of Popes Causa 15 qu. 6. alius Plat. in Zach. 1. Fâ—â—sing lib. 5. cap. 22. For who knoweth not that Childricke the French King was deposed by Pope Zecharie the first as foolish and vnprofitable and Pipine appointed in his place as it is cleare in our law and Platina writes that by his authoritie the kingdome of France was adiudged to Pipine And Frisingensis which Author your selfe do follow writes that Pipine was absolued by Pope Steuen from the Oath of fealtie which hee had giuen to Childricke and the other peeres of France likewise and that the King being shauen and thrust into a Monasterie Pipine was annointed King More then that Gregorie the great whom erewhile you called a worme in respect of the Emperour did bring the same into practise whereof we now speake foure ages before Gregorie the 7. for in the charter of a priuiledge granted to the monasterie of Saint Medard he so decreeth If any king Prelate Iudge or other secular person whatsoeuer do violate the decree of the Apostolicke authoritie and grant of what degree or state soeuer hee bee let him be depriued of his honour Wherefore in that you depraue Gregorie the seuenth that most holy man being dead because he was the first that offered to depose Henry the 4. Emperor a man full of dishonest lust The Empeâ—â—â— Henry the 4. slandered Auenti lib. 4. Anna. Botâ— infamous for his adulteries whoredomes which his verie freinds could not denie as Auentine writeth truelie it bewraies both great ignorance and singular malice in heretickes And that I may not heape manie things together wherwith the histories of those times haue set foorth the fame and glorie of Gregorie the forme of his election as it is set downe by Platina Sabellicus and other writers Author 3. conuer Angli par 2 cap. 7. doth easily shew what kinde of man hee was Wee haue chosen this day being the 21. day of May in the yeere of our Lord 1072. for the true Vicar of Christ Gregories false praise Hildebrand the Arch-deacon a man of great learning great holinesse wisdome iustice constancie religion The commendation of Lambert Schafnabergensis is extant wherein he writeth that those things which were vsually brought to passe by the prayers of Gregorie with signes and wonders and most feruent zeale for God and the lawes of the Church doe sufficiently defend him against the venemous tongues of all slanderers And what other authors write euen the Germanes themselues of Gregories enemy infamous for adultery Marian. Sco. iâ— chro an 1075 simonie and other trespasses what shall need to speake Marianus Scotus is witnes that Gregorie the 7. moued with the iust outcries of Catholike men who mightily spake against the sauagenes of Henries impietie did for the same excommunicate the Emperour but principally for his simonie in buying and selling of Bishoprickes And this act of the Pope did greatly content Catholikes but displease them who were ready to buy and sell benefices and fauoured the Emperour I might alleadge the same for Adrian the fourth and § 108 Alexander the third against Fredericke the first and for Honorius and Gregorie the ninth and Innocent the third against Fredericke the second but that I remember you gaue vs a caueat that the question betweene vs was not about the quality of the person but about the right of power I might shew also if it were not ouer long that those verie Romane Bishops themselues whose humility and obedience you commended did performe the same not with any preiudice of their right but for want of power to resist the hereticall and tyrannous Emperours I might alleadge likewise nationall Councells and Parliaments also which did alwaies approoue the necessary and iust correcting and deposing of such Emperours and Kings as you name by the Popes censures § 109 Then Carolus Regius it is prettie said he which the Oratour obserues to put ouer the businesse till another time when you haue no more or better matter to alledge though you would But that I may breifly answer the obiections that Leo the 3. Emperour was depriued of all his temporalties by Gregorie the second Leo the Emperour how deposed by the Pope which he held in Italie certainely if we diligently search the historie although the reuolt of the Italians from Leo the Emperour of Constantinople may seeme to be the act of Gregorie the second Zoner an Tom. 3. in impera Leo. Isaar as historians testifie because it made much for the Bishop to haue the Emperours wings clipt in Italy yet it nothing belongs to the controuersie in question for the Pope did it not as the minister of excommunication but as the head of rebellion neither as a Bishop without the rest but as a Rebell with the rest not with that vniuersall authority which § 110 he now claimeth but with a popular sedition Vispâ—rgâ—in an 718. Sigeâ—ert in an 731. Blond dec 2. l. 1 Sabâ—ll Enne 8. lib. 8. Auâ—ntin Anna lib 4. fol. 344. Sigebert in an 801. How the Empiâ—e was translated to the Germanes But the Empire was translated from the Greekes by Pope Leo the third to the Germanes Not so For the Empire was translated not by the Popes keyes but by the decree of the people of Rome as your owne historiographers testifie neither for religions sake but for respect of ciuill iustice for the Romanes who had in purpose reuolted long since from the Emperour of Constantinople who perceiued themselues to bee forsaken of the Grecians and exposed to the inrodes of the Lombards taking that occasion because a frantick woman that is Irene the mother to Constantine the sixt had put out her sonnes eies and taken awaie his crown all of them with one applause chose Charles for their King crowne him by the hands of Leo the Pope and salute him Caesar and Augustus Neither did the Pope depose Childericke Sabell â—nne 8. lib. 8. the French § 111 King but gaue consent to the Peeres and people of the Kingdome deposing him who making much of Pepines prowesse Childericke not deposed by the Pope and being weary of the Kings silly weaknesse Zacharie the Pope being first consulted withall and the title of a King taken from Childericke that all hope of ruling might be taken from him shaue him for a Preist and chose Pepine for their King He was therfore set besides his Kingdome not onely by the Popes consistorie but the councell and consent of the Peeres and people for that hee was vnprofitable for the kingdome as you obserued how iustly I doe not dispute onelie I shew that not by the excommunication of the Pope who could neuer haue brought so great a matter to passe but by the ioynt-consent of the Nobles and people he was put from his Kingdome and Pepine and his posteritie substituted in his place For whereas you said that Gregorie the great brought § 112 the deposing of a King into act that is verie ridiculous for
not preferre himselfe before the sea of Alexandria and Antioch but the sea of Constantinople tooke them both away and did not equall himselfe to the Romane but abolished the Romane for he was the vniuersall and onely Byshoppe and made the other not his fellow but his Vicar For other were not Byshoppes but his Vicars onely as hee imagineth Gregorie to haue thought Lib. 4. epist 36. Lib. 4. ep 34. For Gregorie thought by that title not to take away all Byshoppes but to diminish them or that other Patriarches had their honour abrogated but derogated nor that all other were put downe but that hee was set vp aboue all other neither did hee goe about that one thing that he alone should be but be alone in authoritie or that other should be no Byshoppes at all but that he should seeme a Byshoppe of better worth then the rest and that hee should ioyne them as parts to himselfe not cut them off and should bee among Byshoppes as Lucifer among the Angells who preferred himselfe before others tooke not others away So this vniuersall Byshoppe suffered other Byshoppes to bee but to be in subiection if wee beleeue Gregorie a better interpreter of his owne minde then Bellarmine And this did Boniface the third effect when Boniface tooke nothing to him by the grant of Phocas which Iohn did not claime by the grant of Mauritius That which Boniface tooke to himselfe Paul the 5. retaineth and that much more He doth retaine therefore a new prophane wicked § 111 blasphemous name c. as Gregorie thought while hee is called vniuersall Byshoppe It is well said and truely an euill head is a head of euills And euery euill as it is more generall is the worse And therefore an vniuersall euill is the greatest euill from whence all other euills are powred into the Church and Common-weale into the Church heresies into the Common-weale treasons while it vtterly lost the faith of Christ and trod vnderfoote the maiestie of the Emperour Lib. 4. Ep. 39. Gregorie foretould each of them For thus he said to Anianus to consent to this wicked name what is it else but to loose the faith And how much damage the faith hath sustained it shall appeare by those Articles of the faith which follow And to Mauritius he writ Epist 32. that who so delighteth in that name doth thereby set himselfe aboue the honour of the Emperour And how much damage the Empire hath sustained the lamentable endes of many emperours doth declare Regius our Councellor shall tell you who they were Gregorie as I said was a true alasse too true a Prophet And our learned interpreter of Gregorie the Byshoppe of Chicester said well that the vniuersall Byshop is for the Empire Lucifer for the Church Antichrist § 212 Yet Gregorie himselfe they say though hee liked not the vniuersall title he exercised the vniuersall iurisdiction Wherein they imagine Gregorie to be not truly holy but prophanely politicke like to Caesar who refused the name of a King as odious that hee might more cunningly exercise the authority of a King Therefore they counterfet a certaine Epistle of Gregorie thus indorst to Iohn Byshoppe of Siracuse To Iohn Byshoppe of Siracuse concerning the Byshoppe of Constantinople accused of a foule fault In the Epistle it selfe the Bizancen primate is said to haue beene accused of a certaine fault Gregor lib. 7. Epist 64. whom the most holy Emperour would haue iudged by vs according to the cononical decrees But the error of name Bizancene or Biazene deriued not from Bizantium the citie of Constantinople Glosse in Grati. edita à Greg 13 but from Bizatium a Prouince of Africa is amended in the glosse of the Cannon law which saith that Anselme and Gratian were deceiued in the inscription of the Epistle of Saint Gregorie An epistle suspected to be forged because Bizancene did not signifie the Patriarch of Constantinople but the Primate of Africa Which things giues vs iust cause to suspect that the Epistle is forged as another wherein they bring in Gregorie affirming that the Constantinopolitane Church is subiect to the Apostolick-sea Lib. 7. epi. 63. Lib. 2. de Rom. Pontific c. 14. as Eusebius the Byshoppe of the same sea doth confesse Which place Bellarmine citeth But in Gregories time none did sit in the sea of Constantinople but Iohn and Siricius who did vsurpe the title of vniuersall Byshoppe Nicephorus a witnesse in his tripartite historie Whereby it appeareth that a counterfeit Eusebius is brought in as a witnesse of the Romane prerogatiue A counterfet Eusebius and a bastardly Epistle deuised by some scribe who testified that Gregorie wrot that being dead which while he liued hee reprehended so earnestly not only in another but in himselfe When this deuise tooke no successe they tried another § 213 way Baronius Bellarmine That there were very many of Gregories Predecessors who did write themselues Byshoppes of the Catholicke Church that is of the vniuersall The vniuersall Byshoppe and Byshop of the vniuersall Church not all one And that it is all one to be called the vniuersall Byshoppe of the Church and Byshop of the vniuersall Church Wherein they haue not onely Costerus gaine-saying them in his Euchiridion and Lindane in his Panoplie in whose iudgement these differ the vniuersall Byshoppe and the Byshoppe of the vniuersall Church or that all ambiguitie may be taken away they deny it to bee one to be called the Byshoppe of the Catholicke Church that is vniuersall and Catholicke that is vniuersall Byshop of the Church And they will deny it Is it all one to say Tortus is a learned diuine of the schoole of Papia and a Diuine of the learned schoole of Papia Nothing lesse For in that proposition false praise is giuen to Tortus in this true to Papia So the Pope is the Catholicke Byshoppe of the Church is one thing and the Pope is the Byshoppe of the Catholike Church is another For in that proposition a counterfet title of the Pope in this the true name of the Church is expressed But Catholicke and Vniuersall are all one What then But these propositions be not all one The Pope of Rome is the Byshoppe of the catholicke Church i. of the vniuersall therefore the Byshoppe is vniuersall no more then these two propositions be all one The King of Spaine is the Catholike King therefore the vniuersall King Or thus The King of Spaine is the King of the Catholicke Church therfore he is King of the whole Christian world For the power ouer all Churches doth no no more belong to the Pope who is called Catholike then the power ouer all kingdomes belongeth to the King that is called Catholike § 214 Although this vniuersall Bishop challenge the cheife gouernment not onely ouer spirituall but ouer temporall causes also so that the power ouer all things is in the Pope the execution of that power is sayd to reside in Emperours and Kings which
thinke that these be notable demonstrations in a controuersie of this weight which Antichrists hyred slaues haue vttered as Oracles vpon their bare authoritie against the perpetuall and manifest commandements of Christ and practises of the Apostles In the meane while the Apostles shall be silent the Fathers shall be mute while Kings shall be censured by two of the Popes young and sworne Chapleynes professed and sworne enemies of Kings § 18 But that famous Lateran Councell both for antiquitie and number must fight in the quarrell The Laterane Councell answered We seeke not what euill associates but what good authors you can alledge in this businesse neither must you striue with number but with reason It was no hard matter at that time for Innocent the third to call together 800 Couent Priors and their Vicars his creatures the hungry Friers and drousie pated Monkes for whom it was not lawfull to sit in Councels who might preuaile against 400 Bishops not in weight of reason but in number of voices and coine any decree against Princes at the becke of the Pope their great God and maker But what if at that time nothing at all was decreed but only propounded and deliberaetd on as Platina testifieth that many things were offred to consultation but that nothing could be determined because the Pope suddenly departing to quiet a sedition lately stirred vp died in his iourney And yet will you call the meeting of a number of hunger-starued Fryers onely consulting how the Pope might depose a King out of his kingdome but concluding nothing because the Popes sodaine death preuented it will you call it the most famous generall Laterane Councell And that power which Kings haue receiued from God and that obedience which subiects are bound to performe both by a charge from Christ and rules from the Apostles shall a few of the later proud Bishops 1000 yeeres after Christ and mercenarie schoolemen and begging Monkes take the same power from Princes by the decrees of men Shall God ordeyne Kings and shall men ouerthrow them Hath Gods word bound vs to obedience and shall mans word release vs of the same But that I may doe no wrong to Gods word I will oppose men to men Catholikes to Catholikes as they be called and ancient to younger ones Otho Frisingensis writes after hee had read ouer and § 19 ouer the acts of the Romane Kings and Emperors Lib 6. cap. 35. that he found none before Henry the 4th Emperor excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome or set beside his kingdom which was first assayed by Gregorie the seuenth in the yeere after Christ 1066. I haue found out Vrsbergensis Vrsbergens in anno 1085. who speaking of the Sinode of Mentz wherein the Popes Legates being present the Bishops that had taken armes with Gregorie the seuenth against the Emperor were deposed and cast out of their Bishoprickes said that there by common consent and counsell was setled the peace of God whence he concludeth that Gregorie was the author of that diuelish garboyle against the Emperor Sigebertus the Abbot speaketh playner Sigibertus in anno 1088. and goeth further if good men will giue me leaue to say so This only noueltie saith he that I may not say heresie did not as yet appeare in the world that his Priests who saith to a King thou Apostata and that causeth an hypocrite to beare rule for the sinnes of the people should teach the people that they ought to shew no obedience to wicked Kings and though they haue taken an oath of Allegeance yet owe no fealtie neither are to be called Periurs if they haue such mindes against Kings yea that hee is accounted for an excommunicant that doth obey the King that hee doth against the King is freed from the fault of iniustice and periurie This was counted noueltie this was counted heresie of your Sigebert about 500 yeares since which doctrine you thrust vpon vs as catholike out of Aquinas Toletane and the Laterane Councell And because Baronius the Cardinall Vincent in Spec. hist lib. 15. cap 84. doth denie Sigebert the Abbot a Schismatike I adde Vincentius the Bishop aboue 300 and fiftie yeeres agoe by whom this very heresie is condemned in the same words wherewith they are taxed by Sigebert And if either Sigebert or your Vincentius haue lost their authoritie because as Schismatikes they were said to take part with Kings against the Pope see that your credits be not crackt by these late writers because the fauourers of this nouell heresie as rebells flatter the Pope against Kings For it is plaine that there were very excellent and sincere Catholikes not a few as they were accounted in those times whom Gregories fact did mightily displease and who did plainely denie that the Apostolike See had any authoritie to depose Henry the 4. Emperor as he did and to absolue his subiects from their oath of fealtie as the Bishop of Mentz who was in great fauour with Gregorie the seuenth Gregor 7. epist 21. lib. 8. apud Sâ—uer ad Conc. writ to him and intreated him to furnish him with those reasons whereby he was moued to depose the Emperor that hee might be the better prouided to answer them that did gainesay him And Gerochus Gregories great champion was constreyned to say Auent lib. 5. fol. 563. as it is in Auentine that the Romanes tooke diuine honor to themselues neither would giue any accompt of their doings neither would endure that any should say to them why doe you so who answer as the Poet writes So I will so I command my will stand for a reason I did first vse heauenly weapons against you Saturnine you made resistance with humane Now I oppose humane against humane yours against yours and I will proue it with a necessarie argument that it was a new heresie which Sigebert so called If that be taken for a good definition of heresie which Robert Grosthead that holy and learned Bishop of Lincolne vnder King Henry the third fetcht out of S. Austen The definition of heresie Heresie in Greeke saith he is an election or choice in Latine wherein an opinion chosen by a humane sense contrarie to the holy Scripture is openly taught and obstinately maintayned By which argument as Matth Parisiensis reports he proued Innocent the Pope to be an Heretike because he thought it in his power to bestow a benefice vpon a childe with the same argument shall Paul the fift be convicted who thinkes it in his power to depriue a King of his Kingdome For this opinion was first chosen by humane sense by Hildebrand to get vaine-glory and enlarge the boundes of the Churches dominion with all humane policies and powers And it is against the holy Scriptures which hath submitted Bishops to Kings not Kings to Bishops as before I concluded And it is openly taught being set out in two Bulles by Paul the fift and it is obstinately defended by the Bishop who forbids vnder the paine
sense whereby the Prophets doctrine doth vnderstand that the kingdome of sinne should be rooted out and destroyed and the kingdome of vertue should bee planted and aduanced in the conscience § 44 We haue examined your examples whence you inferre a conclusion that ill hangs together first that Kings rightly created and annointed may rightly be put downe I answer that one of the Kings you named was put downe and that was Ahab not by Elias not by Elizeus but by Iehu whom God by his owne mouth raised vp by name The deposing therefore of the King was not effected by the Prophet but by a Prince by name appointed to that purpose What doth this helpe your cause Saul was not deposed it is manifest that his posteritie was cut of from the succession of the kingdome and not his person from the present possession Ierobâ—am was by the Prophet sharpely reproued not violently expelled Ozias as a Leper was remoued from the gouernment not the right of his kingdome Athalia was neuer rightly created and for the cruell murthering of the Kings of-spring was put to death not by the Priests but the Kings authoritie The second conclusion is very idle for what causes the Kings in fact are to be secluded What shall you neede to enquire for what causes they be deposed when you doe not proue they should bee deposed Athalia was taken away neither for apostacie nor heresie but because shee vsurpt the Crowne against the lawfull heyre apparant God commended the acts of Ozias but detested his pride Ieroboam both an Apostata and an Idolater and yet neuer set beside the cushion Achab the Idolater was cast of with all his race but by the Magistrate not by the Priest The causes therefore which you alledge helpe your cause no whit at all The last conclusion which concernes the persons of § 45 the deposers is very lame You say that God vsed the ministerie of the Prophets and the Priests to that purpose either ordinarie or extraordinarie as iudges and executors of Gods will God did vse the tongues as I said of the Prophets and Priests to foretell and denounce those plagues which God decreed to bring vpon those Kings and sometimes hee vsed their hands to annoint those whom by name he appointed to be the successors of the kingdome but hee neuer vsed them either ordinarie or extraordinarie either iudges or executioners of his will in deposing them He vsed them as messengers who with their liuely voice did deliuer Gods decrees to Kings either deposed or appointed by God other execution or authoritie they had none which is very farre from that power of the Pope whom you challenge to be the ordinarie Iudge Tutor and Corrector of Kings And doe you endure his ferula ô yee Kings will you kisse the rodd that hath so often paid you and by this your patience make your Tutor more curst and whip you the more But I come now to you Saturaine § 46 You haue not of my word you haue not one Priest or Prophet vnder the old Testament that deposed a King Kings deposed Priests but I haue a King that deposed a Priest Whom you will say Abimilech I speake not of Saul who slew Abimelech for taking part with Dauid I passe ouer Ioash the King who commanded Zachariah Zacharia Iehoidas sonne to be stoned to death forgetting his fathers virtue and dutie What say you to Salomon who displaced Abiathar the high Priest from his primacie and dignitie Abiathar because he followed Adoniahs faction being the elder brother When it would haue followed by your conclusion that Salomon was rather to be deposed because the High Priest thought Adoniahs right to the kingdome to be better then Salomons § 47 But whereas you added that Princes hold their soueraigne dignitie and authoritie receiued from God because truth drew that speech from you which falls out very seldom I accept it willingly and thence conclude that God alone hath the power of putting downe Kings who alone set them vp and that Kings are bound to giue accompt to God alone from whom they receiued that honour But whereas you make the end of supreme princely maiestie receiued of God to be the promoting of the true worship and honor of God and the reteyning of the people in the faith and feare of the Lord I maruell what it ment that when alwaies you denie that a King should meddle with spirituall affaires and busines now as if you were forgetfull of your owne minde Alanus you direct the chiefe end and scope of the Kings dignitie to set forward the worship of God to stirre vp others to honor his high Lord and to preserue the people in the faith and feare of God We accept of your grant but that which you adde that Priests and Prophets haue opposed them-selues against Kings in all those matters How Priests ought to oppose Princes which may bring either dishonor to God or ouerthrow to religion or damnation to soules I am affraid vnlesse you expound your selfe more plainly wee may not grant it vnto you For if you say they opposed themselues as men of God and did earnestly admonish them by word and counsell or else did sharply reproue such Princes we doe willingly acknowledge the freedome of their holy vocation but to take vpon them to be Iudges ouer Kings by their rule and authoritie and do either iudicially depriue them or violently inuade them we detest the pride of such a turbulent spirit But betweene God and the King there is a certaine § 48 couenant which alwaies is of force either openly or secretly Be it so The couenant between God and the King And what if the King do breake some article of the league who shall accuse him before what iudgement seate before what Iudge shall hee be endighted shall it be in the Court of the common people who for fashion sake haue made choice and accepted of the King or in the consistorie of a Bishop who hath annointed and consecrated him I see what you meane to answer a Bishop who hath conditionally annoynted him if he breake the condition and couenant made with God hath againe depriued him and hath shewed iustice against him in the name of God who hath abused his supreme authoritie The Scripture recites nineteene Kings of Israel and § 49 fourteene of Iuda No bad King of 33 deposed by a Priest who brake the couenant made with the Lord and worshipped strange gods and draue the people to apostasie shew me any one of them to be depriued by a Priest or a Prophet because they had broken their first couenant and take the cause if you cannot leaue of to tell an vntruth and to crosse your own speech whom wee euen now heard confessing that Kings doe hold their supreme authoritie receiued from God not then from a Priest not from the people and that therefore they are not bound if they breake their couenant to giue
