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
also for him that seeketh to recreate Princes great men by pleasant speaches and finally also him that iesteth with a deprauing vayne he telleth how that Maister T. M. may with credit be called a Sycophant in the three first senses but not in the last sayth he for that Sycophancy must be clanculum and without witnesses but T.M. vseth this Sycophancy openly euen by the Censurers confession when his Maiesty taketh his repast that is in the hearing of many so that the party being knowne and the tale openly tould he caÌ„not be called a Sycophant saith M. Barlow But I would first demaud of him where he findeth that the word ClanculuÌ„ or Secretly must be conteined in the definition of a Sychophant for that the first prime signification and deriuation of the word doth openly repugne for as M. Barlow sayth in this place such delatores ficuum or Sycophants in Athens were honorable Magistrates that did accuse publikely and secondly in applicatioÌ„ of the word to a false accuser malicious forged crime there is no such restraint that it must be secret by any Author set downe as may be seene in Henriâ—â—s Stâ—phanus his Thesaurus where there is no restraint of the nature of a Sycâ—ophant or Sychophancy to such secrecy â—â— here M. Barlow assigneth but it is sufficient that it be a false forged malicious crime albeit if we consider the priuate place and auditory while his Maiesty taketh his repast eithâ—r by day or night in comparison of the whole body of Catholickes there calumniated in their absence there will not want also this circumstance of clanculary calumniation if M. Barlow will needs haue it necessary But now let vs passe to another point touched by M. Barlow wherin he pretendeth to be somwhat pleasant to recreate his reader with certaine iestes though with little grace as you will see The occasions of his iestes are these that for so much as this word Sycophanâ—ie is deriued of figges as now you haue vnderstood he will tell vs diuers stories of figgs some sweet some sower some pleasant some vngrateful some poysoned and the like and vnder this mâ—eaphor he will shew vs what figges T. M. and his fellowes do pâ—rhappes represent vnto his Maiestie at his table for his better recâ—eation and pastyme as namely first diuers stories of Popish feigned myracles as that sayth M. Barlow of S. Denis in France who being Byshop of Paris and beheaded carried his owne head in his hand after it was stroken of and of Clement the first who when he was cast into the sea with a milstone about his necke the sea fled three myles froÌ„ the shore and there was found a lytle Chappell ready built in the sea where his bodie was bestowed and that of S. Gregorie of Neâ—caesarea whose staâ—â—e being stuck downe by him at the banke side kept the riuer froÌ„ ouerflowing the banks and presently sprong vp and spred it sâ—lf into a nâ—ighty tree Thus he Condemning as you see our credulity in belieuing these miracles But first I would demaÌ„d of this little learned Vniuersitie anâ— their Procter M. Barlow what more religion there is in not belieuing these and other like recounted myracles then in belieuing them for so much as Infideâ—ity is an easie matter to be found euery where in the worst kind of men as Turkes Iewes and Gentiles and the worst Christians but to belieue is more hard and to be found in fewer men be it humane or diuine fayth that is required Secondly these and many other such like myracles not recounted in Scripture are not proposed as articles of fayth necessary for euery man to belieue though they being related by good and probable Authors euery pious mind will rather incline to giue them credit then scoffe â—t them as Heretickes do For that the scoffing at these things which they haue no ground of any moment to impugne sheweth but a prophane audacious and Lucianicall spirit And in this case I would demand of M. Barlow what ground he hath to scoffe so at these three miracles here set down as he doth to wit of S. Denisâ— S. Clement S. Gregory of Neocaesarea surnamed by ancient writers Thaumaturgus for the multitude and greaâ—nes of the miracles done by him Is it perhaps for that they are strange and not according to mans reason or vse of things that fall out ordinarily in the world If this were not so they were no myracles What then Do they passe perhaps Gods power to doe them This he wil be ashamed to say What then Hath he any testimonies of authors that auow the contrary and affirme that they were not true This I presume he cannot say whereas wee on the other side haue diuers Authors that affirme the same And if M. Barlow and his fellowes doe belieue many thinges of fact by humane faith for that some one probable Historiographer either Christian or prophane doth recount the same with what reason can they scoffe at vs for giuing credit to these things that are testifed by many Authors As for example the myracle of S. Denis the Areopagite of carrying his head in his hands is testified by Nicephorus Calixtus a Grecian in his second booke of Histories and twentith Chapter and by Symon Metaphrastes another Grecian before him againe in the life of S. Denis and before him againe by Hildewinus Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Denis by Paris vpon the point of eight hundred yeares agone who allâ—adgeth also an other Author elder then himself named Lysbius that had set forth the same in his writings and some other Authors in like manner all which the sayd Hildewinus gathered togeather boâ—h out of Greeke and Latin writers at the request of Ludouicus Pius King of France The other miracle also of Saynt Clement the first who was cast into the sea with an anchor about his necke but not with a milstone as M. Barlow hath deuised and that the sea went three myles backe c. and the rest heere obiected by M. Barlow is mentioned not onlie by the foresaid two Greeke Authors Nicephorus lib. 3. Histor. Cap. 18. and Metaphrastes in vita Clementis but by S. Gregorie of Towers also that liued a thousand yeares agoe in his booke de gloria Martyrum Cap. 35. 36. And no lesse the third of S. Gregory Neocaesarea surnamed Thaumaturgus that he piched his staffe vpon a banke side and kept the riuer from ouerflowing is writtâ—n and testified at large not only by the sayd Necephorus lib. 6. Cap. 17. but by a farre more ancient Father as namely by S. Gregoâ—y Nyssen brother to S. Basil which said holie man hath written the admirable life at large of the aforesaid S. Gregory Thaumaturgus well neere 1300. yeares agone which is extant in his works from the page 918. to 949. and S. Basil himself lib. de Spiritu Sancto Cap. 29. hath touched the same and after repetition of many of his miracles
