of the Person & different Natures in Christ, & that his Mother should be called the Mother of God, were believed implicitè, by those of the Council of nice, and consequently were then also Articles of faith, though they were not believed by them explicitè, as we are bound to do, after the explication made by the Church. Let us conclude therefore with Bishop Fi●●ers own words against M. Barlow: Quod tame●si nequeat Sum●●● Pontisex etc. That albeit the Pope with a Council, that is to say the Catholic Church, cannot make any thing true or false, that is not true or false of itself, and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith: yet whatsoever the said Church shall deliver unto us, as an Article of faith, that, all true Christians ought to believe as an Article of faith, which Scotus also himself in the same place affirmeth. Thus Bishop Fisher (whom you see how impertinently M. Barlow allegeth against my assertion) saith the very same that I do. Let us go forward.  
Thirdly than he objecteth S. Thomas of Aquine, 
D. Thom● 2. 2. q. 1. art. 10.  who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith, some more large, and some more brief, demandeth to whom appertaineth nova Editio Symboli, the new Edition of a Creed, when the necessity of new heresies doth require? And he saith it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church. And what is this against me? Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed, though he were not Pope, with addition of many Articles for explanations sake, which were not expressly in the Apostles Creed, though in substance of truth they were nothing different? Did not divers councils set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before? All which standeth upon this ground so much pondered by ●. Irenaeus, that the Apostles had all truth revealed unto them by Christ, and they left the same in the Church: so as whatsoever is, or hath, or shallbe added afterward by the said Church, are only explications of that first revealed truth: and the childish babbling here of M. Barlow to the contrary, is to no purpose at all, for he citeth divers authors for that which we deny not, but yet always commonly with addition of some untruth of his own, as here he allegeth out of the jesuit Azor, that it belongeth unto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei, 
Azor. In●stitut. par. 2, l. 5. c. 12.  Doctrines of faith, which we deny not: but when he addeth, that this belongeth unto the Pope only, and not to a Council, this is his own invention, for Azor joineth them both together, the Council as the body, 
Azor abused.  and the Pope as the head, and saith that these words of the promise of Christ, The holy Ghost shall teach you all truth, were not spoken to a Council, or to the Church, as separate from her Head, but as adhering to her head, and joined with the same.  
So in like manner he citeth Suarez to affirm, That th● Pope may define any thing, though not expressed in Scripture, to be defied, 
Suarez abused.  without any express revelation from God; which though in some part it be true, for that the ordinary assistance of the holy Ghost to the Church, may give sufficient direction for the Church so to determine: yet are there divers wilful corruptions here to be discovered, in these few words of M. Ba●low, for that first Suarez doth not speak of the Pope alone, but of the whole Church, to wit, of the body together 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 special case, which case he there setteth down. Thirdly, 
Suarez ●ō. ●. in 3. 〈◊〉 ● 27 3. a●t. sect. 6.  though he required not novam revelationem expressam, a new express revelation, as his words be, yet he requireth implicitam and t●citam, an implied and secret revelation. All which limitations M. Barlow leaveth out of purpose, and therein showeth his fidelity in citing of Authors.  

●a●l. pag. 18●.  Next after this he hath this speech: But what need opinions, saith he, when the practice is extant, a whole new Symbolum is set ou● in the Provincial Synod at Milan, wherein twelve new Articles are added to the Nicen Creed, which all Catholics are bound 〈◊〉 pain o● Anathema, to profess by word, and swear by oath. So he. And truly this is a strange point, that a Provincial Council of Milan, reaching no further than within the compass of that diocese, should bind all Catholics upon pain of Anathema, both to profess by word & swear by oath that which was there decreed. Doth M. Barlow speak like an intelligent man? But the very last words of swearing by oath, do discover his fraud, to wit, that no new Symbol or Creed is set down in that Council, as added to the Nycen, but only a large profession of the Catholic faith, according to the Decree of Pope Piu● Quartus there recorded, 
Tun. 5. Conc. council. 4. Mediolan. cap. 1.  for all such as take Ecclesiastical promotion, in which profession, after the whole Creed set down Verbatim, as it is repeated in the Mass (which is not only the Nycen) there is added presently, 
About the Profession of faith in the fourth Councils of Mill●ne fraudulently alleged by M. Barlow.  Apostolicas & Ecclesiasticas tradiciones firmissimè admitto & amplector &c. I do most firmly admit and embrace t●● Apostolical and Ecclesiastical traditions, as I do also admit and embrace the holy Scripture, according to that sense which our holy Mother the Church hath held, and doth hold etc. running over the chief heads of such Articles as are now in controversy between us and Protestants, which heads are not here decreed for Articles of faith by this Council, 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 Catholic faith. What new Articles are then here added to the Nycen Creed? Is it not a shame to rove so far from the mark, and to falsify the plain meaning of Authors, and writers in this sort?  
But now he returneth again to speak of the Oath, & we must follow him, for that now we have bound ourselves so to do. Thus he saith of us, 
Azor. par 1. l. 11. c. 4. §. 2. Quaeritur.  They reply that it is not the substance of the Oath that sticketh in their consciences● but the ●orme thereof, especially those last words: I do make this recognition willingly and truly: otherwise they have a trick in their religion to swallow the whole Oath, without straining: for it is their Doctrine and it is worth the observing; that i● a man be called to swear, if he take the Oath unwillingly, i● is vn●o him as he had not sworn at all: yea grant he have voluntatem iurandi, be very willing to swear, but hath not voluntatem se obligandi, not will to bind himself to perform what he swears, it i● no Oath unto him: he is as free, as if he were never sworn. And thus much he reciteth as out of Azorius.  
And do you hear this doctrine, or do you believe that he saith truth therein? 
Strange impudence of M. Barlow.  Certes I could hardly believe a man to be so wilful in falsehood. For first where, or when can he show, that we stick not at the substance of the Oath, but only at ●he form? Are not all those twelve points before mentioned in this Epistle, which M. Barlow goeth about to refute, which do touch Catholic religion, and at which we do principally stick, of the substance of the Oath? Can this be denied with any show of shamefastness? But let us see how egregiously he doth abuse the learned writer Azorius, in making him the Author of these absurdities about swearing, which here he setteth down, as our doctrine, if a man swear unwillingly, saith he, it is unto him (according to the Papists Doctrine) as if he had not sworn at al. But where can he find that Azorius saith this? If we look into the place by him cited, where he handleth de jure i●rando, there is no such matter, but only it is said to this point, that if a man do swear having no intention to swear indeed (but only to comply and deceive another) though it be no Oath in itself, yet in respect of the injury 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 fear or death, as to a thief upon the way, or the like, which no man will deny to be unwillingly made, he answereth in these words: 
Azor. par. 1. l. 1. c. 11. §. 1●. Quaeritur.  Respondeo ex communi sententia Theologorum & Pontif●ij ●uris Doctorum, valere. I do answer out of the common opinion of all D●uines, and Doctors of the Common laws that it bindeth. For which he citeth seven Doctors for the same. And what will M. Barlow say to this? Will he not blush at this unhonest dealing herein?  
But he passeth further to a second member of our Doctrine in this matter. If a man be willing to swear, saith he, 〈◊〉 hath no will to bind himselve to perform what he su●eares, it is no Oath unto him: he is as free, as if he were never sworn. But what ●hal a man say to these people, that are so forlorn in this point of false 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 here quoted, but according to my quotation, and not his which ordinarily is false, and he shall see a good large and learned dispute of Azorius upon this question, Whether a man promising a●y thing by Oath, without intention to perform the same, be notwithstanding bound in conscience to perform it? Wherein having hid down the two different opinions of ●undry learned ●en, together 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 Sylvester, Navarre, and others, Azorius showeth that both parts have their probability of reason, but he inclineth more to the first opinion, saying: 
M. Barlows transcendent impudence.  that if the swearer had an intention to swear, thinking nothing of the obligation, than was he bound: and that in this sense the opinion Caietan is most true. And further determineth not the question: and therefore this notorious untruth of M. B●●low, that Azorius holdeth this to be no Oath unto him that sweareth at all, but that he is as free, as if he had never sworn, I cannot tell in ●hat Predicament of impudence to place it, and therefore we will let it pass for a Transcendent.  

OF CERTAIN OTHER Fraudulent, and untrue dealings of M. Barlow, unto the end of this Paragraph: with a notorious abuse in alleging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority. §. II.  
WHereas often and eager invectives are made by M. Barlow against the Pope and Cardinal Bellarmine, and all others, that do seem in any sort to exhort the Catholics of England to stand for their consciences, and to suffer rather whatsoever losses, hurts, or dangers may happen to their lives, liberty, goods, or other temporal affairs, then to prejudice any point of their religion, M. Barlow terming these exhortations not only needless and vain (there being no persecution at all against the Catholics) but that they do tend in like manner to open disobedience against their temporal Princes, and so may justly be cause of their ruin indeed; my answer was, 
Letter pag. 64.  
I did not see but that the very same might be objected unto S. Cyprian, and other Fathers of the Primitive Church, that they were guilty of so many Martyr's blood, wilfully cast a way, 
See S. Cypr. exhor. ad Martyrs.  and of the ruin of their families, and other inconveniences, by exhorting them not to do against their Consciences, nor to yield to their temporal Prince's Commandments against God and their religion: no not for any torments that might be laid upon them, nor for any loss that might fall unto them, of goods, life, honour, fame, friends, wife, children, or the like, which were ordinary exhortations in those days of persecution, as by their books yet extant doth appear.  
Neither is i● sufficient to say, that those times & ours are different, for that the things then demanded were apparently unlawful, but these not: for that, to us that are Catholics, these things are as unlawful now, as ●hose other were then to them, for that they are no less against our consciences in matters of Religion. For why should it be more damnable then, and indispensible to deliver up a Bible, or new Testament, for example sake, when the Emperor commanded it, than now to swear an Oath against our conscience and Religion, when our Temporal Prince exacteth it? For that this perhaps, is called the Oath of Allegiance? who knoweth not, that the fairest title is put upon the foulest matter, when it is ●o be persuaded or exacted? And he that shall read the Histories of that time, and of those ancient afflictions, shall s●e that Act also to have been required, 
See Euseb● l. 8. c. 4. & Aug. de Bapt. l. 7. c. 2. & l. 7. contra Crescon. c. 27. & A●nob. contra Gentes l. 4. in fine.  as of Obedience & Allegiance, and not of Religion, being only the delivery up of material books: and yet did the whole Church of God condemn them for it, that delivered the same, and ●eld for true Martyrs, all those that died for denying thereof, for that they would not do an Act against their consciences.   
Against this my speech M. Barlow first doth trifle, affirmimg me to say, that in the consciences of Catholics it is as unlawful to swear Allegiance unto his Majesty their natural and rightful Sovereign, as to sacrifice to Idols. Which is a mere cavil indeed, for first I do not say, that it is unlawful at all to swear Allegiance to their natural Sovereign, as often hath been told him: 
M. Barlows slander without end.  but he ●●uer stayeth his tongue from repeating the contrary again without end. The unlawfulness consisteth in swearing that for Allegiance, which appertaineth not to humane and temporal Allegiance, but divine Allegiance also, in keeping our consciences unspotted before Almighty God. Secondly my comparison was not so much in the things themselves, to wit, swearing and sacrificing, or to determine which of these is the greatest sin in it self, as of the similitude in obligation both in those times and ours, to st●nd for defence of the integrity of our conscience both in them and us, whatsoever inequality of the sin may be in the sight either of man or God. It is enough that both of them be forbidden to sacrifice against Christian Religion, & to swear against Catholic Religion. And further to show that the external small appearance of that which is forbidden, cannot always be a ●ule of taking away, or diminishing the obligation of conscience in obeying the prohibition; I did allege the other example of giving up divine books unto the persecutors, when they demanded them, and might have alleged many other examples to the like purpose, as namely the ●ating of flesh offered to Idols, in the beginning of Christianity, with offence of others, whereof S. Paul maketh so great account, as albeit he maketh light of the thing it sel●e, and saith that the Idol is nothing, yet doth he account the transgression for damnable, if he do it against his own conscience.  
But what saith M. Barlow to this? you shall hear his distinction and determination. Simply, saith he, to deli●●r up a Bible to his Superior, requiring it, is no sin, yea to deny i●, i● a contempt. About this proposition we will not much contend, but only advertise him, that it is not to the purpose, that we do talk here of Superiors lawfully requiring it, but of a Persecutor unjustly exacting the same. Let us see then what he saith further. But if the Emperor, saith he, 
Barl. pag. 187.  requireth them, to wit the books, to burn and de●ac●, in contempt and despite, or ●ury and passion, or as julian the Apostata, wh● called in all the heathen writers, both of Philosophy and Poetry, out o● the Christians hands, under a fair pretence of abandoning Paganism, to bereave them o● all knowledge, thereby to take from Christians the true means o● their instructions, the cause is far different: for so to o●ey were wilfully to betray the truth of God. This is his determination consisting of two members, as you see: the first, of the unlawfulness of giving up the Bible, & other such divine books of Christian Religion, consisted in the ill intention of the persecutor, to bereave men of so important means, for their instruction and salvation, and therefore not to be obeyed, which seemeth to be far different, from that which before he held so resolutely, that Princes were to be obeyed even against conscience: but of this we will not dispute any more now, but only I say, that conform to this his doctrine, English Catholics are admonished also to consider, with what intention this new Oath ●g●inst the authority of the Bishop of Rome is exacted, whether to prejudice Catholic Religion, or no. For that ●●is may increase their obligation of refusal or acceptance, ●●en according to M. Barlowes doctrine in this place.  
But for the second point concerning the fact of julian the Apostata in demanding Heathen writers to be delivered up of Philosophy, and Poetry; that, in this case I say, there should be the like obligation not to obey that Emperor, but rather to deny to obey, yea and to die for the said denial, if need were, as many did for the other: I confess that I cannot conceive M. Barlowes mystery therein. For who ever wrote this before? 
M Barlowes strange mystery.  Or who was ever accounted a Martyr in the Church of God, for refusing to deliver up ● Heathen Poet, or Philosopher's book? Doth not now M. Barlow shorten again, and straighten greatly the limits of temporal obedience to Princes, when h● granteth that Christian Subjects may deny to obey them, when they exact the delivery up of a Poetical profane book, to wit a Catullus, or Tibullus, or Ovid's Metamorphosis, or some such other fit for M. B●rlowes reading? Is not the man very constant to himself in his assertions, that sometimes so overlasheth in extending temporal obedience, and sometimes so excessively contracteth the same?  
He saith that julian hereby did mean to bereave Christians of all knowledge, and thereby to take from them the true means of their instruction; and for this he noteth in the margin the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates lib. 3. cap. 12. But as in all other citations commonly he erreth more or less, whereof I might allege some scores of examples, if I would stand thereupon, and thereby giveth just suspicion, that he never read the Authors themselves, but had them out of other men's note●bookes (as M. Morto● confessed of himself, when he was pressed thereunto,) so here no such matter is found in the Chapter by him cited, but in two Chapters after, 
Socrat. lib. ●. hist. cap. 14.  Socrates hath these words, Atque julianus Imperator etc. And julian the Emperor applying his mind earnestly to this thing, made a law that Christians should not be instructed in the doctrine of the Gentiles, most certainly assuring himself, that the febles that are read in Heathen writers, 
Socrates' perverted.  would ●asily be turned by the said Christians to the reproof of his Religion. Which is another thing you see, than this which here is set down by M. Barlow. And much more likely that he was afraid, that Christians reading the Pagan writers, would turn the folly and foulness of Heathen fabl●s against his religion: and not that Christians should want true means of instructions for want of those fables, as M. Barlow here fable●h. Albeit if he instruct his flock with no better means of instructions, I must needs grant that they are in a miserable case.  
But let us go forward to examine a little further his very next lines, as they lie in his book, about temporal obedience to Princes, in which point he runneth so forth & back, from extremes to extremes, as it is strange to consider: for having so diminished the same in hi● former example of the Emperor julian, as now you have heard, that Christians might disobey him even about the delivery of a Poetical Book, though he had never so earnestly required, or commanded the same, now he starteth to the other end again, saying, as out of S. Thomas Aquinas, that temporal Princes are to be obeyed even in things unlawful. His words are these: 
D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 104. artic● 6. ad. 3.  From subjection to Princes there is no startling exception, saith Aquinas, unless he be either an usurper or Intruder which commands (and this is not our case God be thanked:) or that he command things unlawful; if he say this is their case, we deny it; but let us suppose it, yet their Angelical Doctor will tell them, that in those things they must notwithstanding obey propter vi●andum scandalum, aut periculum: 
Lying & cogging is proper to M. Barlow.  (of this divinity I judge not, it is their own.) Is this our own Sir? Not so properly, as it seemeth that lying & cogging is your own, for we acknowledge not this doctrine, but with due limits, far different from your allegation. But you do absolutely abuse both S. Thomas and the Reader, and cannot choose but know that here is falsehood used by you, except you will confess extreme ignorance in not understanding the sense of S. Thomas, whom you allege, though it be most clear and plain for children to conceive, that have the latin tongue. The title of S. Thomas h●s Article is, Whether Christians b● 〈◊〉 to obey secular Powers, or not? 
S. Thomas his opinion concerning Obedience due unto Princes.  And he proveth that they are, by an evident argument deduced out of the 3. to the 〈◊〉, that the faith of Christ hindereth not the order of I●stice appointed by the Law of Nature, and consequently that no man is excused by being a Christian from performing due obedience to temporal Princes: and for better strengthening of this his assertion, he proposeth an objection according to his custom, and solveth the same. The objection is this.  
S. Augustine in his fourth book of the City of God teacheth, that great Kingdoms when they cast of justice become great robberies, and the●uedomes, but Christ his l●w doth not bind Christians to obey such unjust Princes & Magistrates, 
Aug. 4. de Civit. c. 4.  and therefore in all cases Christians are not bound to temporal obedience. Whereunto he answereth thus; that forsomuch as the order of justice is the ground of all Obedience, 
An objection answered by S. Thom.  therefore a Christian man is bound so far forth to obey secular Princes● as order of justice requireth: and therefore if such Princes have not just principality, but usurped, or that they should command unjust things, his subjects are not bound to obey him, ●i●i fortè per accidens, ad vitandum sc●ndalum, vel periculum, except perhaps accidentally, for avoiding of scandal, or peril.  
And this is the Divinity that M. Barlow scoffeth at, & saith he will not judge of it, for it is our own. And I say that the Divinity is very good, and so would have appeared, if M. B●rlow had either understood it rightly, or truly alleged it, for that the doctrine of S. Thomas is very clear and incontrollable, that Christian subjects are bound to obey their lawful temporal Princes, so long as they command lawful things: but if they be usurpers (in which ●ase I say also with M. Barlow, God be thanked we are not) or command unlawful things, then are not subjects bound to obey them, at leastwise by obligation of justice, and conscience, which is the true foundation of obedience; though perhaps, saith S. Thomas, accidentally they may be sometimes bound thereunto, for avoiding scandal & peril.  
As for example, if a Prince s●ould demand of me the one hal●e of my goods unjustly, I were not bo●nd in conscience & justice to give it him: yet if I should doubt that by my denial, he would take away the other half also, or perhaps my life, or that some scandal would follow, as that other men by my example, would show disobedience in greater things; I should be bound in prudence, and p●ety, for avoiding of these greater evils, both to myself and others, to obey, and give him the half of my goods, which he demandeth: but this is not directly by force of justice and conscience, as you see, but per accidens, that is to say ●accidentally for avoiding of those greater evils of scandal, and peril, if I obey no●.  
But now let us see the truth of M. Barlow in relating 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 Angelical Doctor telleth them, that in unlawful things commanded they must obey, ●or avoiding scandal and peril: whereas S. Thomas saith, non te●tentur obedire, si iniusta praecipi●●●, that they are not bound to obey their Princes, if they command unjust things.  
Secondly M. Barlow distinguisheth not, when unlawful things are commanded, whether they be unlawful only unto the Prince that commandeth, or to the subject in like manner, to whom they are commanded. And it may be that the Ministers head conceived not the distinction, 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 commanded is unlawful only to the commander, 
M. Barlowes ignorance or malice more declared.  as in the former example, when he commandeth me to give half of my goods wrongfully; then may I out of prudence, as hath been said, for avoiding of greater evils, obey that unjust commandment: but if the thing commanded should be unlawful, not only to the Prince to command, but to me also to perform, as to do another man injury, or to endanger my own soul, or to offend God by any sin whatsoever, then may not I according to S. Thomas his doctrine, for avoiding any scandal or peril whatsoever perform the same. This was craftily here concealed by M. Barlow (for I will not hold him so grossly ignorant, as that he did not consider it) and the c●●se o● this concealment was, for that it maketh, wholly ag●●st him, in our main controversy of temporal Obedience. For that the swearing to the new Oath commanded unto Catholics in prejudice of their conscience, & Religion, is of the number of those unlawful things, that are unlawful not only to the commander, but also to ●●e performer: and consequently neither for the avoiding scandal or peril may be obeyed. And thereby is cut of all M. Barlowes idle discourse which he maketh in this place of ●●e danger, and peril, that by taking this Oath he saith, may be avoided: & urgeth us with the doctrine of S. Tho●●● therein, that even in things unlawful we must obey our temporal Princes. But in this you have seen both the depth, and fidelity of the man. Now let us see a point 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 concerning Rome being Babylon, he speaks not a word, as by silence granting that to be true which Cardinal Matthew plainly also acknowledgeth, and possesseth to be that Babylon of the Apocalyps. So h●. And truly it is strange, and ridiculous to see men of reason, to proceed in this manner so, without reason: for it Cardinal Bell●rmine and other Catholics do grant that Rome was called Babylon by S. john in the Apocalyps, and by S. Peter also that wrote his Epistle from thence, under the name of ●abylon: 
Strange dealing of our Adversaries.  and if S. Hierome and other Fathers do expound 〈◊〉 of R●me, as it was Heathen, & persecuted the Martyrs in ●hose days, and not of Christian Rome, or the Christian people of Rome, who were holy, and Saints in those days: if this I say be so, and that the Protestants be told thereof above 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 pass it ou●r with silence and contempt?  
There followeth a certain contention about the two treves of Clemens Octaws written into England at two different times● about the point of succession to the Crown ●fte● the Queen's death; the first exhorting the Catholics to do their best endeavours ●or procuring a Cath●●licke Prince: the other altogether in favour and recom●mendation of the advancement of his Majesty that 〈◊〉 is; of which two Breves I wrote in my Epistle, that haui●● procured some knowledge about that point, 
Letter pag. 65.  I found th●● they were sent into England, not both together, nor i●●mediatly before the late Queen's death, as was objected but the one divers ye●res before she died, to wit, upon th● year 1600. and the other 3. years after, to wit upon th● year 1603. immediately after the said Queen's death contrary to which M. Barlow saith, that Tort●● affirm●●● that having the Copies of 2. Breves in his hand, 
About the Breves of Clemens Octaws.  〈◊〉 findeth that they were sent in together upon the year● 1600. But the reconciliation of this is easy. For tha● those two Breves named by Tortus, are accounted by me b● one Breve, for that they were all of one matter, but duplicated in effect, the one to the Archpriest and Clergy, th● other to the Laity, so that there is no contradiction at al● For that besides that first double Breve, there was another sent in, of another Argument, wholly in favour of hi● Majesty in particular, as now hath been said, upon th● year 1603. And so there i● no contradiction 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 Breve was set down, that no man might be admitted, except he would first swear, not only to tolerate, but also to promote the Romish Catholic Religion, which words are not there, neither is swearing once mentioned in either of these duplicated Breves.  
And as this is untrue, so that which ensueth is parasitical, when unto my speech of Pope Clement's particular good opinion and affection towards his majesties Person, when he was King of Scotland, to wit, that he loved him most heartily, and always spoke honourably of him, treated kindly all those of his Nation● that said they came from him, or any ways belonged unto him: and oftentimes used more liberality that way upon divers occasions, them is convenient for me perhaps to utter here; caused speciale prayer to be made ●or his Majesty etc. To all which M. 〈◊〉 answereth in these words. That albeys there is nothing 〈◊〉 Molestie, but that which is amiable, and admirable, his parts of 〈◊〉, art, & grace all so singular, that by the eminency of his place 〈◊〉 descried far and near, they must needs excite great love to his 〈◊〉, draw ●ne●s affections to him, and occasionate most honourable ●●●●es of his qualities, and deportementes: yet that Pope Clement 〈◊〉 be so kindly respective unto him, is much no be doubted.  
And is it so Sir? Yet spiritual writers do admonish 〈◊〉, that in dubiis pars p●a magis s●quēda, in doubtful things the more pious part is to be followed by a pious mind. 
M. Barlowes mind impious.  And why had not you done this also, if your mind had not 〈◊〉 impious? You know who saith Mala mens, malus animus. And this is that which before I called parasitical in this answer, not so much for your gross flattery, & anointing his Majesty with oleum peccatoris, which holy King 〈◊〉 so much detested, and his Majesty in time I doubt not will discern; but for your malignity in misconstruing the known good affections of Pope Clement towards his majesties Person, for that both these parts belong properly to a parasite, as you know, not only laudare in ●s pra●●●●●, ambitiously to praise him that is present, whether the things uttered be true or false; but malignantly also 〈◊〉 absenti, to detract from him that is absent: of which two parts, the latter is the worse, for that the former may proceed sometimes of lightness, or intemperate desire to please, but the other always goeth accompanied with envy and malice.  
And as for his majesties due praises, 
M. Barlows cobbling and clouting on of his majesties praises.  albeit they cannot be but most pleasing and comfortable to all his loving subjects, yet when they are so rudely clouted on, and so importunely thrust in, and that by such a one as M. Barlow is held to be, that always speaketh for his profit, men can have commonly no other sense thereof, then is wont to be when they see a fair garment marred in the cutting, or a delicate piece of meat spoiled in the dressing. And as for the honourable speeches occasionated abroad, as he saith, of his majesties qualities & deportments, true it is, that as his majesties rare qualities are had in due consideration with external Princes & people, so is it not doubted, but that his deportment towards his Catholic subjects 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 speeches i● these parts, 
M. Barlow more fit to be a Sexton then B. of Lincoln.  none are more ordinary, then in lamenting that so good a nature, as that of his Majesty is, should be 〈◊〉 strangely abused: as also in pitying the same, that for w●● of fit men he should be forced to bestow the Prelacies and Bishoprics of his Realm, upon such as M. Barlow is 〈◊〉 who in other Countries would scarce be thought worthy for his manners to be a Servant or Sexton, in so honourable a Church as Lincoln is.  
The last point remaining of this Paragraph is of th● later two Breves of Paulus Quintus concerning the Oath 〈◊〉 Allegiance, and his misliking thereof in respect of th● points contained therein in prejudice of the integrity o● Catholic religion, which M. Barlow doth so much debase, as here he taketh upon him to defend, that they ar● devoid (especially the first which is the principals, the other being but a confirmation, or ratification thereo●) not only of all divinity, but of policy, and common sense also: which is a long dispute, and a large enterprise to b● taken upon his shoulders, that any man that doth but read the Breve, and is acquainted with the gravity, learning, wisdom, and modesty of the Author thereof, will rather laugh at M. Barlow, for taking such an enterprise in hand, then persuade himself, that he can have good success therein: but he that shall turn from reading the said Breve, to read the pitiful proofs, which here M. Barlow goeth about to set down, to show that the said Breve hath neither divinity, policy, or common sense in it, will pity him indeed, and think that he lacketh common sense in setting down such senseless reasons, as he doth against so sensible a declaration, as there the Pope maketh in that his Breve.    
The end of the second Part.   

THE THIRD PART concerning Card. Bellarmine his Letter.  

OF THE OCCASION OF THE LETTER written by Cardinal Bellarmine unto M. George Blackewell Archpriest. AND Whether he mistook the state of the question. ALSO Of the change of Supreme Head, into Supreme Governor. CHAP. I.  
FIRST of all then, for the better understanding of the whole matter, and to make the Reader acquainted with the occasion of this present contention, I do not think it amiss to repeat in this place, what I wrote in my Letter concerning the same. My words then were ●hese.  The last Part of this Apology concerneth a letter written by Cardinal Bellarmine in Rome, 
Lett. p. 69.  unto George Blackwe●● Archpriest in England: which letter, as appear by the argument thereof, was written out of this occasion: 
Apologia 56.37.  Tha● whereas upon the coming forth of the forenamed new Oath, entitled, Of Allegiance, there were found divers points combined together, some appertaining manifestly to Civil Allegiance, whereat no man made scruple, some other seeming to include other matters, 
The state of the controversy with Cardinal Bel●larmine.  contrary to some part of the Catholic faith, at least in the commom sense as they by; there arose a doubt whether the said Oath might be taken simply and wholly, by a Catholic man, as it is there proposed, without any further distinction, or explication thereof. Whereupon some learned men at home being different in opinions, the case was consulted abroad, where all agreed (as before hath been showed) that it could not be taken wholly with safety of conscience, and so also the Pope declared the case by two several Breves. 
In the mean space it happened, that M. Blackwell being taken, was committed to prison, and soon after, as he had been of opinion before, that the said Oath might be taken as it lay in a certain sense; so it being offered unto him, he took it himself. Which thing being noised abroad, and the fact generally misliked by all sorts of Catholic people in other Realms, as offensive, and scandalous in regard of his place and person, so much respected by them; Cardinal Bellarmine, 
Card Beauties' opinion of taking the Oath.  as having had some old acquaintance with him in former years, as it may seem, resolved out of his particular love, & zeal to the Common cause of Religion, and especial affection to his person, to write a letter unto him, thereby to let him know what reports, and judgements there were made of his fact, throughout those parts of Christendom where he remained, together with his own opinion also, which consisted in two points, the one that the Oath, as it stood, compounded of different clauses, some lawful, & some unlawful, could not be taken with safety of Conscience: the other, that he being in the dignity he was of Prelacy, and Pastoral Charge, aught to stand fir●e and constant for example of others, & rather to suffer any kind of danger or damage, then to yield to any unlawful thing, such as the Cardinal held this Oath to be.  
This Letter was written upon the 28. day of Sep●ember 1607. and it was subscribed thus in Latin; 
Admodum R. dae Dom. is V. ae  
Frater & servus in Christo.  
Robertus Card. Bellarminus.  Which our Apologer translateth, Your very Reverend Brother: whereas the word very Reverend in the Letter is given to the Archpriest, 
Pag. 44.  and not to Card. Bellarmine, which the interpreter knew well enough, but that wanting other matter, would take occasion of cavilling by a wilful mistaking of his own, 
A cavil.  as often he doth throughout this Answer to Bellarmine, as in part will appear by the few notes which here I am to set down: leaving the more full answer to the Cardinal himself, or some other by his appointment, which I doubt not, but will yield very ample satisfaction in that behalf. For that in truth I find, that great advantage is given unto him, for the defence of his said Epistle, and that the exceptions taken there against it, be very weak and light, and as easy to be dissolved by him, and his pen, as a thin mist by the beams of the sun.  
This was the Preface used before to this third Part. To which M. Barlow having very little or nothing to say, seeketh to spend time in idle talk. For thus he beginneth: 
Barl. p 201.  As if the Apologers answer, saith he, 
joshua 6. 15.  like to Iericho's walls should presently ●all with the blast of a Ramms-horne, 
Rams horn.  and a few turns about it &. So hath he many tournings and windings in the preface before he c●me to it● and being in it, he treads a labyrinth, and some times looseth himself, and yet in the conclusion he windeth his cornet with three several blasts, Communicatory, Causative, Supplicatory etc. And is not this a pretty devise to spend time, and to play the Vise indeed? What of all this is seen in my Preface?  
Next to this he beginneth against me thus: 
Barl. pag. 202.  This Epistler s●yth, that Cardinal Bellarmine taketh the Oath to be compounded of lawful and unlawful clauses, whereas the Cardinal saith plainly, though it be so tempered and modified, yet is it wholly unlawful: whi●● is as much to say, as there is not a lawful clause in it. So he: & this me thinks is to great an untruth to begin withal. 
A great untruth to begin wi●h all.  For that according to art he should go by order and degree, and if he begin with such wilful escapes as these are, what will he do before he come to the end? Cardinal Bellarmine doth not only not say this, which he imposeth upon him, but saith the quite contrary, to wit: Vt juramentum recusetur non est necessarium, ut eos & singulae partes eius sint male: satis est, ut veluna sit mala. That the Oath may be refused, it is not necessary that all & every part thereof be nought, it is enough that one only be nought. Is not this plain enough?  
Next after this he taketh in hand the defence of that translation of the cardinals subscription unto his Letter Your very reverend brother Robert Cardinal Bellarmine: the latin being as you have now seen, Admodum Rdae Domis Vae frater & servus in Christo Robertus Card. Bellarminus. And it is a world to see how many ways he windeth himself to get out of this brake. First he beginneth with a tal● of a certain Emperor, 
A foolish fiction of M. Barlow without application.  that would perforce make a gentleman believe that he was like to be sick, for that he saw a pimple rising under his nail: but this tale he applieth not: and I see not where unto indeed he may apply it. Then coming to the matter, he demandeth this question: Suppose it were not exactly translated, is not the sense all one? Whereto I answer, no: for it were somewhat ridiculous to call himself M Blackwels' Reverend Brother. For by the same reason he writing to a Duke; & ●aying, Excellentiae Vestrae Frater, might translate it, your excellent Brother: and the same might a poor man do in like manner writing to the same Duke, 
M. Barlows trifling ignorance.  Excellentia vestrae humillimus servus: your most humble Excellent Servant: which I think no man will approve. But M. Barlow will prove it by reason, for that both the Brotherhood says he, and Reverence are reciprocal, and may be referred to both parties either, your Reverence-ships brother, or your Reverend brother: but this is refuted now already by my examples alleged. And besides this will M. Barlow have no respect to the cases and genders in Latin? Is not Reverenda with a diphthong, and of the feminine gender, and genitive case, different from Reverendus of the masculine gender and nominative case? And if they be different, how can they then be reciprocal in signification & translation?  
But yet further M. Barlow hath another shift, saying: that in the written copy D. in the end had such a dash, as it might be taken for dus or dae. But this shift is worse than any of the rest, for so much as that D. doth not stand in the end of the subscription, but in the very beginning, as hath been seen by the words before set down, which are Ad●●●um Rdae Domis V rae, which D. though it had never so great a dash, yet could it not signify dus, by force of the sense, being set in the first place, and in such order as it was.  
After this M. Barlow attempteth another evasion demanding of me, 
Barl. pag. 203.  why I had not translated the word Domi●●tionis into English, that he might have posed me therein? For if it should be translated Lordship, it would have seemed to much, and if Mastership, it would seem to little, 
M. Barlow answereth arguments by telling of tales, & those little to the purpose.  and thereupon telleth us again another tale out of Diogenes L●●r●i●● (for he is copious in this kind out of his note books as before I have advertised:) and the tale is, that Diogenes the Cynic begging a talent at King Alexander's hands, he ●●d it was to much for a Cynic to ask, than he damanded him a halfpenny, but the other answered, it was to little for Alexander to give, and with this M. Barlow thinketh he hath well satisfied the controversy in hand.  
Next unto this there is an exception made against Cardinal Bellarmine his Letter to M. Blackwel, 
Card. Bellarmine wrongfully charged by M. Barlow for mistaking the question.  as though therein he had mistaken the whole state of the question by going about to impugn the old Oath of Supremacy made in King Henry the eight his time, instead of this new Oath entitled of Allegiance, and consequently, that the Cardinal did batter a castle in the air of his own framing. Which as I confessed, had been a great overfight in him, so learned and famous a man, if it could be proved: so I did convince by sundry evident arguments, and by Cardinal Bellarmine's own words, that it was not so: but that he impugned directly this later Oath of Allegiance: The cause why this was objected to Cardinal Bellarmine was, for that he going about to impugn the unlawfulness of this later Oath, doth insist much in reproving the King's spiritual Supremacy, and in showing the same to belong to the Bishop of R●●●, which they say appertaineth to the ancient Oath, and not to this, wherein nothing is demanded but Civil Obedience only, which the Cardinal denieth, and in the very first leaf of his answer under the name of Tor●●●, joineth issue principally upon that point, saying: 
Pag. 164. edit. Rom.  Primùm ●stend●mus juramentum hoc Catholicis propositum, non solum civilem obedientiam, sed etiam Catholicae fidei abnegationem requirere. We shall first prove that this (later) oath proposed unto Catholics, doth not only require civil Obedience, but abnegation also of Catholic faith. And he proveth it by five or six arguments.  
First by the words of the English Statute, the title whereof is, for the detecting and repressing of Papists: which word of Papists, importing such as stick to the Pope, or defend his Supremacy, maketh it evident that the Statute was not intended only against them that deny civil Obedience, but rather the King's Supremacy in spiritual affairs. Secondly by the words of the Oath themselves, that the Pope cannot by himself, or any other, or by any authority of the Church depose etc. Which is some denial of the Pope his authority, and consequently not merely only of temporal Obedience: and so out of four or five points more by him observed, and there set down; which as I had not seen, when I wrote my Epistle, before the publication of the said Cardinal's book: so I used not those arguments, nor any of them, but contented myself with one only taken out of the Cardinal's words in the beginning of his Letter to M. Blackwel, as sufficiently proving the same that in it sel●e was most clear, I said as followeth.  
This exception against the Cardinal for mistaking the state of the cause, 
Lett. p. 71.  seemeth to be most clearly refuted by the very first lines almost of the letter itself. For that telling M. Blackwel, how sorry he was upon the report, that he had taken illicitum juramentum, an unlawful Oath, he expoundeth presently, what Oath he meaneth, saying: Not therefore (dear Brother) is that Oath lawful, for that it is offe●●● somewhat tempered and modified etc. Which is evidently meant of the new Oath of Allegiance, not only tempered with divers lawful clauses of Civil Obedience, as hath been showed, but interlaced also with other members that ●each to Religion: whereas the old Oath of Supremacy hath no such mixture, but is plainly, and simply set down, for absolute excluding the Pope's Supremacy in cause's Ecclesiastical, & for making the King supreme Head of the Church in the same causes: all which is most evident by the Statutes made about the same, from the 25. year of King Henry the 8. unto the end of the reign of King Edward the sixth.  
To this declaration of mine M. Barlow is in effect as mute as a Macedonian frog, if to say nothing at all to the purpose be to be mute, though words and wind be not wanting. But first to the Cardinals six arguments he s●yth never a word, albeit he had both seen and read them, as may be be presumed. To my reason of the difference between the Oath of Supremacy and this of Allegiance, for that this is modified and tempered with different clauses of things partly touching civil Obedience and partly Religion, whereas the other is simply of Religion, against the Pope's Supremacy: to this, I say, he answereth with this interrogation: If this Oath be so modified i● comparison of the other, why is it accounted by ●he Censurer the greatest affliction and pressure, that ever befell the Catholics? Do you see what a question he maketh, and how far from the purpose? My intention was, and is to prove, that for so much as Cardinal Bellarmine did particularly impugn this mixed and tempered Oath, therefore he did not mistake the question by impugning only the other Oath of Supremacy, as was objected; there being between them this difference amongst others, that the one, to wit of Allegiance, is compounded of different clauses (as hath been said) partly touching civil Obedience, and partly Religion: whereas this other of Supremacy is simply of Religion. This was my demonstration. And to what purpose then (for answer of this) was brought in that other demand of M. Barlow, 
All is one with M. Barlow for a thing to be moderated or to be modified.  ask us very seriously why this second Oath should be afflictive unto us, if it be modifyed and tempered? Is there any sense in this? We say, for so much as it is compounded and tempered, as the other is not, therefore it was meant by the Cardinal, and not the other: M. Barlow saith, if it be so tempered, why doth it afflict you? We say first, that this is nothing to the purpose, no more then, Which is the way to London? A poke ●ull of plums.  
Secondly to M. Barlowes impertinent demand we say, that albeit we grant that this second Oath is modifyed and tempered: yet we say not that it is moderate and temperate, for a law that in substance is mild, may be by some clauses or circumstances so modified, that is to say, framed in such manner, as it may be severe and rigorous: and a thing may be tempered aswell with exasperating ingredientes as mollifying, and as well with afflictive as lenitive compounds: and so is this Oath more sharp perhaps then the other; and so doth M. Barlow himself confess within a few lines after, saying: 
Barl. pag. 205.  that this last Oath of Allegiance is more pressing, pithy, and peremptory, and in all circumstances a more exact and searching touchstone, than the ●ormer of the Supremacy. And yet as though we did not see nor feel this, he will needs have us to acknowledge in the same place that this Oath is allayed, tempered, corrected, and moderated (for all these are his words) by the variety of clauses therein contained, & thereon foundeth his subsequent discourse of our ingratitude in not accepting the same; whereas both he, and we do hold the contrary, that it is more stinging, as now you have heard, and that even by his own confession: what then shall we say of this manner of M. Ba●lowes disputing? Is he fit to be a King's Champion in writing? But here now by the way I must tell the Reader, that in my Letter I interposed a few lines in this place, for noting the different style used by King Henry, & King Edward, in their Statutes concerning the O●●h of Supremacy, and this other now related, in the A●●logy in these words: I. ●. do utterly testify and declare, 〈…〉, that the King's H●ghnes is the only Supreme Gouer●●●, 〈◊〉 in all causes Ecclesiastical, as temp●rall: whereas in t●e Statute of twenty sixth of king Henry the Eight, 
Stat. 26. Henr. 8. cap. 1.  where the Title of Supremacy is ●nact●d, the words are these 〈…〉 ●●●cted by this present Parliament, that the King, his Heirs, 〈◊〉 Successors, ●●albe taken, ●●●epted, and reputed, the ●nly Supreme 〈…〉 earth, of the Church of England, 
The first Oath of Supremacy.  and sh●ll 〈◊〉 a●d ●ni●y, 〈◊〉 and united, unto the Imperial Crow●e of this Realm, as●●● the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities, authorities, 〈◊〉, profits and commodities 〈◊〉 the said dignities of Supreme 〈◊〉 of the said Church belonging etc. And in another Statute, two years after that: 
Stat. 28. Henr. 8. cap. 10.  From henceforth he shall accept, repute, ●●d take the King's Majesty to be the ●●ly Supreme Head o● earth, of 〈◊〉 Church of England etc. And that the refusers of this Oath, 〈◊〉 reputed traitors, and suffer the p●y●es of ●●ath etc. And in other Statutes it is decr●●d, that it ●halbe ●reas●● thoeny th●● title 〈◊〉 Headship; and that this was held of such importance, under King Edward, who succeeded his Father, that it is decreed by Statute, 
Stat. 1. Edw. 6. cap. 2.  that all authority of jurisdiction, spiritual and temporal in the Bi●●ops, and Ministry, 〈◊〉 deduced, and derived fr●● 〈◊〉 King's Majesty as Supreme 〈◊〉 etc.  
Upon this important doubt, I was so bold as to stay myself a little, as now also I must, entreating M. Barlow to give the solution therof● to wit; that forsomuch as this matter of the Headship of 〈◊〉 Church was held of so great weight, by th●ir prime, a●d principal Protestant's, and especially by their Patriarches, Cranmer, ●idley, H●●per, and others, then holding the places of Bishops in Parliament, when the said Title was not only confirmed in the Child King, but declared als● to be the fountain of all spiritual authority and jurisdiction in the Clergy; and that it was treason, to deny this Title of spiritual influx in the Clergy; how this matter came about, that it should be so little esteemed, as to be left of, and changed now, yea to be denied expressly by their principal wry●●●●, as namely by Doctor john ●●ynolds, in his conference with M. Hart, where he flatly de●yeth, that they do call the Queen Supreme Head but only Supre●● 〈◊〉: which if they be Syno●●ma, and all one, than what nec●●●●●ie to h●ue denied 〈◊〉 unto her● But i● Go●ernour do signify any thing les●e, then Supreme Head, then have they changed their principal point o● doctrine, whereon dependeth the lawfulness of their whole Clergy, a● you se●; and so the matter being of such weight, I thought it worth the staying to have some answer.  
But M. Barlow falleth into a great chafe for this my stay: 
Barl. pag. 205.  The giddy fellow (saith he) hath an other ere and to do, not 〈◊〉 of the way, but by the way. The Scripture setteth a more esse●●i●●● 〈◊〉 upon such by-way takers, saying: 
M Barlow vexed in defending the Supremacy.  That wicked men declinant 〈◊〉 o●●iquation●s, take all the byways, nooks, a●d lanes they c●● pass, for fear to be descried or apprehended: This is one reprehension, as you see, instead of answering the matter. Yo● shall hear another more choleric: It is a vexing torment 〈◊〉 a man (saith he) th●● is enjoined a journey, upon a speed● 〈◊〉 requiring a serious dispatch, 
pag. 209.  to travail with a tri●ling compan●●●, that will make many errands by th● way, or hath many acquaintances to stop him in the way, or is forced to make often returns, vp●● forgetfulness of d●●ers ●hing● etc. And I expected, that he would have said also, that he must need● drink at every Alehouse, as he passeth by. But this perhaps, he thought would have caused more reflection than he esteemed convenient; and those other triflings are enough, for so much as they yield such a vexing t●rme●● to M. Barlow in his enjoined 〈…〉, ●pon so speedy a business. But, why did he not give me 〈◊〉 a speedy answer, without trifling, and so dispatch both me, and himself quickly? Truly you have heard, somewhat largely b●for●, what he can say to this matter; ●nd therefore, I mean no● to dwell thereon long in this pl●●e, especially for so much, as the man is in such haste, and so impatient of stay.  
You have heard what hath been treated before, about this point of spiritual authority, in the temporal Prince, and to ●ow ●ow a pitch he bringeth the same, even in effect to agree with us, granting ●nto the Prince the power ●●ly o● execution of such things, as are determined by the Church. But now in a wo●● let us see, how he shifteth of the change of the name of Supreme Head. First he saith that 〈◊〉 Majesty did not leave it out o● his Title upon ●uer-awed 〈◊〉 to take it, 
1. Reg. 15.  forasmuch as God gave the said Till to a far worse King (& I pray you note the phrase which is strange from a subjects' pen) (to wit to Saul) when he said he was Caput in Tri●●bus● Head among the Tribe●●f Israel. 
1. Cor. 11.  And S. Paul nameth the ●●sband head of the wife. But what is this to our purpose, that do talk of the spiritual Head of the Church? 
M Barlowes impertinent answers.  Nay it seemeth rather to make against M. Barlowes proving that the Title o● Head was lawful (and so it was in the true sense of civil Head ship) and consequently it should have been continued: whereas we demand why it was left of, & chan●ed? So as this first answer is nothing to the purpose.  
His second is, that it is but identity of command expressed 〈◊〉 diversity of terms. But why then was it changed? And why doth M. Doctor Reynolds by M. Barlowes own, 
Reyn. Confer. cap. 1. disp. 2. p. 55.  ●●●●i●ony, give the Title not of Head● but of Supreme Governor? What need that express negative, if they were all one? If you should deny to the King's Highness, the Title of King, and of Supreme Head of the Commonwealth, and call him only supreme Governor, would it be taken well, or excused by identity? No man can be ignorant, but that in every state never so popular, there is a supreme Governor ●hough no King.  
Thirdly he saith, that the change of supreme Head, into supreme Governor was made by Parliament, the first year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, at the request of the Nobles and Divines of the Land. But the question is, why, and upon what ground, forsomuch as it may be presumed, there were as great Divines in King Henry the Eight h●● time in the Parliament? And if not, yet at least in King Edward's Parliament, that did approve and establish this Title of supreme Head. It was, saith M. Barlow, not in regard of Queen Elizabeth her sex, 
Q. Elizabeth in M. Barlowes opinion as absolute for Spiri●tu●ll authority as any Male-Monarch.  for she being descended as she was, she had as absolute authority in the fruition of the Crown (for both powers spiritual, and temporal) as any Male-Monarch whatsoever. And a little after again he saith, that this change was made, lest a weaker 〈…〉 think, that they gave vn●o Kings t●●t Ti●le, secundum interiore● influ●um, according to ●he in●●riour influence, which 〈◊〉 the pr●p●● office of the head, as being the fountain of moisture, and is ●he ●●st 〈◊〉 attribute of Christ alone. 
Barl. pag. 207.  But not to speak in this place, of this internal influx of grace, that cometh originally from Christ alone (although instrumentally also from men, as in the administration of Sacraments, according to Catholic doctrine) what will he say of the external influx of power, & jurisdiction over souls, of preaching, teaching, & administering Sacraments, ordaining Ministers, and the like? Could this power come aswell from a Feminine, as a Masculine Monarch? If it could● I do not see why she might not be called aswell supreme Head of the Church, as supreme Governor. And if it could not, then is there some difference in the names, for that according to the Protestant Bishops, & divers of King Edward's days, that made the forenamed Statute, all spiritual power descended from the title of Headship, which is here denied to descend from the Title of supreme Governor. And this shallbe sufficient for this place.  

