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
Another thing may be to consider what strange Paradoxes he inserts here and there as positioÌ„s dogmaticall which who so listeth in practise to follow shall either haue no religion or faith at all or insteed of Christs Ghospell the Turks Alcoran For exaÌ„ple what more grosse and wicked assertion can there be then to teach that Kings euen against our conscience are to be obeyed For thus he replyeth against F. Persons saying that Kings were to be obeyed propter coÌ„scientiaÌ„ sed non contra conscientiaÌ„ This saith M. Barlow is no sound doctrine in the negatiue part for euen against a mans Conscience the Prince is to be obeyed Againe There is nothing more easy for proofe or euident for dâ—monstration then that obedience is to be enioyned â—uâ—n against conscience if it be erroneous and leaprous and against religion if forged and falsely so called And is not this a very learned Axiome For more euident refutation whereof let vs suppose that for which we powre forth our daily prayers to God that his Maiesty were as all his Noble Progenetors of both Realmes haue alwayes bene a Catholick Prince and as zealous for the truth therof as now he is for the Protestant cause if then he should propose vnto Syr WilliaÌ„ the Oath of Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome so cleerly out of Scriptures and all antiquity proued and euinced to be true but yet in the blind eyes and leaprouâ— conscience of this Minister thought to be false what would he doe therin Will he sweare it to be true But in his conscience he thinketh it to be false and against the Scriptures Will he refuse it But Kings saith he euen against conscience are to be obeyed 25. Neyther doth he help the matter any thing at all by his distinction of leaprous and erroneous conscience for with men of his stamp conscience is like a cheuerell point which they may stretch loose at their pleasure For who knoweth not that in the tyme of Q. Mary they were held to haue erroneous leaprous consciences euen by the iudgement of the greatest deuines in Geneua who manteyned that women were to be obeyed albeit they were Queenes euen in ciuill and temporall affaires But within one yeare after this errour and leaprosy was so transposed that the quite contrary was taught and they were not only held to haue leaprous and erroneous consciences who denyed ciuill obedience but were condemned also as Traitours by Parlament if they did deny Q. Elizabeth to be the Supreme head or Gouernesse of the Church of England So that it was not only lawfull but necessary for her to haue all Temporall and Ecclesiasticall gouernmeÌ„t in her hands as she was Queen which yet in Q. Mary to haue ciuill only euen by reason of her sex was iudged monstrous vnnaturall and repugnaÌ„t to the Scriptures and law of God Many other examples might be produced in this kind to shew this new Gospell to be as constant as the weathercocke which neuer turneth but when the wynd doth change to wit as often as occasions fall out that may fit their purpose for then they will strayne all conscience and honesty also to conforme themselues become good subiects 26. Much like vnto this of obeying Kings against our conscience is his other prophane and barbarous assertion of the Supremacy of the heathen Emperours Nero Domitian and the rest ouer the Christian Church yea which is more strange that the auncient Fathers Iustinus Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian and others acknowledged the same But you must know that M. Barlow in cyting their words for proofe of this paradox is very silent howsoeuer with all coÌ„fideÌ„ce as a maxime in his new Deuinity vncoÌ„trollable he deliuereth the same saying That they acknowledged the Emperors Supremacy indepeÌ„dant vpon any but God And a litle after that Queene Elizabeth in her Supremacy was no vsurper by Nouell-claime but accepted what God himselfe had annexed to her crowne Out of which I first note that by this Doctrine the Great Turke is supreme Head of the Christian Church in Greece and that if M. Barlow were there for such he would acknowledge him Secondly the Pythagoricall manner of speaking which our Aduersaries vse in matters of greatest moment and controuersie For whereas before King Hâ—nry the eight no Christian King euer tooke that title or vsurped any such authority ouer the Church yea for challenging much lesse Constantius was called Antichrist both by S. Athanasius and S. Hilary these men without all profe but not without singuler impupudency thinke it sufficient to sayâ— that the King is head of the Church that he was so acknowledged by the ancient Fathers that not only a woman may haue the same authority of Supremacy in all causes Ecclesiasticall but that also the heathen Emperours had it as annexed to their Crowne and Imperiall Dignitie euen against the whole torrent of all writters the practise of the Christian world and euident text of Scripture it selfe no Fathers no history no monument no shew or shaddow of proofe or authority in former tymes being found for the same without many straines violent enforcements or ridiculous illations made there-upon as in the arguments of the Protestants who haue treated this controuersie is euery where to be seene 27. Lastly the Reader may note that M. Barlow is so poore a Deuine as eyther he knoweth not what belongeth to matters of faith or els is so wicked as against his owne knowledge he will auouch that for true which is checked euen by his owne brethren and conuinced by common sense and experieÌ„ce to be most false to wit that the Protestants and the Puritanes in England differ only in maâ—ters cerimoniall and agree in all â—ssâ—ntiall and substantiall points concerning religion in which this Prelate is very cathegoricall for ignorance as himself elswhere telleth vs out of Fathers and Philosophers though he cite no place or sentence is the mother of aâ—dacious assertions and vndertakings and writteth thus Faine they woulâ— possesse the world that we are at iarre among our selues about our religion whereas the quarrell though it be indeed vnkind yet is it not in this kind sauâ— only for cerimonyes externall no points substantiall c. So he Which though it be kindly spoken as you see yet he must giue me leaue to belieue him at leasure and in the meane tyme â—o aske him one question to wit whether the ProtestaÌ„ts and Puritans vnderstand their owâ—e differences that are between theÌ„ or not If notâ— then we need not belieue M. Barlow as speaking of that which he doth not vnderstand If they doe how commeth it to passe that they condemne ech other of idolatry heresy and false religion as any may read in the Suruey and dangerous Positions set forth by Sâ—â—cliffe and the last Superintendent of Canterbury for the Protestants and Cartwright Gilby Mâ—rtin Senior and others for the Puritans 28. To this answereth M. Barlowes Comicall companion of
Eliâ—abeths affaires his answere in his owne words is this But dearely beloued there is a difference in faults of men as in diseases some onely are hurtfull to the parties themselues some loathsome and infectious to others the first are to be buried with their bodies forgotten but the other will annoy and therfore must be remembred after death In Scripture some Kinges that were vicious had their faultes touched euer after their buriall but no more yet some are neuer named in Scripture but their sinne is branded vpon their name as often you may see of â—eroboam neuer mentioned but presently addeth the sonne of Nebat which made Israell to sinne This was the mans answer at that time for that it serued for his purpose the same may serue me now against him for if the case of Ieroboam that made Israell to sinne might be applied to the Earle of â—ssex that was of their owne religion and changed nothing therein so far as is knowne and was but a priuate person how much more may the same be applyed to Queene Elizabeth that indeed brought in that fatall diuision and new worship of Ieroboam into her Kingdome which she found quiet vnited with the rest of Christendome in the knowne Catholicke fayth of Christs Church But saith M. Barlow reproaches are vttered eyther for reprâ—ose to amend or for vexation to grieue the parties calumniated both which endes doe cease in death Whereunto I answere that if they be reproches and contumelyes indeed without truth wherof M. Barlowes tongue and pen are fulâ— they serue to neyther of these ends but principally to shew the wiked mind of the vtterer but if they be true as those things are which I haue touched concerning Q. Elizabeth her infelicities â—heÌ„ albeit they be vttered to none of these two foolish ends mentioned by M. Barlow eyther to amend or vex the dead yet are they recorded to warne instruct them that are aliue by shewing Gods iustice vpon sinne his prouidence his power and his care to feare men by terror of euerlasting inâ—amy from the like offences many other such holy ends for the which in Scripture it is a most common ordinary thing to heare the sinnes of wicked Princes repeated and reiterated after death M. Barlow himselfe cannot deny it I did further add also in my former Letter the example of diuers ancient Fathers as Iustinus Martyrâ— Irenaeus Tertullian and others who to comfort the afflicted Christians in theyr dayes and to honour more the cause for which they suffered did put them in mind what manner of pâ—ople and Princes their first persecutors were as namely Nero and Domitian what life they led what end they made and that indeed they were â—it instruments to be the first actors in such a worke which I applying to Queene Elizabeth sayd that the like obseruation and comparison might be made she being the strangest woman that euer perhaps liued for diuers admirable circumstances before touched and the very first absolutely of that sex eyther Christened or created that tooke vpon her Supreme Power in Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters c. Wherunto M. Barlow comming to answere and hauing nothing at all to say to the purpose doth so childishly trifle as is most ridiculous telling vs first that if the Papists may comfort themselues for that they haue bene beaten by a woman then may the diuell comfort himselfe also that a woman is prophesied in Genesis according to our interpretation to breake his head Sysera also the Captaine may glory that he was ouerthrowne by a woman But this is triflingâ— for I doe not say simply by a woman but by such a woman as neuer was the like in diuers points of enormity against Câ—thâ—licâ—â— religion and therin was the Fathers obseruations of enormous manners of Nero and Domitian and not in the sex as they were men Secondly he sayth that diuers Popes were more like to Nero and Domitian then Queene Elizabeth but this is also trifling For neyther is the matter proued if it could be yet doth it not improue my comparison as it was some comfort to the ancient afflicted Catholickes to consider what manner