the power and authority of the Pope and Sea Apostolicke c. be any point belonging to religion among Catholicks then is there not only some one word but many sentences concerning Religion in the Oath What answereth M. Barlow This Epistler saith he doth impudently impugne the Oath as vtterly vnlawfull and agaynst religion which yet dependeth vpon an If and is not yet determined for a point of religion that the Pope hath any such authority ouer Kings as in the Oath is mentioned No Syr not among Catholiks for of them only I speake though you leaue it out and doe many wayes corrupt my words Will not they grant the Popes authority in such cases to be a point belonging to their Religion Doth the word If put the matter in doubt that when you say If there be a God this or that is true or false you may be said to doubt whether there be a God or no And when you say If I be a true man this is so you may be thought to doubt whether your selfe be a true man or no Do not you see that this is playne cauelling indeed and not disputing But what more You say that when I do affirme the Popes power I do not distinguish whether in Ecclesiasticall or ciuill causes but you know well inough that I haue often distinguished and so do other Catholicke Deuines that the Popes authority is directly only Ecclesiasticall and spirituall for gouerning and directing of soules to euerlasting life though indirectly for conseruation of this Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall end there is annexed also Temporall in such cases as before hath bene specified concerning temporall Princes And so this is but a shift to say that I doe not distinguish As that is also another about my answere to the second demaund of the Apologer where he demandeth whether any man that taketh the Oath doth promise to belieue or not to belieue any one article of religion contayned in the said Oath For answere wherunto I did set downe sundry clauses of the said Oath wherby it seemeth plaine that the swearer doth make such promise Now you reply with this new shift saying that I doe still beg the question in controuersy So you talke to seem to say somwhat But what is the question in controuersy Is it not whether the swearer doth make promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of religion in taking the Oath Yes And I haue proued that he doth so by diuers examples How then doe I beg the question when I do euince it by proofe You reply that these articles abiured or allowed by him that takes the Oath concerning the Popes authority are not points of â—aith but rather Machiauelismes of the Conclaue But this now is rayling and not reasoning for that a Catholike conscience houldeth the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy and all poynts belonging therunto for matters appertayning to fayth Catholicisme and not to Machiauelisme which Machiauelisme agreeth much more fitly to M. Barlows assertions that depend on the pleasures of Prince State alteration of times and temporall vtilities wherof Machiauel was a great Doctour then to the simple positions of Catholikes who without these worldly respects do playnly and sincerely imbrace and belieue all such points of doctrine as the knowne Catholike Church doth deliuer vnto them as any way appertayning to the integrity of Catholike Religion Heere then M. Barlow being driuen from his refuge of my begging the question layeth hand vpon another much more ridiculous in my opinion for it is somewhat like the Sermon of the Parish Priest to his Parishioners which he deuided into three parts the one that he vnderstood and not they the other that they vnderstood and not he the third that neither of them both vnderstood and the third part seemeth to be our case now for as I confesse that I do not conceaue well what M. Barlow would say so I haue reason to suspect that himselfe also can hardly explane his owne meaning or at least wise he doth it not so here as the Reader may easily vnderstand the same His words are these This censurer is an absurd dispuâ—â—nt still to beg the Question as if these articles abiured or allowed were points of â—aith c. This you haue heard answered now there followeth the other member Or as if saith he beliefe were vsed euery where â—heologically and that a Christians beliefe should alwayes be taken for his Christian beliefe â—or there is a naturall beliefe the Obiects wherof are naturall and ciuill things such as in this Oath c. So he And did not I tell you that you should haue mysteries A Christians beliefe is not alwayes a Christian beliefe but a naturall beliefe the good man would haue holpen himself with the School-mens distinction of fides diuina fides â—umana diuine humane fayth if he could haue hit vpoÌ„ it but yet wholy from the purpose if he had found it out nay quite contrary to himselfe For I would aske what fayth or beliefe diuine or humane Christian or naturallâ— did the Apologer meane in his demaund Whether he that taketh the oath do promise to belieue or not to belieue any article of Religion Did not he meane diuine fayth or Theologicall beliefe It cannot be denied for that the obiect being articles of Religion as heere is sayd which are not belieued but by diuine fayth as they are such it followeth that in this question the Apologer maâ—e his demaund of Christian beliefe and not only of a Christians beliefe yea of Theologicall beliefe and not of naturall beliefe that is to say of humane beliefe so conforme to this his quâ—stion were the clauses of my answere I do truly and sâ—â—cerely acknowledge professe testify and declare in my conscience c. And againe I do further sweare that I do from my hart abhorre deteâ—t and abiure as impious doctrine c. And yet further I do belieue and am in conscience resolued c. And is not all this beliefe in Conscience out of Conscience and for Conscience and of things belonging to Catholike Religion to be vnderstood of Christian and Theologicall beliefe but naturall only Who would write so absurdly but M. Barlow who seemeth not to vnderstand what he writeth And that this may be better vnderstood I am mynded to say a word or two more of this matter He maketh a distinction heere as you see betweene naturall and Theologicall beliefe adding for his reason that the Obiects of naturall fayth are naturall and ciuill things and that such are the articles contained in the Oath ayming as before hath bene said at the distinction of diuine and humane faith But he is grosly deceaued in that he distinguisheth these two faiths or beliefes by their materyall obiects and things belieued contrary to the generall consent of all Philosophers and Deuines who do hould that oâ—â—es actus specificantur ab obiectis formalibus that all acts are
