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
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
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
Gods commandements by mans traditions For as the Iewes had the vnwritten Cabala to interpret the old Testament so the Pope hath brought in his vnwritten traditions as the Iewish Cabala whereby hee doth bring a sense of his owne what pleaseth him of the written commandements of God But with the same argument that Christ did refute the Iewish we doe briefely refute the Popish traditions The obseruation of humane traditions is the abrogation of Gods heauenly commundements Matth 15. witnesse Christ But Poperie is the obseruation of humane traditions witnesse the Decretalls Here Duarenus said pretily that it fared ill with mens affaires since the decrees had gotten winges that is since the Decretalls were so sawcie as to flie into the Church ouer the Scriptures Therefore Poperie is the abrogation of Gods heauenly commandements I will bring one example wherein it appeareth that Bellarmine the Popes sweet-heart hath by his exposition ouerthrowne one of the greatest commandements of the Law Bellarmines lewd dealing with the second commandement God said Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any likenesse to worship Here Bellarmine distinguisheth Thou shalt not worship an Idoll But thou shalt worship an Image A distinction of the word not of the thing Far an Image is an Idoll when it is worshipped But the worshipping of an Idoll is Idolatrie and in the Commandement there is no mention made of an Idoll but of a likenes and that of euery likenes which as it were the genus or generall doth comprehend equally both Image and Idoll But Idolatrie is to worship the Creature for the Creator yea by your leaue with the Creator too for the worship of any likenes is absolutely forbidden in the law whether it be worshipped for God or with God And the reason of the prohibition is absolute Idolatrie is compared to fornication and God to a iealous husband who by no meanes will haue the likenes of any thing to be worshipped either before him or with him Bellarmine seemeth to alledge the same excuse for his idolatrie which the harlot doth for her adulterie for shee telleth her iealous husband I tooke not this Letcher for my Husband but for my Friend I tooke him with you not for you So this adulterous minde of Bellarmine answereth to God that is full of iealousie I do not worship the image for God but with God not for the Creator but with the Creator But God as a most iealous husband doth absolutely forbid any worship of an image as the lewd imbracing of an adulterer Ioh 9. v. 20. and therefore S. Iohn calleth the worshipper of an Idoll the worshipper of the Deuill Now it is plaine that the Pope is a worshipper of an Idoll therefore the worshipper of the Deuill The Pope oweth me a good turne for saying he is an Idolater wherein I feare I shall seeme to prevaricate and dissemble that while I giue him the name of an Idolater I take from him the name of Antichrist For Antichrist is not an Idolater as Bellarmine would haue it The Pope is an Idolater as truth it selfe would haue it Therefore the Pope is not Antichrist I counsell the Pope that if he giue credit to Bellarmines proposition he graunt our assumption so while he take to himselfe the name of an Idolater hee may happily lay aside the name of Antichrist But he will resume it so giddie headed and wauering is Bellarmine By whose confession Antichrist doth worship Maozim that is as he saith the Deuill But the worshipper of the Deuill is an Idolater Antichrist therefore is an Idolater But the Pope hath taken to him the note of an Idolater from holy Iohn let him therefore take againe to him the note of Antichrist From hence ariseth that which I intended to proue that the Pope doth nothing else but abrogate and annihilate a principall commandement of God with his tradition and opposition What is it to denie the Prophecie of Christ if this be not what as though hee hath not only corrupted but also peruerted the Gospell of Christ The Popes fift Gospell while hee hath suffered a fift Gospell to be coyned by his Dominicans as Matth Parisiensis doth witnesse They called it the Gospell of the Holy Ghost Anno 1254. Math. in Hen. 3. and the eternall Gospell wherein they taught that Christ is not God nor his Gospell the true Gospell and that compared to their Gospell his was the shell and theirs the kernell O blasphemie to be punished with hell fire Hereof they be the Neptunian or rather Vulcanian Fathers who in that Tridentine furnace haue by their fiering and hammering shap't out that prophane Gospell anew but without the name of the fift Gospell Although Clement the eight did of late gladly and willingly take vnto him the name of the fift Euangelist put vpon him by crouching