of Princes they were that first began most sharpe persecution against them so might English Catholickes doe by consideration of the person of Queene Elizabeth that first of all women persecuted them in England and with inspeakable monstrosity made her selfe Head of the Church Thirdly he sayth about this matter that heauen and hell arâ— not more different then those Christian martyrs of the Primitiue Church from these later of English Papists for they sayth he acknowledged the Emperors supremacy independant vpon any but God prayed for them seriously both lyuing and dying c. But this now is more then trifling for it seemeth to me meere madnes to say that ancient Christian martyrs vnder Nero and Domiâ—ian did acknowledge those Emperours Supremacy independant vpon any but God which inferreth to my vnderstanding that they acknowledged them for Supreme Headeâ— of the Catholicke Church in those dayes for so signifieth the worde Supremacy in the controuersy betweene vs and the wordes immediatly following independant vpon any bâ—â— God doe seeme playnely to confirme the same as doth also the comparison and contrariety it selfe which hee putteth betweene those old Martyrs and ours For if he had meant of temporall Supremacy there had not bene any difference or contrariety betweene them For â—hat our Martyrs also doe acknowledge temporall Supremacy to Kings and Princes though not spirituall which inferreth that M. Barlow ascribing more to the ancient Martyrs vnder Nero and Domitian must needes meane that they held them â—or Heades of their Church euen in spirituall Ecclesiaâ—ticall aâ—fayres although they were Pagans and â—oe consequently might and ought to repayre to them in matters of controuersy about Christian Religion and were â—ound to follow their direction therein And if this be not more then trifling especially for a Prelate to vtterâ— I leaue to the discreet Reader to consider But now let vs see briesely some of his answers to the points before rehearsed of Queene Elizabeths life and death First he sayth to the note about her birth and disgrace by her Father and Parlament that the Scriptures are not soe Censorious for God himselfe mislikes the Prouerb that it should be sayd the fathers did eat sower grapes and the childrens â—eeth were sett on edge but this is folly for I alleadged it not as a sinne of hers for the sinne was her fathers and mothers but as some disgrace in temporall felicity Then he telleth vs that in some places the ciuill Lawes doe permit some bastards to succeed Item that she shewed well by her courage and other Princely qualities that she was King Henries daughter Item that her selfe did so far coÌ„temne those slaunders published in print as shee would neuer consent to haue them cleared but rather scorned them Item that
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
must not be like in all but only in the point wherein the comparison is made how will he ouerturne Cardinall Bellarmines comparison betwene the banner of Iulian and the Oath of England His point of comparison was this that as Iulian did set forth in his banner and combine togeather the images as well of the Emperour as of the false Gods seeking to temper and mollify the one by the other to wit by bowing to and honouring the Emperours image which then was held for lawfull to bow also or seeme to bow at leastwise to the other which was not lawfull so in the Oath are combined togeather different clauses some of temporall obedience which are lawfull some othâ—r detractory to the Popes authority which are held by Catholicks for vnlawfull Do you see M. Barlow wherein the comparison is made Then stand to me closely I pray you and let vs examine this maâ—ter without running from the purpose What say you to the former answer made to wit that Iuliâ—n was an Apostata but our Soueraigne is a Christian Iulian changed his religion but our King not he became an Ethnicke but our King is not ashamed of his profession and other such like differences Are these the poyntes wherein Cardinall Bellarmine made his comparison or noe If not then are you from the purpose But what say you now in this your last Reply after mature deliberation You will not I trust fall to the same absurdity of seeking dissimilitudes that are from the point of the comparison it self And yet you must needes do it for so much as you will needs say somewhat and haue nothing to say against the sayd poynt of comparison First then your reply is this that the resemblance betwene the banner and the Oath brought fortâ— by the Cardinall was produced by him for no other purpose but for the mixture of diuersities both in the one and the other VVherin say you the Cardinall hath manifested more malice then iudgement For euen in that very point this similitude as taken with the crampe halâ—s right downe because in the Imperiall pictures though there were different â—eatures yet they all concurred to one end and for the same intent that is for adoration though to the one more openly to the other more couertly c. But in the Oath it is taken cleane contrary which is so far from being a mixture of Allegiance that it separates all acknowledgment oâ— any temporall right or right of any temporall acknowledgment from Pope or any other else but to his Maiestie alone within his Realmes Thus far are the words of M. Barlow who being well as you haue seene towards the end intangleth himself and runneth quite from the purpose He acknowledgeth in the beginning that the comparison of Card. Bellarmine is only to shew the mixtures as of the Images in the banner the one lawfull the other vnlawfull so of the clauses in the Oath the one lawfull the other vnlawfull but presently he steppeth aside to put a difference betwixt the mixt adoration of the one and the mixture of Allegiance in the other wherin Card. Bellarmine made not his comparison no more then betwene the banner it selfe and the Oath or betweene the silke cloath wherein the pictures were painted or the booke or paper wherin the Oath was written or in any other such like differences as might be pickt out wherof this also is one very impertinent to the matter that the banner did tend to a mixt adoration but not the Oath to a mixt allegiance of which mixt allegiance Card. Bellarmine neuer spake word but only that as the mixture of these Images was deuised to deceaue the Christians at that tyme so the mixture of different clauses some conteyning ciuill obedience some ecclesiasticall disobedience the one lawâ—ull the other vnlawfull was deuised to intangle the consciences of the Catholikes And so we see that M. Barlow is forced to run to the same shift that before he condeÌ„ned which is to seek out diuersities in points wherin no comparisoÌ„ was made The second example which is reprehended in Cardinall Bellarmines letter is out of the second booke of Machabees of old Eleazar that venerable man who rather chose to die then to do a thing vnlawfull and against his owne conscience or to seeme to doe it by dissimulation Which example the Cardinall applieth said I to the taking of this vnlawful Oath by such as are Catholikes but especially by the Arch priest Head of the Clergy in England whose case he presumed to be more like to that of Eleazar for his age estimation and authority aboue the rest To which example the Apologer answereth thus That if the Archpriests ground of refusing this Oath were as good as Eleazars was for refusing to eate of the swines-flesh that was proposed vrged vnto him it might not vnfitly be applyed to his purpose But the ground fayling sayth he the buylding cannot stand But this is an escape much like the former that runneth quite from the matter for that the Cardinall supposeth a Catholike conscience in him to whom he writeth to which conscience it is as repugnant to sweare any thing sounding against any poynt of Catholike religion or doctrine as it was to Eleazar to eate swines fleshâ— against the law of Moyses Which supposition being made and that in the Cardinals iudgment this Oath contayneth diuers clauses preiudiciall to some pointes of the said Catholike beliefe and doctrine concerning the authority of the Sea Apostolicke and that the taking therof would not only be hurtfull to the taker but offensiue also and scandalous to many othâ—r of that religion both at home and abroad the application of this example of Eleazar was most fit effectuall This was answered at that tyme. Now M. Barlow commeth with new deuises First he calleth this example aprochryphall for that it is taken out of the second booke of Machabees but Catholicks do hould it for Canonicall and so do the ancient Fathers and so was it declared by a holy Councell aboue 1200. yeares agoe wherein S. Augustine himself sate as one of the Iudges But whether it were or no that maketh nothing to our present purpose but only whether the example be well applied or no. Secondly that eating of swines-flesh refused by Eleazar was forbidden by the law of God but this swearing saith he is warranted by Scripture Wherto I answere that swearing in it owne nature and with due circumstances of truth iudgment and iustice is warranted when true and iust things are sworne but euery Oath in particuler is not warranted by Scripture and namely if it containe any thing that eyther in it self or in the swearers iudgment and conscience is not true or lawfull And such is this Oath to Catholiks in both respectes and therefore not warranted but condemned by Scripture Thirdly he sayth when I am at a stand and can go no further I do wind my self out by ruÌ„ning to the common