specified by their formall obiects and not by their materyall which may be the same in acts of different nature and consequently cannot distinguish them and so in our present purpose these two faiths or beliefes are not distinguished for that the one hath naturall and ciuill things for her obiects and the other supernaturall For that as well humane and naturall faith may both haue naturall and supernaturall thinges for her obiects as also dyuine and Theologicall faith may haue the same As for example when a man belieueth that there is a Citty called Constantinople for that many men do report it and when a Pagan belieueth that there is a God for that some learned Philosopher hath tould him so to whom he giueth credit heere both naturall and supernaturall things are obiects of humane and naturall fayth And so on the contrary side if a man should belieue naturall and ciuill things as reuealed by God in his Scriptures or otherwise as that Cayn killed his brother Matthâ—salem lyued so long and the like these things should be obiects of Thologicall and diuine fayth as well as if they were in themselues supernaturall Wherfore these two faithes and beliefes are not distinguished by their materiall obiects be they either naturall or supernaturall but by their formal obiects or motiues non per res creditas sed per rationes credendi as Scholemen say not by the things that are beleiued but by the motiues and causes for which they are belieued so as whatsoeuer is belieued vpon any humane motiue or authority though in it self it be supernaturall appertayneth to humane fayth and not dyuine so likwise on the contrary side whatsoeuer is beleiued vpon diuine motiues and authoritie and as reuealed from God though in it self it be naturall and cyuill as M. Barlow calleth it yet doth it appertaine to Theologicall and diuine fayth as an obiect thereof But these things it is like M. Barlow hath no commodity to study and therefore I would easily pardon him these rude and grosse escapes if he did not shew himself so insolent in vaunting as he doth and so conâ—umelious against others that know more then himself VVHETHER PRINCES HAVE IVST CAVSE TO FEARE MVRTHERING by the commandement of Popes And in discussing of the particuler example produced by the Apologer concerning the fame great fraud and malice is discouered in M. Barlowes falsifying of Authors c. CHAP. III. IN the page 86. of my Letter I do handle a certaine speach of Cardinal Bellarmine in his letter to the Archpriest wherin he saith that neither his maiestie of England nor any Prince else hath cause to feare violence from the Pope for that it was neuer heard oâ— from the Churches infancy vnâ—il this day that any Pope did command that any Prince though an hereticke though an Ethnicke though a persecutor should be murthered or did allow of the murther when it was done by another Thus the Cardinall Against which was obiected that Popes had depriued diuers Princes and had raysed great warres against others and that in warre was contayned the casualty of killing in like manner But this was answered that the question was of murthering Now what reply thinke you maketh M. Barlow First he bringeth in a long idle discourse to shew that according to Homer and other Poets politicke Historians Princes ought to go alwayes armed and vigilant for their safety and then he maketh this demaund What difference is there betweene personal murthering of Princes raysing war against them the lot wherof is common and vnpartiall Thirdly he bringeth in my answer as saying that though the Pope hath waged warre against Princes yet he neuer caused any to be vnlawâ—ully murthered Wherin saith he the Aduerbe is worth the obseruing secretly implying that the Pope hath commanded or may command Princes to be murthered but not vnlawfully Wherin he sheweth himselfe to be a meere calumniator for that I speaking diuers times of this matter did neuer ioyne the Aduerbe vnlawfully with the word murthered but in one place only I sayd thus that albeit Popes vpon iust causes haue waged warrs against diuers Princes yet they neuer caused any to be vnlawfully made away murthered or allowed of their murthers committed by others Where you see the Aduerbe vnlawfully is not ioyned with the word murthered but with the wordes made away And the like corruption of my wordes and peruerting my sense he vseth afterward in the same page with intolerable iniquity making me to say that which was farre from my meaning concerning the warres betwene popes and Princes and it is his generall fashion neuer commonly to recite my wordes with sincerity But he goeth forward to proue that Popes do command murthers of Princes saying VVere there no example of fact extant against the Popes in this kind yet they may command Princes to be killed is Bellarmines owne doctrine both Symbolical as the spirit may command the flesh to â—asting and chastisement yea euen 〈◊〉 death it selfe iâ— the spirit sâ—e it necessary and Positiue also for that Christians may not suffer an Infidell or hereticall King to raigne ouer them So he And out of these two arguments doth proue that Popes do or may command Princes to be murthered But who doth not see the folly of these arguments which can moue nothing but laughter or stomacke For albeit Bâ—llarmine do teach that the spirit in a man may punish the flesh by fasting and chastisement where it is necessary for the souls health and I could wiâ—h that M. Barlow had some of this spirit yet may he not kil him selfe or punish his body vnto death as M. Barlow falsifyeth him but cum detrimento aliquo debilitatione ipsius corporis though it be with some losse and weaknes of the said body True it is that in another case of Martyrdome Bellarmine teacheth that the spirit may command the flesh to yield it selfe vp to the persecutour for defence of Christian fayth but this is not our questioÌ„ So as in this first point M. Barlow is fouÌ„d to falsify in the second to make a foolish consequeÌ„ce that for so much as Christian men may not tolerate in some cases an Infidell Prince c. therfore they must murther him as though there were no other remedy but murther these are odious inferences fit for such a spirit as M. Barlowes who notwithstanding meaneth not to murther himselfe by the seuerity of Bellarmines doctrine whom he falsely affirmeth to teach that the spirit may subdue the flesh by fasting and other chastisements yea euen vnto death nor yet to debilitate his body therby according to Cardinall Bellarmines true doctrine Another argument of the Popes murthers is made to be for that he is said to haue coÌ„manded the body of Henry the 4. Emperour of that name that died excoÌ„municated in Liege vpon the yeare 1106. to be taken out againe of his sepulcher and thereof he inferreth that if the Pope would vse
