Câ—priaÌ„â— iudgment of suâ—h as dye out oâ— the Church 〈◊〉 l 4 〈…〉 17. Auâ—ust 〈◊〉 2â— 4. ad Donatâ— A notable sentence of S. Augustine A â—ard câ—sure against all the â—abble of Iâ—â—n Fox his Martyrs A coâ—uincing argument vpoÌ„ thâ— Premiâ—â—s The hard â—ase of Q. â—lizabeth A remarkable coÌ„parison Q. Elizabeth held condemned heresies Haeresi 53. Aug. l. 9. coÌ„fâ—â—â— c. 13. S. Monica desired to be prayed for at the altar after her death which Q. Elizabeth did not Lett. p. 36. See Answere to Syr Edw. Cook c. 15. His Maiesties mild dispositioÌ„ diuerted The exercise of the Minister T. Montague Barl. pag. 102. Maliciouâ— contradiction Barl. pag. 103. M. Barlow a true parasite Barl. pagâ— 102. About the nature of flattery how Syâ— William demeaneth himselfe therin Augu. in 〈◊〉 69. M. Barlow an egregious flatterer M. Barlows praiers without hope Luc. 10. 21. Flattering of his Maiesty Barl p. 105. Syr VVilliâ—m deserues his fee. About the little Vniuersity These were an other maÌ„ner of Vniuersity Act. â—â— S. Athanâ—sius Epist. ad solitariâ—m vitam ageÌ„tes S. Gregor Nazian S. Ambrose Nazian orat ad â—iues timore perculsos Ambros. epist. 33. ad sororem S. Chrysostome S. Hierome S. Augâ—stine S. Gregory M. Barlows diuision of SycophaÌ„cy Mâ—râ—cles â—â—â—dâ—d and câ—ntemned M. Barl. a good proctor for the Turkes Infidels The myracles of S. Denys The myracle of S. Clement M Barl. turnes an anchor into a milstone Of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus M. Barlows fooleries Sixtus Quartus bâ—lyed Barl. pag. â—08â— Base babling Chelsey erection for writers Barâ— pag. 112. M. Barlow addeth to the text A most resonable and modest request of the Cath. Simple impertinent reasoning of M. Barlow Let. p. 38. In vita 〈◊〉 â—unâ—i Anno 1â—46 Liberty of conscience demanded by al Protestants â— Psal. 113. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Height of pride and in whome it may be said to be Barl. pag. 110. Strange notes of hâ—mility set downe bâ— M. Barlâ—w M. Barlow betrayeth his owne cause Barl. ibideÌ„ The Protestant hath Ecclesiastical power ouer Puritans 1. Ioan. 2. In what case Catholicks may yeld and grant toleration to Protestants Matth. 13. M. Barlow at a Non-plus Vnkind dealing indeed Barl. pag. 124. M. Barlowâ— moderate dirâ—ct Protâ—â—tâ—nt M. Barlow belyeth F. Persons Psal. 5â— Barl. pag. 142. StraÌ„ge impudency Basenesse and beggery of ProtestaÌ„ts Theol. Tigurin in prafat Apol prafix orthodox Câ—n. anno 1578. Lib. 2. de rat ineundâ— Concordiae p. 2. 24. ProtestaÌ„ts and Puritans differ in substaÌ„tial points of religioÌ„ Rogers prâ—fâ—â—e pag. 9. Arrige aures Syr William M. Barlow a bad Aduocate M. Barlow in the brakes Amb. ep 33. Baâ—l pag. â—69 A hard argument for M. Barlow to solue Silly stuffe M. Barlows liâ—le care of his Maiestieâ— eternall life Good euill Princes to be obeyed for conscieÌ„ce but not against coscience Barlow pag. 160. M. Barlow hath the coÌ„science of an Asse a Wolfe A strange wicked assertioÌ„ of M. Barlow 1. 2. q. 19. art 5. The goodnes of the act of our will doth depeÌ„d vpon our reason and iudgment A sinne to doe coÌ„trary to an erroneous coÌ„science What iâ— to be â—one of him who haâ—h an erroneoâ—â— coÌ„science â— Tim. 1. M. Barlowes moÌ„strous doctrines more fitting the Turkes Alcoran then the Ghospell of Iesus Christ. S. Paul abused More coÌ„teâ—ned in the Oath then ciuill obedieÌ„ce Let. p. 51. Apol. pag. 22. Hiâ—r 27. 