bables This was the fact of a Pagan Atheist What doth the matter appertayne to vsâ— do we esteeme so litle a false Oath Why then doe Catholickes stand so much in England against the receiuing of this Oath Why doe they put themselues in danger of leesing the Princes fauour their goods theyr lands their Countrie their liues rather then to take the same againâ—â— their consciences It seemeth rather that M. Barlâ—â— concurreth with Lisanders opinion who will haue theâ— take it although it be against their consciences for thiâ— is to haue leuem iurisiurandi religionem little conscience of an Oath But yet he goeth further in this matter and cannot get out of it for he will needs proue this my distinctioâ— and as he calleth it Equiuocation not only to be Pagaâ—iâ—â— but more then Heatheniâ—h that euen by Aristotles testimony in his Booke of Rhetoricke to King Alexander his wordes are these Nay this delusion is more then Heathenish â—or Aristotle was of opinion that he which doubteth in his Oath for thâ—â— i◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sweare with a mentall addiâ—ion hath neither â—ear oâ— Goâ—â— vâ—ngeance or shâ—me oâ— mens reproof But truely I hauing conâ—idered the place of Aristotle how far his meaning is from that which here is alledged in his name me thinkes that M. Barlow should feare these two last pointes of Gods vengeaÌ„ce mans reprofe For Aristotle hath not a word of dâ—â—bâ—ing in his Oath or of mentall addition or reseruatioÌ„ in an Oath bâ—t only of plaine forswearing For his argument is hauing treated in that booke to Alexander how by the preceptes of Rhetoricke an Orator may proue or improue any fact or crime that shall come in question as by signes by arguments by coniectures by probability by witnesse and by torture he coÌ„meth at leÌ„gth to shew how it may be proued or improued by an Oath His words are these Iufiuranduâ— est cum diuina veneratione dictio probationis expeâ—s c. An Oath is a speach without proofes with diuine veneration wherefâ—re if we will confirme our Oath and the credit thereof we must say thâ—â— no man truly will forsweare himselfe both in respect of the â—eare of punishment from the Gods as also of disgrace among men and we may add that men may be deceyued but the Gods cannot But now if the aduersary will flie also to an Oath and we would extenuate or discredit the same then we must shew that the man that will not sticke to dâ—e euill will not sticke also to forsweare himself for that he which thinketh he may ly hidden from the Gods after he hath committed an eâ—ill â—act will thinke that he may also escape punishment after he hath â—orsworne himselfe This is Aristotles discourse which maketh no mention at all as you see of doubting in an Oath and much lesse of mentall addition or reseruation And albeit M. Barlow do bouldly and ignorantly say that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by all Interpreters doth signifie peierare to periure or forsweare doth import also to sweare with mental addition yet is this only a fiction of his nor can he bring forth one example out of Aristotle or any Greeke writer which doth vse it in that sense nor could Aristotle vse it so in this place where he vseth the sayd wordes thrice in these lines by me alleaged alwaies for peierare to forsweare and neuer for doubting or mentall addition Nay it cannot stand with any sense of Aristotles discourse for if Aristotle should say that no man truly will doubt in his Oath or haue a meÌ„tall reseruation both for feare of Gods chastisement discredit amongst men it were a ridiculous speach for that men do not knowe when a mentall reseruation is made or when a man doubteth in his Oath but when he forsweareth himselfe it may come to be knowne And in like manner it is more ridiculous to say against the aduersary as Aristotle teacheth vs that he which sticketh not to doe wickedly will not sticke to doubt also in his Oath or to vse a mentall addition which no man I thinke would vnderstand or can read without laughing Wherfore seing that Aristotle speaketh only of forsweâ—ring and that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken by him and by all other Greeke Authors wherof we might heâ—â— alledge infinite examples M Barlow cannot alleadge one for his fiction it is euidently seene that he miserable man is sore pressed when to sustaine his bad cause he is forced to falsifie and corrupt Authours by peruerting and wresting them aside quite contrary to their meaning purpose But now we shall passe to some other poyntes THE REASON IS EXAMINED WHETHER GODS PROVIDENCE MIGHT SEEME DEFECTVOVS if no authority had bene left in the Christian hurch to restraine and punish euill Kings AND Whether God be so wary in dealing with Kings as M. Barlow maketh him CHAP. III. I SAID in my former Letter as in the precedent Chapter hath bene seene that I could not perswade my self that such Catholikes as were sayd to haue accepted the Oath did meane to abiure al authority of the Pope for depoâ—ing temporall Princes for any cause whatsoeuer for that therin they should contradict the gâ—nerall consent of all Catholike Deuines and confesse that Gods prouidence for the conseruation and preseruatiâ—â— of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth had bene defectuous For that he should haue left no lawfull remedy for so great perilous an euill as that way might fall out by the exorbitant actions of some incorrigible Prince To this my speach M. Barlow answereth thus If by Catholike Deuines he meaneth Scriptures Councells Fathers Stories for a thousand yeares after Christ the Reader must take it for a mendacious vanity and let it passe for no better Wherto I reply that as I do meane it it is no mendacious vanity but a religioâ—â— verity for that I meane by Catholike Deuines in this place all such of that profession as haue handled the question particularly of this temporall Authority of the Pope in certaine vrgent occasions which are principally Scholasticall Deuines especially those of this age that haue written against all sorts of Heretikes that denied the same And albeit M. Barlow in his rayling vayne do challenge the Schoole-men as blasphemously detorting Scriptures yet he that shall read them with iudgment and attention without this furious passion of hatred against them and lacke of capacity to vnderstand them shall quickly perceiue that their skill in Scriptures Councels Fathers Stories is far superiour by infinite degrees to that of M. Barlow and his Mates that crake so much against them and their sincerity in expounding them according to their true meaning and is also without comparison more sound as may appeare by the many grosse and wilfull corruptions which I haue noted in him before in that kind And albeit in some hundreds of yeares after Christ there had
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
Ely of whome whiles he was silent many had some opinion of learning but since all is resolued to lying immodest rayling and some few light Terentian Plautinian phrases which aswel bâ—seeme a Deuine writing in matters of such moment and in defence of so great a Monarch to dally withall as it doth a Bishop to lead a morrice-daunce in his hose and dublet This man I say answereth hereunto that perhaps so the case stood then when those Protestants did write but that is well neere 20. yeares agoe but now it is otherwise Which is asmuch as if he had said that this new beliefe in England is not like the old alwayes one but is refined altered with the tyme and therefore no argument can be drawne from a thing done 20. yeares past for that is to great antiquity for so new-fangled a fayth which is alwaies in motion and hath her waynes changes quarters and full like the Moone But yet I must aske him further how he will proue by any example of the Puritan writers this their change and submission to the Protestants conformity of doctrine with theÌ„ more now then 20. yeares past Are they not still in the same degree of difference and oppositioÌ„ as before Doe they not still deny our Sauiours descent into hell Do they not disclay me from the English Hierarchie Will they acknowledge the Kings Supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall as King Henry did challenge it Or will they recall what they haue written of their discipline that it is an essentiall marke of the Church without which there were no Church no Faith no Ghospell and consequently the Protestants to be no Ghospellers to be out of the Church out of the number of the faithfull 29. But for further confutation of both these Superintendents and more cleere explication of the thing it selfe besides what is afterwards said in this booke touching this point it shall not be amisse here to set downe the words of a few Protestant and Puritan late and yet liuing writers what they iudge of ech other in this affayre that our very enemyes may be iudges of the most shamefull assertion of these two Prelates That the Protestants and Puritans differ in matters only cerimoniall and agree in essentiall And the reason that I produce no more in this kind is for want of their bookes which being not worth the sending so far seldome come to our hands I will begin with the Protestants 30. And to omit Thomas Rogers whose testimony is