obedience And that Christ hath giuen him most ful powre as S. Cyril saith he teacheth lib. thesaur which proofe out of S. Cyril this honest challenger left out Austin of Ancona affirmeth Augustin do Ancona in summa p. 152. that The Pope as Christs vicar hath vniuersal iurisdiction ouer al Kingdoms and Empiers Did euer man see greater impudency what word is here of equal powre with God Nay expresse word of inequality if vicars be vnequal to principals deputies to Kings Did Christs humanity when it receaued most ful powre Math. 28. v. 18. and authority S. Mathevv ouer al kingdoms and bounds of the earth psal 2. v. 8. receaue equal powre to Dauid God And if the powre of Christ as man though neuer so ful and vniuersal were create and vnequal to Gods powre who can imagin the powre giuen by Christ as man to a pure man to be equal to Gods I omit Bels error in affirming that Austin of Ioan. 12. liued 956. August de Ancona 1305. Onuph in chron Ancona dedicated his booke to Pope Ihon the twelft who was dead almost 400. years before him But he shold haue said Ihon 22. and this error can not be laid vpon the Printer seeing the number is set downe not in cyphers but letters 2. His dissimulation is euident First because Dissimulati◠4. he concealeth that the opinion That matrimony only contracted may be vpon vrgent occasion dissolued is held but of some Canonists and of very few deuines who commonly hold the contrary But impugneth Bel impugneth an opinion of Canonists and of Protestants as a matter of faith 5. Dissimulation Surius Ann. 1540. Vid. Lindan l. de concordia Haereticor p. 69. it as if it were held of al Catholiques and as a point of their faith Secondly he imposeth the said opinion vpon Catholiques only dissembling that Protestants think not only matrimony contracted but also consummated by carnal copulation may be dissolued impugne Catholiques for not admitting any cause of dissoluing such matrimony 3. Luther the Protestants first Father writ a booke 1540. where he auoucheth it to be hard and vniust that the innocent person may not marry an other after separation made for adultery Caluin calleth it a Caluin 4. instit c. 19. paragr 37. most vniust law Likwise Bucer in cap. 19. Math. Melancht de loc tit de coniugio Kemnitius in 2. part exami And Willet in VVillet controu 15. q. 2. p. 526. 527. name of English Protestants Al these affirme that adultery is a iust cause why euen consummated marriage may be dissolued and a new contracted Luther addeth other Luther in c. 7. ad Corinth edit 1523. causes as the one persuading the other to sinne much debate betwene them and long absence of the one party which if it be done of malice seemeth iust cause to willet and therto he citeth Beza 1. Corinth VVillet sup 7. and other Protestants And this was practized in K. Edward 6. tyme when Syr Ralf Sadler hauing maried one Mathew Baro his wife in his absence though Baro had begotten children of her yet could not recouer her but by Parlament she was adiudged to Sadler Caluin addeth want of Caluin Bucer sup consent of parents if the parties be yong and Bucer addeth incommodious behauior of ether party to be a sufficient cause 4. Wherfore if the Pope by dissoluing Bel pag. 37. contracted matrimony which he doth very seldom and vpon vrgent occasion weighty cause challenge as Bel saith powre equal to God Surely Protestants by dissoluing consummated matrimony often and vpon so many causes wherof some are very smale and not sufficient to dissolue a meere ciuil contract do challenge powre aboue God But let vs see how he against some Catholiques and generally al Protestants proueth that contracted matrimony can not be dissolued but by God alone for any cause whatsoeuer 5. His reason is because Christ said Math. pag. 38. c. 19. v. 6. what God hath ioyned let not man seperate and Luc. 16. v. 18. Euery one that putteth away his wife and marieth an other committeth adultery And S. Paul 1. Corinth c. 7. v. 10. Those that are ioyned in matrimony command not I but our lord that the wife depart not from the husband but if she depart abide vnmaried or be reconciled to her husband To this the Canonists answer That Christ and his Apostle spake only of consummated matrimony because Math. 19. Christ forbiddeth seperation of such as immediatly before he had said to be made one flesh which is by consummation of matrimony And likewise Luc. 16. prohibiteth mariage after dismission of a wife carnally known as is gathered out of Math. 5. v. 32. where he vseth the same words and citeth the law of diuorce Deut. 24. v. 1. which speaketh of a woman carnally known saying If a man haue taken a vvife and had her and she haue not found fauor in his eyes for some filthines he shal c. And hereby are answered the words of S. Paul in which he referreth him self to the precept of Christ Besids that S. Thecla virgin was by him soluta à nuptijs losed from mariage as writeth S. Epiph. haer 78. which S. Epiphan fact S. Ambros lib. 2. de virg commendeth S. Ambros and it argueth that the Apostle tought vnconsummated mariage might be dissolued 6. Against this answer Bel bringeth many replies in number but none of force 1. That if contracted matrimony were not de iure pag. 38. diuino the greatest Popish Doctors vvold not deny the Popes dispensation therin Lo here when it maketh for his purpose he confesseth the greatest Catholique Doctors to think contracted matrimony to be indissoluble Why then doth he impugne the contrary as an Article of our faith To his argument I answer that though al Catholiques beleeue the institution of contracted matrimony to be of God and Deuines for the most part probably thinke the continuance also therof to be iure diuino and commanded by God yet neuertheles Canonists do probably teach that the continuance of it is not absolutly and in al cases commanded by God but may vpon great and vrgent causes be dissolued by the Church 7. Secondly he replyeth that Christ speaketh absolutly and maketh no mention of copulation or popish consummation Answer Though in that verse he spake absolutly yet immediatly before he made mention of copulation And wil Bel forbid vs to expound a sentence of Scripture by the antecedents or consequents But I maruel much why he tearmed consummation or copulation popish Me thinketh he shold rather cal it Ministerish For Papists can say with S. Austin lib. de bono coniug c. 13. tom 6. VVe S. Austin see lib. 5. cont Faust c. 9. haue many brethren and companions of the heauenly inheritance of both sexes vvho are continent ether after experience of mariage or are free from al such copulation such are innumerable But for Ministers their first