12. Exod. 5.1 Esdr. 1.3 Dan. 3.12 No obedience against God a mans conscieÌ„ce Deu. 1. 〈◊〉 1. â— Mach. 1. Barl. pag. 161. A strange assertion Weake proofes A simple Discourse Barl. pag. 168. The fact of Toby against the coÌ„mandement of K. Senacherib Tob. 2. v. 9. Tob. 12. M. Barlow a bad Angell The credit of the history of Toby Câ—c Triâ— sess 4. Carth. can 47. Aug. 2. de doc chrism cap. 8. Amb. de Tob. 2. Cyp. de orat Dominica l. de mortaliâ— S. Augustines and other Fathers iudgments of the fact of Toby Cap. 3. Cap. 13. S. Ambr. â—ib de Tob. c. 1. Tob. 12. Cyp. lib. dâ— oratione Dom. This is no ProtestaÌ„t doctrine A great presumptioÌ„ of M. Barlowes piety Letter pag. 52. Authorities of ancient Fathers Apol. p. 23. â— Aug. in Psal. 124. How far we are bound to obey our temporall Prince Apol. p. 23. Tertull. ad Scap. Iust. Apol. 2. ad Anton Imperaâ— Optat. contra ParmeÌ„ lib. 3. Ambros Orat. coÌ„tra Auxent de Basilicis noÌ„ trad lib. 5. Epist. Three occasions in which S. Ambrose resisted the Emperour his temporall Soueraigne Libellus Ambros. epist. 32. Amb. l. â— epist. 33. Amb. ibid. Ambros. Conâ— de Basiliâ—â—s noÌ„ tradenâ—â—â—s M. Barlowes shifting answere to the three places of S. Ambrose Feminine Supremacy more esteemed of M. Barlow then Masculine Barlow pag. 171. Magdeb. cent 4. c. 5. 6. 7. The ancient vse of hallowing Church Vessels Naz. orat de sâ—ipso coÌ„tra Arianos M. Barlows declining in the point of Supremacy Stat. H. 8. anno Domini 1535. The supremacy how it was giuen to Kâ— Henry in what high measure K. Edwarâ— An 1 E 6. cap. 2. Queene Elizabeth M. Barlows iudgment about the Kings supreme Ecclesiastical authority M. Barlows fumbling M. Barlows absurde distinctions diuisions M. Barlows delusion M. Barlow hath marred the market of the Kings supremacy Lett. p. 56. Apolog. pag. 24. How S. Gregory agreed to the publishing of the law of the Emperour â—auritius Greg. l. 2. Epist. 65. Indict 11. Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 1â— Indict 1. Barl. pag. 173. Mauritius his law noâ— altogeather Ecclesiasticall How the Emperors Law vvas Ecclesiasticall A good consideration A fond cauill Pag. 174. Barl. pag. 174. A ridiculous error in GraÌ„mar of M. Barlow Letter pag. â—8 CoÌ„c Arel sub Carol. Can. 26. Viâ—e in Capitularibus Franc. lib. 6. c. 285. de Concilio Wormaâ— Wherin the CouÌ„cell or Arles did submit it selfe to the Emperour a Can. 2. b Can. 3. c Can. 4. d Can. 7. 8. e Can. 13â— f Can. 15. 16. g Can. 20. 22. 23. The zeale of Charlâ— the Great to haue manners reformed by the authority of Bishops Barlow pag. 175. A grosse contradictiâ— in M. Barlow A very forcible argumeÌ„t M. Barlows memory very short M. Barlow plaieth fast loose about the Kings authority A hard question for M. Barlow to answere Barl. pag. 178. False dealing Amb. toÌ„ 5. edit Vatican epist. prâ—fix anâ—e Conâ—il Aquileâ—eÌ„ About the of CouÌ„cel Wormes â—â—oÌ„ ann 77â— 772. 〈◊〉 Fâ—aÌ„c â— 6. c. 28â— â—â— l 7. c. 2â—â— Better to be a fugitiue for the Catholick religion on abroad then to be a persecutour at home Generall Councels â—lwaies called by the Bishop of Rome Barl. pag. 178. The radiant folly of M. Barlow M Barâ—owes impudency Baâ—on tom 9. ann 774. Aâ—oâ— p. 26. â—7 Lett. p. 61. Neither the Pope or Church can make new Articles of Faith Barlow pag. 181. A foolish wrangling of M.