Gâ—briel that detestable Parasite as though Clement had finished the fift Gospell which doth not onely giue a blow to the foure Gospells but a deadly wound The authors whereof doe incurre Pauls curse which is denounced not only to Popes but to Apostles and Angells if any shall bring in not a contrarie but another Gospell Not if any contrarie but if any besides that which the Galathians receiued of Paul that is besides that which they had receiued out of the legall and euangelicall Scriptures as Augustine did expound the place if they doe not only preach or ouerthrow the whole Gospell but if they doe neuer so litle preach beside the Gospell or doe thwart any thing as Chrysostome hath explained the place For another Gospell doth not only corrupt but peruert the Gospell of Christ The Pope of Rome doth not onely bring in another but a contrarie wherein hee doth not onely adde many things but oppose many things against the Gospell of Christ In the one hee doth weaken the Gospell in the other he destroyeth it for euery addition doth import an imperfection euery opposition a falshood And therefore Poperie is to be deemed not only a corruption but a subuersion of the Gospell Out of that fift Gospell is their new Creed of their faith taken which conteyneth twelue articles of the faith to be discussed in the Dialogue following For the making whereof diuers Popes heretofore tooke great paines and euery one added a peece of his owne till it came to full perfection by Pius the fourth and hath been lately printed by your authoritie Paul the fift that the great glory of your omnipotent power in the Papacie might appeare As likewise the conformities of S. Francis are lately brought to light and by your commandement published in print I thinke that typicall Iesus being brought againe into the world by you might remoue the true Iesus out of his throne Let God arise and let his enemies be scattered Let true Iesus vtterly confound the typicall Iesus Do not these things Paul the fift manifestly proue that thou art that great Antichrist who althogh thou do openly in word confesse that
Images The Popes imagine that they be Masters of abstinence and continencie when for conscience sake they forbidde meates and marriages when as in truth they bring in the doctrine of deuills as S. Paul teacheth They doe not intend so you will say The murtherer doth not intend to kill his Father but his enemie but in stead of his enemie hee killeth his Father in the darke shall we say hee killed not his father but his enemie because he intended not his fathers but his enemies death which if it be absurd to speake in this outward darknes do we not thinke it as absurd in this inward darknesse of the soule if any man say that he doth worship God when hee doth worship the Dragon because hee doth intend to worship God not the Dragon Therefore the Emperours and the Popes doe agree in a third that is in worshipping the Dragon from whom they haue receiued their power Adde hereto that the Pope in whom the image of the first beast doth reuiue and liue againe as shall appeare afterward while he driueth men to worship himselfe it may be said that he doth compell them to worship the image of the first beast from whence thus I dispute He that compelleth men to worship the image of the first beast is Antichrist The Pope doth compell men to worship the image of the first beast The Pope therefore is Antichrist CHAP. XV. The decayed Emperour reuiued by the Pope 5 FOR shee is said to cure and heale the deadly blow of the former beast and to restore to him a spirit and a voice That I may not be longer about those things which are so copiously vnfolded by others the Empire tooke a deadly wound in Augustulus The Empire dead which was the last Emperour of the East from whom the Empire lay as it were dead for 325 yeeres till it was restored againe by the Pope and receiued as it were new life in Charles the Great as Bellarmine doth vauntingly confesse For he saith That the Pope did translate the Empire first from the Greekes to the French reuiued afterward to the Germaines and appointed that the choice of the Emperour should be made by seauen Electors on that condition that the confirmation and inauguration of the Emperour so chosen should belong to the Pope that by this meanes that dead head might seeme to liue and flourish againe by the spirit of the Pope But reseruing to himselfe the power of the Empire hee left the title to the Germaines Cap. 15. de mira Anti as Bellarmine doth vnaduisedly confesse that Antichrist shall be the last that shall enioy the Romane Empire without the name or title of the Romane Emperour The Emperor but titular And therefore the Germane Emperour in respect of his power is only Titular for the Pope hath not only deriued to him the spirituall power but the temporall also therefore the state of