being in the iudiciall part then is there required power in the will or appetite to choose or refuse freely without ballancing on eyther part eyther by feare hurt preferment hatred interest or other potent and forcible impositions By which doctrine if you ponder well you shall find that Catholikes had not free choice to sweare the Oâ—th when losse of goods and lands do ballance on one side nor you perhaps M. Barlow may be said to haue free power or liberty to refuse it for so much as the current of the time the Princes fauour the weight of so fat a benefice as the Bishoprick of Lincolne is and other crummes that you haue gathered togeather and hope to increase do so powerâ—ully preponderate on the one side that you haue your iudgment so fast fixed to that obiect as the sheepe by nature hath hers And if you haue not this tye or indetermination in your iudgement yet in your will and affection which is sufficient to make you no free-man from which thraldome Almighty God deliuer you who onely can do it and breake your bandes For as our Sauiour saith If the sonne of God deliuer you then shall you be truly free indeed And so much of this matter concerning our freedome to sweare or not to sweare wherin I haue detayned my self some what longer then I had purposed for that it is the most principall question of this our controâ—â—â—sy whether there be free election giuen in taking the Oath or nâ— ABOVT RECOVRSE MADE to the Bishop of Rome for decision whether the Oath might lawfully be taken by English Catholiks or no wherin also the present Pope his person is defended against sundry calumniations §. VI. AND now hauing followed M. Barlow thus farre in this controuersy we must turne back againe some pages to take the whole argument with vs which he had ouerrunne to handle the question of freedome before meÌ„tioned And first he telleth vs that when the Oath came forth and was vrged the Garnettistes did differ from the Blackâ—eâ—iâ—tes some aâ—â—owing Equiuocation saith he in matters of â—aith and others noâ— which is a notorious vntruth For the question was not whether the Oath might be taken with Equiuocation but whether it might lawfully be takeÌ„ as it lay with a good exposition wherin some difference being found of opinionâ— it seemed a iust cause to referre the decision to the vniuersall Pastour about which point M. Barlow dealeth not vprightly as commonly neuer he doth in alleaging my words but with notorious corruptions I shal be forced to repeat againe briefly what I then said My wordes were these What should Catholikes do they first consulted the case with learned a men at home then also abroad And albeit at home some were moued in respect of the compassion they had of the present perill if it were refused 〈◊〉 thinke that in some sense the Oath might be taken yet none abroad were of that mind For that they allowed 〈◊〉 of any sort of Equiuocation in matters touching faith and religion And in these I hearesay that the Iesuites were among the chiefe and most forward as heere also is confessed who notwithstanding before were most accused bayted and exagitated both in bookes pulpits and tribunalls for allowing in some points the lawfull vse of Equiuocation About which doubt Catholikes according to their rule of subordination and spirituall obedience in such affaires referring the matter to the iudgement and consultation of their supreme Pastour whome by the principles of their religion they belieue that our Sauiour giueth assistance for the direction of mens soules they receyued from him after due deliberation this answere That the whole Oath as it lay could not be admitted with the integrity of Catholike faith For that albeit diuers parts therof were lawfull to wit all such clauses as appertayned to the promise of ciuil and temporall obedience yet other things being interlaced and mixt therwith which doe detract from the spirituall authority of their said highest Pastour at least wise indirectly the whole Oath as it lyeth was made thereby vnlawfull And this I vnderstand to be the substance of the Popes resolution and answer though all these particularities be not set downe in his Breues but only the Oath declared to be vnlawfull in conscience to Catholike men as it lieth without distinction And what malicious tricke of the Diuel then this may be thought where sheepe do make recourse to their spirituall Pastour in so great and important occasions of their soules as these are I see not Doe English Catholicks any other thing in this then that which all English subiects both great small learned vnlearned haue done and practised from our first Christian Kinges â—ntill the tiâ—e of King Henry the eight vpon the point of a 〈◊〉 and yeares Let tâ—e answere to Syr Edward Cooks Book oâ— Reportes lately set forth be examined wether it doth not shâ—w that in all those ages recourse was euer made to the Sea Apostolicke in like occasions without preiudice of subâ—ects temporall duties to their temporall Princes No one English Christian King though they were many did euer aâ—solutely deny recourse to Rome in spirituall thinges notwithstanding in some other ciuill or mixt matters vpon different occasions some restraints were sometimes made froÌ„ our first King Ethelbert to King Henry the Eight as by the said discourse and answere is euidently proued and much more throughout the whole â—anke of the Christian Kings of Scotland his Maiesties Progenitours vntill his most Renowned Progenitrix by whome and from whom he hath his Royall Right of both Crownes who is knowne and reputed throughout Christendome to haue died for defence of this Catholike Doctrine For so much as if she would haue abandoned that there had bene little doubt of making her away And the like may be said of all other great Christian Catholicke Princes of our daies as the Emperour himselfe the Potent Kinges and Monarches of Spaine France Polonia and other States Common-wealthes and Poâ—entates doe not thinke it any disgrace diminution of honour perill or iniury vnto them that their subiects for matters of conscience doe make recourse to the Sea Apostolicke or that which is consequent thereof the said Sea or generall Pastour doe interpose his iudgement declaration or decision in such affaires This is the Catholike doctrine practice this hath bene in vse throughout Christendome from all antiquity and no where more then in our Realmes of England Scotland as hath bene said In this beliefe and practice liued and died all our forefathers and our Noble Kinges that were our Soueraignes all our Bishops and Prelates that were our Pastours all our great Counsellours and Lawiers that by their wisdome learning gouerned the Land all our Nobility Gentry Priests Laity So as if now this be houlden for a malicious tricke oâ— the Diuel dishâ—â—â—â—â—ble and preiudiciall to his Maiesty his Soueraignty Crowne Dignity
