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
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
proceed from grace haue not the promise to God made vnto theÌ„ What then doth this make against me Nay harken I pray you what ensueth he bringeth the wordes of Bellarmine against me saying that if good workes should be considerâ—d in their owne nature without respect both of the promise made â—nto them and also of the dignity of Gods spirit the originall worker of them they could carry no merit which doctrine I willingly acknowledge as fully making with me and condemning M. Barlow of false dealing that he left out wilfully in my words before recited the clause of the promise of God made vnto them and so in this he fighteth against himselfe and discouereth his owne vntrue dealing But hath he any more to say thinke you against the first question or doth he answere one word to the plaine testimony of Scriptures alleadged out of Toby Iob and S. Paul for proofe therof all cyted by me No not so much as one word and much lesse to those other that stand in Bellarmines booke which are more in number as neyther to the ancient Fathers S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Augustine euidently confirming the same that good and meritorious workes do of themselues comfort the conscience of the doer by increasing hope and confidence in him in respect of the promised reward yea albeit he do not of himselfe place any confidence in them but respecteth onely and relyeth vpon God almightyes grace mercy for that so it may often fall out and it is to be noted and borne in mind that a man may haue confidence by good works and yet place no confidence in good works for that a vertuous life enriched with many meritorious actions may of it self giue a man much confidence for the life to come though he for his part do not place any confidence therin but only in Gods mercy so as now we see the first propositioÌ„ of Cardinall Bellarmine to be true that the confidence of holy mâ—n which they place in God doth not only spring out of â—ayth but also out of good meriâ—s and therefore that â—uery man must labour wiâ—h all study to procure good meriâ—s to the end that they may haue confidence with God which is the very same in substance that I set downe in my letter though somewhat by me abridged and accommodated to the capacity of the vulgar reader There followeth the second question proposed by me in these words VVhether this being so a man may place any confidence wittingly in his own merits or vertuous life and it is answered that he may so he aâ—oyd pride c. which containeth the very same in effect that dâ—th Cardinall Bellarmines second propositioÌ„ that some confidence may be placed in good meâ—its which are known to be such so as pride be auoyded vnto which second proposition M. Barlow not being able to say any thing agâ—inst the truth therof confirmed by many testimonies exaÌ„ples both out of the old new Testament and writings of holy Fathers that did both teach and practice the coÌ„fidence of a good conscience he runneth to seeke Cauills both against me and Cardinall Bellarmine and for me he hath deuised one of the most childish that euer perhaps you heard and such a one that doth euideÌ„tly declare the malice of his mind and misery of his cause that driueth him to such shifts for that neuer man of grauity or sincerity would vse the like knowing that it must needs be discouered by the first inspection of the booke by his aduersary thus then it is Where I do frame the second question thus VVhether a â—an may place any confidence in his owne merits and do answer yea he leaueth out of purpose the question it self and putteth downe the solution only without question aâ—â—iâ—ming me to say as it were by way of propositioÌ„ A man mâ—â— place any confidence in his owne merits and writeth the word ANY in great letters to make it more markable as though I haâ— said a man may place any confidence wâ—atsoeuer that is to say al confideÌ„ce in his own merits wheras if he had set down the queâ—tioÌ„ simply as I did whether a maÌ„ may place any coÌ„fidence in his merits answered only yea as I did without adding any further it would haue appeared plainly that the word any did signify as much as some conâ—idence answering to Bellarm. words aliqua fiducia wheras omitting the question putting down againe the word any he changeth the significatioÌ„ therof maketh it to signify as much as all or any whatsoeuer as though I had said a man may put all confidence or what confidence soeuer in our merits therby disagree froÌ„ Bellarmine whose wordâ— are as hath bene sayd aliqua fiducia in bonis meritis collocari potest some confidence may be placed in good merits this shifting fraud is so palpable as it may be discouered by infinite examples If one should aske another whether he had any bread in his house as Elias for example did aske the poore widdow of Sarepta euery man of sense seeth that the meaning is whether he haue any bread at all of any sort soeuer and not whether he haue all kind of bread so if the other do answer yea without adding further it is to be vnderstood that he answereth according to the meaning of the demaunder that he hath some bread in his house but if he should answer as M. Barlow maketh me to answer yea I haue any bread it would import that he had all sorts of bread And the like is if a man should aske M. Barlow whether he haue any vertue the meaning is whether he haue any at all and soe euery man I thinke will vnderstand it and himselfe also I belieue would take it and thinke himself iniured thereby if any man should answere no but if he should repeate againe the same word any in the aâ—swere saying yâ—a he hath any vertue heere the word ◠〈◊〉 changeth the foâ—mer signification and importâ—th as much as that he hath all vertueâ— which I suppose himself would be ashamed to answer in his owne cause as a thing contrary aswâ—ll to his owne conscience as to other mens knowledge And the lâ—ke iâ—â— if a man should demaund him whâ—â—heâ— hâ— hatâ— any sâ—â—ll in the Mathematickes he might anâ—â—â—â—e peâ—hâ—pps yâ—a if he added no â—urther vndersâ—â—nding therâ—by that hâ— hath some skill but if he should aâ—swere aâ— he maketh me to do yea I haue any skill it may sâ—â—ue to make paâ—time to his demaunder and yet vpon thâ—â— fâ—olâ—sh â—â—â—ging dâ—uise of the different taking of tâ—e word aâ—y he makâ—tâ— great a doe and foundeth mâ—ny â—râ—â—â—â—ntations writing it still with great letters aâ— presâ—nâ—ly you shall see seeking thereby to proue that Cardinal Bâ—llarmine I are at debate he saying that some conâ—â—dence may â—e placed in merits I saying that any confidence may be placed which is al he hath
againâ—t me about the â—econd question Now let vs see what he hath againâ—t Cardinall Bellarmine â—wo thinges he pretendeth to wit that his second and third propositions are contrary the one to the other iâ— two pointes for that the second proposition doth â—llow some kind of confidence to be put in mans merits the third doth exclude all and sayeth it must be in the only mercy of God But this is a very ridiculous contradiction to be obiected to so learned a man as Bellarmin is For that both thâ—se are true and may stand togeather as 〈◊〉 sâ—tteth them downe for that it is both true thâ—t a mâ—n may place some confidence is his merits as Cardinal Bâ—â—â—â—â—minâ— proueth both by Scriptures and Fathers before mentioned and it is true also which he sayeth in his third pâ—oposition that this notwithstanding tuâ—â—ss mâ—m â—st it is moâ—â— safe for a man though he haue good mâ—rits yet not to respect them but to place all his confidence in the only mercy oâ— God And what contradiction is there heere A man may place some conâ—idence but the sureâ—t way is to place none Cannot these two stand togeather Let vs examine some places of Scriptures If a man or woman had come to S. Paul to aske his opinion whether he or she should marry or no he would haue said as he wrote You may marry you shall not siâ—ne by marrying but the safest way is not to marry the one is lawfull the other more perfect should this â—peach of S. Paul be contrary to it self I trow no. Now tâ—en let vs see whether Cardinall Bellarmines speach be a like he is demaunded whether it be good for a man to put any confidence