worde saith hee signifieth also to gouerne It doth indeede properlie signifie to keepe sheepe as we terme it wherein wee include not onelie the feeding of them but also the care of looking to them that they take noe harme the dressing of them when they be ill and all other thinges belonging to the charge and duetie of a sheepehearde and properlie no other signification hath it but by a Metaphore to shewe with howe greate care mildenesse and lenitie kinges ought to gouerne their subiectes Homer and Plato doe often call kinges sheepeheardes of the people and so likewise the sacred scriptures In the twentith of the Actes we haue the same wordes where we reade Therefore looke vnto your selues and the whole flocke wherein the holie Ghost hath placed you Bishoppes and ouerseers in greeke poimaine the Church of God which he hath purchased him with his bloode Nowe that the Apostles or any Bishoppes had any secular power Pighius himselfe doth denie as long as the temporall princes had not receiued the Gospell so that this worde can by no meanes importe anie earthly superioritie And in this Oration Paule doth plainely declare what kinde of kingdome Christes is when hee saith to gouerne the Church of God which he purchased with his bloode for he purchased none with his bloode but tâ—â—s spirituall kingdome for as GOD hee was possessed oâ— the Empyre of the whole worlde from the beginning But the place of binding and losing we haue examined alreadie and proued that it cannot be vnderstoode otherwise then Christ himselfe doth interpret it in the twenteth of Iohn whose sinnes ye shall remitte are remitted and whose sinnes yee shall retaine are retained and a receiuing into the Church and kingdome of heauen and a shutting out of it And therefore he saith whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in Heauen and not shall be bounde in earth least any man should dreame that he gaue Peter secular power ouer earthly Empires and that all the commandements and ordinances and decrees of his successors touching worldly matters should be receiued and kept throughout the whole world Neither if the Pope had any such authoritie giuen him by any generall Counsell A general counsell cannot depose Princes as I am assured he hath not for as for the canon made in the counsell of Laterane we will anone make a large seuerall treatise thereof were it good and sufficient to binde all Princes to obedience because it lieth not in the power of a generall counsell to dispose of secular matters For seeing generall counsells doe altogether consist of persons ecclesiasticall and they doe allow noe temporall prince any voice therein and that all the Byshoppes that are assembled there do sit as Byshops spirituall Lords not as temporal that they be secular subiects not soueraignes that the kingdom of the Church is a distincte kingdom as al the Catholickes say from the kingdomes of the world It is as absurd to holde that they can makes lawes touching temporalities to be obserued of all temporall Princes vnder temporall paines as if a madde man would affirme that the assembly of the three states of France may ordaine statutes for the Queenes maiesty of England hir realme and that they are bound in conscience to obserue all lawes made there For doubtlesse the temporall and the ecclesiasticall kingdomes are as seuerall kingdomes as Englande France which haue more alliance together then the other two because they are both secular both bodilie both ruled by one sword but of the other the one is spirituall the other bodily the one of the worlde the other of heauen the one swayed by the ciuill and materiall sworde â—he other by the spirituall the one slaying the soule the other the body But now I would not haue any fond man to imagine that I doe goe about to spoile the temporall prince of his high prerogatiue in ordaining of holsome lawes for the maintenance of the true faith of Christ and the sincere obseruation of all the rest of his holy commandementes the which I doe thinke him bound in conscience to doe but that I doe firmely beleeue and openly professe that by the right giuen him by God he may punish all persons both ecclesiasticall and temporall within his dominions that shall offend either in faith or manners by fine imprisonment banishment confiscation of landes and goodes attainder of blood death or finally any other temporall paines as the noble princes of this land haue alwaies vsed to doe And therefore Iustice Brian in Decimo of Henry the seauenth doth call the King a mixt person for he is saith Brian a person vnited with the priests of holy Church But I denie him the administration of gods holy sacraments and the exercise of the spirituall sworde which I doe appropriate vnto the ecclesiasticall officers Wherefore much lesse can the Byshoppes in a generall counsell giue away the crownes of their Kinges seeing according to the afore rehearsed rule of the Canon law noe man can giue that right vnto another which he hath not himselfe But if there were ordained a bodie politicke of all the Christian princes and states what they beeing assembled in a counsell generall might doe is annother question the which we will leaue to bee disputed of them that shall see this happe institution And in the meane time they must pardon vs if we doe not lightly beleeue that the Pope hath power to depose Princes seeing wee can finde no warrant therefore neither in the scriptures the auncient counsells the olde fathers the practise of the Church of God neither before Christ neither seauen hundreth years after him although there raigned many Idolatrous hereticall and wicked Princes Of the Iewish Kinges verye few were good but rather such men as GOD had streightly commaunded that they shoulde not spare if they were their Brothers or such a friende as hee looued as dearely as his owne soule but that his hand should bee first vppon him to stone him to death