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
and Clâ—ments Constituâ—ions before mentioned So teacheth Doctor Stapleton and the reason of his saying is for that the authority of the Church is the same now shal be vnto the worlds end as it was in the first ages to iudge of Scriptures when occasion is offered And if the Church should admit any such booke now into the Canon of holy Scriptures which was not held for Scripture before which yet is a case not like to fall out then should noâ— this booke be made Scripture by the Church but only declared to be such which was so from the beginning though not so knowne declared So as the Church in this case should not giue infallibility of truth vnto the booke but only testimony by instinct of the holy Ghost that this booke was such from the beginning though not so accepted So as you must note two cogging tricks of M. Barlow in cyting Doctour Stapletons words first to conceale his first condition Si id ei Spiritus Sanctus suggereret if the holy Ghost should suggest the same vnto the Church and then these other two conditions if it were written in the time of the Apostles and neuer reiected by the Church which omissions were made by M. Barlow of purpose to make M. Doctour Stapletons speach to appeare more naked and improbable but indeed it was to keep his old custome which is neuer commonly to relate things truly in all respects in any citation whatsoeuer His second obiection is out of Bishop Fisher VVho sayth quoth he that whatsoeuer the Pope with a Councell deliuereth vs to be belieued that is to be receiued as an Article of fayth which we graunting to be true do ad only this that it is to be vnderstood according to our former declaration and as the Bishop himselfe expoundeth it against â—uther out of Scotus saying Non quòd â—unc verum Ecclesia fecerit sed à Deotraditum explicauerit sayth Scotus not for that the Church made true this Article for it was true before but â—or that it did declare it to be true and to haue bene deliuered by God and this by direction of the holy Ghost promised by our Sauiour to the Church So sayth Bishop Fisher. Here now you see that neyther the Church nor the Pope Head therof do pretend to make any new Article of fayth that was not in it selfe an article of fayth before yea and so belieued also fide implicita by implyed fayth in the faith of the Church but only the intention of the Church is to declare it to haue byn such from the beginning though not so knowne or declared and therfore men were not bound to belieue it fide explicita by expresse fayth as now they are after the Churches definition and declaration therof And that this is the common sense of all Catholicke Deuines according to my former wordes that the Pope and all the Church togeather cannot make any new Article of beliefe that was not truth before at which assertion of mine M. Barlow maketh much adoe as though it were false is proued among other learned men of our dayes by Gregorius de Valentia whose wordes are that it is Sententia communis Theologorum the common opinion of Deuines for which he citeth in particuler a multitude of Authors principall Schoolemen And his whole discourse founded vpon Scriptures Fathers Councells and other arguments consisteth in this that as whatsoeuer is now belieued by the Church for matter of fayth was in substance belieued before in all other precedent ages vnto Christes time actu fidei implicito by an implyed act of fayth that is to say the belieuing in generall whatsoeuer the Church belieued so many thinges are now belieued by the Church actu fidei explicito by expresse fayth which were not so belieued before for that the Church froÌ„ time to time hath had authority to explaine matters more clearly and expresly which before were belieued by an implied faith only As for example the first Councell of Nice though it determined nothing for the pâ—oceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne as was afterward declared vnto vs by the Church but that it belieued the same yet may we not deny but that it belieued the same not fide expliciâ—a but implicita only And so in like manner the other Articles of faith and explications therof made by the subsequent Councels about the vnity of the Person differeÌ„t Natures in Christ that his Mother should be called the Mother of God were belieued implicitè by those of the Councel of Nyce and consequently were then also Articles of faith though they were not belieued by them explicitè as we are bound to do after the explication made by the Church Let vs conclude therfore with Bishop Fiâ—â—ers owne words against M. Barlow Quod tameâ—si nequeat Sumâ—â—â— Pontisex c. That albeit the Pope with a Councel that is to say the Catholick Church cannot make any thing true or false that is not true or false of it selfe and consequently cannot make any new articles of faith yet whatsoeuer the said Church shal deliuer vnto vs as an Article of faith that al true Christians ought to belieue as an Article of faith which Scotus also himselfe in the same place affirmeth Thus Bishop Fisher whome you see how impertinently M. Barlow alleadgeth against my assertion saith the very same that I do Let vs go forward Thirdly then he obiecteth S. Thomas of Aquine who talking of the different Creeds that are set forth concerning the Articles of our faith some more large and some more briefe demandeth to whome appertayneth noua Editio Symboli the new Edition of a Creed when the necessity of new heresies doth require And he sayth it belongeth to the Pope as Head of the Church And what is this against me Did not S. Athanasius also set forth his Creed though he were not Pope with addition of many Articles for explanations sake which were not expressely in the Apostles Creed though in substaÌ„ce of truth they were nothing different Did not diuers Councells set forth Credes with sundry explanations that were not before All which standeth vpon this ground so much pondered by â— Irenaeus that the Apostles had all truth reuealed vnto them by Christ and they left the same in the Church so as whatsoeuer is or hath or shal be added afterward by the said Church are only explications of that first reueiled truth and the childish babling here of M. Barlow to the coÌ„trary is to no purpose at al for he citeth diuers authors for that which we deny not but yet alwaies commonly with addition of some vntruth of his owne as heere he alleadgeth out of the Iesuit Azor that it belongeth vnto the Pope to define Dogmata fidei Doctrines of faith which we deny not but when he addeth that this belongeth vnto the Pope only and not to a Councel this is his owne inuention for Azor ioyneth them
