auoucheth That ordinarily he can not depose Princes euen for iust causes 7. But let vs heare Bel disproue him self Anatomy of Popish tyrany in the Caueat to the Reader and lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 10. c. 9. 1. Contradiction Secular Priests saith he write plainly and resolutly that the Pope hath no power to depriue Kings of their royal Scepters and regalities nor to giue away their Kingdomes to an other In which opiniō likewise the French Papists do concurre iump with them Item The Seculars although they acknowledge the Popes power supereminent in Spiritualibus yet do they disclaime from it in temporalibus when he taketh vpon him to depose Kinges from their empires and translate their Kingdomes And least we should thinke these few Priests who wrote so were no Papists Bel him self testifieth that they are the Popes deare Vassals and professe the selfe same religion with Epistle to the King other Catholiques 8. The third vntruth conteined in the proposition is that we teach the doctrine of his proposition as a pointe of our faith wherevpon he inferreth in his conclusion our religion and faith to be false Because we teach no such doctrine at al and much lesse as a point of our religion or faith And the grauest best learned amongst Catholiques attribute to rhe Pope onely spiritual superiority ouer Princes and power to depose them in that case wherin our Sauiour said Math. 18. that it were better for a man to be cast into the sea then to liue to wit when they so scandalize others as their deposition is necessary for the saluation of soules as I haue already shewed out af Bellarmin Bel. parag 29. whose testimony in this matter Bel can not refuse seing he calleth him the mouth of Papists and auoucheth his doctrin to be the Popes owne doctrin And this doctrin good Christiā Princes account no more preiudicial or iniurious to their estates then they do the like doctrin of S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. where he professeth him self to haue power to destroy al loftines extolling it self against the knowledge of God to be ready to punish al disobedience 9. Wherfore to requite Bel with a syllogisme like vnto his owne I argue thus you Bel tel vs that we Papists saie the Pope is aboue al powers and potentates on earth that he can depose Kings and Emperours and translate their empiers at his good wil and pleasure But this your tale is a very tale false absurd and nothing else but a mere fable and consequently your late chalenge consisteth of mere falsehoods fables flat leasings The proposition is your owne wordes the truth of the assumption appeereth by my answer to your argument And thus much touching Bels vntruthes vttered in his proposition and proofe therof now let vs come to his dissemblinge CHAP. II. The opinion of protestants touching Princes Supremacie set dovvne LVTHER an Euangelist as he termeth him selfe or as other accompte him Luther lib. cont stat eccles in prologo in glossa cont decreta Caesar Ex Sur. An. 1531. 1539. Pope of Recusamy p. 31. 32. Magdeburg praefat Centur 7. Caluin in c. 7. Amos. an Apostle a prophet a third Elias a beginner of protestantisme in his booke of secular power condemneth those Princes who prescribe laws to their subiects in matter belonging to faith and the Church Magdeburgians his first and cheefest childeren write thus Let not Magistrats be heads of the Church because this Supremacy agreeth not to them Caluin saith they were blasphemers who attributed the supremacy to King Henry 8. And lest we shold think that only forayne Protestāts are of this opinion Antony Gilby in his admonition to England and Scotland Gilby calleth King Henry a monstrous bore for taking the supremacy that he displaced Christ was no better then the Romish Antichrist made him selfe a God And lately VVillet cōtract 791. part 1. and 3. p. 269. 270. Willet auoucheth That Bishops and Pastors haue a spiritual charge ouer Kings that Kings ought to yeeld obedience to those that haue ouersight of their soules That Heathen Princes had the same power and authority in the Church which Christian Princes haue and yet soone after affirmeth That heathen Princes cold not be heads of the Church that is to haue the Souereingty of external gouernment Againe That the King is nether mistical nor ministerial head of the Church that the name of head is vnproperly giuen to the Prince and if any think it to great Kings not so much is ministerial heads of the Church by vvillet a name for any mortal man we wil not saith he greatly contend about it So we see he denyeth both name and authority of the head of the Church to Kings 2. And his Maiesty perceaued that Reanolds and his fellows aymed at a Scottish Presbitry which agreeth with a Monarch Conference p. 82 83. as wel as God and the diuel page 79. and acknowledged his supremacy only to make their partes good with Bishops as Knox his fellow ministers in Scotland made his grandmother head of the Church therby to pul downe the Catholique Bishops Yea that the whole English Clergy is in their harts of the same opiniō appeareth by their