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
and exact a crafâ—seman M. 〈◊〉 is in the art of adulation in somuch that if the sciâ—ncâ— of parasitisme were lost he could restore it agayne of himselfe And I say he is vigilant in this place for that he hath taken occasion to flatter his Maiesty where none at all was giuen For I did not so much as name his Maiesty but only said as now you haue seene that if any â—an would describe Plato affirming him to be a man born in Greece c. of an excellent wit and â—â—ally aâ—â—ing that he was the most eminent of all other Philosopher◠〈◊〉 last point only might be sufficient to make 〈…〉 Peâ—â—pateâ—icke deny to sweare the Oath although they did not dâ—ny all the other particulers therin contayned â—o wit that he was borne â—n Greece of an excellent wit skilfull in the Grâ—â—ke Language and the rest and so thâ—t albeit a Catholicke man doe refuse to sweare to aâ—e Oatâ— of Allegiance in respect of diuers clauses theâ—â—in coâ—tained in prâ—iudice of his religion yet doth not he deny all the other clauses as both absurdly and iniâ—riously M. Barlow doth affirme The second example in like manner of an Ariâ—â— Prince proposing vnto his subiects an Oath contayning diâ—â—â—â— clauses of true Catholicke Religion and some one of Aâ—ianismâ— for which the whole is refused Barlowâ—â—ndeth â—â—ndeth to be as vnanswerable as the former though for a â—â—â—rish he taketh vpon him to set it downe againe in a better frame as he pretendeth but in very deed the very same in effect and wholy against himselfe to wit thaâ— an Arian Prince conâ—â—yueth an Oath for his subiects to sweare thâ—t there are three persons in Trinity that the sâ—cond Person is the Sâ—â—â— of God c. adding notwithstanding that he is not â—quall with his Father which is Arianisme some Christiaâ—â— saith M. Barlow fearing an error therein haue recourse to sâ—â—e great Doctour he descrying the Arianisme sorbids them to take it and not shewing them the erroneous articâ—e assureth them that the 〈◊〉 Oath as it lyeth is vnlawfull And doth not that doctour condeâ—â—e all the articles theâ—in and willeth them inclusiuely to deny the Trinity This is M. Barlowes demaund vpon this case And euery man of common sense I trow will answer No that he doth not eyther inclusiuely or exclusiuely deny the Blessed Trinity And it is strange that a man of sense will argue so or make so senselesse a demand For why or how doth this doctour deny heere the other two articles of true Catholick doctrine For that he did not tell them distinctly which of the clauses contayned Arianisâ—â— First this maketh not to our case of the Oath of Allegiance for that we set downe clerly the clausâ—s that we mislyke therin which are all those that touch either the Popes authoritie or any other part of the Roman Catholicke Religion Secondly it was not necessary to tell the clause in particuler that contayned the Arianisme for that some of the people perhaps that demaunded him the question could not well vnderstand it and therefore it was sufficient to say that the oath was as it lay naught that there was some heresie therin as if a Phisitian should say of a dish of mynâ—ed meate brought to the table that the eaters should beware for that in some part there were poison it were sufficieÌ„t though he shewed not the particuler part Or if a Cooke should say that among other hearbes in the pot there was one very noysome it were sufficient for aduise to refuse the whole pot of pottage and yet by this he doth not condemne all the other good hearbes that might be in the pot Or was it perhaps for that the Doctour said that the whole Oath as it lay was vnlawâ—ull First I do not find the word whole to be vsed by Cardinal Bellarmine but only the word Iur amentum indefinitly And secondly if he had said that the whole Oath as it lyeth were to be refused he had not thereby condemned â—uery clause or part therof which he proueth in these words saying Nam ex 〈◊〉 sententia bonum ex integra a causa constituitur malum autem ex singulis deâ—ectibuâ— quare vt Iur amentum prohibeatur vel recusetur 〈◊〉 est necessarium omnes singulae partes eius sint malae satis autem est si vel vna sit mala c. For according to the common sentence of Philosophers that which is good must consist of the whole cause that is to say of all parts requisite but to make a thing euill it is sufficient that it hath but some one defect wherefore for prohibiting or refusing this Oath as euill it is not necessary that all and euery part thereof be euill but it is inough if any one part therof be naught And soe on the contrary part to the end that this oath may be admitted as good and lawfull it is necessary that no part thereof be euill This is Cardinall Bellarmines doctrine wherein we see first that he doth not vse the word VVhole totum Iâ—ramentum which word notwithstandinge M. Barlow doth often vse and repeate in this place making it the foundation of all his idle dispute And secondly we see that he doth not condemne al the parts of this oath for that some be vnlawfull but rather proueth the contrary out of the common sentence of Philosophers that if any one part be euil it is sufficieÌ„t to make the Oath euil vnlawful In which kind M. Barlow himselfe in the very nexâ— ensuing page giueth an example of an IndeÌ„ture that hath many clauses wherof the breach of any one Prouisâ— sayth he doth forfeit the whole whereby is euident that one deâ—ect is sufficient to make the thing euil but to make it good al that is requisite must be obserued And so in this Oath to make it vnlawful it is inough that any one clause therof be