lesse 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 booke where he maketh this demaund 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 vaine to answere for if there be so few or no Catholikes that make conscience or scruple to take the Oath the contention will be soone at an end But presently he contradicteth himselfe againe taking another medium and saying that there would be none if they were not threatned by vs to haue their howses ouerturned as some Donatists sayth he confessed of themselues by the witnesse of S. Augustine that they would haue bene Catholikes if they had not bene put in feare ne domus corum euâ—rtâ—râ—ntur by the Circumcellians perhaps which M. Barlow sayth may spiritually be applyed to our threatning that such as take the Oath shall be accompted Apostataes and to haue renounced their first fayth and to be no members of the Catholike Church and finally that we shall remayne branded in euerlasting record with Balaams infamy that taught Balaac to lay a scandall or occasion of fall to the people of Israell To all which I answere first that he that layeth forth the truth of Catholike doctrine vnto Catholike men may not iustly be sayd to threaten or terrify but to deale 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 Catholike Church to hould and defend the vnity and integrity of â—ayth and doctrine deliuered by the same though it be with neuer so much temporall danger And as for laying a scandall wherby they may fall into the ruine of their soules it is easy to iudge whether wee do it rather that teach them to deale sincerely with God and their Prince wherby they shall preserue their peace and alacrity of conscience or you that indeauoâ—r to induce thâ—â—â—â— sweare and doe against the same wheâ—eby they shall be sure to leese both their peace in this life and their euerlasting inheritance in the next THE ANSVVER TO AN OBIECTION BY OCCASION VVHEROF IT IS SHEVVED THAT POSSESSION and Prescription are good proofes euer in matters of Doctrine AND The contrary is fondly affirmed by M. Barlow CHAP. V. THERE remaineth now for the finall end of this first Part to examine an obiection that might be made by the aduersary which I thought good by â—â—ticipation to satisfy in the very last number of the first parâ— of my Letter And it was that wheras we complaine of so great pressures layd vpon vs for our conscience especially by this enforced Oath some man may sayâ— that the liâ—â— course is held in the Catholicke States against themâ— whome we esteeme as heretickes I shall repeate my owne words and then see what M. Barlow answereth to the same Here if a man should obiect quoâ—h I that among vs also men are vrged to take Oathes and to abiure â—heir opinions in the Tribunalls of Inquisitions and the like and consequently in this Oath they may be forced vnder punishment to abiure the Popes temporall authority in dealing with Kings I answere first that if any hereticke or other should be forced to â—biure his opinions with repugnance of conscience it should be a sinne to the inforcers if they knew it or suspected it neyther is it practised orâ— permitted in any Catholicke Court that eueâ— I knew But you will reply that if he doe it not he shal be punished by dâ—ath or otherwise as the crime requireth and Canons appoint and consequently the like may be vsed towards Catholikes that will not renounce their old opinions of the Popes authority But heere is a great difference for that the Catholike Church hath ius acquisitum ancient right ouer heretickes as her true subiects â—or that by their baptisme they were made her subiectes and left her afterwardsâ— and went out of her and she vseth 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 iuâ— acquisitum vpon Catholickes that were in possession before them for many hundred yeares as is euident neither was there euer any such Oath exacted at their hands by any of their Kings in former Catholicke timesâ— neither is tâ—eâ—e by any Catholicke forraine Monarch now liuing vpon 〈◊〉 and consequently by no â—eâ—son or right at all can English Catholicke men be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience or be punished beâ—â—â—â— or destroyed if for their conscience they refuse to take tâ—e same humbly offering notwithstanding to their Soueraigne to giue him all other dutifull satisfaction for their temporall obedience and allegiance which of loyall Catholicke subiects may be exacted And this shall suffice for this first point concerning the contents and nature of this Oath This was my speach and conclusion then And now shal we take a vew how it is confuted by M. Barlow First be amplifyeth exaggerateth with great vehemeÌ„cy the torments and tortures of our Inquisitions which are vsed as he saith with the most extreme violence that flesh can indure or malice inuent wherin he sayth more I thinke then he knoweth and more perhaps then he belieueth and at leastwise much more then is true in my knowledg 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 knowne to be more mildly then commonly in any other tribunall But let vs leaue this as of least moment and depending only vpon his asseueration and my denyall and let vs passe to that which is of more importance for iustifying the cause it selfe to wit by what right of power and authority the Roman Church proceedeth against heretickes and how different it is from that wherby Protestants pretend to be able iustly to proceed against vs for matters of Religion First of all he sayth that I do take as granted that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church which we deny sayth he and the chiefest learned of their side could as yet neuer conuict our denialls Wherto I answere that if themselues may be iudges that are most interessed in the controuersie I do not meruaile though they neuer yield themselues for conuicted But if any indifferent iudgment or triall might be admitted I do not doubt but that their euiction and coÌ„uiction would quickly appeare and many learned men of our dayes haue made most cleare demonstrations therof by deducing the Roman Church doctrine and fayth from the Apostles dayes vnto our times successiuely as namely Doctour Sanders his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Monarchy Cardinall Baronius in the continuation of his Annales Gâ—nebrarâ—
Athanasius himselfe in a long Epistle of this matter where he also recouÌ„teth the bold speach of bishop Osius the famous Confessor of Corduba who was one of the 318. Fathers that saâ—â— as Iudges in the first Councell of Niâ—e and vsed the saâ—â— liberty of speach to the forsayd Emperour at another time which the other Bishops had done before him saying to him Leaue of I beseech thee o Emperor these dealingâ— in Ecclesiasticall affayres remember thou art mortall feare the day of Iudgement keep thy selfe free from this kind of sin do not vse coÌ„mandements to vs in this kind but rather learne of vs for that God hath coÌ„mitted the Empire vnto thee to vs the things that appertaine to his Church c. All which speaches doth S. Athanasius allow highly coÌ„mend in the same place adding further of his owne That now the sayd Constantius had made his Pallace a tribunall of Ecclesiasticall causes in place of Ecclesiasticall Courtes and had made himselfe the cheife Prince and head of spirituall Pleas which he calleth the abhomination foretold by Daniel the Prophet c. Which speach if old Athanasius should haue vsed to his Maiestie in the presence of all the rest and seconded by others that sate theâ—e with him could not in all reason but much moue especially ifâ— So Gregory Nazianzen and S. Ambrose should haue recounted their admonitions about the same to their temporall Lord and Emperour Valentinian as when the former sayd vnto him as is extant yet in his Oration That he should vnderstand that he being a Bishop had greater authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters then the Emperor and that he had a tribunall or seat of Iudgment higher then the Emperour who was one of his sheep and that more resolutly S. Ambrose to the same Emperour when he comaunded him to giue vp a Church to the handes of the Arians Trouble not yourselfe o Emperor sayth S. Ambrose in commanding me to delyuer the Church nor do you persuade your selfe that you haue any Imperiall right ouer these things that are spirituall and diuine exalt not your selfe but be subiect to God if you will raigne be content with those things that belonge to Cesar and leaue those which are of God vnto God Pallaces appertayne vnto the Emperor and Churches vnto the Preist And these three Fathers hauing thus briefly vttered their sentences for much more might be alleaged out of them in this kind let vs see how the fourth that is to say S. ChrysostoÌ„ Archbishop of Constantinople coÌ„curred with theÌ„ Stay o king saith he within thy bounds limits for different are the bounds of a kingdome the limits of Priesthood this Kingdome of Priesthood is greater then the other Bodies are committed to the King but the soules to the Priest And againe Therfore hath God subiected the Kings head to the Priests haÌ„d instructing vs therby that the Priest is a greater Prince then the king according to S. Paul to the Hebrews the lesser alwaies receaueth blessing from the greater These foure Fathers then hauing grauely set downe their opinions about this point of spirituall power not to be assumed by teÌ„porall Princes let vs imagine the other three to talk of some other mater as namely S. Hierome that he vnderstandeth diuers pointes of the heresie of Iouinian and Vigilantius against whome he had with great labour written seuerall Bookes to be held at this day in his Maiesties kingdomes of England Scotland which could not but grieue him they being coÌ„demned heresies by the Church S. Augustine also vpon occasion giuen him may be imagined to make his coÌ„plaint that he hauing written amongst many other books one de cura pro mortuis agenda for the care that is to be had for soules departed both in that booke and in sundry other partes of his workes said downe the doctrine and practice of the Church in offering prayers Sacrifice for the dead and deliuering soules from purgatory and that the sayd Catholicke Church of his time had condemned Aërius of heresy for the contrary doctrine yet he vnderstood that the matter was laughed at now in Eâ—gland and Aërius in this point held for a better Christian then himselfe yea and wheras he S. Augustine had according to the doctrine and practice of the true Catholicke Church in his dayes prayed for the soule of his Mother besought all others to doe the like his Maiestie was taught by these new-sprong doctors to condemn the same neither to pray for the soule departed of his mother dying in the same Catholicke fayth nor to permit others to do the same All which Saint Gregory hearing â—et vs suppose him out of that great loue and charity wherwith he was inflamed towardes England and the English Nation to vse a most sweet and fatherly speach vnto his Maiestie exhorting him to remember that he sent into England by the first preachers that came from him the same Catholicke Christian Religion which was then spread ouer the whole world and that which he had receiued by succession of Bishops and former ages from the said Fathers there present and they from the Apostles and that the said ancient true and Catholicke Religion was sincerely deliuered vnto his Maiesties first Christian predecessor in England King Ethelbert and so continued from age to age vntill King Henry the eight If I say this graue assembly of ancient holy Fathers should be made about his Maiesty he fitting in the middest and should heare what they say and ponder with what great learning grauity and sanctitie they speake and how differently they talke from these new maisters that make vp M. Barlowes little Vniuersitie I thinke verily that his Maiestie out of his great iudgment would easily contemne the one in respect of the other But alas he hath neyther time nor leysure permitted to him to consider of these thinges nor of the true differences being so possessed or at least wise so obsessed with these other mens preoccupations euen from his tender youth and cradle as the Catholicke cause which only is truth could neuer yet haue entrance or indifferent audience in his Maiesties â—ares but our prayers are continually that it may And now hauing insinuated how substantially this little Vniuersity of ancient learned Fathers would speake to his Maiesty if they might be admitted eyther at table or time of repast or otherwise Let vs consider a little how different matters euen by their owne confession these new Academicks do suggest for that M. Barlow going about to excuse his fellow T. M. the yonger from that crime of Sycophancy which was obiected for his calumniations against Catholikes in his table-talke trifling first about the word what it signifyeth in greeke according to the first institution therof to wit an accusation of carrying out of figges out of Athens as before hath bene shewed and then for him that vpon small matters accuseth another as
