and Clâ—ments Constituâ—ions before mentioned So teacheth Doctor Stapleton and the reason of his saying is for that the authority of the Church is the same now shal be vnto the worlds end as it was in the first ages to iudge of Scriptures when occasion is offered And if the Church should admit any such booke now into the Canon of holy Scriptures which was not held for Scripture before which yet is a case not like to fall out then should noâ— this booke be made Scripture by the Church but only declared to be such which was so from the beginning though not so knowne declared So as the Church in this case should not giue infallibility of truth vnto the booke but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost that this booke was such from the beginning though not so accepted So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in cyting Doctour Stapletons words first to conceale his first condition Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret if the holy Ghost should suggest the same vnto the Church and then these other two conditions if it were written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose to make M. Doctour Stapletons speach to appeare more naked and improbable but indeed it was to keep his old custome which is neuer commonly to relate things truly in all respects in any citation whatsoeuer His second obiection is out of Bishop Fisher VVho sayth quoth he that whatsoeuer the Pope with a Councell deliuereth vs to be belieued that is to be receiued as an Article of fayth which we graunting to be true do ad only this that it is to be vnderstood according to our former declaration and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it against â—uther out of Scotus saying Non quòd â—unc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but â—or that it did declare it to be true and to haue bene deliuered by God and this by direction of the holy Ghost promised by our Sauiour to the Church So sayth Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neyther the Church nor the Pope Head therof do pretend to make any new Article of fayth that was not in it selfe an article of fayth before yea and so belieued also fide implicita by implyed fayth in the faith of the Church but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to haue byn such from the beginning though not so knowne or declared and therfore men were not bound to belieue it fide explicita by expresse fayth as now they are after the Churches definition and declaration therof And that this is the common sense of all Catholicke Deuines according to my former wordes that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much adoe as though it were false is proued among other learned men of our dayes by Gregorius de Valentia whose wordes are that it is Sententia communis Theologorum the common opinion of Deuines for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors principall Schoolemen And his whole discourse founded vpon Scriptures Fathers Councells and other arguments consisteth in this that as whatsoeuer is now belieued by the Church for matter of fayth was in substance belieued before in all other precedent ages vnto Christes time actu fidei implicito by an implyed act of fayth that is to say the belieuing in generall whatsoeuer the Church belieued so many thinges are now belieued by the Church actu fidei explicito by expresse fayth which were not so belieued before for that the Church froÌ„ time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clearly and expresly which before were belieued by an implied faith only As for example the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the pâ—oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne as was afterward declared vnto vs by the Church but that it belieued the same yet may we not deny but that it belieued the same not fide expliciâ—a but implicita only And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications therof made by the subsequent Councels about the vnity of the Person differeÌ„t Natures in Christ that his Mother should be called the Mother of God were belieued implicitè by those of the Councel of Nyce and consequently were then also Articles of faith though they were not belieued by them explicitè as we are bound to do after the explication made by the Church Let vs conclude therfore with Bishop Fiâ—â—ers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tameâ—si nequeat Sumâ—â—â— Pontisex c. That albeit the Pope with a Councel that is to say the Catholick Church cannot make any thing true or false that is not true or false of it selfe and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith yet whatsoeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs as an Article of faith that al true Christians ought to belieue as an Article of faith which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth Thus Bishop Fisher whome you see how impertinently M. Barlow alleadgeth against my assertion saith the very same that I do Let vs go forward Thirdly then he obiecteth S. Thomas of Aquine who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith some more large and some more briefe demandeth to whome appertayneth noua Editio Symboli the new Edition of a Creed when the necessity of new heresies doth require And he sayth it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church And what is this against me Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed though he were not Pope with addition of many Articles for explanations sake which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed though in substaÌ„ce of truth they were nothing different Did not diuers Councells set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before All which standeth vpon this ground so much pondered by â— Irenaeus that the Apostles had all truth reuealed vnto them by Christ and they left the same in the Church so as whatsoeuer is or hath or shal be added afterward by the said Church are only explications of that first reueiled truth and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the coÌ„trary is to no purpose at al for he citeth diuers authors for that which we deny not but yet alwaies commonly with addition of some vntruth of his owne as heere he alleadgeth out of the Iesuit Azor that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei Doctrines of faith which we deny not but when he addeth that this belongeth vnto the Pope only and not to a Councel this is his owne inuention for Azor ioyneth them
in extolling or rather belying Q. Elizabeth farr beyond all truth or desert calling white black and black white making light darknes darknes light after he hath made her of all liuing creatures the most admirable on earth with many boÌ„basting phâ—ases setting forth her praise who yet in her life tyme did nothing or very little God wot that was praise worthy leauing after 44. yeares raigne no other monument in the land of her liuing in it but that she had pulled downe many Churches 〈◊〉 howses and not so much as buylt or let vp oneâ— or â—rected any thing for posterity to remayne after 〈◊〉 But as Xenophon in Cyrus did not so much write 〈◊〉 life as in him describe what a good King should beâ— so M. Barlow in his transformed Queen Elizabeth â—â—â—leth vs not so much what she was indeed as what 〈◊〉 should haue bene or as now they would for the crâ—dit of their Ghospell wish that she had bene After aâ—â— these Encomions giuen of her life I say thus he adâ—uaunceth her after her death to heauen and withoâ—â— authority will needs canonize her before her tyme to vse his owne phrase make her an eternized Saintâ— His words be theseâ— For her reward in heauen if restraints of liberty and pursuites of malice for Gods truthâ— inflicted through Iealousie and indured with singular patâ—â—ence if a release from them vnexpected followed with hâ—â—nours and blessings neyther interrupted by others wheâ—ther treasons or inuasions nor blemished by herselfe with vice criminall or continued if life shut vp after length 〈◊〉 dayes and a full age with a courage defying death withâ— prayâ—rs imploring mercy with faith assuring the prayers with testimoâ—ies witnessing her assurance can be preceding coniectures or rather euidences of vnspeakable happinesseâ— we may safely conclude that she which passed through 〈◊〉 Crowne of thornes borne so constantly to a Crowâ—e of Gold worne so tryumphantly hath nâ—w gotten the thirâ— of Glory to enioy for euerlasting 115. So M. Barlow with more to the same effectâ— telling how she was an example of vâ—rtue for her owne to follow and a loadst irre for other Nations to admire coÌ„cluding with this Apostrophe Now this renowned Queen this eternized Saint c. And not to enter into disputâ— of the truth of his words nor yet to aske him by what â—ertainty he knowes that she passed from one of these â—hree Crownes to another especially from the gold â—o glory which requireth other proofe then this verâ—all florish of a few Rhetoricall figures bare imagiâ—ary coniectures of that courage prayers faith and testimonies witnessing assurance which this man sitting in his chamber doth faigne but she at her death if we belieue eye witnesses of much better credit then himselfe did little feele to omit this I say as an idle fancy or fiction rather of this foolish Parasite two things I would demauÌ„d of him the first that seeing he will needs draw his glorious Queen into the Calendar of Saints what title or place she shall haue amongst them in the same for that in ours there is no Saint of that sex but is either Virgin or Martyr or both or else nec Virgo nec Martyr as are Wiues Widdowes and repentaÌ„t sinners M. Barlow shall do well in his next to tell vs in which of these degrees this his new Sainted Queen Elizabeth is to be placed perhaps when he hath thought better on the matter he may find some perplexity be content to let her passe for one that was nec Virgo nec Martyr and thrice happy had it bene for her if she had bene indeed a true repentant sinner 116. The other thing is to know what he thinketh of the renowned Mother of his Maiesty whom by this canonizing of Q. Elizabeth he must needs condemne to hell-fire for it is impossible that one heauen should hold both these Queenes in life and beliefe so quite opposite the one with great commendation of vertue remayning in the vnity of the Catholick faith in which and for which she dyed to the great admiration and amazement of the whole world to 〈◊〉 a Queene Mother of a King indeed for religion 〈◊〉 vnder the colour of â—reason to which foule spot as 〈◊〉 Orator well noteth Royall dignity was neuer lyablâ— against all law with all disgrace â—o lâ—ose her heâ—d 〈◊〉 an ordinary malefactor by way of publick and coÌ„ 〈◊〉 iustice whiles the other liued in all ruffe pride and pleasure followed the fancyes of new vpstart Ghospellers