naught or against a Catholick mans conscience but to make it good and lawfull al the clauses therof must be good and lawfull And so you see how substantially M. Barlow hath answered this point ouer throwing himselfe with his owne argument I wil not stand to confute that other mad assertion of his more franticke then fantastical wherby he affirmeth and wil needes defend that whosoeuer refuseth to sweare to any one of the articles of this Oath acknowledgeth not the first that King Iames is lawful King of England And what is his reason trow you No other but that of the Indenture before mentioned for the whole Oath sayth he is like an Indenture al the clauses tying and tending to one condition oâ— Allegiance the breach of oue Prouiso in the Indenture â—orâ—eits the whole the denying of one article in the Oath is the dental of the whole euen of the very first that King Iames is not lawful King So he But he that shall examine the matter wel wil find that this pretended parity betweene the
neither Diuine nor Humane learning dotâ— warrâ—nt this humane folly which here you do vtter to wit that the Aduerbe doth make the action commendable as though no Aduerbe may not be repreheâ—sible which now I haue confuted It doth denominate also the action say you which I graunt but the denomination is good or bad as the quality requireth It seemed that you blundered at a certaine speach of some spirituall writers though not wel vnderstood by you who â—ay sometimes that God loueth rather the Aduerbe then the Verbe â—or that the Verbe implieth only the action it self but the Aduerbe the quality of the action as the good quality pleaseth good so the bad pleaseth the Diuel So as heere it seemeth to me that this Doctor remayneth much foyled about Aduerbes in generall now let vs see what he can say about swearing freely in particular WHAT FREEDOME MAY be sayd to be permitted to English Catholickes for swearing or not swearing the new Oath §. V. AS concerning this matter M. Barlow after his former discourse about Aduerbes commeth to handle the point it selfe of freedome permitted to Catholickes in taking the Oath beginning thus And is there then saith he such a disagreement betweene the payne of a Statute-law and the will of a suâ—iect that he which obeyeth the law so inioyning shall not be accoâ—â—â—d a free subiect for his obedience Then are all the people of the Christiâ—n â—oâ—ld slaues not freemen for what nation is there gouerned by lawesâ—â—ot inioyned by sharpe penalties c Yea the law of God it selfe is imposed with penalties and yet mans obedience yeelded therunto is not thraldome but freedome So he And do you see how he seeketh a hole to runne out at We do not say that penall Statutes are vnlawfull in a Common-wealth or that they do make the subiectes no free subiectes and much lesse that they doe make all thâ— people of the Christian world slaues and not free-men This must needes be spoken out of great ignorance not vnderstanding 〈◊〉 queâ—tion or ouâ— of mucâ— maâ—â—ce that would dazâ—e the Readers eyes with impâ—râ—â—nent speach The question is whether the choice be free wâ—en in any deliberation tâ—ere is a heauy predominant poyse of one side as whether a Mercâ—ant in a tempest should cast his goodes or no out of the ship for sauing his liâ—e or Catholickes in England should take the Oath for auoyding the penaltyes of the Statute whether this choice I say be absolutely free or no And I shewed before both out of Aristotle according to Philosophy and out of Schoole-Doctours according to Diuinity that this was not perfect freedome For albeit Aristotle saith the Merchant his act in casting out his goodes is simpliciter inuoluntarium voluntarium secundum quid absolute inuoluntary and voluntary but in part the ScholemeÌ„ on the other side that it is simply voluÌ„tary and in part inuoluntary yet in effect they say all the same in different respects for that Aristotle calleth it simply inuoluntary in respect of the obiect alone without consideration of the circumstances that do accompany the same in which sense no doubt the act of casting out his goods is simply inuoluÌ„tary in the MerchaÌ„t And the Schole Doctors doe call it simply voluntary in respect of the obiect accompanied and conioyned with the circumstances to wit present perill of life and the like which being considered the Merchant doth simply absolutely resolue that all thinges considered it is better to cast out his goodes then to dâ—taine them so in this sense of the Schole Deuines it is simpliciter voluntarium simply voluntary and in the other sense of Aristotle simply inuoluntary for that simply and absolutely he would not cast out his goodes if it were not for the perill and danger of his life which is a most ponderous circumstance and ouerweigheth the ballance oâ— the whole consultation And this is our present case also about taking the Oath by those very many Catholicks which the Apologer saith tooke it freely if they were so many For if they were Catholicks and were informed that there were diuers points therein contayned against their Religion which must necessarily retayne them â—rom taking the same and yet on the other syde there was losse of liberty and goodes in refusing the same then sayd I that neither according to Philosophy or Diuinity was this deliberation of theirs altogeather free And wheras M. Barlow would inferre therof that theÌ„ there were no free subiect for that all Common Wealths do propose lawes with penalties I answere that there are two sortes of men in a Common wealth good and bad the good do willingly submit themselues to the lawes penall made by the