know or at leastwise will not confesse it for that he remayneth not perswaded therof and consequently vncertaine I might name for example those two words of Essence or Propriety thrust in heere eyther of ignorance or ostentation without sense or purpose For what is truth or propriety that â—assiers vncertainty The man would seeme to speake proâ—oundly and so exceedeth his owne capacity But let vs heare him further It is hypocrisy saith he not righteousnes which is not true if not righteousnes then not inhereÌ„t Whereunto I answere that this is not true which he saith first for that all defect of true righteousnes maketh not hypocrisy but onely when a man pretendeth to be iust and is not But if a man should doubt whether his righteousnes be perfect or no which is our case then were it no hypocrisy at all and if it were then were it inherent hypocrisy in the hypocrite which is contrary to the other inference of M. Barlow that if it were not true and perfect righteousnes it were not inherent for that be it true or false perfect or vnperfect such as it is it must needs be inherent in the subiect which it doth denominate And this is M. Barlowes wise discourse about the first part of his two-membred proposition of incertitudo rei personae incertainty of the thing it selfe or of the person to wit of righteousnes it selfe or of him that hath it Now he commeth vnto the second about the person saying If the vncertainty be of the person then the second part of the proposition concerning merit is cut of for merit raiseth a confidence but where there is no comfort there can be no confidence and in vncertainty there is no comfort Which speach is so prudently vttered as how many inferences so many plaine falsities there be in the same As first that where there is no comfort there can be no confidence For that Iob in his tribulations was greatly abandoned of comfort and yet he said to God Albeit thou shalt kill me yet will I hope in thee and it is an ordinary thing with God to take away oftentimes sensible comforts from good men who notwithstanding do not loose their confidence in him and his mercies for the same The other proposition also is false that in vncertainty there is no comâ—ort For then would no man labour to obtaine any thing wherof he were not certaine no merchants would aduenture to the seas being vncertaine of their gaine no suters would come to LondoÌ„ to feed Lawiers being vncertaine what successe they shall haue and fâ—nally not onely common experience but also common sense doth conuince these propositions to be ridiculous and so I meane to spend no more time in examining them but will pasâ—e to the examining of the other three propositions or resolutions of Cardinall Bellarmine before mentioned In the meane space you see how well and substantially M. Barlow hath proued hitherto the contradiction of the third proposition against his fiue whole bookes of Iustification wherewith notwithstanding he saith the Cardinall was so pressed as he gasped for wind wheÌ„ I stept in to help him He steppes saith he to Bellarmine oâ—er whome as if the Cardinall were gasping for breath vnder the blow he hath recieued for his contradictions he braues it with some â—hetoricall â—lorishes c. This is his confidence which I grant commeth not of merits but of onely faith or rather presumption and therefore I meane not to impugne it He saith then concerning my answere before set downe out of my Letter first of all that Bellarmines case standing so bad in it selfe as it did I mâ—de it farre worse by seeking to assist him and for proof hereof he saith that I supposing the Cardinall to handle the controuersy by questions and answeres wherby it seemes that I neuer read the place myselfe do summe vp the Chapter in way of InterogatioÌ„ solution Whereto first I answere that the many particulers which I do set downe out of that Chapter whence the proposition is taken aswell of Scriptures and other reasons must needs conuince M. Barlow that I had read the whole Chapter and so he cannot say this heere but against his owne conscience Secondly it is true that Bellarmine doth not handle those three assertions of his by the way of questions and solutions but onely by way of assirmatiue and resolute propositions But I thought it best and more cleare for the English Readers vnderstanding to frame the questions of my self and take the summe of his said propositions for answers and solutions to the same What can M. Baâ—low mislike in this He sayth that I haue wrongfully set down the Cardinalls meaning and namely in the first question and that there is no such thing in the whole Chapter Let vs examine then this The first question then said I is whether good works in a Christian man doe increase hope and confidence by their owne nature the promise of reward made vnto them And Bellarmine answereth that they do and proueth it by many places of Scripture Thus I said doth not Bellarmine allow this doctrine Or doth he not teach any such thing in this chapter Let the reader peruse it and blush for M. Barlow that affirmeth it But he giueth an instance saying Neither Bellarmine nor any other Deuine eyther Protestant or Papist will say good works increase confidence in their owne nature But good Syr is your nature such or lack of grace so great that you can speake nothing without manifest falshood I say that good works in a Christian man do increase hope and confidence by their owne nature the promise of reward made vnto them I do ioyne two things togeather you doe separate them and cauiâ—l vpon one onely I doe speake of good workes in a Christian man to whom the promise of God is made of reward for good works you leaue out that and do speake of good workes as they may be in a Pagan and for the same cause you say in their own nature as coÌ„sidered in thâ—â—elus without Gods grace promise of reward I do â—ay that they do increase hope and coÌ„fidence by their owne â—â—ture and Gods promise of reward Wherby I doe meane that being workes so qualified they do of themselues and by their owne nature of meritorious works increase hope and confidence in the worker though he for his part do not place any confidence in them These then are the first corruptions vsed by M. Barlow vpon my words Why did he alter them and not recite them as I set them downe But let vs see a second proofe of his He alleadgeth Card. Bellarmine against me saying that he distinguisheth betweene good workes and merits for that all good workes are not meritorious and so say I too For that good morall workes may be in Infidels as hath bene said for they may do almsdeeds other such good things but they cannot be meritorious for that they do not
3. pag. 524. An examination of certaine Sentences and Authorities of ancient Fathers alleadged by Cardinall Bellarmine in his Letter to M. Blackwell and impugned by M. Barlow CHAP. VI. pag. 536. THE PREFACE TO THE READER IN VVHICH are laid open some few examples of the singular Ignorance Lying and other bad dealings of M. Barlow in his Answere to the Censure of the Apology THREE thinges gentle Reader at the comming forth of this Booke may occur vnto thy mynd in which thou mayst perhaps desire some satisfaction First the cause why so idle a worke as M. Barlowes Answere is knowne and taken to be should be answered at all by so graue and learned a man as F. Persons was Secondly why this Answere is published so late after his death And last of all what opinion is to be had of M. Barlowes talents learninâ— methode in answering or what others heere do iudge of the same And albeit this latter may seeme to some to be of least moment for that one aduersary most commonly will hold an others writing in highest contempt and therfore from them so much interessed no sound iudgement may be expected yet do I thinke it very necessary to insist most thereon or rather am forced to the same for that M. Barlow is so desirous of honour as like the Ape he thinketh his owne whelp fayrest and himselfe will needs perswade his Maiesty that he hath so answered as that no sound Reply can euer be made thereunto Wherfore as well for thy instruction good Reader as also to rectify M. Barlowes iudgement which in this seemeth to be very erroneous and to teach him to examine his conâ—cience better before he presume againe so far as eyther to promise to a Prince or put forth in print I shall set downe my opinion worth of his Booke and that vpon no other grounds then I shall produce out of the Booke it selfe whereby thou shalt haue more light to discerne in this affaire betweene vs and M. Barlow lesse cause to complaine of any hard measure seeing that against M. Barlow nonâ— is brought to plead but M. Barlow himselfe 2. To the first point then this briefly I answere that F. Persons hauing seene the base manner method of writing which M. Barlow houldeth through his whole Booke esteemed the worke not worthy of any answere and so resolued with himselfe to be silent therein and in lieu of refuting this answere to set forth the other two parts of Resolution so long before promised by him and so much desired of the Catholiks in England which whiles he went about to doe a Copy of this answere of M. Barlow came to the Inquisitors hands and was by them sent to the said Father with order to refute the same perswading themselues that a booke of that bulke argument written by a preteÌ„ded Prelate dedicated to his Maiesty could not but beare some shew of learning and therfore was not to be left vnanswered And that good opinion got M. Barlow by writing in English for could these haue but vnderstood what was written with what modesty and learning he may be sure F. Persons should neuer haue bene troubled with the sight therof but a shorter course had byn taken by casting it into the fire the fittest element to purge such vnsauoury filth as euery where he belcheth forth in the same against all sortes of men wherof you shall hardly fynd any one page to be void 3. Now for the stay which hath bene made in the setting forth of this worke seeing that the said Father dispatched what he wrote in lesse then 4. moÌ„ths it being now more then 4. tymes as much since his decease hath especially proceeded vpon the manifold other incumbrances variable disposition of body wherwith that party hath bene troubled to whome the worke was committed to be finished as himselfe coÌ„fesseth in the very entrance of the first Chapter of his Supplement which he intended to haue set forth with this Booke but growing to so great a bulke by reason of the manifold aduantages giuen by the Aduersary it was thought better in the end that it should goe forth a part as making of it selfe a iust volume with some little enlargement or addition annexed thereunto in answere of some things obiected forged not well vnderstood or misalleadged by M. Doctour Andrews now of Ely concerning the matters by him handled in the Supplement whome togeather with M. Barlow he answereth with that grauity iudgement and learning as will content all yea euen his Aduersaryes themselues if by these meanes they were to be contented or if that the search of truth were the center of their motion and chiefe end of their endeauors and not contrarily with neglect contempt therof to speake placentia and write that which may pleasâ— their humors best by whome they hope to gaine most not regarding on which side equity and right doth stand so they withstand not them whose pleasure they make the square of their actions whose fauour they hold for their highest felicity 4. But touching the last point for that I meane to make it the subiect of this Preface I shall be more long not for any difficulty which I fynd in the thing it selfe for who but M. Barlow knoweth not what a weake writeâ— M. Barlow is and in all manner of learning insufficient but that the Reader by this example may see the weight and worth of Protestant writers how little regard is to be had to the bragging vauÌ„ting of their owne learning conquest ouer their Aduersaries for with such brauery of words as with figge-leaues they would couer their shame and nakednes whiles full well they see and feele the wound which euen pierceth pincheth them to the hart roote And commonly none brag more then those who performe least or vpon other occasion then when they are most vanquished and ouercome at least so it fareth often with M. Barlow who thus vauntingly telleth his Maiesty that he is one of a great number and a continuall succession which are ready for this cause and already câ—tred â—he combat and as the couragious Spartans were wâ—nt to sing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 try them when and wherein yow please And after speaking more particulerly of this Answere he saith In handling the mayne points I trust it will appeare that I haue neyther dallyed with him nor illuded the Reader so that for any sound Reply thereto I assure my selfe security from him And is not this very confidently spoken trow yow And is not this Minister well perswaded of himselfe and his owne learning that thus craketh Audiuimus superbiam Moab superbus est valde sed superbia eius arrogantia eius indignatio eius plus quà m fortitudo eius We haue heard the pride of Moab M. Barlow he is very proud but his pride and arrogancy and wrath is more then his strength 5. Neyther is this swelling
sola meritum is nothing els but meere foolery as shal be afterwards shewed 59. From Diuinity he comes to Logick making his entrance with a vaunting insultation of his Aduersaries ignorance and want of skill about the true nature of a contradiction In deliuering of which the poore man is so embroyled as he knoweth not what he saith but cleane mistaketh euery thinge which he speaketh of For first he supposeth that a conâ—radiction must be where some generall proposition â—ither expresly or implicatiuely is crossed by a particuâ—er but this is no equall and perfect diuision for that â— contradiction requireth not alwaies a generall proâ—osition but may be between two particuler so that â—he subiect remaine indiuisible to wit vnder one and â—he selfsame respect vnder them both For if I should â—ay that M. Barlow hath skill in Logicke though it be â—ery little and M. Barlow hath not skill in Logick â—gaine M. Barlow is Bishop of Barlowâ—s â—s not Bishop of Lincolne c. I do not doubt but that â—e would thinke these propositions though both parâ—iculer to be truly contradictory and consequently his â—wne supposition to be false as that also is very fond â—hich for explication of his expresse and implyed conâ—radiction he ioyneth saying contradictionâ—n â—n negato the other in opposito or adiecto of the first â—ort are these examples wherin the negatiue note is expresâ—ed as omnis homo est aliquis non est of the second â—ort are such wherin the note negatiue is omitted and yet â—ne member ouerthrowes another So M. Barlow out of Logick And this as I said is very fond for that it is not â—f the nature of a contradiction in adiecto to be impliâ—d but rather the contrary to be expressed in termes â—t being all one with that which is called implicantia â—n terminis an implicancy or contradiction in the â—ery termes themselues For example If I should say M. Barlow is a brute beast the adiectum or terminus â—rute beast destroyeth the subiect to wit M. Barlow whose behauiour though it be often tymes very bruâ—ish and beastly yet is he by nature a man and that also a very naturall one 60. But the greatest mistaking and ignorance of all the rest is in the example which he maketh of this his implyed contradiction for hauing made this proposition Euery Bishop of Rome is vnder Christ the immeatate and sole chief Pastour of the whole Church in the Christian world this saith our Philosopher may be contradicted two wayes first expresly Some Bishop oâ— Rome is not the immediate and sole chief pastour c. Thiâ— is a contradictory with the negatiue Secondly it may be crossed by implicatioÌ„ as thus The patriarch of Constantinople is vnder Christ the immediate and sole chief pâ—stour of the Eastâ—rne Church This though it be a contradiction in opposito yet doth it as mainly oppose thâ— former generall proposition as if it had a negatiue noâ— c. Thus far M. Barlow as good a Philosopher aâ— M. Morton who though he professe to haue bene â— Reader of Logick yet shaped vs out a syllogisme oâ— six termes to proue Equiuocation in an oath to bâ— vnlawfull such great Deuynes are these menâ— as they know not the first elements of this faculty For haâ— not M. Barlow bene exceeding ignorant of the first rule and necessary condition of a contradiction â— which is that both parts câ—nnot togeather be eytheâ— true of false he would neuer haue giuen this for aâ— example seeing himself neyther belieueth the Bishop of Râ—mâ— to be head of the whole or Patriarke of Constantinople of the Easterne Church And where theâ— is the contradiction And is not M. Barlow well seenâ— in Philosophâ— who chooseth out an example to proue a contradiction in which euen in his owne opinion there is no contradiction at all Truly I may well suspect that he neuer came to be Bishop â—f Lincolne for his learning which euery where he â—heweth to be lesse then meane and therfore ouerlaâ—heth without measure but for some other inferiour quality little perhaps befitting that calling Let vs to make him conceaue his errour the better exemplifie in some more familiar examples The L. of Canterbuâ—y is Primate of all and euery part of England and â—he L. of Yorke is Primate of all the North part is with me no contradiction for that I hold both propositions to be false and neyther of them both to haue any Primacy at all in that Church and as the later will not claime it so M. Abbots may be sure I will not assigne it vnto him whome I doe as much hold to be Abbot of Wâ—stminster as Bishop of Cantâ—râ—ury And the like must M. Barlow needs say of his two propositions for that neyther of them in his iudgmeÌ„t â—s true and therefore are more contrary then contradictory as are also these omnis homo currit nullus homo currit and the like 61. Wherefore if it be as M. Barlow will needs haue it our very case in hand euen by the verdict of all skilfull Philosophers in the world the Cardinall will be quit at least from a contradiction and it is but childish babling yet very frequent in M. Barlow to make the oppositioÌ„s of the termes theÌ„selues saying that hâ—re is a double contradictioÌ„ both subiecti praedicaâ—i the Patriarke of Constantinople crosseth the Bishop of Rome the Eastâ—rnâ— Church and the whole world contradict ech othâ—r implicitely This I say is but babling for there is as great opposition between the former two propositions before set downe as in this Cantâ—rbury crâ—ssâ—th Yorke all England the north parts And againe omnis cannot stand with nullus currit with non currit and yet he will sooner bring Constantinople to Romeâ— and Yorke to Canterbury then proue any contradictioÌ„ to be in the same But let vs draw to an end of M. Barlows dispute 62. I passe ouer the rest he addeth concerning this matter although his chiefest fraud and cosenage be conteyned in the same For of an exhortatiue proposition in the Cardinall he maketh an absolute and necessary by cogging in the words is must thus mans confidence is to be reposed in the alone mercy of God and some confidence of man must be placed in his owne merits which are his owne forgeryes and not the Cardinalls assertions and then further in falsly charging F. Persons as though he said that good workes increase confidence in their owne nature and therfore will needs haue his doctrine to be condemned by Pius V. amongst other like assertions of a Louain Doctor but all is forgery for the Father speaketh not of our workes as alone they proceed from vs but as they proceed also from Gods grace within vs and for that cause calleth them the good workes of a ChristiaÌ„ it is vnchristian dealing in this Prelate to say that this proposition was euer condemned by Pius V. or any other Pope or Councell who only
