performed by these places alleadged yow haue seene 28. Finally to stand no longer vpon this whether we or they Catholicks or Protestantes doe attribute more to popular licence against Princes when they giue not contentment may aboundantly be seene in that we haue set downe before and will ensue afterward both of their doctrine and practises in like occasions And so much of this first charge now will we passe to the second 29. The second is that we ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power and souer aignty ouer Kings vnto the Pope wherin first what he saith of ciuill souer aignty is a meere fiction and calumniation of his owne if it be out of the Popes owne temporall Dominions For we ascribe no such vnto him ouer other Princes or their subiects but that authority or soueraignty only which Catholicke doctrine ascribeth to the Bishop of Rome as Successor to S. Peter Prince of the Apostles spirituall head of the vniuersall visible Church of Christ which is only spirituall for spirituall ends to wit for the direction and saluation of soules And if at any time he be forced to passe further then this and by a certeine consequence to deale in some temporall affaires also it must be only indirectly in defence or conseruation of the said spirituall that is to say when the said spirituall power apperteining to soules cannot other wise be defended or conserued as more largely hath byn treated before 30. This then is the summe and substance of Catholicke doctrine about this point of the Popes authority which from the beginning of Christianity hath byn acknowledged in Gods Church and in no place more then in England where it hath byn both held practised from the very first Christened King of our nation Ethelbert vnto K. Henry the 8. for the space of almost a thousand yeares without interruption as largely and aboundantly hath byn shewed and laied forth to the view of all men in a late booke written in answere to S. Edward Cookes fifth part of Reportes and this with great honor prosperity of the Princes therof and vnion of their people vnder their gouernment and without such odious or turbulent inferences as now are made therevpon by vnquiet spirittes that would set at warre euen mens imaginations in the ayer therby to mainteine disunion discorde and diffidence betweene Princes and namely betweene our present noble Soueraigne and his Catholicke subiects 31. And first of all let vs heare this turbulent T. M. how vpon the enuy of this authority he frameth and foundeth all his ensuing reasons VVe demaunde saith he how farre these pretended powers of people Pope may extende and heervpon we argue To which I answere that in imagination they may extend so farre as any fantasticall braine shall list to draw them but in the true meaning of Catholicke reall doctrine they can extend no further then hath byn declared And as for the popular power of people ouer Princes we haue now refuted the calumniation shewed that it is a mere fiction of his owne and no position of ours and that his Protestant doctrine doth ascribe much more licence to popular tumult then the Catholicke without comparison and for that of the Pope I haue declared how it is to be vnderstood to be of his owne nature in spirituall affaires only without preiudice of ciuill Princely gouernement at all and so the practice of the worlde and experience of so many Princes great States and Monarches liuing quietly securely vnder the same authority both in former times and ours most euidently doth proue and confirme 32. But yet let vs see and consider how falsely and calumniously this Make-bate doth herevpon argue in his third reason inferring for his assumption or minor proposition thus But all Popish Priestes vpon this pretended Supremacy and prerogatiue of Pope and people doe vtterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Princes Ergo. Wherin to shew him a notable liar it shall be sufficient to name all the Protestant Princes that haue had title of successiō in our coūtrey for therof he speaketh principally since the name of Protestant hath byn heard of in the world being three in number to wit K. Edward the sixt Q. Elizabeth and K. Iames that now raigneth all which were admitted peaceably to their Crownes as well by Priestes as Catholicke people who notwithstanding in some of their admissions wanted not meanes to haue wrought disturbances as the world knoweth so as if one instance only doth truly ouerthrow any general proposition how much more doth this triple instance not able to be denied ouerthrow and cast to the ground this vniuersal false assertion of T. M. which auerreth That all Popish Priests 〈◊〉 vtterly abolish the Succession of all Protestant Princes Will he not be ashamed to see himself cōuinced ofso great and shameles ouerlashing 33. And on the other side one only Catholicke Princesse being to succeed in this time to wit Q. Mary we know what resistance the Protestants made both by bookes sermons Treatises and open armes and how many Rebellions conspiracies robberies priuy slaughters and