WHETHER THE DENYING Of taking this New Oath do include the denial of all the particular clauses contained therein? §. II.  
IN the progress of the Argument here handled about the refusal of this New Oath, the Apologer affirmeth first, as you have heard that there was no one clause in the whole Oath that touched Religion, but were all and merely of Civil Obedience. Secondly, that a man could not refuse this Oath, but he must refuse all & every one of the clauses therein contained. The former point hath been handled in the precedent Chapter: of the other we must speak now in this place. ●●d for more perspicuity, we ●●all set down here what I wrote, before in my Epistle about the same, which was this.  
This later Oath (said I) albeit the Apologer sticketh ●ot to say, 
Letter 74.  that it toucheth not any part of the Pope's Spiritual Supremacy: yet in the very next period, he contradicteth & overthroweth himself therein. For so much, as dividing the said Oath of Allegiance into 14. 
The Oath divided into 14. parts.  several parts or parcels, twelve of them, at least, do touch the said Supremacy one way or other, as by examination you will find, and we shall have occasion after to declare more at large.  
As for example, he writeth thus: 
Apol. p. 49.  And that the Injustice (saith he) as well as the error of Bellarmine his gross mistaking in this point, may yet be more clearly discovered; I have thought good to insert immediately the contrary conclusions to all the points & Articles, whereof ●his other latter Oath doth consist, whereby it may appear, what unreasonable and rebellious points he would drive his majesties Subjects unto, by refusing the whole body of that Oath, as it is conceived. For he that shall refuse to t●ke this Oath, must of necessity hold these propositions following: First that our Sovereign Lord King james is not the lawful King of this Kingdom, and of all other his majesties Dominions. Secondly that the Pope by his own authority may depose etc. But who doth not see what a simple fallacy this is, which the Logicians do call à composito ad divisa, from denying of a compound, to infer the denial of all the parcels therein contained. As if some would say, that Plato was a Man, borne in Greece, of an excellent wit, skilful in the Greek language, most excellent of all other Philosophers, and would require this to be confirmed by an Oath; some Platonist, perhaps, would be content to swear it: but if some S●●icke, or Peripatetic, or Professor of some other Sect in Philosophy, should refuse the said Oath in respect of the l●st clause, might a man infer against him in all the other clauses also, Ergo he denye●h Plato to be a Man? He denieth him to be borne in Greece, he denieth him to be of an excellent wit, he denieth hi● to be skilful in the Greek● tongue etc.  
Were not this a bad kind of arguing? 
Bad kind of arguing.   
So in like manner, if an Arrian, or Pelagian Princes should exact an Oath at his subjects hands, concerning divers articles of Religion, that were believed by them both● and in the end, or middle thereof, should insert some cl●●ses, sounding to the favour of their own sect, for which the Subject should refuse the whole body of that Oath, as it was conceived; could the other in justice accuse hi●, for denying all the several articles of his own Religion also which therein are mentioned? Who seeth not the injustice of this manner of dealing? And yet this is that which our Apologer useth here with Catholics, affirming in good earnest, that he which refuseth the whole body of this Oath, as it is conceived (in respect of some clauses thereof that stand against his Conscience, about matters of Religion) refuseth consequently every point and parcel thereof, and must of necessity hold (in the first place) that our Sovereign Lord King james is not the lawful King of this Kingdom, and of all other his majesties Dominions. The contrary whereof all Catholics do both confess, and profess: & consequently it is a mere calumniation that they deny this.  
This much was written about the matter. Let us consider what is brought by M. Barlow against the same. And first concerning the contradiction objected to the Apologer, in that he said, that the Oath touched not any point of the Pope's Supremacy, and yet he dividing the said Oath into fourteen points, divers of them are evidently seen to be against the same; M. Barlow after a great deal of fumbling, and shuffling, of things together, as desirous to say somewhat, though with such obscurity, as that (I dare avouch) any ordinary Reader can hardly understand him; I find him to say no more in effect, but that these clauses excepted against in the Oath, do concern the Pope's temporal authority, & not his spiritual Supremacy: but that is nothing. For as it hath been often said, this extraordinary temporal authority to be used in some cases, belonging to the censuring of temporal Princes, when other remedy is not found, ●s it proceedeth from the Pope's spiritual charge, and is given for the conservation of the spiritual: so consequently, can it not be denied, or impugned without prejudice, ●●d impeachment of the said spiritual Supremacy itself? and consequently for so much, as in the Oath it is evidently by sundry clauses impugned, it must needs follow that the Pope's spiritual Supremacy is also impugned, which no man can deny, but that it appertaineth to the integrity of Catholic Religion, which is contrary to that which M. Barlow saith, Th●● only and merely civil obe●●●●ce is exacted in this Oath.  
To the Sophistical fallacy objected by me, of arguing à c●●posito ad divisa, that whosoever denieth this compound 〈◊〉, must needs deny all, and every part & parcel therof● and to the two examples by me alleged, against the ●●●e, one of a Philosopher describing Plato, the other of 〈◊〉 Arian Prince propounding an oath, with many lawful clauses, and one only unlawful, tending to the setting ●●●th of his own heresy, for that they are evident in cō●on sense, and do press M. Barlow to the quick, he findeth himself in very great straits: and to the first he pre●ermitteth to answer at all, seeking to cover himself with a ridiculous calumniation against me, for naming a Philosopher. 
Barl. pag. 2●●.  He girds (saith he) at his Majesty for bei●●● Philosopher, which is his Maiest●●s great glory, & our realms happiness for true Philosophy joined to government, regulats the sceptre to his subjects c●●fort, and to the kingdoms renown. By which words you may see, how vigilant and exact a craf●seman M. 〈◊〉 is in the art of adulation, 
M. Barlow without all occasion playeth the parasite.  in somuch that if the sci●nc● of parasitisme were lost he could restore it again of himself. And I say he is vigilant in this place, for that he hath taken occasion to flatter his Majesty, where none at all was given. For I did not so much as name his Majesty, but only said, as now you have seen, that if any ●an would describe Plato, affirming him to be a man born in Greece etc. of an excellent wit, and ●●ally a●●ing that he was the most eminent of all other Philosopher's, 〈◊〉 last point only might be sufficient to make 〈…〉 Pe●●pate●icke deny to swear the Oath, although they did not deny all the other particulars therein contained, ●o wit, that he was borne ●n Greece, of an excellent wit, skilful in the Gr●●ke Language, and the rest: and so, th●t albeit a Catholic man do refuse to swear to a●e Oat● of Allegiance, in respect of divers clauses the●●in contained in prejudice of his religion: yet doth not he deny all the other clauses, as both absurdly and injuriously M. Barlow doth affirm.  
The second example in like manner, of an Ari●● Prince proposing unto his subjects an Oath containing di●●●● clauses of true Catholic Religion, and some one of A●ianism●, for which the whole is refused, Barlow●●ndeth ●●ndeth to be as unanswerable, as the former, though for a ●●●rish he taketh upon him, to set it down again, in a better frame, as he pretendeth, but in very deed the very same in effect, and wholly against himself, to wit, tha● an Arian Prince con●●yueth an Oath for his subjects to swear, th●t there are three persons in Trinity, 
Barlow pag. 214.  that the s●cond Person is the S●●● of God etc. adding notwithstanding, that he is not squall with his Father, which is Arianisme, some Christia●●, saith M. Barlow, 
M. Barlowes senseless demand.  fearing an error therein have recourse to s●●e great Doctor: he descrying the Arianisme, forbids them to take it, and not showing them the erroneous article, assureth them that the 〈◊〉 Oath as it lieth is unlawful. And doth not that doctor conde●●e all the articles the●in? and willeth them inclusively to deny the Trinity? This is M. Barlowes demand upon this case. And every man of common sense I trow will answer, No, that he doth not either inclusively or exclusively deny the Blessed Trinity. And it is strange that a man of sense will argue so, or make so senseless a demand. For why, or how doth this doctor deny here the other two articles of true Catholic doctrine? For that he did not tell them distinctly which of the clauses contained Arianis●●? First this maketh not to our case of the Oath of Allegiance, for that we set down clearly the clauses that we mislike therein, which are all those, that touch either the Pope's authority, or any other part of the Roman Catholic Religion. Secondly it was not necessary to tell the clause in particular that contained the Arianisme, for that some of the people perhaps, that demanded him the question could not well understand it, and therefore it was sufficient to say, that the oath was, as it lay, nought: that there was some heresy therein: as if a Physician should say of a dish of minded meat brought to the table, that the eaters should beware, for that in some part there were poison, it were sufficient, though he showed not the particular part. Or if a Cook should say, that among other herbs in the pot, there was one very noisome, it were sufficient for advise, to refuse the whole pot of pottage: and yet by this he doth not condemn all the other good herbs, that might be in the pot.  
Or was it perhaps for that the Doctor said that the whole Oath as it lay, 
M. Barlow fosteth into his text the word whole, and thereupon groundeth all his idle dispute.  was unlawful? First I do not find the word whole to be used by Cardinal Bellarmine, but only the word jur amentum indefinitely. And secondly, if he had said, that the whole Oath, as it lieth, were to be refused, he had not thereby condemned ●uery clause, or part thereof, which he proveth in these words, saying: Nam ex 〈◊〉 sententia bonum ex integra a causa constituitur, malum autem ex singulis de●ectibu●: quare ut Iur amentum prohibeatur vel recusetur, 〈◊〉 est necessarium omnes & singulae partes eius sint malae: satis autem est, si vel una sit mala etc. 
Bellarm. pag. 22. edit. Rom.  For according to the common sentence of Philosophers, that which is good, must consist of the whole cause, that is to say, of all parts requisite; but to make a thing evil it is sufficient, that it hath but some one defect; wherefore, for prohibiting or refusing this Oath as evil, it is not necessary, that all and every part thereof be evil, but it is enough if any one part thereof be nought. And so on the contrary part, to the end that this oath may be admitted, as good and lawful, it is necessary that no part thereof be evil.  
This is Cardinal Bellarmine's doctrine, wherein we see, first that he doth not use the word Whole, totum I●ramentum, which word notwithstanding M. Barlow doth often use, and repeat in this place, making it the foundation of all his idle dispute. And secondly we see, that he doth not condemn all the parts of this oath, for that some be unlawful, but rather proveth the contrary out of the common sentence of Philosophers, that if any one part be evil, it is sufficient to make the Oath evil & unlawful. In which kind M. Barlow himself in the very nex● ensuing page, giveth an example of an Indenture that hath many clauses, whereof the breach of any one Prouis● (saith he) doth forfeit the whole; whereby is evident, that one de●ect is sufficient to make the thing evil; 
More required to a good action then to an evil.  but to make it good, all that is requisite must be observed. And so in this Oath, to make it unlawful, it is enough that any one clause thereof be nought, or against a Catholic man's conscience, but to make it good and lawful, all the clauses thereof must be good and lawful. And so you see how substantially M. Barlow hath answered this point, over throwing himself with his own argument.  
I will not stand to confute that other mad assertion of his, more frantic than fantastical, whereby he affirmeth, and will needs defend, that whosoever refuseth to swear, to any one of the articles of this Oath, acknowledgeth not the first, that King james is lawful King of England. And what is his reason trow you? No other, but that of the Indenture before mentioned: for the whole Oath, saith he, is like an Indenture, 
Barl. pag. ●15.  all the clauses tying, and tending to one condition o● Allegiance, the breach of one Proviso in the Indenture forfeits the whole; the denying of one article in the Oath, is the dental of the whole, even of the very first, that King james is not lawful King. So he. But he that shall examine the matter well, will find that this pretended parity between the Oath and Indenture, articles and Prouisoes, 
The difference between this Oath and an Indenture.  is only in sound of words, and not in substance; for that in making an Indenture, and the Prouisoes thereof, both parts must agree, that the breach of every such Proviso shall forfeit the whole; for that otherwise every such Proviso, doth not evacuate the whole Indenture, or make it nought. But herein framing this new Oath, and the articles thereof, there is not the consent or agreement of all those that are required to take the Oath, nor obligation of conscience to agree: but rather to the contrary, they are bound by the principles of their religion to disagree, and disclaim against the same, as prejudicial to their souls. So as here those articles, or different clauses. are not as Prouiso's agreed upon, as in an Indenture, but rather as points, and conditions proposed and required by the Landlord, whereof the Tenant may by right deliberate and consider, whether they stand well for him or Noah. And if not, he may refuse them, or at the least so many as he shall think to be hurtful or injurious unto him. Neither is the denial of any one or more, the denial of all, as M. Barlows bad Divinity, and worse Philosophy presumeth, to teach men that it is.  
But yet before I end this matter, on which he standeth so much, I would demand him further, whether this his assertion be not general concerning all Kings, and he may not well deny it, for that his reason is general as presently ensueth; saying, 
Barl. pag. 215.  The King being once in lawful possession, whosoever shall say, that he may be deposed for any cause, denieth that he is lawful King. Whereupon it followeth, that the Kings of France, & Spain also are no lawful, or true Kings in the opinion of their subjects, for that they all with uniform consent, do hold this doctrine of the Church, that Kings and Princes may in some cases ●e excommunicated and deposed. Saul also was never lawful King, for that he was deposed, or else must we say that God did him injury in deposing him.  
It followeth also by this inference of M. Barlow, that if a man should deny to swear to the last clause only, of all the Oath, to wit, that he sweareth all the former articles heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the faith of a Christian: So help him God. etc. doth deny to acknowledge King james to be lawful King; which is another point of parasitisme, more ancient (perhaps) then the former, especially if you add thereunto his propositions, used here to that effect, as namely, that if he were once lawful, he ●● over so●●or th●● 〈…〉 neither intended nor remitted, 
Barl. p. 215.  that unlawfulness o● title 〈…〉 with it the casuality of deposing, that no varying in religion, 〈◊〉 altering of manners, 
Strange & parasitical paradoxes.  〈◊〉 misordering a Common wealth 〈…〉 his title; that only a King can say to God, tibi soli p●●●ani; that whosoever de●ieth not to the Pope a deposing● power, de●ieth to 〈◊〉 King the lawfulness of h●● Inuestiture● and do●●●ion; that, let a ●ing 〈◊〉 he will, for his religion, and government, if he hath right to the 〈◊〉 his subjects must endure etc. And will you not say now, that M. Barlow is as good a Chaplain for the King, as he is a Champion? that is to say, as good a Ghostly Father of spiritual counsel and resolution of case● of Conscience, as he is a valiant defender of whatsoever was set down before in the Apology? But enough hereof.    

WHETHER THE FOURTH COUNCIL OF TOLEDO Did prescribe any such set form of Oath to be exhibited to the Subjects, as is affirmed in the Apology? CHAP. II.  
BUT now we must pass to another contemplation about a certain Council of Toledo in Spain, alleged by the Apologer, for authorizing and justifying of this new oath, not only allowed, but decreed also (as he saith) in that ancient Council, to wit, the fourth of Toledo: I shall allege his words together with my answer thereunto at that time.  
And that the world (saith he) may yet further see his Majesties and whole States setting down of this Oath did not proceed from any new invention of theirs, 
Lett. p. 76. Apologia 52.  but as it ●warrāted by the word of God: So doth it take the example from an Oath of Allegiance, 
The Oath of Allegiance confirmed by the authority of Counsels.  decreed a thousand years a● gone, which a famous Council then, together with di●uers other Counsels, were so far from condemning (●● the Pope now hath done this Oath) as I have thought good to set down their own words here in that purpose: whereby it may appear, that his Majesty craue●● nothing now of his Subjects in this Oath, which was no● expressly, and carefully commanded them by the Council to be obeyed, without exception of persons. Nay, not i● the very particular point of Equivocation, which his Majesty in this Oath is so careful to have eschewed: but yo● shall here see the said Counsels in their Decrees, as careful to provide for the eschewing of the sa●e; 
The difference between the ancient Counsels, and the Pope's counselling of the catholics.  so as, almos● every point of that Action, and this of ours, shall be foun● to have relation, and agreeance one with the other, sau● only in this● that those old Counsels were careful, an● straight in commanding the taking of the same; whereas by the contrary, he that now vaunteth himself to be Hea● of all councils, is as careful and straight in the prohibition of all men, from the taking of this Oath of Allegiance. S● he. And then I added.  
And I have alleged his discourse at large, to the en● you may better see his fraudulent manner of proceedings He saith, That the example of this Oath is taken from a● Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand years agone in the councils of Toledo, 
Con●. Tole. 4. can. 74.  but especially the fourth, which provided also for the particular point of Equivocation. But le● any man read those councils, which are 13. in number, and if he find either any form of an Oath prescribed, or any mention of Equivocation, but only of flat lying and perfidious dealing, let him discredit all the rest that I do write. And if he find none at all, as most certainly he shall not● then let him consider of the bad cause of this Apologer, that driveth hi● to such manner of dealing, as to avouch Every point o● that Action to have agreeance with the offering of th●● Oath.  
Here now you see how M. Barlow is provoked to show his manhood in defence of this passage, which he begins very fiercely, with many contumelious words, with I ●e● pass as wind, and only shall relate those that ●e of some moment to the cause. While this jesuit (saith ●e) impeaching the Apologer of supposed fraudulency, himself even 〈…〉 be arrested of a fraudulent impudence, ●or that he charging 〈◊〉 Apologer to say, that every point of that Toledan action hath 〈◊〉 with ours, ●e leaves out the principal word, 
A lie in print.  which the said ●●●●●ger used, when he saith, that almost every point agreeth; as if 〈◊〉 were no● difference, between his speech that should say, that Father Persons was almost upon the Sea-coast for England, 
Barl. pag. 217.  and his that 〈◊〉 a●●rte, that he was at the sea-cost and shipped for England. ●●erto I answer first for the word almost left out. Secondly 〈◊〉 the example.  
The words of the Apologer about the likeness of our 〈◊〉, to the Toletane action are thrice repeated by me: first in the beginning of the matter p. 76. n. 11. where repeating the Apologers words, 
About the leaving out the word almost.  I said, almost every point of that action is 〈◊〉 to ours. In the end also, p. 81. n. 19 I related his words ●●s: that almost every point of that action hath agreeance with that of 〈◊〉 etc. So as twice the word almost is repeated, though in the third place pag. 77. num. 12. It is said, every point of that 〈◊〉 etc. which might be, as well the error of the writer, or printer, as overslip of the Author. And how then can this be called fraudlent impudence? Or rather was i● not more fraudulent in M. Barlow, not to tell his reader, that it was twice put down, though once left out? As for the two members alleged, they are both known to be false, that either Father Parsons was almost upon the Sea-coast for England, or upon the Sea-coast, and shipped for England, to expect the ●●●der-●lot, for that hundreds of witnesses will testify in 〈◊〉, that neither at that time, nor in all that year was he out of that City; so as this is somewhat more, than almost two untruths.  
And this is as much, as in effect he answereth to this matter. But I went forward in my Letter to show out of the Council, and Histories of Spain, the occasions, causes, and circumstances of this Council, and how it was procured by the King of Spain, Sis●nandu● of the Gothish blood, who having ceposed his Lord, and Master King Suintila, was somewhat jealous, lest the Oath of fidelity, made unto him by the Spaniards, would not be observed, and therefore made recourse unto the Bishops, and Clergy, for assisting him in that behalf, with their Ecclesiastical authority, as they did, both confirming the one, and excluding the other: whereupon is set down in the preface of the said Council, that he coming into the same, accompanied with many Noble, and honourable persons of his train, 
K. ●●senādus his submissive behaviour to the Bishops in the Council of Toledo.  coram Sacerdotibus Dei bumiprostratus, cum lacbry●●● & gemitibus, pro se interueniendum postulavit, he prostrate on the ground before the Priests of God, besought them with tears, and sobs to make intercession for him.  
Whereupon the Council commanded upon severe Censures, that no man should practise his death or deposition, or break his Oath of fidelity made unto him; but no particular form of oath do I find there to have been prescribed, or decreed, whereby this our new oath may be confirmed, or authorized, but rather another oath prescribed unto the King, and all his successors, juramento po●licean●ur hanc se Catholicam non permissuros eos violare sidem: that they swear that they will never suffer their subjects to violate this Catholic faith. 
The Catholic Faith confirmed by the Council of Toledo.  And mark (said I) that he saith (〈◊〉) which was the Catholic faith then held in Spain, and explicated in these Counsels of Toledo; the particulars whereof, do easily show that they were as opposite to the Protestants faith as ours is now.  
To all this, what saith M. Barlow? He beginneth with a tale, as he is wont, when he hath little else to say: Pericles (saith he) as some do affirm, had that skill in wrestling, that though he received a fall, yet he would persuade the wrestler, that cast him, and the spectators that beheld him, that he was the conqueror. 
M. Barl●w when he cannot answer fil● to telling of tales.  You will imagine how well this is applied by him: he saith, that there is not one point of this which I have said, to the purpose or against the Apologer. But how doth he prove it? First he saith, that this council was gathered by the command of King Sisenandus. And what maketh this to the purpose? Did not we grant also, that Kings within their Kingdoms, may cause Provincial Counsels to be made by their Bishops, Archbishops, & Metropolitans? But how submissively this King did behave himself in that Council, appeareth by his former submission, both in fact & words. And ye● by the way, the Reader must note M. Barlows small truth in relating for his purpose these words: religiosissimi Sisenandi Regis jussu & Imperijs convenimus; 
M. Barlows falsehood in relating the words of the Council of Toledo.  we are assembled by the command and authority of our most Religious King Sisenandus, whereas the true words in the Council are, ●●m studio amoris Christi, ac diligen●ia religiosiss●●● Sisenandi Regis, apud Toletanam Vrbem, in nomine Domini convenissemus: whereas for the love of Christ, and by the diligence of our most religious King, we came together in the name of God, in the City of Toledo. And then those other words which ensue afterwards, to wit, eius ●mperijs atque iussis, are referred to another thing, not to their meeting, but what matters they should principally handle touching discipline etc. Vt communis a nobis ageretur de quibusdam Ecclesiae disciplinis tractatus. In which Treatise of discipline, was contained in like manner the Kings own temporal cause, concerning the assuring of his succession by Ecclesiastical Censures. When or wherein then shall we find M. Barlow to deal punctually, and sincerely? But let us go forward.  
In the next place, he saith, that this Council, & the Canons thereof do make for the Protestants, and giveth example in three or four Canons, and concludeth generally in these words: The Church o● England, both for substance in doctrine, and ceremony in discipline, doth hold the same, which ma●y of the said Canons do conclude. 
M. Barlowes shameless assertion.  Well then we shall see presently, how many they be. He citeth only four of seventy and four, and those so impertinently, as by the citation he maketh himself miserable, as now you will perceive.  
And first he citeth the 43. Canon, saying, that the marriage of Priests, so it be with the consent of the Bishop, is therein allowed: and he beginneth with this, for that it seemeth to him a knocker, and to the purpose indeed, for authorizing Priests marriages. Wherefore we shall handle it in the last place of the four alleged by him.  
In the second place than he leapeth back from the 43. Canon, to the 24. saying, that therein it was positively set down, that ignorance is the mother of all errors, but not of de●●tion. A great objection no doubt against us; as though we were great friends of ignorance: Ignorance (saith the Canon) the mother of all errors, is most to be avoided by Priests, who have the office of teaching the people. Do we contradict this. What mean our Schools? Our Seminaries? Our Colleges? Our Universities for bringing up, 
About ignorance & devotion.  and instructing Priests? Are our Priests in England, or on this side the seas, more encumbered with ignorance than the Ministers? Why then is this Canon brought in against us? For that perhaps it saith not, that Ignorance is the mother of devotion, nor we neither, as it hath been sufficiently proved against Sir Francis H●sting● that ignorant Knight, who following M. jewel, objected it as spoken once by Doctor Cole, meaning (if he spoke it) that some simple people are more devout than greater learned: but that ignorance should be a mother, or necessary bringer forth of devotion, 
M. Barlow very ignorant, but not very devout.  was never affirmed by any position of Catholics, and was proved to be very false in Sir Francis own person, who showed himself to be very ignorant, and yet nothing devout. And the same in due measure and proportion, may be verified in M. Barlow: & if he deny it, let us part our proofs. I have showed his ignorance in alleging this Canon that maketh nothing for him; let him prove his devotion.  
From the 24. Canon he steppeth forward again, to the 46. Wherein he saith, is decreed that the Clergies immunity from civil molestations, and troubles, is from the King, and by his Command and authority. And what maketh this against us, or for the Protestants? Why is not this practised at this time in England, that all Clergy men be free, ab omnipublica indictione atque labour, ●t lil●ri s●ruiant Deo, saith the same Canon? from all public taxes, & labour, to the end they may attend to se●ue God more freely? Is the use of this Canon more amongst Catholics or Protestants? and if more amongst Catholics, and nothing at all amongst Protestants, especially in England, what wisdom was this of M. Barlow, to b●ing it in as a point decreed by the Council, 
Immunity of Clergy men from whence it first proceeded.  conform to their doctrine, and practice? But saith he, this immunity came from King Sisenandus his order and commandment. True it is that he, as a good Catholic Prince, was very forward therein, yet the Decree was the Counsels, and therefore it is said in the Canon, id decrevit Sanctum Concilium, the holy Council decreed it. Neither do we teach that this immunity, or freedom of the Clergy, from secular burdens, is without the consent, & concurrence of Christian Princes, proceeding out of their piety, and devotion towards the Church, to favour & further that, which was esteemed by the Church needful to God's service, & conform to God's divine Law, both written, & impressed by nature. 
Lib. de Cler. cap. 2●. & 29.  So as this immunity of Clergy men was brought in both by Divine and human Law, as largely & learnedly doth prove Cardinal Bellarmine in two several Chapters of his Book de Clericis, to whom, as to his Master, 
Vid● in c●d●e Theod●s. lib. 16. ti●. 2 leg. 16 & 26. ●t in Cod. ●●stin●. l●ge ●an●imus de Sa●rosan. Eccl.  I send M. Barlow to School, though much against his will: where also he will learn, that long before this fact of King Sisenandus, other Christian Emperors and Kings, had consented to these immunities of Clergy men, and confirmed the same by their temporal laws & decrees: which piety King Sisenandus did follow, and imitate in Spain. And would God he would inspire his Majesty to do the same in England.  
But what helpeth this M. Barlowes cause? Truly even as much as the rest. Let us see if you please, what is his fourth Canon, which he citeth for his proof, of the Counsels agreement with Protestants. 
M Barlow for a Canon leapeth out of the book.  He leapeth then lastly to the 75. Canon, which is one more than is in the book, for there be but 74. but this is a small fault in respect of that which presently ensueth. His words are these: Lastly that all the decrees, and Canons of that Council, were confirmed by the Clergy, annuente religiosissimo Principe, after the Kings royll assent had unto them, and that set down Can. 75. 
Can. 75.  But first of all if the thing did stand in the Council as here it is set down, that the Prince's consent and confirmation had been demanded to all the Decrees, and Canons, as M. Barlow saith, yet the words being but annuente Princip●, the Prince consenting thereunto, I do not see how it can be truly translated, as it is by M. Barlow, after the King's Royal assent had unto them, which are the usual words whereby Parliament Statutes are confirmed, wherein the King, as truly supreme head, hath chief authority to allow, or reject; which I doubt not but that King Sisenādu● took not upon him, in this Council of Toledo: nay if the place be rightly examined, which is in the very last lines of the said Council, it willbe found that the said consent of the Prince was not about the decrees of the Council, but about the subscribing of all the Bishop's names unto the said Council. For they having ended all, and made a large prayer for the prosperity of the said King, and all said Amen, it is added lastly: Definitis itaque ●is, qua superiùs comprehensa sunt, annuente religiosiss●mo P●incip●, ●lac●it deigned etc. Et quia pros●ctilus Ecclesiae, & anima nostra convenient, & iam propria subscriptione, ut permaneant, roboramus. Wher●fore having defined these things, that before are comprehended, it seemed good also by the consent of our most Religious Prince, that forsomuch as these things, that are decreed are profitable for the Church, and for our souls, we do strengthen them also by our own subscriptions, to the end they may remain. I Isidorus in the name of Christ Metropolitan Bishop of the Church of Seville, having decreed these things, do subscribe etc. And so did all the other Bishops by name.  
here than I see not what M. Barlow can gain by alleging this Canon. For if this allowance of King Sisena●dus, be referred to the Bishop's subscriptions (as it seemeth by that it cometh after the mention of the made decrees) or if it were in general allowance of the whole Council by way of yielding to the execution thereof, as M. Barlows' doctrine ●lse where is; it maketh nothing against us at all. For we grant this consent to all Princes, within their own Kingdoms, thereby to have their assistance, for execution especially for such points as interest, or touch the political state or commonwealth.  
There remaineth then to examine a little the first allegation out of the 43. Canon, where he saith, that Priest's marriage is allowed in this Canon, so it be with the consent of the Bishops. 
Two notorious frauds of M. Bar●low.  Wherein two egregious frauds are discovered so manifestly as he could not but know when he wrote them, that they were such. The first is, for that he translateth Presbyteri, for Clerici, perversely thereby turning Clarks into Priests, knowing well enough what he did, for that he must needs see the difference in the very Canon, as presently we shall show. The second fraud is, that he knowing, that this Council did utterly disallow the marriage of Priests, yet he shamed not to affirm the quite contrary. We shall say a word of the one and the other.  
For the first he allegeth as you have heard, the 43. Canon, whose words are: Clerici qui sine consultu Episcopi sui du●●int etc.: Clarks that without the consultation of their Bishop shall marry wives etc. must be separated from the Clergy, by their proper Bishop. Which word Cleri●i, M. Barlow translateth Priests, notwithstanding he knoweth i● i● not so taken there by the Council, but for inferior Orders ●nder Subdeacon, which is the first of the three that excludeth marriage. This is seen by many Canons, as namely by the 40. which beginneth thus: Omnes Clerici vel Lectores, sive Levitae & Sacerdotes, detonso superiùs capite toto, inserius solam circuli coronam relinquant. All Clarks and Readers, as also Deacons and Priests, cutting of all the hair of the upper part of their head, let them leave in the lower part only the crown of a circle. Here you see that Clerici, & Sacerdotes are distinct Degrees: 
M. Barlowes forgery discovered about the Marriage of Priests.  you see also this Ceremony of discipline in that Church of Spain. Will M. Barlow confess that his Church agreeth in this? The title also of the 67. Canon is, de cupiditate Episcopi, Presbyteri, v●l Diacomi, sieve Clericorum: Of the covetousness of a Bishop, of a Priest, or Deacon, or Clarks. Whereby is evident that in the Counsels sense, Priests, Deacons and Clerks are distinct Orders in the Church, and consequently though the Council doth say that Clarks may not take wives, without the consent of their Bishops; yet their meaning is not that may take wives, with the said consent; so as in this M. Barlow was false, and knew that he deceived, when he translated Clerici for Priests.  
But now for the second point, that he must needs know also, that the meaning of this Council could not be, that Priests might marry, by allowance of the Bishop, I prove it thus, for that this Council did make profession to follow their Ancestors, and forefathers decrees; and we find registered in an ancient Spanish Council held three hundred years before this, called Elibertinum, this Canon which is the 33. of the said Council; Placuit in totum prohibere Episcopis, Praebyteris, Diaconibus & Subdiaconibus positis in Minist●rio, abstinere se coniugibus suis, & n●n g●nerare filios, quod quicumque ●ecerit, ab honore Clericatus extermi●etur. It seemeth good to the Council wholly to forbid, all Bishops, Priests, Deacons, & Subdeacons' placed in Ministry, that they abstain themselves from their wives, and beget no children: and whosoever shall do the contrary, let him be cast out of the Clergy.  


Con●. To. l●t. ●. tom. 2. Conc. an. Dom. 542.  
The Decree of the Council of Tol●d● about the chastity of Subdeacons', Deacons & Priests.   After this again in another Council of Toledo, which was the second held some hundred years before this fourth, the matter is determined in the very first Canon thus, speaking of young men, that pretended to take holy Orders, & to be Priests: Vbi octawm decimum aetatis suae compleverint annum etc. When they shallbe full eighteen years of age, let the Bishop in the presence of the Clergy and people search their wills, about desire of marriage, & then if by the inspiration of God, the grace of chastity shall please them, and they shall answer that they will keep their promise made of chastity, without conjugal necessity, then let these men, as desirous of a most straight way, be admitted under the most sweet, and easy yoke of our Saviour. And first, let them take the Ministry of Subdeacon at 20. ●eares of age after the probation had of their constancy, and at 25. years, let them take the office of Deacon: cavendum tamenest his, ne quando suae sponsionis immemores, ad terrenas nuptias ultrà recurrant: yet must these men take heed, least being at any time forgetful of their promise or band, they do run back to earthly marriage.  
By these two more ancient councils then of Spain (not to speak of others) we may see what could be the sense of this fourth of Toledo, concerning marriage of Priests, as also what is meant by that direction given in the 26. Canon: ut quando Presbyteri, aut Diaconi per parochias constituun●●, ●p●rtet eos primùm professionem Episcopo suo facere, ut castè & purè ●i●ant: when Priests or Deacons are appointed throughout Parishes, they must first make profession unto their Bishop, that they will live chastened and purely. The Council doth not say here, that they may take wives, with the Bishop's consent, as was said of Clerici before. Wherefore in both these points, I mean as well in this translation, as in the main assertion, that then it was lawful for Priests to have wives, M. Barlow dealt fraudulently. I will not cite other councils held both before and after this both in Spain & elsewhere concerning this matter: as before, that of Toledo the third about the year 589. that of Lions, 5●6. that of T●u●rs, 570. that of Orlea●ce, 587. as also after, let the Reader view the 8. and 9 of Toledo, about the year 656. and 657. that of Shalons in France the very next year after.  
Yet can I not pretermyt one Canon of the foresaid third Council of Toledo held upon the point of fifty years before this fourth, 
Let S●r William B. and his fellows examine their consciences how they keep this Canon.  whereof we now talk, which third Council of Toledo, in the fifth Canon hath these words: C●mpertum ●st à sancto Concilio etc. It is understood by this holy Council, that certain Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, coming from Heresy, do continue to have carnal desires, and copulation with their wives, and to the end this may not be done hereafter, it is commanded by the Council, as also it hath been determined in former Canons, that it is not lawful for them to live together in carnal society, but that so long as conjugal faith doth ●●mayne between them, they may have care, one of the others common utility, but yet not dwell together in one ●oome: or if their virtue be such, as may seem to have no● peril; yet let them place their wives in another house, that their chastity may have testimony, both before God and man. And if any man after this ordination, will choose rather to live scandalously with his wife, let him be deposed from Priestly function, and beheld only as a Lector or a Reader etc. 
Priests living with their wives noted by the Council to come from heretics.  By which ordination of the Council, we may see the severity of that time, not only in keeping Priests from marriage after they were Priests, but even in forbidding the use of their wives that were married before, if any such were admitted. And it is to be noted, that the Council saith here, that this custom of Priests living with wives, came from the heroticks of those days, and was practised by them principally, that were turned from heresy to Catholic Religion.  
And finally I cannot pretermit, for the upshot of this matter, to note one sentence of Isidorus Archbishop of Si●●ll that was Precedent, and first subscribed to the foresaid Council of Toledo, who in his second book, de Ecclesiastic●● officies, talking of this very same Council, as it may seem, said, Placuit sanctis Patribus, ut qui s●cra myster●● cont●●cta●, ●asti sint, & continentes ab uxoribus. It seemed good unto the holy Father, to determine that such as do handle the holy mysteries, should be chaste, & continent from wives. And thus much for the first point averred by M. Barlow, that four Canons of the fourth Council of Toledo do make for him, and his religion. But now we have seen his ill fortune in the choice, for that no Canon maketh for him, but rather all against him, and especially this last.  
Now let us see somewhat about the second point, that the Church of England at this day, both for substance in doctrine, and Ceremony in discipline doth hold the same, which many of the said Canons do conclude: which though as before, I have noted, it may seem to be a very dubious & imperfect assertion, for that they of England, being Christians, and so those of that Council also, it were very ●ard but that of 74. Canons (whereof the first only comprehendeth the sum and confession of all Articles of Christian faith contained in the common Creeds:) it were hard I say, ●ha the Church of England should not hold in substance, at least, the same that many of those Canons do conclude. 
Whether the 4 Council of Toledo agree more with the Protestant church of England or Catholic church of Rome.  But let us touch the point indeed, concerning the articles now in controversy between us, and Protestants, ●oth for doctrine and ceremonies, whether in these the said Council of Toledo, did agree more with the Church of Engl●●● as now is teacheth & practiseth, or with the Church of Rome.  
And albeit this Council was not gathered together, purposely to handle and determine matters of faith, and doctrine for the establishing of King Sisenand●● his successi●●, and concerning ●he deposition of King Suintila, as hath been touched, ●nd by that occasion, for reformation also of manners of the Clergy: yet are there many things here handled which give sufficient signs with what Church they more agreed, either the Protestants or ours. In the very f●●st Canon, where they make their profession of 〈◊〉, 
Christ's descending into hell to deliver the Saints.  ●hey say, Descendit ad inser●●, 〈…〉 he descended into Hell, to fetch from thence tho●● Sain●● which were there detained. Do the Protestants agree to this interpretation? And then talking of the last judgement they say: 
Merits of works.  Alij pro justitiae meri●●● vitam 〈◊〉: some shall receive life everlasting at Christ's ●and● for their merits of justice. Will Protestants acknowledge this in their Creed? And it followeth immediately, Haec est Ecclesiae Catholicae fides etc. This is the ●●ith of the Catholic Church: this Confession we 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 ●hich 〈◊〉 whosoever shall constantly keep, shall 〈◊〉 li●e everlasting. S● they● And for so much as there occurred a doubt in the Church of Spain, about the use of baptism, some allowing a triple dipping in the water, 
Recourse to Rome.  some one only; the Canon saithe that the recourse in former ●●me was made to the Sea Apostolic for deciding of the same, by S. Leander Archbishop of Seville, who wrote to S. Gregory the Great than Pope of Rome, to have his resolution. And will M. Barlow allow of this recourse? But let us hear the words of the Canon. Proinde quid à nobis etc. Wherefore what we are to do in Spain (saith the Council) in this diversity of administering the Sacraments, Apostolica Sedi● in ●●●mem●r praecepti●, non nostram sed paternam instructionem sequently: Let us 〈◊〉 by the precepts of the Sea Apostolic, not following our own instruction, out that o● our fore-●at●●rs● Wherefore Gregory of holy memory Bishop of Rome, at the request of the most holy man Leander Bishop of Si●●●●, demanding what was to be followed in this case; answered him in these words: Nothing can be more ●ruly answered, about the three dippings in Baptism, than that which you yourself have set down, that diversities of some customs, doth not prejudice the holy Church, agreeing all in one faith. So S. Gregory. But yet discusseth the question more largely, as may be seen in that Canon: but much more in his own book, lib. 1. Regist. Epist. 41. And is thi● conformable to the practice & doctrine of M. Barlows Church? Some men will say perhaps; yea, to the Church of Engl●●● that then was, for that about the very same time that S. Leander Metropolitan of: Si●ill wrote to S. Gregory, to have his resolu●ion about this difficulty of divers custome● in baptizing. S. Augustine Archbishop and Metropolitan of the English Nation, wrote unto the same S. Gregory, about the like doubts, 
Beda lib. 1. hist. c. 27.  as appeareth by Venerable Bede, and had his answer to the same. But this recourse also of the English Church at that time will not greatly please M. Barlow.  
In the seventh Canon some men are noted, that upon good Friday after h●ra nona, did use to break their Fast, for which they are much condemned by the Council, adding this reason for the same: for that the universal Church did observe the fast of that day, wholly, and strictly, for the memory of the passion of our Saviour, & therefore whosoever should break that fast, besides young children, old men, and sick men, before the Church have ended her prayers of Indulgence, he should not be admitted to the Festival joy of Easter day. And is this conform to the present Church of England? In the eight Can●n there is a re●son given by the Council, Cur lucer●a & cereus in pervigilijs à nobis benedicantur: 
Wax tapers.  why the candle, & the wax taper are blessed by the Bishops. And if any man will contemn this Ceremony, qui haec contempserit, Patr●● regu●is subia●ebis, saith the Canon, he shall under go the punishments appointed by the rules of the Fathers. This cogitation I think hath never much troubled M. Bar●●●.  
In the tenth Canon, order is given about the discipline to be used in Lent, both in respect of public prayer, and private chastisings of the body. Touching the first, it is ordained, ut in omnibus quadragesimae diebus, quia te●pus non est gundij sed mcrorie, Alleluia non decantetur: 
All●l●ya.  that Alleluia be not song in all the days of Lent, for that is a time, not of joy, but of sorrow's and then for the chaftysment of the flesh they say: Opus est fletibus & ie●u●ijs insistere, corpus cilicio & cinere endure, 〈◊〉 moeroribus deijcere, gaudium in trislitiam vertere quousque ●●●iat tempus Resurrectionis Christi. It is necessary to insist in weeping and fasting, to cover our body with haircloth ●nd ●she●, 
Mortification in the time of Lent●  to deject our mind with sorrow, to turn mirth into sadness, until the day of Christ's Resurrection do come. And doth this Ceremony of discipline please M. Barlow, Or doth his Church admit the same? And if he do not, th●̄ let him hear what followeth in the Council, hoc enim Ecclesiae universalis consensio in cunctis terrarum parti●us roboravit etc. For this the consent of the universal Church hath established in all parts of the Christian world, and consequently it is convenient to be observed throughout the Provinces of Spain, and Galicia, and therefore if any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, or any whatsoever of the order of Clarks, shall be found to esteem, or perferre his own judgement before this Constitution of ours, let him be put from the office of his order, and deprived of the Communion at Easter. This toucheth M. Barlow near, & even to the very quick: and I think his Church will hardly brook this severity of the old Spanish discipline, though you have heard him promise that he will.  
In the 12. and 13. Canons, order is given for singing of hymns in the time of Mass, 
Masses & festivities of Saints.  and namely that of the three Children in the furnace, and certain Priests are reprehended quòd in Missa Dominicorum dierum, & in solemnit atibus martyrum canere negligant, that they do neglect to sing the said hymn at Mass on Sundays, and on the festival days of Martyrs. Wherefore this holy Council doth ordain, saith the Canon, that throughout all the Churches of Spain and Galicia, in omnium Missarum sole●●itate idem in publico decantetur, in the solemnity of a●l Masses, the s●me hymn be publicly sung; under pain of losing their Communion, who shall do contrary to this ancient custom of singing this hymn, and shall violate this o●● definition. So the Council. And will M. Barlows Church admit this doctrine of Masses and celebrating the Martin feasts? In the 51. Canon remedy is provided for certain disorderly monks, who ●unning ou● of their Monasteries non solùm ad saecul●m revertantur, sed e●iam uxores ac●ipia●t, do not only return to the world, but take wives also: and the remedy is, that they must be brought back to their Monasteries again, & poenitentiae deputentur, ibique ●●fle●●t crimina sua, and be appointed to do penance, and there let them weep, and bewail their sins. And what will M. Barlow say to this point of discipline? 
Disorderly Monks punished.  Or at lest what would his chief doctors and Grandfathers, ●●ther, O●colampadius, Peter Martyr, Ochinus, or to come nearer home, what would Scory of Hereford, Bartlet of Bath and Wells', Friar Bale, and others have said thereunto? Might not Bears as soon be brought to the stake, as these men again to their Monasteries to do penance? And yet if they had been in Spain at that time, this Spanish discipline would have brought them back, which M. Barlow in general saith, that his Church holdeth also: but when i● cometh to the particular, I doubt not but he will go from his word again: and therefore I will stand no longer upon this point, though many other examples might be alleged.  
There remaineth only then now for the conclusion of this Chapter, to see and weigh the comparisons that may be made between this Oath of fidelity of the Spanish subjects unto their King Sisenandus (the keeping whereof is so earnestly recommended by this Council) and this other English Oath of Allegiance, required by his Majesty, wherein I said I found no more parity or semblance, but as that was an Oath of civil Obedience to their temporal Prince, so is this also in some clauses, and therefore as the Council did well allow, yea much recommend and incharge the keeping of that Oath to King Sisenand●●: so do all good Catholics desire the observation of the foresaid clauses contained in this Oath, so far forth, as they concern the said temporal obedience. But this doth not prove that any such form of Oath as this new Oath is, was there prescribed or decreed, either quoad for●●●, or quoad materiam. For as for the form, I find no particular form set down or decreed in the Council, as hath been said, but only an admonition to keep the Oath before taken, with an earnest dehortation, & commination against all perfidious conspiring or rebelling against their King, which we most willingly also agree unto. And as for the matter and subject of the Oath it is clear, 
The difference between the Oath of the Council of Toledo & the English oath of pretended Allegiance.  that, that was of temporal obedience only, and had no such clauses against the authority of the Bishop of Rome, as this hath: nor can it be imagined with any probability that if any such thing had been proposed by K. ●isenandus to that Council, that they would have hearkened unto it, and much less agreed, and subjecteth themselves to ●ake it, or allowed it to others, to be either proposed or taken.  
Well then, what saith M. Barlow to this conclusion? Certes he seeketh so say many things, but so far from the purpose, that he truly may be said to say nothing. He setteth down clauses of my speech, with his answers thus. First, quoth I, there is no particular form of an oath put down in the Council and consequently this new form could not be taken from that. He answereth; Can an oath be kept which was not first taken? But what is this to the purpose: for the question is not, whether the Spaniards did take an Oath to their King or not, for that is granted, but whether the form of the oath were like to this of ours. And yet as though he had answered to the purpose he goeth forward to prove that an Oath was taken. It appears (saith he) in the Canon i● self, that all of them had taken an 〈◊〉 the State decreed it, 
Barl. pag. 220.  the subjects of all sorts took is, the 〈◊〉 enjoined the inviolable performance thereof. So then an oath there was● that is without question, and a form it ●ad, i● not set down i● 〈◊〉 Council what is that to the point? 
Very wise spoken.  Truly Sir nothing at all: as is neither this your proving of that which is not denied, but it had been much to the point to prove that, that form and this form had been a like, and so the one confirmed by the other, which you attempt not at all to do. And yet I pray thee good Reader, see here how he braggeth immediately. Sufficiently (saith he) hath the Apolog●● evicted what he would to prove that the oath of Allegiance amongst 〈◊〉 is no such strange thing, having a precedent in like kind confirmed by divers councils, about a thousand years sithence.  
But I would demand of M. Barlow, what was the question between us? Was it whether there were ever any oath of Allegiance to temporal Princes allowed, or taken in the Christian world before this of ours? For if this were the question, then hath he sufficiently evicted his purpose, by showing that so long ago an oath of Allegiance was allowed in the Council of Toledo. But if this was not the question, but only whether there was a like Oath to this in form or matter allowed in the Council of Toledo, then hath M. Barlow evicted nothing, but his own disgrace, for that he hath run quite from the purpose.  
And yet to seem to say somewhat, he returneth again afterward to speak of the form, and matter of this oath, recommended in the Council of Toledo. And first he showeth, that albeit the form be not expressed in the Council, yet must it be presumed to have been made in the name of God, as is commanded in Deuteronomy the 6. But this is very general. Then he setteth down a certain Protestation made by the Bishops, and Archbishops in the sixth Council of Toledo, for the temporal safety of their Prince, in these words: Ideo testamur 〈◊〉 Deo, & omni ordine Angelorum etc. Therefore we do testify, before God● and all the orders of Angels, as also● before the choir of holy Prophets, and Apostles, and of all Martyrs, and before the whole Catholic Church, and congregation of Christians, that no man intend the destruction of the King, that no man attempt any thing against the life of the Prince, that no man deprive him of the government of the Kingdom, that no man by tyrannical presumption usurp unto himself the height of his Kingdom, that no man by any machination in his adversity do associate unto him the assistance of Conspirators; 
Concil. ●. Tolet.  and if any man shall presume to attempt any of these things, let him be strooken with our Curse, and be condemned to everlasting judgement without any hope of remedy.  
Here now M. Barlow triumpheth, 
A fond triumph of M. Barlow before the victory.  and saith, that this is a form of an oath prescribed, and therefore I have lost my credit, that denied the same (in the 4. Council.) Whereto first I answer, that this is rather a protestation of the Council, a commination, or threatening to others as appeareth by the punishment appointed, them any form of an oath, either taken by themselves or prescribed to others. And secondly I say, that this is so far different from the form of our new oath of Allegiance, now exacted as nothing can be more; which every man will see by comparing them together: for I hope M. Barlow will not allow the invocation of Angels, prophets, Apostles & Martyrs called for witnesses, as here is used: and so the forms are nothing like, nor is this an Oath made to the King. But let us see somewhat more of this matter.  
He allegeth my exception, that the Oath in the Council confirmed, was an Oath of civil Allegiance only, which neither the Catholics refuse, now Pope Paulus doth prohibit. Against which he maketh a long idle discourse, that the same things are contained in the one, and the other Oath, as the safety of the King, the preservation of his life and Crown, and the like. Which though in some part it be acknowledged to be true (and in this we have no difficulty to agree with him:) yet is not this only sought in the new Oath, but the denial also of the Pope's authority. Or if M. Barlow will contend, that this of the Prince's safety, is only sought: 
The Council of Toledo would never have allowed of the new Oath.  we answer, that at least it is not sought by good and lawful means, but by such as the Council of Toledo would never have yielded unto, if their King Sis●●dus should have demanded them such an Oath, with such and so many exceptions against the Pope's authority, whereof in that Oath M. Barlow shall not find one, although he search and sister it never so narrowly, and therefore all that hitherto he hath said, is nothing to the purpose.  
There remaineth then only the last clause to be examined, whether the said Council of Toledo did provide even for the particular point of Equivocation, as the Apol●g●● said, & I in my answer denied, that there was any mention of Equivocation in that Council, but only a reprehension of lying and perfidious dealing; which M. Barlo● coming now to treat, confesseth that there is no mention indeed thereof, but that lying and Equivocating is all one, 
About Equivocation very ignorantly by M. Barlow confounded with lying.  which is to raise up again an old contention, that passed between M. Morton and me, wherein I presume to have made so evident demonstration, that lying and Amphilology or doubtful speech (by others called Equivocation) are far different things, and cannot stand together (and much less are all one,) as no man though ●f very mean capacity can but see the same; though malice doth not suffer M. Barlow to confess it. To which effect I have alleged many proofs out of the nature and definition, both of the one, and the other, many examples out of the holy Scriptures, out of the old & new Testament, the authority of sundry ancient Fathers, the practice of many Saints, the consent of Schoolmen, and other like proofs, which M. Barlow having read and well pondered, should have confuted, or at least some of them in this place, before he had cast himself anew into M. Mortons' absurdities, by affirming again with him, that menda●i●● and Amphibologia, lying and Equivocating is all one.  
But he doth not only this, but he runneth also to find out certain Synonimons of different sounds, of the same sense, in the North and South of England, as for example. Takers in the North, do signify thieves in the So●th, 〈◊〉 used women in the North are called wh●res (as he saith) in the south: 
* An immodest example used by M. Barlow.  fit examples for his invention. But all is impertinent: for we do not hold that mendacium & Equi●ocatio are Sy●●●i●a, but quite different things. For a lie, as largely hath been han●ed against M. Morton, is when any false thing is uttered, contrary to the knowledge of the utterer; but he that doth Equivocate, 
The difference between Equivocation & lying.  doth always speak truth in his own sense and meaning, though the hearer do conceive another meaning, for that the speaker reserved somewhat in his mind, which he uttereth not: & this thing is so ordinary, & evident in the speeches both of the ancient Prophets and Apostles, and of Christ our Saviour himself, as M. Barlow, and M. Morton laying their heads together, will never be able to answer the multitude of examples by me alleged in that behalf; which appeareth sufficiently, both by that M. Morton in his late Reply, pretermitted them all, and durst not as much as take them in hand to answer; and the like doth M. Barlow here, but only that this later, as more temerarious, runneth into other absurdities, showing indeed, not to understand well the state of the question or nature of the thing itself. For thus he describeth Equivocation & lying. 
A gross lie of M. Barlow.  When a man, saith he, speaketh any thing contrary to that he thinketh in his mind, Equivocare est (say the jesuits) mentiri est, saith the M. of Sentences. Whereas notwithstanding, every learned man knoweth that both the jesuits, and others that write of this matter do agree with the M. of Sentences in this point. For whosoever speaketh contrary to that which in his mind he thinketh, it is a lie, & no Equivocation, for he that doth Equivocate, must always have a true sense in his own meaning, which he cannot have, who doth speak contrary to that which in his mind he thinketh.  
Then goeth he forward in his declaration, saying: 
Barl. pag. 226.  The principal difference which they make is in their purpose, for that they do it not with an intent to deceive, but only to defend themselves: and then as though this supposed ground were true, he goeth forward to show upon the same, that a good intention is not sufficient, to justify the doing of that which is evil: but this principal difference seemeth to be a principal ignorance in M. Barlow, 
M. Barlowes principal ignorance.  showing that he doth not understand indeed wherein we do put the principal difference between lying and equivocating, which is not in the purpose and intention of the speaker, as he saith, but partly in the thing itself uttered, to wit, that it be really true, in the sense, and meaning of the utterer: and then in the quality of the hearer, whether he be a lawful judge, and thereby may oblige the speaker, to speak to his intention, and other such circumstances, which are largely handled in my foresaid book, and not understood as it seemeth, or not read by M. Barlow, which me thinks he ought to have done, meaning to treat of this matter here. And so I shall pass no further therein, but refer him & the Reader, to the larger Treatise of that subject already extant.  