accompt either to a Priest or to the people but to God For he holds his Crowne by the right of blood and inheritance not by the virtue of invnction or consecration or of election and acceptation as you were wont to say that you may giue some authoritie of deposing and depriuing to a Priest whom you make to be the first mouer and some to the people whom you make the remouer So you make Kings hypotheticall and the people conditionall but Priest absolute and categoricall being herein very simple because that power which you say they haue receiued of God to depose Kings that was neuer brought into practise vnder the whole old Testament Your argument therefore from the stronger falls to ground and comes to nothing that if the priestly excommunication vnder the old Testament was of such force of how greater and larger force is it vnder the new But we haue euicted it that there was none at all vnder the old Popish blasphemie At last you returne backe againe and repeat that former blasphemous argument of yours that God was not prouident enough but left the Church in a miserable case like a widdow cleane forsaken if hee had not giuen the chiefe Priest to hir either as a Tutor forsooth or a Husband That is like as if the father husband of the Church were not aliue or tooke care of another daughter and wife or else would appoint in his place such a one to be a Tutor for his daughter whom he foretold to bee an aduersarie or prouide such an husband for his daughter who would proue an adulterer Lastly as if Peter and Paul had dissembled and had commanded obedience to bee shewed to Nero so long till Christians could make head and other Christian Bishops had so many ages consented to the like dissimulation you doe not blush to affirme that Bishops could of right excommunicate their Princes and depose them being excommunicate if the Church had then power to resist True sayd Saturnine for Christ his Preistly prerogatiue § 51 wherewith he was able to breake in peeces such kings as earthen vessels beeing granted by large and precise charter to the Bishop of Rome the chiefe Preist which reason brought by vs you past by as a man vnknowen gaue power to the first Bishops and right to the thing it selfe as the Lawyers speake to depose Kings excommunicate being infidels apostataes heretickes and tyrants but the Church did neuer practise that authority till she gathered strength in processe of time For that commandement of Christ alleadged by you Giue to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods doth he not submit Caesar to be kept vnder by the Vicar of God when hee denieth to God those those things which belong to God And whereas Christ did thâ—â—ce speake to Peter Feede my Lambes feede my sheepe feede my sheepe did he not commit all Christians little and great lambes and sheepe subiects and princes to be fed and ruled without exception to Peter and Peters successour And when as he had committed the keyes of heauen to Peter and Peters successour to let in and shut out doth he not shew that diuine and admirable power of excommunication which you forfooth would haue so weake and feeble for whereas you sayd that Prelates and Bishops ought to be subiect and obedient to Kings Heb. 13.17 I did much maruell that you were so forgetfull of another commandement no lesse Apostolicall whereby hee bound Kings as well as subiects to obey their Prelates and their Pastors and to submit themselues as to them by whom accompt is to be giuen to God for their soules wherein what Christian Prince can exempt himselfe if hee doe thinke that he haue a soule § 52 Then Patriotta I past by that your reason Saturuine of the prerogatiue of Christ communicated with the Bishop Christ ouer-ruling Kings not as a preist but as a king not as vnknowen but as very idle For that prerogatiue whereby Christ doth bruise and breake in peeces kings and kingdomes the Prophet shewes not to bee his Preistly but his Princely power I haue set my king saith God not therefore as a Preist but as a King he hath broken and beat in peeces wicked Kings with his iron Scepter As a Priest he beares the Crosse as a King he bears the Scepter as a Preist he offred vp himselfe vpon the crosse and suffered his blood to bee shed for the remission of sinnes as a King hee vanquished his enemies shed their blood weakned and ouercame their power with the sight of this so great glorie that resides in him so you went about to blind our eies while you did closely subiect the scepter of a King to be trampled on by the Popes feet § 53 For you say that this prerogatiue of Christ is communicated with the Pope What else And that with large and precise charter where be those words point at the place shew the charter where Christ imparted this his prerogatiue with the Bishop of Rome Heb. 7. v. 23.24.25.26 For there bee many others appointed Preists saith S. Paul who by reason of death cannot continue but this because hee abides for euer hath an immutable Preisthood whence he can perfectly saue those who come vnto God by him alwaies liuing to make intercession for vs. For such a Preist was fit for vs holy innocent immaculate separated from sinners made higher then the heauens who hath no neede euery day as the Preists of Leui to offer sacrifices first for their owne sinnes then for the sinnes of the people for that he did once when he offered vp himselfe the onely sacrifice for sinne that hee might obtaine for vs eternall redemption The Bishop of Rome let him packe and bee gone and let him bragge of Christs Preistly prerogatiues granted to him by a large charter that all men may spit in the blasphemous face of this impure wretch But if hee haue not all yet hee hath imparted with § 54 him some of his prerogatiues at the least Which I pray you the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to open shut heauen the power of binding and loosing the power of feeding and ruling by all which you doe more then insinuate that the Bishop can rightly by the power of excommunication wrest from Caesar his scepter his crowne sword subiects kingdome and life For these belong to Caesar Therfore when Christ spake to Peter feed my sheep he meant this depose Princes I will giue you the keies of the Kingdome of heauen that is I will giue you the thrones of earthly kings that you may let into the kingdome whom you will and whom you will exclude that you may loose subiects whom you please and whom you please binde that you may punish whom you will and may forgiue whom you will We must I thinke learne not onely a new Diuinity but a new Grammer and a Logicke also To feede Christs sheepe The popish
the order to the spiritualties as very learned and holy Catholicke fathers haue deliuered I am not ignorant what was attempted lately by George Blackwell the Archpriest with certaine answeres of his to weaken and cut in sunder all the sinewes of ecclesiasticall excommunication Neither that onely Blackwell accompted an Apostata but hath broken and cut off as it were the ioyntes of the Popes two armes not that of his supreame authoritie spirituall and ecclesiasticall but of his ciuill and imperiall power which the Romane Byshop hath receiued from Christ and hath exercised vpon the earth vnder Christ But the timerous old man and wretched Apostata did not so much hurt by his fact as by his example which gaue occasion of a very foule schisme to you the Catholicke laickes whose constancie the Christian world did much commend Heere Calander you are too testie said he Saturnine § 75 who strait-way call me a Renegate when I neuer fell from the Catholicke faith onely because I refused and reiected certaine false Catholicke errors brought in by a companie of factious fellowes certaine claubackes of the Pope But because your heate hath carried you so farre to accuse the reuerend old man George Blackwell as a wretched Apostata and a Captaine of schisme I will intreat Velbacellus that hee answere somewhat not for mee only but much more for our Archpriest his antient friend Then Velbacellus Truly said hee when I am vnwilling § 76 at any time to dissent from my brethren then neuer more vnwilling then at this time when ill happe hath made our aduersaries beholders of our disorders But because I thinke it not fit Calander to neglect your authoritie and withall haue purposed to satisfie both your conscience and mine in this worthy businesse of religion I will doe as you aduise me Two popish meanes to ouerthrow Princes These are as you say Saturnine the two ingines the Romane Byshoppes haue vsed to ouerthrow Princes the one ecclesiasticall excommunication the other ciuill and imperiall authoritie What was the force and nature of excommunication they were not Ignorant they knew it was giuen to binde sinnes not scepters as Patriotta did truely dispute out of our own men Which first when Gregorie the 7. was Pope as he did rightly obserue out of Frisingensis Sigebert and Vincentius all ours brought foorth those monstrous effectes the deposing of Kings the absoluing of subiectes and the styrring of them vp to take armes against their Prince with which this present Oath of allegeance doth meete Whose successours fearing that ecclesiasticall excommunication in processe of time would loose not that natiue and inherent power but that vnnaturall and borrowed in the opinion of men they assumed that ciuill as you call it and imperiall power giuen by the Canonists for the increase of their owne authoritie as if it had beene bestowed by Christ himselfe § 77 For the old Canonists did first make them Lords of all the temporalties and sayd that the supreame iurisdiction not in spirituall things onely but in temporall things also did belong to Peters successours whose worme eaten assertions and such as long agoe were hist out by the more sober Papists certaine men not vnlearned haue lately renued and haue set them out publikely in printed bookes for found and Catholike doctrine and haue very stoutly defended them Whereof some a Franci Bozius de temp eccles monarch lib. 1. cap. 3. fol. 98. as you say defend the Bishop of Rome to bee directly Lord of things temporall one and the same to bee the Ruler and Monarch of the world That b Baron annal tom 1. ann 57. pag. 423. 433. Christ as hee receiued all Iudiciall power from the Father and vnited it with his Preist-hood when he meant to settle a Kingly Preist-hood in the Church put it ouer to Peter and his successours and that as Christ was King of Kings and Lord of Lords so the Church ought to be Queene and Lady of all and if the husband must be Lord of all the temporalties the spouse must be Ladie of all likewise that all temporall Princely power did first reside in the soule of Christ then in the Church the Queene of the world and from thence it did flow to others that were faithfull or vnfaithfull as from a fountaine c Thom. Bozi de iure statu praefat ad Aldobran That this spouse of Christ Queene of the world as often as the order of the vniuersall doth require it can transferre the proper right of one to another as a secular Prince for the adorning of a city may plucke downe priuate mens houses and may doe it by Law although hee haue not erred by whom such rights were translated to others So the Pope gaue the Indies to the Spaniards d Isodor Mosco de maiest mili Eccles pag. 670 All dominion do hold of the Church and of the Pope the head of the Church And that authority is to be considered in the Pope power in Emperours and Kings for power doth depend of authority that true e Care de potest Rom. Pont. pag. 9. Difference betweene power and authority Idem pag. 111. iust and ordinate from God and meere dominion as well in spirituall things as in temporall is fetcht by Christ and the same is committed to S. Peter and his successours that Christ was Lord of all these inferiour things not onely as hee was God but also as he was man hauing at that time dominion in the earth and therefore as the dominion of the world both diuine and humane was then in Christ as man so now it is in the Pope the Vicar of Christ As God may be called by a secondary meanes the temporall Gouernour and Monarch of the world though in himselfe principally hee bee neither temporall nor of the world Idem pag. 112. so the Pope may bee sayd to bee the temporall Lord and Monarch although his power be a certaine spirituall thing That Christ when hee had performed the mysterie of our redemption as a King gaue Peter the gouernment of his kingdome and that holy Peter did vse that power against Ananias and Sapphira That Christ as he is directly the Lord of the world in temporall things and therefore that the Pope Christs Vicar is the like that hee set out an immutable truth by the sole comming of Peter to Christ vpon the water Pag. 151. and that the vniuersall gouernment which is signified by the sea was committed to Peter and his successors that diuers powers and authorities were giuen of God but that all did depend vpon the supreme authority of the Pope and that they take their light from thence as the starres doe from the Sunne § 78 And as God is the supreme Monarch of the world productiuely and gubernatiuely Pag. 145. although of himselfe he be neither of the world nor temporall so the Pope although originally and from himselfe hee haue dominion ouer all things temporall yet he hath
Byshoppe and by the power and authoritie of the King § 180 There are some who foolishly compare these two together there are other who doe wickedly mingle them together so that one doth destroy the other which God hath most wisely ioyned together that one should helpe the other Now this spirituall power if you respect Christ Ephes 4. is monarchicall vnder him alone if men it is aristocraticall vnder many as wee shewed out of Paul The ciuill is of three sorts Either belonging to the People Princes or cheife King Which last when wee set foorth wee disgrace not the rest The duty of a Byshoppe It cannot be denied but that the byshoppe in his spirituall perfection and comfort doth excell the King for God doth not appoint the King but the byshoppe to bee the seedsman of his word the Messenger of his grace the disposer of the mysteries of his kingdome But in the outward authoritie and power of compelling the King doth excell the byshoppe while hee commandes that which God alloweth Neither do I so preferre the ciuill gouernment before the spirituall but do affirme that the same God who teacheth those that be simple and draw such as be willing by the mouth of the minister doth draw those that bee negligent and constraine such as be retractory by the sword of the magistrate whom the spirit and God of the spirits hath ordained to that purpose Yea truly they who set the ciuill gouernment behind the spirituall simply as the body behinde the soule and the flesh behinde the spirit do make a very fleshly comparison betweene Kings and Byshoppes vnlesse they imagine Byshoppes to be without bodies and Kinges without soules And who so inferre thereupon that a godly king cannot inflict a punishment vpon a wicked Priest doe deface holinesse in the King as a matter temporall and aduance wickednesse in a Priest as a matter spirituall And who thence conclude that a Christian King cannot promote holy rites by his lawes as well as a minister can by his doctrine and censure giue more without cause to the shauing of a Priest then to the character of Baptisme and do foolishly preferre priestly annointing before the Princely And they seeme not wel to vnderstand what those excellent lights of the world Constantine Iustinian Theodosius Valentinian Gratian Zeno Charles the great Lâ—wes his sonne and Lothary his nephew and many other Kings and Emperors did out of Gods word iustly commaund Byshoppes in causes ecclesiasticall and wherein they did obey Byshoppes as was made manifest before But the Byshoppe hath power from God to gouerne § 181 the Church as is before said therefore aboue the King in the gouernment of the Church I distinguish of the gouernment One was Inward Outward It is one thing to administer the inward another thing to order it In the administration of the inward gouernment a Byshoppe doth excell a King in the ordering of it a King doth excell a Byshop I confesse a Pastor is superiour in feeding so Carpenters in building and Mariners in sayling are aboue a Prince A Priest not aboue a Prince What then are they simply better It is a fallacy from that which is in part to that which is simply But the actions of a Byshoppe are more excellent then the workes of a King as the preaching of the word the administration of the Sacraments the remitting and retaining of sinnes Therefore a Byshoppe doth excell a King But the working and perfection of these things doth depend not vpon the arbitrement of the Byshop but the commandement of God August cont Cres lib. 4. c. 6. Ambros There is a double spirituall power 1 Ministeriall of men 2 Imperiall of God Therefore the credit of these actions must serue the glory of God not the honour of the Priest The spirituall worke is of God A Byshoppe great not in respect of his person but doctrine the bodily seruice is of the Minister Men in the remission of sinnes doe not exercise the right of power but doe exercise their Ministerie They pray God doth grant The ministerie is from men the gift from an heauenly power The reason therefore drawne from the perfection of heauenly graces in the Church to preferre the person of a Priest before the person of a Prince is very weake because the subiection due to the sword is annexed to the person of the Prince the worthinesse and power due to the key is not annexed to the person of the Byshoppe but to his doctrine § 182 By Gods law obedience is due to each For hee that saith keepe the commandement of the King saith likewise obey your Prelates who watch ouer your soules But we are to hold this that here are not to be vnderstood by Prelates Popes and Cardinalls who obtrude their owne inuentions vpon vs but holy and Christian Byshops and Pastors who deliuer the word of God vnto vs as the Apostle addeth for wee are not tyed to the decrees of Doctours but to the oracles of God Therefore the obedience required is not the outward subiection to the person of the Priest but an inward submission to the doctrin of Christ and an allowance and practise of the same For in respect of the person Byshoppes are called seruantes and their function is called a Ministery as I said Therefore the greatest King is bound to beleeue and obey the least seruant of God deliuering his Lords will And he oweth that subiection to the Lord not to his Messenger to his doctrine not to his person For hee commeth not in his own but in the Lords name which may be as truely said of the meanest Minister as of the greatest Byshoppe What a Byshop may do A Byshoppe therefore may teach a King that is ignorant may reproue him being an Hereticke as the Prophet did Ieroboam king of Iuda may admonish him being of a bad life as Iohn did Herod may correct him being a Tyrant as Elias did Ahab may reprehend him being otherwise good if hee doe openly and greeuously trangresse as Nathan did Dauid and depriue him of the sacrament of grace while he repent as Ambrose did Theodosius But whether he can remoue him from the companie of his faithfull subiects by excommunication it is a great question and diuersly discussed by the Fathers They who hold it may be done by the Byshop do denie for all that that the King by him may bee put from the obedience of his subiectes much lesse being excommunicated bee abandoned by his subiects and killed either by open force or secret treacherie as certaine of the popish sort doe hold I say certaine for the honester sort decree otherwise and commit the King to the Byshoppes cure submit him not to his Court. For the King is the Lords seruant and the Byshoppes Lord as I said before subiect to the Byshoppes pulpit not his consistorie that he may be directed by him not iudged by him A Byshoppe is appointed to perswade not compell not to gape
4. about the profession of the oath of orthodox faith annex to the Con Trent sub Innoc 3. a new Creede But shee was displeased with the foure Euangelists because they passed by their Pope as a vnknowne man And therefore she created a fift Euangelist who by the helpe of the Monkes might coyne a fift Gospell fitter for their purpose than the other They deemed the true Iesus the sonne of Marie crucified by Gods decree vpon Mount Caluarie for the saluation of men to be but halfe a Sauiour Therefore they deuised Francis Peter Barnardons sonne as if hee had beene pierced with the same wounds of Christ and in the same parts and consecrated him in the Laterane Councell to be the Typicall Iesus Shee thought the twelue articles of the faith gathered together by Christs 12. Apostles not to be sufficient for saluation And therefore published twelue new articles of the faith composed in the Councell of Trent and brought by Pope Pius the fourth into the forme of a Creede Paul the fift being the furtherer of it O holy mother the Church but ô father far more holy In the meane time she preached Christs great loue bounty toward the Pope and the Popes reuerence and obsequiousnes toward Christ But seing Babylon that old whore had learned to trimme and paint hir-selfe but to dissemble her inward affections and cunningly to cloake her hatred with loue and her loue with hatred euery wise-man is to forecast being taught by former hurt and mischiefe not any more what shee doth pretend but what shee doth intend Shee knoweth that the Scripture is a reuealer of her idolatrie luxurie couetousnes pride and crueltie Shee fretts and chafes that no portion of honour and gouernment but of labour and paines is allotted vnto the Pope by Christ his Testament Shee is greeued at the heart that shee is foretold by the Apostles to be mysticall Babylon and the Pope to be that Antichrist Shee abhorres the Scripture as a theefe doth the gallowes shee despiseth the Apostles as her accusers shee hates Christ as her Iudge but with a secret hatred as shee loueth Antichrist with a secret loue whose enemie shee doth earnestly counterfeit hir-selfe to be that shee may seeme to be at familiar enmitie with him So shee doth counterfeit hirselfe to be a most dutifull worshipper of the Scripture as of the former Councells and doth often alledge it as the Diuell doth turned to a contrary sense and doth alledge it but as a falsifier fraudulently corrupted and shee is inwardly vext that such a blow is giuen to her head by the Scriptures not as they be expounded by vs but as they be vnderstood by those Synodes But shee takes nothing more greeuously then that in the supremacie of her iurisdiction .i. in the chiefe article of her publike religion that two of their chiefest founders as shee calls them be so silent witnesses in this cause S. Peter 1 Pet 5. S. Paul S. Peter who did plainly forbid superioritie to any one Priest ouer the Clergie styled himself most truly most humbly not an Arch-priest but a fellow-priest S. Paul who when of purpose he sent an Epistle to the Romanes made no mention at all of the Pope and the prerogatiue of the Church of Rome nor of the after-borne articles of the faith which shee in great plenty brought in afterward And when as of set purpose he had reasoned of the perpetuall gouernment of the militant Church and had gathered together many vnities one God one faith one spirit one body one Lord hee ouer-past one visible head Ephes 4. being forgetfull of their Peter And no maruell when as Peter himselfe was forgetfull of himselfe He did rather diuide the gouernment of the Church among all the Bishops and would rather haue it an Aristocraticall gouernment with many vnder Christ than Monarchicall vnder one as the practise of the Church next following for many ages did approue For that the fiue Patriarches had equall authoritie both Balsamon doth witnes and the Councell of Neece doth confirme And Francis Duarene writes that Boniface the third Francis Duar. de sacris benef lib. 1. cap 10. not before the 607. yeares not without much adoe could obtayne of Phocas to be created the vniuersall Bishop The Pope then is indebted to a King-killer for all the glory of his kingdome and yet he seemeth to giue thanks to Christ as if by his word Feede my sheepe hee had ordeyned the Bishops of Rome in Peter as he writes himselfe a fellow-minister to be Kings so many ages before they were borne Cic. ad PetuÌ„ ep 9. â— 8. As Cicero when as a false decree of the Senate was brought into Armenia and Siria as made against his minde writes that thanks were giuen him from foraigne Kings because he had named them to be Kings by his consent whom he knew not that they were not onely named but not so much as to bee borne But the Nicene Councell doth greatly discontent the Romane Bishop whom he maketh but equall to the Bishop of Alexandria For therefore the Bishop had corrupted that Canon which had restreyned the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome nor being therewith content did adde many yeares after fifty false Canons to twentie true of the Nicene Councell that hee might make the whole world beleeue that his supremacie which was apparantly shortned by the Nycene Fathers being aliue were enlarged by them being dead As the same Cicero doth pleasantly sport himselfe with Antonie Philip 1. when as he had published certaine false decrees of Caesar that the Citizens that were sent into banishment of him aliue should be recalled being dead and that the Citie that was denyed them of him aliue should be granted being dead and that many immunities and priuiledges that were taken of him being aliue should bee sold of him being dead by which meanes Antonie did affect both an infinite and hurtfull power So the Pope doth publish many acts as proceeding from Christ as from the Apostles as from the Nicene Fathers whereby hee doth vsurpe most proud and cruell gouernment in the Church And he fetcheth them from the dead for they were neuer made by them when they were aliue In like manner hee bringeth in the Chalcedon Fathers being dead Coâ—up of a Can of Chalcedon denying that which they affirmed when they were aliue Iudging say the Fathers of Chalcedon that the See of Constantinople in matters Ecclesiasticall bee as well aduanced in matters ecclesiasticall as the Romane being the next vnto it Which words are falsly recited Distinct 22. Renovantes or rather filthily corrupted in the Canon Law while he addeth a negatiue to the last words which altereth the sense of the whole Canon into a cleane contrary yet notwithstanding let it not be aduanced in matters ecclesiasticall as shee but let her be the next vnto it What should I make many words The first six generall Councells which may be thought to