other impediments were designed and practised afterward during the few yeares she raigned we know also what was executed against the gouernment and liues of the two noble Catholicke Queenes her neerest neighbours one of them most straitly conioyned in bloud that raigned at that time in Scotland to omit others before mētioned that were debarred from their lawfull succession or excluded from their rightfull possession for their Religion in Sweueland Flanders other places as cannot be denied 34. Wherfore it is more then extraordinary impudency in T. M. to charge vs with that which is either peculier or more eminent in themselues and false in vs and what or how farre this fellow may be trusted in these his assertions may be gathered by the last sentence of all his discourse in this matter where he hath these wordes F. Persons in his Doleman doth pronounce sentence that whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince is a most grieuous and damnable 〈◊〉 And is it so in deed Syr 〈◊〉 and will yow stand to it and leese your credit if this be falsely or calumniously alleadged then if yow please let vs heare the Authors owne wordes 35. And now saith he to apply all this to our purpose for England and for the matter we haue in hand I affirme and hold that for any man to giue his helpe consent or assistance towardes the making of a King whome he iudgeth or belieueth to be faulty in Religion and consequently would aduance no Religion or the wrong if he were in authority is a most grieuous damnable sinne to him that doth it of what side soeuer the truth be or how good or bad soeuer the party be that is preferred So he And his reason is for that he should sinne against his owne conscience in furthering such aKing And is
Christ to S. Peter and that it is a strange art to make a sword of a paire of keyes which seemeth to him a fine iest then commeth he out with this vanut Neither can any shew me one Doctour but of reasonable antiquity peto vel ex millibus vnum who by keyes vnderstand ciuill power But Syr what needeth antiquity of Doctors in this behalf will not your owne moderne Protestant Doctors graunt that when the keyes of any Citty Towne or Fort are giuē to a Prince ciuill power ouer that Fort is meant therby who will deny this 38. And secondly whereas he alleadgeth Franciscus à Victoria to say that the keyes giuen to S Peter imported spiritual authority of remitting and reteyning sinnes ergo no way temporall is a fond illation for that albeit Victoria saith that those keyes did principally importe spirituall authority yet they include also supreme temporall indirectly when the defence of the spirituall doth require it Whereupon he frameth this conclusion in the same place Our eight proposition is saith he that the Pope by authority of the foresaid keyes hath most ample temporall power ouer all Princes and Kinges and the Emperour himself in order to a spirituall end which he proueth there by many arguments And this of the first iest about swordes to be made of keyes 39. The second iest also is as wise and witty as this former that when we found the same temporall sword or authority of S. Peter and his successours vpon the words of Christ Feed my sheep he doth inferre that Princes also must be fed and dietted corporally at the Popes discretion and other such toyes he not vnderstanding as it seemeth or rather dissembling the force of Catholicke argumentes drawne from those and other like Scriptures both by later Doctors and ancient Fathers which this fellow turneth into scofs and contempt or wicked railing for that presently he falleth into these rages O arrogant Glossers O impudent Glosers and peruerters of the sacred Oracles of God! And why is all this heat of exclamations Forsooth for that in some Popes Bulles though corruptly fraudulently alledged some mention is made of the great authority that was giuen to Elias Elizeus Ieremy and other Prophetes and especially to Christ himself vpon earth to plant destroy pull vp or punish where need should be and that this authority by allusion vnto the same wordes of Scripture is applied to Christes Successour vpon earth affirmed to be left in the Christian Church to be vsed when need shall require and is this so great an impiety thinke yow 40. But he goeth on and saith That next to this he will examine the antiquity of pretended Papall power from the Apostles time downward and then produceth this assertion of ours The Priestes saith the Romish pretence of the new Testament in the Priesthood of Christ haue more authority then that of the old law ouer Kinges to depose them whervnto he adioyneth presently his owne spruse Ministeriall answere in these wordes This is not probable except yow can shew some footinges either of Christ or his blessed Apostles or their Holy Successours in the purer periods of times And is not this answered as from a man of his coat Marke the phrase Of footings in purer periods I will for footinges in this matter referre him to the large demonstrations which out of Scriptures Doctours Fathers Councelles