hated and persecuted that faith wherin notwithstanding vntill the fall of her vnhappy Father 〈◊〉 whole Iland froÌ„ the first CoÌ„uersion had remayned 〈◊〉 in the end shut vp a wicked lyfe with a miserable pâ—tiful death if that may be sayd to be pitifull miserable which was without all remorse of conscience for fâ—â—mer sinnes all remonstrance of piety in and before her agony all remembrance of her future weale oâ— woe in the life to come all naming God as of her selfe or enduring others that did name him for her or put her in mind of him whatsoeuer this lying Minister who is true in nothing with a few fine phrases chatteth and forgeth to the contrary 117. And if it would but please his most Excellent Maiesty out of his Royall respect to his most Noble Mother to see who in her person haue alwaies most honoured or dishonoured his he should soone find that as in her life tyme the Catholiks had her in highest esteeme so since her death haue registred her in the raÌ„ke of Martyrs of whome the glory of this age Cardinal Bâ—ronius to name one for all the rest writeth thus Porrò eamdâ—m Ecclâ—siam nobilissâ—mam c. Moreouer God in this our age hath permitted that most noble Church of Scotland to be tempted that it might yield a most noble example of Christian coÌ„stancy when as a moÌ„gst â—ther Martyrs which no other Country hath hitherto â—ad it hath deserued to haue their owne Queene the â—â—nguler glory and ornament of the Catholick faith â—efore tryed by a long imprisonment for to be honouâ—ed with the Crowne of Martyrdome So he As conâ—rariwise in M. Barlows brethrens bookes both at home â—nd abroad he shall find the most iniurious slanders â—â—ying reports and reproachfull villanies powred forth â—gainst that innocent Princesse as will make any mans â—ares to glow and hart to rue to see so little respect of â—rincely Maiestie or such insufferable liberty in Proâ—estant writers conioyned with singular impudency â—nd fraudulent malignity in imputing the outragious â—ttempts of the trayterous subiects to the Queen herâ—elf as though she had bene the Author of that misâ—hiefe which in hart she detested with many bitter â—eares the true tokens of vnfaygned griefe most pittiâ—ully bewailed let one Reusnâ—rus in his Genealâ—gyes be â—eene whose words I abhore to set downe and the Reader will not thinke me too sharp and I must conâ—esse that in respect
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
is this And yet this man very deuoutly in this place preacheth vnto vs of cor contritum which God will haue and cor diuisum which he doth hate but how contrite M. Barlowes hart is or whether it be deuided or vnited I know not sure I am that here is double dealing much ignorance and nothing with any learning or sincerity handled 55. From the subiect he coÌ„meth to the obiect The obiect also saith he affoards a strong contradiction sola misericordia mercy alone c. the very force of which word put the tempter to silence and to flight also ei soli him only shalt thou serue Had the Cardinall said in the first place mans confidence must or may be reposed in his owne merits and afterwards subioyned mans confidence must or may be placed in Gods mercy these had not bene contradictory but communicatiue merit might haue part staked with mercy but when he adds in mercy ALONE merit Saints and Angells and whatsoeuer beside are abondoned and cassiered for solùm alone admits no consort as saith Aquinas Lo here a short conquest one word ALONE cassiering from confidence all merits all Saints all Angells and whatsoeuer els and from M. Barlow himself all learning all sincerity all truth all honesty this doubtles is a potent word that containeth so great vertue in it But let vs examine the force of this inference First I would demauÌ„d of M. Barlow what Saints Angells haue to doe with the confidence that riseth out of our good woâ—kes that by this word Alone they should be abandoned cassierd Did euer any affirme that this confidence of our merits did depend on them as vpon the obiect of the same This is one notorious foolery 56. Againe where will he find in all Bellarmyne that solamisericordia only mercy is the entire obiect of our confidence Doth he noâ— say that some confidence may be reposed in our workes so we be sure they be meâ—itorious and that we auoid pride He saith in deed that the securest way is to repose all our confidence in the only mercy of God but not that the mercy of God is the only obiect And M. Barlow whiles he thinketh to put his aduersary to silence as Christ did the Deuill with the word Only himselfe is ouercome with temptation of one lye at the least if he knew what he wrote or of ignoraÌ„ce if he knew it not Moreouer where he addeth that had the Cardinall said in the first place mans confidence must or may be reposed in his owne mâ—rits afterwards had subioyned mans confideÌ„ce must or mâ—y be placed in Gods mercy these had not bene contradictory but coÌ„municaâ—iue he both dealeth falsly and refuteth himselfe falsly in foysting in the word must in both propositions which is not in Bellarmyne and it cleane altereth the sense for it is not all one to say one may doe such a thing and a man must doe it for example it is a far different thing to say that M. Barlow may giue the reuenews of his Bishoprick of one whole yeare if he will to the poor people of Lincolne and M. Barlow must giue his renenews of one yeare to the said poore people But without this cobling and cogging in of words M. Barlow can make no contradiâ—tioÌ„ He refuteth also himself for omitting the word must here thrust in as I said Bellarminâ— saith the selfe same to wit that confidâ—nce may be reposed in mâ—rits and confiâ—â—nce may be reposed in God But the first is subiect to errour and pride the second is secure and therfore it is best to repose all on the same Which two propositions euen by M. Barlows confession are not contradictory and therfore all his preaching and pratling as F. Parsons well calleth it seâ—ueth rather to shew himself a false and ignorant writer then to proue any contradiction in the Cardinall 57. After this sory stuffe he beginneth a SermoÌ„ out of S. Augustine vpon these words of the Psalme Memorabor iustitiae tuae solius saying that the said Father doth insist vpon the same both with an admiration ô solius and also with a question rogo vos I pray you why should he ad this word solius Had it not bene inough for him to say I will remember thy righteousnes No but solius prorsus it alone altogeather I will remember why so Vbi meam non cogito for in so saying I put out of my mynd any righteousnes which is mine owne So M. Barlow and hauing ended his deuotion he concludeth thus So then totum whole confidence that taks away the particular aliqua in his former proposition sola excludes meritum in both propositions This is all he hath touching the obiect and all wyde of the marke as is most euident 58. Yea so far is S. Augustine from checking this assertion of the Cardinall as he elswere graunteth the same saying vt speret regnum habeat bonam conscientiam credat operetur that a man may hope for the kingdome of heauen let him haue a good conscience let him belieue and labour So he and the place here cyted by M. Barlow hath no more coherence with this matter now in controuersy then a poke full of plums with the way to London For our question is of such workes as be meritorious and follow or rather flow from Gods grace inherent within vs. But S. Augustine speaketh of that grace which goeth before all our good workes and of that iustification which the deuines call the first iustificatioÌ„ by which a sinner is made iust and first called vnto God from that state and saith that this grace or righteousnes no workes can merit which all Catholiks admit the Cardinall elswhere at large doth proue and that he meaneth the first not the second iustification is cleare by his owne words following in this explication which are these I am enim si superbi desideramus vâ—l fatigati râ—deamus c. For now if we that are proud doe desire or wearied do returne we cannot returne but by grace grace is freely giuen for if it were not a free gift it were not grace Moreouer if therfore it be grace because it is freely giuen nothing of thine went before for which thou must receaue it For if any of thy good workes went before thou hast receaued a reward no free gift the reward due vnto thee is punishment that therefore we are deliuered comes not froÌ„ our merits but is of his grace him therfore let vs praise to whome we owe all that we are to whome we owe our saluation with which the Prophet concluded after he had said many things saying memorabor iustitiae tuae solius I will remember thy righteousnes alone So S. Augustine So cleerly explicating himself euincing M. Barlows ignorance as that I shall not need to ad any further Commentary for confutation of the same The rest which he addeth by way of antithesis totum aliqua
offered to the words and meaning of the Breue euery simple Reader will see without any explycation from me For that the Pope doth not prohibite naturall obedience in things lawfull nor doth say that such naturall or ciuill obedience is opposite to faith or saluation of soules nor that the oath is vnlawfull for exhibiting such naturall or ciuill obedience but for that besides this exaction of naturall obedience which is lawfull it conteyneth diuers other points also concerning matters of Catholicke religion c. Let the Reader compare them with those which in the Fathers name M. Barlow hath giuen vs he shal soone see how well wheÌ„ he is disposed to rayle he can forge a text to befit his argumeÌ„t what coÌ„science he maketh to abuse his Reader or slaunder his Aduersary 128. Another notorious forgery he vseth in cutting away of words when he is so conuinced by them as he cannot reply For proofe that Henry the fourth Emperour was taken out of his graue the day after his buriall by the Popes commaundment M. Barlâ—w will needs bring a clowd of witnesses which F. Persons hath so dispersed as that all the thunder and lightning will fall on M. Barlows owne head For the Emperour dying at Liege where he was besiâ—ged by the yong Emperour his sonne and being vnburied againe the next day after his buriall how could the Pope procure it to be done Belike they dispatched M. Barlows Cut-speed the poast who in one night went from Liege to Rome 800. myles and returned againe ere morning But least that this should be espied M. Barlow out of his Authors pareth away the word pridie the day before and then leaues the tyme indeterminate in them all as it may by his cyting theÌ„ as well seeme to haue byn done a yeare as a day before for which matter I refer him to the discussion it self where this in due place is more largely handled 129. I will end with one place more wherewith the forgery is ioyned also incredible