conscience at all in that place but only assigneth the same as a thing necessarily requyred to the end and perfection of the Law For the wordes of the Apostle are these Finis prâ—cepti est charitas de corde puro conscientia bona fide non ficta The end of the coÌ„mandement or law is charity out of a pure hart a good conscience faith not fayned Which is no description of a good conscience as you see but of the end perfection of thâ— law which is Charity according to that which in another place the same Apostle sayth Pleâ—itudo legis Charitas the fullnes or fulfilling of the Law is charity But here he describeth more at large what manner of charity it must be to wit proceding out of a pure hart as also out of a good conscience which â—â—geâ—â—â—â—â— hope and out of vnfayned fayth So as here trâ—e charity 〈◊〉 described and not a good conscience which iâ— named â—â—â—ly as a condition needfully required to the fulfilling of the Law and not described as M. Barlow falsely affâ—â—â—â—â—â— For if a thing be described that hath many parts of 〈◊〉 requiâ—ed to the complement thereof it were very◠〈◊〉 to say that euery one of the said parts or parcels it described therby or that the said description may be ascribed 〈◊〉 euery one of them As if a man should describe a Knight or a Captaine that is to go to the wars what â—â—â—â—iâ—ure iâ— required to wit a horse sâ—ddle speare armour and the like it cannot be said that a horse is here described or a saddle or a speare but only the Knight himself who hath need of all these thinges So as in this M. Barlow is found 〈◊〉 haue peruerted the whole text and meaniâ—g of S. Paul There remaineth then his conclusion that for so much as Hereticks and Schismatickes also doe plead conscience for their standing out and that there is no one article in the Oath offered that can be proued to be contrary to a good conscience and true Christian religion therefore standeth the Apologers conclusion incoÌ„trollable still That the Pope hath prohibited English Catholikes to performe euen ciuill obedience to their Soueraigne But all this hath beene now answered by that which hath beene treated before for that Shiâ—matikes and Heretikes though they be â—ound both to informe reforme their consciences that be erroneous yet so long as that repugnaÌ„cy indureth they should sinne in doing contrary to the dictamen therof And as for the articles in the Oath that are contrary to Englisâ— Catholikes consciences and to theyr religion they are so many as do any way impeach or preiudice their religion which are the most part in the Oath as is knowne Neyther must M. Barlow run to this ordinary shift and say as he is wont that their consciences are not well cleansedâ— and that their religion is not true Christian Religion therefore they ought not to haue scruple in sweatingâ— for that now it hath been shewed that it is sufficient for binding them from swearing that their conscyences doe tell them the contrary which conscience to them doth appear good and their religion true in which respect the Pope that is of the same conscience and Religion hath defined it to be vnlawfull vnto them to sweare against this their coÌ„science and religion so long as it standeth as it doth And therefore if M. Barlow will haue them sweare without sinne in this case he must first make them Protestants and so giue them a new conscience and new religion for in that they haue they cannot doe it albeit for temporall obedience they offer all that may be exacted at their hands by any law of Christian subiection to their temporall soueraigne And this much may be sufficient for discussing of this point Whether subiects may or must obey their Princes when they command things against their consciences which in my Letter I denyed And whereas the Apologer did alleadg dyuers authorities out of Scriptures Fathers and Councels to proue the obedience of Subiects to theyr Princes not only Christian but also Infidels as to king Nabuchodonosor of Babylon to king Pharao of Egypt King Cyrus of Persia my answer then was this He alledgeth for examples out of the Scriptures that the children of Israel obeyed the King of Babylon as also they exhibited temporall Obedience vnto King Pharao of Egypt as in like manner to Cyrus King of Persia All which examples we grant to be true and could add many more both of the Iewes and Christians that lyued peaceably vnder Infidell Princes in those dayes But let one example as I said be brought forth wherin they obeyed them in points contrarie to their Conscience or Religion and it shall be sufficient We read in the Prophesie of Danielâ— that those three famous Iewes Sidrach Misach and Abdenago were most trustie vnto King Nabuchodonosor in temporall affayres and so much esteemed by him as he made them his vniuersall Gouernors ouer all the workes of the Religion of Babylon saith the Scripture and yet when it came to the poynt that he would haue them for his honour and pleasure and vpon his commandement adore the golden Statua which he had set vp they forsooke him flatly and said to him