another Psalme how dareth God to say if he be so very wary Ad alligandos Reges eorum in compedibâ—s Nobiles eorum in manicis serreâ— to bind Kings in feâ—ters and their Noble men in iron manacles And finally how warily was this spoken by the holy Ghost not offending Princes Potentates when he sayth Potentes potenter tormenta paâ—ientur powerfull men shall suffer poweâ—full tormeÌ„ts Was almighty God wary in these speaches But let vs see how this Prince-flatterer doth go about to proue this his foolish impieâ—y out of the Scripture it selfe to wit out of the second Psalme before cited and thereby let the Reader learne what assurance men haue of the true sense of any Scripture by him and his alleaged when it is powdered and seasoned with their exposition God himselfe is very wary saith he in speaking to Princes for that Psalme which of all the Psalmes is most dredâ—ull to Kings and begins with a thundring expostulation Quare fremuerunt gentes Reges astiterunt it pleaseth him to conclude not with a menacing extrusion but with a calme persuasion Osculemini filium ne irascatur Kisse the sonne leaâ—t he be angry or as the vulgar hath it Apprehendite disciplinaÌ„ adâ—â—it discipline And is not this a goodly discourse of Maister Barlow to proue the greatnesse of Princes and that God himselfe doth speake very wariâ—â— vnto theÌ„ The hebrew phrase Kisse the Sonne is as much to say as adore the sonne of God when he shal be man and acknowledg and obey him as your King For as learned Vatabluâ— in his notes vpon the Hebrew text doth obserue it was a signe of submission subiectioÌ„ amoÌ„gst the Iewes to kisse the Princes hand which is here meant by the phrase of the Psalmist Osculemini filium that is kisse his hands and adore him for your King which the Septuaginta Interpreters well vnderstaÌ„ding did many years before the Natiuity of our Sauiour as the Chaldean Paraphrasis in like manner translate it Apprehendite disciplinâ—â— doe you apprehend or admit the discipline and doctrine of the Sonne of God when he shall appeare in flesh and so do all the ancient Greeke and Latin Fathers interprete this passage of the Psalme nor can I see with what shew of reason or probability M. Barlow can bring it for his purpose of flattering Kings in this place he saith that God concludeth not here with a menacing extrusion of Kinges but with a calme persuasion Kisse the sonne this kissing seemes perhaps to him an amiable thing but if it be interpreted as now I haue shewed and S. Hierome doth expound it for a matter of subiection humiliation and of admitting discipline it seemeth not oftentimes so sweet pleasant to Princes as M. Barlow would haue it But what shall we say to other phrases here contayned as wheÌ„ Kings Princes do swell take counsaile against God and his Christ saying Let vs breake their bands and cast of their yoake then sayth the Prophet He that sitteth in heauen will scorne them and our Lord will scoffe at them Then will he speake vnto them in his wrath and terrify them in his fury A little after he sayth That he shall rule them with an iron-rod and shall breake theÌ„ in pieces like a potters vessell And now M. Barlow is this a calme perswasioÌ„ is here no menacing extrusion threatned to Princes wheÌ„ they are threatned to be crushed like a potters vessell Nay marke also the subsequeÌ„t perswasioÌ„ Nunc ergo Reges intelligite c. Now therfore vnderstaÌ„d ô ye Kings be wise Learne how to iudg the earth Serue god in feare and reioyce in him with trembling Admit discipline least he wax angry and you perish froÌ„ your way for so hath the Hebrue text wheÌ„ his wrath shal be but a little kindled happy are all those that trust in him What can be spoken more seuerely to Princes then all this Or was this Psalme well chosen by M. Barlow for his purpose of flattering Kinges and Princes in respect of Gods warynes in his speaches Whereas no Psalme amongst all the rest vttereth so much terror vnto them only the words osculemini Filium do seeme to haue drawne him to this impertinent imagination But now let vs see his Conclusion and application against the Popes pretending authority ouer Kinges for which all the rest hitherto hath bene brought in Ne pereatis de via iusta least you loose the right way to heauen and your right in the crowne of heauen he sayd not your titles to your Kingdomes nor right to your Crownes vpon earth God thought it neuer fit to support his Church by daring of Princes Professors of his name A Godly speach fitting for soe spirituall a man as this Doctour seemeth to bee if for refusing discipline and obedience God doth threaten to Princes the losse of heauen with all the right they haue to that euerlasting Crowne and Kingdome which includeth also their eternall condemnation to hell-fire and torments What great priuiledge is it to spare their titles to their temporall crownes kingdomes on earth that may be lost in an instant and long cannot indure why should God thinke it so inconuenient to support his Church by daring of Princes least