and yet wee doe not reade that any one of them was deposed by the high Priestes or his subiectes armed against him by them And yet were they so zealous men of their dignitie that they would in noe wise suffer the King to vsurpe ought vppon him in so much that one of them openly withstoode Ozias the King The history of king Ozias handled that woulde vnlawfully execute his office in offring incense vnto GOD neither doth the expelling of this King out of the temple by rhe Priestes because God had for his proude part stricken him with leprosie and that thereupon hee sequestred himselfe from companie and left the gouernement of matters of state vnto his sonne prooue ought against the prerogatiue of Princes The text saith 2. Coro 26.20 that they caused hastily to depart thence he was euen compelled to goe out as the English authour of the ecclesiasticall discipline doth inferre For hee was not expelled out of
neyther ought I to pay vnto God any becauâ—e I am his sonne But if any man will contend that hee affirmed that he ought to pay no tribute to the Emperour because he was the sonne of the supreme Emperour God Almightie I will not greatly striue with him but I will in noe wise graunt Felicius that he claimes to be discharged by right of any earthlie Empyre that he possessed as Christ for that by no meanes can be gathered out of the text yea what say you that that famous fryer Dominicus Soto doth holde in learned worke de Iustit Iure that the kingdome of Christ was meere spirituall and writeth that he had proued it at large in his commentaries vppon Mathew Moreouer the matter is so manifest that Pighius himselfe is forced to confesse that Christ his kingdome was onely spirituall and yet he giueth to him whome he woulde haue to be his deputie temporall superioritie ouer all Christian princes in that hee is Christ his Lieuetenant with as greate absurdidie as if a man shoulde denie that the Archbishoppe of Canterburie can heare and determine of felonies and yet holde that his officiall may or depriue the Constable of authoritie to enter forciblie into any mans house otherwise then in cases of treason and felonie and yet graunt it to the Constables deputie or to say that hir Maiestie can not put in or out at hir pleasure anie souldiours into hir towne of Barwicke and yet maintaine that hir Lieuetenaunt of the Towne may doe it And see I pray you how he answereth this obiection out of the Gospell as my father sent me so I sende you Whereas they say that Christ came not to exercise authoritie and empyre ouer Monarches Kinges and princes but as he was sente by the father Christ gaue no temporal power to Bishops nor Pope soe he doth witnesse that the Apostles were sent by him neyther therefore had they authoritie ouer kinges and princes they gather not aright for that word as doth not import a likenes in all points betweene them whih were sent Chist and his Apostles but doth shew the senders or the authoritie of the senders As if he had saide my father sent me but I send you otherwise Christ was sent by his father to redeeme mankind by his death but not so neyther to that end were the Apostles sent by Christ but for this purpose that they shoulde out of all nations gather together his kingdom in the which all men should be made partakers of his benefits vnto the which kingdom yet he himselfe had prescribed lawes and had ordained Peter to be gouernour thereof Yet had Peter no more authority then the rest of the Apostles I deny not but that the sending of Christ did in some pointes surmount the sending of the Apostles but that Christ sent forth his Apostles with a larger commission and power then his father had giuen him that no man I thinke will lightly grant Pighius that knoweth that rule of the Canon Law yea and I doe thinke of all lawes Nemo potest pius iuris conferre in alium quam sibi competere dignoscatur No man can giue more right vnto another then may be knowen is in himselfe the saying of Christ that the scholler is not aboue his schoolemaster nor the bondman aboue his Lord but it is enough for the scholler to be as his master is and the bondman as his Lord. And Iohn 13. Verily verily I say vnto you the seruaÌ„t is not greater then his master neither the Apostle nor legate or messenger greater then him that sent him And with what authority he sent them it appeareth by the words that immediatly follow when he had said these wordes he blew vpon them and said vnto them receiue the holy ghost whose sins ye shall remit they are remitted and whose sins ye shall retaine they are retained and can any man call this power an earthly empyre And bycause Pighius saith that Christ had ordained Peter gouernour of his kingdome I pray let vs consider what power he gaue vnto him at the time of his institution or inauguration his wordes be these Mat. 16. I will giue vnto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon the earth shall also be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon the earth shall be also loosed in heauen yee apparantly see that Christ gaue vnto Peter not the keyes of the earthly kingdome or Empire to aduaunce and depose Princes but of the Kingdome of heauen to let in or shutte out from heauen neither had hee a sworde or Scepter giuen him as ensigne of a King but a key a token of a porter So that except the Pope can shewe annother Chapter then that which was giuen to Peter he will want wordes to carrie away a terrene monarch But although Pighius doe grant Christe his kingdome to be spiriuall yet Felisius in his booke vppon the tenne commaundements Felisius obiectioÌ„s of Christs kingdom answered on the Commaundement honour thy father and thy mother will not yeelde thereunto but endeauoureth to proue his secular power and monarchy by his practise in deciding all kinde of causes as of life and death when he badde Peter put vp his sworde of criminall when he willed the woman taken in