Prince and Common wealth and that for conscience sake as S. Paul prescribeth without respect of punishment where they see no iniustice offence to God coÌ„manded in which sense the sayd Apostle saith that the law is not giuen vnto the righteous man which is repeated here also by M. Barlow of which sort it is to be presupposed that a great part of euery CoÌ„mon wealth consisteth but to the wicked But now there are others which being euill men slaues to their owne passions do repyne at good lawes and for these it is necessary that punishments and penalties should be appoynted to inforce them to obey and albeit this choyce of theyrs is not altogeather free according to the nature of freedome before declared yet is the coactioÌ„ necessary and profitable to themselues nor haue they any iust reason but only their disorderly passion to refuse the same and consequently it is no reason that they should haue free choice and freedome of election permitted vnto them in a matter so preiudiciall to the common wealth and to themselues All which is different in the case of Catholickes in taking the oath repugnant to theyr consciences For as euill men doe not follow conscience and iudgement but passion as now hath bene said in not obeying penall lawes so may they be iustly forced thereunto and in that sense may yet truly be said to be all free that is to say free to do euill without punishment But Catholiks following the dictamen of their consciences concerning pointes of their faith receiued and continued in England since the beginning of christianity cannot with any equity be constrained or coacted to contradict the same noâ— can it be demed but that so griâ—â—uous a punishmenâ— proposed as the penalty of Premunire was and is a greaâ— coaction that taketh away freedome And consequently thoâ—e Catholickes Priestes and Laicks that are said to haue freely taken the Oath had not indeed freedome therein but that only freedome which before hath bene mentionâ—d of the Mâ—rchant casting out his goodes into the â—ea which according to the rules both of Philosophy and Diuinity is not tâ—ue freedome as now hath bene declared shal be more presently For now you must see a new shift of M. Barlow
his Maiesty begâ—â— first to raiâ—ne But concerning the generall Question to deny simply and absolutely That the Pope is supreme Pastour of the Catholiâ—â— Church hath any authority leâ—t him by Christ eyther directly or â—â—â—â—â—â—ctly with cause or without cause in neuer so great a necessity or for â—euer so great and publicke an vâ—ility of the Câ—ristian Religion to proceed against any Prince whatsoeuer temporally â—or his restraint or aâ—endmeâ—â— or to perâ—it other Princes to do the sâ—me this I suppose was neuer tâ—eir meaning that tooke the Oath for that they should therby contradict the generall conseâ—t of all Catholicke Deuines and conâ—â—sse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruation of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous for that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great and excessiue an euill as that way might fall outâ— Wherefore for so much as some such moderate meaning must needs be presumed to haue bene in those that tooke the Oath for safeguard of their Consciences if it might please his Maiesty to like well and allow of this moderation and fauourable interpretation as all forraine Catholicke Kings and Monarchs doe without any preiudice at all of their safety dignity or Imperiall prehemiâ—ence I doubt not but he should find most ready conformity in all his said English Catholicke Subiects to take the said Oath who now haue great scruple and repugnance of Conscience therin both for that the chiefeâ—t learned men of their Church doe hold the same for vtterly vnlawfull being mixed and compounded as it is and the voyce of their chiefe Pastour to whome by the rules of their Religion they thinke themselues bound to harken in like cases hath vtterly condemned the same and the very tenour of the Oath it selfe and last lines therof are That euery â—â—e shall sweare without any Equiuocation or mentall reseruation at â—â—l that is to say hartily willingly and truely vpon the true fayth of a Christian. Which being so they see not how they may take the said Oath in truth of conscience for so much as they find no such willingnes in their harts nor can they induce themselues in a matter so neerely concerning the Confession of their faithâ— to Equiuocate or sweare in any other sense then from his Maiesty is proposed and therfore do thinke it lesse hurt to deny plainly aâ—d sincerely to sweare then by swearing neyther to giue satisfaction to God nor to his Maiesty nor to themselâ—â—â—â— nor to their neighbours And so much for this point Hitherto haue I thought good to relate my forâ—â—â— words somewhat at large to the end the Reader may seâ— my reasonable and dutiâ—ull speach in this behalfe aâ—â— vpon what ground M. Barlow hath fallen into such a raâ—e against me as now shall appeare by his reply First of aâ—â— he condeÌ„neth me of hâ—pocrisy saying Let the Reader câ—â—â—â—der â—â—at an â—ypocrite he is for it is an inseparable marke of â—n hypâ—câ—â—â—â— to iudge oâ— otheâ— mâ—ns conâ—â—iences the hart of man is Gods peculiâ—â— â—oâ— anâ— man to place his consâ—sâ—ory there is high presumpâ—ion so be â—â—nneth out in that comon place which maketh nothing at all to ouâ— purpose as you see For I did not iudgâ—t or conâ—â—mne then conâ—ciâ—nces that tooke the Oath but excâ—sâ—â— the same yea interpreted their â—act in good sense giuing my â—eaâ—ons for itâ— that they being good Catholike could not be