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
alone hath done both the one and other in this example God send him grace to see repent amend his errour And so much for Fredericke the second I will now end this matter with this aduertisement to the Reader that whereas M. Barlow others of his profession vse to serue themselues much out of the writinges of Matthew Paris Cuspinian Peter de Vineiâ— the truth is that no one of them deserueth so much credit as our Aduersaries would faine force vpon them For the first hath many fables contradictions railinges and dogmaticall assertions which little beseeme a religious spirit or true Catholike which at least he was knowen to be and therfore as well this Matthew as the other being set out by Heretikes and printed at London by order as I haue bene informed from the SuperintendeÌ„t of Canterbury that then was and no other ancient copie being extant that I can heare of that might be conferred with this in print it is very likely that many thinges which are now vrged against vs are not the wordes of Matthew Paris the Monke but of Matthew Parker of Canterbury and he who shal but reade Harpsfields History examine the places which he bringeth or things which on their authority he auoucheth shall soone see that his Matthewes spake otherwayes then these who in many thinges are made to write like good Protestants although hitherto nothing hath bene alleadged out of them by M. Barlow in this matter which I haue not fully answered Iohn Cuspinian as he is a late writer so is he of little credit especially for his bookes of History of the Emperours which himselfe neuer set forth but as Gerbelius writeth morte praeuentus inemendatos ob scriptoris inscitiam soedissimis erâ—oribus deprauatos reliquit being preuented by death he left his bookes of history vncorrected and through ignorance of the writer corrupted with most filthy errors So he By profession Cuspinian was a Phisitian knew perhaps how to frame his potions according to the complexion of the receauers and therfore this Frederick being desceÌ„ded as some thinke or at least by marirage neerly allied to the House of Austria he thought by making the most of him to gratify both Maximilian his maister and yong Charles the fifth of the same family yet seeing he neuer set forth this booke but left it imperfect vncorrected full of errors c. that afterwards it was first published by Nicolas Gerbelius a ProtestaÌ„t-brother of Strasburge as may be presumed who printed it in the yeare 1540. we may well thinke that it was sauced by the setter forth according to the new Ghospell and good appetite of them of his owne profession And as for Petrus de Vineis besides the iust exception of partialitie which I tooke against him in my Letter and that which I haue already answered vnto M. Barlowes Reply therunto I shall not need to adioyne any more Wherfore I will only content my self with two censures which I find in two Authors of him to wit in S. Antoninus an Italian and Tritemius a German The first noteth him in these words Iusto Dei iudicio factum videtur c. The death of Petrus de Vineis seemeth to haue byn procured by the iust iudgment of God that because he had done many things to please the Emperour against the Church in fauour and excuse of him by him he was condemned for whome he had offended both God and the Church So he And Tritemius thus writeth of him Petrus de Vineis c. Peter de Vineis by nation a German Secretary Counsellour of the Emperour Fredericke the second was a learned and eloquent man but in this very faulty that adhering to Frederick he did in fauour of him barke like a foole stolidus latrauit against the Roman Church by whome he was worthily rewarded for hauing in some things offended him he had his eyes pulled out c. So he And in his Catalogue of Worthy men to the like câ—nsure he addeth this clause Hoc praemium eorum c. This is the reward of theÌ„ who do serue the humors of Princes against the obedience of the Roman Sea and Vicar of Christ and like wretches fall headlong into hell except they repent c. Which aduertisment being giuen by so graue an Author before these controuersies were raised by Luther I wish M. Barlow and all other in authority and credit with Princes as Petrus de Vineis was seriously to ponder OF THE EMPEROVR Fredericke the first whose picture was said to haue bene sent to the Soldan by Pope Alexander the third And of the charge of Alexander the sixt touching the death of Zizimus or Gemen M. Barlows innocent Turke §. III. METHOD and rules of learning require that euery thing be put downe in his due place and order and therfore me thinks that Fredericke the first should by all reason haue bene mentioned before the second Fredericke his successour especially seeing that there is another obiection made a litle before out of this very Emperour and Pope wherunto this might well haue bene annexed had it not bene that the margent of the Apology was to be filled with citations and the text with variety of examples to make Popes more odious But the transposition weâ—e pardonable if the thing auouched were true and the Reader not abused by these forged calumniations who through the heat and heape of many words is made to conceaue that M. Barlow sayth much to the purpose and with great sincerity wheras all he hath is nothing else but vaine