is this And yet this man very deuoutly in this place preacheth vnto vs of cor contritum which God will haue and cor diuisum which he doth hate but how contrite M. Barlowes hart is or whether it be deuided or vnited I know not sure I am that here is double dealing much ignorance and nothing with any learning or sincerity handled 55. From the subiect he coÌ„meth to the obiect The obiect also saith he affoards a strong contradiction sola misericordia mercy alone c. the very force of which word put the tempter to silence and to flight also ei soli him only shalt thou serue Had the Cardinall said in the first place mans confidence must or may be reposed in his owne merits and afterwards subioyned mans confidence must or may be placed in Gods mercy these had not bene contradictory but communicatiue merit might haue part staked with mercy but when he adds in mercy ALONE merit Saints and Angells and whatsoeuer beside are abondoned and cassiered for solùm alone admits no consort as saith Aquinas Lo here a short conquest one word ALONE cassiering from confidence all merits all Saints all Angells and whatsoeuer els and from M. Barlow himself all learning all sincerity all truth all honesty this doubtles is a potent word that containeth so great vertue in it But let vs examine the force of this inference First I would demauÌ„d of M. Barlow what Saints Angells haue to doe with the confidence that riseth out of our good woâ—kes that by this word Alone they should be abandoned cassierd Did euer any affirme that this confidence of our merits did depend on them as vpon the obiect of the same This is one notorious foolery 56. Againe where will he find in all Bellarmyne that solamisericordia only mercy is the entire obiect of our confidence Doth he noâ— say that some confidence may be reposed in our workes so we be sure they be meâ—itorious and that we auoid pride He saith in deed that the securest way is to repose all our confidence in the only mercy of God but not that the mercy of God is the only obiect And M. Barlow whiles he thinketh to put his aduersary to silence as Christ did the Deuill with the word Only himselfe is ouercome with temptation of one lye at the least if he knew what he wrote or of ignoraÌ„ce if he knew it not Moreouer where he addeth that had the Cardinall said in the first place mans confidence must or may be reposed in his owne mâ—rits afterwards had subioyned mans confideÌ„ce must or mâ—y be placed in Gods mercy these had not bene contradictory but coÌ„municaâ—iue he both dealeth falsly and refuteth himselfe falsly in foysting in the word must in both propositions which is not in Bellarmyne and it cleane altereth the sense for it is not all one to say one may doe such a thing and a man must doe it for example it is a far different thing to say that M. Barlow may giue the reuenews of his Bishoprick of one whole yeare if he will to the poor people of Lincolne and M. Barlow must giue his renenews of one yeare to the said poore people But without this cobling and cogging in of words M. Barlow can make no contradiâ—tioÌ„ He refuteth also himself for omitting the word must here thrust in as I said Bellarminâ— saith the selfe same to wit that confidâ—nce may be reposed in mâ—rits and confiâ—â—nce may be reposed in God But the first is subiect to errour and pride the second is secure and therfore it is best to repose all on the same Which two propositions euen by M. Barlows confession are not contradictory and therfore all his preaching and pratling as F. Parsons well calleth it seâ—ueth rather to shew himself a false and ignorant writer then to proue any contradiction in the Cardinall 57. After this sory stuffe he beginneth a SermoÌ„ out of S. Augustine vpon these words of the Psalme Memorabor iustitiae tuae solius saying that the said Father doth insist vpon the same both with an admiration ô solius and also with a question rogo vos I pray you why should he ad this word solius Had it not bene inough for him to say I will remember thy righteousnes No but solius prorsus it alone altogeather I will remember why so Vbi meam non cogito for in so saying I put out of my mynd any righteousnes which is mine owne So M. Barlow and hauing ended his deuotion he concludeth thus So then totum whole confidence that taks away the particular aliqua in his former proposition sola excludes meritum in both propositions This is all he hath touching the obiect and all wyde of the marke as is most euident 58. Yea so far is S. Augustine from checking this assertion of the Cardinall as he elswere graunteth the same saying vt speret regnum habeat bonam conscientiam credat operetur that a man may hope for the kingdome of heauen let him haue a good conscience let him belieue and labour So he and the place here cyted by M. Barlow hath no more coherence with this matter now in controuersy then a poke full of plums with the way to London For our question is of such workes as be meritorious and follow or rather flow from Gods grace inherent within vs. But S. Augustine speaketh of that grace which goeth before all our good workes and of that iustification which the deuines call the first iustificatioÌ„ by which a sinner is made iust and first called vnto God from that state and saith that this grace or righteousnes no workes can merit which all Catholiks admit the Cardinall elswhere at large doth proue and that he meaneth the first not the second iustification is cleare by his owne words following in this explication which are these I am enim si superbi desideramus vâ—l fatigati râ—deamus c. For now if we that are proud doe desire or wearied do returne we cannot returne but by grace grace is freely giuen for if it were not a free gift it were not grace Moreouer if therfore it be grace because it is freely giuen nothing of thine went before for which thou must receaue it For if any of thy good workes went before thou hast receaued a reward no free gift the reward due vnto thee is punishment that therefore we are deliuered comes not froÌ„ our merits but is of his grace him therfore let vs praise to whome we owe all that we are to whome we owe our saluation with which the Prophet concluded after he had said many things saying memorabor iustitiae tuae solius I will remember thy righteousnes alone So S. Augustine So cleerly explicating himself euincing M. Barlows ignorance as that I shall not need to ad any further Commentary for confutation of the same The rest which he addeth by way of antithesis totum aliqua
sola meritum is nothing els but meere foolery as shal be afterwards shewed 59. From Diuinity he comes to Logick making his entrance with a vaunting insultation of his Aduersaries ignorance and want of skill about the true nature of a contradiction In deliuering of which the poore man is so embroyled as he knoweth not what he saith but cleane mistaketh euery thinge which he speaketh of For first he supposeth that a conâ—radiction must be where some generall proposition â—ither expresly or implicatiuely is crossed by a particuâ—er but this is no equall and perfect diuision for that â— contradiction requireth not alwaies a generall proâ—osition but may be between two particuler so that â—he subiect remaine indiuisible to wit vnder one and â—he selfsame respect vnder them both For if I should â—ay that M. Barlow hath skill in Logicke though it be â—ery little and M. Barlow hath not skill in Logick â—gaine M. Barlow is Bishop of Barlowâ—s â—s not Bishop of Lincolne c. I do not doubt but that â—e would thinke these propositions though both parâ—iculer to be truly contradictory and consequently his â—wne supposition to be false as that also is very fond â—hich for explication of his expresse and implyed conâ—radiction he ioyneth saying contradictionâ—n â—n negato the other in opposito or adiecto of the first â—ort are these examples wherin the negatiue note is expresâ—ed as omnis homo est aliquis non est of the second â—ort are such wherin the note negatiue is omitted and yet â—ne member ouerthrowes another So M. Barlow out of Logick And this as I said is very fond for that it is not â—f the nature of a contradiction in adiecto to be impliâ—d but rather the contrary to be expressed in termes â—t being all one with that which is called implicantia â—n terminis an implicancy or contradiction in the â—ery termes themselues For example If I should say M. Barlow is a brute beast the adiectum or terminus â—rute beast destroyeth the subiect to wit M. Barlow whose behauiour though it be often tymes very bruâ—ish and beastly yet is he by nature a man and that also a very naturall one 60. But the greatest mistaking and ignorance of all the rest is in the example which he maketh of this his implyed contradiction for hauing made this proposition Euery Bishop of Rome is vnder Christ the immeatate and sole chief Pastour of the whole Church in the Christian world this saith our Philosopher may be contradicted two wayes first expresly Some Bishop oâ— Rome is not the immediate and sole chief pastour c. Thiâ— is a contradictory with the negatiue Secondly it may be crossed by implicatioÌ„ as thus The patriarch of Constantinople is vnder Christ the immediate and sole chief pâ—stour of the Eastâ—rne Church This though it be a contradiction in opposito yet doth it as mainly oppose thâ— former generall proposition as if it had a negatiue noâ— c. Thus far M. Barlow as good a Philosopher aâ— M. Morton who though he professe to haue bene â— Reader of Logick yet shaped vs out a syllogisme oâ— six termes to proue Equiuocation in an oath to bâ— vnlawfull such great Deuynes are these menâ— as they know not the first elements of this faculty For haâ— not M. Barlow bene exceeding ignorant of the first rule and necessary condition of a contradiction â— which is that both parts câ—nnot togeather be eytheâ— true of false he would neuer haue giuen this for aâ— example seeing himself neyther belieueth the Bishop of Râ—mâ— to be head of the whole or Patriarke of Constantinople of the Easterne Church And where theâ— is the contradiction And is not M. Barlow well seenâ— in Philosophâ— who chooseth out an example to proue a contradiction in which euen in his owne opinion there is no contradiction at all Truly I may well suspect that he neuer came to be Bishop â—f Lincolne for his learning which euery where he â—heweth to be lesse then meane and therfore ouerlaâ—heth without measure but for some other inferiour quality little perhaps befitting that calling Let vs to make him conceaue his errour the better exemplifie in some more familiar examples The L. of Canterbuâ—y is Primate of all and euery part of England and â—he L. of Yorke is Primate of all the North part is with me no contradiction for that I hold both propositions to be false and neyther of them both to haue any Primacy at all in that Church and as the later will not claime it so M. Abbots may be sure I will not assigne it vnto him whome I doe as much hold to be Abbot of Wâ—stminster as Bishop of Cantâ—râ—ury And the like must M. Barlow needs say of his two propositions for that neyther of them in his iudgmeÌ„t â—s true and therefore are more contrary then contradictory as are also these omnis homo currit nullus homo currit and the like 61. Wherefore if it be as M. Barlow will needs haue it our very case in hand euen by the verdict of all skilfull Philosophers in the world the Cardinall will be quit at least from a contradiction and it is but childish babling yet very frequent in M. Barlow to make the oppositioÌ„s of the termes theÌ„selues saying that hâ—re is a double contradictioÌ„ both subiecti praedicaâ—i the Patriarke of Constantinople crosseth the Bishop of Rome the Eastâ—rnâ— Church and the whole world contradict ech othâ—r implicitely This I say is but babling for there is as great opposition between the former two propositions before set downe as in this Cantâ—rbury crâ—ssâ—th Yorke all England the north parts And againe omnis cannot stand with nullus currit with non currit and yet he will sooner bring Constantinople to Romeâ— and Yorke to Canterbury then proue any contradictioÌ„ to be in the same But let vs draw to an end of M. Barlows dispute 62. I passe ouer the rest he addeth concerning this matter although his chiefest fraud and cosenage be conteyned in the same For of an exhortatiue proposition in the Cardinall he maketh an absolute and necessary by cogging in the words is must thus mans confidence is to be reposed in the alone mercy of God and some confidence of man must be placed in his owne merits which are his owne forgeryes and not the Cardinalls assertions and then further in falsly charging F. Persons as though he said that good workes increase confidence in their owne nature and therfore will needs haue his doctrine to be condemned by Pius V. amongst other like assertions of a Louain Doctor but all is forgery for the Father speaketh not of our workes as alone they proceed from vs but as they proceed also from Gods grace within vs and for that cause calleth them the good workes of a ChristiaÌ„ it is vnchristian dealing in this Prelate to say that this proposition was euer condemned by Pius V. or any other Pope or Councell who only
first and second Chapters of the booke of Toby to wit how the foresayd King Senacherib sonne to Salmanasar being returned much exasperated from Iury agaynst the Iewes for the euill successe which there he had did promulgate an Edict that such as he caused to be slayne should not be buryed the Story sayth that Toby notwithstanding this Edict and Commaundement did bury them by night yea and left also on day his dinner and the ghests which he had with him at the same for to fetch in the dead body of a Iew slayne in the streetes and when some of his neighbous seeing the peril thereof did reprehend him for aduenturing vpon so great daunger saying to himâ— that himselfe had bene commaunded to be slayne for burying men before the Story doth not only defend him but also commendeth him for the same saying Sed Tobias plùs timens Deum quà m Regem rapiebat corpora occisorum c. But Toby feating God more then the King did take away the dead bodies that he found in the streetes hyding them in his house and burying them at mydnight Secondly the Angell Raphael in the twelth Chapter discouering himselfe vnto Toby togeather with the mystery of all his actions with him doth manifestly shew that these his deeds of charity of giuing of almes and burying the dead bodyes of such as were slayne were gratfull vnto Almighty God Quando craâ—as cum lachrymis sepeliebas mortous derelinquebas prandium tuum c. ego obtuli â—â—ationem tuam Domino quia acceptus eras Deo necesse suit vt tentatio probaret te When thou didst pray with teares and didst bury the dead and didst leaue thy dinner for doing this worke of Charity I did offer to God thy prayer and because thou wert acceptable vnto God it was necessary that temptation should try thee Here then we haue the testimony of an Angell agaynst M. Barlow that is no Angell and if he be yet must we account him for a very wicked and false Angell if the other be a good and true Angell Now then let vs examine a little whether of these Angels deserueth most to be belieued or whether for a mans saluation it be more secure to follow the one or the other for that they speake contraryes The one that this fact of Toby was not iustifyable the other that it was not only iustifiable but acceptable also and pleasing to Almighty God and that in a very high degree as by the text appeareth The one determineth as you haue heard that Toby was reprehensible in that he obeyed not the Kingâ— the other saith he did very well in obeying God more then the king How shall we know which of these two Angels is the good and which the bad M. Barlow will on his part perhaps say that this booke of Toby is not held by him for Canonicall Scripture but only Hagiographum a holy ancient writing as the Iewes themselues do allow it to be though not in their Canon of Scriptures yet doth not this take away the credit of the Story which hath indured and hath beene belieued and taken for true so many ages boâ—h before and after Christian Religion was planted And M. Barlow cannot alleadg one authenticall Author or holy man before these our tymes that euer sayd this Story was false or not to be credited though he receiued it not for Canonicall Scripture Secondly we see it acknowledged for Canonicall Scripture and of infallible truth not only by a generall Councell of our dayes wherin the flower of the learnedst men in Christendome were present I meane that of Trent but by another Councell also aboue 1000. yeares before that to wit the third of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and subscribed thereunto and in diuers other places of his workes giueth the same testimony to this booke as do sundry other Fathers ancienter then he as S. Ambrose that wrote a whole booke of the Story of Toby containing twenty foure whole Chapters S. Basil in his Oration of Auarice yea the holy Martyr S. Cyprian also himselfe more ancienter then them all and this in sundry places of his works and after S. Augustine S. Gregory S. Isiodoâ—us Cassiodorus and others wherby is euident that in S. Augustins time and before this booke was held for diuine and Canonicall And therfore for a man now to venture his soule vpon this bare deniall of M. Barlow and his Consorts for there goeth no lesse in the matter his assertion being blasphemy if this be true Scripture let his poore sheepe of Lincolne thinke well of it for other men will beware how they venture so much with him But now setting aside this consideration whether it be Canonicall Scripture or no let vs consider a little further what holy men in ancient times did thinke of this fact of Toby whether it were iustifiable or no. S. Augustine in his booke De cura pro mortuis habenda hath these words Tobias sepeliendo mortuos Deum promeruisse teste Angelo commendatur Tobias is commended by the testimony of the Angell in that by burying the dead he merited the fauour of Almighty God And the same Father repeateth the very same words and sentence againe in his first booke of the Citty of God Whereby we see what his sense was in this matter both in belieuing the good Angell and esteming that good worke of burying the dead which M. Barlow by conteÌ„pt calleth a ciuil coâ—rtesy to haue merited with God And of the same sense was S. Ambrose who speaking of this Edict of the King that no man should bury any dead man of the Iewes in that captiuity commendeth highly holy Toby for neglecting the same in respect of that charitable worke Ille interdicto non reuocabatur sed magis incitabatur c. he was not stayd by that Edict or Proclamation from burying the dead but rather was therby incyted the more to doe the same Erat â—â—im misericordiae praemium 〈◊〉 pâ—na for that the punishment of death was the prince of mercy S. Cyprian also that holy Bishop and Martyr long before S. Ambâ—ose in his booke Of our Lords prayer extolling much the meryt of good workes and exhorting men vnto the same amongst many other authoryties of the Scriptures cyteth this of Toby saying Et ideo diuina Scriptura inâ—â—râ—it dicens bona est oratio cum ieiunio â—leemosyna therfore the dyuine Scripture inâ—tructeth vs saying That Prayer is good accompanied with fasting and almes In which wordes first we see this booke of Toby affirmed to be diuine Scripture and secondly this speach doctrine of the Angell Raphael vnto Toby concerning the prayse and merit of good works to be allowed by Cyprianâ— which is full contrary to M. Barlowes Diuinity But let vs heare our S. CypriaÌ„ in the same place Nam qui in die Iudicij praemium pro operibus c. For
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
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