Antichrist is the liuely image of the old Empire The Germaine Empire is not now the Empire but the title and dead ghost of the Empire to whom the Pope giueth spirit that is authoritie and a voice that is his Edicts when he giueth life to the Emperour by his confirmation To what end I pray you â— that it may sustaine and vphold the Popes Seate wherein the power of the Empire doth reside without a name according to Iohns Prophecie Hence the Germane Emperour is called the Procurator and protector of the Apostolicall See I dispute then thus Antichrist is the restorer of the old Romane Monarchie witnes S. Iohn The Pope of Rome alone is the restorer of the old Romane Monarchie Bellarmine not onely witnessing it but glorying in it The Pope of Rome therefore alone is Antichrist CHAP. XVI Of bringing downe fire from heauen BVt Bellarmine doth expound this place according to the letter as that likewise of bringing downe fire from heauen Antichrist saith he and the Antichristian Church doth make the image of the Beast to liue and speake But the Pope and the Popish Church did neuer make the image of the Beast to liue and speake Therefore the Pope is not Antichrist Besides Antichrist saith he doth cause fire to come from heauen in the sight of men The Pope did neuer bring downe fire in the sight of men The Pope therefore is not Antichrist The proposition of the former syllogisme taken literally is not S. Iohns proposition for not the image of euery beast is to take life from Antichrist but the image of the first Beast that is of the Romane Empire which the Pope in name and title renued in the Emperour in strength and power retained in himselfe And therefore hee peruersely collecteth out of Iohn that power is giuen to Antichrist to giue life and frame speeches to Images which may seeme as credible to sober men Popish false miracles as that the picture of Memnon being enlightned by the Sunne beames spake very plainely as Tacitus reporteth But grant it be so the assumption literally taken agreeth with the Pope and the popish Synagogue if ye beleeue the Legend How often by them are images counterfeited to moue to sweat to nodd to speake in the sight and opinion of simple people that they may be allured to the worship of those Saints whose images they be There was some wonder toward as oft as the image began to speake Martialis The Deuill did often speake in the images of the Ethnicks but a Priest in the images of the Papist that hee may seeme to take the Deuils turne in deluding of men I retort therefore this argument Whatsoeuer Church doth make images to speake in the opinion of men is Antichristian But the popish Church doth make images to speake in the opinion of men Therefore the popish Church is Antichristian 6. Now I come to Bellarmines latter syllogisme if first I shall explaine the sixt action of the Beast Shee worketh great signes so that she maketh fire to descend from heauen in the sight of men The Beast that is Antichrist doth worke great miracles v 13. which blessed Paul calls lying signes and wonders 1. in respect of the end because they serue to seduce men Ioh 14. 2. in respect of the matter for they be either the counterfeytings of lying men or the wonders of deceitfull spirits as Augustine speaketh 3. In respect of the forme for whereas true miracles doe exceede nature and are wrought by the omnipotent power of God false wonders are they which are partly effected by naturall causes partly by the power of Sathan Bellarmine doth well agree with vs in all False miracles The miracles of the first and second kinde haue been infinite in the darke kingdome of Antichrist the apparition of Spirits the visions of Angells our Ladie how often hath shee come gliding out of heauen how often haue the miserable soules crept puling out of Purgatorie besetting high-wayes and recounting their torments to procure men to pittie them hence the market of
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
plainely shewed against Tortus or rather counterfet Bellarmine that the Apostles Creede was set foorth whereto Iames the Apostle before his martyrdom had added the Article of Christ before the departure of the Apostles from Ierusalem and therefore before S. Peter came to Rome by the testimonie of Baronius himselfe Anno 44. and had concluded necessarily from thence that the Catholike faith was fully finished before the Apostolike See was begunne hence it is said there arose a doubt in that right honourable Calanders conscience a Papist but very moderate and honest not onely of the supremacie of Peter and of that depriuing power annexed to the supremacy but of all the whole Romish Catholike faith which he saw was contained in the popish not Apostolicall Nycene or Constantinopolitane Creede § 125 Therefore when those former learned men together with William Argentine came againe to