in his merits or noe he answereth that iâ— he find that he hath good merits he may put some hope therein so it be done without pride but yet the safâ—st way were not to respect or thinke vpon his owne merits but only to put his whole confidence in the only mercy of Almighty God Is here now any contradiction He sayth in the one that he may put some confidence in the other the saâ—est way is to put none this is but a counsaile what were best to be done and most safe the other a declaration what in rigour may be done no man I thinke of common sense will say that here is any contradiction and yet doth M. Barlow vrge it againe and againe insisting vpon the words whole conâ—idence and alâ—ne mercy of God vsed in the third proposition which carrieth with it sayth he a double contradiction both subiecti obiecti the subiect tota â—iducia all mans confidence tota the whole whether greater or lesse whether weake or strong whether one or the other is wholy to be cast vpon Gods mercy euen as our Sauiour commaundeth vs to loue God with our whole soule hart and strength includes therein all the facultyes of the soule and body parts inward and outward inward of vnderstanding will affection outward all the members of our body to be made S. Paules whole burnt sacrifice c. And so runneth forth amplifying vpon the words whole and â— allâ— and then also vpon the obiect saying that the obiect affoards a strong coÌ„tradictionâ— sola misericordia only mercy or mercy alone which admits no participation with another and â—uch more like â—â—usle as if he were in his Pulpit deluding the people there by vaine repetition and exaggâ—â—ation oâ—â—â—â—â—e words which yet import no moâ—e â—ut that Carâ—inall Bellaâ—miâ—e his counsayle is though not as a pâ—ecept of necâ—ssity that albeit a man haue â—â—uer so many good workes and may iuâ—â—ly therby inâ—râ—aâ—â— his hope and conâ—idence in God by looking vpoâ— tâ—â—m as his giâ—â—â—â— yet to be â—ure for that a man may be deceiâ—ed in eâ—timatioÌ„ oâ— his owne merits the best way is noâ— to respeâ—t them but only to place his whole hope in the sole mercy of Almighty God And this by way of counsaile and not of precept as you haue heard though M. Barlow doth egregiously also abase him yâ—a very perâ—idiously vrging againâ—t him that in his third proposition he sayth VVe must place all our whole conâ—â—dence in tâ—e sole mâ—rcy of God and thâ—n indeed it were contâ—aâ—â—câ—oâ—y to tâ—at which he sayth in the second that a man may placâ— some confidâ—ncâ— in his merits but the Cardinall saith not that we must but that it is the safâ—st way And the like perfidiousnes doth he vse in peruerting and vrging the words of his second proposition as though he did â—ay some conâ—idence must be put in our merits and not only may whereas the Cardinall sayth â—nâ—y that some confidence may be put this also with a restriction vt caâ—catur superâ—ia that pride be auoyded Let vs heare I pray you M. Baâ—lows insolent conclusion â—fter that he hath 〈◊〉 beaten himself vp and downe to proue these to be coâ—â—râ—dâ—â—â—ions â—herâ—ore sayth he the Apologâ—rs oâ—â—â—ruation 〈…〉 made aâ—d â—ogiâ—ke â—onfâ—â—mâ—s it to be a violâ—nâ— contradiction 〈…〉 tâ—o prâ—posiâ—ions mans whole confidâ—nce iâ— to â—e 〈…〉 Godâ— meâ—cy alone and some confidence iâ— to be 〈◊〉 in manâ—â—â—â—it will no more agrâ—e as bâ—ing mâ—st oppâ—â—â—te 〈◊〉 a new peeâ—e wiâ—h an old gâ—rmâ—nt which our Saâ—iour sayeâ—h to â—e an 〈◊〉 iâ—possiâ—ility So he By whicâ— speach of his oâ—ly if theâ—e were no other o◠〈◊〉 note the man and his tâ—uth may be tâ—roughly disâ—â—â—ned hâ—uing here falsified both Cardinaâ—l Bâ—llarmâ—nâ— words and meaâ—ing in the recitall of both theâ—e propositions For as Cardinall Bellarmine setteth thâ—m downe they are both true as beâ—ore I haue shewed but as this man relaâ—â—th them he maketh them opposite For Cardinall Bellaâ—mine sayth not that mans whole confidence is to be placed in Gods mercy alone as though it were by way of necâ—ssity and not lawfull to respect any thing our owne good works but that the safest way is so to do And secondly he doth not say that some confidence is to be put in mans merits as though this also were of necessity but that some may be put so as this man seemeth wholy to be compounded of fraud and that with sincerity of truth he cannot vtter any sentence either of his owne or ours without some imposture What a Prelate is this â—or men to hang their soules vpon the truth of his words The other point in this sentence I leaue to be laughed at by his Reader that â—ogick confirmeth a violâ—nt contradiâ—tion betwene tâ—ese two propositions to wit that himself hath framed out of his owne fingers ends And as for his example of contâ—adictâ—on and highest opposition yea impâ—ssibility of coheâ—ence betwene a new peece and an old garment euery begger that goeth vp and downe the countrey with a patcht cloâ—ke will conuince him of vntruth therein eâ—pecially if he haue passed lately by any Taylors shop where he hath had commodity of new shreds to ioyne to his old cloake and shew that there is
the other he concludeth triumphantly saying Let the vnpartiall tryall be the seuere iudge either way Which I also desire and withall aduertise the Reader that in some things I am the shorter where much aduantage is giuen for that the same is afterwards by F. Persons himself handled in due place in the ensuing discussion 43. The controuersy then in hand is about the comfort which our meritorious actions do yield and what confidence is to be reposed in them which the Cardinall deliuereth in three Conclusions the last whereof M. Barlow will haue not only to contradict the two former but to be opposite to all the â—iue bookes which are written of that matter which because as F. Persons well noted it seemed strange that fiue bookes should be contradictory to one propositioÌ„ M. Barlow telleth him he should rather haue thought it to be a very strange conclusion which in so small a roomth should haue matter to crosse a discourse so large This then we shall now discusse and for better perspicuity I will lay downe togeather the three conclusions of the Cardinall which M. Barlow will haue to be so contradictory and then examine his proofes for the same The first is The confidence of holy men which they repose in God proceâ—dâ—th not from only faith but from then good merits and therfore we are to labour all we can fâ—â— merits that therby we may haue confidence in God The second Some confidence may be placed in good merits whicâ— are knowne to be such so that pride be auoyded The third For the vncertainty of our righteousnes and danger of vaine glory the surest way is to place all our confidence iâ— the only mercy and bounty of God So Bellarmineâ— prouing ech assertion out of the Scriptures auÌ„cient Fathers but before-hand giuing this caueat to the Reader which cleane dasheth a good part of M. Barlowes verball assault that it is not all one to say that confidence may arise or grow from merits and that confidence may be placed in merits for it may so fall out that a maâ— may repose almost no confidence in his merits for that he knoweth not certainly whether he haue any true merits or not and yet he may abound both with true great merits and out of these merits there may proceed in him a great confidence towards God by which distinction the whole câ—ntrouâ—rsy may be decided and diuers authorities of Scriptures and Fathers which othâ—rwisâ— may seeme repugnant be reconciled Thus the Cardinallâ— Now let vs see what Syr William doth bring to impugne this doctrine and to proue it contradictory 44. He beginneth with a diuision of vera and perâ—â—câ—a iustitia which he calleth the two principall hâ—ads to which all the chiefe questions of that conâ—rouersy in Bellarmine may by reduced By iusticeâ—e â—e vnderstandeth inherent and by perfect iustice that which is able to abide the triall of Gods iudgement But â—ere is much mistaking for that neyther doth Bellar. â—n this sense call our iustice perfect neyther can the perfectioÌ„ of a thing which must needes be intrinsecall â—o the essence be said properly to depend of an extrinsecall effect as is the triall of Gods iudgement or the reward which is giuen in respect of our righteousnes that proceedeth froÌ„ the inhereÌ„t grace within vs without