after to be produced in the Discussion it selfe what other thing doth Oliuer Ormerod in his discouery of Puritan-Papisme annexed to his Picture of a Puritan prooue but that the said Puritans are Hereticks and haue ioyned themselues with the Pharisies Apostolickes Arians Pebuzians Petrobusians Florinians Câ—rinthiaÌ„s Nazarens Begardines Ebionites Catababdites Eâ—theusiasts Donatists Iouinianists Catharists And least any should thinke that this coniunction is only in matters cerimonial he laieth to their charge these ensuing heresies that there is no diuersâ—â—y between a Priest and a Bishop that Bishops haue no iuâ—isdiction that all synnes be equall that the Minister is of the essence of baptisme with the like And in the second dialogue he maketh in plaine tearmes this obiection that there is no difference in matters fundamentall but accidentall and then answereth the same that they do differ from the Protestants in some things that are fundamentall and substantiall which he proueth by the article of Christs descending into hell And he might haue proued it further by the aboue rehearsed articles for which Iouinian Aerius and others were reputed by the auncient Fathers and condemned for Hereticks 31. VVith this Oliuer of Cambridge agreeth A. N. of Oxford in his Bible-bearer towards the midest for thus he writeth They refuse to subscribe to the Kings lawfull authority in causes Ecclesiasticall to the article of religion to the booke of Common prayer and the orders rites and cerimonies of our Church nay they dissent from vs in things accidentall and cerimoniall So he By which last antithesis of accidentall cerimoniall differences it is most euident that the former were essentiall fundamentall Neither doe I see how this can be denyed by any for if the Puritans refuse to subscribe to the articles of Protestant religion who seeth not that they approue it not and consequently differ in essentiall points and that M. Barlow ouerlashed very much when he wrote that their vnkind quarrell with Puritans was in another kind and not in matters of religion wherein forsooth out of his great kindnes he will haue them to agree 32. And not to stand more for proofe hereof from Protestants D. Couel cleereth the matter when he saith But least any man should thinke that our contentions were but in smaller points and the difference not great both sides haue charged the other with heresies if not infidelities nay euen such as quite ouerthrow the principall foundation of our Christian faith Thus he And this I thinke is another manner of matter then externall cerimonies or accidentall differences for if this be not a plaine iarre amongst Protestants and Puritans in Religion I would faine know what M. Barlow will more require thereunto but I see S. Gregories wordes verified in these men where he saith solent haeretici alia apertè dicere alia occultè cogitare the heretikes are wont to speake otherwise openly then inwardly they thinke for when they deale amongst themselues then are Protestants and Puritans heretikes and infidells to ech other but when they answere vs then all are friendes all good Christians all vnited in doctrine deuided only in cerimonies accidentall differences This is another manner of equiuocation then any of our schooles will allow and only fit for such as are his schollers qui in veritate non stetit sed mendax fuit ab initio 33. From Protestants I come to Puritans who in this case are no lesse eager playne and resolute then the Protestants but rather more for this in expresse tearmes the Author of the Twelue generall arguments concludeth against all the Superintendents of England togeather that they are Vsurpers and Tyrants and execute an vsurped power ouer the Church and one reason to proue the same is ex concessis for that their Ecclesiastical iurisdiction is deriued from the King else say they it is a flat deniall of his Supremacy as there they shew And in the next reason which is the 4. and last brought in for proofe of their assumption or minor thus they conclude There are no true and sober Christians but will say that the Churches of Scoâ—land France the Low Countryes and other places that renounce such Archbishops and Bishops as ours are as Anti-christian and vsurping Prelates are true Churches of God which they could not be if the authority prerogatiues they claime to themselues were of Christ and not vsurped for if it were the ordinance of Christ
liued in Africk he not only suffered but procured throughout all Sicily and his kingdome of Italy the fairest women and maidens which the Turkes lusted after to be taken from their parents bosome and married wiues euen out of their husbands armes to be giuen vnto them So he And was not this a vertuous man trow you who to pleasure the Turkes sworn enemies of Christ would thus deale with Christians And doth not this man deserue to be credited speaking in his owne behalfe before Pope all writers and whatsoeuer other testimony But indeed this dealing was conforme to his deuotion for he who so vilely esteemed of our Sauiour himself no meruaile if in his other behauiour he were so irreligious base and wicked for as we haue before out of Fazelius shewed he held our Sauiour and Moyses to be no better theÌ„ Mahomet calling them all three Seducers as with Fazelius the Chronicles of Augusta and Compilatio Chronologica both German histories do auouch and moreouer affirme that he speake the same in the hearing of Henry the Lantgraue saying withal If the Princes of the Empire would but follow me I would ordaine a bâ—tter maner of beliefe and liâ—e for all Nations And verily it seemeth that he aymed at this when as you haue seene before out of his owne epistle set downe and censured by both the Matthews he went about to abase all the Clergie by taking all liuings from them and to depriue them of all their dignity â—or that being once effected he might with more ease afterwardes haue made a new Clergy a new faith a new Christ but he forgot in this his foolish feruor what the Kingly Prophet Dauid said and praied against such atteÌ„ptes Omnes Principes qui dixerunt hereditate possideamus Sanctuarium Dei c. All thoâ—e Princes who haue sayed let vs possesse as our inheritance the Sanctuary of God let them be O my God as a wheele and as straw before the face of the wind as a fier that burnes the wood and as a flame that consumes the mountaines So shalt thou persecute them c. Which seemes in some sort to be verified litteâ—ally in this man who after his excommunication being in extreme calamitie as well by the election of another Emperour defection of a great part of the Empire from him as also for that one of his sonnes to wit Entius King of Sardinia was taken prisoner by the people of Bolognia and another was dead in Apulia Likewise himself percussus est saith Matthew Paris morbo qui dicitur lupus vel sacer ignis was stroken with the disease which is called the wolâ—e or holy fier whereby he was so humbled as the same Author witnesseth that he offered vnto the Pope good conditions of peace according saith Matthew to that saying of the Psalmist which followeth immediatly in the same Psalme by me now alleadged Imple facies eorum ignominia quaerent nomen tuum Domine fill their face with confusion and they will seeke thy name O lord And this chastismeÌ„t of almighty God as it began in his owne person so it continued in his issue partly whiles he liued partly after his death vntill they were all extirpated In his life tyme his Sonne Henry was made away by his owne procurement being cast into pryson where he was eyther poysoned by his command as some thinke or else died naturally as others report Entius was taken by the Bolognians and there after twenty yeares restrainst and more being kept in an iron cage he pined away and died miserablie Bononiam ductus saith Mutiâ—â— mittitur in ferreamâ— caueam in qua sordidissimo victu nutritus miserimam vitam post aliquot annos finiuit Entiuâ— being brought to Bolognia is cast into an iron cage in which being intertained with most filthy diet after some yeares imprisonmeÌ„t ended a most miserable life So he His other bastard-sonne Fredericke died in Apulia And after the said Emperour his death his sonne Conrade King of Sicily was poysoned by Manfred his bastard-brother and Manfred was slaine in battaile by Charles of Angâ—ow and Conradinus Sonne or Nephew to Conradus for in this Authors differ was beheaded at Naples and so ended the race of this wicked and vnfortunate Emperour of whome that may iustly be said which Iob speaketh of the like men Haec est pars impij apud Deum c. This is the portion of the wicked man with God aâ—d the inheritance of the violent oppressors which they shall receaue from the omnipotent If his sonnes shal be multiplied they shall die by the sworde and his nephews shall not be filled with bread All whome he shall leaue behind him shal be buried in destruction Which if all Princes could remeÌ„ber amidst their greatnes no doubt but they would be more moderate in their power and actions and also feare him more qui auâ—ert spiritum Principum terribilis apud omnes Reges terrâ— who taketh away the life of Princes and is dreadfull to all the Kinges of the earth Before we haue set downe out of the Councell it self then which there can be no