in the presence of all his Nobility assembled togeather that they were not so much as to answere him in that Commandement not would they do as he had appoynted them The like in effect did the ancienter Iewes do with King Pharao of Egypt for that albeit in temporall affayres they obeyed him euen in that tyme when he oppressed and persecuted them most yet in that he would haue had them stay and sacrifice in Egypt and not follow Moyses their Spiritual Superiour into the desert notwithstaÌ„ding that the King had some cause perhaps to suspect their temporall Allegiance also by that departure they being a potent multitude of people yet would they not obey him nor do as he would haue them when they persuaded themselues that God would haue the contrary I let passe how Daniel and his fellowes would not eate the meates of the King of Babylon nor Tobie those of the Assyrians much lesse would he leaue of to bury the dead though it were forbidden by Proclamation vnder payne of death The Machabees in like manner obeyed King Antiochus so long as he commanded nothing against their Law and Conscience but when he went about to force them to sacrifice and to eate swynes-flesh and other things against their Law and Conscience they refused openly to performe that Obedience So as these places of Scriptures alledged by the Apologer do proue nothing for him at all but are rather flat against him and for vs as yow haue seene Thus I wrote then now let vs see how M. Barlow ouerthroweth it First as concerning the 3. Pagan Kings Pharao Cyrus and Nabuchodonosor wherof I sayd the Iewes obedience vnto them was in temporall matters only
lesse the true substance of things handled by him I do pretermitt as very fond and impertinent the next passage that ensueth and is the last in this matter in M. Barlow his booke where he maketh this demaund But what if there be none or few that make such conscience or take such offence at the admission of the Oath as he speaketh of To this question I say it is in vaine to answere for if there be so few or no Catholikes that make conscience or scruple to take the Oath the contention will be soone at an end But presently he contradicteth himselfe againe taking another medium and saying that there would be none if they were not threatned by vs to haue their howses ouerturned as some Donatists sayth he confessed of themselues by the witnesse of S. Augustine that they would haue bene Catholikes if they had not bene put in feare ne domus corum euâ—rtâ—râ—ntur by the Circumcellians perhaps which M. Barlow sayth may spiritually be applyed to our threatning that such as take the Oath shall be accompted Apostataes and to haue renounced their first fayth and to be no members of the Catholike Church and finally that we shall remayne branded in euerlasting record with Balaams infamy that taught Balaac to lay a scandall or occasion of fall to the people of Israell To all which I answere first that he that layeth forth the truth of Catholike doctrine vnto Catholike men may not iustly be sayd to threaten or terrify but to deale sincerely and charitably with them laying truth before their eyes what their obligation is to God before man and how they are bound as members of his true Catholike Church to hould and defend the vnity and integrity of â—ayth and doctrine deliuered by the same though it be with neuer so much temporall danger And as for laying a scandall wherby they may fall into the ruine of their soules it is easy to iudge whether wee do it rather that teach them to deale sincerely with God and their Prince wherby they shall preserue their peace and alacrity of conscience or you that indeauoâ—r to induce thâ—â—â—â— sweare and doe against the same wheâ—eby they shall be sure to leese both their peace in this life and their euerlasting inheritance in the next THE ANSVVER TO AN OBIECTION BY OCCASION VVHEROF IT IS SHEVVED THAT POSSESSION and Prescription are good proofes euer in matters of Doctrine AND The contrary is fondly affirmed by M. Barlow CHAP. V. THERE remaineth now for the finall end of this first Part to examine an obiection that might be made by the aduersary which I thought good by â—â—ticipation to satisfy in the very last number of the first parâ— of my Letter And it was that wheras we complaine of so great pressures layd vpon vs for our conscience especially by this enforced Oath some man may sayâ— that the liâ—â— course is held in the Catholicke States against themâ— whome we esteeme as heretickes I shall repeate my owne words and then see what M. Barlow answereth to the same Here if a man should obiect quoâ—h I that among vs also men are vrged to take Oathes and to abiure â—heir opinions in the Tribunalls of Inquisitions and the like and consequently in this Oath they may be forced vnder punishment to abiure the Popes temporall authority in dealing with Kings I answere first that if any hereticke or other should be forced to â—biure his opinions with repugnance of conscience it should be a sinne to the inforcers if they knew it or suspected it neyther is it