both togeather the Councel as the body and the Pope as the head and saith that these words of the promise of Christ The holy Ghost shal teach you al truth were not spoken to a Councel or to the Church as separate from her Head but as adhering to her head and ioyned with the same So in like manner he citeth Suarez to affirme That thâ— Pope may define any thing though not expressed in Scripture to be defide without any expresse reuelation from God which though in some part it be true for that the ordinary assistance of the holy Ghost to the Church may giue sufficient direction for the Church so to determine yet are there diuers wilful corruptions here to be discouered in these few words of M. Baâ—low for that first Suarez doth not speake of the Pope alone but of the whole Church to wit of the body togeather with the Head as Azorius did before Secondly he doth not say that any thing may be defined for a point of faith by the Church but speaketh of a special doctrine in some speciall case which case he there setteth downe Thirdly though he required not nouam reuelationem expressam a new expresse reuelation as his words be yet he requireth implicitam and tâ—citam an implyed and sâ—cret reuelation Al which limitations M. Barlow leaueth out of purpose and therin sheweth his fidelity in citing of Authors Next after this he hath this speach But what need opinions saith he when the practice is extant a whole new Symbolum is set ouâ— in the Prouincial Synod at Millan wherin twelue new Articles are added to the Nicen Creed which al Catholicks are bound 〈◊〉 paine oâ— Anathema to professe by word and sweare by oath So he And truly this is a strange point that a Prouincial Councel of Millan reaching no further then within the compasse of that Dyocesse should binde all Catholickes vpoÌ„ paine of Anathema both to professe by word sweare by oath that which was there decreed Doth M. Barlow speake like an intelligâ—nt man But the very last words of swearing by oath do discouer his fraud to wit that no new Symbole or Creed is set downe in that Councel as added to the Nycen but only a large profession of the Catholick faith according to the Decree of Pope Piuâ— Quartus there recorded for al such as take Ecclesiastical promotion in which profâ—ssion after the whole Creed set down Verbatim as it is repeated in the Masse which is not only the Nycen there is added presently Apostolicas Ecclesiasticas tradiciones firmissimè admitto amplector c. I do most firmely admit and imbrace tâ—â— Apostolical and Ecclesiastical traditions as I do also admit and imbrace the holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. running ouer the chiefe heads of such Articles as are now in controuersie betweene vs and Protestants which heads are not heere decreed for Articles of faith by this Councel but proposed only to him that maketh the profession yea the whole Chapter which is large hath this title De fidei profâ—ssione of the profession of the Catholicke faith What new Articles are then here added to the Nycen Creed Is it not a shame to roue so farre from the marke and to falsify the plaine meaning of Authors and writers in this sort But now he returneth againe to speake of the Oath we must follow him for that now we haue bouÌ„d ourselues so to do Thus he sayth of vs They reply that it is not the substance of the Oath that sticketh in their consciencesâ— but the â—orme therof especially those last words I do make this recogniâ—ion willingly and truly otherwise they haue a tricke in their religion to swallow the whole Oath without straining for it is their Doctrine and it is worth the obsâ—râ—ing that iâ— a man be called to sweare if he take the Oath vnwillingly iâ— is vnâ—o him as he had not sworne at al yea grant he haue voluntateÌ„ iurandi be very willing to sweare but hath not voluntatem se obligandi not wil to bind himselfe to performe what he sweares it iâ— no Oath vnto him he is as free as if he were neuer sworne And thus much he reciteth as out of Azorius And do you heare this doctrine or do you belieue that he saith truth therin Certes I could hardly belieue a man to be so wilful in falshood For first where or when can he shew that we stick not at the substance of the Oath but only at â—he forme Are not al those twelue points before mentioned in this Epistle which M. Barlow goeth about to refute which do touch Catholick religion and at which we do principally sticke of the substance of the Oath Can this be denyed with any shew of shamefastnes But let vs see how egregiously he doth abuse the learned writer Azorius in making him the Author of these absurdities about swearing which here he setteth downe as our doctrine if a man sweare vnwillingly saith he it is vnto him according to the Papists Doctrine as if he had not sworne at al. But where can he find that Azorius saith this If we looke into the place by him cyted where he handleth de Iure iâ—rando there is no such matter but only it is said to this point that if a man do sweare hauing no intention to sweare indeed but only to comply and deceaue another though it be no Oath in it selfe yet in respect of the iniury or hurt ensuing it may bind the swearer to performance which is quite contrary to that which M. Barlow here citeth And in another place speaking of an Oath extorted by feare or death as to a thiefe vpon the way or the like which no man will deny to be vnwillingly made he answereth in these words Respondeo ex communi sententia Theologorum Pontifâ—ij â—uris Doctorum valere I do answere out of the common opinion of al Dâ—uines and Doctors of the Common laws that it bindâ—th For which he citeth seauen Doctors for the same And what wil M. Barlow say to this Will he not blush at this vnhonest dealing herein But he passeth further to a second member of our Doctrine in this matter If a man be willing to sweare sayth he 〈◊〉 hath no wil to bind himselâ—e to performe what he suâ—eares it is no Oath vnto him he is as free as if he were neuer sworne But what â—hal a man say to these people that are so forlorne in this point of fals dealing as they care not what they set down so they may satisfy their present appetite of seeming to say somewhat Let any man read the place of Azorius heere quoted but according to my quotation and not his which ordinarily is false and he shal see a good large and learned dispute of Azorius vpon this question VVhether a man promiâ—â—â—g aâ—y thing