more graue or greater authority all the causes of his condemnation as his sacriledges his periuries vpon periuries his perfidiousnes to the Christians his treacherous treaty with the Soldan his spoiling of Churches and monasteries his expelling of the Christians out of Nuceria and giuing it to the Turkes his reuiuing the foule faction of the Guelphes and Gibbelines all which and many more as they may be seene in the sentence of Innocentius and Seuerinus Binnius so also many other Authors might be alleadged for the same And he who listeth to read more herof may peruse VVilliam of Nangis the Frenchman in the life of S. Lewis and with him all the Authors whom before we haue cited where some of these things haue bene more particulerly touched which no doubt was the cause why VViceliâ—â— a German in his Epitome of the Popes liues in this Innocentiâ—â— the 4. spake so contemptibly of the Emperours death as he said sub hoc perijt bestia Fredericus In the time of this Pope died that beast Fredericke And the Monke of Padua registring the same death saith Vitam amisit in Apulia c. On S. Lucies day Fredericke died in Apulia and descended into hell carrying nothing with him but a sack of sinnes So he far different from that which before we haue heard others to write of the death of Innocentiuâ— And this may suffice to shew what smal reason M. Barl. had so much to iustify this Emperor for his sake to coÌ„demne the Popes who then liued forgetting in boâ—h that seuere coÌ„mination of the Holy Ghost Qui iustificat impiuÌ„ qui condemnat iustum abominabilis est vterque apud Deum He that iustifies the wicked and he that condemnes the iust both are abominable before God Which makes M. Barlowes case the more pittifull for that he
malicious and intolerable in him for that he had seene me to haue obiected the same falsehood and vntrue dealing vnto M. Morton in my booke of Mitigation that the sayd M. Morton was so farre of from being able to answer the same as in his last Reply he left it quite out now lately I haue obiected the â—ame to him again in my last Reckoning with him cap. 6. 7. whervnto I refer M. Barl. to help him out And so much of this point It followeth in M. Barlowes speach that iâ— S. Peter had receiued of Christ with the keyes Math. 16. this IurisdictioÌ„ ouer Princes which we pretend then had it bene directly vniuersally ouer the whole world But this is not necessary for he might receiâ—â— the same indirectly as included and comprehended in the spirituall to be vsed for the preseruation of the Church when spirituall necessity should require as before haâ—â— bene said And as for Vniuersall ouer the world it is sufficient that it be ouer Christian Princes and people only wâ—â— are properly the sheep and lambes that are commended 〈◊〉 the chiefe Pastours feeding or gouernement Ioan. 21â— though vpon Infidell Princes also he may haue some power in certaine cases as when they will go about to let the preaching of the Ghospell authorized by these wordes Praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae But this appertayneth not to our question But wheras he sayth that Cardinall Bellarmiâ—e I do affirme that the Pope hath only authority ouer Princes indirectly obliquely in ordine ad DeuÌ„ we graunt the word indirectly but as for obliquely in ordine ad Deum he will not I thinke find the phrase in any writing of ours but only â—â— ordine ad spiritualia which is to say that the Pope hath such authority vpon Princes when the preseruation of the spirituall affaires doth so require to wit the saluation of souls he that shall read the place of Bellarmin here by M. Barlow quoted for of myne he citteth nothing to wit lib. 5. de Pontif. cap. 4. 6. shall find this sentence in ordine ad spiritualia but neuer I suppose in ordine ad Deum for that all power of the Pope is in ordine ad Deum propter Deum whether it be spirituall or temporall but in ordine ad spiritualia hath an other meaning as now hath bene shewed to wit that the Pope hatH directly only spirituall authority to execute spirituall functions but when this cannot be coÌ„sâ—â—uâ—d or executed without the help of temporall he may vse that also for defence of the other So as it seemeth that this our great Doctour doth not vnderstaÌ„d the very terms of Deuinity in this matter wherof he disputeth and this his ignorance sheweth it selfe no lesse here then before about indeterminatio iudicy in free choice Nor doth he onlâ— relate falsely ignorantly this point as out oâ— Cardinall Bellarmine and me but much more doth he abuse the name of D. Sanders in the very next words that do ensue as though he should say that neither directly nor indirectly hath the Pope this temporall authority from Christ but rather power to suffer as now you haue heard him say he citing for it de claue Dauid lib. 2. cap. 13. wheras D. Sanders doth hold the quite contrary in that booke throughout sundry Chapters to wit that the Pope hath receaued from Christ vtrumque gladium temporalem spiritualem both swords that is both temporall and spirituall authority and proueth it by many arguments and demonstrations only in the 13. Chapter he demandeth why theÌ„ had not the Apostoles depriued Nero and Domitius of their Empires Whereto he answereth among other causes that these were Pagan Tyrants and not vnder the charge and power that was giuen to the Church ouer sheepe lambes And then in the 14. Chapter he demandeth further why the Apostles first Christians had not elected some new King Christan for the good of the Church at the beginning Whereto he answereth alleaging sundry reasons why it was not conuenient that the Christian Church should be planted with violence but that for the space and time appointed by Gods prouidence Christians should exercise the other part of ChristiaÌ„ fortitude which coÌ„sisteth in suffering as is before touchedâ— but yet he neuer denyeth notwithstanding that the sayd temporall power ouer Christian Princes was in the Church Head therof though that season admitted not the vse but rather proueth it expressely and consequently is egregiously abused and falsifyed by M. Barlow when he sayth Doctor Sanders to affirme that the Pope had neyther directly or indirectly any such power from Christ. But will you see this our doughty Doctour ouerthrown confouÌ„ded both in him selfe and by himselfe then harken to his words in the very next page It is so sayth Sanders S. Peter with the Keyes receyued both powers temporall and ciuill Is it so Syr and why then did you euen now deny it Are you so mutable within the compasse of two pages What misery is this of your cause to be driuâ—n to these shiftes But let vs see another deuise which is â—â— oppose Franciscus de Victoria to this saying of Sanders 〈◊〉 thus you bring him in No not so sayth a Iesuit for this power oâ— the Keyes est alia à ciuili potestate is another power diffeâ—â—â— from the ciuill thus they iarre say you But whether we iarre or no one Catholike writer with another sure I am â—â—at you iarre with your selfe and seeme not to haâ—â— your witts at home For euen now you cited Doctoâ—â— Sanders as denying the Popes temporall power to coâ—â— neyther directly nor indirectly from Christ and now you say him to affirme that S. Peter receyued both powers with the Keyes Are not these playne contradictions How can this iarre be excused by you But I haue further to say to you yet in this matter foâ— that in the very next wordes where you would make a contradiction betweene Doctor Sanders Franciscus de Victoria you shew much more folly if not a worse quality For wheras you write that a Iesuite sayth No not so for 〈◊〉 the power of the keyes is different from ciuill power and do quoâ— the place of Victoria in the margent first in calling him Iesuite who was a Dominican fryar you shew much ignorance if you erre not of purpose For who knoweth not that Iesuites and Dominicans are two different Religious Orders the very first page of the booke and words of the title which are Reuerendi Patris Francisci de Victoria Ordinis Praedicatorum Relectiones c. might haue taught you that Victoria was no Iesuite but it may be that you seeing the words Ordinis Praedicatorum and vnderstanding that Iesuits did vse to preach also you did full wisely imagine Victoria to be a Iesuite and by the same reason you might â—â—well haue imagined him to be a Minister of your