impudency as the Author of the Supplement doth more fully handle and cleerly euince against him Yow haue before heard M. Barlows bould assertion touching vnity of names about a place obiected out of S. Leo saying that S. Peter was assumpted in coÌ„sortium indiuiduae vnitatis which F. Persons sayd was answered long since by M. Harding to be meant of vnity of Name What saith M. Barlow hereunto Speake in sooth honest censurer saith he is vnity of names Hardings owne distinction in answere to Bishop Iewelâ— Himself denieth it for M. Harding saith that Leo meaÌ„t therby an vnitie in Quality an vnity in grace an vnity that is proper to Christ himself and mentionâ—th no vnity of NAME for though he were a corrupt Doctor yet was he a better Dâ—uine then to speake so absurdly as Persons would heer make him Is not this very confideÌ„tly spoken thinke you And yet the Reader must know that in this very place which M. Barlow himelf cyteth in the margent punctually setting downe the leaff in this very leasse I say after the words of M. Barlow of vnity of quallity vnity of grace he addeth againe and againe vnity of name neuer saith an vnity that is proper to Christ himself And what then will you say to the brazen forhead of this shameles man affirming that D. Harding mentioneth no vnity â—f Name yea that himself dâ—nyeth iâ— Againe that he saith an Vnity that is proper to Christ himsâ—lâ— Truly I cannot heere but thinke of a sentence of S. Augustine which he wrote against one vsing far lesse impudency then this that if M. Barlow proceed on in this manner puto quod ipsum libri sui atramâ—ntunm erubescendo conuertetur in minium I thinke the very inke of his booke with blushing will become vâ—rmilâ—ion I add no other examples of this perfidious dealing yet if M. Barlow list to see them he shall find good store in the last chapter of the Supplement to the which I remit him 130. By these euictions gentle Reader that I may heere conclude all this matter of M. Barlows ignorance Grammaticall Historicall Scripturall Theologicall of his lying sycophancy rayling fooleries and forgeries of his bad diâ—puting Thrasonicall vauÌ„ting and other impertinencyes and misdemeanour in writing thow maiest without further proofe be able of thy self to iudge how vnfit a Sparthan he was to enter this combat how true the Censure is which before I gaue of him and of his booke which the more I consider the more I admire eyther how he was chosen to vvrite being so vveake or his writing suffered to passe with so sleight suruiew and with the Apostle to say Sic non erat inter vos sapiens c. is your Ministery so bare and Deuinity so barren that no more learned man then this ignorant and shameles Superintendent could be found to defend his Maiesty or write in this controuersy Or is your cause become now so desperate as that the weaknes and wickednes therof enforceth you to these hard shifts and disgracefull attempts Yf it be the truth you seeke why vse you so many and so manifest lyes If the controuersy yâ—â— handle belong to fayth or good life what needeth so frauduleÌ„t so faithles persidious dealing If all Authors staÌ„d for you why do you corrupt their words peruert their meaning If the Aduersary you answer be so weake as you make him at least let him speake in his owne words and then will your refutation in that respect carry with it the more credit Say not that which you cannot proue meddle not with that which you doe not vnderstand forge not accusations and then take the aduantage of your owne fictions deale like ChristiaÌ„s deale like Deuines if you haue any Diuinity at all amongst you let things be handled as their nature require as it becomes the person of the writer as is best for the Readers direction for finding the truth in case the iniquity of your cause and weaknes of your ability can beare it and then we will not complaine but setting aside all personall reproaches to which this Minister aboue his fellowes is more subiect insist only vpon the cause in controuersy vt res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum ratione concertet 131. This course had M. Barlow or could he haue holden we should not haue had so many ouersights so grosse and childish ignorance such lewd railing such sycophancy so many words so little matter so much chaffe without all substance so huge a heape of vntruthes so great brags so weake proofes and is fine we should haue found some Diuinity besides Erasmus Chiliads Martialls Epigrams and other Poets for of such pedling and pelting stuff is his whole booke composed we should not haue seene such false citations such mistaking and corrupting of Authors such straÌ„ge and vnchristian assertions and other misdemeanours of which I haue laied forth some examples but haue left
the Lord sweare by his name But good Syr we doe not deny the lawfulnes of swearing either in abstract or â—onâ—ret but the sinne of false swearing when we take an Oath against our iudgement and conscience He goeth further Perhaps then the aggrieuance saith he is in the Epithete because it is a new Oath No syr But because it is a faile Oath when a man thinketh the thinges not true that he sweareth He goeth forward to proue that a new Oath may be lawfull when the occasion thereof is new But I denied not this and so M. Doctor beareth the ayre in vaine Yet will he not leaue of but taketh another medium to prove that this Oath is not new but old concerning the matter therof For that it is old saith he and hath byn vsuall in all nationâ— Christian and Heathen that subiectes should bind their allegiance by Oath â—or theiâ— Soueraigns security But who denieth this is it not a shame for a Doctor to wander vp down from the purpâ—sâ—e And yet will he pasâ—e further therin for lacke of better matter It is grounded saith he he meaneth of taking Oathes of fâ—delity to Princes vpon Scripture both in the examples of holy Kings and the Apostles definition of an Oath Hebr. 6. 16. nâ—melâ— That an Oath is the end of all contrâ—uersies Of which speach I graunt the former part concerning the examples of holy Kings that haue taken Oathes of their subiects though as I haue said it be little or nothing to ouâ— controuersyâ— Nor can I find Cardinall Bellarmines authority cited in the margent to this purpose in his 7. booke de Romano Ponâ—ifice he hauing written but fiue of that argument Nor doth it import to find it he saying nothing therein which we doe not confesse But as for the second part where M. Barlow bringeth in the Apostles definition of an Oath to be the end of all controuersies though I acknowledge it to be his sentence and most true yet not a definition Nor doe I see how M. Barlow wil be able handsomely to defend the same For if the common axiome of Logitians knowne to euery scholler that studieth that art be true that Definitio definiâ—uÌ„ conuertuntur so as whatsoeuer is comprehended vnder the one is comprehended also vnder the other and contrariwise whatsoeuer agreeth not to the one agreeth not to the other then cannot this proposition of the Apostle be a definition of an Oath and consequently M. Barlow doth erre grossely in calling it so Now then that this matter is so and that euery Oath cannot end all controuersies nor that euery controuersy is ended with an Oath is euident by experience For how many swearers haue you that will offer to sweare twenty Oathes in a controuersy betweene them and others if therby they might end and gaine the controuersy But the other party admitteth them not for that he hath not so much credit of sincerity in their Oath that they wll sweare truly as to belieue them And so also on the other side how many controuersies are there ended dayly without Oathes and many cannot with Oathes As for example if M. Barlow should owe a peece of money and being vrged to pay it should offer to forsweare it that were not like to end the controuersy but rather the laying downe of the money Ergo all Oathes are not able to end all coÌ„trouersies nor all controuersies are determinable by Oathes You will demaund then what is S. Paul his meaning when he saith as here M. Barlow relateth him that an Oath is the end of all controuersies Surely S. Paules meaning had bene cleare inough iâ— M. Barlow had let downe all the Apostles wordes as they lie in the text which are Homines enim per maiorem sur iurant omnis controuersiae eorum finis ad confirmaâ—â—â—â— est iuramenâ—um For men doe sweare by a greater then themselues and the end of all their controuersy for the confirmation is an oath The intention of the Apostle is to strengthen our hope in God for that he had confirmed his prâ—mises to vs by Oath which is the soundest confirmation that can be in the behalfe of the swearer for no man can adde of his part more to bind then an Oath And for this cause he saith That an Oath is the end of all controuersy for confirmatioÌ„ of truth in the behalf of the swearer â—or he can passe no further but not so in the behalfe of the other party that is interessed also in the coÌ„trouersy for if he should mistrust the swearers sincerity of conscience then would not his Oath be sufficient to end the controuersie as before we haue said consequently the speach of S. Paul in this place containeth no definitioÌ„ of an oath as fondly M. Barlow dreameth but expresseth rather the effect of an oath for confirmation of truth in the behalf of the swearer which word of confirmation M. Barlow craftily left out thrust in two greeke words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end of controuersie most impertineÌ„tly without aâ—y purpose in the world as otherwise often he doth to entaÌ„gle his vulgar Reader with osteÌ„tation oâ— greeke wheras these words haue no speciall propriety emphasis or different signification in the world so as he might as well put in a whole page of greeke out of S. Paules Epistles as those two words But these men as els where I haue aduertised doe seeke occasions of darkenes obscurity to hide the weakenes of their cause therin But lâ—t vâ— goe forward For hauing laboured all this while out of the list to proue the vse of Oathes to be lawfull and ancient which wee deny not in lawfull cases he commeth now to set downe the coÌ„â—rouersy more in particuler that is this very case saith he the Amilogiae or controuersie wherof is VVhether any Romish Catholike can beare any true Allegiance in his heart to â—he Kings Maiesty This Iesuit houldeth the â—ffiâ—matiue we by effect oâ— so many treasonable plots of â—riestâ— and Iesuites doe hould the contrary Yea the Priestes of the same religion are merely contradictory to him c. And therâ—ore his Maiestie hath taken this way of the Apostle to try the matter by both But good Syr are you not ashamed to trifle in this manner and to be taken euery foote in false consequences Where did you learne your Logicke Or where did you frame your consâ—ience If the question be Whether any Romish Catholicke can beare true Allegiance in his hart to the Kinges Maiestie how do you hould the negatiue vpon some effectes of treasonable plottes of Priesâ—es and Iesuites If it were true that such were sound doth the discouery of some such plotts in some Catholikes infer an impossibility that no Catholike can beare any true Allegiance How say you to the plots of France Flanders and Scotland and other parts do they conuince that no Protestaâ—t can be trusty Furthermore if it be impossible for