and Ecclesiasticall Histories the Authors by him heere often alledged Carerius Bozius Bellarmine Sanders Salmeron and others doe aboundantly and substancially alledge when he shall haue ouerthrowne or supplanted those footinges of theirs which they 〈◊〉 fix throughout all periods of times from the beginning of Christian Religion vnto our dayes and generall practice therof then may the poore man get to haue some little footing for himself and his cause which hitherto he hath none at all as to any man whosoeuer with any indifferency of iudgment shall read ouer and examine his booke will euidently appear yea though he compare but only that which himself alledgeth heere both in the text and margent which seldome agree in true sense if you marke it well But if yow would examine the Latin authorities cited in the said margent with the originalles of the Authors themselues you shall scarce euer finde them sincerly to agree but that one fraud or other is vsed in their allegation by chopping changing infarcing leauing out and other such sleightes and deceiptes which though the breuity of this Treatise permit me not to examin and lay forth at large in this place yet some we haue touched before and some others shall we haue occasion to note afterwardes and the Reader himself may vpon this warning make some little triall 41. And as for the succession of times which this Author T. M. pretendeth to bring downe from the Apostles dayes not to ours but for a thousand yeares only after Christ wherin he saith that no Pope can be shewed euer to haue had any temporall iurisdiction ouer any Emperour King or temporall Prince though Catholickes doe hold the later six hundred yeares also to be of no lesse force for president of examples in the Church of God then the former thousand yet are the instances so many and euident which may be alledged against his former prescription of the said thousand yeares as doe manifestly cōuince him of folly in that assertion wherin I referre me to the collections and demonstrations therof by the foresaid Authors Carerius Bozius Bellarmine Sanders and others in the places heere quoted in the margent but especially to the three that are not Iesuites to the first for all to wit Carerius that in diuers thinges wrote against the Iesuits whoe in his second booke alleadgeth 10. or 12. examples out of antiquity for prouing his purpose I remit me also to the many learned writinges set forth of late about the cause of the Venetians by Penia Baronius Bouius Eugenius Nardus others shewing the most euident right which the Pope had and hath to commaund them as high Pastor of the Church to recall certaine ciuill lawes made by them in preiudice of the said Church and Ecclesiasticall State which Commandement we doubt not but God will moue that most excellent Cōmon-wealth finally to obey they being knowne to be so good and sound Catholickes as they are though for some time in regard of some temporall respectes they haue deferred to doe the same 42. Many more pointes might be examined in this descēt of his throughout periodes of times but it would be ouerlong and my intention is to giue a tast only or short view for to examine the places cited out of Fathers of diuers ages for proofe of his pretence were time wholy lost For that in effect they say nothing else but that we graunt which is that temporall Princes are to be respected and obeyed by Ecclesiasticall men also but in temporall affaires And as for his examples of
more hath S. Paul in that Epistle of the eminency of Christes Priesthood therby to set forth the most admirable excellency of his power and glory therby giuen him from his Father for our saluation but of the glory of his temporal Kingdome in this life he saith little or nothing And had not then the foresaid Fathers and holy Bishops S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazienzen S. Ambrose and others great cause by contemplation of this supereminent worthines of Christes Priesthood to inferre the great preheminēce in generall of the Christian Priesthood before Kingly dignity of earthly principality But let vs yet consider one reason more 17. The office of high Priesthood as partly hath appeared by that we haue said and is euident by the discourse of S. Paul appointing him for a meanes or mediator betweene God and man consisteth principally in two thinges or partes first in respect of that which he is to performe towardes God as to his Superiour secondly in the functions that he is to vse towardes the people as inferiours and subiectes The first consisteth in offering sacrifice oblations prayers and intercession for the sinnes of the people as already touching Christ our Sauiour out of the Apostle we haue declared The second consisteth in the spirituall power dignity authority and functions therof which our said high Priest Christ Iesus as head high Priest of his Church purchased with the sacrifice of his owne bloud hath and may exercise vpon the said Church for euer for vnto him as our high Priest it appertaineth not only to make intercession