before he answered it to slander both Pope and Papists and to tel the Reader a long tale of steps deuised by him selfe in an imaginary ladder of his owne Many absurd things saith he haue pag. 5. bene affirmed by Popes parasits for aduancement of his primacy Iâ— one aske him what these absurd things are who were these parasits He nameth none For dolosus versatur in generalibus But let vs heare him proue his saying 11. vntruthe Victoria de potestate ecclesiae relect 1. sect 6. As Victoria doth testify in these words Sed glossatores iuris hoc dominion c. The glossors of the law haue giuen this dominion to the Pope they being poore in substance and learning 2. Here in steed of proofs I find an vntruth For nether doth Victoria in these words speâ—ke of many things but onely of this dominion meaning temporal ouer the world nether yet doth he cal it absurd This want therfore Bel thought to supply VVhen he spealeth a lye he speaketh of his ovvne Ioan. 8. v. 44. 12 vntruth of his owne store and therfore Englishing Victorias words he addeth and these lordly titles and then as hauing a sure foundation he rayseth his lie somewhat higher saying That Victoria affirmeth ignorance and pouerty were the beginning of al lordly Popery Wheras Victoria speaketh onely of temporal dominion ouer the whole world and Bel him selfe Bel p. 17. 4. Contradict herafter maketh Kings and Emperors authors of the Popes dominion Bel p. 7. 3. Hauing thus dealt with Victoria he falleth to slander the late Popes saying That they haue challenged more then human and royal power euen that povver vvhich is due proper to God alone True it is that both late ancient 13 vntruth Popes haue challeÌ„ged more then human royal power For such is al spiritual power as shal hereafter be proued But most false it is that any Pope auncieÌ„t or late challengeth any power proper to God or that any Catholique attributeth such power vnto him As his brother willet telleth him in these VVillet coÌ„trad 544. prel 3. p. 210. Caluin 4. instit c. 20. parag 4. Magistratus praediti sunt diuina authoritate Melancthon apud Sur. 1501. Bel p. 6. Gerson de potest eccl confid 12. p. 3. words The Pope by their owne confession can not do al that Christ did But what say you Sir to Caluin attributing duine power to Magistrats And to Protestants arrogating greater more intolerable and les excusable authority and power then euer the Pope did as Melanthon writeth or to other calling Princes Gods as you shal heare a none Now let vs see what proofs he bringeth of his slander Gerson saith he reporteth that some Popish parasits say that Christ hath giuen al that power in heauen and earth to S. Peter and his successors which was giuen to him selfe and that he hath writen in the Popes thighe King of Kings and Lord of Lords And that there is no power Ecclesiastical or temporal but from the Pope 4. Behould good Reader Bels euil dealing with Popes He chargeth al late Popes with challenging power proper to God which is a most heinous and Luciferian crime and for proofe therof bringeth not one word or deede of any one of them but ones report of speeches of some nameles fellows without proouing that any Pope ether allowed or liked yea heard of such speeches were such dealing with any priuat man tolerable And how much les with so great Princes as Popes at least are Suppose parasits had attributed to Popes power Protestants cal Princes Goddes proper to God doth it therfore follow that they challeng it Doe al Princes challeng what their flatterers impose vpon them Did Q Elizabeth challeÌ„g to be a Goddesse because Case Cambden and other Protestants Case in ep suop Policorum Cambden in Berqueria in Natis ad lectorem in Cantic Epist Bel in his epistles to the King to B. of Durhom Act. 14. v. 10. 11. 12. called her a Goddesse She saieth Cambden is the onely Goddesse of Britans Sheâ— shal be my Goddesse the grouÌ„d wher she was borne is rather to be adored then adorned she is Numen to be worshiped of the whole word Or doth his Maiesty challeng to be head of the Church of France or Toby Mathew to be the ornament of learning and religion because Bel so tearmeth them did S. Paul and Barnaby challeÌ„g to be Gods because the Licaonians did so account them doth not the Pope professe him self to be Christs Vicar and seruant of his seruants How standeth this with the challeng of equality 5. But I deny that euer any Catholique attributed to the Pope power proper to God let vs therfore consider Gersons report The first point is that Christ hath giuen al the power in heauen and earth to S. Peter and Bels slander toucheth as vvel S. Peter and the auncient Popes as the late his successors which was giuen to him self But beside that these words concerne no les the Ancient then the late Popes namely S. Peter him self though Bel be ashamed to charg them with this staunder are these woords of Popish parasits doe they giue to men power proper to God alone