Thrasonicall ostentation impudent lying that which alwaies accoÌ„panieth the loose liberty of a licentious tongue exorbitant rayling against all sorts and degrees of men whatsoeuer And this as it hath bene euery where already shewed so shall it be more in this and the other ensuing Chapters though with much more breuity then the former least both this Chapter and the whole booke be drawne forth to greater prolixity and length then I haue purposed with myselfe that it should be which only reason hath made me in other places to leaue more aduantages then I might haue taken against M. Barlow albeit I haue taken more then I thinke will stand with his credit or honesty if yet he haue any part or parcell of the one or the other left him But let vs heare him speake if he can without lying which here I assure you he will not but begin with a round one at the very first entrance For thus he sayth Another instance saith he obiected â—y his Maiesty which pincheth their holy Father to the quicke is of that Pope who when Emperour Fredericke was in the Holy-Land â—ighting in Christs quarrell â—earing that his returne would be some annoyance to the Romish Sea betraied him to the Soldan to whome he directs his priuate letters and with them also sent the Emperours picture in case the Soldan should mistake his
the consequeÌ„ce of this argument Wherunto I answere that I alleadged diuers reasons why our Catholick Priests dyed for religion not for treason First for that no such treason could be proued against them in the sense and iudgement of any indifferent man that was present at their arraignments to wit of the one hundred and thirty that before I mentioned Secondly for that the publike Registers themselues and Histories as Iohn Stâ—w and others in their Chronicles doâ— obiect no other treason to the most of them but only being Priests their taking of holy Orders beyond the seas which in no sense can be treason no more then the confessing of the blessed Trinitie can be made treason by the Trinitarians in Transiluania Thirdly for that they themselues dying did protest vpon their consciences as they should be saued they neuer meant treason in thought word or deed against Queene Elizabeth And then â—ourthly for confirmation of this I alleaged this other reason so much scorned by M. Barlow they hauing life offered them if they would renounce the Pope conforme themselues to the State they refused the same which he saith is a false and faulty inference and I say it is very good and true and that if M. Barlow had any moderate skill of the case according to the rules â—yther of Philosophy or Diuinity he would be ashamed to say as he doth in Philosophy it being a common axiome that omnis actus specificatur ab obiecto fiâ—e euery action is specified that is to say taketh his nature and essence from his obiect and end As if a man should kill one to gayne his goods this act hath both the nature of man-slaughter theft the first from the obiect the second from the end or intention of the doer which Philosophicall principle being applyed to our case doth euidently proue that the choice of death in him that hath life offered vpon conditioÌ„ he will doe some act against his faith as going to the Protestants Church is esteemed by Catholickes though otherwise he were nâ—uer so great a delinquent before is an act of Martyrdome for that it hath both the obiect and the end therof the obiect to wit death the end which is the profession of his faith And so if we passe to consider the same by Theologyâ— which more properly treateth of this vertue of Martyrdome the controuersy will be made much more cleare for that the word Martyrdome being a Greeke wordâ— and signifying a Testimony or bearing of witnesse as the word Martyr signifyeth him that yealdeth testimony or beâ—reth witnesse euery testmony or bearing of witnesse is not meant by the word Martyrdome but only such a testimony as is giuen by dying for God in the defeÌ„ce of some truth belonging to our faith either expressely impugned or implyed in the impugnation of some other vertue that containeth the sayd truth of our faith therin which last clause is added for that a man may be a true Martyr though he dye not for any expresse article of faith or part therof but it is sufficient that he dy for the defence of any one vertue as Chastity Obedience Iustice and the like according to the saying of our Sauiour Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam Blessed are they that suffer persecutioÌ„ for righteousnes And S. Iohn Baptist is acknowledged by all Deuines for a true Martyr although he died for no article of faith but for reprehending the incestuous marriage of King Herod with more libertie of speach and spirit then any such Prince-flatterer base mind as M. Barlow would euer haue done in the like case if we may ghesse at his vertue by his writing But to apply the former ground and vncontrollable principle to our present purpose in hand whether these Priests died for refuâ—ing the Oath of the Feminine Supremacy or for that they were made Priests beyoÌ„d the seas or â—or that they refused to come to your heretical seruiceâ— certaine it is according to the rules of Catholicke Diuinity that they died for deâ—ence of their faith or maintenance of vertue which is sufficieÌ„t to iustify their Martyrdomes hauing so great warrant