visite him It is very well sayd Calander that you are met againe to discusse before vs a verie difficult controuersie of the popes new creede which Pius the fouth had formerly compiled Paul the 5. comanded it lately to be printed my good freind Argentine hath lately recited it and I hope by and by he will recite the same to you This being prescribed by the Church vtterly to reiect it I doe as yet to speake truely make a conscience and to admit it wholly vnlesse it bee ratified by the testimonies of the holy Scripture I cannot admit without scruple of conscience For I haue lately learned to giue attendance to the holy Scripture which holy S. Peter doth directly affirme to bee as a candle lightned in this life to vs wandring in darknesse 2. Pet. 1. Which holy Paul doth likewise make the foundation of the Church Ephes 2.20 1. Tim. 3.15 and yet I cannot depart rashly from the Catholike Church whereto I haue beene accustomed which the same S. Paul calles the piller and ground of truth by which there is a creede of faith set out for me So I hang doubtfull betweene the Scripture the Church which God hath giuen vnto vs as the Sunne and Moone the two great lights to giue vs light to life Then Patriott you say right Calander said he in the § 126 generall that as the Sunne and Moone so the Scripture and the Church as two lights shew light vnto vs The Scripture and Church compared to the Sun Moon but that you erre in the speciall as after it shall better appeare But the holy Scripture hath light in it selfe as the Sunne the Church is a light but borrowed from the Scripture as the Moone from the Sun these two I confesse are giuen vs of God to direct vs vnto eternall life But the Scripture directs vs with masterly authority the Church with her ministery for the holy Scripture is the wisdome of God in Christ inspired from aboue into holy men for the eternall saluation and perfection of the Church as the Apostle hath defined it God hath commended the Scripture to the Church The office of the Church as an heauenly charge that it may discerne expound keep and publish it to men the Scripture is therefore mens master but the Church is Gods minister Therefore the Apostle calles the truth the foundation of the Church and the Church the piller of truth as Salomon made his chariot to haue a golden axtree and pillers of siluer vnderstanding by the axetree the sound doctrin of the Messias by the pillers the faithfull teachers of the same § 127 It is a wicked thing therefore to detract from the maiestie of the holy Scripture and it is vniust to derogate from the ministery of the true Church for the Scripture is the truth of God The office of the Scripture and the Church is the house of God the truth is the golden foundation of this house and this house is the siluer piller of this truth that is cut out of the truth as out of the rocke as Chrysostome obserueth So if the Scripture be the base of the Church then the Church is the piller of the word as he spake very wittily Now reason teacheth that the foundation is not sustained by the house but the house by the foundation And religion concludes from thence that truth makes the Church not the Church the truth For the approbation of the truth is the working cause of the Church For before it do approue the written word of God it is but a company of Infidels and Idolaters after it hath approoued it it beginneth to be the familie of the faithful worshippers of God that is a Church Further although the Church by the Spirit doe discerne the true Scripture from the false yet the Scripture being once knowen and acknowledged as before it made so after it sheweth the Church For what more certain note can there be of shewing a thing then the working cause of the thing Againe what priuiledge soeuer the Church doth rightly challenge to it selfe it receiued from the Scripture as that which calleth the Church the piller of truth Therefore the truth of the Scripture is more ancient in time more perspicuous for the light and greater for authority then the Church which when it once receiueth her essence light and power from the Scripture then at last as a piller it vpholdeth with her ministery the truth in respect of men and reueales it to the inhabitants of the earth and it is that ground whereon men both may and ought to leane and rest Lawes vpon pillers so the Scriptures on the Church Whereupon the Propheticall and Apostolicall doctrine is said to bee the foundation of the Church the Church is the strength of doctrine not the foundation It is euident therfore that the Church is founded and sustained by the truth and that the truth is sustained and reuealed by the Church once founded as it were a watch-tower for trauellers to direct them into heauen The Heathens were wont to write their lawes in tables and hang them vp vpon pillers to bee read of the people