Then was S. Chrisostome a Popish parasite and S. Chrysost lib. 3. de sacerdot gaue to Priests power proper to God when he said Priests haue al power of heauenly things and the very self same al kind of power which Christ had of his Father S. Basil sayth S. Basil homil de poenitent S. Leo serm 2. de Natali Pet. Pauli that Christ gaue this authority to others S. Leo writeth that S. Peter had those things by participation which Christ had proper by power or doth Bel think that our King in creating a deputy in Ireland and giuing him authority to gouerne that Kingdome giueth him power proper to Kings Are deputies Kings are they no more subiects True it is that the power which Popes haue came from God alone as the authority of deputies cometh from Kings but such power by commission is no more proper to God then the like in deputies is proper to Kings 6. The second point in Gersons report is that the forsaid nameles persons cal the Pope Lord of Lords and King of Kings If these be parasits words and make men equal to God then was Daniel a parasite he made Nabuchodonozor equal to God in calling him King of Kings Vnles Bel allow this Daniel 2. v. 37. title in a heathen Prince and account it blasphemy in a Christian Besyds the Scripture Exod. 7. psal 81. Io. 10. psal 104. Esaiae 45. S. Bernard l. 2. 4. de coÌ„siderat Caluin lib. 4. instit c. 7. paragr 22. it self doth apply the very names of Christ and God vnto men And S. Bernard no parasite but a holy writer in Caluins opinion calleth the Pope Prince of Bishops leader of Christians hammer of tyrants father of Kings
Iohannes Six emprisoned 9. Paschorlis 2. Boniface 8. Vrbanus 6. Clement 7. besyd Sergius 1. others whom they attempted to imprison They haue deposed as much as they could sixteene vz. Iohannes 12. al. 13. Benedict 5 Gregory 5. Benedict Sixteene deposed 8. and 9. Alexander 2. Gregory 6. and 7. Gelasius 2. Innocent 2. Alexander 3 Iohn 22. Vrban 6. Martin 5. by Alphons King of Arragon Platin. in Alexand. 3. Liberality of Popes tovvards England Stovve an 1171. Polidorus lib. 16. Comin ventura in relation de Napoli VVhen vvould Luther and Caluin haue giuen three Kingdomes to England Eugen. 4. by procurement of Philip Duke of Millen Iulius 2. whereas on the contrary side to omit spiritual benefits Popes haue bestowed the Empire vpon almost al them Emperours whom they deposed and haue refused to take the Empire from the Germans though they haue bene much sollicited thereto by the Grecians and to let passe their liberality to other Princes they haue bestowed the Kingdome of Ireland vpon Henry the second and of Naples and Sicily vpon Henry 3. and the most honourable title of defender of the faith vpon Henry 8. Kings of England hereby may the indifferent reader euen setting aside the iustice of the cause and considering only the fact clearly perceaue whether Christian Emperours and Princes haue more tiranized ouer Popes then Popes ouer them now let vs come to Bels proofe of his ould slaunder here againe renued of the Popes taking vpon them power proper to God alone 28. A Closse saith he affirmeth the Pope Bel pag. 14. Gloss lib. 1. tit 7. c. 3. to haue celestial arbitrement to be able to alter the nature of things applying the substance of one to an other and to make something of nothing and the Pope saith Bel is wel pleased there with Answer As for the Pope being pleased with the foresaid words it is more then Bel knoweth but sure I am he detesteth them if they be meant of power to create or proper to God alone But wel I see that which doth not displease Bel if it be giuen to Princes he condemneth as intolerable blasphemie if it be attributed to Popes For the foresaid words are al in the ciuil lawe and by the Emperours applied either to them selues or to the Pope as the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius de sum Three Emperours say the P. hath celestial arbitrement Trin. lib. 1. affirme the Popes to haue celestial arbitrement and condemne them as infamous hereticks who follow not the religion of Pope Damasus and his arbitrement in spiritual matters may be called heauenlie because his authority therein came from heauen That of altering the nature of things and applying the substance of one to an other the Emperour Iustinian C. communia de leg lib. 2. applieth to him selfe Of vvhat things Popes or Princes can alter the nature and meaneth of ciuil contracts as legacis and feoffees in trust which by his imperial power he can alter and change and the like power saith the glosse hath the Pope in contracts pertayning to spiritual matters But of altering the nature of natural things neither the Emperour nor the glosse dreamed 29. But the words which Bel most vrgeth are that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid something of nothing For saith he it is a thing proper to God to make something of nothing in al cases and at al tymes But besides that the glosse neither saith that the Pope can make de nihilo aliquid but de nullo aliquid neither yet in al cases and al times as Bel addeth the foresaid words are taken out of Iustinian C. de rei vxor act lib. 1. where the Emperour Of vvhat nothing Popes or Princes can make something saith that because he can make to be accompted a stipulation where none is much more he can an insufficient stipulatiō to be sufficient the like authority in humane contracts touching spiritual matters the glosse attributeth to the Pope this he meant when he said the Pope can de nullo fecere aliquid of no contract make one which Bel would applie to creatiō making creatures of nothing as God made the world 30. Secondlie he proueth his slaunder out of Gersons rep ort before answered and thirdlie out of Gregory 9. saying Ad firmamentum Gregor 9. lib. 1. de cre◠tit 33. c. 6. Caeli c. to the firmament of heauen that is of the vniuersal church God made two lights Pontifical authority and power Roial that we may knowe there is as much difference betweene Pope Kings as bet wixt sunne moone Is here any word of authority belonging to God or yet of deposing Kings but only a cōparison of Pontifical Royal power with the sunne moone allowed by the publique letters VVritten 1279. and one extāt in Baron tom 10. an 996. Matth. 