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
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
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
Another thing may be to consider what strange Paradoxes he inserts here and there as positioÌ„s dogmaticall which who so listeth in practise to follow shall either haue no religion or faith at all or insteed of Christs Ghospell the Turks Alcoran For exaÌ„ple what more grosse and wicked assertion can there be then to teach that Kings euen against our conscience are to be obeyed For thus he replyeth against F. Persons saying that Kings were to be obeyed propter coÌ„scientiaÌ„ sed non contra conscientiaÌ„ This saith M. Barlow is no sound doctrine in the negatiue part for euen against a mans Conscience the Prince is to be obeyed Againe There is nothing more easy for proofe or euident for dâ—monstration then that obedience is to be enioyned â—uâ—n against conscience if it be erroneous and leaprous and against religion if forged and falsely so called And is not this a very learned Axiome For more euident refutation whereof let vs suppose that for which we powre forth our daily prayers to God that his Maiesty were as all his Noble Progenetors of both Realmes haue alwayes bene a Catholick Prince and as zealous for the truth therof as now he is for the Protestant cause if then he should propose vnto Syr WilliaÌ„ the Oath of Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome so cleerly out of Scriptures and all antiquity proued and euinced to be true but yet in the blind eyes and leaprouâ— conscience of this Minister thought to be false what would he doe therin Will he sweare it to be true But in his conscience he thinketh it to be false and against the Scriptures Will he refuse it But Kings saith he euen against conscience are to be obeyed 25. Neyther doth he help the matter any thing at all by his distinction of leaprous and erroneous conscience for with men of his stamp conscience is like a cheuerell point which they may stretch loose at their pleasure For who knoweth not that in the tyme of Q. Mary they were held to haue erroneous leaprous consciences euen by the iudgement of the greatest deuines in Geneua who manteyned that women were to be obeyed albeit they were Queenes euen in ciuill and temporall affaires But within one yeare after this errour and leaprosy was so transposed that the quite contrary was taught and they were not only held to haue leaprous and erroneous consciences who denyed ciuill obedience but were condemned also as Traitours by Parlament if they did deny Q. Elizabeth to be the Supreme head or Gouernesse of the Church of England So that it was not only lawfull but necessary for her to haue all Temporall and Ecclesiasticall gouernmeÌ„t in her hands as she was Queen which yet in Q. Mary to haue ciuill only euen by reason of her sex was iudged monstrous vnnaturall and repugnaÌ„t to the Scriptures and law of God Many other examples might be produced in this kind to shew this new Gospell to be as constant as the weathercocke which neuer turneth but when the wynd doth change to wit as often as occasions fall out that may fit their purpose for then they will strayne all conscience and honesty also to conforme themselues become good subiects 26. Much like vnto this of obeying Kings against our conscience is his other prophane and barbarous assertion of the Supremacy of the heathen Emperours Nero Domitian and the rest ouer the Christian Church yea which is more strange that the auncient Fathers Iustinus Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian and others acknowledged the same But you must know that M. Barlow in cyting their words for proofe of this paradox is very silent howsoeuer with all coÌ„fideÌ„ce as a maxime in his new Deuinity vncoÌ„trollable he deliuereth the same saying That they acknowledged the Emperors Supremacy indepeÌ„dant vpon any but God And a litle after that Queene Elizabeth in her Supremacy was no vsurper by Nouell-claime but accepted what God himselfe had annexed to her crowne Out of which I first note that by this Doctrine the Great Turke is supreme Head of the Christian Church in Greece and that if M. Barlow were there for such he would acknowledge him Secondly the Pythagoricall manner of speaking which our Aduersaries vse in matters of greatest moment and controuersie For whereas before King Hâ—nry the eight no Christian King euer tooke that title or vsurped any such authority ouer the Church yea for challenging much lesse Constantius was called Antichrist both by S. Athanasius and S. Hilary these men without all profe but not without singuler impupudency thinke it sufficient to sayâ— that the King is head of the Church that he was so acknowledged by the ancient Fathers that not only a woman may haue the same authority of Supremacy in all causes Ecclesiasticall but that also the heathen Emperours had it as annexed to their Crowne and Imperiall Dignitie euen against the whole torrent of all writters the practise of the Christian world and euident text of Scripture it selfe no Fathers no history no monument no shew or shaddow of proofe or authority in former tymes being found for the same without many straines violent enforcements or ridiculous illations made there-upon as in the arguments of the Protestants who haue treated this controuersie is euery where to be seene 27. Lastly the Reader may note that M. Barlow is so poore a Deuine as eyther