open profession to agree in religion with forayne Protestants who plainly deny the supremicy of Princes by their writing and Apologia pag. 28. teaching that Christ alone can behead of the Church by their condemning Catholiques for attributing such authority to man and finally by their Synodical explication of the article of supremacy which they expound thus That Princes should rule al estates Lib. 39. Artic. art 37. and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or temporal and restrayne with the ciuil sword the stubborne and euil doers wherein we see no power in Ecclesiastical causes granted to Princes but only ouer Ecclesiastical persons And we deny not that Princes haue any power ouer Ecclesiastical persons yea in the very canon of the Masse as priests pray for Papa nostro N. and Antistite nostro N. for our Pope and Byshop so they pray for Rege nostro N. acknowledging the one to be their King as the others to be their Prelates and consequently both to haue power ouer them For as S. Augustin said and it is euident Rex à Augustin in Psalm 44. 67. regendo dicitur a King is so called of power to gouerne And as ecclesiastical persons be ciuil or politique members of the common wealth wherein they liue so haue they See Stapelton relectione Controuersiae 2. q. 1. a. 1. ad 2. Victoria relectione de potesta ecclesiastica sect 7. the same politique or ciuil head which that commonwealth hath for otherwise either ciuil members should haue no ciuil head at al which were monstrous or not be vnder the head of that body whereof they be members but onely vnder a ciuil head of an other body which is
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
can set vp and pul downe Kings at his pleasure and that they are grand maisters and Architects of seditions rebellious and bloudie treasons which are but false slaunders of his owne Et quis innocens erit si accusasse sufficiat And aduiseth Christian Princes pag. 11. that if the Pope send any into their dominions vvith his Buls and excommunications they deale vvith them as Phillip the faire dealt vvith Boniface the eights Nuncio vvhom he imprisoned and burned their buls and as Charles the sixt vvho gaue sentence that the buls of Benedic 13. should be rent in pieces the bearer set on the pillarie and traduced in the pulpit But withal he forgot to tel what befel to Phillip for his euil dealing with Boniface vz. That he him selfe was Genelrard in chron Antonin 3. part art 20. paragr 20. killed with a fal of his horse his three sonnes vntimelie died their wiues shamefullie taken in adultery and the crowne translated from his Issue to an other line Of Benedic 13. no meruaile if he and his messenger were so handled because he was no true but a false Pope and thus much of Bels first oure steppes now let vs se the rest CHAP. IX The rest of Bels false steps and slaunderous vntruths in this article disproued THE first steppe saith Bel vvas the decaie Bel pag. 11. of the Empire in the East about the yeare 756 at vvhat time Pipin being called into Italie by Pope Steeuen 2. to deliuer Rome from the siedge of Lombards and ouercomming them gaue vp the gouernement 19 vntruth of Italie into the Popes handes Here Bel hudleth vp store of vntruths That the empire decaied in the East about the yeare 756. For it decaied long before about the yeare 635. vnder Onuphr in chron Platin. in Honorio 1. art 623. Balmerin in chron 639. Onuphr in chron the heretical Emperour Heraclius when the Sarazens conquered Palestin Siria and Egipt and about the yeare 697. al Affrick went more more decaying according as it reuolted from the faith and obedience of the Romane Sea vntil in the yeare 1452. it was vtterly extinguished Constantinople being taken by Turks and the Emperour slaine And about 756. whereof Bel speaketh the Easterne Empire lost litle or nothing except a verie smal piece of Italie called the exarchate which the Lombards had conquered in the yeare 751. 2. That Pipin gaue vp Italy into the Popes hands Whereas Pipin subdued only that part of Italie which the Lombards held that in Pipins conquest ended the vvhole povver of the Emperours 21 vntruth Lieutenants in Italy This is doubly vntrue First because Pipin conquered nothing from the Emperour but from the Lombards who foure or fiue years before had taken the exarchate of Reuenna from the Empire Secondly because besides that which Pipin then conquered or the Lombards had before taken from the Empire the Emperours had both then and long Naucler general 27. Platin. in Leone 3. Bland Dec. 2. lib. 1. after great dominion in Italy vz almost al the kingedome of Naples which he gouerned by Lieutenants 3. But what was the end of this vntruth forsooth that we should Imagine that in Pipins time the Pope became Antechrist For novv saith Bel vvas he taken avvay vvho pag. 12. 