Kinges and Emperours had bene so priuiledged by the power of their Empire aâ— they might not be censured by the high Pastours and Prelates himselfe would neuer haue cenâ—ured and excomunicated his Emperour Theodosius as he did The wordes then are found not in S. Ambrose his Booke de Apologia Dauid cap. 4 10. as here is cited for there are two Apolygies prior and posterior which M. Barlow by his citation seemeth not to haue vnderstood and the first containâ—th but 7. Chapters in all and in the 4 is only this sentence talking of the pennance of King Dauid Qui â—ullis tenebatur legibus humanis indulgentiam petebat cùm qui tenentur legibuâ— aeudent suum negare peccatâ—m King Dauid that was subiect to no humane lawes asked forgiuâ—nes when they that are bound by lawes presume to deny their sinnes But in his enarration vpon the 50. psalme of Dauid he hath the thing more plainely for thus he saith Rex vtique erat nullis ipse legibuâ— tenebatur quia liberi sunt Reges à vinculis delictorum neque enim illi ad poenam vocaÌ„tur legibus tuti Imperij potestate Dauid was a King and thereby was not vnder lawes for that Kinges are free from the bandes of their offences for that they are not called to punishment by lawes being safe by the power of their Empire So S. Ambrose Wereby is seene that he vnderstandeth that Princes commonly are not subiect to humane lawes for that they will not nor may be called to accompt for their offences as priuate meÌ„ are being free by their powâ—r or that no man is able to compell them And this priuiledge perhaps is tolerable in their priuate and personall sinnes but if the same should breake out in publicke and against the vniuersall good of Christians then may we learne by the foresaid act oâ— S. Ambrose in Excommunicating the Emperour Teodosius that God hath leâ—t some power by diuine law to râ—straine them for the coÌ„seruation of his Church and Kingdome And so we may see that al that which M. Barlow hath chirped here to the contrary is not worth a rush but to shew his penury and misery hauing bene forced of eight Authors heere alleadged by him to wit Salmeron Saâ—ders Victoria Bellarmine Barkley Sigebert Espencaeus S. Ambrose to misalledge and falsify seauen as you haue heard that is to say all of them sauing Barkley who in this matter is of lesse accompt then any of the rest if the booke be his which is extaÌ„t vnder his name For that he being no Deuine hath taken vpon him to defend a Paradoxe out of his owne head only different from all other writers of our dayes both Catholiks Heretiks graunting against the later all spiritual authority vnto the Pope ouer Princes Christian People throughout the world but denying against the former all temporall authority eyther directly or indirectly annexed vnto the spirituall wherin as he is singular from all so he is like to be impugned by all and is by M. Barlow in this place for the Protestants calling him our owne Writer And for the Catholikes Cardinall Bellarmine hath lately written a most learned booke against him by name confuting his priuat fancy by the publique authority weight and testimonies of all Catholike Deuines And so much for this OF CERTAINE NOTORIOVS Calumniations vsed by M. Barlow against his aduersary which no wayes can be excused from malice witting errour §. II. AS the former fraud discouered and conuinced against M. Barlow of abusing authors against their owne wordes and meaning is a foule fault and very shaÌ„full in him that pretendeth to haue conscience or care of his credit so is the crime of appareÌ„t and willfull Calumniation bearing no shew of truth or reason at all much more foolish wicked Foolish for that it doth wholy discredit the Calumniator with his Readers wicked for that it sheweth plaine malice and will to hurt although with his owne greater losse So then it falleth out in this place that M. Barlow finding himselfe much pressed and strained with the reasonable and moderate speach which I vsed in my Epistle throughout three numbers togeather concerning the Oath freely taken as was said by many Catholikes both Priests and Laicks expounding their taking of the Oath in a good sense he doth so malignantly peruert the same by open calumniatioÌ„s as euery child may discouer not only the falshood but the fury also of his passion against me nothing being in his answere but exorbitant rayling apparent lying For whereas I in reason deserued rather approbation and commendation from him for expounding plainly and sincerely that meaning which those Catholikes if they were Catholikes had or could haue in their taking of the Oath without all Equiuocation or mentall reseruation which I condemned in an Oath as altogeather vnlawfull concerning any point of religion that ought to be confessed he not being able to abide the light of this truth and plaine dealing falleth into a certaine frenzy of rayling against me for the ground of his accusation â—ayeth hiâ— owne fiction that I doe teach them perswade them 〈◊〉 Equiuocate in this very case For cleare confutatiâ—â— wherof it shal be sufficieÌ„t first to set down my own wordâ— as they ly in my epistle and then to consider and ponder the collections and inferences that he maketh vpon theâ— And if by this you doe not finde him to be one of the loosest conscience and lawâ—est tongue and least respectiuâ— of his owne credit honesty that euer yow saw I am much deceiued My words then were these that follow As for that multitude of Priestes and Lâ—ickes which he sayth haue freely takâ—n the Oath as their freedome was that which now I haue mentioned and a principall motiue as may be presumed the desire they had to giâ—e his Maiesty satisfaction and deliuer themselues and otheâ—â— so much as lay in them from that inference of disloyall meaning which vpon the denyall therof some do vse 〈◊〉 make so I cannot but in charity assure my selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as coâ—cerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in â—ome such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sincerity of true Catholike doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath not authority without iust cause to proceed againâ—â— them Quia illud possumâ—â— quod iure possumus saith the law ouâ— authority is limited by Iustice. Directly also the Pope may be denyed to haue such authority against Princes but indirectly only in ordine ad spiritualia when certayne great important and vrgent cases concerning Christian religion fall out which we hope will neuer be betweene ouâ— Soueraigne and the Sea Apostolicke for so much as they haue past already many yeares though in different Relions in peace and quietnes euen since
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
this â—axatio â—f iudging consciences and consequently this is no inseparâ—ble marke that agreeth to all In like manner also it agrâ—â—â—â— not soli that is only to the sinne of hypocrisie to iudgeâ— of other mens consciences for pride may do it anger may do it temerity may do it reuenge may do it this withoâ—â— hypocrisy or iustifying of himselfe For if to a knowne vsâ—rer for example you should obiect or exprobrate the finne of vsury he answere you againe that he suspected yoâ—â— conscieÌ„ce of like sinne here he iudgeth of your conscience perhaps falsly and yet not by hypocrisie for he iustifietâ— not himselfe ergo this is not propriuÌ„ quarto modo any inseâ—arable marke or propriety of hypocrisie to iudge of other mens conâ—ciences Lastly let vs consider if you please the definition of hypocrisy which should indeed haue bene the first iâ— consideration for trying out of the true nature of this marke propriety for so much as according to Aristotles doctrine and the thing in it selfe is euident by Philosophy prâ—priâ— passiones flâ—unt ab essentijs rerum proprieties doe flow from the essence of things and therefore they are best vnderstood knowne by reâ—erence to the sayd natures and essences conteyned as Aristotle sayth in their definitions The definition theÌ„ of hypocrisie is according to S. Isidorus in his Etimologies simulatio alienae personae when a man pretendeth to be another maâ— and better then he is and according to S. Augustine Qui se vult videâ—iquâ—d non est hypocrita est hâ— that will seeme to be that which he is not is an hypocrite which the greeke word also whereof it is deriued to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth confirme that it signifieth dissimulation this definition I say which must conuerâ—i cum deâ—iniâ—o clâ—areth vs that this iâ—separable marke or propriety deuised by M. Barlâ— to be in all hypocrisie is both ignorantly falsly â—eygned by himselfe as not knowing the true nature of propriâ— pasâ—â— for that there be many wayes of dissimulation of â—eygâ—ing our selues to be better then we are without iudging otheâ— mens consciences that is to say there be many sâ—eâ—iâ— and kinâ—s oâ— hypocrisie and hypocrites that haue not this marke propriety as before hath byn shewed consequently not inseparable that is no proper or inseparable propriety at all no more then it is to â—ay that it is an inseparable propriety to horses to be white for that some few are found white And so we see M. Barlow when he coÌ„meth to speake of any matter of substance and learning sheweth himselâ—e a very feeble man scarce to vnderstand the very termes and first principles of the same But let vs passe on now to another more grieuous calumniation against me He is not content to make the former outcry against me for hypocrisie and iudging mens consciences but addeth also another assault â—saying that I doe teach Equiuocation to be vsed in thiâ— Oath which is so far froÌ„ all truth as I do teach the playne contrary as now hath appeared by my owne words before alledged For I say there of them that tooke the Oath I cannot in charity but assure 〈◊〉 selfe that they being Catholikes tooke the sayd Oath for so much as concerneth the Popes authority in dealing with temporall Princes in sâ—me such lawfull sense and interpretation as being by them expressed and accepted by the Magistrate may stand with the integrity and sinceâ—iâ—y of true Christian doctrine and fayth to witt that the Pope hath â—ot â—uthority