any relatioÌ„ or depeÌ„daÌ„ce of the future iudgmeÌ„t at al. 45. From this diuision he coÌ„meth to a distinction of vncertainty which he saith is either rei or personae of righteousnes it self or of the party that hath it This is as wise as the former for I would faine know of M. Barlow how there can be incâ—rtiâ—udo rei vnles it be de futuris contingentibus for a thing as it is existent cannot be vncertaine but hath his being essence and therewith his truth vnity And in M. Barlowes example the hypocrite who hath no true righteousnes and consequently not inherent cannot be said to haue incertitudinem râ—i for that it is certaine as we do suppose that he hath no righteousnes at all and all the vncertainty depeÌ„ds on the person who thinketh him to haue righteousnes when he hath it not not of the thing it self which is determinatae Veritatis of determinate truth in the affirmatiue or negatiue and truth to vse M. Barlowes Martiall manner of speaking either of â—ssâ—nce or propriâ—ty cassiâ—res all vncertainty the affirmatiue or negatiue so aâ— still M. Barlow stumbleth and with his subtile distinctions ouerreacheth himself and confoundeth all learning 46. Well then this vncertainty being of the person what saith he thereunto In this he is somewhat briefe but very confident and concludeth thus If it be of the person then merit is cut of And why good Sir For merit saith he raiseth a confidence but where there is no comfort there can be no coÌ„fidence in vncertainty there is no comfort for relyance on that whereof a man doubts causeth rathâ—r a feare to be deceaued then a confidence to be releiued So he Which argument supposeth as graunted that our meritorious workes breed confidence which we deny not if he meane of that confidence towards God before mentioned then it ruÌ„neth in this forme Where there is no comfort there is no confidence but in vncertainty there is no comfort ergo no confidence and so consequently no merit That the force of this syllogisme may the better appeare I shall apply it to another matter thus Where there is no comfort there is no confidence but when our Sauiour prayed in the garden sayd tristis est anima mea vsque ad mortem and cryed ouâ— on the Crosse my God my God why hast thou forsaken me there was no comfort ergo no confidence and then Caluins blasphemous and desperate illation of our Sauiours despairing on the Crosse will soone be proued from which all learned Protestants no lesse then Catholicks do worthily disclaime But this is the diuinity of Syr William 47. Againe there is great equiuocation in the word vncertainty which M. Barlow taketh in the most generall and absolute signification as excluding all manner of certainty and knowledg whatsoeuer when as in Bellarmyne it is taken far otherwise for in the second Chapter of his third booke hauing distinguished two sorts of certaintyes the one euident the other obscure Of this later he maketh three degrees the first is of the certainty of faith cui nulla ratione potest subesse falsum the second of such things as are belieued for humane authority but so common as it excludeth all feare though not all falsity for that all men may be false and either deceaue or be in such things deceaued Of this sort he puteth for examples that Cicero and Virgil were famous men that Augustus Caesar was Emperour that Alexandria is in Egypt Constantinople in Thrace Hierusalem in Palestine Antioch in Asia and then declareth the last degree in this manner Tertium
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
is this And yet this man very deuoutly in this place preacheth vnto vs of cor contritum which God will haue and cor diuisum which he doth hate but how contrite M. Barlowes hart is or whether it be deuided or vnited I know not sure I am that here is double dealing much ignorance and nothing with any learning or sincerity handled 55. From the subiect he coÌ„meth to the obiect The obiect also saith he affoards a strong contradiction sola misericordia mercy alone c. the very force of which word put the tempter to silence and to flight also ei soli him only shalt thou serue Had the Cardinall said in the first place mans confidence must or may be reposed in his owne merits and afterwards subioyned mans confidence must or may be placed in Gods mercy these had not bene contradictory but communicatiue merit might haue part staked with mercy but when he adds in mercy ALONE merit Saints and Angells and whatsoeuer beside are abondoned and cassiered for solùm alone admits no consort as saith Aquinas Lo here a short conquest one word ALONE cassiering from confidence all merits all Saints all Angells and whatsoeuer els and from M. Barlow himself all learning all sincerity all truth all honesty this doubtles is a potent word that containeth so great vertue in it But let vs examine the force of this inference First I would demauÌ„d of M. Barlow what Saints Angells haue to doe with the confidence that riseth out of our good woâ—kes that by this word Alone they should be abandoned cassierd Did euer any affirme that this confidence of our merits did depend on them as vpon the obiect of the same This is one notorious foolery 56. Againe where will he find in all Bellarmyne that solamisericordia only mercy is the entire obiect of our confidence Doth he noâ— say that some confidence may be reposed in our workes so we be sure they be meâ—itorious and that we auoid pride He saith in deed that the securest way is to repose all our confidence in the only mercy of God but not that the mercy of God is the only obiect And M. Barlow whiles he thinketh to put his aduersary to silence as Christ did the Deuill with the word Only himselfe is ouercome with temptation of one lye at the least if he knew what he wrote or of ignoraÌ„ce if he knew it not Moreouer where he addeth that had the Cardinall said in the first place mans confidence must or may be reposed in his owne mâ—rits afterwards had subioyned mans confideÌ„ce must or mâ—y be placed in Gods mercy these had not bene contradictory but coÌ„municaâ—iue he both dealeth falsly and refuteth himselfe falsly in foysting in the word must in both propositions which is not in Bellarmyne and it cleane altereth the sense for it is not all one to say one may doe such a thing and a man must doe it for example it is a far different thing to say that M. Barlow may giue the reuenews of his Bishoprick of one whole yeare if he will to the poor people of Lincolne and M. Barlow must giue his renenews of one yeare to the said poore people But without this cobling and cogging in of words M. Barlow can make no contradiâ—tioÌ„ He refuteth also himself for omitting the word must here thrust in as I said Bellarminâ— saith the selfe same to wit that confidâ—nce may be reposed in mâ—rits and confiâ—â—nce may be reposed in God But the first is subiect to errour and pride the second is secure and therfore it is best to repose all on the same Which two propositions euen by M. Barlows confession are not contradictory and therfore all his preaching and pratling as F. Parsons well calleth it seâ—ueth rather to shew himself a false and ignorant writer then to proue any contradiction in the Cardinall 57. After this sory stuffe he beginneth a SermoÌ„ out of S. Augustine vpon these words of the Psalme Memorabor iustitiae tuae solius saying that the said Father doth insist vpon the same both with an admiration ô solius and also with a question rogo vos I pray you why should he ad this word solius Had it not bene inough for him to say I will remember thy righteousnes No but solius prorsus it alone altogeather I will remember why so Vbi meam non cogito for in so saying I put out of my mynd any righteousnes which is mine owne So M. Barlow and hauing ended his deuotion he concludeth thus So then totum whole confidence that taks away the particular aliqua in his former proposition sola excludes meritum in both propositions This is all he hath touching the obiect and all wyde of the marke as is most euident 58. Yea so far is S. Augustine from checking this assertion of the Cardinall as he elswere graunteth the same saying vt speret regnum habeat bonam conscientiam credat operetur that a man may hope for the kingdome of heauen let him haue a good conscience let him belieue and labour So he and the place here cyted by M. Barlow