the other he concludeth triumphantly saying Let the vnpartiall tryall be the seuere iudge either way Which I also desire and withall aduertise the Reader that in some things I am the shorter where much aduantage is giuen for that the same is afterwards by F. Persons himself handled in due place in the ensuing discussion 43. The controuersy then in hand is about the comfort which our meritorious actions do yield and what confidence is to be reposed in them which the Cardinall deliuereth in three Conclusions the last whereof M. Barlow will haue not only to contradict the two former but to be opposite to all the â—iue bookes which are written of that matter which because as F. Persons well noted it seemed strange that fiue bookes should be contradictory to one propositioÌ„ M. Barlow telleth him he should rather haue thought it to be a very strange conclusion which in so small a roomth should haue matter to crosse a discourse so large This then we shall now discusse and for better perspicuity I will lay downe togeather the three conclusions of the Cardinall which M. Barlow will haue to be so contradictory and then examine his proofes for the same The first is The confidence of holy men which they repose in God proceâ—dâ—th not from only faith but from then good merits and therfore we are to labour all we can fâ—â— merits that therby we may haue confidence in God The second Some confidence may be placed in good merits whicâ— are knowne to be such so that pride be auoyded The third For the vncertainty of our righteousnes and danger of vaine glory the surest way is to place all our confidence iâ— the only mercy and bounty of God So Bellarmineâ— prouing ech assertion out of the Scriptures auÌ„cient Fathers but before-hand giuing this caueat to the Reader which cleane dasheth a good part of M. Barlowes verball assault that it is not all one to say that confidence may arise or grow from merits and that confidence may be placed in merits for it may so fall out that a maâ— may repose almost no confidence in his merits for that he knoweth not certainly whether he haue any true merits or not and yet he may abound both with true great merits and out of these merits there may proceed in him a great confidence towards God by which distinction the whole câ—ntrouâ—rsy may be decided and diuers authorities of Scriptures and Fathers which othâ—rwisâ— may seeme repugnant be reconciled Thus the Cardinallâ— Now let vs see what Syr William doth bring to impugne this doctrine and to proue it contradictory 44. He beginneth with a diuision of vera and perâ—â—câ—a iustitia which he calleth the two principall hâ—ads to which all the chiefe questions of that conâ—rouersy in Bellarmine may by reduced By iusticeâ—e â—e vnderstandeth inherent and by perfect iustice that which is able to abide the triall of Gods iudgement But â—ere is much mistaking for that neyther doth Bellar. â—n this sense call our iustice perfect neyther can the perfectioÌ„ of a thing which must needes be intrinsecall â—o the essence be said properly to depend of an extrinsecall effect as is the triall of Gods iudgement or the reward which is giuen in respect of our righteousnes that proceedeth froÌ„ the inhereÌ„t grace within vs without any relatioÌ„ or depeÌ„daÌ„ce of the future iudgmeÌ„t at al. 45. From this diuision he coÌ„meth to a distinction of vncertainty which he saith is either rei or personae of righteousnes it self or of the party that hath it This is as wise as the former for I would faine know of M. Barlow how there can be incâ—rtiâ—udo rei vnles it be de futuris contingentibus for a thing as it is existent cannot be vncertaine but hath his being essence and therewith his truth vnity And in M. Barlowes example the hypocrite who hath no true righteousnes and consequently not inherent cannot be said to haue incertitudinem râ—i for that it is certaine as we do suppose that he hath no righteousnes at all and all the vncertainty depeÌ„ds on the person who thinketh him to haue righteousnes when he hath it not not of the thing it self which is determinatae Veritatis of determinate truth in the affirmatiue or negatiue and truth to vse M. Barlowes Martiall manner of speaking either of â—ssâ—nce or propriâ—ty cassiâ—res all vncertainty the affirmatiue or negatiue so aâ— still M. Barlow stumbleth and with his subtile distinctions ouerreacheth himself and confoundeth all learning 46. Well then this vncertainty being of the person what saith he thereunto In this he is somewhat briefe but very confident and concludeth thus If it be of the person then merit is cut of And why good Sir For merit saith he raiseth a confidence but where there is no comfort there can be no coÌ„fidence in vncertainty there is no comfort for relyance on that whereof a man doubts causeth rathâ—r a feare to be deceaued then a confidence to be releiued So he Which argument supposeth as graunted that our meritorious workes breed confidence which we deny not if he meane of that confidence towards God before mentioned then it ruÌ„neth in this forme Where there is no comfort there is no confidence but in vncertainty there is no comfort ergo no confidence and so consequently no merit That the force of this syllogisme may the better appeare I shall apply it to another matter thus Where there is no comfort there is no confidence but when our Sauiour prayed in the garden sayd tristis est anima mea vsque ad mortem and cryed ouâ— on the Crosse my God my God why hast thou forsaken me there was no comfort ergo no confidence and then Caluins blasphemous and desperate illation of our Sauiours despairing on the Crosse will soone be proued from which all learned Protestants no lesse then Catholicks do worthily disclaime But this is the diuinity of Syr William 47. Againe there is great equiuocation in the word vncertainty which M. Barlow taketh in the most generall and absolute signification as excluding all manner of certainty and knowledg whatsoeuer when as in Bellarmyne it is taken far otherwise for in the second Chapter of his third booke hauing distinguished two sorts of certaintyes the one euident the other obscure Of this later he maketh three degrees the first is of the certainty of faith cui nulla ratione potest subesse falsum the second of such things as are belieued for humane authority but so common as it excludeth all feare though not all falsity for that all men may be false and either deceaue or be in such things deceaued Of this sort he puteth for examples that Cicero and Virgil were famous men that Augustus Caesar was Emperour that Alexandria is in Egypt Constantinople in Thrace Hierusalem in Palestine Antioch in Asia and then declareth the last degree in this manner Tertium
between him that should say F. Persons was almost vpon the Sea coast of England expecting the issue of the powder-plot and his that should auer that he was vpon the sea coast and shipt for England So he 73. This vntruth both for the iniury done to F. Persons for the improbability of the thing it self which hath not so much as any shaddow of truth deserueth the first place all Rome knowing the contrary to be most true that for the yeare before and after the powder-plot the said Father was alwayes in the Citty or in the places neere adioyning and at this very tyme wheÌ„ M. Barlow would haue him to be on the sea coast he was sick in bed in which as his weakenes would permit either himselfe to write or to dictate to another he refuted the fifth part of Syr Edward Cookes Reports which refutation is vnanswered as yet by him and not answerable by any Neyther can M. Barlow plead ignorance in this case seeing that in the arraignment of F. Garnet where there was so much forcing and streyning of things to the vttermost as well against the said F. Persons in particuler as the whole Order in generall there was no mention made heerof nor yet in the printed bookes both English and Latyn which since haue been set forth of that matter 74. VVas the thing so small trow you as that it deserued not a remembrance at least in that action in which far lesse presumptions then this were so tragically exaggerated Or could there haue byn imagined a more forcible proofe or more direct meanes for the discrediting that Order then to haue conuinced by this iourney the only Superiour of all the English mission to haue knowne and approued the same No M. Barlow had this happened all you Ministers genus irritabile vatum had sounded it out with full mouth all pulpits all bookes had proclaimed it all Princes Courts yea all cornes of Christendome had been cloyed with Embassages pamphlets Inuectiues and clamors against him and therefore to set downe this fiction in print well sheweth how far your malice ouerwent your wit howsoeuer you temper the first place with this parenthesis as some report for you could not but know that they reported a lie as you doe againe with exceeding impudent malice when you write but proue it not that F Persons had his hart hand and head in the powder-plot But I see that in you verified pudet non esse impudentem you are ashamed that you are not shamelâ—sâ— 75. In the 98. page of his booke he makes in a different letter cyting also the place F. Persons to say That as some of the Fathers who to amimate the persecuted Christians dâ—scribed the lâ—wd life and fearefull end of their persâ—cutors as Nero and Domitian so he to comfort the Catholick traytors must reuile and bely that worthy Queene the rather for that she was a woman So he printing only the word bely in ordinary letters as though all the rest had byn the words of the Father But without any belying M. Barlow I must tell him that here are three lyes in two lynes for neyther doth F. Persons call Catholiks Traitors whome in most of his bookes he hath defended and cleared from that false imputation neyther doth he say that he must reuyle Queene Elizabeth neyther that he will doe it the rather for that she is a woman and yet M. Barlow presently replyeth saying If F. Persons haue no other comfort thâ—n to cheer them vp because a woman quelled their insolency then may the diuell be comforted c. What â—ill you say to this man F. Persons saith that Q. Elizabeth was the first woman christian or created that tooke vpon her supreme power in spirituall or Ecclesiasticall matters and M. Barlow cannot refell the same nor doth he go about it but from his owne chayr of Oracles tels vs without further proofe that she was no vsurper by nouell-clayme and that God had annexed it to her crowne and insteed of prouing this entreth into the commendation of women as if F. Persons had discommended them but the truth is he saw that thereby he had more matter for talke and authority for proofe then in the barren subiect of the feminine Supremacy of which before Q. Elizabeth no example can be shewed and therfore he accommodated F. Persons text to serue to his purpose in that behalfe 76. Againe M. Barlow saith that F. Persons in his Viro doloso his Doleman had renounced his part in our Soueraigne and pronounced him elswhere a desperate and forlorne hereticke yea they are his expresse words whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant is a most greiuous and dâ—mnable sinner So he and here I must tell him that this is an expresse lye or rather that here be as many lyes as lynes for neither hath F. Persons renounced his part in our Soueraigne neyther euer pronounced him elswhere a desperate and forlorne hereticke with which none but some desperate forlorne hereticke indeed like M Barlow would euer haue charged him neyther are the other F. Persons expresse words for in that place he neyther nameth nor meaneth a Protestant more then a Puritan Brownist or else a Catholik as in the place by me here cyted is by himselfe declared And doth not theÌ„ M. Barlow for his writing deserue a good reward of a siluer â—hetstone Is this dealing Episcopall or not rather Diabolicall by such lying and forged fictions to do so open iniury to others Another in this kind he maketh in his Commentary on these words of F. Persons as he cyteth them for in the text they are other as I shall shew As for Catholiks saith he they accept euen the least fauour gratefully as hoping to haue receaued much greater as due vnto theÌ„ if his Maâ—â—sty had not bene preuâ—ntâ—d by sinister information So M. Barlow relateth his words by making a parenthesis at as due vnto them and then setting downe the other as immediatly following if his Maiâ—sty had not byn prâ—uented by sinister information But let vs heare F. Personâ— speak in his owne words as they lye in the Letter thereby both the fidelity of M. Barlow in cyting them and the truth of his answere in replying against them will the better appeare Thus then he saith As for Catholicks they accept gratefully whatsoeuer least fauour hath bene or is done vnto thâ—m and do not doubt but that if his Maiâ—sty had not bene preuented by sinistâ—r information and perswasion of others they had tasted of much greatâ—r as due vnto them in that thâ—y are naturall borne subiâ—cts of the râ—alme most Loyall in hart and affâ—ction and neuer meaning otherwise but to liue in most ordâ—rly dutiâ—ull subiection obediâ—nce to his Highnes as to their liâ—ge Lord and Souerâ—yâ—ne c. So F. Pâ—râ—ons And who could vse more myld and moderate words to expresse the dutifull mindes of Catholiks towards