when it was vsed to any person to wâ—om the title oâ— higher dignity by common intendment was due as iâ— a man should say Maistâ—r Chancellour M. Treasurer M. Earle M Archbishop and the like But lâ—t vs sâ—e the wily winding of M. Barlow here for that â—â—â—ding himsâ—lfe much pâ—â—ssed with these examples he â—ound this deuiâ—e to shiâ—t them of Sâ—ch a digniâ—y quoth he it may be that Maâ—sâ—â—r prefixed beâ—ore it may prâ—â—e a diminishing terme but if you put it to the Syrname of any man it is an addition of â—orsâ—ip aâ—candalum â—candalum Magnatum Wâ—eâ—â—tâ— I answer that this shiâ—t is more fond then the former But let vs come to the practice of this deuise let a Sutâ—r at the Court or Counâ—ell â—or gayning the good â—ill and fauour of the Counâ—ellours bâ—gin with this additioÌ„ oâ— worship to their Sâ—rnames saying inâ—teed oâ— Lord Chauncellour M. Fgerton I haue this or that â—ute wherein I craue fauour so also Maisâ—er â—ecill inâ—â—eâ—d of Lord â—reasurer M. Howard M. â—albot others in 〈◊〉 of Honours and Lordshippes would Maister Bâ—â—low thinke to obtayne more â—auour by this addition of worâ—hip to theyr Syrnames or did he vse perhaps this manner of speach when he crouched to them and his Maâ—esty â—or gaining the Bishoprick which he now posâ—esâ—â—th or will he teach this magisteriall doctrine o courtesy to be practised in the Court at this day How many scholleâ—s and disciples were he like to haue thâ—rin but among other examples one there is wherin glâ—dly I wâ—uld haue his answer He profesâ—eth himselfe a great and singulâ—r seruitour of the Queene past and if this doctrine oâ— Maâ—ster do hold in men of neuer so great honour for addition of worship if it be giuen to the Sâ—rnâ—me then bâ— like proportion also it must hould in the word Mistâ—â—sse giuâ—n to the Sâ—rname of women tâ—â—ugh neuâ—r so grâ—at or Honorable Yf then Maister Barlow had gone vnto the sâ—yd Queene in neuer so good â— disposition yea when he had betrayed his Maister the â—arle of Essex for her sake and had preached againâ—t him that horrible Sermon which he did aâ—ter his death and should haue sayd vnto her Good Mistresâ—e Tydder this and this haue I done for your cause I hope you wil reward me what reward would you thinke that she would haue bestowed vpon him for so great a courtesy And this shal be sufficient to shew the vanity of this euasion wherein he pleaseth himselfe very much and entertayneth his pen for diuers pages as I haue said pretermitting three or foure other inâ—tances of mine of much more force for prouing my coniecture that his Maiestie himselfe penned not the Apologie promising to answer them after in their due place but this place had bene most due to the matter in hand if the Minister had found himselfe ready and sufficiently fraught with substance to refute them and therfore it is to be presupposed he would not haue pretermitted the occasion for shew at least of some furniture in this beginning for so much as he hunteth so greedily after all occasions to say somewhat though nothing to the purpose at all Well then thus remayneth the argument of this first Paragraph about the true Author of the Apology which now his Maiestie confesseth to be his somewhat discussed as you haue heard the rest remayning for the place that M. Barlow hath promised to say more thereof afterwardes The summe of all hitherto treated being that I and infinit others being strangers to that which was done in secret thinking it not conuenient nor dutifull for any subiect of his Matiâ— to ascribe vnto so great a Prince a thing that might be denyed afterwards or called in controuersy by many I did vpon the reasons alleadged perswade my selfe that it was the doing of some of his Maiesties Chaplaines namely of Maister Thomas Montague as before I haue said by some generall licence or approbation of his Highnes rather then to haue bene penned by his Maiesty himselfe And vpon this ground did I frame my Letter and iudgâ—ment to my friend in England with all modâ—sty râ—uerence and due respect vnto his Maiesties person though sometymes I was forced by the very curreÌ„t of the matter it selfe and by the iniurious dealing as to me it seemed oâ— the supposed Author to be more quick and earnest with him then I would haue bene if I had but imagined his Maiestie to haue bene the writer theroâ— Whereby also appeareth the present iniquity of this other Minister VVilliam Barlow who in all this Answer of his doth peremptorily conioyne himselfe with the person of the Prince whose champion he maketh himselfe to be reapeating all the wordes of the Apologer whom I tooke to be no better then himselâ—e as the wordes of the King and my confutation as a confutation of his Maiestie wherin he doth me open iniury for that Erâ—or Pâ—rsona mut at casum say both Lawyers and Deuines and he ought to haue taken me in the sense meaning that I supposed whether it were true or false For as if in an euening when it waxeth darke a man should meet one whom â—e thinketh to be his enemy to haue greatly abused him should vse sharp speach vnto him according to his supposed deserts and that this party should not be his enemy indeed but rather his great friend or Superiour he could not haue an action against him that vttered these former words out of opinion that he was his enemy had abused him so much lesse here in this mistaking in so great obscurity of darkenes there being so many probabilities and coniâ—ctures to the contrary as now you haue heard Wherfor I must require at M. Barlowes hands to lay down this deuise and to râ—peate my words throughout my whole Letter aâ— spoâ—en to Thomas Montague or some other of his state condition according to my perswasion and supposition at that tâ—me and not to his Maiâ—stie and as often as he dotâ— otherwise he offereth me open iniury as he doth to â—iâ— Maiestie also and maketh himselfe ridiculâ—â—â—â—o others And with this condition shall we end tâ—is â—irâ—t Paragraph and passe to the rest OF THE PRETENDED Cause of the new Oath which is sayd to be the Powder-Treason §. II. NEXT after the coniectures handled about the Author oâ— the Apologie I comming in my Letter to touch the causes pretended of presâ—ure to Catholikes by this new exacted oath I proposed some of the Apologers words in his Preamble concerning the detestatioÌ„ of the Powder-treason in which detestation though I willingly ioyned with him yet complayned I of the iniquity of some that vrged continually the hatred therof against innocent men for them that were culpable contrary to his Maiesties honorable meaning as appeared by the words vttered both in his Proclamation speach in the Parlament To which passage of mine M. Barlow coÌ„ming to answer setteth downe first my words and discourse
being in the iudiciall part then is there required power in the will or appetite to choose or refuse freely without ballancing on eyther part eyther by feare hurt preferment hatred interest or other potent and forcible impositions By which doctrine if you ponder well you shall find that Catholikes had not free choice to sweare the Oâ—th when losse of goods and lands do ballance on one side nor you perhaps M. Barlow may be said to haue free power or liberty to refuse it for so much as the current of the time the Princes fauour the weight of so fat a benefice as the Bishoprick of Lincolne is and other crummes that you haue gathered togeather and hope to increase do so powerâ—ully preponderate on the one side that you haue your iudgment so fast fixed to that obiect as the sheepe by nature hath hers And if you haue not this tye or indetermination in your iudgement yet in your will and affection which is sufficient to make you no free-man from which thraldome Almighty God deliuer you who onely can do it and breake your bandes For as our Sauiour saith If the sonne of God deliuer you then shall you be truly free indeed And so much of this matter concerning our freedome to sweare or not to sweare wherin I haue detayned my self some what longer then I had purposed for that it is the most principall question of this our controâ—â—â—sy whether there be free election giuen in taking the Oath or nâ— ABOVT RECOVRSE MADE to the Bishop of Rome for decision whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English Catholiks or no wherin also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations §. VI. AND now hauing followed M. Barlow thus farre in this controuersy we must turne back againe some pages to take the whole argument with vs which he had ouerrunne to handle the question of freedome before meÌ„tioned And first he telleth vs that when the Oath came forth and was vrged the Garnettistes did differ from the Blackâ—eâ—iâ—tes some aâ—â—owing Equiuocation saith he in matters of â—aith and others noâ— which is a notorious vntruth For the question was not whether the Oath might be taken with Equiuocation but whether it might lawfully be takeÌ„ as it lay with a good exposition wherin some difference being found of opinionâ— it seemed a iust cause to referre the decision to the vniuersall Pastour about which point M. Barlow dealeth not vprightly as commonly neuer he doth in alleaging my words but with notorious corruptions I shal be forced to repeat againe briefly what I then said My wordes were these What should Catholikes do they first consulted the case with learned a men at home then also abroad And albeit at home some were moued in respect of the compassion they had of the present perill if it were refused 〈◊〉 thinke that in some sense the Oath might be taken yet none abroad were of that mind For that they allowed 〈◊〉 of any sort of Equiuocation in matters touching faith and religion And in these I hearesay that the Iesuites were among the chiefe and most forward as heere also is confessed who notwithstanding before were most accused bayted and exagitated both in bookes pulpits and tribunalls for allowing in some points the lawfull vse of Equiuocation About which doubt Catholikes according to their rule of subordination and spirituall obedience in such affaires referring the matter to the iudgement and consultation of their supreme Pastour whome by the principles of their religion they belieue that our Sauiour giueth assistance for the direction of mens soules they receyued from him after due deliberation this answere That the whole Oath as it lay could not be admitted with the integrity of Catholike faith For that albeit diuers parts therof were lawfull to wit all such clauses as appertayned to the promise of ciuil and temporall obedience yet other things being interlaced and mixt therwith which doe detract from the spirituall authority of their said highest Pastour at least wise indirectly the whole Oath as it lyeth was made thereby vnlawfull And this I vnderstand to be the substance of the Popes resolution and answer though all these particularities be not set downe in his Breues but only the Oath declared to be vnlawfull in conscience to Catholike men as it lieth without distinction And what malicious tricke of the Diuel then this may be thought where sheepe do make recourse to their spirituall Pastour in so great and important occasions of their soules as these are I see not Doe English Catholicks any other thing in this then that which all English subiects both great small learned vnlearned haue done and practised from our first Christian Kinges â—ntill the tiâ—e of King Henry the eight vpon the point of a 〈◊〉 and yeares Let tâ—e answere to Syr Edward Cooks Book oâ— Reportes lately set forth be examined wether it doth not shâ—w that in all those ages recourse was euer made to the Sea Apostolicke in like occasions without preiudice of subâ—ects temporall duties to their temporall Princes No one English Christian King though they were many did euer aâ—solutely deny recourse to Rome in spirituall thinges notwithstanding in some other ciuill or mixt matters vpon different occasions some restraints were sometimes made froÌ„ our first King Ethelbert to King Henry the Eight as by the said discourse and answere is euidently proued and much more throughout the whole â—anke of the Christian Kings of Scotland his Maiesties Progenitours vntill his most Renowned Progenitrix by whome and from whom he hath his Royall Right of both Crownes who is knowne and reputed throughout Christendome to haue died for defence of this Catholike Doctrine For so much as if she would haue abandoned that there had bene little doubt of making her away And the like may be said of all other great Christian Catholicke Princes of our daies as the Emperour himselfe the Potent Kinges and Monarches of Spaine France Polonia and other States Common-wealthes and Poâ—entates doe not thinke it any disgrace diminution of honour perill or iniury vnto them that their subiects for matters of conscience doe make recourse to the Sea Apostolicke or that which is consequent thereof the said Sea or generall Pastour doe interpose his iudgement declaration or decision in such affaires This is the Catholike doctrine practice this hath bene in vse throughout Christendome from all antiquity and no where more then in our Realmes of England Scotland as hath bene said In this beliefe and practice liued and died all our forefathers and our Noble Kinges that were our Soueraignes all our Bishops and Prelates that were our Pastours all our great Counsellours and Lawiers that by their wisdome learning gouerned the Land all our Nobility Gentry Priests Laity So as if now this be houlden for a malicious tricke oâ— the Diuel dishâ—â—â—â—â—ble and preiudiciall to his Maiesty his Soueraignty Crowne Dignity
out of Plato Aristophanes and other Greeke Authors may be proued And albeit I will not stand to defend that in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Barlow doth wrong Plutarke and Gracchus in translating headdy vndertaker rather then magnanimous yet doth he offer them open iniury in translating the other epithete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a rash speaker whereas indeed it signifyeth to Graccâ—us his praise a prompt and ready man in speaking eloquent copious and the like But as for the other exprobrations of a most violent spirit impatient of contradiction and the rest he abuseth â—gregiously both Gracchus Plutarke for not only are those reproaches not found there as applyable to Gracchus but the very contrary is sayd of him and therin is he preferred before his brother Caius in these words of Plutarke Vulâ—u obtutu motu blaâ—dâ— erat compositus Tyberius acer Caius vehemeÌ„s Deinde or atiâ— sulnâ—nans Caij dulcior Tyberij pari modo in victu mensa frugalis sâ—â—rplex Tyberius c. lenis etiam placidus confragosus alter seruidus Tyberius both in countenance and motion was aâ—â—â—ble and composed Caius sharpe and vehement and consequently to this the Orations of Caius were thundering but those of Tyberius more sweete and in like manner Tyberiâ—â— was more frugall and simple in his dyet and table then his brother Caius he was also very gentle and pleasing in his behauiour and speach but the other was rough and feruent c. Now then let the prudent reader see and consider how all this doth agree to the description of Tyberiâ—â— set downe by M. Barlow and how true a man he is in all his assertions And how false soeuer he was in the allegation certaine it is that he dealt most wickedly in the application of all to the person of his Holines that now liueth And this much shall suffice about this matter It followeth pag 27. 28. after he had discharged such a storme against the Popes owne person as now you haue heard for his medling in this Oath and giuing his decisioÌ„ therof he sayth that this was to be Iudg in his owne cause alleaging a Poet for his proofe about sur latro one pleading at the barre the other sitting at the bench But doth not the malicious man see that this his cauillation toucheth the interest of all Princes as though they might not be Iudges or giue sentence in cases wherein themselues haue a part if law stand with theÌ„ For to cause other men to do it in their name by their authority is as much as to do it themselues And what did the Pope more in this case theÌ„ this making a decision by counsaile of his learned men according to Christian law that this case of England touched points of Religion concerning the Sea Apostolick which authority no Pope can infringe or diminish without sinne if he would for that it was giueÌ„ not only to him but to his antâ—cessors and successors in like maÌ„ner to indure for the good of the whole Church to the worlds end But saith M. Barlow it had bene plaine dealing in the Pope if before he had sent his Breues of Interdiction he had acquainted his Maiâ—stie with encounters of doubt that bred the quarrell and the ouer-swaying reason that carried him to the negatiue Very wisely spoken and worth the wit of M. Barlow And would his Maiesty haue admitted the messenger or message who seeth not that there is nothing heere but trifling and caueling But I may adde also scoulding for he breaketh presently into a most desperate blast of rayling against F. Persoâ—s calling him trayterous Absolom that careth not to set his â—â—â—e friendes land yea to see his natiue soile on a light fire so he may purchase the Popes fauour All which is spoken with much passion little reason for that the probability is much more that Maister Barlow flattereth the Kinges Maiesty for hope of preferment whereof he is capable and hath gotten possession of a good part already then â—a Persons the Pope whose state and condition of life hath no need of such preferment nor can it be proued that euer Father Persons spake for a fee forward and backward as M. Barlow hath done in his best Patrones cause As for the authority of the sixt Councell of Carthage about appellations to Rome noted in the margent it is not worth the answering both for that the words nor sense alleadged by him are there found and the controuersie about Appeales to Rome from Africa is so handled by me at large in my last Reckoning with M. Morton and he found so faulty and defectuous in that accomptâ— as if M. Barlow will take vpon him to pay that debt and to answer that only Paragraph for him I shall say that he is his friend indeed Wherefore I expect the euent In the very next lines following M. Barlow doth so brokenly recite my wordes about Mâ—â—â—is aliena another mans haruest for so did the Apologer write that English Catholikes are to the Pope that he maketh neyther me nor himselfe to be vnderstood Read I pray you his relation of my wordes pag. 29. numb 5. and see whether you can vnderstand him about Mâ—ssâ—â—aliena My words were plaine inough for thus I wrote page 12. numb 20. by him cited For first about putting the Popes hooke in anoâ—â—er mans haruest supposing as we do that we â—â—â—aâ—e of Catâ—olike people onely and according to Catholike doctrine and in matters belonging to Catholike mâ—ns soules and consciences it cannot be called Messisaliâ—na another mans haruest that the Pope dealeth in England with such kind of people in such cases as well as in Spaine France Flaunders Italy Germany Polonia and other States and kingdomes for that they are no lesse appertayning to his â—â—ock care charge and haruest then the rest Neyther doth the materiall separation of our Iland separate vs from the vnion of one body nor of one obedience to one and the selfe same generall head and Pastour no more then it doth froÌ„ the vnion of one beliefe and of one number and forme of Sacraments of one manner of seruice and other like pointes belonging to the internall and externall vnity of Catholike Religion And is not this plaine inough How doth he reply You shall heare it in his owne wordes and he will so imbroyle himselfe therin as he will let fall neere halfe a dozen of absurdities ignorances and open falsities by the way Do you stand attent then â— thus he bringeth his answere to my former discourse of Messis aliena This is a 〈◊〉 argument no doubt quoth he the Pope hath to do in England saitâ— the Censurer because some Catholikes suppose he hath but before this supposall be brought into a positiue resolute conclusion it will aske a longer time then such a Pamphlet c. Where you see first that he quite mistaketh me eyther