practised orâ— permitted in any Catholicke Court that eueâ— I knew But you will reply that if he doe it not he shal be punished by dâ—ath or otherwise as the crime requireth and Canons appoint and consequently the like may be vsed towards Catholikes that will not renounce their old opinions of the Popes authority But heere is a great difference for that the Catholike Church hath ius acquisitum ancient right ouer heretickes as her true subiects â—or that by their baptisme they were made her subiectes and left her afterwardsâ— and went out of her and she vseth but her ancient manner of proceeding against them as against all other of their kind and quality from the beginning But the Protestant Church of England hath nullum iuâ— acquisitum vpon Catholickes that were in possession before them for many hundred yeares as is euident neither was there euer any such Oath exacted at their hands by any of their Kings in former Catholicke timesâ— neither is tâ—eâ—e by any Catholicke forraine Monarch now liuing vpon 〈◊〉 and consequently by no â—eâ—son or right at all can English Catholicke men be either forced or pressed to this Oath against their conscience or be punished beâ—â—â—â— or destroyed if for their conscience they refuse to take tâ—e same humbly offering notwithstanding to their Soueraigne to giue him all other dutifull satisfaction for their temporall obedience and allegiance which of loyall Catholicke subiects may be exacted And this shall suffice for this first point concerning the contents and nature of this Oath This was my speach and conclusion then And now shal we take a vew how it is confuted by M. Barlow First be amplifyeth exaggerateth with great vehemeÌ„cy the torments and tortures of our Inquisitions which are vsed as he saith with the most extreme violence that flesh can indure or malice inuent wherin he sayth more I thinke then he knoweth and more perhaps then he belieueth and at leastwise much more then is true in my knowledg For of twenty that are imprisoned there not one lightly is touched with torture and when any is in the case by law appointed it is knowne to be more mildly then commonly in any other tribunall But let vs leaue this as of least moment and depending only vpon his asseueration and my denyall and let vs passe to that which is of more importance for iustifying the cause it selfe to wit by what right of power and authority the Roman Church proceedeth against heretickes and how different it is from that wherby Protestants pretend to be able iustly to proceed against vs for matters of Religion First of all he sayth that I do take as granted that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church which we deny sayth he and the chiefest learned of their side could as yet neuer conuict our denialls Wherto I answere that if themselues may be iudges that are most interessed in the controuersie I do not meruaile though they neuer yield themselues for conuicted But if any indifferent iudgment or triall might be admitted I do not doubt but that their euiction and coÌ„uiction would quickly appeare and many learned men of our dayes haue made most cleare demonstrations therof by deducing the Roman Church doctrine and fayth from the Apostles dayes vnto our times successiuely as namely Doctour Sanders his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Monarchy Cardinall Baronius in the continuation of his Annales Gâ—nebrarâ—
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
voluntatis seu actus interioris dependet à ratione proponeâ—te that the goodnes of the internall act of our willâ— in choosing any thing dependeth vpon our reason iudgment that propouÌ„deth the same So as the will may not choose or imbrace any thing that is so propounded and consequently that Voluntas discordans à ratione â—on solùm recta â—eâ—um etiam errante est semper mala that our will when it doth dâ—sagree from our reason and conscience and chooseth not that which our said reason and conscience propoundeth it is alwayes euill and sinneth though the sayd reason and conscience do erre in propounding the same yea further that this obligation for our will and châ—ice to follow our reason iudgment and conscience is by the law of God in naâ—ure it selâ—e so strong and indispensable as that not onlâ— any man liuingâ— Prince or Potentate can dispense with the same to haue it broâ—eÌ„ whiâ—â— the â—aid repugnâ—nce â—ndureth but neither God himselfe Wherupon a great learned Deuine of our dayes setteth downe defendeth thiâ— proposiâ—ion Neminem nec ipsâ—m Deum dispensâ—re posse vt sinâ— peccato quis faciat contra propriam conscientiam that no man nor God â—imselâ—e can diâ—pense that a man may do any thing against his owne conscience without sinne â—nd his reason is for that Almighty God should be contrary to himselâ—e if hauing put a precept by nature that our will must â—ollow our reason and coÌ„science do nothing against the same he should notwithstaÌ„ding dispense that the breach of this precept should be no sinne for theâ— should these lawes contradictory stand â—ogeather