proceed from grace haue not the promise to God made vnto theÌ„ What then doth this make against me Nay harken I pray you what ensueth he bringeth the wordes of Bellarmine against me saying that if good workes should be considerâ—d in their owne nature without respect both of the promise made â—nto them and also of the dignity of Gods spirit the originall worker of them they could carry no merit which doctrine I willingly acknowledge as fully making with me and condemning M. Barlow of false dealing that he left out wilfully in my words before recited the clause of the promise of God made vnto them and so in this he fighteth against himselfe and discouereth his owne vntrue dealing But hath he any more to say thinke you against the first question or doth he answere one word to the plaine testimony of Scriptures alleadged out of Toby Iob and S. Paul for proofe therof all cyted by me No not so much as one word and much lesse to those other that stand in Bellarmines booke which are more in number as neyther to the ancient Fathers S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Augustine euidently confirming the same that good and meritorious workes do of themselues comfort the conscience of the doer by increasing hope and confidence in him in respect of the promised reward yea albeit he do not of himselfe place any confidence in them but respecteth onely and relyeth vpon God almightyes grace mercy for that so it may often fall out and it is to be noted and borne in mind that a man may haue confidence by good works and yet place no confidence in good works for that a vertuous life enriched with many meritorious actions may of it self giue a man much confidence for the life to come though he for his part do not place any confidence therin but only in Gods mercy so as now we see the first propositioÌ„ of Cardinall Bellarmine to be true that the confidence of holy mâ—n which they place in God doth not only spring out of â—ayth but also out of good meriâ—s and therefore that â—uery man must labour wiâ—h all study to procure good meriâ—s to the end that they may haue confidence with God which is the very same in substance that I set downe in my letter though somewhat by me abridged and accommodated to the capacity of the vulgar reader There followeth the second question proposed by me in these words VVhether this being so a man may place any confidence wittingly in his own merits or vertuous life and it is answered that he may so he aâ—oyd pride c. which containeth the very same in effect that dâ—th Cardinall Bellarmines second propositioÌ„ that some confidence may be placed in good meâ—its which are known to be such so as pride be auoyded vnto which second proposition M. Barlow not being able to say any thing agâ—inst the truth therof confirmed by many testimonies exaÌ„ples both out of the old new Testament and writings of holy Fathers that did both teach and practice the coÌ„fidence of a good conscience he runneth to seeke Cauills both against me and Cardinall Bellarmine and for me he hath deuised one of the most childish that euer perhaps you heard and such a one that doth euideÌ„tly declare the malice of his mind and misery of his cause that driueth him to such shifts for that neuer man of grauity or sincerity would vse the like knowing that it must needs be discouered by the first inspection of the booke by his aduersary thus then it is Where I do frame the second question thus VVhether a â—an may place any confidence in his owne merits and do answer yea he leaueth out of purpose the question it self and putteth downe the solution only without question aâ—â—iâ—ming me to say as it were by way of propositioÌ„ A man mâ—â— place any confidence in his owne merits and writeth the word ANY in great letters to make it more markable as though I haâ— said a man may place any confidence wâ—atsoeuer that is to say al confideÌ„ce in his own merits wheras if he had set down the queâ—tioÌ„ simply as I did whether a maÌ„ may place any coÌ„fidence in his merits answered only yea as I did without adding any further it would haue appeared plainly that the word any did signify as much as some conâ—idence answering to Bellarm. words aliqua fiducia wheras omitting the question putting down againe the word any he changeth the significatioÌ„ therof maketh it to signify as much as all or any whatsoeuer as though I had said a man may put all confidence or what confidence soeuer in our merits therby disagree froÌ„ Bellarmine whose wordâ— are as hath bene sayd aliqua fiducia in bonis meritis collocari potest some confidence may be placed in good merits this shifting fraud is so palpable as it may be discouered by infinite examples If one should aske another whether he had any bread in his house as Elias for example did aske the poore widdow of Sarepta euery man of sense seeth that the meaning is whether he haue any bread at all of any sort soeuer and not whether he haue all kind of bread so if the other do answer yea without adding further it is to be vnderstood that he answereth according to the meaning of the demaunder that he hath some bread in his house but if he should answer as M. Barlow maketh me to answer yea I haue any bread it would import that he had all sorts of bread And the like is if a man should aske M. Barlow whether he haue any vertue the meaning is whether he haue any at all and soe euery man I thinke will vnderstand it and himselfe also I belieue would take it and thinke himself iniured thereby if any man should answere no but if he should repeate againe the same word any in the aâ—swere saying yâ—a he hath any vertue heere the word ◠〈◊〉 changeth the foâ—mer signification and importâ—th as much as that he hath all vertueâ— which I suppose himself would be ashamed to answer in his owne cause as a thing contrary aswâ—ll to his owne conscience as to other mens knowledge And the lâ—ke iâ—â— if a man should demaund him whâ—â—heâ— hâ— hatâ— any sâ—â—ll in the Mathematickes he might anâ—â—â—â—e peâ—hâ—pps yâ—a if he added no â—urther vndersâ—â—nding therâ—by that hâ— hath some skill but if he should aâ—swere aâ— he maketh me to do yea I haue any skill it may sâ—â—ue to make paâ—time to his demaunder and yet vpon thâ—â— fâ—olâ—sh â—â—â—ging dâ—uise of the different taking of tâ—e word aâ—y he makâ—tâ— great a doe and foundeth mâ—ny â—râ—â—â—â—ntations writing it still with great letters aâ— presâ—nâ—ly you shall see seeking thereby to proue that Cardinal Bâ—llarmine I are at debate he saying that some conâ—â—dence may â—e placed in merits I saying that any confidence may be placed which is al he hath
A DISCVSSION OF THE ANSVVERE OF M. VVILLIAM BARLOVV D. of Diuinity to the Booke intituled The Iudgment of a Catholike Englishman liuing in banishment for his Religion c. CONCERNING The Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance VVRITTEN By the R. Father F. Robert Persons of the Society of IESVS VVHERVNTO since the said Fathers death is annexed a generall Preface laying open the Insufficiency Rayling Lying and other Misdemeanour of M. Barlow in his writing IOHN MORRIS Ex fructibus 〈…〉 Matth. 7. You shall know them by their fruites Permissu Superiorum M. DC XII A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS AND PARAGRAPHES CONTEYNED IN THIS BOOKE THE FIRST PART THE Preface to the Reader In which are laid open some few examples of the singular Ignorance Lying and other bad dealings of M. Barlow in his Answere to the Censure of the Apology Of Points concerning the new Oath of Allegiance handled in the Kings Apology before the Popes Breues and discussed in my former Letter CHAP. I. pag. 1. About the true Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance § 1. pag. 3. Of the pretended Cause of the new Oath which is said to be the Powder-Treason § 2. pag. 13. How great a pressure the vrging of the new Oath is to Catholickes that haue a contrary Conscience in Religion § 3. pag. 25. The same argument about the pressure of the Oath is further discussed § 4. pag. 31. What freedome may be said to be permitted to English Catholickes for swearing or not swearing the new Oath § 5. pag. 39. About recourse made to the Bishop of Rome for decisioÌ„ whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English Catholicks or no Wherin also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations § 6. pag. 49. Whether the Oâ—th be only of ciuill obedience Oâ— whether thâ—re be any clauses in it against Catholicke Religion CHAP. II. pag. 70. Of certaine notorious Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his Aduersary which no waies can be excused froÌ„ malice and witting errour § 2. pag. 87. The reasoÌ„ is examined whether Gods prouideÌ„ce might seeme defectuous if no authority had beene left in the Christian Church to restraine punish euill Kings And whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. pag. 101. Whether the deuising vrging of this new Oath were a blessing or no eyther to the Receauers or Vrgers And first of the Recâ—auers wherin is handled also of Conscience of swearing against Conscience CHAP. IIII. pag. 115. Touching the exhibitours of the Oath and of Scandall actiue and passiue Wherin M. Barlowes grosse Ignorance is disâ—â—â—â—red § 2. pag. 128. The answere to an obiection by occasion whereof it is shewed that Pâ—ssâ—sâ—ion and Presâ—ription are good proofâ—s â—uer in matters of Dâ—ctrine And the contrary is fondly affâ—â—med by M. Barlow CHAP. V. pag. 141. THE SECOND PART About the Brâ—â—â—s of Pope Paulus Quintus CONCERNING M. Barlow his â—xorbitant flattery in exaggerating Queene Elizabeths Vertues and Sanctity CHAP. I. pag. 159. About Queene Elizabeth her Mortifications And of the nature of that Vertue § 2. pag. 168. Of Queene Elizabeth her Felicities and Infelicities CHAP. II. pag. 179. Other Points concerning Queene Elizabeths Felicities or Infelicities § 2. pag. 194. Of Queene Elizabeths Sicknes and Death and other things belonging therunto § 3. pag. 209. Of the Flattery and Sycophancy vsed by diuers Ministers to his Maiestie of England to the hurt and preiudice of Caâ—holicke men and their cause CHAP. III. pag. 229. About Toleration or Liberty of Conscience demaunded by humble petition at his Maiesties handes by Catholickes whether it were height of pride or not As also concerning the contention betweene Protestants and Puritans CHAP. IIII. pag. 251. Concerning Errours Absurdities Ignorances and Falsities vttered by M. Barlow in the rest of his Answere CHAP. V. pag. 273. Whether Toby did well or no in breaking the commandement of the King of Niniue concerning the burying of the dead Iewes And how M. Barlow answereth vnto the authority of the Fathers and ouerthroweth the Kings Supremacy § 2. pag. 285. Of another example or instance out of S. Gregory the Great about the obeying and publishing a Law of the Emperour Mauritius that he misliked which M. Barlow calleth Ecclesiasticall § 3. pag. 303. Whether Councells haue submitted themselues vnto Christian Emperors in Spirituall affayres and namely that of Arles to Charles the great CHAP. VI. pag. 311. Whether the Pope in his Breue did forbid temporall Obedience to his Maiesty of England And whether the sayd Pope hath power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII pag. 323. Of certaine other fraudulent and vntrue dealings of M. Barlow vnto the end of this Paragraph with a notorious abuse in alleaging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority § 2. pag. 334. THE THIRD PART Concerning Cardinall Bellarmine his Letter OF the occasion of the Letter written by Cardinall Bellarmine vnto M. George Blackâ—well Archpriest And whether he mistooke the state of the question Also of the change of Supreme Head into Supreme Gouernour CHAP. I. pag. 245. Whether the denying of taking this New Oath do include the deniall of all the particulâ—r clauses contayned therin § 2. pag. 356. Whether the fourth Councell of Toledo did prescribe any such set forme of Oath to be exhibited to the Subiects as is affirmed in the Apology CHAP. II. pag. 365. Cardinall Bellarmine is cleared from a false imputation and a controuersy about certaine words and clauses in the Oath is discussed § 2. pag. 386. Whether Princes haue iust cause to feare murthering by the commaundement of Popes And in disâ—ussing of the particuler example produced by the Apologer concerning the same great fraud and malice is discouered in M. Barlowes falsifying of Authors c. CHAP. III. pag. 394. About the death of Henry the third King of France whether it may be an example of allowance of such murthers As also about the late Queene of England § 2. pag. 414. Of certaine contradictions obiected to Card. Bellarmine and what confidence may be placed in a mans owne good workes CHAP. IIII. pag. 431. Of three other contradictions imputed vnto Card. Bellar. but proued to be no contradictioÌ„s at all § 2. pag. 448. Of the contentions of sundry other Emperours Kings and Princes with Popes of their times in temporall affaires obiected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Popes Superiority Wherin many fraudes aâ—d forgeries are discouered in M. Barlow particulerly concerning Fredericke the second and his contentions with Popes CHAP. V. pag. 461. M. Barlows more sure and stronger proofes are discouered to be lyes with other things concerning Frederick the second and Innocentius the fourth § 2. pag. 495. Of the Emperour Fredericke the first whose picture was said to haue beene 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. Barlowes innocent Turke §
put to the horne at Edenburrough 19. In another place going about to proue that the Right which the Church hath against heretikes eyther for their conuersion or chastisement is Ius innatum bred within it inseparable from it how thinke yow doth he proue the same against F. Pâ—rsons who sayd that is was Ius acquisitum Very pithily yow may imagine for thus he writeth No sooner was there a Church designed but this right was annexed Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis as the enmity for contradiction so the right for suppression is natiue Thus M. Barlow no more And is not this well proued thinke yow The seed of the woman shall bruze the serpents head that is Christ the Sonne of the Virgin shall ouercome the diueâ— ergo it is Ius innatum to punish heretikes Me thinkes this argument proues M. Barlow more to be a Naturall then any natiue right to be in the Church For what is there here to signify the Church to signify heretikes to signify this in-bred right Truly I see no more coherence betweene the Scripture and the foresaid argument then I see in this which followes Our Sauiour cured a man of the palsy ergo M. Barlow is troubled with the gout But let vs go on 20. Last of all for adding to the holy text what more euident example can be desired then that which he bringeth out of Deuteronomy to proue that bloudy artycle of the Kinges Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall causes Bloudy I say for that more effusion of bloud of Ecclesiasticall men hath bene made for that one point enacted by Parlament then by all the lawes of former tymes for the space of a thousand yeares togeather which yet is not only by all Catholikes denyed reiected by Caluin and the Puritans but vtterly condemned also by the Lutherans and all learned Protestants Against all which M. Barlow will needes proue by Scripture this vsurped authority saying God in his Word hath appointed Kinges to be Guardians of bâ—th the Tables to commaund prohibite not in ciuill affaires only but in matters also concerning religion saith S. Augustine and citeth Deuteron 17. 18 verse But in our bookes eyther Hebrew Greeke or Latin we fynd no such commission giuen to Kinges nor any one syllable of their being Guardians of both Tables or of any commaund in matters of Religion in this place as elsewhere by the Author of the Supplement he is more fully and roundly tould And so yow see to what desperate attempts this Minister is driuen to defend a falsity 21. Touching the last point which remayned to be treated of M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of diuinity for that it is his chief profession I shall more inlarge my self therein ioyne issue with him in one entire disputation and that not the meanest but rather the chiefest of his whole booke for in no other that I know doth he vse so many tearmes of art or make so great vauÌ„t or shew of learning courage coÌ„fidence as in the same to wit his discourse to proue a contradiction in Bellarmine concerning three Conclusions of his about Iustification and confidence to be reposed in our good workes But before I enter this combate it will not be amisse to let the Reader see some part of his skill in another matter or two that thereby he may take a scaÌ„tling of the rest 22. First then he must know that eyther M. Barlowes choice was so bad or iudgement so small that he neuer almost cyteth the Maister of Sentences S. Thomas of Aquine or other Schoolemen but that he doth commonly very ignorantly mistake them or maliciously bely them or some way or other peruert them For example he maketh S. Thomas to say That if an Vsurper or Intruder commaund thinges vnlawfull yet in those thinges the subiects must notwithstanding obey propter vitandum scandalum aut periculum and then addeth Of this Diuinity Iudge not ti 's their owne But I answere t' is M. Barlowes lye not S. Thomas his Diuinity who answering an argument that the power of many Kinges is vsurped and therefore they not to be obayed saith That a man is â—ound to obey so far forth as the order of Iustice doth require and therefore if they haue not lawfull principality but vsurped or commaund vniust thinges the subiects are not bound to obey them vnles perhaps per accidens for auoyding of scandall or daunger So S. Thomas and here is no mention of vnlawfull things commaunded but of vniust for a King may commaund things that are vniust as that his subiects giue him all the money or goodes they haue whereto for feare of daunger they may yield which they could not doe were the thing of it owne nature vnlawfull which is S. Thomas his expresse doctrine in the next precedent article neyther is there here must notwithstanding obey but the contrary that absolutely they are not bound to obey vnles perhaps it be for some other cause as of scaÌ„dall or daunger in which cases they may to saue their liues or for auoyding the hurt and offence of others doe those thinges which are vniustly commaunded theÌ„ so they be not of their owne nature vnlawfull but only in respect of the CoÌ„maunder who eyther coÌ„trary to iustice or by vsurped authority doth coÌ„maund theÌ„ 23. Of this nature is that graue resolution of his taken as he would haue it seeme from S. Thomas his scholler Medina That to full liberty is required an vnlimited scope for the iudgement to deliberate Of which he shall heare more afterwards for this vnlimited scope for the iudgmeÌ„t is no other thing theÌ„ the vnlimited ignorance of Syr William which passeth all bound measure Againe where he citeth S. Thomas touching actiue passiue scandall which is refuted in this worke at large and where he sayth very boldly but ignorantly that the said Doctour confineth al proud men within two sortes one of theÌ„ which aduance themselues aboue others the other of such which arrogate to themselues that which is aboue them and beyond their pitch which seemeth to be aboue the pitch of his skill for S. Thomas maketh 4. sortes of pride as any may see in the place cited in the margent though in the place which M. Barlow citeth I confesse there be not so many sorts specified for in his 33. question and 5. article he meÌ„tioneth none at all So as M. Barlow roues at randome and speaketh without booke and thinkes all to be well so he say somewhat true or false and make a fond florish with the citing of schoolmen Of this very stamp is his other of fatum and prouidence in denying fatum to be prouidence retorted vpon him by F. Persons in this Answere And truly if M. Barlow be wise he will if he write againe be more wary in dealing with Schoolmen and alleadging their authorities for that kind of learning far surpasseth the compasse of his shallow capacity 24.