for his said Church but to gouerne the same also and to direct it by conuenient meanes vnto the end of their saluation which he hath designed and for this to make lawes prescribe orders appoint Sacramentes ordaine spirituall tribunals of iudgment giue sentence of separation of the good from the bad forgiue and retaine sinnes which spirituall gouernment of soules belonging to the office of high Priesthood is a different thing from the ciuill gouernment of temporall principality and yet is a Kingdome also in it self but a spirituall Kingdome ouer soules and not ouer bodies And this had Christ our Sauiour togeather with his high Priesthood according to the prediction and vision of Daniel Aspiciebam ecce quasi filius hominis c. I did looke and behold there appeared as it were the Sonne of man and God gaue vnto him power and honour and a Kingdome his power is an eternall power and his Kingdome shall neuer be corrupted And so in the second Psalme after he had said I am made King by him vpon his holy Hill of Sion he addeth presently to shew that it was a spirituall Kingdome Praedicans praeceptum eius my office is to preach his commandement and many other authorities may be alledged to proue that Christ in that he was high Priest had supreame spirituall Kingly authority in like manner for gouerning of soules 18. But now for the temporall Kingdome of Christ in this life to wit whether besides this spirituall and Royall gouernment of our soules he had Kingly Dominion also vpon our bodies and goodes and vpon all the Kingdomes of the earth so as he might iustly haue excercised all actions of that temporall iurisdiction as casting into prison appointing new officers Kings and Monarches yea whether their power and authority and interest to their States did cease when he came as the right of Priestly authority did in this I say and other pointes depending herof there are two disputable opinions betweene Catholicke Deuines the one holding the affirmatiue that Christ was Lord King temporall as heere is set downe which diuers learned men both of old and our time doe de fend the other affirming that albeit Christ togeather with his high Kingly dignity of spirituall power was Lord also cōsequently ouer our bodies shall raigne ouer the same most gloriously for all eternity in the life to come yet that he renounced the vse of all that Dominion in this life and that in this sense he fled when they would haue made him King and refused to deuide the inheritance betweene the two Brethrē when he was demaunded and finally said to Pilate My Kingdome is not of this world confessing himself to be a true temporal King also according to Pilates meaning but yet that the vse and exercise therof was not for this world but only for the next wherof also the good thiefe vnderstood when he said on the Crosse Be mindfull of me when thou shalt come into thy Kingdome And finally they alledge for proofe of this the wordes of Zachary the Prophet Ecce Rex 〈◊〉 venit tibi iustus Saluator ipse pauper Behold Sion thy King commeth vnto thee as a iust and sauing King but he is poore as though he had said he is thy true King but hath renounced the vse and priuiledge of the same and chosen pouerty in this world And with this second opinion which is the more generall doe concurre also the Protestantes of our age that Christ tooke vpon him no temporall Kingly power in this life least if they held the contrary it should be inferred therof that he left the same authority both of temporall and spirituall vnto S. Peter his Successour which yet the Catholickes that hold this opinion explicate otherwise saying that albeit Christ had no direct Dominion in this life vpon temporall thinges yet indirectly for preseruation of his spirituall Dominion he had and might haue vsed the same and in that sense he left it to his said Successor 19. Of all which is inferred first the preheminence of high Priesthood in Christ before his temporall Kingly principality for that as we haue said the actions and functions of Christes Priesthood haue not only more high eminent dignity both in that they treat with men for gouerning their soules then Christes temporall Kingdome for gouerning of bodies but moreouer that the dignity of Priesthood in Christ conteineth in it self a much more high spirituall Kingly power then is the temporall 20. Secondly is inferred that the reasons heere alledged by T. M. for his paradox in preferring Christs being a King before his Priesthood are vaine foolish The first wherof is this Christes Kingdome saith he had the preheminence of Priesthood because he is Priest only for vs but he is King ouer vs. But I would aske him Is not Christ Priest ouer vs aswel as for vs hath he not a spirituall and Priestly iurisdiction ouer our soules doth not he binde and loose our sinnes doth not he prescribe vs Sacramentes appoint vs lawes of liuing and the like or doe not these actions appertaine vnto him as high Priest ouer his Church And againe I would aske him about the second member as Christ in flesh was King was he not made King aswell for vs that is for our good as ouer vs