â—ithout iust cause nor directly but indirectly only in â—â—dine ad spiritualia So I wrote then and the cleare addition that these exceptions and clauses must be expressed by the swearers and accepted by the Magistrate doth clearly exclude Equiuocation which consisteth of mentall reseruation not expressed nor vnderstood or accepted of him to whom it is vsed and moreouer within very few lines after continuing my speach and desiring his Maiesty to accept of these clauses of moderation Catholike exposition I doe yield this reason that Catâ—olikes doâ— not hold it lâ—wfull in a matter so neâ—rely concerning the Conâ—ession of their sayth to equiuocate or sweare in any other sense then from his Maiesty is proposed Can any thing be spoken more plainly With what face then can M. Barlow accuse me of the quite contrary and so reuile against me for the same Wherof some shal be here set downe Let the Reader bâ—hold sayth he a malicious trick of a notable Equiuocaâ—â—uâ— that cannot be contented to be him selfe alone the Diuells schâ—ller that ancient Equiâ—ocatourâ— but must be 〈◊〉 his Deuility Reader or Schoole-man to teach others â—o distinguish themselues tâ— hell fire sheweth him selfe to be verè spiritus mendaâ— iâ— ore Propâ—â—tarum framing two distinctions like the two 〈◊〉 of Sedecias the false Prophet such another as himselfe fuâ—â— of thâ— spirit putting them into their moâ—thes the first that the Pope 〈◊〉 not Authority withouâ— iust cause to proceeâ— against Princes the secâ—â—â— that the Pope hath not this authority directly but indirectly in ordine ad spiritualia c. So he Whereby wee see how much the man delighteth himselfe in comparing these two distinctions or explications of mine to the two iron-hornes of Sedecias though the Scripture hath not the particuler number of two but M. Barlow addeth that of â—is owne to make theâ— meet the more fitly with the number of my two distinctions for besides the parity of number which yet is false there is no other parity or likenes at all For what haue hornes to do with distinctions And yet after a large and lewd blast of rayling against me for the same he concludeth thus And now let the Christian Reader that maketh a conscience eyther of God or common honesty consider whether this be not the profunda Sathanae in the Reuelatió euen the very mist and mysterie of Iniquitie But what Syr to distinguish or vse distinctions in a matter that may haue diuers senses or intendmeÌ„ts Is this the profundâ—tie of Sathan or is not this rather profound ignorance and absurdity in you to say so Doe not you know that to distinguish belongeth to the wise and learned according to Aristotle and not to distinguish est imperâ—â—â— mulâ—itudinis appertaineth saith he to the vnlearned vulgar sort Doth not reason and expeâ—ience teach vs that to diâ—tinguish matters that be obscure perplexed into their cleere sâ—nses or that be confused into their seuerall parts members or that may haue many senses into their different significations is a high worke of wit that giueth life to our vnderstanding to conceiue the truth and light to our will to make choice of the same How many foule heresies in the Church oâ— Chrisâ— since her beginning haue beene beaten downe principally by pious and prudent distinguishing which otherwise would neuer perhaps haue bene ouercome As namely the Arians when they alleaged
such aboundance of Scriptures to proue or infer that God the Father is greater then Christ Iesuâ— his Sonne what other way was there for Catholicks to say but that I distinguish as Christ Iesuâ— was man he was inâ—erior to his Father his Father greater then he but as Christ Iesuâ— is God as well as Man he is equall to his Father Will M. Barlow heere compare these two distinctions to Sedecias his two hornes Or will he call them proâ—unda Sathanae the profound mysteries of Sathan and iniquity And the like examples I might alleadg in great store of many other heresies discouered and disâ—olued by the help of distinctions as namely that of the Eutiâ—hians that denied two distinct natures in Christ that of the Nestorians that affirmed two persons to be in Christ that of the Monothelites that held one only Will to be in Christ by distinguishing on the Catholick party were vâ—â—erly ouerthrowne and confounded And now in these our dayes when the Anabaptists deny al Magistrates authority in iudging Christians especially in matters of life and death allâ—dging for their ground these words of our Sauiour â—olitâ— iudicare do not iudge we haue no refuge but a distinction that we are forbidden to iudge rashly and without iust cause and without due authority but with these circumstances we may iudge and Magistrates are lawfull And will here M. Barlow againe cry out of Proâ—â—nda Sathanae and of the hornes of Sedecias if he do I will send him to Scotland to be horned there For truely he is worthy of it to wit to be horned from the company of all lâ—arned sober men if he persist in these absurdities for that I dare auouch against him that there are many hundred places in the Bible that cannot rightly be vnderstood nor expounded without the vse of some distinction Well then distinctions in generall cannot be reproued without profunditie of folly Perhaps then my two distinctions here in particular are inueyghed against for 〈◊〉 they are false or not incident vnto the matter or of aâ—y moment or necessity for explicâ—tion of the thing aâ—d controuersy in hand or for direction of consciâ—nceâ— of Catholike men that are pressed to take the Oath Thâ—â— then let vs examine in a word or two and that as briefly and perspicuously as wee may The question is whether the Bishop of Rome as vniuersall Paâ—tour of Christendome by Catholike doctrineâ— may at his pleasure by that Pastorall power of his depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdomes at his pleasure for so is the coÌ„mon obiection framed against vs. Vnto which question the answer may be made eyther affirmatiue or negatiue according to the different senses and interpretations of the words which cannot be done but by distiâ—guishing to wit that if we vnderstand that the Pope may depose at his pleasure without iust cause it is denied but with iust cause Catholicke doctrine doth allow it And sâ— againe to vnderstand that the Pope may do it by his Pastorall power directly or immediately it is denied for that this power is spirituall and giuen to a spirituall end and to spirituall actions but if we vnderstand it indirectly as included in the other for defence and conseruation of the spirituall it is graunted And are not these distinctions needfull in this affaire Do they not cleare the doubt in controuersy Do they not remoue confusion Would M. Barlow haue Christian men to sweare swallow vp a bundle of wordâ— knit togeather without opening and looking into theâ— That is meete for his conscience that hath no eies perhaps to see nor will to receiue light but is ready to sweare any thing that may turne to his temporall commodity but Catholikes that feare God are not so taught but rather to looke before they leap and to examine well what they say or sweare for so much as they shall giue an accompt to Almighty God either to their saluation or damnation for the same By â—hâ—s then wee see the Iniquity of M. Barlow his proceeding in exclaming against me so exorbitantly for vsing the forme of two distinctioÌ„s or explanations about taking the Oath and aboue al the iniury offered me or rather to himselfe and his owne credit in saying that I doe teach Equiuocation here in this Oath num 30. contrary to that I taught a little before numb 14. His wordes are these No sort of Equiuocations is lawâ—ull saith Father Persons in matters of fayth and religion and yet sayth the same Father Persons Equiâ—â—cating in this matter of faith is lawâ—ull and may stand with the integâ—iâ—y and sincerity of true Catholik religion so then in matters of faith and religion it is not lawfull in any sort to equiuocate but yet in this matâ—â—r though it concerne â—ayth religion F. Persons sayth it is lawfull These are my contradictions according to M. Barlow And truly I confesâ—e I should blush acknowledge my ouersight if they were truly related but being falsely eyther of malice or ignorance collected by him he ought to blush and be sory for his sin For as I doe confesse the former part numb 14. that I allowed not any sort of Equiuocation in matters concerning faith and Religion so doe I vtterly deny the later clause num 30. that I doe allow Equiuocation in this particuler fact of taking the Oath Let the places be read in my booke thereby he will remayne conuinced For I do say expresly that these two clauses of explication added by me that the Popes power in deposing Princes is indirectly with iust cause must both be expressed by the swearer and accepted by the Magistrate and then are they no Equiuocations at all but direct assertions For that they are no mentall reseruations wherein consisteth the nature and force of Equiuocation Here then M. Barlow that accused me a litle before of making no conscience of God or common honesty must looke how he will defend his owne eyther conscience or honesty if he haue any in this foule calumniation wherein I doe not see what tergiuersation he can vse for his excuse And so I would leaue him in this matter if he did not continue on his rayling and raging beyond all measure as though by this my explication distinction vsed I had committed the greatest crime in the world I will demaund saith he of this Iesuit first whether â—his be not a Paganish delusion of God and men VVherto I answer that it is â—â— delusion at all but rather an instruction and a necessâ—â—y explication not Paganish but Christian for directiâ—â— mens consciences Nay saith M. Barlow it is the very 〈◊〉 oâ— Lisander that children are to be mocked with toyes and 〈…〉 Oathes Indeed Plutarke in his comparison of Lisâ—â—der and Silla recordeth that one said of Lisander Leuem esse apâ—d Liâ—â—â—drum iurisiurandi religionem Lisander made no scruple of aâ— Oath that he gaue couÌ„saile to deceiue men with Oathes as children with toyes and