was this I find no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholike affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith and what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true Mother therby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother but only the declaration Wherfore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth is a meere calumniation amongst the rest So in my former writing now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points In the first whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obedience he is very briefe for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation that the Popes Breue forbids not temporall Obedience No saith he it forbids the Oath wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance But this we deny and haue often denied and still must deny and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands who though he hath often affirmed the same yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue For that being once proued all controuersie about this Oath were ended And it is a strange kind of demeanour so often and euery where to affirme it and neuer to proue it He addeth for his reason in this place He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne and sayth neuer a word more But what doth this proue Or in what forme is this argument For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor that we do so or that the Popes Breue doth so we vtterly deny it as manifestly false For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour Wherfore this proofe is nothing at allâ— But he hath another within a leafe after which is much more strange for he bringeth me for a witnes against my selfe in these words VVhat hitherto sayth he he â—aâ— laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue â—â—insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grâ—â—teth If this be so that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduantage and some cause to vaunt but if no word of this be true and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen that is forced to inuent these silly shifts Let vs lay forth then the mystery or rather misery of this matter as himselfe relateth it The Pope saith he being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause or reason of the vnlwâ—ulnes of the Oath the Epistler saith there are as many reasons that it is vnlawfull as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion against which they must sweare And is not this a good reason say I Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the coÌ„science of a Catholike man from swearing But how doth be proue by this that I confesse the Breue to forbid temporall Obedience Do you marke I pray you his inference and consider his acumen But there is no one poynt sayth he in the Oath that doth not so to wit that doth not concerne Religion euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience I do sweare before God that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme c. Ergo I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles and consequently leaueth no Obedience ciuill or temporall But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion euen the very first Article that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience â—hen doth it not touch religioÌ„ in our sense For that we do distinguish these two deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts the one conteyning points of temporall obedience for acknowledging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes the other concerning points of Catholike Religion belonging to the Popes Authority To the first wherof we refuse not to sweare but only against the second And now M. Barlow sayth that all concerne religion and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedience but denieth all And is not this a worthy dispute But let vs passe to the second question whether the Pope or Church hath authority to make new Articles of faith as the Apologer obiected And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part that the Catholicke Church preâ—endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith that were not of themselues true and of faith before he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Hermes and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall Whereto I answere that Doctor Stapleton sayth only that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not admitted before as for example the Epistles of S. Iames the two bookes of Machabees the Epistle of Iude and diuers others as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and suâ—scribed so hath the same Church at this day and shall haue vnto the worlds end authority to do the same Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret sayth Doctour Stapleton that is if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto herâ— librum aliquem alâ—â—m nâ—ndum in Canâ—nem recepâ—um Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes
make for him and his religion But now we haue seene his ill fortune in the choice for that no Canon maketh for him but rather all against him and especially this last Now let vs see somewhat about the second point that the Church of England at this day both for substance in doctrine and Cerimony in discipline doth hould the same which many of the said Canons do conclude which though as before I haue noted it may seeme to be a very dubious imperfect assertion for that they of England being Christians and so those of that Councel also it were very â—ard but that of 74. Canons wherof the first only compreheÌ„deth the summe and confession of all Articles of Christian fayth contayned in the common Creeds it were hard I say â—ha the Church of England should not hold in substaÌ„ce at least the same that many of those Canons do conclude But let vs touch the point indeed concerning the articles now in controuersy betweene vs and Protestants â—oth for doctrine and cerymonies whether in these the sayd Councel of Toledo did agree mâ—re with the Church of Englâ—â—â— as now is teacheth practizeth or with the Church of Rome And albeit this Councell was not gathered togeather purposely to handle and determine matters of faith and doctrine for the establishing of King Sisenandâ—â— his successiâ—â— and concerning â—he depâ—sition of King Suintila as hath bene touched â—nd by that occasion for reformation also of manners of the Clergy yet are there many things here handled which giue sufficient signes with what Church they more agreed either the Protestants or ours In the very fâ—â—st Canon where they make their profession of 〈◊〉 â—hey say Descendit ad inserâ—◠〈…〉 he descended into Hell to fetch from thence thoâ—â— Sainâ—â— which were there detained Do the Protestants agree to this interpretation And then talking of the last iudgment they say Alij pro iustitiae meriâ—â—â— vitam 〈◊〉 some shal receaue life euerlasting at Christs â—andâ— for their merrits of iustice Will Protestants acknowledg this in their Creed And it followeth immediâ—tely Haec est Ecclesiae Catholicae fides c. This is the â—â—ith of the Catholicke Church this Confession we 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 â—hich 〈◊〉 â—hâ—soeuer shal constantly keepe shal 〈◊〉 liâ—e euerlasting Sâ— theyâ— And for so much as there ocâ—â—â—red a doubt in the Church of Spaine about the vse of â—aptisme some allowing a triple dipping in the water some one only the Canon saithâ— that the recourse in former â—â—me was made to the Sea Apostolick for deciding of the same by S. Leander Archbishop of Siuill who wrote to S. Gregory the Great then Pope of Rome to haue his resolution And wil M. Barlow allow of this recourse But let vs heare the words of the Canon Proinde quid à nobis c. Wherfore what we are to do in Spaine saith the Councel in this diuersity of administring the Sacraments Apostolica Sediâ— in â—â—â—memâ—r praeceptiâ— non nostraÌ„ sed paternam instructionem sequentâ—â— Let us 〈◊〉 by the prâ—cepts of the Sea Apostolick not following our owne instruction out that oâ— our fore-â—atâ—â—rsâ— Wherfore Gregory of holy memory Bishop of Rome at the request of the most holy man Leander Bishop of Siâ—â—â—â— demaÌ„ding what was to be followed in this case answered him in these words Nothing can be more â—ruly ansâ—ered about the three dippings in Baptisme theÌ„ that which you your selfe haue set down that diuersities of some customs doth not preiudice the holy Church agreeing all in one faith So S. Gregory But yet discusseth the question more largely as may be seene in that Canon but much more in his owne booke lib. 1. Regist. Epist. 41. And is thiâ— conformable to the practice doctrine of M. Barlows Church Some men will say perhaps yea to the Church of Englâ—â—â— that then was for that about the very same tyme that S. Leander Metropolitan of Siâ—ill wrote to S. Gregory to haue his resoluâ—ion about this difficulty of diuers customeâ— in baptizing S. Augustine Archbishop and Metropoliâ—â—n of the English Nation wrote vnto the same S. Gregory about the like doubts as appeareth by Venerable Bede and had his answere to the same But this recourse also of the English Church at that time will not greatly please M. Barlow In the seauenth Canon some men are noted that vpoÌ„ good Friday after hâ—ra nona did vse to breake their Fast for which they are much condemned by the Councell adding this reason for the same for that the vniuersall Church did obserue the fast of that day wholy and strictly for the memory of the passion of our Sauiour therfore whosoeuer should breake that fast besides yonge children old men and sicke men before the Church haue ended her prayers of Indulgence he should not be admitted to the Festiuall ioy of Easter day And is this conforme to the present Church of England In the eight Canâ—n there is a reâ—son giuen by the Councel Cur lucerâ—a cereus in peruigilijs à nobis benedicantur why the candell the waxe taper are blessed by the Bishops And if any maÌ„ will contemne this Ceremony qui haec contempserit Patrâ—â— reguâ—is subiaâ—ebis sayth the Canon he shall vnder goe the punishments appointed by the rules of the Fathers This cogitation I thinke hath neuer much troubled M. Barâ—â—â— In the tenth Canon order is giuen about the discipline to be vsed in Lent both in respect of publike prayer and priuate chastisings of the bodie Touching the first it is ordained vt in omnibus quadragesimae diebus quia teâ—pus non est gundij sed mâ—roriâ— Alleluia non decantetur that Alleluia be not songe in all the daies of Lent for that is a time not of ioy but of sorrowâ— and then for the chaftysment of the flesh they say Opus est fletibus ieâ—uâ—ijs insistere corpus cilicio cinere induere 〈◊〉 moeroribus deijcere gaudium in trislitiam vertere quousque â—â—â—iat tempus Resurrectionis Christi It is necessary to insist in weeping and fasting to couer our body with haircloth â—nd â—sheâ— to deiect our mynd with sorrow to turne mirth into sadnes vntill the day of Christs Resurrection do come And doth this Ceremony of discipline please M. Barlow Or doth his Church admit the same And if he doe not thâ—Ì„ let him heare what followeth in the Councel hoc enim Ecclesiae Vniuersalis consensio in cunctis terrarum partiâ—us roborauit c. For this the consent of the vniuersall Church hath establyshed in all parts of the Christian world and consequently it is conuenient to be obserued throughout the Prouinces of Spayne and Galicia and therfore if any Bishop Priest or Deacon or any whatsoeuer of the order of Clarks shall be found to esteeme or perferre his own iudgment before this Constitution of ours let him be put from the office of his order and depriued of the CoÌ„munion at Easter This toucheth