perhaps they should wax angry and dare him againe For so it seemeth by the reason giuen heere least by daring they should not be nourishing Fathers to the sayd Church but eyther pinchiâ—g suppressors or cold sauourers And why For that God dareth them forsooth with leesing their temporall states His daring for leesing of heauen seemeth not to trouble them so much but their perill to loose their temporall kingdome if they be incorrigible is the thing that principally troubleth them according to this wise discourse of M. Barlow Doe not his friends take pitty of his folly If I would take vpon me to lay forth the examples that are found in Scriptures of Gods plaine speaches menacing threates vnto Princes let M. Barlow call them darings if he will it would quickly appeare how vaine and prophane the former obseruation of his is that God is so very wary in his speaches towards them For what will you say to that speach of his to King Sennacherib Ponam circulum in naribus tuis camum in labijs tâ—â—s reducaÌ„ in viam per quam venisti I will put a ring in thy nostrills a bit in thy mouth and will bring thee back into the way by which thou didest come That also of Nabuchodonosor the most potent King of Babylon as the Scripture calleth him Eijcient te ab hominibus cum bestijs serisque erit habitatio tua soenum vt bos comedes They shall cast thee out from the company of men and thy dwelling shal be amongst wild beasts thou shalt eat hay as an oxe Was this a wary and respectâ—ue speach to so great a King and Monarch That other speach also of God to King Achab of
actiuum siue pecâ—â—â—â—â—â—tâ—rius qui scandalizaâ—etur There may be notwithstanding an actiue scandall giuen without the sinne of another man that is scandalized which is to say that one man may sâ—eke to induce another man by word or fact to sinne which is the scandall giuen and yet the same not to be taken by the other for that the sayd other consenteth not but resisteth or contemneth the sayd scandall giuen or offered And of this there may be fiue hundred examples alleadged And I cannot but wonder at M. Barlowes grosâ—e ouersight in this behalfe for when himselfe for example sake in a Sermon doth go about to perswade his hearers against the Reall Presence against the Sacramentall Confession of their sinnes against their Spirituall Obedience to their Supreme Pastour and other such poynts that we that be Catholikes do hold to be great sinnes this we say to be a scandall actiue inducing men to fall into sinne so that in him the scandall is giuen but many of his auditours do not take this scandall nor are induced to sinne by him for that they belieue him not nor esteeme him but for a deceiuer So that here is a scandall actiue without a passiue and scandall giuen but not taken And the like example may be giuen of facts As if a man should see M. Barlow to eate flesh and feed freely on fasting dayes and in the lent which perhaps were not hard to find him doing here is a scandall giuen but it is not necessary that euery one that seeth him doe this should fall and follow his fact and so take the scandall For many will say to themselues that M. Barlow followeth not the life of S. Antony or S. Hilarion other Saints that were great fasters but a good fellowes life that loueth a good morsell when he hath it making no difference of dayes or meâ—tes for auoiding of superstition for that this is pleasant Deuinity agreeing to his appetite Some other would passe further and say with the Apostle Animalis hâ—mo non percipit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei the sensuall man giuenâ— to his belly vnderstaÌ„deth not the things that belong to the spirit of God But howsoeuer it be here is a scandal giuen not taken consequently M. Barl. is much ouertaken in this to say there is no scandal giuen if it be not taken But now followeth a far greater abuse against Thomas Aquinas in peruerting his whole discourse meaning with inteÌ„t therby to disgrace the consciences of our English Catholiks that do refuse the Oath For it followeth immediatly in M. â—arlow If their conscienceâ— be offended at it they 〈◊〉 sayth Aquinas eyther simply ignoranâ— or wickedly maliâ—â—â—â—s◠〈…〉 last rather And these words of simply ignorant or wickedly â—â—â—â—cious he layeth forth to the view in a different letter 〈◊〉 markable to all and thereby would haue vs thinke that they are so set downe by Aquinaâ— himselfe adding also the reason of Aquinas as he sayth â—or that he which is well instrâ—cted and truly sanctiâ—ied can take no offence though giuen neuer so openly But if you marke this discourse of M. Barlow you shall find it intricate and difficult to be vnderstood which iâ— the marke he shooteth at I meane not to be vnderstood as els where I haue notified but much more would you discouer detest his fraud if you looke vpon Aquinas himselfe in his 43. question about scandal deuided into eight seuerall questions or articles all which M. Barlow hideth as before I haue noted And albeit he founded himselfe wholy vpon