2. Thess 2. as the Apostle teacheth vs hindred the comming of Antechrist meaninge the Emperours dominion in Italie Marke good reader in the yeare 476. or as Bel saith 471. not only al Baron annal Onuphr in chron Italie was taken from the Emperour by the Herules but he also deposed and the weasterne Empire vtterlie dissolued And albeit in the yeare 553. the Grecian Emperours recouered Italy againe yet soone after in the yeare 568. they lost a great parte therof to the Lombards which they neuer Onuphr in chron Palmer in chron 572. recouered And in neither of these times Bel thinketh the hinderance of Antichrists comming whereof S. Paul spake to haue bene taken away because then he findeth no coulour to make the Pope a new Antechrist 4. But when the Grecian Emperours lost to the Lōbards the exarchate of Reuenna a Naucler general 26. petit dominion of fiue Citties one shire called Emilia though they helde stil a good part of Italie then the hindrance of Antechriste was taken away because forsooth soone after that exarchate being taken by Pipin from the Lombards it was by him giuen to the Pope who therby became Antechrist as if Bishops become Antechrists by temporal liuings a reason smelling ranckely of a puritan spirit which would pul downe Bishopricks but if temporal dominion made the Pope Antechrist he was long before Pipin for in the yeare 699. Aripert King of Lombardy gaue to him the Coctian Alpes where Geneua is which Ado in chronic Bland Dec. 1. lib. 10. Magdeburg cent 8. c. 10. Regino Ado Sigebert in chron Magdeburg supra donation confirmed King Luithprand in the yeare 714. as the Magdeburgians confesse and King Pipin in the yeare 755. added the exarchate and a good piece of Italy which he had conquered from the Lombards 5. As for the hindrance of Antechrists comming whereof S. Paule speaketh it was not the petit dominion which the Emperours had in the exarchate of Reuenna but the Romane Empire it selfe as testifie S. Chrisostome and others vpon that place S. Chrisost S. Ciril S. Hierom. S. August tom 5. S. Ciril Catech. 15. S. Hierom q. 11. ad Algasiam S. Augustin lib. 20. de ciuit c. 19. and other fathers who out of that place affirme that Antechrist shal not come vntil the Romane Empire be quite taken away which is not yet I let passe a contradiction of Bel saying p. 8. that Barbarians possessed al Contradict Italy vnto Carolus Magnus and pag. 11. that in Pipins time vvhoe vvas Carolus his father ended the power of the Emperours Lieutenants in Italy For how could the Emperours haue Lieutenants in Italy vntil Pipin if Barbarians possessed al Italy vnto his sonnes time 6. But the quicke sight of this fellowe whoe before called so many Kings Emperours blinde I can not let passe He writeth pag. 11. that Pipin gaue vppe the gouernment of Italy into the Popes hands a thing saith he so apparant as it can not be denied and yet pag. 14. confesseth that he can not see how the Pope vvas King in Pipins time So blinde he is that he can not see that to giue vp the gouernment of a Kingdome into ones hands is to make him King Againe he can not see pag. 14. His brother vvillet controuers 4. q. 10. p. 7. pag. 178. saith that the imperial authority is in the Pope Naucler general 26. Palmerius in chronic Paradin des alliances Genealogiques hovv if Pipin as Sigebert vvriteth had Italie in his possession in the yeare 801. and Bernard made King thereof by Carolus Magnus 812. that the Pope vvas either then or novv any King at al. Surelie Bel is either
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.
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
together whereby the indifferent Reader may by Bels euil and corrupt dealing in the very beginning of his chalenge take a taste of the rest of his proceedings for as Tertullian saith well vvhat truth doe they Tertull. l. do praescript defend vvho begin it vvith lyes 3. I demand therfore of Bel who they are whome he chalengeth to whome he speaketh and whome he vnderstandeth by You Papists Surely I suppose he writeth in English to none but such as vnderstand English whome in his preface he termeth English Iesuyts Seminary Priests Iesuyted Papists Yf these Maister Bel be they whome ye meane I tel you in their name that as your propositioÌ„ hath two parts viz. the Popes Superiority ouer al Princes and of his power to depose them so it conteineth three to vse your owne tearme flatte leasinges For though concerning Christians they beleeue the Pope to be spiritually superiour aboue al whatsoeuer accordinge to Christs words spoken to the first Pope S. Peter Matth. 16. viz. Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke vvil I buylde my Church and Io. 21. v. 17. Feede my sheepe which sheepe conteine and include as wel Christian Princes and potentates as subiects and vnderlings And concerning infidels they also beleeue that the Pope ought to be spiritually aboue them and they vnder him in that they be bound to be Christians neuerthelesse vntil these be Christened he is not actually their superiour vntil they be made members of Christs Church he is not de facto their head vntil they be in Christs fould he is not their sheape hearde For as Bellarmin writeth Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. Bel p. 29. 