16. vers 19. 18. Iob. 21. v. 15. 16. Act. 20. v. 18. Matth. 28. v. 19. of three Princes electors and a preferring of the Pontifical before the Royal which if Bel had any feeling of Christianity in him he would not deny Is not the loosing and binding of sinns in heauen earth of preaching the ghospel admnistring the sacraments of feeding Christs sheepe and the like which belongeth to Bishops as is euident out of scripture far more excellent then Royal power which as wel woemen and children as men infidels as Christians may haue 31. The sunne moone are of the same Royal povver far inferour to Pontifical nature and quality differing only in more or lesse light but Royal power is both of nature and quality far inferiour to Pontifical thas is more humane and begun by Constantin called Bishops Gods and professed him self vnder them Ruffin lib. 1. hist c. 2. men this supernatural and instituted by God that common to Infidels this proper to christians that passeth not earth this reacheth to heauen that concerneth only the body this the soule that helpeth men to worldhe and transitorie quietnes this to heauenlie and euerlasting rest Bel could not abide Pope Gregory saying Pontifical authority excelled Royal as far as the sunne excelleth the moone nor the glosse saying it excelled it 47. times how then wil he abide S. Chrisostom saying it excelleth the kingdome Chrisost l. 3. de sacerd Ambros lib. de dignit sacerd c. 2. as much as the soule douth the body or S. Ambrose saying that nothing can be equal to Pontifical dignity and that Royal glorie and Princes crownes are far more inferiour to it then lead is to glistering gould And againe nothing in this world is more Ibid. cap. 3. excellent then priests nothing higher then Bishops or S. Ignatius saying that nothing is more honourable Ignat. epist ad Smirnenscs in the church then Bishops and that we owe the first honour to God the second to Bishops the third to Kings he exclamed against the glosse for affirming the Pope
appeareth by his excommunicating the Emperors Thodosius and Maximus beside that Constantin and Valentinian professed them selues to be vnder Bishops And doubtles the human lawes enacted by the Apostles Act 15. v. 18. and 1. Cor 7. v. 12. exempted no more Princes then priuat persons S Hierome Bel affirmeth to teach the same that S. Ambrose but neither alledgeth his wordes nor quoteth ether booke or chapter perhaps because he made lesse shew for him 9. Euthimius he citeth because he writeth Bel p. 3. Euthym. in Psalm 50. Glossa ordin lyra in Psalm 50. S. Thom. 2. â— q. 12. art 2. That Dauid as a King had God onely iudge ouer his sinnes But he meaneth of a temporal iudge as doe also the Glosse and lita cited by him And though S. Thomas proue of set purpose That the Pope may depose Princes yet is not Bel ashamed to cite him because he saith 1. 2. q. 96. art 5. That a King is not subiect to compulsion of his owne lavvs As if therfore he were subiect to no law Hereafter the Reader neede not maruail to see Bel citing Scriptures and Fathers for his purpose seing he abstayneth not from his professed aduersaries For with him al is fish that comes to net and as litle make the one for him as the other Lastly he citeth Hugo Card writing That God alone is aboue al Hugo Card. in psal 50. cap. 1. Kings But this is ment in temporalibus as before we cited out of Innocent 3. 10. After these proofs of his Assumption Bel p. 4. 5. Bel hudleth vp six vntruthes togeather saying The good Kings Iosue Dauid Salomon Vntruthes 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Iosaphat Ezechias and Iosias knew right wel they had authority aboue al Priests and therfore tooke vpon them not onely to command control them but also to depose euen the high Priests them selues For proofe of these vntruthes he referreth vs to his Golden Balance and I refer him for confutation of them to Doctor Stapletons Conterblast against Horns vaine blast his Relection con 2. q 5 ar 1. Onely I say that Iosue was no King nor the Scripture affordeth any colour of saying that any high Priest was deposed by any of the said Kings except Abiathar by SolomoÌ„ 3. reg c. 2 v. 35. et 27. And yet as it is gathered out of the 3. Reg. 4. v. 4. 4. chapter where he is accounted Priest in Salomons raigne Salomon deposed him not but onely for a time confyned him to his howse for his conspiracy with Adonias and so debarred him from executing his Priestly function And though he had deposed him he had not done it as King but as Prophet fulfilling as the Scripture testifyeth the Prophisy against the howse of 3. Reg. 2. v. 27. Hely from whence Abiathar descended And this is al which Bel obiecteth against the Popes superiority ouer Princes Now let vs see how he answereth one obiection of Catholique in answers whereof he spendeth the rest of this article CHAP. VI. Bels answer to an argument of Catholiques for the Popes authority confuted BEL for better satisfaction as he saith Bel p. 5. of the vulgar sorte propoundeth one obiection of Catholiques but yet so nakedly and without al forme or fashion of argument setting downe an Antecedent without any consequent that therby one may ghesse â—e meaneth nothing lesse then to frame as he promisseth a plaine and sincer solution vnto it And yet the obiection though so sillily propounded not onely much trobleth many vulgar people