him as in this place you see and dotâ— quote him twice in the margent yet doth he not vouchsafe to name any one part or place of Aquinas his workes where he handleth this matter But we haue found the place and shall cleare the fraud as briefly as may be When S. Thomas Aquinas had shewed in his first article the definition of Scandal that It is an euill speach and fact giuing occasion to another man of spirituall ruyne or â—alling into sâ—â—â— by occasion of this definition had declared diuers other pointes concerning the same as that there is a scandall actiue and passiue giuen and taken giuen when a maâ— doth giue occasion by his speach or deeds to draw anotheâ— man to sinne and this either out of his owne purpose and intention which is the most malicious kind of actiue scandall or for that his speach or fact being naught is of it selfe inductiue to sinne though not intended by the scandalizer And that passiue scandall is when any man is induced and falleth into sinne by another mans speach or act and this eyther with ground or without it as presâ—tly shal be shewed After this I say S. Thomas in his seauenth article doth declare how that sometime there may be a passiue scandall without an actiue or taken and not giuen as when one is scandalized and falleth into sinne by another mans fact or speach without a iust cause and this eyther of malice by misinterpreting his wordes or deedes or by ignorance or infirmity by mistaking the same The first is called Scandalum Pharisaeorum the scandall of Pharises for that these people did maliciously so misinterprete the wordes and factes of our Sauiour to an euill senâ—e therby fell into synne themselues the other is called Scandalum Pusillorum the scandall of weaklings for that they are scandalized and fall into sin by infirmity or mistaking Now then sayth S. Thomas for so much as wee may not scandalize our brethren or giue them any iust occasion by our words or actions to fall into sinne vnder so grieuous and horrible threatnings as our Sauiour threatneth in the Ghospell what shall we do when we see any man scandalized without a iust cause Wherunto he answereth that if it be the scandall of Pharises that is to say wilful and out of malice we must let them alone according to our Sauiours doctrine Matth. 15. and go forward in our doings as himselfe did But if the scandall which they take do ariâ—e by reason of infirmity or ignorance then ought we to instruct them and giue them reason of our doings and sometimes also deferr our actions vntill the occasion of scandall be taken awayâ— Si autem post redditam rationem huiâ—smâ—di scandâ—lum dâ—ret iam vidâ—tur ex â—â—alitia â—sseâ— But if after we haue yielded the reason of our doings the sayd party remayneth scandalized stillâ— now it seemeth that his scandall is not of infirmity but of malice This is the doctrine of S. Thomas which M. Barlow applieth to the Consciences of our English Catholikes that refuse the Oath which is hard to say whether he doth it eyther of ignorance or of malice or of both But sure I am he abuseth egregiously the meaning of S. Thomas who writeth this of those only that take scandall and occasion of fal where none is giuenâ— this eyther out of
of greatest antiquity yea from the Apostles times themselues he giueth also a Prescription how to try them If any heresies saith he dare presume to thrust themselues into the Apostles age edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum euoluant ordines Episcoporum let them publish the beginninges of their Churches and let them lay forth the order successioÌ„ of their Bishops And with this he thought their mouthes stopt And yet in another place he canuaâ—eth theÌ„ againe with the same Prescription saying Qui estis vos vnde quando venistis vbi tam diu latuistis VVhat are you whence and when came you and where haue you lurked so long signifying herby that the Priority of time was a great argument against them And furthermore he disputing against Marcion the Hereticke hath these wordes Ego dico meum Euangelium verum Marcion suum c. I say that my Ghospell is true and Marcioâ— faith his I do affirme Marcion to haue falsified and Marcion sayth I haue done it who shal determine the matter between vs but the difference of time that will giue Authority to that which shal be found to be most ancient and pronounce that to be corrupted which shal be proued to be the later So as here supposing that which before we haue touched that Catholick doctrine was planted first before any heresy sprang vp by the Prescription of time is not only a sound argument in case of religion which fondly M. Barlow denieth but a conuincent demonstration also of truth and to that effect vsed commonly by all Fathers that wrote against Hereticks after Tertullian Tardè mihi saith ancient Hilarius against the Arians hos pijssimos Doctores â—taâ— nunc huiuâ— saeculi protulit sâ—râ— hâ—s habuiâ— fides mea magistros Too late hath this present age brought â—orth these pious Doctours he speaketh in scorne too late