The Apostle describing the Church compareth it to such a piller the vse wherof was to shew the Law when it selfe was not the Law So the true Orthodoxe and Catholike faith being written in the tables of the Scripture is fastned to the Church as it wereto a most beautifull piller as a most strong prop which resteth vpon it not with its owne but a borrowed strength Wherefore the Apostle in the second to the Ephesians defines the Church when in the second to Timothie hee describes it For there hee argueth from the causes heere from the effects in each place he vnderstandeth the Church of Ephesus that is a particular Church In the first place he teacheth what made that in the second what that did nor so much what it alway doth for of necessitie the foundation being taken away the Church must fall as it happened first to the Church of Ephesus and afterward to the Church
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
that he commanded warre to be raised wherein hee might be slaine he answeres in Tortus How the Papists may kill a King how not that Bellarmine spake not of murther which may happen in battaile but of that murther which may be committed by a royster A very honest distinction As though hee bee not as well a murtherer who at the command of the Pope doth kill the King by open force Cardinall Comensis incited Parry to kill Q. Elizabeth as he that shall doe it by secret treacherie That this Cardinall threatning warres armes is no honester then Cardinall Comensis whose letters are extant wherein he encouraged Parry with promise of reward and pardon from the Pope that hee should bring to good effect the purpose of his good spirit those were his wordes that is that he should murther Queene Elizabeth with his dagger Bellarmine proued no better to our excellent King Iames but somewhat the closer Did Peter feede the Church after this manner This is not foode but poyson Did he so guide the flock of his Master as if the chiefe belweather of the flocke went astray he would take care that he should either closly or openly be slaine Giue a Shipheards crooke to a Shepheard What hath a Shipheard to doe with a sword Yes forsooth saith he when Christ made Peter a Pastor hee made him a Prince For when hee commanded him to feed he commanded him to rule And he gaue him not only a ministery but a magistracy But good Sir the inward and spirituall gouernment is one thing which Peter exercised ouer soules by the worde the Sacraments and the keies the earthly and outward gouernment is another thing which Paul the 5 doth practise by fraude and force against crownes I pray you tell mee Calander what difference you make betweene these two and the Commentaries of the Fathers and their owne popish writers Marke the consequencies depending on this interpretation partly foolish partly wicked Peter is commanded to feede the flocke of Christ § 150 Therefore none but Peter Vpon Peter is laide the charge of feeding and teaching Therefore the honour of ruling and reigning is bestowed on him Peters dutie is to teach Kings Therefore to depose Kings To instruct Kings therefore to destroy Kings To Peter is granted a spirituall regiment therefore an earthly gouernment Whether doth hee that knits together such consequences and these are necessarily gathered out of Bellarmines interpretation seeme to be sent to the schooles or to the Anticira for a purge Charge is laid Calander vpon all true Pastors in Peter to feede and rule the flocke of Christ committed to their charge but so that they feede them with the spirituall foode of wholesome doctrine and rule them with the staffe of wholesome discipline But if Paul the 5. doe not feede the flocke but feede vpon it and doe not order the steppes of his sheepe but breake their legges and their heades truly he doth giue food and vse his shepheardes staffe otherwise then Christ appointed Wherefore I thinke King Iames would rather fast then bee fed by such a Shepheard who feedeth to that end that hee may kill and eat What other Kings doe let themselues looke to it let them laugh in their sleeues as they please when they read these foolish quiddities of Schollers but let them take heede of such wicked baites of rebellion which lurke in Bellarmines new Dictionarie Wherein To feede and to rule are 〈◊〉 To teach a King and to depose a King all one The excommunication of a King and depriuation The absoluing of sinners from sâ—â—e is the absoluing subiects from their duty § 151 Doe they not perceiue that this is the Grammer of that proud and bloody Antichrist Therefore King Iames doth willingly forsake the popish flocke that hee may betake himselfe to Gods flocke which is knowne of Christ and followeth him and flieth from a stranger For he doth not regard these carnall Cardinalls so leaden-pated in their arguing Peter is the Porter of heauen Therefore the