as he saith but pusleth him selfe so as after seuen leaues spent to diuert the Readers minde to make him forget as Heritiks The manner of Protestants in ansvvering Catholiks vse to do the argument which he can not answer he fyndeth no better solution then to graunt what the Antecendent contayneth and to say nothing to the consequent following therof 2. Wherfore because Bel was so trobled with the matter of this obiection as he forgot the forme I wil supply his default and argue thus in forme He by whose authority the Empire was translated the electors of the Emperor appointed and the elected is confirmed and whose superiority ouer them many Emperors haue willingly acknowledged hath some superiority ouer Emperors but the Pope is such as by his authority the Empire c. Ergo the Pope hath some superiority ouer Emperors The forme is syllogistical and good The Proposition is manifest for no power or dignity can be truly translated or confirmed by inferiors or equals but onely by superiors none especially willingly acknowledge as superior whome they thinke is not 3. The Assumption contayneth three parts expressed in the Proposition wherof the first vz. That the Empire was translated by the Popes authority Bellarm l. de transl Bellarmin Imper c. 4 proueth by the testimony of 33. writers c 5. by the confession of 11. Emperors and Princes and c. 6. by assertion of 7. Popes Yea Bel though with much a doe confesseth it page 12. saying That Charles the great to whome the Empire was first translated was made Emperor by Pope Leo 3. for restoring him to his place and dignity being driuen out by the Romans though soone p. 13. after he condemne the Pope of treason for this translation But differing the question of treason til a non which hindreth not the verity of the translation if the translator haue power to transfer as a souldier may by gift or sale truly and yet trayterously translate his armes and munition to the Enemies I ask of Bel whether the Pope did truly translate the Empire or no. If he did then hath the Pope power to translate Empires If he did not then was nether Charles the great nor any of his successors to this day true Emperors And if the Pope be Antichrist as Bel auoucheth for deposing some few Emperors for iust causes Bel may be wel accounted Lucifer for deposing at once and for no fault at al the Emperors of the west which haue bene these 800. yeares But Protestants haue great Protestants can make vnmake Emperors vvhen they list cunning in making and vnmaking Emperors according as it redoundeth in their opinion to the grace or disgrace of Popes For when the Pope deposeth them they be true Emperors but when he maketh them they haue onely as Willet writeth the name VVillet CoÌ„tract 4. q. 10. p. 178. title and image of Emperors But let them answer this dilemma These Emperors whom the Pope deposed since Carolus Magnus Likevvise vvhen vvillet list the imperial authority is in the Pope loc scit But vvhen he list not he is no temporal Prince ib. q. 8. p. 154 155. were true or false Emperors If false he did a good deed in deposing them If true then hath the Pope authority to make true Emperors and translate Empiers 4. The second parte included in my Assumption vz. That the Pope appointed the electors of the Emperor and
Vicar of Christ Christ of the Lord and God of Pharao And thus spoke S. Bernard euen in those books where according to Caluins Caluin l. 4. c. 11. paragr 11. iudgment he spoke it so as truth it selfe semed to speake And albeit the Pope do not entitle him selfe King of Kings but Seruant of Gods seruants which is a more humble stile then any Prince vseth yet rightly might he because he hath twoe Kingdomes vz. Naples and Sicily Feudatary The Pope gaue IrlaÌ„d to the King of England Stovv ann â—â—71 and temporally subiect vnto him as he had also Ireland before he gaue it vnto the crowne of England in K. Henry 2. time 7. But because Bel is so hard aconstruer of some Catholiques words let vs heare not a parasite but a Protestant Prelat speaking not in absence but in presence of the King and realme Bilson in his late sermon Bilson at the Kings coronation saith Kings be Gods by office they haue the society of his name are in his place their very robes are sanctified euery thing belonging to them is sacred are pertakers with Christ in the power honour and iustice of his Kingdome on earth and partake with Gods homage Behould he calleth Kings Gods and partners with God in his name power honour and homage and yet no Catholique chardgeth Protestants that they attribute to the King or that he challengeth power proper to God alone 8. The third point reprehended by Bel in Gersons reporte is that ecclesiastical and temporal power is said to come from the Pope This saith Bel pag 16. is to make the Pope author of al power a thing proper to God 14. vntruth 15. vntruth This say I is for Bel to vtter two vntruthes at once for neither do they speake of al power but only of power in earth which they deuide into ecclesiastical temporal besides which there is power in heauen of God and Saints neither do they make the Pope author of al power in earth but only saie it commeth from the Pope which is not to make him author therof vnles Bel wil make euery officer author of what he doth in the Princes name euery instrument author of the effect it worketh by vertue of the cause And thus much touching this slaunder of Popes imposed by Bel. Now let vs come to others for no other stuffe we are like to hear hereafter in this article CHAP. VIII Certaine false steps of a ladder vvhich Bel imagineth the Pope had to climbe to his superiority disproued BEL hauing vpon the foresaid words of some nameles Catholiques taken occasion Bel pag. 17. to slaunder Popes goeth on in like sorte for many leaues together