adultery to be gone and of ciuill when he determined the controuersi betweene the Pharisies the Herodians whether the Iewes ought to pay tribute vnto the Emperours of Rome or noe Doubtlesse if Felisius were not accounted for a great learned man among the Catholickes Romaine I would not vouchsafe to shape these obiections an answeare they are soe friuolous For who seeth not that Christ his commanding of Peter to put vp his sworde doth no more proue that Christ had authoritie of publique Iustice then the bidding of any simple gentleman in the Citty of London that his man put vp his sword which he had drawen in a fray against his enemy will conuince him to be a Iustice of the peace of the same Citty But that Christ saide vnto the woman taken in adultery that she might begonne her way for seeing noe man had condeÌ„ned hir neyther would he He doth plainly declare that he had noe authoritie to condemne or detaine hir but that she might be gone for any thing he had to say or deale with hir Now for the matter of paying tribute it was not brought before him as a competent Iudge by parties sueing and sued by processe awarded or vppon distresse taken but onely moued vnto him as a skilful Doctor and learned diuine to be determined as a doubt betweene the two sectes of the Pharisies and the Herodians As if a Protestant and Catholicke should priuately come to Doctor Felisius to know his opinion whether the Pope may depose Christian Princes or noe but in very deede they came not to Christ to be resolued of the doubt but onely to entrappe him and to see if
the superexcellent powers not only for wrath but also for conscience as we that are bounde to payment of tribute Neyther let vs so behaue our selues that we for our wickednes and lewde factes doe deadly hate the lawe and looke for the reuenging sword but rather so leade our liues that we may get praise of the power and magistrate And then after he hath very eloquently shewed by many similitudes that they ought not to blame the harmlesse of the sword but to impute the smart thereof vnto their owne faultinesse he leaueth as he saith the subiectes and turneth his speach vnto the Emperour and the gouernours for ye must vnderstand that this oration was pronounced in the presence of the people of Nazanse trembling for feare of the Emperours great displeasure and also of the angry Emperour and his officers least he should be thought these are his words to deale altogether partially eyther not seeming to haue the like care ouer them to whome he ought more hoofully to looke vnto as they that could do most either harme or good as he had of the other inferiour sorte or else to haue lost through feare or shame the freedom that he had from Christ not daring to admonish them of their duetie because of their great dignity and power And then he vseth the words alleadged by our aduersaries what wil ye not be coÌ„tent c. But I doe not doubt but your maiestie wiâ—l take this my free speaking in good part as a holy sheepe of my holy flocke and a weaneling of the great sheepeheard And then he vseth very effectuall reasons to moue him to mercy and finally falleth to pitifull obtestations by his owne hoary head his immaculate priesthood which the Angels c. by Christ his bitter passion c. in most suppliant sort without any one word that any whit sauoureth or soundeth of authority power or commaund wisely and godly teaching the subiectes duetifull obedience and the Emperour and his officers mercy and moderation in gouernment Furthermore the better to boult out the trueth in the controuersy I thinke it will not be amisse to search out whether in the old lawe the high priest who was a type and figure of Christ and head of all the priestes and had the supreme ministration of the mysteries of God The high priest subiect to the temporall magistrate and in whose name of Pontifex the Bishop of Rome hath succeeded was subiect vnto the ciuill magistrate or noe And that he was is plainely proued in the 2. Cap. of 3. Kings where Salomon deposeth Abiather the high priest of his office and confirmeth him into Anathotb because he had gone about to make Adoniah King and also told him that he had deserued to die but he would not put him to death because he had borne the Arke of the Lord God before his father Dauid and had beene a continuall partaker of all his fathers troubles Then if Salomon might lawfully execute the high priest for treason there is no doubt but that the high priestes were subiect vnto the kinges as vnto their soueraignes But although I will passe ouer in silence the putting to death of the high priest Achimelech and Azarias by Saul and Ioas because they will cauill they were tyrannicall yer I will stay a little vpon the suppliant speach of Achimelech because it argueth subiection in the speaker Saul vpon the occasion of Doeg sent for Achimelech the sonne of Achitob 1. Reg. 22. 19. Cap. all the hole howse of his father being priestes which were in Nob who came euery man vnto the king and Saul saide Listen thou sonne of Achitob who answered I am heere my Lord. And Saul saide why hast thou and the sonne of Ishai conspired against me and hast giuen him being a traitour and so continuing to this day bread and a sword and hast asked counsaile of God for him that he might rise vp against me And Achimelech answering the king thus spake Let this crime be farre from me neyther let the king suspect any such thing against his bondman nor of any man of the whole howse of my father For thy bondman knew neither lesse nor much of this matter c. Doth there not appeare in these wordes almost a seruile subiection of the high priestes vnto the king for by what baser terme can he call himselfe then his bondman or by what higher and more soueraigne name could he speake vnto the king then calling him his Lord a word that doth signifie the prince to haue his subiectes in such seruilitie that Octauian the