I haâ—eâ—ery breach of Gods precept is a sin yet that the breach of this precept is no sin True it is that God according to some Deuines may dispense in his precepts by taking theÌ„ away and thereby also take away the force of their obliging man to sinne that should doe against them but they standing in force and vigor no dispensation can be giuen to do against them without sinne for the reasons now set downe Well then this position assertion is most certaine in all Catholike Scholes as well by the groundes of Philosophy as Deuinity that no man without sinne may do against thâ— dictamen or direction of his owne reason or coÌ„science yea though it should be erroneous in it selfe for that so long as it is not knowne to be erroneous to the doer but thought to be right he esteemeth it as a rule prescribed vnto him by God and consequently to doe against it is to doe against Gods rule and precept and so must it needs be sinne vnto him But here perhaps some man will demaund what then may be done in â—aâ— erroneous conscience whether it be Afiâ—â—a by ignorance or Lupina by loosenes or otherwise eâ—ring as M. Barlow mentioneth Truly the remedy is not as he prescribeth to doe against a mans conscience I meane against that very erring conscience so long as it semeth to the doeâ— not to erre but to be right for therin he â—â—old siâ—ne as hath beene said But he ought to depose that conscience if he can and to seeke reaâ—ons of better information and therwithall frame vnto himselfe another conscience but yet so long as he cannot doe this he is bound not to doe against the other conscience which he thinkâ—th to be right though vnknowing vnto him â—t should be erroneous But now in what cases and vpon what grounds and with what circumstances a man may be bound to reforme or alter his conscience either by direction or authority of his Superiours or by contrary reasons proofes arguments and authorities according to the substance and quality of the things is a large dispute among Schoole Deuines Casuistes and Canonistes For vs it is sufficient at this time to haue seene that all generally doe condemne as most false and wicked this proposition of M. Barlow that euen agaynst a mans conscience the Prince is to be obeyed which proposition you haue seene before confuted Now we must consider certayne shiâ—teâ— and absurdityes vsed by M. Barlow in setting downe this his false doctrine Euen agaynst conscience sayth he the Prynce is to be obeyed vnlesse he that disobeyeth can proue his conscience to be the same that the Apostle describeth a good conscience accompanied with true loue and fayth vnfayned In which wordes you must note that first there is contayned a very absurd shift not voyde of impiety and secondly much corruption and falsity The shift is in that when any thing is proposed to a man by a Prince or Superiour that is contrary to his conscience he byndeth him absolutely to doe it euen agaynst his conscience vnlesse he can proue that his conscience hath true loue and fayth vnfayned which being a very hard matter for many men to discerne in themselues especially the ignorant and vnlearned he doth not only licence themâ— but obligeth them also to doe agaynst theyr conscience good or bad whatsoeuer is proposed vnto them which openeth a gap to all impiety and to the ouerthrow of all conscience in most men For certayne it is that the far greater part of Christians haue not sufficient time leasure learning or commodity to make this proofe prescribed out of the Apostle and then I would demaund him what he will say of Turkes Iewes and Gentiles that haue not true fayth Haue they no conscience and must they doe what soeuer is ordayned them though neuer so repugnant to theyr reaâ—on because they cannot proue theyr conscience to be such as the Apostle though falsely is presumed here to describe What will M. Barlow say also of Christian Sectaryes of our time to wit Anabaptists Trinitarians â—â—â—â—â—tes Lâ—â—berans Swingfeldians Brownists c. whom he will not grant I am sure to haue true loue and vnfayned fayth Haue they no conscience that may bind them to any thing different froÌ„ that which is proposed vnto them by Kings or Princes whether it seeme vnto them good or bad May all these men â—weare to whatsoeuer is requyred or do what soeuer is exacted by a temporall Prince without further examen for that they cannot proue as M. Barlow will no doubt suppose that they haue true loue and fayth vnfayned Who would expect such monstrous doctrines from the Chayre of a Prelate But now let vs see how he vseth S. Paul in this matter and abuseth his Reader vnder pretence of his name and authority He sayth that the Apostle describeth a good conscienâ—e to be that which is accompanied with true loue and fayth vnfayned and vpon this foundeth his discourse as now you haue heard cyting for itâ— 1. Tim. 1. 5. But if you read the place you shall find the matter quite otherwise and by this you may learne how these fellowes that cry nothing but Scriptures do abuse the simple people with misalleadging and misconstruing the same For that the Apostle describeth not a good