and store of all manner of witnesses â—or the truth and doctrine they suffered for as might well in conscience assure them of the righteousnesse of their cause and that they died for that Religion in which all the Princes and people of Christendome for so many yeares ages both liued and died And wheras M. Barlow impugneth this by two cases or examples they are but so many arguments of his owne ignorance Let vs speake a word or two of them both The first is of Absolom putting the case that he was an Idolator as well as a traitor and that King Dauid after sentence passed against him â—or his treasons would acquite him froÌ„ death conditionally that he should renounce his Idolatry and that vpon reâ—usall he should be executed Shall we say sayth M. Barlow that he died â—or Religion or for treason We will say good M. Barlow that he died rather for false religion that is to say Idolatry then for treason and was the Diuels Martyr and none I thinke can deny the same vnles he be as ignorant as your selfe as shall further appeare by the answere to the next example which in effect is all one with this to wit that a yonger sonne should aspire his fathers death with hope to haue his riches and that being condemned his father should offer to saue him if he would go to Church and leaue his euil life of following queaneâ— c. Shall â—e say quoth M. Barlow that he is executed for his whore-domes or for this parâ—icide against his father But here I would aske M. Barlow why he leaueth out going to Church which was the first part of the condition and nameth only whore-domes no doubt but the honest man would haue the staying from the Church in Catholicks and whore-domes seeme to be companions But now I answere to his question that if he meane by refusing to go to Church such as is practised by Catholikes for Conscience sake and not to deny thereby the truth of the Catholicke faith which forbiddeth to go to hereticall Churches then dyeth he for the truth of his faith and consequently he is a Martyr But if he choose to dye for loue of wicked life and whoredome it is no cause of Martyrdome and consequently he is the Diuells Martyr as we said before of the Idolator But as for Parâ—icide cleere it is that he cannot be sayd to haue died for it properly as the immediate cause of his death for that it was remitted vnâ—o him and their passed another election on his mind to wit that he would leaue his old life so as â—or this he died propriè proximè properly and immediately and for the parricide only remotè occasiâ—naliter a far of and as from that which gaue the first occasion of his death What
he endeth thus Sed omnino peâ—longum fuerit Viri percensere miracula qui c. But it should be ouerlong to recyte all his myracles who for the excellency of gyftes bestowed vpon him in that kind wrought by the holy Ghost in all power signes and myracles he is called a second Moyses euen by the very enemies of truth themselues c. Heere then you see what ground iust cause M. Barlow had to scoffe at these myracles as he doth with like ground and spirit at the myracles of the new mynt as he calleth them of the Lady of Hales of the conformities of S. Francis the life of â—â—â—â—rius of M. Garnets countenance in a straw with all which he maketh himselfe sport vpon no other ground then lust of speaking euill And vpon the same might any Infidell or Atheist scoffe at the myracles recorded in the old and new Testament which to humane sense and reason are as impossible as these here alleaged and scorned at by this Minister as the multiplying of loaues walking on the sea a hatchet to rise from the bottome of the water and ioyne it selfe to a handle with the like which in another place I haue handled more at large against M. Sutcliffe and Syr Francis Hastings Next after this he bringeth in other figgs and commeth to scoffe at diuers Indulgences that do pardon sayth he enormous sinnes for innumerable yeares vpon sweet conditions as for kissing two Iron crosses at Saint Peters Church dore 500. yeares of pardon for looking vpon one of the Pence that our Sauiour was sould for 1400. yeares of pardon for behoulding the Crosse vpon the top of S. Iohn Laterans steeple 14000. yeares of pardon and other like â—oyes of his owne inuention which those that liue at Rome are neuer acquaynted with and himself cyteth noe other profe but only noteth in the margent Indulg Rom. liber but where that booke is to be had whether printed or written where it was set forth or with what authority he telleth nothing at all In these partes I am sure it is not to be had or heard of What these good fellowes to make themselues merry and deceaue other men may haue deuised to themselues in England or els where I know not but I suspect the rather for that I do vnderstand that the Hugonots of France deuised a booke not long agoe whose title was Catechismus Iesuitarum set it forth as in their name full fraught with all manner of errors and ignorances which being brought to Rochell by them that had deuised it they could not get it there printed the argument was so absurd and the fraud so manifest and yet now do I see it often alleaged by ProtestaÌ„t writers against them and namely by Thomas Rogers in his late edition of 39. Protestant Articles so as one way or other these people will euer make themselues matter for exclayming against vs