Iohn 7 Now those ten hornes saith the Angell are tenne Kings vers 12. which as yet haue not receiued the Kingdome They be not then those tenne hornes whereof Daniel did prophecie whose kingdomes are at an end But they shall haue kingly power together with the beast that is with Antichrist which cannot be vnderstood but of the Proconsuls or Propraetors who were vicegerents to the Emperours in the Prouinces who together after the dissolution of the Easterne Empire had at that time absolute kingly authoritie with the Pope For while the Empire stood and flourished neither the Pope at Rome nor the Kings in the Prouinces did rule absolutely after it decaied both hee enioyed Rome and a great part of Italie and they enioyed the Prouinces And these tenne hornes together with the beast as Bellarmine confesseth it euent proues it Lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 13. diuided the Romane Empire betweene them Hence I inferre this At that time whenas Rome was accounted the Whore of Babilon by the Angell then the tenne hornes tooke absolute power with Antichrist But before Rome was Christian and Popish the ten hornes had not absolute power with Antichrist It followeth therefore that Rome not before it was Christian and Popish was accounted the Whore of Babylon by the Angell CAHP. XX. Wherein the qualities of the Whore of Babylon are described WHose glorious profession is fitly resembled to the golden cuppe of fornication It is said that Edward the 4. King of England had three Concubines the first very deuout the second very subtill the third very plesant The whore of Babylon alone doth expresse these three dispositions For what is more deuout what is more ioconde what is more wily shee hath a face none of her owne as her Husband Antichrist hath not For he doth alwaies weare a visard and therefore is a counterfeit Antichrist A whore not only for her carnall filthinesse but for her spirituall Idolatrie whereto she hath entised the nations with her allurements such as had to do with her She is therefore a blasphemous and filthy Whore more then that a proud couetous cruell whore And therefore she is said to bee decked with purple and golden attire inriched with the spoiles of all sorts and drunke with the innocent bloud of the Saints Note For what extremities soeuer impietie could effect by blasphemie or lust by laciuiousnesse or couetousnesse by rapine or pride by delicacie or crueltie by torture the same the Angell so long before foretould that the Church should endure by that whore of Babylon Neither if we grant that Ethnicke Rome from her cradell was Babylon because the beast is said to haue 7. heades any inconuenience will follow thereby Neither if wee shall say that the purple whore began then The Pope compared to Romulus when Romulus first founded Rome will it ouerthrowe the exposition of the Angell For it remained to bee that which she was in the beginning Yea a great deale worse when it was falsly Christian vnder Antichrist then heathenish vnder Romulus It is reported that Romulus was a notable theife a Deflowrer of Virgins a truce breaker a brother-killer and that hee founded Rome at the first by these sinnes But he was not so notorious for his theifts as this for his sacriledge Nor he so filthy for the forcing of Virgins as this for the worshipping of Images Nor he for his breaking his league with men as this with God Nor he such a spiller of his brothers blood as this of Christian blood What an one thinke we him to be who doth surpasse a theefe in robberie a deflowrer of Virgins in lechery a truce breaker in treacherie and a brother-killer in crueltie Therefore the Angell called the Bishop of Rome Babylon and the purple whore by a super excellencie The descripti of the Whore of Babylon For she was proude by the spoiles of Prouinces this by the spoiles of all Churches She was composed or carnall this of spirituall adulteries and whoredomes She brak her faith with men this with God Shee was enraged against the bodies of the Saints this against the soules of the Saints She dealt with the lambes of Christ by open force as a Lyons Whelpe this as a Foxe with her cunning did sauagely teare them in peeces and deuour them Wherefore let Rome if you will bee that whore of Babylon from the beginning certainely she could not make drunke 10. kings with the golden cuppe of her fornication before there were tenne Kings For while Ethnicke Rome did stand they were the Emperours subiects they were no kings They were kings vnder the Pope of Rome therefore by popish Rome made drunke to whom by an excellencie the name of that whore is giuen by the Angell Neither yet will I euer accuse that Bishoply Rome which suffred for Christ vnder the ethnicke Emperours For not Rome regenerated and suffering but degenerating and persecuting can properly be called that whore of Babylon Neither doe I wholy excuse the imperiall Rome Imperiall Rome not to be excused which vnder Constantine Theodosius and other holy Emperours professed Christ because Rome which was Babylon from the beginning did retaine in her bosome diuers reliques of the former paganisme and diuers seedes of the future Antichristianisme Because it is not necessarie that all that were of the same succession should be of the same affection No I would not exclude Paul the 5. himselfe from the hope of saluation if the wretched sinner would repent and returne vnto his God Hence certaine dispute against vs. Antichrist cannot be saued for he is the sonne of perdition as the Apostle teacheth The Pope may be saued by your owne confession The Pope therefore is not Antichrist Or thus It is not lawfull to pray for Antichrist It is for the Pope The Pope therefore is not Antichrist This obiection is a fallacie called the begging of the question For it doth presuppose Antichrist to be one singular man We contrary as by many reasons wee haue proued it If therefore they keepe them to the point and take the Pope collectiuely the assumption is false if they take him for this or that single man the assumption is true if the Pope repent But then there be foure tearms in the syllogisme For the Pope is otherwise taken in the assumption then in the conclusion For there it is taken for singular Popes heere for a succession of Pope But of this sophisme I haue spoken enough before CHAP. XXI How the Church of Rome may be said to be the Church of GOD. BVt heere is another doubt to bee resolued how the seate of Antichrist can be called that purple whore as Saint Iohn saith and temple and Church of God as Saint Paul saith For if Antichrist sit in the Church of God as I taught before and popish Rome be the seat of Antichrist as in many wordes I haue declared it seemeth that popish Rome is the Church of God I answere and
I conclude both out of the Scripture and out of the fathers that Antichrist was to sit in the Temple of God that was in the Church And therefore that Antichrist was not to sit in the temple of Ierusalem Hierome with many other Fathers haue determined And yet this Pythagoras who thinks that his he said so will satisfie fooles doth boldly affirme that he shall sit in the Temple of Ierusalem to be builded againe by him Bellarmine fighteth with himselfe Wherein see I pray you how hee fighteth with himselfe The temple reedified of Antichrist is the Temple of the Deuill But Antichrist shall fit saith he in a Temple reedified by himselfe Therefore he shall sit in the Temple of the deuill not therefore in the Temple of God Vnlesse happily he will change the temple of God into the temple of the Deuill Besides that Antichrist shall sit at Rome as the Rhemists themselues confesse Not therefore at Ierusalem vnlesse peraduenture Ierusalem moued out of her place shall passe ouer to Rome Which perchance they can bring to passe who change the three wisemen of the east into 3. The Papists alter east from weast Kings of Sheba in the west For Sheba stands west from the citie Ierusalem and Chaldee whence they came stands east I cannot see therefore but by the same power they may as well carry Ierusalem to Rome as turne the east into the west I haue euicted before euen by the confession of the Aduersarie That Rome is the seat and citie of Antichrist and yet they proue by a strang kinde of Logicke that Ierusalem is the seat of Antichrist For where Gods two witnesses saith he are killed of Antichrist there is the seat of Antichrist But those two witnesses shall be killed by Antichrist at Ierusalem Apoc. 11.7 Therefore Antichrist his seat is at Ierusalem He takes the proposition for granted which for all that standes in great neede of proffe For wheresoeuer Antichrist shall kill 2. witnesses of God that there he shall haue his seat No more then if some great Prince such an one as they would haue Antichrist to be should there be said to haue the seat of his Empire wheresoeuer his authoritie was of power to kill his enemies Do you not know that Kings haue stretcht-out hands Tiberius hand stretcht out it selfe as farre as Ierusalem to crucifie Christ though he sate at Rome Antichrist hath a long hand whose hand reacheth farther to kill Gods two witnesses then where he sits not euer where Antichrist rageth there he sitteth The proposition then generally taken is false particularly vnderstood is a paralogisme The assumption also is very false for the holy Ghost doth call not Ierusalem but Rome or rather the Rom Empire that great Citie in whose streets the bodies of those two witnesses shall lye slaine and that great Citie is called spiritually Sodome and Egipt where our Lord was crucified Hierusalem aboue is called the holy Citie after Christ his passion how then here is it spiritually called Sodome and Egipt Apoc 11.8 Ierusalem in the Apocalyps taken for the holy Citie alwaies as Hierom writes to Marcella Ierusalem is alway taken in the Apocalyps for the holy Citie Rome for the great Citie which hath the gouernment ouer the Kings of the earth which cannot agree with Ierusalem Besides the word spiritually toucheth Rome very neere for as Rome is mystically Babylon so it is spiritually Sodome and Egipt Sodome for her pride and vncleannesse Rome compared to Babylon Sodom and Egypt ☜ Egipt for her idolatrie and crueltie against the Saints for who is so blinde that can not see that Rome is the chappell of Idolls the stewes of lust the queene of pride the shambles of Saints and the den of King-killers and therefore shee is truly spirituall Sodom and Egipt But where our Lord was crucified there Gods two witnesses were murthered by Antichrist Christ how crucified at Rome But not at Rome but at Ierusalem he was crucified Therefore not at Rome but at Ierusalem those two witnesses shall be killed We denie the assumption At Rome in that great Citie that is in the Romane Empire our Lord was crucified First because by the commandement and authoritie of the Rom Empire Christ himselfe was crucified Apoc. 17.18 as the Rhemists doe confesse Secondly because Christ in his members is often crucified at Rome Thirdly he was not crucified within Ierusalem but without as S. Paul witnesseth to the Heb cap 13. v. 12. Lastly because Ierusalem before the Apocalyps which was extant about the end of Domitian being vtterly ouerthrowne together with their Temple was neuer to be built againe as we haue formerly euicted out of the prophecie of Daniel who saith that the desolation of the Temple and Citie shall continue vntill the end of the world as Hierom expounds out of the words of Christ Neither doe the friuolous answers of Bellarmine much trouble me wherewith he presumes as he writeth that Daniel would haue said something that he doth not say as if hee could not say what he would and therefore he faines that the Prophet spake thus Either that the Temple should not be reedified till a litle before the end of the world or else as it was desolated before it was reedified so the abomination of desolation i. Antichrist should remaine in the same re-edified to the end of the world or else that it should neuer be fully built againe Ierusalem the figure of the Christian Church but that Antichrist should sit in the Temple begun and not finished Ierusalem is wholy the figure of the Christian Church which after it was built vp by the preaching of the Gospell among the Gentiles there was an end both of the Citie and Temple of Ierusalem Matth 24.14 as Christ prophecied Daniels best Interpreter who foretold the abomination of desolation that is the abominable and desolate winges What is ment by the abomination of desolation vnderstanding the Eagles and the Legions of the Romanes as Luke expoundeth should bring a finall destruction to the Citie and Temple so that the desolation of them both should continue to the end of the world as Christ explaineth foreshewing that Ierusalem being ouerthrowne of the Romanes Luc 21.22 23 24. shall be troden vnder foote of the Gentiles till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled i. till hee shall come to iudgement which is described in the next words So that the bounds of the Christian Church being enlarged the Citie and Temple should haue their last end by the testimonie of Christ for the truth appearing the type faded away So that the primitiue Church beleeued that Ierusalem was turned into eternall ashes Ad Marcel and Hierom calleth the opinion of some who thought the Temple should be restored a meere Iewish fable Therefore Bellarmine in Hieroms iudgement who dreames of the restoring of the Temple is not a Christian Doctor but a Iewish Babler Vnlesse hee be worse to be
truth and power to be ouercome by errour and wickednesse Assuredly hee will neuer suffer it The Christians therefore haue no cause to feare the Pope hath no cause to insult For the Pope alone hath all the markes of Antichrist The Pope alone therefore is Antichrist CHAP. XLII The scope and conclusion of the whole worke I Haue finished the Glasse Paul the fift set before you to see your selfe before others to look on themselues wherein Antichrist is fully set downe as in preface Heere you may see contained his right and true marks the false being reiected and cast by Euery of them in seuerall and all of them ioyntly together doe prooue the Pope to be that great Antichrist Hence it followeth that Popery is Antichristianity What hee is and who he is appeares out of the preface What he doth and what he teacheth out of the Dialogue diuided into three bookes First comes vpon the stage Antichrist pragmaticall In the two other bookes Antichrist dogmaticall There he carries himselfe like a Rebell heere like a Sophister there he doth impaire the glory of the Empire heere the truth of the Gospell there hee doth vndermine the faithfulnesse of subiects heere the faith of Christians The first booke doth propound the rules and grounds of Christian fealty and obedience toward Kings against Christian rebellion shadowed ouer with a shew of Catholike religion The other two doe erect the foundation and pillers of Christian doctrine and faith against the Antichristian heresie compacted of twelue new articles of the faith brought into the forme of a creede by Pius the fourth whereupon I call it the Popes creede I doe solemnely professe that I am afaithfull seruant of Christ and the King I doe not take vpon me being the meanest and the least of all other to giue warning vnto Kings once already warned by the great King not therefore to bee warned of any but of Christ the King of Kings Let Iesus Christ therefore bee in our thoughts a while who although he be absent in body yet present in spirit hath an interest and being yea and a gouernment also in the spirits of all Christians and chriefly of all Princes his bountie is to be loued his maiesty is to be dreaded euen of Kings for as the powerfull gouernment of Kings is to be dreadfull to their owne subiects so the most powerfull gouernment of God is to bee dreadfull to Kings of God I say manifested in the flesh who being present with them in spirit seemeth thus to speake and complaine CHAP. XLIII THE PROSOPOPEY I AM not ignorant who am ignorant of nothing ô yee Christian Kings and Princes that the Byshop of Rome my Vicare as he calles himselfe my Aduersarie The Pope both an hereticke and traytor as he carries himselfe hath beene a Teacher of heresie in the Church and a Practiser of treason in the common-weale for these many yeares For euer since hee was made the vniuersall Byshop he hath done nothing else but corrupted my Gospell and peruerted your Empire And no maruell for out of the corruption of the Gospell doth follow the dissolution of the Empire For whereas I haue erected by the Gospell a twofould pillar of gouernment Authoritie in Magistrates and Allegeance in Subiects it is strange to see the Gospell peruerted in the mindes of men how each pillar of gouernment falles to the grounds The greatest fault whereof is in the Byshops treacherie and in your slothfulnesse that whereas I had submitted all Byshops vnder your power and iudgement you haue suffered one to fly out so farre aboue the rest that he dare not onely rebell against yours but against my Maiestie also That therefore the ancient dignitie of the Empire may be recouered being lost and for euer maintained being recouered my counsell to you is that the truth of the Gospell shaken and long weakened by the Popes tyrannie may at last be restored by your princely authoritie For what is more reasonable then that I should haue you defenders of my glory whom I haue appointed Ministers of my power And if it were in question heretofore whether that Byshoppe were that Antichrist He is so prophetically described by my beloued Disciples Iohn and Paul that now it is out of question seeing that euent hath laid open and made cleare the prophecie For all the partes of the prophecie are so plainely interpreted All notes of Antichrist agree with the Pope of the succession of the persons the nature and disposition of the King and kingdome the acts of the beast the impression of the Character the number of his name the scituation of his seate the time of his reuealing the cuppe of the whore the kind of his marchandise the fall of Babylon lastly the comming in and going out the birth and death of Antichrist the last answering the first and the middle answering both with such a consent and barmonie inferring things to be fulfilled by things that are fulfilled that I could not haue made it clearer if I had named the Byshop of Rome himselfe And Antichristianity is well defined by my Apostle to be not iniquitie but the mysterie of iniquitie For if Antichrist had appeared to you in his owne likenesse you needed not to haue beene so carefull about the businesse Now that hee doth insinuate himselfe with a counterfet holinesse and a dissembled sanctity how many millions of innocent men hath he cosoned and deceiued with his hidden mysticall wickednesse But let the visard be taken off from this hidden Antichrist then none can hereafter be deceiued but he that will wittingly and willingly be deceiued Beware therefore that the old trickes and stratagemes being laid open beguile you no more He faineth himselfe to be the Prince of the couenant and yet he hath altered my couenant Hee pretendes himselfe to be a Keeper of my will and testament and yet he hath not only raced and defaced my testament The Pope hath altered Christ his Testament and brought in a new but hath foysted in one of his owne He termes himselfe the foundation of the Church and chalengeth to him my peculiar title and yet hee doth with cunning deuises subuert and ouerthrow my Church He makes a shew of great zeale to my crosse and yet doth annihilate the power of the crosse The holy Scripture makes mention of Gods double gouernment the Legale and Euangelicall The legale which hath the condition of working annext vnto it do this and thou shalt liue Ierem. 31.31 Heb. 8.5 ad finem The Euangelicall requireth the condition of beleeuing Beleeue and thou shalt be saued But it requireth faith not as a worke but as an instrument whereby you may receiue the promises of the spirit therefore that is called a conditionall this a free conuenant Where there is no couenant there is no faith and where there is no faith there is no saluation Humane faith doth rest vpon an humane couenant heauenly faith vpon a heauenly couenant Heauenly faith is
and went about to perswade others to do the same And he had almost preuailed with me but that the most Holy Father did interpose his greater authoritie A third guest Argentines shadow I will conceale by your leaues vnlesse you will assure me that you will procure him no harme which cannot well be without my danger It is his part to dispute against the obedience of subiects which in his minde hereticall Kings doe vniustly exact of them and to obiect the strongest reasons he can for the authoritie of the Pope in deposing such Kings and releasing their subiects from the oath of Allegeance And if you can wipe away and weaken his obiections you shall easily perswade me and my Argentine too I thinke to performe the oath of fealtie and obedience to our King Then Patriotta truly said he so he attempt nothing § 3 against the King and kingdome and dispute as it were in the schoole to search out the truth and not in an assembly to moue sedition I giue you my honest promise I will not take on me the part of a spie and leaue of to be a guest nor cast off the dutie of a friend while I reteyne the dutie of a subiect Here Regius as one that knew the danger of the law better pausde a while yet following his purpose that I may gaine a lost sheep to the King I will said he borrow so much of the law that I may heare a Iesuite disputing And vpon this condition said Calander smiling I will name you my third guest in habite a Courtier in profession a Iesuite Father Robert Saturnine And thus all the guests meeting together in the Parlor Patriotta said that after they had courteously saluted one another as the manner is they sate downe to a costly supper and that it might not be a dumbe feast the Priests did wisely dissemble their inward griefe of minde with forced and pleasant discoursing When supper was ended they were all brought into a gallerie and there sometime walking and sometime sitting they continued their conference about the matters in question till it was late in the night § 4 Here Calander beginning whereas your comming said he was euer welcome to me Velbacel and Saturnine then neuer more welcome then in this dangerous time wherein there is a great and a greeuous controuersie not onely betweene Catholikes and Heretikes but betweene Catholikes and Catholikes about the oath of Allegeance and the Popes authoritie in deposing hereticall Kings and the absoluing the subiects from their obedience due to them as it is thought As it falls out betweene you two one of you disswades me that I should not sweare the other perswades me that I should sweare Thus we Laicke-Catholikes are torne asunder by you the Priests and so distracted in this quarrell betweene the Bishop and the King that we know not in the world what to doe Wherefore when I was desirous that you should discusse your contrarie reasons in this matter of difference and by the discourse and bending of your wits some sparkes of truth might appeare to the satisfaction of our consciences see of a sodaine there are met two great learned men Antonius Patriotta and Carolus Regius two shrewd Aduersaries that I may say the truth in the whole busines of Religion but yet without malice vnknowne happily to you but very friendly to me so that you need not feare that your conference come abroad so it be done freely not licentiously § 5 Then said Saturnine your promise made to me CalaÌ„der doth make me feare no danger from these Gentlemen your friends Therefore I lay aside that person and habit which the necessitie of the time not mine owne will and desire hath cast vpon me and I take to me the person of a Iesuite Although I haue not forgot the last Tearme of all that an holy Priest condemned by the Queenes Law was cruelly put to death O Dracos Law written with bloody letters Good words I pray you saith Patriotta it was not § 6 the Queenes law but the Popes Bull that hanged that Priest For when there were two Priests condemned for one offence the King offered life to them both if they would take the oath of Allegeance The one of them tooke it thother refused it The one of them liues by the mercy of the King the other died by the commandement of the Pope Now tell me whether it were the Queenes law or the Popes Bull did hang him O Hipponactean Bull whose seuerall lines Hipponax a Poet of Ephesus who being painted by Bubalus in such manner that he was laught at made such bitter verses against the Painter that foâ— shame he hung himselfe The Iesuites deceiued the Pope with false alarmes Câ—â— lib. 1. cap. 11. as seuerall lambickes brought the Priest to the gallowes But in the forefront of it he wisheth health and apostolicall benediction to his sonnes the Roman Catholikes but within it there is conteyned a curse and destruction to you all Belike your Pope did sweeten the edge of the cup that the poyson within might go downe more merily This bitter cup the Pope hath mingled for you Calander and Argentine and the rest of the Lay-Papists The Iesuite hath wisht it to you who being the Popes intelligencer signified that the power of the English Papists was greater then the Protestants if hee would that outward forces were ioyned with them as Cominaeus writes that the Burgundian spies being deceiued with the mist and darknesse of the night deceiued the Duke of Burgundie telling him that the forces of France were greater and neerer when as they tooke the longer bryars and brambles in the field for iauelins lances So the false reports of the Iesuites deceiued the Bishop whereby he tooke rash and vntimely counsell to send his Bulls vnto you Hence the Pope as Pius the fift had done before him compiled an horned argument wherewith hee strooke his sonnes on both sides and droue them to that exigent that either they must runne vpon the point of the Queenes law if they obeyed not the King or incurred the Popes curse if they obeyed him For he driues them whose calamities vndertaken for the Catholike faith he doth miserably deplore either to hell or the gallowes For of necessitie they must either be damnde or hangd if you beleeue the Pope damned vnlesse they obey the inhibition or hangd if they obey it Is this the saluation of Paul the fift that he sendeth to his sonnes is this his Apostolicall blessing Doth the pitifull Father thus blesse his sonnes that haue hitherto endured so great afflictions for reteyning as he writes the Catholike faith He hath well rewarded your holinesse that hath sent his Papists in a bad cause with a false feare of hell to certaine death vpon the gallowes § 7 And the Roman-Catholikes Saturnine may not only thanke the false messages sent to the Pope The Iesuites false doctrine hath troubled the Papists but the pestilent doctrine broached by