CARDINAL BELLARMINE is cleared from a false imputation: and a controversy about certain words & clauses in the Oath is discussed. § II.  
AFTER this M. Barlow passeth to a point concerning Cardinal Bellarmine, set down in the Apology in these words: Some of such Priests and Jesuits as were the greatest traitors & fomentours of the greatest conspiracies against her late Majesty gave up F. Robert Bellarmine for one of their greatest authorities and oracles. So saith the Apologer, & noteth in the margin, Campian & Hart in their conference in the Tower. This was noted by me in my Letter, as an unjust charge, both in respect of the two men mentioned in the margin, who were most free from being traitors, and much more the greatest Traitors: excepting only their Priestly functions most injuriously made Treasons, against all truth & equity, as abundantly else where hath been proved; but much more in respect of Cardinal Bellarmine, who was not so m●ch as named, by any of them in any matter tending to Treason, or conspiracy towards the late Queen; and therefore if he were by any of them named or mentioned, it was in matter only of learning, not of Treasons, and conspiracies, which M. Barlow is also forced here to confess, 
M. Barlowes childish imputations against Cardinal Bellarmine.  and saith that it was meant in matters of the Conference in the Tower: but every man of judgement will see what the words of the former charge do import, and how far they reach, which M. Barlow considering, he dareth not stand to his first refuge, but addeth, that Bellarmine in his Book which English Priests do study, doth teach such doctrine as is the ground of rebellions: he blows (saith he) the bellows of seditious doctrine, which flames out by his scholars conspiracy, to the disturbance of the chiefest States of Christendom. 
Barl. pag. 230.  But this now men will see how passionate, and untrue it is, that the chiefest States of Christendom are disturbed by Cardinal Bellarmine's doctrine: I do not mean to stand upon the confutation of so childish imputations.  
There followeth a certain small controversy, about the words temperate, and tempered, whether they signify the same or no: whereof we have handled somewhat before, & so shall dispatch it here in a word. Cardinal Bellarmine had said in his Letter to M. Blackwell, that this Oath is not therefore lawful because it is offered as tempered, and modified, with divers clauses of civil Obedience, giving an example out of S. Gregory Nazianzen of the Ensigns of the Emperor julian, wherein the Images of the Heathen Gods were mingled and conbyned together with the Emperor's Picture, and thereby so tempered & modified, as a man could not adore the one without the other. Which speech of the Cardinal was much reprehended by the Apologer, as though Bellarmine had misliked the temperate speech uttered in the form of this oath. But that was no part of Bellarmine's meaning, but that the said Oath was tempered, mixed, and compounded of different clauses, some lawful, and some unlawful, as a man would say, mortar is tempered with water, sand, & lime: and this appeareth by his example of the Ensigns before mentioned tempered, that is, mixed with the images of the Emperors, and their false Gods. And if M. Bar●●● will needs have this temperament to have also with it some temperature, which is his only reply now in this place, we will not greatly strive with him. Let it be esteemed to be some temperature, that here are mingled some clauses of civil obedience, with other concerning Religion, it helpeth the mixture, but not the scruple of conscience to him that must take it.  
I pretermit all the rest of M. Barlows superfluous and idle speech about this matter, as striving to say somewhat, but yet in substance saith nothing. It followeth in my Letter, concerning the answering of two questions proposed by the Apologer, wherein I shall repeat again my own words then uttered: thus than I wrote. That the Apologer having said with great vehemency of asseveration, 
Let pag. 43 num. 24.  That heaven and earth are no further a sunder, than the profession of a Temporal Obedience, to a Temporal King, is different from any thing belonging to the Catholic faith, or Supremacy of S. Peter (which we grant also, if it be mere Temporal Obedience without mixture of other clauses:) he proposeth presently two questions for application of this to his purpose. 
Two questions proposed & solved.  First this: As for the Catholic Religion (saith he) can there be one word found in all this Oath, tending to matter of Religion? The second thus: Doth he that taketh it, promise to believe, or not to believe any article of Religion? Whereunto I answer first to the first, and then to the second. To the first, that if it be granted, that power & authority of the Pope, and Sea Apostolic left by Christ, for governing his Church in all occasions and necessities, be any point belonging to Religion among Catholics, then is there not only some own word, but many sentences, yea ten or twelve articles, or branches therein, tending and sounding that way, as before hath been showed.  
To the second question, may make answer every clause in effect of the Oath itself. 
Clauses of belief or not belief in the Oath.  As for example the very first: ay A. B. do truly, & sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, & declare in my conscience, that the Pope neither of himself, nor by any authority of the Sea or Church of Rome, hath any power & authority etc. doth not this include either belief or unbelief? Again: I do further swear, that I do from my hart abhor, detest, & abjure, as impious & heretical, that damnable doctrine, & position, That Princes which be excommunicated, and deprived by the Pope, may be deposed etc. Doth not here the swearer promise, not to believe that doctrine which he so much detesteth? How then doth the Apologer so grossly forget, and contradict himself, even then, when he goeth about to prove contradictions in his Adversary?  
It followeth consequently in the Oath: 
Pag. 12.  And I do believe, and in conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever, hath power to absolve me from this Oath, or any part thereof. These words are plain as you see. And what will the Apologer say here? Is nothing promised in those words to be believed, or not believed?  
This was my speech. And now see what quarrel M. Barlow seeketh against it. First whereas in my answer to the first question, I say, if it be granted, that the power and authority of the Pope, and Sea Apostolic &c. be any point belonging to religion among Catholics, then is there not only some one word, but many sentences concerning Religion in the Oath. What answereth M. Barlow? This Epistler (saith he) doth impudently impugn the Oath as utterly unlawful, and against religion, which yet dependeth upon an If, 
Barl. pag. ●33.  and is not yet determined for a point of religion, that the Pope hath any such authority over Kings, as in the Oath is mentioned. No Sir? not among catholics? (for of them only I speak, though you leave it out, and do many ways corrupt my words:) Will not they grant the Pope's authority in such cases to be a point belonging to their Religion? 
M. Barlowes caviling.  Doth the word If put the matter in doubt, that when you say, If there be a God, this or that is true or false, you may be said to doubt, whether there be a God or no? And when you say, If I be a true man, this is so, you may be thought to doubt, whether yourself be a true man or no? Do not you see that this is plain cavilling indeed, and not disputing? But what more? You say that when I do affirm the Pope's power, I do not distinguish whether in Ecclesiastical or civil causes: but you know well enough that I have often distinguished, and so do other Catholic Divines, that the Pope's authority is directly only Ecclesiastical and spiritual, for governing and directing of souls to everlasting life; though indirectly for conservation of this Ecclesiastical, and Spiritual end, there is annexed also Temporal, in such cases, as before hath been specified, concerning temporal Princes. And so this is but a shift to say, that I do not distinguish.  
As that is also another, about my answer to the second demand of the Apologer, where he demandeth whether any man that taketh the Oath, doth promise to believe, or not to believe any one article of religion, contained in the said Oath. For answer whereunto, I did set down sundry clauses of the said Oath, whereby it seemeth plain, that the swearer doth make such promise. Now you reply with this new shift, saying, that I do still beg the question in controversy. So you talk to seem to say somewhat. But what is the question in controversy? Is it not whether the swearer doth make promise to believe, or not to believe any article of religion, in taking the Oath? Yes. And I have proved that he doth so, by divers examples. How then do I beg the question, when I do evince it by proof? You reply, that these articles abjured, or allowed by him that takes the Oath, 
Barl. pag. 234.  concerning the Pope's authority, are not points of ●aith, but rather Machiavelismes of the Conclave. But this now is railing, and not reasoning, for that a Catholic conscience holdeth the doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, 
Machiavels' principles agree better to Protestant's doctrine than to the Catholic.  and all points belonging thereunto, for matters appertaining to faith & Catholicisme, and not to Machiavelisme, which Machiavelisme agreeth much more fitly to M. Barlows assertions, that depend on the pleasures of Prince & State, alteration of times, and temporal utilities (whereof Machiavelli was a great Doctor,) then to the simple positions of Catholics, who without these worldly respects, do plainly and sincerely embrace and believe, all such points of doctrine as the known Catholic Church doth deliver unto them, as any way appertaining to the integrity of Catholic Religion.  
here then M. Barlow being driven from his refuge of my begging the question, layeth hand upon another, much more ridiculous, in my opinion: for it is somewhat like the Sermon of the Parish Priest to his Parishioners, which he divided into three parts; 
M. Barlow understandeth not himself.  the one, that he understood, and not they; the other that they understood, and not he; the third, that neither of them both understood: and the third part seemeth to be our case now: for as I confess, that I do not conceive well, what M. Barlow would say, so I have reason to suspect that himself also can hardly explain his own meaning, or at least wise, he doth it not so here, as the Reader may easily understand the same. His words are these: This censurer is an absurd disputant, still to beg the Question, as if these articles abjured or allowed were points of ●aith etc. This you have heard answered now: there followeth the other member: Or as if (saith he) belief were used every where theologically, and that a Christians belief should always be taken for his Christian belief: 
Barl. pag. 234.  ●or there is a natural belief, the Objects whereof are natural and civil things, such as in this Oath etc. So he. And did not I tell you, that you should have mysteries? 
M. Barlow his silly distinction.  A Christians belief, is not always a Christian belief, but a natural belief; the good man would have holpen himself, with the School-mens distinction, of fides divina & fides ●umana, divine & human faith, if he could have hit upon it, but yet wholly from the purpose if he had found it out: nay quite contrary to himself. For I would ask, what faith or belief, divine or human, Christian or naturally did the Apologer mean in his demand? Whether he that taketh the oath, do promise to believe, or not to believe, any article of Religion? Did not he mean divine faith, or Theological belief? It cannot be denied: for that the object being articles of Religion, as here is said, which are not believed but by divine faith, as they are such; it followeth, that in this question, the Apologer ma●e his demand of Christian belief, and not only of a Christians belief, yea of Theological belief, and not of natural belief, that is to say of human belief: & so conform to this his question were the clauses of my answer, I do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my conscience etc. And again, I do further swear, that I do from my hart abhor, dete●t, and abjure, as impious doctrine etc. And yet further, I do believe, and am in conscience resolved etc. And is not all this belief in Conscience, out of Conscience, and for Conscience, and of things belonging to Catholic Religion, to be understood of Christian and Theological belief, but natural only? Who would write so absurdly, but M. Barlow, who seemeth not to understand what he writeth?  
And that this may be better understood, I am minded to say a word or two more of this matter. He maketh a distinction here as you see, between natural, and Theological belief, adding for his reason, that the Objects of natural faith, are natural and civil things, and that such are the articles contained in the Oath, 
M. Barlowes gross error in Philosophy.  aiming as before hath been said, at the distinction of divine and human faith. But he is grossly deceived, in that he distinguisheth these two faiths, or beliefs, by their material objects, and things believed, contrary to the general consent of all Philosophers and Divines, who do hold, that o●●es actus specificantur ab obiectis formalibus, that all acts are specified by their formal objects, and not by their material, which may be the same in acts of different nature, and consequently cannot distinguish them: and so in our present purpose, these two faiths or beliefs are not distinguished, for that the one hath natural and civil things for her objects, and the other supernatural. For that as well human, and natural faith, may both have natural, and supernatural things for her objects, as also divine and Theological faith may have the same.  

Divine & human faith wherein they are distinguished.  As for example, when a man believeth that there is a City called Constantinople, for that many men do report it: and when a Pagan believeth that there is a God, for that some learned Philosopher hath told him so, to whom he giveth credit; here both natural, and supernatural things are objects of human, and natural faith. And so on the contrary side, if a man should believe natural, and civil things as revealed by God in his Scriptures, or otherwise; as that Cayn killed his brother; Matth●salem lived so long, and the like; these things should be objects of Thologicall and divine faith, as well as if they were in themselves supernatural. Wherefore these two faiths and beliefs, are not distinguished by their material objects, be they either natural or supernatural, but by their formal objects or motives; non per res creditas, sed per rationes credendi, as Schoolmen say, not by the things that are believed, but by the motives and causes, for which they are believed: so as whatsoever is believed upon any human motive or authority, though in itself it be supernatural, appertaineth to human faith, and not divine; so likewise on the contrary side, whatsoever is believed upon divine motives and authority, and as revealed from God, though in itself, it be natural, and civil, as M. Barlow calleth it: yet doth it appertain to Theological and divine faith, as an object thereof. But these things it is like M. Barlow hath no commodity to study, and therefore I would easily pardon him these rude and gross escapes, if he did not show himself so insolent in vaunting, as he doth, and so contumelious against others that know more than himself.    

WHETHER PRINCES HAVE JUST CAUSE TO FEAR MURDERING by the commandment of Popes. And in discussing of the particular example produced by the Apologer, concerning the fame, great fraud and malice is discovered in M. Barlowes falsifying of Authors etc. CHAP. III.  
IN the page 86. of my Letter, I do handle a certain speech of Cardinal Bellarmine in his letter to the Archpriest, wherein he saith, that neither his majesty of England, nor any Prince else hath cause to fear violence from the Pope, for that it was never heard o● from the Church's infancy, vn●il this day, that any Pope did command, that any Prince, though an heretic, though an Ethnic, though a persecutor, should be murdered, or did allow of the murder, when it was done by another. Thus the Cardinal. Against which was objected, that Popes had deprived divers Princes, and had raised great wars against others, and that in war was contained the casualty of killing in like manner. But this was answered, that the question was of murdering. Now what reply think you maketh M. Barlow? First he bringeth in a long idle discourse to show that according to Homer, and other Poets, & politic Historians, Princes ought to go always armed, and vigilant for their safety; and then he maketh this demand: 
The Pop● never commanded any Prince to be murdered.  What difference is there between personal murdering of Princes, & raising war against them, the lot whereof is common and unpartial? Thirdly he bringeth in my answer as saying, that though the Pope hath waged war against Princes: yet he never caused any to be unlawfully murdered. Wherein, 
Bar●. pag. 217.  saith he the adverb is worth the observing, secretly implying, that the Pope hath commanded, or may command Princes to be murdered, but not unlawfully. Wherein he showeth himself to be a mere calumniator: for that I speaking divers times of this matter, did never join the adverb unlawfully with the word murdered; but in one place only I said thus: that albeit Popes upon just causes, have waged wars against divers Princes, yet they never caused any to be unlawfully made away, murdered, or allowed of their murders committed by others. Where you see the adverb unlawfully is not joined with the word murdered, but with the words made away.  
And the like corruption of my words, and perverting my sense, he useth afterward in the same page, with intolerable iniquity, making me to say that which was far from my meaning, concerning the wars between pope's and Prince's; and it is his general fashion, never commonly to recite my words with sincerity. 
Barl. pag. 239.  But he goeth forward to prove, that Popes do command murders of Princes, saying: 
Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 6. §. ex quo  Were there no example of fact extant against the Popes in this kind: yet they may command Princes to be killed, is Bellarmine's own doctrine, both Symbolical as the spirit may command the flesh to ●asting and chastisement, yea even 〈◊〉 death itself, i● the spirit s●e it necessary: and Positive also, for that Christians may not suffer an Infidel or heretical King to reign over them. So he. And out of these two arguments doth prove that Popes do, or may command Princes to be murdered. But who doth not see the folly of these arguments, which can move nothing but laughter, or stomach? For albeit B●llarmine do teach that the spirit in a man may punish the flesh by fasting and chastisement, where it is necessary for the souls health (and I could wi●h that M. Barlow had some of this spirit:) yet may he not kill himself, or punish his body unto death, 
M. Barlow falsifyeth Bellarmine.  as M. Barlow falsifyeth him, but cum detrimento aliquo, & debilitation ipsius corporis, though it be with some loss and weakness of the said body. True it is, that in another case of Martyrdom, Bellarmine teacheth that the spirit may command the flesh to yield itself up to the persecutor, for defence of Christian faith: but this is not our question. So as in this first point M. Barlow is found to falsify: & in the second, to make a foolish consequence, that for so much as Christian men may not tolerate in some cases an Infidel Prince etc. therefore they must murder him; as though there were no other remedy but murder: these are odious inferences, fit for such a spirit as M. Barlowes, who notwithstanding meaneth not to murder himself by the severity of Bellarmine's doctrine, whom he falsely affirmeth to teach, that the spirit may subdue the flesh, by fasting and other chastisements, yea even unto death, nor yet to debilitate his body thereby, according to Cardinal Bellarmine's true doctrine.  
Another argument of the Pope's murders is made to be, for that he is said to have commanded the body of Henry the 4. Emperor of that name, that died excommunicated in Liege upon the year 1106. to be taken out again of his sepulchre, and thereof he inferreth, that if the Pope would use such rage against a dead body, much more against alive. But this argument holdeth no more, though the matter were true, as here it is alleged, than the former, for that many things are done against Prince's bodies when they are dead, which would not be attempted in their life tyme. Who will not confess this to be true? 
M. Barlows foolish consequence.  But let us leave the consequent, & consider the antecedent: two things are avouched by the Apologer pag. 65. first, that the Pope (which was then Paschal is the second) was enraged at the young Emperor Henry the fi●th, for giving burial to his father's body, when it was dead, in the City of Leodium or Liege. The second was, that the Pope had stirred up the said son Emperor against his Father. and for both these points were cited in the margin as witnesses, Platina and Cuspinian in their Histories.  
To which I answered in my Letter, 
Lett. p. 87.  that Platina had no such matter, & that Cuspinian had the contrary, to wit, that when Henry the Father was dead and buried in a monastery at Liege, his son would not make peace with the Bishop of that place, called Otbert, except the dead body were pulled out of the grave again, as it was, and so remained for five years. This I answered to the first point, about the exhumation of the body, 
Na●e. part 2. gen. ●7. in anno 11●6. Crā●●. l. 5. histor. Saxon. c. 24.  by the enraged son against his father, for taking arms against him again, after that with common consent he had resigned the Empire unto him: and for more proof of this, I cited two authors more, to wit, Nauclerus and Crantzius in their histories, that affirm the same.  
To this now M. Barlow in his reply, saith first never a word unto the silence of Platina, nor to the testimonies of Nauclerus & Crantzius, but passeth slily to prove another matter, that we deny not, to wit, that the body of the elder Henry was taken out of the grave again at Liege, 
M. Barlow i● 〈◊〉 where he 〈◊〉 ●●●were.  after it was buried, but by whom or whose commandment either of the Pope Paschalis, then living, or of his Son Henry, that lay near by with an army, that he proveth not, which is the only point he should have proved, to wit, that by order of the Pope the dead corpse had been tak●n out of the grave. I have for the contrary besides the Authors before alleged, the manifest authority of Vrspergensis who lived and wrote in that time, and might be present perhaps at t●e fact, relating the matter how after that the death of Henry the 4. was known to his son & to all the Bishops, and Archbishops that were there with him, and that notwithstanding he died excommunicate, his body was buried by the B. of Liege, that had followed also his part; the said young Emperor, and Bishops would not admit the said Bishop of Liege unto their communion (though he most earnestly offered himself) but with condition that he should both do penance, 
Henry the 4. not unburied by Pope Pascalis.  and besides that, take out of the sepulchre again the buried body of the said Emperor, which contrary to the Canons of the Church he had buried the day before: his words are these: Leod●ensis autem Episcopus etc. But the B. of Liege, and other Bishops who had followed the part of Henry the 4. were received into communion to do penance with this condition, that they should take forth of the grave the dead corpses of the said excommunicate Henry, which they had buried in a Monastery the day before. So he. And the same word pridie, the day before, hath not only Vrspergensis, but also Nauclerus, 
Naucl. l. 2. gen. 37.  which doth evidently convince, that this exhumation could not be commanded by the Pope Paschalis, that lived at Rome, and could not be advertised of the death of the Emperor Henry, and of his burial so soon; and much less give order for his taking up again within the compass of 3. or 4. days, if there were so many between his death, and his burial.  
To this I do add the manifest and perspicuous testimony of Huldericus Mutius in the 16. book of his German Chronicle, 
〈◊〉 a Lutheran.  who speaking of the admitting to favour of the foresaid Bishop of Liege and his people, saith: Leodienses noluit recipere, nisi e●●ossum Genitoris sui cadaver abijcerent in locum quempiam ubi solent mortua pecora loca●i. Henry the younger would not receive into grace those of Liege, except they would cast out the dead body of his Father, into some place where dead beasts are wont to be cast: and this not so much for religion, saith the same Author, as for deep hatred, that he had conceived against his said Father. By all which is seen, that not the Pope, but the young Emperor, and the Bishops & Archbishops, that were with him, having stood against the old Emperor, and his followers, and excommunicated the same, were the cause why the body was taken up again.  
But now let us see how M. Barlow doth seek to establish the contrary, 
M. Barlows clouted frauds in his black cloud of witness.  to wit, that he was digged out of his grave by commandment of the Pope, for in this he laboureth much, and allegeth for show thereof, some 5. or 6. authorities of different Authors, calling them a cloud of witnesses. For digging up, saith he, the dead body out of his grave, that is compassed with a whole cloud of witnesses. But if in all this cloud, we find nothing in manner, but clouted frauds, and that no one of them hath passed his hands without corruption, then may you call it a black cloud indeed.  
First then let us examine the two Authors already alleged for our cause, to wit Vrspergensis and Nauclerus, cited here in his margin, for that he will have them to prove the quite contrary of that, for which I produced them before. And as for Vrspergensis, he citeth his words thus: The Bishop of Liege with other of his sort were received into the communion of the Church (who cast them out but the Pope?) upon condition they would dig out of the grave the corpse of the Emperor, which he had before buried in the Monastery. So he relateth the words of Vr●ergensis in a different letter, as though they were punctually his, which indeed they are not, but accommodated by M. Barlow, 
M. Barlow pareth and minceth Authors to his purpose.  with some paring and mincing to his purpose. For whereas Vrspergensis saith, that the Bishop of Liege, and his fellow Bishops inter caetera recipiuntur in commu●●nem poenitentiae, were received among other conditions, to the communion of penance, M. Barlow thought good to leave out the word penance: as also, where he saith cadaver i●siu● excommunicati, the dead corpse of the excommunicate Emperor, which did yield the reason of their digging up, M. Barlow left out also the word excommunicate.  
But of much more moment was his leaving out the word pridie, when he saith the body of the excommunicate Emperor buried by him the day before in the Monastery should be digged up, for by that he striketh of the head of the strongest argument that is against him, as be●ore we have showed. For if the Emperor were buried but one day before his exhumation was commanded, then could not that commandment come from the Pope, but m●st needs come from the Emperor & Bishops there present. here than is found fraud in M. Barlow his allegation; and to publish the same more, he would needs use the word BEFORE BURIED in great letters, 
M. Barlow showeth himself a falsificator in capital Letter's.  as though they had well expressed pridie tumulatum, buried the day before. But here perhaps some will demand, suppose this narration of V●spergensis were granted to be true, as M. Barlow setteth it down, how doth it prove that the Pope commanded the exhumation? Whereunto he answereth here by a certain demand, in a parenthesis, Who cast them out (to wit those of Liege) but the Pope? Whereunto I answer that the Bishops and Archbishops that were with the new Emperor, had excommunicated them long before, and the Emperor himself had given out against them the Imperial band, which is a civil excommunication: which besides that it is evident by the testifications of Histories, is made clear also by that they received them into communion, presently upon the death of the old Emperor, without imparting the matter to the Pope, which they would not have done, if the excommunication had not come from themselves: For that no man can take away, that which he could not impose. And so here is nothing proved against the Pope, but a great good will to calumniate him.  
The like fraud is committed in the allegation of the other Author Naucle●us, who, saith M. Barlow, relateth verbatim both the fact, and the reason of the fact, as Vrspergensis doth. Whereunto I answer, that it is true, that he relateth both; but the one and the other are perverted by M. Barlow: for thus writeth Nauclerus. Inopinata fama mortis Im●eratoris mox subsequitur etc. The unexpected fame of the death of the old Emperor did presently ensue, which being divulged, all those that for gayne-sake had stuck unto him, and had sold their souls unto him, did subject themselves sine mora, without delay unto the obedience of the young Emperor, and to the Catholic communion. But they of Liege were received into the said Communion, with this condition, that the dead body of him that was excommunicated, and buried the day before in a monastery, should be digged up etc.  
In relating which words, we see that M. Barlow left out first the censure of the Author against them, that had followed the part of the old excommunicated Emperor. And secondly he leaveth out, that they were reconciled to the new Emperor, and to the Catholic communion of the Bishops there present sine mora, without any stay, which inferreth that they could not send for the Pope's consent to Rome. Thirdly, he leaveth out as he did in his former Author the words, 
M. Barlow trimmeth Authors to make them against their will's & contrary to that they write to speak for him.  per se pridie tumulatum ●ff●derent, that they of Liege should dig up again the body, which the day before they had buried. Fourthly, he leaneth out these words that ensued, comprobātibu● his qui aderant Archiepiscopis & Episcopis, the Archbishops and Bishops that were present approving and giving their consents. To whom? To the new Emperor that would needs have it so: which delivereth the Pope from having any part therein. And doth not M. Barlow trim up Authors well that pass through his hands to make them serve his purpose?  
But now you must hear the trimming of another, which is Cuspinian the Historiographer, whom I denied before, to affirm that Pope Paschalis was enraged with the new Emperor Henry the fifth, for burying his Father, as was said in the Apology, 
Lett. p. 87.  but rather the contrary. For that when King Henry the Father (said I) was dead, and buried in a Monastery at Liege, Cuspinian writeth, that his Son would not make peace with the Bishop of that place, called Otbert, except the dead corpses were pulled out of the grave again: which words he saith, that I alleged as Cuspinian his own words. But I deny it, but only I alleged his sense, as may appear in that I did not recite them in a different letter, as is accustomed by them that deal plainly, when the proper words of any Author are alleged, though M. Barlow doth not observe this with me, but allegeth as my words, every where commonly in a different letter, those which are not my words, 
M. Barlowes perfidious dealing in alleging F. Persons words.  nor often times my sense, but either framed of himself, or so interlaced with speeches of his own, as that it is a quite different thing from that which I do say. Let the Reader examine but some few places, as they come, conferring his book, and my book together, and he shall see, that I have good reason to make this complaint of his perfidious dealing therein. But now to the present case.  
M. Barlow affirmeth that the latin words of Cuspidate are, Filio procurante, non potuit reconciliari Episcopus Leodiensis, nisi exhumaretur cadaver, by the sons procurement the Bishop of Liege could not be reconciled, except the dead body were taken out of the ground again. Out of which words I did infer, that the Bishop of Liege could not be reconciled to the other Bishops, but upon condition, that the body should be taken up, and this at the procurement of the young Emperor. And for so much, as his reconciliation with the said Bishops did imply also his reconciliation with the Emperor, he that letted the one, letted the other, which was the young Emperor himself, who though himself would not for respects (the Bishop being a potent man) utterly deny to admit his submission; yet did he procure the stay thereof by others (to wit, by the Archbishops and Bishops) until he had yielded unto the condition of taking up the dead body, & consequently the thing is true, which I alleged out of Cuspinian that the young Emperor would not make peace with the Bishop of Liege except the body were taken up; for so much as himself was he, that had letted that reconciliation, as here appeareth, and procured also as may be supposed the great reprehension which was given to the said Bishop and his company, when they were admitted, whereof Crantzius speaketh when he saith, ad fidem Regis confugientes graviter increpati rec●piuntur, 
Crantz. l. 5. Hist. cap. 24.  they making their refuge to the protection of the Emperor, they were admitted, but with a grievous reprehension: & this among other causes (no doubt) for having buried the dead body of the Excommunicate Emperor.  
This then being the plain meaning and sense of Cus●●●ian his alleged speech, let us see how M. Barlow doth trim up the same for his turn: 
Barl. pag. 240.  The ●ords of Cuspinian (saith he) are plain, Filio procurante, non potuit reconciliari ●piscopus Leodi●●sis, nisi exh●maretur cadau●r. That is, By the sons procurement, (at whose hands but the Popes? for what needed any procurement by himself to himself?) the Bishop could not be reconciled (to whom but to the Pope, 
M Barlowes notorious lies.  who had accursed both Church and Churchmen at Liege, for burying the Emperor?) except the dead body were taken up again. So M. Barlow. Where you may see, that in this only translation of two latin lines, he hath inserted twice two falsities of his own, against the Authors own sense, & meaning. The first is, that the Emperor had procured the stay of the Bishop's reconciliation at the Pope's hands, which could not be for the brevity of time, and distance of places, as before hath been showed: nor doth it agree with the sense of Cuspinian and other Authors that have the words mox, fine mora, pridie, and the like. The second is in his second interrogation, what needed any procurement by himself to himself? which is a fallacy, for that a man being desirous to stay a suit, & yet not willing to take all the envy upon himself, may procure that the stay may seem to come from others. The third fallacy is in his other demand, to whom could not the Bishop of Liege be reconciled, but to the Pope? Yes to the Archbishops, Bishops and others, out of whose communion he was cast forth before, as now hath been showed. The fourth untruth is, that the Pope had excommunicated both the Church and all Churchmen of Liege, for burying of the Emperor, which cannot be true, as now hath been declared, for that in so short a space as 2. or 3. days, news could not be sent to Rome, and answer be returned; and much less such an Excommunication be sent. And albeit M. Barlow for this last do city Viterbiensis: saying, that he lived in those very times; yet he being an Italiam, & living near ●n hundred years after the fact, might be misinformed. And howsoever it be, the credit of his own relation is not to be matched with that of so many other Authors, and namely of V●spergensis, that lived at the very same time, and with the said two Henry's, the Father and the Son.  
There remain three other Authors cited by M. Barlow, who are Helmoldus in his History of Sclavonia, Sigoni●● in his ninth book De regno Italia, & Binnius in his last edition of the Counsels, all which he citeth to prove this point, that Pope Paschalis did forbid the burial of the dead body of Henry the fourth. But in all this is voluntary fraud, & M. Barlow could not but know it, going about to deceive his Reader by Equivocation in the time. For albeit Pope Paschalis did not, nor had time to forbid the first burial, after the Emperor was d●ad, nor yet commanded the taking up thereof again, as now by many witnesses, and other arguments hath been proved: yet the said body being once taken up, and carried to Spire, and there placed in the Chapel of S. Asra, in sarcophago lapideo saith Cuspinian, in a tomb of stone, where it remained five years, before it was buried solemnly in the Church of our Lady: In this time (I say) the Pope informed perhaps of more of his enormities of life, & not to seem to condemn the fact of so many Archbishops, and Bishops, who had excommunicated him, as among others, Dodechinus Abbas that lived presently after the fact doth testify, and to the terror of others that should live, and die out of the Church in excommunication: for these and other reasons (I say) Pope Paschalis seeing the body placed already in a sacred Chapel, was not easily moved for some time, to have the same solemnly and publicly buried; though at length his Son in respect of his honour, desired and demanded the same.  
But what is this to prove our chief question, whether the said Pope did forbid the first burial, or commanded him to be digged up again, when he was buried? Where is the Cloud of Witnesses that should prove this? 
M. Barlowes cloud of witness 〈◊〉.  No one of these three last alleged doth aver it, no not as M. Barlow corruptly allegeth their words. For out of Helmodus he citeth them thus: Tanta severitate Dominus Papa in ipsum vl●us est, ut humari non sineret: the Pope did pursue him with such severity, as being dead he suffered him not to be buried: which could not be at the first burial, and consequently must be understood of the subsequent time, when he lay in the Chapel of S. Afra.  
I pretermit the sleight of M. Barlow here, laying all upon the Pope alone, 
Helmod. 〈◊〉. l. 1. c. 33.  whereas the Author saith, Papa & 〈◊〉 adversary ciu●, the Pope and other of his adversaries did pursue him, & speaketh still in the plural number. Sigenius also speaketh to the very same effect, that the emperors body lay unburied for five years, in a certain de●art Cell of a Church, Pontifice id sepeliri vetante, the Pope prohibiting the same to be buried: which must needs be understood in like manner of the time ensuing, after the first taking up of the body. And finally Binnius maketh no more to his purpose then the other, but saith the same thing, though he have taken more pains in corrupting him then the rest. For thus ●e relateth him to say: the emperors body being put into the earth, 
Binnius' misconstrued.  hortatu Papa, by the Pope's persuasion it ●a● digged out again, and remained alo●e ground five years. And here you will find a notable patching, to make up a sense without a Verb, and thereby seem to say somewhat, but flying the true words, and contexture indeed, as they lie in the Author, which are these: 
Binnius tom. 3. pag. 13 c 4.  C●m hortatu Papae defuncti & excommunicati cadau●r exhumatum quinque annis insepultum reliquisset anno Domini 1110. Romani pety● etc. Whereas Henry the fifth by persuasion of the Pope had left the dead body of the Excommunicate Emperor, taken out of the grave, unburied for five years, he went upon the year 1110. to Rome etc. By which words we see, that the Pope's persuasion was not to have the dead corpse digged up again, but forsomuch as his Father died in excommunication, & that his body was now taken up, he should leave the same unburied (according to the Canons, for terror of others) and not that he persuaded it to be taken up, as it was in Liege: or this was not possible, as before hath been showed. And why now had not M. Barlow recited the whole sentence, as it lay in Binniu●? Why should he use such nipping & paring in his allegations, but that jugglers must not be seen in all their knacks? If his cause were good, he would not need these shifts.  
And by this also we may discover the foundation of a great many of other impertinent discourses, and assertions which M. Ba●low maketh in this place, both out of Viterbiensis and Baronius, to prove that the Son Emperor was ●ory to have his Father lie unburied, and therefore he allegeth out of Viterbiensis: Filius ossa Patris doluit fore c●● sceleratis, It grieved the Son, that his Father should lie amongst wicked men. Baronius is also alleged to affirm out of Petrus Diaconus (not Paulus, as M. Barlow erroneously, or ignorantly doth name him, for that Petrus, & Paulus Diaconus, were different Authors, and lived long one after another:) Baronius, I say, is affirmed to relate out of the said Petrus, that amongst other points in a certain consultation, between the Pope's Commissioners, and the Emperors, near unto Rome in the year 1110. it was demanded by the Emperor, that his Father's dead body might be interred, and that the Pope denied the same. But neither of these points do make against us, nor in favour of M. Barlow his assertion, for that we deny not, but that Pope Paschalis, for the reasons before touched, was, after some time that the body had been taken up and placed in the Chapel of S. Afra in Spire, unwilling to yield to the solemn, and sumptuous reburyall thereof, the man dying excommunicate, and out of the Church, and the memory of his many violent actions against the Church, being yet fresh in all men's minds. 
The air cleared of M. Barlowes cloud of witnesses.  But what proveth this to our principal controversy, whether the Pope did prohibit his first burial, and commanded his disinterring in Leaguer Do you not see how M. Barlow fighteth in the air with the wind, and runneth from the purpose in every thing he taketh in hand, and yet braggeth of a cloud of witnesses? But I hope I have cleared the air, and dispersed all these smoky clouds.  
But it is worth the considering how besides this deviation, he useth both Baronius, and Petrus Diaconus, in relating out of their testimonies Pope Paschalis his answer to the young Emperor's Commissioners when they proposed the matter, of the solemn burying of his Father some four years after his body had been taken up in Liege, by the said sons commandment. M. Barlow relateth the matter ironic thus. The Pope yielded presently to the demand, with a strong negative, and tells him, it may not be, and gives him his reason, for that he had received a terrible injunction from the Martyrs deceased, and in those places shrined, that he should suffer no wicked persons to be buried within their Church, for they would not endure it. And all this relateth M. Barlow in a different letter as if they were the very words of the Author, 
A common false trick of M. Barlow to set down his own words in a different letter as if they were the words of the Author by him cited.  and divers clauses he setteth out in great letters, which commonly are great lies, and not found in the Author. I shall set down the true words as they stand in Baronius, taken out of Petrus Diaconus. Ad hoc respondit Paschalis etc. To this demand of the Emperor, about the burial of his Father. Pope Paschalis answered: The authority of holy Scripture is against this, and the reverence we bear to divine miracles doth forbid the same, for that Martyrs themselves now placed in heaven have dreadfully commanded, that the carcases of heinous wicked men should be cast out of their chapel's, and with whom we have not had communion in their lives, we may not communicate when they are dead. These are the words of Paschalis verbatim, which M. Barlow hath trimmed to his purpose, as you see. For if he had set them down sincerely as he found them in the Author, they would not have appeared so ridiculous, as he desired they should appear, and therefore spiced them after his own fashion. For first the Pope beginneth not, with that strong negative, It may not be, set down in great letters, but only saith, that the authority of holy Scriptures was against it, alleging, as may be presumed, to th●se places of Scriptures, wherein separation is willed to be made, between the good and the bad, the wicked and godly, especially such are cursed out of the Church for their contempt, and died in the same contempt, according to that saying of our Saviour, si ●cclesiam non audierit, sit tibi tamquam ●thnicus & Pu●licanus: if he hear not the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen, and Publican.  
And we may see by the diligence of Toby, and other holy men, how careful they were least the bodies of the faithful people, should be mingled with Gentiles, which S. Augustine, 
Aug. de Civit. l. 1. cap. 13. & lib. de cura mort. agenda.  and other Fathers do much commend, and for avoiding whereof even from the beginning of Christianity, places of special burial for Christians were provided, as appeareth by S. Dionysius Areopagita in the end of his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which places afterward were named in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, C●emeteria, that is to say dormitories or sleeping places: for that Christians deaths are accounted but for sleeps, appeareth by the Apostle. And the holy Martyr S. Cyprian, 
Cypr. Ep. penultima & Pontius in vita sua Optatus l. ●. contra Parmen. Cyp. ep. 6●.  and others after him do often make mention of these Cemeteries, or burials of Christians: and among other things, the foresaid S. Cyprian writing an Epistle to the Clergy, and people of a certain Church in Spain against one Martialis, that had committed Idolatry, he accuseth him among other points; quod filus apud profana sepulchra depositos, & alienigenis consepultos permisisset: that he had suffered his children to be depositated in profane sepulchres, and to be buried with such as were externes, & not of the same Church and communion.  
This was the care at that time, but much more afterward did the Church by special provision of Ecclesiastical Canons, ordain that Infidels, Heretics, Schismatics, and excommunicated persons, should not be buried together in sacred burial, 
Infidel's, heret●kes, & excommunicated persons, depriu●● of Christian burial.  as well for the instruction and terror of such sorts of men, as also for the reason alleged here by the Pope, that with whom we have had no communion in life, we should not communicate after death: which reason M. Barlow in his plain dealing thought good to leave out, as also the mention of the authority of holy Scripture, named by the Pope, and the reverence due to divine miracles.  
There remaineth then the chief jest, brought in by M. Barlow, of the terrible injunction, which the Pope said he had received from the Martyrs deceased and shrined in those places, that he should suffer no wicked persons, within their Churches, for they would not endure ●t. In which few lines consider I beseech you how many corruptions there be, and confess that M. Barlow is a crafts man indeed. First the Author doth not say that the Pope himself had received this terrible injunction from the Martyrs shrined in those places, as M. Barlow doth, but only that Martyrs now in heaven had so commanded, but by what revelation, or to whom, or when, he saith not: so as it might be many years before, and in far different places that the apparitions had been made. 
Apparitions of Martyrs.  For that Martyrs have often times appeared to good men, and revealed somewhat touching their own or other men's bodies, is evident by all Ecclesiastical histories, whereof we have example of the Saints Geruasius and Protasius, in S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, and others: 
S. Am. seri 5. de sac●is, & l. 7. Ep. ep. 53. & 54. Aug. Confess. 1. 9 c 7. & ser. 39 & de Civit D●i l. 22. c. 8. Greg. l. 4. Dialog. c. 52. 53. & 54.  and of the apparition of S. Fa●stinus Martyr in Brixia, commanding the removal from thence of the body of Valerianus Patricius, whereof S. Gregory writeth, as also of other examples to the like effect in the ensuing Chapters.  
Secondly he doth not say, that the Martyrs commanded to suffer no wicked persons to be buried within their Churches, for that were hard, that no sort of evil men should be admitted to burial within Saints Churches: but the apparitions must be presumed to have been at certain particular places, upon particular occasions, where the said Martyrs willed, ut sceleratorum corpora de suis basilicis ei●cerentur, that the bodies of certain heinous wicked men, such as Infidels, Heretics, excommunicated persons are, should be cast out of their Chapels. Why doth M. Barlow confine the matter to these Martyrs, 
M. Barlows licence of adding & subtracting at his pleasure.  that were deceased & shrined in those places of Germany, where the emperors body lay? Hath he a general licence, to take away or add what he listeth to his Author's words? And finally those last words, that they would not endure it, written in great letters, where doth he find them? And if he find them not, who gave him leave to add them, and crown his own invention with Capital letters? Is there no law of truth or sincerity? Is it lawful for every man to devise, add, alter, cut of, or disguise what he will without controlment? Is this the liberty of Ghospellers? 
Strange liberty of the new Ghospellers.  There have been now alleged by him about this point some eight several authors, Cuspinian, Helmodus, Vrspergensis, Nauclerus, Sigonim, Binnius, Baronius, and Petrus Diaconus, and every one hath received his cut. Will ever Catholic writer be found that dealeth so with authors? And so much of this point.  

About the insurrection of Hē●y the 5. against his father.  Then followeth the other, whether the Pope did stir up the emperors Son, that is Henry the 5. against his Father. And first I said that it could not be verified of Pope Hildebrand, called Gregory the seventh, for that the rebellion of the son succeeded after Gregory's death, and the report also was, that Gregory the 7. before his death had absolved the same Emperor Henry the fourth. 
Lett. p. 87.  And this I alleged out of the Apologers own author Cuspinian: and moreover I showed that the said Cuspinian affirmed, that the rising of the Son against his Father, was by the persuasion of the Marquis Theobald, and of Ber●ngarius Count of Noricum, now called St●ria, and of Otho which was near a kin unto him by his Mother's side: and for confirmation of this, I alleged four other Historiographers beside, to wit Vrspergensis, Nauclerus, Crantzius, and Sigonius.  
To all which authorities M. Barlow replieth never a word in this his answer: yet to the former point wherein I said, that the report was, that Gregory the 7. did before his death absolve the Emperor, he answereth thus. 
Barl pag. 242.  First this is written but for a report, than which there is nothing more uncertain, saith the Orator. But yet what follows hereof, therefore the Pope stirred not up the Son against the Father? A weak consequent. Whereto I answer that the consequent is good, and strong to prove, that Pope Gregory the 7. of whom I spoke, did not stir up the Son against the Father, if he absolved him, especially if you join this with the other alleged by me, that he took not arms against the Father, till after the said Pope's death. And as for the other Popes that followed, Victor, Vrbanus, and Pas●halis, under whom the rising of the Son against his Father was; and under whom the said Henry the 4. died almost twenty years after the death of Gregory the seventh, the testimonies now alleged of those other three Noble men that stirred the said Son against the father, do sufficiently deliver the sequent Popes from that calumniation of setting him on; albeit it is not denied, but that divers years after, when that all the States of Germany did generally so much mislike the life & government of Henry the fourth, as by common consent and counsel they determined that it was convenient, and necessary for the good of Christendom, that he should give over his government to his said son Henry the 5. Paschalis the second of that name Pope, being informed by the said States, of the said necessity, and that Christendom otherwise could not be quieted, nor infinite miseries, calamities and abuses remedied, he concurred with them, with his consent and approbation, though himself were at Rome. And the Diet or meeting of the States was held at Mentz, from which Parliament were sent, in the name of the Pope, and all the rest, three Archbishops, to wit, of Mentz, Cullen, and Worms, all Princes of the Empire, 
The deposition of Henry the fourth.  to take from him, that was prisoner in a little castle near unto that place, all the Imperial ornaments, and ensigns belonging to that State, and to deliver them over to his son Henry; and so was it done. And what more orderly proceeding could there be then this, in an act of such quality? M. Barlow maketh it a heinous point, against the Pope for dealing in the matter; and bringeth in the testimonies both of Sigonius & Genebrard, to aggravate the same; but both of them (as always) somewhat corrupted: for albeit he do allege these words of Sigonius truly, 
Sig. de reg. Ital. lib. 9 ann. 1106.  which were spoken by the fores●id t●ree Ambassadors unto Henry the 4. Pon●●fici Principibusque Germaniae placuit etc. It hath seemed good to the Pope, and to the Princes of Germany, that thou be deprived: yet doth he craftily leave out the reasons yielded of the said deposition by the Ambassadors, to wit, quia tu deterrimo dissidio multos iam annos Dei Ecclesiam lacerasti etc. for that thou hast rend the Church of God many years by most wicked breach of discord, and for that thou hast put to sale both bishoprics, Abbeys, and all other Ecclesiastical dignities; and that thou hast broken all lawful order in choosing of Bishops etc.  
And that M. Barlow may not except against the testimony of these Ambassadors because they were then in actual opposition against him, their sentence in this behalf may be confirmed by one who was not the Pope's friend, but of great authority, as I suppose with M. Barlow, to wit john Caluyn himself, 
Col. 4. Instit. c. 11 §. 13.  who in his 4. book of Institutions saith thus: Henricus Imperator eius nominis quartus, 〈◊〉 levis & temerarius &c. Henry the 4. Emperor of that name an unconstant and rash man, of no wit, very audacious, and of dissolute life, had the Bishoprics of all Germany exposed in his Court, partly to sale, and partly to pillage. And a little after: Erat Henricus etc. This Henry for his very insolent manner of government was odious to the most part of the Princes. So he. But not to depart from Sigonius, 
Sig. in ann. 1093.  of whose testimony we now specially treat, he that shall read what he relateth of him out of Helmodus and Dodec●i●●● touching the horrible abuse done to the Empress his wife called Adelis, by his commandment, will be ashamed if he have any shame in him, to praise and commend a man of so monstrous iniquity, as I for my part do for mere shame forbear to express the thing. And besides that, his other excesses were so enormous in the eyes of all disapassionate men, as he of all others may least seem worthy to be produced for an example, of such as have sustained wrong at the hands of the Pope, in regard that all the courses held against him, both by Popes and Princes, may in respect of his outrageous demerits seem to have been very mild, moderate, and gentle. And so much for Sigonius.  
The other words of Genebrard also are cited with diminution, 
Genebrar. l. 4. anno mundi 5206. in Paschal.  by saying that Genebrard cometh not short of Sigonius, who saith, that this was done (to wit the deposition) jussu Paschalis Pontifi●is, by the commandment of Pas●halis the Pope, leaving out the next words, & Principum qui ad generalia Comitia convenerant; and of the Princes of Germany that met in that universal Diet or Parliament at Mentz: so as every thing is here minced to the purpose, & scarce any thing set down sincerely & simply throughout the whole book.  
And as for the principal point, that M. Barlow would and should prove in this place, that Pope Paschal●● did set on the son against his Father; now you have seen, that those his two authorities alleged of Sigonius, 
Ann. 996. sub Papa Greg. quinto.  and Genebrard, that he concurred with the general Diet in Germany, do prove it nothing at all, for that the Election of the Emperor by seven Germane Electors, having been appointed by the Sea Apostolic not much above an hundred years before that time, to wit, by Gregory the 5. that crowned Otho the 3. and annexed the Imperial dignity to the German nation, Pope Paschalis having by this means, besides all other, so great right to have a hand in this matter, for the good of Christendom, cannot be said to have stirred up the son to rebellion, when he concurred with the whole State of Germany for the translation of the Crown, from the Father to the Son. Nor when the said Son took arms against him afterwards, doth any probable author ascribe it to the Pope, but expressly unto others, and namely to the three noble men before mentioned out of Cuspinian? Unto which three noble men in like manner Vrspergensis, that was present, & saw what passed, doth ascribe the said rebellion upon the year 1105. without ever mentioning the Pope, against whom notwithstanding the said Vrspergensis as one that followed the part of Henry the fourth useth no favour at all in his relations, and consequently may be a witness without exception, as also may be Huldericus Mutius, a Protestant German writer, whose words are: 
Huld. Mutius l. 16. chron. Ger● fol. 127.  Henricus filius quorumdam consilijs seductus, adversus Patrem moli●ur res novas: Henry the Son being seduced by the counsels of certain men, did attempt new things against his Father: and in all his narration he toucheth not the Pope, ascribing any part therein unto him.  
And this shall be sufficient for this matter. And as for the other point that he toucheth out of Cuspinian and Sigebertus, that Pope Gregory the 7. did acknowledge at his death, that he had molested Henry the 4. unjustly, and was sorry for the same, besides that it maketh nothing to our purpose for stirring up the son against the father, which happened almost 20. years after Gregory's death, none of th● doth allege it as a thing certain, but as a report, which M. Barlow a little before proved out of the Orator to be uncertain: besides that they do not agree in the narration in divers points: & finally for the most of them, they are plainly contradicted by a multitude of witnesses, which you may read laid together, both by Doctor Sanders in his Monarchy, and Cardinal Bellarmine in his 4. book de Rom. Pontifice. And so I shall need to say no more in this matter.  

ABOUT THE DEATH OF HENRY the third King of France: whether it may be an example of the Pope's allowance of such murders? As also about the late Queen of England. §. II.  
FOR another example and proof, that Popes are wont to allow murders of Princes is brought in a certain Oration which Pope Sixtus Quintus is said to have made in the Consistory with admiration and praise of that fact, and that the friar which committed the murder, should have been canonised for the fact, if some Cardinals out of their wisdom had not resisted the same: whereunto was answered both by me first, and afterward by Cardinal Bellarmine, that no such oration was ever extant in Rome, or else where, but only amongst the Protestants in foreign Countries, that wrote against it in their declamatory invective, entitled Anti Sixtus, who in this against the Pope deserves small credit. Only it is acknowledged that Sixtus in a secret Consistory upon the first news of the fact, did utter a certain speech in admiration of the strange providence of almighty God (said I) in chastising by so unexpected a way, so ●oule and impious a murder, as that King had committed upon a Prince, & Cardinal Archbishop (& those two also of nearest blood to his Majesty of England) without any form of judgement at all, & that a spectacle hereby of God's justice was proposed unto Princes to be moderate in their power and passions, for that in the midst of his great & royal army, and corporal guards, he was strangely slain by a simple unarmed man, when he nothing less expected, or feared, than such a disastrous death.  
To this now M. Barlow replies with great excess of railing against the Pope, saying, that the Oration was made, & that the Pope therein was like young Elihu whose words boiled within him for joy of the fact, 
Barl. pag. 244.  like new wine in a bottle, & with open mouth, & stretched sides & glorious terms he did hyperbolise both the author, manner and fact, and that this Oration was like to have received in that Consistory an Herod's Plaudite in Deifying the Pope, & canonizing the friar etc.  
All which as it hath no other proof but the assertion of M. Barlowes wild and unruly tongue, so is it easily contemned by any man of discretion, 
Sixtus V. belied by M. Barlow.  especially since there be so many grave men, Cardinal● and Bishops yet alive that can testify of the matter, and Gentlemen that were at Rome also at that time, and never saw or heard that ever any such Oration of Pope Sixtus Quintus was extant, or made by him in allowance, or approbation of that horrible fact of the friar, though otherwise as I said, he did highly admire the strange providence of God in chastising by so unexpected a way, so foul and impious a murder, as that King had committed against all order of law and justice.  
Secondly then having nothing in effect to say to this; yet for that he is bound to say something for his fee already received, he thought best to carp at those words of m●ne, that Pope Sixtus did highly admire the strange providence of God in his unexpected justice upon the said King; and so jesting at my words of strange providence, he saith, 
Barl. pag. 245.  A fit Epithet doubtless, and fetched from profound 〈◊〉: for can God's providence be strange, which in the universal government of the world, and guidance with protection of particular creatures, i● daily and continual?  