Emperour that did accept the names of Augustus or diuine of father of his country c. to haue his name sworne by and his images sacrificed vnto as a God 19 Cap. 2. Crome Yet wold neuer admit as Suetonius and Dion doe affirme the title of Lord but abhorred it as reprochfull although now time and custome haue mollified the worde But that the high priest had nothing to din matters of state we haue it set downe in flat wordes in the 19. of the second Paralip or the Chronicles where this we doe reade But Amarias the priest and your high priest shall be president or chiefe in those thinges which doe appertaine to God but Zebadias the sonne of Ishmaell who is captaine of the house of Iuda shall be ouer those workes which doe belong vnto the king But now that we haue sufficiently proued the subiection of the high priest of the Iewes let vs come to Christ himselfe by pretence of being whose vicar and deputie in earth the Pope claimeth this prowde prerogatiue of pearching ouer princes Christ no earthlie kiâ—g and discusse whether that he as Christ and Messias for I thinke the Pope doth not chalenge to be Gods but Christes vicar was an earthly Monarch or noe that he was none it is apparantly prooued by his refusing to giue iudgement on a woman accused of adulterie Iohn 8. and also by denying himseâ—fe to bee a competent iudge betweene two brothers that contended about an inheritance And finally in that he confessed vnto Pilate in expresse words that his kingdome was not of this world Iohn 18. As for the paying of foure drachmes for himselfe Peter at Capernaum I thinke with Theophylactus and some other that it was for the halfe sycle which is two drachmes due vnto the Lord for euerie man that was twentie yeares of age as we reade in Exodus rather then for tribute due to the Emperour because mee thinketh it doth better agree with Christes interrogation to Peter what thinkest thou Peter of whome doe the kinges of the earth take tribute of their owne children or of strangers and he sayde of strangers Iesus sayde vnto him then are the children free As though he shoulde haue sayde This expositiâ—n is vtterly repugnant to the meaning and purpose of Christ as the godly reader doth well vnderstaÌ„d If Kinges children doe not pay tribute to their fathers
happely they could bring him within the compasse of treason by denying the paiment of tribute vnto the Emperour and so procure his death by the Romaine president as seditious And therefore he asked them why they tempted him and willed them to shew him a peny and then he demaunded of them whose image was stamped on the peece and they answered the Emperours then saide he giue the Emperour that which is his and so likwise ynto god that which is gods a very obscure sentence giuen by a iudge in a sute but a wise and wittie answere for such false traterous Interrogants And with the like trisles doth the same Felisius also trouble vs when he goeth about to proue the exemption of the clergy froÌ„ free subiection of secular princes because Melchisdech was both a king and a priest so likewise Moses a priest supreme gouernor of the Iseralites And finally Hely was both high priest and also secular Prince or iudge of the Iewes For if Melchisedech were both a King and a Priest what is that to the controuersie that we haue now in hand whether that Priestes be subiect vnto the temporall Prince but perhaps it touched the matter if we had disputed whether that a Bishop may be also a temporall Prince See Fenestella As for a King to be a Priest was an vsual thing in many countries among the heathen Yea all the Romaine Kings had the chiefe charge of the sacrifices temples and worshippe of the gods and therefore when the Kinges were expelled they ordained a priest whom they called the sacrificing King who should execute those publicke sacrifices which did of right belong vnto the Kings function but for hatred of their kings made him subiect vnto the chiefe Priest or Pontifiex Maximus the which office of Pontifiex Maximus all the heathen Romaine Emperours continually had See Dion c. But that Moses was both the ciuill magistrate and also a priest it maketh very much against himselfe for although we doe grant that Moses was a Priest yet it is most manifest that he was not high Priest but his brother Aaron whome yet to be subiect vnto Moses all men seene in the sacred scriptures do knowe so that nothing can make more for the superioritie of the ciuill magistrate then this example that Aaron being high Priest and head and chiefe of all Priestes was yet subiect to Moses an ordinary Priest Moses was a prophet and not a priest because he had the soueraigntie temporall Likewise what is it to the purpose if that Hely the high Priest was also created secular magistrate for so were all the high Priestes after the returne of the people from Babilon vntill they were conquered by the Romaines and the kingdome was giuen by them vnto Herodes a stranger and Idumean Now seeing we haue aboundantly prooued in generall the superioritie of the ciuill magistrate ouer all men liuing within their dominions both by expresse places of scripture and authorities of auncient fathers and also conuinced the subiection of the high Priest in the olde law vnto the ciuill Prince and clearely shewed Christs kingdom to be spirituall and that he gaue none other to Peter and the rest of the Apostles and their successors and haue fully answered all obiections of the aduersaries I will descende vnto practise and prooue the superioritie of Emperours and Italian Kings ouer the Popes and Bishoppes of Rome by the prescripsion of seauen hundreth yeares after Christ 〈◊〉 kinde of proofe which we Catholickes Romaine exact of the Protestants crying vnto them to shew their successiion But because Pighius the Popes proctor in the secular primacy doth subiect his client vnto the heathen Emperours The Pops subiect to the Emperours and Italian kings