he knoweth not what belongeth to matters of faith or els is so wicked as against his owne knowledge he will auouch that for true which is checked euen by his owne brethren and conuinced by common sense and experieÌ„ce to be most false to wit that the Protestants and the Puritanes in England differ only in maâ—ters cerimoniall and agree in all â—ssâ—ntiall and substantiall points concerning religion in which this Prelate is very cathegoricall for ignorance as himself elswhere telleth vs out of Fathers and Philosophers though he cite no place or sentence is the mother of aâ—dacious assertions and vndertakings and writteth thus Faine they woulâ— possesse the world that we are at iarre among our selues about our religion whereas the quarrell though it be indeed vnkind yet is it not in this kind sauâ— only for cerimonyes externall no points substantiall c. So he Which though it be kindly spoken as you see yet he must giue me leaue to belieue him at leasure and in the meane tyme â—o aske him one question to wit whether the ProtestaÌ„ts and Puritans vnderstand their owâ—e differences that are between theÌ„ or not If notâ— then we need not belieue M. Barlow as speaking of that which he doth not vnderstand If they doe how commeth it to passe that they condemne ech other of idolatry heresy and false religion as any may read in the Suruey and dangerous Positions set forth by Sâ—â—cliffe and the last Superintendent of Canterbury for the Protestants and Cartwright Gilby Mâ—rtin Senior and others for the Puritans 28. To this answereth M. Barlowes Comicall companion of
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
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
for the last which is heresie he hath brought in two such Authours and authorities against himselfe as in the whole ranke of antiquitie he could not find 〈◊〉 two more fit and forcible to conuince him and his of Heresie and consequently also as himselfe inferreth of more griâ—uous and damnable Idolatry And he would not haue brought them in to the purpose he doth if he had vel micam salu any the least part of prudeÌ„ce For if I should by the occasion of these two Fathers here brought iâ— frame a Syllogisme against M. Barlow his religion taking the maior proposition out of these wordes here set downe and adding the minor out of these two Fathers most manifest assertions he would neuer be able to auoyd the conclusion and if he can I doe prouoke him to the triall The maior proposition is this according to S. Aâ—guâ—â—â—â—â— and Vincentius Lyrineâ—sis that liued not long the one after the other Heresy is Idolatry and heretickes are Idolatours yea the basest kinde of Idolatours that do woâ—ship the fancies of their owne braynes This propositioâ— is here brought in and grâ—unted by M. Barlow as trueâ— and auouched by these two anâ—ient Fathers the minorâ— doe adde and doe offer to proue which is this But according to the iudgement and writing of these two Fathers concerning the nature and property of heresy and heretickes M. Barlowes religion if it be the Protestants is conuinced to be heresy and the professors thereof heretickes Ergo also they are Idolatours and of the basest kinde of Idolatours and damnably worship the fancies of their owne braynes This Syllogisme consisting of M. Barl. his maior my minor the conclusion following of them both I could wish he would coÌ„sider wel And for so much as I know he wil deny the minor I do offer to ioine issue with him vpon that point only if he please reducing all our combate begun betweene him and me to this important question much more profitable to the Reader then these wranglings wherin wee are now conuersant Whether according to the doctrine and iudgement of S. Augustine and Vincenâ—ius Lyrinensis coÌ„cerning heresyâ— Protestants or RomaÌ„ Catholickes be truly Hereticks Let vs lay all other quarrels I say aside and handle only this graue and weighty Controuersy if he hath so much confidence in his cause in the doctrine of these two Fathers But for so much as I do imagine that M. Barlow will pause a greate while and consult before he accept of this offer and perhaps expect vntill the designed new Colledge of Protestant VVriters be vp at Chelsey or els where I will in the meane space inuite the Reader to study and make familiar vnto himselfe the two aforenamed Authors about this point of heresie and hereticks And as for Vincentius Lyrinensis it wil be easie for that it is but a little booke though weighty in substance and it is printed both seuerally and togeather with Tertullian his excellent booke of Prescriptions against Hereticks both of his and these our dayes yea illustrated also with diuers short notes and Commentaries both of Ioannes Costerus and of Iâ—stus Baronius a learned man and Counsellour to the Arch-bishop Electour of Meâ—tz conuerted from Protestant Religion principally by reading and pondering that goulden Treatise of the sayd Vincentius The other Authour S. Augustine is far more large and difficult to be studied throughly in respect of the multitude of his workes but there is a collection made of them into foure bookes by a learned man of our time with the title of Confessio Augustiniana wherin is gathered the iudgement of S. Augustine about all the controuersies of our time which he hath handled in his workes so many hundred yeares agoe before the new names of Protestants or Papists were euer heard of and to the diligent reading of