God he exacteth subiection of the body Rom. 13. In the beginning of the 13. Chapter speaking of the obedience due to a Prince he requireth the subiection of the soule What obedience is due to Princes Hath hee not likewise submitted the soule to God and the body to the Prince yes verily But to that end he hath distinguished these because men doe for the most part thus excuse themselues that they vowe their soule to God when they prostitute their body to the Deuill and yeeld their body to the magistrate when they deny him the reuerence of the soule Therefore let the soule be subiect to the higher power saith the Apostle Hence two other parts of subiection doe necessarily follow Paul the Apostle doth adde the reasons with a commandement which Paul the Byshoppe doth not adde with his prohibition For all power saith he is of God He speaketh not so much of the Prince as of the gouernment nor so much of the person as of the power To shew that hee rather respecteth the right of gouerning then the qualitie of the gouernour Againe if the power of a King be from God Power from God not the Pope or people then it is not from the Pope as diuers of the Popes flatterers would haue it Neither is it from the people as diuers flatterers of the people doe at this day striue for it I beleeue they leaue the power of destroying a gouernment to him whom they dreame to haue a power giuen to build it vp They that yeeld so much to the Pope subiect a King vnder a sober tyrant they that yeeld so much to the people subiect him vnder a furious tyrant and as the Poet said very wittily and truely to a beast of many heads And therefore the King is not bound to giue accompt either to Pope or people but to God from whom hee receiued all his power immediately Hence the Apostle presently inferreth these two conclusions 1. He that resisteth Gods power resisteth the ordinance of God and draweth to himselfe damnation The 2. that the King is Gods Minister and beareth the sword wherewith he doth defend the good and punish the wicked and that all must bee subiect not for wroth but for conscience That no man may thinke that Peter and Paul thought that obedience was due for the times sake and that they wanted force rather to resist Nero then a minde I will shut vp all in a word The Catholicke faith of the auncient Romane Church as it was deliuered by Paul the Apostle did inferre loyall subiection to a Pagan cruell King The Catholicke faith of the vpstart Church of Rome as it is deliuered by Paul the Byshop doth take away and ouerthrow Allegeance and all obedience as it were vnnaturall from a Christian King and such a King that euen by the confession of his Aduersaries is very mercifull Whom then shall we beleeue Paul the Apostle or Paul the Byshop an holy decree or an vnholy prohibition Neither were these commandements of Christ Peter and Paul of ciuill obedience to be shewed to Emperours Kings and ciuill Magistrates mutable according to times but are to be accounted perpetuall and eternall I haue laid the first foundation of our loyaltie the expresse and euerlasting commandement of Christ the second followes which is the practise of Christians § 16 Heere Saturnine before you go further saith he I yeeld that subiection reuerence honour fealty obedience is to be performed to a King A King excommunicated no King in poperie so long as a King is a king but if he leaue off to be a king then it ought no longer to be performed But he leaueth off to bee a King assoone as he is denounced to bee rightly excommunicated by the Vicar of Christ whereby he is presently accounted by law to bee deposed of his Kingdome and his subiects absolued from the Oath of obedience And although you laie very heynous and greiuous crimes of treason vpon our most holy Father and vpon many holy Priests and chiefly vpon the Iesuits yet if you would thinke of the matter a little better all this smoak of words would vanish to nothing For first I affimre that the Pope of right hath had and now hath this power then I affirme that assoone as he had it hee did put it in practise And yet it followeth not that he that defendes this as you conclude is a Traytor Thomas Aquinas obiected Vnlesse perhaps you dare account Thomas Aquinas that most glorious Saint and Angelicall Doctour to be a Traytor who writeth thus After that the Prince is denounced an Apostata all inferiours and subiects are to bee absolued from the Oath they had taken and from their obedience due vnto him And you may if you please ioyne with him Francis Toletanus obiected as a fellow in the like treason Francis Toletan a worthy Professor in our time who doth thus comment vpon Thomas Note saith hee that there is the same reason of one that is excommunicated because that assoone as one is denounced excommunicate all his subiects are freed from the fealtie The Laterane Councell obiected and that most famous Oecomenicall Lateran Councell held about 300. yeares since of 70. Pattiarches and Archbyshops and 400. and 12. Bishops and 800 other choice Prelates because it decreed that the Pope had the power we speake of do you thinke it was a conuenticle of Traytors Then Patriotta what Thomas Aquinas saith he what § 17 Toletane what Laterane Councell doe you speake of Thomas Aquinas writ 1200 yeeres after Christ was ouertaken with the error of his time and was the Popes vassall neither did hee alledge any Prophet Apostle or Doctor only he rested vpon the only example of Gregorie the seuenth who was the first that a 1000 yeeres after Christ did attempt by excommunication to cast Henry the 4. out of his Kingdom Pope Hildebrand no fit example against Kings A very weighty authoritie forsooth against a Kings sword which Christ ordeyned and to whom the Church of Christ as it shall appeare afterward obeyed for a 1000 yeeres of an vpstart Canonist dreaming in the darke night of Poperie that the subiects might be absolued by the Pope from the oath of obedience wherewith God had bound them and alleaging no other Author but Pope Hildebrand a turbulent and furious monster as he was accounted by his owne Cardinalls And yet Aquinas was somewhat more reasonable then Toletane Aquinas answered he thought that no mans subiects were to be absolued from their oath of obedience but his that was denounced an Apostata that for euer had fallen from all christianitie But Toletan forsooth Toletane answered the worthy professor of our age the Popes hireling with lesse learning and greater boldnesse as if he were some worshipfull Vmpire giues his sentence without all reason Note saith he that the case is all one of a Prince excommunicated by the Pope vpon any cause whatsoeuer Do you not
of excommunication that the Catholikes shall not take the Oath of Allegeance or else retract it being taken And it is to be doubted that to whom the definition of heresie doth agree whether heresie the thing defined doth agree That Grosthead being dead seemeth with his definition as with his Crosier-staffe to strike the Pope vpon his brest Then Saturnine What Schismatikes saith he what § 21 Sigebert what Vincentius what Grosthead with his Crosiers staffe do you reckon vp As if they were not all condemned by the Church because they were at contention with the head of the Church But that wee may not seeme rather to contend with the authorities of men then of God Paul the Apostle forbad to salute an Heretike yea he warneth that after the first or second admonition we should auoide him If it be not lawfull to salute an Heretike is it lawfull to serue and obey an Heretike Paul teacheth that we sacrifice an heretike as hatefull to God as a great sacrifice to him and tha◠we flie from him as from a gangrene And shall it not be lawfull to cut of the gangrene and cast it away lest it doe infect vs when as we are bidden to cut off our owne flesh if it be affected with a gangrene Now saith Patriotta you shew your selfe a right Iesuite § 22 when as Paul did forbid that we should salute an Heretike How heretikes are to be delt withall but auoide him after the first or second admonition in one word he did forbid voluntarie societie not necessarie dutie familiar salutations which curtesie affords not reuerent obseruance which pietie imposeth priuate acquaintance whereby soules are infected not publike obedience whereby gouernment is maintained It is not lawfull to salute an Heretike will you not therefore pay an Heretike the money that is owing him yes that I would say you I demand againe whether the debt of obedience be not more iust then the debt of money which is of greater force a debt contracted in your owne consent or that which is imposed vpon you by the commandement of God § 23 Here Saturnine We owe nothing saith he to Heretikes Nothing said Patriotta Doth not the seruant owe faithful seruice to his Master being an Heretike he oweth it you say to an Infidell not to an Heretike You trifle If you owe it to an Infidell which doth oppugne the faith doe you not owe it to an Heretike who only doth erre in the faith Doth not the wife owe faithfull obedience to her husband though he be an heretike yes when nothing may be the cause of diuorce but adulterie as Christ teacheth no not infidelitie it selfe as Paul saith Lastly children are bound to obey their Parents in the Lord although they be Heretikes Therefore shall not subiects much more obey the Prince Lord of the familie the husband of the common weale the publike father of the country although he be an heretike for heresie doth not dissolue the bond of dutie but breaketh of the knot of acquaintance But heresie is a gangrene as the Apostle faith But although we are commanded to cut of all heresie as a gangrene yet are we not commanded to roote out euery heretike It were wrong with the Papists if this your opinion were setled in our mens mindes But we leaue these parts of cruell Surgeons to your selues who presently betake your selues to lanching and fearing and alwaies vse the cutting knife and fire and look not for easier and gentler remedies But seeing in this quarrell you seeme to buckle with vs with weapons out of the Scripture which you doe seldom handle whereby you proue that Kings in right may be and in fact haue been depriued that subiects may by a word be absolued as by a word they were bound with an oath of obedience Goe to let vs see before you come to the second foundation the practise of Christians what you can say against vs in the former Then Saturnine I will freely speake saith he what I § 24 verily thinke God had not securely prouided for his Church if he had not sent some holy stout Prophets and Preists who might with their Church discipline correct and keep vnder such Kings as were wicked and tyrannous when they grew desperate Examples out of the old Testament 1. Saul and might remooue them being the hatred of God and men the shame to religion and the burthen to the people Therefore we read the first King ouer Gods people because he seemed to take vpon him the spirituall function was excommunicated by Samuel at Gods commandement and put from the possession of his Kingdome although after Dauids annointing and his owne deposing he held it by tyrannicall force many yeeres and did often attempt to murther both Dauid the competitour of the kingdome and Samuel the executioner of Gods decree as he had slaine foure-score and fiue of the holy Preists the Nobites Who knoweth not that a speciall Prophet was sent § 25 of God to Ieroboam King of Israel 2. Ieroboam who did denounce the iudgement of God against the King and the Kings race because he had separated the people by a wicked schisme from the ancient and true worship of God begunne at Ierusalem and had erected a new altar in Bethel whereby the schisme and diuision from the Apostolike See is properly prefigured and ordained a new Cleargy a hunger-starued and contemptible out of Aarons order such an one as yours is The sinne was afterward so seuerely punished according to the censure of the Prophet that there was none left of the Kings stocke to make water against the wall The King did very fondly lay hold vpon the man of God to kill him because hee thought the denouncing of Gods iudgement was treason against the Kings crowne and dignity § 26 3. Ozia We read likewise that Ozia the King of Iuda beeing puft vp with intolerable pride not content with the honour of a King did insolently presume to vsurpe the spirituall and Priestly office being stoutly withstood by Azaria and 80. other Priests and violently expelled out of the Temple and that because he threatned and resisted the Priests he was strucken with a filthy leprosie and therefore not onely cast out of the Temple but by their authority separated from the company of men which was a speciall figure of the Priestly authority vnder the new Law which may excommunicate Kings as well as others for heresie which is a spirituall leprosie and committed the gouernment of the Kingdome to Iotham his sonne An apparant example that it is lawfull for Priests to take armes and by force to bring vnder the wickednesse of Kings when as they deeme it is auailable for the preseruation of religion and the honour of God § 27 The zeale of the good Priests in the depriuing of that wicked Queen Athalia is worthily commended 4. Athalia whom Iehoida the cheefe Priest with a power of the Priests and Commons did command to be
put beside her throne and put to death and did annoynt and crowne the true heire § 28 Who is ignorant how couragiously Elias answered being designed to death by Achab and Iezabel 5. Ahab who had cast downe the holy altars and had slaine the true worshippers of God That it was not hee and other men of God but Achab and his house that had troubled Israel and with what zeale hee slew Iezabels false Prophets restored the holy altars called for fire from heauen wherewith he did destroy Ochozias captaines and messengers and annointed Iehu king ouer Israel and cast Achab with all his posterity out of the Kingdome of whom it is sayd That he put downe and ouerthrew Kings and cast the mighty out of their seats Eccles 48. as God appointed Ieremy ouer kingdoms that he should plant and roote them vp build them vp and plucke them downe Which power of Christs Preisthood vnder the new Testament doth appeare to bee farre larger and more ample and is giuen to the chiefe Preist the Bishop of Rome that he may in the name of Christ break in peeces and beat to powder with his iron rod as if they were earthen vessels such kings as lift vp themselues against Christ his Church which is his spouse his kingdome For by those examples it is euident that Kings annointed and iustly created may of right bee deposed Secondly for what causes they may in fact bee depriued Lastly that in the inauguration and consecration of kings as also in their depriuation God did vse the ministery of Priests and Prophets either ordinarie or extraordinarie to that purpose that they might be not onely Iudges but correctours of kings For whereas kings doe holde their dignity and supreame authority from God and haue bound themselues with all their might to promote the true religion and worship of God and the honour of their highest King and Lord and to gouerne the people in the faith and fear of God the Priests and Prophets to whom the cheefe and principall care of religion and soules is committed and who haue beene set aboue Princes in spirituall matters did of right oppose themselues against them in those passages which brought dishonour to God ruine to the religion and damnation to the soules of subiects and did exercise iustice and iudgement against their Princes in the name of God who abused their gouernment to ouerthrow the true worship of God brought in and established idolatry heresie and other abominations § 29 For there was betweene God and the King a certaine compact as it were which had force euer after either openly or at lest secretly that none should draw away their subiects either by force or by any other meanes from the faith of their Ancestours and from the religion holy ceremonies of God deliuered receiued by the hands of Preists whereby God did insinuate that if they did obserue these precepts and conditions they should long raigne with their posterity otherwise it should come to passe as we taught before that as the Prophets and Preists did annoint kings on that condition onely that they should defend and maintaine the worship and honour of God so likewise they should depose kings when they broke the couenant of God and fell to strange gods and draue their people to Apostasie And thus it appeareth it was vnder the olde Testament And if God did furnish the Priests and Prophets of the olde Testament with such power of excommunication whereby they might depriue wicked and tyrannous kings cast out of their thrones and driuen from the companie of men not onely of life if they could and this common light that they might bring no damage to the Synagogue with how much greater authority hath he strengthned the high priest of the new testamēt the vicar of Christ that he might cast out expell from the Communion of the Church beeing so cast out depose from their kingdomes such Kings as are Infidels Apostataes Heretickes and Tyrants and that not onely but release their peoples oathes giuen to such kings who haue broken their owne oath made to the Priest in the name of God at their coronation vnlesse we thinke that God had lesse care of his Church then of his Synagogue or doth more beare with Kings in these dayes who be heads of Apostasie from God then he did with Kings of former times Both which bee it farre from Gods Iustice and prouidence Truely he had left a miserable and a wretched Church as desolate and forsaken if he had exposed it being bereft of the helpe of holy Preists to the lust of cruell Tyrants that they might tosse and turne it at their pleasure and alter the state of religion euery yeere For whereas heeretofore Christian Bishops did not depose Nero Dioclesian Iulian the Apostata Valens and the like it was because Christians wanted temporall strength for otherwise they might haue done it by right I say by right the Bishops might haue depriued the Pagan-Emperours Apostataes and Hereticks if the Church had had that force to resist as before and after getting force it did resist Then Patriotta while in your malice Saturnine you § 30 suffer your selfe to bee thus carried against Kings you belch out notable blasphemy against God for what is blasphemy if this bee not to accuse Gods prouidence against the Church vnles he giue power to holy Preists to depose wicked Kings you haue very vnaduisedly founded the depth of Gods counsell with the plummet of your shallow iudgement who hath neuer the lesse I cannot tell whether much the more prouided for his Church as well by trying her patience with aduersity as seeking after thankfulnesse with prosperity aswell when he consumed the sinnes of the Saints by the persecution of Princes as when hee satisfied their desires with the mercy of pious Princes aswell by spoiling his sonnes of earthly pleasures recompencing them with the rewards of the blessed as continuing them hee delighted them with the comforts of such as were miserable Which I doe not speake to that end that I may excuse the cruelty of Tyrants but that I may set foorth the mercy of God because those things which they intend to the Saints for their euill God turneth to their good But you went about to daily with the expresse commandements of Christ and the Apostles with a few examples of the Priests and the Prophets ill vnderstood and farre worse applyed to the Pope How did that vnbeseeme a Diuine let vs therefore if you please waigh them seuerally § 31 Samuel you say did excommunicate Saul and being excommunicate cast him out of his kingdome Samuel did not excommunicate or depose Saul therefore the Pope hath power to cast a Prince out of his Kingdome I denie first the Antecedent It was not the Prophet but God himselfe that cast off Saul for his wickednesse for it is Gods onely prerogatiue to depose the mighty out of their thrones to raise vp those that are
erre greatly It was their office to discerne the leprosie the Magistrates to separate lest they should faint others That we may therefore vrge this figure against you It is the duty of Princes to separate the leprous that is hereticall Popes rather then of Popes to separate hereticall Princes But whereas you said the person of the King was stoutly assalted by Azaria and 80. other Priests and by violence cast out of the Temple that is an error far more dangerous For they did not violently cast him out but as the text hath it they caused him to make hast to go out of the temple no force at all being attempted For it followeth because the Lord stroke him he was forced of his owne accord to depart And so the word signifies and so your vulgar translation hath it which you call Ieromes he made hast to go foorth 2. Chron. 26. The Iesuits violence taxed But this error hath brought forth that dangerous sin Saturnine by the helpe of your conclusion as it were by the aide of a Midwife For you conclude it is a manifest example that it is lawfull for Priests by force of armes and by violent meanes to represse the wickednesse of Kings Azarias I confesse and the other Priests did resist the King but with words not with weapons And because he had broken the Law by burning of incense they did as it was meete sharpely reproue him neither did they forceably rush vpon the Magistrate or lay strong hand vpon him to driue him out of the temple much lesse out of the kingdome But your men Saturnine go further and from admonition fly to rebellion from reprehension to force from reprofe to armes being cousoned and deceiued by the false interpretation of this and the like places § 37 Here I appeale to you Princes neither to you only who haue departed from the Pope but to you who cleaue vnto him ☜ How long will ye suffer these martiall and swaggering Priests to abuse your patience how long shall this superstitious madnesse deceiue you An Ap strophâ— to popish Kings how long shall this wolâ—ish fearcenesse vnder sheepes cloathing assaile you how long shall they couer their detestable rebellion against kings vnder the cloake of religion And as if they fetcht poyson from heauen as Hercules Aeteus in the tragedie abusing the authoritie of holy Scriptures and examples of holy Priests gather force against your sacred persons and opprobry to your Maiesties This is said Saturnine to chaffe with vs not to dispute § 38 with vs. But marke the reason if you please why Ozias the king was stroken with the leprosie because he presumed to execute the spirituall and priestly function whereof you haue ordained your Kings supreame Gouernours I marke it well said Patriotta and when we maintain that it is lawfull for our Princes to preach the Gospell to baptise to minister the supper of the Lord to forgiue sinnes then cast vs in the teeth with Ozias pride and plague In the meane while learne that it is not for priests but kings to beare armes and the kings of Iuda who vsed the temporall sword to restore the truth and suppresse error which Dauid Iehosophat Ezekias Iosias were said to haue done got great fauour with God and great honour with men But wee when wee are iustly displeased with you whenas like seditious tribunes you stirre vp the commons against Kings and call them to armes wherewith they may vanquish the professours of the Gospell as occasion is offered then here I pittie you exceedingly that from Azarias example peeuishly vnderstood and wretchedly drawn to your purpose you draw from an idle figure so slender an argument of your out-rage that there appeareth neither probabilitie in the Antecedent or necessitie in the consequence And whereas you said that Athalia was depriued of § 39 her kingdome and put to death by Iehoida the priest with the forces of the priests and people Athaâ—â—â— iustly deposed but not by the Priest Ioash the right heyre whom hee preserued in the temple being proclaimed annointed and crowned king you held that the Pope might likewise rightly depriue a lawfull king for heresie both of his kingdome and life it doth lay open apparantly the wretchednesse of your cause For what can you say else then that a wicked woman who flew all Ochasias the kings ofspring one sonne only excepted and did vniustly vsurpe the kingdome was surprised and punished by the vndoubted and lawfull heire of the crowne the king being proclaimed and annointed and the crowne set on his head by the consent of the whole kingdome as you your selfe haue confessed But Iehoida the high priest commanded to put her to death not the king True but hee commanded it by the authoritie of the king not his own But the king you say was but a childe of seuen yeares of age but hee was no lesse a king at seuen yeares then if he had beene of seuentie yeares For age cannot take away the right of a kingdome which bloud hath giuen him Iehoida had Gods law mans law to approue his action But Iehoida when he commanded Athalia to be slaine in the kings name did it both by Gods law and mans law First he preserued the young king in the Sanctuarie being kept from the rage of Athalia and nourisht him secretly in the Lords house Againe hee was the chiefe of his Tribe as others were of theirs that hee might arrogate so much to himselfe as others might in the nonage of the king to pacifie the kingdome and to take vengeance vpon the vsurping Queene for the cruell tyrannie against the kings progenie Besides that his wife was the kings Ant and he was his neerest kinsman and therefore was bound both by the law of nature and nations to defend the kings right his age and innocencie Last of all whatsoeuer hee attempted was with the Kings authoritie and with the common counsell and consent of all the nobility For he conuented all the captaines and cheife Fathers of Israel vnto him into the house of God and made a couenant with them and exacted an Oath of them in the house of God and shewed the kings sonne vnto them And so being not only the high priest but chiefe also of his Tribe and neerest allie to the king nor with his owne but with the common counsell and consent of the Peeres nor commanded with his owne but with the kings authoritie that wicked Athalia iniustly vsurping the kingdome the kings ofspring being first murthered and extinguished to be cast from her kingdome and of her life What is this to the Pope to depose a lawfull king to be murthered by a rebellious people being first by excammunication deposed from his kingdome And whereas you bragge of Elias zeale who did not § 40 only answere king Ahab very stoutly but slew 400. Elias killed not Baals Priests of Iesabels false Prophets you tell vs of the act but you cunningly conceale