be it true or false or neuer so maliciously inuented or peruerted And here I would aske M. Barlow in good earnest whether he do thinke indeed these particulers to be true which here so confidently he hath set downe about the yeares of pardon which he numbreth For that I cannot easily perswade my selfe that in truth of conscience if he haue any he can be of that iudgment and mucâ— lesse in the other clause of slander which immediatly foloweth to wit that Pope Sixtus Quartuâ— graunted forty thousand yeares of pardon to him that would say a praier of his making consisting of about fourty fiue wordes but he bringeth no other proof at all for thesame but his owne bare word And the reason by himselfe alleadged why it was granted conuinceth â—he same of a manifest lye fictioÌ„ which reason is â—or because his Catholicks qâ—â—â—h he might not complaine that the Protestants satisfaction was easier then theirs yet was there noe name of Protestant knowne in the world in Pope Sixtus Quartus tyme nor a good while after for that there passed foure Popes betwene him and Leo decimus vnder whome Luther began vnder him the name of Protestants soe as Sixtus Quartus could not haue that consideration of ProtestaÌ„ts in his Indulgence which M. Barlow hath deuised And would any learned man fal into such absurdyties and so shew his ignorance both in things times Againe in his very first entrance to this Calumniation he vttereth two or three grosse vntruthes which are inexcusable when he affirmeth that Popes doe pardon enormous sinnes for innumerable yeares vpon sweet conditioÌ„s For first they pardon no sinnes at all by Indulgences and much lesse enormous sinnes for that Indulgences of the Church in Catholike doctrine as euery man knoweth that hath the least degree of learning therin doe reach only to the remission of temporall punishments due after the guilt of sinne remitted and not of sinne it selfe which câ—nnot be remitted but by the Sacrament of Pennance or vertue therof And it is strange that one profesâ—ing learning as M. Barlow would faine â—eeme to do would eyther erre â—oe grosly or wilfully as here it cannot be denied that he doth But if he be desirous to know better our doctrin herein he may read Cardinall Bellarmine Gregory of Valentia and Francis Suarez in their learned bookes of this argument by them if he vnderstand them he may learne to see his own error acknowledg it also if he haue so much grace Now then seeing that all which hath bene sayd by M. Barlâ—w of Indulgences hath bene only spoken eyther vpon heresy and false relation or of error ignorance or malicious fiction the iudicious Reader may consider how vnworthy an argument this was for M. Barlâ— his little Vniuersity to treat by scoffs before his Maiesty at his repâ—st much more to the purpose had it bene to haue treated substantially and grauely out of the holy Scriptures and Fathers the principall question about this affaire to wit what ample authority Christian Priesthood hath to remit siâ—â—â— in this world wherof S. Chrysostomes bookes de Sacerdotis prouing that Christs Tribunalâ— in heauen hath submitted it selfe in a certaine sort vnâ—o the Priests tribunall vpon earth would haue yealded them ample and graue matter as also many other ancient Fathers Treatises and discourses to the same purpose The other question also that followeth after this whether after the guilt of synne forgiuen there remayneth some temporall punishment to be satisfied eyther in this life or in the next eyther by satisfactory workes here or by fyre there had bene a matter of moment to be discussed and well pondered for that it belongeth to all and â—one can auoid their part therin And to this purpose they might haue considered of diuers Trâ—atises as of Origen Saint Augustine and other Fathers that handle the question at large This then had benâ— to some purpose to be treated before his Maiesty but those other trifling â—oyeâ— here mentioned by M. Barlow of looking vpon the top of a
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
who liued soone aâ—ter but also of Blondus do make euident who sayth Suanisâ—â—mus erat in Gallys famae odor grauitatis sanctiâ—atis ac rerum gesâ—arum eius Pontificis chaâ—is there was a most sweet odour in France of the grauity sanctity and actes of this Pope Innocâ—nâ—ius And this seemeth to be confirmed by the singular reuerence and dutiful respect which S. Lewis of France did yield him at the Councell of Lions as writeth Paulus Aâ—milius in his history And Ioannetus in the liâ—e of this Pope sayth that the Emperour was nothing glad for his election Norat enim virtutem viri atque animi magnitudinem for he knew well his vertue and great courage The same also is auouched by Ciaconius who with Onuphrius Panuinus a famous historiographer of our daies giues him this â—â—ncomiumâ— Multis egregys factis clarissimus ob vendicatam assertamque libertatem Ecclesiasticam omnibus saculis laudatissimus most famous for his worthy deedes and for recouering the Ecclesiasticall liberty of the Church to all posterity most renowned And therefore his life being so commendable no meruaile though his death were be wailed of all good men â—s testifieth Hicronymus Rubeus in his history of Rauenna saying Innocentius vitam cum morte commutauit quidem ingenti â—onorum omnium dolore Vir enim suerat magnitudine