gradum habent illa quae tot signis coniecturis nituntur vt securum hominem reddant anxietatem excludant non tamen formidinem omnem expellant aâ—que haec dicitur certitudo coniecturalis opinionis est poâ—iùs 〈◊〉 fidei That is these things haue the last degree of certainty which are grounded on so many signes and coniectures that they make a man secure exclude all anxiety though they expell not all feare and this is called coniecturall certainty it is rather to be termed the certainty of opinion then the certainty of faith So Bâ—llarmyne And by this coniecturaâ—l certainty I assure my self that M. Barlow vnderstandeth not the thing wherof now he disputeth but shooâ—eth wyde of the marke in mistaking the very termes of the question and then fighting with his owne fiction as if it were indeed his aduersaries positiue assertion for Bellarmyne disputing against the hereticall opinion of these dayes which is that a man must be certayn certitudine fidei cui non potest subesse falsum that he is in the state of grace still taketh the word certainty or vncertainty in this sense for so he seteth downe the state of the Question in the end of his second chapter Status igitur quaestionis c. Wherfore the state of the question if it be set downe without deceipt ambâ—guity must be this whether a man without speciall râ—uelation ought or may be certaine with the certainty of faith which excludes all falsity that his sinnes are forgiuen him So heâ— Plainly declaring of what certainty he speaketh to wit of that which of all others is the greatest and most infallible 48. Which being supposed let vs examine how well to the purpose M. Barlow talketh of vncertainty when he sayth but in vncertainty there is no comfort Where if he take the word vncertainty as it excludeth all certainty it is true but then he abuseth the Reader for Bâ—llarmyne taketh it not so but supposeth proueth the contrary if he take it as it is a deniall only of the certainty of faith then it is most false for it may haue other certainty sufficient to yield comfort though it haue not this yea confidence as it is hope cannot possibly stand with that absolute certainty For who can be said to hope for that which he is certayn to haue Or were it not a ridiculous manner of speach to say that the soules of the Saints in heauen hope for the resurrectioÌ„ of their bodyes which infallibly they know shal be restored reunited againe vnto theÌ„ Or that we hope that God will iudge both the wicked iust punishing the first with endles torments and rewarding the other with euerlasting felicity Well may the Saints be sayd to expect their bodyes and we the iudgment but neyther the one nor the other by reason of their vndoubted certainty can be hoped for as is euident 49. And whereas M. Barlow saith that reliancâ— on that whereof a man â—oubts causeth rather a feare to be deceaued then a confidâ—nce to be relieued is far from the purpose a new changing of the terme For who saith that a man doubteth of his iustice or righteousnes Bellarmyme expresly denyeth it and saith that the morall certainty that a man hath of his merits or iustification is so great that although it take not away all feare yet doth it exclude all anxiety and wauering yea doubting also if he may be sayd to doubt who assenteth to neyther part So he Which may be made more cleere by the example of S. Paul debet in spe qui arat arare he that tilleth the ground must till it in hope that is hope that the ground tilled will bring forth fruit and he who thus hopeth is neyther certayn that he shall reape the fruite for then he would not hope the same it may so fall out as that he may reape none at all neyther yet is he doubtfull whether he shall or shall not for he hopeth that he shall and for that he hath many reasons and so assenteth to the affirmitiue part or els he would neuer haue sowen as likewise doth the sayler on the seas for if he were as doubtfull of drowning as ariuing vnto the port he sayleth to he would neuer I thinke aduenture to passe them ouer And whether this morall certainty which both sowers and saylers haue be not sufficient to yield them rather confidence to be relieued then a feare to be deceaued needeth no other proofe then the common practice custome which in the one and in the other we daily behold From this argument M. Barlow with like good fortune proceedeth to another thus 50. This also saith he crosseth the very next precedent proposition that some confidence may be reposed in our owne righteousnes and good workes if men be assured that they be good workes But by this proposition in hand it seemes none can be assured If they may why doth he â—al it incertitudineÌ„ iustitiae nostrae the vncertainty of oâ—â— righteousnes If they may not whâ—re then is their câ—nfidâ—nce or how mâ—y they settle it If some may and others not he should haue described and distinguished them or els that foregoing proposition might well haue bene sparedâ— which afâ—oards little vse and lesse comfort and in that regard is directly opposite to this last which is full of confidence and consolation Hitherto M. Barlow fighting like a blind man with his face turned from his aduersary and then florishing in the ayre where all his dry blowes do but beat against the wynd and touch not Bâ—llarmine at allâ— whose words had he seene and vnderstood he would neuer I thinke haue framed this idle conceipt For what contradiction is there I pray you betweene these two propositions some confidence may be reposed in our good workes so that by morall coniecturall certainty we know them to be such and this other for that if we speake of the certaynty of faith which can be subiect to no falsity we are vncertain whether our workes be meritorious or not and therefore in respect thereof as also to auoyd pride is is best to repose all our confidence in the mercy and bountifulnes of Almighty God Truly no more then is in this other They that thinke themselues morally assured of M. Barlows fidelity may repose some confidence in him but because this their assurance is not so great but that they may be deceaued as he deceaued his maister the Earle of Essâ—x who reposed so much confidence in him by proclayming out of the pulpit at Paules Crosse those things which the other before his death for the quieting of his conscience had disclosed vnto him in secret therefore it is best to let him alone and trust to Almighty God of whose fidelity no man can haue any cause to feare or doubt 51. By which is easily answered the foresaid argument the force whereof resteth vpon these contradictory
termes that a man may be assured of his good workes and none can be assured of their good workes but neyther the one nor the other is in this place of Bellarmine For he saith not that a man may be assured but that if he be assured and in the second for the vncertainty of our righteousnes and not none can be assured of their righteousnes for so it were a contradiction if the word assâ—red were taken in the selfe same sense signification in both places But as the words lye in Bâ—llarm albeit he should speak of the same certainty in both places as he doth not yet were it not any contradiction at all for both partes are true the first that men may repoâ—e confidence in their good workes if with the certainty of faith as they may doe by diuine reuelation they know them to be suchâ— the second thus for the vncertainty of our righteousnes for without reuelation we cannot be sure therof it is best to repose all our confidence in the mercy of Almighty God Wherein here standeth the contradiction And M. Barlow sheweth great ignorance in this matter when he saith that by this proposition of Bellarmine it sâ—emeth that none can be assured if they may why doth he call it incertitudinem iustitiae nostrae the vncertainty of our righteousnes This I say is very simple stuffe for doth not this Prelate preachâ— somtymes to his people of the vncertainty of the houre of death and yet God may reueale to any man in particuler of his audience when he shall dye Now of these two propoâ—â—â—â—oÌ„s iâ— a man be certayn of the houre of his death he needeth not to be waâ—ned by the Preacher and for that men are ordinarily vncertaynâ—â— therfore it is good that the Preachers put them often in mind therof what Deuine what Philosopherâ— yea what man of common sense and iudgment vnles he haue as little wit and learning as this Minister would say that one part of this argumeÌ„t were contradictory to the other I think the man was musing oâ— some other matter when he wrote this patched ill-coherent and ignorant discourse 52. I pretermit his idle cauill against F. Persons about three questions worthy of M. Barlows profouÌ„d learning answered after by the Father himself after which he putteth downe the three conclusions of the Cardinall before alleadged and then thus like some GraÌ„maticall Monte-bank frameth this discourse There cannot be any thing more violently contradicting yea totally euerting the very principall question for quatenus implyeâ— that some confidence may be placed in mâ—rit but with a limitation tenus qua this last admits no confining but drawes our whole confidence from mans mâ—rit to Gods mercy alone carries with it a double contradiction both subiecti obiecti so to speake Doe not you thinke that he hath spoken well much to the purpose From these flourishing words let vs come to his proofe and discusse in a word or two what he bringeth to proue a contradiction in the subiect and obiect But first I must herâ— tell the reader that now he shall finde M. Barlow ouâ— of his sphere I meane out of Erasmus prouerbs Martialls Epigrams and other Poets and to handlâ— weapons which he knoweth not how to vse I meanâ— the termes of art which become him as well to dealâ— withall as to see an ape fight with a sword buckleâ—â— for thus he beginneth 53. The subiect saith he tota fuducia mans whole confidence this excludes all partitioÌ„ in it selfe it must be entire take it eyther as totum quantitatis because confideÌ„ce may be â—xtâ—ndâ—d or râ—mitted be greater or lesse or as totum rationis as it is defined an hope corroborate perfect â—r as totum potentiale seu virtutis confidâ—nce of this or that naturâ— quality In which words are many mistakings and those also very grosse first confidence being a spirituall quality inherent in the will or secoÌ„d power of the soule cannot be said to haue totum quantitatis nâ—que per se nâ—que per accidens as S. Thomas in this very place mentioned by M. Barlow doth teach as presently we shall see Againe where he saith that confidence may be extended or remitted there is an implicancy in the termes if we speake in the phrase of schoolmen for only quantity can be extended and only quality remitted and to ioyne them both togeather is to vse M. Barlowes phrase to couple Moyses two bâ—asts in one yoke which will not agree quantity may be extended or contracted quality intended or remitted but to say that quantity may be remitted is as proper a speach as to say that the nature of a quality is to be deuided and of a substance to be intended 54. Neyther was it for nothing that Bâ—rlowâ—yted â—yted only the bare name of S. Thomas in the margent without all refereÌ„ce to any place for had he but quoâ—ed the part queston and article he should haue diâ—ected the Reader where to haue seene his open ignoraÌ„ce refuted for S. Thomas disputing how the whole soule is in euery part of the body sheweth first how many wayes a totality or wholenes may be taken â—nd answereth that a whole thing may be sayd to be eyther totum quod diuiditur in pâ—rtes quantitatiâ—â—â—â— sicut tota linea vel totum corpus A whole that is deuidâ—â— into his quantitatiue parts as a whole line or a wholâ— body or a whole that is deuided into essentiall parâ—â—â— as a thing defined into the parts or members of the dâ—finitionâ— or a potentiall which is deuided into his viâ—tuall or operatiue parts not of this or that nature and quality as M. Barlow very ignorantly conceaueth or rather mistaketh it and then sayth afterwards totâ—litas quantitatiua non potest attribuâ— anima nec per se nâ—â— per accidens and how then can confidence haue his totum quantitatiuum Or how will M. Barlow measure the same by inches or eâ—ls by feet or fathoms yea how doth he cite S. Thomas for that which so plainly 〈◊〉 gainsaieth and refuteth but ne sutor vltra crâ—pidam M. Barlow now is beyond Erasmâ—s Chyliads Ouids Metamorphosis This triple diuision of totality being set downe by M. Bâ—rlow he adioyneth as out of Bâ—llarâ—mine these words The WHOLE sâ—ith the Cardinall whether greater or lesse whether weake or strong whâ—thâ—r one or other is WHOLY to be cast on Gods mâ—rcy And is there no difference in your diuinity good Syr betweene these two speaches The best course for M. Barlow were to leaue his lyinâ— and speake truly M. Bâ—â—low is to leaue his lying speake truly when as the first is but exhortatiue and the later absolute The Cardinall only saith that the safest way is to repose our whole confidence in Gods mercy alone and neuer yeâ— made this absolute proposition Our whole confidence is wholy to be câ—st on Gods mercy alone What wresting what forging