to be deceiued with the difficulty of this question let him take counsaile of the Church meaning thereby the vniuersall knowne Catholike Church they hauing abandoned this way of Diâ— Ecclesiae tell the Church and of recourse thereunto as to the Columna firmamentum veritatis the pillar and stay of truth so called by S. Paul what remayneth then to theÌ„ for their vltima resolutio but their owne heads and priuate iudgments which are those fancyes oâ— their own braynes which M. Barlow recyted before our of S. Augustine And this shall I make manifest by the ensuing example Yf fiue or six learned men of different ReligioÌ„s should meet togeather in Germany or Transiluania to wit a Roman Catholike a Hussite an Arrian a Trinitarian a Lutheran a Zuinglian or a Caluinist for that all these different Religions are there publikely professed and both by speaches books and sermons preached and maintayned and that you should demauÌ„d of each one of these the reason of his fayth and his vltima resolutio or last rest about the same you should find their answers far diâ—fereÌ„t For if you should demand of the Catholicke for example why he belieueth the Reall Presence he would answere you because it is reuealed by God If you aske him further how he knoweth it is reuealed by God he will say it is conteined in his word eyther written or vnwritten or both Yf you aske him againe how he knoweth it is coÌ„teined in Gods word in that sense that he defends it he will answere for that the knowne Catholike Church doth tell him so by whose authority he is taught what is Gods word and how it is to be vnderstood And if you demand of him further how he knoweth the Church to haue such authority and the Roman Church to be the Catholike Church he will alledg for the former diuers Scriptures acknowledged also by the opposite Sectaries as that before mentioned wherin she is called The pillar and stay of truth and for the second he will alledge so many demonstrations of the beginning growth increase continuance succession and visible deâ—cent of that Church confirmed from time to time with so many miracles other manifest proofes and arguments of credibility as no man in reason can contradict the same so as his vltima resolutio or last stay is vpon the Church testifying vnto vs tâ—e word of God and testified by the same But now the other fiue though neuer so learned in their profession will not answere you thus but being demaunded euery one of them seuerally why they are of that peculiar sect more then of any other and why they are different from the Catholicke in the former article of Reall Presence they will all answere conformably for the first step that they doe build vpon the word of God yea the writteÌ„ word only But if you go a step further demand of them how they know that this written word is well vnderstood by them for so much as they are of fiue different Religions founded by them all vpon the same written word here now they cannot passe any further to the foresaid Catholike Church for finall resolutioÌ„ as the first did for that they all do impugne her but ech man must defend his different interpretation of that written word by his owne iudgement or els by the iudgement of his owne Congregation and Sect which in effect is the same So as these fiue learned men do remaine irreconciliable as you see for want of a ground from whence to take their vltima resolutio and do shew themselues according to the former speaches of Vincentius and S. Austine both Heretikes and Idolatours in that following the â—ule resolution of their owne heads they adore as many Gods as they haue selfe-conceipts for ground of their fayth And will you say that this poynt of vltima resolutio was wisely brought in by M. Barlow being a thing wherby himselfe and his are condemned to haue no last resolution or certayne ground at all for their beliefe but only their owne â—eads But oh sayth he you depend for resolution vpon the Pope which is so vncertaine as what one Pope decrees another disallowes But I haue now answered that we depend vpon the Catholicke Church as propounding vnto vs and expounding Gods word and we depend of the Supreme Pastour as head of that Church vnto whoÌ„ we rest assured by Gods owne word and promise that he will assist him with his spirit for all resolutions in matters of fayth which shal be necessary for his sayd Church nor can M. Barlow prooue that what one Pope decrees in these matters of fayth another disallowes One of them may well alter matters of policy gouernment Ceremonies or the like but for poynts of fayth we do allow M. Barlow sixteene hundred yeares to seeke them out And if in so long time he could haue produced but one true example I suppose we should haue had it I doe willingly pretermit a great deale more of idle impertinent speach which M. Barlow vseth about this matter of Catholiks Consciences â—hewing indeed to haue little himselfe nor yet to know well what it meaneth and much lesse speaketh he to the present purpose For he telleth vs first that if pressure of conscience may serue for good Plea of Recusancy to Princes lawes there is neyther malefactor for crime nor hereticke for schisme but that will make that his Apology Wherunto I answere that causes persons merits and demerits are to bee distinguished in this matter and not to be confounded For what hath the malefactour for crime or hereticke for schisme to doe in this affaire From the first I thinke the aduersaries themselues will deliuer them or at leastwise theyr neyghbors among whome they dwell and as for the second of heresy and schisme we haue spoken now already sufficiently to shew where those imputations may and must lye not vpon the Catholickes who are opposite to that charge Secondly then he telleth vs that we lacke the light within vs which should driue away the darkenesse of our consciences and purge the eye therof from mist dust lime And vpon this he maketh vs an exhortation that we take heed of Caligo tenebrarum in this life that dusketh the eies of our vnderstanding to perdition especially by worldly delightes desire of honour and wealth this being puluis pigmentarius sayth he the Merchants dust which tickleth the eies and blindeth the sight of the wisest as do also enuy by emulation preiudice of affection wilfulnes by opposition which like vnto lyme tormenteth the eye and peruerteth the iudgement c. And is not this a very graue and serious exhortation comming from such a man as he is knowne to be so clearely inlightned as neyther mist nor dust nor lyme of ambition can sticke vpon a man so hating worldly delights honour and wealth as no part of this merchants dust can tickle his eyes Are not his mortifications
knowne His contempt of the world seene by his life and conuersation Is not his hate of ambition honour and wealth discouered by his voluntary pouerty aboundance of almes refusall of dignities temporall commodities Let his Parishioners testify for him But yet against vs he goeth forward telling vs that the Iewes veyle is spread ouer our harts and consciences and that by our owne wilfulnes errour and peeuishnes Item to a corrupt stomake yea the lightest meats are troublesome but cleansed it will easily concoct and orderly digest the strongest food c. Which last direction of cleaÌ„sing the stomake to be able to concoct and put ouer the strongest foode being applied as M. Barlow applieth it to the purging of a mans conscience from feare therby not to haue scruple commeth very euill from his mouth who as they write from thence is held to haue so purged a conscience from all due feare of offending God by doing saying or swearing any thing which to the state or present Prince may be gratefull that already as I vnderstand the commonvoyce hath bene of him as of D. Shaw who in his Sermon betrayed his Lord Maisters Children whole Succession as this man I say in a like publike speach betrayed his dearest Patrones honour fame credit Wherfore he may talke of corrupted stomakes what he pleasâ— he may also talke of strong digestions no mans I thinke of his order though many be bad is knowne to be more corrupt then his owne As for Catholikes if in this poynt they â—ad corrupt stomakes they would neuer stand so much as they do and with so great losses vpon the contrary but would rather cleanse their stomakes of all feare make that strong digestion which here M. Barlow doth insinuate vnto them of putting ouer without scruple whatsoeuer is offered to be sayd long or sworne so it be plausible or commodious But now after all this he maketh his conclusion and the best comfort that he can giue to Catholickes is this For them sayth he who are to take the Oath if they refuse it the penalty is before them their conscience is free But now what freedome this is wee haue discussed before both out of Philosophy and Deuinity and M. Barlow hath bene shewed to vnderstand rightly neyther of them concerning this point but to haue shewed himselfe ridiculous in both But let vs heare yet what threat he addeth further of his owne to the former wordes The penalty sayth he is before them their conscience is free but his Maiestie no doubt will beware of them and the State obserue them as branded by the Apostle seduced by the error of Balaams wages and perishing in the contradiction of Corah and Dathan Here be wordes of great malice as you see but of small reason coherence or consequence For first why is there no doubt but that his Maiestie will beware of them if they pay the penalty of the Statute for not swâ—aring against any clause of their Religion and doe otherwise offer to sweare all temporall obedience Why should not wee thinke rather that his Maiestie will esteeme of them as of men that haue care of their consciences and consequently that being true to God wil be also true to him as Gods Substitute We know that one of his Maiesties most noble Ancestors yea Constantius Constantine the great his Father did make that argument and consequence when he proposed some like Oath to his Courtiers that might preiudice his Christian Religion the swearers he reiected the refusers he imbraced as more faithfull then the other and why may it not be hoped that his Maiestie out of his great wisedome and clemency will doe the same And why should these men be sayed here to be braÌ„ded by the Apostle sedâ—câ—â— by the error of Balaams wages perishing in the coÌ„tradiction of Corah and Dathan Is there any least similitude of these things against the Catholicks of England Wherin hath the Apostle branded them What hope of gayne what corruption of money what wages of Balaam hath seduced theÌ„ that suffer themselues to be so much spoyled impouerished for not swearing against their owne Consciences What contradiction of Corah and Dathan is there in them that offer all obedience and duty both to teÌ„porall spirituall Gouernours that which is due to Cesar to Cesar that which is due to God to God matters of the world life and goods vnto the King matters of the soule spirit life to come vnto those whome God hath appointed for gouerment of soules And this is no coÌ„tradiction of Corâ—â— and Dathan but the quite contrary of conformity in dutifull subordination only found in Catholicke men all Heretickes perishing indeed in the foresayd schisme and contradiction peculiar vnto them TOVCHING THE Exhibitours of the Oath and of Scandall actiue and passiue Wherein M. Barlowes grosse ignorance is discouered §. II. THIS hauing byn spoken principally in the behalfe of those that were pressed with the Oath there remayneth now the other member concerning the Exhibitours or those that vrge it about which my former speach in my Letter to my friend was this To the exhibitours of the Oath also quoth I I see not what blessing it could or can be so extremely to vexe other men without profit or emolument to themselues or to his Maiesties seruice which herein they would pretend to aduance For if there be any cause of doubt of loyall good will in theÌ„ that are forced to sweare against their consciences much more cause and reason may there be of like doubt after they haue so sworne then before For that the griefe of their new wound of conscience remayning still within them stirring them to more auersion of hart for the iniurie receiued must needes worke contrary effects to that which is pretended And whosoeuer will not stick to sweare against his conscience for feare fauour or some other like passion may be presumed that he will as easily breake his oath after he hath sworne vpon like motiues if occasion doe mooue him And among all other passions none is more strong tâ—â—n that of reuenge for oppressions receyued so as we read of the whole Monarchy of Spaine ouerthrowne and giuen to the Mores for one passion of Count Iulian whereby he desired to be reuenged of his King Roderiquez Nothing then is gayned in this behalfe of loyall good will by such extreme pressures but much rather lost Thâ—se were my words what cauill hath M. Barlow against them You shall heare it in his owne phrase They are extrauagant saith he from all Deâ—inity and Policy How proueth he this Nay no one word of proofe doth he alleadg it is inough for this Pithagoras to say it let the iudicious Reader iudge of it He goeth forward Of conscience we haue already spoken now for desperation No doubt Syr but you haue spoken substantially of conscience as before hath beene seene but of desperation I know not what you can say if
corruption in it either in life or doctrine as he pretendeth nor if it had in life doth it preiudice the truth of Doctrine as by the testimony of our Sauiours owne wordes wee remaine assured These two obiections then that the Roman Church for that she hath a determinate Prouince as also for that shee hath sundry euill liuers in her are shewed to bee of no force at all Not the later for that euill manners may stand with true doctrine not the first for that wee doe not say the Roman Church is the whole Catholick Church but a chiefe member thereof as hath bene sayd whereby also will appeare what wee meane by the name of the Catholicke Church to wit that visible vniuersall Church which being erected and founded by Christ our Sauiour when he was vpon earth hath continued euer since and descended visibly from age to age by succession of Bishops throughout all Christendome vnto our times and shall so continue vnto the worldes end by which description may appeare also how vaine another obiection is of M. Barlow in these wordes If Vincentius rule be true that that only is to be accounted Catholicke Doctrine quod semper vbique ab omnibus creditum est neyther shall Rome be proued Catholicke nor England hereticke when any of these is soundly determined then let him plead her Ius acquisitum VVhereto I answere that the rule of Vincentius is verified by that which I haue sayd before of the nature of the Catholicke Church to wit that it began vnder Christ and hath descended from age to age and so shee teacheth quod semper creditum est And for that she hath imbraced all nations she teacheth quod vbique in respect of place and for that shee hath vnion of Doctrine shee teacheth quod ab omnibus creditum est For albeit there hâ—â—â— not wanted hereticks from time to time that haue deâ—ised particuler doctrines and erected particuler congregations yet were they nothing in respect of the vniuersall consent of those of the Catholike Church whose Iâ—â— acquisitum or ancient right and power vpon all Heretickes for theyr correction and punishment I sayd was manifest for that by baptisme they were made her subiectes Vnto which point M. Barlow would seeme now to say somewhat though neuer so impertinent therefore he telleth vs a tale of an indument and a stripping to be considered in Baptisme vnder the wordes Credo and Abreâ—â—â—â—iâ— and that neyther the spirituall mystery nor the prescribed forme nor intended effect of Baptisme doe make him and his liable to Rome Whereunto I answere that the whole action in that Sacrament without so many diuisions and subdiuisions as here he maketh to obscure the matter doth make him and all other Christians liable to the Catholike Church For that euery man that is baptized as he is made a member and seruant of Christ therby and entreth into his Church as by the first dore soe is he made a subiect to the sayd Church and is liable to her correction if he should renounce change or peruert that fayth which there he professeth as a child of the sayd Church And all this I thinke M. Barlow will not deny but onely his question may be of such as are baptized out of the Catholike Church by some Hereticall Congregation yet notwithstanding the matter is cleare for that such baptisme houlding only so far forth as they haue intention to doe that in their baptisme which the true Catholicke Church doth and vse the forme of wordes which the sayd Church prescribeth to wit I baptize thee in the name of the Father◠〈◊〉 the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost for that otherwise if either of these conditions to wit eyther the forme or the intention of the Catholike Church doe faile the baptisme is not auaylable it is euident I say that such as are so baptized out of the Church are liable notwithstanding to the same for any offence that they shall commit against the fayth of the sayd Catholike Church for so much as their baptisme had relation to this Church as is now declared And albeit they be departed from the same eyther by their own wilfulnes or other menâ— inducemeÌ„ts yet remaineth stil that obligation of subiectioÌ„ Which superiority oâ— the Catholik Church practized froÌ„ time to time vpon Heretiks and Schismatikes that haue gone forth from her which the Aduersary will also graunt for sundry ages after Christ caÌ„not be pretended by the Protestant Church vpoÌ„ Catholiks for that we went not out of them but they out of vs which in England is most perspicuous For that since our first Conuersion by S. Augustine the Monke to Christian Religion it cannot be sayd with any shew of probability that euer there was a Protestant Church extaÌ„tâ— and visible or publickly receyued in our Country as the Roman hath bene and consequently wee English Catholikes cannot be said to haue gone out of them but they out of vs and soe by their baptisme and admission to Christianity they are liable to the Roman Catholike Church in matters of Religion not the Roman Church to them But now besids this reason of obligation by baptisme I do alledge another of former possession and prescription whereby the English Catholike Church hath had exercised this power of punishing Sectaries froÌ„ time to time wherunto M. Barlow answereth in a strange manner Possession saith he for hould and Prescription for time may be Pleas in ciuill Courtes but not sound arguments in case of Religion Which is so absurd an answere as nothing could more shew declare that he had nothing to say then this For if wee suppose that to be true which Christ our Sauiour affirmeth in the Ghospell that the good corne was first soone that the Darnell was ouer sprinckled afterwardes and that truth of Christian religion was first planted by our Saâ—iour heresies afterward sprong vp then are the Antiquity of possession and the Plea of Prescription very excellent good argumeÌ„ts to conuince all Hereticks for that the former must needâ— be true and the later must needs be false For which cause old Tertullian writing in the second age after Christ against hereticks thought good to intitle his book de Praescriptiâ—â—â—buâ— of PrescriptioÌ„s shewing therby that heretiks are by no way so euidently conuinced as by Prescription Priority of time And first of all he giueth this generall rule by allusion to our Sauiours words before repeated of good corne and darnell Ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse Dominicum rerum quod est prius traditum id autem extraneum â—alsum quod est posteriâ—s immissâ—m By the order it selfe of sowing the corn darnellâ— it is made manifest that to be true and pertayning to our Lord which was first deliuered and that to be false and forreyne which is thrust in afterward And then passing to examine particuler heresies and beginning with them that pretended to be