M. Barlows egregious folly.  Well then here M. Barlow will needs show the profundity of his Diunity, and the shallowness of his adversary. And in very deed he uttereth divers profundityes, which are so deep, as I think that the Reader will say, when he hath considered of them that himself understood them not, when he set them down, and much less that he can justify them in the Readers understanding. I shall touch some of them in order.  

M. Barlows ridiculous profundityes discussed.  The first profundity that he uttereth, is in his first question or demand, which now you have heard, to wit: Can God's providence be strange which is daily and continual? As though it could not. And in this demand two positions are contained if you mark the matter, and both of them false: the first, that the providence of God in those effects, which are dally and continual, can not be strange and admirable: the second, that this event whereof we entreat to wit, of the King of France his unexpected chastisement from God, is daily and continual. And who will not laugh at these two profundityes of M. Barlowes divinity, neither of them being iustifyable in the eyes of any man of mean capacity? As for the first, I remit him to S. Augustine his learned discourse upon the miracle of our Saviour in S. john's Gospel, 
An excellent discourse of S. Augustine concerning God's providence.  when he did feed five thousand men with two barley-loaves: upon which place the said learned Father maketh a notable discourse to prove the quite contrary of M. Barlowes assertion, to wit, that many things of God's providence, and heavenly power that fall out daily and continually, are as strange and admirable (mira stupenda) in themselves, 
August. tracked 24. s●p●r ●oā.  as other things that fall out seldom, and by their seldom events do seem more strange; and he guieth an example of the daily government of the whole world, the course and continance of the stars, the multiplying of grains of corn in the ground, which is no less marvelous than the multiplying of those two loaves to the feeding of five thousand people: and yet saith S. Augustine this is wondered at, and the other not wondered at, non quia maius est, sed quia rarum est, not for tha● it is a greater miracle, but for that it falleth out more seldom. So as according to S. Augustine the effects of God's power and providence which are continual, and fall out daily, are no less strange and admirable in themselves, for that they are so common: seeing the strangeness thereof is not to be understood as M. Barlow would have it, only for the rareness of the event (for then it should seem strange that M. Barlow should speak a wise word, because he doth it so seldom) but for some thing which is admirable in the work itself, whether the same be seldom or common: and this also, especially in the judgement of wise men, as here M. Barlow will seem to be accounted: but that this first depth of his helpeth him nothing to the attaining of that good opinion.  
His second depth also or profundity contained in this question, which is, that this event of King Henry of France his unexpected chastisement by so an unimaginable means of a simple friar, and other like circumstances, is daily and continual, and consequently neither strange nor admirable, is such a depth, that every shallow wit will easily discern it to be both false and fond, and against experience itself. For how many such examples can M. Barlow produce to have happened in many ages together, & much less daily and continually, and thereby to be neither strange not wonderful?  
But now his third profundity standeth in another question immediately ensuing upon the former, which is deep indeed, and passeth all sense and understanding. 
An other strange profanity of M. Barlow without all wit or sense.  For is any thing strange in God's providence (saith he) which seeth things to come, as if they were present and existent? Which demand is quite from the purpose: for our question is, whether God's providence in his works & effects may be called strange and admirable in our eyes, as this of the King of France his punishment; and not whether any thing can be strange or admirable in the eyes of God, and his eternal providence. ●he●e questions are as ●arre different, as are the understanding of God and man, and the two poles the one from the other.  
But will you hear another profundity of his, in another question. Can visible acts (saith he) be called God's pro●●●●●● And why not Sir, as they are the effects of God's providence, & do proceed from the same? As when we see certain effects of God's justice upon any wicked man; we truly say it is Gods justice. And the like when we see certain eminent works of God's mercy towards any people, Country, or private person, we truly say, that it was God's mercy towards them, and so in all the rest of God's attributes, though they remain in God, and be the self same thing with God: yet when they work, and their effects be apparent, we do commonly call the effects by the names of the attributes themselves, that is to say, the effects of God's justice, 
Mark this doctrine Sir William.  are called God's justice; the effects of his Mercy, are called his Mercies; of his Wisdom, his Wisdom; of his Providence, his Providence; which as it is most true, so notwithstanding my words were with more exactness uttered, then M. Barlow would seem to take them, I saying that Pope Sixtus Quintus did highly admire the Providence of God, in chastising so ●oule a murder: so as I distinguished between the cause and the effect, and between God's providence, and the chastisement of the King proceeding from the same: whereby is prevented a certain petty flourish made by M. Barlow, by naming the definition of Schoolmen to be, that God's Providence is so far forth called God's Providence, as it remaineth in his secret Counsel: but when it showeth itself in effects sensible, then is it called Fatum, and not Providentia. And for this he citeth in the margin, Aquinas, summa contra Gentes, but no place at all where (the said work being great, and containing four Books, and above an hundred and fourscore Chapters) the thing may be found, which is a common shift of his, when he will not be understood, nor found out.  
But the worst of all is, that the poor man understandeth not one scrap of what he hath read in S. Thomas, or other Schoolmen concerning this matter, for they do not say, as he doth, 
D. Thom. 1 p●● 22. & q. 116.  that God's Providence is no longer called Providence, than it remaineth secret in God's counsel, and that when it showeth itself in sensible effects it is no more providence, but Fatum: but thus they say, that whereas God's providence hath two parts in it, the one which is in the mind of Almighty God to dispose of all things in the world, how they shall fall out; and the second the execution of this disposition by secondary causes: this second part of God's providence containing the connexion & order of the secondary causes, 
The difference between pro●●●ē●●a & fatum.  is called, though improperly saith S. Thomas, Fatum, destiny, for that in respect of Gods immoucable order in his disposition, the second causes do work infallibly, though in producing their effects some work necessarily, some casually, some freely.  
Hereby than we see first, that M. Barlow understood not his Authors, in saying that God's Providence is so far forth called God's Providence only, as it remaineth in God's secret counsel: for as Saint Thomas in the book by him alleged, 
D. Thom. cont. Gentes lib. 3. cap. 77.  saith, God's Providence hath two parts, the one is ordinatio or ●ispositio rerum, the other is ordin●● executio per causas secundas, which second is called fatum, or destiny; but yet is a part of Providence, as you see, and thereby doth M. Barlow err grossly in contraposing it to Providence, 
The profoundity of M Barlowes ignorance in School-divinity.  saying it is called fatum, and not providence, whereas fatum is a part of providence, as appeareth by that which hath been said: but yet more grossly doth he err, when he saith that when God's Providence doth show itself in sensible effects, it is destiny & not providence, for that this Fatum, or destiny consisteth, as it hath been said, in the order & connexion of the second causes, before they work their effect, & not in the sensible effects themselves, when they are now produced, and extra causas. And so by this we see in part M. Barlowes profundity in Schoole-divinity.  
But we have not yet done, for that he goeth forward against the Pope, saying: If after the murder of the King of France, the Pope had seen that some really true, not partially supposed good, had been effectuated by the Parricyde, that should he truly and only have ascribed to God's Providence, 
Barl. pag. 264.  as joseph applied his being in Egypt, for the relief of his kindred unto God's permission, but not unto his brethren's sale &c.  

An other profound ignorance of M. Barlow.  And here now we see another profundity, not so much of Divinity, as either of ignorance or impiety, ascribing only unto God's Providence things that in our eyes seem good and profitable, wherein he impiously abridgeth God's Providence, which is over all things without exception either dispositiuè or permissiuè, by ordaining, or by permitting: as he might have seen in the Author by him alleged, 
D. Thom. 1. p. q. 22. a●●. ●3.  I mean S. Thomas in his question de Providentia, not that God is the Author of sin, or of the obliquity thereof, as Calvin & his followers wickedly affirm, but that God doth use even naughty and sinful actions oftentimes to his glory, and to the universal good of his government: and so he used the wicked action of Herod, pilate, and others to the furthering of Christ his sacred passion: for so it is said expressly in the Acts of the Apostles unto God himself, 
Act. 4.  that Herod & Pilate together with the Gentiles and jews conspired against our Saviour, facere quae manus tua & consilium tuum decreverunt fieri, to do those things which thy hand & counsel have determined to be done. To which effect many other places of Scripture might be alleged: whereby it is evident that the admiring of God's Providence in such actions, is not an allowance of the thing itself, as lawful in the doer, for that no man will say, that the Apostles did allow the actions of Herod & Pilate, in putting Christ to death, though they do acknowledge it as we have now seen to have come by the particular providence of almighty God: & consequently all that idle speech which is here used by M. Barlow against Pope Sixtus Q●intus, 
1. Reg 2. 6. 2. Reg. 3. 27.  that he did not as King David did, in detesting joab for his traitorous slaughter of Abner, but would have canonised the Friar, if some Cardinals had not resisted: this speech, I say, is very idle indeed. For never was there any such cogitation known to have been in the Pope for canonizing that man, nor did the Pope ever praise, or allow the fact, as often hath been said: nor doth M. Barlow know, how he would have dealt with the said Friar for the same, if he had escaped death, and had been in his power to punish him: so that all here is spoken out of passion, and will to calumniate: much also out of error and ignorance, as hath been said, as namely, that nothing is to be ascribed to God's Providence, but that which to us seemeth really true, good, and not partially so supposed. So as here a man is made judge, what is to be ascribed to God's Providence and what not. In which case I do not see how the actions of Herod & Pilate could well be ascribed to God's providence, as the Apostles did ascribe them. I do not see also, how M. Barlow can maintain his assertion here set down, 
joseph sold into Egupt by God his providence.  that the selling of joseph into Egypt by his brethren was not by God's Providence, but only as he saith for the relief of his kindred; which the Patriarch joseph doth seem plainly to contradict, when discovering himself unto his brethren, he said: I am your Brother joseph whom you sold into Egypt, be not afraid, nor let it seem unto you a hard thing, that you sold me into these Regions, for that God sent me before you into Egypt for your safety. And more plainly in the last of Genesis, 
Gen. 45. v● 4. 5. 6.  where the Patriarch speaking to his Brethren, saith: Vos cogitas●is de me malum etc. you thought to do me hurt, but God turned it to good, to exalt me, as at this present you see, and to save many people. And are not these words plain, that the whole action of joseph his selling into Egypt was by God's permissive providence? Or will M. Barlowes profound divinity teach us, that in the self same mysterious actions, one part is subject to God's Providence, and the other not?  
The last example brought forth to prove the Pops accustomed attempts for murdering Princes, is that of Queen elizabeth, late Queen of England, against whose life was objected many attempts to have been made by privity and incitation of divers Popes; but I desired some proofs thereof: whereto was answered in th●se words, for veryfication of this, there needeth no more proof, then that never Pope, 
Lett. p. 89.  either then or since called any Churchman in question for meddling in those treasonable conspiracies. To which my words of answer were: And needeth there no more Sir but this (quoth I) to condemn both Confessors and Popes, for that no Pope hath called into question or punished any Clergyman for such like attempts? what if he never knew of any such attempt, nor believed, that there were any such really designed? What if he never heard of any Clergy man accused, except such as were put to death by the Queen herself, and so were sufficiently punished, whether they were culpable or innocent?  
To all which demands of mine M. Barlow answereth with great impatience. 
Barl. pag. 250.  For where I demand, And needeth there no more, Sir, for proof but this? His answer is: There needeth no more (CUR) but that. But this I ascribe to his choler. And for that he bringeth no other thing of any moment about this matter, 
M. Barlowes immodesty.  & that I have spoken largely else where of Queen Elizabeth her affairs; I shall here pretermitt the residue of the trifles, which M. Barlow for lengthening his book bringeth in, spicing the same every where with most virulent railings; as the examples of Squire and Parry, which so often have been answered by us, the former as a mere fiction, for so much as concerned his sending from Spain into England by F. Walpole the jesuit for poisoning the Queen's chair, and the Earl of Essex his saddle; the other a devise of his own, to wit of Parry himself, to gain the Queen's goodwill, and thereby some preferment by telling her that he was sent to kill her, by some Catholics out of the Land: whereas indeed he was never trusted by them in far less matters, then in such an enterprise.  

Q. Elizab●th no joy nor Iew●●● of the Christian world.  But he returneth yet once ag●ine excessively to praise the said Queen. That Lady Queen Elizabeth, saith he, the diamond amongst Princes, the glory of royal Majesty, the joy of the Christian world for her sex whilst she lived. And what will the discreet reader hold M. Barlow for his sex? Truly I think for one of the most gross and palpable flatterers that mankind doth contain: and as for her being the joy of the Christian world, I marvel what Christian world he can pretend to mean. For if he will confine the Christian world within the Protestant world, it is, God wot, but a very small part thereof, and yet in this Protestant world neither was she held to be so rare a diamond, or glory of royal Majesty, nor was she such a joy unto them, as there is said, which is evident by their writings extant, especially of the Lutherans that misliked her religion, & manner of proceeding, and especially her taking upon her to be head of the Church, whereat they do laugh, even until this day.  
And the same or greater dislike was even in the purer sort of Caluinists, both at Geneva the Mother-Church of that profession, as also throughout all France, Holland, Zealand, Scotland, and England: so as this little Protestant world held her not for such a joy, nor yet jewel of theirs, as here by M. Barlow she is described. But as for the Catholic Christian world, for what diamond they held her, and what joy they took of her, and in her, appeareth well by their books which are extant, and will endure till the world's end: so as the chief ground of all these excessive and exorbitant praises and flatteries, is no other, as far as I can see, but the volubility of this Minister's tongue for the present: what it may be hereafter upon the blast of other winds I know not, but it is like that the Wether cock will turn. 
M. Barlowes constancy, Scili●et,  Some examples have we seen before of his constancy about the Earl of Essex, and may do also hereafter concerning Queen Elizabeth, if his Majesty that now reigneth shall never so little turn the favour of his eyes from her actions, which of all other Princes, by the judgement of most men, he hath most cause to do, as somewhat I touched in my ●ormer letter, and now shallbe enforced to repeat somewhat again for defending myself, against M. Barlows' calumniations; but it shallbe only the conclusion of that my discourse.  
To conclude then (said I) about Queen Elizabeth: albeit Pius Quintus, & some other Popes did excommunicate her and cut her of from the body of the Catholic Church by Ecclesiastical Censures, in regard of her persecuting Catholic Religion: yet did I never know it hitherto proved, that any Pope procured or consented to any private violence against her person: albeit, if the forealleadged Statute of the 28. year of King Henry the 8. be true, wherein it is determined both by the King himself, his Counsel and whole Parliament, and by the Archbishop Cranmer, with his Doctors in his judicial Seat of the Arches, that Lady Elizabeth was not legitimate, nor that her mother was ever King Henry's true wife (which once being true, could never afterward by any human power be made untrue, or amended to the prejudice of a third, rightly by due succession interessed therein: 
Statut. an. 28. H. 8. c. 7. ) & if, as the whole Parliament testified, it should be against all honour, equity, reason, and good conscience, that the said La. Elizabeth should at any time possess the said Crown, 
Q Elizab●th against conscience held the Crown from his majesties Mother 44. years.  than the said Popes respecting in their said sentence (as it is certain they did) the actual right of the Queen o● France and Scotland, and of her noble issue his Majesty that now is, they might proceed, as they did, against the other, for her removal (whom they held for an usurper) in favour of the true inheritors oppressed by her, not only by spiritual, but temporal arms also, as against a public malefactor and intruder, contrary to right and conscience. And I cannot see, how this fawning Apologer, can either without open untruth, or manifest injury to his Majesty, aver the contrary. Which being true, doth greatly justify the endeavours and desires of all good Catholic people, both at home and abroad against her, their principal meaning being ever known to have been the deliverance, & preferment of the true Heir, most wrongfully kept out, & unjustly persecuted for right ●ousnes sake.  
To this discourse of mine M. Barlow with many bitter words taketh upon him to reply this that followeth: 
About QUEEN'S 〈◊〉, legitimation.  First, that there are many more evidences to prove, that the Pope is Antichrist, than that Queen Elizabeth was illegitimate: this you see what force it hath, & how fit it is unto this purpose, and therefore he taketh handfast of another hold, thus: If King Henry her Father, B. Cranmer, with his Court of Arches, and, body of the Parliament, did sentence her for such; yet the same Father Arches and Parliament, upon better ground within few years renounced the same sentence, and repealed that act. 
Barl. pag. 253.  This now is somewhat, if M. Barlow had cited the Act, or Parliament, or Decree of Bishop Cranmer, or his Arches, or some other particularity, how, or where it was repealed, as I did cite for the contrary of her condemnation Rastals' abridgement.  
I do find indeed in the book of Statutes that seven years afterwards, to wit, anno 35. of Henry the eight cap. p●●●o, when King Henry had determined in person to go over and make war in France, as in the said Statute is affirmed, and after the death of so many other wives had married the Lady Katherine Parr widow, having small hope of more issue, he made a certain declaration of the succession, if in case himself and the Prince Edward, and Lady Mary should die without lawful issue, to wit, that for lack of such issue the said Lady Elizabeth should succeed in her turn: but there is no word of her legitimation, nor of the repeal of the foresaid Statute declaratory, of the invalidity of her Fathers and Mother's marriage. And albeit I find divers other clauses of that Statute 28. Henry 8. cap. 7. repealed by 1. Edward. 6. cap. 12. and primo & secundo Philip. & Mariae cap. 1. & 8. yet do I not find any such repeal made concerning the said illegitimation of Queen Elizabeth. And King Henry himself in that Parliament of the 35. cap. 1. doth profess that he had authority by Parliament to give and dispose the said Imperial Crown by his Letter Patent at his will & pleasure; which showeth that he might if he would, appoint her to succeed in default of other issue, though she were never so much illegitimate; seeing all was referred to his own appointment.  
But for so much as M. Barlow doth make so light account of this sentence of Parliament, as after you shall hear out of his own contemptible words against the same, I have thought it good briefly to repeat them here, and thereby show the weight and moment thereof. Thus than they lie in the Statute.  
And albeit, most dread sovereign Lord (saith the Parliament) that the said acts were then made, 
The Statute of 〈◊〉 He●●● for t●● 〈…〉 of Q Elizabeth.  as it was then thought by your majesties Nobles and Commons, upon a ●●re, perfect, and clear foundation, thinking the said marriage than had between your Highness & the said Lady Anne in their consciences to have been pure, sincere, p●r●●●● and good, and so was reputed, accepted, and taken in the Realm, till now of late, that God of his infinite goodness (from whom no secret things can be hid) hath caused to be brought to light evident and open knowledge, as well certain, just, true, and lawful impediments, unknown at the making of the said acts, and sithence that time confessed by the said Lady Anne, before the most Reverend Father in God Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury Metropolitan and Primate of all England, sitting judicially for the same: by the which plainly appeareth that the said marriage between your Grace and the said Lady Anne, was never good nor correspondent to the laws, but utterly void and of no effect, by reason whereof your Highness was, and is lawfully divorced and separated from the bands of the said marriage, in the life of the said lady Anne. And this notwithstanding most gracious and sovereign Lord, the Lady Elizabeth your Daughter, being borne under the said unlawful marriage, by virtue and authority of the act of your Succession above remembered, for lack of Heirs-males of your Body, should immediately succeed as your lawful hei●e in the most royal Estate of your Imperial Crown of this Realm, against all honour, equity, reason, and good conscience, if remedy should not be provided for the same.  
This was the sentence, which is grave and weighty as you see, for that the whole Parliament affirmeth, that such impediments were discovered by God's infinite goodness, and confessed by Queen Anne in public judgement before the Archbishop Cranmer, sitting upon the same matter, as by the same it was evidently convinced that she was never King Henries true wife indeed, and consequently that the lady Elizabeth was never his true and lawful daughter. And did not this deserve, that M. Barlow should have brought forth authentical testimony to the contrary? For if this attestation of the Parliament, King, and Metropolitan were good and true, that Queen Anne was never in her life lawful wife to King Henry, then could not any future Parliament, though never so feign it would, afterward make her legitimate, or lawfully give her the Crown, in prejudice of the next lawful heir, after Queen Mary's death, which at that time was his majesties Mother Queen of France and Scotland.  
But here now M. Barlow would seem to make some answer to these last words of mine, saying: that being once true, quoth he, to wit the illegitimation, no human power could make it untrue to the prejudice of another; 
Whether Q. Elizabeth's bastardy were in body.  & then he answereth: If the illegitimation had been in her blood, it is true, no law could make it good against the right Heir. And do you grant thus much Sir? That if the illegitimation had been in her blood, no law could make it good? Wherein then I pray you was this illegitimation? Was it in her bones, or in her flesh, or skin? For in one of these four it must needs be: for as much as it descended by her birth from her Father & Mother. But, saith M Barlow, 
Ba●●. p●g. 253.  her blood being sound, seeming allegations and plausible inferences might for a time dazzle, not alter her right, but they being cleared and reversed, these second deliberations did not so much establish her right, which was inherent in her blaud, as make it more apparent, and sensibly incontrollable.  
Here now is indeed that begging of the question which without cause it pleaseth M. Barlow sometimes for fashion's sake to object against me. For here our question being, whether Queen Elizabeth was sound in blood or no, he supposeth it for a principle, that it being so, then seeming allegatio●s, or plausible inferences cannot hurt her right, but the Parliament supposeth & proveth the contrary, that she was not sound in blood, but wholly unsound by her birth & nativity: and the same do we suppose by the authority of this Parliament, and by the testification both of her Father and Mother. And how ridiculous then is it that M. Barlow should suppose the con●●ary without proof, saying: that supposing she was sound, plausible inferences could not hurt her?  
Secondly he calleth the resolute, and severe asseverations of King Henry himself, and of Archbishop Cranmer and of all the Lords both spiritual and temporal of the Parliament together, 
M. Barlow●●pē injury unto ●. ●ē●● the ●. and the whole Court of Parliament.  with the judicial confession of Queen Anne herself, be●ore her execution; he termeth them I say but seeming allegations, and plausible infere●ces, which thing considering both the greatness of the persons, and grauity● of the matter, both in the sight of God and man, and the most weighty consequences which thereof did depend, is the grievous injury that in words could be offered to so great authority. For it is to make them all wicked men and liars, they affirming the matter to be true, and to h●ue been revealed by gods infinite goodness, so evidently, as there is set down; and M. Barlow saying to the contrary, that they are nothing but seeming allegations, & plausible inferences.  
Thirdly, where he saith that these plausible inferences being cleared and reversed in the second deliberation, to wit of the Parliament, did not so much establish her right, which was inherent in her blood, as make it more apparent, he beggeth again the question, 
M. Barlow● begging o● the question.  and supposeth that for his ground, which we deny until he can prove it, to wit, that the former determination of Parliament, was reversed concerning her illegitimation. For why should not this appear in the Statute book, as well as the former. And whereas he saith, that her right of succession was but dazzled, & not altered by this Decree of Parliament, for that it was inherent in her blood, we have now showed, that it is a ridiculous tergiversation, for that the Parliament condemning, and disannulling utterly the marriage of her mother with her father, doth thereby condemn her whole blood for unlawful to succeed, except M. Barlow will say she had other blood, which she took not from Father or Mother, or else that he will teach us by his law or divinity, that albeit her Father and Mother were never truly man & wife: yet she borne by their conjunction, had true right in her blood to succeed in the Crown, which yet the Parliament denieth, as you have seen. And this shall suffice for this matter: whereby may appear what causes some Popes might have, in respect as well of this known illegitimation by her Father & Mother, as also of other many Personal demerits of her own, to favour the right of her next lawful successor, persecuted, & iniuted, & finally destroyed by her.  
But now as for the other cavil of recrimination that D●●●man in his Book saith, that it is a grievous sin for any man to give consent to the making of a King that is of a contrary religion, it hath been answered sufficiently before against M. Morton, who objected the same, but with fraud and falsehood, as this man doth, leaving out the principal words that do ensue, which are, 
Dolem. cōf●●ē●e part. 1. c. 3. pag. 210.  that is a sin to him that doth it, ●●hat side sooner the truth be, or how good, or bade soever the party 〈◊〉 that is preferred. He doth leave out also the reason of the speech, taken out of the authority of S. Paul in these words: 
Rom. 14.1. Cor. 8. & 10.  For if S. Paul have pronounced so absolutely and plainly in the place be●ore alleged, that even in eating a piece of meat it is damnable for a man to discern, and yet to eat; what may we think will it be in so great and important a matter, as the making of a King is, for a man to assemble, or do against his own conscience, and judgement?  
Here you see is nothing, but that a man should not do against his conscience in the choice of a King, when that case shall fall out. Can M. Barlow say any thing justly against this, if he will not calumniate? I see not what. But yet he leapeth to another thing, in a far different place, where Doleman saith, that the Statute of Association was objected by other Competitors against the succession of Scotland, 
About the Statute ●● Association.  which Statute was made in the 27. year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, and intended principally (as it seemeth evident both by the Queen, and by such as procured the making thereof) against the said succession of the Queen of Scotland and her issue, in such form of words, as she being prisoner in England might easily be ●●tr●pped therein, as afterward she was by the attempt of M. babington & his fellows, and lost her life for the same.  
The Statute contained, That if any Act should be attempted tending to the hurt of Queen Elizabeth's person, by or for any person, that shall, or may pretend any Title to the Crown of this Realm, after her majesties disease, by any person, 
Doleman part. 2. p. 117.  or with the privity of any person, that shall, or may pretend Title to the Crown etc. than all such people shallbe excluded and disabled for ever, to have, or claim the said Crown etc.  
Hereto M. Barlow answereth now first, that they only in this Act are excluded from Succession, by who●e means Queen Elizabeth's life should be taken away (not sought) and that should not touch their issues, except they had been any ways assenting or privy to the same. But to this may be replied; that the words now set down in the Statute are contrary, which say, that if any act be attempted tending to the hurt of her majesties most Royal person (though not achieved) yet they shallbe excluded. And as for their heirs and issues, though in the second part of the Statute, when Queen Elizabeth's life should be taken away by such attempts, there is mention of them, that it must be by some assent or privity of theirs; yet in the former part now alleged, there is no mention; whereby notwithstanding the said pretenders, for whom, or by whose privityes such attempts only should be made, are condemned of treason, and made incapable of any pretence to the Crown: which being once effectuated, the consequence doth easily ensue in like manner against their heirs and issues. So that this is but a mere trifling matter, brought in for want of other better.    

OF CERTAIN CONTRADICTIONS OBJECTED TO Cardinal Bellarmine: AND what confidence may be placed in a man's own good works. CHAP. FOUR  
WHEREAS among other things there were objected in the Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance certain contradictions against Cardinal Bellarmine, out of his works, as impugning the one the other, I thought good in my Letter, to look into some t●ree or four of them, leaving the rest for the Cardinal himself to answer, as he did very sufficiently: which answer might serve for us both, but that I having enlarged myself somewhat for the better explaining of the first objected contradiction, about the placing of confidence in good and meritorious works, M. Barlow hath been so copious in his reply, partly preaching, partly prattling, without substance or verity, as I am enforced to insist more upon the matter, than I had purposed. And for more plain dealing and discovering of his fraud, and impertinency I shall here repeat again, what in my Letter I set down about this controversy.  
The Apologer●quoth ●quoth I) doth thus begin his list of contradictions against Cardinal Bellarmine. 
Lett. p. 93.  First in his books of justification (saith he) Bellarmine affirmeth, that for the uncertainty of our own proper righteousness, and for avoiding of vain glory, 
The first supposed contradiction.  it is most sure and sa●e, to repose our whole confidence in the alone mercy and goodness of God: which proposition of his, is directly contrary to the discourse, and current of all his ●iue books De justificatione, 
bellarm de I●●●i●. ab 5. cap. 7. Apol. 63.  wherein the same is contained etc. Of this first contradiction we have said somewhat before, to wit, that it is strange, that five whole books should be brought in, as contradictory to one proposition. For how shall the Reader try the truth o● this objection? Shall he be bound to read all Bellarmine's five books, to see whether it be true or no? Had it not been more plain dealing to have alleged some one sentence, or conclusion contradictory to the other? But now shall we show, that there can be no such contradiction betwixt the senten●● of one part of his said Book of justification, & the whole discourse or current of the rest: for that Bellarmyne doth make all the matter c●e●re by soiling three several Questions in one Chapter, which is the seventh of the fifth Book here cited.  

 The three Questious are these about Fiducia quae in merit is co●●oca●i possit, what hope and confidence may be placed by a Christian man in his good works, and merits. The first Question is, whether good works, in a Christian man, do increase hope & confidence by their own nature, and the pro●ise of reward made unto them? And Bellarmine answereth that they do: and proveth it by many places of Scriptures, as that of Toby the 4. where it is said: 
Tob. 4.  That almesdedes shall give great confidence, and hope to the doers thereof in the sight of God. And job saith, that he which li●eth justly, shall have great confidence & hope, and shall sleep securely. 
job. 11.  And S. Paul to Timothy saith: That whosoever shall minister well, shall have great confidence etc. 
1. Tim 3.  I omit divers other plain places of Scriptures, and Fathers there alleged by him, which the Reader may there peruse to his comfort, showing evidently, that the conscience of a virtuous life, and good works, doth give great confidence to a Christian man, both while he liveth, & especially when he cometh to die.  
The s●cond Question is, whether thi● being so a man may place an●●o●●idence wittingly in his own●●●rits, or virtuous li●e. And it is answered, I hat he may; 〈◊〉 be with due circumstances of humility, auoydin●●●●●e & presumption. For that a man feeling the effect of ●ods g●ace in himselve, whereby he hath been directed to live well, may also hope, that God will crown ●is gifts in him, as S. Augustine's words are. And many examples of Scriptures are alleged there by Card. Bellarmine of sundry holy Saints, Prophets and Apostles, that upon iu●t occasions mentioned their own merits, as gifts from God that gave them hope and con●idence o● his merciful reward: and namely that saying of S. Paul, 
2. Tim. 4.  I have sought a good fight, I have consummated my course, I have kept my faith etc. and then addeth, that in regard hereof, R●posita●●st mihi corona justitiae: a crown of justice is ●ayd up for me, which ●od the just judge shall restore unto me.  
The third Question is (supposing the foresaid determinations) what counsel were to be given, Whether it be good to put confidence in a man's own merit's o● no? Whereunto Card. Bellarmine answereth, 
Th● sū●●e o● Card. B●●●●r●in●s 〈…〉 and Answer.  in the words set down by the Apologer, That for the vncer●ain●y of our o●ne proper justice, and for avoiding the peril of vain glory, the surest way is to repose all our confidence in the only me●cy & benignity o● God; from whom and from whose grace our merits proceed. So as albeit Cardinal Bellarmine doth confes●●, that good life, and virtuous acts do give hope, and confidence of themselves, and that it is lawful also by the examples of ancient Saints, for good men to comfort themselves with that hope and confidence: yet the surest way is to repose all in the benignity and mercy of almighty God, who giveth all, and is the Author, aswell of the grace, as of the merits, and fruits of good works that ensue thereof. And thus hath Cardinal Bellarmine fully explicated his mind in this one Chapter, about Confidence in good works, by soluing the foresaid three different Questions, whereof the one is not contrary to the other, but may all three stand together. And how then is it likely, that the foresaid proposition, of reposing our confidence in the mercy of God, should be contradictory, as this man saith, to the whol● discourse and current of all his five Books of justification? Let one only sentence be brought forth, out of all his five Books that is truly contradictory, and I shall say he hath reason in all the rest of his overlashing.  
This was may declaration, and explication of Card. Bellarmine's doctrine, in this point, whether any confidence might be placed in good works, and what his counsel is therein. Whereunto, though M. Barlow finding himself unable to make any substantial reply, do multiply words from the matter, without answering directly, to any one of these points now set down, and much less, to the authorities of Scriptures, and other proofs alleged for the same: yet shall we take an account of him what he saith, reducing him back again to these heads, as they lie in my letter, now recited, and see whether they make any just satisfaction for an answer or no.  
First then, whereas I required, as you have heard, that for proving this first contradiction, objected to Bellarmine that one only sentence, might be brought forth, out of all his five books of justification, that is truly contradictory to the foresaid proposition, counseling to put our whole confidence in Gods only mercy: this hitherto is not done, which notwithstanding had been easy to do, if the whole current of these five books, as there was said, had been contradictory to this proposition. But now let us see M. Barlowes proofs, out of those books in general. 
Barlow 258.  All the chief questions (saith he) in that bulk o● controversies (about justification) may be reduced to these two principal heads, either to the quality of our justice, that is inherent, not imputative: or of the merit, whether it be rewarded ●or the value of the work, or of mere grace. And both these by the first word of this proposition (to wit uncertainty) are directly cut off. Thus he. And this we deny: for that the uncertainty of a particular man, concerning the perfection of his own merits doth not cut off any of those things, which M. Barlow fond dreameth. Let us hear his proof.  
For the uncertainty there mentioned (saith he) is either rei, or personae, of the righteousness it sel●e, or of him which hath it. Whereto I answer, that it may be of both in regard of a particular person, for that he may have some uncertainty, both whether the justice that is in him, be perfect, or that himself have performed all circumstances requisite to true merit, though notwithstanding he doth not doubt but that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is true, & most certain, about the merit of good works: and that in the said Church, and many of her children, there be true merits, wherein justly some confidence may be placed, as the Scriptures themselves, and the plain words, and example of S. Paul before alleged do evidently convince. For which cause S. Bernard alleged by Card. Bellarmine doth worthily cry out. 
Ber ser. 9 in Psal. Qui habita●.  Felix Ecclesia, cui nec merita sine praesumptione, nec praesumptio absque meritis de est. Habet merita, sed ad promerendum, non ad praesumendum. Happy is the Church, unto whom neither merits are wanting without presuming thereon, 
M. Barlowes follies.  nor presumption without merits. The Church hath merits, not to presume upon them, but to deserve God's favour by them. And why had not this been answered? Let us hear his further speculation. If the uncertainty (saith he) be of the thing itself, then is it no true righteousness. This now is one folly. For a man may have true righteousness, & yet not be sure thereof himself, according as the Scripture saith: no man knoweth whether he be worthy of love, or hate at God's hands; but let us hear him further. For truth, saith he, whether of essence, or of propriety cassiers all vncertain●y. This is another folly. For how many things be there truly and really in particular men, which they themselves know not, as would appear, if they should see their own anatomy? And in M. Barlow, may there not be true ignorance, pride or presumption in many things, 
Much idle babbling ●f M. Barlow to no other purpose then to s●●w his own ignorance.  though himself either do not know, or at leastwise will not confess it, for that he remaineth not persuaded thereof, and consequently uncertain? I might name, for example, those two words of Essence or Propriety thrust in here, either of ignorance or ostentation, without sense or purpose. For what is truth or propriety, that ●assiers uncertainty? The man would seem to speak profoundly, and so exceedeth his own capacity.  
But let us hear him further. It is hypocrisy (saith he) not righteousness, which is not true: if not righteousness, than not inherent. Whereunto I answer, that this is not true which he saith first, for that all defect of true righteousness, maketh not hypocrisy, but only when a man pretendeth to be just, and is not. But if a man should doubt, whether his righteousness be perfect or no (which is our case) then were it no hypocrisy at all, and if it were, than were it inherent hypocrisy in the hypocrite, which is contrary to the other inference of M. Barlow: that if it were not true, and perfect righteousness, it were not inherent, for that be it true or false, perfect or unperfect, such as it is, it must needs be inherent in the subject, which it doth denominate.  
And this is M. Barlowes wise discourse, about the first part of his two-membred proposition, of incertitudo rei, & personae; incertainty of the thing itself, or of the person (to wit) of righteousness itself, or of him that hath it. Now he cometh unto the second, about the person, saying: If the uncertainty be of the person, than the second part of the proposition, concerning merit, is cut of: for merit raiseth a confidence, but where there is no comfort, there can be no confidence; and in uncertainty there is no comfort. Which speech is so prudently uttered, as how many inferences, so many plain falsities there be in the same. As first, that where there is no comfort, there can be no confidence. For that job in his tribulations, was greatly abandoned of comfort, and yet he said to God, Albeit thou shalt kill me, yet will I hope in thee, and it is an ordinary thing with God to take away oftentimes sensible comforts from good men, who notwithstanding do not lose their confidence in him, and his mercies for the same.  
The other proposition also is false, that in uncertainty there is no com●ort. For than would no man labour to obtain any thing, whereof he were not certain: no merchants would adventure to the seas, being uncertain of their gain; no suitors would come to London to feed Lawyers being uncertain what success they shall have: and finally, not only common experience, but also common sense doth convince these propositions to be ridiculous, and so I mean to spend no more time in examining them, but will pas●e to the examining of the other three propositions or resolutions of Cardinal Bellarmine before mentioned. In the mean space, you see how well and substantially M. Barlow hath proved hitherto, the contradiction of the third proposition, against his five whole books of justification, wherewith notwithstanding he saith the Cardinal was so pressed, as he gasped for wind, when I stepped in to help him. He steps, saith he, to Bellarmine, o●er whom, as if the Cardinal were gasping for breath under the blow he hath received for his contradictions, he braves it with some rhetorical flourishes etc.  
This is his confidence, which I grant cometh not of merits, but of only faith, or rather presumption, and therefore I mean not to impugn it. He saith then concerning my answer before set down, out of my Letter; first of all, that Bellarmine's case standing so bad in itself as it did, I m●de it far worse, by seeking to assist him: and for proof hereof he saith, that I, supposing the Cardinal to handle the controversy by questions and answers, whereby it seems that I never read the place myself, do sum up the Chapter in way of Interogation, & solution. Whereto first I answer, that the many particulars, which I do set down out of that Chapter, whence the proposition is taken, aswell of Scriptures, and other reasons, must needs convince M. Barlow, that I had read the whole Chapter, and so he cannot say this here, but against his own conscience.  
Secondly it is true, that Bellarmine doth not handle those three assertions of his by the way of questions, and solutions, but only by way of assirmative, and resolute propositions. But I thought it best, and more clear for the English Readers understanding to frame the questions of myself, and take the sum of his said propositions, for answers and solutions to the same. What can M. Ba●low mislike in this? He saith, that I have wrongfully set down the cardinals meaning, and namely in the first question, and that there is no such thing in the whole Chapter. Let us examine then this.  

M. Barlows false charge upon his aduersaty.  The first question then, said I, is whether good works in a Christian man do increase hope, and confidence, by their own nature, & the promise of reward made unto them. And Bellarmine answereth that they do, and proveth it by many places of Scripture. Thus I said: & doth not Bellarmine allow this doctrine? Or doth he not teach any such thing in this chapter? Let the reader peruse it, and blush for M. Barlow that affirmeth it. But he giveth an instance saying: Neither Bellarmine, nor any other Divine, either Protestant or Papist, will say good works increase confidence in their own nature. But good Sir, is your nature such, or lack of grace so great, that you can speak nothing without manifest falsehood? I say that good works in a Christian man, do increase hope and confidence, by their own nature, & the promise of reward made unto them. I do join two things together, you do separate them and cavil upon one only. I do speak of good works in a Christian man, to whom the promise of God is made of reward for good works, you leave out that, and do speak of good works as they may be in a Pagan, and for the same cause you say in their own nature, as considered in th●●elus & without God's grace & promise of reward: I do ●ay, that they do increase hope, and confidence by their own ●●ture, and Gods promise of reward. Whereby I do mean that being works so qualified, they do of themselves, and by their own nature of meritorious works increase hope and confidence in the worker, though he for his part, do not place any confidence in them. These than are the first corruptions used by M. Barlow upon my words. Why did he alter them, and not recite them as I set them down?  
But let us see a second proof of his. He allegeth Card. Bellarmine against me, saying, that he distinguisheth between good works, and merits, for that all good works are not meritorious: and so say I too. For that good moral works, may be in Infidels, as hath been said, for they may do almsdeeds, & other such good things, but they cannot be meritorious, for that they do not proceed from grace, & have not the promise to God made unto them. What then doth this make against me? Nay hearken I pray you what ensueth: he bringeth the words of Bellarmine against me, saying: that if good works should be considered in their own nature, without respect both of the promise made ●nto them, and also of the dignity of God's spirit, the original worker of them, they could carry no merit: 
Bellar. d● justificat. lib. 5. cap. 12.  which doctrine I willingly acknowledge, as fully making with me, and condemning M. Barlow of false dealing, that he left out wilfully in my words before recited the clause of the promise of God made unto them: and so in this he fighteth against himself, and discovereth his own untrue dealing.  
But hath he any more to say, think you, against the first question? or doth he answer one word to the plain testimony of Scriptures, alleged out of Toby, job, and S. Paul for proof thereof, all cited by me? No, not so much as one word, and much less to those other, that stand in Bellarmine's book, which are more in number, as neither to the ancient Fathers S. Cyprian, S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, evidently confirming the same, that good and meritorious works do of themselves comfort the conscience of the doer, by increasing hope, and confidence in him, in respect of the promised reward; yea albeit he do not of himself place any confidence in them, but respecteth only, and relieth upon God almighties grace & mercy; for that so it may often fall out (and it is to be noted and borne in mind) that a man may have confidence by good works, 
Good works may give cause of confidence although a man put no confidence in them, but only in God's mercy.  and yet place no confidence in good works; for that a virtuous life enriched with many meritorious actions, may of itself give a man much confidence, for the life to come, though he for his part do not place any confidence therein, but only in God's mercy: so as now we see the first proposition of Cardinal Bellarmine to be true, that the confidence of holy m●n, which they place in God, doth not only spring out of ●ayth, but also out of good meri●s, and therefore that ●uery man must labour wi●h all study, to procure good meri●s, to the end that they may have confidence with God; which is the very same in substance, that I set down in my letter, though somewhat by me abridged and accommodated to the capacity of the vulgar reader.  

Bellar. lib. ●. de justif. cap. 7.  There followeth the second question, proposed by me in these words: Whether this being so, a man may place any confidence wittingly in his own merits, or virtuous life? and it is answered, that he may, so he avoid pride etc. which containeth the very same in effect, that d●th Cardinal Bellarmine's second proposition, that some confidence may be placed in good merit's which are known to be such, so as pride be avoided; unto which second proposition, M. Barlow not being able to say any thing against the truth thereof, confirmed by many testimonies, & examples, both out of the old, & new Testament, and writings of holy Fathers, that did both teach, and practise the confidence of a good conscience, he runneth to seek Cavils, both against me, and Cardinal Bellarmine; and for me he hath devised one of the most childish, 
A childish 〈◊〉 of M. Bar●●●.  that ever perhaps you heard, and such a one that doth evidently declare the malice of his mind, and misery of his cause, that driveth him to such shifts: for that never man of gravity, or sincerity would use the like, knowing, that it must needs be discovered, by the first inspection of the book, by his adversary: thus than it is.  
Where I do frame the second question thus; Whether a ●an may place any confidence in his own merits, and do answer, yea; he leaveth out of purpose, the question itself, 
B●●l. pag. 2●4.  and putteth down the solution only without question, affirming me to say, as it were by way of proposition, A man m●● place any confidence in his own merits, and writeth the word ANY, in great letters, to make it more markable, as though I ha● said, a man may place (any) confidence whatsoever, that is to say, all confidence in his own merits: whereas if he had set down the question simply as I did, whether a man may place any confidence in his merits, & answered only yea, as I did, without adding any further, it would have appeared plainly, that the word (any) did signify as much as some con●idence, answering to Bellarm. words, aliqua fiducia; whereas omitting the question & putting down again the word (any) he changeth the signification thereof, & maketh it to signify, as much as all, or any whatsoever, 
A notable ●●gging of M. Barlow.  as though I had said, a man may put all confidence, or what confidence soever in our merits, & thereby disagree from Bellarmine, whose word● are, as hath been said, aliqua fiducia in bonis meritis collocari potest; some confidence may be placed in good merits: & this shifting fraud is so palpable, as it may be discovered by infinite examples. If one should ask another, whether he had any bread in his house, as Elias for example did ask the poor widow of Sarepta, every man of sense seeth that the meaning is, 
3 R●g. 17.  whether he have any bread at all, of any sort soever, and not whether he have all kind of bread: & so if the other do answer, yea, without adding further, it is to be understood, that he answereth according to the meaning of the demander, that he hath some bread in his house; but if he should answer, as M. Barlow maketh me to answer, yea, I have (any) bread, it would import, that he had all sorts of bread.  
And the like is, if a man should ask M. Barlow whether he have any virtue, the meaning is, whether he have any at all, and so every man I think will understand it, and himself also, I believe, would take it, and think himself injured thereby, if any man should answer, no: but if he should repeat again the same word (any) in the answer, saying: y●a he hath any virtue: here the word ● 〈◊〉) changeth the fo●mer signification, and imports as much, as that he hath all vertue● which I suppose himself would be ashamed to answer in his own cause, as a thing contrary, aswell to his own conscience, as to other men's knowledge.  
And the l●ke i●● if a man should demand him, wh●●he● h● hat● any s●●ll in the Mathematics; he might an●●●●e perhaps, y●a, if he added no ●urther, understanding thereby that h● hath some skill: but if he should answer, a● he maketh me to do; yea, I have any skill; it may s●●ue to make pastime to his demander: and yet upon th●● foolish ●●●ging d●uise of the different taking of t●e word (a●y) he mak●t● great a do; and foundeth m●ny ●r●●●●ntations, writing it still with great letters, a● presently you shall see, seeking thereby to prove, that Cardinal B●llarmine, & I are at debate; he saying, that some con●●dence may ●e placed in merits, & I saying, that (any) confidence may be placed: which is all he hath against me, about the ●econd question. Now let us see, what he hath against Cardinal Bellarmine.  
too things he pretendeth, to wit, that his second, and third propositions are contrary the one to the other i● two points; for that the second proposition, doth allow some kind of confidence, to be put in man's merits, the third doth exclude all, 
 and sayeth it must be in the only mercy of God. But this is a very ridiculous contradiction, to be objected to so learned a man as Bellarmin is. For that both th●se are true, and may stand together as 〈◊〉 sets them down: for that, it is both true, th●t a m●n may place some confidence is his merits, as Cardinal B●●●●●min● proveth, both by Scriptures, and Fathers before mentioned: and it is true also which he sayeth in his third proposition, that this notwithstanding, tu●●ss m●m ●st, it is mo●● safe for a man, though he have good merit's, yet not to respect them, but to place all his confidence in the only mercy o● God. And what contradiction is there here; A man may place some con●idence, but the surest way is to place none? Cannot these two stand together? Let us examine some places of Scriptures.  
If a man, or woman had come to S. Paul, 
1. Cor. 7.  to ask his opinion, whether he, or she should marry, or no; he would have said as he wrote: You may marry, you shall not si●ne by marrying, but the safest way is not to marry: the one is lawful; the other more perfect: should this speech of S. Paul be contrary to itself? 
An excellent example out of S. Paul to con●ute M. Barl●w● contradiction objected against the Cardinal.  I trow no. Now t●en let us see, whether Cardinal Bellarmine's speech be a like: he is demanded, whether it be good for a man to put any confidence in his merits, or no: he answereth, that i● he find that he hath good merits, he may put some hope therein, so it be done without pride; but yet the safest way were not to respect, or think upon his own merits, but only to put his whole confidence in the only mercy of Almighty God. Is here now any contradiction? He saith in the one, that he may put some confidence: in the other, the sa●est way is to put none; this is but a counsel what were best to be done, and most safe; the other a declaration, what in rigour may be done; no man I think of common sense, will say that here is any contradiction, and yet doth M. Barlow urge it again and again; insisting upon the words, 
Ba●l. pag. 26●.  whole con●idence, and al●ne mercy of God, used in the third proposition, which carrieth with it (saith he) a double contradiction, both subiecti, & obiecti; the subject, tota ●iducia, all man's confidence, tota, the whole, whether greater, or less; whether weak, or strong; whether one, or the other, is wholly to be cast upon God's mercy; even as our Saviour commandeth us to love God with our whole soul, hart, and strength, includes therein all the faculties of the soul and body, parts inward and outward, inward of understanding, will, affection, outward all the members of our body to be made S. Paul's whole burnt sacrifice etc. And so runneth forth, amplifying upon the words (whole) and ● all● and then also upon the object, saying, that the object affords a strong contradictions sola misericordia, only mercy, or mercy alone, which admits no participation with another: and ●uch more like ●●usle, as if he were in his Pulpit, deluding the people there, by vain repetition, and exaggeration o●●●●●e words, which yet import no mo●e, ●ut that Cardinal Bella●mi●e his counsel is (though not as a precept of necessity) that albeit a man have ●●uer so many good works, and may iu●●ly thereby in●r●a●● his hope, and con●idence in God, by looking vpo● t●●m as his gi●●●●; yet to be ●ure (for that a man may be deceived in estimation o● his own merits) the best way is no● to respect them, but only to place his whole hope in the sole mercy of Almighty God.  
And this by way of counsel, and not of precept, as you have heard, 
B●●l. pag. 2●●.  though M. Barlow doth egregiously also abase him, y●a very perfidiously, urging against him, that in his third proposition he saith, 
 We must place all our whole con●●dence in t●e sole m●rcy of God, and th●n indeed it were contradictory to t●at, which he saith in the second, that a man may plac● some confid●nc● in his merits, but the Cardinal saith not that, we must, but that, it is the safest way.  
And the like perfidiousness doth he use in perverting, and urging the words of his second proposition, as though he did ●ay, some con●idence must be put in our merits, and not only may: whereas the Cardinal saith ●n●y, that some confidence may be put: & this also with a restriction, ut ca●catur super●ia, that pride be avoided. Let us hear I pray you M. Ba●lows insolent conclusion, ●fter that he hath 〈◊〉 beaten himself up and down to prove these to be contradictions. ●her●ore, saith he, the Apolog●rs oestruation 〈…〉 made, a●d logic, ●onf●●m●s it to be a viol●n● contradiction; 〈…〉 t●o propositions, 
 man's whole confidence's i● to ●e 〈…〉 God● me●cy alone; and, some confidence i● to be 〈◊〉 in manlangit, will no more agreed as b●ing m●st opp●●●te, 〈◊〉 a new pee●e, wi●h an old g●rm●nt, which our Saviour saye●h to ●e an 〈◊〉 impossibility. So he.  
By whic● speech of his o●ly, if the●e were no other o● 〈◊〉 note, the man, and his truth may be thoroughly dis●●●ned, having here falsified both Cardinal B●llarm●n● words, and mea●ing, in the recital of both the●e propositions. For as Cardinal Bellarmine setteth th●m down, they are both true, as be●ore I have showed: but as this man rela●●th them, he maketh them opposite. For Cardinal Bella●mine saith not, that man's whole confidence is to be placed in God's mercy alone, as though it were by way of necessity, and not lawful to respect any thing our own good works, but that, the safest way is so to do. And secondly, he doth not say, that some confidence is to be put in man's merits, as though this also were of necessity, but that some may be put: so as this man seemeth wholly to be compounded of fraud, and that with sincerity of truth he cannot utter any sentence, either of his own, or ours without some imposture. What a Prelate is this ●or men to hang their souls upon the truth of his words?  
The other point in this sentence, I leave to be laughed at by his Reader, that logic confirmeth a viol●nt contradiction, between t●ese two propositions, to wit, that himself hath framed out of his own fingers ends. And as for his example of contradiction, and highest opposition, yea imp●ssibility of coherence between a new piece, and an old garment, every beggar that goeth up and down the country, 
Every beggars patched cloak convinceth M. Barlow of egregious folly.  with a patched clock, will convince him of untruth therein, especially if he have passed lately by any tailors shop, where he hath had commodity of new shreds to join to his old cloak, and show, that there is not such Logical contradiction or opposition between them, but that they may stand together in a beggars cloak, if not in congruity of decency and handsomeness (whereof it seemeth ●hat our Saviour only meant: yet at leastwise without Logical opposition, or impossibility● which was far from the s●nse of Christ in that Parable. So as here are now thr●e or four falsehoods at once discovered, & convinced against M. ●a●l●w, about this ●irst imputed contradiction, between these two propositions. 
 Let us see the second.  
The s●cond objected contradiction is, for th●t C●●d. B●llarmine sayeth in his second proposition, or 〈◊〉 to the second question, that a man may put 〈…〉 dence i● bonis meri●is, quae talia e●se compertum sit, in go 〈…〉 that are found to be truly such. And in his third proposition, he saith, that propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae tutissimu● est etc. for the uncertainty of our own proper justice, the safest way is to put all our confidence in the only mercy of God: which, saith M. Barlow, is contradictory the one to the other; the former affirming, that we must know, that our merits be truly good, before we can put any confidence in them; and the second, that this is uncertain, & therefore it is most safe to put our confidence only in God's mercy. Whereto I answer, that if these things be well considered, there is no contradiction; for that the knowledge of our merits, which is required before we can put any just confidence in them, is a moral knowledge only, such as may stand with some uncertainty, as is to be seen in many things of this world. As for exmple, a man borne now in England, is morally certain, that he is baptised, for that he is told so by his parents and others, for that the Ministers do odinarily baptise infants in the Parish where they dwell: but for that he doth not know certainly, whether he that did baptise him, had the intention of the Church, and used the form of words prescribed, it may stand with some uncertainty, whether he be baptised or no. And the like is in marriage, wherein there is moral certainty, that a man and woman that have lived together many years in wedlock, are truly husband and wife: but yet for that there is not absolute assurance, that both parts did consent in hart to that marriage, it may stand with some uncertainty, whether the marriage were good or no. And so in infinite other things. And in this our case it is evident, that the knowledge required by the Cardinal of our merits, is but moral, such as may stand with some uncertainty; for though we should know, that we have given alms abundantly, redeemed captives, nourished orphans, visited the sick, and imprisoned, and done other good works commended by our Saviour, that promised life ever lasting to the same: yet because we know not whether we have done them with all due circumstances or no, it is but a moral knowledge of their being true merits, & consequently may ●●and with some uncertainty, as is said in the third proposition.  
And what now hath M. Barlow to say to this? Still he telleth us, that they are contradictions, and setteth them down thus in great letters. A man (saith he) must be a●ertained that the wo●ks that he doth be truly g●od, or ●ls ●e may ●ot trust in them, and y●t no man can assure himself that th●y ar● so, ex●●pt he have a revelation saith the Cardinal. Well Sir, and what will you infer of these two propositions? You say that they are opposite, and contradictory. Prove it: ●or that a contradiction est a●●irmatio, & negatio de eodem, respectu eiusdem: here the certainty and uncertainty, that are spoken of, are of different kinds. A man must be acertained that the good works, that he hath done, be truly good before he put confidence in them. This is to be understood of moral certainty only; not absolute & infallible. And then again, no man can assure himself, or know certainly that his works are such, which is to be understood of absolute, and infallible certainty; so as moral certainty, and absolute certainty, being neither the self same thing, but much different, the former may be affirmed, in the ●econd proposition, and the other denied in the third, without any contradiction at all. So as all the rest of M. Barlowes tatting, in this place, saying; 
B●rl. p●g. 265.  That better it were ●or the Cardinal to ac●knowledg an over sight, then to overthrew one soul, redeemed by Christ's blood: and: That contradiction in assertion wounds but o●e opposite member, but unsoundness in doctrine doth wound the we●●● conscience of a Christian: that this may be amended by repeal, retr●●●ing it etc. All this, I say is but idle, and vain speech, without any ground given on the Cardinal's behalf, as b●fore hath been showed. And the unsoundness hath been pro●ed to be on M. Barlows' side, in regard of the many untruths, sleights, and absurdities committed by him. And not to lose any more time in this, we will pas●● to other contradictions, objected to the said Cardinal.  