this â—axatio â—f iudging consciences and consequently this is no inseparâ—ble marke that agreeth to all In like manner also it agrâ—â—â—â— not soli that is only to the sinne of hypocrisie to iudgeâ— of other mens consciences for pride may do it anger may do it temerity may do it reuenge may do it this withoâ—â— hypocrisy or iustifying of himselfe For if to a knowne vsâ—rer for example you should obiect or exprobrate the finne of vsury he answere you againe that he suspected yoâ—â— conscieÌ„ce of like sinne here he iudgeth of your conscience perhaps falsly and yet not by hypocrisie for he iustifietâ— not himselfe ergo this is not propriuÌ„ quarto modo any inseâ—arable marke or propriety of hypocrisie to iudge of other mens conâ—ciences Lastly let vs consider if you please the definition of hypocrisy which should indeed haue bene the first iâ— consideration for trying out of the true nature of this marke propriety for so much as according to Aristotles doctrine and the thing in it selfe is euident by Philosophy prâ—priâ— passiones flâ—unt ab essentijs rerum proprieties doe flow from the essence of things and therefore they are best vnderstood knowne by reâ—erence to the sayd natures and essences conteyned as Aristotle sayth in their definitions The definition theÌ„ of hypocrisie is according to S. Isidorus in his Etimologies simulatio alienae personae when a man pretendeth to be another maâ— and better then he is and according to S. Augustine Qui se vult videâ—iquâ—d non est hypocrita est hâ— that will seeme to be that which he is not is an hypocrite which the greeke word also whereof it is deriued to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth confirme that it signifieth dissimulation this definition I say which must conuerâ—i cum deâ—iniâ—o clâ—areth vs that this iâ—separable marke or propriety deuised by M. Barlâ— to be in all hypocrisie is both ignorantly falsly â—eygned by himselfe as not knowing the true nature of propriâ— pasâ—â— for that there be many wayes of dissimulation of â—eygâ—ing our selues to be better then we are without iudging otheâ— mens consciences that is to say there be many sâ—eâ—iâ— and kinâ—s oâ— hypocrisie and hypocrites that haue not this marke propriety as before hath byn shewed consequently not inseparable that is no proper or inseparable propriety at all no more then it is to â—ay that it is an inseparable propriety to horses to be white for that some few are found white And so we see M. Barlow when he coÌ„meth to speake of any matter of substance and learning sheweth himselâ—e a very feeble man scarce to vnderstand the very termes and first principles of the same But let vs passe on now to another more grieuous calumniation against me He is not content to make the former outcry against me for hypocrisie and iudging mens consciences but addeth also another assault â—saying that I doe teach Equiuocation to be vsed in thiâ— Oath which is so far froÌ„ all truth as I do teach the playne contrary as now hath appeared by my owne words before alledged For I say there of them that tooke the Oath I cannot in charity but assure 〈◊〉 selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as concerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in sâ—me such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sinceâ—iâ—y of true Christian doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath â—ot â—uthority â—ithout iust cause nor directly but indirectly only in â—â—dine ad spiritualia So I wrote then and the cleare addition that these exceptions and clauses must be expressed by the swearers and accepted by the Magistrate doth clearly exclude Equiuocation which consisteth of mentall reseruation not expressed nor vnderstood or accepted of him to whom it is vsed and moreouer within very few lines after continuing my speach and desiring his Maiesty to accept of these clauses of moderation Catholike exposition I doe yield this reason that Catâ—olikes doâ— not hold it lâ—wfull in a matter so neâ—rely concerning the Conâ—ession of their sayth to equiuocate or sweare in any other sense then from his Maiesty is proposed Can any thing be spoken more plainly With what face then can M. Barlow accuse me of the quite contrary and so reuile against me for the same Wherof some shal be here set downe Let the Reader bâ—hold sayth he a malicious trick of a notable Equiuocaâ—â—uâ— that cannot be contented to be him selfe alone the Diuells schâ—ller that ancient Equiâ—ocatourâ— but must be 〈◊〉 his Deuility Reader or Schoole-man to teach others â—o distinguish themselues tâ— hell fire sheweth him selfe to be verè spiritus mendaâ— iâ— ore Propâ—â—tarum framing two distinctions like the two 〈◊〉 of Sedecias the false Prophet such another as himselfe fuâ—â— of thâ— spirit putting them into their moâ—thes the first that the Pope 〈◊〉 not Authority withouâ— iust cause to proceeâ— against Princes the secâ—â—â— that the Pope hath not this authority directly but indirectly in ordine ad spiritualia c. So he Whereby wee see how much the man delighteth himselfe in comparing these two distinctions or explications of mine to the two iron-hornes of Sedecias though the Scripture hath not the particuler number of two but M. Barlow addeth that of â—is owne to make theâ— meet the more fitly with the number of my two distinctions for besides the parity of number which yet is false there is no other parity or likenes at all For what haue hornes to do with distinctions And yet after a large and lewd blast of rayling against me for the same he concludeth thus And now let the Christian Reader that maketh a conscience eyther of God or common honesty consider whether this be not the profunda Sathanae in the Reuelatió euen the very mist and mysterie of Iniquitie But what Syr to distinguish or vse distinctions in a matter that may haue diuers senses or intendmeÌ„ts Is this the profundâ—tie of Sathan or is not this rather profound ignorance and absurdity in you to say so Doe not you know that to distinguish belongeth to the wise and learned according to Aristotle and not to distinguish est imperâ—â—â— mulâ—itudinis appertaineth saith he to the vnlearned vulgar sort Doth not reason and expeâ—ience teach vs that to diâ—tinguish matters that be obscure perplexed into their cleere sâ—nses or that be confused into their seuerall parts members or that may haue many senses into their different significations is a high worke of wit that giueth life to our vnderstanding to conceiue the truth and light to our will to make choice of the same How many foule heresies in the Church oâ— Chrisâ— since her beginning haue beene beaten downe principally by pious and prudent distinguishing which otherwise would neuer perhaps haue bene ouercome As namely the Arians when they alleaged
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
of greatest antiquity yea from the Apostles times themselues he giueth also a Prescription how to try them If any heresies saith he dare presume to thrust themselues into the Apostles age edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum euoluant ordines Episcoporum let them publish the beginninges of their Churches and let them lay forth the order successioÌ„ of their Bishops And with this he thought their mouthes stopt And yet in another place he canuaâ—eth theÌ„ againe with the same Prescription saying Qui estis vos vnde quando venistis vbi tam diu latuistis VVhat are you whence and when came you and where haue you lurked so long signifying herby that the Priority of time was a great argument against them And furthermore he disputing against Marcion the Hereticke hath these wordes Ego dico meum Euangelium verum Marcion suum c. I say that my Ghospell is true and Marcioâ— faith his I do affirme Marcion to haue falsified and Marcion sayth I haue done it who shal determine the matter between vs but the difference of time that will giue Authority to that which shal be found to be most ancient and pronounce that to be corrupted which shal be proued to be the later So as here supposing that which before we haue touched that Catholick doctrine was planted first before any heresy sprang vp by the Prescription of time is not only a sound argument in case of religion which fondly M. Barlow denieth but a conuincent demonstration also of truth and to that effect vsed commonly by all Fathers that wrote against Hereticks after Tertullian Tardè mihi saith ancient Hilarius against the Arians hos pijssimos Doctores â—taâ— nunc huiuâ— saeculi protulit sâ—râ— hâ—s habuiâ— fides mea magistros Too late hath this present age brought â—orth these pious Doctours he speaketh in scorne too late are they come to be maisters of my faith And S. Hierome writing against the Luciâ—erian Hereticks vseth the same argument Ex hâ—c ipso saith he quâ—d posteriùs instituti sunt â—os essâ— indicaâ—t â—â—os â—uturos Apostolus annunciâ—â—iâ— Euen by this it â—elâ—e that Luciâ—erans haue risen vp later they shew theÌ„selues to be those deceyuing Hereticks of whome the Apostle doth forwarn vs and bid vs take heed of And the same S. Hierom talking to an Heretick saith Cur post quadringentos annos dâ—cere â—os â—iteris quod ante nesciuimus vsque ad hunc diem â—ine vestra doctrina Christianus mundus fuit Wherefore after foure hundred years dost thou go about to teach vs that which before we knew not Euen vntil this day the Christian world hath enduâ—ed without this your doctrine And to this effect I might alleadge the saying of many other Fathers who vse this argument of Prescription of time as a principall demonstration against Hereticks and Heresies But let vs heare the reasons alleaged by M. Barlow why Possession for hould for so are his wordes and Prescription for time may be Pleas in ciuill Courtes but no sound arguments in case of Religion For the first sayth he may be clayme by intrusion which is their case that plead for Rome the other may be antiquity of error for so is prescription without verity therefore when truth appeares let custome yeld to truth was the conclusion of a Councell So he And citeth in the margent Concil Carthag apud Cyprian But he that shall read that Councell of Carthage in S. Cyprian shall find first that these wordes are not a conclusioÌ„ of a Councell but the saying of one Bishop in that Councell to wit Zozimus of Tarassa and