are they come to be maisters of my faith And S. Hierome writing against the Luciâ—erian Hereticks vseth the same argument Ex hâ—c ipso saith he quâ—d posteriùs instituti sunt â—os essâ— indicaâ—t â—â—os â—uturos Apostolus annunciâ—â—iâ— Euen by this it â—elâ—e that Luciâ—erans haue risen vp later they shew theÌ„selues to be those deceyuing Hereticks of whome the Apostle doth forwarn vs and bid vs take heed of And the same S. Hierom talking to an Heretick saith Cur post quadringentos annos dâ—cere â—os â—iteris quod ante nesciuimus vsque ad hunc diem â—ine vestra doctrina Christianus mundus fuit Wherefore after foure hundred years dost thou go about to teach vs that which before we knew not Euen vntil this day the Christian world hath enduâ—ed without this your doctrine And to this effect I might alleadge the saying of many other Fathers who vse this argument of Prescription of time as a principall demonstration against Hereticks and Heresies But let vs heare the reasons alleaged by M. Barlow why Possession for hould for so are his wordes and Prescription for time may be Pleas in ciuill Courtes but no sound arguments in case of Religion For the first sayth he may be clayme by intrusion which is their case that plead for Rome the other may be antiquity of error for so is prescription without verity therefore when truth appeares let custome yeld to truth was the conclusion of a Councell So he And citeth in the margent Concil Carthag apud Cyprian But he that shall read that Councell of Carthage in S. Cyprian shall find first that these wordes are not a conclusioÌ„ of a Councell but the saying of one Bishop in that Councell to wit Zozimus of Tarassa and secondly M. Barlow wel knoweth or should know that that Councell or Synod was reiected after by aâ— the Catholik Christian world for thaâ— it was gathered in fauour of rebaptization of heretiks that were baptized in heresie as may appeare largely in S. Aâ—gustine in his booke against the Donatists where he setteth downe the sentences of diuers of that Councell and among other one of Zozimus which he sayth was this so it appeareth also in S. Cyprian Reuelatione facta veritatis 〈◊〉 error veritati when the truth is reueyled let error yeild to truth Vpon which wordes S. Augustine maketh this note Noluit quideâ— iste dicere consuetudinem sed errorem This Bishop would not say that custome sâ—ould yield but error And yet M. Barlow against the testimony of them both would needes relate it otherwise let custome yeeld to truth and say it was the Conclusion of a Councell which was neyther of the Councel nor any in the Councell for that sometims custome conteyneth truth it selfe and giueth testimony to truth and wee know it to be truth by tradition of custome so as the ancient Fathers went warily herein not so rashly against all kind of custome as M. Barlow his fellowes and followers doe But perhaps he will alledge out of M. Morton other his fellow-writers the saying of S. Cyprian himselfe in his Epistle ad Pompeium Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est Custome without truth is antiquity of error which all men will grant but maketh nothing to our case For wee suppose true religion to haue bene planted first by Christ afterward heresie to haue risen which supposall being true the argument of the Fathers before mentioned is most effectuall We were before you in Christian religion and you rose vp after vs professing a different faith from vs Ergo our religion is Catholike and yours Heresy For that this is to be accounted Catholike doctrine as M. Barlow before alledgeth himselfe out of Vincentius quod semper creditum est that alwaies hath bene beleiued since the beginning of Christianity and soe that which is most ancient is truest And where M. Barlow sayth that possession may be a claime by intrusion it may be indeed in temporall possession but not in this our case especially when it is ioyned with Prescription from antiquity For supposing that the true Catholike religion was first put in possession by our Sauiour and his Apostles as hath bene sayd and that it can be proued that this possession hath beene continued by Prescription time out of mind euen from the beginning as we offer to proue that on the contrary side no knowne interruption can be shewed of this possessioÌ„ eyther by intrusion or other wise as M. Barlow cannot proue that there hath bene nor doth he go about to proue it though he blush not to say it Possession in this case togeather with Prescription doth euince the verity of our cause And for the saying of S. Cyprian That custome without verity is the antiquity of errour though in it selfe it be true yet doth S. Augustine tell vs that it was ill applied by S. Cyprian againâ—t the custome of the Church in his dayes for not rebaptizing Heretikes when himselfe was in that errour that they ought to be rebaptized the Catholikes vrged the force of custome and