OF THREE OTHER Contradictions imputed unto Cardinal Bellarmine, but proved to be no Contradictions at all. §. II.  
AS we have been more large than was purposed, in the discussion of the precedent objected contradiction, about the thr●e que●tions, and answers proposed: so shall we endeavour to recompense our length there, with brevity in this place, for that M. Barlow indeed hath here as little to say, as there he speaketh much to small purpose. The second Contradiction then, 
The second supposed contradiction.  is said to be, for that Cardinal Bellarmin taking upon him to show that God is not the author of sin, nor inclineth man thereunto, hath this proposition: That God doth not incline a man to evil, either naturally or morally, physic vel moralizer; 
Bellarm. li●. 2. de Statu pe. cati, & amis●. gratiae ●. 13.  expounding in the same place, what he meaneth by the words naturally and morally, to wit, that to incline a man naturally to evil, is immediately to move his will to some evil act; but to incline morally is to command, or counsel an evil act to be done (which is properly called moral concurrence:) in neither which kind, may God be said to incline a man to evil: but yet there is another way, called o●casionaliter, or by occasion, as when an evil man that hath a naughty will is bend to sin, God almighty, by sending some good cogitation to him, may be the occasional cause, why he committeth this sin, rather than that: whereof I gave an example out of the book of Genesis, the 57 Chapter, where the brethren of joseph, having a naughty will to kill him, God almighty by sending that way the Ismaelite merchants of Galaad, ga●e an occasion rather of thinking how to sell him into egypt, then to kill him, & so to commit rather the lesser sin, than the greater.  
Cardinal Bellarmine also in his answer repeateth again those words of the Psalm, 
Psal. 140.  convertit cor ●orum, ut odi●ent populum eius, God did turn the hearts o● the Egyptians, to hate his people: not that God did either physic o● moralizer, properly move their wills, or command or counsel the Egyptians to hate his people, but only occasionali●er, that is to say, as S. Augustine expoundeth the matter, God by doing good, 
Bellarmin clea●●●●●ō contradiction.  and blessing his said people (which was a good action in him) g●ue the Egyptians occasion to envy, and hate them, they abusing that to evil, which he did for good. And for that this occasional concurrence, may be termed also moral, in a certain large sense, therefore God may be said also to concur morally in this meaning: but for ●o much as these two meanings of moral concurrence, are far different; the first which is proper, may be denied, and this which is unproper may be granted without ●ll contradiction, for so much as a contradiction is not, but when the self same thing is affirmed and denied in the sel●e same subject, and in the same respect, which here is not; no more than if a man should say, these two propositions are contradictory: God commandeth expressly all men in general, Non oc●ides, thou shalt not kill; and yet to divers in particular for several causes, he permitteth to kill, and yet here is no contradiction, for that kill is taken in different senses.  
And this is so plain, that M. Barlow though he strive to talk some what, for that he is obliged for his credit, & hired thereunto (as you know:) yet findeth h● nothing to fasten upon by any probability, and therefore in the end, having entertained himself for a while in repeating what Bellarmine saith, in the place from whence this supposed contradiction about the different sorts of God's concurrence is taken (in repetition whereof he showeth plainly not to understand him:) he finally breaketh out in his malice to end with the odious example of james Clem●nt the Monk, in killing the late King of France; demanding how God concurred with that action, either in general or in particular? But to this now the answer is already made, and so many ways of God's concurrence, or not concurrence, as concern this cause, have been explained, as to stand longer upon it, were los●e of time: let M. Barlow meditate by himself, how God can concur with so many furthering actions of his, by slandering and defaming his neighbour, as here again he chargeth jesuits wit● poisoning of Popes; which being not only apparently f●●●●, but without all ●hew or colour of probability, & yet most violently malicious; sure I am, that God concurreth not therewith, either physicè, or moraliter, by moving his hart or tongue to speak so wickedly, and much les●e by commanding or approving the same. But whether he ●o it occasionalit●r or no, 
 to his greater sin & damnation, ●●at I know not: but certain I am, that the contumely being ●o intolerably false, and ridiculous as it is, and yet uttered and repeated again so often by him, in this his book: most certainly, I say, I do persuade myself, that the Devil hath concurred with him in all these three ways, both ph●sice, moraliter, and occasionaliter. Almighty God forgive him, and make him to see, and feel out of what spirit he speaketh. And so much for this second proposition.  
The third contradiction is urged out of Bellarmine, in two books of his; the first, de Clericis, 
Bell l. 1. de Cl●●i●is ●. 14. & l. 4. de P●nt. cap. 25.  where he saith, that all the Fathers do constantly teach, that Bishops do succeed the Apostles, and Priests t●e se●uenty disciples; and then in his book de Pontifice, he hath the contrary: that Bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles: Unto which my answer was at that time upon viewing the places themselves in Bellarmin, that this was no contradiction at all, 
 for that it was spoken in diu●rs senses: to wit, that Bishops do succeed the Apostles i● power of Episcopal order, & not in power of extraordinary, & Apostolical jurisdiction, and so both were true, and might well stand together, for that all Bishops have t●e same sacred Episcopal order, which the Apostles had, but not their extraordinary jurisdiction over the whole world, as each one of them had: which answer o● mine, since that time, hath been confirmed by Cardinal Bellarm●ne himself, in his own defence, though in different words, saying: Episcopos succedere Apos●olis etc. that Bishops do succeed the Apostles, as they were the first Bishops of particular Churches, as james of jerusalem, john of Ephesus, & the like, is granted in the book de Clericis, but yet that Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles, as they were Apostles, that is to say, as they were sent into all the world with most ●ull power, is denied in the book de Pontifice. So as in different senses both are true: 
 Neque sunt contraria, vel con●●a●ictoria, saith Be●l●rmine, nisi apudeos qui I ogi●am ignorant, v●l sensu communi carent: neither are they contrary, or contradictory, but with them that want Logic: or common sense. So he.  
All which being so plain, yet notwithstanding M. Barlow will needs say somewhat to the contrary, not ●or that he doth not see, that the thing which he is to say, is nothing at all to the purpose, but perchance, that h● thinketh himself bou●d to say somewhat for fashions ●ake, and so rusheth himself into absurdities, as now ●ou ●hal 〈◊〉. Thus than he relateth the case, 
 t●at Bell●rmine 〈…〉 place that Bishops do succeed the Apostles, and in another, tha●●is●op● do not properly succeed the Apostles: and lest any should thi●k●, t●●t this is no Antilogy, because in the last proposition ●he 〈◊〉 ●p●●p●●ly) qualifieth it, t●e Cardinal himself ha●h in the v●ry next pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter, prevented that, wh●re he saith, 
D● C●●e. l. 1. cap. 13. 〈…〉.  that Bishops do pr●●●●●y succeed the Apostles: than which, what more strong coun●e●-●●ocke ca● there be butylene any two? So he. And what ●e meanss by this strong counter-shocke, I know not, but sure I am that he giveth a strong counterbuff to his own credit, by bringing in this reply; for that Bellarmine in the very selfsame place, and words of the precedent Chapter, wh●re he saith, that Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles, showeth himself to mean in succ●ssion of episcopal order, and power of preaching thereto belonging: in which power of preaching he s●yth, Epis●opi proprie Apostolic 〈◊〉 ut, Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles; and proveth it out of the sixth of the Acts; but where he saith in the other place, that they do not properly succeed the Apostles, he means, and so expoundeth his meaning to be, t●at t●ey do not succeed them in their extraordinary universal jurisdiction over all the world. And could M. Barlow choose but see this when he wrote his Reply? If he did not, 
 yet will I not return the uncivil word, here used to me, out of the Poet (for th●re lieth his learning) naviget Ami●yras, ●or that my brain wants purging etc. but I will answer ●im mo●e modestly, to wit, that if he saw not this error of his, than it was at least a great oversight in him to look so negligently to what he writeth: but if he did see it, & yet wou●d so falsely allege it, than were a purgation rather to be wished for his conscience, then for his brains.  
But he ceaseth not here, we must see two, or three false tricks of his more. First he taketh upon him, to prove that Bella●mine in the place before cited de Clericis, 
●●lla●m. c. 14.  doth ind●●d prove tha● Bishops do succeed the Apostle, not only in power of holy Order, but also of jurisdiction. For that B●llarmine being to prove, saith he, according to the title of his Chapter, that Bishops are greater than Priest's, he fetcheth his s●cond reason from their different power of jurisdiction in the new Testament, because they, the Bishops, have the same that the Apostles had: Nam ●pi●copos Apostolis succedere, that Bishops do succeed the Apostles, therein is not one man's testimony alone, constanter docent omnes Patres, saith he, all the Fathers do hold it with one consent, without varying in themselves, or differing from others. Hitherto M. Barlow. And if he show himself faithful in this, you may trust him if you will another time: but if in this as in most other things, he still use shifting, than you may trust him as you find him.  
First than it is true that Card● Bellarmine his purpose in this 14. Chapter, is to prove against Calvin, and some other Protestants, that Bishops and Priests are not equal in degree, but that Priests are inferior to Bishops, and he promiseth to prove three points. First that a Bishop is greater than a Priest, quoad Ordinis po●estatem, in the pow●r of holy order. Secondly, quantùm ad jurisdictionem, that he i● greater also in jurisdiction, for that a Priest hath jurisdiction but over one Parish, and a Bishop over his Diocese: thirdly that Bishops in the primitive Church, were not only, as Calvin saith, like Consuls in a Senate, but like Prince's rat●er in 〈◊〉. The fir●t, an● 〈◊〉 of which points appertain not to our p●●s●nt p●●po●e, ●ut ●●ly the ●●cond about jurisdiction, ●●d this not much nei●her, if you consider it we●l, ●or that Cardina●● 〈◊〉 in●ent is, to show, that the jurisdiction of B●s●ops i● greater than that o● Priest's, but not th●t Bishops had a●l the jurisdiction which the Apostles had, no● doth ●e once name it, or say any such thing: and it is a notorious deceit of M. Bar●●●, when he saith ●●ere, that 〈◊〉 fetches his s●cond re●son to prove the pre-eminence of Bishops above Priest's from their power of iuridis●tion, because they have the s●me that the Apostles had. Bellarmine's words are these: Se●●●●● probatur h●c idem, ex aistin●●i●ue Apos●clo●um & Dis●ip●lor●m s●ptuaginta. Secondly the same is proved (to wit that Bishops are greater than Priests) by the distinction of the Apostles, and the seventy Disciples; and then do ensue immediately those words: Epis●opos Apostolis suc●edere, that Bishops do succeed the Apostles, and Priest's the seventy disciples, all Fathers do constantly teach.  
So that here Bellarmine doth not found his argument of proving Bishops to be greater, and worthier than Priests● upon the succession of Bishops to the Apostles Apostlicall jurisdiction, but in the dignity of holy Order, which is sufficient to prove them to be greater than Priest's: nor doth he fetch this his second reason from jurisdiction, but from distinction, as you see, in his plain words: and therefore these other words of M. Barlow written in great letters, that they have the same (to wit jurisdiction) which the Apostles had, and did succeed the Apostles therein; this I say, is falsely put in, and he did well to write the word (therein in markable great letters, 
M. Barlow sets 〈◊〉 his own● fraud in mark a ●● great le●●ters.  for that it containeth a markable fraud, no such word b●ing in Bellarmine to that sense: nor did all Fathers, nor any Father teach this, that Bishops succeed the Apostles in Apostolical jurisdiction; but rather the plain contrary, as is largely proved in the other places, cited out of the forth book de Pontifice, where the negative is put down by Bellarmine as you have heard, concerning Apostolical jurisdiction; to wit, that Bishops do not therein succeed unto the Apostles; which though of itself it be evident, for that every Bishop hath not jurisdiction over the whole world, as the Apostles had, nor may teach, or preach, or build Churche● throughout the world, as they by their universal jurisdiction might: yet doth Bellarmine prove the same largely throughout four whole Chapters together, showing that albeit Christ our Saviour did give immediately unto all the Apostles, universal jurisdiction over the world (but yet differently to S. Peter from the rest, for that he was appointed to be the ordinary high Pastor over the same, and they extraordinary, and consequently he to have successors in his universal jurisdiction, and they not:) yet doth he not so give it to all their successors, but only mediately by the chief ordinary Pastor of all, which is Peter's successor, and that also with more limitation of place: whereof ensueth, that no Bishop, besides the Bishop of Rome, though he succeed the Apostles in dignity of Episcopal Order; yet doth he no● in jurisdiction, but receiveth that mediately only from God, by the said Bishop of Rome.  

Lib. 4. de Pontif. c. 22.23.24. 25.  And this doth Bellarmin prove, (to wit, that all Bishops take their jurisdiction from the Bishop of Rome) by eight several arguments out of Scriptures, Fathers, councils and reasons in one chapter, which is the 24. next following, and answereth all the arguments objected to the contrary, to wit, fix by name, repeating often and proving, that in this power of jurisdiction, Episcopi non succedunt proprie Apost●lis, Bishops do not succeed properly the Apostles: expounding also what he means by the word properly Dicuntur Episcopi (saith he) succedere Apostolis non proprie, eo modo quo ●nus Episcopus alteri, unus Rex alteri, sed duplici alia ratione, primò ratione Ordinis sacri Episcopalis, secundò per quamdam similitu●inem etc. Bishops are said to succeed the Apostles, not properly, as one Bishop succeed another, and one King another, (in all their power and jurisdiction) but two other ways; the first by reason of sacred Episcopal Order which they have, which the Apostles had: and secondly by a certain similitude or proportion, that as the Apostles were the ●irst, and immediate under Christ, when he was upon earth, so are Bishops now under the chief Bishop etc.  
A●l which being set down so clearly in Bellarmine's own words, and writings, hear I pray you what modest conclusion M. Ba●low maketh of all that is said. 
Barl. pag. 269.  If he stand (saith he) on the place where the negative is, to wit, in the fourth book de Pontifice, there indeed the Cardinal, driven to ●is shifts, is forced to coin this distinction: but yet that salves not the contradiction, but maketh it greater. For therein he showeth, 
Shamles dealing o● M. Barlow.  that he manifestly opposeth both himself and all the Fathers. For in superiority of jurisdiction Bishops by testimony of all the Fathers succeed the Apostles, as himself confesses, proveth, and approveth in this place. So he. And what shall we say now to this? Was there ever the like dealing or manner of answering, to outface a man, against his own words, proofs, and protestations? Doth Bellarmine confess, prove, and approve in this place, that Bishops do succeed the Apostles, in their superiority of jurisdiction, received immediately from Christ, which he hath impugned before by so many strong arguments? In what law of modesty doth this lie, to affirm such things? But see, I pray you, how contradictory he is to himself, even in these few lines. For if Bellarmine were driven to coin this distinction, that Bishops did succeed the Apostles in dignity of Order, not in power of jurisdiction, then cannot he be said to confess, prove, and approve, that they do succeed in superiority of jurisdiction, as here M. Barlow affirmeth him to avouch. 
M. Barlow maketh ●ely Whitaker to be terror unto Bellarmine. spectatum admissi ●isum tene atis.  And can there be any thing more contradictory than this? And is not passion a great infirmity, that driveth a man to these absurdities?  
I will let pass that childish, though malicious scorn which he useth against Cardinal Bellarmine in comparing him with D. Whitaker, whose name (saith he● though dead, like Zisca his drum, is a terror to Bellarmine: alluding unto that famous roguing Rebel of Bohemia, Zisca, who enraged with the drunkenness of john Husse his new heresy, upon the point of some two hundredth years ago, took arms against his lawful Sovereign, made an army of the common people, that were put into madness with the same heresy, took Castles, spoiled Towns, burned Villages, Monasteries, murdered infinite people, especially o● the Clergy, and finally died so miserably blind, both in body and soul, that as having not any one eye corporal left him: so seemeth he (though M. john Fox do set him d●wne for a Saint and Confessor of his Church, 
Zisca the blind Bohemian rebel a fit Saint for john Fox.  in his Ecclesiastical Calendar, upon the fifth day of February) to have had no lea●t part of any spiritual eye in his sou●e; for that men coming to him as he lay on his deathbed, to know how he would be buried, & what sort of obsequies he would have, he answered most profanely, that they should ca●t him out where they would, that ●oules might devour his flesh, but that first they should take of his skin, and make a drum thereof, assuring them, that his enemies (the Papi●●s) would fly upon the only noise of the same.  
This is the witty, and modest comparison that M. Barlow thought good to use between Cardinal Bellarmin, and D. Whitaker; and of the terror that M. whitaker's name, being now dead, doth strike into Bellarmine, as o●ten as he heareth it, no less than the drum of Zisca. But how like soever M. Whitaker might be to Zisca for his sect and religion (scarce settled peradventure in any) I will not dispute; but for the terror of his drum to Bellarmine it is ridiculous to them, that have read, or do read both their works. And surely what miracles M. whitaker's memory, or skin may work now after his death (especially if it should be made into a drum, as that of Zisca was) I cannot tell, but sure I am, his tongue, and pen wrought few miracles, whilst he was alive. And that is evident both by his own writings, and of others against him, as well in English, as that of M. D. Stapleton, M. Gregory Martin, and M. William Reynolds; as also in latin, of the said D. Stapleton in two books, Duraeus, and Gretz●rus have evidently declared.  
And to repeat only a note or two, given by the said M. Reynolds, whom all men know to have been a very modest man, and for many years to have been a great Protestant, his censure was very mean of M. Doctor whitaker's learning, as may appear by his book against him, ascribing unto him very shallow knowledge, and intolerable arrogancy, in condemning all Doctors and Fathers, 
M Reynolds refutation oh D. Whi●taker.  as appeareth both in his Preface p. 44. 45. and in the ensuing book pag. 495. 496. And again he showeth, pag. 109. that he understandeth not the Protestant doctrine of only Faith, which he taketh upon him to defend. Moreover he showeth, pag. 23. 25. 114. 115. 123. 126. 319. how he contradicteth himself most manifestly: 
M. whitaker's ig●norance.  and that this is his custom, which is no sign of exquisite learning as all men know. And finally to enter into no more particularities, I will cite only half a score of lines, if they be so many, of M. Reynolds words, concerning M. whitaker's ignorance, discou●red in one only Paragraph.  
In this Paragraph, saith M. Reynolds, 
M. Rey●nolds confutation ● 97.  you commit as many errors as lightly you may. For first you understand not M. Martin, whom you go about to confute. Secondly you understand not S. Paul alleged by him. Thirdly you understand not S. Paul alleged by yourself. Fourthly you understand not the state of the question, of which you talk. And lastly you understand not yourself, and the doctrine of your fellows. Thus he. And presently proveth all these ignorances, one by one, in such sort, as I see not how any of them may justly be denied. And yet (forsooth) this is the man, whose skin and drum M. Barlow will have to be a terror to Bellarmine. Let us put this to his other follies, and so an end. But if this do not suffice, let M. Barlow if his leisure serve him, read the two books of M.D. Stapleton, against M. Whitaker, 
whitaker's boo● not wort the taking up.  and he shall soon see the man's weight and worth, and what drum might be made of his skin, or rather what scarecrows, to fear fools, for learned men he can never fear, that was himself so ignorant, and so ever esteemed amongst them, in his lifetime; whereto we may add this for an argument, that his large latin Duplication against the said Doctor, was held by all to be such poor stuff, as it lay on the printer (Legates) hands for want of sale: in so much that he was forced to make suit to M. Chatterton (your predecessor M. Barlow in the Sea of Lincoln) in respect of the great multitude of Ministers in that diocese, that he would cause them to buy the copies, thereby to ease his charge, who otherwise was like to be much damnified, if not undone by the printing of such a worthless work, which of all the works of Bellarmine and Stapleton, you shall never hear of to have happened, though they have been printed, and reprinted divers times.  
There followeth the fourth Contradiction objected to Cardinal Bellarmine, about judas, where he is accused to ●ay in one place of his works, to wit, lib. 1 de Pontifice, cap. 12. That judas believed not: and yet in another place, lib. 3. the Just ficatione c. 14● he saith, that judas was just, & certainly good, which I say was no contradiction at all, if we respect the two several times, whereof Card. Bellarmine did speak, proving out of S. john's Gospel, that judas in the beginning was good, and did believe, but afterward, he became evil, and lost his faith.  
This was the sum of my answer: and the cardinals book coming out afterwards, hath the same in effect in these words: 
Apolog. To●t. pag. 75.  Distinguish the times, you shall agree the Scriptures. judas believed, and was just, and good, in the beginning of his election; but afterward he yielded to the tempter, and not only did not believe, but became a thief also, and betrayed his Lord, and lastly hanged himself. So he.  
And now what do you think, that M. Barlow out of his ingeniosity will find to bring for maintenance, that this was a true contradiction in Bellarmine? Truly he will adventure far to find somewhat, though it be to his own shame and discredit. 
〈◊〉 pag 27●.  Let us hear his mad defence. ioyning●sayth ●sayth he) of the adverb verè (by Bellarmine) that judas was truly righteous, and certainly good, and yet did not believe, makes it a contradiction incurable. And to the end that his fraud may be more notorious, he writeth the words truly, certainly and not believe, in great letters. But now if you look upon Cardinal Bellarmine's words, you shall find first, that he doth not join the adverb vere, that is truly righteous, nor the others of certainly good at all; his words are these: 
 Domini●o ●o annis 17. Pater quos dedisti mihi custodivi, nemo ex eis periji nisi filius perditionis. Si Pater de dit illum Filio, certe bonus erat. That judas was sometimes just, S. Hierome doth prove out of the words of S. john 17. Father I have kept those, that thou hast given me, and none have perished, but the son of perdition. If God the Father gave him to his Son, truly he was then good. here than you see that there is no ●ere justus, truly righteous, as M. Barlow hath thrust into Bellarmine's words. And albeit he saith, certe bonus erat, yet certe is not referred to bonus, as is evident. 
An egre●gi●us abusing Cardina Bellarm to frame contrad●●ction  These are then two wilful corruptions. But the third is much more eminent, that he maketh Bellarmine to say, that notwithstanding that judas was truly righteous, and certainly good: yet did he not believe. Whereas Bellarmine saith, he did believe, and so is it set down in the form itself of the objected contradiction, saying; that first he did believe, when he was chosen an Apostle, and that then he was just: but afterward he lost his faith, and did not believe. And now will M. Barlow for making up of some show of contradiction against Bellarmine, make him say, that at the one, and the self same time, judas was truly righteous, certainly good, and yet not believed. And to show that this is an absurd proposition, he maketh a long discourse out of Scriptures and Fathers, to prove, that without faith a man cannot be truly righteous, nor certainly good, as though Cardinal Bellarmine had denied the same. Is there any shame in these men?  
But after this again, he goeth further in another place, demanding; whether, 
Ba●l. pa● 273.  supposing judas to have believed at the beginning, his faith were ●ormata or no? 
S. Thomas egregiously 〈◊〉 by M. Barlow.  that is, informed by grace, working by charity; ●llead●ging Aquinas in these words: Surely in him that hath such a ●aith Aquinas saith, nihilinest damnationis, there is no damnation For being once had, it cannot totally, and finally be lost: nor is it more separable from him, than the essential form of any thing from the subject, which it denominates. Thus he. And will not every man that readeth these words, think that Aquinas doth hold all this doctrine here averred, that fides formata once had, cannot be finally lost? M. Barlow hath holpen the matter the best he can to deceive his Reader, in not citing any place of Aquinas, where he holdeth this, for that he could not do it: 
D. Thom. 2●. q. 23. art 10. in corpore. & art. 11. & 12. per totum.  but they that are acquinted with Aquinas his books, and doctrine, know him expressly to teach the contrary, as the Reader may see, if he li●t to peruse the places here quoted, where he purposely proveth, that charitas semel habita potest ami●●i, and for that charity is the form of faith, it followeth by necessary consequence, that fides formata, to wit, a justifying faith may in Aquinas his opinion be lost: and hereof no Catholic Divine can doubt. So as the impudence was strange, in charging Aquinas with this, which is the proper heresy of john Calvin: 
Lib. 3. Institut. c. 2.  but much more that in the very place, whence this pretended contradiction, about judas, is taken, to wit, out of Bellarmine's third book de justificatione, 
Lib. de Ius●i●i●at. c. 24.  Bellarmine doth prove by eight examples out of Scriptures the quite contrary, to wit; that faith, and justice being once had, may be lost again. What will M. B●●low answer to all this? will not his friends blush for him in this behalf? Or will not every judicious Reader make a pause here, and say, that it is a strange misery of a cause in religion, which cannot be defended, but with such gross, & palpable falsehoods. Let us leave them these objected contradictions and pass to some other things. The Cardinal hath answered all the rest himself; nor did I think it good, that wrote before him, to prevent him therein, nor yet to ●asse any further, having proved these first four to be such, as now you have seen: though M. Barlows defence hath made the matter far worse.    

OF THE CONTENTIONS OF SUNDRY OTHER EMPERORS, KINGS, AND PRINCES with Popes of their times, in temporal affairs: objected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Pope's Superiority. WHEREIN many frauds and forgeries are discovered in M. Barlow, particularly concerning Frederick the second, and his contentions with Popes. CHAP. V.  
THis argument of the temporal dangers imminent to Princes, as is pretended, by acknowledging the Pope's supreme Authority, and of so many hurts and dangers ensuing thereof, though we have somewhat largely handled before by occasion of the examples objected of the emperors Henry the 4. and Henry the 5. yet here are we forced to re●terat● the same argument again: 
for that many more examples are objected, concerning the said Henry the fourth his doing penance at the Ca●tle of Canusium, 
Letter pag. 98.  enforced thereunto by Pope Gregory the 7. as also of the Emperor Frederick the 1. forced by Pope Alexander the third to lie a groo●e on his belly, and to suffer the other to tread on his neck: of Philip the Emperor said to be slain by Otho, at the Pope's motion: of the Emperor Frederick the second excommunicated and deprived by Pope Innocentius the 4. & procured afterward to be poisoned: that Pope Alexander the third wrote to the soldan to poison the Emperor, & sent him his picture to that effect: that Pope Alexander the sixth caused the brother of Baiazetes the Turkish Emperor named Gemen to be poisoned at his brother's request, and had two hundred thousand crowns for the same: That our King Henry the second, besides his going barefoot on pilgrimage, was whipped up and down the Chapterhouse, like a school boy, and glad to ●scape so too: That the Father of the modern King of France was deprived by the Pope of the kingdom of Navarre, and himself (I mean this King of France) forced to beg so submissively the relaxation of his excommunication, as he was content to suffer his Ambassador to be whipped at Rome for penance.  
All these examples (said I in my Letter) were heaped together to make a muster of witness, for proof of the dangers that Prince's persons are, or may be in, by acknowledging the Pope's supreme Authority: 
L●tt. p. 9●.  adding this for answer. But first (quoth I) in perusing of these, I find such a heap indeed o● exaggerations, additions, wrest, and other unsincere dealing, as would require a particular Book to refute them at large. And the very last here mentioned of the present King of France, m●y show what credit is to be given to all the rest, to wit, Rome● & the latin Interpreter turneth it, Vt Legatum suum Romae virgis caesum passus sit, as though he had been scourged with rods upon the bare flesh, or whipped up and down Rome; whereas so many hundreds being yet alive that saw the Ceremony (which was no more, but the laying on, or touching of the said Ambassadors shoulder with a long white wand upon his apparel, in token of submitting himself to Ecclesiastical discipline) it maketh them both to wonder, and laugh at such monstrous assertions, coming out in print: and with the same estimation of punctual fidelity do they measure other things here avouched.   
As ●or example, 
Touchi K. Hen●● the secon●●  that our King Henry the second was whipped up and down the Chapterhouse, and glad that he could escape so too, ●or which he citeth Hoveden, and this he insinuateth to be by order of the Pope: in respect whereof (he saith) the King had just cause to be afraid. 
Houed. 303.  But the Author doth plainly show the contrary, first setting down the Charter of the King's absolution, 
Ib. p. 30  where no such penance is appointed: 
See Bar●● in an 117 sub linen  and secondly after that again in relating the voluntary penance which the King did at the Sepulchre of S. Thomas, for being some occasion of his death, doth refute thereby this narration, as fraudulent, and unsincere, that the King was whipped like a school boy by order of t●e Pope, as though it had not come from his own free choice, and devotion.  
Thus said I in my Letter. To these two last examples of whipping, both in the King of France his ●mbassadour, 
Barl. pag. 275.  & our King Henry the second of England, M. Barlows reply is only in certain scoffs for entertaining of t●●e. 

M. Ba●●low off●●●ded for that the King of France 〈◊〉 Embass●●dour 〈◊〉 not wh●●●ped.  
Matth. ● E●hes. ●.   A wand (saith he) was laid so●tly on the Ambassador of France his shoulders etc. Is the rod of Ecclesiastical discipline in Rome, turned now in●o a white wand so●tly laid on? Again after: Herby a man may conjecture, what the sel●e-whipping of jesuits, and Roman●sts is. Will they not s●y when they have the ●●ip in their hands, as S. Peter said to his Master, Parce tibi: be good to your sel●e Sir? For no man yet ever hated his own flesh, but nourished it: which is a better place of Scripture against selfe-whipping, then t●e Pop● hath any for turning the rod of correction, into a wand of Ceremony. So he.  
And whether it be a better place of Scripture or no, I wil● not decide: but sure I am, that the practice is more ●asy and sweet to nourish a man's own flesh, then to discipline the same; and more allowed, I doubt not, by M. Barlow, & such as follow his spiritual directions. But yet about this better place of Scripture avouched by M. Barlow, against whipping, it shall not be amiss to consider somewhat, how rightly it is alleged, and thereby see what becometh of Scriptures, when it is once brought into these men's possessions.  
The place is cited together, as you see, all in a different letter, as if S. Peter had spoken the whole; & yet in the margin he quoteth Matth. 16. and Ephes. 5. whereby those that are learned understand, 
Matt. 16. Ephes. 5.  that the former words only of Parce tibi: spare yourself Sir, are of S. Peter, and the later, of nourishing our flesh, against disciplining, is of S Paul. And not to stand upon the former clause, albeit that it differ from the vulgar translation, surely the place of S. Paul beareth not M. Barlows sense and application against disciplining of our flesh, which is so far of from the Apostles true drift and meaning, as nothing can be more. His words are these: Husbands ought to love their wives, as their own bodies, and he that loveth his wife, loveth himself, for no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth, and cherisheth the same, even as Christ the Church. And is this so good a place of Scripture now, as M. Barlow saith, against selfe-whipping, for so much as here the Apostle speaketh of husbands nourishing and cherishing their wives, as Christ doth his Church? Which though he loved as his own flesh, yet doth he often whip and chasten, as all men do both see, and feel, that live in her. This then is impertinent, and nothing to S. Paul's meaning.  
But what? were it not a better place to the contrary, for whipping and chastening a man's own flesh voluntarily, when the same apostle saith, Cas●igo corpus meum, & in ●●r●itutem ●e●igo: 
〈…〉.  It do chasten my own body, and do bring it into servitude: the Greek word also being more forcible, to wit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to make black, or ●lew: as also where he talketh of Vigiliae, & jejunia multa, of many Vigils and fastings, practised by him, and other Apostles. Doth not this prove that a selfe-chastizing of a man's body is pleasing to God? What will M. Barlow say to that other precept of ●erram● do you mortify your members upon earth. Doth not voluntary mortification of the members of our body include voluntary chastisement of the flesh and consequently also whipping sometimes if need require? 
〈◊〉. 5.24.  What will he say of that crucifying our members, whereof the same Apostle speaketh? 
M. Barlow little a●●●a●nt●●●ith 〈…〉 body by discipline. 1. 〈◊〉. 2. 14.  Doth not crucifying imply as much as self whipping? But it seemeth that these things are strange paradoxes to M. Barl. that was never acquainted with the same, but being accustomed rather with the other pa●t of the sentence of nourishing & cherishing his flesh, by good cheer, soft apparel, and other delicacies of life, so far ●orth as he hath been able to procure it, laughing at them that ta●ke o● whipping, quia ani●alis homo non percipi●●a qu● 〈◊〉 sp●●itus D●● because the fleshly man doth not understand those things that appertain to the spirit of God. And this shallbe a sufficient answer to M. Barlowes trifling about whipping, both in the King of France his Ambassador at Rome, and King Henry the second at Canterbury in England.  
But yet one thing is to be noted, for conclusion about whipping King Henry the second, of whom it was said before, that he was whipped up and down the Chapter-house, like a school boy, and glad to escape so too: now being pressed by my answer thereunto out of Hoveden, and other witnesses that the penance which King Henry did there, was voluntary, and not enjoined by the Pope: now (I say) M. Barlow answereth it thus: 
●a●l●w pag. 2●7.  Whether the penance were voluntary or enio●ned to the King, who maketh the question? the Apologer said no such thing etc. But let the words themselves now recited be judges in the matter, which say, that he was whipped up & down the Chapterhouse like a school boy, and glad to escape so too. Doth this import voluntary or involuntary whipping? And how then can M. Barlow say, that the Apologer said no such thing? For if he were glad to escape so too, who will not infer, that he would have escaped with less whipping, if he could, and that therefore the same was in●erred? which is y●t contradicted by those Historiographers that recount the same. And I think M. Barlow will find very few schoolboys that are voluntarily whipped.  
There remain now the other examples of the emperors Frederick the first, Henry the sixth, and the rest before mentioned, affirmed to have been injuriously dealt withal by Popes of their time. All which I might justly pretermit, as proving nothing against our case of the Oath, though all were granted, which hath been objected about them. For suppose that some Popes had dealt hardly, and rigorously with some Emperors, Kings, and Princes, that should no more take away his authority, than it should take away any King's authority, if he should offer injury to one, or more of his Nobility. But besides this, I said further in my Letter, that in examining the particulars, I found many exaggerations, additions, wrest, and unsincere dealings in the alleging of these examples. And as for the first of Frederick, 
Frederick the first.  that he should lie a groo● on his belly, and suffer Pope Alexander the third to tread on his neck, and say, super aspidem & basilis●um &c. is a great exaggeration, and refuted as fabulous by many reasons, & authorities of Authors alleged by Card. Baronius, to whom I remitted the same, 
About the coronation of Henry the sixth.  for that the discourse thereof was ever long to be repeated by me in that Letter.  
The other example also of Henry the 6. Emperor, whose Crown C●l●stinus the Pope is accused to have strooken from his head with his foot, after he had set it on, I held in the same number of fabulous narrations, for that it being said to be done in Rome, it was only mentioned first by an ●nglish writer Roger H●ueden, that lived so many hundred miles from the place, and thereby might easily be deceived, as Reynold of Ch●ster in like manner was, that took it of him. Wh●ras no other writer o● other nations, either present 〈…〉 coronation, when the thing is feigned to have been done●● God● fridus 〈◊〉 Secretary to the said Emperor) n●r other writers afterward relating the said Coronation, 
a In ●ita C●l●stini.  〈◊〉, 
b P●rt. ●. g●●. 40. in 〈◊〉. 11●.  Na●●●●rus, 
c 〈◊〉 ●. 〈…〉 ●.  Sab●ll●●●s, 
d ●n An. 119●.  Blondus, 
e 〈…〉.  Sigoni●s and 
f 〈…〉.  〈◊〉 do so much as o●●● make mention thereof, which ●s improbable that they would have pretermitted, being so 〈◊〉 a ●oint, if it had fallen out.  
To this last example, and my answer about the same, M. Barlow hath no reply to make, but that Baronius seemeth to take it for a truth, and graceth it, saith he, 
Baronius An. 1191.  with a symbolical hieroglyphike, expressing what the Pope should mean in doing so. Whereto I answer, that Baronius relating the matter out of Roger Hoveden, doth neither affirm it to be true, or false, but according to that narration of Hoveden expounds what it might signify if it had been true, and as it was ●ould Houed●n in England. But so many other authors that speak of that Coronation, & mention not this other f●ct, as ●ow we have alleged, do make the negative much more probable.  
And as for the former about Frederick the first Emperor, and Pope Alexander the third, I 〈◊〉 to stand to my former remission thereof, to the large discussion of Cardinal Baronius, far over long to be brought in, into this place: but there all may be seen at large, to wit, the meeting of the said Pope and Emperor at Venice, upon the year 1177. the kind and friendly reconcilement between them, written by the second Archbishop of Sal●rnum called Rom●aldus, who was Legate or ●mbas●ad●ur to the King of Sicily, 
Alexander the 3. ●●eared 〈◊〉 a ●●lūny.  & was present, & saw all that passed: whose Records are yet extant in an ancient Got●icall character aswell in the Church of Sal●rnum, as in the Vaticam Library. He proveth the same also by the epi●●les & acts themselves of Pope Alexander yet extant, and by the silence of all ancient writers that lived then, or soon after, who mentioning all that passed very particularly, do not make mention of this act of the Pope's putting his foot upon the emperors neck, nor of any such spe●ch, as super a●pidem & ●asilis●ū etc. And finally he proveth the same to be a table, by the disconueniency of divers other things there done to make peace, as that it had been the way to overthrow all, and to exasperate the Emperor for ever, whom the Pope sought by all means to pacific and gain, and it was contrary to that Pope's nature and condition, who was sweet and courteous, with sundry other arguments, which I let pa●●e, referring the Reader to that co●ious discourse and declaration of his about this matter:  