oâ— the Egâ—ptians to hate his people not that God did either physice oâ— moraliâ—er properly moue their wills or command or counsaile the Egyptians to hate his people but only occasionaliâ—er that is to say as S. Augustine expoundeth the matter God by doing good and bâ—eâ—sing his said people which was a good action in him gâ—ue the Egyptians occasion to enuy and hate them they abusing that to euill which he did for good And for that this occasionall concurrence may be tearmed also morall in a certaine large sense therforâ— God may be said also to coÌ„curre morally in this meaning but for â—o much as these two meanings of moral concurrence are far different the first which is proper may be denied and this which is vnproper may be granted without â—ll contradiction for so much as a contradiction is not but when the selfe same thing is affirmed and denied in the selâ—e same subiect and in the same reâ—pect which here is not no more then if a man should say these two propositions are contradictory God commandeth expresly all men in generall Non ocâ—ides thou shalt not kill and yet to diuers in particuler for seuerall causes he permitteth to kil and yet here is no contradiction for that killing is taken in different senses And this is so plaine that M. Barlow though he striue to talke som what for that he is obliged for his credit hired therunto as you know yet findeth hâ— nothing to fasten vpon by any probability and therefore in the end hauing intertained himselfe for a while in repeating what Bellarmine saith in the place from whence this supposed contradiction about the different sorts of Gods concurrence is taken in repetition wherof he sheweth plainly not to vnderstaÌ„d him he finally breaketh out in his malice to end with the odious example of Iames Clemâ—nt the Monke in killing the late King of France demâ—nding how God concurred with that action either in generall or in particuler But to this now the answere is already made and so many wayes of Gods concurrence or not concurrence as concerne this cause haue bene explained as to stand longâ—r vpon it were losâ—e of time let M. Barlow meditatâ— by himselfe how God can concurre with so many â—urthering actions of his by slandering and deâ—aming his neighbour as heere againe he chargeth Iesuits witâ— poisoning of Popes which being not only apparantly fâ—â—â—â— but without all â—hew or colour of probabilitâ— yet most violently malicious sure I am that God concurreth not therwith either physicè or moraliter by mouing his hart or tongue to speake so wickedly and much lesâ—e by commanding or approuing the same But whether he â—o it occasionalitâ—r or no to his greater sinne damnation â—â—at I know not but certaine I am that the contumely being â—o intolerably false and ridiculous as it is and yet vtterâ—d and repeated againe so often by him in this his booke most certainely I say I do perswade my selfe that the Dâ—uel hath coÌ„curred with him in al these three waies both phâ—sice moraliter and occasionaliter Almighty God forgiue him and make him to see and feele out of what spirit he speaketh And so much for this second proposition The third contradiction is vrged out of Bellarmine in two books of his the first de Clericis where he sayth that all the Fathers do constantly teach that Bishops do succeed the Apostles and Priests tâ—e seâ—uenty disciples and then in his book de Pontifice he hath the contrary that Bishops do not properly succeâ—d the Apostles Vnto which my answere was at that time vpon viewing the places themselues in Bellarmin that this was no contradiction at all for that it was spoken in diuâ—rs senses to wit that Biâ—hops do succeed the Apostles iâ— power of Episcopal order not in power of extraorâ—inary Apostolical iurisdiction and so both were true and might well stand togeather for that all Bishops haue tâ—e same sacred Episcopal order which the Apostles had but not their extraordinary iurisdiction ouer the whole world as each one of them had which answere oâ— mine since that time hath bene confirmed by Cardinall Bellarmâ—ne himselfe in his owne defence though in different words saying Episcopos succedere Aposâ—olis c. that Bishops do succeed the Apostles as they were the first Bishops of particuler Churches as Iames of IerusaleÌ„ Iohn of Ephesus the like is graÌ„ted in the book de Clericis but yet that Bishops do properly succeed the Apostles as they were Apoâ—tleâ— that is to say as they were sent into all the world with most â—ull power is denyed in the booke de Ponâ—iâ—ice So as in different senses both are true Neque sunt contraria vel conâ—â—aâ—ictoria sayth Beâ—lâ—rmine nisi apudeos qui I ogiâ—am ignoranâ— vâ—l sensu communi carent neither are they contrary or contradictory but with them that want Logicke or common sense So he All which being so plaine yet notwithstanding M. Barlow will needes say somwhat to the contrary not â—or that he doth not see that the thing which he is to say is nothing at all to the purpose but perchance that hâ— thinketh himselfe bouâ—d to say somwhat for fashions â—ake and so rusheth himselfe into absurditieâ— as now â—ou â—hal 〈◊〉 Thus then he relateth the case tâ—at Bellâ—rmine 〈…〉 place that Bisâ—ops do succeed the Apostles and in another thaâ—â—isâ—opâ— do not properly succeed the Apostles and least any should thiâ—kâ— tâ—â—t this is no Antilogy because in the last proposition â—he 〈◊〉 â—pâ—â—pâ—â—ly qualifieth it tâ—e Cardinall himsâ—lfe haâ—h in the vâ—ry next pre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter preuented that whâ—re he saith that Bishops do prâ—â—â—â—â—y succeed the Apoâ—â—les then which what more strong counâ—eâ—-â—â—ocke caâ— there be bâ—â—â—â—ene any two So he And what â—e meâ—neth by this strong counter-shocke I know not but sure I am that he giueth a â—trong counter-buffe to his owne credit by bringing in this reply for that Bellarmine in the very selâ—eâ—ame place and words of the precedent Chapter whâ—re he sayth that Bishops do properly succeâ—d the Apoâ—â—les sheweth him selfe to meane in succâ—ssion of â—piscopall ordâ—r and power of preaching thereto bâ—longing in which power of preaching he sâ—yth Episâ—opi proprie Apostoli◠〈◊〉 ut Bishops do properly succeed the Apoâ—â—lâ—s and proueth it out of the sixt of the Acts but where he sayth in the other place that they do not properly succeed the Apostlâ—s he meanâ—th and so expoundeth his meaning to be tâ—at tâ—ey do not succeed them in their extraordinary vniueâ—sall iurisdiction ouer all the world And could M. Barlow choose but see this when he wrote his Reply If he did not yet will I not retuâ—ne the vnciuill word here vsed to me out of the Poet for thâ—re lyeth his learning nauiget Amiâ—yras â—or that my braine wants purging c. but I will answeâ—e â—im moâ—e modestly to wit that if he saw not this error of his then it was at
Pamphlet These are his forrain phrases fectht far from home and therefore fit for Ladyes let vs see some few of his that are more domesticall 123. In the very first page he telleth F. Persons that he might haue left the blunting or disloding of the tripled wedge two pretty metaphors to him that weares the triple Crowne A litle after An itching arme desires still to be scrubd to retriue an Author Aiax the whipper wreaking his teene vpon a ram as sowters stretch leather with their teeth he saith that Christ gaue his body to the smyâ—ers his cheekes to the nippers a burt in his throat the pudder of different opinions they should settle their conscience not startle it a frapting discourse fayned blandishmentsâ— to distinguish vpon any hint the Apostle aduised â—ot to draw in a countâ—r-ietting yoke with Infidells in that orbytie and age to embroider the Popes ingratitude in this iering scornâ— a Priest and his recepter let them garr their wiues more awkward and violent a pingle of trifles a counterscarfe of examples an Empericall Quack-saluer rebecke by opposâ—â— prouokes to wrath to start into circumstances a strong câ—â—Ì„tershocke to detort or defalke a scorning flur a bloud glâ—sâ—â— to besmâ—er with his glauering balme the rechaffment to disloyall attempts frampold dealing a decade of reasons to dâ—sâ— the Pope c. I leaue more then I take of these tearâ—eâ— and yet here are more then I well vnderstand he shall not doe amisse if he write againe for the ease of his Reader to seâ— out some dictionary to the end he may the better know the signification of these new words or elsse I verily suppose he will be mistaken in many 124. I will end all this matter with that which is most vsuall most grosse and palpable in M. Barlow to wit his forgery and corrupting of Authors by exchange addition or subtraction of their words inuerting wholy their sense and meaning as in others very often as well ancieÌ„t as moderne so for the most part alwayes when in a different character he setteth downe as he would haue it seeme the text of his aduersary then taketh occasion vpon his owne wordâ— foysted in to carpe rayle insult ouer himâ— the occasion of which foule fault in him I find to be eyther his owne praise of which he is very desirous the disgrace of his aduersary or the reliefe of his cauâ—e when by no other way he is else able to shift auoyd the force of the authorityes produced against him in ech kind but very briefly I will alleage an example without any choyce as they shall occur to my handes for who so listeth to read his booke examine what he readeth shall hardly in any place misse of examples 125. In the Epistle to his Maiesty he saith that against F. Persons rayling he will comfort himselfe with that conclusion of S. Hierom Caninam facundiam seruâ—s Dâ—mini pariter expâ—riatur vnctas accounting it my glory saith he that the same creature should rage and snâ—rle at ME the Lords vnworthy Minister which hath not spared TWO ROYALL MONARCHES the Lords annointed 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 vnworthy Minister to be ioyned with royall Monarches the Lords annointed and amounted But in the Author I meane S. Hierome himselfe there is no mention of any such Minister or Monarch there is no annointing no amounting for he only speaketh of the B. Virgin and Mother of our Sauiour saying or rather concluding his whole dispute with this sentence Caninam facundiam seruus Domini pariter experiatur mater I shall with coÌ„fort endure his rayling who togeather with me reuiles the Mother of our Lord. So he which full little concerneth this Minister who with his Mates rather ioine with Heluidius to dispraise her then with S. Hierom the Cath. Church to defend or commend her as all the world doth see 12â— Of abusing F. Persons words I haue spoken before in relating M. Barlowes vntruthes vpoÌ„ other occasioÌ„s one place more I will here adioyne in which witâ— the forgery he sheweth great malice other RuffiaÌ„like misdemeanour for thus he citeth F. Pâ—rsons words A third thing is an ABVSE offered by his Maiesty to the words meaning of the Breue namely that the King should charge the Pope with vndeuinelike Doctrine for saying that the Oath conteyned many things apertly contrary to faith and saluation as if therby the Pope should say or meane that naturall Allegiance to their Soueraigne and Kinâ— were directly opposite to fayth and saluation of soules So he printing and noting the wordes as taken out of F. Persons booke with different characters marginall comma's as in the beginning he promised the Reader to do saying The Iesuits speaches through this whole booke are printed in the smaller letter alwayes with this marke â— in the beginning of the line prefixed And who then that shall read these wordes will not thinke them all to be the wordes of F. Persons and that he had in expresse tearmes abused his Maiesty with the charge of offering â—buse to the Pope Especially seeing M. Barlow in his Reply against him to â—harpen his pen to dip it deep in gall with this Virulent answere The high Priest himselfe would not haue vsed such a sawcy tearme of ABVSE as this rightly malepart that is misbegotten Catachristicalâ— câ—mpanion hath done but if it appeare that the Popes words imply so much and that necessarily Quid dabitur viro what shal be done to him that knetcheth this opprobrious Curr for what is this vncircumcised Iesuite that he should in so base tearmes scurriâ—ize so great a King So he 127. And none can deny but that here he hath shewed himselfe both a feruent and furious defender of his Maiesty for his rage doth ouer-runn his witt his words all modesty But not to stand vpon his immodesty which is a quality inseparable from the subiect I would aske him in Christian charity why he hath put downe these as the words of F. Persons or where they are to be found in his booke Doth he euer sayâ— that his Maiesty offered ABVSE or doth he vse the tearmes of vndeuinelike doctrine what malice what forgery or rather what villany is this to make F. Persons directly to charge his Maiesty as in his own words with offering abuse who in his booke hath no one such word or sillable All that he hath is against him whom he tooke to be the author of the Apology whom for the reasons he alleaged in the very begining of his letter for other respects he could not perswad himself to be his Maiesty as all know who then liued and conuersed with him and heard him seriously giue his iudgment thereof The true words of F. Persons which M. Barlow should haue cyted are these Heare now what abuse is