presuâ—â—d to meane otherwise then the inâ—â—gritie of Catholicke doctrine did permit them for that otherwise they should be no good Catâ—olickes if they should haue done any thing contrary to that whicâ— theâ— selues held to appertaine to the same in which I did not excuse their fact which my whole booke proueth to be vnlawâ—ull but only their intention and meaning touching the integrity of Catholick doctrine And this is far difâ—erent from the nature of hypocrisy which forbiddeth not all iudging but only euill and rash iudging of other mâ—ns actions or intentioÌ„s thereby to seeme better more iâ—st then they For if two for example sake should see M. Barlow to sup largely with flesh and other good meate vpon a vigill or fasting-day and the one should iudge it in the worst part saying that he did it for the loue of hâ—s belly and sensuality the other should interpret the same spiritually as done for glorifying God in his creatures by his thanks-giuing for the same for liberty also of the ghospell and for to make him the more strong able to â—peake preach his Seruice and Sermon the next day I doubt noâ— but that this second iudgement would not be censured by him for hypocriticall And this is ouâ— very case with those that tooke the Oath For that I hearing what they had done and that they were Catholicks did interprete their meaning to the best sense And was not this rather charity then hypocrisy But let vs see a little if you please how M. Barlow can defend this generall proposition of his that it is an inseparable mâ—rke of an hypocrite to iudge of other mens consciences You haue heard before how wisely he defended a certain definition which he gaue of an Oath now you shall see him as wisely learnedly defend an inseparable propriety or marke of an hypocrite And first you see that here is no distinction or limitation at all whether he iudg well or ill with cause or without cause rashly or maturely how then if wee should heare a man or woman speake ordinarily lewd wordes can no iudgement be made of the speakers consciences without hypocrisie If a man should see another frequeÌ„t bad howses or exercise wicked actions may no man iudge him to haue an ill conscience from whence these things doe proceed but he must be â—n hypocrite Moreouer if this bee an inseparable marke or propriety as he saith then according to Aristotle Porphyriâ—â— it must conuenire omni soli semper agree to all only and euer For if it do not agree to all and euer it is not inseparable and if it agree to others besides hypocrites it is not alwaies the marke of an hypocrite and therefore albeit that I had iudged their consciences as M. Barlow imposeth vpon me he could not by good consequeÌ„ce haue inferred that I was an hypocrite But this is ridiculous that all hypocrites and only hypocrites iudge of mens consciences for first the hypoâ—rite that soundeth a trumpet before his almes whose conscience doth he iudge The other also that kneeleth and prayeth in the corners of streetes whose conscience doth he iudge or condemne Those also that came to tempt Christ about the woman taken in â—dultery and about Tribute to be payd to Cesar I reade not whose consciences they iudged and therefore would be loath to doe them iniury except M. â—arlow can bring any iust accusation against them and yet were they called hypocrites by our Sauiour whereby iâ— inferred that all hypocrisy is not subiect to
knowne His contempt of the world seene by his life and conuersation Is not his hate of ambition honour and wealth discouered by his voluntary pouerty aboundance of almes refusall of dignities temporall commodities Let his Parishioners testify for him But yet against vs he goeth forward telling vs that the Iewes veyle is spread ouer our harts and consciences and that by our owne wilfulnes errour and peeuishnes Item to a corrupt stomake yea the lightest meats are troublesome but cleansed it will easily concoct and orderly digest the strongest food c. Which last direction of cleaÌ„sing the stomake to be able to concoct and put ouer the strongest foode being applied as M. Barlow applieth it to the purging of a mans conscience from feare therby not to haue scruple commeth very euill from his mouth who as they write from thence is held to haue so purged a conscience from all due feare of offending God by doing saying or swearing any thing which to the state or present Prince may be gratefull that already as I vnderstand the commonvoyce hath bene of him as of D. Shaw who in his Sermon betrayed his Lord Maisters Children whole Succession as this man I say in a like publike speach betrayed his dearest Patrones honour fame credit Wherfore he may talke of corrupted stomakes what he pleasâ— he may also talke of strong digestions no mans I thinke of his order though many be bad is knowne to be more corrupt then his owne As for Catholikes if in this poynt they â—ad corrupt stomakes they would neuer stand so much as they do and with so great losses vpon the contrary but would rather cleanse their stomakes of all feare make that strong digestion which here M. Barlow doth insinuate vnto them of putting ouer without scruple whatsoeuer is offered to be sayd long or sworne so it be plausible or commodious But now after all this he maketh his conclusion and the best comfort that he can giue to Catholickes is this For them sayth he who are to take the Oath if they refuse it the penalty is before them their conscience is free But now what freedome this is wee haue discussed before both out of Philosophy and Deuinity and M. Barlow hath bene shewed to vnderstand rightly neyther of them concerning this