Paron. in annal. an. 1177.  Against all which, M. Barlow now allegeth nothing of any moment at all, but inveighing ●irst against Baronius for alleging a manuscript in the Pope's Library, one Romualdus (saith he) not yet extant in view, and for aught is known, may aswell be ●orged as true. 
●arlow pag. 281.  And is not this good dealing, when ther● are so many author's o● credit in print, to a●●ow this s●orie? One manuscript, uncouth, ●b●●ure ●rit●r must encounter the credit of them all. 
Ba●l. pag. 269.  So he. And ag●ine after he termeth the said Rom●aldus, A Vatican Desk-creeper etc. But the answer is easy, that the printing o● a book, maketh it not of greater authority: for than no work had been of authority, some hundred years ago when there was no print in the world, but all were manuscripts. And as for the truth of this s●orie, Baronius toucheth so many particulars of the two Libraries where the work is extant in Gothical characters, which every man may see and read, as no probable doubt can be that he hath devised or feigned it; 
Walthramu● so often objected of no credit.  as there may well be of Walthramus Naumburg●nsis so often alleged against us, of whom notwithstanding we have no other certainty than the credit of Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran, which with us is very small: whereas Baronius remitteth all men to these two ancient manuscripts, still extant and to be seen by all that wil And as for some later writers objected by M. Barlow to have affirmed the same of Frederick, Baronius his answer a●ter many other proofs, is this: Si quid huiusmodi per Alexandrum Papam etc. If any such thing had been done by Alexander the Pope, how would these writers, that were present and wrote every least thing that was done, yea did set down every seu●rall thing, in the very words that they were spoken there, & that with all diligence, as we have seen now the King's Legate Romualdus to have done: 
●●ron. Tom. 12. 〈◊〉. R●●. pag. 7●.  how I say, is it probable, that they would have pretermitted this matter, so strange, so new, so monstrous for the indecency thereof, there being also so many emulators, and of faction against the Pope? Would no one of them set it down in their writings, or so much as make mention thereof? So Ba●o●ius.  
There followeth in the third place, the story of the Emperor Philip, of which I wrote thus before: 
Lett. pag. 1●1.  That also of the Emperor Philip, affirmed to be slain by Otho his opposite Emperor, at the incitation of Pope Innocentius the third, is a mere slander, for that according to all histories, not Otho the emperor, but another Otho named of Witil●spacke a private man, and one of his own Court, upon a private grudge did slay him. Albeit Vrspergensis, that followed the ●action of the Emperors against the Popes, do write, that he had heard related by some the speech here set down, that Innoce●tius should say, that he would take the Crown from Philip, or Philip should take the Mitre from him: yet he saith expresly● quod non erat credendum, that it was not to be believed. And yet is it cited here by our Apologer, as an undoubted truth, upon the only authority of Vrspergensis in the margin.  
To this also M. Barlow hath very little to reply, & might well have held his peace; but that he saw himself obliged to say somewhat. Wherefore first he granteth, that such a mistaking of one Otho for the other, might be in so intricat a Story. Then he goeth about yet further to amend the matter, by this evasion, that it was not said, that Philip was slain by Otho the Emperor his hands, but that Otho slew him, which may ●e re●●rred (saith he) to his means, rather than to his hands. But what is this to our purpose, who do seek which of the Otho's did slay Philip? And Vrspergensis who then lived, saith, that he was slain by Otho the Count, without any mention in the world of any procurement thereof by Otho the Emperor, and much less of the Pope; howbeit M. Barlow maketh one Nicolas Cisucrus (o● whom yet I had otherways no notice● to tell us out o● Vrspergensis, That not long after the p●ace was concluded mutually, what ●y the Pope, what by Otho, betwine them BOTH, Philip, was murdered in his Chamber, and ●laine: putting the words, what by the Pope, what by Otho in different letters, and then the word BOTH in capital characters, to make his lie more visible, which otherways was gros●e enough of itself. ●or ●●re I am, that no such thing is to be ●ound in Vrsp●rgens●s: & if Cis●erus relate no other than he hath of him, it is very probable that he hath as little, and that all is framed out of the forge of M. Barlows chimerical invention. And as for the distinction, which he maketh in the same place, between Conradus a Lich●●na●, and Abbot Vrspergensis, I shall a little after in this Chapter, upon another occasion, show it to be no more, than there is between Wiliam Barlow, and William lincoln, as he styleth himselve in the end of his Epistle to his Majesty, to wit, that it is one and the self same man, and it is but a dream of M. Barlow to make them two.  
So likewise touching the other distinction● set down in the words be●ore alleged, that the 〈◊〉 mark referred to Otho the emperors means, as w●ll, or rather, ●●en to 〈◊〉 hands; there shall need no further refutation, 〈◊〉 the Apology itself, saying: 
Apolog. pag. 72. About Philip the Emperor ●laine not by Otho the ●mp●ror, but by Otho the C●unt. 〈…〉.  vp●●aith ●●aith he) Otho against him, who sl●●● him, and presently went to Rome and was crowned Emperor by the Pope. Do not these words affirm plainly, that Otho the Emperor, and not Otho the Count slew Philip? And yet doth his Author Vrsp●rg●nsis cited in the margin affirm expressly, that Otho the Count, and not Otho the Emperor slew him, as now hath been said, which M. Barlow here granteth, though with an exception, saying: For the Count he is plain, of the Emperor he saith nothing: silence omits the relation, excuseth not the guilt. By which words it seemeth that he would say, that albeit Otho the Count did sl●● Philip, yet Oth● the Emperor had his hand therein. But what one author can he allege of any credit, that saith the same? He allegeth for a conjecture, and urgeth t●e words of the Pope before cited; that he would either take from Philip his crown, or Philip should take from him his M●t●r, which being related only by Vrspergensis, as a 〈…〉, he addeth notwithstanding, quod non erat cr●den●●●, that it was not to be believed: which word● M Bar●●● now corre●t●th, s●●ing, that his true words are, dissi 〈…〉, & vi● credendum, which he Eng●isheth thu●; 〈…〉, was a hard thing to be related, and scarcely 〈…〉, wherein you see that he helpeth the die (to use M. M●●ton● phrase) by a favourable translation. The substance is not any thing different from the sum of his words which I set down before.  
There ensueth in the fourth place, the objection about the emperor Frederi●k the second, 
L●tt● pag. 1●1.  of whom I wrote in my Letter thus. The like may be said of the tale of Frederick the second, attempted to have been poisoned, first in Apulia by Pope Innocentius the 4. and afterward effectuated by one Man●redus, as hired by th● Pope: which is a very tale indeed, and a malicious tale. For that he which shall read all the Authors that write of his life, or death, as 
1 In vita Inno●en. 4.  Platina (whom the Protestants hold for free in speaking evil of divers Popes) 
2 Lib. 2. D●●ad l. 75  Blondus, 
3 Tom. 2. Enne. 9 l. 6 non longè ante finem.  Sabellicus, 
4 Part. 2. gen. 41. an● 1247.  Nauclerus, 
5 Lib. 8. c. 18 su●● Saxoniae.  Crantzius, 
6 In fine l. 18.  Sigonius, & others, shall find, that as they write very wicked things committed by him in his life: so talking of his first danger in Apulia by grievous sickness, they make for the most part no mention of poison at all, and much les●e as procured by Pope Innocen●ius, praised 
* ● land. v●i supra.  for a very holy man, & to have proceeded justly against Fred●ricke. And s●condly for his death, they agree all, that it was not by poison, but by stopping his breath and stifling him in his b●d with a pillow, by Man●redus his own bastard-Sonne, to whom he had given the Princedom of Ta●entum, for 〈◊〉 l●a●t he should take it ●rom him again, & b●stow it upon Conradus his other son. But that the Pope was privy to this, or hired him to do the fact, as our Apologer affirmeth, there is no one word or syllable in these Authors thereon.  
But you will sa●, that he citeth one Petrus de Vineis in his margin, 
Petrus de Vi●eis lib. 2. apost. 2. & 〈◊〉 vita 〈…〉.  and Cus●●nian in the life of Frederick, both which are but one Author; for that Cuspiniam p●of●sseth to t●ke what he saith, out of Petrus de Vin●●s, which Petrus was a servant to Frederick, & a professed enemy to the Pope, and wrote so partially of this contention, as Pope Innocentius himself wrote Libros Apologeticos (as Blondus recordeth) Apologetical Books, 
〈…〉.  to confute the l●e● of this Pet●us de Vin●●s in his li●e tyme. And yet you must note, that ●● avoucheth not all that our Apologer d●th, with so much stomach, or affirmative assertion. For thus relateth Cuspinian the matter out of Petrus de Vineis: Non potuit ca●ere, etc. The Emperor could not avoid, but when he returned into Apulia he perished with poison, the 27. year of his reign, and 57 of his age, on the very same day that he was made Emperor. For whereas at the town of Horenzola in Apulia, having received poison he was dangerously sick, and at length, by diligence of Physicians, had overcome the same, he was stifled by Man●redus his bastard-sonne, begotten of a noble woman his Concubine, with a pillow thrust into his mouth, whether it were, that Man●redus did it as corrupted by his enemies, or by the Pope, or for that he did aspire to the Kingdom of Sicilia. So he  
And albeit, as you see, he saith more herein against the Pope, 
Enforcing of matters against the Pope.  than any of the other Authors before mentioned for that he desired to cast some suspicions upon him: yet doth he it not with that bold asseveration, that our Apologer doth, saying: That both his first sickness was by poison of the Pope's procurement, and his murdering afterward by hiring of Manfredus to poison him again: whereas the other ascribeth not the first poisoning to the Pope (if he were poisoned) neither doth so much as mention the second poison, but only the stifling, and finally leaveth it doubtful, whether the same proceeded from the Emperor's enemies, or from the Pope, or from his Sons own ambition, and emulation against his brother.  
Thus much I wrote then. Whereunto now M. Barlow endeavoureth to make a large reply, but without any re●utation in e●fect, of that which is said: only in words he seems to wrangle, wherein I mean not to follow him, but with brevity, to see whether any thing in substance be contrary to that which here is set down. The points in controversy are: First, whether Frederick the Emperor died by poison: then whether he were murdered by stopping his mouth with a pillow by Man●redus his Son: and thirdly whether the Pope had any part in the one or the other.  
The first two points are of small importance to our purpose, but only the third. About the fir●t t●at ●e died of poison, my words were, that the most part of Authors make no mention thereof; but whether they do or not, it little imports. M. Barlow replieth to this, saying: That he was poisoned, there are as many ●or it, as otherwise: Cus●inian, Petrus de Vineis, and Matthaeus Pari●tensis. Whereto I answer, that these three will not make one sure witness in this matter: for the first is of small credit, and withal so variable in his tale, as within the compass of six lines he contradicteth notably himself. For having said, that v●n●no p●r●t, he died of poison, in the same place he saith, that by help of his Physicians he overcame the poison, and was stifled by Man●red. And so our question being, whether he died of poison, Cuspinian saith in the last place, no, but that he recovered of the same, and was choked with a pillow. Let M. Barlow tell us which we shall believe: for that, he recovered, and died of the same poison, is a clear contradiction, and then I shall answer him further.  
Neither can Petrus de Vineis, as after I shall show, be a witness at all, for this poison. And truly it S. Augustine i●s●ed at the jews because against the truth of Christ's resurrection they brought forth dormientes testes, 
Aug. in ●sal. ●3.  sleeping witnesses, much more may we laugh at M. Barlow, for producing the blind brainless carcase of this Peter, to write and testify what passed a year after his death. For albeit there may be some mistaking in the sense of Cuspinian, who (as M. Barlow afterwards telleth us) prefereth this Petrus de Vineis before the Italian writers (because he fitted his humour best) for the truth of those things he writeth of Frederick; 
Barl. pag. 2●4. in ●in● & 295.  yet more exactly reading that Author, I find that he speaketh not of his death, but of the other accidents of that emperors' life, to which that testimony of Petrus de Vin●is only by him is applied, which at the first sight, may seem to be referred unto all, I mean, as well to his death, as life. But M. Barlow his errors are so gross in this affair, as they can be excused by no mistaking: for he doth not only often au●●re, that all which Cuspinian hath, is taken out of Petrus de ●ineis, but setteth down, and that in a different letter, the very words as he would have them seem of this Author, saying: 
Barl. pag. 291.  In Apuliam rediens veneno per●●t, saith Petrus de Vineis. Returning into Apulia he perished by poison; and then citeth in the margin Epist. lib. 2. But all is cogging and notorious forgery, as more at large shall afterwards be showed, when we shall handle this authority more in particular.  
And for the third witness, brought in for a supplement by M. Barlow, to wit, Matth●us Parisiensis, I say, that neither he can be a sure witness of this poisoning, for that he affirmeth it not with that certainty, which M. Barlow assureth his Reader, 
B●rl. pag. 291.  when he saith, Certain it is, a●d therein most agree, that the Emperor was drenched, and had tak●n in the poison before he came to Apulia, potionatus venit in Apul●am, saith Matthew Paris. But here I must call upon M. Barlows' unsincerity in alleging Matthaeus Parisiensis, 
M. Barlows juggling.  to his own purpose, and ●●auing out that which served not his turn. Matth●ws words are: ●edijt in Apuliam, ut dici●●● potionatus; he returned into Ap●lia, as it is said, drenched. Why should M. Barlow leave out the words (as it is said) and yet infer a certainty upon his words? Is this plain dealing?  
And as for the second point; to wit, whether he died by poison, or by stifling, M. Barlow though he allege Nau●le●us, yet confesses, that albeit he make mention of poison, yet doth he no● determine it. But I do add further, that the same Nauclerus, in the very same place, and in the words immediately following, affirmeth the very same that I do say, that is, that the most part of Authors do affirm, that he was killed by his bastard son Mansredus.  
Binnius also, he saith, is doubtful, in respect of the variance of writers. 
●●●dem.  But by his leave, he holdeth the opinion of his stifling for probable: and lastly he saith, that S●●●nius holdeth that he died of poison in Apulia. But this is little to the purpose. For what Authors besides Sigonius, or sound arguments, doth M. Barlow bring to prove, that the death of this Emperor Frederick was by poison, and not by stifling? Whereas, first we have for the later, in some sort Sigonius himself, confe●●ing that it was so reported, but more assertive by Vincentius, joannes Villains, S. Antoninus, Blondus, Platina, Sabellicus, Thomas Fazelius, Crant●ius, Paulus Lingius, Cuspinian, 
Barl. pag. 290.  and others, whom we omit; for that these may suffice, to convince the Apologer affirming resolutely, that he died of poison, which is the case now in question between us, and denied by me.  
And ●ere by the way (gentle Reader) I cannot omit (having since the printing of my Letter, ●allen upon another edition o● Cuspinian, with large annotations upon the same, by one Wolfgangus Hungerus, a Dutch m●n) to let thee know also his judgement herein: who having much travailed, as it seemeth, to si●t, and search out the truth of this matter, rejecteth both the one, and the other opinion as fabulous, and proveth largely, that he died of a fever, and that also very repentant. To which we may add the testimony of Abbas Stadensis, and Matthaeus Pari●iensis, who making mention of his final repentance, absolution from Censures, & putting on the habit of the Cistercian Monks, have nothing of the poison, or pillow, which Matthew yet living at that time, by all likelihood, should have heard of the same, if any such thing had happened. And with the former Authors agreeth also Scardius the Caluinist in the li●e of this Emperor. And therefore that he should die of poison, is of all the rest most improbable: & it argueth small sincerity in M. Barlow, in so resolute terms to affirm uncertainties, only to disgrace the Sea of Rome, which yet will more fully appear by that, which is now to ensue in the third point; to wit, whether Pope Innocentius procured his death, which M. Barlow goeth about to prove thus.  
No Author freeth the Pope, saith he, from this matter: the only freedom which they give him, is their silence o● him. And is not this S●r a good freing? I● you had been alive at that time and should now be accused to have had part in that fact, were it not a good freeing of you to say, the Authors that wrote thereof, never so much as mentioned you? Bu● let us hear you further: Their freeing of him is by their silence of ●im, sa●e only one, to w●t Matthaeus Parisiensis, who acquitteth him thus: That indeed the enemies of the Church gave it out, 
Barlow pag. 29●.  that the Pope had hired one, what with money, what with promises, to poison him● but doth he free him thereby? God knows, saith he, whether it were true or Noah, but (absorduit Domini Pap● s●ma per hoc non mediocriter) the Pope got him a soul name by it: quoth that very Author. Thus M. Barlow. But what proveth this very Author against the Pope in this matter? to wit, that he was infamed by the enemies of the Church. And may not this happen to the holiest man that is? And did it not happen to our Saviour himselve, and S. Paul, and other great Servants of God? And is the infamation of enemies sufficient with you, M. Barlow, to condemn a man?  
But now for this very Author, brought in here by M. Barlow, and urged against the Pope, why doth he allege him so cautelously, and with such sleights? Why had he not told us plainly, what he findeth in him, concerning the credit o● this his relation? Why doth he so closely cover & mince the narration, by telling us a part, and not the whole, as it lieth in the Author? He saith, that the Pope was reported to hire one to poison the Emperor, but he telleth not, who that one was, though his Author doth, and maketh a large declaration thereof in this very place cited by M. Barlow, and saith, it is was Petrus de Vineis, as afterwards shall be further declared, when we come to discuss M. Barlows infallible demonstrations, which he bringeth in for proof, that the Emperor was poisoned by the Pope, the chiefest of which is the authority of this Petrus de Vineis, whom M. Barlow there exalt●th above the clouds: but we shall so pull him down, as he shall be brought under the earth, and rotten also before that Frederick died, and so not in case to testify that, for which he is alleged.  
And ●or that M. Barl. to conclude more forcibly against me, and more evidently convince, that the Emperor was poisoned by the Pope, layeth down two sorts of proofs, the one which he calleth strong presumptions, and violent inducements; the other which he maketh more sure and evident: I shall for once be content exactly to examine them both, and see what weight, or moment they carry with them, and whether they be sure foundations to build so much upon, as M. Barlow would make them. I shall therefore for better perspicuity, set down his own words at large, and then after examine them part by part.  
Well then that the Pope procured the Emperor's death by poison, he goeth about to prove in this manner. The presumptions (saith he) are very strong for it; 
M. Barlows lying discourse p. 292.  for sure it is, that the Pope hated him so extremely, ut noc●es, di●sque (saith Cuspinian) that day and night he devised how to DESTROY him. Saul not more eager in the pursuit of David (yet he eyed him and followed him as the Hawk doth the Partridge) than Pope a●ter Pope was in pursuing that Emperor, 
1. Sam. 26. 20.  more like Devils than Christians, if their own stories be true.  
He is excommunicated and deprived of Crown and Allegiance, upon slight pretences by them; 
Plat. in Honor. 3. Vide ●ac omnia apud V●spergen.  he is procured by them to promise in per●on to go into the Holy-Land against the ●urke (even as jason by P●lias into Col●hos for the Goulden-Fleece) that in the mean time they might ri●●e his Territories in his absence, and so they did indeed. The Emperor by reason of his dangerous sickness, was forced to stay his journey one year; the Pope took it for a dissembling, and excommunicated him for his delay; the Emperor sending his Ambassadors to Rome with their affidavit, to make faith for his sickness, the Pope would not admit them to his presence.  
Next year, to satisfy the Pope, the Emperor determined his journey, but before his going, he called a Counc●●l of his Princes to Ravenna, which he appointed also for the place of R●ndre-●ous for some of his Soldiers to attend him. The Pope caused them to be stayed from that meeting, waylay the coasts of Verona and Mil●an, and took order that the Soldiers should be spoiled, that were prepared for that expedition against the Tu●ke; which, alas, is a shameful thing to speak of, saith the Abbot that wrote it.  
The Emperor being in the Holy-Land, and in battle against the Turk, the Pope (in his absence) enters Apulia (part of the Emperor's Dominions) surpriseth and takes it to his own use, and keepeth back all supply of Soldiers that should go ●or aid of the Emperor in that holy war: and (which is the height of all impiety) the Emperor having performed his promise by this journey, requesting absolution from the Pope, he, not only with contempt denied it, but commanded the Christian Soldiers in A●ia, 
Naval. gen.. 41. anno 1228.  to leave the Emperor to the Turks malice, as being a public enemy of the Church; and dispatched secret Letters to the Patriarch of jerusalem, and the Soldiers there, to Rebel against t●e Emperor, a● Blondus (the Pope's soothing flatterer) is forced to confess: and by private Letters (which were intercepted by the Emperor, & whereof he complains) dealt with the Saracens to make no truce with the Emperor, nor to deliver the Crown of Jerusalem unto him, though he should win it by Conquest. And when the Emperor sent Letters of joyful advertisement to the Pope, of his victory and truce taken with the Turk, the Pope threw away his Letters in disdain, and caused it to be given out through the Empire, that the Emperor was dead; upon which rumour, there grew a de●ection of many Cities from the Emperor to the Pope; and those valiant soldiers (the Almains) which were returned from that Christian expedition against the Turk into Apulia, were designed to be slain by the Inhabitants, upon this rumour.  
What is this (will he say) to the Pope's consent for his POISONING? Surely they are violent inducements, that he thirsted a●ter the emperors death which way soever: for he which would arm the Emperors own Soldiers against him; cause a treacherous Revolt from him while he was fight the Lords Battles; betray him into the mouth of Christ's sworn enemy; invade his possessions in his absence; disperse ●al●e rumours of his death, contrary to truth and his own knowledge; and by contempts and anathemas do his best● or worst to break his heart: would make little account or conscience to dren●h him out of this life, if opportunity & secrecy wou●d concur.  
Thus you see, I have fully set down M. Barlows loathsome discourse: now let us briefly examine the substance, 

M. Barlow dissēbl●th the Emperor's fa●lts there by the better to charge the Pope of injustice against him.  
●●innius in Gr●g.  
9 Tom. 3. pag. 147●.   and truth thereof. And whereas he doth so odiously accumulate the rigorous proceedings, as he would have them to seem of divers Popes against the emperor; yet doth he, as you see, fraudulently dissemble & conceal the emperors demerits, and misbehaviour against the Church, and whole State of Christianity, ●●s●ifi●d by so many Authors, as he may be ashamed to plead ignorance of it: as it may appear, first by that which Binnius, out of others setteth down, of the causes of his excommunication by Gregory the 9 in these words: Fredericum secundum tamquam ●oedifragum, Sarace●o●●m sautorem etc. Gregory did justly, and worthily excommunicate Frederick the second, as a leaguebreaker, a favourer o● Saracens, a deceiver of the King of Jerusalem, yea, and of all the Christians that made war in Asia against Infidels, a breaker of his vow, often confirmed by oath to make war against the Saracens, and when afterwards he was absolved from censures by the same Gregory, and restored to the communion of the Church, he added to his offences before abjured, other more grievous crimes, to wit, he besieged the Cities of the Church, and raised up again that most odious faction of the Guelphs and Gibbelines, after it had been appeased for more than 200. years. He gave offices to the Saracens, and granted them a City called Nu●eria Saracenorum. H● spoiled Churches and Monasteries: he Tyrannically oppressed the Sicilians: he dissuaded, and withdrew the King of Tunis his brother, from his holy desire of Baptism at Palermo: he stopped all the ways, for the assembly of the Council which Pope Gregory had called at Rome: and finally he kept certain Cardinals, and other Prelates in prison, for which Pope Gregory excommunicated him the second tyme. Thus he.  
All which may be seen more at large in the definitive" sentence of Excommunication, and deposition extant in the Council itself of Lions, and related by Matthew Paris; where also are specified divers other particulars of his perjury upon perjury, horrible abusing of the Clergy, his Assassinating of the Duke of Bavaria, the notorious suspicion of his being an Heretic (for as Fazelius writeth, 

Thom. Fazel. Decad. 2. l. 8. c. 2. circa finem.  
Vide in 6. Decret. de s●nt●nt. & rei●dicata c. 2.   he termed Moses, and our Saviour Impostors, & Deum de Virgin nasci non potuisse horrende protulerit; and horribly pronounced that God could not be borne of a Virgin, and the like:) which albeit he partly excused, and resolutely denied; yet were the proo●es so evident, and evincent, that Patrum omnium consensu (saith Fazelius, with divers others here noted) with common consent of all the Fathers, he was excommunicated, 

Fazel. ibid. jacob. Phil. Bergom. an. 1●24.  
Westmonast. anno 1225. Sabill. Enead. 9 l. 6. Paulus. AE●●l. in L●d●●. nono. Monacus P●du●nus in anno 1225.  
Antoninus' tit. 1●. cap. 5.  
Platina in Inno●●ntio q●a to. joannet. & Al●h●●●. Ci●●●n. Vbert. ●●●●et. l. 4. hist. G●n●●●s. Paul. ●Enal in ●●dou. 9   and deposed. To which, if we add what all other Authors (excepting Vrspergensis his follower, and fabulous Cuspinian) write of ●im, we shall find him a fit subject for such an Encomiast, worthy, I mean, to have his praises thus blazoned out by M. Barlow. For none I think of any honesty, would ever go about to commend so wicked a man.  
But this whole matter will better appear by the particular examination of that, which M. Barlow here reporteth. He is excommunicated, and deprived, saith he, of Crown and Allegiance, upon slight pretences by them. And are these sleight pretences Sir William? It seems your conscience is not very straight that can swallow down so fast such great gudgeons. And the same to be no unjust charge against the Emperor, great multitude of Authors may be produced, which both for learning, truth, and credit, will far over-weigh the flattering collusion of one Vrspergensis, of whom Paulus A●milius (seeing how he contradicted all manner o● authority) in his French history writeth thus: Abbess Vrspergensis cius temporis aequalis, Historias suas claudit laudibus Frederici, insectation●que Pontisicum etc. Fama frequenter, & sensus propè omnium conspirans eum d●mnant etc. Abbot Vrspergensis who lived at that time, endeth his histories with the praise of Frederick, and railing against the Pope etc. The more common fame, and the conspiring consent almost of all men do condemn him. So he. But it sufficed M. Barlow, that this Abbot could flatter the Prince, ●nd ra●l● against the Pope, which are the most frequent flowers in all his writings. Which two alone, with the huge heap of his lies, being deducted out of this his large Answer, that ●e●t which remains may be ●hut up in a le●se nutshell, then that was, wherein alexander is said to ●aue kept Homer's Iliads. But M. Ba●low goeth on.  
He is procured (saith he) to promise in person to go to the Holy-land, against the Turk, that in the mean time they may ri●l● his Territories, in his absence: and so they did indeed. 
M. Barlows untruth about the cause of the Empe●rours going to the Holy-land.  So he. This is much wrested, or to speak more plainly, is a notorious untruth, and framed out of his fingers ends, not only against the credit, and uniform report of Authors, but even contrary to Vrspergensis himself, on whom only he will seem to rely for ●is whole narration. For read Vrspergensis that will, he shall not find him to assign any such cause of the emperors sending: and if he have it not, I would feign know upon what authority M. Barlow doth aver it? But we have seen store of such legier-d●-main; & if any one trust such a juggler further than he seeth with his own eyes, he shall not tail to be deceau●d. The most that, that Schismatical Abbot saith, is, that the Emperors' enemies taking occasion of his absence's, invaded his Territories. And if M. Barlow will ●ay, that this is all one: although any blind man will say, that there is great diversity, then l●t him also combine these two together as one: When M. Barlow was in London, the Earl o● essex was beheaded● and M. Barlow was in London, that the Earl of essex might be beheaded. And if he cry out against this la●●r, I will also cry shame on the former, for they are both of one stamp.  
The true causes then why the Pope cau●ed some of his States, 
The tr●e ca●●es why the E●perors Sta●● w●re invaded in hi● absence's.  as namely Apulia, to be invaded, are divers: ●irst the certain advertisement he had received of a fraudulent peace made by him secretly with the Sultan, before he d●parted out of Italy, and in confirmation thereof, upon his arrival at Acra in Syria, his Mar●hall departing from him, with part of his army, 
Antonin, ti●. 1●. 4. §. 1. 〈◊〉. l. ● ●. 1. 〈…〉 l. 6. c. 17. etc.  attended not (saith S. An●oni●us) to fight against the Saracens, but against the Christians, whom he spoiled, as they returned victorious with great booty gotten of their enemies, killing many of them, taking many prisoners, in accomplishment, as it is thought, of his secret agreement before made. ●o●●oue● being a● A●●a, h● would have destroyed the Church of the Ten plans, & ind●●d he took many ●or●restes from them; and finally I●●●salem being yielded unto him, by the Sol●●n, according to their composition, he permitted the ●oly Temple of our Saviour's Sepulchre to be still in the Saracens hands, that Ma●omet might be served and invocated th●●●i●. In so much, that neither the Pope's ●egate, nor the Patriarch of Hi●rusalem nor the ●●m●plars, nor the Knights of S. Iohn●, nor other Barons and Noble men in Syria; nor the Captains of the stranger's would consent to this peace, Quia omnibus v●sa est pax fraudulenta etc. (saith S. A●toninus) b●cause it seemed to them all a fraudulent peace, to the hurt & shame of the Christians, & hindrance of the conquest of the Holy-Land. And a little after he addeth: Gregorius audita nequitia Imperatoris etc. Gregory hearing of the wickedness of the Emperor, and his treacherous peace made with the soldan, ordained, that besides the sentence of excommunication pronounced against him before, that King john of Hi●rusal●m, who was then in Lom●ardy, with the army of the Church, should with his soldiers enter Apulia, and stir up the people of that Kingdom, to revolt against frederick. So he.  
And besides this, two other causes are assigned of this invasion by Sigonius, to wit, that the Emperor departed before he was reconciled to the Church: and moreover because he went with so small forces, leaving the most part of his a●mie behind him, 
S●gon. in a● 1228. H●l●●●. M●tius in an. 1227.  to rifle, and spoil the Church's o● Sicily. And as for his other most perfidious dealings before related out of S. Antoninus, they are all recorded in like manner, not only by joannes Villanus, who lived soon after Fr●de●icke and by divers others: but also by the Pratriarch o● Hierusal●m himself, who was an eye witness of what passed in Sy●ia in his epistle to the Christians of the west, who setteth down so many particulars of his foul and unchristian dealings, as maketh the matter most guidant.  
A fourth cause, & by all likelihood one of t●e chiefest, was, 
●rantz. 〈◊〉. 8. c. 2.  that at his departure to the Holy ●and, he le●t order with R●ynald his Deputy in Sicily, to hold the Pope ●nd a●● Clergy men for enemies, who accordingly, upon frederick's departure, 
Fazelius D●cad. 2. lib. 8. c. 2.  entered into the state of the Church and t●ere took certain towns in the Marchia of Ancona: as● so Conradus Guiscard, another Captain of his, entered into the vale of Spoleto, & took Ful●gnio. So as we see, that the first beginning of this war came from the Emperor and not from the Pope, which M. Ba●low might have seen in Nau●l●rus himself, 
N●u l. 〈◊〉. 41. 〈◊〉 1229. in ●in●.  whom divers times he citeth; but that he will have all men see, that he seeketh not the truth but to entertain talk by telling of untruths, for Nau●l●●us telleth expressly, that whereas the Emperor complained after his return, that the Pope had invaded his territories, whilst he was in the Holy Land, the Pope answered that he did that, because R●ynaldus, frederick's Deputy did first ●et upon the state of the Church. And as for the cause of frederick's voyage (which M. Barlow blusheth not to affirm, to be procured by the Pope that he might ri●le his estate at home all Authors agree, that it was specially procured by Io●n King of Jerusalem, 
Why Frederick went to the holy land.  who seeing the present danger of his own Country, to be overrun by the Saracens, came in person into Eu●ope, & most earnestly solicited both Pope, Emperor, King's o● France and England, & other Princes, ●or present succour: whereunto they all contributed, as every where is testified. And thus much for thi● point.  
M. Barlow proceedeth, and saith, The Emperor by reason of his dangerous sickness, was forced to sta●one year●: the Pope ●oc●e it for a dissembling, and excommunicated ●im for his delay: and the Emperor sending his Ambassadors to R●me with their affidavit, to make saith for his sickness, the Pope would not admit 〈◊〉 to his presence. So he. In which words two things are avouched: first that the emperors stay & delay of ●is vo●age wa● truly sickness: 
The emperors sickness counter●ait.  and secondly, that for the sam● h● was excommunicated. But both these if we believe t●e who●e torrent of other Authors are manifestly false. For most agree t●at the sickness was counterfeit, and that the cause of hi● excommunication, was not for that del●y, but rather for his returns again with his force's & gall●●●s a●●●r he had been for some time at sea, which M. Ba●low could not but have seen, and therefore might have been ashamed upon the credit of one Schismatic to check all other writers, and to set down this fabulous report for true. For that his sickness was counterfeit may manifestly be gathered by the very behaviour of the Emperor himself, who in that very time, when he was sick, forsooth, hearing of the death of the Landgrave of Thuring, came in all haste from Sicily to Brundisium, to rifle the said Lantgraves' Palace, where ●e took away ●●yth ●rantzius, di●ssimi, P●incipis ●quos, arma, aurum & argen●●m, lau●iss●mam supe●●●●●lem; 
Lib. 8. c. 1.  the ●o●●●s, are ●ou●, gold, silver, and other most sumptuous furniture o● t●at most wealthy Prince. 
Na●●l. lo co c●●ato.  And this his dissimulation of sickness, in plain terms is avouched, fi●● by the Pope himself in hi● letters, who 〈◊〉 th●t he knew the sam●, even from the 〈◊〉 who then were with the Emperor: and by the ●a●d ●a●zius, 
a In● br●n. 〈◊〉. ●n 1217.  Luthers●nco ●nco ●●a 
b 〈◊〉 ill. eugenin.  ●om●i●a●io ●hronologica all Germans al●o by 
c in Greg. n●no.  Platina 
d En●a. 9 l. ● in G●egor.  Sabellicus, 
e Decad. 2. l. 7. anno. 1226.  Blo●dus 
f ●. ●art. hist. l 14. H●ld ●uti●●s ●nno 12●7. 〈◊〉. Fr●d●ri●k sp●●ial●y excō●uni●ated for his return from sea.  Ta●cag●o●a, and others: but these in so clear a matter may suffice.  
Now that his excommunication was not for his delay but for his return, after he was set forth from Brundisium, is most evident by the testimony of most writers, amongst whom Hulderi●us Mutius, a brother-German of M. Barlows (I mean of the same Sacramentary faith, although as it seemeth, of a more sincere historical faith or fidelity than he) relateth the matter thus: Mense Augusto venit Fredericus etc. In the month of August came Frederick to Brundisium, and making no stay, by reason of the insection, with all his navy set forth, and went directly for Asia: but being on his way, he came back again with the fleet, and returned not without shame: for now all did openly cry out, th●t he was a coward, an effeminate, and perjured person, that he never intended to go against the enemies of the Christian faith, that he was a dishonour of the Empire. The Pope when he was certified, that Frederick was returned back again, presently calling a Council, with common and joint consent of all assembled, judged the Emperor excommunicated, by virtue of the sentence pronounced against him by his predecessor Honorius, and again he doth anathematize him until he perform his voyage to Jerusalem, and this sentence be caused to be promulgated by his Legates, in Germany, France, and Italy. Fredrick when he understood this sentence of the Pope to be every where esteemed, himself to be accounted a ●oole, and hated of many, and that by contempt of the sentence, there might arise danger, that he might be deposed from the Empire; the next spring he sailed with many troops o● German and Italian soldiers into Asia etc. So saith this Zuinghan. And v●●th him agreeth 
a G●n. 41. an. 1●27.  Nauclerus, 
b ●●b. 8. cap. 2.  Crantzius, 
c Decad. 2. l. 8. cap. ●.  Fazelius, 
d Lib. 6. cap. 17.  Villanus, 
e Lo●o citato.  Blondus, 
f ubi supra.  Sa●●ll●us, 
g ubi supra.  Ta●●agnota, 
h ubi supra.  Platina, 
i Tit. 19 cap. 4. §. 1.  Antoninus, 
k In anno 1227.  Sigonius.  
●o which also we ma● ad● Matthew Paris, 
Matth. Paris. a. 1●28. pag. 4●5. Ib. p 4●4. Matthew Paris his cen●ure of the emperors' return.  in whom may be seen, both Pope Gregory's testimony of the cause why he did excommu●ic●●● him, as also Frederiks letters to the christian Princes in purgation of himself, for his return, affirming himself to be unjustly excommunicated, fo● that as he t●●re saith, he was sick: and last of all the Author's judgement of the fact it sel●e, though otherwise partial enough to the Emperor. For he writeth that upon the news of his return, above forty thousand soldiers were so discouraged, that they returned home: Quoth sactum Imperatoris (saith he) domnosè nimis etc. which fact of the emperor did redound to the great hurt, shame, and prejudice of all the whole business of Christ crucified, and for that cause according to the opinion of many, the Saviour o● the world (as hath been said) showed himself to the Christian people, nailed on the Cross, and besprinkled with blood, as it were making open complaint unto all and every one, of the injury don● unto him by the Emperor. Thus Matthew Paris. Whose testimony M Barlow using so often in other things, I hop● he will not reject in this. But let us go forward.  
It followeth in M. Barlow. The next year to satisfy the Pope, the Emperor determined his journey, but before hi● going, he called a Council at Rau●nna, which he appointed also for the place of Rendrevous, ●o● some of his soldiers to attend him: the Pope camed ●●●m ●o 〈◊〉 stayed from that meeting, waylay t●e coasts of Verona and Milan, and took order, that the soldiers should be spoiled, that were prepared for that expedition against the Tur●e, it● T●us he.  
But by his leave his Author Vrspergensis hath it not, in such sort, as he setteth it down, and therefore it is a shameful thing in M. Barlow to belly him. 
A shameful lie of M. Barlow.  For the Abbot saith no other, t●en that, when the Emperor had called a Diet to be held in Lent, at Ravenna of the Princes of Germany, he was hindered from the same, by the messages, and Embas●ages of the Pope, Nam Veronenses, & Mediolanenses, saith he, non permiserunt etc. the people of Verona and Milan, would not suffer any to pas●e by their Territories, spoiling and rifeling even those that were signed with the Cross, ut asserebant, au●loritate Domini Papae etc. as they said, by the authority of the Pope, which (alas) is a shameful thing to speak. And this is all which that Author hath hereof.  
And here we may see the difference between Vrspergensis, and M. Barlow, in setting down this thing. The ●●r●t only relating what the soldiers pretended and ●aid, for their excuse: and the other most resolutely affirming it for true. Vrs●ergensis saith, 
V●spergēsi●●ade w●rse than he is by M. Barlow.  that those of Verona and Mill●ine affirmed, that they spoilt the emperors soldiers by the Pope's authority. M. Barlow seateth it not down, as the words and excuse of the soldiers, but with a resolute affirmation, that the Pope took order, that the ways should be laid, the soldiers spoiled etc. wherein also it is to be noted, that this thing falling out in the year 1228. as is to be seen in Vrspergensis, & Frederik● being excommunicated the year before, & remaining 〈◊〉 under censures, these soldiers having relation to the sentence past, might well say, that they did it by the Pope 〈…〉 to wit, by virtue of the excommunication, although the Pope himself never knew thereof, and so you see the objection to be frivolous, albeit we should believe Vrspergensis the Schismatical Abbot, de●ending the Emperor ●uen then, when he was excommun●c●c●: yet it had been we●l that M. Barlow for his credits ●ake had cited him, as he is: ●or he o● himself is had enough, and little needed M. Barlows furtherance, to have made him worse.  
The next charge against the Pope is more tragical, than the ●ormer, and is thus expressed by M. Ba●l●w. The emperor being in the Holy-Land, and in battle against the Turks, the Pope (in his absence) enters Ap●lia (part of the Emperonrs dominions) surpriseth and takes it to his own use, and keepeth back all supply of soldiers, which should go for aid of the Emperor in that holy war●e, and (which is the height of all impiety) the Emperor having performed his promise, by that his journey, requesting absolution from the Pope, he not only with contempt denied it, but commanded the Christian soldiers in Asia to leave the Emperor to the Turks malice, as being a public enemy of the Church, and dispatched secret letters to the Patriarch of I●rusalem, and the soldiers there, to rebel against the Emperor, as Bl●●dus (the Pope's soothing flatterer) is forced to confess. Thus far M. Barlowes pitiful complaint.  
And as for the first point, it is already sufficiently answered, 
A heap of M. Ba●lows lye●.  in chewing Frederick himself to have been the Author of the wars in Apulia, by giving order to R●●nald son to the Duke of Spoleto, and the emperors Deputy of Sicily, to invade the Pope's state in his absence, which he did, a● already at large hath been declared. All the rest which is added, containeth nothing but mere malicious untruths, and calumniations. For untrue it is, that the Pope ●ept back all supply o● soldiers, whilst the Emperor was in the holy-land, which he laboured to gather from all parts of Christendom to send thither. Neither doth V●spe●g●nsis●ay ●ay so much, but only that he denied passage by ●ea to the signed soldiers in Apulia and lombardy, which cometh far short of keeping back all supply, unless it may be proved, that ●e had no ot●er soldiers, but in those two places, or that they could have no passage but from thence: both which are very false, as this charge is both ridiculous & untrue, Ridiculous, for the wars being so ●oat on foot, both in Lombardy, and Apulia, what need was there of any prohibition, ●or not sending away of soldiers out of these parts, when as they were so needful at home? Untrue, for that M. Barlow cannot be ignorant, that Frederick in his letter to the Duke of Cornwall, which he wrote after his return from the Holy-land, & in which he layeth down all his aggrievances sustained (as he would have the world to believe) at the Pope's hands, hath not one syllable thereof: which silence could not come of any forgetfulness, being written a●ter his return, when things were fresh in his mind, nor yet of any desire he had to spare the Pope: seeing, that lesser matters, & more unlikely are there urged, with the most advantage: and by all means he did seek by this accusation, to discredit him with all Princes, as the most potent means, to cover his own shame, and dishonourable behaviour, as well in the Holy-Land, as in other parts of Europe.  
Secondly, it is false, that the Emperor performed his promise, which was to go to aid the Christians, and recover the Holy-Land, whereas he with his secret and treacherous treaty, & peace, which of purpose he made to hinder the war intended against the Sultan, saith Antoninus, & Villanus, betrayed them both: the one (to wit the Christians) sustaining intolerable injuries at his hands, and Jerusalem with all the Country soon after his return being utterly lost. And this cause all Authors allege, for the not absolving of the Emperor by Pope Gregory, when by his Ambassadors he did request it. To whom, saith Crantzius, 
Crantz. l. 8. cap. 2.  the Pope even to their faces objected the perfidious dealing of their Lord the Emperor, & as Faz●lius addeth, 
Faz●l. l●co ●●●ato.  even the very Turks themselves confessed, that had Frederick joined with the Christians, and fought ●gainst them, he had gotten out of their hands by force, both City and Kingdom.  
And the evidence of this truth is so radiant (to use M. Barlows phrase) that even the above named Zwinglian Huld●●icus Mutius writing of this request of the Emperor, 
Huld. Mut ubi sup●a.  & the Pops denial, setteth down the matter in these words: Mit●it autem in Europam Legatos etc. The Emperor sends his Ambassadors to ●●gni●y to the Pope and Princes how he had forced the Sultan to yield him up Jerusalem; but that peace with the Sultan nothing pleased the Pope, who foresaw that it would not endure, because the chief strength of the Kingdom, remained in the enemy's hands in such sort, that as soon as the Christian army should be dissolved, the enemy would easily recover all again. Neither was Frederick himself so simple, that he saw not this, but that his mind was wholly set on Germany and Italy; and thought it enough for him to have satisfied his vow (by going thither) sic fit cum venatur aliq●is in●i●is ●a●ilus; So it falls out (saith he) when men do hunt with dogs that have no list to run.  
And Naucleru● showeth the issue of this affair after the emperors' return into Europe upon the year 1247. where he writeth that this very Sultan of Babylon, 
〈◊〉. gen. 41. a●n●. 1247.  with whom the Emperor had dealt, caused the Arabians to rise in arms against the Christians: which Arabians setting first upon the Knights of the Temple, quite vanquished them, and easily took the City of Jerusalem, which had no wall to defend it, & slew the Christians that were in the same. And the Sepulchre of our Saviour which until that time had been kept untouched, was now with great shame defiled. Thus he. And this may suffice to show how well Frederick performed his promise, and what good offices he did to the Christian cause, by his going to the Holy-land.  
The third which follows, is so eminent an untruth that alone it may carry away the silver whetstone, from all the liars of Lincoln: for who ever heard, or read before M. Barlow set it out in print, that the Pope ●ōmaund●d the Christian soldiers in Asia to leave the Emperor to the Turks malice? What malice is this in M. Barlow to report so shameful an untruth? What Author besides himself doth aver it, in this manner, as he doth? For the Pope knew full w●ll, that Frederick was in no danger of the Turk, with whom before his departure from Europe he had made peace, and by whom upon his arrival into Syria, 
Paris. an. 1228.  he was still either feasted, or presented with rich gifts in recompense of his perfidious league, by which he betrayed the Christian army and cause, as hath been declared.  
And all that which Naucl●rus saith, whom M. Barlow citeth to aver the same, is in these words: 
Nauclerus abused by M. Barlow.  Pontisex Hospitalarijs, Templarijsque in Asia mili●ā●ibus, ut ●rederico tamquam hosti publico savores detraher●nt, iniunxit. The Pope commanded the Knights of the Hospital, and Templares to withdraw their help from Frederick, as from a public enemy: or, as other Authors Platina, Fazelius, Paulus A●milius, & others expres●e it, Vt ab Impera●or●●aue●●nt; 
Vbi supr●.  that they should beware of the Emperor. And the last named is more particular, saying: Vt cau●●ët nomini Christiano insidias à perditissima simulatione F●ederi●i; that they should beware of the treachery, intended against the Christian cause, by the most wicked dissimulation of Fr●d●ri●ke S● he. A●d them addeth, Ne● vana suspitio visa, Arabibus, A●●yp●y●que aequio● inu●ni●atu● Caesar quam nostris. Neither was this a vain suspicion, ●or the Emperor was found to be a greater friend to the Arabians & Egyptians than to the Christians. And this alone showeth how free Frederi●ke was from any danger at the Sultan's hands: which the Pope well knowing, could not intend to leave him to his malice, as M. Barlow hath most confidently affirmed: but contrary wise, in respect of the great league, and love that was between him and the Sultan, he feared more that the Emperor would betray the Christians, and leave them to the Sultan's malice (as in the end it fell out, as now you have heard) then that they should leave him, of whom there was no fear, by reason of the ten years truce already made between them, by which Fred●ricke was secure from all danger, and might stay in the Holy-Land, and return at his pleasure.  
Which being so, and the Emperor excommunicated at this time, there was great reason why the Pope should give order to the Christians for the one, and the other: to wit; as well to take heed of him, as of a perfidious Traitor to the cause, as also to withdraw their favours from him, as from an excommunicated person, and public enemy of the Church: but both of these come far short of leaving him to the Turks malice, as M. Barlow doth most falsely and maliciously avouch.  
There remaineth yet one untruth more in this matter, and that worthy of the maker, to with, that the Pope dispatched secret letters to the Patriarch o● Jerusalem, and the soldiers there, to rebel against the Emperor, as B●ondus the Pope's soothing flatterer (saith M. Barlow) is forced ●o confess. 
Blondus notably belyea by M Barlow.  But here without all soothing and flattering I must contesse, and profess also, that all is lying & forgery which here you speak. For where I pray you, as Blondus forced to this confession? Where doth he mention these secret letters to the Patriarch? Truly these letters are so secret, that no mention of them is to be seen in Blondus, and therefore I will more believe my own eyes, than M. Barlowes reports in this affair. Hospi●alarijs Templarijsque in Asia pro Crucis honore militantibus (saith Blondus) ut Fred●rico tamquam hosti publico favores detraherent, iniunxit. The Pope commanded the Knights of the Hospital, & Templars fight for the honour of the Cros●e, to withdraw their help or favours from Frederick, as f●om a public enemy. And this is all he hath of this matter, in which as you see, he saith no more, then Nauclerus said before, but much less than M. Barlow would have him, or rather force him to speak. For there is no mention in him, of any secret letters to the Patriarch, or of any rebellion to be made against the Emperor, but only that they should withdraw their favours, which no wi●e man, I think, will take to be all one, with rebellion: the one being but a mere negation of help, & the other an actual opposition of hostility. All which being considered, there remaineth only this, that some good friend of M. Barlows, advise him before he write again, that for common honesties sake at least, he would in his assertions be true in some thing, for hitherto we have found him f●lse in every particular, and shall do much more in that which is to ensue. For thus it immediately followeth in M. Barlows' charge, or rather lying slander against the Pope.  
By private letters (saith he) which were intercepted by the Emperor, and whereof he complains, the Pope dealt with the Sarracens, to make no truce with the Emperor, nor to deliver the Crown unto him though he should win it by Conquest. So he. This tale is of itself so incredible, and devoid of all shadow, 
M. Barlows other lies.  or likelihood of truth, as there needeth no other proof besides the bare narration thereof to refuse it: and M. Barlow guilty, as it should seem, of forgery, citeth no Author for the same, unless he refer us unto Vrspergensis, whom in the beginning of this paragraph he citeth thus: Vide haec omnia apud Vrsp●rgensem; see all these things in Vrspergensis. But of this matter, I must tell him, that Vrspergensis, hath not one syllable, and therefore me thinks, some other Author should have been cited either in text, or margin. The most that I can find hereof, is in a letter of the Emperors, to Richard Earl of Cornwall, unto which it may be M. Barl. hath relation, where amongst other complaints, the Emperor saith the Pope's Nuntius & Legates in Syria dealt by secret letters with the Sultan, that he should not render to the Emperor the Holy-Land, which by right was due unto him: but, that he should make no truce with him, nor yield him the Crown though he should win it by Conquest (which are M. Barlows words) there is no mention: and therefore I shall believe M. Barlow, as I shall see his proofs, having already found him so false in all other Authors whom he hath cited.  
But granting all to be true, to wit, that Frederick objected this thing, and in this manner against the Pope; yet it may be presumed that M. Barlow could not but know the answer of the said Pope, 
Paris. an. 12,9.  which also Matthew Paris setteth down at large, to wit, that the thing was so absurd, & so improbable, as no man, that was well in his wits would believe it. And moreover the virtuous life of Gregory, and the wickedness of the Emperor being known to all, this answer of the Pope to this and other such imputations, being published and spread over Christendom, 
Paris. i●id.  did make the emperors letters suspected to the whole wo●ld. And so much for this. Now let us examine the last which followeth in these words.  
And when the Emperor sent letters of joyful advertisement to the Pope of his victory, & truce taken with the Turk, the Pope threw away his letters in disdain, & caused it to be given out through the Empire, that the Emperor was dead: upon which rumour, there grew a de●ection of many Cities from the Emperor to the Pope: and those valiant soldiers (the Almains) which were returned from that Christian expedition, against the Turk into Apulia, were designed to be slain by the Inhabitants upon this rumour. So he.  
Still M. Barlow willbe M. Barlow, like himself, and false in all things. 
M. Barlow like himself, that is, false in all things.  For why could he not here have set down the words of his Author? Or why doth he so resolutely affirm that for certain, which Vrspergensis, otherwise imprudent enough, doth but only relate upon hearsay? Papa (saith he) ●um suis complicibus (ut ass●rebant homines) seci●●n Apulia diwlgari etc. The Pope with his followers (as men gave our) caused to be reported in Apulia, that the Emperor was dead etc. Were these words so heavy that they must lie on your stomach M. Barlow, & not be uttered. Truly if Vrspergensis, who cared little what he spoke against the Pope, said he had it but by hearsay, we may well say, that it is unlikely to be true, seeing that without that limitation, he boldly affirmeth for true many things, which all other writers condemn for fal●e. But I perceive we must perforce pardon you M. Barlow; for it seems that by some necessity, you are constrained to be sincere in nothing; yourself telling us out of the Orator, that there is nothing more uncertain than a report: & this being spoken by the Abbot as a report, and that also of the vulgar people, must needs in the judgement or disapassionate men, & by force of your own position, be uncertain, and consequently your malice very singular, in putting down this hearsay as an undoubted truth.  
And thus good Reader hast thou seen all this sharp charge against the Pope, to have been sufficiently refuted, and that, unless I be deceived, to M. Barlowes shame. And if this suffice not, I hope that which ensueth will make up fu●l weight, and therefore I pray thee to stand attended to that which upon the premises M. Barlow will now infer: ●or all this hath been alleged to make it probable, or (to use his own words) to lay down strong presumptions, or violent indu●ementes, that Pope Innocentius the 4. in whose time Frederick died, had hired one to poison him. Thus than he concludeth his former charge upon the premises.  
What is this (will he say) to t●e Pope's consent for his poisoning? Surely they are violent inducementes, that he thirsted after the emperors death, which way so ever: ●or he which would arm the Emperors own soldiers against him, cause a treacherous revolt from him, whilst he was fight the Lords battles; betray him into the mouth of Christ's sworn enemies; invade his possessions in his absence; disperse false rumours of his death contrary to truth and his own knowledge; and by contempts and anathemas do his best, or worst to break his hart; would make little account or conscience to Drench him out this lif●, if opportunity and secrecy would concur. So he  
Well pleaded M. Barlow. But soft Sir, I pray you take me with you. 
M. Barlows false & ridiculous plea.  What is that, which by these violent inducementes, as you term them, you go now about to prove? Is it not to show that Innocentius the 4. hired one to poison Frederick? And are these particulars, or any one of them which you have so much urged, for this purpose, to be verified of Innocentius? Did not all these things pass in the time of Gregory the ninth (of whose going about to poison t●e Emperor no man hitherto ever so much as dreamt:) neither do you yourself charge him therewith, divers years before Innocentius was Pope? How then may these things violently induce any man to believe, that Po●e Innocentius did conspire the poisoning of Frederick? A●d to the end that your inducementes may be the more strong, we shall reduce the whole force of them into a Logical argument, thus:  
Pope Gregory the ninth armed the emperors soulddiers against him, caused a treacherous revolt from him, whilst he was fight the Lords battles, betrayed him into the mouth of Christ's sworn enemies etc. Ergo twenty years and more after this, Pope Innocentius the 4. hired one to poison him.  
This is M. Barlowes violent inducement, set down in form, to prove Pope Innocentius the 4. to be guilty of poisoning the Emperor. And what force it hath, I shall not need to declare. For the argument is so ridiculous and transparent, as there is no child so simple, that doth not see through it. And truly M. Barlow cannot here excuse himself in my judgement from wilful malice, that alleging all this out of Vrspergensis, who ended his history with the year 1228. or the beginning of the next, at what time Pope Gregory lived, 
Malicious cozenage in M. Barlow.  as he did for 12. years after, would notwithstanding lay it all upon Innocentius the 4. for which cause as it may be thought, he dissembled Pope Gregory's name throughout all his relation, which he could not but see expressed in his Author. And what will you say to such malicious folly, or foolish malice?  