his Maiesty begâ—â— first to raiâ—ne But concerning the generall Question to deny simply and absolutely That the Pope is supreme Pastour of the Catholiâ—â— Church hath any authority leâ—t him by Christ eyther directly or â—â—â—â—â—â—ctly with cause or without cause in neuer so great a necessity or for â—euer so great and publicke an vâ—ility of the Câ—ristian Religion to proceed against any Prince whatsoeuer temporally â—or his restraint or aâ—endmeâ—â— or to perâ—it other Princes to do the sâ—me this I suppose was neuer tâ—eir meaning that tooke the Oath for that they should therby contradict the generall conseâ—t of all Catholicke Deuines and conâ—â—sse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruation of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous for that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great and excessiue an euill as that way might fall outâ— Wherefore for so much as some such moderate meaning must needs be presumed to haue bene in those that tooke the Oath for safeguard of their Consciences if it might please his Maiesty to like well and allow of this moderation and fauourable interpretation as all forraine Catholicke Kings and Monarchs doe without any preiudice at all of their safety dignity or Imperiall prehemiâ—ence I doubt not but he should find most ready conformity in all his said English Catholicke Subiects to take the said Oath who now haue great scruple and repugnance of Conscience therin both for that the chiefeâ—t learned men of their Church doe hold the same for vtterly vnlawfull being mixed and compounded as it is and the voyce of their chiefe Pastour to whome by the rules of their Religion they thinke themselues bound to harken in like cases hath vtterly condemned the same and the very tenour of the Oath it selfe and last lines therof are That euery â—â—e shall sweare without any Equiuocation or mentall reseruation at â—â—l that is to say hartily willingly and truely vpon the true fayth 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 willingnes in their harts nor can they induce themselues in a matter so neerely concerning the Confession of their faithâ— to Equiuocate or sweare in any other sense then from his Maiesty is proposed and therfore do thinke it lesse hurt to deny plainly aâ—d sincerely to sweare then by swearing neyther to giue satisfaction to God nor to his Maiesty nor to themselâ—â—â—â— nor to their neighbours And so much for this point Hitherto haue I thought good to relate my forâ—â—â— words somewhat at large to the end the Reader may seâ— my reasonable and dutiâ—ull speach in this behalfe aâ—â— vpon what ground M. Barlow hath fallen into such a raâ—e against me as now shall appeare by his reply First of aâ—â— he condeÌ„neth me of hâ—pocrisy saying Let the Reader câ—â—â—â—der â—â—at an â—ypocrite he is for it is an inseparable marke of â—n hypâ—câ—â—â—â— to iudge oâ— otheâ— mâ—ns conâ—â—iences the hart of man is Gods peculiâ—â— â—oâ— anâ— man to place his consâ—sâ—ory there is high presumpâ—ion so be â—â—nneth out in that comon place which maketh nothing at all to ouâ— purpose as you see For I did not iudgâ—t or conâ—â—mne then conâ—ciâ—nces that tooke the Oath but excâ—sâ—â— the same yea interpreted their â—act in good sense giuing my â—eaâ—ons for itâ— that they being good Catholike could not be presuâ—â—d to meane otherwise then the inâ—â—gritie of Catholicke doctrine did permit them for that otherwise they should be no good Catâ—olickes if they should haue done any thing contrary to that whicâ— theâ— selues held to appertaine to the same in which I did not excuse their fact which my whole booke proueth to be vnlawâ—ull but only their intention and meaning touching the integrity of Catholick doctrine And this is far difâ—erent from the nature of hypocrisy which forbiddeth not all iudging but only euill and rash iudging of other mâ—ns actions or intentioÌ„s thereby to seeme better more iâ—st then they For if two for example sake should see M. Barlow to sup largely with flesh and other good meate vpon a vigill or fasting-day and the one should iudge it in the worst part saying that he did it for the loue of hâ—s belly and sensuality the other should interpret the same spiritually as done for glorifying God in his creatures by his thanks-giuing for the same for liberty also of the ghospell and for to make him the more strong able to â—peake preach his Seruice and Sermon the next day I doubt noâ— but that this second iudgement would not be censured by him for hypocriticall And this is ouâ— very case with those that tooke the Oath For that I hearing what they had done and that they were Catholicks did interprete their meaning to the best sense And was not this rather charity then hypocrisy But let vs see a little if you please how M. Barlow can defend this generall proposition of his that it is an inseparable mâ—rke of an hypocrite to iudge of other mens consciences You haue heard before how wisely he defended a certain definition which he gaue of an Oath now you shall see him as wisely learnedly defend an inseparable propriety or marke of an hypocrite And first you see that here is no distinction or limitation at all whether he iudg well or ill with cause or without cause rashly or maturely how then if wee should heare a man or woman speake ordinarily lewd wordes can no iudgement be made of the speakers consciences without hypocrisie If a man should see another frequeÌ„t bad howses or exercise wicked actions may no man iudge him to haue an ill conscience from whence these things doe proceed but he must be â—n hypocrite Moreouer if this bee an inseparable marke or propriety as he saith then according to Aristotle Porphyriâ—â— it must conuenire omni soli semper agree to all only and euer For if it do not agree to all and euer it is not inseparable and if it agree to others besides hypocrites it is not alwaies the marke of an hypocrite and therefore albeit that I had iudged their consciences as M. Barlow imposeth vpon me he could not by good consequeÌ„ce haue inferred that I was an hypocrite But this is ridiculous that all hypocrites and only hypocrites iudge of mens consciences for first the hypoâ—rite that soundeth a trumpet before his almes whose conscience doth he iudge The other also that kneeleth and prayeth in the corners of streetes whose conscience doth he iudge or condemne Those also that came to tempt Christ about the woman taken in â—dultery and about Tribute to be payd to Cesar I reade not whose consciences they iudged and therefore would be loath to doe them iniury except M. â—arlow can bring any iust accusation against them and yet were they called hypocrites by our Sauiour whereby iâ— inferred that all hypocrisy is not subiect to
and defy this communion in fayth with them and haue set forth whole bookes to proue the same which were too long here to repeate Yea Caluinian and Zwinglian Ministers themselues are witnesses hereof in many of their Treatises as namely the Tigurine Deuines who confesse that theyr differences and contentions with the Lutherans are about Iustification Free-will the Ghospell the law the Person of Christ his descent into hell of Gods election of his children to life euerlasting de multis alijs non leuis momenti articulis of many more articles of no small importance which is euident for that Ioannes Sturmius another Zwinglian or Caluinist addeth other controuersies as of the Supper of our Lord and Reall Presence of Predestination of the Ascension of Christ to heauen his sitting at the right hand of his Father and the like adding also that the Lutherans do hould the Protestant Caluinian Churches of England France Flanders and Scotland for Hereticall and their Martyrs for Martyrs of the Diuell And conforme to these their writings are their doinges and proceedings with them where they haue dominion for that they admyt them not to cohabitation nor to the common vse of marriage betweene them nor to be buryed with them after theyr deaths as they well know who haue liued or do liue among them And thus much for the Lutherans of the one syde Now let vs see somewhat also of the Purytans of the other And first of all this matter hath beene handled dyuers times and demonstrated by Catholicke English wryters of our dayes agaynst this absurd assertion of M. Barlow that the differences at this day betweene Protestants and Purytans are not at all concerning religion nor of any substantiall and essentiall poyntes thereof but only Ceremoniall and in particuler the same is conuinced and made most manifest in the Preface of a late Booke intituled An answere to the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports where the different grounds of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power betweene Protestants Puritans and Catholickes being examined it is found that their differences are such as cannot possibly stand togeather to make one Church and house of saluation but that if one hath the truth the other must necessarily remayne in damnable error which is euident also by the writings of Protestants themselues especially by the bookes intituled Dangerous positions set forth and imprinted at London 1593. and the Suruey ofpretended holy discipline made as they say by him that is now Lord of Canterbury and Doctor Sutcliffe as also the Booke intituled the Picture of a Purytan writen by O. O. of Emanuel printed 1603. and other like bookes But especially at this time will I vse for proofe of this poynt the testimony of Thomas Rogers Minister and Chaplin as he styleth himselfe to his Lord of Canterbury who of late hauing set forth by publike authority the fayth doctrine and religion of England expressed in 39. articles vpon the yeare 1607. doth in his Preface to his said Lord haÌ„dle this matter of the differences betweene the Puritans and Protestantes though partially agaynst the discontented brethren he being theyr aduersary but yet setteth downe out of their owne words what their iudgment is of the importance and moment of the controuersyes betwene them to wit that they are not only about Ceremonies and circumâ—tances as M. Barlow pretendeth but about poyntes contayned in scripture in the very Ghospell it selfe They are compryzed say they in the booke oâ— God and also be a part of the Ghospell yea the very Ghospell it selfe so true are they and oâ— such importance that if euery hayre of our head were a life we ought to affâ—ard them all in defence of these matters and that the articles of religion penned and agreed vpon by the Bishops are but childish toyes in respect of the other So they And will any man thinke or say now that these men doe not