in extolling or rather belying Q. Elizabeth farr beyond all truth or desert calling white black and black white making light darknes darknes light after he hath made her of all liuing creatures the most admirable on earth with many boÌ„basting phâ—ases setting forth her praise who yet in her life tyme did nothing or very little God wot that was praise worthy leauing after 44. yeares raigne no other monument in the land of her liuing in it but that she had pulled downe many Churches 〈◊〉 howses and not so much as buylt or let vp oneâ— or â—rected any thing for posterity to remayne after 〈◊〉 But as Xenophon in Cyrus did not so much write 〈◊〉 life as in him describe what a good King should beâ— so M. Barlow in his transformed Queen Elizabeth â—â—â—leth vs not so much what she was indeed as what 〈◊〉 should haue bene or as now they would for the crâ—dit of their Ghospell wish that she had bene After aâ—â— these Encomions giuen of her life I say thus he adâ—uaunceth her after her death to heauen and withoâ—â— authority will needs canonize her before her tyme to vse his owne phrase make her an eternized Saintâ— His words be theseâ— For her reward in heauen if restraints of liberty and pursuites of malice for Gods truthâ— inflicted through Iealousie and indured with singular patâ—â—ence if a release from them vnexpected followed with hâ—â—nours and blessings neyther interrupted by others wheâ—ther treasons or inuasions nor blemished by herselfe with vice criminall or continued if life shut vp after length 〈◊〉 dayes and a full age with a courage defying death withâ— prayâ—rs imploring mercy with faith assuring the prayers with testimoâ—ies witnessing her assurance can be preceding coniectures or rather euidences of vnspeakable happinesseâ— we may safely conclude that she which passed through 〈◊〉 Crowne of thornes borne so constantly to a Crowâ—e of Gold worne so tryumphantly hath nâ—w gotten the thirâ— of Glory to enioy for euerlasting 115. So M. Barlow with more to the same effectâ— telling how she was an example of vâ—rtue for her owne to follow and a loadst irre for other Nations to admire coÌ„cluding with this Apostrophe Now this renowned Queen this eternized Saint c. And not to enter into disputâ— of the truth of his words nor yet to aske him by what â—ertainty he knowes that she passed from one of these â—hree Crownes to another especially from the gold â—o glory which requireth other proofe then this verâ—all florish of a few Rhetoricall figures bare imagiâ—ary coniectures of that courage prayers faith and testimonies witnessing assurance which this man sitting in his chamber doth faigne but she at her death if we belieue eye witnesses of much better credit then himselfe did little feele to omit this I say as an idle fancy or fiction rather of this foolish Parasite two things I would demauÌ„d of him the first that seeing he will needs draw his glorious Queen into the Calendar of Saints what title or place she shall haue amongst them in the same for that in ours there is no Saint of that sex but is either Virgin or Martyr or both or else nec Virgo nec Martyr as are Wiues Widdowes and repentaÌ„t sinners M. Barlow shall do well in his next to tell vs in which of these degrees this his new Sainted Queen Elizabeth is to be placed perhaps when he hath thought better on the matter he may find some perplexity be content to let her passe for one that was nec Virgo nec Martyr and thrice happy had it bene for her if she had bene indeed a true repentant sinner 116. The other thing is to know what he thinketh of the renowned Mother of his Maiesty whom by this canonizing of Q. Elizabeth he must needs condemne to hell-fire for it is impossible that one heauen should hold both these Queenes in life and beliefe so quite opposite the one with great commendation of vertue remayning in the vnity of the Catholick faith in which and for which she dyed to the great admiration and amazement of the whole world to 〈◊〉 a Queene Mother of a King indeed for religion 〈◊〉 vnder the colour of â—reason to which foule spot as 〈◊〉 Orator well noteth Royall dignity was neuer lyablâ— against all law with all disgrace â—o lâ—ose her heâ—d 〈◊〉 an ordinary malefactor by way of publick and coÌ„ 〈◊〉 iustice whiles the other liued in all ruffe pride and pleasure followed the fancyes of new vpstart Ghospellers hated and persecuted that faith wherin notwithstanding vntill the fall of her vnhappy Father 〈◊〉 whole Iland froÌ„ the first CoÌ„uersion had remayned 〈◊〉 in the end shut vp a wicked lyfe with a miserable pâ—tiful death if that may be sayd to be pitifull miserable which was without all remorse of conscience for fâ—â—mer sinnes all remonstrance of piety in and before her agony all remembrance of her future weale oâ— woe in the life to come all naming God as of her selfe or enduring others that did name him for her or put her in mind of him whatsoeuer this lying Minister who is true in nothing with a few fine phrases chatteth and forgeth to the contrary 117. And