speake of our workes as they are done by a Pagan without grace or any other supernaturall help and last of all for maliciously transposing the word any to make it signifie that which the Father neuer dreamed of thereby to make him contrary to Bâ—llarmine and contradictory to himself For he maketh him to say that a man may place any confidence in his owne merits so he beware of pridâ— which is a notorious vntruth But I will not as I said further stand to refell these falshoodes for that the Father himself hath very learnedly performed the same and M. Barlow will neuer be able with any shew of truth oâ— learning to make any reply therunto 63. And whereas for the last vpshot of this his dispute he marshalleth forth in one rank togeather a heape of contradictory speaches giuing vs for a parting blow to make all sure a knocking Lye I shal with the same conclusion end also this matter not entring into any other confutation thereof then the bare rehearsall or skoring vp the vntruthes which he hath couched togeather in this one number or paragraph excepting only the last in which I shall be forced to be a little more large 64. First then he would faine make the Cardinall F. Persons to disagree by setting downe their contrary positions and theÌ„ the Cardinall to fight with himself the first part he proueth thus Our owne good workes haue such an vncertainty in them as that our whole confidence must be referred to Gods mercy saith the Cardinall Our good workes in their owne nature are such as that they may giue hope and confidence of themselues saith his Champion So he And here at the least are three lyes if not more for Bellarmine saith not that our workes haue such an vncertainty in them as no confidence can be reposed in them nether doth he say that all our confidence must be referred vnto Gods mercy neither doth F. Persons affirme that our good workes IN THEIR OWNE NATVRE may giue hope and confidence of themselues for they require Gods grace and promise of reward to make them meritorious and to yield confidence M. Barlow goeth on Mans WHOLE confidence is to be placed in the mercy of God alone saith Bellarmine A man may willingly repose ANY confidence in his owne workes saith Fâ— Persâ—n Both are grosse lyes in M. Barlow For these two proposiâ—ions are neither found in Bellarmyne nor F. Pâ—rsons but forged by himselfe are both most false 65. And truly no meruaile though M. Barlow be very resolute in his refuting our opinions when as he frameth an aduersary in the ayre whom he may conquer then telleâ—h in great sadnes the Reader that he fighteth with vs which as you know is no great maâ—stery but misery rather both to the man and his cause For hauing in this place in foure propositions told vs fiue lyes thus he vaunteth ouer vs saying Betweene them both they haue broached a goodly doctrine and vâ—ry comfortable no doubt But I haue now shewed that here is no broaching of theirsâ— but all of M. Barlowes owne brewing and abusing their words meaning To his former lying he addeth ignorance would make the Cardinall to contradict himselfe saying in his behalfe That good workes of their owne nature raise vp our conâ—idence towards God and yet a man is vncertayne whether they be good or no. The first part I haue shewed to be false if by their owne nature he vnderstand them as done without Gods grace inherent in thâ— doer The second is true if M. Barlow vnderstood it for the word vncertaine excludeth not all certainty as before I noted but the certainty of faith Secondly he saith man must be acertayned that the workes he â—â—th be truly good or els he may not trust in them and yet no man can assure himself that they are so vnles he haue a reuelation saith the Cardinall then which whâ—t is more VNCERTAIN saepe fallax semper incerta are his owne words So M. Barlow 66. How men may be acertayned of their good workes hath bene already declared and how we may be acertayned of your truth and fidelity if there were no other proofe this one place alone were sufficient to demonstrate and euince most plainly that eyther your ignorance is intollerable or your lying most shameles The Cardinall sheweth that without reuelation we cannot haue absolute certaynty of our being in grace or perseuerance in the same vnto the end because this certainty being the certainty of faith dependeth vpon Gods diuine reuelation as her formall obiect which is made cleer by the connexion of the present and future tymes in the Cardinall For who but God can reueale to a man what shall be his end eyther for blisse or woe Annunciate quae ventura sunt in futurum sciâ—mus quia Dij estis vos saith the Prophet to the Gods of the Gentils and by his owne plaine wordes in another place where he saith non posse quâ—mquam sine peculiari reuelatione certò sâ—ire certitudine fidei sibi remissa â—sse peccata No man without speciall reuelation can certainly know with the ceâ—tainty of faith that his sinns are forgiuen him and consequently whether he be in state of grace and Gods fauour or no. And is this reuelatioÌ„ trow you so vncertain Is it saepâ— fallax seÌ„per incâ—rta Or is Bellarm. so blasphemous as to auouâ—h the same It should seem by M. Barlow that he is For he telleth the Reader that they are his owne wordâ— but I must tell him the contrary that it is M. Barlowes owne lye and that he doth singularly abuse both his Reader the Cardinall togeather by this imposture deluding the one and slandering the other and most of all disgracing himself 67. But least he should seeme to impute this Atheisticall paradox of the vncertainty of Gods diuine reuelation to Bellarmine without all proofe he cyteth in the margent for his Readers direction lib. 1. de Verbo Dei cap. 2. where if he repayre to examine this matter I assure him he shall not find one word therof but of the fanaticall opinion of the Swenkfeldians who reiecting all written authority as well Scriptures as Fathers would haue euery man to be directed by their owne inward spirits which Bellarmine saith is often deceiptfull alwayes vncertayne For thus he writeth Quare cùm sacra Scriptura regula credendi certissima tutissimaque sit sanus profectò non criâ— qui ea neglecta spiritus interni saepe fallacis semper incerti iudicio se commiscrit which is Wherfore seeing the holy Scripture is the most sure safest rule of beliefe truely he will not be thought to be well in his wits who leauing the same shall betake himself to the iudgment of the inward spirit often deceiptfull and alwayes vncertayne By which wordes he plainly sheweth that he is so far from speaking of Gods diuine reuelation as the
they expected came not to consecrate them they dealt with Sâ—ory of Hâ—râ—ford to doe it who when they were all on their knees caused him who kneeled downe Iohn Iewell to rise vp Byshop of Salisbury he that was Robert Horne before to rise vp Byshop of Winchester and so forthwith all the restâ— which Horse-head Ordering was after confirmed Synodically by Parlament wherin they were acknowledged for true Byshops and it was further enacted that none should make any doubt or call in question that ordination 137. This was the first ordering of M. Iewell the rest as I haue bene enformed by one that heard it from M. Neale Reader of the Hebrw lecture in Oxford who was there present an eye witnes of what was done and passed Perhaps for a further complemeÌ„t to supply all defects in the matter or forme of this ordering Q. Elizabeth as Head of the Church did as a noble Woman is said to haue done neere Vienna of whom Schererius the Lutheran writeth Ante paucos annos non procul hinc mulier quaedam nobilis per impositionem muliebrium suarum manuum lintei quo praecingebatur loco stolae filiorum suorum preceptorum ad praedicanticum officium vocauit ordinauit consecrauit A few yeares since not farr from hence a certayne Noble woman did call the Maister of her children to the office of a Preacher or Minister and did order and consecrate him by the imposition of her hands and of her apron which she did vse in steed of a stole Whether any such imposition of hands aprons or kyrtles were vsed to these first Prelates by Q. Elizabeth afterwards I know not but I haue bene credibly enformed that Maister Whitgift would not be Byshop of Canterbury vntill he had kneeled downe the Queene had laid her hands on his head by which I suppose ex opere operato he receaued no grace 138. To conclude seeing that against M. Doctor Harding M. Iewell could neuer proue himself a Bishopâ— as the Reader may see at large in the place here by 〈◊〉 cyted I will not put M. Barlow to proue the same fâ—â— I see the length of his foote quid valeant humeri qâ—â—â— ferre recusâ—nt where M. Iewell failed to seeke M. Barlowes supply were ridiculous it shall suffice him to answere for al his owne ouersights in this booke to learne to be modest to take heed how he dealeth with Schoole men to write truely to study to vnderstand well the controuersie wherof he writeth and finally to write as a Scholler as a Deuine at least as an honest man of all which the very easiest is too hard in my opinion for him to performe theÌ„ I dare promise him that with all candor sincerity and modesty by one or other he shall be answered And if in some things I might seeme to haue bene too sharp yet in respect of his base and bitter veyne whatsoeuer I haue said will seeme I doubt not to be both myld and temperate Faultes escaped in the Preface Quateâ—n c pag. 1. nu 10. in margine versus finem adde Nubrig l. 5. cap. 21. Eodem quatern pag. 3. lin 26. nu 12. species producatur lege species praedicatur Quatern d pag. 3. lin 24. nu 22. Iudge not â—ege I iudge not Quatern f pag. 7. lin 30. num 45. dele the affirmatiue or negatiue Quatern k pag. 1. l. 6. nu 73. F. Persons lege Fathers person OF POINTS CONCERNING THE NEVV OATH OF ALLEGIANCE Handled in the Kings Apology before the Popes Breues AND Discussed in my former Letter CHAP. I. FOR as much as good order and method in writing giueth alwaies great light and ease to the Reader my meaning is in this ensuing Worke to insist speciâ—lly vpon the three parts toucâ—ed rather then treatâ—d at large in my Letter against the Apology which Letter M. Barlow hath in his booke pretended to answerâ— and that also in three parts according to the former diuision of the Epistle wherof the first part doth conteine such points as the Apology did handle by way of preface as it were before the Popes two Breues especially concerning the substance and circumstances of the new Oath The second such other matters as by occasion of the sayd two Breues were brought into dispute by way eyther of impugnation or defence The third doth comprehend Cardinall Bellarmiâ—â— his letter to M. Blackwell togeather with the view and examination of what had beene written in the Apology against the same And albeit it doth grieue me not a little to be forced to leese so much good tyme froÌ„ other more profitable exercises as to goe ouer these matters againe especially with so idle an aduersary as you will find in effâ—ct M. Barlow euery where to be yet shall I endeuour to recoÌ„pence somewhat to the Reader this losse of time by choosing out the principall matters only by drawing to light my said Aduersaries voluntaâ—y and affected obscurity vsing also the greatest breuity that I may without ouermuch preiudice to perspicuity which I greatly loue as the lanterne or rather looking glasse wherby to find out the truth and for that cause so carefully fled by my aduersary as in the progresse of this our contention will be discouered For that as diuinely our Sauiour sayd Qui male agit odit lucem non venit ad lucem ne arguantur opâ—ra eius He that doth euill hateth the light and will not come at it least his workes be discouered therby But we must draw him hereunto and for better method we shall reduce the most chiefe and principall heades of ech part vnto certayne Sections or Paragraphes which may help the memory of the Reader ABOVT THE TRVE Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance §. I. FIRST then for that it hath byn sufficiently obserued before and the reader hath byn aduertised also therof that in all my aduersaries allegatioÌ„s of my words when they are in any number he commonly falsifieth them or offereth some other abuse to the same by altering them to his purpose or inserting his owne among mine and yet setting downe all in a different letter as if meerly they were myne I shal be inforced as occasion is offered to repeat my owne lynes as they ly in my owne Booke that therby I may be vnderstood and his answere to me conceaued which hardly can be as he hudleth vp both the one and the other desiring to walke in a mist of darknes the euent shall shew whether I speake this vpon good grounds or no. Now to the narration it selfe And so first hauing receaued from my friend in England the aforesayd Apology of triplex Cuneus concerning the new Oath of Allegiance now called the Kings and perused the same with some attention I wrote backe againe to my sayd friend as followeth being the very first lines I cannot but yeild you harty thankes my louing friend for the new booke you sent me
Israel Dâ—mâ—tam posteriora tua interficiam de Achab mingentem ad parietem Si mortâ—us fuâ—rit Achab in Ciuitate comedent eum canes si autem in agro comedeÌ„t eum volucres caeli The hinder part of thy life I shall cut oâ— shall kill of thy stocke that shall make water agâ—inst the wall And if that Achab dye in the Citty the dâ—â—gs shall eâ—t him and if he dye in the field the birds of the â—airâ— shall deuoure him And the like to his Queene Iezabell The doggs shall eat â—ezabel in the field of Iezraell And finally to let passe Baltasar Ieroboam Iebu Manasses and many other Kings whome God threatned dared and performed also the same without any such respectiue warinesse as M. Barlow doth fancy his wordes and meaning are plaine and generall in Iob that when Princes are warned and do not amend Si non audierint transibunt per gladium If they obey not they shall passe by the sword And this is Gods plaine speach and plaine dealing for that Princes to him are no more then poore men all flesh and dust albeit whilst they liue vpon earth beare rule in his place he will haue them respected obeyed and honoured as his Deputies in all that they shall command not contrary to his lawes which he will haue obserued both by Prince and people and detesteth all such prophane flattery as heere we haue heard vttered by M. Barlow And so much for this matter Now then to come to my former proposition that the Prouidence of God might seeme to be defectuous if his diuine Maiestie had left no remedy for so great an euill it is founded vpon all those places of Scripture where it is sayd that Gods workes are perfect as Deuter. 32. and that they are made in wisedome Psalme 103. vers 24. that is to say in most high wisedome ordinata sunt saith S. Paul Rom. 13. they are according to order well ordered the like Out of all which is inferred that whatsoeuer the perfection of wisdom good order doth or can prescribe in any worke that is to be presumed to be in Gods works yea with far higher perfection then mans wisedome can reach vnto Whereby it followeth that as when a prudent humane Law giuer instituteth a CommoÌ„-wealth he prouideth for all inconueniences that by humane probability may fall out vnto the same so much more Christ our Sauiour being not only man but also God must be presumed to haue prouided sufficiently and aboundantly for his Kingdome and Common-wealth which is the Christian Church purchased with his owne bloud for preuention of all hurtes and euills imminent to the same which seemeth had not bene done if he had left this greâ—t gâ—ppe vnstopt and this mayne mischeife vnprouided for which might come thereunto by the incorrigibilitie of some deplored Prince impugning the same for so much as all humane Law-giuers and Erectors of Common-wealths doe neuer faâ—â—e coÌ„monly in this particuler for the defensiue part and much lesse may it be thought that Christ our Sauiour would be wanting in so important a point Neyther is this any way blasphemous or disgracefull to our Sauiours infinite wisdome and prouidence as M. Barlow would most impertinently seeme to vrge but highly rather to his honour for somuch as wee professe that he hath prouided for this euill and the Protestants hold that he hath not For as when a man beholdeth a house made by some excellent Architect and considereth all the partes commodities thereof with prouision for all vses and prouidence for all cases that may fall out he admireth the coherence dependance of one thing vpon another prayseth and extolleth the wisedome and foresight of the Author saying If this or that had not bene foreseene and prouided for as excellently it was it had byn a great want and defect but being prouided for it doth infinitly commeÌ„d his sayd care wisedome foresight and prouidence And euen soe in our case when a man considereth the admirable excellency of Christ our Sauiours wisedome in other pointes concerning the gouerment of his Church how carefully and orderly he hath prouided for the same in all necessary points as in part the holy Apostle doth describe both to the Corinthians and Ephesians appointing some Apostles some Prophetes some Euangelists some Doctors some Pastours ad consummationem Sanctorum in opâ—s ministerij in aedificationem Corporis Christi for the consummation of the Sayntes and for the works of the ministery for the building vp the body of Christ which is his Church with exact order prouidence and subordinatioÌ„ of things men and offices one to another with sufficient power and authority for euery party to doe his office these things I say being well considered do inferre that it cannot possibly stand with such high wisedome prouidence of our Sauiour to leaue his sayd body and Church vnprouided of sufficient authority to preuent or remedie so mayne a calamitie as might fall vpon the sayd Church by temporall Christian Princes if there were no restraint or punishment for them Nor do the Protestants themselues pretermit to vse such kind of arguments and consequences for their owne defence when they deale with domesticall Aduersaries to wit with Protestants of other Sects As for example when the Puritan refuseth all Bishops Archbishops and other distinction of subordination in the Clergy what vrgeth in effect the Protestant on the other side but that it belonged to Christ his diuine prouidence to leaue such distinction and subordination and consequently that it might be noted for defectuous if he had left but the Puritan parity in all The like passeth with the Lutheran who denying the temporall Prince to be Head of the Church and confesseth consequently that their Church is headlesse vpon earth but only dependeth on Iesus Christ as head in heauen is refuted by the English Caluinists with the same argument of the defect of Gods prouidence if he had not prouided some Head on earth also And much more holdeth this argument against the Anabaptists who hold that Christ hath left no temporall power or Magistrate in his Church to iudge or condemne and especially to death for any cause whatsoeuer for that he sayth nolite iâ—dicare do not iudge which I doubt not but our English Protestants will reâ—ute by this argument of Gods prouidence which would haue bene iudged insufficient if he had left so many Common-wealthes and Kingdomes as are conteyned within this Christian Church without any temporall Magistrate at all Whereby remayneth confuted the inâ—ulse insultation of M. Barlow against the same for that our inference is noâ— as he fraudulently telleth his Reader except the Popes triple Crowne had power to depose Princes Gods prouidence had bene defectuous but if his diuine Maiesty hauing prouided most sufficiently for all other inconueniences it would haue bene a note of defect in the same not to haue prouided for this case of extreme