setting downe steppes in a ladder which as he imagineth the Popes had to climbe to their superiority The first steppe saith he was the departure of the Emperour Constantine from Rome to Constantinople but if he had better considered he should haue found that as the cittie of Rome decaied by Constantines departure and Constantinople increased So the Sea of Rome rather fel therby in external Euseb Hieron in chron Conc. Constant epist ad Damasc Gelas ad Episcop Dardaniae dignity and the Sea of Constantinople rose then otherwise For wheras before Constantines going to Constantinople which was about the yeare 330. that church was but new and a parish of another church as Gelasius witnesseth soone after in the yeare 381. it was made a Patriarchate Cone Constantin c. 5. Concil Calced act 16. next to Rome and in the yeare 451. the Grecians gaue it equal priuiledges with Rome And not content with this about the yeare 600. that Patriarch arrogated the title of Oecumenical that is ouer the whole worlde And finallie in the yeare 1054. claimed Sigebert in chron the place of the first Patriarch alleadging the Pope to haue lost his primacy by adding filióque to the Nicene Creed 2. But Constantine sayth Bel at his departure pag. 7. did as the Popes parasites tel vs giue lardge guifts to the Pope euen his whole power dominion and territories both in Rome Italy and al the west Behould a man as the Prouerbe is hauing a wolfe by the eare which he dare neither hould nor yet let goe For if he graunt that Constantine gaue the Pope his whole power and dominion ouer Rome Italy and al the west he must needs graunt that the Pope of right hath imperial power ouer al the west If he deny it he sheweth not how ConstaÌ„tins departure was a steppe for the Pope to climbe to higher authority Besides that not Constantins departure but his guifte should haue bene made the steppe Notwithstanding choosing rather to condemne him selfe of not shewing how Constantins departure was a steppe for the Pope to climbe then to graunt that the Pope hath so good right to imperial power ouer the west he inclineth to denial of the guift citeth Valla Volaterran Cathalan Cusan fowre late and obscure writers against it and tearmeth them Popishe parasites who affirme it 3. But against these foure late writers I oppose foure most auncient Isidor Photius or Balsamon Gratian Iuo many late writers besides two Iewes Rabby Abraham and Aben Esra who al auouch Constantins guift whereof Photius and the Iewes were professed enimies of the Pope and Bel him selfe confesseth that some Emperours haue giuen the Pope their soueraigne rights In which kinde no Emperour excelled Constantine yet Bellarmine saith Bellarmin lib. 5. de Roman Pont. â— 9. Bel seemeth to doubt of this and such like donations Wherein Sir In these words saith he there are extant at Rome the authentical euidences of these and the like donations and if there were not prescription of eight hundred yeares would aboundantlie suffice For Kingdomes vniustlie gotten are in proces of time made lawful as he proueth by the Romane Empier gotten Prescription of 30. yeares sufficeth by ciuil lavv by Cesar the Kingdome of England by Saxons and others What shew is in theis words of doubt or rather not of certainty For Bellarmin affirmeth that the Pope hath two iust titles to hould his estate The first is free guift of Princes whereof he can shew authentical euidences the other prescription of time 4. The second steppe saith Bel was the fal pag. 8. of the Empire in the west in the yeare 471. and vacancy therof for almost 330. yeares But how this fal and vacancy of the Empire was a steppe for Popes to climbe neither he sheweth nor any can imagin especially if as he writeth straight after in this vacancie of the Empire Rome was spoiled with fier sword and the verie walles throvvne dovvne to the ground and al Italie possessed of the Barbares vntil Carolus Magnus who was the first Emperour after the vacancie if in this vacancy Rome was destroied and al Italy possessed by Barbares who for the most part were heathens or heretiks how could it bee a steppe for the Pope to climbe and
they challenge the royal right of both swords throughout the Christian world and haue made thereof a flat decree But first I deny that the Pope as Pope challengeth royal right of either sword For his right to the spiritual sword is not royal but of a different nature as is euident shal be declared hereafter and his royal right to the material sword is neither ouer al christendome as Bel vntruelie auoucheth but only ouer the Popedome nor he challendgeth it by his Papacie yea as Pope Gelasius wrote Popes Gelasius de vincul anathematis Nicol. 1. dec 96. can cum ad vetum pag. 17. Bernard lib. 4. de consideratione haue not challendged royal soueraigntie but by the guifte of Princes who as Bel saith haue giuen their rights to them And albeit the decree doe after S. Bernard giue to the Pope right of the material sword yet neither hath it the word royal nor meaneth of Royal right as is euident because it teacheth that this sword is not to be drawne or vsed by the Popes hand as no doubt it might if he had royal right vnto it but by the hand of the souldier at the commaundement of the Emperour and becke of the Pope Whereby we see that the decree attributeth royal right of the material sword only to the Emperour who is to commaund the souldier to draw and vse it and to the Pope only authority to direct the Emperour in his commaund and vse of his sword 23. But suppose that Popes did challenge royal right of both swords throughout the christian world is this to climbe to the highest heauen and to Christes throne doth the christian world reach to the highest heauen or yet to the bounds of the earth doth Christes throne rule no more then