hould that theyr differences with the Protestants are differences in religion as M. Barlow sayth or that they are only matters of ceremonyes and not of any one substantiall poynt concerning religion Let vs heare them yet further telling theyr owne tale and related by M. Rogers The controuersy betwene them and vs say they of the Protestants is not as the Bishops and their welwillers beare the world in hand for a cap or tippet or a Surplisse but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry and regiment of the Church according to the word of God The first wherof which is a true Ministry they Protestants shall neuer haue till Bishops and Archbishops be put downe and all Ministers be made equall The other also will neuer be brought to passe vntill Kings and Queenes doe subiect themselues vnto the Church and doe submit their Scepters and throw downe their Crownes before the Church and licke vp the dust of the feete of the Church and willingly abyde the Censures of the Church c. This they write and much more in that placeâ— which I trow is more then M. Barlow ascribeth vnto the matter For if it be contayned in Gods booke yea a part oâ— the Ghospell the very Ghospell it selfe about which they contend what proterâ—ity is it on the other part to call it a matter only of Ceremony But yet further within two pages after agayne they doe explayne themselues and theyr cause more in particuler saying Our controuersy with the Protestants is whether Iesus Christ shal be King or no and the end of all our trauell is to bâ—yld vp the walls of Ierusalem and to set vp the throne of Iesus Christ 〈◊〉 heauenly king in the myddest thereof And are these poyntes also not substantiall nor any wayes touching religion but Ceremonies Harken then yet further what they do inferre vpon the Protestantes Church for dissenting from them in these pointes Neyther is there among them say they a Church or 〈◊〉 least wise no true Church neither are they but titular Christians no true Christians indeed And yet will M. Barlow continue to say that there is no difference at all in Religion and that I lyed when I sayd that his Maiesty yeelded to a Conference between Protestants Puritans concerning their differences of Religion VVhat will he answere to the two precedent members touched by the Puritans to witâ— that their strife is for a true Ministry a lawfull gouermeÌ„t therof expounding their meaning to be that for obtaining the first all Bishops and Archbishops must be put downe for the second all temporall Princes Kings Queenes must leaue their superiority ouer the Church submit themselues and their Crownes vnto the same Church to wit their Presbyteries as M. Rogers expoÌ„deth their words And is there no substantiall point neyther in all this but only matter of Ceremony And doth not the very life soule of the Church depend of these two things a true Ministry and lawful Head Is not the power of preaching teaching administration of
first and second Chapters of the booke of Toby to wit how the foresayd King Senacherib sonne to Salmanasar being returned much exasperated from Iury agaynst the Iewes for the euill successe which there he had did promulgate an Edict that such as he caused to be slayne should not be buryed the Story sayth that Toby notwithstanding this Edict and Commaundement did bury them by night yea and left also on day his dinner and the ghests which he had with him at the same for to fetch in the dead body of a Iew slayne in the streetes and when some of his neighbous seeing the peril thereof did reprehend him for aduenturing vpon so great daunger saying to himâ— that himselfe had bene commaunded to be slayne for burying men before the Story doth not only defend him but also commendeth him for the same saying Sed Tobias plùs timens Deum quà m Regem rapiebat corpora occisorum c. But Toby feating God more then the King did take away the dead bodies that he found in the streetes hyding them in his house and burying them at mydnight Secondly the Angell Raphael in the twelth Chapter discouering himselfe vnto Toby togeather with the mystery of all his actions with him doth manifestly shew that these his deeds of charity of giuing of almes and burying the dead bodyes of such as were slayne were gratfull vnto Almighty God Quando craâ—as cum lachrymis sepeliebas mortous derelinquebas prandium tuum c. ego obtuli â—â—ationem tuam Domino quia acceptus eras Deo necesse suit vt tentatio probaret te When thou didst pray with teares and didst bury the dead and didst leaue thy dinner for doing this worke of Charity I did offer to God thy prayer and because thou wert acceptable vnto God it was necessary that temptation should try thee Here then we haue the testimony of an Angell agaynst M. Barlow that is no Angell and if he be yet must we account him for a very wicked and false Angell if the other be a good and true Angell Now then let vs examine a little whether of these Angels deserueth most to be belieued or whether for a mans saluation it be more secure to follow the one or the other for that they speake contraryes The one that this fact of Toby was not iustifyable the other that it was not only iustifiable 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 haue heard that Toby was reprehensible in that he obeyed not the Kingâ— the other saith he did very well in obeying God more then the king How shall we know which of these two Angels is the good and which the bad M. Barlow will on his part perhaps say that this booke of Toby is not held by him for Canonicall Scripture but only Hagiographum a holy ancient writing as the Iewes themselues do allow it to be though not in their Canon of Scriptures yet doth not this take away the credit of the Story which hath indured and hath beene belieued and taken for true so many ages boâ—h before and after Christian Religion was planted And M. Barlow cannot alleadg one authenticall Author or holy man before these our tymes that euer sayd this Story was false or not to be credited though he receiued it not for Canonicall Scripture Secondly we see it acknowledged for Canonicall Scripture and of infallible truth not only by a generall Councell of our dayes wherin the flower of the learnedst men in Christendome were present I meane that of Trent but by another Councell also aboue 1000. yeares before that to wit the third of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and subscribed thereunto and in diuers other places of his workes giueth the same testimony to this booke as do sundry other Fathers ancienter then he as S. Ambrose that wrote a whole booke of the Story of Toby containing twenty foure whole Chapters S. Basil in his Oration of Auarice yea the holy Martyr S. Cyprian also himselfe more ancienter then them all and this in sundry places of his works and after S. Augustine S. Gregory S. Isiodoâ—us Cassiodorus and others wherby is euident that in S. Augustins time and before this booke was held for diuine and Canonicall And therfore for a man now to venture his soule vpon this bare deniall of M. Barlow and his Consorts for there goeth no lesse in the matter his assertion being blasphemy if this be true Scripture let his poore sheepe of Lincolne thinke well of it for other men will beware how they venture so much with him But now setting aside this consideration whether it be Canonicall Scripture or no let vs consider a little further what holy men in ancient times did thinke of this fact of Toby whether it were iustifiable or no. S. Augustine in his booke De cura pro mortuis habenda hath these words Tobias sepeliendo mortuos Deum promeruisse teste Angelo commendatur Tobias is commended by the testimony of the Angell in that by burying the dead he merited the fauour of Almighty God And the same Father repeateth the very same words and sentence againe in his first booke of the Citty of God Whereby we see what his sense was in this matter both in belieuing the good Angell and esteming that good worke of burying the dead which M. Barlow by conteÌ„pt calleth a ciuil coâ—rtesy to haue merited with God 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 Iewes in that captiuity commendeth highly holy Toby for neglecting the same in respect of that charitable worke Ille interdicto non reuocabatur sed magis incitabatur c. he was not stayd by that Edict or Proclamation from burying the dead but rather was therby incyted the more to doe the same Erat â—â—im misericordiae praemium 〈◊〉 pâ—na for that the punishment of death was the prince of mercy S. Cyprian also that holy Bishop and Martyr long before S. Ambâ—ose in his booke Of our Lords prayer extolling much the meryt of good workes and exhorting men vnto the same amongst many other authoryties of the Scriptures cyteth this of Toby saying Et ideo diuina Scriptura inâ—â—râ—it dicens bona est oratio cum ieiunio â—leemosyna therfore the dyuine Scripture inâ—tructeth vs saying That Prayer is good accompanied with fasting and almes In which wordes first we see this booke of Toby affirmed to be diuine Scripture and secondly this speach doctrine of the Angell Raphael vnto Toby concerning the prayse and merit of good works to be allowed by Cyprianâ— which is full contrary to M. Barlowes Diuinity But let vs heare our S. CypriaÌ„ in the same place Nam qui in die Iudicij praemium pro operibus c. For
the thing it selfe vttered to wit that it be really true in the sense and meaning of the vtterer and then in the quality of the hearer whether he be a lawfull iudge and therby may oblige the speaker to speake to his intention and other such circumstances which are largely haÌ„dled in my foresaid booke and not vnderstood as it seemeth or not read by M. Barlow which me thinkes he ought to haue done meaning to treate of this matter here And so I shall passe no further therin but referre him the Reader to the larger Treatise of that subiect already extant CARDINALL BELLARMINE is cleered from a false imputation and a controuersie about certaine words clauses in the Oath is discussed § II. AFTER this M. Barlow passeth to a poynt concerning Cardinall Bellarmine set downe in the Apology in these words Some of such Priests and Iesuites as were the greatest traytors fomentours of the greatest conspiracies against her late Maiestyâ— gaue vp F. Robert Bellarmine for one of their greatest authorities and oracles So sayth the Apologer noteth in the margeÌ„t Campian Hart in their conference in the Tower This was noted by me in my Letter as an vniust charge both in respect of the two men meÌ„tioned in the margent who were most free from being traytours and much more the greatest Traytours excepting only their Priestly functioÌ„s most iniuriously made TreasoÌ„s against all truth equity as aboundantly else where hath bene proued but much more in respect of Cardinall Bellarmine who was not so mâ—ch as named by any of them in any matter tending to Treason or conspiracy towards the late Queene and therfore 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 confesse and sayth that it was meant in matters of the Conference in the Tower but euery man of iudgment will se what the words of the former charge do import and how farre they reach which M. Barlow considering he dareth not stand to his first refuge but addeth that Bellarmine in his Booke which English Priests do study doth teach such doctrine as is the ground of rebellions he blowes sayth he the bellowes of seditious doctrine which flames out by his Schollers conspiracy to the disturbaÌ„ce of the chiefest States of Christendome But this now men will see how passionate and vntrue it is that the chiefest States of Christendome are disturbed by Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine I do not meane to stand vpon the confutation of so childish imputations There followeth a certaine small controuersie about the words temperate and tempered whether they signify the same or no wherof we haue handled somewhat before so shall dispatch it here in a word Cardinall Bellarmine had said in his Letter to M. Blackwell that this Oath is not therfore lawfull because it is offered as tempered and modified with diuers clauses of ciuill Obedience giuing an example out of S. Gregory Nazianzen of the Ensignes of the Emperour Iulian wherin the