him so vrging an occasion as by his friendes is thought that in the conueniency of reason and honour he coulde not well omit to accept therof as he did and performed the enterprise in such manner as might be expected at his L. handes to wit as himself writeth of his Maiesties speach in the Parlament Euery line declaring the vvorkeman 19. Only I may not let passe to note by the way that in two points of 〈◊〉 touched by him of the Popes authority concerning Princes and the lawfulnes of Equiuocation in certaine cases as they are matters not apperteining properly to his faculty and profession so must I thinke that his Deuine did somewhat mistake or misinforme him therin For of the first thus he writeth that he hath byn a long time sory that some cleere explication of the Papall authority hath not byn made by some publicke and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. He addeth further this reason of his desire That not only those Princes vvhich acknovvledge this Superiority might be secured from feares and iealosies of continuall treasons and bloudy Assassinates against their persons but those Kings also vvhich doe not approue the same yet vvould faine reserue a charitable opinion of their subiectes might knovv hovv farre to repose themselues in their fidelity in ciuill obedience hovvsoeuer they see them deuided from them in point of conscience c. 20. To the former clause touching his L. desire to haue the matter defined and declared his Deuine might easely haue informed him that among Catholicke people the matter is cleare and sufficiently defined and declared in all pointes wherin there may be any doubt concerning this affaire As for example in three thinges question may be made first whether any authority were left by Christ in his Church and Christian common-wealth to restraine or represse censure or iudge any exorbitant and pernicious excesse of Great men States or Princes or that he had left them remediles wholy by any ordinary authority In which case as in other common-wealthes that are not Christian all Philosophers law-makers Senatours Counsellours Historiographers and other sortes of soundest wisedome prudence and experience either Iew or Gentile haue from the beginning of the world concurred in this that God and nature hath left some sufficient authority in euery common wealth for the lawfull and orderly redressing of those euilles euen in the highest persons Nor did euer Philosopher of name or law-maker hitherto deny this assertion as founded in the very law of nature nations and reason it selfe 21. So when Christ our Sauiour came to found his common-wealth of Christians in farre more perfection then other states had byn established before subiecting temporall thinges to spirituall according to the degree of their natures endes and eminencies and appointing a supreme vniuersall Gouernour in the one with a generall charge to looke to all his sheepe without exception of great or small people or potentates vpon these suppositions I say all Catholicke learned men do ground and 〈◊〉 euer grounded that in Christian common-wealthes not only the foresaid ordinary authority is left which euery other state and Kingdome had by God and nature to preserue and protect themselues in the cases before laid downe but further also for more sure and orderly proceeding therin that the supreme care iudgment direction and censure of this matter was left principally by Christ our Sauiour vnto the said supreme Gouernour and Pastour of his Church and common-wealth And in this there is no difference in opinion or beliefe betweene any sorte of Catholickes whatsoeuer so they be Catholickes though in particular cases diuersity of persons time place cause and other circumstances may moue some diuersity of opinions And thus much of the first question 22. The second may be about the manner how this authority or in what sorte it was giuen by Christ to his said supreme Pastour whether directly or indirectly immediatly or by a certaine consequence As for example whether Christ as he gaue the generall charge of his sheepe to S. Peter and his Successours directly and immediatly in spirituall matters by that commission three times repeated in S. Iohn Pasce oues meas which wordes include according to Catholicke exposition not only authority to feed but to gouerne also direct restraine cure represse and correct when need is as we see it doth appertaine to a temporall sheepheardes office so whether with this commission in spirituall affaires our Sauiour gaue also immediatly and directly the charge and ouersight of temporalities in like manner or rather indirectly and by a certaine consequence that is to say that when the gouernment of spirituall affaires to wit of soules to their eternall blisse and saluation is so letted or impugned by any temporall gouernours as the said spirituall commission cannot be executed without redresse or remedy in such cases and not otherwise the said supreme pastour to haue authority to proceed also against