M. BARLOWS MORE sure and stronger proofs are discovered to be lies: with other things concerning Frederick the second, and Innocentius the fourth. §. II.  
BUT M. Barlow, you may think, hath some better proof besides these violent inducements, to prove the Pope accessary to the poison, and death of Frederick, by which he will make all so clear, as there shall rest no more difficulty in the matter. In those, perhaps, he will use more sincerity: & I say, perhaps, 
Th● habit of l●ing hardly removed from M. Barlow●  for that the custom of lying is so habituated, and rooted in him, as it is difficise mobilis a subiecto, hardly to be separated from him, as the Philosopher speaketh of all other habits, which are not easily separated from their subjects. Let us see then what demonstrative proofs, and irrefutable arguments he will bring to prove, what he intendeth. His words are these. [And yet that presumptions (saith he) may not only carry it, Cuspinian having Authors for both reports, relateth the procurers thereof doubtfully, but the instrument certainly, that Mansredus POISONED him without controversy, sive ab hostibus, sive a Pontifice corruptus, but whether corrupted by enemies of the Emperor, or by the Pope, he will not say; but so he diede So he.  
What still nothing but lying M. Barlow? Did you not promise us surer arguments, than presumptions? And why then do you begin with so notorious untruths? Doth Cuspinian say, that Manfred poisoned him? Then truly hath M. Barlow belied Cuspinian before; 
Barlow pag. 291.  for that he said, And Cuspinian agreeth with them (to wit Petrus de Vineis, and Nauclerus) that the Emperor recovering by the help of Phisuians, from the poison, Manfred took a shorter course with him, 
A flat contradiction in M. Barlow. 4. R●g. 8.  and as Hazael served Benhadad with a cloth, stopped his breath with a pillow. So he. And if this be true M. Barlow, how then do you here set it out in Capital letters, by the Authority of Cuspinian, that Man●red POISONED him, and that so died: for these are your words here. So as if M. Barlow be true in one place, he must needs be false in the other. For in the one he saith, that he recovered of the poison, in the other, that he died of the same: which is so plain a contradiction, as M. Barlow will never be able to make doth parts to agree. 
Cuspian ●● lied by M. Barlow.  Besides it is a gross untruth to affirm, that Cuspinian should say, that the Emperor was poisoned by Man●red, whereof he speaketh nothing at all: and therefore where you say, that he reported the instrument certainly, that Mansredus poisoned him without controversy, certainly without controversy it is a lie of yours, and not the assertion of Cuspinian, whose words you might have seen set down in my letter alleged thus:  
Non pot●it cavere etc. The Emperor could not avoid, but when he returned into Apulia, he perished with poison, the 37 ●eare of his reign, and 57 of his age, and the very same day that he was made Emperor, for whereas at the town of Florenzola in Apulia he was dangerously sick, and at length by diligence of Physicians had over come the same, he was stifled by Manfredus his bastard-sonne (begotten of a noble woman his concubine) with a pillow thrust into his mouth, whether it were that Manfredus did it, as corrupted by his enemies, or by the Pope, or for that he did aspire to the kingdom of Si●ilia. So he: where you see no mention made of Man●red for the poisoning, but only for the stifling. And how then doth he relate the procurers of the poison doubtfully, and the instrument certainly? I think M. Barlow useth to write sometimes in his sleep; for had he been waking, he would not (as I suppose) ever have been so shameless, or ignorant, as so to corrupt or mistake the Authors which he citeth, in so base a manner. And truly Cuspinian himself seemeth to have dreamt in these few lines here cited, as before I have noted, 
M. Barlow and his Author Cuspinian taxed.  for having said veneno peryt, he perished or died with poison, yet presently after as you see, he saith, that by diligence of Physicians he overcame the same, and afterwards was stifled. And with such sleepers, and dreamers are we troubled with all, who not seeking to find out, or deliver the truth in the matters they handle, do contradict themselves, and run into gross, and palpable absurdities. But let us proceed.  
The second main pillar, upon which M. Barlow relieth for proof of the Pope's poisoning of the Emperor Frederick, is Matthew Paris, an English man, who (saith M. Barlow) affirmeth, that the Emperor having discovered a poison intended & prepared, or him by his trustiest attendants, as he thought, upon examination, ●ound it to be the Pope's doing, & makes a lamentable complaint thereof. So he. And indeed this testimony seemeth somewhat more forcible and evincent, than the former, both for that the Author lived at that time, and for that he averreth it so confidently, saying that upon examination he ●ound i● to le●se Pope's doing. But what if here also upon examination we find M. Barlow a liar? What if neither these words no● the sense of them, be to be found in Matthew Paris (as indeed they are not) nor yet in any Author beside? Is not then the false Prelate worthy for ever to be discredited? Well, let us see what Matthew Paris hath hereof; 
Matthew Paris belied by M. Barlow.  who having set down the story, how the Emperor discovered the treachery of Petrus de Vineis, and his intent to poison him, setteth also down the said emperors complaint, in these words: Vae mihi contra quem propria pugnant viscera etc.  
Woe be to me, against whom my own bowels do fight. 
Matth. Paris in an. 1249.  Peter whom I beleyved to have been a rock, & the half of my soul, hath by treason sought my life. And lo, the Pope whom the Empire hath exalted of nothing, and enriched under my Noble predecessors, doth go about to exterminate it, and seeks to overthrow me the Governor of the same declining Empire. Whom shall I trust? Where shall I be safe & c? So Matthew Paris: whom you see averreth not, as M. Barlow saith he doth, that the Emperor found it to be the Pope's doing: for all that can be truly gathered out of these words, is, that the Emperor suspected some such thing in the Pope. And so far is Matthew Paris from affirming that it was found to be true, that having said that the Pope's fame was thereby much blemished; he addeth this restrictive clause, as from himself, Veritatem tamen novit Deus secretorum scutator infallibilis: but God knoweth the truth, who is the infallible searcher of secrets, as though he had said, that this matter had no other ground then the emperors suspicion, and slander of his scismatical followers, for had there been but any apparent proof thereof, it would have been laid open to the uttermost. And to confirm this, the same Author a little before the words now rehearsed, saith, that the enemies of the Church gave out, that the Pope had sought to corrupt Petrus de Vineis to poison the Emperor. So then to conclude, whereas out of this Author M. Barlow saith, that Frederick upon examination found it to be the Popos doing, there is no such thing to be found: that which we find, is that M. Barlow either corrupteth, or corruptly allegeth all the Authors which he dealeth with.  
But now you may think, that he hath kept a sure card for the last, and bringeth forth an Author without all check or control, who with his very name will overbear all opposition: and indeed he is here described as an unconquerable Giant, and as such a one, who by himself may stand for thousands: and this man forsooth is Petrus de Vineis, 
Petrus de Vineis magnified by M. Barlow.  of whom M. Barlow speaketh th●s: But what better witness, and of more credit can there be, than Petrus de Vineis, who lived in those days, and was continually about the Emperor: and as Cuspinian saith, hath truly related the occurrences of that time? And again after: Who was ever about him, wrote truly, & is an Author approved. And yet further: In whom Cuspinian, an Authentical writer, ver●ies that Proverb, omnia sub unam Myconum, he alone may stand for all rest. Yea this man is so great, that in M. Barlows' judgement, no man is to be heard against him. Not Innocentius the Pope, who refuted him: not the Italians, who contradicted him: nor yet all other Authors, that condemned his partiality, and falsehood: in so much, as if we will believe M. Barlow, he is an Author of infallible truth, notwithstanding he were a professed enemy of the Pope, and sworn servant of the Emperor. And if we believe other Authors, a very corrupt man, 
Villanus l. 6. cap. 23.  & therefore justly punished by almighty God with untimely death: & that rather for his greatness, upon a picked quarrel (as some affirm) then for any just cause of demerit given by himself for the same, against the Emperor.  
What then shall we say to this ground, or rather to this strong foundation, & invincible bulwark? The words of this Author are plain, 
Barlow pag. 291.  In Apuliam rediens veneno peri●t, returning into Apulia he perished by poison: and M. Barlow noteth us the place in the margin thus Epist. lib. 2. but yet like a bad Grammarian he omitteth the principal verb, I mean our chiefest question in hand, which is not so much, whether Frederick were poisoned, as whether he were poisoned by the Pope, for to that end are these strong presumptions, violent inducements, & other arguments brought, & what place is cited out of this Author for proof hereof? Truly no more than there is alleged to prove that Frederick went about to poison the Pope. And is not this perfidious treachery in M. Barlow to make him his chiefest pillar, who hath not one word o● the matter in controversy? But let us suppose that some such thing is in his book (which I cannot believe to be true) I am content that for once it be not thought ridiculous in M. Barlow, which in other men would seem to be mere madness, to produce one, & that such a one against the whole stream of other Authors. Let us make this Petrus de Vin●is another Achilles, Hercules, or Goliath; yea let him stand for all, as M. Barlow will have him, & let his little finger be as great as Alexander's back, yet sure I am that for the poisoning & death of Frederick, either by the Pope or any other, he will stand for nothing else but to condemn M. Barlow, and all others who lain so much upon him, of fraud, or folly, or worse dealing, which I trust to make so evident & clear, as it is clear & evident M. Barlow never saw one to write after that his eyes and brains were out, his body cold, and his bones rotten.  
And first I suppose, which M. Barlow doth freely grant me, that this Petrus de Vineis was Secretary unto Frederick and continually about him; but certain it is, by uniform consent of all Authors of those times, that the same Petrus de Vineis was dead a year at least before the Emperor, and therefore could testify nothing of his death, unless he wrote by Prophecy: for by the Emperor's commandment for treason either indeed intended, or pretended only, as I have said, he had his eyes put out, and being committed to prison, he knocked out his own brains; which besides the testimony of Catholic Authors, as 
a Tit. 19 c. 6. §. 1. in fine.  S. Antoninus 
b Lib. 6. cap. 23.  Villanus, 
c Lib. de Script. Eccles. & in Catal. Virorun Illustrium in Petro de Vineis.  Tritemius, 
d In Anthropol. l. 23. a. 1212.  Volateranus, 
e an. 1249.  Sigonius, 
f Eoden an.  Matthaeus Parisiensis, 
g Decad. 2. l. ●. cap. 2. in fine.  Fazelius, 
h Lib. 3. histor. de Prin●iribus Estensious.  Pigna, 
i Lib. 4. hist di Napol. a. 1240.  Caraffa, 
k Par. 2. l. 14. a 1247.  Tarcagnota, 
l Cantion. 13. 1. partis, & in eum locum.  Dantes the Poet, who lived presently after in the same age, with his two commentators 
m Landinus, &  Landinus, and 
n Velutell.  Velutellus, and others, is also testified by 
o In vita Petri de Vineis ep. prae fixa.  Scardius a Caluinist in the life of the said Petrus de Vineis, set out with his epistles, & 
p Martin. Crus. part. 3. An. ●ue●●corū l. 2. an. 1249  Martinus Crusius a Lutheran, who also citeth Poggius a Florentine writer. And this M. Barlow did well foresee, though he would sleme to dissemble it, or which is worse, is forced to forge a new devise (as the man is full of his fictions) & to come us out another Petrus de Vinea, who also should be Secretary to the Emperor & continually about him, which is an invention worthy of M. Barlow, having no Author or shadow of reason for the same, seeing all writers to agree, that the same Petrus de Vineu who knocked out his own brains, had been Secretary to Frederick, and written tam ex persona sua, quam Imperatoris, Epistolarum libros sex, six books of Epistles, as we●● o● his own, as the Emperors, saith Tri●emius: besides that it is most improbable, that he would take another Secretary, of the same name, within less than a year after so horrible a treason, as was pretended against his own person, which alone might make that name hateful unto him whiles he lived, and therefore M. Barlows marginal note, to wit, Some think it was the same party, but it is not probable, is without all probabylitie. And M. Barlow should have alleged some Author for the same; but that he saw all Authors, reason, & truth itself to stand against him in this point.  
Wherefore seeing so many to stand for me, in defence of this truth, and no one man that I have seen to deny the same, I may with more reason challenge the privilege of God's rule of two witnesses against M. Barlow, than he doth against me. For a little after in handling the matter of Alexander's poisoning of Gemin, related by Iou●us and Guicciardine, which I said to have most Appearance of truth of any of the former accusations, and yet not to be altogether certayne● for that other Authors do otherwise report the same, M. Barlow thus replieth. 
Barl. pag. 299.  The rule of Almighty God is, that is the testimony of two witnesses speak with one mouth, in o'er duorum, it shallbe an establishment: and that is more, than an appearance of truth. In the case of Frederick the second, 
Deuteron. 19 15.  Vineis and Cuspinian were both produced to confirm one story, that would not serve the turn, because they were but one (the last borrowing what he said from the foremost:) in this instant there are two different witnesses, which concur in the verifying of one and the self same ●act, and this, though thus seconded, is slightly turned of, as making but an APPEARANCE. Thus far M. Barlow, pleading a certainty upon the credit of two witnesses, which yet in the case of Susanna proved not so certain, & much less in the matter we now talk of, wherein is diversity of opinions, and neither of the two Authors avoucheth it for certainly true, as in the next Paragraph we shall show. In the mean time, this rule will serve most APPARENTLY and CERTAINLY also, 
M. Barlow by God's rule condemned of forgery  to condemn M. Barlow, seeing that here not only in o'er duorum, in the mouth of two, but of seven or eight times as many, we have proved M. Barlow a false forger of Petrus de Vineis words, and that with such evidency, as he cannot produce one man to the contrary, & therefore is compelled to defend one, by making of another afore by writing one and the self same name, of de Vinea, and de Vin●is, in the singular, and plural number, he will needs show us a plurality of persons, and make one man to be two. But let us see what ground there is of this fond invention.  
All that he hath for proof of his idle conceit, is a silly conjecture, set down in a few words, and those also so obscure, as they require some attention in the reader to understand them, if not Natatorem Delium, to interpret them. For thus he saith: A man shall oftentimes hear his own servants cursing him, saith King Solomon: and no fitter instance can be given, them of this Emperor in that case: for he differed not much from the Historians name, whom the Pope hired once to poison this Emperor (if Parisiensis do not err, or deceive his Reader) for his name (being of near place, & trust about the Emperor, even for his soul) was Petrus de Vinea, that was so HIRED, and plotted withal. This is all, and very intritate also, as you see. But his sense, & meaning is (if I mistake him not) to make a difference where there is no diversity, in separating one & the self same man from himself, to wit Petrus de Vineis, from Petrus de Vinea, which is all one. But this is not the first error which M. Barlow hath committed in this manner of Metamorphosis, 
M. Barlows error concerning Vrspergē●is.  by transforming one man into two; for some three leaves before, he doth the very same with Vrspergensis, making him to differ from Conradus of Lichtenaw; whereas there is no greater difference between them, than that Conradus of Lichtenaw was A●●ot of Visperge, & writer of the History: for so ●ay Tritemius, Possevinus, and others, notwithstanding M. Barlows metaphysical distinction, 
Barl. pag. 2●9.  who tells us that Ni●b. Cisuerus justifieth ●hat ●e saith, by the testimony of an Abbot of ursperge, ●●ose name being for a long time not known, ●is annal were ascribed unto him whom we vsualy call Vrspergensis, till the er or was espied & amended. So he. And putteth in the margin Conradus or Lichtenaw. But I pray you Sir, whom we call usually V●spergensis, is not this name Conradus of Lichtenaw? Surely his own printed book (with the abridgement of his life set before it) Tritemius, Possevinus, & others say, yes. And how then was the error espied and amended? Where I pray you was there any error at all? And if no error, wherein was the amendment? I would to God, M. Barlow, your errors could be as well amended, as they are espied, and then might your friends hope to see you once a true man ere you die.  
Now for Petrus de Vineis, that he was the same with Petrus de Vinea is so evident, as I much marvel at your simplicity, for calling it into question. It is a sign you read little, or understand not what others write: for whom 
a In anno 1249. & in eodem Sigon.  Parisiensis, Paulus Aemilius, Sigonius, 
b Lib. 1 ●. an● 1244.  Philippus Bergomas, Vbertus ●olieta, 
c Lib. 4. Chron. an. 1245.  G●ne●ard, Ciaconius, 
d In Apparatu i●● Innocent 4.  Possevimus, with others call Petrum de Vinea, or Petrum Vineam, the same, S. Antoninus, Fazelius, Tritemius, 
e Dec. 2. l. 7  Blondus, 
f An. 1229.  Nauclerus, 
g Lib. 31. hist. c. ●05.  Vincentius, 
h In anno 1254.  Paulus Langius, 
i In vita Frederici.  Collenutius, 
k In vita Petri de Vineis.  Scardius who wrote his life, john Fox, and 
l In Chron. an. 1●46. & ali●● lo●● supracitatu.  Huldericus Mutius (all which four last are Protestant Calumists) with Crusius the Lutheran, call Petrum de Vineis: to whom we may add the Italian writers, as Villanus, Pigna, Caraf●a, Landinus, Velutellus, Dantes, and Tarcagnota, who call him in their tongue Pietro delle Vigne, which in latin is de Vincu. And he that shall confer all their writings together, cannot choose but see, that he is one, & the self same man, who is signified by both these names: yea Volateranus in one work calleth him, both Petr●m de Vineis● and Petrum Vineam; and the self same things are recorded under both names, as that he was Secretary to the Emperor Frederick the second, in great and special favour with him, was sent to the Council of Lions with Thaddaeus Sinuessanus, had his eyes pulled out for treason, & finally knocked out his own brains: only I must confess, that none of these Authors, under the one or other name, do mention of his miraculous writing of frederic's death, after his eyes & brains were out, but left that as a mere lying fiction to be registered alone by M. Barlow.  
This then being so, whereof I think no learned man, that hath read the Histories can make any doubt, to wit, that Petrus de Vinea, and de Vineis is but one man's name, who was put to death by the Emperor Frederick; it must needs follow (as I have said) that, that Epistle, or what else so ever, under his name, which mentioneth the poisoning or death of the Emperor (if there be any such) to be bastard, counterfeit, and forged by some schismatical or heretical writer, who the better to deceive the Reader would use the cloak, and authority of the name of Petrus de Vineis, and M. Barlow, who setteth him out with such lofty praises, and makes him according to his misapplied proverb, to be omnia sub unam Miconum: He alone, saith he, may stand for all the rest, shows himself to be a brainsick beetle, so much to commend a blind & brainless author f●r a thing, which either he never wrote, or else he did it, w●en both his eyes & brains were out of his head: and th●n you may be sure, it was very wisely done.  
And as wisely hereunto doth M. Barlow apply the proverb of omnia sub unam Miconum, which he in ●rpreteth, as you have heard; he alone may stand for all the rest: whereas Strab●, whom he allegeth for the same, doth explicate it in a far different fence, 
M. Barlows Proverb misapplied.  saying: Omnia sub unam Miconum, Adagium est de his, qui sub unam descriptionem cogunt ea quae natura seiunxit: All under one Miconus, is a Proverb spoken of them, who comprehend things of different natures under on description. And the like he might have seen in Manutius, who explicating the proverb, saith, qui res natura diversas eodem titulo complectuntur: who comprise things of different natures under one title. And with them agreeth Calepine. But it is M. Barlows good fortune to be mistaken in all things, be it of History, Humanity, Philosophy, or Divinity. But not to stand longer on these trifles, but to draw to an end of the whole matter, in which M. Barlows manifold mistakinges have made me the longer, it will not be amiss for conclusion hereof, to lay good Reader, before thine eyes, all the errors & untruths, that in this matter only M. Barlow hath committed, by which thou wilt easily consecture, how great a bulk I had been forced to write, if I should have been so particular in all other points, which he handleth, as I have been in this: but I thought it sufficient for a taste to exemplify only, in some few, omitting the rest, as being loath to lose good time in searching so narrowly into such false and frivolous matters.  
Untrue than it is, that the Emperor was excommunicated upon sleight pretences, 
M. Barlows untruths heaped together  as the Council of Lions, and all other Authors do testify. It is untrue, that the Emperor was sent into the Holy Land, that the Pope might rifle his State at home. Thirdly it is untrue, that the Emperor stayed for sickness, which (even by them who were with the Emperor) was testified to be but feigned. Again it is not true, that for the same stay he was excommunicated, but for his return with the Navy, after he had set forth to sea. Fiftly Vrspergensis saith not, that the Pope way-lied the coasts of Verona and Milan, and took order that the Soldiers should be spoiled. Sixtly, that the Pope kept back all supply of forces from the Holy-Land whiles Frederick was there, which his own Author saith was but only in Lombardy and Apulia. seventhly that the Emperor performed his vow, and promise by his voyage to Hierusalem● and therefore was unjustly denied absolution. Eightly, that the Pope commanded the Christians in Asia to leave the Emperor to the Turks malice, & that Nauclerus doth affirm the same. Ninthly. Blondus is belied, whom M. Barlow will have to avouch, that the Pope sent secret letters to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to rebel against Frederick; but Blondus hath returned him a Writ of Non est inventus in baliu● meo, there is no such thing to be found in my book. The tenth untruth is, that the Pope dealt with the Sarac●●ns to make no tru●● with the Emperor, nor deliver him the Crown, though he should win it by Conquest: both parts are false, and for such may be crowned. The eleventh is, in making Vrspergensi● resolutely to affirm, that the Pope caused to be given out in Apulia, that the Emperor was dead, whereas he doth report it only by hearsay. And to make up a full jury of twelve, to cry guilty at the bar against M. Barlow, a most notorious untruth it is, that these things were done by Innocentius, as M. Barlow avoucheth.  
And these being all the strong presumptions, and violent inducements, that are brought by him to prove the Pope's poisoning of the Emperor, and proved by me to be all lies, slanders, and corruptions, I leave it to the Readers judgement to determine whether they be not strong presumptions, & violent inducements rather of M● Barlows perfidious dealing, & bad conscience, than any proof, or probability of the Pope's poisoning of the Emperor at all.  
But besides these inductive lies, there remain yet certain capital or fundamental, 
M. Barlows fundamental lies.  to wit; the evident, and demonstrative evictions (as M. Barlow would have them seem) of this counterfeit poisoning, which we now have both evicted, and demonstrated to be nothing else, but open untruths: to wit, that Cuspinian should say, that Mansredus poisoned the Emperor: that the Emperor died of the poison, which lie we have showed to be joined with a gross contradiction of M. Barlow himself: that Matthew Paris should say, that the emperor found his poisoning to be the Pope's doing: that Petrus de Vineis testifieth, that the Emperor was poisoned by the Pope: to which if we add the lie which he maketh of Inn●ientius 4. which I shall now set down, I see not what can be more required to make M. Barlow free of this trade, that in defending his Majesty, either by violent inducements, or evident demonstrations, hath brought no other arguments for the one, or the other, but mere cogging, lying, and forgery.  
And that you may know, that he will end, as well as he began, thus he knitteth up all his discourse of this emperor Frederick. Pope Innocentius (the 4.) did see, that his acts could be no longer hid: 
Pope Innocentius t●e 4. calumniated both by M. Barlow and Fox.  descried they were: and is was time for him to speak●: and then if he would not make the best for himself, with his own pe●, he might have been begged for an Innocent. This is the final upshot of his defence. And it is marvel, that he did not adjoin john Fox his dream of the same Pope, how before his death at Naples, he heard a voice saying, veni miser ad judicium Dei, come thou wretch to the judgement of God: and the next day he was (saith this fabling Goose) found in his bed all black and blue, as though he had been beaten with bats. If you ask what Author affirmeth it, john Fox only telleth you, that the writers of annal record it: but who these writers are, and what their names be, you may seek if you list, and find if you can, for he gives you no further direction. Perchance he had it by revelation, as he had the explication of the Apocalyps for counting the months by sabboth's, 
See three Conuers. p●t. 2. ●. ●.  when the Spirit that speak with a majesty within him, called him, THOU FOOL.  
Pope Innocentius acts, saith M. Barlow, could be no longer hid: descried they were etc. what were these acts I pray you? Were they these which you huddle together for strong presumptions, and vehementinducements, to prove that he would have poisoned the Emperor? But all these we have showed, in case they had been true, as they have proved false, to touch Gregory 9, and no way to concern Innocentius. And if you mean the other part of your charge, concerning the same subject, of his hiring one to poison him, that also we have showed to be as false, as the former. What then are th●se great matters with which Innocentius is to be charged? Forsooth those things which are imposed upon him by Pe●●us de Vin●is. But what reason is there that I should believe more this Author against the Pope, than the Pope against him? To this M. Barlow so answereth, as if there were no other proof, it alone may suffice, to show his folly and unsincerity. I shall very briefly let you see what he saith hereunto, and if you knew not his wit before, now may you take the just valuation and measure thereof by this example.  
It was objected by me, that Petrus de Vineis was a servant of Frederick, and sworn enemy to the Pope. To this M. Barlow giveth three answers: 
Three of M. Barlows answers examined.  first that so were S●●iu● & Baronius to the Pope's Sea, and professed enemies of their Religion. But this reacheth not home, for these collect their histories out of other Records, and write nothing of themselves, but only relate what they find in others, and therefore are credited according to the weight of proole, or reason, which they bring to confirm that which they write. Secondly (saith M. Barlow) Servants do not always speak the best of their Masters etc. And he, as appear by Cuspinian, dissembles not, even the foul vices o● the Emperor his Master. This lo, is far more silly than the former: for although that servants do not always speak the best of their Masters, yet for the most part they do, especially if they by Princes, and that to the uttermost, with most palpable flattery, & most of all if they speak or write, that which their Masters may hear or read, as Petrus de Vineis did, whilst he was in frederic special favour & grace, and as we see M. Bar●. to do throughout all this loose idle work of his, when he hath occasion to speak of his Majesty, which also he often of purpose taketh, where none is given. And not to seek further for an example in this kind of Sycophancy, besides many others which before have been alleged, the very next ensuing words after those of his charge against Pope Innocentius, most evidently confirm the same, wherein all his poor wit and skill, is bend to flatter his Majesty to the uttermost.  
And whereas M. Barlow saith, that Pe●r●● de Vineis (as it appears by Cuspinian) doth not dissemble his masters foul vices, 
Another untruth of M. Barlow.  it is a clear sign, that they were so foul, as that they could not be dissembled: although I rather think these things in Cuspinian concerning the emperors vices, to be spoken by Cuspinian himself out of other Authors, for that Petrus de Vineis should so write of the Emperor, and that in the said emperors time, whilst he was in grace with him, seems a mere fiction. Neither doth Cuspinian insinuate any such thing out of Petrus de Vineis, as M. Barlow here would make us believe, and therefore this may pass for another untruth.  
And to this we may adjoin a very solemn foolery, which followeth in the very next page, where forsooth he rejecteth Blondus, by the same reason, by which he here justifies Petrus de Vineis, 
Blondus nicknamed by M. Barlo●  to wit, because he was secretary and servant to a Pope, nick-naming him glozing Recorder Blondus, & painful Pseudolus, and yet he confesses, that he lived two hudreth years after Innocentius, in which respect there is less cause of any suspicion in writing partially of Innocentius, as having no dependence of him, than there is of Petrus de Vineis, Servant and Secretary to the Emperor, and writing whiles the Emperor was alive, and himself in his service.  
The third answer then, which of all the rest is most silly, and simple, M. Barlow fetreth down thus: Thirdly saith he, 
A silly reason of M. Barl. to justify Petrus de Vineis.  neither did Vineis write this as a servant, but as an Historian, who in all his tract must have m●●e to the ●●th, without w●●ch as Polybius well resembles, it is like a living body with all the bones taken out. Thus he. And doth not this reason clear as well Blondus as Petrus de Vineis? For did not Bloudu● write as an historiam, & not as a servant? Or did Petrus de Vineis write any history? I would gladly know what proof he hath for the same, 
Barlow pag. 296.  for I find no such history of his, nor any record thereof, only I find recorded his Epistles, as well in his own name, as the Emperors, & therefore as may be presumed, written by him more like a Servant, than an Historian. And truly this reason of M. Barlows seems to justify all histories, that ever were written, seeing that as he saith, an Historian must always have an eye to the truth, and therefore Petrus de Vineis, when he wrote the history of the Emperor, did write the truth, & so did Philostratus, when he wrote of Apolonius Tranaeus, & Gessrey of Monmouth in setting down the Ge●ts of Vther-Pendragon, & Prince Arthar.  
These are the reasons of M. Barlow, why Petrus de Vineis should be credited against Innocentius, but that Inuocentius should not be believed in his own case, writing an Apology for himself against Petrus de Vineis. This he would seem to prove, hearken I pray thee good Reader, if thou canst without laughter, for M. Barlow will play the Vice in kind. 
A ridiculous exception of M. Barlow against Innocentius.  But did the Pope (saith he) write these books in defence of himself, to confute Petrus de Vineis? Surely that is an argument that he was guilty. And why, good M. Barlow? Suspitionem (saith he) mihi facit nimia diligentia, saith S. Hierome: Promptitude of excuse implieth a consciousness of the fault. Yea what saith the same Father of judas the Traitor, when our Saviour told his disciples that one of them should betray him, and all the rest of the Apostles (as strooken with grief) pluck their hands from the dish, forbidding meat to their mouths, & judas only thrust in his hand. This he did, ut audacia bonam conscientiam mentiretur, that thereby he might dissemble, & think to persuade his INNOCENCY with mere boldness. So he. And is not this good stuff? Who ever heard wise man before draw an argument to prove one to be faulty for that he wrote in his own defence? For by this reason S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, who wrote Apologies for themselves against their calunniators, shall also be guilty of these crimes, wherewith they were charged by their adversaries: neither shall the Emperor Frederick himself be free, who wrote divers Epistles in his own defence, as every where we find: yea your whole Church of England, M. Barlow, shallbe condemned, who wrote a lying Apology for itself, refuted by D. Harding, and shamefully defended by your Brother, the superintendant of Salisbury, M. john I●ell.  
And truly the inference of M. Barlow in proving Innocentius guilty, for that he defended himself, being before wrongfully charged, is not more childish, than the prose which he bringeth for the same is impertinent, suspitionem (saith he) mihi facit nimia diligentia, and then interpreteth it thus: promptitude of excuse implies a consciousness of the salt. This is his reason (if so it may be termed) out of which it follows, that the sooner a man offers to clear himself, the more he is to be suspected as guilty thereof: which who seeth not how ridiculous it is: and moreover I would feign know how, or upon what ground, M. Barlow doth gather, that Innocentius was so prompt, or forward in answering, that his very promptitude gave so great occasion of suspicion, as that it was to be compared with judas readiness in putting his hand into the dish, to cover his malicious intention, for in this only standeth the force of his proof: how (I say) doth he prove, that Innocentius was more prompt, then slow in writing? Or that he may not as well be condemned, for his too much slackness, as for his over much ha●t? What proofs are there for the one, more than for the other? Are not these pretty fooleries M. Barlow? May not any man prove Quidlibet ex Quolibet by this your manner of reasoning, in which you say what you li●t, and prove nothing at all? And for the example of judas, who seeth not that it much better befits M. William Barlow, for betraying the Earl of Essex his Master, than Innocentius the Pope, for defending himself. But to return again to your former charge of Pope Innocentius.  
If the Pope be not liable to these former pretended Imputations, of which we have now fully cleared him, 
M. Barlows charge against Innocentius only in generalities.  I would, as before I have said, feign know what these acts were, that are here said to be descried, any could no longer be hid: for in Cuspinian (this Pope's professed adversary) I find no such personal crime objected against him, but only the contention between him and the Emperor, for which the whole Council of Lions, which represented the Church at that time, doth clear him, in condemning Frederick: and all Authors, excepting one or two set out by Heretics, do not only clear him, but also much commend him; and out of Petrus de Vineis, M. Barlow citeth nothing, whereas, me thinks, in so odious a calumniation, some instance should have been produced, some Author alleged, and things more specified, t●en in such general terms. But that (as the Philosopher saith ●dolosus versatur in generalibus, the guileful man goes upon generalities: by which no man is so free, but may be charged, none so INNOCENT that may not be condemned, especially if general occasions, without particular proofs may take place. But we against this general assertion, will produce the particular praises, that Authors do give of this Pope In which one thing the Reader may note by the way, that as these writers commend Innocentius for his prudence, learning, virtue, constancy, & other eminent talents: so in no particular thing do they condemn him; of which we shall see the contrary in Frederick to wit, that his disorders were so great, and so gros●e, that even his chiefest flatterers, that use to make ex musca montem, to praise him far beyond desert, did yet by force of truth confess his foul vices, as Cuspinian, and the two Matthews, I mean Paris and Westminster, as I shall anon show, when I come to specify, what all Authors write of him. But first let us examine, 
Arist. in problem.  what they say of Innocentius, that so, contraria juxta se posita, magis illucescant, two contraries being confronted together, may both of them the better appear.  
Innocentius then for his learning, is called of Volateranus, Vincentius, Philippus Bergomas, Tritemius, joannetus, 
The pra●ses of Pope Innocentius the 4. by divers Authors.  and those who wrote his life, Doctissi●us, most learned: and by C●antzius, Summus Doctor, & juris peritissimus, the chiefest, and most skilful Doctor of Law: and Durandus a famous Lawyer of that time, calleth him the Father of the Law, as testifieth Alphonsus Ciaconius: and the same doth Genebrad ou● of Volateranus. 
Geneb. 4. C●ron. in an. 1245.  And he was not only learned himself, but was also a great furtherer and favourer of learning & learned men, as witnesseth the said Genebrard, and Tarcagnota. For his constancy and upright dealing, 
L●ng. hist. Citiz. in an. 1242.  he is called of Paulus Lauzius Luther's friend, Vir rigidus, & justitiae tenacissimus executor, a severe man, and most constant executor of justice. For his invincible courage, of Folieta, to be Impavidi ad terrores animi, one who apprehended no fear. 
Poliet. l. 4. hist. Genuensium. Ibi●●m.  For his wisdom and prudence, he is said of the same Author to have been, Insignipictare & pruden●ia, of excellent piety and wisdom. And the like hath Ciaconius. For his providence, and circumspection, of the Monk of Padua, 
In vita Innocent. Mona●h. Pa●●uan in a●. 1245.  who then lived, Sagacissimus Papa, a most provident, or circumspect Pope. For his sanctity of Nangis the French man, in the life of S. Lewis, Beatae & felicis vitae, and s●nctissimus Papa, of a blessed and holy life, and most holy Pope. And that this was the common opinion of him, through all France at that time, the testimony not only of this Frenchman, who lived soon a●ter; but also of Blondus do make evident, 
blond. Decad. ●. l. 7. an 1148. in sine.  who saith, Suanis●●mus erat in Galleys famae odor gravitatis, sancti●atis, ac rerum ges●arum eius Pontificis: cha●is, there was a most sweet odour in France, of the gravity, sanctity, and acts of this Pope Innoc●n●ius. And this seemeth to be confirmed by the singular reverence and dutiful respect, which S. Lewis of France did yield him at the Council of Lions, as writeth Paulus A●milius, in his history. And joannetus in the li●e of this Pope saith, that the Emperor was nothing glad for his election: Norat enim virtutem viri, atque animi magnitudinem; for he knew well his virtue and great courage. The same also is avouched by Ciaconius, who with Onuphrius Panuinus a famous historiographer of our days, 
In Innocent. 4.  gives him this ●●ncomium● Multis egregys factis clarissimus, & ob vendicatam assertamque libertatem Ecclesiasticam omnibus saculis laudatissimus; most famous for his worthy deeds, and for recovering the Ecclesiastical liberty of the Church, to all posterity most renowned.  
And therefore his life being so commendable, no marvel though his death were be wailed of all good men, 
Touching the death of Innocentius & the general lamentation for the sa●e. R●be● s● l. 6. ●●●t. Raven. immediat● ante an. 12●6. Lib. 4. ●●st. Gen●.  ●s testifieth Hicronymus Rubeus in his history of Ravenna, saying: Innocentius vitam cum morte commutavit, & quidem ingenti ●onorum omnium dolore. Vir enim suerat magnitudine animi & vir●tute praestantissimus. I●mocentius departed this life, and truly with the great grief of all good men, for he was a man both for courage, and virtue most excellent. But this is more fully expressed by Vbertus Folieta in these words: Hic annus non modò Genuensibus, sed omni Christiano orb atque omnibus bonis luctuosus suit morte Innocentij 4. in Vrbe Neapol● etc. This year was doleful not only to the people of Genua, but also to all the Christian world, and all good men, by the death of Innocentius the 4. in the City of Naples; who in the eleventh year of his Popedom, ended the course of his most renowned government, with this noble act of adding the Kingdom of Naples, to the State of the Church. This man was made memorable & famous to all posterity, as well for his exquisite learning, whereof he left notable monuments, as also for his excellent piety, his noble deserts towards the Weal public of Christendom, and continual, and infatigable labours, whose known virtue was so admired, and believed of all men, that bewailing his loss, they did commonly say, talem Virum aut numquam nasci, aut numquam mori oportuisse, that so worthy a man either should never have been borne, or never have died. So he.  
And that this their mourning was not for the present only at his descease, Ciaconius testifieth saying: Clerus, & populus eum dudum luxerunt etc. 
In Vita Innocent. 4. Innocentius death for a long time bewailed.  The Clergy and the people mourned for him a long time, as appeareth in the History of Genua, written by Augustinus justinianus Bishop of Nebia, as also in Ricardonus a Florentine writer. So he. Who also yieldeth the cause hereof in th●se words: Relicta apud omnes fama non modò excellen●is scientiae, & exquisitae virtutis, sed ettam integritatis vitae, admirabilisque prudentiae. For that he left behind him the fame, not only of excellent learning, and exquisite virtue, but also of integrity of life, and admirable wisdom. Which rare encomium of good life, & long lamentation after his death, may be much doubted, whether it will ever be left registered by any Historiographer of M. Barlow, unless he make some great change of himself from that which at the present he is said to be. And this may suffice for Innocentius, whereby, good Reader, thou mayest see and judge with what truth & spirit M. Barlow wrote of this Pope, that he was forced to defend himself, for that his acts were descried, and could be no longer ●id. Now then let us see what opinion writers have of Frederick, whom M. Barlow so much commendeth, & defendeth against all Popes and writers.  
Although it be an odious and loath some thing to rake up the ashes of dead men, 
Touching the life & vices of Frederick the second.  and to rip up their vices, which shouldly buried with them in silence (for which cause I shallbe the shorter in their rehearsal:) yet enforced hereunto, even against my inclination, by M. Barlows' importunity, or rather impudence, who to commend this Emperor, blusheth not to condemn so worthy a man, as you have now heard Innocentius to have been. But I shall deal more uprightly therein, than he hath done with the Pope, for that I will charge the Emperor no further then with that, which I find him in all Historiographers, or public records to be charged withal, one only schismatical Vrspergensis being excepted, 
Frederick the 2. condemned by Matthew Pari● and Matthew Westminster. Matth. Paris. in an. 1245. p. 922.  who in this, as I have showed, deserveth no credit. And to begin with them, who seem to favour and defend him most, I meene Matthew Paris and Cuspinian, the former having set down an Epistle of frederick's to King Henry the third of England, written after his excommunication, and deposition in the general Council of Lions, giveth his censure thereof in these words: Haec cum ad Christianissimos Francorum & Anglorum Reges nuntiata pervenissent etc. When these things came to the knowledge of the most Christian Kings of France and England, it appeared more clear than the sun to them, 
See also the same Author anno 1239. p. 651.  and their Nobility, that Frederi●ke with all his endeavours went about to annihilate the liberty and dignity of the Church, which he himself never advanced, but was established without his liking, by his noble predecessors: and therefore making himself suspected of heresy, did impudently and imprudently extinguish, & worthily blot out that little spark of good name, which hitherto he had amongst the people, for wisdom and prudence etc. And with Matthew Paris agreeth Matthew of Westminster, 
Matth. Westm. an. 1245. pag. 20●.  saying, that by this letter, Se volens excusare, impudenter accusavit, going ● out to excuse the matter, he did impudently accuse himself.  
And as for Cuspinian● although by all means he seeketh to excuse and iusti●y this Emperor; yet were his vices so notorious, as he could not conceal them altogether, 
Cuspinians judgement of Frederick  but having set down those things, which he thought commendable in him (as there are none so bad commonly, but that some good thing or other may be noted in them) he concludeth his praises thus: Has praeclaras virtutes contamina●unt, & obscurarunt etiam quadam vitia, sae●itia scilicet hominis, & libido immensa, qui praeter gentis morem concubinas multas & scorta aluit. These noble virtues certain vices did stain and obscure ● to wit, the cruelty of the man, and his unsatiable lust, who against the custom of his Country did maintain many Concubines and queans. And this, as already hath been noted, he speaketh of himsese without any reference to Petrus de Vineis (as M. Barlow would have us believe: 
Barl. pag. 296. in fine mon. 93. ) neither want there store of Authors who tax him for the same. And for the first, Palmerius saith, he was non essrenis modo ira, sed rabie, & crudelitate immanis, not only impotent in anger, 
Pal●e●. in Chron. an. 1250. Foliet a hist. Genu. l. 4. Werner in fuschetto an. 1224.  but fierce with rage and cruelty: which Folieta termeth, barbaram crudelitatem, barbarous cruelty: Wernerus, in fasciculo temporum, calleth it Tyrannidem, Tyranny. And he that shall but read what he did at his siege in Rome, related as well by Germane Authors, to wit Crantzius, Nauclerus, Huldericus Mutius etc. as by Blondus, Sabellicus, M●ssia, jacobus Philippus, and others, shall well see that he was not only cruel, but barbarous and Tyrannical indeed: for thus doth Crantzius relate the matter, and with him do the rest agree: but I have chosen him out of the rest, as being a Germane; for the Germans, as M. Barlow out of Cuspinian noteth, do write more faithfully of their own affairs, than other strangers, who cannot so well conceive them: and this Author is more grave, learned & ancient than the other two.  
Fredericus Pontificem & Ecclesiam satigabat etc. Frederick did afflict both the Pope and Church: 
Crantz. l. 8. c. 9 Saxoniae. Frederick his barbarous cruelty.  those who were signed with the Cross, once resisted his coming, for hastening to break down the gates, and wales of the City of Rome, those of the Cross stood in combat with the mighty army of the Emperor: at which he being affrighted was so moved with fury, and rage, as fight in the Vanguard, he cried out that all such as wore the Cross, and could be taken, should be brought unto him alive: & the Romans that were brought unto him, he caused partly to be thrust through with four wounds, after the fashion of a Cross; and partly he cut their heads into ●oure parts, and caused their forheads to be cut with Crosses: but Clergy m●n that did wear their Crowns shaven, he commanded to have their Crowns adorned (as he termed it) with a cro●●e, cut into the same with a knife, of whom one for that he seemed to bear the wound too patiently, they tied him with a rope, and drew him through a heap of straw, or chaff, and when as he still presevered to praise & glorify God, they burned him. So he. Again in the end of the same Chapter: Mirae sunt, & raro aliâs auditae crudelitates etc. Wonder●ull are the cruelties & seldom heard of before, which at this time Frederick showed against the Legates of the Church, throughout the Kingdom of Sicily, who partly killed many Archbishops and Bishops, partly kept them in prison, partly banished them: amongst these was the Bishop of Catana, by whom Frederick from his infancy had been brought up. So Crantzius. And more also in the ensuing Chapters, especially the 24. which for brevity ● omit.  
Only I will add unto Crantzius two other Germans, Nauclerus and Mutius, 
N●●●l. 〈◊〉 41. anno 1247. Mutius anno. 1246.  who speaking of his siege of Parma, say, that he caused as many of his enemies, as were taken to be shot out of great Crossbows into the town: and using great cruelty as well to women, as men, caused many to be torn in pieces before the gates of the Cytty etc. And could there be any more barbarous Cruelty or Tyranny then this?  
Besides these two examples of his outrageous cruelty, one more, omitting the rest, we will adjoin in another kind, out of a Germane History, called Compilatio Chronologica, 
Compila●. C●●onol. an. 1245.  wherein is recorded, that this Frederick maintained certain Man-quellers, and desperate Cutthroats which were sent from a Pagan Prince in Syria, King of the Assassins, from whom the name of assassinates seems to be derived, whose proper profession was to hazard there lives to murder any man, when they were set on work: and they were the more resolute and desperate in this behalf, for that they held their obedience herein, to be a special act of Religion, yea to be rewarded, and crowned with immortality in the next life, as may be seen in Nubrigensis. 
Nubrig. ●. 4. ●. 22. & l. 5. ●. 24.  The King or Prince of those people, is always called Vetus de Monte, or Vetustus de Montanis, that is, The old Man of the Mountain, rather in respect of his wisdom, and gravity then for his age, saith Nubrigensis, being held for a Prophet, by those bloody murderers. Then Frederick had divers at his command, by whose help he killed the Duke of Bavaria, and also (as Monachus Paduanus addeth, 
Monach. Paduan. l. 2. an. 1246.  who lived at that very time) the Duke of Hungary. Which examples fully express the horrible cruelty of his nature, & how much he thirsted after blood. And so much of this. Let us now come to the second.  


The licentious life of Frederick.  
Cu●pin. & Messia in vita Frederic. Ciac● in Innoc. 4. Blondus Dec. 2. l. 7. Naucl. gen.. 41. anno 1247.  
C●antz. l. 8. c. 14. Mut. an. 1246.  
Crus. part. 3. c. 1. Colenut. in vit. Fox Acts & Monuments. pag. 286.   For the other vice of licentious life, & that in so high a degree as little beseemed his Imperial Majesty, there are many proofs; for with Cuspinian agreeth Messia, in the life of Frederick, Ciaconius in the life of Innocentius, Blondus out of the relation of one who then lived, and wrote what he saw and knew, Nauclerus, Crantzius, Huldericus Mutius, Crusius, Colenutius, and out of him john Fox, who setteth down the matter somewhat nicely, with a Ministerial diminutive phrase, or (to use M. Barlows words) with an hypocoristi●all alleviation, as being loath to touch him too near, who was so eager an enemy to the Pope, saying: He was not without his fault and human fragility, for the Writers impute unto him some fault of concupiscence, wherewith he was stained and blotted, and it appeareth that he was not all clear thereof. So he.  
And truly I smiled when I read this clause, some fault of concupiscence, in Fox. For seeing that even in the regenerate in the Protestants opinion, concupiscence is a sin, and so still remaineth after Baptism, why is it here imputed as a special fault in this Emperor more than in other men, seeing that all men are as guilty thereof as he, as having it all alike engendered within them? But he meaneth his wanton life, which he would closely cover with the general and gentle title of Concupiscence. For he addeth that he had by sundry Concubines three base Children, Entius King of Sardinia, Man●redus Prince of Tarentum, and Frederick King of Antioch, which is somewhat more as you see, then bare Concupiscence: and yet much less than others do write of him in this kind. For who so will read his siege of Parma, when he lay at his new town of Victoria, shall find almost in every Author, the great multitudes of women, which he there kept, who a●ter the Turkish guise (for to that Sect as all testify he was singularly devoted) were attended upon by eunuchs, or, as Bonaventura Angelus in his history of Parma saith, by droves of eunuchs, for which he is specially taxed, as I said, by all Authors: to which their general and uniform consent, I see not what for proof can be added, or answered for reply.  
And to show further the base mind of this lascivious Emperor, 
A very base and barbarous example.  besides his own personal misbehaviour in this filthiness, Crantzius relateth one example of his beastliness, as may alone show how far this his faulty Concupiscence did extend itself. For to gratify the Turks (saith Crantzius) as well those who followed him in his wars, 
Crantz. l. 8. Saxon. cap. 10.  as those that lived in afric, he not only suffered, but procured throughout all Sicily and his kingdom of Italy, the fairest women, and maidens which the Turks lusted after, to be taken from their parent's bosom, and married wives even out of their husband's arms to be given unto them. So he. And was not this a virtuous man trow you; who to pleasure the Turks, sworn enemies of Christ, would thus deal with Christians? And doth not this man deserve to be credited, speaking in his own behalf before Pope, all writers, and whatsoever other testimony?  
But indeed this dealing was conform to his devotion, for he who so vilely esteemed of our Saviour himself, no marvel if in his other behaviour he were so irreligious, base and wicked: 
The blasphemous speech of Frederick●.  for, as we have before out of Fazelius showed, he held our Saviour and Moses to be no better than Mahomet, calling them all three Seducers, as with Fazelius the Chronicles of Augusta, and Compilatio Chronologica, both Germane histories do avouch; and moreover affirm, that he speak the same in the hearing of Henry the Landgrave, saying withal; If the Princes of the Empire would but follow me, I would ordain a better manner of belief, and li●e for all Nations. And verily it seemeth, that he aimed at this, when as you have seen before, out of his own epistle, set down and censured by both the Matthews, he went about to abase all the Clergy, by taking all livings from them, and to deprive them of all their dignity: ●or that being once effected, he might with more ease afterwards have made a new Clergy, a new faith, a new Christ: but he forgot in this his foolish fervour, what the Kingly Prophet David said, and prayed against such attempts, 
Psal. 82.  Omnes Principes qui dixerunt hereditate possideamus Sanctuarium Dei etc. All tho●e Princes, who have said, let us possess, as our inheritance, the Sanctuary of God, let them be, O my God, as a wheel, and as straw before the face of the wind: as a fire that burns the wood, and as a flame that consumes the mountains. So shalt thou persecute them etc.  
Which seems in some sort to be verified literally in this man, who after his excommunication, being in extreme calamity, as well by the election of another Emperor, & defection of a great part of the Empire from him, as also for that one of his sons, to wit, Entius King of Sardinia was taken prisoner by the people of Bolognia, and another was dead in Apulia. Likewise himself percussus est (saith Matthew Paris) morbo qui dicitur lupus, vel sacer ignis, was strooken with the disease which is called the wol●e, or holy fire; whereby he was so humbled (as the same Author witnesseth) that he offered unto the Pope good conditions of peace, according, saith Matthew, to that saying of the Psalmist, which followeth immediately in the same Psalm by me now alleged, Imple facies eorum ignominia, & quaerent nomen tuum Domine: fill their face with confusion, and they will seek thy name, O lord.  
And this chastisement of almighty God, as it began in his own person, 
The punishment of God upon Frederick & his issue.  so it continued in his issue, partly whiles he lived, & partly after his death, until they were all extirpated. In his life time, his Son Henry was made away by his own procurement, being cast into prison where he was either poisoned, by his command (as some think) or else died naturally, as others report. Entius, was taken by the Bolognians, and there after twenty years restrainst and more, being kept in an iron cage, he pined away, and died miserably. Bononiam ductus (saith Muti●●) mittitur in ferream● caveam, in qua sordidissimo victu nutritus, miserimam vitam post aliquot annos finivit. Entiu● being brought to Bolognia is cast into an iron cage, in which being entertained with most filthy diet, after some years imprisonment ended a most miserable life. So he. His other bastard-sonne Frederick died in Apulia. 
Huld. Mutins in Chron. an. 1249. in fine.  And after the said Emperor his death, his son Conrade King of Sicily was poisoned by Manfred his bastard-brother, and Manfred was slain in battle, by Charles of Ang●ow: and Conradinus Son or Nephew to Conradus (for in this Authors differ) was beheaded at Naples, and so ended the race of this wicked and unfortunate Emperor, of whom that may justly be said, which job speaketh of the like men. 
job. 27.  Haec est pars impij apud Deum etc. This is the portion of the wicked man with God, a●d the inheritance of the violent (oppressors) which they shall receive from the omnipotent. If his sons shallbe multiplied, they shall die by the sword, and his nephews shall not be filled with bread. All whom he shall leave behind him, shallbe buried in destruction. Which if all Princes could remember amidst their greatness, no doubt, but they would be more moderate in their power and actions, and also fear him more, 
Psal. 75.  qui au●ert spiritum Principum terribilis apud omnes Reges terr●: who taketh away the life of Princes, and is dreadful to all the Kings of the earth.  
Before we have set down out of the Council itself, 
Other enormities of Frederick.  than which there can be no more grave, or greater authority, all the causes of his condemnation, as his sacrileges; his perjuries upon perjuries; his perfidiousness to the Christians; his treacherous treaty with the Sultan; his spoiling of Churches and monasteries; his expelling of the Christians out of Nuceria, and giving it to the Turks; his reviving the foul faction of the Guelphs and Gibbelines; all which and many more, as they may be seen in the sentence of Innocentius, and Severinus Binnius: so also many other Authors might be alleged for the same. And he who listeth to read more hereof, may peruse William of Nangis the Frenchman, 
Nang. in an. 1245.  in the life of S. Lewis: and with him all the Authors whom before we have cited, where some of these things have been more particularly touched: which no doubt was the cause why Wiceli●● a Germane in his Epitome of the Pope's lives, in this Innocenti●● the 4. spoke so contemptibly of the emperors death, as he said, sub hoc perijt bestia Fredericus: In the time of this Pope died that beast Frederick. And the Monk of Padua, registering the same death, saith; Vitam amisit in Apulia etc. On S. Lucy's day Frederick died in Apulia, and descended into hell, carrying nothing with him but a sack of sins. So he: far different from that which before we have heard others to write of the death of Innocentiu●.  
And this may suffice to show what small reason M. Barl. had, so much to justify this Emperor: & for his sake to condemn the Popes who then lived, forgetting in bo●h that severe commination of the Holy Ghost. 
Proverb. 17.  Qui justificat impium, & qui condemnat justum abominabilis est uterque apud Deum: He that justifies the wicked, and he that condemns the just, both are abominable before God. Which makes M. Barlowes case the more pitiful, for that he alone hath done both the one and other in this example. God send him grace to see, repent, & amend his error. And so much for Frederick the second.  
I will now end this matter, with this advertisement to the Reader, that whereas M. Barlow & others of his profession, use to serve themselves much out of the writings of Matthew Paris, 
Matthew Paris censured.  Cuspinian, & Peter de Vinei●, the truth is, that no one of them deserveth so much credit, as our Adversaries would feign force upon them. For the first hath many fables, contradictions, railings, and dogmatical assertions, which little beseem a religious spirit, or true Catholic, which at least he was known to be: and therefore as well this Matthew, as the other, being set out by Heretics, and printed at London, by order, as I have been informed, from the superintendant of Canterbury that then was, and no other ancient copy being extant that I can hear of, that might be conferred with this in print, it is very likely, that many things which are now urged against us, are not the words of Matthew Paris the Monk, but of Matthew Parker of Canterbury: and he who shall but read Harpsfields History, & examine the places which he bringeth, or things which on their authority he avoucheth, shall soon see, that his Matthewes spoke otherways then these, who in many things are made to write like good Protestants, although hitherto nothing hath been alleged out of them by M. Barlow in this matter, which I have not fully answered.  
john Cuspinian as he is a late writer, 
Cuspinian censured.  so is he of little credit, especially for his books of History of the Emperors which himself never set forth, but as Gerbelius writeth, 
Nico. Gerbel. praefat. ad Carolum Quintum  morte praeventus inemendatos, & ob scriptoris inscitiam soedissimis er●oribus depravatos reliquit, being prevented by death, he left his books of history uncorrected, and through ignorance of the writer, corrupted with most filthy errors. So he. By profession Cuspinian was a Physician, & knew perhaps how to frame his potions, according to the complexion of the receivers, and therefore this Frederick being descended as some think, or at least by marirage nearly allied to the House of Austria, he thought by making the most of him, to gratify both Maximilian his master, and young Charles the fifth of the same family, yet seeing he never set forth this book, but left it imperfect, uncorrected, full of errors etc. & that afterwards it was first published by Nicolas Gerbelius, a Protestant-brother of Strasburge, as may be presumed, who printed it in the year 1540 we may well think, that it was sauced by the setter forth, according to the new Gospel, and good appetite of them of his own profession.  
And as for Petrus de Vineis, 
Petrus de Vineis censured.  besides the just exception of partiality, which I took against him in my Letter, and that which I have already answered unto M. Barlowes Reply thereunto; I shall not need to adjoin any more. Wherefore I will only content myself with two censures which I find in two Authors of him, to wit, in S. Antoninus an Italian, 
S. Anton. tit. 19 cap. 6. §. 2●  and Tritemius a Germane. The first noteth him in these words: justo Dei judicio factum videtur etc. The death of Petrus de Vineis seemeth to have been procured by the just judgement of God, that because he had done many things to please the Emperor, against the Church, in favour and excuse of him, by him he was condemned, for whom he had offended both God and the Church. So he. And Tritemius thus writeth of him, 
Tritem. l. de Scriptorib. Eccles. in Petro de Vineis.  Petrus de Vineis etc. Peter de Vineis by nation a Germane, Secretary & Counsellor of the Emperor Frederick the second, was a learned and eloquent man, but in this very faulty, that adhering to Frederick, he did in favour of him, bark like a fool (stolidus latravit) against the Roman Church, by whom he was worthily rewarded: for having in some things offended him, he had his eyes pulled out etc. So he. And in his Catalogue of Worthy men, to the like censure, he addeth this clause, 
In Catal. Virorum Illustrium in Petro de Vineis.  Hoc praemium eorum etc. This is the reward of them, who do serve the humours of Princes, against the obedience of the Roman Sea, and Vicar of Christ, and like wretches fall headlong into hell, except they repent etc. Which advertisement being given by so grave an Author, before these controversies were raised by Luther, I wish M. Barlow, and all other in authority and credit with Princes, as Petrus de Vineis was, seriously to ponder.   