downe in his seauenth booke of his Visible Monarchy The seuere lawes also against them that refused to take the Oath of supremacy and should say or heare masse were made long befoâ—e this and put in practice so as this narration could not stand What replyeth M. Barlow to this Niâ—il ad Rhâ—â—â—â— sayth he the speach is here of lawes whose payne is death Yea Syr. And is it so I refer me to the wordes euen now recited out of the Apology that her Maiestie neuer punished any Papiâ—â—â—â—â— Religion that she was most free from all persecution doth not all any include other punishments besides death Moreouer when it is sayd that she neuer made any rigâ—â—ous lawes against Catholickes doth this only compreheÌ„d the lawes whose punishment is death To what straites is M. Barlow driuen here And yet if he doe remember well the oath of Supremâ—cie he cannot but know that the third refusall therof is also death So as euery way the poore man is taken OF QVEENE ELIZABETH HER FELICITIES and infelicities CHAP. II. AFTER this followeth another question betweene M. Barlow and me about the felicities or infelicities of Queene Elizabeth or rather betweene the Lord Iustice Cooke and me who hauing vpon diuers occasions to the exprobration of Catholicke men and religion whome she pursued in her life time enlarged himselfe extraordinarily in her exaltation calling her The happie Queene The blessed Queene and the like I was forced for defence of the truth to examine somewhat the grounds of this felicitie My words then were That the said Lord Cooke vpon the occasion of certaine words in Pope Clements Breue where Queene Elizabeth is named misera semina a miserable woman in respect no doubt of the miseries of her soule litle respected by her vpon which wordes the Oratour triumpheth thus What miserable it is sayd that miseria coÌ„stâ—s ex duobus contrarys copia inopia copia tribulationis inopia consolationis miâ—erie consisteth of two contraries of aboundance and penury aboundance of tribulation penury of consolatioÌ„ And then he sheweth in what abouÌ„dance of coÌ„solations Q. Elizabeth liued in al her life without waÌ„t of all tribulation which if it were true yet is it but the argument which the worldlinges vsed in the Psalme to proue their felicitie that their Cellars are full their sheep fertile their kine fat they suffer no losse and then Beatâ—â— dixeri nâ— populim cuiâ—ac sâ—nt happie did they call the people that had these things But the holy Ghost scorneth them and so may all men do our Oratour that vseth and vrgeth so base an argument in so high a matter And as for his definition of misery by copia and inopia store want it is a miserable one in deed neuer heard of before I thinke to come from any mans mouth but his owne it being ridiculous in Philosophy and fit to be applyed to any thing that hath eyther store or want As a wise man in this sort may be defined to be him that hath store of witt and want of folly and a foole to be him that hath store of follyâ— and want of wit and so a rich man is he that hath store of riches want of beggarie a poore man is he that hath store of beggarie penury of riches And are not these goodly definitions thinke you for so great and graue a man to produce Thus passed the matter then But now M. Barlow doth constitute himselfe Aduocate for the Iustice and if he plead his cause well he will deserue a good â—ee for the cause it selfe is but weake as preseÌ„tly you will behould The Lord Cooke sayth he who at the Arraignement of Garnet indignantly scorning that the high Priest of Rome should in a Breue of his call so great a Prince as Quene Elizabeth was Miseram Fâ—minam a miserable woman by a description of miserie consisting of two contraries want of comâ—ort and plenty of tribulation shewes by many reasons euident and demonstratiue that she hauing aboundance of ioy and no touch of affliction but blessed with all kind of felicities could not be called Miserable c. In which words I would haue you note first that wheras here he sayth that the Iustice shewed this by many reasons euident and demonstratiue within a dozen lines after he saith of these reasons But if they be not concluding demonstrations yet as least let them be probable perswasions which is quite contrary to that which he sayd before that they were euident and demonstratiue so soone the man forgetteth himselfe But to the matter it selfe that albeit all these temporall felicities ascribed to Queene Elizabeth had bene so many and so great as Syr Edward affirmeth them yet had it beene but the argument of worldlings who in the 143. Psalme did measure their felicity by their full Cellars were checked for the same by the holy Ghost by teaching them that not Beatus populus cui haec sunt but beatus populus cuius Dominus Deus eius consequeÌ„tly that Queene Elizabeth might haue these temporall felicities and yet be truly miserable in that sense wherin Pope Clement so called her to wit concerning the affaires of her soule and euerlasting saluation To this I say he answereth first by demanding why temporall prosperitie may not be made an argument of Gods loue to Queene Elizabeth and of her felicitie for so much as it is scored vp for one of the Notes of the true Church by Cardinall Bellarmine de Notâ—â— Ecclesiae Nota 15 Whereunto I answer that this temporall felicitie is not to our purpose for that Pope Clement spake of her spirituall infelicitie as hath bene shewed and that temporall felicitie doth not infer or argue spirituall felicitie euery man will confesse that hath spirit to discerne it for that the whole Scripture is ful of testimonies that wicked men and consequently miserable in soule haue bene temporally blessed by Almighty God made rich powerfull prosperous euen to the very affliction scandalizing as it were of the iust and vertuous but yet were they not happy for this but most miserable euen as those Israelites were that hauing their fill of quailes in the desert sent theÌ„ from God they had no sooner eaten them as the Scripture sayth adhuc escae eorum eraÌ„t in ore ipsorum ira Dei ascendiâ— super 〈◊〉 the meat was yet in their mouthes and the wrath of God did fall vpon them And he that shall read ouer the 72. Psalme shall see that it is altogeather of this matter to wit of Dauids admiration of the wealth and prosperitie of the wicked whose end notwithstanding he sayth to be most miserable aestimabam vt cognoscerem hoc labor est ante me donec intelligam in nouissimis eorum deiecisti eos dum alleuarentur I did thinke I could haue vnderstood this matter but it is harder then I imagined vntil I coÌ„sidered their ends thou
Eliâ—abeths affaires his answere in his owne words is this But dearely beloued there is a difference in faults of men as in diseases some onely are hurtfull to the parties themselues some loathsome and infectious to others the first are to be buried with their bodies forgotten but the other will annoy and therfore must be remembred after death In Scripture some Kinges that were vicious had their faultes touched euer after their buriall but no more yet some are neuer named in Scripture but their sinne is branded vpon their name as often you may see of â—eroboam neuer mentioned but presently addeth the sonne of Nebat which made Israell to sinne This was the mans answer at that time for that it serued for his purpose the same may serue me now against him for if the case of Ieroboam that made Israell to sinne might be applied to the Earle of â—ssex that was of their owne religion and changed nothing therein so far as is knowne and was but a priuate person how much more may the same be applyed to Queene Elizabeth that indeed brought in that fatall diuision and new worship of Ieroboam into her Kingdome which she found quiet vnited with the rest of Christendome in the knowne Catholicke fayth of Christs Church But saith M. Barlow reproaches are vttered eyther for reprâ—ose to amend or for vexation to grieue the parties calumniated both which endes doe cease in death Whereunto I answere that if they be reproches and contumelyes indeed without truth wherof M. Barlowes tongue and pen are fulâ— they serue to neyther of these ends but principally to shew the wiked mind of the vtterer but if they be true as those things are which I haue touched concerning Q. Elizabeth her infelicities â—heÌ„ albeit they be vttered to none of these two foolish ends mentioned by M. Barlow eyther to amend or vex the dead yet are they recorded to warne instruct them that are aliue by shewing Gods iustice vpon sinne his prouidence his power and his care to feare men by terror of euerlasting inâ—amy from the like offences many other such holy ends for the which in Scripture it is a most common ordinary thing to heare the sinnes of wicked Princes repeated and reiterated after death M. Barlow himselfe cannot deny it I did further add also in my former Letter the example of diuers ancient Fathers as Iustinus Martyrâ— Irenaeus Tertullian and others who to comfort the afflicted Christians in theyr dayes and to honour more the cause for which they suffered did put them in mind what manner of pâ—ople and Princes their first persecutors were as namely Nero and Domitian what life they led what end they made and that indeed they were â—it instruments to be the first actors in such a worke which I applying to Queene Elizabeth sayd that the like obseruation and comparison might be made she being the strangest woman that euer perhaps liued for diuers admirable circumstances before touched and the very first absolutely of that sex eyther Christened or created that tooke vpon her Supreme Power in Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters c. Wherunto M. Barlow comming to answere and hauing nothing at all to say to the purpose doth so childishly trifle as is most ridiculous telling vs first that if the Papists may comfort themselues for that they haue bene beaten by a woman then may the diuell comfort himselfe also that a woman is prophesied in Genesis according to our interpretation to breake his head Sysera also the Captaine may glory that he was ouerthrowne by a woman But this is triflingâ— for I doe not say simply by a woman but by such a woman as neuer was the like in diuers points of enormity against Câ—thâ—licâ—â— religion and therin was the Fathers obseruations of enormous manners of Nero and Domitian and not in the sex as they were men Secondly he sayth that diuers Popes were more like to Nero and Domitian then Queene Elizabeth but this is also trifling For neyther is the matter proued if it could be yet doth it not improue my comparison as it was some comfort to the ancient afflicted Catholickes to consider what manner of Princes they were that first began most sharpe persecution against them so might English Catholickes doe by consideration of the person of Queene Elizabeth that first of all women persecuted them in England and with inspeakable monstrosity made her selfe Head of the Church Thirdly he sayth about this matter that heauen and hell arâ— not more different then those Christian martyrs of the Primitiue Church from these later of English Papists for they sayth he acknowledged the Emperors supremacy independant vpon any but God prayed for them seriously both lyuing and dying c. But this now is more then trifling for it seemeth to me meere madnes to say that ancient Christian martyrs vnder Nero and Domiâ—ian did acknowledge those Emperours Supremacy independant vpon any but God which inferreth to my vnderstanding that they acknowledged them for Supreme Headeâ— of the Catholicke Church in those dayes for so signifieth the worde Supremacy in the controuersy betweene vs and the wordes immediatly following independant vpon any bâ—â— God doe seeme playnely to confirme the same as doth also the comparison and contrariety it selfe which hee putteth betweene those old Martyrs and ours For if he had meant of temporall Supremacy there had not bene any difference or contrariety betweene them For â—hat our Martyrs also doe acknowledge temporall Supremacy to Kings and Princes though not spirituall which inferreth that M. Barlow ascribing more to the ancient Martyrs vnder Nero and Domitian must needes meane that they held them â—or Heades of their Church euen in spirituall Ecclesiaâ—ticall aâ—fayres although they were Pagans and â—oe consequently might and ought to repayre to them in matters of controuersy about Christian Religion and were â—ound to follow their direction therein And if this be not more then trifling especially for a Prelate to vtterâ— I leaue to the discreet Reader to consider But now let vs see briesely some of his answers to the points before rehearsed of Queene Elizabeths life and death First he sayth to the note about her birth and disgrace by her Father and Parlament that the Scriptures are not soe Censorious for God himselfe mislikes the Prouerb that it should be sayd the fathers did eat sower grapes and the childrens â—eeth were sett on edge but this is folly for I alleadged it not as a sinne of hers for the sinne was her fathers and mothers but as some disgrace in temporall felicity Then he telleth vs that in some places the ciuill Lawes doe permit some bastards to succeed Item that she shewed well by her courage and other Princely qualities that she was King Henries daughter Item that her selfe did so far coÌ„temne those slaunders published in print as shee would neuer consent to haue them cleared but rather scorned them Item that
death-bed and therupon he discoursed how the sayd old woman by vertue of the same liued to the age of an hundred and od yeares and in that age hauing all her body withered and consumed and wanting nature to nourish she died commaunding the sayd peece of goâ—ld to be carefully sent her Maiesty allâ—aging further that as long as the sayd old woman wore it vpon her body she could not dye The Queene vpon the confidence she had thereof tooke the sayd gouldâ— and wore it vpon her ruâ—fe Now though she fell not suddainly sicke yet daily decreased her rest and feeding and within few dayes fell sick indeed and the cause being wondred at by a Lady with whom she was very priuate and confident her Maiesty tould her commaunding her to conceale the same that she saw one night in her bed her body exceeding leane and fearfull in a light of fire This sight was at VVhite-hall a little before she departed from thence to Richmond and may be testifyed by another Lady who was one of the neerest about her Person of whom the Queene demaunded whether she was not wont to see sightes in the night telling her of the bright flame she had seene Afterward in the melancholy of her sicknes she desired to see a true looking glasse which in twenty yeares before she had not seene but only such a one as was made of purpose to deceaue her sight which glasse being brought her she fell presently into exclayming againsâ— them whicâ— had so much commended her and tooke it so offensiuely that some which before had flattered her duâ—st not come into her sight Now falling into extremity she â—ate two dayes and three nightes vpon her stoole ready dreslâ—d and could neuer be brought by any of her Counsell to go to bed or to eat or drinke only my Lord Admirall one time perswaded her to drinke some broath â—or that any of the rest she would not answere them to any question but sayd softly to my Lord Admiralls earnest perswasions that if he knew what she had seene in her bed he would not perswade her as hee did And comaunding the rest of the Lords to depart her chamber willed my Lord Admirall to stay to whome she shooâ—â— her head and with a pittifull voice said vnto him My Lord I am tied with a chaine of iron about my nâ—eke he alleadging her wonted courage she replied I am tied and the case is altered with mee About the same time two Ladies waiting on her in her Câ—aÌ„ber discouered in the bottom of her Chaire the Queenâ— oâ— hartes with a nayle of iron knockt through the forehead of it the which the Ladies durst not then pull out remembring that the like thing was reported to be vsed to other for witch-craft Another Lady waiting in these times on the Queene leauing her asleep in her priuy chamber at Richmond at the very first distemper of her sicknes met her at she tâ—ought three or foure chambers of fearing that she would haue byn displeased that she leâ—t her alone came towards her to excuse her selfe but shee vanished away and when the Lady retourned into the same chamber where she left the Queene she