fayth This was the summe of my answer and the Cardinalls booke comming out afterwards hath the same in effect in these words Distinguish the tymes you shal agree the Scriptures Iudas belieued and was iust and good in the beginning of his election but afterward he yealded to the tempter and not only did not belieue but became a thief also and betrayed his Lord and lastly hanged himselfe So he And now what do you think that M. Barlow out of his ingeniosity will find to bring for maintenance that this was a true contradiction in Bellarmine Truly he will adventure far to find somewhat though it be to his owne shame and discredit Let vs heare his mad defence ioyningâ—sayth â—sayth he of the Aduerbe verè by Bellarmine that Iudas was truly righteous and certainlie good and yet did not belieue makes it a contradiction incurable And to the end that his fraud may be more notorious he writeth the wordes truly certainly and not belieue in great letters But now if you looke vpon Cardinal Bellarmines words you shall find first that he doth not ioyne the aduerbe vere that is truly righteous nor the others of certainly good at all his words are these Dominiâ—o â—o annis 17. Pater quos dedisti mihi custodiui nemo ex eis periji nisi filius perditionis Si Pater de dit illum Filio certe bonus erat That Iudas was sometimes iust S. Hierome doth proue out of the words of S. Iohn 17. Father I haue kept those that thou hast giuen me and none haue perished but the sonne of perdition If God the Father gaue him to his Sonne truly he was then good Heere then you see that there is no â—ere iustus truly righteous as M. Barlow hath thrust into Bellarmines words And albeit he sayth certe bonus erat yet certe is not referred to bonus as is euident These are then two willfull corruptions But the third is much more eminent that he maketh Bellarmine to say that notwithstanding that Iudas was truly righteous and certainely good yet did he not belieue Wheras Bellarmine sayth he did belieue and so is it set downe in the forme it selfe of the obiected contradiction saying that first he did belieue when he was chosen an Apostle and that then he was iust but afterward he lost his faith and did not belieue And now wil M. Barlow for making vp of some shew of contradiction against Bellarmine make him say that at the one and the selfe same tyme Iudas was truly righteous certaynely good and yet not belieued And to shew that this is an absurd proposition he maketh a long discourse out of Scriptures and Fathers to proue that without fayth a man cannot be truly righteous nor certainely good as though Cardinall Bellarmine had denied the same Is there any shame in these men But after this againe he goeth further in another place demanding whether supposing Iudas to haue belieued at the beginning his fayth were â—ormata or no that is informed by grace working by charity â—lleadâ—ging Aquinas in these words Surely in him that hath such a â—aith Aquinas sayth nihilinest damnationis there is no damnation For being once had it cannot totally and finally be lost nor is it more separable from him then the essentiall forme of any thing frome the subiect which it denominates Thus he And will not euery man that readeth these words thinke that Aquinas doth hould all this doctrine heere auerred that fides formata once had cannot be finally lost M. Barlow hath holpen the matter the best he can to deceaue his Reader in not citing any place of Aquinas where he houldeth this for that he could not do it but they that are acquinted with Aquinas his bookes and doctrine know him expresly to teach the coÌ„trary as the Reader may see if he liâ—t to peruse the places here quoted where he purposly proueth that charitas semel habita potest amiâ—â—i and for that charity is the forme of faith it followeth by necessary consequence that fides formata to wit a iustifying faith may in Aquinas his opinioÌ„ be lost and herof no Catholicke Deuine can doubt So as the impudency was strange in charging Aquinas with this which is the proper heresie of Iohn Caluin but much more that in the very place whence this pretended contradiction about Iudas is taken to wit out of Bellarmines third booke de Iustificatione Bellarmine doth proue by eight examples out of Scriptures the quite contrary to wit that fayth and iustice being once had may be lost againe What will M. Bâ—â—low answere to all this wil not his friends blush for him in this behalfe Or will not euery iudicious Reader make a pause here and say that it is a strange misery of a cause in religion which cannot be defended but with such grosse palpable falshoods Let vs leaue theÌ„ these obiected contradictions and passe to some other things The Cardinal hath answered al the rest him selfe nor did I think it good that wrot besore him to preuent him therin nor yet to â—asse any further hauing proued these first foure to be such as now you haue seene though M. Barlows defence hath made the matter far worse OF THE CONTENTIONS OF SVNDRY OTHER EMPEROVRS KINGS AND PRINCES with Popes of their times in temporall affaires obiected as arguments against the security of acknowledging the Popes Superiority VVHERIN many fraudes and forgeries are discouered in M. Barlow particulerly concerning Fredericke the second and his contentions with Popes CHAP. V. THis argument of the temporall dangers imminent to Princes as is pretended by acknowledging the Popes supreme Authority and of so many hurts and dangers ensuing therof though we haue â—omwhat largely handled before by occasion of the examples obiected of the Emperours Henry the 4. and Henry the 5. yet here are we forced to reâ—teratâ— the same argument againe for that many more examples are obiected concerning the sayd Henry the fourth his doing pennance at the Caâ—tle of Canusium inforced therunto by Pope Gregory the 7. as also of the Emperour Fredericke the 1. forced by Pope Alexander the third to lye a grooâ—e on his belly and to suffer the other to tread on his neck of Philip the Emperour sayd to be slaine by Otho at the Popes motion of the Emperour Fredericke the second excommunicated and depriued by Pope Innocentius the 4. procured afterward to be poisoned that Pope Alexander the third wrote to the Souldan to poison the Emperour sent him his picture to that effect that Pope Alexander the sixt caused the brother of Baiazetes the Turkish Emperour named Gemen to be poisoned at his brothers request and had two hundred thousand crowns for the same That our King Henry the second besides his going barefoote on pilgrimage was whipped vp and downe the Chapterhouse like a schoole boy and glad to â—scape so too That the Father of the moderne King of France was