Lord of the world Peter is a Pastor therefore a Prince Peter is a Fisher of men therefore of kingdomes A net was giuen him wherewith he may take fishes as well great as little Therefore he hath gouernment aswell ouer Kings as subiects Peter is charged to feede the sheepe therefore he is charged to feede the rest of the Apostles He is twise charged to feede Lambes therefore the Iewes and Gentiles and by consequent all Christians Do not these hange together as a sickmans dreames Doth not Bellarmine seeme to expose the Scripture to mockery when he reasoneth after this fashion against Aquinas rule who doth plainely deny that symbolicall diuinitie Bellarmine buildeth his Church gouernment vppon tropes hath any force to argue whereon for all that hee hath built the whole supremacy and doth pronounce it to be a doctrine of the Catholicke faith most plainly founded vpon the Scriptures The Philosophers doe laugh at Epicure for making the world of moates And will not Diuines hisse out Bellarmine that frameth the ecclesiasticall gouernment of tropes For truely you shall assoone finde Moores Vtopia in the world as Peters Monarchy in the text Which Article notwithstanding is fained to bee the cheefe article of the Popes Creede wherein are contained many articles aswell of superstition and Idolatrie as of conspiracie and rebellion So that Poperie is nothing else but a plaine catechisme of false faith toward God and the King For that double power ecclesiasticall and temporall § 152 which you faine to bee so inwardly ioyned to the supremacy that it cannot be separated from it you haue erected as a double engine to ouerthrow the truth of diuinity and the Kings dignity For you haue translated each of them as it were from Peter to the Pope and the Popes successour which you assume and proue not Ecclesiasticall whereby by excommunication he may binde Kings and absolue subiects not only from sinnes but from vowes lawes and oathes So by excommunication the Pope stealeth away crownes from Kings and soules from subiects while he taketh away authority from the one and obedience from the other In both he breaketh Gods will wherby the ciuill power of the Prince though he be euill and the obedience of the subiect is soundly established as I haue fully and at large satisfied you in the former Dialogue and I haue no lesse infringed the Popes temporall iurisdiction where you alleadged it In the meane while there was no reason this insolent Cardinall should tearme Kings Catholike in the faith if once they began to bee wicked vnruly râ—mmes Bellarmines sawcinesse iustly reprooued and Protestant Kings and Princes rauenous wolues himselfe being a goate and a foxe he durst not I say call them so but that hee thinketh Kings to be very patient Who if they remembred themselues to bee Kings would teach this sawcy and busie Cardinall to follow his holy studie and not to trouble himselfe with Kings affaires Neither would they
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
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
doth witnes which said my kingdom is not of this world From a possibilitie to a deed the argument is not of force in Christ much lesse in Peter O pleasant madnes of Bellarmine wherby he dreameth that the temporall power in possibilitie as hanging in the ayre is bestowed vpon his Bishop § 204 But marke the mans reason God hath appointed Christ to be heyre of all things How the temporall rule forsooth descendeth vpon the Pope Therfore if he would he could haue cast Tiberius out of his throne and Pilate out of his iudgement seate for he was the heyre of all things Peter could if hee would haue wrested Nero's scepter out of his hands for he was heyre to Christ And the Pope can if he will cast of the Crowne from the head of any King heretike or catholike if he begin to go astray for he is Peters heyre For all comes to this at last that the temporall dominion of the whole world descends from Christ to Peter from Peter to the Pope That the Pope forsooth might haue and exercise power ouer Kings which Christ had but vsed not but might haue vsed if hee had been so pleased A vant with all these foolish quiddities which inferre such dangerous consequences Austin and Maldonate against Bellarmine But if hee had consulted not only with Austin but also with Maldonat on of his owne side hee should haue vnderstood that that place was to be interpreted of the spirituall not temporall inheritance of the world granted to Christ by the Father For what he that refused the iudgement of diuiding a priuate inheritance would he take to him the publike inheritance of the whole world And he that willingly submitted himselfe to the authoritie of Pilate giuen from aboue euen to the death of the Crosse did hee shew himselfe a temporall Lord both ouer Tiberius and the whole world The power of Pilate saith