found her asleepe as before So in time growing past recouery hauing kept her bed some daies the Counsell sent vnto her the Bishop of Canterburie other of the Prelates vpon sight of whom she was much offended cholerikly rating them bidding them be packing afterwardes exclaymed to my L. Admirall that â—he had the greatest indignity offered her by the Archbiâ—hop that a Prince could haue to pronouÌ„ce senteÌ„ce of death against her as if she had liued an Atheist And some Lords mentioning to haue other Prelates to come vnto her she answered that she would haue none of those hedge-priests so none of them came to her till after she was past sense at the last gasp at which tyme some praiers were said not farre from her The Queene being departed this life the Lords of the Counsell went to London to proclaime his Maiesty leauing her body with charge not to be opened such being her desire but some for some reasons hauing giuen a secret warrant to the Surgeons they opened her which the rest of the Counsell did not contradict Now her body being seared vp was brought to VVhite-hall where it was watched euery night by six seuerall Ladies who being all about the same which was fast nayled vp within a board-coffin with leaues of lead couered with veluet it happened that her body brake the coffin with such a cracke that it spleated the wood lead and cerecloth to the terror and astonishmeÌ„t of all that were present wherupon the next day she was fayne to be new trimmed vp in so much as all were of opinioÌ„ that if she had not byn opened the breach of her body would haue byn much worse Diuers other particularities â—or that they coÌ„cerne speciall Peâ—â—onageâ— I haue thought good for some causes to conceale And this narration I haue byn forced to set forth to auoid the calumniation of M. Barlow who saith vpon my first words in the Letter to my friend This is another Iesâ—â—â—icall tricke as well in matters histoâ—icall as oâ— doctrine to â—raâ—e it out with an impudâ—nt tale but aske theÌ„ for their Author who saith it then ansuâ—â—er is like the Câ—clops câ—y in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nobody nobody But we say coÌ„trary to the Cyclops somebody somebody or rather many Lodies togeather for that in this point I haue the original by me haue shewed it to many men of grauity iudgmeÌ„t though it be not coÌ„uenient to declare the name of the Relator for this present to M. Barlow for more causes then one And as for his general slauÌ„der conâ—umelies which he though good heâ—â— to cast in that it is a Iesuitical trick as well in matters Historicall as of doctrine to braue it out with an impudeÌ„t tale the assertioÌ„ therof must needs â—hew his impudency if he doth not proue it with some examples as he neyther doth nor can but how often I haue don it against him in this book the Reader hath partly seene and will more before wee end And the two late bookes published to omit all other the one The sober Reckoning with M. Morton the other The Search of M. Francis VValsingham one of their owne Religion do so put them to the wall in this matter of lying and falsifying as if M. Barlow be able well to answer those two bookes and satisfy substantially for the mayne and huge number of falsities therin obiected and demonstrated it shall not be needfull for him to trouble himselfe any more to answer this my booke for I will take my selfe satisfied by the satisfaction giuen to them And thus now hauing buried Q. Elizabeth brought her body to rest for a time would to God we might hope the like both for body and soule eternally Christ Iesus our Sauiour knoweth how
so much from this acknowledgment or testimony of the Councell of VVormes which did but set downe the sense of the Christian Church in these dayes but from other far more ancient proofes and testimonies as M. Barlow wel knoweth though here he dissembleth the same and chaâ—eth exceedingly saying That this fugitiue for such is his modesty of speach wil fâ—tch a 〈◊〉 sentence from this Councel to warrant no Councel to be good that iâ— celebrated without the Popes Authority and therby at one push ouerthrow the credit of al Councels both general and particuler for the better part of 900. yeares after Christ. Wherto I answer first that to be a fugitiue for the cause of Catholicke Religion is no reproach at al but a high commendation warranted by Christes owne words when he willed them that were persecuted in one Citty to fly into another and much more happy is it to be a fugitiue then a persecutour S. Athanasius in his booke de fugasua of his flight and persecution doth handle the matter at large to whom I remit the Reader Secondly as for the summoning gathering of CouÌ„cels general or particuler our controuersy is principally of General Councels for as for Diocesian Synods as they may be assembled by ech Bishop in his district and the Prouincial Councels by the Metropolitan which Protestants themselues wil not deny so by the due proportion of good order General Councels must be gathered by commandment or consent at least of the general Pastour though in States subiect to temporal Princes good reason requireth that the matter be done in like manner with the approbation of the said temporal Princes for the houlding of the said Councel in this or that place of their Dominions And this was obserued in the first 4. General Councels which were commanded to be gathered by Constantine Theodosius the elder Theodosius the yonger and Martian the Emperours by the assent and approbation of the Popes Syluester Damasus Celestinus and Leo which besides other proofes of seueral histories is made euident by the last of the said 4. Councels to wit that of Chalcedon where in the first action the heretical Archbishop Dioscorus was punished publikely and forbidden to sit amongst the Bishops for that he had presumed to call a Councell without the authority of the Apostolike Sea Quâ—d numquam licuiâ— say they numquam sactum est that neuer was lawfull nor euer was done And consequently this prooueth that all the first 4. Generall Councells were gathered by the consents and approbations of the Bishops of Rome though with the concurrence also of the Emperours without whose good liking the meeting of so many Bishops in their States could not be permitted as before hath bene said But now here before I passe any further I must make you acquainted with a solemne foolery and falshood of M Barlow concerning Cardinall Bellarmine for that hauing vttered the words before mentioned that CouÌ„cels were to be gathered by the Emperours and not by the Bishops of Rome though he citeth no one argument for the same yet saith he this is a thing so cleare and radiant that Bellarmine himselfe being dazeled with behoulding the euidence euen as S. Peter not wiâ—â—ing what he said though he laboured to build for the Pope yet labâ—â—reth be also to build for the Emperour and in that same place he â—â—eweth diuers reasons why it rather belongeth to Emperours then to Popes for â—o assemble Councells citing for the same in his margent Bellar. de Concil cap. 13. But truly when I went to the place of Bellarmine and read his words I was ashamed on M. Barlowes behalfe and his folly was so radiant in my eyes to vse his phrase that I could not read them without blushing for that in the Chapter by him cited and in the other going before Bellarmine doth proue most substantially by many arguments both out of Scriptures Fathers Councels reasons histories practice and examples that it appertayneth not to the Emperour only or principally but to the Bishop of Rome to call General CouÌ„cells or at leastwise that it may not be done without the said Bishops consent and approbation first had so as the very contradictory proposition to this which M. Barlow sets downe is found in these expresse words in Bellarmine â—sse reuerà Pontiâ—icis non Imperatoris congregare Synodum generalem that is belongeth truely to the Pope and not to the Emperour to gather a generall Councell Adding notwithstanding 4. particuler reasons and temporall respects why diuers generall Councells could not be gathered togeather vnder the Emperours who were temporal Lords of the world without their likings consents Not saith he for that a Councell gathered without the authority of the Emperour among Christians should not be of validity as our aduersaries doe dreame whereas S. Athanasiuâ— saith plainely in his epistle to them that lead a solitary life Quando vmquam iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritateÌ„ habuit when did euer the iudgment of the Church take authority from the Emperour but for that the temporall state of Christendome standing in the Emperours hands no such meeting could be made without their approbation And can this stand with that which M. Barlow here affirmeth in his name that he shewes diuers reasons why it rather belonged to Emperours then to the Pope to assemble Councells Will he not blush and be ashamed of this shameles calumniation or rather forgery As for that he obiected coÌ„cerning the Graunt giuen to Charles the Great by Adrian the Pope to haue authority to approue the Election of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops and Archbishops and to dispose of the Sea Apostolike c. I referre him to Cardinall Baronius for his answer in his Annales of the yeare 774. where he discusseth the matter at large and proueth it a meere fiction and plaine fraud inuented registred first by Sigebertus in fauour of the cause of Henry the fourth Emperour excommunicated by the Pope which he proueth by many playne euidences out of all the ancient writers for the space of 300. years after Charles his time who neuer made mention of any such Graunt as also the expresse testimony of Eginhardus that was Notary to Charles the Great and was alwayes about him and wrote his life and by diuers other proofes which were too long here to recite Therfore with this shall we end this Chapter VVHETHER THE POPE IN HIS BREVE DID FORBID TEMPORALL OBEDIENCE to his Maiesty of England AND Whether the said Pope hath Power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII WHERAS in the Apology a great coÌ„plaint was made against the Pope for that in his Breue he did forbid temporall Obedience to be performed to his Maiesty as a poynt against fayth and saluation of soules moreouer chargeth him with assuming vnto himselfe infallibility of spirit to make new Articles of sayth when euer it shall please him c. my answer therunto
and exact a crafâ—seman M. 〈◊〉 is in the art of adulation in somuch that if the sciâ—ncâ— of parasitisme were lost he could restore it agayne of himselfe And I say he is vigilant in this place for that he hath taken occasion to flatter his Maiesty where none at all was giuen For I did not so much as name his Maiesty but only said as now you haue seene that if any â—an would describe Plato affirming him to be a man born in Greece c. of an excellent wit and â—â—ally aâ—â—ing that he was the most eminent of all other Philosopher◠〈◊〉 last point only might be sufficient to make 〈…〉 Peâ—â—pateâ—icke deny to sweare the Oath although they did not dâ—ny all the other particulers therin contayned â—o wit that he was borne â—n Greece of an excellent wit skilfull in the Grâ—â—ke Language and the rest and so thâ—t albeit a Catholicke man doe refuse to sweare to aâ—e Oatâ— of Allegiance in respect of diuers clauses theâ—â—in coâ—tained in prâ—iudice of his religion yet doth not he deny all the other clauses as both absurdly and iniâ—riously M. Barlow doth affirme The second example in like manner of an Ariâ—â— Prince proposing vnto his subiects an Oath contayning diâ—â—â—â— clauses of true Catholicke Religion and some one of Aâ—ianismâ— for which the whole is refused Barlowâ—â—ndeth â—â—ndeth to be as vnanswerable as the former though for a â—â—â—rish he taketh vpon him to set it downe againe in a better frame as he pretendeth but in very deed the very same in effect and wholy against himselfe to wit thaâ— an Arian Prince conâ—â—yueth an Oath for his subiects to sweare thâ—t there are three persons in Trinity that the sâ—cond Person is the Sâ—â—â— of God c. adding notwithstanding that he is not â—quall with his Father which is Arianisme some Christiaâ—â— saith M. Barlow fearing an error therein haue recourse to sâ—â—e great Doctour he descrying the Arianisme sorbids them to take it and not shewing them the erroneous articâ—e assureth them that the 〈◊〉 Oath as it lyeth is vnlawfull And doth not that doctour condeâ—â—e all the articles theâ—in and willeth them inclusiuely to deny the Trinity This is M. Barlowes demaund vpon this case And euery man of common sense I trow will answer No that he doth not eyther inclusiuely or exclusiuely deny the Blessed Trinity And it is strange that a man of sense will argue so or make so senselesse a demand For why or how doth this doctour deny heere the other two articles of true Catholick doctrine For that he did not tell them distinctly which of the clauses contayned Arianisâ—â— First this maketh not to our case of the Oath of Allegiance for that we set downe clerly the clausâ—s that we mislyke therin which are all those that touch either the Popes authoritie or any other part of the Roman Catholicke Religion Secondly it was not necessary to tell the clause in particuler that contayned the Arianisme for that some of the people perhaps that demaunded him the question could not well vnderstand it and therefore it was sufficient to say that the oath was as it lay naught that there was some heresie therin as if a Phisitian should say of a dish of mynâ—ed meate brought to the table that the eaters should beware for that in some part there were poison it were sufficieÌ„t though he shewed not the particuler part Or if a Cooke should say that among other hearbes in the pot there was one very noysome it were sufficient for aduise to refuse the whole pot of pottage and yet by this he doth not condemne all the other good hearbes that might be in the pot Or was it perhaps for that the Doctour said that the whole Oath as it lay was vnlawâ—ull First I do not find the word whole to be vsed by Cardinal Bellarmine but only the word Iur amentum indefinitly And secondly if he had said that the whole Oath as it lyeth were to be refused he had not thereby condemned â—uery clause or part therof which he proueth in these words saying Nam ex 〈◊〉 sententia bonum ex integra a causa constituitur malum autem ex singulis deâ—ectibuâ— quare vt Iur amentum prohibeatur vel recusetur 〈◊〉 est necessarium omnes singulae partes eius sint malae satis autem est si vel vna sit mala c. For according to the common sentence of Philosophers that which is good must consist of the whole cause that is to say of all parts requisite but to make a thing euill it is sufficient that it hath but some one defect wherefore for prohibiting or refusing this Oath as euill it is not necessary that all and euery part thereof be euill but it is inough if any one part therof be naught And soe on the contrary part to the end that this oath may be admitted as good and lawfull it is necessary that no part thereof be euill This is Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine wherein we see first that he doth not vse the word VVhole totum Iâ—ramentum which word notwithstandinge M. Barlow doth often vse and repeate in this place making it the foundation of all his idle dispute And secondly we see that he doth not condemne al the parts of this oath for that some be vnlawfull but rather proueth the contrary out of the common sentence of Philosophers that if any one part be euil it is sufficieÌ„t to make the Oath euil vnlawful In which kind M. Barlow himselfe in the very nexâ— ensuing page giueth an example of an IndeÌ„ture that hath many clauses wherof the breach of any one Prouisâ— sayth he doth forfeit the whole whereby is euident that one deâ—ect is sufficient to make the thing euil but to make it good al that is requisite must be obserued And so in this Oath to make it vnlawful it is inough that any one clause therof be naught or against a Catholick mans conscience but to make it good and lawfull al the clauses therof must be good and lawfull And so you see how substantially M. Barlow hath answered this point ouer throwing himselfe with his owne argument I wil not stand to confute that other mad assertion of his more franticke then fantastical wherby he affirmeth and wil needes defend that whosoeuer refuseth to sweare to any one of the articles of this Oath acknowledgeth not the first that King Iames is lawful King of England And what is his reason trow you No other but that of the Indenture before mentioned for the whole Oath sayth he is like an Indenture al the clauses tying and tending to one condition oâ— Allegiance the breach of oue Prouiso in the Indenture â—orâ—eits the whole the denying of one article in the Oath is the dental of the whole euen of the very first that King Iames is not lawful King So he But he that shall examine the matter wel wil find that this pretended parity betweene the