hath no more coherence with this matter now in controuersy then a poke full of plums with the way to London For our question is of such workes as be meritorious and follow or rather flow from Gods grace inherent within vs. But S. Augustine speaketh of that grace which goeth before all our good workes and of that iustification which the deuines call the first iustificatioÌ„ by which a sinner is made iust and first called vnto God from that state and saith that this grace or righteousnes no workes can merit which all Catholiks admit the Cardinall elswhere at large doth proue and that he meaneth the first not the second iustification is cleare by his owne words following in this explication which are these I am enim si superbi desideramus vâ—l fatigati râ—deamus c. For now if we that are proud doe desire or wearied do returne we cannot returne but by grace grace is freely giuen for if it were not a free gift it were not grace Moreouer if therfore it be grace because it is freely giuen nothing of thine went before for which thou must receaue it For if any of thy good workes went before thou hast receaued a reward no free gift the reward due vnto thee is punishment that therefore we are deliuered comes not froÌ„ our merits but is of his grace him therfore let vs praise to whome we owe all that we are to whome we owe our saluation with which the Prophet concluded after he had said many things saying memorabor iustitiae tuae solius I will remember thy righteousnes alone So S. Augustine So cleerly explicating himself euincing M. Barlows ignorance as that I shall not need to ad any further Commentary for confutation of the same The rest which he addeth by way of antithesis totum aliqua
sola meritum is nothing els but meere foolery as shal be afterwards shewed 59. From Diuinity he comes to Logick making his entrance with a vaunting insultation of his Aduersaries ignorance and want of skill about the true nature of a contradiction In deliuering of which the poore man is so embroyled as he knoweth not what he saith but cleane mistaketh euery thinge which he speaketh of For first he supposeth that a conâ—radiction must be where some generall proposition â—ither expresly or implicatiuely is crossed by a particuâ—er but this is no equall and perfect diuision for that â— contradiction requireth not alwaies a generall proâ—osition but may be between two particuler so that â—he subiect remaine indiuisible to wit vnder one and â—he selfsame respect vnder them both For if I should â—ay that M. Barlow hath skill in Logicke though it be â—ery little and M. Barlow hath not skill in Logick â—gaine M. Barlow is Bishop of Barlowâ—s â—s not Bishop of Lincolne c. I do not doubt but that â—e would thinke these propositions though both parâ—iculer to be truly contradictory and consequently his â—wne supposition to be false as that also is very fond â—hich for explication of his expresse and implyed conâ—radiction he ioyneth saying contradictionâ—n â—n negato the other in opposito or adiecto of the first â—ort are these examples wherin the negatiue note is expresâ—ed as omnis homo est aliquis non est of the second â—ort are such wherin the note negatiue is omitted and yet â—ne member ouerthrowes another So M. Barlow out of Logick And this as I said is very fond for that it is not â—f the nature of a contradiction in adiecto to be impliâ—d but rather the contrary to be expressed in termes â—t being all one with that which is called implicantia â—n terminis an implicancy or contradiction in the â—ery termes themselues For example If I should say M. Barlow is a brute beast the adiectum or terminus â—rute beast destroyeth the subiect to wit M. Barlow whose behauiour though it be often tymes very bruâ—ish and beastly yet is he by nature a man and that also a very naturall one 60. But the greatest mistaking and ignorance of all the rest is in the example which he maketh of this his implyed contradiction for hauing made this proposition Euery Bishop of Rome is vnder Christ the immeatate and sole chief Pastour of the whole Church in the Christian world this saith our Philosopher may be contradicted two wayes first expresly Some Bishop oâ— Rome is not the immediate and sole chief pastour c. Thiâ— is a contradictory with the negatiue Secondly it may be crossed by implicatioÌ„ as thus The patriarch of Constantinople is vnder Christ the immediate and sole chief pâ—stour of the Eastâ—rne Church This though it be a contradiction in opposito yet doth it as mainly oppose thâ— former generall proposition as if it had a negatiue noâ— c. Thus far M. Barlow as good a Philosopher aâ— M. Morton who though he professe to haue bene â— Reader of Logick yet shaped vs out a syllogisme oâ— six termes to proue Equiuocation in an oath to bâ— vnlawfull such great Deuynes are these menâ— as they know not the first elements of this faculty For haâ— not M. Barlow bene exceeding ignorant of the first rule and necessary condition of a contradiction â— which is that both parts câ—nnot togeather be eytheâ— true of false he would neuer haue giuen this for aâ— example seeing himself neyther belieueth the Bishop of Râ—mâ— to be head of the whole or Patriarke of Constantinople of the Easterne Church And where theâ— is the contradiction And is not M. Barlow well seenâ— in Philosophâ— who chooseth out an example to proue a contradiction in which euen in his owne opinion there is no contradiction at all Truly I may well suspect that he neuer came to be Bishop â—f Lincolne for his learning which euery where he â—heweth to be lesse then meane and therfore ouerlaâ—heth without measure but for some other inferiour quality little perhaps befitting that calling Let vs to make him conceaue his errour the better exemplifie in some more familiar examples The L. of Canterbuâ—y is Primate of all and euery part of England and â—he L. of Yorke is Primate of all the North part is with me no contradiction for that I hold both propositions to be false and neyther of them both to haue any Primacy at all in that Church and as the later will not claime it so M. Abbots may be sure I will not assigne it vnto him whome I doe as much hold to be Abbot of Wâ—stminster as Bishop of Cantâ—râ—ury And the like must M. Barlow needs say of his two propositions for that neyther of them in his iudgmeÌ„t â—s true and therefore are more contrary then contradictory as are also these omnis homo currit nullus homo currit and the like 61. Wherefore if it be as M. Barlow will needs haue it our very case in hand euen by the verdict of all skilfull Philosophers in the world the Cardinall will be quit at least from a contradiction and it is but childish babling yet very frequent in M. Barlow to make the oppositioÌ„s of the termes theÌ„selues saying that hâ—re is a double contradictioÌ„ both subiecti praedicaâ—i the Patriarke of Constantinople crosseth the Bishop of Rome the Eastâ—rnâ— Church and the whole world contradict ech othâ—r implicitely This I say is but babling for there is as great opposition between the former two propositions before set downe as in this Cantâ—rbury crâ—ssâ—th Yorke all England the north parts And againe omnis cannot stand with nullus currit with non currit and yet he will sooner bring Constantinople to Romeâ— and Yorke to Canterbury then proue any contradictioÌ„ to be in the same But let vs draw to an end of M. Barlows dispute 62. I passe ouer the rest he addeth concerning this matter although his chiefest fraud and cosenage be conteyned in the same For of an exhortatiue proposition in the Cardinall he maketh an absolute and necessary by cogging in the words is must thus mans confidence is to be reposed in the alone mercy of God and some confidence of man must be placed in his owne merits which are his owne forgeryes and not the Cardinalls assertions and then further in falsly charging F. Persons as though he said that good workes increase confidence in their owne nature and therfore will needs haue his doctrine to be condemned by Pius V. amongst other like assertions of a Louain Doctor but all is forgery for the Father speaketh not of our workes as alone they proceed from vs but as they proceed also from Gods grace within vs and for that cause calleth them the good workes of a ChristiaÌ„ it is vnchristian dealing in this Prelate to say that this proposition was euer condemned by Pius V. or any other Pope or Councell who only