mortification frequent recollection diligent chasticement of their bodies aboundant almes-deeds haire-cloath and ashes and the like if these things I say were anciently accounted Viae vitae wayes to life as often and highly commended in the Scriptures by the Holy Ghost and practised from time to time in the liues of the holiest men in the Christian Church then sayd I must the wayes and paths of Queene Elizabeths life which are knowne to be far different from these be very dangerous and the end and successe thereof not so assured of glory as her flatterers both promised her in her life and now will needs after her death beare men downe that it is performed To this M. Barlow answereth in diuers sorts first out of the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans VVhat art thou that iudgest another mans seruant for somuch as to his Lord he standeth or fâ—lleth But this place is manifestly abused by M. Barlow as are commonly all other Scriptures alleadged by him For S. Paul speaketh in this place of indifferent things as of eating and drinking in which a man may not condemne rashly another Qui nâ—n manducat manducantem non iudicet he that eateth not let him not iudge him that eateth But touching our cause in hand let him read the sentence of the fame Apostle to Timothy both clearly and resolutely set downe Querundam hominum peccata manisesta sunt praecedentia ad iudicium quosdam antem subsequuntur Similiter bona facta manisesta sunt quae aliter se habent abscondi non pâ—ssunt The â—innes of some men are manifest going before theÌ„ to iudgment but in some other they follow And so in like manner good workes are manifest and those that be otherwise cannot be hidden Wherby it is manifest in some cases that a man may iudge or at least wise haue a probable coniecture for Almighty God may alter in secret what to his diuine wisedome and mercy shall seeme good what end a Christian is like to ariue vnto by the wayes wherin he walketh And S. Paul himselfe doth set downe sundry particulars in diuers places of his Epistles in which he sayth that Christians shall not be saued So as this kind of iudgement is not wholy forbidden but rash iudgment only Secondly then M. Barlowe commeth to lay hand on another answere saying That fasting with a sower countenance prayer in open places dole of almes with proclamations are ensignes of hypocrites in our Sauiours iudgment Wherto I reply that these are but the abuses of good things which abuse the Seruants of God flying do retayne the good vse Thirdly sayth hee for he deuideth his proofes into sundry heads and all not worth a rush such outward habits of mortification as Iesuits terme of wearing of heare-cloth and the like might argue Achab. who went barefoote in hayre-cloth and aâ—â—es to be a mortified creature as well as the seuerest selâ—e chastising Iesuite of you all So he And this only example is sufficient to shew both the mans spirit and wit His spirit in conteÌ„ning and â—esting at that which God himselfe did so highly esteeme his wit that he seeth not what maketh for him or agâ—inst him As for the Iesuits their Doctrine is that all these externall mortifications are only so far forth graâ—eful and acceptable to God as they do proceed from the internall mortification of the mind and sorrow for their sins and not otherwise And that this externall mortification of Achab did so proceed is euident by the very wordes of Scripture alleadged by M. Barlow which are these VVhen Achab had heard the speaches of the Prophet Elias he rent his garmeÌ„ts couered his flesh with haire-cloth and â—asted slâ—pt in sakcloth and walked with his head bowed douneward And the word of God was made vnto Elias saying hast thou not seene Achab humiliaâ—ed before me For so much then as he hath humbled himselfe â—or my cause I will not bring the euill vpoÌ„ him which I haue threatned in hâ—â— dayes but in the days oâ— his Sonne And let it be marked that he sayd humilitatus est mei causa he hath humbled him selfe for my cause which signifyed that it came from the hart and from the sorrow that he conceyued to haue offended God which is true internall mortification and made Achab a true mortified or mortifying creature in that act for which wee haue God himselfe for a witnes And it can be no lesse then prophane impiety and sinfull secularity so prophanely to rest at it But let vs passe to another parte of his Answere in this matter Indeed sayeth he she was no cloystered Nunne to wit Queene Elizabeth And so I thinke to and that the difference of their liues did shew it A Queene she was sayeth M. Barlow and a State She had to manage a people to gouerneâ— much busines to attend bodily exercise sayth the Apostle profiteth nothing bâ—t godlines that is a sound sayth with a good conscience avaylâ—s â—ith God and argueth a minde truely regenerate This is M. Barlowes way of mortification not to meddle with Achabs contrition humiliation or hayrecloth nor with the liues of â—loystered Nunnes that serue God in the austerity of Christian discipline as fasting praying and other mortification but only he commendeth a sound â—aith with a good conscience which euery man will easily perswade himselfe to haue especially if he belieue him in citing S. Paul to Timothy as though the Apostle had called such externall mortifications as fasting and the like vnprofitable â—odily exercises and that only a sound fayth were piety But this is as fraudulent dealing as before for that the Apostle his very manner of speach Exerce â—e ipsum ad pietatem exercise thy selfe to piety doth shew that he speaketh of good workes and piety of life and that he maketh here a difference betweene bodily exercise that hath for his end only the good of the body and the exercise of piety which whether they be bodily or spirituall are alwaies directed to a spirituall end And so do the ancient Fathers vnderstand the words of exercise and piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially such as best vnderâ—â—ood the force and propriety of the Greeke words as namely S. Chrysostome who in his speciall Commentary vpon this place of S. Paul defineth piety thus pietas rectissima vitae norma est conuersationis optimae disciplina Piety is a most straight rule of life containing the discipline of a most excellent conuersatioÌ„ wherby only faith you see is excluded And then â—urther reiecting M. Barlows false interpretation of S. Pauls words as though he had meant fasting and other externall mortifications by corporall exercises which he calleth lesse profitable he saith Quidam hoc Apostolum de â—eiunio aiunt dixâ—sse sed prosectò errant neque enim est corporalis exâ—ercitatio iâ—iunium sed spiritualis Nam si corporalis esset corpus profectò
nutriret cum autem id maceret extenuet macieque conficiat corporâ—lis dici omnino non potest Some men as M. Barlow do say that the Apostle speaking of vnprofitable bodily exercise meaneth of fasting but truely they do erre for that fasting is no bodily exercise but spirituall For if it were bodily it would no doubt nourish the body but whereas it doth chastise the body extenuateth and maketh it leane it cannot any way be called corporall So he And if wee will haue the testimony of another as ancient as S. Chrysostome most skillâ—ull in the Greeke tongue wherin S. Paul writeth these wordes though no Grecian borne wee may heare S. Hierome who vpon those wordes of Exerce te ipsum ad pietatem exercise thy selfe to piety setteth downe first what piety is saying Pietas est eâ—iam 〈◊〉 tua tribulatione alijs subuenire Sicut Sareptana vidua seciâ— Piety is to help other men euen with thy owne tribulation as the poore widdow of Sarepta did feed the Prophet Elias with the bread that she had reserued for her sonne and her selfe And then as for corporall exercise named by the Apostle he sayth it was meant of things belonging to the bodily health as Sanctarum balnearum venationum huiusmodi quae ad breue tempus carnali proficiunt sanitati holy bathes such as holy men did vse for help of their health hunting and other such bodily exercises for the same end which do profit to the health of the flesh but for a short time which admonition is thought to haue bene giuen by S. Paul to Timothy as to a young man that was somewhat delighted with these bodily exercises or counsailed therunto by PhisitioÌ„s for help of his said health To which end also the said Apostle in the same Epistle exhorteth him not to drinke water still but to vse a little wine for help of his stomacke and in regard of his other frequent infirmities but yet would haue him to exercise himselfe in the workes of piety as now hath bene sayd So as this place also of S. Paul hath bene abused by M. Barlow his prophane interpretation against externall mortifications But now lastly he commeth neere vs indeed and will shew that Queene Elizabeth her mortification was of another kind perhaps not heard of before Let vs heare his words Fourthly sayth he to be a King and to gouerne as a King should do is mortification of it selfe This is the largest way I suppose of mortification that he can lay before vs for of this kind he will find no doubt many mortified people both of men and women that would be content to accept of this mortification to be Kings Queenes and to gouerne well in their owne conceipts For what Prince thiâ—keth not that he gouerneth well and not only Kings Princes are to be comprehended vnder this mortification but proportionally also all other Magistrates and Gouernours vnder them who haue one poynt more of mortification lying vpon them then their Supreme Princes for that they are lyable to giue account to them which the others are not and consequently they are more subiect to mortification in their offices and dignities and yet most men do seeke after them both in England and els where which doth shew that there is great store of mortified men in the world or at leastwise of men that loue this mortification and desire to be so mortified And if to be a Bishop also be a mortification then hath M. Barlow in like manner proued himselfe a mortified man then those words of S. Paul to the Collossians Mortificate membra vestra quae sunt super terram Mortify your members which are vpon earth may haue this sense also among other do you mortify your self with some good Bishopricke or other dignity that in it selfe is a mortification And do we not see what prophane trifling this is And that by this drawing Christian vertues out of their compasse true natures and spheres they do eneruate and euacuate all their force and bring their practice to a meere sound of words The Catholike doctrine is that mortification is a most excellent Christian vertue commended highly in the Scriptures and exercised by all Saints and especially by our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles and by the greatest Saints Seruants of his that haue ensued in his Church as may appeare as well by those words of S. Paul now recited as also these other to the Romans Si spiritu sacta carnis mortificaueritis viuetis If you shall mortify the works of the flesh by spirit you shall liue And then followeth the contrary set downe in the same place If you shall not mortify your sayd members deeds of the flesh therof ensuing but shall liue Secundum carnem by obeying the lust therof you shall dy euerlastingly Wherby is also vnderstood the nature of this excellent vertue whose name of mortification is deriued from the word Mors that signifieth Death for that as when death entreth vpon a body and driueth out the soule the sayd body remayneth without sense â—eling or other motion so when this vertue of mortification is well exercised of a Christian man it doth take a way the sensuall life of our lusts and passions and doth mortify them in their vnlawfull appetites so as they remaine as it were feeble cold and dead in resisting or rebelling against the superiour parts of the soule directed by reaâ—on and religion And this is that most happy and excellent death so much desired by S. Augustine when he sayd to God moriar ne moriar let me dy that I may not dy and good S. Bernard Vtiâ—am hac morte ego frequenter cadam vt euadam lâ—queos mortis vt non sentiam vitae luxurianâ—is mortisera blandimenta Would to God I may often dy this death that therby I may escape the snares of the other death that I may not feele the deadly flatterings and allurements of this present dissolute life And then he goeth further to many particularities saying Vt obstupescam ad sensum libidinis ad aestum auaritiae ad iracundiae impatientiae stimulos ad angoris solicitudinem ad molestias cuâ—â—rum moriatur anima mea morte iâ—sâ—â—rum boâ—a mors quae non aufert sed transfert in meltus Let me dy by this death of mortification that I may become sensles to the feeling of carnall lusts to the heate of couetousnes to the pricks of anger and impatience to the afflictions of solicitude to the troubles of to many cares let my soule dy with the death of iust men this is a good death and doth not take life from me but doth change it to a better Thus that holy and deuout Father of the workes and effects of mortification and of his ardent loue that he had therunto And the like I might most aboundantly shew out of other Fathers but it were ouerlong for this place The saying of S.