sayth M. Barloâ— to this Doth not common sense teach it to be so And thus much for the death of those our Catholike and innocent Priests whose death was pretiosa in conâ—â—ecta Domini pretious in our Lords sight that died only for testimony of his truth which if M. Barlow did as well see and feele as Queene Elizabeth doth at this day he would not so prattle as he doth Let vs see a little further He bringeth in for proofe of the Queenes mildnes an Historiographer of Genua called Bizarrus or Bizarro which in English signifieth a Mad-cap and he is brought in to tell vs certaine points of a Mad-cap indeed to wit the great moderation of her mind her in-bred clemencie though himselfe be an out-bred that she gouerned her subiects with exceeding great mildnes abhorring from bloud or putting any to death c. which belike he writing in Genua knew better then English men liuing in England who felt the smart in themselues and others whiles this man was out of the Gunshot and as it is likely well paid for his paynes for Syr Horatio Parauicino was able both for his credit and wealth to vndertake a greater matter then this And for that you M. Barlow with M. Sutcliffe and others do so often alleadge this Bizarro as an Author against vs it shall auaile much both for your credits and his to tell vs where when and by what authority he was printed for here in Italy we can heare of no such worke although some search hath bene made for him which doubtles we should do had he bene set forth in these parts and therefore we thinke him to be no Catholike writer but of a bastard brood and a Mad-cap indeed of your owne making Besides that how truly he writeth not only all England but all the whole world can testify and to omit all other most cruell massacring and bloud-shed the memory of the vnnaturall and Butcherly Tyranny executed vpon his Maiesties Mother will remaine for a most rufull example to all posterity But M. Barlow not content with externe witnesses alleadgeth also domesticall saying Your owne Priests shal speake for Queene Elizabeths lawes and then cyteth out of the book of Quodlibets a certaine pathetical exaggeration in praysing Queene Elizabeth and her lawes also against Catholickes which we esteeming to come from that good suggester Ri. Can. who suggested so notorious a lie vnto M. Mortâ—n as himselfe complaineth hath byn shewed in the late Reckoning with him we esteeme it accordingly do giue it the credit that it deserueth which is nothing at all And M. Barlow is driuen to a hard exigent wheÌ„ he stoopeth so low as to take vp these base raggs to blazon Q. Elizabeths prayses withall which a wiser man would haue byn ashamed to alleage especially knowing with what sorrow of hart the poore man that fathered that filthy worke repeÌ„ted him at his death therof asked of God the Iesuites pardon for the same as before hath bene signified OF QVEENE Elizabeths Sicknes and Death and other things belonging thereunto §. III. AFTER the former points of Queene Elizabeths lawes and executions therof made against Catholikes and Catholike Religion whereby she made her selfe most odious both at home and abroad to forrayne Princes yea to many Protestant Potentates themselues that misliked such cruelty I shewed that as the naturall effect and consequence in such causes is feare diffidence suspition and vexation of mind so grew the same vpon her very much in the course of her life especially towards her latter dayes when she was impressioned that not only Priestes and Iesuites who indeed did pray to God for her conuersion but souldiars also and Captaynes and Phisitians did seeke her death eyther by poysoning her body saddle chayre seate or somewhat else belonging vnto her as the deathes of Lopez Squier others doe testify to all which M. Barlow doth answere now by running to certayne common places and sentences that proue nothing but only that he hath bene more diligent then iudicious in gathering them out of Authours and applying them without puâ—pose for he telleth vs first out of Salust that Ingenia Regum sunt prona ad formâ—dinem the inclination of Kings are prone to feare And then out of Seneca Dâ—bia pâ—â— certis solent timere Reges Kinges are wont to feare thâ—ngs that be doubtâ—full for certayne which in my iudgement maketh more for my purpose then his Then he sayth that it was not soe with Queene Elizabeth for that carefull she was fearefull she was not wary she was but not iealous prouident but not suspicious wherin I referre me to them that knew her better then M. Barlow and to the effects themselues which are the best witnâ—sses And for that I sayd in my Letter that this griping passion of feare and iealousy did force her to lay hands vpon the bloud of the most dearest in affection and nearest of kinted that she had in this life as the Earle of Essex and his Maiesties Mother M. â—arlow comming to answer this poynt sayth neuer a word but passeth it ouer with mumme-sâ—lence and no marueile for he had sayd so much before both for the Earle and against the Earle while the Queene was a liue for him in setting â—orth his excessiue prayses and tryumph after Calâ—s voyage