Images of the Heathen Gods were mingled and conbyned togeather with the Emperors Picture and therby so tempered modified as a man could not adore the one without the other Which speach of the Cardinall was much reprehended by the Apologer as though Bellarmine had misliked the temperate speach vttered in the forme of this oath But that was no part of Bellarmines meaning but that the said Oath was tempered mixt and compounded of different clauses some lawfull and some vnlawfull as a man would say morter is tempered with water sand lyme and this appeareth by his example of the Ensignes before mentioned tempered that is mixt with the images of the Emperours and their false Gods And if M. Barâ—â—â— will needs haue this temperament to haue also with it some temperature which is his only reply now in this place we will not greatly striue with him Let it be esteemed to be some temperature that here are mingled some clauses of ciuill 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 speach about this matter as striuing to say somewhat but yet in substance sayth nothing It followeth in my Letter concerning the answering of two questions proposed by the Apologer wherin I shall repeate againe my owne words then vttered thus then I wrote That the Apologer hauing said with great vehemency of asseueratioÌ„ That heauen and earth are no further a sunder then the profession of a Temporall Obedience to a Temporall King is different from any thing belonging to the Catholike fayth or Supremacy of S. Peter which we graunt also if it be meere Temporall Obedience without mixture of other clauses he proposeth presently two questions for application of this to his purpose First this As for the Catholike Religion sayth 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 belieue or not to belieue any article of Religion Wherunto I answere first to the first and then to the second To the first that if it be graunted that power authority of the Pope and Sea Apostolike left by Christ for gouerning his Church in all occasions and necessities be any poynt belonging to Religion among Catholikes then is there not only some owne word but many sentences yea ten or twelue articles or branches therin tending and sounding that way as before hath bene shewed To the secoÌ„d question may make answer euery clause in effect of the Oath it selfe As for example the very first I A. B. do truly sincerely acknowledge professe testify declare in my conscience that the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authority of the Sea or Church of Rome hath any power authority c. doth not this include eyther beliefe or vnbeliefe Againe I do further sweare that I do from my hart abhorre detest abiure as impious hereticall that damnable doctrine position That Princes which be excommunicated and depriued by the Pope may be deposed c. Doth not here the swearer promise not to belieue that doctrine which he so much detesteth How then doth the Apologer so grossely forget and contradict himselfe euen then when he goeth about to proue contradictions in his Aduersary It followeth consequently in the Oath And I do belieue and in conscience am resolued that neyther the Pope nor any person whatsoeuer hath power to absolue me from this Oath or any part therof These words are plaine as you see And what will the Apologer say heere Is nothing promised in those words to be belieued or not belieued This was my speach And now see what quarrell M. Barlow seeketh agaynst it First wheras in my answer to the first question I say if it be granted that
great confidence and hope to the doers therof in the sight of God And Iob sayth that he which liâ—eth iustly shall haue great confidence hope and shall sleepe securely And S. Paul to Timothy saith That whosoeuer shall minister well shall haue great confidence c. I omit diuers other plaine places of Scriptures and Fathers there alleadged by him which the Reader may there peruse to his coÌ„fort shewing euidently that the conscience of a vertuous life and good workes doth giue great confidence to a Christian man both while he liueth especially whe he coÌ„meth to dye The sâ—cond Question is whether thiâ— being so a man may place anâ—â—oâ—â—idence wittingly in his ownâ—â—â—rits or veâ—â—uous liâ—e And it is answered I hat he may 〈◊〉 be with due circumstances of humâ—lity auoydinâ—â—â—â—â—e prâ—sumption For that a man feeling the effect of â—ods gâ—ace in himselâ—e wherby he hath beene direcâ—ed to liue well may also hope that God will crowne â—is gifts in him as S. Augustines words are And many examples of Scriptures are alleadged there by Card. Bellarmine of sundry holy Saints Prophets and Apostles that vpon iuâ—t occasions mentioned their owne merits as gifts â—rom God that gaue them hope and conâ—idence oâ— his mercifull reward and namely that saying of S. Paul I haue sought a good fight I haue consummated my course I haue kept my faith c. and then addeth that in regard hereof Râ—positaâ—â—st mihi corona Iustitiae a crowne of Iustice is â—ayd vp for me which â—od the iust Iudge shall restore vnto me The third Question is supposing the foresaid determinations what counsaile were to be giuen Whether it be good to put confidence in a mans owne merits oâ— no Wherunto Card. Bellarmine answerâ—th in the words set downe by the Apologer That for the vncerâ—ainâ—y of our oâ—ne proper Iustice and for auoyding the perill of vayne glory the suâ—â—st way is to repose all our coÌ„fidence in the only meâ—cy benignity oâ— God from whome and from whose grace our merits proceed So as albeit Cardinall Bellarmine doth confesâ—â— that good life and vertuous acts do giue hope and confidence of themselues and that it is lawfull also by the examples of ancient Saints for good men to comfort themselues with that hope and confidence yet the surest way is to repose all in the benignity and mercy of almighty God who giueth all and is the Authour aswell of the grace as of the merits and fruits of good workes that ensue therof And thus hath Cardinall Bellarmine fully explicated his mind in this one Chapter about Confidence in good workes by soluing the foresaid three different Questions wherof the one is not contrary to the other but may all three stand togeaâ—â—er 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 wholâ— discourse and current of all his fiue Bookes of Iustification Let one only sentence be brought forth out of all his fiue Bookes that is truly contradictory and I shall say he hath reason in all the rest of his ouerlashing This was may declaration and explication of Card. Bellarmines doctrine in this point whether any confidence might be placed in good workes and what his counsaile is therin Wherunto though M. Barlow finding himself vnable to make any substantial reply do multiply words from the matter without answering directly to any one of these points now set downe and much lesse to the authorityes of Scriptures and other proofes alleadged for the same yet shall we take an accompt of him what he saith reducing him back againe to these heades as they lye in my letter now recited and see whether they make any iust satisfaction for an answere or no. First then whereas I required as you haue heard that for prouing this first contradiction obiected to Bellarmine that one only sentence might be brought forth out of all his fiue bookes of Iustification that is truly contradictory to the foresaid proposition counsailing to put our whole confidence in Gods onely mercy this hitherto is not done which notwithstanding had beene easy to do if the whole current of these fiue bookes as there was said had beene contradictory to this proposition But now let vs see M. Barlowes proofs out of those bookes in generall All the chiese questions saith he in that bulke oâ— controuersies about Iustification may be reduced to these two principall heades eyther to the quality of our Iustice that is inherent not imputatiue or of the merit whether it be rewarded â—or the value of the worke or of meere grace And both these by the first word of this proposition to wit vncertainty are directly cut off Thus he And this we deny for that the vncertainty of a particuler man concerning the perfection of his owne merits doth not cut off any of those thinges which M. Barlow fondly dreameth Let vs heare his proofe For the vncertainty there mentioned saith he is eyther rei or personae of the righteousnes it selâ—e or of him which hath it Wherto I answere that it may be of both in regard of a particular person for that he may haue some vncertainty both whether the Iustice that is in him be perfect or that himselfe haue performed all circumstances requisite to true merit though notwithstanding he doth not doubt but that the doctrine of the Catholike Church is true most certaine about the merit of good workes and that in the said Church and many of her children there be true merits wherin iustly some confidence may be placed as the Scriptures themselues and the plaine words and example of S. Paul before alledged do euidently conuince For which cause S. Bernard alleadged by Card. Bellarmine doth worthily cry out 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 vnto whom neither merits are wanting without presuming thereon nor presumption without merits The Church hath merits not to presume vpon them but to deserue Gods fauour by theÌ„ And why had not this bene answered Let vs heare his further speculation If the vncertainty sayth he be of the thing it self then is it no true righteousnâ—s This now is one folly For a man may haue true righteousnes yet not be sure therof himself according as the Scripture sayth no man knoweth whether he be worthy of loue or hate at Gods hands but let vs heare him further For truth saith he whether of essence or of propriety cassiers all vncertainâ—y This is another folly For how many thinges be there truly and really in particuler men which they themselues know not as would appeare if they should see their owne anatomy And in M. Barlow may there not be true ignorance pride or presumption in many thinges though himselfe eyther do not
least a great ouersight in him to look so negligently to what he writeth but if he did see it yet wouâ—d so falsely alledg it then were a puâ—gation rather to be wished for his conscience then for his braines But he ceaseth not heere we must see two or three false tricâ—s of his more First he taketh vpon him to proue that Bellaâ—mine in the place before cited de Clericis doth indâ—â—d proue thaâ— Bishops do succeed the Apostle not only in power of holy Order but also of Iurisdiction For that Bâ—llarmine being to proue sayth he according to the title of his Chapter that Bishops are greater then Priâ—sts he setcheth his sâ—cond reason from their differâ—nt power of iurisdiction in the new Testament because they the Bishops haue the same that the Apostles had Nam â—piâ—copos Apostolis succedere that Bishops do succâ—ed the Apostles therin is not one mans testimony alone constanter docent omnes Patres sayâ—h he all the Fathers do hould it with one consent without varying in themselues or differing from others Hitherto M. Barlow And if he shew himself faithfull in this you may trust him if you will another time but if in this as in most other things he still vse shifting then you may trust him as you find him First then it is true that Cardâ— Bellarmine his purpose in this 14. Chapter is to proue against Caluin and some other Protestants that Bishops and Priests are not equall in degree but that Priests are inferiour to Bishops and he promiseth to proue three points First that a Bishop is greater then a Priest quoad Ordinis poâ—estatem in the powâ—r of holy order Secondly quantùm ad iurisdictionem that he iâ— greater also in iurisdiction for that a Priest hath iuriâ—diction but ouer one Parish and a Bishop ouer his Diocâ—ssâ— thirdly that Bishops in the primitiue Church were not only as Caluin sayth like Consuls in a Senate but like Princâ—s ratâ—er in 〈◊〉 The firâ—t an◠〈◊〉 of which points appertaine not to our pâ—â—sâ—nt pâ—â—poâ—e â—ut â—â—ly the â—â—cond about iuriâ—â—â—ction â—â—d this not much neiâ—her if you consider it weâ—l â—or that Cardinaâ—◠〈◊〉 inâ—ent is to shew that the iuriâ—â—iction of Bâ—sâ—ops iâ— greater