Israel Dâ—mâ—tam posteriora tua interficiam de Achab mingentem ad parietem Si mortâ—us fuâ—rit Achab in Ciuitate comedent eum canes si autem in agro comedeÌ„t eum volucres caeli The hinder part of thy life I shall cut oâ— shall kill of thy stocke that shall make water agâ—inst the wall And if that Achab dye in the Citty the dâ—â—gs shall eâ—t him and if he dye in the field the birds of the â—airâ— shall deuoure him And the like to his Queene Iezabell The doggs shall eat â—ezabel in the field of Iezraell And finally to let passe Baltasar Ieroboam Iebu Manasses and many other Kings whome God threatned dared and performed also the same without any such respectiue warinesse as M. Barlow doth fancy his wordes and meaning are plaine and generall in Iob that when Princes are warned and do not amend Si non audierint transibunt per gladium If they obey not they shall passe by the sword And this is Gods plaine speach and plaine dealing for that Princes to him are no more then poore men all flesh and dust albeit whilst they liue vpon earth beare rule in his place he will haue them respected obeyed and honoured as his Deputies in all that they shall command not contrary to his lawes which he will haue obserued both by Prince and people and detesteth all such prophane flattery as heere we haue heard vttered by M. Barlow And so much for this matter Now then to come to my former proposition that the Prouidence of God might seeme to be defectuous if his diuine Maiestie had left no remedy for so great an euill it is founded vpon all those places of Scripture where it is sayd that Gods workes are perfect as Deuter. 32. and that they are made in wisedome Psalme 103. vers 24. that is to say in most high wisedome ordinata sunt saith S. Paul Rom. 13. they are according to order well ordered the like Out of all which is inferred that whatsoeuer the perfection of wisdom good order doth or can prescribe in any worke that is to be presumed to be in Gods works yea with far higher perfection then mans wisedome can reach vnto Whereby it followeth that as when a prudent humane Law giuer instituteth a CommoÌ„-wealth he prouideth for all inconueniences that by humane probability may fall out vnto the same so much more Christ our Sauiour being not only man but also God must be presumed to haue prouided sufficiently and aboundantly for his Kingdome and Common-wealth which is the Christian Church purchased with his owne bloud for preuention of all hurtes and euills imminent to the same which seemeth had not bene done if he had left this greâ—t gâ—ppe vnstopt and this mayne mischeife vnprouided for which might come thereunto by the incorrigibilitie of some deplored Prince impugning the same for so much as all humane Law-giuers and Erectors of Common-wealths doe neuer faâ—â—e coÌ„monly in this particuler for the defensiue part and much lesse may it be thought that Christ our Sauiour would be wanting in so important a point Neyther is this any way blasphemous or disgracefull to our Sauiours infinite wisdome and prouidence as M. Barlow would most impertinently seeme to vrge but highly rather to his honour for somuch as wee professe that he hath prouided for this euill and the Protestants hold that he hath not For as when a man beholdeth a house made by some excellent Architect and considereth all the partes commodities thereof with prouision for all vses and prouidence for all cases that may fall out he admireth the coherence dependance of one thing vpon another prayseth and extolleth the wisedome and foresight of the Author saying If this or that had not bene foreseene and prouided for as excellently it was it had byn a great want and defect but being prouided for it doth infinitly commeÌ„d his sayd care wisedome foresight and prouidence And euen soe in our case when a man considereth the admirable excellency of Christ our Sauiours wisedome in other pointes concerning the gouerment of his Church how carefully and orderly he hath prouided for the same in all necessary points as in part the holy Apostle doth describe both to the Corinthians and Ephesians appointing some Apostles some Prophetes some Euangelists some Doctors some Pastours ad consummationem Sanctorum in opâ—s ministerij in aedificationem Corporis Christi for the consummation of the Sayntes and for the works of the ministery for the building vp the body of Christ which is his Church with exact order prouidence and subordinatioÌ„ of things men and offices one to another with sufficient power and authority for euery party to doe his office these things I say being well considered do inferre that it cannot possibly stand with such high wisedome prouidence of our Sauiour to leaue his sayd body and Church vnprouided of sufficient authority to preuent or remedie so mayne a calamitie as might fall vpon the sayd Church by temporall Christian Princes if there were no restraint or punishment for them Nor do the Protestants themselues pretermit to vse such kind of arguments and consequences for their owne defence when they deale with domesticall Aduersaries to wit with Protestants of other Sects As for example when the Puritan refuseth all Bishops Archbishops and other distinction of subordination in the Clergy what vrgeth in effect the Protestant on the other side but that it belonged to Christ his diuine prouidence to leaue such distinction and subordination and consequently that it might be noted for defectuous if he had left but the Puritan parity in all The like passeth with the Lutheran who denying the temporall Prince to be Head of the Church and confesseth consequently that their Church is headlesse vpon earth but only dependeth on Iesus Christ as head in heauen is refuted by the English Caluinists with the same argument of the defect of Gods prouidence if he had not prouided some Head on earth also And much more holdeth this argument against the Anabaptists who hold that Christ hath left no temporall power or Magistrate in his Church to iudge or condemne and especially to death for any cause whatsoeuer for that he sayth nolite iâ—dicare do not iudge which I doubt not but our English Protestants will reâ—ute by this argument of Gods prouidence which would haue bene iudged insufficient if he had left so many Common-wealthes and Kingdomes as are conteyned within this Christian Church without any temporall Magistrate at all Whereby remayneth confuted the inâ—ulse insultation of M. Barlow against the same for that our inference is noâ— as he fraudulently telleth his Reader except the Popes triple Crowne had power to depose Princes Gods prouidence had bene defectuous but if his diuine Maiesty hauing prouided most sufficiently for all other inconueniences it would haue bene a note of defect in the same not to haue prouided for this case of extreme
Sacraments care of soules possessing Cures and Benefices absoluing from sinnes spirituall iurisdiction and all Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy deryued from hence And are all these thinges only Ceremoniall without substance or essence of religion Doth M. Barlow discharge his duty of a Champion eyther towardes his king or his old Lord from both which it seemeth alâ—eady he hath receaued large fees in bringing both their authorities in Ecclesiastical matters to be meere Ceremonies No man I thinke will sue to be his Clyent hereafter iâ— he can plead no better But let vs yet see a little further how he hath aduanced his Maiestyes spirituall authority Thus he writeth of his being Moderator in the Conference betwene the Puritans and Protestants This difference sayth he about thinges indifferent his Maiesty desirous to reconcile vouchsafed his Princely paynes to moderate mediate In which wordes first doe you note againe his often repetition that they were thinges indiffereÌ„t to wit whether his Maiesty should haue Supreme Primacy in Church causes or renounce the same and cast it downe togeather with his Scepter before the Presbytery of the Puritans and whether the Lord of Canterbury should leaue of his Lordship and Graceship and become a simple Minister equall with the rest And so likewise M. Barlow himselfe to leaue the Sea of Lincolne and title of Lordship which none that knowes the humor of the man will imagine that he holdeth for a thing indifferent or a meere Ceremony This I say is the first Notandum for if these things be indifferent what need so much a doe about them And the second Notandum is that he saith