I neede fetch my limmitation noe higher then Constantine the greate the first Christian Emperour Now to shew how he banished Bishoppes perhappes will be thought to small purpose because they doe giue this earthly Empire not vnto the Clergy but onely vnto the Bishoppe of Rome as Christs lieuetenant generall in all causes as well spirituall as temporall See for these histories Paul Diaâ— Platina and Sabellicus But I doe finde that his sonne and successor Constantius did banish Liberius the Bishoppe of Rome because he would not subscribe to the deposition of Athanasius and caused another to be câ—osen in his place Moreouer when the Cytie of Rome and the Country of Italy came by conquest into the possession of the Ostrogothes in Anno Domin 483. Liberius Theodoricus the King of the Ostrogothes or of Italy commanded to come before him to Rauenna whether he had transferred the seate of the Empire of Italy leauing the city of Rome in the gouernement of the Senate Symmachus And least some man vnskilfull of antiquities should dreame that it was then the Popes by the donation of Constantine Theodoricus I say summoned before him at Rauenna Symmachus and Laurentius who contended for the Bishopperickes of Rome to the diuision of the whole Cytie Iâ—hn that he as soueraing might determine the controuersy vpon hearing of the matter And afterward when Iustinus Emperour of Constantinople had banished the Arrians out of all his dominions Theodoricus sent Iohn the byshoppe of Rome and their Senatours Embassadours vnto Iustinus willing them in threatning sort to tell the Emperour from him that vnlesse hee did spedily restore to the Arrians theire Churches and suffer them to liue in peace that he would extinguish 〈…〉 Italy They comming to 〈…〉 honorably receiued by him did with 〈…〉 beeing very hoofull for the safetie of themselues and 〈◊〉 countrymen entreat the Emperour gratiously to graunt the â—â—nor of their Embassage although it were vniust and to haue regard and compassion of Italy which otherwise would vtterly perish with whose teares the Emperour beeing mooued granted them their request But when the Bishoppe with his associates were returned to Rauenna to make relation vnto the King of the Emperours answere Theodoricus mooued with malice because 〈◊〉 a defender of the Catholicke pietie had receiued him so honorably killed him and his fellowes with painefull imprisonment Then Theodotus annother king of the Ostrogothes sent Agapetus Agapetus the Bishoppe of Rome Embassadour as his subiect vnto Iustinian the Emperour which Iustinian not long after hauing recouered Rome from the Ostrogothes did not by his Lieuetenant but by his Lieuetenant Belsarius his wife spoyle Siluerius Silberius the Bishoppe of Rome of his Bishopprickâ— Bishoppes robes and putting him in monasticall needes confined him into an out Iland Charging him that he would haue betrayed the gate Asmaria that adioyned vnto his house vnto the Ostrogothes but in deed perhappes there was some other priuie grudge hidden in the Empresse her heart But the manner of the doing doth manifestly declare for how smale Princes Popes were reputed in those daies for Belsarius sending an officer for him the Bishoppe was brought into his bedde Chamber because Belsarius sate by his
hauock he made in all the the Churches subiect vnto him in Italy Sicileye and Sardinia and yet for all this Peter drewe not the sworde for hee yet remembred how bitterly his master had once checked him before for fighting Anno Dom. 700. Iustinianus the Emperour saith Diaconus commaunding Constantine the Pope to come vnto him honourably receiued him Constantine and sent him backe whom he beeing prostrated on the ground desired to be an intercessor vnto God for his sinnes renewed all the priuiledges of his Church why then the priuiledges were first giuen by the Emperour and not by God himselfe But that the Emperour fell downe at the Bishops feete it was done in respect not of his greatnesse but of his godlinesse a thing vsually done by great princes vnto ancient Monkes and Hermites renowned for their strict life and rare pietie whereof all Christian histories yeelde vs store of examples and this to be soe doth his request of intercession vnto GOD for his sinnes manifestly shewe But to returne againe to our practise about Anno Domini 690. another Iustinian the Emperour sent Zacharias his Protospatharius or high Constable into Italy for to bring Sergius the Bishop of Rome Sergius vnto him in Irons because he woulde not subscribe vnto a lewde counsell helde by him at Constantinople Sabell and he had done it if that the Emperiall Armie in Italy what for hatred of the Emperour and the good will of the Pope and his cause had not speedily marched to Rome to withstand his apprehension yet this Emperour did afterwarde renewe for Constantine the Bishop a confirmation of all the pâ—iuiledges of the Sea of Rome This Constantine was the first Bishop of Rome saith Omphrius the newe Chronicler of the Popes Qui in os ausus est resistere which durst resist the Emperours of Constantinople to their faces for he at the importunate petition of the people of Rome who requested it with great outcries decreede that the name of Philippicus the Emperour shoulde not be mentioned at the Aulter nor in anie writing or recordes nor his image set vp in their Churches because he had commaunded the Bishop to consent vnto his Arrianisme and the abolishing of the Images of Saintes But Paulus Diaconus who liued neare that time writeth that statuit populus the people decreede and not the Pope About Anno Domini 7â—5 Leo Isauricus the Emperour commaunded Gregory the Bishop of Rome Gregorie the second to destroy all the images of the Saintes the which he refused to doe But although the Emperour did execute many therefore and about that matter banished the patriarch of Constantinople and had sundry times practised the Popes death both couertly