125. whose testimonie saith Bel is most sufficient in al Popisshe affaires Christ vvas aboue as vvel infidels as faithful But to S. Peter he committed onely his sheepe that is the faithful Wherefore S. Paul as not acknowledging that he had any superiority or iurisdiction ouer infidels said vvhat belongeth it to me to iudge of them that are vvithout 1. Cor. 5. And although the Pope may preach him selfe or send others to preache to infidels without their licence yet this argueth no more but that the commission which he hath from God to preach the Ghospel vnto al nations is independent of the infidels and that they ought to be vnder his iurisdictioÌ„ Wherefore vntil Bel doe prooue that there are no powers or poteÌ„â—ates on earth which are infidels I must needs tel him that he vntruly auoucheth vs to say that the Pope is spiritually aboue al powers and potentates on earth 4. And much lesse did we euer tel you that the Pope hath temporal superiority ouer al Princes on earth but teach the quite contrary with VValden Bellarmin and VValden tom 1. lib. 2. art 3. c. 78. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. Gelas 1. de vincul Anathematis Nicol. 1. de 96. Can. cum ad verum others For as two most auncient Popes Gelasius 1. and Nicolaus 1. taught vs the Pope by his Pontifical dignity chalengeth neither royal soueraignity nor imperial name But what royalties he hath either in the Popedome or els where he chalengeth by the guift of Christian Princes whereof Some as your selfe confesse haue yeelded Pag. 17. vp their soueraigne rights vnto him And what superiority we thinke him to haue ouer Christian Princes he should haue though he were not Lord of one foote of land but as poore as he that said Math. 19. v. 27 Behould vve haue forsaken al. For his S. Mathevv Papal superiority and authority is not temporal or of this world nor the weapones of his warfare carnal but as S. Paul speaketh S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. mighty to God vnto the distruction of munitious destroying Counsels and al loftines extolling it selfe against the knowledge of God and hauing in readines to reuenge al disobedience Wherupon P. Innocent Cap. per venerab extra qui filij suâ—â— legitimi 3. professeth that the Pope hath ful power in temporal matters only in the Popedome and that Kings acknowledge no superior in temporal affaires And this also teach S. Ambros de Apol. Dauid c. 4. 10 Gloss S. Ambros tom 4. Lyra in psalm 50. and others By which it appeareth how much he is abused who is made to beleue That the Pope present challengeth an imperial ciuil power ouer Kings Emperors or that English Papists do attribute vnto him any such power For neither doth Paulus 5. challeng more authority then Innocent 3 did not English Papists attribute vnto him other authority ouer Kings then spiritual But do with tong and hart and with the Popes good liking professe That our Souereigne Lord King Iames hath no superior on earth in temporal matters If Bel reply that some Canonists haue affirmed the Pope to be temporal Lord ouer the world let him challeng them not like a wise man strike his next sellows the English Papists who mantayne no such opinion 5. The second parte of his Proposition touching the Popes deposition of Princes pag. 1. 4. 17. at his pleasure though he repeat it thrise is most vntrue For no Catholiques English or strangers teach that the Pope can depose Princes but for iust causes yea ordinarily saith Bellarmin not for iust causes but when Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pontif. c. 6. it is necessary for the sauing of souls And surely otherwise Princes shold be but his tenants at wil and he haue more power ouer them then they haue ouer their subiects which is far from al Catholiques imaginations let vs see therfore how Bel proueth vs to teach Bel p. 1. this doctrin 6. Because saith he Bellarmin setteth it downe Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif lib. 5. c. 7. in these words If therfore any Prince of a sheep or a ram become a wolfe that is to say of a Christian be made an heretike then the Pastor of the Church 4. vntruth may driue him away ly excommunication and withal command the people not to obey him and therfore depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects Behold good Reader the forsaid vntruthes proued with an other Because Bellarmin calleth the Pope Pastor of the Church Bel auoucheth him to think the Pope to be aboue al Princes Potentates on earth as if there were no Princes infidels or out of the Church and because he teacheth that the Pope may excommunicate and depose Princes for Heresy that he may depose them at his pleasure as if matters of Heresy which is one of the greatest sinns that is were the Popes pleasure An indifferent reader would rather haue inferred that because the Pope is Pastor of the Church he is not aboue any infidel Prince or subiect which Bellarmin teacheth in Bellarmin expresse words in the same booke c. 2. c. 4. And because he can not excoÌ„municate so neither depose Princes for his pleasure which Bellarmin euery where supposeth yea in the same book c. 6.
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
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