point but to haue shewed himselfe ridiculous in both But let vs heare yet what threat he addeth further of his owne to the former wordes The penalty sayth he is before them their conscience is free but his Maiestie no doubt will beware of them and the State obserue them as branded by the Apostle seduced by the error of Balaams wages and perishing in the contradiction of Corah and Dathan Here be wordes of great malice as you see but of small reason coherence or consequence For first why is there no doubt but that his Maiestie will beware of them if they pay the penalty of the Statute for not swâ—aring against any clause of their Religion and doe otherwise offer to sweare all temporall obedience Why should not wee thinke rather that his Maiestie will esteeme of them as of men that haue care of their consciences and consequently that being true to God wil be also true to him as Gods Substitute We know that one of his Maiesties most noble Ancestors yea Constantius Constantine the great his Father did make that argument and consequence when he proposed some like Oath to his Courtiers that might preiudice his Christian Religion the swearers he reiected the refusers he imbraced as more faithfull then the other and why may it not be hoped that his Maiestie out of his great wisedome and clemency will doe the same And why should these men be sayed here to be braÌ„ded by the Apostle sedâ—câ—â— by the error of Balaams wages perishing in the coÌ„tradiction of Corah and Dathan Is there any least similitude of these things against the Catholicks of England Wherin hath the Apostle branded them What hope of gayne what corruption of money what wages of Balaam hath seduced theÌ„ that suffer themselues to be so much spoyled impouerished for not swearing against their owne Consciences What contradiction of Corah and Dathan is there in them that offer all obedience and duty both to teÌ„porall spirituall Gouernours that which is due to Cesar to Cesar that which is due to God to God matters of the world life and goods vnto the King matters of the soule spirit life to come vnto those whome God hath appointed for gouerment of soules And this is no coÌ„tradiction of Corâ—â— and Dathan but the quite contrary of conformity in dutifull subordination only found in Catholicke men all Heretickes perishing indeed in the foresayd schisme and contradiction peculiar vnto them TOVCHING THE Exhibitours of the Oath and of Scandall actiue and passiue Wherein M. Barlowes grosse ignorance is discouered §. II. THIS hauing byn spoken principally in the behalfe of those that were pressed with the Oath there remayneth now the other member concerning the Exhibitours or those that vrge it about which my former speach in my Letter to my friend was this To the exhibitours of the Oath also quoth I I see not what blessing it could or can be so extremely to vexe other men without profit or emolument to themselues or to his Maiesties seruice which herein they would pretend to aduance For if there be any cause of doubt of loyall good will in theÌ„ that are forced to sweare against their consciences much more cause and reason may there be of like doubt after they haue so sworne then before For that the griefe of their new wound of conscience remayning still within them stirring them to more auersion of hart for the iniurie receiued must needes worke contrary effects to that which is pretended And whosoeuer will not stick to sweare against his conscience for feare fauour or some other like passion may be presumed that he will as easily breake his oath after he hath sworne vpon like motiues if occasion doe mooue him And among all other passions none is more strong tâ—â—n that of reuenge for oppressions receyued so as we read of the whole Monarchy of Spaine ouerthrowne and giuen to the Mores for one passion of Count Iulian whereby he desired to be reuenged of his King Roderiquez Nothing then is gayned in this behalfe of loyall good will by such extreme pressures but much rather lost Thâ—se were my words what cauill hath M. Barlow against them You shall heare it in his owne phrase They are extrauagant saith he from all Deâ—inity and Policy How proueth he this Nay no one word of proofe doth he alleadg it is inough for this Pithagoras to say it let the iudicious Reader iudge of it He goeth forward Of conscience we haue already spoken now for desperation No doubt Syr but you haue spoken substantially of conscience as before hath beene seene but of desperation I know not what you can say if
malice or infirmity by misconstring or by misunderstanding as you haue heard But in our case there is the vrging of the Oath both by speach penalty which Oath being contrary to thâ—â—r consciences as they are Catholickes and yet swearing the same they fall and run into the ruine of their soules by that meanes and this neither out of malice nor ignorance but rather out of a certayne weakenesse culpable that is sinfull both to themselues and to the vrgers therof So as what S. Thomas speaketh of one sort of men M. Barlâ—â— sliely applieth it to the other Neyther doth S. Thomâ—â— vse these bitter speaches of simply ignorant or wickedly malicioâ—â— as before I haue noted much lesse the third clause and the laâ—â— rather But least of all doth he adde that reason which here is touched to wit For that he who is instructed or truly sanctified can take no offence though giuen neuer so openly For S. Thomas doth not vse the wordes instructed or sanctified but only maketh the title of his fifth article thus Vtrum scandâ—â—â—â— passiuum possit etiam in perfectos cadere Whether a scandall passiue may fall euen vpon