OF THE EMPEROR Frederick the first, whose picture was said to have been sent to the Sultan by Pope Alexander the third. And of the charge of Alexander the sixth, touching the death of Zizimus or Gemen, M. Barlows innocent Turk. §. III.  
METHOD and rules of learning require, that every thing be put down in his due place and order, and therefore me thinks that Frederick the first should by all reason, have been mentioned before the second Frederick his successor, especially seeing that there is another objection made a little before out of this very Emperor and Pope, whereunto this might well have been annexed, had it not been that the margin of the Apology was to be filled with citations, and the text with variety of examples, to make Popes more odious. But the transposition we●e pardonable, if the thing avouched were true, and the Reader not abused by these forged calumniations, who through the heat and heap of many words, is made to conceive, that M. Barlow saith much to the purpose, and with great sincerity: whereas all he hath, is nothing else but vain Thrasonical ostentation, impudent lying, & that which always accompanieth the loose liberty of a licentious tongue, exorbitant railing against all sorts, and degrees of men whatsoever. And this, as it hath been every where already showed: so shall it be more in this, and the other ensuing Chapters, though with much more brevity than the former, lest both this Chapter and the whole book, be drawn forth to greater prolixity and length, than I have purposed with myself that it should be: which only reason hath made me in other places, to leave more advantages, than I might have taken against M. Barlow; albeit I have taken more than I think will stand with his credit, or honesty, if yet he have any part or parcel of the one or the other left him.  
But let us hear him speak, if he can without lying, which here I assure you he will not, but begin with a round one, at the very first entrance. For thus he saith: 
M. Barlow pag. 298. numb. 96.  Another instance (saith he) objected ●y his Majesty (which pincheth their holy Father to the quick) is of that Pope, who when Emperor Frederick was in the Holy-Land, ●ighting in Christ's quarrel (●earing that his return would be some annoyance to the Romish Sea) betrayed him to the Sultan, to whom he directs his private letters, and with them also sent the emperors picture, in case the Sultan should mistake his Person. So M. Barlow. 
A cluster of lies in M. Barlow.  And lest any man should misdoubt of the certainty of this thing, he saith, that I made no answer thereunto, because in likelihood I saw it uncontrollable. But I hope so now to check and control the same, as all indifferent Readers shall cry shame on M. Barlows' ignorance and impudence, who in so false and forged a matter, reposeth so great confidence, as to affirm, that it pinchet● the Pope to the quick, and is incontrollable.  
And to answer first in general to this brutish charge; I say, that it is full of malice, devoid of truth, and wholly founded upon lies, which I shall by such evident demonstration evince, as better proof in such a matter cannot be required, or had. But first I must advertise thee, gentle Reader, that reason and modesty required on M. Barlows' behalf in so odious and injurious an accusation, that some Author, record, or proof should have been produced, for confirmation of the same, especially seeing iovius who was first cited in the Latin and English Apology, was by me denied to have any one word thereof. But instead of proving this, M. Barlow telleth us, how Saul sought for his father's Asses, and found them not in Salila, nor Salim. But howsoever he sought and found them not there, here I am sure we have found one at least, if to play the formal fool, as M. Barlow doth often, may deserve that title. But let us examine the thing itself.  
The Pope, who is charged in the Apology of the first and second edition, as well in the English as Latin copies, 
Alexander the third calumniated.  is Alexander the third, much by all Authors, as well of that time, as of the ensuing ages praised both for a worthy Pastor, and excellent man, 
Baronius tom. 12. Bern. epist. ●34. ad Rolandun (for that was Alexander's name before he was Pope) Cancellarium etc. Rob. de Monte in Chron. an. 1181.  as Baronius in his last Tome, through the whole course of his Popedom doth show, and S. Bernard giveth an honourable testimony of his demeanour before he was either Pope or Cardinal, as also the French Author Robertus de Monte doth after his death. And did this man I pray you send these letters and frederic picture to the Sultan? It is incredible; and no otherwise is it here verified, then by a bare assertion of M. Barlow, by which kind of proof, I may as well prove him to be a soldan, or Turk, as he doth, that there was ever any such letter or picture sent. And truly, there is as much ground for the one, as for the other: and as well shall I be able to show, that this matter between Frederick and Alexander is a mere counterfeit fiction, as ever he shallbe able to show, that he is not a soldan (for of his being a Turk I will not so much contend, seeing him so earnest in defence of Gemin.) And truly if in any thing, the uniform consent of all historiographers be to be heard, it is not to be rejected in this, but it were to long and unnecessary a labour to lay down, what all of them have written in this affair. It shall suffice me to allege, that wherein they agree with them who then lived, as Nubrigensis, Hoveden, Robertus de Monte, & Nicetas the Grecian, or not long after, as the two Matthewes, to whom I will of Protestant writers add Huldericus Mutius a zwinglian, & Martinus Crusius a Lutheran, that M. Barlow may the better perceive how exorbitant his malice and folly is, that will have that pass for uncontrollable, which by all manner of writers is contradicted.  
First then, by both the Matthewes, and Hoveden, 
Vterque Matth. in an. 1188. Houed. eodem an. Nubrig. also for thetim agreeth, l. 3. cap. 23.  it is evident that Frederick at the persuasion, and preaching of Henry Cardinal, and Bishop of Alban, sent by Cl●m●nt the third, as Legate unto him, first resolved to wear the Cross, and to undertake the war of the Holy-land, & that in the year 1188. as with them testifieth Nubrigensis: though the Lutheran in this differ from them in putting this resolution of the Emperor one year sooner, which maketh little or nothing at all to our purpose, although in the next year he say, that at the instance of Clement the third Pope, the Emperor prepared himself to the field. 
When Frederick went into the Holy-Land.  So that all agreeing herein, that Frederick went at the persuasion of Clement; and further it being certain, that Clement was not made Pope until the year 1188. there can be no difficulty touching this controversy of the time. And no less clear and certain it is by these writers, that Frederick set not forward towards Syria, until the next year after, 1189. for so say both the Matthews, Nubrigensis, Robertus de Monte, and Cr●sius, who al●o agree, that he was drowned the year after, to wit 1190. And in this I see no difference or variety of opinions, amongst these writers. And albeit there should be any about the time, when he resolved to wag● this war, or when he was drowned; yet in this all jointly, without any contradiction, agree that he went this voyage, and died divers years after Pope Alexander the third his death.  


Houed. loc. citat. Antonin. tit. 17. c. 9 §. 19  
Nicet. Choniat● lib. 2. hist. in Isaacio Angelo.  
Compilat. Chronol. Suff●idus. Fragment. hist. Godef. Chron. Austral. Chron. August. Mercator in an. 1190. Sigon. de regno Italiae l. 14. & 15. Messias & Cuspin. in vita Freder. Blond. dec. 2. l. 6. Sabe●l. En. 9 l. 5. Paulus AEmil. l. 6. Antonin. tit. 17. c. 9 §. 19 Crantz. l 7. Saxon. c. 1. Vinc. l. 29. c. 51. Huld. Mut. l. 19 in an. 1190. Crus. Annal. Su●ui. par. 2. l. 11. c. 11 & 18. etc.  
V to que Match. in an. 1181. Nubrig l. 3. c. 5. Houed. part 2. in an. 1181. Robert. de Monte in anno 1181. G●neb. in chron. Nau●ler. vol. 2. gen 40. Tritem. in chron. Monaster. Her sa●gien.   But this computation of time which I have declared as it is most common amongst Authors, so is it conform unto truth, which none could better know then those who lived in that age: amongst whom in this point as I said there is no disagreement, for they all say, that he se● forward for Syria in the year 1189. and that in April, as both Matthews avouch, on S. George's day from Reinsburg, or Ratisbon, & going all the way with his whole army by land through Hungary, Bulgaria, Thracia, and other Countries as Hoveden writeth; finding also such unexpected hindrances in Greece, at Isaacius his hands, who was then Emperor of the East; it must needs follow, that it was very late in that year before ever he could arrive into the holy Land. In so much, as Nicetas a Greek Historiographer then living, saith that he came not thither until the beginning of the next year, which as it was the first of his arrival there; so was it the last of his life, to wit, the year 1190. as we have said, and all the Authors here cited do testify.  
All which if we suppose (and who, against the authority of such manner of witnesses, can make any doubt or exception?) and withal consider what, not only all these English writers, with the Protestants, but all other Authors besides extant before these later controversies in religion were raised, do write of the time of the death of Pope Alexander the third, which by the uniform testimony of them all (two only excepted, who put it a year later) fell out in the year 1181. he I say who shall consider all this, will blush for very shame, if he be M. Barlows' friend, to hear him thus resolutely to affirm, That when Frederick was in the Holy-land fight in Christ's quarrel, fearing that his return would be some annoyance to the Romish Sea, the Pope betrayed him to the Sultan etc. For how I pray you could he betray Frederick, being in the Holy-Land, who was dead eight years and more, before ever he came thither? For now we have showed that Pope Alexander the third died in the year 1181. which was s●auen years before Frederick resolved to wear the Cross, and wage that battle, and more than 8. before his arrival into Armenia where he was drowned. And here to urge M. Barlow with a Dilemma: Either he knew this diversity of time, I meanne of the Pope's death, and frederic expedition for the holy-land, when he wrote his book, or he knew it not. If the first; then is he very shameless, and malicious, who contrary to his own knowledge and conscience would deceive his Reader in a printed book, and that in so triumphant manner, as you have heard. If he knew it not; then truly he is very ignorant, and unworthy to write in defence of so great a Monarch as his Majesty is; and withal very negligent, that would not so much as see, & search his Authors; or else very foolish and simple, if he would have us believe him without any other authority, or proof than his bare word, which I think of his next neighbours will not be taken for much.  
And by this example the Reader may know how hereafter to trust him in other places, when he vaunteth and braggeth of advantages, for these are but sudden pangs, whereunto the desperatenes of his cause doth drive him, when no other answer can be made. For what is true, or untrue, ●e seemeth to care little, or not to seek much, but only indeavoreth to entertain talk, and get his fee; and yet this is the man, who in his Epistle to his Majesty thinketh me too weak to dispute with him; 
M. Barlow very great in his own conceit.  and so braggeth of himself, as that, he hath neither dallied, nor deluded his Reader: yea so far is he confident in this his answer, that he saith, he assureth himself security from any sound Reply thereto from me. But what either of us have done in this kind, he for Answer, or I for Reply, not he, nor I, but the Reader must judge. And yet here I dare boldly interpose thus far also mine own judgement, that if M. Barlow be no more exact in other things than he hath been in this, let him brag as much as he list, & flatter himself, with the conquest before ever he see his adversaries weapons; let him ●ound out his own triumphs in every page of his book, and make himself as glorious as he can: yet it willbe more eas●e, then praise worthy for any adversary to refute him, seeing his pro●es are every where so weak, his lies so frequent, his citations so corrupt, and the whole order & method of his discourse so patched, harsh, and disjointed, to speak nothing of his railing, flattery, and slanderous detractions, as (like the apples of Gomorrha) with a light touch all will resolve to smoke and dust, as any one, who with indifferent attention shall read over the same, will soon confess.  
For what now I pray you is become of all this sharp charge, and virulent accu●ation of Pope Alexander? Is it not evidently demonstrated, upon the diversity of the time of frederick's being in Asia, and death of the said Pope, to be counterfeit, to be false, to be impossible? I think M. Barlow will not affirm that Pope Alexander by special privilege before the general resurrection did rise again from death to life, to dispatch this business of betraying the Emperor: and yet I call back my word again, for I see by this charge, that he is resolutely bend to affirm any thing. And this privilege the poor man must confess, or else cry guilty against himself, of as many lies, as there be lines in his accusation (to speak the least) for here is no pinching instance, but a forged fiction, no betraying of the Emperor, whiles he was in the Holy-Land, no letters, no pictures, no Pope Alexander then living, no fear of annoyance to the Romish Sea, with which at that time Frederick was united in all love and friendship, & at Pope Clement's request undertook that enterprise, which M. Barlow truly calleth the fight in Christ's quarrel, though it were not for the Protestant Gospel, but for the preservation of the Catholic faith in the Holy-Land, which this Minister and his Mates in their Bedlam books, and Sermons call Idolatry● the Whore of Babylon, Antichrist, and the like. But it was sufficient with M. Barlow in this place, to make it Christ's quarrel, because he meant to force it against the Pope: such is the wit, conscience, and sincerity of the man.  
And truly in this place, seeing the truth so clear, and testimonies of Authors so consonant, I was somewhat moved with curiosity to see, if either in the Apology of the last edition with the Monitory Epistle, or the Torturers book, there were any thing more said for this fable, in supply of M. Barl. defect, & silence in the same. In the former I only found mentioned the History of Frederick, written in dutch, in the other, many names, as the dutch History, our English Bale, Scardius the Germane Caluinist, and besides them, Barnus, joannes Marius, & Cremonensis: but all this noise is but empty wind, all these witnesses but one, and he scant worth the taking up. For this dutch History, & Scardius is all one, and so is Scardius and Bale, the one taking it out of the other: the three Catholic names (if they be Catholics) serve but for Ciphers, to fill up paper, for no words of theirs are cited, no works extant of this matter that we can hear of, unless perhaps lately printed at Amaur●t in Utopia, anno magno Platonis, and so conveyed into England amongst our Ministers.  
And as for the narration of Bale in his Centuries of this frederick's death, it is so fraughted with lies, & those gross, palpable, ill coherent, and incredible, as a learned writer of our age having refuted many of them, addeth in the end his censure or judgement of the Author, 
Gretserus Apologia pro Cruciat. exped. cap. 8.  in these words. Piget taedetque plura vanissima Balai mendacia percensere, quae adeo sunt enormia, ut posteros nostros vix putem credituros fieri potuisse, ut hoc saculum nostrum tam e●●rontes criminatores & calunniatores protulerit. That is to say: It doth loath and trouble me to recount more lies of this most vain Bale (in this matter of Frederick) which are so gross, 
Bales egregious lying censured.  or enormous, as I scarcely persuade myself, that those who shall live after us, will ever be brought to think it credible, that this age of ours hath brought forth such shameless accusers, and slanderers. So he. And if any list to make trial hereof, let him turn to the place here by me cited, and he will desire no more satisfaction in this behalf, but for ever after loath from his hart so lying a Mate. And here the Reader may with himself consider that if we against the known testimony & written histories of former times, should allege to the contrary our only bare assertions, as M. Barlow doth in this without further authority, conjecture, or proof, how would our clamorous English Clergy cry out against the same? How would they exaggerate such an advantage? And yet here in a most heinous accusation against all writers, without all proof, we must stand to M. Barlows bare assertion, or else to two modern writers, both heretics, both enemies, to wit john Bale, and Simon Scardius, who (especially the former for his notorious lying, and lascivious scurrility) with us, the Lutherans, & all learned Protestants are of as much credit, as Robin-Hood, and Little-Iohn.  
But let us proceed with that which followeth in M. Barlow, who for that I said in my Letter, that Paulus Io●ius in his second book, did not testify this matter (though he were cited for it, both in the English and latin books of the Apology) replieth against me thus. If Saul in seeking his father's asses, had returned such an answer, or himself retired, 
Barlow pag. 298.  because he ●ound them not in Salila, and Salim, he had not proved Saul inter Prophetas. So contumelious still is M. Barlow in all his speeches; but we have now showed where the Ass, without further seeking is to be found. Let us likewise see how prudent his answer is, or rather evasion. The Printer, saith he, displaced the quotation, giving it a higher room by five lines in the page than he should have done, for that it concerned the next story immediately following. But then I would ask M. Barlow, why the letter F. was placed in the text before Alexander, and the same correspondent in the margin in Paulus ●ouius? Could the Printer also change the letter in the text? And not only this, but the Latin translation also, that came after the English hath the same quotation of Paulus ●ouius, annexed with the letter A. both in the text and margin, unto the same story. Was this also the slip of the Printer? Besides this, the said Latin translation leaveth out the word tertius, and nameth only Alexander: will you assign this also to the Printer? But if this quotation of iovius did not se●ue to this allegation about the Pope's writing to the Sol●an, what other Author is there, that doth testify so odious an accusation? For if that had been omitted, then why had not M. Barlow now supplied that defect, with aleadging or quoting some Author, that testifieth the same?  
Lastly, for that we ha●e been overlong in this matter we shall end with one only example more, which is, that whereas he allegeth out of Cuspinian, that Pope Alexander the sixth did take two hundredth thousand Crowns of Baiaze●es the Emperor of the Turks, 
Touching Gemin the Turk.  to cause his brother Gemin whom he held captive in Rome to be put to death, which soon after ensued, he being in the Frenchman's hands that took him with them from Rome, when Charles the eight King of France passed that way with his army towards the Conquest of Naples: I answered, that concerning the story itself, true it is that Cuspini●n, that gladly seeketh occasion to speak ill of Popes, writeth that the said Gemin or Zizimus (for by both n●mes he is called) brother of the Turk, was put to death by poison in the army of the Frenchmen, haud ignorant Pontifice, Pope Alexander not being ignorant thereon. But he saith nothing that the Pope procured the same, as neither that he received the said sum of two hundred thousand Crowns, as neither doth iovius, though he doth m●ntion that such a sum was offered by the ●urke, together with ●estis incons●tilis Christi, the garment of our Saviour without seam. And that besides these Authors, others also writing thereof do relate the matter doubtfully, as Onufrius Panuinus, saying, 
In vit. Alexand 6.  that he died at Capua of a bloody flux, without mentioning poyson● and before him Sabelli●us relating the matter as doubtfully, saith: Fuerunt qui crederent veneno sublate: there were some that believed that he was made away by poison, 
AEnnead. 10. lib. ●.  & that Pope Al●xander was not ignorant thereof.  
And albeit M. Barlow about this poyn●●●riueth to utter a gr●at company of words, partly to prove that which was not denied, that divers authors do make mention of this thing (though with uncertainty as you have heard) partly in amplifying the wickedness of the thing, to yield to the putting to death (as he said) of an innocent Turk; partly by inveghing, and scoffing at the offer made by the Turkish Emperor of Vestis inconsutilis Christi, of Christ's garment without seam, deriding much in his vein of Infidelity, that such a garment can be imagined to have come down from the Soldiers, that cast lots over it, 
M. Barlow scoffeth at relics.  unto the Turks hands (and yet notwithstanding it is known, and confessed that he had taken jerusalem, and thereby had the spoil of all Christian monuments of that place) but much more scorning, that now such a Relic, forsooth, should be made the price of innocent Geminss blood, without any just cause given for the same (and yet can it not be denied, but that he had rebelled against his Lord and brother the Emperor and procured both against his person and state what mischief he could:) All this, I say, notwithstanding, it is evident that these words of M. Barlow are but wind to entertain time, and fill up paper, as he hath bound himself by the enterprise, he hath taken in hand, & so you will see, partly by the stir he maketh about my very last words, and lines in this matter, which yet I assure m●, being equally considered by the indifferent Reader, will not seem so reprehensible. 
Lett. pag. 105.  For these they are. If a man would go about (said I) to discredit Kingly authority, by all the misdeeds of particular Kings, that have been registered by Historiographers, since the time that Popes began, he should find no doubt abundant matter, and such as could not be defended by any probability: and yet doth this prejudicate nothing to Princely power or dignity etc. For this speech of mine, which M. Barlow termeth a jerking comparison of Kings with Popes (though I know not why) he inveigheth greatly against me, alleging first out of Seneca, That art cannot long estrange nature, as though out of Nature belike, I were inclined to make such comparisons, and then likening me to Venus her Cat, that was tricked up (as he saith) like a wayting-mayde, but yet she discovered herself when she saw a mouse: 
Barlow pag. 303.  So the censurer (quoth he) who all this while, would make the Reader believe, that he confuted only one T. M. the younger, who being exasperated with his round canvasing of the Pope, he forgetteth his dissembled adversary, and retorts upon Kings. So he.  
And do you see his vanity? Is the very naming of Kings, especially in so honourable a sense, as I do, for maintenance of their authority, 
M. Barlowes sicophancy  sufficient to make retorting upon Kings? Or is the mentioning of Kings in general a sufficient inference, that I mean of his Majesty in particular? What speech can be free from calumination, when such Sicophancy is used? Doth not every man see the itching humour of adulation, discovered here upon any least occasion? But let us hear some reason of his. What insolency (saith he) is this, 
Rom. 13.  to compare Popes with Kings, subjects with superiors, for even Priests as well as others are subject to their sovereigns, by Chrysostoms' rule. And so say we also Sir, in temporal affairs, belonging to the Common wealth. But how doth this inference of yours hold? Priests are subject unto temporal Princes, that are their Sovereigns: therefore also Popes. Is there no difference? And for that you name S. Chrysostome in this matter, and call it an insolency, to compare Kings with Popes, I would demand of you, whether you ever read S. Chrysostome de comparatione Regis & Monachi, of the comparison of a King and a Monk: 
Monks & Priests preferred before Kings by S. Chrysostome.  as also his other Books de Sacerdotio? And if you have, and understood, what you read, then will you have seen that S. Chrysostome preferred ●he dignity of both the one, and the other, Monk and Priest, before the dignity of a King. And Cardinal Bellarmin● last book, and third Chapter doth allege so much about this matter, as maketh it sufficiently clear, without any derogation of Princely authority at all.    

AN EXAMINATION OF CERTA●NE SENTENCES, AND AUTHORITIES of ancient Fathers, alleged by Cardinal Bellarmine in his Letter to M. Blackwell, and impugned by M. Barlow. CHAP. VI  
AMONG other points that were impugned out of Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter, were certain sentences, examples, and authorities of ancient Fathers, about the Oath. And first of all was the comparison of the subtle art, and deceit (said I) used by julian the Emperor, surnamed the Apostata, and recounted by S. Gregory Nazianzen, in placing, and inserting the Images of his false Gods, into the pictures of the Emperor, in his Imperial banner, so as no man could bow down, and do reverence to the emperors picture (as then was the custom) but that he must adore also the Images of the false Gods; which art of temperament the Cardinal doth compare unto this mixture, and combination of clauses, lawful and unlawful; civil and ecclesiastical, in the Oath proposed: so as, a man cannot swear the one, but he must swear also the other: for which cause, I said in my Letter, that the whole Oath with all the clauses, as it lieth (in which sense, it hath been also forbidden by his Holiness) cannot in any wise be taken, although touching some one only clause, not only civil, but also ecclesiastical, as for example, of the Pope's authority, of charity I might think (as then I wrote) that the Priests who took the Oath, took it in some such sense, as being explycated by them, and accepted of the Magistrate, might stand with the integrity of faith. And that the sense of the said clause, might be agreed upon, between his Majesty and his subjects, in such sort as it should agree with the opinion, and practise of all other Catholic Princes. But the whole Oath as it lieth, is no other, than the picture of the Emperor, together with the Images of false Gods. Which similitude and comparison, though it express most fitly (as it seemeth) the matter in hand: yet was it impugned, by seeking out dissimilitudes, & disparities in other points, then wherein was made the said comparison. As for example, that first julian was an Apostata, but our Sovereign is a Christian: julian changed the religion he once professed, but our King not: julian became an Ethnic, or Atheist, our King is not ashamed of his profession: julian dealt against Christians, his Majesty dealeth only to make a distinction between true subjects, and false hearted traitors etc. And so he goeth forward, alleging many sundry diversityes, between man and man, thing and things, state & states: which I said is nothing to our purpose. For a similitude requireth not likeness, or parity in all points, for than it should be idem, and not simile, but likeness only in the point, wherein the comparison is made, as here in the compounding, and couching together of lawful, and unlawful clauses in the oath, as the other did Images in his banner: for that other wise, if we will stand upon seeking out differences between the things that are compared, & other things wherein the comparison is not made, and thereby condemn the similitude, we shall overthrow all similitudes whatsoever, and particularly we shall enervate, & make void all the Parables commonly of our Saviour, wherein if we go from the point itself that is compared, we may find ●or the most part more dissimilitudes, than similitudes. 
Similitudes h●ld not in all things but only in that wherein the similitude is made.  As for example; Be ye ●ise as serpents, and simple as doves; what enemy of Christian religion might not cavil, and calumniate this similitude by seeking out diversities between a serpent, and a man, and between the malicious craft of the serpent and the true wisdom, that aught to be in a prudent man: and the like in the nature, and simplicity of doves, many dissimilitudes may be sought, but it is sufficient that the similitude do hold in the point, wherein the comparison was made, which is that Christians should be both wise and simple, as are serpents, and doves, and imitate both the wisdom of the one, 
Mat●h. 10.  and simplicity of the other, so far forth as is convenient for a Christian life, which S. Paul doth afterward expound, how far it must reach, when he saith: 
Rom. 16. 19  Volo vos sapientes esse in bono, & simplices in malo, I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in ●uill,  
This then being my declaration of that similitude, out cometh M. Barlow (as it were) with his dagger drawn in great heat, to encounter the same, casting upon me, all kind of reproach, and by his ordinary scurrility, calling me Salomon's loathsome creature, to wit, a spewing dog, 
Ba●l. 307.  resuming the ejection which he had once avoided, such is the modesty, and civility of this new Prelate. But why, doth he show himself so enraged? 
M. Bar●lowes immodesty.  You must imagine he is in some straits to answer the former discourse, but yet must needs set upon it, well, or ill. Let us see how he performeth it.  
All the Censurers speech (saith this Minister) cometh to this profound conclusion, that a similitude must only hold in that point, wherein it is compared, because that if the comparison should hold in all, it were pentity, and not resemblance. Which doctrine of mine he seemeth to allow, and replieth not; but yet to seem to say somewhat, and not sit out, he passeth to another discourse, that in four manners comparisons m●y be made, either in the nature of the thing, or in the disposition, when some affection is resembled, or when a passion or perturbation is assimilated, or when the action only is compared without circumstances; which are obscure things without ground at all: and as well may fourteen points of comparisons be found out as four; to wit, so many as there may be differences between things that be compared; and therefore we recall M. Barlow from these idle evagations to the point itself. 
M. Barlow called from his idle vagaries.  And for so much as he now granteth, that things compared must not be like in all, but only in the point, wherein the comparison is made, how will he overturn Cardinal Bellarmine's comparison, between the banner of julian, and the Oath of England.  
His point of comparison was this; that as julian did set forth in his banner, and combine together the images, as well of the Emperor, as of the false Gods, seeking to temper and mollify the one by the other; to wit, by bowing to, and honouring the emperors image (which then was held for lawful) to bow also, or seem to bow at leastwise to the other, which was not lawful: so in the Oath are combined together different clauses, some of temporal obedience, which are lawful; some other detractory to the Pope's authority, which are held by Catholics for unlawful. Do you see M. Barlow, wherein the comparison is made? Then stand to me closely (I pray you) and let us examine this ma●ter without running from the purpose.  
What say you to the former answer made; to wit, that Iuli●n was an Apostata, but our Sovereign is a Christian? julian changed his religion, but our King not? he became an Ethnic, but our King is not ashamed of his profession, and other such like differences? Are these the points wherein Cardinal Bellarmine made his comparison, or no? If not, then are you from the purpose. But what say you now in this your last Reply after mature deliberation? You will not, I trust, fall to the same absurdity of seeking dissimilitudes, that are from the point of the comparison itself? And yet you must needs do it, for so much as you will needs say somewhat, and have nothing to say against the said point of comparison.  
First then, your reply is this; that the resemblance between the banner, and the Oath, brought fort● by the Cardinal was produced by him for no other purpose, but for the mixture of diversities, both in the one and the other, 
Barl. pag. 308.  Wherein (say you) the Cardinal hath manifested more malice than judgement. For even in that very point, this similitude, as taken with the cramp, hal●s right down, because in the Imperial pictures, though there were different features, yet they all concurred to one end and for the same intent, that is for adoration, though to the one more openly, to the other more covertly etc. But in the Oath it is taken clean contrary, which is so far from being a mixture of Allegiance, that it separates all acknowledgement o● any temporal right, or right of any temporal acknowledgement from Pope, or any other else, but to his Majesty alone within his Realms.  
Thus far are the words of M. Barlow, who being well, (as you have seen) towards the end, entangleth himself, and runneth quite from the purpose. He acknowledgeth in the beginning, that the comparison of Card. Bellarmine is only to show the mixtures, as of the Images in the banner, the one lawful, the other unlawful, so of the clauses in the Oath, the one lawful, the other unlawful: but presently he steppeth aside, to put a difference betwixt the mixed adoration of the one, and the mixture of Allegiance in the other; wherein Card. Bellarmine made not his comparison, 
M. Barlowes shifting.  no more then between the banner itself, and the Oath; or between the silk cloth wherein the pictures were painted, or the book or paper wherein the Oath was written, or in any other such like differences, as might be picked out, whereof this also is one, very impertinent to the matter, that the banner did tend to a mixed adoration, but not the Oath to a mixed allegiance, of which mixed allegiance Card. Bellarmine never spoke word, but only, that as the mixture of these Images was devised to deceive the Christians at that time; so the mixture of different clauses, some containing civil obedience, some ecclesiastical disobedience, the one lawful, the other unlawful, was devised to entangle the consciences of the Catholics. And so we see, that M. Barlow is forced to run to the same shift, that before he condemned, which is to seek out diversities in points wherein no comparison was made.  
The second example which is reprehended in Cardinal Bellarmine's letter, is out of the second book of Maccabees, of old Eleazar that venerable man, who rather chose to die, then to do a thing unlawful, and against his own conscience, or to seem to do it by dissimulation. Which example the Cardinal applieth (said I) to the taking of this unlawful Oath by such as are Catholics, 
Letter pag. 108.  but especially by the Arch priest, Head of the Clergy in England, whose case he presumed to be more like to that of Eleazar, for his age, estimation, and authority above the rest. 
About the example of Eleazar.  To which example the Apologer answereth thus. That if the Archpriests ground of refusing this Oath, were as good as Eleazar's was for refusing to eat of the swines-flesh, that was proposed & urged unto him, it might not unfitly be applied to his purpose: 
Apol. pag. 81.  But the ground failing (saith he) the building cannot stand. But this is an escape much like the former, that runneth quite from the matter: for that the Cardinal supposeth a Catholic conscience in him to whom he writeth, to which conscience it is as repugnant to swear any thing, sounding against any point of Catholic religion or doctrine, as it was to Eleazar to eat swine's fleshy against the law of Moses. Which supposition being made, and that in the Cardinal's judgement this Oath containeth divers clauses prejudicial to some points of the said Catholic belief and doctrine, concerning the authority of the Sea Apostolic, and that the taking thereof would not only be hurtful to the taker, but offensive also and scandalous to many other of that religion, both at home and abroad, the application of this example of Eleazar was most fit, & effectual.  
This was answered at that tyme. Now M. Barlow cometh with new devices. First he calleth this example aprochryphall, for that it is taken out of the second book of Maccabees: but Catholics do hold it for Canonical; and so do the ancient Fathers: and so was it declared by a holy Council, above 1200. years ago, wherein S. Augustine himself sat as one of the judges. But whether it were or no; that maketh nothing to our present purpose, but only whether the example be well applied or no.  
Secondly, that eating of swines-flesh refused by Eleazar was forbidden by the law of God, but this swearing (saith he) is warranted by Scripture. Whereto I answer, that swearing in it own nature, and with due circumstances of truth, judgement, and justice is warranted, 
Hier. 4.  when true and just things are sworn; but every Oath in particular is not warranted by Scripture; and namely if it contain any thing, that either in itself, or in the swearers judgement, and conscience is not true, or lawful. And such is this Oath to catholics in both respects, and therefore not warranted, but condemned by Scripture.  
Thirdly he saith, when I am at a stand, and can go no further, I do wind myself out, by running to the common place of conscience, and Catholic religion. But what saith he, if there be a false assumption, and an untrue application by the conscience, is it then erroneous, and not binding? As put the case, the conscience assumeth that to be sound and Catholic, which is false and unchristian doctrine. 
An erroneous conscience bindeth.  To this question I have answered now sufficiently before, and have largely proved, that an erroneous conscience also bindeth until it be reform; and that it is impiety, and ignorance to teach the contrary: nor shall it be needful to repeat all the reasons and arguments here. This one may stand instead of all the rest, which is the ground of all, That if a man may without sin do against the dictamen or direction of his own conscience, then may he do that which he thinketh to be nought, and consequently do nought, wittingly and willingly without sin, which is against the grounds both of Divinity, Philosophy, and Nature itself. And yet M. Barlow is so wise, as to affirm here, that an erroneous conscience bindeth not.  
WHEN the R. Father, F. Robert Persons, the Author of this Treatise was come thus far in the examination of M. Barlowes Answer, it pleased God to take him out of this mortal life: which as he had employed to the profit of many, and the edification of the whole Christian world; so he ended with gr●at Religion and Pi●ty, and passed, as we hope, to eternal r●st. He commended on his deathbed the finishing of this work, to an especial friend of his, who for his zeal in God's cause, and his love to the said Father, will, I doubt not, learnedly and exactly parforme his request, and shortly cause it to be printed and published, t●ough in a separate volume, as for many respects is thought most convenient.   
FINIS.   

Faults escaped in the Printing.  
Page, line, fault, correction. 6. 19 reaceaved received 118. 6. swears swearers 149. 35. soon sown 161. 16. which with 172. 6. Prohet Prophet 188. 3. miseriamur misereamur 197. 8. Scotlnd Scotland. 203. 14. nothing noting 276. 17. an and 289. 4. prince price 321. 36. is it 325. 24. unlwfulnes unlawfulness 333. 21. opinion Caietan opinion of Caietan. 343. 7. no to 395. 37. yet they yet that they 436. 12. truth or truth of 442. 32. is in 444. 14. abase abuse 460. 7. acquinted acquainted. 498. 32. Popos Popes. 502. 24. them then 516. 27. wales walls 520. 37. restrainst restraint 518. 3. Then Frederick Of them Frederick   

A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS HANDLED IN THIS BOOK.  


A  
ACHABS' truly Mortification. pag. 170.  
Adoniah slain by Solomon. pag. 105.  
Alexander the 3. Pope cleared of calumny. pag. 467.  
Aluarus Pelagius abused by M. Barlow. pag. 112.  
S. Ambrose abused by M. Barlow. pag. 85. His resistance of the Emperor Valentinian against the Arians. pag. 193.  
Anchor turned into a Millstone by M. Barlow. pag. 244.  
Antiquity a good Argument in case of Religion. pag. 150.  
Apparitions of Martyrs. pag. 409.  
Aristotle abused by M. Barlow. pag. 99  
Assembly of ancient Fathers, reasoning with his Majesty de regno Dei. pag. 237.  
S. Augustine, and other Father's Discourses of temporal and spiritual felicity. pag. 184. 185. 186. Item about dying out of the Church. pag. 223. His discourse about God's Providence. pag. 416.  
Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance. part. 1. cap. 1. §. 1.    


B  
M. BARLOW his sharp wit. pag. 7. His ignorance in Grammar, & Humanity. Prefac. n. 8. 9 In Logic & Philosophy. pag. 16. & 93. & 191. & Praef. n. 12. & n. 59 In Histories. ib. n. 15. In Scriptures. ib. n. 17. In Divinity. 193. 419. 420. His ridiculous folly. pag. 17. His virulency against jesuits. pag. 21. & 220. His abuse of F. Ga●net. p. 2●. of F. Persons. 24. & 31. & 402. & praefac. à num. 86. usque ad 108. His boldness with the Scriptures. p. 35. His friendship to Adverbs. pag. 39 His misunderstanding of Medina. p. 43. His bad conscience and dealing, ubique per totum librum. His notorious untruths pag. 49. pag. 93. 97. 98. 116. 134. 403. 505. 506. Paulus 5. the Pope accused by him pag. 59 his mistaking and abusing of Gra●●hus & Pluta●ke. pag. 61. his scolding. pag. 63. & praefac. à nu. 90. usque ad 107. his new Philosophy pag. 66. his abuse of Salmeron and Sanders● pag. 75. 77. and of others. pag. 99 112. 136. 246. 263. 279. 328. 330 338. of S. Thomas, pag. 459. of Vrspergensis, pag. 486. of Nauclerus, pag. 490. of Blondus. pag. 491. 509. of Cuspinian. pag. 496. of Matthew Paris. p. 498. of Pope Innocentius the 4. pag. 507. 510. 512. of Card. ●ellarmine Praef. n. 66. his horning in Scotland. pag. 95. his merriment of the Moon in the Ass' belly. pag. 103. his flattery of Kings. pag. 104. his hate of ambition, and his Mortification● pag. 1●6. 172. 173. his Digestion and Concoction● ib. his carnal Divinity. pag. 133. his phrases of Indument and Stripping. pag 148. his Inconstancy. pag. 163. & 314. his Canonization of Q. Elizabeth. p. 164 his Courtly Devinity. pag. 177. his Philtra & love-drugs. pag. 201. his Parasitical flattery of the King. pag. 231. 233. 343. 359. & praef n. ●18. 119. his prayers without hope. 334. his little University. 238. his Proctership for Turks and Infidels. pag. 24●. his strange notes of humility. pag. 258. his Impudence. pag. 264. 332. 333 338. 340. 341. 344. 441. 474. 477. 487. 492. 493. Praef. ●. 64. his absurdities and errors etc. part. 2. cap. 5. per totum. his Contradictions. pag. 314. 326. his fast and loose with the kings authority pag. 316. his radiant folly. pag. 321. his slanders. pag. 335. his falsifying of councils. p. 369. His clouted frauds. pag. 399. his mincing of Authors for his purpose. ibid. & 401. 444. his falsification in Capital letters. pag. 400. 453. his ridiculous profundities. p. 414. his conscience need to be purged. pag. 452. his Proverb omnia sub unam Myconum misapplied. 504. his scoffing at Relics. 535. What manner of writer he is. pr●fac. n. 4. His Paradoxes pr●f. n. 24. his conscience like a chevril point. ib. nu. 25. his strange construction of orbis terrae. ibid. n. 11. his extra spheram. praef. n. 52. WHOLLY mistaken. ib. n. 54. His potent word. ib. n. 55. his bad brewing. ib. n. 65. his Melancholy conceit. ib. n. 67. his sudden pang of devotion. ibid. nu. 68 his railing against Saints, ib. n. 108. his obsession, circumsession, & possession of Devils. ib. n. 111. a Bridewell-Doctour. ibid. his Sermon in S. Edward's Church in Lincoln, and abuse of Sir Io. cuts. ib. n. 112. his condemning his majesties Mother. ib. n. 116. his levity in writing. ib. ●. 121. his hypocoristicall alleviation. ibid. n. 122. his new found phrases. ib. n. 123. his paring away. ib. n. 128. his Feminine sex predominate. ib. n. 153.  
Bellarnine, see Cardinal.  
Binnius' abused & misconstred by M. Barlow. pag. 405.  
Bishops how they are said to succeed Apostles. pag. 450.  
M. Blackwell the Archpriest. p. 536.    


C  
CARDINAL, what dignity & title it is. pag. 8.  
Cardinal Bellarmine abused by M. Barlow. pag. 80. his Letter to the Archpriest discussed. pag. 345. & deinc●ps. his opinion of the Oath of Allegiance p. 346. 347. & deinceps. cleared from false imputation, pag. 386. 387. defended from Contradictions. pag. 432. 442. 443. 448. 449.  
Charles the Great Emperor his zeal in reformation of manners in the Clergy. pag. 313.  
Ch●lsey erection for writers. pag. 248.  
Clement 8. his Breves sent into England. pag. 342.  
Clergymen freed from secular burdens whence it first proceeded. pag. 371.  
L. Cook Chief justice of the Common Pleas, his book of Arraignments. pag. 188. his definition of Misery by Copia & ●nopia. ibid. his poor Devinity. pag. 190.  
Conscience erroneous, how and when it bindeth. p. 33. & 277.  
Contentions between Popes and Emperors. pag. 480. & deinceps.  
Controversy between S. Gregory and Mauritius the Emperor. pag. 304.  
Council of A●les how it submitted itself to the Emperor. pag. 313.  
councils General always assembled by the B. of Rome. p. 320.  
Council of Milan corrupted by M. Barlow pag. 33●.  
Council 4. of Toledo in Spain, & of the Oath prescribed to Subjects therein. pag. 365. & d●inceps. Difference between that & the Oath of Allegiance. pag. 381. & 384. falsified by M. Barlow. pag. 369. Whether it agreed with the Protestant Church of England. 377.  
S. Cyprians judgement of such as die out of the Catholic Church. pag. 222.    


D  
DESCENDING of Christ into hell. pag. 377.  
Difference Essential between Protestants & Puritans. praef. n. 32.  
Difference between the writing of F. Persons, & M. Barlow. praef. n. 132.  
devils concurrence with M. Barlow. pag. 450.  
Divinity of M. Barlow, carnal. p. 133. fit for the Court. pag. 177.  
Division of the work. pag. 2.  
Doctrine of the Church not preiudicated by evil life. p. 147.    


E  
EARL of E●sex his Confession revealed by M. Barlow. p. 22. Preached against by him. 212.  
Edward, vide Cook.  
Eleazar his glorious death for not eating of swine's flesh. pag. 541.  
Q. Elizabeth her life discussed. pa●t. 2. cap. 1. & 2. per totum. Her manes. pag. 161. & 166. Canonised for a Saint by M. Barlow. p●g. 164. & praef. n. 114. her Mortifications. pag. 168. §. 2. per totum. No cloistered Nun. ●. 170. her Felicities, & Infelicities. part. 2. cap. 2. per totum. her birth. pag. 201. her sickness and death. pag. 209. §. 3. her Purgation about the Q. of Scotland's death. pag. 215. her disastrous end. pag. 216. 217. held for an Heretic. pag. 226. How she was a joy & jewel to the Christian world. pag. 422. her Illegitimation. p. 424. declared by her own Father in Parliament. pag. 426. nec Virgo, nec Martyr. praef. n. 115.  
Equivocation not lawful in matters of Religion. pag. 30. confounded with lying by M. Barlow. pag. 384. 385.  
Excommunication of Princes practised in the Primitive Church. pag. 102.    


F  
FAITH divine & human distinguished. pag. 392.  
Felicities and Infelicites of Q. Elizabeth part. 2. c. 2. per totum. Felicity temporal, no argument of spiritual. p. 181. 182. 183. Ancient Father's discourses thereupon. p. 184. 185. 186.  
Festivities & Masses of Saints. p. 379.  
B. Fisher abused by M. Barlow. p. 328.  
Flattery of his Majesty by ministers. part● 2. cap. 3. per totum. of the nature of flattery. p. 231.  
Fox his rabble of Martyrs. p. 233.  
F●edericke the first Emperor his submission to the Pope. p 466.  
Frederick the second his contention with Popes, pag. 480. & deinceps. his voyage to the holy land, 481. & 48●. his counterfeit sickness, ibid. his vices and bad life. pag. 514. his barbarous cruelty. 517. his blasphemy. 519. God's punishment laid upon him 520.    


G  
F. Garnets' face in the straw. p. 23.  
Gemen the Turk poisoned. pag. 533.  
Gracchus' abused by M. Barlow. pag. 61.  
S. Gregory railed at by M. Barlow. praef. n. 108.    


H  
HEAD of the Protestant Church monstrous. p. 200.  
Henry vide Wotton.  
Henry the 4. Emperor taken up again out of his grave after burial pag. 398. His deposition. 411.  
Henry the 5. Emperor his insurrection against his father. pag. 410.  
Henry the 3. of France his murder. pag. 414.  
Henry the 8. of England injured by M. Barlow. pag. 428.  
Henry the 2. of England his absolution. pag. 463.  
Henry the 6. Emperor his coronation. pag. 466.  
S. Hieromes Discourse of felicity and infelicity. pag. 185.  
Hope cannot stand without certainty of faith. praef. n. 48.  
Huldericus Mutius a Lutheran. pag. 398.  
Hypocrisy what it is, and what is the mark of an hypocrite. p. 91.    


I  
JAMES vide King.  
Idolatry & suspicion not cause of fear always. pag. 118.  
M. jewel contrary to himself. pr●f. n. 41.  
Immunity of the Clergy, whence it first proceeded. pag. 371.  
Inconstancy vide ●arlow.  
Infelicity vide Felicity.  
Infidels denied Christian burial. 408. also Heretics, and excommunicated persons. ibid.  
Innocentius the 4. Pope abused by M. Barlow. pag. 509. 510. 511. his death & lamentation thereof. 513. 514.  
Io●n vide Fox.  
Sir Io●n Cu●● abused by M. Barlow in the pulpit. praf. n. 112.  
Ios●phs●●lling ●●lling into Egypt. p. 421    


K  
KING james said to be the Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance. part. 1. cap. 11 §. 1. Why his Majesty was not named in the book. pag. 5. that he never ●ead the book attentively. ibid. Injured by M. Barlow pag. 12. flattered by Ministers egregiously. part 2. cap. 3. per totum. His mild disposition diverted. pag. 230.  
Kings their vices recounted in Scripture. pag. 199.  
King Henry the 2. of England his absolution. pag. 46●.  
King Henry the 4. of France his Ambassador at Rome, and the Ceremony of public absolution. pag. 465.    


L  
S. LEO railed at by M. Barlow. ●raf. n. 108. 109.  
Liberty of Conscience demanded by all foreign Protestants. p. 256●  
Liberty of Conscience, vide toleration.    


M  
MACHIAVELS' principles agree with Protestant doctrine. pag. 390.  
Master, what it signifieth, & how it is a title of honour. pag. 9  
Marriage of Priests, and M. Barlows forgery thereabout. p. 373. Decree of the Council of Toledo against the same. pag. 374. 375. 376.  
Martyrs in Q. Elizabeth's days. pag. 206.  
Medina misunderstood by M. Barlow p. 43. explicated. 44. 45.  
M●ri● of works. pag. 377.  
Misery defined by the L. Cook. pag. 188.  
Moon in the Ass' belly. p. 103.  
Monks punished living disorderly. pag. 380.  
M. Morton canvased. pag 73. 74. his abuse of Salmeron. 75.  
Mortification of M. Barlow. pag. 126. of Q. Elizabeth. pag. 163. external Mortification, and internal. pag. 169. 171. 176. Mortification for Princes. pag. 177. Mortification in time of Lent. pa. g. 376.    


N  
Nabvchodonosors' punishment. pag. 195. more happy then Q. Elizabeth. ibid.  
Ne●o & Domiti●n Heads of the Church in M. Barlowes opinion. pag. 200.    


O  
OATH of Allegiance discussed. part● 1. cap. 1. & 2. per totum. whether the taking of it be a blessing from God. p. 37. & part. 1. c. 4. per totum. what freedom the taking thereof bringeth to Catholics. p. 39 coufuted both at home and abroad. p. 50. more contained therein then civil obedience. p. 70. 71. & 280. humble petition to his Majesty for the exposition thereof. p. 89. Scandal in exhibiting thereof. p. 126. 127. etc. No such Oath ever enacted before by former Princes. p. 156. Card. Beauties' opinion thereof. pag. 346. 347. etc. divided into 14. parts p. 357. difference between the said Oath, and an Indenture. pag. 362.  
Oath of Supremacy. p. 353. defended by M. Barlow. 354. & 355.  
Obedience against God & man's conscience none. pag. 282.  
Obedience of our temporal Prince how far & when it bindeth. p. 291. defined by S. Thomas. 339.  
Ordination of Protestant Bishops first under Q. Elizabeth. praf. n. 136.    


P  
PAULUS Quintus Pope defended. 54. 55. 56. 57 his Breves discussed. part. 2. per totum. whether he forbade temporal odedience to his Majesty therein. p. 323. & deinceps,  
●. Persons calumniated by M. Barlow. pag. 204. belied. p. 263.  
Petrus de V●●●is extolled by M. Barlow. p. 499. justified. pag. 509. censured 523●  
Philip the Emperor his murder. pag. 470.  
Plutarch abused by M. Barlow. pag. 61.  
Pope's power over Infidel Princes, p. 76. how they are particular Bishops of Rome, & Pastors of the whole Church. pag. 145. whether they can make new articles of faith or no? pag. 324. 325. & deinceps. whether they command Princes to be murdered. pag. 394. 395. etc.  
Powder-treason. pag. 13. 14. 15. etc. F. Persons accused therewith by M. Barlow. p. 23.  
Powder-plot of Antwerp. pag. 18. of Hage. p. 19 of Edenborrow. ibid.  
Prescription of the Church of Rome. part. 1. cap. 5. per totum. good argument in case of Relion. pag. 150. & 152. vide Antiquity the same urged by the Fathers. ib. belied shamefully. pag. 246.  
Protestants gone out of the Catholic Church. pag. 149. their Ecclesiastical power over Puritans. pag. 259. their baseness & beggary. pag. 265. their conflicts with Puritans about matters of Religion. pag. 270. their Church basest of all others. praef. n. 36.  
Providence of God discoursed of by S. Augustine. pag. 416.    


Q  
QUEEN Mary of Scotland put to de●th for Religion. pag. 51. preached against by M. Barlow. pag. 212.  
Queen vide Elizabeth.    


R  
RESOLUTION of catholics in matters of faith. p. 123. of Protestants none at all. ibid. & 124. what resolution is taken from the Pope. pag. 125.  
M. Reynolds writing against Whitaker, pag. 457.  
Rome, Recourse to Rome about the Oath of Allegiance. p. 50. 51. 52. etc. The same practised in all difficulties by our English Princes & people. pag. 53. & 377. Church of Rome impugned. p. 144.    


S  
SALMERON abused by M. Morton & M. Barlow. p. 75.  
Salomon's fact of kill Adoniah condemned. pag. 105.  
D. Sanders abused by M. Barlow. pag. 77.  
Scandal in exhibiting the Oath of Allegiance. p. 128. 129 130. etc. of active and passive scandal. pag. 132. 134. 135. scandal of Balaa●. pag. 139.  
Sigebert calumniated. pag. ●3.  
K. Sis●nandus his submission to the Council of Toledo. p. 36●.  
Statute of Association. pag. 429.  
Suspicion vide Idolatry. four kinds of suspicion. pag. 119.  
Supremacy masculine & feminine pag. 395. how it was given to K. Henry the 8. pag. 29●. to K. Edward, and Q. Elizabeth. abide. to K. james. pag. 29●. & M. Barlowes judgement thereupon. ibid. & pag. 300  
Sycophancy vide Flattery, M. Barlowes division of Sycophancy. pag. 242.  
Sixtu● vide Pope.    


T  
S. THOMAS his opinion concerning obedience. pag. ●●●. about Totally. praef. n. 52. abused by M. Barlow. pag. ●36.  
threatenings of God unto Kings. pag. 108.  
T●byes breach of the King of Ninive his coma●ndment about burying of the dead jews. p. 289. §. 2. the ancient Father's judgement thereof. pag. 288. the credit of the History of Toby. pag. 287.  
Toleration of Religion humbly demanded of his Majesty. part. 2. cap. 4. per totum.  
Thomas vide Morton.  
Treason vide Powder-treason.    


V  
VESSELS consecrated to Church uses ancient. p. 237.  
Vi●es of wicked Kings recounted after their deaths in Scripture. pag. 199.  
University of M. Barlow, little. p. 236.    


W  
M. WHITAKER a terror to Card. Bellarmine in M. Barlowes judgement. pag. 455. his book refuted by M. Reynolds pag. 457. his ignorance. ibid.  
William vide Barlow.  
Workes-Good works may give cause of confidence in God. p. 440.  
Sir Henry Wotton a wooden Ambassador. praef. n. 70. his pranks at Ausburge & Venice. ibid.    


X  
XYSTUS 5. belied about the murder of King Henry the 3. of France. pag. 115.    


Z  
ZISCA the blind Rebel of Bohemia. pag. 456.    
FINIS.