that his Maiesty did moderate and mediate in this Conference which is a very moderate and meane word indeed to expresse so high and eminent Authority Ecclesiasticall as sometimes they wil seem to ascribe vnto his Maiesty For who cannot moderate or mediate in a Conference if he haue sufficient learning and knowledge of the cause though he haue no eminent authority at all to decide the same But who shall determine or define the Controuersy Here no doubt M. Barlow wil be in the brakes For that a little after being pressed with the free speach and deniall of S. Ambrose vnto Valentinian the Emperour when he medled in Ecclesiasticall affairs and in particuler when he sent for him by Dalmatius a Tribâ—ne with a Notary to come and dispute in the Consistory before him his Counsell and Nobility with the Hereticall Bishop Auxenâ—ius S. Ambrose refused vtterly to goe yeelding for his reason that in matters of faith and religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops which deniall M. Barlow well alloweth saying that Ambrose did well in it and sayd well for it his fact and reason were both Christianlike But suppose that his Maiesty had sent for the Bishops to dispute and confer with the doctors of the Puritan party in his presence as the Emperour Valentinian did S. Ambrose that they had refused to come with the same reasoÌ„ that S. Ambrose did would M. Barlow that wrote the Conference haue defended the same as good and lawful Or would his Maiesty haue taken the same in as good part as ValentiniaÌ„ did I doubt it very much as also I doubt whether S. Ambrose if he had disputed would haue suffered ValentiniaÌ„ suppose he had bin learned to haue moderated mediated in that disputatioÌ„ as M. Baâ—low saith his Maiesty did in this But if without effect that he could not conclude who should giue iudgment of the matter The Bishops They were party and theyr whole interest lay therein The Puritan Doctors They were also a party and therby partiall His Maiesty could not doe it according to M. Barlowes doctrin in this place if any point of religion were handled therein Who then should iudge or giue sentence The Church saith M. Barlow in another place But who maketh that Church Or who giueth authority of iudgement to that Church if the supreme Head and gouernour haue it not in himself Do you not see how intricate this matter is hard to resolue And according to this as it seemeth was the effect and consequence of this meeting if we belieue M. Barlow himselfe who maketh this question Did thâ—se great and Princely paynes which his Maiesty tooke with the Puritâ—ns worke a generall conformity And then he answereth VVith the iudicious and discreet it did wherof M. Barlow was one but the rest grew more aukward and violent So he But all this while if you marke it there is nothing said to the point for which all this was brought in to wit why the like fauour had not beene shewed to Catholikes for a Conference also with them about their Religion M. Barlow doth touch some number of reasons as that our opinions doe touch the very head and foundation of religion That his Maiesty was perfect in all the arguments that could be â—rought for the aduerse part and that he throughly vnderstanding the weaknes of them held it both vnsafe and vnnecessary to haue them examined That the Protestant religion being throughly well placed and hauing so long continued is not now to be disputed c. Which reasons being either in themselues fond or against himselfe I will not stand to refute One only contradiction wil I note that our argumeÌ„ts being so weake yet that it should be vnsafe to haue them examined and that the long continuance of Protestant religion in England should make it indisputable whereas more then ten times so long prescription of Catholike religion could not defend it by shew of a conference or dispute hâ—ld at VVestminster at the beginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne when the same was changed and put out And finally I will end this with a notable calumniation insteed of a reason vttered by M. Barlow why this Conference ought not to be granted to Catholikes for sooth For that euen in their common petition for toleration they â—isâ—hed his Maiesty to be as great a Saint in heaueÌ„ as he is a King vpon earth shewing thereby saith he that gladly they would be rid oâ— him but wâ—ich way they care not so he were not here And may not this Prelate now beare the prize for calumniation and Sycophancy that out of so pious an antecedent can inferre so malicious a consequent The Catholickes doe wish vnto his Maiesty both life present and euerlasting to come here a great King and there a great Saint M. Barlow seemeth not to care much for his eternity so he may enioy his temporality by the which he himselfe gayneth for the present and hopeth euery day to do more more it importâ—th him litle how great a Saint his Maiestie be in heauen so vpon earth he liue longe to fauour him and to furnish him with fat benefices And thus he inforceth me to answere him contrary to my owne inclination for repressing somewhat his insolent malignant speach which is the most
any thing against vs or for the Apologer euen as they are here nakedly cyted without declaration of the circumstances for that in temporall affaires the King or Emperour is Supreme next vnder God And when the Emperour will vse secular forces against the Priests of his dominion they being no souldiars must fall to prayers and teares which are Priestly weapons But what Did S Ambrose by this acknowledge that the Emperour had higher Authority then he in Church-matters Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion or Conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed or acknowledged his Superiority No truly For in three seuerall occasions that fell out he flatly denyed the same which this Apologer craâ—tily dissembleth and saith not a word therof The first was when he was cited by Dalmatius the Tribune bringing with him a publicke Notarie to testifie the same in the name of the Emperour Valentinian the yonger to come conferre or dispute with the hereticall Bishop Auxenâ—ius in the presence of his Maiesty other of his Nobility CouÌ„sell which poynt S. Ambrose refused vtterly to do telling the Emperour playnly by a letter written vnto him That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops And dyuers other doctrines by this occasion he taught him to that effect as is to be seene in the same Epistle The second occasion fell out the very next yeare after in Millane when the said Emperour by suite of the Arians and fauour of Iustina the Empresse on their behalfe made a Decree that a certayne Church of that Citty should be deliuered to the said Arians which Decree S. Ambrose the Bishop refused to obey And when the Emperours Officers comming with armes vrged greatly to giue possession of the Church he fled to his former weapons of weeping and praying Ego Missam facere coepi c. I began to say Masseâ— and when the temporall Magistrate vrged still that the Emperour vsed but his owne right in appoynting that Church to be deliuered S. Ambrose answered Quae diuina sunt Imperatoriae potestati non esse subiecta That such things as belonge to God are not subiect to the Imperiall power And thus answered S. Ambrose about the giuing vp of a materiall Church What would he haue said in greater matters The third accasion was when the Emperour sent his Tribunes and other Officers to require certayne Vessells belonging to the Church to be deliuered which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do saying That in this he could not obey And further adding That if the Emperour did loue him selfe he should abstayne from offering such iniury vnto Christ. And in another place handlâ—ng the same more at large he saith That he gaue to Cesar that which was Cesars and to God that which belonged to God but that the Temâ—ple of God could not be the right of Cesar which we speak saith he to the Emperours honour For what is more honourable vnto him then that he being an Emperour be called a Child of the Church for that a good Emperour is within the Church but not aboue the Church So S. Ambrose What would he haue done or said if he had bene pressed with an Oath against his Conscience or any least poynt of his Religion Thus far I answered in my letter he that shall read M Barlows reply now will seâ— that he hath nothing at all in substaÌ„ce to say against it for to that excellent speach of S. Augustine coÌ„cerning the Emperour Iulian he triâ—â—eth exceedingly first bidding vs to shew that poynt in the Oath which is different from true religion which is a cauill as you see for it is inough if it be contrary to the swearers Religion And wheras we offer vpon that speach as the subiects of Iulian did VVe will serue our Soueraigne we will go to war with him and we will fight for him the like he sayth it is but an hypocriticall florish of words To the speach and facts of S. Ambrose he is forced eyther to say nothing or to speake against himselfe For wheras I do make this demaund Did S. Ambrose by saying that he could not resist the Emperour and that his weapons were teares acknowledge by this that the Emperour had higher authority in Church-matters then he Or that if he had offered him an Oath