he aduaunced him and afterward neuer ceased to imploy him in the graâ—est and weightiest affaires of the Sea Apostolike partly in the holy Congregation of the Inquisition and partly in the Office of Vicâ—r-generall of Rome besides other continuall occupations in diuers Congregations and particuler commissions which the said Pope Clement daily commeÌ„ded vnto him as to one of the wisest and most confident Counsellours he had So that all this being considered malice it selfe cannot deny but that his singular partes of learning wisdome experience and all vertue opened him the gaâ—e to the soueraigne dignity of supreme Pastour wherto Almighty God of his particuler prouidence no doubt hath exalted him for the speciall good of his Church But M. Barlow misseth in the very ground of our Catholike certainty and infallibility and so rangeth most ridiculously to matters nothing to the purpose For 〈◊〉 what end I pray you or with what iudgement doth he bring in that speach of our Sauiours brethren in S. Iâ—â—â—s ghospell No man that seeketh to be famous doth any thing insecret doth it appertaine any thing to our purpose Or doth his Holines seeke fame by learning or in secret when he determineth any matter Surely it seemeth that this false Bishop will needes make himselfe famous by his folly and false dealing and yet we must heare him out a little further for that the further he goeth the more gall and malice he sheweth against the person and dignity of Pope Paulus Quintus Now then he will needes bring in the testimony of certayne secular Priestes as he calleth them agaynst the person of his Holines though in this he deserue as little crediâ— as in the rest His wordes are these Into his qualyties I will not enter he standeth and falls to his owne Maister But if he be that Cardinall Burghesius whome some of the secular Priestes haue sometimes described and haue assured vs to be true in him which is spoken of Tiberius Gracchus that he is a rash speaker and an headdy vndertaker of a most violent spirit and impatient of contradiction in whatsoeuer he hath but once imagined If this I say be true which God forbid in so great a Church-man now surely he is not the fittest Iudge to be resorted vnto in cases of conscience especially of such a nature and consequence as this in hand So he Where first the Reader may note that he sayth he wil not enter into the Pope his personall qualities and yet he doth shewing thereby that his aboundance of malice ouercame his iudgement first intention And if you stand attent you shal see that Sathan the Author Inspirer of all malignity to worke this Heretikes greater shame made him lay hands vpoÌ„ such a caluÌ„niation as all the world both Catholiks Heretiks that haue any knowledg of his Holines person will testify to be a meere slander to accuse Cardinall Burghesius before he was Pope to be a rash speaker an headdy vndertaker a violent spirit impatient of contradiction is as probable an accusatioÌ„ among theÌ„ that know him as to say that S. Francis was couetous S. Thomas vnlearned S. Bernard indeuout S. Dominicke without zeale of soules at all that is to say to ascribe the coÌ„trary vices to him that was singular emineÌ„t in the opposite vertues And this is so euident notorius in the present caluÌ„niation that whosoeuer did but come to Rome and did discourse of Cardinalls of their qualities and conditions as men are wont to doe but much more if they conuersed with him should vnderstaÌ„d that he was so â—arre of from rash speaking headdy vndertaâ—â—â—â—â—iolent spirit and the like as the contrary vertues were â—â—â—gularly respected in him to wit of prudent speach of slow and moderate enterprizing suauity of spirit and patience in hearing euery man with lenity as it pleased the diuine Prudence of almighty God afterwards to vse this generall opinion and conceipt of him as a potent meanes among others to induce the Cardinalls to choose him to the place and dignity that now he houldeth So as any other slaunder or calumination might sooner find place against him then this And whereas he alleageth some of the secular English Priestes to haue bene Authors of this false accusation against his Holines quoting in the margent M. Bluet c. whereby he would signify that he and his fellowes had affirmed the same it seemeth that he doth allude vnto the time when the said M. Bluet and three other Priestes went to Rome vpon a certaine appeale and so at their returne might make this description as he calleth it But why doth he name one only and he dead No doubt but that the falâ—e Bishop did foresee that if he had named them all or the most part of them the slaunder would haue bene answered by some of them that are aliue but by naming a dead man that answereth not he thought he might scape Scot-free from reprehension of the slaunder And this is no vnusuall art of heresy that seeketh to maintaine it selfe by lying and forgery And thus much now be spoken about the thing it selfe to wit how vniusâ—ly these Phrases and Epithets are ascribed vnto the person of his Holines supposing that the Hâ—râ—tick had dealâ— vprightly in alleadging them out of Plutarke as giuen to Tyberius Gracâ—hus but the truth is that in no one thing commonly shall you euer find him true so here he both falsifieth Plutarke iniureth Tyberius Grâ—â—chus For Plutarke hath nothing so much of Tyberius Gracchâ—â— as here in English is fett downe neither that which he hath is spoken by him in such reproach as Maister Barlâ—â— would haue it seeme For Plutarke relateth the contention had before the people betweene Tyberius Graccâ—us and Titus Aâ—râ—us the first a most eloquent man in speach the second crafâ—y in proposing subtile questions whereof hauing proposed one at their first encounter that did sting Graccâ—us Plutarke saith Ad hanc quaestionem reserunt ita Tyberium hasitasse â—t qui omnium esset ad dicendum expectitissimus proiectissimus ad â—udendum obmutuerit At this question of â—itus Annius men say that Tyberius Gracchus did so sticke as that he held his peace though he were of all other men the most proÌ„pt to speake and most bold to attempt This is all that Plutarke saith so as the rest which M. Barlow addeth of a most violent spirit and most impatient of contradictioÌ„ in what he hath but once imagined is his owne imaginary fiction and not Plutarkes relation as indeed he is forced also to confesse in the eye of the learned by setting downe the sentence it selfe in greâ—ke amplifying the same in the English tongue for the deceiuing of the vnlearned English Reader 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prompt in speaking and bould in attempting which later though it be taken for the most part in ill sense yet sometimes also in good that is for magnanimus animosus c. as
lesse the true substance of things handled by him I do pretermitt as very fond and impertinent the next passage that ensueth and is the last in this matter in M. Barlow his booke where he maketh this demaund But what if there be none or few that make such conscience or take such offence at the admission of the Oath as he speaketh of To this question I say it is in vaine to answere for if there be so few or no Catholikes that make conscience or scruple to take the Oath the contention will be soone at an end But presently he contradicteth himselfe againe taking another medium and saying that there would be none if they were not threatned by vs to haue their howses ouerturned as some Donatists sayth he confessed of themselues by the witnesse of S. Augustine that they would haue bene Catholikes if they had not bene put in feare ne domus corum euâ—rtâ—râ—ntur by the Circumcellians perhaps which M. Barlow sayth may spiritually be applyed to our threatning that such as take the Oath shall be accompted Apostataes and to haue renounced their first fayth and to be no members of the Catholike Church and finally that we shall remayne branded in euerlasting record with Balaams infamy that taught Balaac to lay a scandall or occasion of fall to the people of Israell To all which I answere first that he that layeth forth the truth of Catholike doctrine vnto Catholike men may not iustly be sayd to threaten or terrify but to deale sincerely and charitably with them laying truth before their eyes what their obligation is to God before man and how they are bound as members of his true Catholike Church to hould and defend the vnity and integrity of â—ayth and doctrine deliuered by the same though it be with neuer so much temporall danger And as for laying a scandall wherby they may fall into the ruine of their soules it is easy to iudge whether wee do it rather that teach them to deale sincerely with God and their Prince wherby they shall preserue their peace and alacrity of conscience or you that indeauoâ—r to induce thâ—â—â—â— sweare and doe against the same wheâ—eby they shall be sure to leese both their peace in this life and their euerlasting inheritance in the next THE ANSVVER TO AN OBIECTION BY OCCASION VVHEROF IT IS SHEVVED THAT POSSESSION and Prescription are good proofes euer in matters of Doctrine AND The contrary is fondly affirmed by M. Barlow CHAP. V. THERE remaineth now for the finall end of this first Part to examine an obiection that might be made by the aduersary which I thought good by â—â—ticipation to satisfy in the very last number of the first parâ— of my Letter And it was that wheras we complaine of so great pressures layd vpon vs for our conscience especially by this enforced Oath some man may sayâ— that the liâ—â— course is held in the Catholicke States against themâ— whome we esteeme as heretickes I shall repeate my owne words and then see what M. Barlow answereth to the same Here if a man should obiect quoâ—h I that among vs also men are vrged to take Oathes and to abiure â—heir opinions in the Tribunalls of Inquisitions and the like and consequently in this Oath they may be forced vnder punishment to abiure the Popes temporall authority in dealing with Kings I answere first that if any hereticke or other should be