disposition the second causes doe worke infallibly though in producing their effects some worke necessarily some casually some freely Hereby then we see first that M. Barlow vnderstood not his Authors in saying that Gods Prouidence is so farre forth called Gods Prouidence only as it remayneth in Gods secret counsaile for as Saint Thomas in the booke by him alleadged saith Gods Prouidence hath two partes the one is ordinatio or â—ispositio rerum the other is ordinâ—â— executio per causas secundas which second is called fatum or destiny but yet is a part of Prouidence as yow see and therby doth M. Barlow erre grossely in contraposing it to Prouidence saying it is called fatum and not prouidence wheras fatum is a part of prouidence as appeareth by that which hath beene said but yet more grosly doth he erre when he sayth that when Gods Prouidence doth shew it selfe in sensible effects it is destiny not prouidence for that this Fatum or destiny consisteth as it hath beene said in the order connexion of the second causes before they worke their effect not in the sensible effects themselues when they are now produced and extra causas And so by this we see in part M. Barlowes profundity in Schoole-diuinity But we haue not yet done for that he goeth forward against the Pope saying If after the murther of the King of France the Pope had seene that some really true not partially supposed good had bene effectuated by the Parricyde that should he truly and only haue ascribed to Gods Prouidence as Ioseph applyed his being in Egypt for the reliefe of his kinred vnto Gods permission but not vnto his brethrens sale c. And heere now we see another profundity not so much of Diuinity as eyther of ignorance or impiety ascribing only vnto Gods Prouidence things that in our eyes seeme good and profitable wherin he impiously abridgeth Gods Prouidence which is ouer all things without exception eyther dispositiuè or permissiuè by ordayning or by permitting as he might haue seene in the Author by him alleadged I meane S. Thomas in his question de Prouidentia not that God is the Author of sinne or of the obliquity therof as Caluin his followers wickedly affirme but that God doth vse euen naughty and sinfull actions oftentimes to his glory and to the vniuersall good of his gouernment and so he vsed the wicked action of Herod Pylate and others to the furthering of Christ his sacred passion for so it is sayd expressly in the Acts of the Apostles vnto God himself that Herod Pilate togeather with the Gentils and Iewes conspired against our Sauiour facere quae manus tua consilium tuum decreuerunt fieri to do those things which thy hand counsaile haue determined to be done To which effect many other places of Scripture might be alleadged wherby it is euident that the admiring of Gods Prouidence in such actions is not an allowaÌ„ce of the thing it selfe as lawfull in the doer for that no man will say that the Apostles did allow the actions of Herod Pilate in putting Christ to death though they do acknowledge it as we haue now seene to haue come by the particuler prouidence of almighty God consequently all that idle speach which is here vsed by M. Barlow against Pope Sixtus Qâ—intus that he did not as King Dauid did in detesting Ioab for his trayterous slaughter of Abner but would haue canonized the Fryar if some Cardinals had not resisted this speach I say is very idle indeed For neuer was there any such cogitation knowne to haue bene in the Pope for canonizing that man nor did the Pope euer prayse or allow the fact as often hath bene sayd nor doth M. Barlow know how he would haue dealt with the sayd Fryar for the same if he had escaped death and had bene in his power to punish him so that all heere is spoken out of passion and will to calumniate much also out of errour and ignorance as hath bene sayd as namely that nothing is to be ascribed to Gods Prouidence but that which to vs seemeth really true good and not partially so supposed So as heere a man is made iudge what is to be ascribed to Gods Prouidence and what not In which case I doe not see how the actions of Herod Pilate could well be ascribed to Gods prouidence as the Apostles did ascribe them I do not see also how M. Barlow can mantaine his assertion here set downe that the selling of Ioseph into Egypt by his brethren was not by Gods Prouidence but only as he sayth for the reliefe of his kinred which the Patriarch Ioseph doth seeme plainly to contradict when discouering himselfe vnto his brethren he said I am your Brother Ioseph whom you sold into Egypt be not afrayd nor let it seeme vnto you a hard thing that you sold me into these Regions for that God sent me before you into Egypt for your safety And more plainly in the last of Genesis where the Patriarch speaking to his Brethren sayth Vos cogitasâ—is de me malum c. you thought to do me hurt but God turned it to good to exalt me as at this present you see and to saue many people And are not these words playne that the whole action of Ioseph his selling into Egypt was by Gods permissiue prouidence Or will M. Barlowes profound diuinity teach vs that in the selfe same mysterious actions one part is subiect to Gods Prouidence and the other not The last example brought forth to proue the Pops accustomed attempts for murthering Princes is that of Queene â—lizabeth late Queene of England against whose life was obiected many attemptes to haue beene made by priuity and incitation of diuers Popes but I desired some proofes therof whereto was answered in thâ—se words for veryfication of this there needeth no more proofe then that neuer Pope eyther then or since called any Church-man in question for medling in those treasonable conspiracyes To which my words of answer were And needeth there noe more Syr but this quoth I to condemne both Confessors and Popes for that no Pope hath called into question or punished any Clergy-man for such like attempts what if he neuer knew of any such attempt nor beleiued that there were any such really designed What if he neuer heard of any Clergie man accused except such as were put to death by the Queene herselfe and so were sufficiently punished whether they were culpable or innocent To all which demands of myne M. Barlow answereth with great impatience For where I demand And needeth there no more Syr for proofe but this His answere is There needeth no more CVRR but that But this I ascribe to his choller And for that he bringeth no other thing of any moment about this matter that I haue spoken largely els where of Queene Elizabeth her affaires I shall
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
proceed from grace haue not the promise to God made vnto theÌ„ What then doth this make against me Nay harken I pray you what ensueth he bringeth the wordes of Bellarmine against me saying that if good workes should be considerâ—d in their owne nature without respect both of the promise made â—nto them and also of the dignity of Gods spirit the originall worker of them they could carry no merit which doctrine I willingly acknowledge as fully making with me and condemning M. Barlow of false dealing that he left out wilfully in my words before recited the clause of the promise of God made vnto them and so in this he fighteth against himselfe and discouereth his owne vntrue dealing But hath he any more to say thinke you against the first question or doth he answere one word to the plaine testimony of Scriptures alleadged out of Toby Iob and S. Paul for proofe therof all cyted by me No not so much as one word and much lesse to those other that stand in Bellarmines booke which are more in number as neyther to the ancient Fathers S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Augustine euidently confirming the same that good and meritorious workes do of themselues comfort the conscience of the doer by increasing hope and confidence in him in respect of the promised reward yea albeit he do not of himselfe place any confidence in them but respecteth onely and relyeth vpon God almightyes grace mercy for that so it may often fall out and it is to be noted and borne in mind that a man may haue confidence by good works and yet place no confidence in good works for that a vertuous life enriched with many meritorious actions may of it self giue a man much confidence for the life to come though he for his part do not place any confidence therin but only in Gods mercy so as now we see the first propositioÌ„ of Cardinall Bellarmine to be true that the confidence of holy mâ—n which they place in God doth not only spring out of â—ayth but also out of good meriâ—s and therefore that â—uery man must labour wiâ—h all study to procure good meriâ—s to the end that they may haue confidence with God which is the very same in substance that I set downe in my letter though somewhat by me abridged and accommodated to the capacity of the vulgar reader There followeth the second question proposed by me in these words VVhether this being so a man may place any confidence wittingly in his own merits or vertuous life and it is answered that he may so he aâ—oyd pride c. which containeth the very same in effect that dâ—th Cardinall Bellarmines second propositioÌ„ that some confidence may be placed in good meâ—its which are known to be such so as pride be auoyded vnto which second proposition M. Barlow not being able to say any thing agâ—inst the truth therof confirmed by many testimonies exaÌ„ples both out of the old new Testament and writings of holy Fathers that did both teach and practice the coÌ„fidence of a good conscience he runneth to seeke Cauills both against me and Cardinall Bellarmine and for me he hath deuised one of the most childish that euer perhaps you heard and such a one that doth euideÌ„tly declare the malice of his mind and misery of his cause that driueth him to such shifts for that neuer man of grauity or sincerity would vse the like knowing that it must needs be discouered by the first inspection of the booke by his aduersary thus then it is Where I do frame the second question thus VVhether a â—an may place any confidence in his owne merits and do answer yea he leaueth out of purpose the question it self and putteth downe the solution only without question aâ—â—iâ—ming me to say as it were by way of propositioÌ„ A man mâ—â— place any confidence in his owne merits and writeth the word ANY in great letters to make it more markable as though I haâ— said a man may place any confidence wâ—atsoeuer that is to say al confideÌ„ce in his own merits wheras if he had set down the queâ—tioÌ„ simply as I did whether a maÌ„ may place any coÌ„fidence in his merits answered only yea as I did without adding any further it would haue appeared plainly that the word any did signify as much as some conâ—idence answering to Bellarm. words aliqua fiducia wheras omitting the question putting down againe the word any he changeth the significatioÌ„ therof maketh it to signify as much as all or any whatsoeuer as though I had said a man may put all confidence or what confidence soeuer in our merits therby disagree froÌ„ Bellarmine whose wordâ— are as hath bene sayd aliqua fiducia in bonis meritis collocari potest some confidence may be placed in good merits this shifting fraud is so palpable as it may be discouered by infinite examples If one should aske another whether he had any bread in his house as Elias for example did aske the poore widdow of Sarepta euery man of sense seeth that the meaning is whether he haue any bread at all of any sort soeuer and not whether he haue all kind of bread so if the other do answer yea without adding further it is to be vnderstood that he answereth according to the meaning of the demaunder that he hath some bread in his house but if he should answer as M. Barlow maketh me to answer yea I haue any bread it would import that he had all sorts of bread And the like is if a man should aske M. Barlow whether he haue any vertue the meaning is whether he haue any at all and soe euery man I thinke will vnderstand it and himselfe also I belieue would take it and thinke himself iniured thereby if any man should answere no but if he should repeate againe the same word any in the aâ—swere saying yâ—a he hath any vertue heere the word ◠〈◊〉 changeth the foâ—mer signification and importâ—th as much as that he hath all vertueâ— which I suppose himself would be ashamed to answer in his owne cause as a thing contrary aswâ—ll to his owne conscience as to other mens knowledge And the lâ—ke iâ—â— if a man should demaund him whâ—â—heâ— hâ— hatâ— any sâ—â—ll in the Mathematickes he might anâ—â—â—â—e peâ—hâ—pps yâ—a if he added no â—urther vndersâ—â—nding therâ—by that hâ— hath some skill but if he should aâ—swere aâ— he maketh me to do yea I haue any skill it may sâ—â—ue to make paâ—time to his demaunder and yet vpon thâ—â— fâ—olâ—sh â—â—â—ging dâ—uise of the different taking of tâ—e word aâ—y he makâ—tâ— great a doe and foundeth mâ—ny â—râ—â—â—â—ntations writing it still with great letters aâ— presâ—nâ—ly you shall see seeking thereby to proue that Cardinal Bâ—llarmine I are at debate he saying that some conâ—â—dence may â—e placed in merits I saying that any confidence may be placed which is al he hath
not such Logical contrâ—diction or opposition betweene them but that they may stand togeather in a beggers cloake if not in congruity of decency and handsomnes wherof it seemeth â—hat our Sauiour only meant yet at leastwise without Logicâ—ll opposition or impossibilityâ— which was far from the sâ—nse of Christ in that Parable So as here are now thrâ—e or foure falâ—â—oods at once discouered conuinced against M. â—aâ—lâ—w about this â—irst imputed contradiction â—etwene these two propositions Let vs see the second The sâ—cond obiected contradiction is for thâ—t Câ—â—d Bâ—llarmine sayeth in his second proposition or 〈◊〉 to the second question that a man may put 〈…〉 dence iâ— bonis meriâ—is quae talia eâ—se compertum sit in go 〈…〉 that are found to be truly such And in his third proposition he sayth that propter incertitudinem propriae iustitiae tutissimuâ— est c. for the vncertaynty of our own proper iustice the safest way is to put all our confidence in the only mercy of God which sayth M. Barlow is contradictory the one to the other the former affirming that we must know that our merits be truly good before we can put any confidence in them and the second that this is vncertaine therefore it is most safe to put our confidence only in Gods mercy Wherto I answere that if these things be well considered there is no contradiction for that the knowledg of our merits which is required before we can put any iust confidence in them is a morall knowledg only such as may stand with some vncertainty as is to be seene in many things of this world As for exmple a man borne now in England is morally certaine that he is baptized for that he is tould so by his parents and others for that the Ministers do odinarily baptize infants in the Parish where they dwell but for that he doth not know certainly whether he that did baptize him had the intention of the Church and vsed the forme of words prescribed it may stand with some vncertainty whether he be baptized or no. And the like is in marriage wherein there is morall certainty that a man and woman that haue liued togeather many yeares in wed-locke are truly husband and wife but yet for that there is not absolute assurance that both parts did consent in hart to that marryage it may stand with some vncertainty whether the mariage were good or no. And so in infinite other thinges And in this our case it is euident that the knowledg required by the Cardinal of our merits is but morall such as may stand with some vncertainty for though we should know that we haue giuen almes aboundantly redeemed captiues nourished orphans visited the sicke and imprisoned and done other good works coÌ„mended by our Sauiour that promised life euer lasting to the same yet because we know not whether we haue done them with all due circumstances or no it is but a morall knowledg of their being tâ—ue merits conâ—â—quentâ—y may â—â—and with some vncertainty as is sayd in the third proposition And what now hath M. Barlow to say to this Still he telleth vs that they are contradictions and setteth them downe thus in great letters A man sayth he must be aâ—ertained that the woâ—ks that he doth be truly gâ—od or â—ls â—e may â—ot trust in them and yâ—t no man can assure himselâ— that thâ—y arâ— so exâ—â—pt he haue a reuelation sayth the Cardinall Well Syr and what will you infer of these two propositions You say that they are opposite and contradictory Proue it â—or that a contradiction est aâ—â—irmatio negatio de eodem respectu eiusdem here the certainty and vncertainty that are spoken of are of different kinds A man must be acertained that the good works that he hath done be truly good before he put coÌ„fidence in them This is to be vnderstood of morall certainty only not absolute infallible And then againe no man can assure himself or know certainly that his works are such which is to be vnderstood of absolute and infallible certainty so as morall certainty and absolute certainty being neither the self same thing but much diffeâ—ent the former may be affirmed in the â—econd pâ—oposition and the other denied in the third without any coÌ„tradiction at all So as all the rest of M. Barlowes tatâ—â—ng in this place saying That better it were â—or the Cardinall to acâ—knowledg an ouer sight then to ouerâ—hrew one soule redeemed by Christs bloud and That contradiction in assertion woundes but oâ—e oâ—posite member but vnsoundnes in doctrine doth wound the weâ—â—â— consâ—ience of a Christian that this may be amended by repeale retrâ—â—â—ing it c. All this I say is but idle and vaine speach without any ground giuen on the Cardinals behalfe as bâ—fore hath bene shewed And the vnsoundnes hath bene proâ—ed to be on M. Barlows side in regâ—rd of the many vnâ—ruâ—hes sleightes and absurdities committed by him And not to loose any more tyme in this we will pasâ—â— to other contradictions obiected to the sayd Cardinall OF THREE OTHER Contradictions imputed vnto Cardinall Bellarmine but proued to be no Contradictions at all §. II. AS wee haue bene more large then was purposed in the discussion of the precedent obiected contradiction about the thrâ—e queâ—tions and answers proposed so shall we endeauour to recompence our length there with breuitie in this place for that M. Barlow indeed hath heere as little to say as there he speaketh much to small purpose The second Contradiction then is said to be for that Cardinall Bellarmin taking vpon him to shew that God is not the author of sin nor inclineth man thereunto hath this proposition That God doth not incline a man to euill eythâ—r naturally or morally physiâ—e vel moraliâ—er expounding in the same place what he meaneth by the words naturally and morally to wit that to incline a man naturally to euil is immediatly to mooue his will to some euill act but to incline morally is to coÌ„maund or counsaile an euill act to be done which is properly called morall concurrence in neither which kind may God be said to incline a man to euill but yet there is another way called oâ—casionaliter or by occasion as when an euill man that hath a naughty will is bent to sinne God almighty by sending some good cogitation to him may be the occasionall cause why he committeth this sinne rather then that wherof I gaue an example out of the booke of Genesis the 57. Chapter where the brethren of Ioseph hauing a naughty will to kill him God almighty by sending that way the Ismaelite merchaÌ„ts of Galaad gaâ—e an occasion rather of thinking how to sell him into â—gipt then to kill him so to commit rather the lesser synne then the greater Cardinall Bellarmine also in his answere repeateth againe those words of the Psalme Conuertit cor â—orum vt odiâ—ent populum eius God did turne the hartes