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
defend himselfe from the imputation of flattery for this he is wont to do full wisely wheÌ„ he meaneth to build somwhat theron Flattery sayth he caÌ„not be without touch of both parties because none vse to â—latter but such as haue no other meanes to aduance themselues and none loue to be flattered but those which haue no true vertue to commend themselues Which ground hath two partes as you see and both of them most euidently false The first for thaâ— otherwise none but poor men should be flatterers wheras rich men may performe the same office and do also often tymes more then others eyther for increasing their riches or preseruing that they haue by the grace of the Prince whom they flatter or for to hurt others The second part also is false for that men endued with many great vertues may delight to hear themselues praysed and their vertues acknowledged though in their hartes perhaps if they be wyse and vertuous indeed they do scorne the prayser when they vnderstand that he doth it out of adulation for his owne gayne or to hurt others For it is to be considered that the nature of adulation which consisteth in excesse of desire to please and delight the person which is flattered doth not alwayes require that the thinges themselues should be all false that are spoken in such adulation but it is sufficient there be excesse in the measure or manner of vtterance or in the time placeâ— and other such circumstances For iâ— a Prince for example had a good leg indeed for one to tell it him often openly in all places occasions and still to bring in speach of good legs as some wil say the custome was to flatter a certain Earle when he was yonge in our English Court this should be base flatteâ—y of it selfe though the Subiect were true But if here withall the flatterers intention should be to gayne vniustly or to hurt any man iniuriously therby then should it be malicious and damnable flattery And now whether also these circumstances did concurre in the flattery of M. Barlow his fellowes towards Queene Elizabeth when she was aliue and towards his Maiesty that now liueth I will not stand much to discourse only I am sure that the last circumstance which of all other is the worst to wit of hurting Catholickes neuer commonly fayled So as we may truly say as S. Augustine sayd vpon those words of the Psalme Conuertantur statim erubescentes Let flatterers presently with confusion be conuerted for that plùs nocet lingua adulatoris quà m gladius persecutoris the tongue of the flatterer doth hurt more thâ—n the sword of the persecutor And this we haue well experienced I haue somewhat touched before how well M. Barlow obserued the circumstance of time in exercising this art For when the Earle of Essex was in his ruffe theÌ„ was he his â—â—comiast the loud-sounding trumpet of his triumphs but when time began to turne and prosperous fortune to change her face then did he change his course also and became not only a silent Orator in his behalfe but also an open accuser yea a calumniator Syphocant as out of his before meÌ„tioned printed Sermon you may haue obserued for that SycophaÌ„cy as himself in this place for the defence of his brother T. M. the yonger will presently declare at large by the first institution of the word signifieth a complaint or accusation of carrying out figgs from Attica contrary to the law and afterwards remayned with the signification of false or trifling accusations or caluÌ„niations prying into other mens actioÌ„s malicious infereÌ„ces odious collections the like wherof in that printed Sermon against the said Earle you shall find good store especially â—hose 13. last records which are left to the Cittizens of London to meditate vpon which in effect are all but captious illations and odious inferences of his owne gathering but on the other side the flatteries bestowed vpon the Queene are both eminent and excellent which not to loose time in repeating I will only report the last conâ—ayned in the very last words of that Sermon VVhat now remayneth saith he but to conclude with my text Giue vnto Cesar the things of Cesar our most Gratious Soueraigne I meane honour her obay her feare her but aboue all pray for her that she being the light of the Land may shine among vs as long as the two great lights in heauen the sunne and moone this God grant for his mercies sake Amen Thus he taught his Auditory to pray by vocall prayer and especially the Cittizens of â—ondon there present to whome for mentall prayer he had giuen the forersaid thirteene poyntes of meditation before set downe wherof the last was oâ— the Earles opinioÌ„ censure oâ— their basenes c. But now I would know of M. Barlow whether in his Diuinitie prayer may be made without the vertue Theologicall of Hope which appeareth by the whole course of Scripture that it cannot for he that hopeth not to obtayne that which he prayeth for prayeth in vayne And then secondly I would demaund whaâ— grounded hope the Cittizens of London might haue to pray with him that Queene Elizabeth might liue as long as the two lights in heauen the sunne and moone should endure Could they hope for this seeing her now an old woman and weakened also by many diseases And if they could not hope it how could they pray for it but only in iest And whether iesting with God in prayer be lawfull by M. Barlowes Theologie I would also gladly know especially for so much as he seemeth to haue spoken this in very good earnest by adioyning a vehement reduplicatiâ—e in the very last words of all This God graunt for his mercies sake Amen as if he had sayd this is the poynt of most moment to be demaunded at Gods hand that the Queene the sunne and the moone might liue out togeather and be of one age and that they shinâ— togeather she ouer England they ouer the whole world this is the grace that we haâ—e most need of vnum est necessariuâ— other folkes with Marâ—ha are solicitous troubled about many things but we haue need of one thing This God graunt vs â—or his mercies sake that Queene Elizâ—beth do not dye before the sunne and moone and yet good man hâ— did not consider in thiâ— seruent deuotion that he oâ—fered great iniurie to his Maiestie that now is For if Queene Elizabeth had liued and shined as long as the sunne and moone his Maiesty had neuer had any part in that succession for that after the sunne and moone I suppose there will be no succession And this will serue for one example amongst the rest of his adulation towards Queene Elizabeth Bâ—t as for those which he vseth towards his Maiesty that now is both in this place throughout his whole Booke though they be grosse and palpable inoughâ— and consequently also
first and second Chapters of the booke of Toby to wit how the foresayd King Senacherib sonne to Salmanasar being returned much exasperated from Iury agaynst the Iewes for the euill successe which there he had did promulgate an Edict that such as he caused to be slayne should not be buryed the Story sayth that Toby notwithstanding this Edict and Commaundement did bury them by night yea and left also on day his dinner and the ghests which he had with him at the same for to fetch in the dead body of a Iew slayne in the streetes and when some of his neighbous seeing the peril thereof did reprehend him for aduenturing vpon so great daunger saying to himâ— that himselfe had bene commaunded to be slayne for burying men before the Story doth not only defend him but also commendeth him for the same saying Sed Tobias plùs timens Deum quà m Regem rapiebat corpora occisorum c. But Toby feating God more then the King did take away the dead bodies that he found in the streetes hyding them in his house and burying them at mydnight Secondly the Angell Raphael in the twelth Chapter discouering himselfe vnto Toby togeather with the mystery of all his actions with him doth manifestly shew that these his deeds of charity of giuing of almes and burying the dead bodyes of such as were slayne were gratfull vnto Almighty God Quando craâ—as cum lachrymis sepeliebas mortous derelinquebas prandium tuum c. ego obtuli â—â—ationem tuam Domino quia acceptus eras Deo necesse suit vt tentatio probaret te When thou didst pray with teares and didst