theÌ„ that oâ— Prieâ—ts but not thâ—t Bishops had aâ—l the iuriâ—dictioÌ„ which the Apostles had noâ— doth â—e once name it or say any such thing and it is a noâ—orioâ—â— deceipt of M. Barâ—â—â— when he sayth â—â—ere that 〈◊〉 â—etcheth his sâ—cond reâ—son to proue the prehemineÌ„ce of Bishops aboue Pâ—iests froÌ„ their power of iuridisâ—tion becauâ—e they haue the sâ—me that the Apostles had Bellarmines words are these Seâ—â—â—â—â— probatur hâ—c idem ex aistinâ—â—iâ—ue Aposâ—cloâ—um Disâ—ipâ—lorâ—m sâ—ptuaginta Secondly the same is proued to wit that Bishops are greater then Priests by the diâ—tinction of the Apostles and the seauenty Disciples and then do ensue immediatly those words Episâ—opos Apostolis sucâ—edere that Bishops do succeed the Apostles and Prieâ—â—s the seauenty disciples all Fathers do constantly teach So that here Bellarmine doth not found his argument of prouing Bishops to be greater and worthâ—er then Priestsâ— vpon the succession of Bishops to the Apostles Apostlicall Iuâ—isdiction but in the dignity of holy Order which is sufficient to proue theÌ„ to be greater then Priâ—sts nor doth he fetch this his second reason from iurisdiction but from distinction as you see in his plaine words and therfore these other words of M. Barlow written in great letters that they haue the same to wit IurisdictioÌ„ which the Apostles had and did succeed the Apostles therin this I say is falsely put in and he did well to write the word therin in markable great letters for that it contayneth a markable fraude no such word bâ—ing in Bellarmine to that sense nor did all Fathers nor any Father teach this that Bishops succeed the Apostles in Apostolicall Iurisdiction but rather the plaine contrary as is largely proued in the other places ciâ—ed out of the fouâ—th book de Pontifice where the negatiue is put downe by Bellarmine as you haue heard concerning Apostolicall Iurisdiction to wit that Bishops do not therin succeed vnto the Apostles which though of it selfe it be euident for that euery Bishop hath not Iurisdiction ouer the whole world as the Apostles had nor may teach or preach or build Churcheâ— throughout the world as they by their vniuersal iurisdiction might yet doth Bellarmine proue the same largely tâ—roughout foure whole Chapters togeather shewing that alâ—eit Christ our Sauiour did giue immediatly vnto all the Apostles vniuersall iurisdiction ouer the world but yet differently to S. Peter from the rest for that he was appointed to be the ordinary high Pastour ouer the same and they extraordinary and consequently he to haue successours in his vniuersall iurisdiction and they not yet doth he not so giue it to all their successours but only mediatly by the chiefe ordinary Pastour of al which is Peters successour and that also with more limitation of place wherof ensueth that no Bishop besides the Bishop of Rome though he succâ—ed the Apostles in dignity of Episcopall Order yet doth he noâ— in iuriâ—diction but receiueth that mediatly only from God by the sayd Bishop of Rome And this doth Bellarmin proue to wit that all Bishops take their iurisdiction from the Bishop of Rome by eight seuerall arguments out of Scriptures Fathers Councells and reasons in one chapter which is the 24. next following and answereth all the arguments obiected to the contrary to wit fix by name repeating often and prouing that in this power of iurisdiction Episcopi non succedunt proprie Apostâ—lis Biâ—hops do not succeed properly the Apostles expounding also what he meanâ—th by the word properlyâ— Dicuntur Episcopi sayth he succedere Apostolis non proprie eo modo quo â—nus Episcopus alteri vnus Rex alteri sed duplici alia ratione primò ratione Ordinis sacri Episcopalis secundò per quamdam similituâ—inem c. Bishops are sayd to succeed the Apostles not propeâ—ly as one Bishop succeedeth another and one King aâ—other in all their power and iurisdiction but two other wayes the first by reason of sacred Episcopâ—ll Ordâ—r which they haue which the Apostles had and secondly by a certaine similitude or proportion that as the Apostles were the â—irst and immediate vnder Christ when he was vpon earth so are Bishops now vnder the chiefe Bishop c. Aâ—l which being set downe so clearely in Bellarmines owne words and writings heare I pray you what modest conclusion M. Baâ—low maketh of all that is said If he stand saith he on the place where the negatiue is to wit in the fourth booke de Pontifice there indeed the Cardinall driuen to â—is shifâ—s is forced to coyne this distinction but yet that salues not the contradictioÌ„ but maketh it greater For therin he sheweth that he maniâ—estly opposeth both himselfe and all the Fathers For in superiority of Iurisdiction Bishops by
testimony of all the Fathers succeed the Apostles as himselfe conâ—esseth proueth and approueth in this place So he And what shall we say now to this Was there euer the like dealing or maÌ„ner of answering to out-face a man against his owne words proofs and protestations Doth Bellarmine confesse proue and approue in this place that Bishops do succeed the Apostles in their superiority of iurisdiction receaued immediately froÌ„ Christ which he hath impugned before by so many strong arguments In what law of modesty doth this lye to affirme such things But see I pray you how coÌ„tradictory he is to himselfe euen in these few lynes For if Bellarmine were driuen to coyne this distinâ—tion that Bishops did succeed the Apostles in dignity of Order not in power of iurisdiction then cannot he be sayd to confesse proue and approue that they do succeed in superiority of iurisdiction as here M. Barlow affirmeth him to auouch And can there be any thing more contradictory then this And is not passion a great infirmity that driueth a man to these absurdities I will let passe that childish though malicious scorne which he vseth against Cardinall Bellarmine in comparing him with D. VVhitaker whose name sayth heâ— though dead like Zisca his drume is a terrour to Bellarmine alluding vnto that famous roguing Rebell of Bohemia Zisca who enraged with the drunkennes of Iohn Husse his new heresie vpoÌ„ the point of some two hundreth yeares agoe tooke armes against his lawfull Soueraigne made an army of the common people that were put into madnes with the same heresy tooke Castels spoyled Townes buâ—ned Villages Monasteries murthered inâ—inite people especially oâ— the Clergy and finally died so miserably blind both in body and soule that as hauing not any one eye corporall left him so seemeth he though M. Iohn Fox do set him dâ—wne for a Saint and Confessour of his Church in his Eccâ—â—siasticall Kalender vpon the fifth day of February to haue had no leaâ—t part of any spirituall eye in his souâ—e for that men comming to him as he lay on his death-bed to know how he would be buried what sort of obsequies he would haue he answered most prophanely that they should caâ—t him out where they would that â—oules might deuoure his flesh but that first they should take of his skinne and make a drum therof assuring them that his enemies the Papiâ—â—s would fly vpon the only noise of the same This is the witty and modest comparison that M. Barlow thought good to vse betwene Cardinall Bellarmin and D. VVhitaker and of the terrour that M. VVhitakers name being now dead doth strike into Bellarmine as oâ—ten as he heareth it no lesse then the drum of Zisca But how like soeuer M. VVhitaker might be to Zisca for his sect and religion scarce setled peraduenture in any I will not dispute but for the terror of his drum to Bellarmine it is ridiculous to them that haue read or do read both their works And surely what miracles M. VVhitakers memory or skin may worke 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 whilest he was aliue And that is euident both by his owne writings and of others against him as well in English as that of M. D. Stapleton M. Gregory Martyn and M. VVilliam Reynolds as also in latin of the said D. Stapleton in two bookes Duraeus and Gretzâ—rus haue euidently dâ—clared And to repeat only a note or two giuen by the said M. Reynolds whome all men know to haue byn a very modest man and for many yeares to haue byn a great Protestant his censure was very meane of M. Doctor VVhitakers learning as may appeare by his booke against him ascribing vnto him very shallow knowledg and inâ—olerable arrogancy in condemning all Doctors and Fathers as appeareth both in his Preface p. 44. 45. and in the ensuing book pag. 495. 496. And againe he sheweth pag. 109. that he vnderstandeth not the Protestant doctrine of only Faith which he taketh vpon him to defend Moreouer he sheweth pag. 23. 25. 114. 115. 123. 126. 319. how he contradicteth himselfe most maniâ—estly and that this is his custome which is no signe of exquisite learning as all men know And finally to enter into no more particularities I will cite only halfe a score of lines if they be so many of M. Reynolds words concerning M. VVhitakers ignorance discouâ—red in one only Paragraph In this Paragraph sayth M. Reynolds you commit as many errors as lightly you may For first you vnderstand not M. Martyn whome you go about to confute Secondly you vnderstand not S. Paul alleadged by him Thirdly you vnderstand not S. Paul alledged by your selfe Fourthly you vnderstand not the state of the question of which you talke And lastly you vnderstand not your selfe and the doctrine of your fellowes Thus he And presently proueth all these ignorances one by one in such sort as I see not how any of them may iustly be denyed And yet forsooth this is the man whose skin and drum M. Barlow will haue to be a terror to Bellarmine Let vs put this to his other follies and so an end But if this do not suffice let M. Barlow if his leasure serue him reade the two books of M.D. Stapleton against M. VVhitaker and he shall soone see the mans weight and worth and what drum might be made of his skin or rather what scar-crowes to feare fooles for learned men he can neuer feare that was himselfe so ignorant and so euer esteemed amongst them in his life-time wherto we may add this for an argument that his large latin Duplication against the said Doctor was held by all to be such poore stuffe as it lay on the printer Legats hands for want of sale in so much that he was forced to make sute to M. Chatterton your predecessor M. Barlow in the Sea of Lincolne in respect of the great multitude of Ministers in that diocesse that he would cause theÌ„ to buy the copies therby to ease his charge who otherwise was like to be much â—aÌ„nified if not vndon by the printing of such a worthlesse worke which of all the works of Bellarmine and Stapleton you shall neuer heare of to haue happened though they haue byn printed and reprinted diuers times There followeth the fourth Contradiction obiected to Cardinall Bellarmine about Iudas where he is accused to â—ay in one place of his works to wit lib. 1 de Pontifice cap. 12. That Iudas belieued not and yet in another place lib. 3. de Iust ficatione c. 14â— he sayth that Iudas was iust certainly good which I say was no contradiction at all if we respect the two seueral tymes wherof Card. Bellarmine did speake prouing out of S. Iohns Ghospell that Iudas in the beginning was good and did belieue but afterward he became euill and lost his