secondly M. Barlow wel knoweth or should know that that Councell or Synod was reiected after by aâ— the Catholik Christian world for thaâ— it was gathered in fauour of rebaptization of heretiks that were baptized in heresie as may appeare largely in S. Aâ—gustine in his booke against the Donatists where he setteth downe the sentences of diuers of that Councell and among other one of Zozimus which he sayth was this so it appeareth also in S. Cyprian Reuelatione facta veritatis 〈◊〉 error veritati when the truth is reueyled let error yeild to truth Vpon which wordes S. Augustine maketh this note Noluit quideâ— iste dicere consuetudinem sed errorem This Bishop would not say that custome sâ—ould yield but error And yet M. Barlow against the testimony of them both would needes relate it otherwise let custome yeeld to truth and say it was the Conclusion of a Councell which was neyther of the Councel nor any in the Councell for that sometims custome conteyneth truth it selfe and giueth testimony to truth and wee know it to be truth by tradition of custome so as the ancient Fathers went warily herein not so rashly against all kind of custome as M. Barlow his fellowes and followers doe But perhaps he will alledge out of M. Morton other his fellow-writers the saying of S. Cyprian himselfe in his Epistle ad Pompeium Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est Custome without truth is antiquity of error which all men will grant but maketh nothing to our case For wee suppose true religion to haue bene planted first by Christ afterward heresie to haue risen which supposall being true the argument of the Fathers before mentioned is most effectuall We were before you in Christian religion and you rose vp after vs professing a different faith from vs Ergo our religion is Catholike and yours Heresy For that this is to be accounted Catholike doctrine as M. Barlow before alledgeth himselfe out of Vincentius quod semper creditum est that alwaies hath bene beleiued since the beginning of Christianity and soe that which is most ancient is truest And where M. Barlow sayth that possession may be a claime by intrusion it may be indeed in temporall possession but not in this our case especially when it is ioyned with Prescription from antiquity For supposing that the true Catholike religion was first put in possession by our Sauiour and his Apostles as hath bene sayd and that it can be proued that this possession hath beene continued by Prescription time out of mind euen from the beginning as we offer to proue that on the contrary side no knowne interruption can be shewed of this possessioÌ„ eyther by intrusion or other wise as M. Barlow cannot proue that there hath bene nor doth he go about to proue it though he blush not to say it Possession in this case togeather with Prescription doth euince the verity of our cause And for the saying of S. Cyprian That custome without verity is the antiquity of errour though in it selfe it be true yet doth S. Augustine tell vs that it was ill applied by S. Cyprian againâ—t the custome of the Church in his dayes for not rebaptizing Heretikes when himselfe was in that errour that they ought to be rebaptized the Catholikes vrged the force of custome and
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
the consequeÌ„ce of this argument Wherunto I answere that I alleadged diuers reasons why our Catholick Priests dyed for religion not for treason First for that no such treason could be proued against them in the sense and iudgement of any indifferent man that was present at their arraignments to wit of the one hundred and thirty that before I mentioned Secondly for that the publike Registers themselues and Histories as Iohn Stâ—w and others in their Chronicles doâ— obiect no other treason to the most of them but only being Priests their taking of holy Orders beyond the seas which in no sense can be treason no more then the confessing of the blessed Trinitie can be made treason by the Trinitarians in Transiluania Thirdly for that they themselues dying did protest vpon their consciences as they should be saued they neuer meant treason in thought word or deed against Queene Elizabeth And then â—ourthly for confirmation of this I alleaged this other reason so much scorned by M. Barlow they hauing life offered them if they would renounce the Pope conforme themselues to the State they refused the same which he saith is a false and faulty inference and I say it is very good and true and that if M. Barlow had any moderate skill of the case according to the rules â—yther of Philosophy or Diuinity he would be ashamed to say as he doth in Philosophy it being a common axiome that omnis actus specificatur ab obiecto fiâ—e euery action is specified that is to say taketh his nature and essence from his obiect and end As if a man should kill one to gayne his goods this act hath both the nature of man-slaughter theft the first from the obiect the second from the end or intention of the doer which Philosophicall principle being applyed to our case doth euidently proue that the choice of death in him that hath life offered vpon conditioÌ„ he will doe some act against his faith as going to the Protestants Church is esteemed by Catholickes though otherwise he were nâ—uer so great a delinquent before is an act of Martyrdome for that it hath both the obiect and the end therof the obiect to wit death the end which is the profession of his faith And so if we passe to consider the same by Theologyâ— which more properly treateth of this vertue of Martyrdome the controuersy will be made much more cleare for that the word Martyrdome being a Greeke wordâ— and signifying a Testimony or bearing of witnesse as the word Martyr signifyeth him that yealdeth testimony or beâ—reth witnesse euery testmony or bearing of witnesse is not meant by the word Martyrdome but only such a testimony as is giuen by dying for God in the defeÌ„ce of some truth belonging to our faith either expressely impugned or implyed in the impugnation of some other vertue that containeth the sayd truth of our faith therin which last clause is added for that a man may be a true Martyr though he dye not for any expresse article of faith or part therof but it is sufficient that he dy for the defence of any one vertue as Chastity Obedience Iustice and the like according to the saying of our Sauiour Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam Blessed are they that suffer persecutioÌ„ for righteousnes And S. Iohn Baptist is acknowledged by all Deuines for a true Martyr although he died for no article of faith but for reprehending the incestuous marriage of King Herod with more libertie of speach and spirit then any such Prince-flatterer base mind as M. Barlow would euer haue done in the like case if we may ghesse at his vertue by his writing But to apply the former ground and vncontrollable principle to our present purpose in hand whether these Priests died for refuâ—ing the Oath of the Feminine Supremacy or for that they were made Priests beyoÌ„d the seas or â—or that they refused to come to your heretical seruiceâ— certaine it is according to the rules of Catholicke Diuinity that they died for deâ—ence of their faith or maintenance of vertue which is sufficieÌ„t to iustify their Martyrdomes hauing so great warrant and store of all manner of witnesses â—or the truth and doctrine they suffered for as might well in conscience assure them of the righteousnesse of their cause and that they died for that Religion in which all the Princes and people of Christendome for so many yeares ages both liued and died And wheras M. Barlow impugneth this by two cases or examples they are but so many arguments of his owne ignorance Let vs speake a word or two of them both The first is of Absolom putting the case that he was an Idolator as well as a traitor and that King Dauid after sentence passed against him â—or his treasons would acquite him froÌ„ death conditionally that he should renounce his Idolatry and that vpon reâ—usall he should be executed Shall we say sayth M. Barlow that he died â—or Religion or for treason We will say good M. Barlow that he died rather for false religion that is to say Idolatry then for treason and was the Diuels Martyr and none I thinke can deny the same vnles he be as ignorant as your selfe as shall further appeare by the answere to the next example which in effect is all one with this to wit that a yonger sonne should aspire his fathers death with hope to haue his riches and that being condemned his father should offer to saue him if he would go to Church and leaue his euil life of following queaneâ— c. Shall â—e say quoth M. Barlow that he is executed for his whore-domes or for this parâ—icide against his father But here I would aske M. Barlow why he leaueth out going to Church which was the first part of the condition and nameth only whore-domes no doubt but the honest man would haue the staying from the Church in Catholicks and whore-domes seeme to be companions But now I answere to his question that if he meane by refusing to go to Church such as is practised by Catholikes for Conscience sake and not to deny thereby the truth of the Catholicke faith which forbiddeth to go to hereticall Churches then dyeth he for the truth of his faith and consequently he is a Martyr But if he choose to dye for loue of wicked life and whoredome it is no cause of Martyrdome and consequently he is the Diuells Martyr as we said before of the Idolator But as for Parâ—icide cleere it is that he cannot be sayd to haue died for it properly as the immediate cause of his death for that it was remitted vnâ—o him and their passed another election on his mind to wit that he would leaue his old life so as â—or this he died propriè proximè properly and immediately and for the parricide only remotè occasiâ—naliter a far of and as from that which gaue the first occasion of his death What