this Booke I would exhort all indifferent men that haue care of their soules and vnderstand the latin tongue For that S. Augustine being the man he was both in learning and sanctity and so speciall a Pillar of Christ his Church in his dayes which was about foure hundred yeares after Christ when yet the true Catholike Church is granted to haue flourished it followeth that what doctrine he held for true and Catholike in his time must also be now what held to be heresy we may also boldly hold the same and what rules he gaue to know and descry the one or the other may serue vs now to the same end I will not set downe any particuler places in this Epitome of S. Aâ—gusâ—iâ—â— for the Reader to repaire vnto aboue others for they are clearly propounded in the beginning of the worke and reduced vnto seuerall heads and Chapters But if M. Baâ—low or any of his shal be content to ioine with me vpon the issue before mentioned we shall haue occasion to examine the worke more exactly And this hath bene spoken by occasion of M. Barlowes answer once for all about Catholikes vexed consciences with feare as he termeth theÌ„ which full wisely he will haue to proceed of Idolatry superstition heresy as you haue heard but sayth nothing of inforcemeÌ„t of their consciences by penal lawes though that be the only matter in questioÌ„ But it may be he will say somewhat therof in his second resolution about this matter for this is but his first let vs heare him then further if you please Againe saith he where the mind hath no certayne stay for â—eâ— vltima resolutio in matters and cases of faith conscience there must necessarily follow a miserable vexaâ—ion which is the case of thâ—se Catholickes whose dependance for resolution must rest vpon the supreme Pastours determination then which what is more vncertayne for what one Pope decrees the other disallowes Here againe you see he runneth from the whole purpose and talketh in the ayre for the Catholikes doe not demaund of him What is the cause of their vexed consciences but rather doe tell him what it is as you haue heard in my words before rehearsed to wit the pressing of them to sweare against the iudgement of their owne consciences or els to incurre displeasure and suspition of disloyalty with his Maiestie as also the penalty of the law And what then doth our Doctour tell vs a tale of vltima râ—solutio in matters cases of fayth and conscience to be the cause of their trouble and affliction Truly it is as far from the purpose as the other before was and no lesse also against himselfe to make mention of this vltima resolâ—tio which more conuinceth him and his of heresy then any other demonstration that can be vsed to that effect For that they hauing abandoned the authority and iudgemeÌ„t of the knowne Catholike Church from which finall resolution in matters of controuersy is to be taken according to that rule of S. Augustine Si quis quaestionis difficultate â—alli metiâ—t Ecclesiaâ— consulat if any man teare
the consequeÌ„ce of this argument Wherunto I answere that I alleadged diuers reasons why our Catholick Priests dyed for religion not for treason First for that no such treason could be proued against them in the sense and iudgement of any indifferent man that was present at their arraignments to wit of the one hundred and thirty that before I mentioned Secondly for that the publike Registers themselues and Histories as Iohn Stâ—w and others in their Chronicles doâ— obiect no other treason to the most of them but only being Priests their taking of holy Orders beyond the seas which in no sense can be treason no more then the confessing of the blessed Trinitie can be made treason by the Trinitarians in Transiluania Thirdly for that they themselues dying did protest vpon their consciences as they should be saued they neuer meant treason in thought word or deed against Queene Elizabeth And then â—ourthly for confirmation of this I alleaged this other reason so much scorned by M. Barlow they hauing life offered them if they would renounce the Pope conforme themselues to the State they refused the same which he saith is a false and faulty inference and I say it is very good and true and that if M. Barlow had any moderate skill of the case according to the rules â—yther of Philosophy or Diuinity he would be ashamed to say as he doth in Philosophy it being a common axiome that omnis actus specificatur ab obiecto fiâ—e euery action is specified that is to say taketh his nature and essence from his obiect and end As if a man should kill one to gayne his goods this act hath both the nature of man-slaughter theft the first from the obiect the second from the end or intention of the doer which Philosophicall principle being applyed to our case doth euidently proue that the choice of death in him that hath life offered vpon conditioÌ„ he will doe some act against his faith as going to the Protestants Church is esteemed by Catholickes though otherwise he were nâ—uer so great a delinquent before is an act of Martyrdome for that it hath both the obiect and the end therof the obiect to wit death the end which is the profession of his faith And so if we passe to consider the same by Theologyâ— which more properly treateth of this vertue of Martyrdome the controuersy will be made much more cleare for that the word Martyrdome being a Greeke wordâ— and signifying a Testimony or bearing of witnesse as the word Martyr signifyeth him that yealdeth