the cause and manner of it The famine of the kingdome and Elias miracle were the causes that king Ahab yeelded vp by a compact and publicke decree of the kingdome these false Prophets into Elias hands to be put to death according to Gods Law But Elias you say kild them What with his owne hand do you think the Prophet was a slaughter-man you will say no though they were not slaine by Elias hand yet by Elias authoritie You should say by his aduise rather then authoritie For Elias was a priuate man not a Magistrate But Ahab if Elias had not vrgd him had not slaine them I thinke so Elias mooued the king to do it but compeld him not Ahab gaue his consent with all Israel that the Baalitish priests who had seduced the king and kingdome should bee slaine being conuicted by Gods law For whenas a greeuous famine grew vpon them and that no raine could fall but at the word of Elias as hee had foretold Ahab before the drought being accused to Ahab to be the procurer of the famine and troubler of Israel defendeth himselfe and testifieth before the king that God had sent that plague vpon all Israel because he and his Fathers house had forsaken the commandements of God and worshipped strange Gods And to make his word good he offered before all Israel vpon paine to loose his head that the king and his people were seduced by Baals priests and that he would make it plain by a miracle that is with fire sent downe from heauen which should make it appeare whose sacrifice God did approue promising that they should haue plenty of raine after the conuersion of Israel to the true God and that he was sent to that end at that time The King accepts the condition all the rest giue their consents and when they plainly perceiued by the miracle of Elias that the Baalites were conuicted to be the deceiuers and should haue cast downe themselues vpon their faces and giuen glorie to God as the people did and should most humbly haue submitted them-selues to the truth of God Elias did aduise them to lay hands on the Baalites and to punish them with death by Gods law due to such seducers and deceiuers So Elias perswaded Ahab and all Israel to consent to the slaughter of the Baalites with a publike decree Therefore by the consent of the King the decree of the kingdome in so extreame necessitie by so notable a miracle wrought by the Prophet not by Elias hand but by his perswasion the people did in publike place put to death those Baalitish impostors according to the law of God publikely convicted How can you draw this example to your purpose Will you reason after this manner False Prophets may rightly be put to death by Magistrates therefore Princes may rightly be deposed by Priests I will not send you to the schooles to learne better Logicke but to * An I le in Thessaly where Eleborus groweth that purgeth Melancholie Anticyra to purge your foolish braine if you dispute after this manner § 41 But you will say hee consumed Ochasias captaines and souldiers with fire calld downe from heauen How Ochosias souldiers were destroyed by whom Elias spake the word God performed the deed That fire from heauen was not in Elias power but in Gods will And if Elias had not receiued a speciall instinct of Gods spirit to that end he durst neuer haue called for fire from heauen for that had been plainly to haue tempted God which Christ reproued in his Apostles desirous to imitate Elias As these were extraordinarie so by no meanes you can thence draw a conclusion for disputation or an ensample for imitation no more then you can allow of thest because Israel by Gods command spoyled the Egyptian or perswade that one kill himselfe because Sampson killd himselfe or teach that one may curse and kill vnhappy boyes because Elizeus handled fortie two in that manner that calld him bald pate in Bethell But here I doe acknowledge you to be very peruerse followers of Elias How the Papists differ from Elias in their fire-workes in that you goe about to vse consuming fire for Elias calld downe for fire from the height of heauen but you haue fetcht it vp from the depth of hell Elias by the instinct of God you by the instigation of the Diuell And yet Elias did not once touch the King much lesse depose him but you went about not only to depose the King but vtterly to consume the King with all his excellent progenie and kingdome But Elias you say did by Gods appointment anoint § 42 Iehu King ouer Israel and cast off Ahabs sonne and all his house for euer bearing rule in the kingdom Elias did not annoint Iehu but one of the sonnes of the Prophets whom Elizeus sent and chargde him in the name of God not in Elizeus name marke but in the name of God that Iehu should take sword in hand and roote out Ahabs house The King therefore was not cast off by the prophet but slaine by Iehu to whom God had giuen Ahabs kingdom that he might destroy Ahab and all his house and posteritie Now if you please let vs weigh your argument God may rightly giue a Kingdome to whom he will and by name stirre vp a subiect to punish his masters sinne therefore the Pope may rightly doe the same What Catholike King can be safe from the conspiracies of his subiects if once he begin to displease the Pope With such arguments our English Iesuites haue gone about to bewitch ou men that they may take away the liues of our most worthy Princes Be they not the very slaues of Antichrist and members of the Diuell who do flatter the Pope with such argumēts to the destruction of Kings § 43 But Elias did cast downe and destroy Kings that is to say did foretell they should be cast downe if you beleeue Hugo the Cardinall Hugo the Cardinal expounding Ieremie And Ieremie was set ouer Kingdomes to plant and roote out to build vp and plucke downe Kingdomes that is as that learned Cardinall expounds it I haue appointed you saith God to pull vp that is to threaten the Iewes that they shall be cast out of their owne countrey and that you destroy that is that you prophesie that the Citie of Ierusalem shall be destroyed and that you disperse that is that you foretell that they shall be dispersed by the Chaldean Princes and that yee scatter abroad that is foreshew that the kingdome of the Iewes shall be scattered abroad after the captiuitie And that the Iewes should not be cast into despaire hee did not only foreshew their captiuitie but their deliuerance also adding that he should build vp that is shew that the Citie should be re-edified and that you should plant that is tell the Iewes that they shall be planted in Iurie This literall sense Hugo the Cardinall did giue that I may omit the mysticall
the scepter the myter the crowne No maruell you say for then the Christian Byshops wanted temporall forces They might wel haue excommunicated and deposed Princes Ala contâ—exec Angli inst pa 167. if the Church had had power enough to resist As two great Masters of not building vp but of destroying diuinitie haue taught Alan and Bellarmine Bellar de Rom. Pont. lib. 5. cap. 7. So I beleeue the Apostle Paul when he saw the antient Christians to be few in number and weak in power § 58 taught them then not to resist the power How Paul vsed Princes belike he serued the time not the truth when he taught that subiects should be subiect to Nero for conscience sake For when they were encreased in number and power if wee beleeue these Cardinalls they should no more suffer as patient Martyrs but take vpon them like boasting souldiers For so they haue corrected the Apostles discipline with their worthy interpretation and put out the crowes eyes as the prouerbe is and haue wisely altered the rules of the holy Ghost which ought to be perpetuall and immutable to the practise of the Church as the case required But one thing I doubt much they cannot wipe away It is damnation to resist the power saith the Apostle Moses what is it then to lay violent handes vpon him Moses forbad that the people should not speake euill of their Gouernour would hee haue suffered Salomon if they could to resist him Salomon forbad that none should curse the king secretly in his conscience did hee grant by force to cast him off if they had might to do it Iudas Iudas the Apostle did stile them fitly Dreamers that spake ill of gouernment and despise such as bee in authoritie would he take these Cardinalls for holy Doctours who perswade the people to driue the king out of his kingdome if they can Let vs beleeue it if it be possible that Moses Salomon § 59 and Iudas the Apostle when they would haue the subiects tongues to bee tied vp they would leaue their hands to be loose Ieremy the Prophet exhorted the exiled Iewes that they should offer vp their prayers for the life of the King of Babylon Paul the Apostle did aduise the persecuted Christians to pray to God for the safety of Nero. Is it eredible that the Prophet and the Apostle for whom they would haue subiects praiers poured out that they would haue their blood to bee poured out vnlesse you thinke the Apostle was like to Charles the fift who commanded that publike prayers should bee made for the deliuerance of Clement the 7. whenas his owne legions kept him captiue I expect that the Cardinals doe thus expound the place of the Apostle to haue commanded them to haue prayed for Nero because they wanted force to resist which if they had got they might iustly haue gone from praying to violence and from orizons to weapons O warlike priests In the meane while what wrong do they offer to Peter and Peters successors who suffered death for Christ whom they insinuate not to haue wanted courage but power to resist And they make goodly Martyrs if when they died for the truth deliuered rebellious soules out of their afflicted bodies Tertul. in Apo. leget And I wonder that two so learned Cardinals were so ignorant of the historie to say that Christians might lawfully haue resisted if they had had strength when Tertullian doth alleage that they had power but might not lawfully resist Which if it may bee truely said of the second age after Christ how much more in the fourth fift and sixt age whenas Christians being graced by Princes and defended by lawes might professe the § 60 Catholike religion openly and freely It is an not able saying of Austen August in Ps 124. that the Christian souldiers did obey Iulian the Apostata their temporall Lord not because as these men dreame they wanted power to resist Christian souldiers obeyed Iulian. but for the Lord eternall For the souldiers in their warre against the Persians might easily haue surprised Iulian being farre from home Sâ—cra lib. 3. cap. 22. and succour But they were you will say Pagane souldiers Yea forsooth as Socrates tells vs the next day after Iulians death when Iouinian was chosen Emperour by them he refused that honor because he suspected the greater part of the armie to be heathenish all of them cryed out with one voice that they were Christians The Fathers writ against Iulian they fight not they vsed their pennes not their armes they strooke the Apostata with their arguments not with their weapons as they dealt afterward with Constantius and Valens hereticall Emperors But your Cardinals and Fathers do vndertake the § 61 businesse against Princes not with the penne but with the sword assoone as they bee denounced excommunicate for heresie and releasing their subiects from the Oath of allegeance tell them they may beare armes against them hauing beene sometimes their Princes and doe obtrude this as a principall head of Catholicke Religion making much for the saluation of their soules Although I haue lighted vpon some who before the sentence denounced by the Church hold that an hereticall Prince by right for the very act Caietane is to be remoued forcibly by the subiects But Caietane denieth that the subiects may be absolued before the sentence bee publickely denounced Very franckly that he will allow somewhat to an hereticall Prince But Alanus will haue all Heretickes not only after they be by name particularly denounced Alanus but by law and ipso facto as they say assoone as they beginne to appeare hereticall or be by law excommunicated should be put from their kingdomes For as Fame so Heresie Gathers strength by going forward Alanus is somewhat more earnest in the matter then Caietane who pronounceth that warre to be holy iust and honourable which subiects vndertake against their hereticall Prince and doth aduise the valiant Englishmen to take part with the enemie against the Queene But after our Cardinall had deliuered his opinion as Apollo from his three footed stoole Philop. 194. Philopater doth boldly affirme that it is an opinion certaine and of faith and vndoubtedly held of all the learned and agreeable to Apostolicall doctrine that euery Christian Prince if he flatly fall from the Catholicke religion and call others from the same to fall presently from all his power and dignitie by the force of Gods law and mans law and that before the sentence of the supreame Pastor and Iudge be denounced against him and that all manner of subiects are free from euery bond of Oath which they should by obedience haue performed to a lawfull Prince and that they may and ought if they haue power cast out from the gouernment of Christians such a man as an Apostata or Hereticke and a Renegate from Christ the Lord and an vtter enemie to the common weale § 62 There is an
other sprung vp a man of a more fierie spirit De iustae abdica Hen. 3. Gal. Re. William Reynolds and another Saturnine or Gracchus William Reynolds who said that Henry the third French King was ipso factâ— excommunicated because hee fauoured Heretickes Who after a long disputation concludes that hee was lawfully put to death before the excommunication published For saith hee publicke greife doth not attend for legale formes And though in a hidden crime no man ought to be condemned his cause not being heard or the partie not being cited yet in publick and notorious crimes the euident knowledge of the fact is in stead of the sentence What would this man doe to an Hereticke Prince who thought a Catholicke not to be spared § 63 Symancha proceedes farther and he affirmes that by the law a secret Hereticke is to be eâ—communicate Symancha and not he alone but his sonne also because Heresie is a leprosie and that leprous sonnes are begotten by leprous Parents and therfore to be put from the succession of the kingdome O dambd Rascall that cuts vp the roote with the branches Aquinas Toletane and Caietane were more temperate these goe to the quicke neither speake they so mildely and schollerlike but they speake to the purpose I could name you some Priests that beare armes and that you held Saturnine to be lawfull Very odious said Saturnine are these your calumniations § 64 wherewith you load our Priests as if they had carried armes they vse spirituall not temporall swordes But your spirituall sworde must command the temporall if the Pope command said Patriotta And you perswade that other should take armes as Alanus did The practise of Papists But what difference is there betweene the Author of a mischiefe and the Actor Whether you counsell others to beare armes against the Prince or beare them your selfe you doe not arme the hand of a Subiect but you enflame his minde You doe not drawe forth the sword but you whet on the spirit with absolutions promises praises rewards not onely in this life but in the life to come Is this your Catholike faith Doth this make for the saluation of soules Christ and his Apostles did instruct both by their doctrine and example their disciples to humilitie patience faith and obedience You stirre vp your disciples to insolencie furie treacherie and sedition Good God how farre doth your new Diuinitie differ from the ancient You haue seene alreadie what Christ and his Apostles taught now marke what they did Christ for the redemption of the Church suffered his blood to be shed Christs Vicare as he is cold for the enlarging of his Empire is euer shedding other mens blood Peter and Paul for the confirmation of their faith did with quiet mindes endure martyrdome inflicted by the Prince And many Romane Byshoppes did afterward tread in the same steps But you their degenerated and bastardly ofspring for the sealing vp of your treacherie did go about with most bloody mindes to bring the most barbarous martyrdome vpon our whole Nation that euer was deuised since man was created O vnworthy attempt Therefore the spirituall Father of Kings as hee is stiled shall he tread vnder foote the maiestie of a King And the vniuersall Pastor of the flock feed himselfe fat not with the milke but with the blood of the flocke And shall hee breake in peeces Scepters with his crosiars staffe And stall he stirre vp the people being quiet whom hee should haue quieted being stird vp And shall he set together by the eares Princes being at peace whom being at a iarre hee should haue appeased And shall hee set forth with the holiest title of religion those two wicked policies the discord of Kings and the rebellion of Subiects As if when he fild all places with garboiles and murthers he shall thinke hee hath deserued Gods fauour by the bloody sacrificing of innocents § 65 God hath hitherto disclosed the Popes deuises against the English Church and God hath taken vengeance on you and that stone which you tost vp and downe is ô ye seditious Priests rould down vpon your own heads For what Do you not thinke that your daily conspiracies are not as clearely apparant as the noone day and all your deuises with many proiects made knowne and euident that you as subtile Sinons lurke closely among vs professing loue to your Catholickes worse then any hatred perswading them to violate their faith sworne to the King and hayle in that Troiane horse full of deceit pernitious aswell to them as to vs That haue your Cursitors as Pegasus who runne about hither and thither quickly taking vp all reports that may inueigle mens mindes and watch for all occasions That haue your boy-priests gadding vp and downe who may increase your number and forces and as Gracchus striplings may stir vp such as be offended already and prouoke them to an vprore That set the olde and greater Foxes ouer these cubbes who first open the schoole of deceites to them and a shoppe of craftie deuises teaching that the Pope hath plenarie power to depose a King and absolue their subiects from the Oath of fealtie and that the King though hee bee not by name excommunicated doth yet stand excommunicated by diuers buls because he hath infringed the authoritie of the Popes supremacie c. and therefore that the subiects may if fit oportunitie be offred attempt any mischiefe against his sacred person perswading them in the meane while to dissemble their faith and shew an outward obedience to the King while they reserue their heart to the Pope You cherish closely your Catelines who when the conspiracie waxeth ripe may be your Captaines and standerd-bearers to execute your wicked deuises with actions and armes Lay aside therefore that visard of religion which you haue worne so long cast away that habit of grauitie plucke of that cloke of sanctitie appeare such as you are confesse your selues to be the trumpets of warre not of the word that you feed not soules but seeke for blood that the Magistrate may distinguish between a deuout and a quiet and between a Machiuilian and a turbulent Papist But you Calander and you the rest of English Papists § 66 that be Laickes I beseech you by Iesus Christ I doe exhort you by your owne saluation that you repell these Sirens musicke not onely vnprofitable but hurtfull to the hearers from your eares and your mindes lest you bring a most iust reproch vpon the true Catholike Religion an incurable wound to the conscience a lamentable ruine to your familie and an extreme plague to your country This I had to say of the fealtie and obedience of subiects to bee performed to Kings and Magistrates ordeyned by the perpetuall commandement of Christ and the Apostles against the inhibition of the Pope and the sophismes of the Iesuites it followeth that I pursue the second foundation of our obedience the examples of ancient Christians and chiefly of the Roman
Bishops vnlesse happily any other course seeme better to you Then Calander I promise you said he that nothing § 67 is more acceptable to vs that I may make answer for Argentine my friend I neuer doubted of ciuill obedience to be rightly performed to good Kings by Catholikes I thought to confesse the truth I was absolued from the oath of obedience to Heretikes and Tyrants after once they were denounced excommunicated by the Pope and now lawfully deposed from their kingdome Now seeing I perceiue that Christ Peter and Paul not only taught but shewed ciuill obedience to Tiberij and Neroes and to be so farre from taking from them with their diuine power as they might their scepter sword and Crowne that vnder them they laid downe their life to confirme their faith and obedience You haue said that which makes me begin to doubt of such force of excommunication and such power of the Pope For when I did diligently obserue euery passage of your disputation Patriotta out of that perspicuous and short exposition as it were consisting of those three texts I must needes confesse that the sparkes of this vnknowne and vnhard of truth did first cast them selues into mine eyes wherewith the authoritie of Aquinas Toletane and Laterane Councell for their power of excommunication and the authoritie of the Pope alleaged by Saturnine presently brought a mvst ouer them But light was brought out of the myst by Fristugensis Vrshergensis Sigebert and Vincentius and all the ancient and sincere Catholikes and graue witnesses of those times as I heare my Velbacellus affirme at what time Gregorie the 7. did first attempt to driue Henry the 4. Emperor by his excommunication out of his kingdome Here Saturnine being driuen from humane authorities betooke himselfe to diuine But whatsoeuer he tooke Patriotta straight-way caught it out of his hands where hee said that the Apostle forbad wee should not salute an heretike and commanded to auoide him after one or two admonitions Patriotta made answer that hee forbad voluntarie societie not necessarie subiection priuate familiaritie not publike obedience And when he prest that a gangrene was to be cut of he instantly replyed that it was not an heretike but heresie was compared to a gangrene and with a religious kinde of charitie as it seemde sparing the heretike thought good the heresie should be rooted out And from thence in my iudgement concluded not amisse when no heretike was to loose his inheritance or his life that a King much lesse was to be depriued either of his life or inheritance by reason of heresie Here Saturnine bent all the force of his wit and betaking himselfe into the fortifications of the old Testament from euery place gathering the forces of examples with arguments drawne from thence fought very valiantly so that when I heard him alone he made me consent almost vnto him But this heretike Patriott shrunke not a foote but presently buckled hand to hand He had said that Saul was deposed Patriot as the truth was distinguished that the person of Saul was not remoued from the possession of the kingdome but his of-spring from the succession But by whom euen from GOD not from Samuel whom hee proued to be not a Iudge but a messenger nor to haue inflicted the punishment of deposing but to haue published the decree and that not by the right of his generall vocation but by speciall instinct and reuelation from God not as Prophet but as a Prophet appointed to that end to annoint Dauid for the succession of the kingdome whom God had named with his owne mouth So that nothing can accrue to the Pope from hence vnlesse he can proue he haue receiued a reuelation to depose a Prince When hee contended that Ieroboam was cast aside § 68 by the Prophet he againe denied it confessing hee was greeuously reproued by the Prophet not violently remoued Saturnine assaults againe that Ozias a Leper was by force driuen out of the Temple by Azaria and 80. Priests and that he was separated from the societie of men and the gouernment committed to Iothan his Sonne Here Patriott a better Text-man as it seemeth denied that the King was put out of the Church forceably but being strooke with a leprosie was enforced by his owne accord to depart out of the Sanctuarie not out of the kingdome the right whereof hee reserued to himselfe to his dying day and put ouer the gouernment to his sonne as to his Vicegerent And that a Leper neuer lost his priuate inheritance much lesse his publike And when as heresie is a leprosie nor euer any was depriued of his kingdome for leprosie and therefore for heresie none was to be depriued Which reason must needs satisfie me in this businesse vnlesse it can be proued that the leprous Iewes lost their inheritance And when Saturnine affirmed that the lepers were separated from the company of men by the Priests Patriotta excepted against it that it was their duty to discerne the leprosie but the Magistrates were to put them apart So that the iudgement of the businesse belonged to the Preists the parting of the person to the Magistrate Whence he concluded and retorted it vpon Saturnine who sayd that heresie was a spirituall leprosie that it followed from this figure that the King ought rather to separate an hereticall Pope then the Pope an hereticall king So that this figure was more hurtfull to the Pope then to the King § 69 One thing there was which both Patriott did shrewdly re-enforce against you Saturnine and did likewise mightily offend vs all when you concluded out of Azarias example that it was lawfull for Preists to take armes to represse the wickednesse of Kings for the Preist resisted the King not with arms but with words vnlesse perhaps you will take a greeuous admonition reproofe and reprehension for armes Azarias did not cast the king out of the temple much lesse out of the kingdome And doe you thinke of corslets swords and lawnces wherewith a warlike Preist may remooue a King from his throne fie vpon this proud vanitie A Bishop ought not to bee a striker much lesse a warriour It was not lawfull for Dauid to build vp Gods materiall Temple because he was a man of bloud and will you build vp Gods spirituall Temple with bloudy hands But I referre you to the canons and goe forward For where you sayd that Athalia was lawfully deposed § 70 by Iehoida the Preist it was first answered that shee was neuer rightly created and crowned Againe that she was deposed by Iehoida not as hee was high Preist but cheife Prince of his tribe and next allie to the king nor by himselfe alone but ioyned with all the Nobles of the kingdome not with the authority of the Preist but by the authority of Ioash being first annoynted and crowned by him that whatsoeuer he did he seemed to doe by the power of the king with the common consent of the Peeres and Nobles against the wicked