the christian worlde or doth royal authority vnder him reach to his throne surelie Bel hath a base conceipt of Christes kingdome if he imagine that Popes or Princes by their authorities reach to his throne who as S. Paul saith is aboue al powers and princedomes Ad Ephes c. 1. v 21. Bel condemneth that in the Pope for blasphemie vvhich he iudgeth treason to deny to Princes thrones and dominations and aboue euerie name which is named either in this world or in the next but marke good reader how Bel condemneth that for horrible blasphemie in the Pope which him selfe accoumpteth as highe treason to deny to other Princes For what is supremacie in both ecclesiastical ciuil causes but as he speaketh royal right of both swords and to deny this to temporal Princes he deemeth no lesse then highe treason 24. Secondlie he proueth his foresaid pag. 14. Dist 22. can omnes slaunder out of Pope Nicholas 1. his words Christ committed to S. Peter the right both of heauenlie and earthlie empire which Bel seemeth to vnderstand of spiritual and temporal power Answer Suppose the words were meant of spiritual temporal power they make nothing for royal right but may be wel expounded according to the meanig of the foresaid decree That S. Peter had from Christ right to both empires vz. to gouerne the one and to direct the other but of royal right there is no word in P Nicholas Nicol. 1. ep ad Michael Imper. yea he prosesseth that Christ distinguished eclesiastical and imperial power by distinct acts and dignities that in spiritual matters the Emperour should need Bishops in temporal Bishops vse Emperourrs But indeed Pope Nicholas meaneth not of temporal power at al but only of spiritual giuen to S. Peter Which he calleth both earthlie and heauenlie dominion because according to our Sauiours Words Math 16. to which he alludeth what he looseth in earth is loosed in heauen 25. I omit a glose cited by Bel because it Glossa F. Câ—lestis only saith that the Pope hath both swords vz in the sense before explicated But what he bringeth out of an obscure appendix of P. Boniface his making a constitution Appendix Fuldeâ—â—s wherein he affimed him selfe to be spiritual and temporal Lorde in the whole worlde is vntrue as is euident by the constitution and words before cited out of it And Pope Clement 5. declared extrauag Clemens 5. meruit Charissimi de priuilegijâ— that Pope Boniface his constitution did nothing preiudice the kingdome of France But what the appendix saith of Boniface his sending to Phillip King of France to haue him acknowledge he helde the kingdome of him may wel be expounded by that Platina writeth Platin. in Bonifac. 8. vz. That Phillip hauing against the law of nations imprisoned a Bishop whom Boniface sent vnto him to perswade him to make ware against Infidels the Pope sent the Archedeacon of Narbo to procure the Bishops libertie and othervvise to denounce that the kingdome of France vvas fallen to the churches disposition for the offence of the Kinge 26. But let vs goe on with Bel. Since this â—el pag. 16. ladder saith he was thus framed Popes haue tiranized aboue measure deposed Kings and Kingdomes and taken vpon them authority pertaining to God alone Omitting Bels straunge phrase of deposing Kingdomes if to depose Kings for neuer so iust cause be to tiranize Protestants haue tiranized far more in the space of 70. years then the Pope hath in these 300. years since that decree was made For in al these 300. yeares besids one or two Kings of Naples who were his liege men I finde deposed by the Hovv many deposed by Popes in 300. years Clemens 5. extrauag ad Certitudinem Pope one Schismatical and heretical Emperour of Greece Andronicus Paleologus and one other doubtful Emperour Ludouick the Bauarian two French Kings Philip 4. and Ludouick 12. and one King of Bemeland George and one King of Nauarre besides King Henry 8. and Queene Elizabeth and these al for heynous crimes whereas Protestants in 70. years setting Hovvmany by Protestants in 70. years aside the iniustice of their quarrel haue as much as laie them deposed one Emperour six or seauen Kings two absolute Queenes slaine two Kings one Queene and one Queenes husband as before hath bene tolde c. 4. paragr 6. 27. And Bel who so much obserueth Sacerdotes nunquam tyranni fuerunt sed tyrannos saepe sunt passi Amb. ep 33. the deposition of Emperours and Kings by the Pope and omitteth both their iniuries to him and his benefits done to them sheweth him selfe to be no indifferent man For omitting almost 33. Popes put to death by heathen Emperours Christian Emperours vid. Platinam in vit Pont. Six Popes murdered Princes and others haue murdered six Popes vz. Felix 2. Iohannes 11. Iohannes 15. Benedictus 6. Clement 2. Victor 3. besides Gregory 2. and diuers other whome they haue attempted to murder They haue banished foure vz. Liberius Sieuerius Vigilius Martin I Foure banished besides many others whom for feare of their liues they droue into banishment they haue imprisoned six vz. Iohannes 1.