repugnant to his Religion and conscience in those matters he would haue obeyed and acknowledged his authority To the first he sayth that it is only extra oleâ—s not to the cause in hand and that he will handle it in another place though euery man of discretion will see that the demaund is full to the purpose and ought to haue beene answered here To the secoÌ„d he hath but a ridiculous shift Suppose saith he that S. Ambrose would refuse such an Oath vrged vpon him would he withall forbid others to take it Surely no. But I say surely yea for if we graunt S. Ambrose to haue bene a good Prelate Pastour Father to his people we must also graunt that what Oath he thought pernicious for himselfe to take he would haue forbidden the same to haue bene taken by his people if they had demaunded his opinion as English Catholickes did the Popes or els he had not bene a faythfull Pastour But what doth M. Barlow answere to the three instances alleadged out of S. Ambrose in all which he contradicted the Emperour that was his temporall Lord and denied to obey in matters Ecclesiasticall the first when he refused to go with the Tribune and Notary sent for him by the sayd Emperour to dispute in the Consistory with Auxentiâ—â— the Arian Bishop yielding for his reason That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours and not Emperours of Bishops Which answere of S. Ambrose M. Barlow doth allow and coÌ„mendeth it much albeit we haue said somewhat before about the same yet shall we presently add a word or two more thereof The second refusall of the said Father was as now you haue heard to deliuer vp a certaine Church in Millanâ— to the Arians at the commandement of the Emperour alleadging for his reason Quae diuina sunt Imperatoriae potestatium esse subiecta that such things as are diuine are not subiect to Imperiall power Which answere in like manner M. Barlow alloweth albeit I thinke I may assure my selfe that if his Matie of England should coÌ„maund one of his Parish Churches of Lincolne Diocesse to be deliuered vp to the PuritaÌ„s or Brownists or other like Sectaries and that his Maiesty should be so earnest resolute therin as the Emperour was sending his officers souldiars to put them into possession M. Barlow would not be so resolute in his deniall as S. Ambrose was neither would he be so bold to alleage that reasoÌ„ which S. Ambrose did that diuine things are not subiect to King Iames his power including in
so much from this acknowledgment or testimony of the Councell of VVormes which did but set downe the sense of the Christian Church in these dayes but from other far more ancient proofes and testimonies as M. Barlow wel knoweth though here he dissembleth the same and chaâ—eth exceedingly saying That this fugitiue for such is his modesty of speach wil fâ—tch a 〈◊〉 sentence from this Councel to warrant no Councel to be good that iâ— celebrated without the Popes Authority and therby at one push ouerthrow the credit of al Councels both general and particuler for the better part of 900. yeares after Christ. Wherto I answer first that to be a fugitiue for the cause of Catholicke Religion is no reproach at al but a high commendation warranted by Christes owne words when he willed them that were persecuted in one Citty to fly into another and much more happy is it to be a fugitiue then a persecutour S. Athanasius in his booke de fugasua of his flight and persecution doth handle the matter at large to whom I remit the Reader Secondly as for the summoning gathering of CouÌ„cels general or particuler our controuersy is principally of General Councels for as for Diocesian Synods as they may be assembled by ech Bishop in his district and the Prouincial Councels by the Metropolitan which Protestants themselues wil not deny so by the due proportion of good order General Councels must be gathered by commandment or consent at least of the general Pastour though in States subiect to temporal Princes good reason requireth that the matter be done in like manner with the approbation of the said temporal Princes for the houlding of the said Councel in this or that place of their Dominions And this was obserued in the first 4. General Councels which were commanded to be gathered by Constantine Theodosius the elder Theodosius the yonger and Martian the Emperours by the assent and approbation of the Popes Syluester Damasus Celestinus and Leo which besides other proofes of seueral histories is made euident by the last of the said 4. Councels to wit that of Chalcedon where in the first action the heretical Archbishop Dioscorus was punished publikely and forbidden to sit amongst the Bishops for that he had presumed to call a Councell without the authority of the Apostolike Sea Quâ—d numquam licuiâ— say they numquam sactum est that neuer was lawfull nor euer was done And consequently this prooueth that all the first 4. Generall Councells were gathered by the consents and approbations of the Bishops of Rome though with the concurrence also of the Emperours without whose good liking the meeting of so many Bishops in their States could not be permitted as before hath bene said But now here before I passe any further I must make you acquainted with a solemne foolery and falshood of M Barlow concerning Cardinall Bellarmine for that hauing vttered the words before mentioned that CouÌ„cels were to be gathered by the Emperours and not by the Bishops of Rome though he citeth no one argument for the same yet saith he this is a thing so cleare and radiant that Bellarmine himselfe being dazeled with behoulding the euidence euen as S. Peter not wiâ—â—ing what he said though he laboured to build for the Pope yet labâ—â—reth be also to build for the Emperour and in that same place he â—â—eweth diuers reasons why it rather belongeth to Emperours then to Popes for â—o assemble Councells citing for the same in his margent Bellar. de Concil cap. 13. But truly when I went to the place of Bellarmine and read his words I was ashamed on M. Barlowes behalfe and his folly was so radiant in my eyes to vse his phrase that I could not read them without blushing for that in the Chapter by him cited and in the other going before Bellarmine doth proue most substantially by many arguments both out of Scriptures Fathers Councels reasons histories practice and examples that it appertayneth not to the Emperour only or principally but to the Bishop of Rome to call General CouÌ„cells or at leastwise that it may not be done without the said Bishops consent and approbation first had so as the very contradictory proposition to this which M. Barlow sets downe is found in these expresse words in Bellarmine â—sse reuerà Pontiâ—icis non Imperatoris congregare Synodum generalem that is belongeth truely to the Pope and not to the Emperour to gather a generall Councell Adding notwithstanding 4. particuler reasons and temporall respects why diuers generall Councells could not be gathered togeather vnder the Emperours who were temporal Lords of the world without their likings consents Not saith he for that a Councell gathered without the authority of the Emperour among Christians should not be of validity as our aduersaries doe dreame whereas S. Athanasiuâ— saith plainely in his epistle to them that lead a solitary life Quando vmquam iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritateÌ„ habuit when did euer the iudgment of the Church take authority from the Emperour but for that the temporall state of Christendome standing in the Emperours hands no such meeting could be made without their approbation And can this stand with that which M. Barlow here affirmeth in his name that he shewes diuers reasons why it rather belonged to Emperours then to the Pope to assemble Councells Will he not blush and be ashamed of this shameles calumniation or rather forgery As for that he obiected coÌ„cerning the Graunt giuen to Charles the Great by Adrian the Pope to haue authority to approue the Election of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops and Archbishops and to dispose of the Sea Apostolike c. I referre him to Cardinall Baronius for his answer in his Annales of the yeare 774. where he discusseth the matter at large and proueth it a meere fiction and plaine fraud inuented registred first by Sigebertus in fauour of the cause of Henry the fourth Emperour excommunicated by the Pope which he proueth by many playne euidences out of all the ancient writers for the space of 300. years after Charles his time who neuer made mention of any such Graunt as also the expresse testimony of Eginhardus that was Notary to Charles the Great and was alwayes about him and wrote his life and by diuers other proofes which were too long here to recite Therfore with this shall we end this Chapter VVHETHER THE POPE IN HIS BREVE DID FORBID TEMPORALL OBEDIENCE to his Maiesty of England AND Whether the said Pope hath Power to make new Articles of faith CHAP. VII WHERAS in the Apology a great coÌ„plaint was made against the Pope for that in his Breue he did forbid temporall Obedience to be performed to his Maiesty as a poynt against fayth and saluation of soules moreouer chargeth him with assuming vnto himselfe infallibility of spirit to make new Articles of sayth when euer it shall please him c. my answer therunto