when he hoped to haue preferment by him and against him aâ—ter his dâ—ath when the path of promotion opened it selfe another way to wit by disgracing infaming him as I thinke the miserable man knew not what to say perswading himselâ—e wherin I thinke he erred not that whatsoeuer he should say no man would belieue or greatly care of it and therefore sylence was the best But for the thing it selfe I meane the manner of his dâ—ath I will not meddle nothing doubting but that so loose and exorbitant a life as he led being alwayes accoÌ„panied with crewes of goodfellow-Ministers that by life and doctrine taught him that way of perfection in their trade he deserued no better an end then he receiued And moreouer it may be also that the State and Queene had further reasons to moue them to seuerity against â—im then euery man knoweth although with the Queenes owne person he was thought to be further engaged for speciall â—auours receyued then that vpon the suddayne he could fall to hate her and seeke her destruction and so he protested at his death though this bloudy Sycophant in strayning his actions thoughts and intentions after his death at Paules Crosse wher in a maÌ„ may discouer supereminent malice issuing out of the roote of ambition leuelled all his speach to that end to styr vp and confirme iealousy in the Queenes mynd that they two could not liue togeather and therefore in the end of his Sermon extant now in print he left thirteene most spightfull recordes to be borne in memory whereof the sixt is in these wordes Hiâ— liâ—e a danger to the Queene marke that
exorbitant perchance virulent and impotently passionate that euer appeared in paper in our English tongue for which I intend not to follow him any further step by step and foote by foote as hitherto I haue done for it would require a huge volume weary both vs and the reader with the impertinency therof Wherfore I shal in that which is to ensue draw the rest of this his Answere to certaine particuler heads for more perspicuity and breuities sake wherby shal appeare how worthy a writer he is and well deseruing his fee that runneth into such absurdities errors ignorances corruptions and falsityes as wil be layd against him wherin I remit my selfe not only to that which is already sayd but particulerly also to that which is to ensue CONCERNING ERRORS ABSVRDITIES IGNORANCES AND FALSITIES Vttered by M. Barlow in the rest of his Answere CHAP. V. WHER AS page 49. 50. of my Letter I began in the second Part of the second Paragraph to handle whether temporall obedience were denied vnto his Maiesty by those that refused the Oath of Allegiance and that by the expresse order and commandement of the Pope in his Breue as the Apologer often affirmeth and M. Barlow still auoucheth I sayd that this was iniurious dealing towards vs who neâ—er denied this poynâ— that all dutifull ciuill obedience was to be performedâ— and that it needed not to cite both Scriptures Fathers and Councells to proue the said temporall obedience to be due for that we both confessed taught and perswaded the same to all his Maiâ—sties subiects and that the coâ—trary neuer passed through our cogitations but do hould said I and teaâ—h that subiects are bound to obey their temporall Princes in all thinges lawfâ—ll not only good Princes but bad also and not only out of fâ—â—re flaâ—tery as some do but out of conscience as the Apostle â—eacâ—â—th vs to the Romans propter conscientiam sayth he for conscience sake but yet not contra conscienâ—iam against conscience or contrary to conscience Against which clause M. Barlow very learnedly and piously setteth downe this doctrine They teach sayth he that the Prince is to be obeyed propter conâ—cienâ—iamâ— nâ—â— contra conscientiam for conscience sake not against conscience that is no sound doctrine in the negatiue part for euen against a mans conscienâ—e the Prince is to be obeyed vnlesse that he that disobeyeth câ—â— proue his conscience to be the same which the Apostle describeth a good conscience accompanied with true loue and â—ayth vnâ—ayned So he And presently he addâ—th a reason out of Syr Thomas More one oâ— our Martyr's as he calleth him and we worthily account him so who sayth that there may be consciâ—ntia aâ—â—nina and conscientia lupina the conscience of an Asâ—e and the conscience of a Wolfe which we easily graunt and that Syr Thomas More had neyther of them and M. Barlow perhaps hath both the Asinina in making this ignorant impious determination That a man may obey Princes against his owne conscience and the Lupina in going about craftily violently to defend it by the shew of Scripture as presently will appeare For albeit I haue written somewhat of this matâ—er before in the first Part of this discussion to wit of the obligation that euery man hath to follow his Conscience and precept of his inward reason be it right or wrong so long as it standeth vncontrolled yet am I forced to say somewhat more here for detection of this mans wilfull â—rror or grosse ignorance