if it would but please his most Excellent Maiesty out of his Royall respect to his most Noble Mother to see who in her person haue alwaies most honoured or dishonoured his he should soone find that as in her life tyme the Catholiks had her in highest esteeme so since her death haue registred her in the raÌ„ke of Martyrs of whome the glory of this age Cardinal Bâ—ronius to name one for all the rest writeth thus Porrò eamdâ—m Ecclâ—siam nobilissâ—mam c. Moreouer God in this our age hath permitted that most noble Church of Scotland to be tempted that it might yield a most noble example of Christian coÌ„stancy when as a moÌ„gst â—ther Martyrs which no other Country hath hitherto â—ad it hath deserued to haue their owne Queene the â—â—nguler glory and ornament of the Catholick faith â—efore tryed by a long imprisonment for to be honouâ—ed with the Crowne of Martyrdome So he As conâ—rariwise in M. Barlows brethrens bookes both at home â—nd abroad he shall find the most iniurious slanders â—â—ying reports and reproachfull villanies powred forth â—gainst that innocent Princesse as will make any mans â—ares to glow and hart to rue to see so little respect of â—rincely Maiestie or such insufferable liberty in Proâ—estant writers conioyned with singular impudency â—nd fraudulent malignity in imputing the outragious â—ttempts of the trayterous subiects to the Queen herâ—elf as though she had bene the Author of that misâ—hiefe which in hart she detested with many bitter â—eares the true tokens of vnfaygned griefe most pittiâ—ully bewailed let one Reusnâ—rus in his Genealâ—gyes be â—eene whose words I abhore to set downe and the Reader will not thinke me too sharp and I must conâ—esse that in respect
the Lord sweare by his name But good Syr we doe not deny the lawfulnes of swearing either in abstract or â—onâ—ret but the sinne of false swearing when we take an Oath against our iudgement and conscience He goeth further Perhaps then the aggrieuance saith he is in the Epithete because it is a new Oath No syr But because it is a faile Oath when a man thinketh the thinges not true that he sweareth He goeth forward to proue that a new Oath may be lawfull when the occasion thereof is new But I denied not this and so M. Doctor beareth the ayre in vaine Yet will he not leaue of but taketh another medium to prove that this Oath is not new but old concerning the matter therof For that it is old saith he and hath byn vsuall in all nationâ— Christian and Heathen that subiectes should bind their allegiance by Oath â—or theiâ— Soueraigns security But who denieth this is it not a shame for a Doctor to wander vp down from the purpâ—sâ—e And yet will he pasâ—e further therin for lacke of better matter It is grounded saith he he meaneth of taking Oathes of fâ—delity to Princes vpon Scripture both in the examples of holy Kings and the Apostles definition of an Oath Hebr. 6. 16. nâ—melâ— That an Oath is the end of all contrâ—uersies Of which speach I graunt the former part concerning the examples of holy Kings that haue taken Oathes of their subiects though as I haue said it be little or nothing to ouâ— controuersyâ— Nor can I find Cardinall Bellarmines authority cited in the margent to this purpose in his 7. booke de Romano Ponâ—ifice he hauing written but fiue of that argument Nor doth it import to find it he saying nothing therein which we doe not confesse But as for the second part where M. Barlow bringeth in the Apostles definition of an Oath to be the end of all controuersies though I acknowledge it to be his sentence and most true yet not a definition Nor doe I see how M. Barlow wil be able handsomely to defend the same For if the common axiome of Logitians knowne to euery scholler that studieth that art be true that Definitio definiâ—uÌ„ conuertuntur so as whatsoeuer is comprehended vnder the one is comprehended also vnder the other and contrariwise whatsoeuer agreeth not to the one agreeth not to the other then cannot this proposition of the Apostle be a definition of an Oath and consequently M. Barlow doth erre grossely in calling it so Now then that this matter is so and that euery Oath cannot end all controuersies nor that euery controuersy is ended with an Oath is euident by experience For how many swearers haue you that will offer to sweare twenty Oathes in a controuersy betweene them and others if therby they might end and gaine the controuersy But the other party admitteth them not for that he hath not so much credit of sincerity in their Oath that they wll sweare truly as to belieue them And so also on the other side how many controuersies are there ended dayly without Oathes and many cannot with Oathes As for example if M. Barlow should owe a peece of money and being vrged to pay it should offer to forsweare it that were not like to end the controuersy but rather the laying downe of the money Ergo all Oathes are not able to end all coÌ„trouersies nor all controuersies are determinable by Oathes You will demaund then what is S. Paul his meaning when he saith as here M. Barlow relateth