hartily sincerely I do desire it without any worse affectioÌ„ towards her then harty coÌ„passion notwithstanding all the outcryes raging exclamations made by this intemperate Minister against me for the contrary to wit â—or malice and hatâ—ed against her and for iudging her before the tyme against the prescription of the Apostle S. Paul which I haue not done For Gods iudgements are secret cannot absolutly be known in particuler before the last day when according to the Scripture all shal be made maniâ—est so far as it shal be conuenient for men to know But yet in this lyfe men also may giue a ghesse and take notice according to our present state of many things how they are to fal out afterwards as S. Paul doth often repeate and affirme most resolutly that such as shall commit such and such delicts as he there recounteth shall neuer attayne to the Kingdome of heauen but be damned eternally according to their workes as loose life murthers fornications adulteryes sectes schismes heresies and the like And if one should see or know some persons to commit all these sinnes togeather or the most of them so dye without contrition or peÌ„nance for the same to his knowledg might not he by good warrant of S. Paul affirme that in his opinion they are daÌ„ned Nay doth not S. Paul giue this expresse liberty of iudging to his Scholler Timothy by him to vs when he saith as before also hath bene noted Quorumdam hominum peccata maniâ—â—sta sunt praecedentia ad iudicium quosdam autem subsequentur The sinns of some men are manifest going before them vnto iudgmeÌ„t and others haue their sinnes following them So as iâ— eyther before their death or after their death wheÌ„ the particuler iudgment of euery soule is to be made any mans griâ—uous sinnes be made manifest there is no doubt but that men may iudge also in a certaine sort or at least make to theÌ„selues a very probable and likely coniecture of the miserable state of that party yea more theÌ„ a coÌ„iecture if the Church should censure him for any great sin coÌ„mittedâ— dâ—ing aâ—terwards in the same without due repeÌ„taÌ„ce which is wont to be declared by denying vnto him Christian burial as when they murther themselues the like But aboue all when the said Church doth cut of any body by ExcoÌ„munication from being any more a member thereof for schisme heresy or other offence of this quality a man may make iudgement of his daÌ„nation yea must also for then is he in the case whome S. Paul affirmeth to be sâ—buersum subuerted by heresy that is as much to say turned vpside downe or pluckt vp by the rootes proprio iudicio condemnatum condemned not only by the iudgment of the Church but also by his owne iudgmeÌ„t in like manner when he coÌ„meth to answere the matter for that being bound to follow the direction of the Church he became Haeretiâ—us homo as the Apostles words are that is to say an Hereticaâ—l man one that out of choice or election would neâ—des follow his owne iudgment This point then that a man or woman dying in the excoÌ„munication of the known Catholicke Church may be pronounced to be damned and cannot possibly be saued albeit their liues were otherwise neuer so good and apparent holy is a thing so generally earnestly and resolutely affirmed and incultated by the ancient Fathers of the primitiue Church that no man can doubt of it without pertinacity or impiety For S. Cyprian that holy Bishop and Martyr doth treat the same largely in diuers places saying first that an hereticke or schismatike that is out of the Church cannot be saued though he should shed his bloud for Christ inexpiabilis culpa quae nec passione purgatur it is an inexpiable synne to be an Hereticke or Schismaticke that is to say not euer to be forgiuen nor can it be purged by suâ—fering for Christ himselfe And againe he sayth that such a man can neuer be a martyr though he should dye for Christ nor yet receiue any Crowne for confession of Christian fayth euen vnto death which death saith he non erit â—idâ—i corona sed poena 〈◊〉 it shall not be a Crowne of fayth but a punishment oâ— perâ—idiousnes And many other like places and sâ—yings he hath which for breuity I omit wherin also do coacurre with him the other ancient Fathers that ensued after and namely S. Augustine in many parts of his workeâ— in particuler where he saith against the Donatists That neither baptisme nor Martyrdome profiteth an heretike any thing at all which he repeateth oâ—ten times and in another place he saith If thou be out oâ— the Church thou shalt be punished â—ith eternall paines although thou shouldest be burned quicke for the name of Châ—ist And yet againe the same Father Hereâ—ikes dâ— sometimes brag that they do giue much almes to the poore and do suâ—â—er much for truth but this is not for Châ—ist buâ—â—or their Sect. â—â—oke for whom thou sufferest quia for as miâ—â—us es ideo miser es â—or that thou art cast sorth of the communion of the Church therfore art thou miserable whatsoeuer thou doest or sufferest otherwise For harken to the Apostle saying to himselfe Iâ— I should giue all that I haue to the poore and deliuer my body to the â—ire without â—harity I am nothing he that is out of the Church liueth out of chariâ—y And let the Reader see more of this in S. Aâ—gusâ—ine Serm. Domini in mome cap. 9. lib. 2. contra Petilianum Donatist cap. 98. lib. 1. contra Gaudâ—ntium cap. 33. in Conc. de gâ—stis cum Emeâ—â—â—o where he hath these words Iâ— vnto an heretike that is out oâ— tâ—â— Church it should be said by an enemie of Christ Offâ—r vp sacrifice to my idols and adore my Gods and he in refusing to adore should be put to death by the sayd enemy of Christ for this fact yet shall â—â—le damnâ—d and not crowned I pretermit in this matter S. Chrysostome hom 11. in â—â—ist ad Eâ—â—es S. Pacianus Bishop of Barcelona that liued sâ—mâ—what beâ—ore him Epist. 2. ad Sâ—mpronium S. Fulgâ—ntius tâ—at liued the next age after lib. de fide ad Pâ—trum cap. 29. whose wordes are these spoken with a vehement spirit and some men ascribe them to S. Augustine Firnassime tene 〈◊〉 dubiâ—â—s c. Do thou hould â—or most firme and certayne and no wayes doubt but that whosoeuer is an hereticke or â—chismaticke and therby out of the Church tâ—ough he be baptized in the name of the Father the Sâ—nne and the holy Ghost do neuer so good workes giueâ— nâ—uâ—r so â—â—ch almes no though he should shed his bloud for thâ—nâ— mâ— oâ— Christ yet can he not be saued Well then this is the Maior proposition no Christian man or woman though of neuer so good life can be saued â—ut of the vnitie of the knowne
that he in the day of iudgment to wit our Saâ—iour will giue reward for our good works almes is now also ready to shew himselâ—e a most benigne heater to him that shall come vnto him by prayer works and so did Cornelius the Centurion merit to be heard as doing many almes vpon the people sayth the Scripture And when about nyne of the clocke the sayd Centurion prayed an Angell stood by him and gaue testimony of his good works saying Cornelius thy prayers and almes haue ascended vp before God citò orationes ad Deum ascendunt quas ad Deum merita nostâ—i operis imponunt Our prayers do quickly asceÌ„d vnto God which the merits of our good works do lay before him c. And preseÌ„tly with this Scripture he ioyneth the other out of Toby Sic Raphel Angelus c. So the Angel Raphael did testify vnto Toby alwayes praying alwayes working wheÌ„ thou didst pray togeather with Sara I did offer the memory of thy prayer in the sight of God when thou didst bury the dead and leaue thy dinner for doing the same I was sent by God to tempt thee and afterward to cure thee I am Raphael one of the seaâ—en iust Angels who do assist conuerse in the sight of God c. Where we see that S. Cyprian maketh another manner of accompt of the holynes and meryt of this worke and of the truth of this Angell then M. Barlow doth And the very self same speach S. Cyprian vseth in his booke de Mâ—â—talitate alleadging this place of Toby and testimony of the Angell Raphael in the commendation of Tobies fact in burying the dead against the Kinges commandement So as white and black hoat and cold or the two poles are not more opposite one to the other then the spirit of S. Cyprian and that of M. Barlow in this point And truly it seemeth that a man may gather by good consequence that for so much as he condemneth that fact of Toby in burying the dead bodies of the Iewes in persecution he would also if he had bene there not only not haue buried these dead bodies against the Kings Edict but also neyther haue receaued the persecuted into his house agaynst the commaundement of the sayd King Nay he would haue rather deliuered them vp to the persecutors hands and the like if he had liued amongst Christians vnder Nero Domitius and Dioclesian And this is M. Barlows piety in respect of that of holy Toby and S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Augustine and other such sincere pious men who both approued and commended this fact Now let vs passe on to the rest After these examples of Scriptures there were alleadged by the Apologer sundry authorityes of ancient Fathers which shew the obligation that subiects haue to obey their temporall Princes which in my Letter I declared no way to preiudice our cause who both acknowledge and offer all dutifull obedience in temporall affaires which is so much as the sayd ancient Fathers doe teach and for that the sayd authorityes are cleare for vs in that behalfe I shall â—et downe here what I answered to the same As these places of Scripture said I alleaged against vs do make for vs so much more do the authorities produced out of the ancient Fathers for that they go about to proue the very same point that we here hold that in teÌ„porall cyuill affayres we must obey dutifully our temporall Princes though Infidels or Pagans but not in matters concerning God our Religion or Conscience And his very first example out of S. Augustine is such as I meruaile much that he would cyte the same but that somwhat for shew must be alleadged For it maketh so clearly directly against him as if it had beene written purposely to confute him in this our case But let vs heare what it is Agreable to the Scriptures saith he did the Fathers teach Augustine speaking of Iâ—dian saith thus Iulian was an vnbelieuing Emperour was he not an Apostata an oppressor and an Idolatour ChristiaÌ„ souldiars serued that vnbelieuing Emperour when they came to the cause of Christ they would acknowledge no Lord but him that is in heauen when he would haue them worship Idolls sacrifice they preferred God before him but when he said Go forth to fight inuade such a nation they presently obeyed they distinguished their eternall Lord from their temporall and yet were they subiect euen vnto their temporall Lord for his sake that was their eternall Lord and Maister Thus he And can any thing be spoken more cleerly for vs and for our cause then this For euen this do we offer to our King Soueraigne we will serue him we wil obey him we will go to warre with him we will fight for him and we will do all other offices belonging to temporall duty but when the cause of Christ commeth in hand who is Lord of our Consciences or any matter concerning the same or our Religion there we do as S. Augustine heere appoynteth vs preferre our eternall King before our Temporall And like to these are all the other places of Fathers cyted by him who distinguish expresly betweene the Temporall honour and Allegiance due to the Emperour and the other of our Religion Conscience belonging only to God And to that playne sense are Tertullians words cyted by the Apologer VVe honour the Emperour in such sort as is lawfull for vs and â—xpedient for him as a man second after God and as hauing receyued from God whatsoeuer he is and only lâ—sse thâ—n God And will not the Catholicks of England vse this speacâ— also vnto their King Or will the Apologer himselfe deny that Tertullian heere meant nothing els but in temporall affayres for somuch as the Emperors at that tyme were Heathens Gentils and consequently were noâ— to be obeyed in any point against Christian faith or Religion The like playne sense haue the words of Iustinâ—â— Martyr to the Emperour himselfe cited here in the third place to wit VVe only adore God and in all things we cheerfully performe seruice to you prosessing you to be Emperours and Princes of men And do not all English Catholickes say the same at this day in all other things that concerne not God his Obedience by rule of Catholicke Religion they offer cheerfully to serue his Maiesty acknowledging him to be their liege Lord and King inferiour only to God in his Temporall Gouernment And how then are these and such other places brought in for witnesse as though they had somewhat to say against vs The other two sentences in like manner cited out of Optatus and S. Ambrose the first saying That ouer the Emperour there is none but only God that made the Emperour And the other That teares were his weapons against the armes and souldiars of the Emperour That he neither ought nor could resist neyther of theÌ„ do make
or Mother or els that he will teach vs by his law or diuinity that albeit her Father and Mother were neuer truely man wife yet she borne by their coniuÌ„ction had true right in her bloud to succeed in the Crowne which yet the Parlament denyeth as yow haue seene And this shall suffice for this matter wherby may appeare what causes some Popes might haue in respect as well of this knowne illegitimation by her Father Mother as also of other many Peâ—â—â—nall demerits of her owne to fauour the right of her next lawfull successour persecuted iniuted finally destroyed by her But now as for the other cauill of recrimination that Dâ—â—â—man in his Booke sayth that it is a grieuous sinne for any man to giue consent to the making of a King that is of a contrary religion it hath beene answered sufficiently before against M. Morton who obiected the same but with fraud and falshood as this man doth leauing out the principall words that do ensue which are that is a sinne to him that doth it â—â—hat side souer the truth be or how good or bad soeuer the party 〈◊〉 that is preferred He doth leaue out also the reason of the speach taken out of the authority of S. Paul in these words For if S. Paul haue pronounced so absolutly and plainly in the place beâ—ore alleadged that euen in eating a peece of meat it is damnable for a man to discerâ—e and yet to eate what may we thinke will it be in so great and important a matter as the making of a King is for a man to â—ssemble or do against his owne conscience and iudgment Here you see is nothing but that a man should not do against his conscience in the choice of a King when that case shall fall out Can M. Barlow say any thing iustly against this if he will not calumniate I see not what But yet he leapeth to another thing in a farre different place where Doleman sayth that the Statute of Association was obiected by other Competitors against the succession of Scotland which Statute was made in the 27. yeare of Queene Elizabeths raigne and intended principally as it seemeth euident both by the Queene and by such as procured the making therof against the sayd succession of the Queene of Scotland and her issue in such forme of words as she being prisoner in England might easily be â—â—trâ—pped therin as afterward she was by the attempt of M. â—abingtâ—n his fellowes and lost her life for the same