vsurper of the Kingdome which had murthered all the Kings Progeny What is this to the Pope that hee may depose a lawfull Prince with his Bishoply authority And whereas you propounded Elias zeale to bee imitated by you Patriott answered truely that your zeale was too fiery and would proue too preposterous vnlesse you could prooue you had Elias speciall instinct And when you said that Achab was remooued from his Kingdome by Elias or Elizeus it is partly true partly false It is true that you say he was remooued but by Iehu whom one of the sonnes of the Prophets did annoynt by Gods speciall commandement which God gaue to Elizeus that Iehu should roote out all the posterity of Achab. Hee was not therefore deposed by Elias or Elizeus but by Iehu whom God had raised vp by name extraordinarily for that purpose Neither did the sonne of the Prophet when hee annoynted Iehu beginne thus thus sayth Elizeus but thus saith the Lord. This doth no whit help the popes cause that Patriott did somtime scatter abroad your arguments as brooms that are not bound together and enforced him as a cripple with a broken legge to halt now vpon one leg now vpon both both in his antecedent and consequent as if the antecedent retained neither truth in the matter or Law in the forme and the consequent had lost all the necessity of proofe So that you neither did helpe the popes power or satisfie our consciences For it was to no purpose as he rightly said to seeke for causes at the last why princes should in fact be deposed by preists and prophets when you cannot proue that any was deposed § 71 You therefore as it seemes could not alleadge that any king was deposed by a priest but Patriott did alleadge that a preist was deposed by a king one especially Abiathar by Salomon This did not onely not help but hurt the popes cause Heere when you did enforce the couenant between God and the King your ready aduersary did demand if the King breake any of the articles of agreement who would enter suite against him or in what court or consistory were hee to bee accused And out of your owne grant hee concluded when you said that the king held his supreame authority taken from God and therefore the king was to yeeld account to God alone in the heauenly court for his gouernment Two pillers of gouernment ouerthrowen And where there are two pillers of gouernment Authority in the King and obedience in subiects which for all our good we are to keep safe sound you seemed Saturnin to ouerthrow them both when you made the king as it were an hypotheticall propositiō and the subiects conditionales but when you made the Popes categoricall and absolute although I reuerence them as most holy fathers yet I will speake truly you haue dealt herein as an vnskilfull Phisition who gets a more greeuous disease to the body by curing one that is easier Being repelled from the old Testament you fled into § 72 the strength of the new and here I had great hope that that your feede my sheepe and I will giue you the keyes had well strengthned the Popes authoritie and sharpned the edge of ecclesiasticall excommunication But it fell out otherwise For the aduersarie proued that by the first wordes diligence was enioyned the Byshoppe to feede the flocke and by the second were committed the keyes of the heauenly not the earthly kingdome And he brought for proofe not onely Augustine and Bernard as common witnesses but Aquinas Pope Vrbane Dominicus à Soto and Ludouicus Rycheomus all of them being on our side who thought the force of the keyes to be not in possessions but in crimes not in binding Scepters but sinnes and iudge it not to be a rooting vp but a meere discipline What you doe you thinke these to be Heretickes as lately you tearmed Sigebert and Vincentius what maruell is it if strangers accuse the Pope when his owne condemne him if his enemies set vpon him when his friends forsake him if the late Catholickes leaue him when the ancient forsake him The first foundation therefore of our obedience laid by Patriotta vpon the perpetuall and vnchangeable commandement of Christ and his Apostles standes firme and sure vnlesse you thinke that it be lawfull for the Vicar of Christ an holy man though a sinner to plucke downe the sacred tables of the Testament to violate the heauenly lawes of Christ and to abrogate the eternall decrees of God Forwhereas in the end you say that the Apostles and their Successours might lawfully haue deposed Nero Dioclesian Iulian Constantius Valens and the rest if the Church had had power to resist you would neuer haue said it as your aduersarie rightly obiected vnlesse you thinke the holy Apostles and fathers were dissemblers who obeyed those euill Emperours for feare not for dutie for times sake not for conscience sake wherein we heard that not the holy Scripture only but the antient historie was directly against you § 73 That we may greatly lament that Bellarmine and Alan so great wittes brought forth so wicked an vntruth And that we may omit Symancha Creswell Reynoldes Parsons and others of our side who brought all their wit and eloquence to patronize so wicked a cause with Alan trumpets not of the word but of warre and we must needes confesse that they haue brought an ouerthrow to many Catholicke families and a plague to their Countrie but also a torture to our consciences and an euerlasting infamie to the Catholicke religion Wherfore leaue off I pray you any more to solicite vs in this cause Saturnine vpon whose head wee see your first argument to be retorted by Patriotta who confest that subiection reuerence honour fealtie and obedience is due to a King while the King is a King But the King is king and we be subiects notwithstanding any excommunication or authoritie of the Pope whatsoeuer as Patriotta hath proued against you as it seemes to vs not only with common but with proper arguments of our owne Catholickes It followeth therefore by your owne confession that all subiection reuerence honour fealtie and obedience is to be performed of vs to our King § 74 Then Saturnine I am right heartily sorry most honourable Calander and am much vext with all that you whom wee euer held a deuout sonne of the Romaine Church now to finde a Renegate in the Heretickes tents and not onely doubting of the supreame authoritie of the Byshoppe but that which is farre worse and more dangerous to your soule oppugning it For not onely the excommunication of Princes which to diuers seemes to be the soueraigne censure of the ecclesiasticall and spirituall power of the Pope belongeth vnto him but their ouerthrow also and rooting out which proceedes not from the power of excommunication but from the power of a certain supreame authoritie in the Pope either as he is directly the Lord of the temporalties or indirectly in
to the spirituals Carerius a Doctour of Padua Carerius against Bellarmine a sharpe witted and earnest fellow hee is of a contrarie opinion and doth not only striue with argument but laies a curse vpon the aduersaries sparing none no not Bellarmine himselfe whom he taking in hand of purpose to refell in a whole booke written as the Preface importes against the wicked Polititians and Heretickes of our time did a little too plainely touch the Cardinall So farre are they from agreeing in the manner of diriuing so great authoritie to the Pope from Christ Here Patriotta your Doctours saith hee § 83 seeme praeposterously to wrangle among themselues of the manner to deriue such authoritie from Christ when as yet it appeareth not that he hath any at all and in vaine do they argue whether the Pope receiued directly or indirectly such gouernment when it is doubtfull whether he receiued any or no. But I easily grant them by their dissenting about the manner to ouerthrow the thing it selfe that the confusion of tongues may againe seeme to happen in building their tower of Babel § 84 Then Velbacellus somewhat more gently I pray Patriotta Although that I ingenuously confesse while they thus egerly striue among themselues about the manner and ouerthrow their owne opinions with mutuall contradictions they seeme to leaue the Pope very small or no authoritie at all in temporalties For Carerius saith the Pope hath either ordinarie and direct authoritie to depose Kings as he is Pope or he hath no authority at all But he hath none direct and ordinarie as he is Pope by Bellarmines assumption Therefore hee hath none at all by Carerius conclusion It were long to set downe all the reasons drawne from Scripture whereby Bellarmine hath vtterly ouerthrowne the direct and ordinarie authoritie of the Byshoppe neither were it necessarie because they may bee had in his fift booke he set out so that men may thinke hee spake one thing and thought another Which when he might not touch openly for offending the Pope he did with sleights and deuises impugne that he might by any meanes deliuer the truth For he seemeth indirectly that I may vse his owne aduerbe to take away all power of the Pope of depriuing Princes For if the Pope as hee is Pope cannot directly and ordinarily depose Princes though the cause bee iust as Bellarmine saith and yet as hee is the chiefe spirituall Prince may dispose of kingdomes taking them from one and giuing them to another if it be necessarie for the sauing of soules that is indirectly in order to spiritualls as hee affirmeth what other thing did he closly insinuate but that the Pope had no power at all to displace Princes For Saint Peter neither did or could transfer any power but ordinarie Besides it is plaine that the Pope is no otherwise the chiefe spirituall Prince but as he is Pope so that what he cannot do as Pope he cannot do as he is the chiefe spirituall Prince Which Carerius concludeth against Bellarmine and doth vrge it with this grant that the Pope is properly called Gods Vicar Either he is not saith he the Vicar of Christ or else he deposeth inferiour powers as Pope But he deposeth them not as Pope by the witnesse of Bellarmine He is not therefore the Vicar of Christ by the conclusion of Carerius So Bellarmine gaue Christs Vicar so greiuous a wound if we beleeue Carerius that he could neuer cure with all the remedies of his distinctions And Carerius while he deckes him with strange fethers spoiled him of those were his owne Whom while hee ordeined Lord of the temporalties hardly left him Lord of the spiritualties In the mean time when neither the direct nor indirect power bee a matter of faith formally determined by the publicke sentence of the Church as Alanus and Couarruvias confesse there was no reason why Saturnine should call my friend Blackwell wretched Apostata who neuer swarued from the Catholick faith vnlesse by inueighing so bitterly against Blackewell he vaunt himselfe to be of the contrarie faction Then Patriotta I willingly behold Bellarmine and § 85 Carerius as Cadmeyes brethren or the Madianites cutting one anothers throate But I could more willingly behold the Pope as a iacke-daw dispoiled of his Egles and Doues feathers which he hath stolne which is of all his regall and Byshoply ornaments wherewith hee hath so long ietted so proudly and terribly vp down but I leaue this cause to God to be mended by him at his due time But truely Baronius and Carerius with all their faction doe flatter the Pope more grosly but Bellarmine with his cunning opposition flatters him more smoothly being the more dangerous enemie to Kings because the more cloase But that I often obserued the witty old fellow crossing of himselfe with his owne trickes and coyning those distinctions whereby hee vnweaued those things which he had weaued before O Penelopean skill of disputing But while he doth touch kings crownes indirectly and tels vs that it is all in the Pope so that he thinkes it meete to belong to a spirituall end he bewraieth lesse malice but greater craft Here Argentine who had kept silence from the beginning looking earnestly first on Saturnine then on Velbacellus Saturnine saith he seemes to me to bee more strickt in this matter then is requisite and Velbacel more loose and remisse because he gaue too much authority this none at all to our most holy father to suppresse Kings when neede requires This great Doctour of the Church therefore Bellarmine tooke a middle course who first ouerthrew that infinite power of ordinarie and inherent gouernment then retained that extraordinarie and borrowed authority in the Pope least Kings like vntamed coultes as it were not hauing bitte and bridle should waxe too lustie whom the most holy Pope might bring againe into the circle of religion and iustice if once they began to start out first with his counsell and after if that were relected with some other moderate chastisement Which would be the most safe course for Kings and very auaileable for subiectes § 87 Then Carolus Regius this moderate chastisement of Kings Argentine as you call it is their vtter ruine and rooting out if you vnderstand Bellarmine aright For there lurkes vnder those Aduerbes certaine deceites which subiectes haue found to be as damnable to them as Kings haue For he bringeth in your Pope whom one doth well tearme Satans Asse with this his extraordinarie and borrowed power which he bestowed vpon him curbing of Kings with a bridle when the raynes lay on his owne necke turning and ouerturning kingdomes at his pleasure taking them from one and giuing them to another Meanes of the Popes greatnesse when he thinketh good that it is for the order tending to spirituall good And by what counsells he alwaies vsed to take from Kings both their kingdomes and their liues all histories do shew them to haue beene by the emulation of
neighbour Princes the faction of subiectes the treason of the nobles and the superstition of the people And doe you call this a moderate chastisement And safe for kings and good for subiects Wherein as there are many thinges very vniust and vnworthy so those are most of all that hee tearmeth these wicked treacheries holy counsells and pretendes that they tend in order to a spirituall end And doe in that manner sowe the scruples of conscience mingled with the seedes of treacherie in the harts of men as if the graines of religion and rebellion had sprung out of one and the same blade So it comes to passe that the Romane faith at this day doth beget and nourish most dangerous faction both to Kings and subiectes which so long is very demure and humble till as a wise man obserues it hath found the keye of power and authoritie For as all faction which springs out of the heate of desire is dangerous so that is most dangerous which riseth out of the scruple of conscience For when it riseth from desire it is like fire that taketh hold of stubble which though presently it rise vp into a great flame yet soone being consumed is extinguished But when it ariseth from the conscience it is like fire that heates iron which getting his strength but slowly keepes it surely as a very worthy and a wise Senator left it in writing Wherefore that which Bellarmine said of the Oath of § 88 allegeance that it was not therefore lawfull because it was offered someway tempred and qualified that may more iustly be said of the Popes temporall dominion as it is qualified and tempered by Bellarmine knowe therefore Argentine that such qualifications are nothing else but Satans sleights and deceits wherewith the maiesty of Kings is either openly or closely assailed which Christ hath fortified plainely with his commandements That these vaine pretences of Aduerbes are Sathans ginnes and stratagems whereby vnder the colour of religion he bringeth vtter destruction both to your soules and bodies But because you will not giue as good credite to vs as to your owne men and I think it not meete to take vpon mee Velbacellus part I pray you Calander entreat your Confessour that hee would lay open and vnfold the subtill and hurtfull fleights deuises of this working braine Yeelde so much saith Calander to the Catholikes your friends Velbacellus yeelde it to the Catholike religion which is necessary to bee discerned from these false Catholike opinions as you call them lest the consciences of Catholikes be corrupted § 89 Then Velbacell I will doe saith hee as you require me in respect of my duty to the King not vnwillingly but against the Popes inhibition not so willingly howsoeuer it bee I answer for the satisfying of the conscience sincerely and for the Catholike religion not vnfitly The Oath of Allegeance and Supremacy confounded by Bellarmine And I maruell much that Bellarmine beeing a learned man and of great wit did confound the Oath of Allegeance with the Oath of Supremacy but I am greeued at the heart that the supremacy of the Pope which he doth of right enioy in spirituall and ecclesiasticall causes is so enfolded with the worldly gouernment which is in temporall and ciuill causes that hee brings his lawfull authority in hazard to be lost Adde thereto that when he had ouerthrowen the direct dominion of the Pope in all temporall matters with sound reasons hee did maintaine the indirect gouernment in order to the spirituall as hee speaketh with such slight flaggy arguments that with this his playing fast loose hee seemes to haue left him no authority at all Although other thinke otherwise and thinke that hee doth aswell submit Kings crownes to the Popes feete as Baronius doth But let it bee as euery man takes it Hee cannot directly take away the crownes from Kings What then but he can indirectly hee cannot as Pope ordinarily depose Kings but extraordinarily he can as hee is the cheife spirituall Prince Hee hath not inherent authority but that is fetcht else where much forsooth what matter is it with what authoritie Kings be cast off if they may be cast off by the Pope But they be worse then mad who subiect the crownes of Kings to schoole-distinctions Heere Saturnine But although sayd hee it please § 90 you to scoffe at the distinctions of Catholike Doctors yet I hope you will not deny that the Pope is Lord of all the temporaltyes which doth belong to the Bishopricke of Rome But that England Ireland are portions of Peters patrimony and the Bishop of Romes temporalties it is plaine by the articles of agreement betweene Alexander the third Pope of Rome and Henry the second King of England agreed on in the yeere of the Lord 1171. who when he was absolued by the Pope for the death of Thomas of Becket did couenant that none should afterward accept that Crowne of right or should be acknowledged for King till hee had his confirmation from the cheefe pastour of our soules Which couenant was renewed in the yeere 1210. by Iohn King of England who had confirmed the same by oath to Pandulphus the Popes Legate at the request of the Barons and Commons as a matter of great importance to preserue the common-weale to keepe it from the vniust vsurpation of Tyrants and to auoyd other mischeefes whereby before they had smarted and to preuent that they fall not into the like againe by the default of any wicked King thereafter Wherefore if it bee honourable and pious for the Bishop to dispose of the kingdome being made tributary why may hee not likewise depose a refractory and a disobedient Prince § 91 Then Velbacellus you alleadge saith hee a worme eaten and ridiculous charter whereby you make the King of England Tributarie to the Pope England not tributarie to the Pope neither can bee which was neuer done and if it were it neither could or ought binde the successours Kings of England For Rome neither can nor euer could at any time shew such a grāt as Thomas Moore that great Catholike doth argue and if it could it was to no great purpose for no King of England might at any time giue away England to the Pope or make his kingdome tributary though he were so disposed Therefore let vs passe by that counterfet compact and that friuolous deuise and let vs returne to the matter in hand The question is not Saturnine of the true temporalties of the patrimonie of Peter but of the true temporalties of the patrimony of Kings the soueraignty whereof either directly or indirectly is giuen to the Pope and it is giuen either by Law diuine or positiue and therefore the temporalties of Kings doe no more belong to the Pope then the temporalties of Peter belong to Kings And euery King may as well depriue a Pope as any Pope may depriue a King And an Emperour may aswell he called Lord of all the spiritualties as
sincere humblenesse of minde Did not Meltiades the Bishop of Rome acknowledge Constantine the great to be supreme head in things spirituall Meltiades Euseb l. 1. cap. 5 August lib. 1. con Parmen Epist 162. alibi Reticio materno Marino and did he not humblie obey him when as hee as the Emperour commanded together with others did heare the cause of Cecilianus and Donatus about the choice of a Bishop committed by the Emperour not to himselfe alone but to other Colleagues who when as Donatus first appealed from the sentence of Meltiades hee committed the whole matter againe to bee discussed by the Councell Aralatense called together by him excluding Meltiades out of it from which Councell when Donatus did the second time appeale because Caecilianus had receiued his ordination from Foelix hee referred Foelix businesse to Aelianus a ciuill Magistrate to whose sentence when Donatus would not stand the Emperour called the whole cause before himselfe and determined it Meltiades was farre from the soueraigntie of all temporalties when the Emperor committed an Ecclesiasticall cause first to him and other Delegates and after appointed second Iudges and lastly called the whole cause before his Royall Maiestie and by himselfe determined it Meltiades being excluded § 96 Damasus Siritius Anastasius did they not acknowledge Theodosius the elder their supeme Lord Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 23. Damasus Siritius Anastasius and most humbly submitted themselues vnto him when as Flanianus was greeuously accused before the Emperours Maiestie that hee had intended vpon the See of Antioch against the canons of the Church was freed by the Emperour against their willes and commanded to returne to his countrey and feede his flocke committed to his charge Innocentius I thinke Innocent did acknowledge Arcadius sonne to Theodosius his supreme Lord when we was an humble suter to the Emperour that hee would command a Councell to be assembled for the examination of Chrysostomes cause whom for all that the Arrian Emperour did reiect in a good cause Nicephor lib. 13. cap. 3. and sent away his messengers with reproach as perturbers of the Westerne Empire draue Chrysostome farther off into banishment publisht a decree wherein he inflicted a penalty of depriuation vpon all Bishops who fauoured either Innocent or Chrysostome and would not communicate with Atticus Chrysostomes successour Innocents cause was the better at that time but Arcadius authority was the greater It was then no new matter that the Bishops of Rome were humble supplicants to Emperours so farre was it that they had rule in ciuill causes Leo the Bishop did humbly entreat Theodosius the § 97 younger to command a Councell of Bishops to be called together in Italy to represse Eutiches heresie Leo Epist 9. which place the Emperour would not heare off but assembled the Councell at Ephesus where when Dioscorus the Bishop of Alexandria had opprest the truth and confirmed Eutiches heresie and had cast out Orthodoxall Flauianus from his Bishopricke of Constantinople Leo did the second time earnestly entreate the Emperour that he would command a generall Councell to be gathered in Italy Epist 24. which for all that Theodosius would not grant to the good olde man If at that time the Bishop could haue commanded the Emperour what neede had hee to entreate him if the power of assembling Councels had beene in Leo why did he giue such deep sighes why did he shed so many teares wherewith he might mooue the Emperours gentlenesse in that businesse which when hee saw was denied him in so great an hatred of the Christian faith why did not the Lyon beginne to roare and affright the Emperour with excommunication why did hee not cast him out of his throne why if hee might haue done it lawfully did hee not deale with him by threatnings or by force of armes but then the Bishops of Rome did attempt all things with prayers and teares not with threats and weapons Epist. 43. When Theodosius was dead he did as humbly and as earnestly entreat Martian who had gathered together the Chalcedone Councell that with his Imperiall decree hee would disanull the Councell of Ephesus and command the Chalcedone Councell that they should not swarue from the Nycene faith Leo's piety certainely was great farre greater then his authoritie but his piety at the last obtained that it required Wherein Leo was not superiour but happier in that the Imperiall authority was answerable to the Bishops holinesse § 98 Gregorie the great did humbly tell Mauritius the Emperour Gregor Q. 2. Epist 61. that the charge he enioyned him as hee thought was vniust and yet being commanded did publish the Emperours decree I did said hee performe my duty each way who both gaue obedience to the Emperour and for God deliuered my minde what I thought Lib. 5. Epist ad ora de bal. fili tradendis I thinke he did imitate Ambrose whose answer to Valentinian the younger being an Arrian Emperour is very memorable being commanded to allot one church in Millain to the Arrians which though he condemned the thing granted I will said hee neuer willingly part with my right and being compelled I haue learnt not to resist So keeping a sincere conscience to God denied not obedience to the Emperour Let the Bishop of Rome now goe and learne modestie of those ancient Bishops at lest of his owne precessours but especially of their great Gregorie who acknowledged Mauritius the Emperor from whom Iohn of Constantinople had receiued the title of vniuersall Bishop to be his most reuerend Lord and himselfe his seruant as manie had done before him But Gregorie the great did more lessen and abase himselfe who am I that speake to my Lord that am but dust and a worme how far off was this worme from deposing of Lyons which he professed not with a fained but sincere humblenesse of minde and submitted himselfe to his Lord not with a shew of humility but with a necessity of duty vnlesse peraduenture you will imagine Gregorie to be a dissembler reuerencing the Emperour with fained not true obedience and submitting himselfe in iest rather then earnest But after that Boniface Gregories successour had § 99 from Phocas obtained the title of vniuersall Bishop the Bishops perchance did denie their obedience to Emperours No indeede for Agatho when Constantine did call diuers learned and holy men out of the West who should communicate with the Greekes in the sixt generall Councell about the truth of religion he writ back that hee had sent his fellow-seruants to his most excellent Lord according to the most holy decree of his Princely Maiestly and the duty be ought vnto him Our submission hath obediently performed which is by you enioyned and in another Epistle all the Bishops saith he both of the North and of the West the Christian seruants of your Empire doe giue thankes to God for your religious minde Yea truely two hundred yeeres after the vniuersall § 100 title when the