bury the dead and didst leaue thy dinner for doing this worke of Charity I did offer to God thy prayer and because thou wert acceptable vnto God it was necessary that temptation should try thee Here then we haue the testimony of an Angell agaynst M. Barlow that is no Angell and if he be yet must we account him for a very wicked and false Angell if the other be a good and true Angell Now then let vs examine a little whether of these Angels deserueth most to be belieued or whether for a mans saluation it be more secure to follow the one or the other for that they speake contraryes The one that this fact of Toby was not iustifyable the other that it was not only iustifiable but acceptable also and pleasing to Almighty God and that in a very high degree as by the text appeareth The one determineth as you haue heard that Toby was reprehensible in that he obeyed not the Kingâ— the other saith he did very well in obeying God more then the king How shall we know which of these two Angels is the good and which the bad M. Barlow will on his part perhaps say that this booke of Toby is not held by him for Canonicall Scripture but only Hagiographum a holy ancient writing as the Iewes themselues do allow it to be though not in their Canon of Scriptures yet doth not this take away the credit of the Story which hath indured and hath beene belieued and taken for true so many ages boâ—h before and after Christian Religion was planted And M. Barlow cannot alleadg one authenticall Author or holy man before these our tymes that euer sayd this Story was false or not to be credited though he receiued it not for Canonicall Scripture Secondly we see it acknowledged for Canonicall Scripture and of infallible truth not only by a generall Councell of our dayes wherin the flower of the learnedst men in Christendome were present I meane that of Trent but by another Councell also aboue 1000. yeares before that to wit the third of Carthage wherein S. Augustine himselfe was present and subscribed thereunto and in diuers other places of his workes giueth the same testimony to this booke as do sundry other Fathers ancienter then he as S. Ambrose that wrote a whole booke of the Story of Toby containing twenty foure whole Chapters S. Basil in his Oration of Auarice yea the holy Martyr S. Cyprian also himselfe more ancienter then them all and this in sundry places of his works and after S. Augustine S. Gregory S. Isiodoâ—us Cassiodorus and others wherby is euident that in S. Augustins time and before this booke was held for diuine and Canonicall And therfore for a man now to venture his soule vpon this bare deniall of M. Barlow and his Consorts for there goeth no lesse in the matter his assertion being blasphemy if this be true Scripture let his poore sheepe of Lincolne thinke well of it for other men will beware how they venture so much with him But now setting aside this consideration whether it be Canonicall Scripture or no let vs consider a little further what holy men in ancient times did thinke of this fact of Toby whether it were iustifiable or no. S. Augustine in his booke De cura pro mortuis habenda hath these words Tobias sepeliendo mortuos Deum promeruisse teste Angelo commendatur Tobias is commended by the testimony of the Angell in that by burying the dead he merited the fauour of Almighty God And the same Father repeateth the very same words and sentence againe in his first booke of the Citty of God Whereby we see what his sense was in this matter both in belieuing the good Angell and esteming that good worke of burying the dead which M. Barlow by conteÌ„pt calleth a ciuil coâ—rtesy to haue merited with God And of the same sense was S. Ambrose who speaking of this Edict of the King that no man should bury any dead man of the Iewes in that captiuity commendeth highly holy Toby for neglecting the same in respect of that charitable worke Ille interdicto non reuocabatur sed magis incitabatur c. he was not stayd by that Edict or Proclamation from burying the dead but rather was therby incyted the more to doe the same Erat â—â—im misericordiae praemium 〈◊〉 pâ—na for that the punishment of death was the prince of mercy S. Cyprian also that holy Bishop and Martyr long before S. Ambâ—ose in his booke Of our Lords prayer extolling much the meryt of good workes and exhorting men vnto the same amongst many other authoryties of the Scriptures cyteth this of Toby saying Et ideo diuina Scriptura inâ—â—râ—it dicens bona est oratio cum ieiunio â—leemosyna therfore the dyuine Scripture inâ—tructeth vs saying That Prayer is good accompanied with fasting and almes In which wordes first we see this booke of Toby affirmed to be diuine Scripture and secondly this speach doctrine of the Angell Raphael vnto Toby concerning the prayse and merit of good works to be allowed by Cyprianâ— which is full contrary to M. Barlowes Diuinity But let vs heare our S. CypriaÌ„ in the same place Nam qui in die Iudicij praemium pro operibus c. For
know or at leastwise will not confesse it for that he remayneth not perswaded therof and consequently vncertaine I might name for example those two words of Essence or Propriety thrust in heere eyther of ignorance or ostentation without sense or purpose For what is truth or propriety that â—assiers vncertainty The man would seeme to speake proâ—oundly and so exceedeth his owne capacity But let vs heare him further It is hypocrisy saith he not righteousnes which is not true if not righteousnes then not inhereÌ„t Whereunto I answere that this is not true which he saith first for that all defect of true righteousnes maketh not hypocrisy but onely when a man pretendeth to be iust and is not But if a man should doubt whether his righteousnes be perfect or no which is our case then were it no hypocrisy at all and if it were then were it inherent hypocrisy in the hypocrite which is contrary to the other inference of M. Barlow that if it were not true and perfect righteousnes it were not inherent for that be it true or false perfect or vnperfect such as it is it must needs be inherent in the subiect which it doth denominate And this is M. Barlowes wise discourse about the first part of his two-membred proposition of incertitudo rei personae incertainty of the thing it selfe or of the person to wit of righteousnes it selfe or of him that hath it Now he commeth vnto the second about the person saying If the vncertainty be of the person then the second part of the proposition concerning merit is cut of for merit raiseth a confidence but where there is no comfort there can be no confidence and in vncertainty there is no comfort Which speach is so prudently vttered as how many inferences so many plaine falsities there be in the same As first that where there is no comfort there can be no confidence For that Iob in his tribulations was greatly abandoned of comfort and yet he said to God Albeit thou shalt kill me yet will I hope in thee and it is an ordinary thing with God to take away oftentimes sensible comforts from good men who notwithstanding do not loose their confidence in him and his mercies for the same The other proposition also is false that in vncertainty there is no comâ—ort For then would no man labour to obtaine any thing wherof he were not certaine no merchants would aduenture to the seas being vncertaine of their gaine no suters would come to LondoÌ„ to feed Lawiers being vncertaine what successe they shall haue and fâ—nally not onely common experience but also common sense doth conuince these propositions to be ridiculous and so I meane to spend no more time in examining them but will pasâ—e to the examining of the other three propositions or resolutions of Cardinall Bellarmine before mentioned In the meane space you see how well and substantially M. Barlow hath proued hitherto the contradiction of the third proposition against his fiue whole bookes of Iustification wherewith notwithstanding he saith the Cardinall was so pressed as he gasped for wind wheÌ„ I stept in to help him He steppes saith he to Bellarmine oâ—er whome as if the Cardinall were gasping for breath vnder the blow he hath recieued for his contradictions he braues it with some â—hetoricall â—lorishes c. This is his confidence which I grant commeth not of merits but of onely faith or rather presumption and therefore