and also by open forces causing the Eparch to bring his Armie before the Citie of Rome where he was repelled by the Lombardes yet woulde the Pope by no meanes be wonne to consent that a new Emperour should be chosen in Italâ—e the which was now in a good forwardnesse the people hauing slaine Martin the gouernour of the Citie of Rome and his sonne the Lieuetenant of Campania and the Citizens of Rauenna the Eparch and had chosen them almost in euerie Citie newe officers But Gregorie woulde by no meanes consent thereunto but wonne them to be quiet with much a doe But when the Emperour woulde not desist from forcing of his edict for the abolishment of Images vppon the Romanes and the Italians Gregorie the third successor vnto the other helde a Counsell in Italie wherein he excommunicated the Emperour and then the Citizens of Rome and all the teritorie about called by the name of the Duchy of Rome reuolted from the Emperour who was negligent in defending them against the Lombardes that had sweeped him almost out of all Italie from Rome to the Alpes and soe the Pope became prince of the Citie and Duchie of Rome S. Sigon de regno Italiae and subiect vnto no man about the yeare 730. And to establish the state of the Romane principalitie by stopping of titles Zacharias the Pope wonne his Creator Pepine the french king to spoyle Aistulfus the king of the Lombardes of Rauenna by right whereof beeing the siege of the Gotish kingdome and the emperiall exarchate in Italy The Pope cannot depose princes he claimeth tribute of the Romanes and for to bestowe it vppon him and his successors for to take away all quarrell for euer Thus ye see that the Bishoppes of Rome were alwaies subiect vnto the temporall princes of the Citie vntill such time as the reuolting people had created him their prince as all other Bishops in ciuill soueraigne so that the Popes are not exempted of temporall subiection by the institution of GOD but by the election of men as the high priestes became to be soueraignes after the returne of the Iewes from Babylon there beeing ordained to be the temporall prince Then seeing by the ordinance of God the Pope was a subiect and by the creation of men beeing made a soueraigne onely ouer some certaine prouinces I cannot see howe eyther by Gods Law or mans hee can rightly claime anie authoritie to depose Christian princes at his pleasure no more then any other subiecte can his soueraigne or seuerall soueraignes one another to grant eyther of which is soe absurde that I shoulde shewe my selfe to haue verie little witte if I shoulde goe aboute to refute eyther as though any man that had common sense woulde doubte of them For to reason that Sixtus Quintus because hee is secular soueraigne ouer these prouinces which are called the patrimonie of Peter may therefore depose all other Christian princes is as good an argument as if I shoulde saie ELIZABETH is Queene of England therefore she may depose the prince of the patrimonie and all other Christian princes So that by prouing my first proposition that Christ gaue vnto Peter and his successors no soueraignetie secular I haue also conuinced the seconde that they can not depriue Christian princes of their principalities The Pope cannot depose the temporall soueraine Neyther is the Popes claime anie thing aduanced by those two sayinges of Christ vnto Peter which I doe finde alleadged by Gregorie the seuenth when hee first of anie Pope deposed Henry the fourth Emperour as the warrant of his doings Plati The first is feede my sheepe wherein hee did not sayde Gregorie exempt Kinges And the other whatsoeuer thou shalt binde on the earth shall be bound in Heauen and whatsoeuer thou doest loose in the earth shall be loosed in Heauen For I haue proued before that Christ his kingdome was spirituall and soe a spirituall charge of soules hee committed to Peter and the rest of the Apostles and their successors and noe Empyre ouer the bodies and goods of anie men But Doctor Sâ—uâ—ders takes greate holde of the Greeke woorde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Poimaine which the Apostle vseth when Christ bad Peter the second time to feede his sheepe for that
displeasures of himselfe his friendes and vassalls At the same time the french king Philip le Beau had spoyled Edward the fiâ—st king of England iniuriously of the greatest parte of Guienne and also Guy the Eare of Fuaunders almost of his whole Earldome and was not deposed therefore The cause is apparant Sicily was held of the Church of Rome and so was neither Guienne nor Flaunders But although he escaped scot-free for these wronges and the long detayning in prison the Earle of Flaunders and two of his sonnes yet he was depriued of his kingdome by Pope Boniface the eight Philip the faire for imprisoning of a french Bishop that rayled at him and menaced him when he coulde not winne him to grant to goe with an Army into the holy land on the which message the Pope had sent him vnto the king as saith Platina But the french Chronicles report that the king caused him to be apprehended at home at his owne house for that he vnderstoode that he vsed often to speake very ill of him and to rayle outragiously on hm and deliuered him vnto his primate the Bishop of Tolouse to punish him with his aduise The kingdome of France was giuen vnto Albert the Emperour perhappes for a reward of his wickednesse in slaying of his soueraigne Adolph the Emperour for other punishment I doe not finde that Pope did put him vnto therefore See Munâ—ter cosâ—â—â—mog lib. 3. in Al. 2. But yet I doe not doubt but the fault was more heinous then emprisoning of a Bishop for rayling against his prince and Lord. Yea and that God did so account it he made it manifest vnto the worlde by his seuere punishment of all the conspiratours For Albert himselfe was murdered by his owne Cosen germane the Archbishop of Ments founde deade sitting in his