animi virâ—tute praestaÌ„tissimus Iâ—mocentius departed this life and truly with the great griefe of all good men for he was a man both for courage and vertue most excellent But this is more fully expressed by Vbertus Folieta in these words Hic annus non modò Genuensibus sed omni Christiano orbe atque omnibus bonis luctuosus suit morte Innocentij 4. in Vrbe Neapolâ— c. This yeare was dolefull not only to the people of Genua but also to all the Christian world and all good men by the death of Innocentius the 4. in the Citty of Naples who in the eleauenth yeare of his Popedome ended the course of his most renowned gouerment with this noble act of adding the Kingdome of Naples to the State of the Church This man was made memorable famous to all posterity as well for his exquisite learning wherof he left notable monuments as also for his excellent piety his noble deserts towardes the Weale publicke of Christendome and continuall and infatigable labours whose knowne vertue was so admired and beleiued of all men that bewayling his losse they did commonly say talem Virum aut numquam nasci aut numquam mori oportuisse that so worthy a man either should neuer haue bene borne or neuer haue died So he And that this their mourning was not for the present only at his descease Ciaconius testifieth saying Clerus populus eum dudum luxerunt c. The Cleargie and the people mourned for him a long tyme as appeareth in the History of Genua written by Augustinus Iustinianus Bishop of Nebia as also in Ricardonus a Florentine writer So he VVho also yealdeth the cause herof in thâ—se words Relicta apud omnes fama non modò excellenâ—is scientiae exquisitae virtutis sed ettam integritatis vitae admirabilisque prudentiae For that he left behind him the fame not only of excellent learning and exquisite vertue but also of integrity of life and admirable wisdome Which rare encomium of good life long lamentation after his death may be much doubted whether it wil euer be left registred by any Historiographer of M. Barlow vnles he make some great chang of himself from that which at the present he is sayd to be And this may suffice for Innocentius wherby good Reader thou maiest see and iudge with what truth spirit M. Barlow wrote of this Pope that he was forced to defend himselfe for that his actes were discried and could be no longer â—id Now then let vs see what opinion writers haue of Fredericke whom M. Barlow so much coÌ„mendeth defendeth against all Popes and writers Although it be an odious and loath some thing to rake vp the ashes of dead men and to rip vp their vices which shouldly buried with them in silence for which cause I shal be the shorter in their rehearsal yet inforced hereuÌ„to euen against my inclination by M. Barlows importunity or rather impudency who to commend this Emperour blusheth not to condemne so worthy a man as you haue now heard Innocentius to haue bene But I shall deale more vprightly therin then he hath done with the Pope for that I will charge the Emperour no further then with that which I find him in all Historiographers or publicke recordes to be charged withall one only schismaticall Vrspergensis being excepted who in this as I haue shewed deâ—erueth no credit And to beginne with them who seeme to fauour and defend him most I meene Matthew Paris and Cuspinian the former hauing set downe an Epistle of Fredericks to King Henry the third of England written after his excommunication and deposition in the generall Councell of Lions giueth his censure therof in these wordes Haec cùm ad Christianissimos Francorum Anglorum Reges nuntiata peruenissent c. When these things came to the knowledge of the most Christian Kings of France and England it appeared more cleare then the sunne to them and their Nobility that Frederiâ—ke with all his endeauours went about to anihilate the liberty and dignity of the Church which he himselfe neuer aduanced but was established without his liking by his noble predecessors and therfore making himselfe suspected of heresy did impudently and imprudently extinguish worthily blot out that little sparke of good name which hitherto he had amongst the people for wisdome and prudence c. And with Matthew Paris agreeth Matthew of VVestminster saying that by this letter Se volens excusare impudenter accusauit going â— out to excuse the matter he did impudently accuse himselfe And as for Cuspinianâ— although by all meanes he seeketh to excuse and iustiâ—y this Emperour yet were his vices so notorious as he could not conceale them altogeather but hauing set downe those things which he thought commendable in him as there are none so bad commonly but that some good thing or other may be noted in them he concludeth his prayses thus Has praeclaras virtutes contaminaâ—unt obscurarunt etiam quadam vitia saeâ—itia scilicet hominis libido immensa qui praeter gentis morem concubinas multas scorta aluit These noble vertues certaine vices did staine and obscure â— to wit the cruelty of the man and his vnsatiable lust who against the custome of his Countrey did maintaine many Concubines and queanes And this as already hath beene noted he speaketh of himsese without any reference to Petrus de Vineis as M. Barlow would haue vs belieue neither want there store of Authors who tax him for the same And for the first Palmerius saith he was non essrenis