testimony or beâ—reth witnesse euery testmony or bearing of witnesse is not meant by the word Martyrdome but only such a testimony as is giuen by dying for God in the defeÌ„ce of some truth belonging to our faith either expressely impugned or implyed in the impugnation of some other vertue that containeth the sayd truth of our faith therin which last clause is added for that a man may be a true Martyr though he dye not for any expresse article of faith or part therof but it is sufficient that he dy for the defence of any one vertue as Chastity Obedience Iustice and the like according to the saying of our Sauiour Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam Blessed are they that suffer persecutioÌ„ for righteousnes And S. Iohn Baptist is acknowledged by all Deuines for a true Martyr although he died for no article of faith but for reprehending the incestuous marriage of King Herod with more libertie of speach and spirit then any such Prince-flatterer base mind as M. Barlow would euer haue done in the like case if we may ghesse at his vertue by his writing But to apply the former ground and vncontrollable principle to our present purpose in hand whether these Priests died for refuâ—ing the Oath of the Feminine Supremacy or for that they were made Priests beyoÌ„d the seas or â—or that they refused to come to your heretical seruiceâ— certaine it is according to the rules of Catholicke Diuinity that they died for deâ—ence of their faith or maintenance of vertue which is sufficieÌ„t to iustify their Martyrdomes hauing so great warrant and store of all manner of witnesses â—or the truth and doctrine they suffered for as might well in conscience assure them of the righteousnesse of their cause and that they died for that Religion in which all the Princes and people of Christendome for so many yeares ages both liued and died And wheras M. Barlow impugneth this by two cases or examples they are but so many arguments of his owne ignorance Let vs speake a word or two of them both The first is of Absolom putting the case that he was an Idolator as well as a traitor and that King Dauid after sentence passed against him â—or his treasons would acquite him froÌ„ death conditionally that he should renounce his Idolatry and that vpon reâ—usall he should be executed Shall we say sayth M. Barlow that he died â—or Religion or for treason We will say good M. Barlow that he died rather for false religion that is to say Idolatry then for treason and was the Diuels Martyr and none I thinke can deny the same vnles he be as ignorant as your selfe as shall further appeare by the answere to the next example which in effect is all one with this to wit that a yonger sonne should aspire his fathers death with hope to haue his riches and that being condemned his father should offer to saue him if he would go to Church and leaue his euil life of following queaneâ— c. Shall â—e say quoth M. Barlow that he is executed for his whore-domes or for this parâ—icide against his father But here I would aske M. Barlow why he leaueth out going to Church which was the first part of the condition and nameth only whore-domes no doubt but the honest man would haue the staying from the Church in Catholicks and whore-domes seeme to be companions But now I answere to his question that if he meane by refusing to go to Church such as is practised by Catholikes for Conscience sake and not to deny thereby the truth of the Catholicke faith which forbiddeth to go to hereticall Churches then dyeth he for the truth of his faith and consequently he is a Martyr But if he choose to dye for loue of wicked life and whoredome it is no cause of Martyrdome and consequently he is the Diuells Martyr as we said before of the Idolator But as for Parâ—icide cleere it is that he cannot be sayd to haue died for it properly as the immediate cause of his death for that it was remitted vnâ—o him and their passed another election on his mind to wit that he would leaue his old life so as â—or this he died propriè proximè properly and immediately and for the parricide only remotè occasiâ—naliter a far of and as from that which gaue the first occasion of his death What
or Ecclesiasticall power hath hitherto bene or may be lawfully exercisedâ— for the reâ—ormation and correction of all maÌ„ner of errors heresies schismes 〈◊〉 c. all and all manner of Iurisdiction priuâ—ledges and preheâ—â—â—â—â—ces in any wise touching any sprituall or Ecclesiasticall iurisdâ—ctiâ—â—â— with in the Realme was giuen vnto her and vnited vnto the Crâ—â—â—e This was the high doctrine in those daies of the Priâ—ces supreme Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power oâ—er the Church of England no lesse theÌ„ of the Pope himselfe ouer his Church of Rome But now of later dayes and by later writers the case seemeth wonderfully altered for not only haue they taken away the name title of Head of the Church which was treason by King Henries Statutes to deny and many were put to death for not yielding therunto but haue taken away the authority also it selfe if we respect the substance and shifting in words to seeme still to retaine somewhat Wherin among others M. Barlow seemeth eminent and vnder a shew of defending the Kings supremacy to take it quite away For let vs heare first how he handleth the question about the Princes authority for iudging in cases of religion which is the principall of all the rest He both proposeth and solueth