fayth This was the summe of my answer and the Cardinalls booke comming out afterwards hath the same in effect in these words Distinguish the tymes you shal agree the Scriptures Iudas belieued and was iust and good in the beginning of his election but afterward he yealded to the tempter and not only did not belieue but became a thief also and betrayed his Lord and lastly hanged himselfe So he And now what do you think that M. Barlow out of his ingeniosity will find to bring for maintenance that this was a true contradiction in Bellarmine Truly he will adventure far to find somewhat though it be to his owne shame and discredit Let vs heare his mad defence ioyningâ—sayth â—sayth he of the Aduerbe verè by Bellarmine that Iudas was truly righteous and certainlie good and yet did not belieue makes it a contradiction incurable And to the end that his fraud may be more notorious he writeth the wordes truly certainly and not belieue in great letters But now if you looke vpon Cardinal Bellarmines words you shall find first that he doth not ioyne the aduerbe vere that is truly righteous nor the others of certainly good at all his words are these Dominiâ—o â—o annis 17. Pater quos dedisti mihi custodiui nemo ex eis periji nisi filius perditionis Si Pater de dit illum Filio certe bonus erat That Iudas was sometimes iust S. Hierome doth proue out of the words of S. Iohn 17. Father I haue kept those that thou hast giuen me and none haue perished but the sonne of perdition If God the Father gaue him to his Sonne truly he was then good Heere then you see that there is no â—ere iustus truly righteous as M. Barlow hath thrust into Bellarmines words And albeit he sayth certe bonus erat yet certe is not referred to bonus as is euident These are then two willfull corruptions But the third is much more eminent that he maketh Bellarmine to say that notwithstanding that Iudas was truly righteous and certainely good yet did he not belieue Wheras Bellarmine sayth he did belieue and so is it set downe in the forme it selfe of the obiected contradiction saying that first he did belieue when he was chosen an Apostle and that then he was iust but afterward he lost his faith and did not belieue And now wil M. Barlow for making vp of some shew of contradiction against Bellarmine make him say that at the one and the selfe same tyme Iudas was truly righteous certaynely good and yet not belieued And to shew that this is an absurd proposition he maketh a long discourse out of Scriptures and Fathers to proue that without fayth a man cannot be truly righteous nor certainely good as though Cardinall Bellarmine had denied the same Is there any shame in these men But after this againe he goeth further in another place demanding whether supposing Iudas to haue belieued at the beginning his fayth were â—ormata or no that is informed by grace working by charity â—lleadâ—ging Aquinas in these words Surely in him that hath such a â—aith Aquinas sayth nihilinest damnationis there is no damnation For being once had it cannot totally and finally be lost nor is it more separable from him then the essentiall forme of any thing frome the subiect which it denominates Thus he And will not euery man that readeth these words thinke that Aquinas doth hould all this doctrine heere auerred that fides formata once had cannot be finally lost M. Barlow hath holpen the matter the best he can to deceaue his Reader in not citing any place of Aquinas where he houldeth this for that he could not do it but they that are acquinted with Aquinas his bookes and doctrine know him expresly to teach the coÌ„trary as the Reader may see if he liâ—t to peruse the places here quoted where he purposly proueth that charitas semel habita potest amiâ—â—i and for that charity is the forme of faith it followeth by necessary consequence that fides formata to wit a iustifying faith may in Aquinas his opinioÌ„ be lost and herof no Catholicke Deuine can doubt So as the impudency was strange in charging Aquinas with this which is the proper heresie of Iohn Caluin but much more that in the very place whence this pretended contradiction about Iudas is taken to wit out of Bellarmines third booke de Iustificatione Bellarmine doth proue by eight examples out of Scriptures the quite contrary to wit that fayth and iustice being once had may be lost againe What will M. Bâ—â—low answere to all this wil not his friends blush for him in this behalfe Or will not euery iudicious Reader make a pause here and say that it is a strange misery of a cause in religion which cannot be defended but with such grosse palpable falshoods Let vs leaue theÌ„ these obiected contradictions and passe to some other things The Cardinal hath answered al the rest him selfe nor did I think it good that wrot besore him to preuent him therin nor yet to â—asse any further hauing proued these first foure to be such as now you haue seene though M. Barlows defence hath made the matter far worse OF THE CONTENTIONS OF SVNDRY OTHER EMPEROVRS KINGS AND PRINCES with Popes of their times in temporall affaires obiected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Popes Superiority VVHERIN many fraudes and forgeries are discouered in M. Barlow particulerly concerning Fredericke the second and his contentions with Popes CHAP. V. THis argument of the temporall dangers imminent to Princes as is pretended by acknowledging the Popes supreme Authority and of so many hurts and dangers ensuing therof though we haue â—omwhat largely handled before by occasion of the examples obiected of the Emperours Henry the 4. and Henry the 5. yet here are we forced to reâ—teratâ— the same argument againe for that many more examples are obiected concerning the sayd Henry the fourth his doing pennance at the Caâ—tle of Canusium inforced therunto by Pope Gregory the 7. as also of the Emperour Fredericke the 1. forced by Pope Alexander the third to lye a grooâ—e on his belly and to suffer the other to tread on his neck of Philip the Emperour sayd to be slaine by Otho at the Popes motion of the Emperour Fredericke the second excommunicated and depriued by Pope Innocentius the 4. procured afterward to be poisoned that Pope Alexander the third wrote to the Souldan to poison the Emperour sent him his picture to that effect that Pope Alexander the sixt caused the brother of Baiazetes the Turkish Emperour named Gemen to be poisoned at his brothers request and had two hundred thousand crowns for the same That our King Henry the second besides his going barefoote on pilgrimage was whipped vp and downe the Chapterhouse like a schoole boy and glad to â—scape so too That the Father of the moderne King of France was
and Clâ—ments Constituâ—ions before mentioned So teacheth Doctor Stapleton and the reason of his saying is for that the authority of the Church is the same now shal be vnto the worlds end as it was in the first ages to iudge of Scriptures when occasion is offered And if the Church should admit any such booke now into the Canon of holy Scriptures which was not held for Scripture before which yet is a case not like to fall out then should noâ— this booke be made Scripture by the Church but only declared to be such which was so from the beginning though not so knowne declared So as the Church in this case should not giue infallibility of truth vnto the booke but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost that this booke was such from the beginning though not so accepted So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in cyting Doctour Stapletons words first to conceale his first condition Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret if the holy Ghost should suggest the same vnto the Church and then these other two conditions if it were written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose to make M. Doctour Stapletons speach to appeare more naked and improbable but indeed it was to keep his old custome which is neuer commonly to relate things truly in all respects in any citation whatsoeuer His second obiection is out of Bishop Fisher VVho sayth quoth he that whatsoeuer the Pope with a Councell deliuereth vs to be belieued that is to be receiued as an Article of fayth which we graunting to be true do ad only this that it is to be vnderstood according to our former declaration and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it against â—uther out of Scotus saying Non quòd â—unc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but â—or that it did declare it to be true and to haue bene deliuered by God and this by direction of the holy Ghost promised by our Sauiour to the Church So sayth Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neyther the Church nor the Pope Head therof do pretend to make any new Article of fayth that was not in it selfe an article of fayth before yea and so belieued also fide implicita by implyed fayth in the faith of the Church but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to haue byn such from the beginning though not so knowne or declared and therfore men were not bound to belieue it fide explicita by expresse fayth as now they are after the Churches definition and declaration therof And that this is the common sense of all Catholicke Deuines according to my former wordes that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much adoe as though it were false is proued among other learned men of our dayes by Gregorius de Valentia whose wordes are that it is Sententia communis Theologorum the common opinion of Deuines for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors principall Schoolemen And his whole discourse founded vpon Scriptures Fathers Councells and other arguments consisteth in this that as whatsoeuer is now belieued by the Church for matter of fayth was in substance belieued before in all other precedent ages vnto Christes time actu fidei implicito by an implyed act of fayth that is to say the belieuing in generall whatsoeuer the Church belieued so many thinges are now belieued by the Church actu fidei explicito by expresse fayth which were not so belieued before for that the Church froÌ„ time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clearly and expresly which before were belieued by an implied faith only As for example the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the pâ—oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne as was afterward declared vnto vs by the Church but that it belieued the same yet may we not deny but that it belieued the same not fide expliciâ—a but implicita only And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications therof made by the subsequent Councels about the vnity of the Person differeÌ„t Natures in Christ that his Mother should be called the Mother of God were belieued implicitè by those of the Councel of Nyce and consequently were then also Articles of faith though they were not belieued by them explicitè as we are bound to do after the explication made by the Church Let vs conclude therfore with Bishop Fiâ—â—ers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tameâ—si nequeat Sumâ—â—â— Pontisex c. That albeit the Pope with a Councel that is to say the Catholick Church cannot make any thing true or false that is not true or false of it selfe and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith yet whatsoeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs as an Article of faith that al true Christians ought to belieue as an Article of faith which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth Thus Bishop Fisher whome you see how impertinently M. Barlow alleadgeth against my assertion saith the very same that I do Let vs go forward Thirdly then he obiecteth S. Thomas of Aquine who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith some more large and some more briefe demandeth to whome appertayneth noua Editio Symboli the new Edition of a Creed when the necessity of new heresies doth require And he sayth it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church And what is this against me Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed though he were not Pope with addition of many Articles for explanations sake which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed though in substaÌ„ce of truth they were nothing different Did not diuers Councells set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before All which standeth vpon this ground so much pondered by â— Irenaeus that the Apostles had all truth reuealed vnto them by Christ and they left the same in the Church so as whatsoeuer is or hath or shal be added afterward by the said Church are only explications of that first reueiled truth and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the coÌ„trary is to no purpose at al for he citeth diuers authors for that which we deny not but yet alwaies commonly with addition of some vntruth of his owne as heere he alleadgeth out of the Iesuit Azor that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei Doctrines of faith which we deny not but when he addeth that this belongeth vnto the Pope only and not to a Councel this is his owne inuention for Azor ioyneth them