the said temporall Gouernours for defence and preseruation of his spirituall charge Of which question the Canonistes doe commonly defend the first part but Catholicke Deuines for the most part the second but both partes fully agree that there is such an Authority lefte by Christ in his Church for remedy of vrgent cases for that otherwise he should not haue sufficiently prouided for the necessity therof So as this difference of the manner maketh no difference at all in the thing it selfe 23. The third question may be about the causes for which this authority may be vsed as also the forme of proceeding to be obserued therin wherabout there are so many particularities to be considered as are ouerlong for this place only it is sufficient for Catholicke men to know that this may not be done without iust cause graue and vrgent motiues and due forme also of proceeding by admonition preuention intercession and other like preambles prescribed by Ecclesiasticall Canons to be obserued wherby my Lordships doubtes of feares and ielosies of continuall treasons and bloudy assassinates may iustly be remoued For that this authority doth not only not allow any such wicked or vnlawfull attemptes of priuate men but doth also expressely and publickly condemne the same and the doctrine therof as may appeare not only by the condemnation of VVicklifs wicked article in the Councell of Constance wherin he affirmed That it vvas lavvfull for euery priuate man to kill any Prince vvhome he held to be a Tyrant but also by like condemnation of Caluin Beza Ottoman Bucchanan Knox Goodman and others of that sect who hold and practice in effect the same doctrine of VVickliffe concerning Princes if not worse as shall more largely and particularly be declared afterward in the first and fourth Chapters of this Treatise And this I desire may satisfy his Lordship for the present vntill we come to the foresaid places where better occasion in this kind will be offered 24. As for the second point touched by his Lordship about the
giue vnto thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance and the confines of all the earth for thy possession so as in this Kingdome God the Father required an acknowledgment And yet further the Prophet speaking to the said Father of this Kingdome of Christ in flesh said Constituisti eum super 〈◊〉 manunm tuarum omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius thou hast appointed him for Lord and King ouer the workes of thy handes that is to say ouer all thy creatures and thou hast subiected all thinges vnder his feet which point S. Paul doth prosecute most excellently in the first two Chapters of his Epistle to the Hebrewes and there can be no doubt in this matter for Christ himself speaketh most plainly Data est mihi omnis 〈◊〉 in caelo in terra All power is giuen vnto me both in heauen and earth so as he acknowledgeth it to be giuen which cannot stand with his diuinity in that he is God and equall with his Father in which regard all was his owne without gift according to those wordes of S. Paul to the Philippians Non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo He did not thinke it Vsurpation to be equall to God his Father according to his diuinity Wherfore it must needs appeare great ignorance in our Minister to assigne him this his temporall Kingdome as he was God and equall to his Father 13. But now to the principall proposition VVhether Christ his Kingdome had the preheminence of his Priesthood or his Priesthood of his Kingdome though in part the matter be made cleere by that which is already spokē yet shal we adde two or three wordes more And first the matter is manifest by the narration it self in Scripture when the figure of his Priesthood and Kingdome is declared in Genesis in the person of Melchisedech for thus saith the text Melchisedech King of Salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was the Priest of God most high gaue his benediction to Abraham and tooke tithes of him for all that he had In which example is greatly to be noted the reflection it self and emphasis which the Scripture maketh vpon his Priestoood Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi For he was the Priest of the most high God as who should say that otherwise he could neuer haue offred vp in sacrifice that bread and wine the highest action of all other vpon earth as King except he had byn Priest nor yet haue blessed Abraham and much lesse haue taken tithes of him Which point S. Paul doth ponder very deeply and seriously in his Epistle to the Hebrewes repeating often times for the greater glory of Christ and his powerfull Priesthood this example of Melchisedech Assimilatus 〈◊〉 Dei saith he manet sacerdos in perpetuum intuemini autem quantus sit hic cui decimas dedit de praecipuis Abraham Patriarcha This Melchisedech bearing a likenes of the Sonne of God remained a Priest perpetually Neque initium dierum neque finem vitae habens hauing neither beginning of his dayes nor end of his life consider then how great a man this was to whome the Patriarch