that he denyed passage by â—ea to the signed souldiers in Apulia and â—ombaâ—dy which commeth far short of kâ—eping back all supply vnlesse it may be proued that â—e had no otâ—er souldiers but in those two places or that they could haue no passage but from thence both which are very false as this charge is both ridiculous vntrue Ridiculous for the warrs being so â—oat on foote both in Lombardy and Apulia what need was there of any prohibition â—or not sending away of souldiers out of these partes when as they were so needfull at home Vntrue for that M. Barlow cannot be ignorant that Fredericke in his letter to the Duke of Cornewall which he wrot after his returne from the Holy-land in which he laieth down all his agrieuances sustayned as he would haue the world to beleiue at the Popes handes hath not one syllable therof which silence could not come of any â—orgetfulnes being written aâ—ter his returne when things were fresh in his mind nor yet of any desire he had to spare the Pope seeing that lesser matters more vnlikely are there vrged with the most aduantage and by all meanes he did seeke by this accusation to discredit him with all Princes as the most potent meanes to couer his owne shame and dishonourable behauiour as well in the Holy-Land as in other partes of Europe Secondly it is false that the Emperour performed his promise which was to go to aide the Christians and recouer the Holy-Land wâ—eras he with his secret and treacherous treaty peace which of purpose he made to hinder the war intended against the Soldan sayth Antoninus Villanus betrayed them both the one to wit the Christians sustayning intolerable iniuries at his hands and Hierusalem with all the Countrey soone after his returne being vtterlâ— lost And this cause all Authors alâ—eadge for the not absâ—luing of the Emperour by Pope Gregorie when by his Embassadours he did request it To whom saith Crantzius the Pope euen to their faces obiected the perâ—idious dealing of their Lord the Emperour as Fazâ—lius addeth euen the very Turkes themselues confessed that had Fredericke ioyned with the Christians and fought â—gainst them he had gotten out of their hands by force both Citty and Kingdome And the euidence of this truth is so radiant to vse M. Barlows phrase that euen the aboue named Zwinglian Huldâ—â—icus Mutius writing of this request of the Emperâ—ur the Pops denyall setteth down the matter in these words Mitâ—it autem in Europam Legatos c. The Emperour sendes his Embassadours to â—â—gniâ—y to the Pope and Princes how he had forced the Soldan to yield him vp Hierusalem but that peace with the Soldan nothing pleased the Pope who forsaw that it would not endure because the chiefe strength of the Kingdome remained in the enemies hands in such sort that as soone as the Christian army should be diâ—â—olued the enemie would easily recouer all againe Neither was Fredericke himselfe so simple that he saw not this but that his mind was wholy set on Germanie and Italy and thought it inough for him to haue satisâ—â—ed his vow by going thither sic fit cùm venatur aliqâ—is inâ—iâ—is â—aâ—ilus So it falles out saith he when men doe hunt with doggs that haue no list to runne And Naucleruâ— sheweth the issue of this affaire after the â—mperours returne into Europe vpon the yeare 1247. where he writeth that this very Soldan of Babylon with whom the Emperour had dealt caused the Araâ—ians to rise in armes against the Christians which Arabians setting first vpon the Knights of the TeÌ„ple quite vanquished theÌ„ and easily tooke the Citty of HierusaleÌ„ which had no wall to defend it slew the Christians that were in the same And the Sepulcher of our Sauiour which vntill that tyme had bene kept vntouched was now with great shame defiled Thus he And this may suffice to shew how well Fredericke performed his promise and what good ofâ—ices he did to the Christian cause by his going to the Hâ—lâ—-Land The third which followes is so eminâ—nt an vntruth that alone it may carry away the siluer whetstone froÌ„ all the lyars of Lincolne for who euer heard or read before M. Barlow set it out in print that the Pope â—oÌ„maundâ—d the Christian souldiers in Asia to leaue the Emperour to the Turkes malice What malice is this in M. Barlow to report so shamâ—ull an vntruth What Author besides himselfe doth auerre it in this manner as he doth For the Pope knew full wâ—ll that Fredericke was in no danger of the Turke with whom before his departure from Europe he had made peace and by whom vpon his arriuall into Syria he was still either feaâ—â—ed or presented with rich giftes in recompence of his perfidious league by which he betrayed the Christian army and cause as hath bene declared And all that which Nauclâ—rus sayth whom M. Barlow citeth to auer the same is in these words Pontisex Hospitalarijs TeÌ„plarijsque in Asia miliâ—aÌ„â—ibus vt â—rederico taÌ„quam hosti publico sauores detraherâ—nt iniunxit The Pope commaunded the Knightes of the Hospitall and Templares to withdraw their help from Frederick as from a publicke enemy or as other Authors Platina Fazelius Paulus Aâ—milius others expresâ—e it Vt ab Imperaâ—orâ—â—aueâ—â—nt that they should beware of the Emperour And the last named is more particuler saying Vt cauâ—â—ët nomini Christiano insidias à perditissima simulatione Fâ—ederiâ—i that they should beware of the treachery intended against the Christian cause by the most wicked dissimulation of Frâ—dâ—riâ—ke Sâ— he Aâ—d theÌ„ addeth Neâ— vana suspitio visa Arabibus Aâ—â—ypâ—yâ—que aequioâ— inuâ—niâ—atuâ— Caesar quam nostris Neither was this a vaine â—uâ—pitioÌ„ â—or the Emperour was found to be a greater friend to the Arabians Aegiptians theÌ„ to the Christians And this alone sheweth how free Frederiâ—ke was froÌ„ any danger at the Soldans hands which the Pope well knowing could not intend to leaue him to his malice as M. Barlow hath most confidently affirmed but contrary wise in respect of the great league and loue that was betwene him and the Soldan he feared more that the Emperour would betray the Christians and leaue them to the Soldans malice as in the end it fell out as now you haue heard then that they should leaue him of whom there was no feare by reasoÌ„ of the ten yeares truce already made betwene theÌ„ by which Fredâ—ricke was secure from all danger and might stay in the Holy-Land and returne at his pleasure Which being so and the Emperour excommunicated at this time there was great reason why the Pope should giue order to the Christians for the one and the other to wit as well to take heed of him as of a perfidious Traytouâ— to the cause as also to withdraw their fauours from him as from an excommunicated person and publicke enemy of the Church but both of these come farre short of
abroad p. 50. more contayned therin then ciuill obedience p. 70. 71. 280. humble petition to his Maiesty for the expositioÌ„ therof p. 89. Scandall in exhibiting therof p. 126. 127. c. No such Oath euer enacted before by former Princes p. 156. Card. Bellaâ—mins opinion therof pag. 346. 347. c. deuided into 14. parts p. 357. difference betweene the said Oath and an Indenture pag. 362. Oath of Supremacy p. 353. defeÌ„ded by M. Barlow 354. 355. Obedience against God mans conscience none pag. 282. Obedience of our temporall Prince how far when it bindeth p. 291. defined by S. Thomas 339. Ordination of Protestant Bishops first vnder Q. Elizabeth praf n. 136. P PAVLVS Quintus Pope defeÌ„ded 54. 55. 56. 57. his Breues discussed part 2. per totuÌ„ whether he forbad temporall odedience to his Maiesty therin p. 323. deinceps â— Persons calumniated by M. Barlow pag. 204. belyed p. 263. Petrus de Vâ—â—â—is extolled by M. Barlow p. 499. iustified pag. 509. censured 523â— Philip the Emperour his murder pag. 470. Plutarke abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. Popes power ouer Infidel Princes p. 76. how they are particuler Bishops of Rome Pastours of the whole Church pag. 145. whether they can make new articles of faith or no pag. 324. 325. deinceps whether they command Princes to be murdered pag. 394. 395. c. Powder-treason pag. 13. 14. 15. c. F. Persons accused therwith by M. Barlow p. 23. Powder-plot of Antwerp pag. 18. of Hage p. 19. of Edenborrow ibid. Prescription of the Church of Rome part 1. cap. 5. per totum good argument in case of Relion pag. 150. 152. vide Antiquityâ— the same vrged by the Fathers ib. belyed shamefully pag. 246. Protestants gone out of the Catholike Church pag. 149. their Ecclesiasticall power ouer Puritans pag. 259. their basenes beggary pag. 265. their conflicts with Puritans about matters of Religion pag. 270. their Church basest of all others praef n. 36. Prouidence of God discoursed of by S. Augustine pag. 416. Q QVEENE Mary of ScotlaÌ„d put to deâ—th for Religion pag. 51. preached against by M. Barlow pag. 212. Queene vide Elizabeth R RESOLVTION of Catholiks in maters of faith p. 123. of Protestants none at all ibid. 124. what resolution is taken from the Pope pag. 125. M. Reynolds writing against Whitaker pag. 457. Rome Recourse to Rome about the Oath of Allegiance p. 50. 51. 52. c. The same practised in all difficulties by our English Princes people pag. 53. 377. Church of Rome impugned p. 144. S SALMERON abused by M. Morton M. Barlow p. 75. Salomons fact of killing Adoniah condemned pag. 105. D. Sanders abused by M. Barlow pag. 77. Scandall in exhibiting the Oath of Allegiance p. 128. 129 130. c. of actiue and passiue scandall pag. 132. 134. 135. scandall of Balaaâ— pag. 139. Sigebert calumniated pag. â—3 K. Sisâ—nandus his submission to the Councell of Toledo p. 36â— Statute of Association pag. 429. Sâ—â—pition vide Idolâ—try foure kinds of suspition pag. 119. Supremacy mascuâ—â—ne feminine pag. 395. how it was giuen to K. Henry the 8. pag. 29â— to K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth â—bid to K. Iames. pag. 29â— M. Barlowes iudgment therupon ibid. pag. 300 Sycophancy vide Flattery M. Barlowes diuision of Sycophancy pag. 242. Sixtuâ— vide Pope T S. THOMAS his opinion coÌ„cerning obedience pag. â—â—â— about Totally praef n. 52. abused by M. Barlow pag. â—36 Threatnings of God vnto Kings pag. 108. Tâ—byes breach of the King of Niniue his comaâ—ndment about burying of the dead Iewes p. 289. § 2. the ancient Fathers iudgment therof pag. 288. the credit of the History of Toby pag. 287. Toleration of Religion humbly demanded of his Maiesty part 2. cap. 4. per totum Thomas vide Morton Treason vide Powder-treason V VESSELS consecrated to Church vses ancieÌ„t p. 237. Viâ—es of wicked Kings recounted after their deaths in Scripture pag. 199. Vniuersity of M. Barlow little p. 236. W M. VVHITAKER a terrour to Card. Bellarmine in M. Barlowes iudgment pag. 455. his booke refuted by M. Reynolds pag. 457. his ignorance ibid. VVilliam vide Barlow workes-VVorkes-Good works may giue cause of confidence in God p. 440. Syr Henry VVotton a wodden Embassadour praef n. 70. his pranks at Ausburge Venice ibid. X XYSTVS 5. belyed about the murder of King Henry the 3. of France pag. 115. Z ZISCA the blind Rebell of Bohemia pag. 456. FINIS Three things declared in this preface for the Readers satisfaction Why M. Barlowes book was answered by F. Persons The cause of the stay of this edition What manner of writer M. Baâ—low is Isa. 1â— Tertull. dâ— praesâ—rip cap. 41. Aug. tract 45. in IoaÌ„nem Bernard serm 65. in Cantica M. Barlow in his epistlâ— Dedicatory to his Maiâ—sty M. Barlowes maÌ„ner of writing M. Barlowes ignorance in GraÌ„meâ— Humanity Barlow pag. 15â— pag. 295â— Gregor lib. 2. Ep. ep 65. Barl. pag. 174. A very grosâ—e Grammaticall errour Fragmentum historiâ—um in anno 1238. â—omo 1. hist. Germ. Casarum Bellarm. l. 1. de Cler. cap. 28. Barlow pag. 342. A strange construction of Orbis terrae Bellar. lâ—â— citato M. Barlowes ignorance in Philosophy Leo ep 89. D. Thâ— lec 12. in Periber lit F. M. Barlows ignorance in histories Barlow pag. 298. Barlow pag. 292. deinceps Barlow pag. 245. pag. 288. pag. 295. M. Barlowes ignorance in interpreting the Scriptures Barl. pag. 53. Cant. 3. Barlow pag. 43. Iosue 6. Pag. 201. Iosue 6. Pag. 60. Gen. 3. Matth. 9. Barlow pag. 334. M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of Diuinity Barlow pag. 188. D. Thom. 2.2 q. 104. ar 6. ad 3. 〈◊〉 pag. â—7 pag. 57 〈◊〉 pag. 114. D. Tho. 2.2 q. 162 â—â— 4. in 〈◊〉 pag. 246. M. Barlowes paradoxes Barlow pag. 160. The Protestantes coÌ„science like a cheuerall point A prophane and barbarous assertion of M. Barlow Barlow pag 99. Athan. ep ad solitarâ—aÌ„ vitâ—m ageÌ„tâ—s Hilarius lib. 1. in ConstaÌ„t AugustuÌ„ paulo post â—nitium Barlow pag 2â—2 Barlow paâ—â— 142. see supra pag. 120. D. Andr. Respons ad Apol. cap. â—5 pag. 343. §. Porrâ— negat part 2. cap. 4. Printed anno 160â— An. 1607. D. Couell in his iust and temperate defence ar 11. pag. 67. liâ— 8. in Iob. cap. 2. Puritans acknowledge an essentiall difference betweene them and the Protestants in matters of religion An. 160â— arg 10. circa medium Si nons Vpoâ— the Arâ—c pag. 142. sâ—e Baâ—on tom 12 in anno 1140. sâ—â—â—nnius tom 4. pag. 1223. and S. Bern. ep 187. 188. dem â—ps Pâ—pyâ—ius Maâ—souius l 3. Annal. in Phâ—â—ppo August pag. 268. Bern. ep 240. â—â—â—nar Luâ—â—en et 〈…〉 Aâ—bizen es 〈…〉 see Christianus Massaeus l. 17. Chron. ad an 1206. Caesaâ—ius Heiesterb l. 5. illust mirac cap. 21. see the Protestants Apology pag. 343. Iewel defence pag. 48 M. Iewell contrary to himself Guido Carmelita in suÌ„ma cap. 9. de
penultima PoÌ„tius in vita sua Optatus l. â— contra Parmen Cyp. ep 6â— Infiâ—els heretâ—kes excoÌ„municated persons depriuâ—â— of Christian buriall Apparitions of Martyrs S. Am. seri 5. de sacâ—is l. 7. Ep. ep 53. 54. Aug. Confâ—ss 1. 9. c 7. ser. 39. de Civit Dâ—i l. 22. c. 8. Greg. l. 4. Dialog c. 52. 53. 54. M. Barlows licence of adding subtracting at his pleasure Strange liberty of the new Ghospellers About the insurrection of HeÌ„â—y the 5. against his father Lett. p. 87. Barl pag. 242. The deposition of Henry the fourth Sig. de reg Ital. lib. 9. ann 1106. Col. 4. Instit c. 11 §. 13. Sig. in ann 1093. Genebrar l. 4. anno muÌ„di 5206. in Paschal Ann. 996. sub Papa Greg. quiÌ„to Huld Mutius l. 16. chron Gerâ— fol. 127. Barl. pag. 244. Sixtus V. belied by M. Barlow Barl. pag. 245. M. Barlows egregious folly M. Barlows ridiculous profundityes discussed An excellent discourse of S. Augustine concerning Gods prouidence August tâ—act 24. sâ—pâ—r â—oaÌ„ An other strange profâ—â—ity of M. Barlow without all wit or sense Mark this doctrine Syr William D. Thom. 1 pâ—â— 22. q. 116. The difference betweene proâ—â—â—eÌ„â—â—a fatum D. Thom. cont Gentes lib. 3. cap. 77. The profoundity of M Barlowes ignorance in School-Diuinity Barl. pag. 264. An other profound ignorance of M. Barlow D. Thom. 1. p. q. 22. aâ—â— â—3 Act. 4. 1. Reg 2. 6. 2. Reg. 3. 27. Ioseph sold into Egvpt by God his prouidence Gen. 45. vâ— 4. 5. 6. Lett. p. 89. Barl. pag. 250. M. Barlowes immodesty Q. Elizabâ—th no Ioy nor Iewâ—â—â— of the Christian world M. Barlowes constaÌ„cy Sciliâ—et Statut. an 28. H. 8. c. 7. Q Elizabâ—th against conscieÌ„ce held the Crowne from his Maiestyes Mother 44. years About Q 〈◊〉 legitimation Barl. pag. 253. The Statâ—te of 〈◊〉 Heâ—â—â— for tâ—◠〈…〉 of Q Elizabeth Whether Q. Elizabeths bastardy were in body Baâ—â— pâ—g 253. M. Barlowâ—â—peÌ„ iniury vnto â— â—eÌ„â—â— the â— and the whole Court of Parlaâ—eÌ„t M. Barlowâ— beggâ—â—g oâ— the question Dolem coÌ„fâ—â—eÌ„â—e part 1. c. 3. pag. 210. Rom. 14.1 Cor. 8. 10. About the Statâ—te â—â— Association Doleman part 2. p. 117. Lett. p. 93. The first suâ—â—osed â—â—â—tradicâ—iâ—n â—â—llarm de Iâ—â—â—iâ— ab 5. cap. 7. Apol. 63. Tob. 4. Iob. 11. 1. Tim 3. 2. Tim. 4. Thâ— suÌ„â—â—e oâ— Card. Bâ—â—â—â—râ—inâ—s 〈…〉 and Anâ—weaâ—e Barlow 258. Ber ser. 9. in Psal. Qui habitaâ— M. Barlowes follyes Much idle babling â—f M. Barlow to no other purpose then to sâ—â—w his owne ignoâ—ance M. Barlows false charge vpon his aduersaty Bellar. dâ— Iustificat lib. 5. cap. 12. Good workes may giue cause of confideÌ„ce although a man put no confidence in them but onely in Gods mercy Bellar. lib. â— de Iustif. cap. 7. A â—hildish 〈◊〉 of M. Barâ—â—â— Bâ—â—l pag. 2â—4 A notable â—â—gging of M. Barlow 3 Râ—g 17. 1. Cor. 7. An excelleÌ„t example out of S. Paul to conâ—ute M. Barlâ—wâ— contradiction obiected against the Cardinall Baâ—l pag. 26â— Bâ—â—l pag. 2â—â— Euery beggars patcht cloake conuinceth M. Barlow of egrâ—gious folly Bâ—rl pâ—g 265. The secoÌ„d supposed contradiction Bâ—llarm liâ— 2. de Statu pe cati amisâ— gratiae â— 13. Psal. 140. Bellarmin cleaâ—â—â—â—â—oÌ„ contradiction Bell l. 1. de Clâ—â—iâ—is â— 14. l. 4. de Pâ—nt cap. 25. Dâ— Câ—â—e l. 1. cap. 13. 〈…〉 â—â—llaâ—m c. 14. M. Barlow settâ—th 〈◊〉 his ownâ— fraud in mark a â—â— great leâ—â—ters Lib. 4. de Pontif. c. 22.23.24 25. Barl. pag. 269. Shamles dealing oâ— M. Barlow M. Barlow maketh â—ely Whitaker to be terrour vnto Bellarmine spectatum admissi â—isum tene atis Zisca the blind Bohemian rebell a fit Saint for Iohn Fox M Reynolds refutatioÌ„ o D. Whiâ—taker M. Whitakers igâ—norance M. Reyâ—nolds confutation â— 97. Whitakers booâ— not wort the takinâ—â— vp Apolog. Toâ—t pag. 75. 〈◊〉 pag 27â— An egreâ—giâ—us abusing Cardina Bellarm to framâ— contradâ—â—ction Baâ—l paâ— 273. S. Thomas eâ—râ—gâ—ously 〈◊〉 by M. Barlow D. Thom. 2â— q. 23. art 10. in corpore art 11. 12. per totum Lib. 3. Institut c. 2. Lib. de Iusâ—iâ—iâ—at c. 24. Letter pag. 98. Lâ—tt p. 9â— Touchi K. Henâ—â— the secoÌ„â—â— Houed 303. Ib. p. 30 See Barâ—â— in an 117 sub â—inen Barl. pag. 275. M. Baâ—â—low offâ—â—â—ded for that the King of France 〈◊〉 Embassâ—â—dour 〈◊〉 not whâ—â—â—ped Matth. â— Eâ—hes â— Matt. 16. Ephes. 5. 〈…〉 〈◊〉 5.24 M. Barlow litle aâ—â—â—aâ—ntâ—â—â—ith 〈…〉 body by diâ—â—â—pline 1. 〈◊〉 2. 14. â—aâ—lâ—w pag. 2â—7 Frederick the first About the coronatioÌ„ of Henry the sixt a In â—ita Câ—lâ—stini b Pâ—rt â— gâ—â— 40. in 〈◊〉 11â— c 〈◊〉 ◠〈…〉 â— d â—n An. 119â— e 〈…〉 f 〈…〉 Baronius An. 1191. Alexander the 3. â—â—eared 〈◊〉 a â—â—luÌ„ny Paron in annal an 1177. â—arlow pag. 281. Baâ—l pag. 269. Walthramuâ— so often obiecâ—ed of no credit â—â—ron Tom. 12. 〈◊〉 Râ—â— pag. 7â— Lett. pag. 1â—1 Apolog. pag. 72. About Philip the Emperâ—r â—laine not by Otho the â—mpâ—ror but by Otho the Câ—uÌ„t 〈…〉 Lâ—ttâ— pag. 1â—1 1 In vita Innoâ—eÌ„ 4. 2 Lib. 2. Dâ—â—ad l. 75 3 Tom. 2. Enne 9. l. 6 non longè ante finem 4 Part. 2. gen 41. anâ— 1247. 5 Lib. 8. c. 18 suâ—â— Saxoniae 6 In fine l. 18. * â— lond vâ—i supra Petrus de Viâ—eis lib. 2. â—pâ—st 2. 〈◊〉 vita 〈…〉 〈…〉 Inforcing of matters against the Pope Aug. in â—sal â—3 Barl. pag. 2â—4 in â—inâ— 295. Barl. pag. 291. Bâ—rl pag. 291. M. Barlows Iugling â—â—â—dem Barl. pag. 290. Barlow pag. 29â— M. Barlows lying discourse p. 292. 1. Sam. 26. 20. Plat. in Honor. 3. Vide â—ac omnia apud Vâ—spergen Nauâ—l geÌ„ 41. anno 1228. M. Barlow disseÌ„blâ—th the Eâ—perors faâ—lts ther by the better to charge the Pope of iniustice against him â—â—innius in Grâ—g 9. Tom. 3. pag. 147â— Thom. Fazel Decad. 2. l. 8. c. 2. circa fineÌ„ Vide in 6. Decret de sâ—ntâ—nt reiâ—dicata c. 2. Fazel ibid. Iacob Phil. Bergom an 1â—24 VVestmonast anno 1225. Sabâ—ll Enead 9. l. 6. Paulus AEâ—â—l in Lâ—dâ—â— nono Monacus Pâ—duâ—nus in anno 1225. Antoninus tit 1â— cap. 5. Platina in Innoâ—â—ntio qâ—a to Ioannet Alâ—hâ—â—â— Ciâ—â—â—n Vbert â—â—â—â—et l. 4. hist. Gâ—nâ—â—â—s Paul â—Enal in â—â—dou 9. M. Barlows vntruth about the cause of the Empeâ—rours going to the Holy-laÌ„d The trâ—e caâ—â—es why the Eâ—perors Staâ—â— wâ—re inuadâ—d in hiâ— absenâ—e Antonin tiâ— 1â— 4. §. 1. 〈◊〉 l. â— â— 1. 〈…〉 l. 6. c. 17. c. Sâ—gon in aâ— 1228. Hâ—lâ—â—â— Mâ—tius in an 1227. â—rantz 〈◊〉 8. c. 2. Fazelius Dâ—cad 2. lib. 8. c. 2. Nâ—u l. 〈◊〉 41. 〈◊〉 1229. in â—inâ— Why Fredericke weÌ„t to the holy laÌ„d The Emperours sicknes counterâ—ait Lib. 8. c. 1. Naâ—â—l lo co câ—â—ato a Inâ— brâ—n 〈◊〉 â—n 1217. b 〈◊〉 il eâ—â—eÌ„â—n c in Greg. nâ—no d Enâ—a 9. l. â— in Gâ—egor e Decad. 2. l. 7. anno 1226. f â— â—art hist. l 14. Hâ—ld â—utiâ—â—s