him that an Oath is the end of all controuersies Surely S. Paules meaning had bene cleare inough iâ— M. Barlow had let downe all the Apostles wordes as they lie in the text which are Homines enim per maiorem sur iurant omnis controuersiae eorum finis ad confirmaâ—â—â—â— est iuramenâ—um For men doe sweare by a greater then themselues and the end of all their controuersy for the confirmation is an oath The intention of the Apostle is to strengthen our hope in God for that he had confirmed his prâ—mises to vs by Oath which is the soundest confirmation that can be in the behalfe of the swearer for no man can adde of his part more to bind then an Oath And for this cause he saith That an Oath is the end of all controuersy for confirmatioÌ„ of truth in the behalf of the swearer â—or he can passe no further but not so in the behalfe of the other party that is interessed also in the coÌ„trouersy for if he should mistrust the swearers sincerity of conscience then would not his Oath be sufficient to end the controuersie as before we haue said consequently the speach of S. Paul in this place containeth no definitioÌ„ of an oath as fondly M. Barlow dreameth but expresseth rather the effect of an oath for confirmation of truth in the behalf of the swearer which word of confirmation M. Barlow craftily left out thrust in two greeke words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end of controuersie most impertineÌ„tly without aâ—y purpose in the world as otherwise often he doth to entaÌ„gle his vulgar Reader with osteÌ„tation oâ— greeke wheras these words haue no speciall propriety emphasis or different signification in the world so as he might as well put in a whole page of greeke out of S. Paules Epistles as those two words But these men as els where I haue aduertised doe seeke occasions of darkenes obscurity to hide the weakenes of their cause therin But lâ—t vâ— goe forward For hauing laboured all this while out of the list to proue the vse of Oathes to be lawfull and ancient which wee deny not in lawfull cases he commeth now to set downe the coÌ„â—rouersy more in particuler that is this very case saith he the Amilogiae or controuersie wherof is VVhether any Romish Catholike can beare any true Allegiance in his heart to â—he Kings Maiesty This Iesuit houldeth the â—ffiâ—matiue we by effect oâ— so many treasonable plots of â—riestâ— and Iesuites doe hould the contrary Yea the Priestes of the same religion are merely contradictory to him c. And therâ—ore his Maiestie hath taken this way of the Apostle to try the matter by both But good Syr are you not ashamed to trifle in this manner and to be taken euery foote in false consequences Where did you learne your Logicke Or where did you frame your consâ—ience If the question be Whether any Romish Catholicke can beare true Allegiance in his hart to the Kinges Maiestie how do you hould the negatiue vpon some effectes of treasonable plottes of Priesâ—es and Iesuites If it were true that such were sound doth the discouery of some such plotts in some Catholikes infer an impossibility that no Catholike can beare any true Allegiance How say you to the plots of France Flanders and Scotland and other parts do they conuince that no Protestaâ—t can be trusty Furthermore if it be impossible for
by Oath without intention to perâ—orme the same be notwâ—thstanding bound in conscience to perâ—orme it Wherein hauing hid downe the two different opinions of â—undry learned â—en togeather with their reasons arguments and proofs the one affirming that he is bound as Caietan Sotus and Câ—â—â—rruuias the other that he is not bound by force of that Oath as Syluester Nauar and others Azorius sheweth that both parts haue their probability of reason but he inclineth more to the first opinion saying that if the swearer had an intention to sweare thinking nothing of the obligation then was he bound and that in this sense the opinion Caietan is most true And further determineth not the question and therefore this notorious vntruth of M. Bâ—â—low that Azorius holdeth this to be no Oath vnto him that sweareth at al but that he is as free as if he had neuer sworne I cannot tell in â—hat Predicament of impudency to place it and therfore we will let it passe for a Tranâ—cendent OF CERTAINE OTHER Fraudulent and vntrue dealings of M. Barlow vnto the end of this Paragraph with a notorious abuse in alleadging S. Thomas of Aquine his Authority §. II. VVHereas often and eager inuectiues are made by M. Barlow against the Pope and Cardinall Bellarmine and all others that do seeme in any sort to exhort the Catholickes of England to stand for their consciences and to suffer rather whatsoeuer losses hurtes or dangers may happen to their liues liberty goods or other temporall affaires then to preiudice any point of their religion M. Barlow terming these exhortations not only needlesse and vayne there being no persecution at al against the Catholickes but that they do tend in like manner to open disobedience against their temporall Princes and so may iustly be cause of