I meane not to impugne it He saith then concerning my answere before set downe out of my Letter first of all that Bellarmines case standing so bad in it selfe as it did I mâ—de it farre worse by seeking to assist him and for proof hereof he saith that I supposing the Cardinall to handle the controuersy by questions and answeres wherby it seemes that I neuer read the place myselfe do summe vp the Chapter in way of InterogatioÌ„ solution Whereto first I answere that the many particulers which I do set downe out of that Chapter whence the proposition is taken aswell of Scriptures and other reasons must needs conuince M. Barlow that I had read the whole Chapter and so he cannot say this heere but against his owne conscience Secondly it is true that Bellarmine doth not handle those three assertions of his by the way of questions and solutions but onely by way of assirmatiue and resolute propositions But I thought it best and more cleare for the English Readers vnderstanding to frame the questions of my self and take the summe of his said propositions for answers and solutions to the same What can M. Baâ—low mislike in this He sayth that I haue wrongfully set down the Cardinalls meaning and namely in the first question and that there is no such thing in the whole Chapter Let vs examine then this The first question then said I is whether good works in a Christian man doe increase hope and confidence by their owne nature the promise of reward made vnto them And Bellarmine answereth that they do and proueth it by many places of Scripture Thus I said doth not Bellarmine allow this doctrine Or doth he not teach any such thing in this chapter Let the reader peruse it and blush for M. Barlow that affirmeth it But he giueth an instance saying Neither Bellarmine nor any other Deuine eyther Protestant or Papist will say good works increase confidence in their owne nature But good Syr is your nature such or lack of grace so great that you can speake nothing without manifest falshood I say that good works in a Christian man do increase hope and confidence by their owne nature the promise of reward made vnto them I do ioyne two things togeather you doe separate them and cauiâ—l vpon one onely I doe speake of good workes in a Christian man to whom the promise of God is made of reward for good works you leaue out that and do speake of good workes as they may be in a Pagan and for the same cause you say in their own nature as coÌ„sidered in thâ—â—elus without Gods grace promise of reward I do â—ay that they do increase hope and coÌ„fidence by their owne â—â—ture and Gods promise of reward Wherby I doe meane that being workes so qualified they do of themselues and by their owne nature of meritorious works increase hope and confidence in the worker though he for his part do not place any confidence in them These then are the first corruptions vsed by M. Barlow vpon my words Why did he alter them and not recite them as I set them downe But let vs see a second proofe of his He alleadgeth Card. Bellarmine against me saying that he distinguisheth betweene good workes and merits for that all good workes are not meritorious and so say I too For that good morall workes may be in Infidels as hath bene said for they may do almsdeeds other such good things but they cannot be meritorious for that they do not
not such Logical contrâ—diction or opposition betweene them but that they may stand togeather in a beggers cloake if not in congruity of decency and handsomnes wherof it seemeth â—hat our Sauiour only meant yet at leastwise without Logicâ—ll opposition or impossibilityâ— which was far from the sâ—nse of Christ in that Parable So as here are now thrâ—e or foure falâ—â—oods at once discouered conuinced against M. â—aâ—lâ—w about this â—irst imputed contradiction â—etwene these two propositions Let vs see the second The sâ—cond obiected contradiction is for thâ—t Câ—â—d Bâ—llarmine sayeth in his second proposition or 〈◊〉 to the second question that a man may put 〈…〉 dence iâ— bonis meriâ—is quae talia eâ—se compertum sit in go 〈…〉 that are found to be truly such And in his third proposition he sayth that propter incertitudinem propriae iustitiae tutissimuâ— est c. for the vncertaynty of our own proper iustice the safest way is to put all our confidence in the only mercy of God which sayth M. Barlow is contradictory the one to the other the former affirming that we must know that our merits be truly good before we can put any confidence in them and the second that this is vncertaine therefore it is most safe to put our confidence only in Gods mercy Wherto I answere that if these things be well considered there is no contradiction for that the knowledg of our merits which is required before we can put any iust confidence in them is a morall knowledg only such as may stand with some vncertainty as is to be seene in many things of this world As for exmple a man borne now in England is morally certaine that he is baptized for that he is tould so by his parents and others for that the Ministers do odinarily baptize infants in the Parish where they dwell but for that he doth not know certainly whether he that did baptize him had the intention of the Church and vsed the forme of words prescribed it may stand with some vncertainty whether he be baptized or no. And the like is in marriage wherein there is morall certainty that a man and woman that haue liued togeather many yeares in wed-locke are truly husband and wife but yet for that there is not absolute assurance that both parts did consent in hart to that marryage it may stand with some vncertainty whether the mariage were good or no. And so in infinite other thinges And in this our case it is euident that the knowledg required by the Cardinal of our merits is but morall such as may stand with some vncertainty for though we should know that we haue giuen almes aboundantly redeemed captiues nourished orphans visited the sicke and imprisoned and done other good works coÌ„mended by our Sauiour that promised life euer lasting to the same yet because we know not whether we haue done them with all due circumstances or no it is but a morall knowledg of their being tâ—ue merits conâ—â—quentâ—y may â—â—and with some vncertainty as is sayd in the third proposition And what now hath M. Barlow to say to this Still he telleth vs that they are contradictions and setteth them downe thus in great letters A man sayth he must be aâ—ertained that the woâ—ks that he doth be truly gâ—od or â—ls â—e may â—ot trust in them and yâ—t no man can assure himselâ— that thâ—y arâ— so exâ—â—pt he haue a reuelation sayth the Cardinall Well Syr and what will you infer of these two propositions You say that they are opposite and contradictory Proue it â—or that a contradiction est aâ—â—irmatio negatio de eodem respectu eiusdem here the certainty and vncertainty that are spoken of are of different kinds A man must be acertained that the good works that he hath done be truly good before he put coÌ„fidence in them This is to be vnderstood of morall certainty only not absolute infallible And then againe no man can assure himself or know certainly that his works are such which is to be vnderstood of absolute and infallible certainty so as morall certainty and absolute certainty being neither the self same thing but much diffeâ—ent the former may be affirmed in the â—econd pâ—oposition and the other denied in the third without any coÌ„tradiction at all So as all the rest of M. Barlowes tatâ—â—ng in this place saying That better it were â—or the Cardinall to acâ—knowledg an ouer sight then to ouerâ—hrew one soule redeemed by Christs bloud and That contradiction in assertion woundes but oâ—e oâ—posite member but vnsoundnes in doctrine doth wound the weâ—â—â— consâ—ience of a Christian that this may be amended by repeale retrâ—â—â—ing it c. All this I say is but idle and vaine speach without any ground giuen on the Cardinals behalfe as bâ—fore hath bene shewed And the vnsoundnes hath bene proâ—ed to be on M. Barlows side in regâ—rd of the many vnâ—ruâ—hes sleightes and absurdities committed by him And not to loose any more tyme in this we will pasâ—â— to other contradictions obiected to the sayd Cardinall OF THREE OTHER Contradictions imputed vnto Cardinall Bellarmine but proued to be no