The Statute contained That if any Act should be atteÌ„pted tending to the hurt of Queene Elizabeths person by or for any person that shall or may pretend any Title to the Crowne of this Realme after her Maiesties discease by any person or with the priuity of any person that shall or may pretend Title to the Crowne c. then all such persoÌ„s shal be excluded and disabled for euer to haue or claime the sayd Crowne c. Hereto M. Barlow answereth now first that they only in this Act are excluded from Succession by whoâ—e meanes Queene Elizabeths life should be taken away not sought and that should not touch their issues except they had bene any wayes assenting or priuy to the same But to this may be replyed that the words now set down in the Statute are coÌ„trary which say that if any act be atteÌ„pted tending to the hurt of her Maiesties most Royall person though not achieued yet they shal be excluded And as for their heires and issues though in the second part of the Statute when Queene Elizabeths life should be taken away by such attempts there is mention of them that it must be by some assent or priuity of theirs yet in the former part now alleadged there is no mention wherby notwithstanding the sayd pretenders for whome or by whose priuityes such attempts only should be made are condemned of treason and made incapable of any pretence to the Crowne which being once effectuated the consequence doth easily ensue in like manner against their heires and issues So that this is but a meere trifling matter brought in for want of other better OF CERTAINE CONTRADICTIONS OBIECTED TO Cardinall Bellarmine AND what confidence may be placed in a mans owne good workes CHAP. IIII. WHERAS among other things there were obiected in the Apology of the new Oath of Allegiance certaine coÌ„tradictions against Cardinall Bellarmine out of his workes as impugning the one the other I thought good in my Letter to looke into some tâ—ree or foure of them leauing the rest for the Cardinall himselfe to answere as he did very sufficiently which answere might serue for vs both but that I hauing enlarged my selfe somewhat for the better explayning of the first obiected contradiction about the placing of confidence in good and meritorious workes M. Barlow hath bene so copious in his reply partly preaching partly pratling without substance or verity as I am inforced to insist more vpon the matter then I had purposed And for more plaine dealing and discouering of his fraud and impertinency I shall here repeat againe what in my Letter I set downe about this controuersy The Apologerâ—quoth â—quoth I doth thus begin his list of coÌ„tradictions against Cardinall Bellarmine First in his bookes of Iustification saith he Bellarmine affirmeth that for the vncertainty of our owne proper righteousnes and for auoiding of vaine glory it is most sure and saâ—e to repose our whole confidence in the alone mercy and goodnes of God which proposition of his is directly contrary to the discourse and current of all his â—iue bookes De Iustificatione wherin the same is conteyned c. Of this first contradiction we haue said somewhat before to wit that it is straÌ„ge that fiue whole bookes should be brought in as contradictory to one proposition For how shall the Reader try the truth oâ— this obiection Shall he be bound to read all Bellarmines fiue bookes to see whether it be true or no Had it not bene more plaine dealing to haue alleaged some one sentence or conclusion contradictory to the other But now shall we shew that there can be no such contradiction betwixt the sentenâ—â— of one part of his said Booke of Iustification the whole discourse or current of the rest for that Bellarmyne doth make all the matter câ—eâ—re by soyling three seuerall Questions in one Chapter which is the seauenth of the fifth Booke here cyted The three Questious are these about Fiducia quae in merit is coâ—â—ocaâ—i possit what hope and confidence may be placed by a Christian man in his good workes and merites The first Question is whether good workes in a Christian man doe increase hope confidence by their owne nature and the proâ—ise of reward made vnto them And Bellarmine answereth that they doe and proueth it by many places of Scriptures as that of Toby the 4. where it is said That almes-dedes shall giue
againâ—t me about the â—econd question Now let vs see what he hath againâ—t Cardinall Bellarmine â—wo thinges he pretendeth to wit that his second and third propositions are contrary the one to the other iâ— two pointes for that the second proposition doth â—llow some kind of confidence to be put in mans merits the third doth exclude all and sayeth it must be in the only mercy of God But this is a very ridiculous contradiction to be obiected to so learned a man as Bellarmin is For that both thâ—se are true and may stand togeather as 〈◊〉 sâ—tteth them downe for that it is both true thâ—t a mâ—n may place some confidence is his merits as Cardinal Bâ—â—â—â—â—minâ— proueth both by Scriptures and Fathers before mentioned and it is true also which he sayeth in his third pâ—oposition that this notwithstanding tuâ—â—ss mâ—m â—st it is moâ—â— safe for a man though he haue good mâ—rits yet not to respect them but to place all his confidence in the only mercy oâ— God And what contradiction is there heere A man may place some conâ—idence but the sureâ—t way is to place none Cannot these two stand togeather Let vs examine some places of Scriptures If a man or woman had come to S. Paul to aske his opinion whether he or she should marry or no he would haue said as he wrote You may marry you shall not siâ—ne by marrying but the safest way is not to marry the one is lawfull the other more perfect should this â—peach of S. Paul be contrary to it self I trow no. Now tâ—en let vs see whether Cardinall Bellarmines speach be a like he is demaunded whether it be good for a man to put any confidence in his merits or noe he answereth that iâ— he find that he hath good merits he may put some hope therein so it be done without pride but yet the safâ—st way were not to respect or thinke vpon his owne merits but only to put his whole confidence in the only mercy of Almighty God Is here now any contradiction He sayth in the one that he may put some confidence in the other the saâ—est way is to put none this is but a counsaile what were best to be done and most safe the other a declaration what in rigour may be done no man I thinke of common sense will say that here is any contradiction and yet doth M. Barlow vrge it againe and againe insisting vpon the words whole conâ—idence and alâ—ne mercy of God vsed in the third proposition which carrieth with it sayth he a double contradiction both subiecti obiecti the subiect tota â—iducia all mans confidence tota the whole whether greater or lesse whether weake or strong whether one or the other is wholy to be cast vpon Gods mercy euen as our Sauiour commaundeth vs to loue God with our whole soule hart and strength includes therein all the facultyes of the soule and body parts inward and outward inward of vnderstanding will affection outward all the members of our body to be made S. Paules whole burnt sacrifice c. And so runneth forth amplifying vpon the words whole and â— allâ— and then also vpon the obiect saying that the obiect affoards a strong coÌ„tradictionâ— sola misericordia only mercy or mercy alone which admits no participation with another and â—uch more like â—â—usle as if he were in his Pulpit deluding the people there by vaine repetition and exaggâ—â—ation oâ—â—â—â—â—e words which yet import no moâ—e â—ut that Carâ—inall Bellaâ—miâ—e his counsayle is though not as a pâ—ecept of necâ—ssity that albeit a man haue â—â—uer so many good workes and may iuâ—â—ly therby inâ—râ—aâ—â— his hope and conâ—idence in God by looking vpoâ— tâ—â—m as his giâ—â—â—â— yet to be â—ure for that a man may be deceiâ—ed in eâ—timatioÌ„ oâ— his owne merits the best way is noâ— to respeâ—t them but only to place his whole hope in the sole mercy of Almighty God And this by way of counsaile and not of precept as you haue heard though M. Barlow doth egregiously also abase him yâ—a very perâ—idiously vrging againâ—t him that in his third proposition he sayth VVe must place all our whole conâ—â—dence in tâ—e sole mâ—rcy of God and thâ—n indeed it were contâ—aâ—â—câ—oâ—y to tâ—at which he sayth in the second that a man may placâ— some confidâ—ncâ— in his merits but the Cardinall saith not that we must but that it is the safâ—st way And the like perfidiousnes doth he vse in peruerting and vrging the words of his second proposition as though he did â—ay some conâ—idence must be put in our merits and not only may whereas the Cardinall sayth â—nâ—y that some confidence may be put this also with a restriction vt caâ—catur superâ—ia that pride be auoyded Let vs heare I pray you M. Baâ—lows insolent conclusion â—fter that he hath 〈◊〉 beaten himself vp and downe to proue these to be coâ—â—râ—dâ—â—â—ions â—herâ—ore sayth he the Apologâ—rs oâ—â—â—ruation 〈…〉 made aâ—d â—ogiâ—ke â—onfâ—â—mâ—s it to be a violâ—nâ— contradiction 〈…〉 tâ—o prâ—posiâ—ions mans whole confidâ—nce iâ— to â—e 〈…〉 Godâ— meâ—cy alone and some confidence iâ— to be 〈◊〉 in manâ—â—â—â—it will no more agrâ—e as bâ—ing mâ—st oppâ—â—â—te 〈◊〉 a new peeâ—e wiâ—h an old gâ—rmâ—nt which our Saâ—iour sayeâ—h to â—e an 〈◊〉 iâ—possiâ—ility So he By whicâ— speach of his oâ—ly if theâ—e were no other o◠〈◊〉 note the man and his tâ—uth may be tâ—roughly disâ—â—â—ned hâ—uing here falsified both Cardinaâ—l Bâ—llarmâ—nâ— words and meaâ—ing in the recitall of both theâ—e propositions For as Cardinall Bellarmine setteth thâ—m downe they are both true as beâ—ore I haue shewed but as this man relaâ—â—th them he maketh them opposite For Cardinall Bellaâ—mine sayth not that mans whole confidence is to be placed in Gods mercy alone as though it were by way of necâ—ssity and not lawfull to respect any thing our owne good works but that the safest way is so to do And secondly he doth not say that some confidence is to be put in mans merits as though this also were of necessity but that some may be put so as this man seemeth wholy to be compounded of fraud and that with sincerity of truth he cannot vtter any sentence either of his owne or ours without some imposture What a Prelate is this â—or men to hang their soules vpon the truth of his words The other point in this sentence I leaue to be laughed at by his Reader that â—ogick confirmeth a violâ—nt contradiâ—tion betwene tâ—ese two propositions to wit that himself hath framed out of his owne fingers ends And as for his example of contâ—adictâ—on and highest opposition yea impâ—ssibility of coheâ—ence betwene a new peece and an old garment euery begger that goeth vp and downe the countrey with a patcht cloâ—ke will conuince him of vntruth therein eâ—pecially if he haue passed lately by any Taylors shop where he hath had commodity of new shreds to ioyne to his old cloake and shew that there is
not such Logical contrâ—diction or opposition betweene them but that they may stand togeather in a beggers cloake if not in congruity of decency and handsomnes wherof it seemeth â—hat our Sauiour only meant yet at leastwise without Logicâ—ll opposition or impossibilityâ— which was far from the sâ—nse of Christ in that Parable So as here are now thrâ—e or foure falâ—â—oods at once discouered conuinced against M. â—aâ—lâ—w about this â—irst imputed contradiction â—etwene these two propositions Let vs see the second The sâ—cond obiected contradiction is for thâ—t Câ—â—d Bâ—llarmine sayeth in his second proposition or 〈◊〉 to the second question that a man may put 〈…〉 dence iâ— bonis meriâ—is quae talia eâ—se compertum sit in go 〈…〉 that are found to be truly such And in his third proposition he sayth that propter incertitudinem propriae iustitiae tutissimuâ— est c. for the vncertaynty of our own proper iustice the safest way is to put all our confidence in the only mercy of God which sayth M. Barlow is contradictory the one to the other the former affirming that we must know that our merits be truly good before we can put any confidence in them and the second that this is vncertaine therefore it is most safe to put our confidence only in Gods mercy Wherto I answere that if these things be well considered there is no contradiction for that the knowledg of our merits which is required before we can put any iust confidence in them is a morall knowledg only such as may stand with some vncertainty as is to be seene in many things of this world As for exmple a man borne now in England is morally certaine that he is baptized for that he is tould so by his parents and others for that the Ministers do odinarily baptize infants in the Parish where they dwell but for that he doth not know certainly whether he that did baptize him had the intention of the Church and vsed the forme of words prescribed it may stand with some vncertainty whether he be baptized or no. And the like is in marriage wherein there is morall certainty that a man and woman that haue liued togeather many yeares in wed-locke are truly husband and wife but yet for that there is not absolute assurance that both parts did consent in hart to that marryage it may stand with some vncertainty whether the mariage were good or no. And so in infinite other thinges And in this our case it is euident that the knowledg required by the Cardinal of our merits is but morall such as may stand with some vncertainty for though we should know that we haue giuen almes aboundantly redeemed captiues nourished orphans visited the sicke and imprisoned and done other good works coÌ„mended by our Sauiour that promised life euer lasting to the same yet because we know not whether we haue done them with all due circumstances or no it is but a morall knowledg of their being tâ—ue merits conâ—â—quentâ—y may â—â—and with some vncertainty as is sayd in the third proposition And what now hath M. Barlow to say to this Still he telleth vs that they are contradictions and setteth them downe thus in great letters A man sayth he must be aâ—ertained that the woâ—ks that he doth be truly gâ—od or â—ls â—e may â—ot trust in them and yâ—t no man can assure himselâ— that thâ—y arâ— so exâ—â—pt he haue a reuelation sayth the Cardinall Well Syr and what will you infer of these two propositions You say that they are opposite and contradictory Proue it â—or that a contradiction est aâ—â—irmatio negatio de eodem respectu eiusdem here the certainty and vncertainty that are spoken of are of different kinds A man must be acertained that the good works that he hath done be truly good before he put coÌ„fidence in them This is to be vnderstood of morall certainty only not absolute infallible And then againe no man can assure himself or know certainly that his works are such which is to be vnderstood of absolute and infallible certainty so as morall certainty and absolute certainty being neither the self same thing but much diffeâ—ent the former may be affirmed in the â—econd pâ—oposition and the other denied in the third without any coÌ„tradiction at all So as all the rest of M. Barlowes tatâ—â—ng in this place saying That better it were â—or the Cardinall to acâ—knowledg an ouer sight then to ouerâ—hrew one soule redeemed by Christs bloud and That contradiction in assertion woundes but oâ—e oâ—posite member but vnsoundnes in doctrine doth wound the weâ—â—â— consâ—ience of a Christian that this may be amended by repeale retrâ—â—â—ing it c. All this I say is but idle and vaine speach without any ground giuen on the Cardinals behalfe as bâ—fore hath bene shewed And the vnsoundnes hath bene proâ—ed to be on M. Barlows side in regâ—rd of the many vnâ—ruâ—hes sleightes and absurdities committed by him And not to loose any more tyme in this we will pasâ—â— to other contradictions obiected to the sayd Cardinall OF THREE OTHER Contradictions imputed vnto Cardinall Bellarmine but proued to be no Contradictions at all §. II. AS wee haue bene more large then was purposed in the discussion of the precedent obiected contradiction about the thrâ—e queâ—tions and answers proposed so shall we endeauour to recompence our length there with breuitie in this place for that M. Barlow indeed hath heere as little to say as there he speaketh much to small purpose The second Contradiction then is said to be for that Cardinall Bellarmin taking vpon him to shew that God is not the author of sin nor inclineth man thereunto hath this proposition That God doth not incline a man to euill eythâ—r naturally or morally physiâ—e vel moraliâ—er expounding in the same place what he meaneth by the words naturally and morally to wit that to incline a man naturally to euil is immediatly to mooue his will to some euill act but to incline morally is to coÌ„maund or counsaile an euill act to be done which is properly called morall concurrence in neither which kind may God be said to incline a man to euill but yet there is another way called oâ—casionaliter or by occasion as when an euill man that hath a naughty will is bent to sinne God almighty by sending some good cogitation to him may be the occasionall cause why he committeth this sinne rather then that wherof I gaue an example out of the booke of Genesis the 57. Chapter where the brethren of Ioseph hauing a naughty will to kill him God almighty by sending that way the Ismaelite merchaÌ„ts of Galaad gaâ—e an occasion rather of thinking how to sell him into â—gipt then to kill him so to commit rather the lesser synne then the greater Cardinall Bellarmine also in his answere repeateth againe those words of the Psalme Conuertit cor â—orum vt odiâ—ent populum eius God did turne the hartes