chaire The Bishop Stasburge was slaine by a pesant at Fâ—â—â—â—nge in Brisgow The Earle of Linengen died maâ—de The Earle of Sweibrucken was drowned in a riuer The Earle of Ochsenstein had his deaths wound in the battell And the Earle Hâ—â—gerloch was slaine on the way by Otho the Duke of Danao But to proceede Lewes th 12 of France was excommunicated denounced a scismatike and his kingdome and goods exposer for a common spoyle to all Christians and the like penalty pronounced on all them that did or should take his part or ayde him Lewes the twelfih And therefore Iohn the king of Nauarre lost his kingdome for procuring of a generall counsell to be called and held without the consent of the Pope against the Pope that there his infestious foe Iulâ—us the second might be deposed an other more frendly placed in his roome And doth not this altogether smell of priuate reuenge and not of charity But perhaps you will say it was a foule part of him that would be called the most Christian king to sow sedition and scisme throughout all Christendome for his owne priuate quarrell and that this doing of his was so ill thought of by most of the pri◠〈…〉 of Christendome that they entred therefore into league against him and had almost set him besides his saddle In truth I can neyther prayse the practise nor the pollicie of the French who sought to represse the iniurious attemptes of the Pope against him rather by colour of lawe to the disturbance of all Christendome then by armes and inuading the Popes territories as Philippe the moderne king of Spayne wisely did in the like case and fondely thought it lesse enuyous Anno Domini 556. and more agreeable vnto his surname of the most Christian king which his ancestâ—rs had purchasesed by defending the Popes and Peters patrimony with armes to rayse vp a scisme then to force the Pope to frindship by materiall force But that the Pope compelled him to this outrage all writers doe confesse For first contrary to the league made at Cambray betweene him the Emperour the French king the king Spaine and the Duke of Ferara against the Venetians who had encroched vpon theÌ„ all he hauing gotten all that he claimed â—ee Iouius â—n vita Alâ—hons â—â—uiciardiâ—â—o not onely made peace with the Venetians without the consent of his confederates but also excoÌ„municated and with armes enuaded the fast friend of the French the Duke of Ferara because that he not hauing yet recouered all his right of them would not cease to molest the Venetians And also he left no stone vnturned to turne the French out of Milan an Genna the which he at the length brought to passe And was not he then the author of all his tragedie Moreouer this Popes brothers sonne Duke of Vrbine cruelly murdered of emulation Alidosius a Bishop a Cardinall See Iouius â—n vit Alphons Guic. Boleslaw and Legate of Bologna almost in the Popes sight and was put to no penance therefore But Boleslaw the hardie king of Poland was depriued by Pope Gregorie the seuenth of his kingdome and also the country of the honour to haue a king in the which dishonour it continued 200 yeares fâ—â—â—â—ying with his owne hande in his fury Stanislaw the Bishop of Craccow for excommunicating him yea and interdicting the whole Citie of Craccow to make him the more odious because he openly kept another mans wife and for adultery a thing which as it should seeme by Cromerus as common in Poland in those daies as the cart way Yea those noble women that were honest were forced to forsake there owne howses See Cromerus hist Pola lib. 4. for feare of force and rauishment yea and it was common in Italy and passed vnpunished in meaner men then princes But yet in verie trueth the kinges fact was verie foule and made worse by the furie of his fellowes that chopped in peeces the slayne corpes and cast it to the crowes And yet perhaps Dauid did almost all ill in defiling of a noble mans bed while he was in his seruice in the fielde and afterward commaunding him to be murdered for his amendes but so dealt not Bolislawe with Stanislaw and if the qualities of the persons be not equall then the manner of the doing doth ouermatch the one being done without any prouocation and of aduised malice the other vppon a greate ignominy vnwonted with kinges offered him and vpon a sodaine while his blood was hotte which seauen yeares continuall absence from his countrie in forraine warres a little before had ouerheated And yet Dauid lost not his Kingdome therefore Neither doe we reade of any realme interdicted for murdering of their Kinges whereof we haue almost infinite examples or any man deposed for intruding into them by such wickednesse vnlesse perhappes the murdered Prince were the Popes vassall Soe that this zeale in seuere punishing of princes for misusing them of the clergy I feare me may be imputed rather to a partiall fauour towardes them of their owne coate and done for their owne securitie then for zeale of Iustice Like as our Sargeants at
counsell and of my will see that you doe giue all men entrance into the Church that are desirous to come in for if I shall vnderstande that any man that desireth to be made partaker of the Church shall eyther be let by you or forbidden to enter in I will immediately sende one of mine that by my commaundement shall remooue you from your Sea and giue your place vnto another Note that hee saieth I will sende not the Bishoppe of Rome his officer but one of mine owne men who shall displace you and place another therein not by commaundement of the counsell or Bishoppe of Rome but by my commaundement The like also writes Socrates he threatned vnto Alexander the Bishoppe of Constantinople if he woulde not receiue Arrius into the Church But you will say that the Emperour iniuried both Athanasius and Alexander I denie not that but although Theodoretus doth blame his ouermuch light credulitie and doth excuse it by the like in Dauid against