forced to â—biure his opinions with repugnance of conscience it should be a sinne to the inforcers if they knew it or suspected it neyther is it practised orâ— permitted in any Catholicke Court that eueâ— I knew But you will reply that if he doe it not he shal be punished by dâ—ath or otherwise as the crime requireth and Canons appoint and consequently the like may be vsed towards Catholikes that will not renounce their old opinions of the Popes authority But heere is a great difference for that the Catholike Church hath ius acquisitum ancient right ouer heretickes as her true subiects â—or that by their baptisme they were made her subiectes and left her afterwardsâ— and went out of her and she vseth but her ancient manner of proceeding against them as against all other of their kind and quality from the beginning But the Protestant Church of England hath nullum iuâ— acquisitum vpon Catholickes that were in possession before them for many hundred yeares as is euident neither was there euer any such Oath exacted at their hands by any of their Kings in former Catholicke timesâ— neither is tâ—eâ—e by any Catholicke forraine Monarch now liuing vpon 〈◊〉 and consequently by no â—eâ—son or right at all can English Catholicke men be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience or be punished beâ—â—â—â— or destroyed if for their conscience they refuse to take tâ—e same humbly offering notwithstanding to their Soueraigne to giue him all other dutifull satisfaction for their temporall obedience and allegiance which of loyall Catholicke subiects may be exacted And this shall suffice for this first point concerning the contents and nature of this Oath This was my speach and conclusion then And now shal we take a vew how it is confuted by M. Barlow First be amplifyeth exaggerateth with great vehemeÌ„cy the torments and tortures of our Inquisitions which are vsed as he saith with the most extreme violence that flesh can indure or malice inuent wherin he sayth more I thinke then he knoweth and more perhaps then he belieueth and at leastwise much more then is true in my knowledg For of twenty that are imprisoned there not one lightly is touched with torture and when any is in the case by law appointed it is knowne to be more mildly then commonly in any other tribunall But let vs leaue this as of least moment and depending only vpon his asseueration and my denyall and let vs passe to that which is of more importance for iustifying the cause it selfe to wit by what right of power and authority the Roman Church proceedeth against heretickes and how different it is from that wherby Protestants pretend to be able iustly to proceed against vs for matters of Religion First of all he sayth that I do take as granted that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church which we deny sayth he and the chiefest learned of their side could as yet neuer conuict our denialls Wherto I answere that if themselues may be iudges that are most interessed in the controuersie I do not meruaile though they neuer yield themselues for conuicted But if any indifferent iudgment or triall might be admitted I do not doubt but that their euiction and coÌ„uiction would quickly appeare and many learned men of our dayes haue made most cleare demonstrations therof by deducing the Roman Church doctrine and fayth from the Apostles dayes vnto our times successiuely as namely Doctour Sanders his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Monarchy Cardinall Baronius in the continuation of his Annales Gâ—nebrarâ—
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
Queene Mary also was disinabled by Parlament in her fathers dayes c. And are not these strong argumentes to proue his purpose to wit that this proceeding of the Parlament and declaration made against her was no temporall disgrace Albeit for so much as belongeth to Queene Mary all men doe know that her case was far different for that Queene Marâ—es mother was neuer noted for incontinency and much lesse so many adulterers put to death with her as might be doubted whose daughter she was To the difficulties she had in King Edwards daies both in respect of the Admirall Seymer put to death for loue-matters towards her and the like he sayth in effect nothing but breaketh forth into a fiâ—t of rage about the whore of Babylon her Philira and loue-drugs whereof this fellow can frame a common place to intertaynâ— him selfe for lacke of other matter Of the time also of Queene 〈◊〉 he speaketh nothing About her lawes and cruell proceedings towardes Catholickes he intertayneth himselfe some what longer but no more to the purpose then in the rest For first he sayth that the sorest punishment for the first twelue yeares wâ—s commitment to Bishops and Deanes houses and some of them to prisons where they lay as warme and waxed as fatt as in theyr owne houses And this now hath no need of answer but that if M. Barlow be not yet faâ— this were a good way to feed him by lying in prison as they did for some yeares which is thought will neuer be for Religion come what Religion there will Secondly he sayth that â—or the subsequent yeares he yeeldeth that there was more rigour vsed death being deseruedly drawne on to vse his words by the merit of treason whervnto Religion was made but a stawking-horse and then citeth S. Augustine in defence of the Christian Emperours lawes against heretickes But first he doth not proue or euer shall be able any such demerit of treason to haue drawne on this rigour but only by calumniation which indeed is and hath beene the persecutors stawking-horse to deceiue the simple pretending one thing for another thereby to oppresse the innocent and secondly S. Augustine alloweth indeed and commendeth the Lawes of Catholike Emperours made for the temporall punishment of Heretickes aâ—ter they were condemned by the Church But what Church was that And what Catholicke Religion for defence wherof those Catholicke Princes in S. Augustines dayes did make those lawes so commended by him Was it the Protestant Church And was the Religion thereof the Protestant religion or ours Will M. Barlow ioyne with me in this which of our two Churches and Religions haue descended visibly from S. Augustins Church and religioÌ„ vnto our dayes Can he deny that S. Augustins Church taught Purgatory Prayer to Sayntes Prayer for the dead Masâ—e and Sacrifice for the liâ—ing dead and many other articles now in controuersy betweene vs Dare he stand to this triall out of S. Augustines workes themselues And if he dare not as I know he dareth not nor will euer accept thereof why doth he here prattle out of S. Augustine as though if he were now aliue agayne he would allow the lawes of Protestant Princes made against that religion and Church which himselfe defended while he was lyuing This then is another absurd shift of M. Barlow to delude his Reader But there followeth another if not more absurd yet at least lesse shamefast for that the malice is more apparent Father Persons sayth he who in the Preface of one of his Legends commendeth Queene Elizabeth for her moderate gouerment that was in the last yeare of herraigne and yet by the way for the mans singular honesty it is worth the nothing that in one and the same leafe hauing so commended her in one page marry then she was aliue in the very next page for then he heard she was dead in a Preface to his Maiesty he compares her to no other but Diâ—clesian for cruelty Thus he and for that he citeth a booke that is in euery mans hand to wit the first part of the Three Conuersions of England and thereby his allegation is easy to be examined I did magine that I should finde him very exact and punctuall in his assertion Wherefore I went to looke vpon the two pages of the selfe same leafe the one written before the Queenes death the other after but I could see no such matter so neere togeather then comming back some foure or fiue pages I found that which I suppose to haue giuen him the occasion of this fond cauill for that the Author hauing dedicated that booke to the Catholiks of England in the Epistle Dedicatory layd forth at large the great afâ—lictions and tribulations which they had long suffered for that Religion he commendeth them for their patience and loyall behauiour towardes theyr Prince in all worldly affayres VVhich course sayth he though it hath not escaped the calumnious tongues and pens of some carping aduersaries making all treason yet is it iustifiable and glorious both before God and man where reason ruleth and not passion And I doubt not but that tâ—e wisâ—domâ— and moderation both of her Maiestie and â—er Sâ—â— Counsell iâ—â—ll rather in this point pâ—nder yâ—ur owne facts then your aâ—uersaries wordes So there Where by is euident that the Authour doth not commend Queene Elizabeth for her moderate gouerment towards Catholickes as this man sayth for that within fiue lines after he sayth they haue passed so many yeares vnder the rod of sharpe afflictions but only persuadeth himselfe that the wisedome and moderation both of her Maiestie and the Counsell will stay them from condemning Catholickes for treason vpon other mens words rather then vpon theyr owne facts which being but a particuler case inferreth not that Father Persons commendeth her for her moderate gouerment Nor is the other point true that in a Preface to his Maiestie he compareth her to no other theÌ„ to Dioclesian for cruelty For that my wordes were these Here generally the applause is no otherwise then it was in old time among the Christians vpon the entraÌ„ce oâ— Constantine into the Empyre after Dioclesian and of Iouinian aâ—ter Iulian. Nor is there any mention or comparison of cruelty in that place so as here neyther the leafe or page doâ— agree to his citation nor the commendation of her moderate gouerment is found neyther the comparison of cruelty with Dioclesian is extant nor is he only mentioned but Iulian also Doe you note how many defects of truth are discouered in so smal an allegation But after this again he commeth in with a great scorn against me for saying that our Catholicke Priests put to death by Q. Elizabeth dyed for religion and were true Martyrs for that hauing life offered theÌ„ if they would renouÌ„ce the Pope and conâ—orme themselues to the present state of of England they resused the same And with this he maketh himselfe merry with diuers iesâ—es about