abroad p. 50. more contayned therin then ciuill obedience p. 70. 71. 280. humble petition to his Maiesty for the expositioÌ„ therof p. 89. Scandall in exhibiting therof p. 126. 127. c. No such Oath euer enacted before by former Princes p. 156. Card. Bellaâ—mins opinion therof pag. 346. 347. c. deuided into 14. parts p. 357. difference betweene the said Oath and an Indenture pag. 362. Oath of Supremacy p. 353. defeÌ„ded by M. Barlow 354. 355. Obedience against God mans conscience none pag. 282. Obedience of our temporall Prince how far when it bindeth p. 291. defined by S. Thomas 339. Ordination of Protestant Bishops first vnder Q. Elizabeth praf n. 136. P PAVLVS Quintus Pope defeÌ„ded 54. 55. 56. 57. his Breues discussed part 2. per totuÌ„ whether he forbad temporall odedience to his Maiesty therin p. 323. deinceps â— Persons calumniated by M. Barlow pag. 204. belyed p. 263. Petrus de Vâ—â—â—is extolled by M. Barlow p. 499. iustified pag. 509. censured 523â— Philip the Emperour his murder pag. 470. Plutarke abused by M. Barlow pag. 61. Popes power ouer Infidel Princes p. 76. how they are particuler Bishops of Rome Pastours of the whole Church pag. 145. whether they can make new articles of faith or no pag. 324. 325. deinceps whether they command Princes to be murdered pag. 394. 395. c. Powder-treason pag. 13. 14. 15. c. F. Persons accused therwith by M. Barlow p. 23. Powder-plot of Antwerp pag. 18. of Hage p. 19. of Edenborrow ibid. Prescription of the Church of Rome part 1. cap. 5. per totum good argument in case of Relion pag. 150. 152. vide Antiquityâ— the same vrged by the Fathers ib. belyed shamefully pag. 246. Protestants gone out of the Catholike Church pag. 149. their Ecclesiasticall power ouer Puritans pag. 259. their basenes beggary pag. 265. their conflicts with Puritans about matters of Religion pag. 270. their Church basest of all others praef n. 36. Prouidence of God discoursed of by S. Augustine pag. 416. Q QVEENE Mary of ScotlaÌ„d put to deâ—th for Religion pag. 51. preached against by M. Barlow pag. 212. Queene vide Elizabeth R RESOLVTION of Catholiks in maters of faith p. 123. of Protestants none at all ibid. 124. what resolution is taken from the Pope pag. 125. M. Reynolds writing against Whitaker pag. 457. Rome Recourse to Rome about the Oath of Allegiance p. 50. 51. 52. c. The same practised in all difficulties by our English Princes people pag. 53. 377. Church of Rome impugned p. 144. S SALMERON abused by M. Morton M. Barlow p. 75. Salomons fact of killing Adoniah condemned pag. 105. D. Sanders abused by M. Barlow pag. 77. Scandall in exhibiting the Oath of Allegiance p. 128. 129 130. c. of actiue and passiue scandall pag. 132. 134. 135. scandall of Balaaâ— pag. 139. Sigebert calumniated pag. â—3 K. Sisâ—nandus his submission to the Councell of Toledo p. 36â— Statute of Association pag. 429. Sâ—â—pition vide Idolâ—try foure kinds of suspition pag. 119. Supremacy mascuâ—â—ne feminine pag. 395. how it was giuen to K. Henry the 8. pag. 29â— to K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth â—bid to K. Iames. pag. 29â— M. Barlowes iudgment therupon ibid. pag. 300 Sycophancy vide Flattery M. Barlowes diuision of Sycophancy pag. 242. Sixtuâ— vide Pope T S. THOMAS his opinion coÌ„cerning obedience pag. â—â—â— about Totally praef n. 52. abused by M. Barlow pag. â—36 Threatnings of God vnto Kings pag. 108. Tâ—byes breach of the King of Niniue his comaâ—ndment about burying of the dead Iewes p. 289. § 2. the ancient Fathers iudgment therof pag. 288. the credit of the History of Toby pag. 287. Toleration of Religion humbly demanded of his Maiesty part 2. cap. 4. per totum Thomas vide Morton Treason vide Powder-treason V VESSELS consecrated to Church vses ancieÌ„t p. 237. Viâ—es of wicked Kings recounted after their deaths in Scripture pag. 199. Vniuersity of M. Barlow little p. 236. W M. VVHITAKER a terrour to Card. Bellarmine in M. Barlowes iudgment pag. 455. his booke refuted by M. Reynolds pag. 457. his ignorance ibid. VVilliam vide Barlow workes-VVorkes-Good works may giue cause of confidence in God p. 440. Syr Henry VVotton a wodden Embassadour praef n. 70. his pranks at Ausburge Venice ibid. X XYSTVS 5. belyed about the murder of King Henry the 3. of France pag. 115. Z ZISCA the blind Rebell of Bohemia pag. 456. FINIS Three things declared in this preface for the Readers satisfaction Why M. Barlowes book was answered by F. Persons The cause of the stay of this edition What manner of writer M. Baâ—low is Isa. 1â— Tertull. dâ— praesâ—rip cap. 41. Aug. tract 45. in IoaÌ„nem Bernard serm 65. in Cantica M. Barlow in his epistlâ— Dedicatory to his Maiâ—sty M. Barlowes maÌ„ner of writing M. Barlowes ignorance in GraÌ„meâ— Humanity Barlow pag. 15â— pag. 295â— Gregor lib. 2. Ep. ep 65. Barl. pag. 174. A very grosâ—e Grammaticall errour Fragmentum historiâ—um in anno 1238. â—omo 1. hist. Germ. Casarum Bellarm. l. 1. de Cler. cap. 28. Barlow pag. 342. A strange construction of Orbis terrae Bellar. lâ—â— citato M. Barlowes ignorance in Philosophy Leo ep 89. D. Thâ— lec 12. in Periber lit F. M. Barlows ignorance in histories Barlow pag. 298. Barlow pag. 292. deinceps Barlow pag. 245. pag. 288. pag. 295. M. Barlowes ignorance in interpreting the Scriptures Barl. pag. 53. Cant. 3. Barlow pag. 43. Iosue 6. Pag. 201. Iosue 6. Pag. 60. Gen. 3. Matth. 9. Barlow pag. 334. M. Barlowes ignorance in matters of Diuinity Barlow pag. 188. D. Thom. 2.2 q. 104. ar 6. ad 3. 〈◊〉 pag. â—7 pag. 57 〈◊〉 pag. 114. D. Tho. 2.2 q. 162 â—â— 4. in 〈◊〉 pag. 246. M. Barlowes paradoxes Barlow pag. 160. The Protestantes coÌ„science like a cheuerall point A prophane and barbarous assertion of M. Barlow Barlow pag 99. Athan. ep ad solitarâ—aÌ„ vitâ—m ageÌ„tâ—s Hilarius lib. 1. in ConstaÌ„t AugustuÌ„ paulo post â—nitium Barlow pag 2â—2 Barlow paâ—â— 142. see supra pag. 120. D. Andr. Respons ad Apol. cap. â—5 pag. 343. §. Porrâ— negat part 2. cap. 4. Printed anno 160â— An. 1607. D. Couell in his iust and temperate defence ar 11. pag. 67. liâ— 8. in Iob. cap. 2. Puritans acknowledge an essentiall difference betweene them and the Protestants in matters of religion An. 160â— arg 10. circa medium Si nons Vpoâ— the Arâ—c pag. 142. sâ—e Baâ—on tom 12 in anno 1140. sâ—â—â—nnius tom 4. pag. 1223. and S. Bern. ep 187. 188. dem â—ps Pâ—pyâ—ius Maâ—souius l 3. Annal. in Phâ—â—ppo August pag. 268. Bern. ep 240. â—â—â—nar Luâ—â—en et 〈…〉 Aâ—bizen es 〈…〉 see Christianus Massaeus l. 17. Chron. ad an 1206. Caesaâ—ius Heiesterb l. 5. illust mirac cap. 21. see the Protestants Apology pag. 343. Iewel defence pag. 48 M. Iewell contrary to himself Guido Carmelita in suÌ„ma cap. 9. de
penultima PoÌ„tius in vita sua Optatus l. â— contra Parmen Cyp. ep 6â— Infiâ—els heretâ—kes excoÌ„municated persons depriuâ—â— of Christian buriall Apparitions of Martyrs S. Am. seri 5. de sacâ—is l. 7. Ep. ep 53. 54. Aug. Confâ—ss 1. 9. c 7. ser. 39. de Civit Dâ—i l. 22. c. 8. Greg. l. 4. Dialog c. 52. 53. 54. M. Barlows licence of adding subtracting at his pleasure Strange liberty of the new Ghospellers About the insurrection of HeÌ„â—y the 5. against his father Lett. p. 87. Barl pag. 242. The deposition of Henry the fourth Sig. de reg Ital. lib. 9. ann 1106. Col. 4. Instit c. 11 §. 13. Sig. in ann 1093. Genebrar l. 4. anno muÌ„di 5206. in Paschal Ann. 996. sub Papa Greg. quiÌ„to Huld Mutius l. 16. chron Gerâ— fol. 127. Barl. pag. 244. Sixtus V. belied by M. Barlow Barl. pag. 245. M. Barlows egregious folly M. Barlows ridiculous profundityes discussed An excellent discourse of S. Augustine concerning Gods prouidence August tâ—act 24. sâ—pâ—r â—oaÌ„ An other strange profâ—â—ity of M. Barlow without all wit or sense Mark this doctrine Syr William D. Thom. 1 pâ—â— 22. q. 116. The difference betweene proâ—â—â—eÌ„â—â—a fatum D. Thom. cont Gentes lib. 3. cap. 77. The profoundity of M Barlowes ignorance in School-Diuinity Barl. pag. 264. An other profound ignorance of M. Barlow D. Thom. 1. p. q. 22. aâ—â— â—3 Act. 4. 1. Reg 2. 6. 2. Reg. 3. 27. Ioseph sold into Egvpt by God his prouidence Gen. 45. vâ— 4. 5. 6. Lett. p. 89. Barl. pag. 250. M. Barlowes immodesty Q. Elizabâ—th no Ioy nor Iewâ—â—â— of the Christian world M. Barlowes constaÌ„cy Sciliâ—et Statut. an 28. H. 8. c. 7. Q Elizabâ—th against conscieÌ„ce held the Crowne from his Maiestyes Mother 44. years About Q 〈◊〉 legitimation Barl. pag. 253. The Statâ—te of 〈◊〉 Heâ—â—â— for tâ—◠〈…〉 of Q Elizabeth Whether Q. Elizabeths bastardy were in body Baâ—â— pâ—g 253. M. Barlowâ—â—peÌ„ iniury vnto â— â—eÌ„â—â— the â— and the whole Court of Parlaâ—eÌ„t M. Barlowâ— beggâ—â—g oâ— the question Dolem coÌ„fâ—â—eÌ„â—e part 1. c. 3. pag. 210. Rom. 14.1 Cor. 8. 10. About the Statâ—te â—â— Association Doleman part 2. p. 117. Lett. p. 93. The first suâ—â—osed â—â—â—tradicâ—iâ—n â—â—llarm de Iâ—â—â—iâ— ab 5. cap. 7. Apol. 63. Tob. 4. Iob. 11. 1. Tim 3. 2. Tim. 4. Thâ— suÌ„â—â—e oâ— Card. Bâ—â—â—â—râ—inâ—s 〈…〉 and Anâ—weaâ—e Barlow 258. Ber ser. 9. in Psal. Qui habitaâ— M. Barlowes follyes Much idle babling â—f M. Barlow to no other purpose then to sâ—â—w his owne ignoâ—ance M. Barlows false charge vpon his aduersaty Bellar. dâ— Iustificat lib. 5. cap. 12. Good workes may giue cause of confideÌ„ce although a man put no confidence in them but onely in Gods mercy Bellar. lib. â— de Iustif. cap. 7. A â—hildish 〈◊〉 of M. Barâ—â—â— Bâ—â—l pag. 2â—4 A notable â—â—gging of M. Barlow 3 Râ—g 17. 1. Cor. 7. An excelleÌ„t example out of S. Paul to conâ—ute M. Barlâ—wâ— contradiction obiected against the Cardinall Baâ—l pag. 26â— Bâ—â—l pag. 2â—â— Euery beggars patcht cloake conuinceth M. Barlow of egrâ—gious folly Bâ—rl pâ—g 265. The secoÌ„d supposed contradiction Bâ—llarm liâ— 2. de Statu pe cati amisâ— gratiae â— 13. Psal. 140. Bellarmin cleaâ—â—â—â—â—oÌ„ contradiction Bell l. 1. de Clâ—â—iâ—is â— 14. l. 4. de Pâ—nt cap. 25. Dâ— Câ—â—e l. 1. cap. 13. 〈…〉 â—â—llaâ—m c. 14. M. Barlow settâ—th 〈◊〉 his ownâ— fraud in mark a â—â— great leâ—â—ters Lib. 4. de Pontif. c. 22.23.24 25. Barl. pag. 269. Shamles dealing oâ— M. Barlow M. Barlow maketh â—ely Whitaker to be terrour vnto Bellarmine spectatum admissi â—isum tene atis Zisca the blind Bohemian rebell a fit Saint for Iohn Fox M Reynolds refutatioÌ„ o D. Whiâ—taker M. Whitakers igâ—norance M. Reyâ—nolds confutation â— 97. Whitakers booâ— not wort the takinâ—â— vp Apolog. Toâ—t pag. 75. 〈◊〉 pag 27â— An egreâ—giâ—us abusing Cardina Bellarm to framâ— contradâ—â—ction Baâ—l paâ— 273. S. Thomas eâ—râ—gâ—ously 〈◊〉 by M. Barlow D. Thom. 2â— q. 23. art 10. in corpore art 11. 12. per totum Lib. 3. Institut c. 2. Lib. de Iusâ—iâ—iâ—at c. 24. Letter pag. 98. Lâ—tt p. 9â— Touchi K. Henâ—â— the secoÌ„â—â— Houed 303. Ib. p. 30 See Barâ—â— in an 117 sub â—inen Barl. pag. 275. M. Baâ—â—low offâ—â—â—ded for that the King of France 〈◊〉 Embassâ—â—dour 〈◊〉 not whâ—â—â—ped Matth. â— Eâ—hes â— Matt. 16. Ephes. 5. 〈…〉 〈◊〉 5.24 M. Barlow litle aâ—â—â—aâ—ntâ—â—â—ith 〈…〉 body by diâ—â—â—pline 1. 〈◊〉 2. 14. â—aâ—lâ—w pag. 2â—7 Frederick the first About the coronatioÌ„ of Henry the sixt a In â—ita Câ—lâ—stini b Pâ—rt â— gâ—â— 40. in 〈◊〉 11â— c 〈◊〉 ◠〈…〉 â— d â—n An. 119â— e 〈…〉 f 〈…〉 Baronius An. 1191. Alexander the 3. â—â—eared 〈◊〉 a â—â—luÌ„ny Paron in annal an 1177. â—arlow pag. 281. Baâ—l pag. 269. Walthramuâ— so often obiecâ—ed of no credit â—â—ron Tom. 12. 〈◊〉 Râ—â— pag. 7â— Lett. pag. 1â—1 Apolog. pag. 72. About Philip the Emperâ—r â—laine not by Otho the â—mpâ—ror but by Otho the Câ—uÌ„t 〈…〉 Lâ—ttâ— pag. 1â—1 1 In vita Innoâ—eÌ„ 4. 2 Lib. 2. Dâ—â—ad l. 75 3 Tom. 2. Enne 9. l. 6 non longè ante finem 4 Part. 2. gen 41. anâ— 1247. 5 Lib. 8. c. 18 suâ—â— Saxoniae 6 In fine l. 18. * â— lond vâ—i supra Petrus de Viâ—eis lib. 2. â—pâ—st 2. 〈◊〉 vita 〈…〉 〈…〉 Inforcing of matters against the Pope Aug. in â—sal â—3 Barl. pag. 2â—4 in â—inâ— 295. Barl. pag. 291. Bâ—rl pag. 291. M. Barlows Iugling â—â—â—dem Barl. pag. 290. Barlow pag. 29â— M. Barlows lying discourse p. 292. 1. Sam. 26. 20. Plat. in Honor. 3. Vide â—ac omnia apud Vâ—spergen Nauâ—l geÌ„ 41. anno 1228. M. Barlow disseÌ„blâ—th the Eâ—perors faâ—lts ther by the better to charge the Pope of iniustice against him â—â—innius in Grâ—g 9. Tom. 3. pag. 147â— Thom. Fazel Decad. 2. l. 8. c. 2. circa fineÌ„ Vide in 6. Decret de sâ—ntâ—nt reiâ—dicata c. 2. Fazel ibid. Iacob Phil. Bergom an 1â—24 VVestmonast anno 1225. Sabâ—ll Enead 9. l. 6. Paulus AEâ—â—l in Lâ—dâ—â— nono Monacus Pâ—duâ—nus in anno 1225. Antoninus tit 1â— cap. 5. Platina in Innoâ—â—ntio qâ—a to Ioannet Alâ—hâ—â—â— Ciâ—â—â—n Vbert â—â—â—â—et l. 4. hist. Gâ—nâ—â—â—s Paul â—Enal in â—â—dou 9. M. Barlows vntruth about the cause of the Empeâ—rours going to the Holy-laÌ„d The trâ—e caâ—â—es why the Eâ—perors Staâ—â— wâ—re inuadâ—d in hiâ— absenâ—e Antonin tiâ— 1â— 4. §. 1. 〈◊〉 l. â— â— 1. 〈…〉 l. 6. c. 17. c. Sâ—gon in aâ— 1228. Hâ—lâ—â—â— Mâ—tius in an 1227. â—rantz 〈◊〉 8. c. 2. Fazelius Dâ—cad 2. lib. 8. c. 2. Nâ—u l. 〈◊〉 41. 〈◊〉 1229. in â—inâ— Why Fredericke weÌ„t to the holy laÌ„d The Emperours sicknes counterâ—ait Lib. 8. c. 1. Naâ—â—l lo co câ—â—ato a Inâ— brâ—n 〈◊〉 â—n 1217. b 〈◊〉 il eâ—â—eÌ„â—n c in Greg. nâ—no d Enâ—a 9. l. â— in Gâ—egor e Decad. 2. l. 7. anno 1226. f â— â—art hist. l 14. Hâ—ld â—utiâ—â—s