gaue tithes of all the principall thinges he had 14. This is S. Paules contemplation of the matter who in his said Epistle to the Hebrewes laying this foundation of the figure of Melchisedech for the Priesthood and Kingdome of Christ though more specially as yow see for his Priesthood doth presently after the consideration of those wordes Filius meus es tu ego hodie genui 〈◊〉 thou art my Sonne I haue this day begotten thee wherby he proueth Christ to haue byn not the adopted but natural Sonne of God after this I say he doth insist for demonstration of his highest 〈◊〉 and dignity vpon those wordes of God the Father for his Priesthood Tu es facerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech Thou art a Priest foreuer according to the order of Melchisedech out of which wordes of highest dignity and commission S. Paul doth make many inferences as that in the second Chapter Nusquam Angelos apprehendit sed 〈◊〉 Abrahae c. vt misericors fieret fidelis Pontifex ad Deum God tooke not Angelles but the seed of Abraham to frame Christ to the 〈◊〉 he might be both a mercifull and faithfull High Priest for vs with God for propitiation of our sinnes And againe in the third Chapter Behold yow Holy brethren who are partakers of this our heauenly vocation Consider our Apostle and High Priest of this our confession Iesus And in the fourth Chapter hauing spoken much of the Sabboth day that he is to giue vs in the next life he adioineth this exhortation Habentes ergo Pontificem magnum c. we hauing therfore a great high Priest that hath pearced the heauens Iesus the Sonne of God let vs hold fast our confession for we haue not a Priest that cannot take compassion of our infirmities c. And againe in the fifth Chapter hauing said first 〈◊〉 Pontifex c. Euery High Priest chosen out of men is appointed for men in those thinges that appertaine vnto God that he offer giftes and Sacrifices for sin c. after this I say S. Paul doth immediatly inferre this conclusion about the supreame honor dignity of Christ his Priesthood Nec quisquam sumit sibi honorem c. Neither may any man take the honour of Priesthood vnto him but he that is called by God as Aaron was and so Christ though he were the true Sonne of God did not aduance himself to this honour of being high Priest but that he who said vnto him filius meus es tu thou art my Sonne said vnto him also tu es sacerdos in aeternum thou art a Priest for euer appellatus à Deo Pontifex being called by God to be high Priest according to the order of Melchisedech of whome there remaineth to vs a great speech to vtter and such a one as needeth exposition wherof yow as yet for your weaknes ar not capable So S. Paul 15. And then in the other two sequent Chapters to wit the seauenth and eight he doth prosecute the same argument of the high dignity of Christes Priesthood much more largely Among the Iewes saith he there were many Priestes made for that they were letted by death to remaine but this our high Priest remaineth for euer his Priesthood is eternall wherof it ensueth that he can for euer saue vs interposing himself with God for vs by himself and euer lyuing to make intercession for vs for such a high Priest was it conuenient that we should haue holy innocent vnspotted seperated from sinners and more excellent then the heauens themselues And againe in the next Chapter Such a high Priest we haue as sitteth on the right hand of the seat of maiesty in heauen and there he is Minister of the Saintes and true Tabernacle 16. All this much
is to bring matters to his purpose and yet will he needs stile him self The Minister of simple truth 12. It followeth in the 16. page thus Your deuise saith he of exemption of Priestes from the iurisdiction of temporall Princes in certaine cases is to crude to be disgested by any reasonable Deuine for as your Victoria saith Priestes besides that they are Ministers of the Church they are likewise members of the Common-wealth and a King is aswell a King of the Clergy as of the laity therfore the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall A plaine demonstration So he And I say the same that indeed it is a plaine demonstration of his egregious falshood and abusing his Reader First in making him belieue that the learned man Franciscus de Victoria doth fauour him or his in this matter of the exemption of Priestes wheras in this very place heere cited by T. M. his first proposition of all in this matter is this Ecclesiastici iure sunt exempti c. I doe affirme that Ecclesiasticall men are by Law exempted and freed from ciuill power so as they may not be conuented before a secular Iudge either in criminall or ciuill causes the contrary doctrine to this is condemned for Hereticall among the articles of Iohn VVickliffe in the Councell of Constance So he And now see whether Victoria make for him or no or whether he disgested well this crude doctrine of Priestes exemption as this Ministers phrase is 13. Secondly if we consider either the English translation heere set downe out of the wordes of Victoria or his Latin