the question thus May not then saith he a Prince iudge in cases of Religion and Faith No not iudicio definitiuo to determine what is sound Diuinity or not and so impose that vpon the consciences of men for faith which he alone defines to be so but iudicio executiuo or iurisdictionis he may and ought when the Church hath determined matters of saith command the prosessing therof within his Kingdomeâ— as the soundest and worthyest to be receaued This is his determination whereby it is euident that he permitteth only vnto the King to execute that which his Church in England to wit the Bishops and Clergy therof shall determine about matters of religion which is no one iote more of power in Ecclesiasticall matters then that which Catholicks do ascribe vnto their â—emporall Princes to execute what the Church determineth but yet with this difference of much more dignity that they are bound to the execuâ—ion only of that which the Vniuersall Church shall determine not of their owne subiects alone as it falleth out on the behalfe of his Maiesty of England in this case In which point also I do not see how he can wind himselfe out of this maze that must necessarily follow of his owne doctrine to wit that one should receiue from another that the other receiued from him As for example if the Bishops being his Maiesties subiects as well in spirituall as temporal affaires haue no spirituall iurisdiction but froÌ„ him as the Statute of King Edward doth determine and on the other side his Maiesty to haue no authority to define of any matter belonging to religion at all but only to execute that which the Bishops do define it seemeth that they receiue from his Maiesty that authority which they deny to be in him and so that he giueth them the thing which he hath not in himselfe but is to receaue from them Moreouer it is euident by this doctrine of theirs that the Bishops do make their Courtes Tribunalls for matters of Religion to be absolutly greater then the Kings for that they do allow him no other power for Iudging in spirituall matters but only to execute that which they shall define and determine And albeit for dazeling the simple readers eyes M. Barlow doth in this place fumble vp a certaine distinction not wel vnderstood by himselfe takeÌ„ out of some Schoolmen as he saith noting Occam in the margent that there be three parts of this executiue iudgmeÌ„t the one discretiue to discerne the other directiue to teach others the third decretiue which third he saith is in the Prince both affirmatiuely to bind to the obseruing of that which is so tryed and adiudged and negatiuely to suppresse the contrary and that this last is to Iudge for the truth and the former of defining is to iudge of the truth Yet doth all this reach no further but to the power of execution of that which others haue determined which may be called a power of impotency in that behalfe for that therin he is subiect and not Superiour especially if it lye not in his power either to execute or not to execute as he shall think best which M. Barlow here denveth saying That he may and ought to execute when the Church hath determined But on the other side if he haue power and liberty to execute or not to execute then is the other power of defining in the Bishops to small purpose For that they may define and he not execute his iudgment being that they haue defined eâ—ill and by that way becommeth he their Iudge againe to define whether they haue defined well or no. And this is another circle or labyrinth which I see not how M. Barlâ—â— will easily auoid I doe pretermit diuers other childish thinges that be in this speach of his as where he propoundeth thus the question as first VVhether a Prince may iudge in cases of Religion â—â—d saith as though these two were Sinonyma and all one Whereas religion contayneth many cases as well of life manners and cerimonyes as of faith in all which cases it may be demanded how far the King may be iudge Secondly he saith that the King cannot define and determine what is sound Diuinity or not which is far from the purpose For the question is not whether the King may iudge and determine what is sound Diuinity or Theologie but what is matter of faith and what is to be belieued or not be belieued by a true Christian within his realme Thirdly in like manner when he saith that the King hath only iudicium executiuum or iurisdictionis as though they were all one whereas executio and iurisdictio are two different things iurisdiction is more properly in that party that defineth then in the other that executeth for that the former commaundeth and the second obayeth Fourthly his terme also of discretiuum ascribed by him vnto all Christians to haue power to try spirits whether they be of God or no besides that it seemeth contrary to that of S. Paul to the Corinthians who reckoneth vp discretion of spirits to be a peculiar and seuerall gift vnto some alone saying Alij discretio spirituum c. is nothing well applyed by him to iudicium execuâ—iuum for that it appertayneth rather to iudicium definitiuum for somuch as those that haue power to define to determine of matters are principally to iudge of spirits not their subiects to iudge of theirs for that other wise there must needes ensue an inextricable confusion of trying iudging of one the others spirits As if for example the Bishops oâ— England should try condemne the spirits of the Purytans and they agayne the spirits of the Bishops by