colour of this power to discerne spirits giuen theÌ„ by M. Bâ—â—loâ— out of the words of S. Iohn there would neuer be an end And lastly it appeareth by all this that his lâ—st distinction wherin he sayth that the King may iudge for the truth and not of the truth is a meere delusion giuing somewhat in wordes but nothing in deed for that if the iudging for the truth be nothing els but to execute allow and approue that which others haue defined determined and appointed out vnto him to be belieued and defended as the truth then hath he no more free choice or superiority in iudgment in this case then euery subiect or common man who is likewise bound to belieue and defend the same according to his ability and power Now then to conclude the matter and to reduce all to a briefe summe for so much as M. Barlow taketh away from his Maiesty of England not only the title and style Of Head of the Church which was giuen to King Henry and confirmed to King Edward but the Papall authority in like manner for decision of matters which was ascribed vnto them both by Parlament and confirmed to Queene Elizabeth and here saith that he cannot iudge in cases of religion and fayth iudicio definitiâ—o to define and determine any thing but only execuâ—iuo to execute what the Church of England to wit what the Bishops shall define and ordayne and for somuch as he addeth yet further now in that which before we haue discussed three other particuler cases out of S. Ambrose wherin he conâ—esâ—eth that his Maiesty hath no authority but may be resisted to wit if he should call before him a Bishop to dispute with another of a different religion as Valenâ—inian did S. Ambrose and he denyed him If he should commaund a Bishop to deliuer ouer a Church to a people of a different religion and if he should command a Bishop to deliuer vp the Veâ—els of his Church as the said Empeâ—ouâ— did and the â—ther refused to obey all these things I say laid â—ogeâ—tâ—er â—ut of M. Barlows doctrine do so much diminish the greatnes of his Maiesties Supreme power in causes Ecclesiasticall as in effect it commeth to be no more thâ—n Catholike doctrine doth ordinarily allow to euery Catholicke Temporall Prince for the obseruance and execution of that which the Church determineth And this is M. Barlâ—â—â—â— heroycall exployt to marre the matter he takes in hand for his Clyent Let euery man iudge how well he hath deserued the good fee which already he hath recâ—aâ—ed for his plea and hopeth to receaue more hereafter if he may speed according to his expectation OF ANOTHER EXAMPLE Or Iâ—stance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall §. III. THERE followeth another controuersy betweene M. Barlow me about a certayne fact of S. Gregory the Great concerning the Law of Mauritius the Emperour prohibiting souldiars and such as were accomptable to the Emperours Courtes for offices borne by them to enter into monasteries and professe a religious life without his licence whereof I wrote thus in my letter Neyther doth the last place cited out of S. Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauritius make any thing moâ—e for our Apologers purpose of taking Oathes against Conscience For albeit the same Father do greatly complaâ—ne in diuers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius whome though otherwise a Catholike Emperour he compareth in that poynt to Nero and Dioclâ—siâ—n saying Quid Nero quid Dioclesiâ—â—â—s qâ—id deâ—ique isteâ— qui â—oc tempore â—â—â—lesiam persequitur Nâ—mqâ—â—◠〈◊〉 omnes porta Inferi Whâ—t was Nero What was Dioclesâ—â—â— what is he who at this time doth persecute the Church Are they not all gates of Hell Yet in this place alleaged by the Apologer he yealded to publish and send abroâ—d into diuers Countreys and Prouinces a certayne vniust law of the sayd Emperours that prohibited Sâ—uldiars and such as had bene imployed in matters of publike accompts of the CoÌ„mon-Wealth to make theÌ„selues Monks Wâ—ich law though S. Gregory did greatly mislike and wrote sharply agaynst it to the Emperour himselfe yet to shew his due respect in temporall thinges vnto him and for that indeed the law was not absolutly so euill but that in some good sense it might be tolerated to wit that Souldiars sworn to the Emperours wars might not during the said Oath obligation be receaued into Monasteries but with the Princes liceÌ„ce yet for that it tended to the abridgmeÌ„t of Ecclesiastical freedome in taking that course or state of life which ech man chooseth for the good of his soule S. Gregoâ—y misliked the same and dealt earnestly with the Emperour to relinquish it or to suffer it to be so moderated as it might stand without preiudice of Christian liberty wherunto the Emperour at length yeelded and so S. Gregory sent the same abroad vnto diuers Primates and Archbishops of sundry Kingdomes mentioned by him but corrected first and reduced by himselfe as supreme Pastour to a reasonable lawfulnes and temperate moderation to wit that those who had borne offices of charge in the Common-wealth and after desired to be admitted to religious life in Monasteries should not be receaued vntill they had giuen vp their full accompts and had obtayned publicke discharge for the same And that Souldiars which demanded the like admittaÌ„ce should be exactly tryed and not admitted vnto Monasticall habite but after they had liued three yeares in their lay apparell vnder probation This determineth S. Gregory in his Epistle beginning Gregorius Eusebio Thessalonicensi Vrbicio Dyrachitano c. adding further in the same Epistle as hath bene said De qua re Serâ—issâ—mus Christianissimus Imperator omnimodò placatur about which matter our most Clement and Christian Emperour is wholy pleased and content So as in this S. Gregory shewed his pastorall care and power in limiting and moderating the Emperours law according to the law of God though in temporall respectes he shewed him the Obedience that was due vnto him But what is this vnto our Oath May we thinke that S. Gregory that would not passe a temporall law of the Emperour without reprehension of the vnlawfulnes thereof to the Emperour himselfe and correction therof in the publication for that indirectly it did infringe the liberty of Religious life when men were called therunto that he would not haue much more resisted the admission of an Oath about such affaires if it had bene proposed No man I thinke in reason can imagin the contrary To this declaration of mine M. Barlow beginneth his reply thus But that of Gregory saith he toucheth the very quicke who as he thought his duty discharged to God in shewing the reasons why he disliked the Law so did he performe it very readily to the Emperour in promulging
conscience iustice to giue it him yet if I should doubt that by my deniall he would take away the other halfe also or perhaps my life or that some scandall would follow as that other men by my example would shew disobedience in greater thinges I should be bound in prudence and pâ—ety for auoyding of these greater euilâ— both to my selfe and others to obey and giue him the halfe of my goodes which he demaundeth but this is not directly by force of iustice and conscience as you see but per accidens that is to say â—accidentally for auoyding of those greater euills of scandall and perill if I obey noâ— But now let vs see the truth of M. Barlow in relating this resolution of S. Thomas First he cutteth of the words nisi forè per accidens which do alter the whole case and â—ayth that their Angelicall Doctour telleth them that in vnlawfâ—ll things commaunded they must obey â—or auoyding scandall and perill wheras S. Thomas sayth non teâ—tentur obedire si iniusta praecipiâ—â—â— that they are not bound to obey their Princes if they commaund vniust things Secondly M. Barlow distinguisheth not when vnlawfull things are commaunded whether they be vnlawfull only vnto the Prince that coÌ„maundeth or to the subiect in like manner to whom they are commaunded And it may be that the Ministers head conceaued not the distinction or if he did he concealed it by guile and fraud for the thing importeth much to the resolution of the case for when the thing commaunded is vnlawfull only to the commaunder as in the former example when he commaundeth me to giue halfe of my goods wrongfully then may I out of prudence as hath bene sayd for auoyding of greater euils obey that vniust commaundment but if the thing commaunded should be vnlawfull not only to the Prince to coÌ„maund but to me also to performe as to do another man iniury or to endanger my owne soule or to offend God by any sin whatsoeuer then may not I according to S. Thomas his doctrine for auoyding any scandall or perill whatsoeuer perâ—orme the same This was craftily here concealed by M. Barlow for I will not hold him so grossely ignorant as that he did not consider it and the câ—â—se oâ— this concealment was for that it maketh wholy agâ—â—st him in our mayne controuersy of temporall Obedience For that the swearing to the new Oath coÌ„maunded vnto Catholikes in preiudice of their conscience Religion is of the number of those vnlawfull things that are vnlawfull not only to the commaunder but also to â—â—e performer and consequently neither for the auoyding scandall or perill may be obeyed And therby is cut of all M. Barlowes idle discourse which he maketh in this place of â—â—e danger and perill that by taking this Oath he sayth may be auoyded vrgeth vs with the doctrine of S. Thoâ—â—â— therin that euen in things vnlawfull we must obey our temporall Princes But in this you haue seene both the depth and fidelity of the man Now let vs see a poynt or two more and so end this Parapraph Pag. 190. he hath these words against me The Epistler saith he makes the way to end this Paragraph for as coÌ„cerning Rome beiâ—g Babylon he speakes not a word as by silence granting that to be true which Cardinall Matthew playnly also acknowledgeth and â—â—sesseth to be that Babylon of the Apocalyps So hâ— And truly it is strange and ridiculous to see men of reason to proceed in this manner so without reason for it Cardinall Bellâ—rmine and other Catholikes do graunt that Rome was called Babylon by S. Iohn in the Apocalyps and by S. Peter also that wrote his Epistle from thence vnder the name of â—abylon and if S. Hierome and other Fathers do expound 〈◊〉 of Râ—me as it was Heathen persecuted the Martyrs in â—hose dayes and not of Christian Rome or the Christian people of Rome who were holy and Saynts in those dayes if this I say be so and that the Protestants be told therof aboue an hundred times and yet still their writers do comeâ— forth with this doughty Argument that Rome was Babylon what shall a modest man do but passe it ouâ—r with silence and contempt There followeth a certayne contentioÌ„ about the two â—reues of Clemens Octauus written into England at two different timesâ— about the point of succession to the Crowne â—fteâ— the Queenes death the first exhorting the Catholickeâ— to doe their best indeâ—uours â—or procuring a Cathâ—â—licke Prince the other altogether in fauour and recomâ—mendation of the aduancement of his Maiestie that 〈◊〉 is of which two Breues I wrote in my Epistle that hauiâ—â— procured some knowledg about that point I found thâ—â— they were sent into England not both togeather nor iâ—â—mediatly before the late Queenes death as was obiected but the one diuers yeâ—res before she died to wit vpon thâ— yeare 1600. and the other 3. yeares after to wit vpon thâ— yeare 1603. immediatly after the sayd Queenes death contrary to which M. Barlow sayth that Tortâ—â— affirmâ—â—â— that hauing the Copyes of 2. Breues in his hand 〈◊〉 findeth that they were sent in togeather vpon the yearâ— 1600. But the reconciliation of this is easy For thaâ— those two Breues named by Tortus are accounted by me bâ— one Breue for that they were all of one matter but dâ—plicated in effect the one to the Archpriest and Clergie thâ— other to the Laity so that there is no contradiction at alâ— For that besides that first double Breue there was anotheâ— sent in of another Argument wholy in fauour of hiâ— Maiestie in particuler as now hath bin said vpon thâ— yeare 1603. And so there iâ— no contradictioÌ„ at all in this but that both the assertions are true Only that is falsâ— which is here in parciculer affirmed by M. Barlow that iâ— the first Breue was set downe that no man might be admitted except he would first sweare not only to tolerate but also to promote the Romish Catholicke Religion which wordes are not there neither is swearing once mentioned in either of these duplicated Breues And as this is vntrue so that which ensueth is parasiticall when vnto my speach of Pope Clements particuler good opinion and affection towards his Maiesties Person when he was King of Scotland to wit that he loued him most hartily and alwayes spake honorably of him treated kindly all those of his Nationâ— that said they came froÌ„ him or any wayes belonged vnto him and oftentimes vsed more liberality that way vpon diuers occasions theÌ„ is conuenient for me perhaps to vtter here caused specialâ— prayer to be made â—or his Maiestie c. To all which M. 