text for ostentation sake put in the margent wee shall find so many and monstrous foule corruptions intercisions geldinges and mutilations as is a shame to behold and I beseech the learned Reader to haue patience to conferre but this one place only with the Author and he will rest instructed in the mās spirit for the rest but he must find them as I hà ue cited them heere in the margent and not as T. M. erroneously quoteth them if not of purpose to escape the examine For that Victoria hauing set downe his precedent generall proposition for the exemption of Clergy men that they were exempted Iure by Law he passeth on to examine in his second proposition Quo iure by what Law diuine or humane they are exempted and in his third he holdeth that Aliqua exemptio Clericorum est de iure Diuino That some kinde of exemptions of Clergy men from ciuill power is by diuine Law and not humane only and fourthly he commeth to this which heere is set downe by T. M. but not as he setteth it downe Our fourth proposition saith Victoria is that the persons of Clergy men are not absolutly and in all thinges exempted from ciuill power either by diuine or humane lawe which is euident by that Clergy men are bound to obey the temporall lawes of the Citty or Cōmon-wealth wherin they liue in those thinges that doe appertaine to the temporall gouernment and administration therof and doe not let or hinder Ecclesiasticall gouernment 14. These are the wordes of Victoria as they ly togeather in him and then after some argumentes interposed for his said conclusion he addeth also this proofe That for so much as Clergy mē besides this that they are Ministers of the Church are Citizens also of the Common-wealth they are bound to obey the temporall lawes of that Common-wealth or Prince in temporall affaires and then ensueth the last reason heere set downe in English by T. M. in these wordes Moreouer saith Victoria for that a King is King not only of laymen but of Clergy-men also therfore aliquo modo subiiciuntur ei in some sort they are subiect vnto him Which wordes aliquo modo in some sorte the Minister leaueth out and then it followeth immediatly in Victoria And for that Clergy-men are not gouerned in temporall matters by Ecclesiasticall power therfore they haue their temporall Prince vnto whome they are bound to yeeld obedience in temporall affaires 15. And this is all that Victoria hath in this matter in these very wordes And let any man consider the patching which T. M. vseth both in English and Latin in this place to make some shew for his fained demonstration out of Victoria and he will see how poore and miserable a man he is and how miserable a cause he defendeth And in particular let the very last proposition be noted which he citeth and Englisheth as out of Victoria to wit the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall wherby he would haue his Reader to imagine that no spirituall power may haue authority to gouerne temporall matters wheras the wordes of Victoria are Clerici quantum ad temporalia non administrantur potestate Ecclesiastica that Clergy men for so much as appertaineth to temporall affaires are not gouerned by Ecclesiasticall power but by the temporall which there beareth rule So as this fellow by a subtile sleight changing the nominatiue case from Clerici non administrantur to temporalia non administrantur frameth his plaine demonstration out of plaine cosenage and forgery And is this naked innocency 16. From the page 18. vnto 27. he handleth togeather many sentences and authorities of ancient Fathers alledged by Catholicke Authors Cunerus Tolosanus and especially Barkleius to shew that the Apostles and their successours and those Fathers amongest the rest did not take armes against their Princes either Infidels or Christians but did rather suffer iniuries then seeke by force to reuenge the same which being our conclusion in like manner and held and defended by our Catholicke writers as yow see and that for the most part by name against Protestant writers practisers both in Scotland France Flanders other places yow may perceaue how corruptly this is brought in against vs as though our common beliefe and exercise were the contrary this may be called falsification and sophistication of our meaning 17. But yet if we would examine the particular authorities that be alledged about this matter though nothing making against vs as hath byn said consider how many false shiftes are vsed by T. M. therin yow would say he were a Doctor in deed in that science for that a seuerall Treatise will scarce conteine them I will touch only two for examples sake He citeth Doctor Barkley bringing in the authority of S. Ambrose that he resisted not by force his Arrian Emperour when he would take a Church from him for the Arrians but he setteth not downe what answere of his Doctor Barkley doth alledge in the very self same place which is Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia c. It is alledged that it is lawfull for the Emperour to doe all thinges for that all thinges are his and