Miphiboseth yet doth neyther hee nor any other ancient author accuse him of tyranny for medling with matters that he had nothing to do withall or punishing of them ouer whom he had no lawfull iurisdiction and also doth refute that you affirme that Constantine refused to iudge Bishoppes Nowe to returne againe to the history the same Socrates doth say that when the Arrians had accused Athanasius Macarius and other of their complices vnto the Emperour of foule factes Constantine wrote vnto his sisters sonne Dâ—linatius who was then abiding at Antioch 500 miles from Alexandria to call the parties before him and to punish them that he shoulde finde faultie But afterwarde because the Bishoppes were assembled at Tyrus about the dedication of his newe Church at Hierusalem he referred ouer the hearing of those matters vnto them So that at the first he had committed both the triall and the punishment of the greatest Bishoppe of all the East Church vnto a temporall officer of his the which fact and the other which I haue before rehearsed doe plainly proue that Constantine did not account nor acknowledge his Empyre or him selfe empaired or of lesse commaund by accepting of the Christian religion but that he still executed his princely prerogatiue on all persons both spirituall temporall and still clamed to be the minister immediate of God not any vnder officer of the Bishops of Rome Gods vicar on earth rightly to for as Paul saith 1. Tim. 6. Let all bondmen whatsoeuer they be that be vnder yoke repute their lords worthy of al honor lest the name of the lord his doctrine be blasphemed but they which haue beleeuing Lords let them not coÌ„temne them because they bee their brethren but rather serue them because they bee beleeuers and belooued who are pertakers of the benefite Teach these thinges and exhort them If any man teach otherwise and doth not yeeld vnto the â—ound speaches of our Lord Iesus Christ and that doctrine which is agreeable to godlinesse is proud knoweth nothing is mindesicke of questions quarrelles about wordes So also might it haue been saide Ye Popes Byshoppes account your princes worthie of all honour least the name and doctrine of Christ be euill spoken of but ye Byshoppes that haue Christian Kinges contemne them not because they be Christians but be the more obedient and dutifull vnto them because they haue embraced Chrst and are pertakers of his benefit This teach and exhorte but whosoeuer teacheth otherwise teacheth contrary doctrine to Christ is a proude prelate and quite voide of knowledge And as Peter writeth 1 Epistle 3. Ye bondmen bee subiect in all feare vnto your Lordes not onely vnto them that are good and moderate but also vnto them that are waywarde and vnreasonable for this is grace or worthie of fauour if a man doe beare sorrowes for conscience of GOD suffering vniustly So also might it haue beene rightly saide vnto the Popes and Byshoppes in Constantines time and now also be ye subiecte in all feare vnto your Princes not onely vnto such as are good and gratious but also vnto vngodly and tyrannicall neyther release your selues of your alleagence for if yee doe take and beare wrong quietly for regarde of GOD God will abundadtly rewarde your patience for the consequent is very strong and good seeing the thinges are all together alike and equall for if the Christian bondmen were not enfranchised because they were spirituall brothers vnto their Lordes neyther were the Popes and Byshoppes discharged of subiection vnto their Princes because they were become their spirituall bretheren and if you will to their spirituall fathers But they say with Phiglâ—ius that Christ coÌ„mitted the gouernement of his Church vnto Peter What prince Peter was and his successors and therefore all Kinges that are of the Church are subiect vnto the Byshoppes of Rome And if we grant this can there bee ought else inferred then subiection in causes and censures ecclesiasticall and not in causes and punishmentes secular and temporall for what fonde Frenchman will say that because in olde time the Kinges of England were vassals vnto the French Kinges for the Duchies of Normandy and Guien that therefore the crowne of Englande was subiect vnto the Kinges of France or that they coulde commande the Kinges of England in any matter touching their crowne of England or because the Byshoppes Chanceller can excommunicate a man for adultery that therefore he can also depriue a man of life and liuing Mat. 20 for a greater fault Moreouer did not Christ plainelye enough declare what kinde of Kingdome he gaue to Peter and the rest of the Apostles and how vnkingely kinges they shoulde bee when they contended among themselues who should be greatest The kinges of nations saide he be Lordes ouer those countries and their princer haue power ouer them but so it is not in you doth he not here in plaine wordes take from them all earthlye and bodily Empire and power and that too from the greatest of them So that the Pope that claimeth to bee greatest and chiefest is also hereby excluded neyther will a shifte of humilitie serue to escape seeing that to depose Princes is to raigne ouer nations is to be their Lord is to haue power ouer them all which thinges Christ saith the greatest of his Apostles his successors should not haue nor consequently authoritie to release all subiectes of their allegiance the which is a supreeme point of Earthly Empire the which neuer any mortall man yet had and onely belongeth vnto the great God the supreeme Lord and soueraigne of the whole world for neuer yet was there any so mightie a monarch that had all the world vnder his Empire neither then could his authoritie extend ouer all nations but his power determined within the bonds of his owne Empire could not stretch beyonde his owne vassals among whom only he might decree in what cases their seignories should be forfeated and their bondmen be enfranchised of