〈◊〉 answereth in these words That albeys there is nothing 〈◊〉 Mâ—â—â—stie but that which is amyable and admirable his parts of 〈◊〉 art grace all so singular that by the eminency of his place 〈◊〉 descryed far and neere they must needes excite great loue to his
for England and his that 〈◊〉 aâ—â—rte that he was at the sea-cost and shipt for England â—â—erto I answer first for the word almost left out Secondly 〈◊〉 the example The words of the Apologer about the likenes of our 〈◊〉 to the Toletane action are thrice repeated by me first in the beginning of the matter p. 76. n. 11. where repeating the Apologers words I said almost euery point of that action is 〈◊〉 to ours In the end also p. 81. n. 19. I related his words â—â—s that almost euery point of that action hath agreeance with that of 〈◊〉 c. So as twice the word almost is repeated though in the third place pag. 77. num 12. It is said euery point of that 〈◊〉 c. which might be as well the errour of the writer or printer as ouerslip of the Authour And how then can this be called fraudlent impudeÌ„cy Or rather was iâ— not more fraudulent in M. Barlow not to tell his reader that it was twice put downe though once left out As for the two meÌ„bers alleaged they are both known to be false that either Father Parsons was almost vpon the Sea-coast for England or vpon the Sea-coast and shipt for England to expect the â—â—â—der-â—lot for that hundreds of witnesses will testifie in 〈◊〉 that neither at that time nor in al that yeare was he out of that Citty so as this is somewhat more then almost two vntruthes And this is as much as in effect he answereth to this matter But I went forward in my Letter to shew out of the Councell and Histories of Spaine the occasions causes and circumstances of this Councell and how it was procured by the King of Spaine Sisâ—nanduâ— of the Gothish bloud who hauing ceposed his Lord and Maister King Suintila was somewhat iealous least the Oath of fâ—â—elity made vnto him by the Spaniards would not be obserued and therfore made recourse vnto the Bishops and Clergy for assisting him in that behalfe with their Ecclesiasticall authority as they did both confirming the one and excluding the other wherupon is set downe in the preface of the said Councell that he comming into the same accompanied with many Noble and honourable persons of his trayne coram Sacerdotibus Dei bumiprostratus cum lacbryâ—â—â— gemitibus pro se interueniendum postulauit he prostrate on the ground before the Priests of God besought them with teares and sobs to make intercession for him Wherupon the Councell commaunded vpon seuere Censures that no man should practise his death or deposition or breake his Oath of fidelity made vnto him but no particuler forme of oath do I find there to haue bene prescribed or decreed wherby this our new oath may be confirmed or authorized but rather another oath prescribed vnto the King and all his successours Iuramento poâ—liceanâ—ur hanc se Catholicam non permissuros eos violare sidem that they sweare that they will neuer suffer their subiects to violate this Catholike faith And marke said I that he saith 〈◊〉 which was the Catholike fayth then held in Spaine and explicated in these CouÌ„cels of Toledo the particulers wherof do easily shew that they were as oposite to the Protestants fayth as ours is now To all this what sayth M. Barlow He beginneth with a tale as he is wont when he hath little els to say Pericles sayth he as some do affirme had that skill in wrastling that though he receaued a fall yet he would perswade the wrastler that cast him and the spectatours that beheld him that he was the conquerour You will imagine how well this is â—pplyed by him he sayth that there is not one poynt of this which I haue sayd to the purpose or against the Apologer But how doth he proue it First he saith that this Conncell was gathered by the coÌ„mand of King Sisenandus And what maketh this to the purpose Did not we graunt also that Kings within their Kingdomes may cause Prouinciall Councels to be made by their Bishops Archbishops Metropolitans But how submissiuely this King did behaue himselfe in that CouÌ„cell appeareth by his former submission both in fact words And yeâ— by the way the Reader must note M. Barlows smal truth in relating for his purpose these words religiosissimi Sisenandi Regis iussu Imperijs conuenimus we are assembled by the commaund and authority of our most Religious King Sisenandus wheras the true words in the Councel are â—â—m studio amoris Christi ac diligenâ—ia religiosissâ—â—â— Sisenandi Regis apud Toletanam Vrbem in nomine Domini conuenissemus wheras for the loue of Christ and by the diligence of our most religious King we came togeather in the name of God in the Citty of Toledo And then those other words which ensue aâ—terwards to wit eius â—mperijs atque iussis are referred to another thing not to their meeting but what matters they should principally handle touching discipline c. Vt communis a nobis ageretur de quibusdam Ecclesiae disciplinis tractatus In which Treatise of discipline was contayned in like manner the Kings owne temporall cause concerning the assuring of his succession by Ecclesiasticall CeÌ„sures When or wherin then shall we find M. Barlow to deale puÌ„ctually and sincerely But let vs go forward In the next place he sayth that this Councell the Canons therof do make for the Protestants and giueth example in three or foure Canons and concludeth generally in these words The Church oâ— England both for substance in doctrine and ceremony in discipline doth hould the same which maâ—y of the sayd Canons do conclude Well then we shall see presently how many they be He citeth only foure of seauenty and foure and those so impertinently as by the citation he maketh himselfe miserable as now you will perceaue And first he cyteth the 43. CanoÌ„ saying that the marriage of Priests so it be with the consent of the Bishop is therin allowed and he beginneth with this for that it seemeth to him a knocker and to the purpose indeed for authorizing Priests marriages Wherfore we shall handle it in the last place of the foure alleadged by him In the second place then he leapeth back from the 43. Canon to the 24. saying that therin it was positiuely set downe that ignorance is the mother of all errours but not of deâ—â—tion A great obiection no doubt against vs as though we were great friends of ignorance Ignorance sayth the Canon the mother of all errours is most to be auoyded by Priests who haue the office of teaching the people Do we coÌ„tradict this What meane our Schooles Our Seminaries Our Colleges Our Vniueâ—sities for bringing vp and instructing Priests Are our Priests in England or on this side the seas more incumbred with ignorance then the Ministers Why then is this Canon brought in against vs For that perhaps it sayth not that Ignorance is the mother of deuotion nor we neither as
or Mother or els that he will teach vs by his law or diuinity that albeit her Father and Mother were neuer truely man wife yet she borne by their coniuÌ„ction had true right in her bloud to succeed in the Crowne which yet the Parlament denyeth as yow haue seene And this shall suffice for this matter wherby may appeare what causes some Popes might haue in respect as well of this knowne illegitimation by her Father Mother as also of other many Peâ—â—â—nall demerits of her owne to fauour the right of her next lawfull successour persecuted iniuted finally destroyed by her But now as for the other cauill of recrimination that Dâ—â—â—man in his Booke sayth that it is a grieuous sinne for any man to giue consent to the making of a King that is of a contrary religion it hath beene answered sufficiently before against M. Morton who obiected the same but with fraud and falshood as this man doth leauing out the principall words that do ensue which are that is a sinne to him that doth it â—â—hat side souer the truth be or how good or bad soeuer the party 〈◊〉 that is preferred He doth leaue out also the reason of the speach taken out of the authority of S. Paul in these words For if S. Paul haue pronounced so absolutly and plainly in the place beâ—ore alleadged that euen in eating a peece of meat it is damnable for a man to discerâ—e and yet to eate what may we thinke will it be in so great and important a matter as the making of a King is for a man to â—ssemble or do against his owne conscience and iudgment Here you see is nothing but that a man should not do against his conscience in the choice of a King when that case shall fall out Can M. Barlow say any thing iustly against this if he will not calumniate I see not what But yet he leapeth to another thing in a farre different place where Doleman sayth that the Statute of Association was obiected by other Competitors against the succession of Scotland which Statute was made in the 27. yeare of Queene Elizabeths raigne and intended principally as it seemeth euident both by the Queene and by such as procured the making therof against the sayd succession of the Queene of Scotland and her issue in such forme of words as she being prisoner in England might easily be â—â—trâ—pped therin as afterward she was by the attempt of M. â—abingtâ—n his fellowes and lost her life for the same The Statute contained That if any Act should be atteÌ„pted tending to the hurt of Queene Elizabeths person by or for any person that shall or may pretend any Title to the Crowne of this Realme after her Maiesties