Bellarmine was not ordeyned § 205 but permitted And this is the sense of the place that Pilate could do nothing against Christ if God had not permitted it As that place is also vnderstood this is your houre and power of darknesse Luc 22. but because S. Thomas saith he vpon the 13 to the Romanes vnderstandeth the place of the ordinarie power we do not disagree But that this power did extend it selfe to Christ we thinke that to be done out of Pilates ignorance who not knowing the worthines of Christ iudged him as some priuate Citizen of the country As if in our dayes a Clergie man were brought to the bar of a Secular Iudge vnder the name and habite of a Lay-man hee may be condemned by that power wherewith a Laicke may out of the ignorance of the Iudge yet it doth not follow thereby that Clarkes by law are subiect to the iudgement of Lay-men or that Christ was subiect to the iudgment of Pilate Thus far Bellarmine But Christ said that Pilates power was not permitted § 206 but giuen from aboue The permitted power was that power of darknes whereby God suffred that the Iewes should kill the Lord of Glory wherein they sinned most greiuously And therefore it is called the power of darknesse not giuen from aboue as was Pilates the Iudge which Austin called not an vsurped but an vniust power Which place saith he when I heard it to be expounded by S. Thomas of a lawfull power I do not withstand it Bellarmine contradicteth himselfe It is well that which before you did wickedly affirme being instructed by Thomas you honestly deny The man speakes out of a boate now enclining to this side now to that neither doth he somtime contradict others so much as himselfe But marke how by turning himselfe into all parts he hath found a starting hole to escape by Whereas Pilate did stretch out this power against Christ it was out of Pilates ignorance that knew not the worth of Christ As if a Clerke vnder the habite of a Lay man should bee brought before a lay-Iudge he might by the ignorance of the Iudge be condemned as a Lay-man which notwithstanding the Law doth not allow c. That which he imputes to the ignorance of Pilate Austin imputes it to his feare lest he should offend Caesar in loosing of Christ. But this may be ascribed to his ignorance that he beggeth the question Bellarmine begs the question For he takes it as granted which is in question that a Clerke may not by law be condemned by a secular Iudge though out of the Iudges ignorance he may being attired like a Layman As if he should say that Alexander the 3. being in his pontificalibus might not rightly be iudged by Fredericke the Emperor Alexander 3. but being in his cookes apparell he might by ignorance or that Bishop who bare armes against Richard the first King of England An English Bishop in K Richard the first dayes Odo brother to W. Conqueror could not be hanged in his Bishops attire but being found in a coat-armour hee might by ignorance Or that Odo the brother of William the first a very wicked traytor could not be committed to ward as Bishop of Bayon but as Earle of Kent Or that some trayterous Iesuite imagine some Garâ—et or Oldcorne could not bee hanged in his massing robes but might by ignorance being clad in a Courtiers attire I could wish rather that such Clerkes were vnknowne than knowne But he doth very vntowardly make Christ his innocencie a cloake for a harmefull Clerke that because Christ could not be rightly condemned by Pilate therefore euery Clerke is exempted from the iudgement of a secular Iudge It is as I said a manifest begging of the thing in question For I can better dispute after a contrary manner There was no exempting of the person of Christ from the iudgement of Pilate Therefore there is no exempting of Paul the fift from the iudgment of the Emperor For if Christ the chiefe Bishop was not exempted from the iudgment of the Emperor whose power was from aboue then certainely the Bishop of Rome ought not to be exempted from the iudgement of the Emperors power The actions of Christ are rules for the Pope the actions of Popes are not rules for Christ But whereas the Cardinall brings in his Clearke in § 207 a Lay-mans weede before a secular Iudge hee doth very ill apply it to his purpose For he hauing got this freedome or exemption as is taught he should not say to the Iudge that hee hath power from heauen against him but the contrary you haue no power against me froÌ„ aboue for I am a Clerke but when Christ said not this but the cleane contrary you haue power against me froÌ„ aboue he allowed not the exeÌ„pting of a Clerke vnles the prerogatiue of a Clerke be greater than the prerogatiue of Christ But you haue brought in a very dull-pated Clerke who being endowed with a priuiledge as you call it cannot vtter it that he may be safe from danger being
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