testimony of all the Fathers succeed the Apostles as himselfe conâ—esseth proueth and approueth in this place So he And what shall we say now to this Was there euer the like dealing or maÌ„ner of answering to out-face a man against his owne words proofs and protestations Doth Bellarmine confesse proue and approue in this place that Bishops do succeed the Apostles in their superiority of iurisdiction receaued immediately froÌ„ Christ which he hath impugned before by so many strong arguments In what law of modesty doth this lye to affirme such things But see I pray you how coÌ„tradictory he is to himselfe euen in these few lynes For if Bellarmine were driuen to coyne this distinâ—tion that Bishops did succeed the Apostles in dignity of Order not in power of iurisdiction then cannot he be sayd to confesse proue and approue that they do succeed in superiority of iurisdiction as here M. Barlow affirmeth him to auouch And can there be any thing more contradictory then this And is not passion a great infirmity that driueth a man to these absurdities I will let passe that childish though malicious scorne which he vseth against Cardinall Bellarmine in comparing him with D. VVhitaker whose name sayth heâ— though dead like Zisca his drume is a terrour to Bellarmine alluding vnto that famous roguing Rebell of Bohemia Zisca who enraged with the drunkennes of Iohn Husse his new heresie vpoÌ„ the point of some two hundreth yeares agoe tooke armes against his lawfull Soueraigne made an army of the common people that were put into madnes with the same heresy tooke Castels spoyled Townes buâ—ned Villages Monasteries murthered inâ—inite people especially oâ— the Clergy and finally died so miserably blind both in body and soule that as hauing not any one eye corporall left him so seemeth he though M. Iohn Fox do set him dâ—wne for a Saint and Confessour of his Church in his Eccâ—â—siasticall Kalender vpon the fifth day of February to haue had no leaâ—t part of any spirituall eye in his souâ—e for that men comming to him as he lay on his death-bed to know how he would be buried what sort of obsequies he would haue he answered most prophanely that they should caâ—t him out where they would that â—oules might deuoure his flesh but that first they should take of his skinne and make a drum therof assuring them that his enemies the Papiâ—â—s would fly vpon the only noise of the same This is the witty and modest comparison that M. Barlow thought good to vse betwene Cardinall Bellarmin and D. VVhitaker and of the terrour that M. VVhitakers name being now dead doth strike into Bellarmine as oâ—ten as he heareth it no lesse then the drum of Zisca But how like soeuer M. VVhitaker might be to Zisca for his sect and religion scarce setled peraduenture in any I will not dispute but for the terror of his drum to Bellarmine it is ridiculous to them that haue read or do read both their works And surely what miracles M. VVhitakers memory or skin may worke now after his death especially if it should be made into a drum as that of Zisca was I cannot tell but sure I am his tongue and pen wrought few miracles whilest he was aliue And that is euident both by his owne writings and of others against him as well in English as that of M. D. Stapleton M. Gregory Martyn and M. VVilliam Reynolds as also in latin of the said D. Stapleton in two bookes Duraeus and Gretzâ—rus haue euidently dâ—clared And to repeat only a note or two giuen by the said M. Reynolds whome all men know to haue byn a very modest man and for many yeares to haue byn a great Protestant his censure was very meane of M. Doctor VVhitakers learning as may appeare by his booke against him ascribing vnto him very shallow knowledg and inâ—olerable arrogancy in condemning all Doctors and Fathers as appeareth both in his Preface p. 44. 45. and in the ensuing book pag. 495. 496. And againe he sheweth pag. 109. that he vnderstandeth not the Protestant doctrine of only Faith which he taketh vpon him to defend Moreouer he sheweth pag. 23. 25. 114. 115. 123. 126. 319. how he contradicteth himselfe most maniâ—estly and that this is his custome which is no signe of exquisite learning as all men know And finally to enter into no more particularities I will cite only halfe a score of lines if they be so many of M. Reynolds words concerning M. VVhitakers ignorance discouâ—red in one only Paragraph In this Paragraph sayth M. Reynolds you commit as many errors as lightly you may For first you vnderstand not M. Martyn whome you go about to confute Secondly you vnderstand not S. Paul alleadged by him Thirdly you vnderstand not S. Paul alledged by your selfe Fourthly you vnderstand not the state of the question of which you talke And lastly you vnderstand not your selfe and the doctrine of your fellowes Thus he And presently proueth all these ignorances one by one in such sort as I see not how any of them may iustly be denyed And yet forsooth this is the man whose skin and drum M. Barlow will haue to be a terror to Bellarmine Let vs put this to his other follies and so an end But if this do not suffice let M. Barlow if his leasure serue him reade the two books of M.D. Stapleton against M. VVhitaker and he shall soone see the mans weight and worth and what drum might be made of his skin or rather what scar-crowes to feare fooles for learned men he can neuer feare that was himselfe so ignorant and so euer esteemed amongst them in his life-time wherto we may add this for an argument that his large latin Duplication against the said Doctor was held by all to be such poore stuffe as it lay on the printer Legats hands for want of sale in so much that he was forced to make sute to M. Chatterton your predecessor M. Barlow in the Sea of Lincolne in respect of the great multitude of Ministers in that diocesse that he would cause theÌ„ to buy the copies therby to ease his charge who otherwise was like to be much â—aÌ„nified if not vndon by the printing of such a worthlesse worke which of all the works of Bellarmine and Stapleton you shall neuer heare of to haue happened though they haue byn printed and reprinted diuers times There followeth the fourth Contradiction obiected to Cardinall Bellarmine about Iudas where he is accused to â—ay in one place of his works to wit lib. 1 de Pontifice cap. 12. That Iudas belieued not and yet in another place lib. 3. de Iust ficatione c. 14â— he sayth that Iudas was iust certainly good which I say was no contradiction at all if we respect the two seueral tymes wherof Card. Bellarmine did speake prouing out of S. Iohns Ghospell that Iudas in the beginning was good and did belieue but afterward he became euill and lost his