in this place and that in both the two poynts now mentioned concerning the obligation that men haue not to do against their conscience and the prescription of a good conscience pretended to be alleaged out of Saint Paules Epistle to Timothy for in both pointes there be eâ—regious fraudes if not fooleries And for the first the Reader must vnderstand that this proposition so assertiuely set downe here by M. Barlow that euen against a mans conscience the Prince is to be obeyed is so absurd and impious in Catholicke Christian â—ares especially of the learned as nothing can be more for that it openeth a playne way to Atheisme and ouerthroweth the very first morall principles of vertuous actions in vs to wit the Synderisis and prâ—script of reason it selfe that God hath by nature planted in our soules for our gouernment and direction against which light and rule whosoeuer doth any thing willingly must needes sinne whatsoeuer the thing that is done be good or bad the reason wherof is for that the goodnes or badnes of any thingâ— imbraced by our will dependeth of the apprehension and estimation therof by our vnderstanding and prescript of reason that inwardly directeth the said will so as if it should be proposed vnto our will for exaâ—ple sake as an euill thing and with that apprehension imbraced by our will though it were good in it selfe yet to me it must needs be euill for that I did it thinking it to be an euill thing As for example to belieue in Christ sayth S. Thomas in it selfe is a good thing and necessary to saluation but yâ—t the will of man doth not imbrace it but as it is propounded vnto the same by our reason and therfore if the said reason and iudgment should propose it as an euill thing and not good to belieue in Christ as in Turkes and Iewes it doth and that the will notwithstanding should choose and imbrace it as it is proposed vnder the same apprehension that it is euill indeed then doth our will commit sinne for that in her conceipt and apprehension she chooseth and imbraceth euill and though in it selfe it be not so yet to her it is that iudging it so doth notwithstaÌ„ding imbrace it In which case Schoolmen do define that a good obiect so chosen by the will against the dictamen of reason and conscience is â—onâ—m sâ—â—pliciter and secundum se but mâ—lum per accidens huic homini siâ— eligenti it is good simply and in it selfe but accidentally euill to this particuler man that chooseth it against the direction of his iudgment and conscience And this poynt is a thing so cleare in nature it selfe â— as that Aristotle in his â—irst and seauenth bookes of Morâ—ls treaâ—ing oâ— the nature and condition of the incontinenâ— man sheweth that a man may be incontinent two wayes one way properly in that he doth exercise any act that appertayneth properly aâ—d truely to the vice of incontinencie the other way accidentally when he doth exeâ—cise an act that he imagineth and perswadeth himselfe â—o be in the matter of incontinency and is not and yet doth Aristotle conclude this man to be incontinent for â—hat his will did disagree in this matter from his reason and iudgment making choice of that which the said reason did propound vnto her as an euill thing Wherfore according to these principles the vniuersall consent both of Philosophers an Deuines is first that bonitas
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
place of conscience and Catholike religion But what sayth he if there be a false assumption and an vntrue applycation by the conscience is it then erroneous and not binding As put the case the conscience assumeth that to be sound and Catholike which is false and vnchristian doctrine To this question I haue answered now sufficiently before and haue largly proued that an erroneous conscience also byndeth vntill it be reformed and that it is impiety and ignorance to teach the contrary nor shall it be needfull to repeat all the reasons and arguments here This one may stand insteed of all the rest which is the ground of all That if a man may without sinne do against the dictamen or direction of his owne conscience then may he do that which he thinketh to be naught and consequently do naught wittingly and willingly without sin which is against the groundes both of Diuinity Philosophy and Nature it self And yet M. Barlow is so wise as to affirme here that an erroneous conscience byndeth not VVHEN the R. Fathâ—r F. Robert Persons the Author of this Treatise was come thus far in the examination of M. Barlowes Answere it pleased God to take him out of this mortall life which as he had imployed to the profit of many and the edification of the whole Christian world so he ended with grâ—at Religion and Piâ—ty and passed as we hope to etâ—rnall râ—st He commended on his death-bâ—d the finishing of this worke to an especiall friend of his who for his zeale in Gods cause and his loue to the said Father will I doubt not learnedly and exactly pâ—rforme his requâ—st and shortly cause it to be printed and published tâ—ough in a sâ—parate volume as for many respects is thought most conuenient FINIS Faultes escaped in the Printing Page line fault correction 6. 