is of your owne thrusting in and put in place therof that the sayd Sonne may be the sooneâ— induced to graâ—t them that liberty in respect of their former dutifulnes and loyalty to his mother in her distresses and the consequence will not be euill To the third of his Maiesties confessed experience of the loyalty of Catholickes both towards himselfe and his Mother in their distresâ—es he sayth That his Maiesty nameth not Catholiâ—kes at all in his said Booke but only prosesseth that be found none so stedfastly to abide by him in his greatest straites as they which constantly kept their true Allegiance to his Mother Well Syr and who I pray you were they Catholickes or Protestants Let the acts of those times be seene the Authors noted the effectes considered Yet sayth M. Barlow noâ— iâ— is very probable that when his Maiesty hath cast vp his accompt of forâ—er disloyalties he shall â—ind the moderate â—nd dirâ—ct Protestantâ— that incliâ—es neither to right hand nor left to be the first and faithfâ—ll subiect Well Syr this may be pâ—rhaps fâ—â— the time to come for your selâ—e saith thaâ— it is but probable but for the time pâ—st his Maiestie hauing now cast vp his accompts hath found that reckonyng as he hâ—th set it downe And the common rule of wisdome is to beleeue as we haue found vntill different experience teach vs the contrary And by the way we mustâ— learne here M. Barlowes new deuised epithetons of a moderate and direct Protestant that as he sayth is neythâ—r Iesuâ—ted nor Geneuated that is neither Catholicke nor Puryâ—an but moderate and direct that is to say moderate in not belieuing to much on any sâ—de if it stand not with his profit and direct in following iump the Prince and State that may aduance him whatsoeuer they should determine in matters of religion This is the man by M. Barlowes direction vpon whome his Maiestie must buyld and not the Purytan or zealous Catholicke for that they are ouer scrupulous I could wish that M. Barlow had bene a litle more scrupulous in the very next ensuing number where without all blushing he casteth out two notorious lyes agaynst Father Pâ—rsons to make him odious thereby to his Maiestie saying first that he pronounceth his sayd Maiestie to be a desperate and â—orlorne hereticke but cyteth no place where it is to be found nor indeed is there any such place to be found where Father Personâ— vseth any such words as euer I could yet see Secondly he alleadgeth for Father Persons expresse words these That whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant is a most grieuous and damnable sinner and citeth for the same Dâ—lâ—man pag. 216. which quotation serueth only to condemne M. Barlow of a notorious wilfull calumniation for that these expresse wordes are not there found nor is there any mention of the Succession of a Protestant but in generall is sayd thus That for any man to giue his help towards the making of a King whome he iudgeth faulty in religion and consequently would aduance no religion or the wrong if â—e were in authority is a grieuous sinne of what syde soeuer the truth be c. So as neither Protestant nor Succession is named in this place but mâ—king of a King by such as my haue authority to doe the same and it may as well hould agaynst the entrance of a Catholicke Prince as of any other sect whatsoeuer And consequently both of these are sâ—landerous accusations the first being a meere inuented vntruth and the second a malicious peruerted calumniation so as in respect of both I may well say with the Prophet Dilexisti omnia verba praecipitationis lingua dolosa and I pray God the threat next insuing do not take place Propterea Deus destruct to in finem c. I desyre not his destruction but his amendment After this followeth in my foresaid Letter a narration of the Dutifull demeanour of Catholickes towardes his Maiestie euen from his first entrance and how by the vniust perswasions of their enemyes they began quickly to feele his hard hand borne ouer them euen before the powder-plot as by the confirmation of all Queen Elizabethâ— penal lawes in the first yeare of his Maiesties raigne with the execution therof afterward doth well appeare wherof many particuler examples are set downe and among other things it is touched as a matter of speciall disfauour that his Maiestie vouchsafing in his owne Royall Person to giue publicke audience both to Protestants and Purytâ—â— for 3. dayes togeather concerning the differences of their Religion no such grace at all was graunted vnto Catholickes Vpon which words M. Barlow stayeth himselfe and maketh this coÌ„mentary It is a strange humour sayth he that this Epistler hath iâ— he sayth truth he lyeth It is true there was a conference but about difference in Religion it is vtterly false sayâ—â— they would possesse the world that we are at iar among our selues abâ—â—â— our Religion whereas the quarrell though it be indeed vnkind yet it iâ— not in this kinde saue only for Ceremonyes externall no poynt substâ—â—tiall c. But now of this I haue spoken somewhat before shewing that if this vnkinde quarrell betweene Protestaâ—â—s Purytans as he calleth it be only about externall Ceremonies then is both his Prelacy and that of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop only an externall Ceremony And if his phrase of vnkind quarrell be of the same kind that he mentioned before to be in Queene Elizabeth towards Queene Mary of Scotland whose heâ—d she cut ofâ— then is the matter somewhat substantiall not only Ceremoniall and indeed he that shall consider what the Purytan in this vnkind quarrell pretendeth agaynst the Protestant and his Church shall see that he striketh at the head indeed or rather striketh of the head of the sayd Church whether we consyder either the externall and ministeryall head thereof to wit the Princes Ecclesiasticall power and of Bishops vnder him or the internall head metaphorically taken for the life spirit and essence of the sayd Church in denying it to be a true Christian Church but only a prophane Congregation without any spirituall power at all This appeareth by all the course and drift of Puritan wryters and bookes extant of the differences acknowledged also by Protestant writers in their Treatises against them so as to me it seemeth not only a shameles bouldnes to deny it as M. Barlow here doth but a shamâ—full basenes also and beggary so to runne after their enemyes intreating them to haue some association with them whereas the other do both contemne and detest them For this falleth out not only in this case but also with the Lutherans whom M. Barlow and his fellowes when they deale with vs will needes haue to be theyr brethren of one and the same Church fayth and beliefe for all substantiall poyntes of doctrine Whereas the Lutherans on the other syde do both deny
was this I find no such thing in the Breue at all as that Temporall Obedience is against faith saluation of soules nor doth the Breue forbid it nor doth any learned Catholike affirme that the Pope hath power to make new Articles of Faith nay rather it is the full consent of all Catholike Deuines that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before though they may explane what poynts are to be held for matters of faith and what not vpon any new heresies or doubts arising which articles so declared though they be more particulerly and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith and so to be belieued after the declaration of the Church then before yet had they before the selfe same truth in themselues that now they haue Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them but this declaration only As for example when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt he made her not the true Mother therby nor added any thing to the truth of her being the Mother but only the declaration Wherfore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of fayth is a meere calumniation amongst the rest So in my former writing now we shall examine what M. Barlow replyeth about these two points In the first whether the Oath do containe only temporall Obedience he is very briefe for hauing repeated my words by abbreuiation that the Popes Breue forbids not temporall Obedience No saith he it forbids the Oath wherin is only acknowledgment of ciuill Allegiance But this we deny and haue often denied and still must deny and craue the proofe at M. Barlowes hands who though he hath often affirmed the same yet hath he neuer proued it by any one argument worth the reciting which notwithstanding is the only or principall thing that he should proue For that being once proued all controuersie about this Oath were ended And it is a strange kind of demeanour so often and euery where to affirme it and neuer to proue it He addeth for his reason in this place He that prohibits the swearing against a vsurping deposer denieth temporall obedience to his rightfull Soueraigne and sayth neuer a word more But what doth this proue Or in what forme is this argument For if vnto this Maior proposition he shall add a Minor that we do so or that the Popes Breue doth so we vtterly deny it as manifestly false For who will say that the Popes Breue prohibits swearing against an vsurping deposer Or what Catholike will say that his refusall of swearing is against such a one and not rather against the authority of his lawfull Pastour Wherfore this proofe is nothing at allâ— But he hath another within a leafe after which is much more strange for he bringeth me for a witnes against my selfe in these words VVhat hitherto sayth he he â—aâ— laboured to confute and now peremptorily denyeth that the Breue â—â—insayeth not Obedience in ciuill things he plainly now confesseth and grâ—â—teth If this be so that I do grant the Popes Breue to prohibite obedience in temporall thinges then will I graunt also that M. Barlow indeed hath gotten an aduantage and some cause to vaunt but if no word of this be true and that it is only a fond sleight of his owne then may you imagne to what pouerty the man is driuen that is forced to inuent these silly shifts Let vs lay forth then the mystery or rather misery of this matter as himselfe relateth it The Pope saith he being iustly taxed for not expressing any cause or reason of the vnlwâ—ulnes of the Oath the Epistler saith there are as many reasons that it is vnlawfull as there are points in the Oath which concerne religion against which they must sweare And is not this a good reason say I Is not the forswearing of any one poynt of Catholike Religion sufficient to stay the coÌ„science of a Catholike man from swearing But how doth be proue by this that I confesse the Breue to forbid temporall Obedience Do you marke I pray you his inference and consider his acumen But there is no one poynt sayth he in the Oath that doth not so to wit that doth not concerne Religion euen that first Article which meerely toucheth ciuill obedience I do sweare before God that King Iames is the lawfull King of this Realme c. Ergo I do grant that the Breue forbiddeth the swearing to all the Articles and consequently leaueth no Obedience ciuill or temporall But do not you see how he contradicteth himselfe in the selfe same line when he sayth that there is no one point that concerneth not religion euen the very first Article that toucheth meerly ciuill obedience For if it touch only and meerly ciuill obedience â—hen doth it not touch religioÌ„ in our sense For that we do distinguish these two deuiding the Oath into two seuerall parts the one conteyning points of temporall obedience for acknowledging the