Contradictions at all §. II. AS wee haue bene more large then was purposed in the discussion of the precedent obiected contradiction about the thrâ—e queâ—tions and answers proposed so shall we endeauour to recompence our length there with breuitie in this place for that M. Barlow indeed hath heere as little to say as there he speaketh much to small purpose The second Contradiction then is said to be for that Cardinall Bellarmin taking vpon him to shew that God is not the author of sin nor inclineth man thereunto hath this proposition That God doth not incline a man to euill eythâ—r naturally or morally physiâ—e vel moraliâ—er expounding in the same place what he meaneth by the words naturally and morally to wit that to incline a man naturally to euil is immediatly to mooue his will to some euill act but to incline morally is to coÌ„maund or counsaile an euill act to be done which is properly called morall concurrence in neither which kind may God be said to incline a man to euill but yet there is another way called oâ—casionaliter or by occasion as when an euill man that hath a naughty will is bent to sinne God almighty by sending some good cogitation to him may be the occasionall cause why he committeth this sinne rather then that wherof I gaue an example out of the booke of Genesis the 57. Chapter where the brethren of Ioseph hauing a naughty will to kill him God almighty by sending that way the Ismaelite merchaÌ„ts of Galaad gaâ—e an occasion rather of thinking how to sell him into â—gipt then to kill him so to commit rather the lesser synne then the greater Cardinall Bellarmine also in his answere repeateth againe those words of the Psalme Conuertit cor â—orum vt odiâ—ent populum eius God did turne the hartes
penultima PoÌ„tius in vita sua Optatus l. â— contra Parmen Cyp. ep 6â— Infiâ—els heretâ—kes excoÌ„municated persons depriuâ—â— of Christian buriall Apparitions of Martyrs S. Am. seri 5. de sacâ—is l. 7. Ep. ep 53. 54. Aug. Confâ—ss 1. 9. c 7. ser. 39. de Civit Dâ—i l. 22. c. 8. Greg. l. 4. Dialog c. 52. 53. 54. M. Barlows licence of adding subtracting at his pleasure Strange liberty of the new Ghospellers About the insurrection of HeÌ„â—y the 5. against his father Lett. p. 87. Barl pag. 242. The deposition of Henry the fourth Sig. de reg Ital. lib. 9. ann 1106. Col. 4. Instit c. 11 §. 13. Sig. in ann 1093. Genebrar l. 4. anno muÌ„di 5206. in Paschal Ann. 996. sub Papa Greg. quiÌ„to Huld Mutius l. 16. chron Gerâ— fol. 127. Barl. pag. 244. Sixtus V. belied by M. Barlow Barl. pag. 245. M. Barlows egregious folly M. Barlows ridiculous profundityes discussed An excellent discourse of S. Augustine concerning Gods prouidence August tâ—act 24. sâ—pâ—r â—oaÌ„ An other strange profâ—â—ity of M. Barlow without all wit or sense Mark this doctrine Syr William D. Thom. 1 pâ—â— 22. q. 116. The difference betweene proâ—â—â—eÌ„â—â—a fatum D. Thom. cont Gentes lib. 3. cap. 77. The profoundity of M Barlowes ignorance in School-Diuinity Barl. pag. 264. An other profound ignorance of M. Barlow D. Thom. 1. p. q. 22. aâ—â— â—3 Act. 4. 1. Reg 2. 6. 2. Reg. 3. 27. Ioseph sold into Egvpt by God his prouidence Gen. 45. vâ— 4. 5. 6. Lett. p. 89. Barl. pag. 250. M. Barlowes immodesty Q. Elizabâ—th no Ioy nor Iewâ—â—â— of the Christian world M. Barlowes constaÌ„cy Sciliâ—et Statut. an 28. H. 8. c. 7. Q Elizabâ—th against conscieÌ„ce held the Crowne from his Maiestyes Mother 44. years About Q 〈◊〉 legitimation Barl. pag. 253. The Statâ—te of 〈◊〉 Heâ—â—â— for tâ—◠〈…〉 of Q Elizabeth Whether Q. Elizabeths bastardy were in body Baâ—â— pâ—g 253. M. Barlowâ—â—peÌ„ iniury vnto â— â—eÌ„â—â— the â— and the whole Court of Parlaâ—eÌ„t M. Barlowâ— beggâ—â—g oâ— the question Dolem coÌ„fâ—â—eÌ„â—e part 1. c. 3. pag. 210. Rom. 14.1 Cor. 8. 10. About the Statâ—te â—â— Association Doleman part 2. p. 117. Lett. p. 93. The first suâ—â—osed â—â—â—tradicâ—iâ—n â—â—llarm de Iâ—â—â—iâ— ab 5. cap. 7. Apol. 63. Tob. 4. Iob. 11. 1. Tim 3. 2. Tim. 4. Thâ— suÌ„â—â—e oâ— Card. Bâ—â—â—â—râ—inâ—s 〈…〉 and Anâ—weaâ—e Barlow 258. Ber ser. 9. in Psal. Qui habitaâ— M. Barlowes follyes Much idle babling â—f M. Barlow to no other purpose then to sâ—â—w his owne ignoâ—ance M. Barlows false charge vpon his aduersaty Bellar. dâ— Iustificat lib. 5. cap. 12. Good workes may giue cause of confideÌ„ce although a man put no confidence in them but onely in Gods mercy Bellar. lib. â— de Iustif. cap. 7. A â—hildish 〈◊〉 of M. Barâ—â—â— Bâ—â—l pag. 2â—4 A notable â—â—gging of M. Barlow 3 Râ—g 17. 1. Cor. 7. An excelleÌ„t example out of S. Paul to conâ—ute M. Barlâ—wâ— contradiction obiected against the Cardinall Baâ—l pag. 26â— Bâ—â—l pag. 2â—â— Euery beggars patcht cloake conuinceth M. Barlow of egrâ—gious folly Bâ—rl pâ—g 265. The secoÌ„d supposed contradiction Bâ—llarm liâ— 2. de Statu pe cati amisâ— gratiae â— 13. Psal. 140. Bellarmin cleaâ—â—â—â—â—oÌ„ contradiction Bell l. 1. de Clâ—â—iâ—is â— 14. l. 4. de Pâ—nt cap. 25. Dâ— Câ—â—e l. 1. cap. 13. 〈…〉 â—â—llaâ—m c. 14. M. Barlow settâ—th 〈◊〉 his ownâ— fraud in mark a â—â— great leâ—â—ters Lib. 4. de Pontif. c. 22.23.24 25. Barl. pag. 269. Shamles dealing oâ— M. Barlow M. Barlow maketh â—ely Whitaker to be terrour vnto Bellarmine spectatum admissi â—isum tene atis Zisca the blind Bohemian rebell a fit Saint for Iohn Fox M Reynolds refutatioÌ„ o D. Whiâ—taker M. Whitakers igâ—norance M. Reyâ—nolds confutation â— 97. Whitakers booâ— not wort the takinâ—â— vp Apolog. Toâ—t pag. 75. 〈◊〉 pag 27â— An egreâ—giâ—us abusing Cardina Bellarm to framâ— contradâ—â—ction Baâ—l paâ— 273. S. Thomas eâ—râ—gâ—ously 〈◊〉 by M. Barlow D. Thom. 2â— q. 23. art 10. in corpore art 11. 12. per totum Lib. 3. Institut c. 2. Lib. de Iusâ—iâ—iâ—at c. 24. Letter pag. 98. Lâ—tt p. 9â— Touchi K. Henâ—â— the secoÌ„â—â— Houed 303. Ib. p. 30 See Barâ—â— in an 117 sub â—inen Barl. pag. 275. M. Baâ—â—low offâ—â—â—ded for that the King of France 〈◊〉 Embassâ—â—dour 〈◊〉 not whâ—â—â—ped Matth. â— Eâ—hes â— Matt. 16. Ephes. 5. 〈…〉 〈◊〉 5.24 M. Barlow litle aâ—â—â—aâ—ntâ—â—â—ith 〈…〉 body by diâ—â—â—pline 1. 〈◊〉 2. 14. â—aâ—lâ—w pag. 2â—7 Frederick the first About the coronatioÌ„ of Henry the sixt a In â—ita Câ—lâ—stini b Pâ—rt â— gâ—â— 40. in 〈◊〉 11â— c 〈◊〉 ◠〈…〉 â— d â—n An. 119â— e 〈…〉 f 〈…〉 Baronius An. 1191. Alexander the 3. â—â—eared 〈◊〉 a â—â—luÌ„ny Paron in annal an 1177. â—arlow pag. 281. Baâ—l pag. 269. Walthramuâ— so often obiecâ—ed of no credit â—â—ron Tom. 12. 〈◊〉 Râ—â— pag. 7â— Lett. pag. 1â—1 Apolog. pag. 72. About Philip the Emperâ—r â—laine not by Otho the â—mpâ—ror but by Otho the Câ—uÌ„t 〈…〉 Lâ—ttâ— pag. 1â—1 1 In vita Innoâ—eÌ„ 4. 2 Lib. 2. Dâ—â—ad l. 75 3 Tom. 2. Enne 9. l. 6 non longè ante finem 4 Part. 2. gen 41. anâ— 1247. 5 Lib. 8. c. 18 suâ—â— Saxoniae 6 In fine l. 18. * â— lond vâ—i supra Petrus de Viâ—eis lib. 2. â—pâ—st 2. 〈◊〉 vita 〈…〉 〈…〉 Inforcing of matters against the Pope Aug. in â—sal â—3 Barl. pag. 2â—4 in â—inâ— 295. Barl. pag. 291. Bâ—rl pag. 291. M. Barlows Iugling â—â—â—dem Barl. pag. 290. Barlow pag. 29â— M. Barlows lying discourse p. 292. 1. Sam. 26. 20. Plat. in Honor. 3. Vide â—ac omnia apud Vâ—spergen Nauâ—l geÌ„ 41. anno 1228. M. Barlow disseÌ„blâ—th the Eâ—perors faâ—lts ther by the better to charge the Pope of iniustice against him â—â—innius in Grâ—g 9. Tom. 3. pag. 147â— Thom. Fazel Decad. 2. l. 8. c. 2. circa fineÌ„ Vide in 6. Decret de sâ—ntâ—nt reiâ—dicata c. 2. Fazel ibid. Iacob Phil. Bergom an 1â—24 VVestmonast anno 1225. Sabâ—ll Enead 9. l. 6. Paulus AEâ—â—l in Lâ—dâ—â— nono Monacus Pâ—duâ—nus in anno 1225. Antoninus tit 1â— cap. 5. Platina in Innoâ—â—ntio qâ—a to Ioannet Alâ—hâ—â—â— Ciâ—â—â—n Vbert â—â—â—â—et l. 4. hist. Gâ—nâ—â—â—s Paul â—Enal in â—â—dou 9. M. Barlows vntruth about the cause of the Empeâ—rours going to the Holy-laÌ„d The trâ—e caâ—â—es why the Eâ—perors Staâ—â— wâ—re inuadâ—d in hiâ— absenâ—e Antonin tiâ— 1â— 4. §. 1. 〈◊〉 l. â— â— 1. 〈…〉 l. 6. c. 17. c. Sâ—gon in aâ— 1228. Hâ—lâ—â—â— Mâ—tius in an 1227. â—rantz 〈◊〉 8. c. 2. Fazelius Dâ—cad 2. lib. 8. c. 2. Nâ—u l. 〈◊〉 41. 〈◊〉 1229. in â—inâ— Why Fredericke weÌ„t to the holy laÌ„d The Emperours sicknes counterâ—ait Lib. 8. c. 1. Naâ—â—l lo co câ—â—ato a Inâ— brâ—n 〈◊〉 â—n 1217. b 〈◊〉 il eâ—â—eÌ„â—n c in Greg. nâ—no d Enâ—a 9. l. â— in Gâ—egor e Decad. 2. l. 7. anno 1226. f â— â—art hist. l 14. Hâ—ld â—utiâ—â—s