19. reaceaued receaued 118. 6. sweares swearers 149. 35. soone sowen 161. 16. which with 172. 6. Prohet Prophet 188. 3. miseriamur misereamur 197. 8. Scotlnd Scotland 203. 14. nothing noting 276. 17. an and 289. 4. prince price 321. 36. is it 325. 24. vnlwfulnes vnlawfulnes 333. 21. opinion Caietan opinion of Caietan 343. 7. no to 395. 37. yet they yet that they 436. 12. truth or truth of 442. 32. is in 444. 14. abase abuse 460. 7. acquinted acquainted 498. 32. Popos Popes 502. 24. them then 516. 27. wales walles 520. 37. restrainst restraint 518. 3. Then Fredericke Of them Fredericke A TABLE OF THE PRINCIPALL MATTERS HANDLED IN THIS BOOKE A ACHABS truely Mortification pag. 170. Adoniah slayne by Salomon pag. 105. Alexander the 3. Pope cleared of calumny pag. 467. Aluarus Pelagius abused by M. Barlow pag. 112. S. Ambrose abused by M. Barlow pag. 85. His resistance of the Emperour Valentinian against the Arians pag. 193. Anchor turned into a Milstone by M. Barlow pag. 244. Antiquity a good Argument in case of Religion pag. 150. Apparitions of Martyrs pag. 409. Aristotle abused by M. Barlow pag. 99. Assembly of ancient Fathers reasoning with his Maiesty de regno Dei pag. 237. S. Augustine and other Fathers Discourses of temporall and spirituall felicity pag. 184. 185. 186. Item about dying out of the Church pag. 223. His discourse about Gods Prouidence pag. 416. Author of the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance part 1. cap. 1. § 1. B M. BARLOVV his sharp wit pag. 7. His ignorance in Grammar Humanity Prefac n. 8. 9. In Logick Philosophy pag. 16. 93. 191. Praef. n. 12. n. 59. In Histories ib. n. 15. In Scriptures ib. n. 17. In Diuinity 193. 419. 420. His ridiculous folly pag. 17. His virulency against Iesuits pag. 21. 220. His abuse of F. Gaâ—net p. 2â— of F. Persons 24. 31. 402. praefac à num 86. vsque ad 108. His boldnes with the Scriptures p. 35. His friendship to Aduerbs pag. 39. His misunderstanding of Medina p. 43. His bad conscience and dealing vbique per totum librum His notorious vntruthes pag. 49. pag. 93. 97. 98. 116. 134. 403. 505. 506. Paulus 5. the Pope accused by him pag. 59. his mistaking and abusing of Graâ—â—hus Plutaâ—ke pag. 61. his scolding pag. 63. praefac à nu 90. vsque ad 107. his new Philosophy pag. 66. his abuse of Salmeron and Sandersâ— pag. 75. 77. and of others pag. 99. 112. 136. 246. 263. 279. 328. 330 338. of S. Thomas pag. 459. of Vrspergensis pag. 486. of Nauclerus pag. 490. of Blondus pag. 491. 509. of CuspiniaÌ„ pag. 496. of Matthew Paris p. 498. of Pope Innocentius the 4. pag. 507. 510. 512. of Card. â—ellarmine Praef. n. 66. his horning in Scotland pag. 95. his merriment of the Moone in the Asses belly pag. 103. his flattery of Kings pag. 104. his hate of ambition and his Mortificationâ— pag. 1â—6 172. 173. his Digestion and Concoctionâ— ib. his carnall Diuinity pag. 133. his phrases of Indument and Stripping pag 148. his IncoÌ„stancy pag. 163. 314. his Canonization of Q. Elizabeth p. 164 his Courtly Deuinity pag. 177. his Philtra loue-drugs pag. 201. his Parasiticall flattery of the King pag. 231. 233. 343. 359. praef n. â—18 119 his prayers without hope 334. his little Vniuersity 238. his Proctership for Turkes and Infidels pag. 24â— his strange notes of humility pag. 258. his Impudency pag. 264. 332. 333 338. 340. 341. 344. 441. 474. 477. 487. 492. 493. Praef. â— 64. his absurdities and errors c. part 2. cap. 5. per totum his Contradictions pag. 314. 326. his fast and loose with the Kinges authority pag. 316. his radiant folly pag. 321. his slaunders pag. 335. his falsifying of CouÌ„cells p. 369. His clouted frauds pag. 399. his mincing of Authors for his purpose ibid. 401. 444. his falsification in Capitall letters pag. 400. 453. his ridiculous profundities p. 414. his conscience need to be purged pag. 452. his Prouerb omnia sub vnam Myconum misapplyed 504. his scoffing at Reliques 535. What manner of writer he is prâ—fac n. 4. His Paradoxes prâ—f n. 24. his coÌ„science like a cheuerell point ib. nu 25. his strange construction of orbis terrae ibid. n. 11. his extra spheram praef n. 52. VVHOLY mistaken ib. n. 54. His potent word ib. n. 55. his bad brewing ib. n. 65. his Melancholy conceipt ib. n. 67. his suddaine pange of deuotioÌ„ ibid. nu 68. his rayling against Saints ib. n. 108. his obsessioÌ„ circumsession possession of Diuells ib. n. 111. a Bridewell-Doctour ibid. his Sermon in S. Edwards Church in Lincolne and abuse of Syr Io. Cutts ib. n. 112. his coÌ„demning his Maiesties Mother ib. n. 116. his leuity in writing ib. â— 121. his hypocoristicall alleuiation ibid. n. 122. his new found phrases ib. n. 123. his paring away ib. n. 128. his Feminine sexe predominate ib. n. 153. Bellarnine see Cardinall Binnius abused misconstred by M. Barlow pag. 405. Bishops how they are said to succeed Apostles pag. 450. M. Blackwell the Archpriest p. 536. C