c. 8. See epist ad Epictetum l. cit Apud Athanas Theodoret l. cit S. Grego Nazianz orat 2. de Theolog Councel did not inuent that word but set it downe testimonio patrum by testimony of their Fathers and Eusebius though an Arian confesseth the same And S. Gregory Nazian writing against the Arians saith that it should suffice vs that our Fathers thought not as they do and the same argumeÌ„t vseth also S. Athanasius writing against the Apollinarists And how vntruly he affirmeth that the Fathers did not say many vnwritten things are to be beleeued I refer my selfe to their testimonies alleadged aboue cap. 4. But saith Bel S. Athanasius proued homousion because though the word was not in Scripture the sense was A goodly reason He proued it out of Scripture therfore not out of Tradition as if one should say He proued it out of S. Ihon therfore not out of S. Paul 3. Origen saith Bel hom 25. in Math. Bel p. 118. and hom 1. in 1. Hierem counselleth vs to try al doctrins by Scripture This is vntrue vntruth 101. Origen For Origen speaketh not of al but only of our opinions and doctrins Our opinions and expositions saith he haue no credit without their testimonies Againe VVe must alleadge the sense of Scripture for testimony of al the words we vtter Terrullian calling that truth which is first and false which is after maketh nothing to his purpose Next he alleadgeth S. Austin saying That we must not consent euen S. Augustin lib. de vnit eccles c. 10. to 7. to Catholique Bishops error or priuat opinion against Scripture Error against Scripture is not to be followed Ergo nether Apostolical Traditions contested by the whole Church Surely Bel hath great facility in inferring quodlibet ex quolibet He bringeth also S. Chrisostom calling Gods lawes a S. Chrysost hom 13. in 2. Cor. to 4. most exact rule and bidding vs learn not what this or that man thinks and of these things enquire these points also out of Scripture Answer S. Chrysostoms meaning is that Gods word is most exact in the matter whereof he talked vz. whither pouerty be to be preferred before riches in which matter we ought saith he to leaue the opinions of this or that worldly man who prefer riches but seek what the Scripture saith of it And Bel to make him False translat 13. seeme to say That al truth is to be sought out of Scripture translated these words Deque his à Scripturis haec etiam inquirite thus Search the truth out of the Scriptures Englishing nether de his nor haec 4. After S. Chrysostom he citeth two pag. 120. Chap 5. parag 5. sentences out of Victoria cited by him and answered by vs before To whome he adioyneth Canus teaching That Priests are not Canus l. 3. de loc c. vlt. to be heard vnles they teach according to Gods law Certain And then inferreth That Papists teach plainly that no doctrine is to be receaued which is not tryed by Gods word True also if it be rightly vnderstood vz. of such doctrine as may be tryed not of deuine as Apostolical Traditions be which may not be tryed And of Gods whole word not of a part thereof as the Scripture is And that expounded not according to the humor of priuat spirits but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers Councels This most iust and reasonable rule of trying al matters in controuersy the Councel of Concil Trident sess 18. in saluo coductu dato Protestantibus Trent prescribed to the Protestants But they wil try deuine truth conteined not only in Traditions but also in Scripture that part by which they wil try the rest they wil expound according to their owne priuat spirits which is to make them selfs rule and iudges of al wherfore vainly doth Bel professe to agree with the Pope in al coÌ„trouersies pag. 120. if he wil be tryed by Gods word For vnles Bel be made iudge and tryer both of Gods word and of his meaning or as Protestants speake vnles he may iudge which is Scripture and which is the true sense there must nether tryal nor iudgement passe For vnles Protestants may haue al the law in their owne hands they wil accept no iudgement 5. But because Bellarmin graunteth that Bellarm. lib. 2. de Concil c. 52. singuli Episcopi al Bishops seuerally may erre and somtyme do erre and dissent one from an other so that we know not which of them is to be followed Bel thinketh pag. 121. that he hath a great catch yet remembring him self better that though Catholiques graunt that euery Bishop seuerally may erre yet deny that they can erre al when they are gathered in a Synode confirmed by the Pope he taketh occasion to make a long digression about Councels CHAP. XIII Of the authority of late general Councels GENERAL Councels in these our dayes are as certaine as before tymes This is against Bel pag. 123. saying that in our dayes they are like a nose of waxe and as vncertaine as the winde And because he denyeth not but that general Councels in some times haue bene certaine forsooth such as defyned nothing contrary to Protestantisme I wil only proue that they are now as certaine as euer First because Christ promyseth that he would be in the midst of them that are gathered in his name Math. 18. v. 20. S. Math. That the holy Ghost should teach vs al truth Iohn 16. That the gates of hel should not preuaile S. Iohn v. â—3 S. Math. against his Church Math. 16. v. 18. which promises are limited to no certaine tyme but are extended as he saith Math. vlt. euen to the end of the worlde Likewise Christs commaund of hearing his Church Math. S. Math. v. 17. S. Luc. 18. of hearing preachers sent by him Luc. 10. of obeying our Prelates and being subiect to them Hebr. 13. v. 17. bindeth as wel S. Paul in our dayes as before tymes wherfore either the Church Preachers and Prelates teaching in a general Councel in our dayes can not erre or Christ in our daies commaundeth vs to beleeue heresy and lyes 2. Secondly the present Church of our daies hath authority to decyde controuersies in faith Ergo we be bound to obey her decision Ergo it is no lye The Antecedent is an article of Protestants faith Article 39. Art 20. The first consequence I proue because who resisteth power in matters belonging to the power refisteth Gods ordinance and purchaseth damnation to him selfe Roman 13. vers 2. 3. which being true of temporal power and concerning wordly matters much more true it is of spiritual power and in matters of faith and saluation The second consequence is euident For God who is truth it selfe and can not lye can not binde vs especially See S. Gregory lib. 1. epist 24. vnder paine of damnation to beleeue and follow lyes Thirdly as Protestants except