Byshoppe of Rentzburge when he deliuered the bull against the prince All of them scoft at the mans impudency and disdainefully askt what that light headed and superstitious French man what the Rome-pope himselfe did in Germanie without the consent of the Germaine-byshops his colleagues They disdaine that discordes should be sowne that the libertie of Christians should bee opprest that the flocke of Christ redeemed by his blood should bee brought into slauerie by false Teachers And when the Legate would not giue ouer the Germane Byshoppes did not onely dispise his commandements but denounced a curse against him in all their Churches as an enemie to Christian peace and an Arch hereticke and pronounced him to be worse then any Turke Saracene Tartar or Iew. They did publickly likewise accuse the Byshoppe of Rome for attempting such matters among Christians which were against reason and the law of nations against the doctrine of Christ and which were not at any time done among the most sauage Tartars And as the Byshops so the nobles of Germanie did take in foule scorne so great a wrong offered by the § 116 Pope to the Emperour their Master to repell it conuented all the States wherein Eberhardus the Archbyshoppe of Salisburge a godly olde man when hee had knowne ten Romane-byshoppes and had diligently markt their practizes and dispositions vnder Fredericke the first Henry the sixt his sonne and Fredericke the second his Nephew for fifty yeares together that the chiefe byshoppe was wholy compounded of auarice luxurie contention warres discordes and desire of rule and so did decipher him for a rauenous wolfe in each part vnder a Shepheards weede and so liuely paint him out that although in other matters he were not a Lutherane in this one you would haue said he had beene almost Luther himselfe The old Catholicke fathers Oration is extant in Auentine a Catholicke Writer Auenti annal lib. 7. fol. 683. there you may haue it if you will read it § 117 That which the Byshoppes and Nobles of Germanie with the whole commons did with common consent against Innocent the fourth in the quarrell of Fredericke the Emperour the very same they did in the like quarrell of Lewes the fourth Emperour against Iohn the 22. that although they were released from the Oath of Obedience they did notwithstanding take the Oath of obedience to be faithfull to Lewes though hee were remooued and that they did by the iudgement of all the Doctours in both lawes Philip the faire the French King in a councell with full consent of the Nobles and Byshoppes did not only set at nought and despise the iniust sentence of the Popes depriuation sent out against him but brought all the kingdome from the Popes obedience and that hee might the better tame his pride he laid hold of the Pope kept him in durance so that within sixe weekes after in great anguish of soule hee gaue vp the Ghost Popes crossed by the French The pragmaticall sanction is well knowne which did of old infringe the Popes authoritie and all the canons of the Church of France that part which maintaineth the popish religion and all the decrees of the Kings parliament do so disanull the Popes power in excommunicating Kings and releasing their Subiectes from the Oath of obedience Tract inscript le Franc. Discours an 1600. that the very body of Sorbone and the whole Vniuersitie of Paris doe condemne the doctrine of the Iesuites as schismaticall and pernicious Neither Henrie the 8. onely Edward the 6. and § 119 Queene Elizabeth English practise against Popes whom you tearme Caluinists and Heretickes did by their lawes expell this vsurped authoritie of the Pope and punished by death the Abetters thereof but other Kings of England who raigned in the midst of poperie thought good to contemne the Popes censures and to suppresse the Actors therein by your Lawes The law of Edward the 3. 25 Edwar 3. doth it not seeme to bee made by a Caluinist which makes it treason to attempt and go about the death of the King to mooue warre in his Kingdome against the King or to ioyne with the Kings enemies in his kingdome or to giue them aide and comfort either within the Kingdome or without Doe you not see how that two hundred yeares before Queene Elizabeth was borne the Priests treason couered with the habite of religion by the Statute of Edward the third in euery branch of it as it were with lime twigges is met with and suppressed If to attempt the death of the King be treason therefore Greenway and other Iesuites who tooke counsell to destroy the King and kingdome had beene Traytors by Edward the thirds Law although Queene Elizabeth had made no such law If to raise warre against the King in his kingdome were then treason the priests were Traytors who stirred vp papists to take armes and to ioyne themselues with Catsby and Persie in the rebellion If to ioyne with the Kings enemie in his kingdome were then treason how can you then ye Iesuits auoide the sharpenesse of King Edwards law who being the instruments of sedition doe adheare to the Pope the Kings deadly enemie vnder the colour of religion If to aide and animaâ—e the Kings enemies either within his kingdome or without was treason at that time truly whosoeuer at this day vnder pretense of religion whatsoeuer do either solicite foraine Kings to inuade this Kingdome as Garnet Creswell Baldwine and others haue done or perswade the people to take armes to depose their King as Greenwell Hall and others haue vndertaken were Traytors although Elizabeth with her Caluinists had neuer made any law against them § 120 But King Edwardes law you will say doth not touch the people by name True But when the noble King remembred that the French King was stirred vp against Iohn King of England who had contemned the Popes censures that the Subiectes were incensed against their King the Barons and Byshops fell from him and were the Ministers of the Popes wrong that thereby hee might the better confirme his subiects in their obedience against the French the Spanish and the Romane and all others whatsoeuer froâ— whom he foresaw danger might come to himselfe and his kingdome and that he might decline the enuy of naming the Pope particularly made a generall Statute with the consent of the Byshoppes Baron and Commons without any exception of person or cause whatsoeuer wherein hee made him a Traytor whosoeuer did adhere to the Kings enemy in his kingdome or did aide or animate any either within his dominions or without who should moue warre against the King including by his generall word aswell the Pope as the Popes factours as if hee had expressely named them § 121 But in the 26. of Richard the second the Prelates Dukes Earle Barons and aâ—l the Commons of England the Clarkes and Lay people named the Pope when they all ioyned in a couenant of association with the
of Rome as what it ought to doe For this is rather an admonition then a commendation and with a praise giueth warning of duty Wherefore you shall doe well Calander as S. Peter warnes you if you alwaies giue attention to the holy Scripture as to the candle to the Church as to the candle-sticke so long as it containeth and vpholdeth that candle giuing light to all the house For if it bee bereft of the light of her sunne and being blinde endeauours to make others blinde also while it makes new Articles of the faith and conceales the old it doth retain the name of a Church but it hath altogether lost the nature that which may very truely be spoken of the Church of Rome § 128 You doe very vnaduisedly traduce the Church of Rome saith Saturnine by whom you thinke that new Articles of the faith were made for the Articles of the faith which it propoundes are diuided into two sortes One are of immediate Reuelation Others are drawne and fetcht from thence What articles of faith the Church maketh The Church doth not make new Articles of the faith of the first sort But the Church maketh Articles of the second sort which ought to bee beleeued with the Catholicke faith as the case requireth if it thinke them necessary Therefore Vincentius Lyrinensis thinketh that the life of propheticall and euangelicall doctrine must be directed by the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense so that he doth in vaine brag of the text of scripture who reiecteth the sense of the Church § 129 Then Patriott how absurdly is it said saith he that the Church doth not make immediate reuelations of God Vnlesse that be more absurd to thinke that to fetch and draw from is the same which to make for an Article must first be made before a doctrine can be drawne or fetcht from the same Therefore that is said to bee an Article of the faith which is drawne from an Article Foolishly Articles are principles deductions are conclusions An article is one thing a conclusion drawne from the article is another which often is so contrarie that it vtterly ouerthroweth the article As it shall bee made cleare in the explication of your creede For I confesse with Vincentius Lyrinensis that the line of propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine is to be directed by the rule of the ecclesiasticall and catholicke sense For the ecclesiasticall and catholicke sense must alway agree with the Propheticall and apostolicall text For where the text doth faile vs the glosse cannot helpe vs. Whence I conclude that nothing can bee Catholicke and Ecclesiasticall which is not Propheticall or Apostolicall Now because Vincentius doth restraine the propheticall and apostolicall line to the cannon of the Scripture which he confesseth to be more then sufficient for faith it followeth that nothing contrarie to the canonicall Scripture can be Ca holicke though it bee so determined by the Church Wherefore Calander if the Church of Rome haue cast any article of faith into the Creede of the second sort which is contrarie to an Article of the first sort and haue added an ecclesiasticall glosse disagreeing from the definition of canonicall Scripture that Church shall sooner leaue off to be the Catholicke Church then that Article shall beginne to be Catholicke Let vs come therefore to the Creede and let vs intreat Argentine if hee please to open it vnto vs. Then Argentine I will doe it and very willingly and § 130 I will so professe it as it is propounded by the Bull of Pius the 4. to be a forme of an Oath of the profession of the orthodoxall faith 1 I William Argentine doe firmely admit and hold the Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall traditions and other ordinances and constitutions of the Church of Rome The Popes creede Traditions Scriptures according to the Romane sense 2 I doe firmely hold and admit the holy Scriptures according to that sense which the mother Church hath and doth hold whose right it is to iudge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scripture neither will I euer admit it or expound it but according to the ioynt consent of the fathers 3 I professe that there be seauen Sacraments truely and properly of the new Law 7 Sacraments ordained by our Lord Iesus necessarie for the saluation of mankind Baptisme Confirmation the Eucharist Penance Extream vnction Orders Matrimony I admit the receiued and approoued rites of the Catholicke Church Originall sin and iustification 4 I admit and hold all and euery those points concerning originall sinne and iustification which were determined in the holy Councell of Trent The Masse 5 I professe that there is offered vp in the Masse vnto God a true proper propitiatorie sacrifice for the quicke and the dead Transsubstantiation 6 I beleeue that in the holy Eucharist the body and blood of Christ is truely and really and substantially and that there is made a change of the whole substance of bread into his body and of the whole substance of wine into his blood which change or conuersion the Catholicke Church calleth transsubstantiation I confesse also that vnder one kinde onely whole Christ is receiued and a true sacrament Purgatorie 7 I constantly hold that there is a purgatorie and that the soules there deteined are holpe with the praiers of the faithfull Adoration of Saints 8 I hold that the Saints raigning with Christ are to be worshipped and to be called vpon and that they offer vp their prayers to God for vs and that their reliques are to be worshipped The worshipping of Images 9 I firmely hold that the Images of Christ and the euer blessed Virgin and of other Saintes are to bee had and to be adored with due worshippe Indulgences 10 That the power of indulgences was left by Christ and that the vse of them is very auaileable for saluation The supremacie of the Pope 11 I acknowledge the Catholicke and Apostolicke Romaine Church to be the mother and mistris of all Churches and I vowe and sweare true obedience to the Byshoppe of Rome the successour of blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Iesus Christ The authority of the Councell of Trent 12 I vndoubtedly likewise receiue all other thinges defined and determined by the holy Canons and Occumenicall Councells chiefly of the holy Councell of Trent and I reiect and accurse all things contrarie and all heresies reiected by the Church This true Catholicke faith without which none can § 130 be saued at this present I voluntarily professe I will procure as farre as lyeth in me to be wholy vncorruptly and constantly kept and taught by Gods assistance to my liues end I the same William promise vow and sweare so help me God and these his holy Euangelist And I stand in feare of that which the most holy Father added It shall not bee lawfull for any man to infringe this authoritie of our ordination inhibition
may be sayd of the secular tyrannicall power as of Tyberius and Nero which may be said of the Popish tyrannicall power as of Gregorie the 7. or Paul the 5. true in respect of the abuse But the ordination of the secular power is of God the abuse of the Diuell Therefore Pilates power which condemned Christ is not sayd to bee tolerated from aboue but giuen from aboue It was therefore a wicked power not a vsurped power as Austin thought wicked in respect of tyranny not vsurped in respect of the ordination but the power of this Prelate I may say this Pilate as Bernard spake it is not onely wicked but vsurped I conclude therfore out of the Apostles principle for the secular power against Bellarmine All power ordained is immediately from God by the witnesse of Paul All secular power whether it bee by the people by the Princes or by the King is a power ordained For reason which is a glimmering of the diuine light doth suggest that all societies must be subiect to one of these whether it bee simple or mixt for the good of common safety Therefore all secular power is immediatly from God § 171 But the title of the power is not diuine but humane therefore the secular Prince hath mediately power and gouernment to rule ouer these or those subiects Bellarmine in his answer to a booke entituled an answer of a Doctor of Diuity to an Epistle written to him by a reuerend freind of the monition of the censures from the Pope denounced against the Venetians either election comming betweene as the Emperour or succession as the Kings of France Spaine and England or grant as the free Princes as the Popes in their own Dominion for so he might haue sayd or by iust war as Godfrey heretofore c. Very ignorantly He doth not distinguish between the title of the power and the power it selfe The title is the condition without the which the power is not obtained to this or that King ouer those or these subiects The power is that authority and iurisdiction which God doth giue immediately to a Prince as Paul teacheth The Cardinall therfore vniesuited as I may so say did abuse that most renowned French King If any man said he should demand of the most Christian King by what right hee holdeth France or maketh Lawes hee shall not answer by the Law of God but by the title of hereditarie succession Yea truely the noble King might haue answered otherwise according to that wit wherewith hee was endued being demanded why he bare rule ouer his subiects or made lawes That hee did it not by the right of hereditarie succession but by the ordinance of that power which hee receiued immediately from God Inheritance doth not giue that power but it is a property necessarie in that man to whom God doth immediately giue that power That subiects may giue reuerence to their Kings not for blouds sake but for Gods sake Goe to and what if one should demand of Paul the fift by what right hee holdeth his Popedome he will answer as he is taught not by the title of mans election but by the Law forsooth of God Therfore the Popes power is by Gods Law as it seemeth although his election bee by the Cardinals Why then may not the Kings power be by the Law of God thogh his succession be from his ancestours for whose condition seemes to be like why should their iurisdiction be dislike The Cardinall therefore deales very vniustly who denieth that to the King which he granteth to the Pope § 172 But the malapert Cardinall did trie the patience of the most Christian King The cruell dealing of the Iesuites with the French King as another of his order a bloody nouist strucke out his tooth when he meant to cut his throat But now the Iesuites doe blesse the King but the King as oft as he cheweth his meate its maruell he doe not curse the Iesuites who while the controuersie depended about the expulsion of the Iesuites receiued a wound from Iohn Chastile and the bloud issued out of his mouth spake pleasantly as his vse was Now at the last the Iesuites being conuicted by my mouth must bee cast out That his friends may greeue that they were brought backe againe by that mouth as innocent and cleered who were the authours of so cruell a murther whose scholler did thrust that valiant King to the heart After the same manner Tom. 11. Baronius that testie olde man did entertaine the Catholike King Philip the second the Champion of their Church for with-holding Sicilie and Naples from the Church Whom will they spare if they spare not the Spaniard What may the Defender of the Faith expect of these fellowes who doe thus entertaine the Christian and Catholike Kings But although there be no truth yet there is some equitie in Bellarmine Bellarmines lewde dealing with all Princes Hee spareth no Princes not those of his owne side Hee holdeth that those who bee Catholike in faith if they beginne to be wicked are to be driuen by the cheife Pastour from the flocke and depriued of their kingdome as well as heretickes Those as giddie headed rammes that they hurt not with their hornes these as rauenous wolues that they deuoure not the flocke So scornfully doth this Braggadochian Cardinall terme the Excellencies and Maiesties of the Christian world The world doth not maruel that Preists be so sawcy but it wonders that Kings bee so patient that they will suffer Princely crownes to be tumbled vp and down by them as foot-bals and the prerogatiues of kingdomes to be so weakned diminished by schoole distinctions For this Cardinall like a bad archer doth strike his confederate next neighbour-kings while he doth directly leuell and aime but in vaine against Iames the King of Great Britaine whom God still defend from his treacherie But to the argument Hee denieth all secular Princes to haue any power immediately giuen from God to rule ouer subiects But it is well that hee doth affirme euen in the same § 173 chapter in as manie words that secular Princes haue power immediately from God to rule their subiects as they are superiors and he alleageth a good reason because the commandement of obedience is immediately from God and this is true For he cannot bee superiour and aboue other if he doe not rule neither can he be a subiect that is not bound to obey And yet againe in the end If secular Princes saith he haue no power immediately from God ouer the Laity much lesse ouer the Cleargie therefore ouer none Which hee granted before Is it so indeede will some say yea truely looke vpon the place Hee is both vnconstant vnlearned you shall see Bellarmine affirming and denying the same predicate of the same subiect and that in respect of the same and that in one and the same chapter Let this great Logician be packing who sends his aduersaries to turne ouer Aristotles
after crownes but to watch ouer their soules and when hee obeyeth the King then hee prescribeth the doctrine of obedience to others as Christ Paul and Peter went before them both in precept and practise § 183 Then Calander you haue satisfied me abundantly Patriot Primacie of order onely due to Peter in the distinction of these powers now if you please I desire the other about the largnes of that spirituall power which the Pope now vsurpes whether the former Councells did grant the same Then Patriot the Fathers saith he doe grant to Peter the primacie of order and to the Byshoppe of Rome as to his successour whom certaine doe call the Byshoppe of the first sea but they deny vnto him the primacie of power as I said either ouer Kings or ouer their fellow Byshoppes Ierusalem Anâ—ioch Alexandria Constantinople Rome There were either foure or fiue Patriarches among whom the gouernment of the whole Church was diuided That all the rest were equall to the Patriarch of Rome in all points of iurisdiction whose power was bounded within certaine limits out of which he might not passe doth appeare by that notable Cannon the sixt The Nicene Councell of 318. Byshops of the Nycene Councell Which was gathered together by the authoritie of Constantine the great in the yeare of Christ 325. wherein 318. Byshoppes met together and set out 20. true Cannons only as Ruffinus numbers them the true copies whereof remained in all the patriarchall Churches and are extant in many others at this day The sixt Cannon of the Councell doth make the gouernment of the Byshoppe of Rome the forme of gouernment of the Byshoppe of Alexandria as it is said before Where it doth appeare that the gouernment of the byshoppe of Rome was shut within the compasse of his owne Prouince For if it had reached into other Prouinces it had not beene the forme of the gouernment of Alexandria Rome no larger in iurisdiction then Alexandria which was contained in one Prouince Againe it appeareth by the Cannon that the byshoppe of Rome had the same fashion Therfore the gouernment of Alexandria was like vnto Rome How could there otherwise bee a likenesse For there could be no likenesse betweene an vniuersall byshoppe and a prouinciall The second generall Councell was the first Councell § 184 of Constantinople assembled by Theodosius the elder in the yeare of Christ 381. wherein 150. Constantinople Councell the first of 150. Byshoppes byshoppes met together who confirmed the decree of the Nicene Councell Then came the third generall Councell the first of Ephesus The Councel of â—phesus of 200. Byshops gathered together by Theodosius the younger in the yeare of Christ 4â—1 it consisted of 200. byshoppes in which two Councells the Prouinces of the Christian world were diuided and euery Prouince assigned to his owne Patriarch and the byshoppe of Constantinople by name made equall to the byshoppe of Rome without any difference of honour but that the byshop of Constantinople was next after the byshop of Rome in place had the second voice in all answers and subscriptions The 4. The Councel of Chalcedâ—ne of 630. Byshoppes generall Councell of Chalcedon gathered by Valentinian and Marcian in the yeare of Christ 451. which consisted of 630. byshoppes who decreed thus in the 28. Cannon we euery way following the decrees of the holy Fathers and acknowledging the Cannon of the 150. byshoppes we also decree the very same and ordaine the same about the priuiledges of the most holy Church of Constantinople which is new Rome For to the throne of old Rome because that Citie bare rule ouer all the Fathers by right giue the priuiledges Constantinople equall with Rome and the 150. Fathers being mooued with the same consideration doe giue equall priuiledges to the most holy throne of new Rome rightly iudging that citie which is honoured both with the Presence and Senate of the Empire and doth enioy equall priuiledges with Rome that ancient Lady should be aduanced in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as she and be as much esteemed being the next vnto her § 185 But the fathers of the Councell of Chalcedone Acto 3. write thus to Leo the most holy and blessed vniuersall Archbishop and Patriarch of great Rome Note saith Binius that in these bookes Leo is called the vniuersall Archbishop Suri tom 2. Concil pag. 111. Bini tâ—m 2. Concil fol. 215. But note also that which Binius concealed that it is added to Leo the Archbishop of the Romanes Note heere the authority of the Bishop of Rome saith Surius but it may be that these words slipt out of the margent into the text though they bee most true saith Binius But we appeale from these two pararasites of the Romane Bishop to the very acts of the Councell themselues which we before alleadged But this canon is reiected say they by Leo the Bishop of Rome about the priuiledges and eminency of the Bishop of Constantinople because he presupposeth that the Roman seat was made the head of the Church not by Gods Law but by mans Law as Binius saith fol. 180. whom shall we beleeue Leo who out of his ambition reiected the canon or Gregorie who with all reuerence receiued the whole Councell as it is in Gratian distinct 15. cap. sicui But the Councell say they in their Epistle writ Leo the head of the vniuersall Church Because Leo so writeth Piniuâ—iâ— anno in hanc Synod 188. lib. 3. epist 3. to Eulogius the Bishop of Alexandria your holinesse knoweth that by the holy Synode of Chalcedon the name of vniuersality was giuen to the seat of the Bishop of Rome onely wherein now by Gods prouidence my selfe doe serue Why then is not the name of vniuersall prefixed before the Epistle of the fathers It was prefixed say they but by the craft of some Scribe it was taken out what a iest is this as if it were not more likely that the Popes Epistle admitted a fraudulent addition Whether one Leo or 600. Bishops are rather to bee beleeued then the Epistle of the generall Councell a subtraction But hee it so let Leo haue written so Whether is it more meete to giue credit to the Pope priuately in his owne cause or to 600 Bishops in the cause of the Church decreeing against it in a publike Councell especially when as Gregorie the great doth plainely write that none of his predecessours did euer vse the title of vniuersall Bishoppe Farther the fift generall Councell was the second of § 186 Constantinople assembled in the Empire of Iustinian 2. Constantinople Councell of 280. Bishops in the yeere of Christ 586. wherein were present 280. Bishops who repeating word for word the former decree of Chalcedon renewed in the 36. canon Whereby it is euident that Constantinople had no lesse authority in Ecclesiasticall causes then Rome had and that Rome had obtained the primacy of order because it was the cheife