right of his Maiesty in his Crownes the other concerning points of Catholike Religion belonging to the Popes Authority To the first wherof we refuse not to sweare but only against the second And now M. Barlow sayth that all concerne religion and consequently we grant that the Popes Breue alloweth no temporall obedience but denieth all And is not this a worthy dispute But let vs passe to the second question whether the Pope or Church hath authority to make new Articles of faith as the Apologer obiected And first to my declaration before set downe to the negatiue part that the Catholicke Church preâ—endeth not any such authority to make new articles of faith that were not of themselues true and of faith before he obiecteth first Doctor Stapletons saying that the Pope and Councell may make the Apocryphall bookes named Hermes and the Constitutions of Clement to be Canonicall Whereto I answere that Doctor Stapleton sayth only that as the ancyent Christian Church had authority vpon due examination by instinct of the holy Ghost to receaue into the Canon of deuine Bookes some that were not admitted before as for example the Epistles of S. Iames the two bookes of Machabees the Epistle of Iude and diuers others as appeareth in the third Councell of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and suâ—scribed so hath the same Church at this day and shall haue vnto the worlds end authority to do the same Si id ei sanctus Spiritus suggereret sayth Doctour Stapleton that is if the holy Ghost shall suggest the same vnto herâ— librum aliquem alâ—â—m nâ—ndum in Canâ—nem recepâ—um Apostolorum tamen tempore conscriptum c. to receaue into the Canon some other booke written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church though it were not receiued for Canonicall before giuing instance of the said two bookes of Hermes
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
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
know or at leastwise will not confesse it for that he remayneth not perswaded therof and consequently vncertaine I might name for example those two words of Essence or Propriety thrust in heere eyther of ignorance or ostentation without sense or purpose For what is truth or propriety that â—assiers vncertainty The man would seeme to speake proâ—oundly and so exceedeth his owne capacity But let vs heare him further It is hypocrisy saith he not righteousnes which is not true if not righteousnes then not inhereÌ„t Whereunto I answere that this is not true which he saith first for that all defect of true righteousnes maketh not hypocrisy but onely when a man pretendeth to be iust and is not But if a man should doubt whether his righteousnes be perfect or no which is our case then were it no hypocrisy at all and if it were then were it inherent hypocrisy in the hypocrite which is contrary to the other inference of M. Barlow that if it were not true and perfect righteousnes it were not inherent for that be it true or false perfect or vnperfect such as it is it must needs be inherent in the subiect which it doth denominate And this is M. Barlowes wise discourse about the first part of his two-membred proposition of incertitudo rei personae incertainty of the thing it selfe or of the person to wit of righteousnes it selfe or of him that hath it Now he commeth vnto the second about the person saying If the vncertainty be of the person then the second part of the proposition concerning merit is cut of for merit raiseth a confidence but where there is no comfort there can be no confidence and in vncertainty there is no comfort Which speach is so prudently vttered as how many inferences so many plaine falsities there be in the same As first that where there is no comfort there can be no confidence For that Iob in his tribulations was greatly abandoned of comfort and yet he said to God Albeit thou shalt kill me yet will I hope in thee and it is an ordinary thing with God to take away oftentimes sensible comforts from good men who notwithstanding do not loose their confidence in him and his mercies for the same The other proposition also is false that in vncertainty there is no comâ—ort For then would no man labour to obtaine any thing wherof he were not certaine no merchants would aduenture to the seas being vncertaine of their gaine no suters would come to LondoÌ„ to feed Lawiers being vncertaine what successe they shall haue and fâ—nally not onely common experience but also common sense doth conuince these propositions to be ridiculous and so I meane to spend no more time in examining them but will pasâ—e to the examining of the other three propositions or resolutions of Cardinall Bellarmine before mentioned In the meane space you see how well and substantially M. Barlow hath proued hitherto the contradiction of the third proposition against his fiue whole bookes of Iustification wherewith notwithstanding he saith the Cardinall was so pressed as he gasped for wind wheÌ„ I stept in to help him He steppes saith he to Bellarmine oâ—er whome as if the Cardinall were gasping for breath vnder the blow he hath recieued for his contradictions he braues it with some â—hetoricall â—lorishes c. This is his confidence which I grant commeth not of merits but of onely faith or rather presumption and therefore I meane not to impugne it He saith then concerning my answere before set downe out of my Letter first of all that Bellarmines case standing so bad in it selfe as it did I mâ—de it farre worse by seeking to assist him and for proof hereof he saith that I supposing the Cardinall to handle the controuersy by questions and answeres wherby it seemes that I neuer read the place myselfe do summe vp the Chapter in way of InterogatioÌ„ solution Whereto first I answere that the many particulers which I do set downe out of that Chapter whence the proposition is taken aswell of Scriptures and other reasons must needs conuince M. Barlow that I had read the whole Chapter and so he cannot say this heere but against his owne conscience Secondly it is true that Bellarmine doth not handle those three assertions of his by the way of questions and solutions but onely by way of assirmatiue and resolute propositions But I thought it best and more cleare for the English Readers vnderstanding to frame the questions of my self and take the summe of his said propositions for answers and solutions to the same What can M. Baâ—low mislike in this He sayth that I haue wrongfully set down the Cardinalls meaning and namely in the first question and that there is no such thing in the whole Chapter Let vs examine then this The first question then said I is whether good works in a Christian man doe increase hope and confidence by their owne nature the promise of reward made vnto them And Bellarmine answereth that they do and proueth it by many places of Scripture Thus I said doth not Bellarmine allow this doctrine Or doth he not teach any such thing in this chapter Let the reader peruse it and blush for M. Barlow that affirmeth it But he giueth an instance saying Neither Bellarmine nor any other Deuine eyther Protestant or Papist will say good works increase confidence in their owne nature But good Syr is your nature such or lack of grace so great that you can speake nothing without manifest falshood I say that good works in a Christian man do increase hope and confidence by their owne nature the promise of reward made vnto them I do ioyne two things togeather you doe separate them and cauiâ—l vpon one onely I doe speake of good workes in a Christian man to whom the promise of God is made of reward for good works you leaue out that and do speake of good workes as they may be in a Pagan and for the same cause you say in their own nature as coÌ„sidered in thâ—â—elus without Gods grace promise of reward I do â—ay that they do increase hope and coÌ„fidence by their owne â—â—ture and Gods promise of reward Wherby I doe meane that being workes so qualified they do of themselues and by their owne nature of meritorious works increase hope and confidence in the worker though he for his part do not place any confidence in them These then are the first corruptions vsed by M. Barlow vpon my words Why did he alter them and not recite them as I set them downe But let vs see a second proofe of his He alleadgeth Card. Bellarmine against me saying that he distinguisheth betweene good workes and merits for that all good workes are not meritorious and so say I too For that good morall workes may be in Infidels as hath bene said for they may do almsdeeds other such good things but they cannot be meritorious for that they do not
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
witnesses that the pennâ—nce which King Henry did there was voluntary and not enioyned by the Pope now I say M. Barlow answereth it thus VVhether the pennance were voluntary or enioâ—ned to the King who maketh the question the Apologer said no such thing c. But let the words themselues now recited be iudges in the matter which say that he was whipped vp downe the Chapter-house like a schole boy and glad to escape so too Doth this import voluntary or inuoluntary whipping And how then can M. Barlow say that the Apologer said no such thing For if he were glad to escape so too who will not inferre that he would haue escaped with lesse whipping if he could and that therefore the same was inâ—erred which is yâ—t contradicted by those Historiographers that recount the same And I think M. Barlow will find very few school-boâ—es that are voluntarily whipped There remaine now the other examples of the Emperours Frederick the first Henry the sixt and the rest before mentioned affirmed to haue bene iniuriouslie dealt withall by Popes of their time All which I might iustly pretermit as prouing nothing against our case of the Oath though all were graunted which hath bene obiected about them For suppose that some Popes had dealt hardly and rigorously with some Emperours Kings and Princes that should no more take away his authority then it should take away any Kings authority if he should offer iniury to one or more of his Nobilitie But besides this I sayd further in my Letter that in examining the particulers I found many exaggerations additions wrestings and vnsincere dealings in the alleaging of these examples And as for the first of Fredericke that he should ly a grooâ— on his belly and suffer Pope Alexander the third to tread on his necke and say super aspidem basilisâ—um c. is a great exaggeration and refuted as fabulous by many reasons authorities of Authors alleadged by Card. Baronius to whom I remitted the same for that the discourse therof was euer long to be repeated by me in that Letter The other exaÌ„ple also of Henry the 6. Emperour whose Crowne Câ—lâ—stinus the Pope is accused to haue stroken from his head with his foote after he had set it on I held in the same number of fabulous narrations for that it being sayd to be done in Rome it was only mentioned first by