discease by any person or with the priuity of any person that shall or may pretend Title to the Crowne c. then all such persoÌ„s shal be excluded and disabled for euer to haue or claime the sayd Crowne c. Hereto M. Barlow answereth now first that they only in this Act are excluded from Succession by whoâ—e meanes Queene Elizabeths life should be taken away not sought and that should not touch their issues except they had bene any wayes assenting or priuy to the same But to this may be replyed that the words now set down in the Statute are coÌ„trary which say that if any act be atteÌ„pted tending to the hurt of her Maiesties most Royall person though not achieued yet they shal be excluded And as for their heires and issues though in the second part of the Statute when Queene Elizabeths life should be taken away by such attempts there is mention of them that it must be by some assent or priuity of theirs yet in the former part now alleadged there is no mention wherby notwithstanding the sayd pretenders for whome or by whose priuityes such attempts only should be made are condemned of treason and made incapable of any pretence to the Crowne which being once effectuated the consequence doth easily ensue in like manner against their heires and issues So that this is but a meere trifling matter brought in for want of other better OF CERTAINE CONTRADICTIONS OBIECTED TO Cardinall Bellarmine AND what confidence may be placed in a mans owne good workes CHAP. IIII. WHERAS among other things there were obiected in the Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance certaine coÌ„tradictions against Cardinall Bellarmine out of his workes as impugning the one the other I thought good in my Letter to looke into some tâ—ree or foure of them leauing the rest for the Cardinall himselfe to answere as he did very sufficiently which answere might serue for vs both but that I hauing enlarged my selfe somewhat for the better explayning of the first obiected contradiction about the placing of confidence in good and meritorious workes M. Barlow hath bene so copious in his reply partly preaching partly pratling without substance or verity as I am inforced to insist more vpon the matter then I had purposed And for more plaine dealing and discouering of his fraud and impertinency I shall here repeat againe what in my Letter I set downe about this controuersy The Apologerâ—quoth â—quoth I doth thus begin his list of coÌ„tradictions against Cardinall Bellarmine First in his bookes of Iustification saith he Bellarmine affirmeth that for the vncertainty of our owne proper righteousnes and for auoiding of vaine glory it is most sure and saâ—e to repose our whole confidence in the alone mercy and goodnes of God which proposition of his is directly contrary to the discourse and current of all his â—iue bookes De Iustificatione wherin the same is conteyned c. Of this first contradiction we haue said somewhat before to wit that it is straÌ„ge that fiue whole bookes should be brought in as contradictory to one proposition For how shall the Reader try the truth oâ— this obiection Shall he be bound to read all Bellarmines fiue bookes to see whether it be true or no Had it not bene more plaine dealing to haue alleaged some one sentence or conclusion contradictory to the other But now shall we shew that there can be no such contradiction betwixt the sentenâ—â— of one part of his said Booke of Iustification the whole discourse or current of the rest for that Bellarmyne doth make all the matter câ—eâ—re by soyling three seuerall Questions in one Chapter which is the seauenth of the fifth Booke here cyted The three Questious are these about Fiducia quae in merit is coâ—â—ocaâ—i possit what hope and confidence may be placed by a Christian man in his good workes and merites The first Question is whether good workes in a Christian man doe increase hope confidence by their owne nature and the proâ—ise of reward made vnto them And Bellarmine answereth that they doe and proueth it by many places of Scriptures as that of Toby the 4. where it is said That almes-dedes shall giue
againâ—t me about the â—econd question Now let vs see what he hath againâ—t Cardinall Bellarmine â—wo thinges he pretendeth to wit that his second and third propositions are contrary the one to the other iâ— two pointes for that the second proposition doth â—llow some kind of confidence to be put in mans merits the third doth exclude all and sayeth it must be in the only mercy of God But this is a very ridiculous contradiction to be obiected to so learned a man as Bellarmin is For that both thâ—se are true and may stand togeather as 〈◊〉 sâ—tteth them downe for that it is both true thâ—t a mâ—n may place some confidence is his merits as Cardinal Bâ—â—â—â—â—minâ— proueth both by Scriptures and Fathers before mentioned and it is true also which he sayeth in his third pâ—oposition that this notwithstanding tuâ—â—ss mâ—m â—st it is moâ—â— safe for a man though he haue good mâ—rits yet not to respect them but to place all his confidence in the only mercy oâ— God And what contradiction is there heere A man may place some conâ—idence but the sureâ—t way is to place none Cannot these two stand togeather Let vs examine some places of Scriptures If a man or woman had come to S. Paul to aske his opinion whether he or she should marry or no he would haue said as he wrote You may marry you shall not siâ—ne by marrying but the safest way is not to marry the one is lawfull the other more perfect should this â—peach of S. Paul be contrary to it self I trow no. Now tâ—en let vs see whether Cardinall Bellarmines speach be a like he is demaunded whether it be good for a man to put any confidence in his merits or noe he answereth that iâ— he find that he hath good merits he may put some hope therein so it be done without pride but yet the safâ—st way were not to respect or thinke vpon his owne merits but only to put his whole confidence in the only mercy of Almighty God Is here now any contradiction He sayth in the one that he may put some confidence in the other the saâ—est way is to put none this is but a counsaile what were best to be done and most safe the other a declaration what in rigour may be done no man I thinke of common sense will say that here is any contradiction and yet doth M. Barlow vrge it againe and againe insisting vpon the words whole conâ—idence and alâ—ne mercy of God vsed in the third proposition which carrieth with it sayth he a double contradiction both subiecti obiecti the subiect tota â—iducia all mans confidence tota the whole whether greater or lesse whether weake or strong whether one or the other is wholy to be cast vpon Gods mercy euen as our Sauiour commaundeth vs to loue God with our whole soule hart and strength includes therein all the facultyes of the soule and body parts inward and outward inward of vnderstanding will affection outward all the members of our body to be made S. Paules whole burnt sacrifice c. And so runneth forth amplifying vpon the words whole and â— allâ— and then also vpon the obiect saying that the obiect affoards a strong coÌ„tradictionâ— sola misericordia only mercy or mercy alone which admits no participation with another and â—uch more like â—â—usle as if he were in his Pulpit deluding the people there by vaine repetition and exaggâ—â—ation oâ—â—â—â—â—e words which yet import no moâ—e â—ut that Carâ—inall Bellaâ—miâ—e his counsayle is though not as a pâ—ecept of necâ—ssity that albeit a man haue â—â—uer so many good workes and may iuâ—â—ly therby inâ—râ—aâ—â— his hope and conâ—idence in God by looking vpoâ— tâ—â—m as his giâ—â—â—â— yet to be â—ure for that a man may be deceiâ—ed in eâ—timatioÌ„ oâ— his owne merits the best way is noâ— to respeâ—t them but only to place his whole hope in the sole mercy of Almighty God And this by way of counsaile and not of precept as you haue heard though M. Barlow doth egregiously also abase him yâ—a very perâ—idiously vrging againâ—t him that in his third proposition he sayth VVe must place all our whole conâ—â—dence in tâ—e sole mâ—rcy of God and thâ—n indeed it were contâ—aâ—â—câ—oâ—y to tâ—at which he sayth in the second that a man may placâ— some confidâ—ncâ— in his merits but the Cardinall saith not that we must but that it is the safâ—st way And the like perfidiousnes doth he vse in peruerting and vrging the words of his second proposition as though he did â—ay some conâ—idence must be put in our merits and not only may whereas the Cardinall sayth â—nâ—y that some confidence may be put this also with a restriction vt caâ—catur superâ—ia that pride be auoyded Let vs heare I pray you M. Baâ—lows insolent conclusion â—fter that he hath 〈◊〉 beaten himself vp and downe to proue these to be coâ—â—râ—dâ—â—â—ions â—herâ—ore sayth he the Apologâ—rs oâ—â—â—ruation 〈…〉 made aâ—d â—ogiâ—ke â—onfâ—â—mâ—s it to be a violâ—nâ— contradiction 〈…〉 tâ—o prâ—posiâ—ions mans whole confidâ—nce iâ— to â—e 〈…〉 Godâ— meâ—cy alone and some confidence iâ— to be 〈◊〉 in manâ—â—â—â—it will no more agrâ—e as bâ—ing mâ—st oppâ—â—â—te 〈◊〉 a new peeâ—e wiâ—h an old gâ—rmâ—nt which our Saâ—iour sayeâ—h to â—e an 〈◊〉 iâ—possiâ—ility So he By whicâ— speach of his oâ—ly if theâ—e were no other o◠〈◊〉 note the man and his tâ—uth may be tâ—roughly disâ—â—â—ned hâ—uing here falsified both Cardinaâ—l Bâ—llarmâ—nâ— words and meaâ—ing in the recitall of both theâ—e propositions For as Cardinall Bellarmine setteth thâ—m downe they are both true as beâ—ore I haue shewed but as this man relaâ—â—th them he maketh them opposite For Cardinall Bellaâ—mine sayth not that mans whole confidence is to be placed in Gods mercy alone as though it were by way of necâ—ssity and not lawfull to respect any thing our owne good works but that the safest way is so to do And secondly he doth not say that some confidence is to be put in mans merits as though this also were of necessity but that some may be put so as this man seemeth wholy to be compounded of fraud and that with sincerity of truth he cannot vtter any sentence either of his owne or ours without some imposture What a Prelate is this â—or men to hang their soules vpon the truth of his words The other point in this sentence I leaue to be laughed at by his Reader that â—ogick confirmeth a violâ—nt contradiâ—tion betwene tâ—ese two propositions to wit that himself hath framed out of his owne fingers ends And as for his example of contâ—adictâ—on and highest opposition yea impâ—ssibility of coheâ—ence betwene a new peece and an old garment euery begger that goeth vp and downe the countrey with a patcht cloâ—ke will conuince him of vntruth therein eâ—pecially if he haue passed lately by any Taylors shop where he hath had commodity of new shreds to ioyne to his old cloake and shew that there is
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