of appealing The Legates foyst in a Canon § 189 of the Councell of Sardis Bellarm lib. 2. de Rom Pont cap 25. But Soziâ—â—us and Boniface though these Canons were not expresly in the Nicene Councell yet they called them the Nicene Canons as Bellarmine saith because the Councell of Neece and the Councell of Sardis were taken for all one Is it euen so for one when as they diffred in time place and varietie of Canons For as Baronius is a witnes the Nicene Councell was assembled in the yeare 325. the Councell of Sardis 347. so that eighteene yeares came betweene those councels the Nicene Councell was in Asia in a Citie of Bythinia the Sardine Councell was in Thracia the confines of Illiria as the same Baronius saith Concil Tâ—m 1 Bellarmine and Baronius at a â—arre How diuers the Canons of ech Councell were Surius teacheth Baronius doth excuse it otherwise that Sozimus and Boniface did not alledge the Canon of the Councell of Sardis but the Canon only of the Councell of Neece yet there can be no suspition of deceit in this but that either some of the Canons of the Nicene Councell repeated in the Councell of Sardis were lost out of the Councell of Neece and reserued whole and sound in the Romane register or that by some gatherer of the Canons because the name of Sardis was infamous through the Arrians they were recited in the name of the Nicene Councell Two theeues by the contrariety of their answers will easily be descried And do we not see these two old forgers by the difference of their answers to be taken tripping It is a sport to see the Popes deceiued by his Scribe as they call him who for Sardis put in Neece and when that by the words of the Legates was manifestly refuted who alledged in the Councell of Carthage the Councell of Sardis I suspect saith Bellarmine that the words of the Legates by the fault of the writer crept out of the margent into the text It is well when theeues fall out as the prouerbe is true men come by their goods Now the Legates when they alledge the Canons of the Councell of Sardis for the Nicene they cut of certaine words that were in the middle which they thought were not for their turne which Osius deliuered It pleaseth you that for charitie we honor the memorie of Peter the Apostle and it be writ to Iulius the Bishop of Rome Wise-men saw if the priuiledge of appealing should belong altogether to the Bishop of Rome that some parasiticall Osius was not to be set downe who might winne it by flattering intreatie but might haue it by authoritie Decret 5. q. 4. Osius dixit And therefore Gratian in his Decretals doth let passe the same words with the like craft doth any man when he dealeth with other in his owne right say by intreaty if it please you all § 190 Now let vs goe forward to the rest When as the Carthaginian Fathers euery one of them answered that they neuer read that Canon among the Nycene Canons and yet had among them the true copie which Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage who was present himselfe in the Councell of Neece brought from Neece to Carthage they decreed by common consent that the true copies of the Nicene councell should be required of the Bishops of Constantinople Antioch Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome himselfe if happily that Canon might be found among them Neither for the space of fiue whole yeares the matter being much sought after and debated any thing at all could be found In the meane time the true copies came from Cyrill of Alexandria and from Atticus Bishop of Constantinople wherein twenty Canons only as Ruffinus counts them were conteyned agreable to the copie of Carthage whereof of so many diuers copies so excellent gathered from all the quarters of the world Austin with his colleagues writeth to Boniface the Bishop of Rome after this manner Epist Carth Conc ad Bonif cap 101. Who doubteth that the copies of the Nycene Councell are most true which being brought out of so many places and so worthy Churches of Greece and compared do so well agree together Afric Conc cap 92. Whereby the Carthaginian Fathers set out a decree presently that Priests if they complained of the censures of their Diocesans should be heard of the Bishops next adioyning and if they thought good to appeale from them they should appeale only to the Councells of Africa or to the primates of their owne Prouinces And they that would needes appeale to places beyond the sea should be receiued by none to the communion within Africa Here they who before contrarie to the decree of the § 191 Chalcedon Councell did by stealth bring in the affirmation for the negation added an exception cleane contrarie to the scope of the decree of the Carthage Councell Vnlesse perhaps they appeale to the sea of Rome The Councell of purpose did except against the Romaine sea when it expresly concluded that it was lawfull for none to appeale to the byshoppe of Rome So that Bellarmine himselfe otherwise a notable forger could not allowe that exception of Gratian the forger Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 24. vnlesse perhaps they appeale to the sea of Rome For this exception saith he doth not seeme to agree For the Aphricans most of all for the Romane Church did decree that it should not be lawfull to appeale beyond the sea They ioyned letters to the decree which they sent to Celestine the byshop of Rome We entreat say they that henceforth you would not easily admit to audience any that come from hence nor would receiue any into your communion that stand excommunicated by vs. For this also your blessednesse shall easily finde determined in the Nicene Councell And if this seeme to be obserued in the inferior Clarks and Lay people the Councell will haue much more obserued in the byshoppes Let not them therefore who are suspended from the Communion in their own Prouince be restored by your holinesse of set purpose against right and reason Let your holinesse rather punish as it is meet the impudent gaddings of Priests and other like Layikes For no decree of the Fathers is forbidden by this of the church of Africa And the decrees of the Nycene Councell committed both the Clarkes of inferiour degrees and byshopps themselues most plainly to their owne Metropolitans For they did wisely and iustly foresee that what busines soeuer were begunne should bee likewise ended in their owne proper places Neither did they thinke that the grace of the holy Ghost was wanting to any Prouince whereby iustice might wisely be discerned firmely retained by the Priests chiefely because it is granted to euery one if he thinke good to appeale from the sentence of the Iudges to the Synodes of their owne Prouince or after that to the generall Synode vnlesse there bee any who thinke that God can infuse the righteousnesse
of iudging into one man whatsoeuer he be and denie it to an infinite number of Priestes assembled in a Councell How then shall this ouer-sea iudgement bee certaine Reasons not to appeale beyond sea whereto the persons of witnesses be necessarie who either for weaknesse of nature or for age or for some other lets and impediments cannot be present For that which was sent by Faustinus in the behalfe of the Nycene Synode in the truer descriptions of the Nycene Councell we could finde no such matter Therefore doe ye not suffer this that wee may not seeme to bring in the smoakie pride of the world into the Church These things did the Carthaginians publickely write to Celestine byshoppe of Rome wherein they did refute out of the true and authenticke copies the appeales to the Romane by shoppe which Sozumus laid claime to out of the false Cannons of the Nycene Councell For the decrees of the Nycene Synode doe commit either the Clarkes or the byshoppes themselues directly to their owne Metropolitanes They forbidde therefore that they which were excommunicated by vs should bee receiued into the communion by the Romanes As it is say they determined in the Councell of Neece The Africans reiected the Popes Legates as new creatures and vnknowne to the ancient Church they called their gaddings to Rome impudent and deemed the sending of his Legates the smoakie pride of the world And they did propound not the bare decree of the Synode but enforced it with very weighty reasons One is that if so great authority were giuen to the § 292 byshop of Rome not only by the right discerning of iudgement but by the grace of the holy Ghost giuen to him alone then it should seeme to bee denied to all others assembled in the Councell The second that when it is sufficient to appeale twise the Synode gaue leaue to such as would appeale from the sentence of his byshoppe first to appeale to the prouinciall Synode then from that to the vniuersall The third that seeing in the repealing of sentences the presence of witnesses is requisite the Romane byshoppes doe impose a very vnequall law vpon Christians to come necessarily from other kingdomes so farre distant by sea and land especially being hindered by age or sicknesse or any other impediments which fall out to be very many The fourth because by this custome of appealing the authority of all other byshoppes being diminished and brought into one the smoakie pride of the world would be brought into the Church The Carthaginian Fathers vpon these reasons reiected that vniust request of the Romane byshoppe and discouered the false and forged Cannons by the true and right copies sent from Cyrill and Atticus So wisedome ouercame deceit and modestie pride For the Fathers did the second time condemne Apiarius and in Apiarius Sozimus Boniface Celestine that is in one wicked runnagate three very cunning forgers Here Saturnine in a great chafe These saith he are § 293 the maine points that your men out of the Carthaginian fathers doe commonly obiect against ours But the good fathers offended of ignorance A meere Shifter yours of malice The Fathers by a double ignorance One because they beleeued there were but twenty Cannons onelie of the Nicene Councell whereas there were seuentie whereof fiftie being burnt by the Arrians perished Wherin as many other things so that right of Appeales which the Romane byshoppe did challenge was contained Sozâ—m lib. 3. cap. 10. The other because they did not distinguish betweene the two Sinodes of Sardis Popish reasons to proue moâ—e Canons of Neece then 20. Epist of Egipt to Marcus For the coppie of the Nicene Councell Tom. Conc. 1. as it appeareth out of Sozemane whereof one was Catholicke and generall of 300. byshoppes which Austin saw not The other was hereticall of 86 byshoppes which Austin saw Now beside those twentie Cannons which Ruffinus reckons vp that there were other 50. more appeareth out of a certaine Epistle of Athanasius and the Egyptians to Marcus the Romane Byshoppe of whom they required the true copie of the 70. Cannons after the Arrians had burnt the authenticke copie which Athanasius brought from Neece There is extant a record of Iulius the Romane Byshoppe against those of the east in the behalfe of Athanasius wherein beside those twentie Cannons other twentie seuen are repeated whereof sixe do more cleerly set foorth the authoritie of the Romane byshoppe then that Cannon which Sozimus alleaged Besides that there bee many more Cannons of the Councell of Neece besides those twentie which Ruffinus reckons vp Euseb in the life of Const cap. 3. Ambros Ep 82. One wherein it decreed that Easter should be celebrated on the sabboth day as appeareth by Constantines Epistle in Eusebius A second wherein it decreed that a man twise married should not be admitted into the clergie As Ambrose telleth vs. Ierom. in pref on Iudith Austen Epist 110. A third wherein the booke of Iudith is admitted among the canonicall bookes as Ierome witnesseth A fourth wherein it is forbidden that two byshops should sit together in one Church as Austin affirmes A fift wherein it decreed that it was not lawfull for them that were fasting to minister the Sacrament of the supper As the Africane Fathers testifie Lastly the hereticall Doctours Luther Caluine and the writers of the centuries out of the first booke of Socrates cap. 8. doe alleage a Cannon out of the Councell of Neece wherein their Wiues are permitted to Priests But none of these Cannons are found among those 20. which they only number Therefore if Sozimus be said to be a corruptor and a Forger of the Cannons of Neece because he recited one Cannon vnder the name of the Nycene Councell which is not found among the 20. Cannons by the same reason Constantine Ambrose Ierome Austin the African Fathers the Centurie writers Luther and Caluine are to bee tearmed corruptors and forgers for all of them doe recite Cannons out of the Councell of Neece which are not reckoned among those twenty Cannons Last of all in the Councell of Florence Sess twentie one Iohn a great learned man affirmed that hee could shew by many testimonies of the antient that the Fathers of the 6. Councell of Carthage did at the last acknowledge that very corrupt and false Cannon of the Nycene Councell were sent ouer to them out of Constantinople and Alexandria Then Patriot hee that holdes you not worthy Saturnine § 194 saith he of a Cardinalls hat that can lye so profoundly for the triple crowne doth you great wrong You doe very shamelesly obiect ignorance to the Carthaginian Fathers among whom Austin was present A popish slander out of Bellarmine and malice to our men When the Papists perceiued that their Sozimus waâ— taken tardie in a manifest lye they deuised this tale of the 70. Cannons of the Nycene Councell And to thâ— purpose coyned an Epistle as it had beene sent from Athanasius and other
like to the Asse and her colt whence they are wont to draw another argument for the temporall gouernment of Christ An argument drawne from the Asse for the Popes power Hee sent his disciples that they should bring him the Asse and her colt whereon according to the prophecie the humble King might sit when hee entred into Ierusalem and commanded them to tell the owners of the Asses the Lord had neede of them whence they conclude that Christ was the temporall Lord of the whole world very foolishly for whereas hee borrowed the Asse it sheweth Christs pouertie and whereas hee rode on it when he went into Ierusalem it sheweth his humilitie and meeknes as the Fathers expound it Therefore they that gather from thence the dignitie and excellencie of a temporall Prince the Lord hath neede of them that I may not seeme to speake more sharply against them And if the authoritie of a Prince might haue beene gathered out of this place hee would not haue said the Lord had neede of them but the Lord commandes that you send them Whose humilite when Celestine the Byshoppe of Rome peruersly desiring to follow was caried through the Citie vpon an Asse The Asse sate vpon the Pope not the Pope vpon the Asse and enioyned his Cardinalles to doe the like was laught at by them who beleeued that the Asse rather sate vpon the Pope then the Pope vpon the Asse because when hee would resemble Christ his humilitie hee should haue cast off the Popes statelinesse And yet they are so blockish that they thinke that Christ when he rid into Ierusalem after his manner in triumph that hee exercised temporall power Did they then thinke this manner to bee scarce papall in Celestine doe they thinke it Regall in Christ And that which they thought vilde in Christ doe they thinke triumphant in him And that which they thought a signe of weakenesse in him doe they count it a shew of power in Christ Christ assuredly is the King of heauen and earth and he hath a kingdome both spirituall and eternall But his kingdome is not of this world though it be in this world as hee professed before Pilate How Christ stood before Pilate He stood therefore before Pilate both the Emperors Lord and Subiect afterward to iudge him now to be iudged of him God to be feared by his inuicible maiestie man to bee pittied by his visible humilitie in whose person the power of the spirit lay hid vnder the frailety of the flesh that he might teach Peter and in him the Pope to reioyce at heauenly graces not to waxe proude at earthly titles and euer to beare in minde the glory of a Kingdome not outward and decaying but inward and eternall § 209 But now let vs vrge the argument out of the scriptures aboue alleaged and let vs enforce it more closly out of the interpretations of the antient Fathers Christ had no kingdome of the world Therefore Peter had none vnlesse hee could giue that to Peter he had not himselfe The Pope decreaseth by the same degrees hee encreased Christ is the Emperours subiect as he is man how therefore can Peter be his Lord vnlesse the Disciple may be aboue his Master And if Peter be a subiect how can the Pope be a Lord Peter was not aboue the rest of the Apostles Therefore the Pope is not aboue other Byshoppes Peter was inferiour to the Councell Therefore the Pope is inferiour to the Councell By the same degrees that the Pope did increase by the same if you please let him decrease First he was aduanced aboue Byshoppes as Boniface the third afterward aboue Kings and Emperours as Gregorie the seuenth then hee tooke vpon him the imperiall and pontificall dignitie and that by the right of his Popedome as Boniface the 8. Last of all hee was lifted aboue all Councells that all the remedies for mischiefe might be taken away and that the Christian people might happily lament their miseries but not cure them But Peter was not aboue the rest of the Apostles Cyprian That were saith he the rest of the Apostles that Peter was endued with the same fellowship of honour and power There was a paritie of power among all the Apostles where was then the superiority of Peter The Carthaginian Fathers therefore decreed in the Councell that the Byshoppe of the first sea should not be called Prince of Priests or chiefe Priest Chap. 42. or haue any such title but onely the Byshoppe of the first sea where is then the spirituall principality of the Pope whereof Bellarmine dreameth Afterward Gregorie the first did not onely detest the title of vniuersall Byshoppe in Iohn of Constantinople Lib. 4. Epist. cap. 32. Gregorie the first did detest the title of the vniuersall Byshoppe but in himselfe and all others as new wicked a name of singularity to be a generall plague of the Church the corruption of faith against the Cannons against Peter the Apostle against the sense of the Gospell against all Churches against God himselfe That neuer any holy man vsed any such title Lib. 4. Epist 34 Epist 38 39. that none of his Predecessors did giue their consents it should be vsed and that whosoeuer did vse it hee was the Messenger and forerunner of Antichrist This is a notable title the vniuersall Byshoppe of the Church proper to the Byshoppe of Rome as Bellarmine saith Therefore new prophane wicked c. as Gregorie saith § 210 Lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 31. Bellarmines obiection against Pope Gregorie But here Bellarmine doth distinguish there is one sense of this title that he who is called the vniuersall Byshop of all Christian cities so that other be not Byshoppes but onely his Vicars and in this sense it is a prophane word as Gregorie speaketh So that according to blessed Gregories minde the vniuersall Byshoppe seemes to take authoritie from all other that an vniuersall Byshoppe be one and an only Byshoppe as Bellarmine doth expound in Tortus as if Gregorie had iudged that all other Byshoppes had beene put out of office by Iohn of Constantinople who would needes be stiled the vniuersall Byshop Bellarmine doth crosse the historie Wherein Bellarmine doth crosse the historie which sheweth that all the Greeke Byshoppes did consent to Iohn of Constantinople that hee should take to him the title of vniuersall Byshoppe which they would neuer haue done if by the grant of that title they had thought all Byshop like authoritie should haue been taken from them And Platina sheweth that Boniface the 3. tooke to him that place of preheminency which Iohn chalenged Bellarmine contradicteth himselfe Besides that in the very said place he doth contradict himselfe where he writeth that the Greeke Byshops would not onely preferre the Constantinopolitane sea before the sea of Alexandria and Antioch but make it also equall to Rome and vniuersall Which how can it agree with that which he said before for hee did
limitation of the ciuill to him the bond of the spirituall obedience is the disioynting and loosing of the ciuill Is not Bellarmines deceit euident enough who vnder the pretence of spirituall obedience hath taken the ciuill cleane away So he playeth the iugler Ciuill obedience taken away to deceiue the Papists sight and that with a twofold tricke One whereby he perswadeth that for the shew of ciuill obedience they thinke the spirituall may bee abiured by them the other whereby vnder the shew of spirituall obedience he cleane taketh away the ciuill Hence ariseth those new and strange interpretations § 177 of Bellarmine in the schoole of Diuinitie Bellarmines new and strange interpretations Let not obedience be shewed to man contrary to the obedience of God that is let not obedience be shewed to the King contrary to the obedience of the Bishop And we must rather obey God than men that is we must rather obey the Pope than Kings I appeale to your owne consciences ye Papists whether you thinke this to be the Apostles commentarie that in respect of spirituall obedience which consisteth in faith deuotion loue and feare of God a sinfull mortall man should be aduanced into the seat of God What if the Pope command which God forbiddeth that wee take from Caesar the things that are Caesars by Gods owne gift his sword scepter crowne subiects and life is not this vnder the shew of spirituall obedience to forbid ciuill obedience And to command that obedience be giuen to the Pope commanding vniust things against Gods obedience who hath enioyned your subiection to the King Rom 13. This ought not to appeare spirituall obedience to you but spirituall cousenage whereby vnder the cloake of spirituall obedience which the Pope hath gotten by the gift of men he loose the bond of ciuill dutie which is due to the King by the gift of God § 178 I beseech you ô yee Christian Kings and Princes whether you thinke it be for your good A caue at for Kings that such positions as these be setled into your subiects mindes That such a catechisme as this not only lye close hidden in books but be openly taught in your Vniuersities Churches There be none so dangerous trecheries to Princes as those which are hid vnder the cloake of duty and coloured with the name of catholike religion Vnder the pretence whereof Bellarmine hath cherished rebellion in the subiects of the Venetian common-weale which professeth Popery as hee hath done at this time in the subiects belonging to the most excellent King of Great Britaine A Troiane or a Tirian to him are all alike Beware ô yee Kings lest the mischiefe intended to one fall vpon all the rest Saturnine is an ill egge of an euill bird as in the proofe of the article of supremacie he is a corrupter of Gods will so in the practise of it he is an enemy of princely gouernment And as you had him ere while a manifest forger so now you haue him an open traytor § 179 Here Calander both your discourses said he the one against the Pope the other for the King giue me iust occasion of two doubts one how the spirituall and ciuill obedience is distinguished in the word of God the other whether the former Councells did cast of this spirituall power which the Pope doth generally vsurpe Which two points being briefely and plainly discust will cleare the whole controuersie and satisfie any man that is not contentious Then Patriott You do wisely Calander saith he to call euery thing to her beginning for euery thing as it is first so it is true and that which is right sets out both â—â—lshood and it selfe First therefore I answer about the distinction of the double power the Spirituall and Ciuill Chrysost de verbis Esa Vidi Dâ—m hem both which Christ ordayned I call that Spirituall which concernes the soules and that Ciuill which rules the bodies That 4. Power distinguished Christ committed to his Minister this to his Magistrate somtime to more somtime to few often to one That is called Episcopall gouernment this Princely or that is spirituall this ciuill Each as I said is of God To whom it is committed and how performed The Holy Ghost hath appointed Bishops to rule the Church of God Act 20. and Wisdome saith By me Kings doe raigne and Law-makers appoint iust things Therefore Kings doe rule by God as Bishops do feede Gouernment belongs to them Ministerie to these But these you will say haue Gouernment also I confesse it Bernard de consid ad Eug But these haue an inward gouernment ouer mens soules they haue an outward ouer mens bodies Bishops haue the key of the word and sacraments to be exercised not in the name of the King Matth 16. but in the name of Christ nor the key only of knowledge The difference of gouernment between Princes and Bishops Rom 13. Chrysost ex Paul ibid. but of discipline and that not after their owne pleasure but after Gods will Kings haue the sword to be drawne in defence of godlines and iustice whereby they command those things that be true and good forbid such as be false and euill and punish the wicked of what calling soeuer and defend the righteous The weapons of Bishops are spirituall of Kings corporall Therefore Bishops ought to teach to admonish to reproue to depriue of the seales of grace and to driue from the communion of the faithfull those that grieuously and publikely offend till they repent Chrysost ibid. Kings ought to restreyne them according to the qualitie of the offence either of libertie or goods with losse of limmes or of life it selfe Therefore the gouernment of Bishops is by perswasion of Kings by compulsion of a Bishop directing of a King constreyning A King rules men a-against their will a Bishop with their wills Jerom. al Heliâ— in Epitap Nâ—potiani Hee doth gouerne by feare this bringeth to libertie He reserueth the bodies for death this keepeth the soules for life Either of them doth punish not only theeues murtherers adulterers periured men traytors but also blasphemers Idolators Heretickes Schismatickes whether they be of the Laity or Clergie but he with the corporall sword the byshoppe with the spirituall Either of them haue equally a care of holinesse and honesty the one that he may teach by precepts the other that hee may ordaine by lawes Either of them is practised about holy things but not vpon holy things For they are not subiect either to the wil of the Pastor or gouernment of the King The King is conuersant about holy and diuine things not in the administration and execution thereof as Vzias but in appointing and ordering them as Ezechias A byshoppe is conuersant about holy things in the doing and executing of them to preach the word to Minister the sacraments and vse the keies Good lawes are made to settle truth by the counsell and faithfulnesse of the