such men as are perfect which â—e proueth that it cannot for that a passiue scandal importing an offence taken by other mens words or works whereby the scandalized vpon perturbation depart from God and fall into sin perfect men are so firmly vnited vnto God to his holy will in all things as no euil words or works of men can wrest theÌ„ aside from the same according to the wordes of the Psalme before recited to wit Such as do 〈◊〉 thy law haue much peace and suffer no scandall and consequenâ—ly perfect men cannot take passiue scandal and much lesse commit actiue without departing from their perfectioÌ„ And such men may be accompted in our case those Catholickes that would not be scandalized nor fall into sin and ruine of their soules by the vnlawfull Oath offered vnto them but chose rather to incur the penalty of the law The other as more imperfect tooke the scandall that was giuen them and eyther must be presumed to haue sworne against their consciences if they were Catholickes or to haue followed an erroneous conscience in this matter if they tooke the Oath as it lieth as may appeare by the declaration of the Sea Apostolicke Well then to conclude let vs repeat briefly M. Barl. contexture and see his defects Is the exacting of the Oath saith he a scandall actiue in our Magistrates then is it passiue in their Catholickes Which inference I haue allowed in some Catholickes of the weaker sort that tooke the Oath but not in all for it is no scandall giuen saith he if it be not taken This I haue shewed to be very false It followeth If their consciences be offended at it they are saith Aquinas eyther simply ignorant or wickedly malicious This I haue shewed for the later part not to be in Aquinas and for the former euill applied and falsly alleadged euill applied for those wordes which in Aquinas his sense appertayne to weake Catholickes that tooke the Oath this man ascribeth to the more constant that refused the same Misalleaged also it is for that Aquinas sayth not 〈◊〉 their consciences be offended at it for that it is another thing for consciences to be offended at a thing and mislike the same then to be scandalized fall therby into sinne for the former may be in perfect men yea the more perfect they be the more are they offended and grieued with euill things that may scandalize but the later cannot as now out of S. Thomas hath bene declared And againe a man may be scandalized and fall into sinne by another mans word or act that offendeth him not but rather pleaseth him as when a yong man by some lasciuious speach or fact of his companion should fall into fornication himselfe he is scandalized therby but not offended So as M. Barlow seemeth to speake exactly in nothing for neyther doth he translate well the word perfect vsed by S. Thomas oâ— perfect men which are not subiect to scandall by the words well instructed and truly sanctified for that a man may be well instructed and yet not perfect in maistering his passions according to the saying of the Poet Video meliorae proboque deteriora sequor instruction may teach him what he should do yet not alwayes make him perfect in doing How many well instructed Protestants yea Ministers haue you in England who if they should receiue a scandall actiue from one of their â—ellowes by a box on the care would be so scandalized as they woâ—ld returne him a passiue for requitall And yet is not this for lacke of iâ—struction but of patience rather which perfect men hâ—â—â— and you M. Barlow had not when you gaue the poore fellow that came to be confirmed so heauy a blow vnder the care in Lincolne Church with which as I haue bene credibly informed you felled him to the ground for no other matter then because he smiled vpon you A rare example of Bishoply patience such as I thinke was neuer seene in that Church before Neither is euery man truly sanctified to be reputed for perfect on whome scandall may not fall for that a Iew or a Gentile newly baptized are truly sanctified and yet if you should exact workes of perfection at their hands as patience in aduersities mortification of their passions appetites contempt of the world stability and immobility in Gods loue and seruice perhaps you should not find the same Wherfore by perfect men that cannot be scandalized is signified a far different thing in S. Thomas then well insâ—ructâ—d or truly sanctified And it is very fond that M. Barlow yet addeth againe that these well instrâ—cted and truly sanctified men can take no offence though giuen neuer so openly for that no soâ—t of men are more offended grieued and vexed with the open offence of Almighty God tâ—â—n these that are well iâ—structâ—d and truly sanctified for that their zeale is greater then of any other as we see in our Sauiour who beholding the offence giueÌ„ to his Father by the abuse of his House was so offended therat as that he made a whip to driue theÌ„ out vnto to which the Apostle applied those wordes of the Prophet The zeale of thy House hath eaten consumed me To which effect also K. Dauid said in great feruour Tabescere me seâ—it zelus meâ— quia obliti sunt verba tua inimici mei My zeale hath made me wither away and consume for that my enemies were forgetfull of thy words And many such other testimonies might be alleadged to shew that M. Barlow vnderstandeth not well what he writeth nor conceyueth rightly the Authours meaning whom he alleadgeth especially if he be a Schoole-Doctour as S. Thomas here alleadged is wherin as before hath bene noted he seemeth not to vnderstand the very ordinary tearmes of Schoole Diuinity and much
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