their ruyne indeed my answere was I did not see but that the very same might be obiected vnto S. Cyprian and other Fathers of the Primitiue Church that they were guilty of so many Martyrs bloud wilfully cast a way and of the ruyne of their familyes and other inconueniences by exhorting them not to do against their Consciences nor to yield to their temporall Princeâ— Commandements against God and their religion no not for any tormeÌ„ts that might be laid vpon them nor for any losse that might fall vnto them of goodes life honor fame friends wyfe children or the like which were ordinary exhortations in those dayes of persecution as by their bookes yet â—xtant doth appeare Neyther is iâ— sufficient to say that those times ours are different for that the thingâ—s then demanded were apparenâ—ly vnlawfull but these not for that to vs that are Catholickes these thinges are as vnlawfull now as â—hose other were then to them for that they are no lesse against our consciences in matters of Religion For why should it be more damnable then and indispensable to deliuer vp a Bible or new Testament for example sake when the Emperour commanded it then now to sweare an Oath against our conscience and Religion when our Temporall Prince exacteth it For that this perhaps is called the Oath of Allegiance who knoweth not that the fayrest title is put vpon the fowlest matter when it is â—o be perswaded or â—xacted And he that shal read the Histories of that time and of those ancient afflictions shall sâ—e that Act also to haue bene required as of Obedience Allegiance and not of Religion being only the deliueâ—y vp of material books and yet did the whole Church of God condemne them for it that deliuered the same and â—eld for true Martyrs all those that died for denying therof for that they would not do an Act against their consciences Against this my speach M. Barlow first doth trifle affirmimg me to say that in the consciences of Catholicks it is as vnlawfull to sweare Allegiance vnto his Maiestie their naturall and rightfull Soueraigne as to sacrifice to Idols Which is a meer cauill indeed for first I do not say that it is vnlawfull at all to sweare Allegiance to their naturall Soueraigne as often hath bene told him but he â—â—uer stayeth his tongue from repeating the contrary againe without end The vnlawfulnes consisteth in swearing that for Allegiance which appertaineth not to humaine and temporal Allegiance but diuine Allegiance also in keeping our consciences vnspotted before Almighty God Secondly my comparison was not so much in the thinges themselues to wit swearing and sacrificing or to determine which of these is the greatest sinne in it seâ—fe as of the similitude in obligation both in those times and ours to stâ—nd for defence of the integrity of our conscience both in them and vs whatsoâ—uer inequality of the sinne may be in the sight either of man or God It is inough that both of them be forbydden to sacrifice against Christian Religion to sweare against Câ—tholick Religion And further to shew that the external small apparence of that which is forbydden cannot alwaies be a â—ule of taking away or diminishing the obligation of conscience in obeying the prohibition I did alleadg the other example of giuing vp diuine bookes vnto the persecutors when they demaunded them and might haue alleadged many other examples to the like purpose as namely the â—ating of flesh offered to Idols in the beginning of Christianity with offence of others whereof S. Paul maketh so great accompt as albeyt he maketh light of the thing it selâ—e and sayth that the Idol is nothing yet doth he account the transgression for damnable if he doe it against his owne conscience But what sayth M. Barlow to this you shall heare his distinction and determination Simply sayth he to deliâ—â—r vp a Bible to his Superiour requiring it is no sinne yea to deny iâ— iâ— a contempt About this proposition we will not much contend but only aduertise him that it is not to the purpose that we doe talke here of Superiours lawfully requiring it but of a Persecutor vniustly exacting the same Let vs see then what he sayth further But if the Emperour sayth he requireth them to wit the books to burne and deâ—acâ— in conteâ—pâ— and despight or â—ury and passion or as Iulian the Apostata whâ— called in all the heathen writers both of Philosophy and Poetry out oâ— the Christians hands vnder a fayre pretence of abandoning Paganisme to bereaue them oâ— all knowledge therby to take â—rom Christians the true meanes oâ— their instructions the cause is far different for so to oâ—ey were wilâ—ully to betray the truth of God This is his determination consisting of two members as you see the first of the vnlawfulnes of giuing vp the Bible other such diuine bookes of Christian Religion consisted in the ill intention of the persecutor to bereaue men of so importaÌ„t meanes for their instruction and saluation and therefore not to be obeâ—ed which seemeth to be far different from that which before he held so resolutely that Princes were to be obeied