an â—nglish writer Roger Hâ—ueden that liued so many hundred miles from the place and thereby might easily be deceaued as Reynold of Châ—ster in like maÌ„ner was that took it of him Whâ—ras no other writer oâ— other nations eyther present 〈…〉 coronation when the thing is faygâ—ed to haue bene doneâ—â— Godâ— fridus 〈◊〉 Secrâ—tary to the said Emperor nâ—r other writers afterward relating the said Coronation 〈◊〉 Naâ—â—â—â—rus Sabâ—llâ—â—â—s Blondus Sigoniâ—s and 〈◊〉 do so much as oâ—â—â— make mentioÌ„ therof which â—s â—mâ—robâ—â—le that they would haue pretermitted being so 〈◊〉 a â—oint if it had fallen out To this last example and my answer about the same M. Barlow hath no reply to make but that Baronius seemeth to take it for a truth and graceth it saith he with a symbolical hieroglyphike expressing what the Pope should meane in doing so Whereto I answer that Baronius relating the matter out of Roger Houeden doth neither affirme it to be true or false but according to that narration of Houeden expounds what it might signify if it had bene true and as it was â—ould Houedâ—n in England But so many other authors that speake of that CoronatioÌ„ mention not this other fâ—ct as â—ow we haue alleadged do make the negatiue much more probable And as for the former about Fredericke the first Emperour and Pope Alexander the third I 〈◊〉 to stand to my former remissioÌ„ therof to the large diâ—cussion of Cardinall Baronius far ouer long to be brought in into this place but there all may be seene at large to wit the meeting of the said Pope and Emperour at Venice vpon the yeare 1177. the kynd and friendly reconcilement betweene them written by the second Archbishop of Salâ—rnum called Româ—aldus who was Legate or â—mbasâ—adâ—ur to the King of Sicily was present saw all that passâ—d whose Recordes are yet extant in an ancient Gotâ—icall character aswell in the Church of Salâ—rnum as in the Vaticam Library He proueth the same also by the epiâ—â—les actâ—s themselues of Pope Alexander yet extant and by the silence of all ancient writers that lyued then or soone after wâ—o mâ—ntioning all that passed very particulerly do not make mention of this act of the Popes putting his foot vpon the Emperours necke nor of any such speâ—ch as super aâ—pidem â—asilisâ—uÌ„ c. And finally he proueth the same to be a table by the disconueniency of diuers other thingâ— there done to make peace as that yt had beene the way to ouerthrow all and to exasperate the Emperour for euer whom the Pope sought by all meanes to pacific and gaine and yt was contrary to that Popes nature and condition who was sweet and curteous with sundry other arguments which I let paâ—â—e reâ—erring the Reader to that coâ—ious discouâ—sâ— and declaration of his about this matter Agaynst all which M. Barlow now alleageth nothing of any moment at all but inueighing â—irst against Baronius for alleaging a manuscript in the Popes Librarie one Romualdus sayth he not yet extant in view and for ought is knowne may aswell be â—orged as true And is not this good dealing when therâ— are so many authors oâ— credit in print to aâ—â—ow this sâ—orie One manuscript vnâ—oâ—h â—bâ—â—ure â—ritâ—r must encouâ—tâ—r the credit of them all So he And agâ—ine after he teaâ—meth the said Româ—aldus A Vatican Desk-creeper c. But the answere is easie that the printing oâ— a booke maketh it not of greater authority for then no worke had beene of authoritie some hundred yeares agoe when there was no print in the world but all were manuscripts And as for the truth of this sâ—orie Baronius toucheth so many particulers of the two Libraries where the worke is extant in Gothicall characters which euery man may see and read as no probable doubt can be that he hath deuised or faigned it as there may well be of VValthramus Naumburgâ—nsis so often alledged against vs of whom notwithstanding we haue no other certainety then the credit of Flaccus Illyricus the Lutheran which with vs is very small wheras Baronius remitteth all men to these two auncient manuscripts stil extaÌ„t and to be seene by al that wil. And as for some later writers obiected by M. Barlow to haue affirmed the same of Fredericke Baronius his answere aâ—ter many other proofs is this Si quid huiusmodi per Alexandrum Papam c. If any such thing had byn done by Alexander the Pope how would these writers that were present and wrote euery least thing
alone hath done both the one and other in this example God send him grace to see repent amend his errour And so much for Fredericke the second I will now end this matter with this aduertisement to the Reader that whereas M. Barlow others of his profession vse to serue themselues much out of the writinges of Matthew Paris Cuspinian Peter de Vineiâ— the truth is that no one of them deserueth so much credit as our Aduersaries would faine force vpon them For the first hath many fables contradictions railinges and dogmaticall assertions which little beseeme a religious spirit or true Catholike which at least he was knowen to be and therfore as well this Matthew as the other being set out by Heretikes and printed at London by order as I haue bene informed from the SuperintendeÌ„t of Canterbury that then was and no other ancient copie being extant that I can heare of that might be conferred with this in print it is very likely that many thinges which are now vrged against vs are not the wordes of Matthew Paris the Monke but of Matthew Parker of Canterbury and he who shal but reade Harpsfields History examine the places which he bringeth or things which on their authority he auoucheth shall soone see that his Matthewes spake otherwayes then these who in many thinges are made to write like good Protestants although hitherto nothing hath bene alleadged out of them by M. Barlow in this matter which I haue not fully answered Iohn Cuspinian as he is a late writer so is he of little credit especially for his bookes of History of the Emperours which himselfe neuer set forth but as Gerbelius writeth morte praeuentus inemendatos ob scriptoris inscitiam soedissimis erâ—oribus deprauatos reliquit being preuented by death he left his bookes of history vncorrected and through ignorance of the writer corrupted with most filthy errors So he By profession Cuspinian was a Phisitian knew perhaps how to frame his potions according to the complexion of the receauers and therfore this Frederick being desceÌ„ded as some thinke or at least by marirage neerly allied to the House of Austria he thought by making the most of him to gratify both Maximilian his maister and yong Charles the fifth of the same family yet seeing he neuer set forth this booke but left it imperfect vncorrected full of errors c. that afterwards it was first published by Nicolas Gerbelius a ProtestaÌ„t-brother of Strasburge as may be presumed who printed it in the yeare 1540. we may well thinke that it was sauced by the setter forth according to the new Ghospell and good appetite of them of his owne profession And as for Petrus de Vineis besides the iust exception of partialitie which I tooke against him in my Letter and that which I haue already answered vnto M. Barlowes Reply therunto I shall not need to adioyne any more Wherfore I will only content my self with two censures which I find in two Authors of him to wit in S. Antoninus an Italian and Tritemius a German The first noteth him in these words Iusto Dei iudicio factum videtur c. The death of Petrus de Vineis seemeth to haue byn procured by the iust iudgment of God that because he had done many things to please the Emperour against the Church in fauour and excuse of him by him he was condemned for whome he had offended both God and the Church So he And Tritemius thus writeth of him Petrus de Vineis c. Peter de Vineis by nation a German Secretary Counsellour of the Emperour Fredericke the second was a learned and eloquent man but in this very faulty that adhering to Frederick he did in fauour of him barke like a foole stolidus latrauit against the Roman Church by whome he was worthily rewarded for hauing in some things offended him he had his eyes pulled out c. So he And in his Catalogue of Worthy men to the like câ—nsure he addeth this clause Hoc praemium eorum c. This is the reward of theÌ„ who do serue the humors of Princes against the obedience of the Roman Sea and Vicar of Christ and like wretches fall headlong into hell except they repent c. Which aduertisment being giuen by so graue an Author before these controuersies were raised by Luther I wish M. Barlow and all other in authority and credit with Princes as Petrus de Vineis was seriously to ponder OF THE EMPEROVR Fredericke the first whose picture was said to haue bene sent to the Soldan by Pope Alexander the third And of the charge of Alexander the sixt touching the death of Zizimus or Gemen M. Barlows innocent Turke §. III. METHOD and rules of learning require that euery thing be put downe in his due place and order and therfore me thinks that Fredericke the first should by all reason haue bene mentioned before the second Fredericke his successour especially seeing that there is another obiection made a litle before out of this very Emperour and Pope wherunto this might well haue bene annexed had it not bene that the margent of the Apology was to be filled with citations and the text with variety of examples to make Popes more odious But the transposition weâ—e pardonable if the thing auouched were true and the Reader not abused by these forged calumniations who through the heat and heape of many words is made to conceaue that M. Barlow sayth much to the purpose and with great sincerity wheras all he hath is nothing else but vaine Thrasonicall ostentation impudent lying that which alwaies accoÌ„panieth the loose liberty of a licentious tongue exorbitant rayling against all sorts and degrees of men whatsoeuer And this as it hath bene euery where already shewed so shall it be more in this and the other ensuing Chapters though with much more breuity then the former least both this Chapter and the whole booke be drawne forth to greater prolixity and length then I haue purposed with myselfe that it should be which only reason hath made me in other places to leaue more aduantages then I might haue taken against M. Barlow albeit I haue taken more then I thinke will stand with his credit or honesty if yet he haue any part or parcell of the one or the other left him But let vs heare him speake if he can without lying which here I assure you he will not but begin with a round one at the very first entrance For thus he sayth Another instance saith he obiected â—y his Maiesty which pincheth their holy Father to the quicke is of that Pope who when Emperour Fredericke was in the Holy-Land â—ighting in Christs quarrell â—earing that his returne would be some annoyance to the Romish Sea betraied him to the Soldan to whome he directs his priuate letters and with them also sent the Emperours picture in case the Soldan should mistake his