gradum habent illa quae tot signis coniecturis nituntur vt securum hominem reddant anxietatem excludant non tamen formidinem omnem expellant aâ—que haec dicitur certitudo coniecturalis opinionis est poâ—iùs 〈◊〉 fidei That is these things haue the last degree of certainty which are grounded on so many signes and coniectures that they make a man secure exclude all anxiety though they expell not all feare and this is called coniecturall certainty it is rather to be termed the certainty of opinion then the certainty of faith So Bâ—llarmyne And by this coniecturaâ—l certainty I assure my self that M. Barlow vnderstandeth not the thing wherof now he disputeth but shooâ—eth wyde of the marke in mistaking the very termes of the question and then fighting with his owne fiction as if it were indeed his aduersaries positiue assertion for Bellarmyne disputing against the hereticall opinion of these dayes which is that a man must be certayn certitudine fidei cui non potest subesse falsum that he is in the state of grace still taketh the word certainty or vncertainty in this sense for so he seteth downe the state of the Question in the end of his second chapter Status igitur quaestionis c. Wherfore the state of the question if it be set downe without deceipt ambâ—guity must be this whether a man without speciall râ—uelation ought or may be certaine with the certainty of faith which excludes all falsity that his sinnes are forgiuen him So heâ— Plainly declaring of what certainty he speaketh to wit of that which of all others is the greatest and most infallible 48. Which being supposed let vs examine how well to the purpose M. Barlow talketh of vncertainty when he sayth but in vncertainty there is no comfort Where if he take the word vncertainty as it excludeth all certainty it is true but then he abuseth the Reader for Bâ—llarmyne taketh it not so but supposeth proueth the contrary if he take it as it is a deniall only of the certainty of faith then it is most false for it may haue other certainty sufficient to yield comfort though it haue not this yea confidence as it is hope cannot possibly stand with that absolute certainty For who can be said to hope for that which he is certayn to haue Or were it not a ridiculous manner of speach to say that the soules of the Saints in heauen hope for the resurrectioÌ„ of their bodyes which infallibly they know shal be restored reunited againe vnto theÌ„ Or that we hope that God will iudge both the wicked iust punishing the first with endles torments and rewarding the other with euerlasting felicity Well may the Saints be sayd to expect their bodyes and we the iudgment but neyther the one nor the other by reason of their vndoubted certainty can be hoped for as is euident 49. And whereas M. Barlow saith that reliancâ— on that whereof a man â—oubts causeth rather a feare to be deceaued then a confidâ—nce to be relieued is far from the purpose a new changing of the terme For who saith that a man doubteth of his iustice or righteousnes Bellarmyme expresly denyeth it and saith that the morall certainty that a man hath of his merits or iustification is so great that although it take not away all feare yet doth it exclude all anxiety and wauering yea doubting also if he may be sayd to doubt who assenteth to neyther part So he Which may be made more cleere by the example of S. Paul debet in spe qui arat arare he that tilleth the ground must till it in hope that is hope that the ground tilled will bring forth fruit and he who thus hopeth is neyther certayn that he shall reape the fruite for then he would not hope the same it may so fall out as that he may reape none at all neyther yet is he doubtfull whether he shall or shall not for he hopeth that he shall and for that he hath many reasons and so assenteth to the affirmitiue part or els he would neuer haue sowen as likewise doth the sayler on the seas for if he were as doubtfull of drowning as ariuing vnto the port he sayleth to he would neuer I thinke aduenture to passe them ouer And whether this morall certainty which both sowers and saylers haue be not sufficient to yield them rather confidence to be relieued then a feare to be deceaued needeth no other proofe then the common practice custome which in the one and in the other we daily behold From this argument M. Barlow with like good fortune proceedeth to another thus 50. This also saith he crosseth the very next precedent proposition that some confidence may be reposed in our owne righteousnes and good workes if men be assured that they be good workes But by this proposition in hand it seemes none can be assured If they may why doth he â—al it incertitudineÌ„ iustitiae nostrae the vncertainty of oâ—â— righteousnes If they may not whâ—re then is their câ—nfidâ—nce or how mâ—y they settle it If some may and others not he should haue described and distinguished them or els that foregoing proposition might well haue bene sparedâ— which afâ—oards little vse and lesse comfort and in that regard is directly opposite to this last which is full of confidence and consolation Hitherto M. Barlow fighting like a blind man with his face turned from his aduersary and then florishing in the ayre where all his dry blowes do but beat against the wynd and touch not Bâ—llarmine at allâ— whose words had he seene and vnderstood he would neuer I thinke haue framed this idle conceipt For what contradiction is there I pray you betweene these two propositions some confidence may be reposed in our good workes so that by morall coniecturall certainty we know them to be such and this other for that if we speake of the certaynty of faith which can be subiect to no falsity we are vncertain whether our workes be meritorious or not and therefore in respect thereof as also to auoyd pride is is best to repose all our confidence in the mercy and bountifulnes of Almighty God Truly no more then is in this other They that thinke themselues morally assured of M. Barlows fidelity may repose some confidence in him but because this their assurance is not so great but that they may be deceaued as he deceaued his maister the Earle of Essâ—x who reposed so much confidence in him by proclayming out of the pulpit at Paules Crosse those things which the other before his death for the quieting of his conscience had disclosed vnto him in secret therefore it is best to let him alone and trust to Almighty God of whose fidelity no man can haue any cause to feare or doubt 51. By which is easily answered the foresaid argument the force whereof resteth vpon these contradictory
termes that a man may be assured of his good workes and none can be assured of their good workes but neyther the one nor the other is in this place of Bellarmine For he saith not that a man may be assured but that if he be assured and in the second for the vncertainty of our righteousnes and not none can be assured of their righteousnes for so it were a contradiction if the word assâ—red were taken in the selfe same sense signification in both places But as the words lye in Bâ—llarm albeit he should speak of the same certainty in both places as he doth not yet were it not any contradiction at all for both partes are true the first that men may repoâ—e confidence in their good workes if with the certainty of faith as they may doe by diuine reuelation they know them to be suchâ— the second thus for the vncertainty of our righteousnes for without reuelation we cannot be sure therof it is best to repose all our confidence in the mercy of Almighty God Wherein here standeth the contradiction And M. Barlow sheweth great ignorance in this matter when he saith that by this proposition of Bellarmine it sâ—emeth that none can be assured if they may why doth he call it incertitudinem iustitiae nostrae the vncertainty of our righteousnes This I say is very simple stuffe for doth not this Prelate preachâ— somtymes to his people of the vncertainty of the houre of death and yet God may reueale to any man in particuler of his audience when he shall dye Now of these two propoâ—â—â—â—oÌ„s iâ— a man be certayn of the houre of his death he needeth not to be waâ—ned by the Preacher and for that men are ordinarily vncertaynâ—â— therfore it is good that the Preachers put them often in mind therof what Deuine what Philosopherâ— yea what man of common sense and iudgment vnles he haue as little wit and learning as this Minister would say that one part of this argumeÌ„t were contradictory to the other I think the man was musing oâ— some other matter when he wrote this patched ill-coherent and ignorant discourse 52. I pretermit his idle cauill against F. Persons about three questions worthy of M. Barlows profouÌ„d learning answered after by the Father himself after which he putteth downe the three conclusions of the Cardinall before alleadged and then thus like some GraÌ„maticall Monte-bank frameth this discourse There cannot be any thing more violently contradicting yea totally euerting the very principall question for quatenus implyeâ— that some confidence may be placed in mâ—rit but with a limitation tenus qua this last admits no confining but drawes our whole confidence from mans mâ—rit to Gods mercy alone carries with it a double contradiction both subiecti obiecti so to speake Doe not you thinke that he hath spoken well much to the purpose From these flourishing words let vs come to his proofe and discusse in a word or two what he bringeth to proue a contradiction in the subiect and obiect But first I must herâ— tell the reader that now he shall finde M. Barlow ouâ— of his sphere I meane out of Erasmus prouerbs Martialls Epigrams and other Poets and to handlâ— weapons which he knoweth not how to vse I meanâ— the termes of art which become him as well to dealâ— withall as to see an ape fight with a sword buckleâ—â— for thus he beginneth 53. The subiect saith he tota fuducia mans whole confidence this excludes all partitioÌ„ in it selfe it must be entire take it eyther as totum quantitatis because confideÌ„ce may be â—xtâ—ndâ—d or râ—mitted be greater or lesse or as totum rationis as it is defined an hope corroborate perfect â—r as totum potentiale seu virtutis confidâ—nce of this or that naturâ— quality In which words are many mistakings and those also very grosse first confidence being a spirituall quality inherent in the will or secoÌ„d power of the soule cannot be said to haue totum quantitatis nâ—que per se nâ—que per accidens as S. Thomas in this very place mentioned by M. Barlow doth teach as presently we shall see Againe where he saith that confidence may be extended or remitted there is an implicancy in the termes if we speake in the phrase of schoolmen for only quantity can be extended and only quality remitted and to ioyne them both togeather is to vse M. Barlowes phrase to couple Moyses two bâ—asts in one yoke which will not agree quantity may be extended or contracted quality intended or remitted but to say that quantity may be remitted is as proper a speach as to say that the nature of a quality is to be deuided and of a substance to be intended 54. Neyther was it for nothing that Bâ—rlowâ—yted â—yted only the bare name of S. Thomas in the margent without all refereÌ„ce to any place for had he but quoâ—ed the part queston and article he should haue diâ—ected the Reader where to haue seene his open ignoraÌ„ce refuted for S. Thomas disputing how the whole soule is in euery part of the body sheweth first how many wayes a totality or wholenes may be taken â—nd answereth that a whole thing may be sayd to be eyther totum quod diuiditur in pâ—rtes quantitatiâ—â—â—â— sicut tota linea vel totum corpus A whole that is deuidâ—â— into his quantitatiue parts as a whole line or a wholâ— body or a whole that is deuided into essentiall parâ—â—â— as a thing defined into the parts or members of the dâ—finitionâ— or a potentiall which is deuided into his viâ—tuall or operatiue parts not of this or that nature and quality as M. Barlow very ignorantly conceaueth or rather mistaketh it and then sayth afterwards totâ—litas quantitatiua non potest attribuâ— anima nec per se nâ—â— per accidens and how then can confidence haue his totum quantitatiuum Or how will M. Barlow measure the same by inches or eâ—ls by feet or fathoms yea how doth he cite S. Thomas for that which so plainly 〈◊〉 gainsaieth and refuteth but ne sutor vltra crâ—pidam M. Barlow now is beyond Erasmâ—s Chyliads Ouids Metamorphosis This triple diuision of totality being set downe by M. Bâ—rlow he adioyneth as out of Bâ—llarâ—mine these words The WHOLE sâ—ith the Cardinall whether greater or lesse whether weake or strong whâ—thâ—r one or other is WHOLY to be cast on Gods mâ—rcy And is there no difference in your diuinity good Syr betweene these two speaches The best course for M. Barlow were to leaue his lyinâ— and speake truly M. Bâ—â—low is to leaue his lying speake truly when as the first is but exhortatiue and the later absolute The Cardinall only saith that the safest way is to repose our whole confidence in Gods mercy alone and neuer yeâ— made this absolute proposition Our whole confidence is wholy to be câ—st on Gods mercy alone What wresting what forging
his Diunity and the shallownes of his aduersary And in very deed he vttereth diuers profundityes which are so deepe as I thinke that the Reader will say when he hath considered of them that himselfe vnderstood them not when he set them downe and much lesse that he can iustify them in the Readers vnderstanding I shall touch some of them in order The first profundity that he vttereth is in his first question or demand which now yow haue heard to wit Can Gods prouidence be strange which is daily and continuall As though it could not And in this demand two positions are contained if yow marke the matter and both of them false the first that the prouidence of God in those effectes which are daly and continuall can not be strange and admirable the second that this euent whereof we intreat to wit of the King of France his vnexpected chastisement from God is daily and continuall And who will not laugh at these two profundityes of M. Barlowes diuinity neither of them being iustifyable in the eyes of any man of meane capacity As for the first I remit him to S. Augustine his learned discourse vpon the miracle of our Sauiour in S. Iohns Ghospell when he did feed fiue thousand men with two barley-loaues vpon which place the sayd learned Father maketh a notable discourse to proue the quite contrary of M. Barlowes assertion to wit that many things of Gods prouidence and heauenly power that fall out daily and continually are as strange and admirable mira stupenda in themselues as other things that fall out seldome and by their seldom euents doe seeme more strange and he guieth an example of the daily gouernmeÌ„t of the whole world the course and continance of the starres the multiplying of graines of corne in the ground which is no lesse meruaylous then the multiplying of those two loaues to the feeding of fiue thousand people and yet sayth S. Augustine this is wondred at and the other not wondred at non quia maius est sed quia rarum est not for thaâ— it is a greater miracle but for that it falleth out more seldome So as according to S. Augustine the effects of Gods power and prouidence which are continuall and fall out daily are no lesse strange and admirable in themselues for that they are so common seing the strangnes therof is not to be vnderstood as M. Barlow would haue it onely for the rarenes of the euent for then it should seeme strange that M. Barlow should speake a wise word because he doth it so seldom but for some thing which is admirable in the worke it selfe whether the same be seldome or coÌ„mon and this also especially in the iudgment of wise men as here M. Barlow will seeme to be accounted but that this first depth of his helpeth him nothing to the attayning of that good opinion His second depth also or profundity contained in this question which is that this euent of King Henry of France his vnexpected chastisment by so an vnimaginable means of a simple fryar and other like circumstances is daily and continuall and consequently neither strange nor admirable is such a depth that euery shallow wit will easily discerne it to be both false and fond and against experience it selfe For how many such examples can M. Barlow produce to haue happened in many ages togeather much lesse daily and continually and therby to be neyther strange not wonderfull But now his third profundity standeth in another question immediatly ensuing vpon the former which is deep indeed and passeth all sense and vnderstanding For is any thing strange in Gods prouidence saith he which seeth things to come as if they were present and existent Which demaund is quite from the purpose for our question is whether Gods prouidence in his workes effects may be called strange and admirable in our eyes as this of the King of France his punishment and not whether any thing can be strange or admirable in the eyes of God and his eternall prouidence â—heâ—e questions are as â—arre different as are the vnderstanding of God and man and the two poles the one from the other But will you heare another profundity of his in another question Can visible acts sayth he be called Gods proâ—â—â—â—â—â— And why not Syr as they are the effects of Gods prouidence do proceed from the same As when we see certaine effects of Gods iustice vpon any wicked man we truly say it is Gods Iustice. And the like when we see certaine eminent works of Gods mercy towards any people Countrey or priuate person we truly say that it was Gods mercy towards them and so in all the rest of Gods attributes though they remayne in God and be the selfe same thing with God yet when they worke and their effects be apparent we do coÌ„monly call the effects by the names of the attributes themselues that is to say the effects of Gods iustice are called Gods Iustice the effects of his Mercy are called his Mercyes of his Wisedome his Wisdome of his Prouidence his Prouidence which as it is most true so notwithstanding my words were with more exactnes vttered then M. Barlow would seeme to take them I saying that Pope Sixtus Quintus did highly admire the Prouidence of God in chastising so â—oule a murther so as I distinguished betweene the cause and the effect and betweene Gods prouidence and the chastisement of the King proceeding from the same wherby is preuented a certain petty florish made by M. Barlow by naming the definition of Schoolemen to be that Gods Prouidence is so farre forth called Gods Prouidence as it remaineth in his secret Counsaile but when it sheweth it selfe in effects sensible then is it called Fatum and not Prouidentia And for this he cyteth in the margent Aquinas summa contra Gentes but no place at all where the said worke being great and contayning foure Bookes and aboue an hundred and fourescore Chapters the thing may be found which is a common shift of his when he will not be vnderstood nor found out But the worst of all is that the poore man vnderstandeth not one scrap of what he hath read in S. Thomas or other Schole-men concerning this matter for they do not say as he doth that Gods Prouidence is no longer called Prouidence then it remayneth secret in Gods counsaile and that when it sheweth it selfe in sensible effects it is no more prouidence but Fatum but thus they say that wheras Gods prouidence hath two partes in it the one which is in the mind of Almighty God to dispose of all thinges in the world how they shall fall out and the second the execution of this disposition by secondary causes this second part of Gods prouidence conteyning the coÌ„nexion order of the secoÌ„dary causes is called though improperly saith S. Thomas Fatum destiny for that in respect of Gods immoucable order in his